I have a counter-challenge for negrocenrists who think that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose. The Egyptians frequently atteributed this feature to their black enemies in the south of Nubia. The feature is common across black Africa.
What I challenge anyone to produce are tolerably realistic portraits (or better still the mummified remains) of actual ancient Egyptians (not foreigneres/slaves/envoys/enemies/captives) who demonstrate this feature:
Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans. The profile must be unambiguous, not mulatto-like, the lips at least on a line with the tip of the nose when the head is upright, and well forward of a brow that would ideally be rounded, with a depressed nasal bridge. The nose must be intact in the image or mummy shown.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:I have a counter-challenge for negrocenrists who think that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose. The Egyptians frequently atteributed this feature to their black enemies in the south of Nubia. The feature is common across black Africa.
Most Egyptian Queens of the 21st dynasty were prognathic... but prognathism has nothing to do with "race" as if it even existed in the first place. See the thread: Euro-centrists and Prognathism are the Bantus whose skulls were examined somehow non-black due to a lack of prognathism or mixed if they were mesognathic? Hell to the no
Furthermore:
quote:As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be **similar to other Egyptians, including much later material** (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the **Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods.**
--(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
So, the Badarian were extremely prognathic and were generally quite representative of other Egyptian groups.
quote:Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans.
Here is where it get extremely hilarious- you are saying that prognathism is a trait that is on black people, right? But, just the other day you said this:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: If you want to meet black pirates it's a simple matter of going on a yachting holiday anywhere near the Somali coast.
Thereby admitting that Somalis are black? Now the relevance of this is simple:
The Egyptians were more prognathic than Somalis are
So by your standards, I guess the Egyptians were blacker than Somalis
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
KMRT....'hear' this eediat duncehead maamaa bwoy now.
What is a "negrocentrist?"
What is "mulatto-like?"
As far as the "Egyptomaniacs"....lol...that term would be inclusive of yourself, no?
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Calabooz, despite extensive influence from Arabia, you can still find Somalis and Ethiopians with negroid features including lips that stick out beyond their noses, as you can among most sub-saharan peoples: eg: http://www.unhcr.org/thumb1/4a44d7276.jpg
I call self-styled Afriocentrists 'negrocentrists' instead, because north Africans who are sick of having their heritage usurped coined the phrase. Negrocentrists appear to be more interested in claiming civilizations for an imagined pan-African negro race more than anything else. Hence 'Egyptomaniacs', obsession with the race of the Ancient Egyptians and equating it with that of the rest of the coninent. If they think they belong to the same race as the ancient Egyptians, such features as I have described should crop up with some regularity among ancient Egyptians. I'm waiting to see them.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I'll consider myself pwned when I see a load of ancient Egyptians whose lips that protrude beyond their noses, and not before. Distorted images of Akhenaten and co representing the excesses of the Amarna style won't cut it either, by the way, because there are more naturalistic images where he doesn't have anything like the featres I described, and I specified relative realism.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Youre such a fuking idiot without even knowing it.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Calabooz, despite extensive influence from Arabia, you can still find Somalis and Ethiopians with negroid features including lips that stick out beyond their noses, as you can among most sub-saharan peoples: eg: http://www.unhcr.org/thumb1/4a44d7276.jpg
Influence from Arabia has nothing to do with narrow features as you insinuate. Furthermore, you missed my point entirely. You said that Somalis are black, right? You also maintain that prognathism is a black person trait, even though Egyptians were more prognathic than the Somalis you call black!
quote:I call self-styled Afriocentrists 'negrocentrists' instead, because north Africans who are sick of having their heritage usurped coined the phrase. Negrocentrists appear to be more interested in claiming civilizations for an imagined pan-African negro race more than anything else.
Noone is trying to claim Egyptian civilization here. You're the dumbass white boy who comes here spouting Bullshit about the origins of ancient Egyptian civilization and then has the audacity to name himself as an ancient Egyptians LOL.
quote:Hence 'Egyptomaniacs', obsession with the race of the Ancient Egyptians and equating it with that of the rest of the coninent.
Black isn't a race. And Egyptians DID come from below the Sahara.
quote:If they think they belong to the same race as the ancient Egyptians, such features as I have described should crop up with some regularity among ancient Egyptians. I'm waiting to see them.
I just cited the evidence for you to see for yourself:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz: Furthermore:
quote:As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be **similar to other Egyptians, including much later material** (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the **Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods.**
--(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
So, the Badarian were extremely prognathic and were generally quite representative of other Egyptian groups.
Read it and weep and consider yourself PWNED
quote:I'll consider myself pwned when I see a load of ancient Egyptians whose lips that protrude beyond their noses, and not before.
Ancient Egyptians aren't alive ahaha! But we do have morphological evidence of which I just posted.
quote:Amarna style won't cut it either, by the way, because there are more naturalistic images where he doesn't have anything like the featres I described, and I specified relative realism.
Art is subjective and open to interpretation. Actual reconstructions of some artwork with a northern phenotype have shown them to more resemble southern Africans
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I'm feeling the love but I'm not seeing any pictures... Let me see the anceient Egyptian who would lose the skin off his lips before he lost any from his nose if he walked into a frozen lamp post.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I'm feeling the love but I'm not seeing any pictures...
^ visual learner, lacks intellect to grasp concepts. lol
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I'm feeling the love but I'm not seeing any pictures...
^ visual learner, lacks intellect to grasp concepts. lol
Yep. Who needs books/articles/science when you can preform eyeball anthropology on a pretty picture!
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I was challenged for pictures of groups of light skinned Egyptians, I located dozens without fussing about. If the dynastic ancient Egyptians had primarily negro blood then at least some of them should have had pronounced negroid features the same as all southern African populations. I'm very sorry to see you all failing so miserably to find even a couple of images with the requisite look.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Ancient Egyptians aren't alive and their artwork is highly subjective. I see black and delusional people like you see Armenoid Caucasoids LOL! You can eyeball as you please, I cited my evidence. Just so you know, I won't take this seriously especially since you won't acknowledge scientific evidence. Until then, consider this thread as good as spammed:
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I was challenged for pictures of groups of light skinned Egyptians, I located dozens without fussing about. If the dynastic ancient Egyptians had primarily negro blood then at least some of them should have had pronounced negroid features the same as all southern African populations. I'm very sorry to see you all failing so miserably to find even a couple of images with the requisite look.
Ahh but they DO. You dummies probably "ATE" those mummies. Skulls still exist that when measured produce data to prove this point clearly.
quote: As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be **similar to other Egyptians, including much later material** (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the **Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Before I bite, how many pictures will you require?
I would only post pictures just for the fun of the debate but AE people were not Negroes. By enlarge, West African people of Bantu heritage should not claim Egypt as their heritage.
I am not going to do the Samoan to Chinese thing again.
More like Cambodian verses Chinese thing.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I'll consider myself pwned when I see a load of ancient Egyptians whose lips that protrude beyond their noses, and not before. Distorted images of Akhenaten and co representing the excesses of the Amarna style won't cut it either, by the way, because there are more naturalistic images where he doesn't have anything like the featres I described, and I specified relative realism.
The problem is that you think you can determine racial affliation by one physical trait. Any credible cranial analysis takes multiple traits into account to determine a population's racial affinity. You can fixate on single traits like prognathism all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the overall cranial morphology of ancient Egyptians shows that they cluster with Negroids rather than Caucasoids:
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
Another nonsensical and flawed thread.
Variation exists within the structure of the biological organism. The very idea of any form of organism or phenotype being unambiguous is absurd.
There is no fixed measurement among the phenotypical variances within the said phenotype like say the level of ones prognathism or the shape of ones nose. We can only argue from a structural viewpoint if we are to accordingly classify as a type.
Moreover, the relationship between black people and Ancient egypt is already there which has been continuously confirmed by several studies including the close relationship between Nubians and Egyptians. Can you inform me on the relationship between the mass majority of orthognathous Pan Europeans and the Dynastic Egyptians?
One cherry-picked archetype isn't going to help you in any way because from a scientific perspective there are still other types which phenotypically group with your specific cherry-picked archetype.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
Osirion, you're an idiot, you know that? Youre just as much as an idiot as the creator of this thread.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I would only post pictures just for the fun of the debate but AE people were not Negroes. By enlarge, West African people of Bantu heritage should not claim Egypt as their heritage
But they can claim a shared racial tie to the Egyptians. And as I've just shown earlier in this thread, ancient Egyptians do cluster with Negroids. They may not be identical to West African Negroids, but there is diversity within the Negroid race.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This is just another aspect of the Caucasus-oid game and only a sucker will play it. Negro-oid demands a true negro but unlike the Caucasus there is no place or topography on earth named Negro hence no such thing as a negro-oid derived from some nonexistant mythical Negro-land epicenter.
In the Caucasus-oid game caucasus-oids are allowed a broad range of features, in fact, every feature you can imagine unless its the one and only and limited monotypic feature allowed a negro or mongol.
We ain't playin' dis game. We blacks have great variety and are certainly not to be defined by sub-nasal prognathism and any other angle is not negro-oid. Who ascribes such non-sense other than outmoded Coon and Baker followers? You know, people just out to rankle with blacks or your so-called friendly white who imagines himself truth centered and disallows the blacks he's in the midst of to define themselves for themselves without white dictation.
At least C & B had sense enough to use African geography like the Congo and the Cape not negro.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I have a counter-challenge for negrocenrists who think that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose. The Egyptians frequently atteributed this feature to their black enemies in the south of Nubia. The feature is common across black Africa.
What I challenge anyone to produce are tolerably realistic portraits (or better still the mummified remains) of actual ancient Egyptians (not foreigneres/slaves/envoys/enemies/captives) who demonstrate this feature:
Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans. The profile must be unambiguous, not mulatto-like, the lips at least on a line with the tip of the nose when the head is upright, and well forward of a brow that would ideally be rounded, with a depressed nasal bridge. The nose must be intact in the image or mummy shown.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
THANK YOU!!!
Always speaking the Truth.
Because you said it better than me I will copy n paste..
"We ain't playin' dis game. We blacks have great variety and are certainly not to be defined by sub-nasal prognathism and any other angle is not negro-oid. Who ascribes such non-sense other than outmoded Coon and Baker followers? You know, people just out to rankle with blacks."
Further Im giving a Call to all serious posters on E.S. The person who created this thread is a Rat, sent here to destroy and degrade Egyptsearch further than what it was. I give a challenge to people to let this person wallow in obsequrity like Argyle and Dirk8. We esp. myself, have given this Whore enough attention, time for us to get back to bis. I.E Bio-Anthorpology and Africana Studies.
There are others here who don't agree with us who are much more subjective, stop feeding the Whore.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is just another aspect of the Caucasus-oid game and only a sucker will play it. Negro-oid demands a true negro but unlike the Caucasus there is no place or topography on earth named Negro hence no such thing as a negro-oid derived from some nonexistant mythical Negro-land epicenter.
In the Caucasus-oid game caucasus-oids are allowed a broad range of features, in fact, every feature you can imagine unless its the one and only and limited monotypic feature allowed a negro or mongol.
We ain't playin' dis game. We blacks have great variety and are certainly not to be defined by sub-nasal prognathism and any other angle is not negro-oid. Who ascribes such non-sense other than outmoded Coon and Baker followers? You know, people just out to rankle with blacks.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I've been called names when I've fulfilled challenges for pictures, and called names when I issue challenges for pictures which no one can fulfill. Sticks and stones... I've seen kangeroos and kick-boxers so far but not one of these much-vaunted 'classical African' Egyptians. Not one mummy that fits the bill, not one statue, not one painting of a native Egyptian with lips pushing forward of the nose tip and a depressed nasal bridge. As yet, I'm so not pwned. I asked for pictures. If you have no pictures, keep out of this thread. If you haven't got a picture to show you're only flaunting your fail by trying to contribute anything else. Take that elsewhere.
I've seen a lot of captives and enemies with the features I spoke of getting pwned by Egyptians in Egyptian pictures, or bringing tribute to escape further pwnage. It's not like Egyptians were incapable of drawing negroids.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ No answers for this:
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I'm talking about dynastic Egypt. Show me the mummys...
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Rahotep is so phucking dumb. This challenge is the dumbest ever. Prognathism is not defined as the projection of the lower face further than ones nose. Either one is prognathic or not. Here, how about your produce this one, as an example how idiotic your request is: how about you produce ancient Greek paintings with concave (inward projecting) faces, to show how ortochnathic (read European) they were. Screw vertical facial profiles, I want to see concave profiles, only then will I believe they were Europeans!!
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population.
The Old Kingdom 'reserve head' carving shown from the front by ausar is the most negroid of a very caucasoid bunch, but the lips still fall way short of the nose tip, as rhe profile seen here (lower corner) shows...
Swenet's sphinx offerings lack a nose, so that's a fail.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
How many of your so-called true negroids have their lips extending further than their nose? You can't see that the heads of the Nubians are tilted? The Egyptians I have posted are just as prognathic as the Nubians in your picture ensemble, as a matter of fact, only 5/12 (42%) individuals from your picture match the criteria of your OP. The two lefthand women, two of the left hand Nubians, and perhaps the man with the headgear below that. If the other pics qualify, everything I've posted qualifies. Plain and simple.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
As a matter of fact, make that 4/12, as I can't find a book of gates seti I original where Nubians have their lips projecting further than their nose. Its also not visible what that blob on that guys face is. Direct me to the original please.
The two women and the man with the headgear are not Northeast Africans, so their inclusion is pretty much a strawman. When all is said and done, you have 1/12 useable Africans in that picture, of whom it can be said at present that they have their lips projecting forward further than their nose.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I would only post pictures just for the fun of the debate but AE people were not Negroes. By enlarge, West African people of Bantu heritage should not claim Egypt as their heritage
But they can claim a shared racial tie to the Egyptians. And as I've just shown earlier in this thread, ancient Egyptians do cluster with Negroids. They may not be identical to West African Negroids, but there is diversity within the Negroid race.
Race? What is that? Do you mean recent common ancestor? If so then I agree.
Like I said - Bantu = Cambodian Egypt = Chinese.
Cambodians and Chinese are both Orientals.
Bantu and Egyptians are both somewhat related Africans.
However - to me Negro means Niger/Congo and Egyptians are not that. Egyptians are more properly similar to Cushitic people well before they are related to Niger/Congo.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: Osirion, you're an idiot, you know that? Youre just as much as an idiot as the creator of this thread.
Aren't you the one trying to argue with this fool?
Chinese and Cambodians are bother Orientals. It is for the most part rather easy to tell them apart. Cambodians have more tropical adaptation and the same with the Bantu.
Cambodians have a more Negroid appearance to them (humidity) and high fructose diet.
Bantu
Egyptian
Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Most Egyptian Queens of the 21st dynasty were prognathic...
Post the study and make sure it differentiates which type of prognathism.
quote:but prognathism has nothing to do with "race" as if it even existed in the first place.
Prognathism is a normal characteristic found in all populations. It does not mean "Negro" any more than orthognathism means "Caucasoid." An aboriginal African skeletal population may be orthognathic without indicating "Hamitic" migrations; Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;and a single population may have (should have) both prognathic and orthognathic individuals without being considered a "mixed" population.
More on Skeletal Analysis and the Race Concept Author(s): John H. RobertsonSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 617-619Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742137 .Accessed: 26/12/2010 09:27
quote:As a result of their facial prognathism,[/b] the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be **similar to other Egyptians, including much later material** (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the **Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods.**--(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)
So, the Badarian were extremely prognathic and were generally quite representative of other Egyptian groups.
I don't see the word "extremely prognathic" in any of the aforementioned text, and neither do you.
Badarian prognathism fits comfortably within the range of Western Eurasians therefore having affinities with Western Eurasians, not with Sub-Saharan Africans.
"The results presented herein suggest that the features relating to frontal and facial flatness are largely confined to populations from differing world regions: 1) the considerable flatness of the faces of east/northeast Asians, and to a lesser extent, of southeast Asians; 2) morphological complexes such as a deep infraglabellar notch and sagittally flat frontal bone with facial prognathism in Australians and Melanesians; 3) rounded forehead comparable to that in northeast Asians and transversely projecting faces as in Europeans found in the New World populations; 4) eastern Asian-like features in Polynesians and Micronesians, except for a projecting zygomaxillary region; 5) midfacial projection without prognathism in Europeans and related populations such as south and west Asians as well as north Africans; and 6) remarkable prognathism and very flat nasal bones in SubSaharan Africans."HANIHARA 2000
quote:Here is where it get extremely hilarious- you are saying that prognathism is a trait that is on black people, right? But, just the other day you said this:
You very well know, it takes more than one trait to determine race.
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: If you want to meet black pirates it's a simple matter of going on a yachting holiday anywhere near the Somali coast.
Thereby admitting that Somalis are black? Now the relevance of this is simple:
The Egyptians were more prognathic than Somalis are
So because Rahotep uses the phrase "black pirates" that somehow determines ancient Egyptians supposed "blackness"? WOW! Some logic! There is no relevance to your "argument", it's irrelevant. And laughably so.
quote:So by your standards, I guess the Egyptians were blacker than Somalis [/QB]
Nowhere does Rahotep make the claim for Egyptians being "black" yet here you are, arguing for the supposed "blackness" of ancient Egypt, when you yourself claim to not believe in race. Strange.
What this is, is just another case of an Afrocentric putting twisted words in peoples mouths. Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ they were certainly Black in the political sense that we call Black people in the USA today.
To call them Negroes is stretching it. Ethiopians are not even called Negroes.
The typical Ancient Egyptian looked like the Beja during dynastic times:
We call this Black regardless of the facial features.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Post the study and make sure it differentiates which type of prognathism.
Sure thing:
"Dental Alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait, which is normal for Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in Pharaohs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the 21st dynasty (fig. 9. 10)."--James E. Harris and Edward F. Wente (An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies)
quote:Then why are you so conscience of it? Recalling:
When I said "dumbass white boy" it had nothing to do with the issue of prognathism. Quoting in context is a necessary skill for posters at ES. I was referring to his claims on origins of Egyptian civilization
quote:As per your link:
Prognathism is a normal characteristic found in all populations. It does not mean "Negro" any more than orthognathism means "Caucasoid." An aboriginal African skeletal population may be orthognathic without indicating "Hamitic" migrations; Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;and a single population may have (should have) both prognathic and orthognathic individuals without being considered a "mixed" population.
More on Skeletal Analysis and the Race Concept Author(s): John H. RobertsonSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 617-619Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742137 .Accessed: 26/12/2010 09:27
What's your point? Of course prognathism can be observed without having been influenced by another populations, so? Even though we do know southern groups populated the Nile Valley in the first place... the same thing goes for narrow profiles- i.e., that they need not have been influenced by another population.
quote:I don't see the word "extremely prognathic" in any of the aforementioned text, and neither do you.
No, those words exactly aren't in the text. I'll reword that:
The Badarian had marked prognathism
Happy?
quote:Badarian prognathism fits comfortably within the range of Western Eurasians therefore having affinities with Western Eurasians, not with Sub-Saharan Africans.
LOL! Dude, this is so fricken hilarious, sorry but no read again:
"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990)."--Zakrzewski (2007)
Tell me where in the above are West Eurasians mentioned exactly?
quote:"The results presented herein suggest that the features relating to frontal and facial flatness are largely confined to populations from differing world regions: 1) the considerable flatness of the faces of east/northeast Asians, and to a lesser extent, of southeast Asians; 2) morphological complexes such as a deep infraglabellar notch and sagittally flat frontal bone with facial prognathism in Australians and Melanesians; 3) rounded forehead comparable to that in northeast Asians and transversely projecting faces as in Europeans found in the New World populations; 4) eastern Asian-like features in Polynesians and Micronesians, except for a projecting zygomaxillary region; 5) midfacial projection without prognathism in Europeans and related populations such as south and west Asians as well as north Africans; and 6) remarkable prognathism and very flat nasal bones in SubSaharan Africans."HANIHARA 2000
Thanks for bringing this up as this is the very study that shows Egyptians to be more prognathic than Somalis. How does this change the fact that, as a result of their prognathism, Badarians have been described as forming morphological cluster with southern and I'll repeat southern groups? Moving on to the Somali thing:
quote:So because Rahotep uses the phrase "black pirates" that somehow determines ancient Egyptians supposed "blackness"? WOW! Some logic! There is no relevance to your "argument", it's irrelevant. And laughably so.
Obviously- you are an idiot. The logic being this:
A. Rahotep attributes Prognathism to "black people"
B. His statement admits he considers Somalis "black". Not just because he uses the term black pirates, but because he describes black pirates "anywhere near the Somali coast"
C. If the Egyptians were more Prognathic than the Somalis, the latter of which Rahotep says were black, and he attributes Prognathism to black people whom he also attribute "Negroid" terminology to, than the Egyptians being more prognathic than the Somalis would be more "black" then the Somalis.
However, this is using Rahotep's words. My point is that Prognathism does NOT determine "Negroidness" just as Orthognathism is not a "Caucasoid" trait.
quote:Nowhere does Rahotep make the claim for Egyptians being "black"
Never said he did. But using his words and methodology, the Egyptians would be more "Negroid" than Somalis. See above
quote:yet here you are, arguing for the supposed "blackness" of ancient Egypt, when you yourself claim to not believe in race. Strange.
Is black a race? I don't think so. It only describes skin color and seeing as how the Egyptians body proportions hint at ancestry in the tropics where intense UV radiation would have resulted in substantial intensification, they would have been dark-skinned based on ecological principles. So the term black isn't out of the question.
quote:What this is, is just another case of an Afrocentric putting twisted words in peoples mouths.
I said
"So by your standards"
Meaning- using Rahotep101's logic. I never said that he specifically said that. Just exposing how contradictory his statements have been. You know it's true though Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Merneptah doesn't fit the bill...
Ramesses' profile seems to lend itself better to comparison to an Englishman than a negroid African...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: The question in it self already is stupid, since the African pop is diverse and not all have prognathism. Or in the same amount.
The image of two bothers, one has the other has not.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Anyone in the science knows that AFRICANS ARE MOST DIVERSE! BECAUSE THEY HAD MORE TIME TO LOCALY ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT!
But dumb white boys such as yourself are clueless on this.
People native to colder or drier climates tend to have longer, more beakshaped noses than those living in hot and humid regions. The nose's job is to warm and humidify air before it reaches sensitive lung tissues. The colder or drier the air is, the more surface area is needed inside the nose to get it to the right temperature or humidity. Nevertheless, there is great variation within races. Africans in the highlands of East Africa have longer noses than Africans
(Does the dude you've posted has this composition?)
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of negroid origin."
Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
(Is the dude, slightly related to these groups, I don't think so homey!)
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
a Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
b Department of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Does ^he have any of the structures/ requirements? I dont think so homey.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Anyone in the science knows that AFRICANS ARE MOST DIVERSE! BECAUSE THEY HAD MORE TIME TO LOCALY ADAPT TO THE ENVIRONMENT!
But dumb white boys such as yourself are clueless on this.
People native to colder or drier climates tend to have longer, more beakshaped noses than those living in hot and humid regions. The nose's job is to warm and humidify air before it reaches sensitive lung tissues. The colder or drier the air is, the more surface area is needed inside the nose to get it to the right temperature or humidity. Nevertheless, there is great variation within races. Africans in the highlands of East Africa have longer noses than Africans
*Several parts of Egypt, Northeast Africa can get very cold during the nighttime, especially during the winter time. All requirements are in place for certain features, like the climate.
(Does the dude you've posted has this composition?)
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of negroid origin."
Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
(Is the dude, slightly related to these groups, I don't think so homey!)
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
a Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
b Department of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Does ^he have any of the structures/ requirements? I dont think so homey.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Hideous evil nazi doctrine has created terrible conditions for Africans in the past.
Ruven Ben Ramenagem.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
@ Osirion
quote:Originally posted by osirion: "However - to me Negro means Niger/Congo and Egyptians are not that. Egyptians are more properly similar to Cushitic people well before they are related to Niger/Congo."
Aren't you the one trying to argue with this fool?
What a Eurocentric pawn and fucking idiot. Bantu is not West African but Central African, it also references a linguist-cultural group, not a phenotype. There are E3a carriers in West and Central Africa who are not Bantu and E3b carriers within the continent like the Mandinka who are not Horners, both sharing similar phenotype based on the circumstance of ancestral relatedness. E3a has also been discovered in varying frequencies along the Nile in Nubia and Upper Egypt for example.
Also, how can Bantu's subscribe to a Negro label and not Horners or Dynastic Egyptians despite their relationship in terms of morphological (craniometrical / anatomical) structure?
What is your opinion on Horners and Dynastic Egyptians who resemble your Negroes of Africa in terms of morphological (craniometrical / anatomical) structure, how do you go about explaining the Pn2 transition denoting common lineage >
[E3 > E3a & E3b]?
"The Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other." - SOY Keita.
If E3 created your E3a Negros then how can your E3b carriers not be Negro? And what does that say for your E3 carriers? Lol
quote:Chinese and Cambodians are brother Orientals
Yet and Bantu and Horners are not brother Negros, spare me your inconsistent politics. If this Negro constitutes a separate sub-taxon of the African then an appropriate adjacent taxon to the Negro taxon should be created based on linkage.
quote:It is for the most part rather easy to tell them apart. Cambodians have more tropical adaptation and the same with the Bantu.
So would it be appropriate to label Cambodians Bantu's because they have a more tropical adaptation identical with the Bantu?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Where does the African guy in your last pic come from?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: @ Osirion
quote:Originally posted by osirion: "However - to me Negro means Niger/Congo and Egyptians are not that. Egyptians are more properly similar to Cushitic people well before they are related to Niger/Congo."
Aren't you the one trying to argue with this fool?
quote:What a Eurocentric colonist racist pawn and fucking idiot. Bantu is not West African but Central African
Negro = Niger - same word.
Niger/Congo = Central African.
Egypt = NE Africa
Its a large continent.
quote: It also references a linguist-cultural group, not a phenotype. There are E3a carriers in West and Central Africa who are not Bantu and E3b carriers within the continent like the Mandinka who are not Horners, both sharing related phenotype based on the circumstance of ancestral phenomenon within the continent. E3a has also been found in varying frequencies in the Nile.
And your point is? Doesn't change much of anything. 70% of African Americans are related to the Bantu speakers - Niger/Congo (E3a). you don't have to speak the language to be related.
quote: How can Bantu's subscribe to a Negro label and not Horners or Dynastic Egyptians despite their craniometrical / anatomical relationship in terms of structure?
Significant differences in appearance that differentiate the groups on the average. Since they are a related group there will be overlap.
quote: What is your opinion on Horners and Dynastic Egyptians who resemble your Negroes of Africa in terms of structure; craniometrical / anatomical, how do you go about explaining the Pn2 transition denoting common lineage >
Natural overlap due to a common ancestor.
quote:
[E3 > E3a & E3b]?
"The Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other." - SOY Keita.
You do realize he is saying that people can be related but not of the same currently defined race. He is saying what I am saying. Two different groups with significant phenotype differences but being of the same common ancestry.
quote: If E3 created your E3a Negros then how can your E3b carriers not be Negro? And what does that say for your E3 carriers? Lol
Because E3b carriers aren't Niger/Congo people? What they hell, don't you read or what? I said = E3a - Niger/Congo - Bantu = Negro to me. That is my opinion and I will stick with it.
quote:
quote:Chinese and Cambodians are brother Orientals
Yet and Bantu and Horners are not brother Negros, spare me your inconsistent politics. If this Negro constitutes a separate sub-taxon of the African then an appropriate adjacent taxon to the Negro taxon should be created based on linkage.
Oriental = Of the Orient as in the East.
Negro literally means Black but its vernacular meaning is a reference to a phenotype. The terms used for race are inconsistent and thus you should not expect consistencies when having such discussions.
quote:
quote:It is for the most part rather easy to tell them apart. Cambodians have more tropical adaptation and the same with the Bantu.
So would it be appropriate to label Cambodians Bantu's because they have more tropical adaptation identical with the Bantu? [/qb]
Actually I do think many South East Asians should be considered Negroid. In fact, I fail to see how Orientals in general are not just simply light skinned Negroes with cold adaptated body plans. If we are going to descibe facial feautures, then Negroid fits a lot of Orientals. Their more nutrient rich diet results in a large brain which has an affect on their facial form but overall they are just Negroes. If Horners are considered Negroes/Negroid then there really isn't any one that doesn't fit into the Negro facial form.
Basically if all Black Africans are Negroid then so is everyone else because the phenotype of Black Africans encompasses all the other types.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
Egyptian Princess Mummy Had Oldest Known Heart Disease
The mummy of an Egyptian nobleman undergoes CT scanning as part of a study of ancient disease.
James Owen
for National Geographic News
Published April 15, 2011
An ancient Egyptian princess might have been able to postpone her mummification if she had cut the calories and exercised more, medical experts say.
Known as Ahmose Meryet Amon, the princess lived some 3,500 years ago and died in her 40s. She was entombed at the Deir el-Bahri royal mortuary temple on the west bank of the Nile, opposite to the city of Luxor. (Take an ancient-Egypt quiz.)
The princess's mummified body is among those now housed at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.
Recent scans of 52 of the museum's mummies revealed almost half of the dead have clogged arteries—including the princess. In fact, she is now the earliest known sufferer of coronary atherosclerosis, a condition caused by a buildup of arterial plaque, which can lead to heart attack or stroke.
(Related: "King Tut Mysteries Solved: Was Disabled, Malarial, and Inbred.")
Ahmose Meryet Amon—"Child of the Moon, Beloved of Amun"—had blockages in five major arteries, including those that supply blood to the brain and heart, said study co-leader Gregory Thomas, a professor of cardiology at the University of California, Irvine.
"If the princess was in a time machine and I was to see her now, I would tell her to lay off the fat, take plenty of exercise, then schedule her for heart surgery," Thomas said.
"She would require a double bypass." Egypt Princess Lived in Times of Bread and Honey
Although the mummies' actual hearts had been removed before entombment, the CT scans uncovered calcium deposits elsewhere in the bodies that are indicative of artery damage. But the study team could not confirm that any of the mummies died of heart disease, because most of the mummies' organs were either disintegrated or missing.
However, a medical text dating back to the time the princess lived—between 1550 and 1580 B.C.—describes the pain in the arm and chest that precedes a potentially fatal heart attack. (Read "Mending Broken Hearts" in National Geographic magazine.)
In general, blocked arteries and heart attacks are health risks we associate with today's lifestyle and diet, not those of the ancient Egyptians, noted study co-author Michael Miyamoto of the University of California, San Diego's School of Medicine.
"They lacked a lot of the risk factors that we consider to be important in the development of atherosclerosis in modern populations—namely smoking, high rates of diabetes and obesity, and foods rich in trans fats," Miyamoto said.
But as a daughter of the Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao II, the princess—like the other examined mummies—was a member of the elite. That means she was possibly more prone to heart disease than the rest of the population.
"Since they were the elite, they presumably led more pampered lifestyles, were more sedentary, and also—maybe importantly—had access to foods which were dense in calories, particularly meats," Miyamoto said.
Adel Allam, study co-author and professor of cardiology at Egypt's Al Azhar University, added that the princess lived during a prosperous period of Egyptian history.
"Even the very poor people would eat a lot of pork, and the bread became mixed with honey," he said. "If ordinary people at this time did get a lot of carbohydrates and fat in their diets, then of course the elite would have got even more unhealthy food," he said.
Royal's Damaged Arteries a Family Affair?
Perhaps backing up diet as a contributing factor, researchers had previously found some evidence among ancient Egyptians for diabetes, a condition often associated with obesity, Allam added. Also, Egyptian papyrus documents by ancient physicians refer to diabetes symptoms.
However, although body fat is not preserved on ancient mummies, the signs are that Ahmose Meryet Amon was probably petite, Allam said. In fact, the team suspects some factor other than diet and lifestyle may have contributed to her vascular disease.
(Related: "Chemical BPA Linked to Heart Disease, Study Confirms.")
For instance, "in her family there were a couple of other queens and princesses that had atherosclerosis, so a genetic element cannot be excluded," Allam said.
The new study suggests that genetics may be even more important than thought in causing atherosclerosis, and the mummies might hold clues to which genetic factors are involved.
Another possibility is that atherosclerosis can be brought on by chronic inflammation caused by a person's immune system responding to infection, which in turn can lead to inflammation of the blood vessel walls.
"The princess was known to have arthritis and inflammation of the joints," Allam noted. "Also, she had severe dental disease, which is another inflammation."
The US-Egyptian research team is undertaking further studies on a total of 72 mummies to investigate the individuals' genetic links, evidence of other health issues including arthritis and cancer, and whether their bones can reveal how active they were.
The team's most recent findings are published in the April issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Imaging.
Ramesses' profile seems to lend itself better to comparison to an Englishman than a negroid African...
Much is made of the Rameside "hooked" nose, but I often wondered about the veracity of this. Take this x-ray image of Rameses II's skull for instance...
No sign of a nasal bone that would reveal the actual side profile of the nose bridge of the living person. Close inspection of the x-ray image suggests that instead of a bone, there was stuffing in the nose, perhaps done at the time of mummification, in order to serve as support which would have helped keep the integrity of the nose's soft tissue structure intact for a considerable length of time. Even Tut's mummy seemed to have been treated with such support, i.e. something stuffed in the nose, such that the nose bridge appeared to have a convex-like side profile. However, I'm open to seeing evidence of an actual nasal bone, that this x-ray photo apparently doesn't show, which would indicate that Rameses II really had a "hooked" nose.
Ps: Note the cranial vault that is reminiscent of those featured on Neolithic "Nubian" Wadi Halfa specimens.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
@ osirion Your first post is a Strawman. I did not mention anything in particular about African Americans neither did i make any contention about not having to speak the language to be related. I quoted Keita on the Pn2 transition to further explain the manifestation of related morphological structure from craniometry / anatomy between African groups.
quote:Because E3b carriers aren't Niger/Congo people? What they hell, don't you read or what? I said = E3a - Niger/Congo - Bantu = Negro to me. That is my opinion and I will stick with it.
Silly Eurocentric concept which still fails to explain why E3b black Africans like the Berta and others display to your stereotypical Bantu features.
Still fails to explain why some Dynastic Egyptic black Africans display your stereotypical Bantu features.
Still fails to explain why some West Africans and Central Africans like the Taureg, Kanuri and Watutsi, Fulbe etc dont uphold to your stereotypical Bantu features.
quote:The terms used for race are inconsistent and thus you should not expect consistencies when having such discussions.
Well Gee!
quote:If Horners are considered Negroes/Negroid then there really isn't any one that doesn't fit into the Negro facial form.
Basically if all Black Africans are Negroid then so is everyone else because the phenotype of Black Africans encompasses all the other types.
This is a justified opinion, although the vast majority of Horners or black people in general do not bear the faces / body morphology of most Europeans and Asians. If we follow the list of accommodating features existing in Horners, there are too many who still subscribe to the Negroid taxon which is why it is a fallacy to equate the Horn with the political Caucasoid-Hamitic label. I'm positively certain you don't subscribe to the view of one racial trait being a determinative of race.
Oromo woman:
Arbore girl:
West African girl: Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: Egyptian Princess Mummy Had Oldest Known Heart Disease
The mummy of an Egyptian nobleman undergoes CT scanning as part of a study of ancient disease.
As far as the "Egyptomaniacs"....lol...that term would be inclusive of yourself, no
Draws chair...
With my Afro-Caribbean ass planted firmly...
Will check in on this periodically.... Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
—PN2 clade (E3) bearers in the vicinity of the Sudanese-Central African Republic -Ugandan-Kenyan region give rise to E3a ~ between 21 and 18 ky ago [pending additional or new info]; E3b-M35* would have likely arose relatively earlier than E3a*[as evidenced by its near absence in some the populations that carry this], sometime prior to the Ogolian and the LGM period. At this time, it was likely the M78 derivative that came about ~ between 19 and 15 ky ago. It was also likely during this period, that some E3b-M35 variants spilled over to the "southwest Asia", which would be identified as E-M34. The E-M78* likely arose somewhere in the bidirectional-migration route between Northeast and sub-Saharan East Africa; this location was likely in the region straddling upper Egypt and Sudan of the eastern Sahara, amongst earlier E-M35 migrants from sub-Saharan East Africa. These M78 bearers were increasingly pressured to move further south due to progressive aridity, possibly as far as Uganda-Kenya and/or Tanzanian general region.
The interesting point here is..."E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations."
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I still think the light skinned copts are pure descendants of ancient Egyptians as much as the dark ones and that Ramesses looked passibly like Elgar. I don't think there's any suspicion that the mummy has an artificial nose.
There were some people in ancient Egypt with features approaching those I thought absent. However the body being scanned is that of Maiherpri, who was a Nubian male, the only Nubian buried in the Valley of the Kings...
The same photo is going about online falsely labelled as a female Egyptian, princess Ahmose Meryet Amon. If you look at these other photos of Maiherpri's mummy it will become clear that it is the same individual. Maiherpri's portrait in his Book of the dead papyrus makes clear his identity as a black man, and looks different from the books of the dead images commissioned for typical native Egyptians.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: ..... that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose.
Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans. The profile must be unambiguous, not mulatto-like, the lips at least on a line with the tip of the nose when the head is upright, and well forward of a brow that would ideally be rounded, with a depressed nasal bridge. The nose must be intact in the image or mummy shown.
Hail to the queen!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I still think the light skinned copts are pure descendants of ancient Egyptians as much as the dark ones and that Ramesses looked passibly like Elgar. I don't think there's any suspicion that the mummy has an artificial nose.
There were some people in ancient Egypt with features approaching those I thought absent. However the body being scanned is that of Maiherpri, who was a Nubian male, the only Nubian buried in the Valley of the Kings...
The same photo is going about online falsely labelled as a female Egyptian, princess Ahmose Meryet Amon. If you look at these other photos of Maiherpri's mummy it will become clear that it is the same individual. Maiherpri's portrait in his Book of the dead papyrus makes clear his identity as a black man, and looks different from the books of the dead images commissioned for typical native Egyptians.
What you still think is not of any relevance, nor does your wiki wacky page.
*Adel Allam, study co-author and professor of cardiology at Egypt's Al Azhar University, added that the princess lived during a prosperous period of Egyptian history. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lets see the defender of Egypt deny the black Egyptians their right to Egypt..
Djoser
Sahure..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Amunhotep the 3rd the man who that supposed Leukoderm Red Head Ramses Modeled himself after..
Lady Mi
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Then a king will come from the South
Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he willjoin the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns)
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt...
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^^ To compliment Ish's post...the 12th dynasty folks who wrote that...
For example, the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region.4 As expected, strong Nubian features and dark coloring are seen in their sculpture and relief work. This dynasty ranks as among the greatest, whose fame far outlived its actual tenure on the throne. Especially interesting, it was a member of this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy (riverine Nubian of the principality of Kush), except such as came for trade or diplomatic reasons, should pass by the Egyptian fortress at the southern end of the Second Nile Cataract. Why would this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban other Nubians from coming into Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian rulers of Nubian ancestry had become Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and adopted typical Egyptian policies.
-Frank J. Yurco
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote: What is a "negrocentrist?"
What is "mulatto-like?"
As far as the "Egyptomaniacs"....lol...that term would be inclusive of yourself, no
Draws chair...
With my Afro-Caribbean ass planted firmly...
Will check in on this periodically.... [/QB]
Negrocentist is the world I prefer to Afrocentrist, becuase I have reservations about using geographical terms as substitutes for racial ones, and the misleading implication that there is only one African race and an over-arching culture (or that people from one corner of a mighty continent have anything to do with things done by a self-contained and unconnected civilization on the opposite corner).
By 'mulatto-like' I mean racially ambiguous features that could cross over and/or crop up in one population or another, perpaps coupled with a slight tenency in favour of the negroid. I don't doubt that Egyptians had and retain a significant amount of inidigenous African ancestry, but if they were primarily a sub-saharan transplant, without substantial Eurasian admixture, or did not evolve apart from negroid populations, then such features as I initially described ought to be more than common.
Perhaps I have also been a sufferer of Egyptomania, I can't judge. I see no reason to question the fact that modern Egyptians mostly descend from the ancient Egyptians. I am under no illusion of having any blood connection to the Egyptians, nor would I wish to claim or anyone else's ancestors.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
king Amenemhat III
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Jari most of the statues you've just posted fall under 'mulatto-like'. Amenhotep III's prognathism wasn't excessively pronounced according to a number of images and his actual skull. http://www.perankhgroup.com/amenhotep3_1.jpg
I've asked for lips that come forward of noses.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Prince Rameferef
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: the Aswani woman may have ancestry in that region going back thousands of years but her facial features are typical of how ancient Egyptians represented their southern foes
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We blacks have great variety
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Race is determined by skin colour, hair type, and facial features.
rahotep, I keep trying to teach you people,
"Negro" is considered outdated offensive terminology here on Egyptsearch. Please respect this and replace all instances of the word "Negro" word the word "black".
Then there will be less problems
Lp
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Stupid. That isn't Amenhotep III. Learn to read.
Furthermore, Mesognathism doesn't mean "Mullato" as you can see from the "Eurocentrists and Prognathism". Are the Mesognathic Zulus Mullato too?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: ..... that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose.
Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans. The profile must be unambiguous, not mulatto-like, the lips at least on a line with the tip of the nose when the head is upright, and well forward of a brow that would ideally be rounded, with a depressed nasal bridge. The nose must be intact in the image or mummy shown.
Hail to the queen!
Not even close leaving aside the fact that I stipulated none of the distorted images from the Amarna period. No human could have an elongated head like these carvings have...
The parents...
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We blacks have great variety
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Race is determined by skin colour, hair type, and facial features.
rahotep, I keep trying to teach you people,
"Negro" is considered outdated offensive terminology here on Egyptsearch. Please respect this and replace all instances of the word "Negro" word the word "black".
Then there will be less problems
Lp
I certainly mean no undue offence, and would be glad to oblige if you could provide a more acceptable substitute for 'negroid'. It seems a bit silly saying someone can have black features without being black coloured, or that one can be black coloured without having black features.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Fucking amazing, so the black Egyptians are Mulattoe but the white copts are Pure.
Dude Im done, as I said the Biggest cock sucking lips wont change sh#t..talk about moving goal posts..
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari most of the statues you've just posted fall under 'mulatto-like'.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I certainly mean no undue offence, and would be glad to oblige if you could provide a more acceptable substitute for 'negroid'. It seems a bit silly saying someone can have black features without being black coloured, or that one can be black coloured without having black features. [/QB]
-the substitute word is "black". As of now Egyptsearch has not come up with any better word than that despite noted irregularities. "Negro", however, is considered completely unacceptable. Therefore it is better to substitute all instances of the word "Negro" with "black" until a consensus develops on ES that there is a better word can be found. -and not keep getting caught up in this word which black folk today don't like in part because it has a similar sound to the other "n" word. Therefore such terms as "black features" is considered acceptable at the moment despite such person maybe not having "black" skin.
example: substitute: "blackcentric" for "Negrocentric"
______________________
Caucasoid nose traits are mentioned in my recent update of the thread, a few below, in this Ancient Egypt forum:
some are of the opinion that the tell tale "white" nose feature is the narrow nostril opening
-while "black" noses despite variance including larger or narrower noses and despite variance including large or small nostril openings are in shape rounder.
lioness productions has no comment on these findings at this time
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Jari I take the point, but the dark skinned Egyptians you post would stand out as foriegners in any village between Tanzania and Senegal.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote: No human could have an elongated head like these carvings have...
yuh rass eediat yuh...you fe stop gwan like is ah bunch ah dunce sheep bout ya.....KMRT...
I've seen a few documentaries that included head binding/head molding within cultures (to include AFRICAN and Central/South American cultures); there is nuff info out there you can find for yourSelf, but here is a lil bit to get you started:
quote: The process of changing the shape of a person’s head is done for cosmetic reasons. Some of the changes that can be made to a skull include making it flatter, elongating the skull or even creating a conical shaped head. The process begins early, usually in infancy. A new baby’s skull is soft and has not completely fused as it has in an adult. Therefore it does not take as much effort to reshape a child’s head into a more socially acceptable shape.
The process varies from culture to culture and usually uses materials that are plentiful and easy to come by. Boards, baskets and cords woven from native fibers are often used to change the shape of the skull. For example, an elongated skull may have been bound between two boards in order to cause it to lengthen. The process can be a lengthy one as it may take several months or even years for the head to achieve the desired shape. Once the process has been completed, the skull cannot change back and has been permanently altered.
Altered skull shape was often believed to be connected with desirable attributes. Some cultures believed that if a head was elongated, for example, it would mean that the individual was more intelligent than other individuals who had shorter heads. Other cultures believed that if a person’s skull shape had been altered it would make it easier for them to communicate with the spirit world.
The act of changing the shape of an individual’s skull is not limited to Central and South America. It has also been found in other ancient cultures such as the Egyptians. Some of the pharaohs had altered head shapes. One of the most famous is Tutankhamun. His head had been elongated using head molding. Egyptian skulls dating from the third millennium BCE are believed to be some of the most ancient examples of modified skulls but archaeologists have also unearthed altered skulls that are as old as 45,000 BCE.
Many cultures have used some sort of permanent body modification as a rite of passage or to show that a person belongs to their ethnic or tribal group. It was also often performed as a way of showing what social class an individual belonged to as it was often the offspring of wealthy or important individuals who were cared for enough that they were able to survive the modification process. Scarification, tattooing and permanent body modification techniques are used to do this and, while less common now than they were in the past, many of these modification techniques are still being practiced even now.
quote:Artificial cranial deformation, head flattening, or head binding is a body alteration practice during which the skull of a human being is intentionally deformed. It is done by distorting the normal growth of a child's skull by applying force. Flat shapes, elongated ones (produced by binding between two pieces of wood), rounded ones (binding in cloth) and conical ones are among those chosen. It is typically carried out on an infant, as the skull is most pliable at this time. In a typical case, headbinding begins approximately a month after birth and continues for about six months.
Usually it is a part of a cultural ritual, aimed at creating a skull shape which is aesthetically more pleasing or associated with desirable attributes such as intelligence. For example, in the Nahai-speaking area of Tomman Island and the south south-western Malakulan, a person with a finely elongated head is thought to be more intelligent, of higher status, and closer to the world of the spirits.
Intentional head molding producing extreme cranial deformations was once commonly practised worldwide. [citation needed] Although rarer today, it is still prevalent in very few groups, like the Vanuatu. It is a form of permanent body modification.
Early examples of intentional human cranial deformation predate written history and date back to 45,000 BC in Neanderthal skulls, and to the Proto-Neolithic Homo sapiens component (12th millennium BC) from Shanidar Cave in Iraq,[1][2] as well as of Neolithic sites in SW Asia.[3] Extreme practices have seemingly not persisted into this century, but mild forms are still practised by various groups worldwide.[citation needed]
The earliest written record of cranial deformation dates to 400 BC in Hippocrates’ description of the Macrocephales people who were named for their practice of cranial modification (Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995).
The practice was also known among the Australian Aborigines, Maya, and certain tribes of North American natives, most notably the Chinookan tribes of the Northwest and the Choctaw of the Southeast.
In the Old World, Huns are also known to have practised similar cranial deformation. In Late Antiquity (AD 300-600), the East Germanic tribes who were ruled by the Huns, adopted this custom (Gepids, Ostrogoths, Heruli, Rugii and Burgundians). In western Germanic tribes, artificial skull deformations have rarely been found.[4]
The Native American group known as the Flathead did not in fact practise head flattening, but were named as such in contrast to other Salishan people who used skull modification to make the head appear rounder.[5] However, other tribes, including the Choctaw,[6] Chehalis, and Nooksack Indians, did practise head flattening by strapping the infant's head to a cradleboard.
Friedrich Ratzel in The History of Mankind[7] reported in 1896 that deformation of the skull, both by flattening it behind and elongating it towards the vertex, was found in isolated instances in Tahiti, Samoa, Hawaii, and the Paumotu group and occurring most frequently on Mallicollo in the New Hebrides, where the skull was squeezed extraordinarily flat.
[edit] Methods and types Methods used by Mayan peoples to shape a child's head.Deformation usually begins just after birth for the next couple of years until the desired shape has been reached or the child rejects the apparatus (Dingwall, 1931; Trinkaus, 1982; Anton and Weinstein, 1999).
There is no established classification system of cranial deformations. Many scientists have developed their own classification systems, but none have agreed on a single classification for all forms that are seen (Hoshower et al., 1995).
In Europe and Asia three main types of artificial cranial deformation have been defined by E.V. Zhirov (1941, p. 82):
Round Fronto-occipital Sagittal. [edit] Reasons Cranial deformation was probably performed to signify group affiliation (Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995; Hoshower et al., 1995; Tubbs, Salter, and Oaks, 2006), or to demonstrate social status. This may have played a key role in Egyptian and Mayan societies. Queen Nefertiti is often depicted with what may be an elongated skull, as is King Tutankhamen (Gerszten and Gerszten, 1995).
now please MOVE AND GWEY wid yuh bangarang
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Fucking amazing, so the black Egyptians are Mulattoe but the white copts are Pure.
Dude Im done, as I said the Biggest cock sucking lips wont change sh#t..talk about moving goal posts..
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari most of the statues you've just posted fall under 'mulatto-like'.
You have forgotten how White Supremacy works, perhaps? It's very schizophrenic, remember.....smh..... bout "mulatto-like" WTF...if mi laugh mi ah dead tuh pu**claat.... Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
an "intermediate" person may look mulatto but they aren't mulatto and there are more of them
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari most of the statues you've just posted fall under 'mulatto-like'.
Jesus Christ you're even worst than the lioness!
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
You don't get the point. I don't know about the others but noe said the Egyptians look like a God Damn Sengelese, they look like Nilotic Africans and to an extent East Africans. The best features defining Egypt according to Keita are the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Like I said Im done, who gives a sh#t anyway. I see none of you Europeans dedicating so much time to India, Persia, Elam, the Steppes, Indo China, The Americas etc. etc. as you do to Egypt. If Egypt was located in any other place on God Dammed Earth besides Africa your kind would not even care. All you kind wants is to steal Egypt from its founders and have succeded in doing so by White Washing them and claiming any resemblence of a Black Egyptian as Mulatto.
As I said you could'nt give to shits about any Egyptian that does not resemble your ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind which is why the Copts and Delta Egyptians are somehow pure to you.
No amount of Genetics, Bio-Anthro, Art will convince you. To you Africans are dumb fucked assholes shitting on ourselves until Masta whitey Caucasian came and saved us from them Jungles..So who gives a **** anymore seriously.
Have fun with someone else.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari I take the point, but the dark skinned Egyptians you post would stand out as foriegners in any village between Tanzania and Senegal.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Lioness, I can't promise, and do hope someone can think of a servicable alternative can be proposed for use in a legitimate debate. It seems a bit of an imposition when one side seeks to dictate the terms of engagement and make certain words taboo.
I will adopt the term 'Blackcentric', if you wish, but it doesn't have the much of a ring to it.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote: No human could have an elongated head like these carvings have...
AND JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T MISS THE POINT/THE FACTS YOU ARE SO PRONE TO MISSING, IT SEEMS:
The evidence of deformed (or may be just different race) ancient Egyptian of human head is not left alone. There are numerous skulls found in Peru area that are kept in at least one local museum. Some of them are said to be deformed purposefully from childhood and their velocity is similar to "normal" skull. However the velocity of others are considerably larger than "normal" suggesting that the artificial shaping could not be "blamed" for it leaving us with different theories. My guess again is that there might be a link between ancient Egyptian sculptures of humans of elongated skulls and numerous South American skulls and a race of beings with elongated skulls have lived once on both sides of the ocean. How did they travel and spread there and why have they disappeared (or have they?) would be a different story.
quote: Besides Peru, Mexico and Russia, the elongated skulls where first observed in depictions of members of the eighteenth Royal dynasty of Egypt (Nefertiti, Akhenaton and Tut being some of it’s most renowned members). At first archaeologists believed the elongated skull to be an artists depiction of divinity traits, but that soon proved to be otherwise when the mummies where examined.
The elongated skull proved to be a genetic trait shared among members of the dynasty called dolichocephalic head. Deformity or disease was ruled out since the trait was passed to family members by genetic inheritance.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You don't get the point. I don't know about the others but noe said the Egyptians look like a God Damn Sengelese, they look like Nilotic Africans and to an extent East Africans. The best features defining Egypt according to Keita are the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Like I said Im done, who gives a sh#t anyway. I see none of you Europeans dedicating so much time to India, Persia, Elam, the Steppes, Indo China, The Americas etc. etc. as you do to Egypt. If Egypt was located in any other place on God Dammed Earth besides Africa your kind would not even care. All you kind wants is to steal Egypt from its founders and have succeded in doing so by White Washing them and claiming any resemblence of a Black Egyptian as Mulatto.
As I said you could'nt give to shits about any Egyptian that does not resemble your ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind which is why the Copts and Delta Egyptians are somehow pure to you.
No amount of Genetics, Bio-Anthro, Art will convince you. To you Africans are dumb fucked assholes shitting on ourselves until Masta whitey Caucasian came and saved us from them Jungles..So who gives a **** anymore seriously.
Have fun with someone else.
ABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: -the substitute word is "black". As of now Egyptsearch has not come up with any better word than that despite noted irregularities. "Negro", however, is considered completely unacceptable. Therefore it is better to substitute all instances of the word "Negro" with "black" until a consensus develops on ES that there is a better word can be found. -and not keep getting caught up in this word which black folk today don't like in part because it has a similar sound to the other "n" word. Therefore such terms as "black features" is considered acceptable at the moment despite such person maybe not having "black" skin.example: substitute: "blackcentric" for "Negrocentric"
This is just your way of bitching because you failed to back up your own racialism: distinguishing phenotypes of the Negro=Nubian, Egyptian=nonNegro ("racially mixed", "middle skin tone between Negroid and Caucasian"). Sore loser.
Although I've wondered about it, I've so far seen no evidence of head binding being practiced in Egypt during the 18th dynasty. When a skull is elongated from head-binding, it slopes back sharply from the brow, but the Amarna images have a normal, upright forehead. All the skulls from the Amarna family that survive have a natural rather than artificial shape.
This is why I ruled out the heavily stylized Amarna images from consideration.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I will adopt the term 'Blackcentric', if you wish, but it doesn't have the much of a ring to it.
Yuh too blouse an skirt... Posted by ANGUISH_OF_BEANS_AND_DODO (Member # 6729) on :
These wierdos with long skulls must think differently. Do you reckon they're better at Math or have longer orgasms? Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Although I've wondered about it, I've so far seen no evidence of head binding being practiced in Egypt during the 18th dynasty. When a skull is elongated from head-binding, it slopes back sharply from the brow, but the Amarna images have a normal, upright forehead. All the skulls from the Amarna family that survive have a natural rather than artificial shape.
This is why I ruled out the heavily stylized Amarna images from consideration.
As usual, you're wrong:
The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation.
Ayer A et al. 2010
quote:In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten's reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed. The authors argue that insufficient attention has been given to the sociopolitical implications of the practice in both regions. While evidence from ancient Peru is widespread and complex, there are comparatively fewer examples of deformed crania from the period of Akhenaten's rule. Nevertheless, Akhenaten's own deformity, the skull of the so-called "Younger Lady" mummy, and Tutankhamen's skull all evince some degree of plagiocephaly, suggesting the need for further research using evidence from depictions of the royal family in reliefs and busts. Following the anthropological review, a neurosurgical focus is directed to instances of plagiocephaly in modern medicine, with special attention to the conditions' etiology, consequences, and treatment. Novel clinical studies on varying modes of treatment will also be studied, together forming a comprehensive review of ACD, both in the past and present.
Take note how they mention taking evidence from depictions Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You don't get the point. I don't know about the others but noe said the Egyptians look like a God Damn Sengelese, they look like Nilotic Africans and to an extent East Africans. The best features defining Egypt according to Keita are the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Like I said Im done, who gives a sh#t anyway. I see none of you Europeans dedicating so much time to India, Persia, Elam, the Steppes, Indo China, The Americas etc. etc. as you do to Egypt. If Egypt was located in any other place on God Dammed Earth besides Africa your kind would not even care. All you kind wants is to steal Egypt from its founders and have succeded in doing so by White Washing them and claiming any resemblence of a Black Egyptian as Mulatto.
As I said you could'nt give to shits about any Egyptian that does not resemble your ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind which is why the Copts and Delta Egyptians are somehow pure to you.
No amount of Genetics, Bio-Anthro, Art will convince you. To you Africans are dumb fucked assholes shitting on ourselves until Masta whitey Caucasian came and saved us from them Jungles..So who gives a **** anymore seriously.
Have fun with someone else.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari I take the point, but the dark skinned Egyptians you post would stand out as foriegners in any village between Tanzania and Senegal.
They don't look too much like nilotics, and among nilotics the extreme 'black' features which I described at the start are able to be found. The only man among this crowd of Sudanese Nilotics who could easily pass for an Egyptian had a white mother...
In a culture used to identifying mixed-raced people as black (the one-drop rule and all that nonsense), I can see why it would be natural to identify the Egyptians that way, but the Egyptian perspective on the matter seems to be somewhat different. I was interested in Egypt long before I realized there was a race controversy and that people from unconnected cultures were trying to usurp the ancestors of the real Egyptians. I was never interested in pretending Egyptian ancestry.
'Ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind' could be considered offensive. I don't know who ever died of being offended, but I should hate to be the first, so I would ask you to refrain from that. I don't hold sub-saharans in the contempt you imagine, and admire especially the bronze sculptures of the kingdom of Ife. the faces are no less attractive or dignified for being definitively negroid. (woops, that word, sorry). As artworks, some of them are equal to any portraiture ever created in Egypt...
The simple fact remains that these pronounced features would be more than unusual among Egyptians.
The cultural achievement pissing contest that one can get drawn into is rather regretable.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You don't get the point. I don't know about the others but noe said the Egyptians look like a God Damn Sengelese, they look like Nilotic Africans and to an extent East Africans. The best features defining Egypt according to Keita are the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Like I said Im done, who gives a sh#t anyway. I see none of you Europeans dedicating so much time to India, Persia, Elam, the Steppes, Indo China, The Americas etc. etc. as you do to Egypt. If Egypt was located in any other place on God Dammed Earth besides Africa your kind would not even care. All you kind wants is to steal Egypt from its founders and have succeded in doing so by White Washing them and claiming any resemblence of a Black Egyptian as Mulatto.
As I said you could'nt give to shits about any Egyptian that does not resemble your ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind which is why the Copts and Delta Egyptians are somehow pure to you.
No amount of Genetics, Bio-Anthro, Art will convince you. To you Africans are dumb fucked assholes shitting on ourselves until Masta whitey Caucasian came and saved us from them Jungles..So who gives a **** anymore seriously.
Have fun with someone else.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari I take the point, but the dark skinned Egyptians you post would stand out as foriegners in any village between Tanzania and Senegal.
Jari, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to form some sort of consensus with our adversaries. All that matters is that we as a people are aware of the truth.
These people most likely know why they are doing what they doing when it comes to these kind of situations. They know what we black people are doing is not in anyway a benefit to themselves but to ourselves and our identity thus their reason for their objection and abusive behavior.
That is the true definition of racism. The unjust exercise of religion against a group to benefit via marginalization.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Although I've wondered about it, I've so far seen no evidence of head binding being practiced in Egypt during the 18th dynasty. When a skull is elongated from head-binding, it slopes back sharply from the brow, but the Amarna images have a normal, upright forehead. All the skulls from the Amarna family that survive have a natural rather than artificial shape.
This is why I ruled out the heavily stylized Amarna images from consideration.
As usual, you're wrong:
The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation.
Ayer A et al. 2010
quote:In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten's reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed. The authors argue that insufficient attention has been given to the sociopolitical implications of the practice in both regions. While evidence from ancient Peru is widespread and complex, there are comparatively fewer examples of deformed crania from the period of Akhenaten's rule. Nevertheless, Akhenaten's own deformity, the skull of the so-called "Younger Lady" mummy, and Tutankhamen's skull all evince some degree of plagiocephaly, suggesting the need for further research using evidence from depictions of the royal family in reliefs and busts. Following the anthropological review, a neurosurgical focus is directed to instances of plagiocephaly in modern medicine, with special attention to the conditions' etiology, consequences, and treatment. Novel clinical studies on varying modes of treatment will also be studied, together forming a comprehensive review of ACD, both in the past and present.
Take note how they mention taking evidence from depictions
I started a thread in the Egyptology section about head binding in Egypt if you want to debate it further. I remain to be convinced.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: You don't get the point. I don't know about the others but noe said the Egyptians look like a God Damn Sengelese, they look like Nilotic Africans and to an extent East Africans. The best features defining Egypt according to Keita are the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Like I said Im done, who gives a sh#t anyway. I see none of you Europeans dedicating so much time to India, Persia, Elam, the Steppes, Indo China, The Americas etc. etc. as you do to Egypt. If Egypt was located in any other place on God Dammed Earth besides Africa your kind would not even care. All you kind wants is to steal Egypt from its founders and have succeded in doing so by White Washing them and claiming any resemblence of a Black Egyptian as Mulatto.
As I said you could'nt give to shits about any Egyptian that does not resemble your ashen lilly white red necked Dog Piss lank Haired kind which is why the Copts and Delta Egyptians are somehow pure to you.
No amount of Genetics, Bio-Anthro, Art will convince you. To you Africans are dumb fucked assholes shitting on ourselves until Masta whitey Caucasian came and saved us from them Jungles..So who gives a **** anymore seriously.
Have fun with someone else.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Jari I take the point, but the dark skinned Egyptians you post would stand out as foriegners in any village between Tanzania and Senegal.
Jari, I agree with you that we shouldn't try to form some sort of consensus with our adversaries. All that matters is that we as a people are aware of the truth.
These people most likely know why they are doing what they doing when it comes to these kind of situations. They know what we black people are doing is not in anyway a benefit to themselves but to ourselves and our identity thus their reason for their objection and abusive behavior.
That is the true definition of racism. The unjust exercise of religion against a group to benefit via marginalization.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
"extreme 'black' features". LOL!
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
UNTIL LIONS TELL THEIR TALE, THE STORY OF THE HUNT WILL ALWAYS GLORIFY THE HUNTER.
– African Proverb
WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE LIVE IN WHEN THE VIEWS OF THE OPPRESSED ARE EXPRESSED AT THE CONVENIENCE OF THE RICH?
– Owen 'Alik Shahadah
SLAVES AND DOGS ARE NAMED BY THEIR MASTERS. FREE MEN NAME THEMSELVES.
- Richard B. Moore
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Head binding was practiced in many ancient cultures including Asian and European. Are you suggesting that it was only an African cultural trait?
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
When will you guys realize that Rahotep is just a clown? I'm still trying to understand why he's given so much attention. Threats and challenges are those whose arguments can be misconscrewed as valid by naive onlookers (or more rarely even those who actually present good arguments). This is not the case here.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
I never said that. It wasn't even implied in anything I wrote. What makes you think I suggested it?
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Head binding was practiced in many ancient cultures including Asian and European. Are you suggesting that it was only an African cultural trait?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Really, no ones ever going to convince a propanda panderer, it's their M.O. to proliferate propaganda not to engage in rational discussion and certainly never to admit anything other than their partyline.
And guess what? Anybody examining the issues beyond a superficial level knows the guy's full of John Bullshit.
Who'd argue with a fool saying 2 & 2 is 22? Well, that's exactly what some seemingly like to do. It's easy to show 2 + 2 = 4. Very little challenge, easier than work on new paradigms or expanding on known multi-disciplinary subject matter.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: When will you guys realize that Rahotep is just a clown? I'm still trying to understand why he's given so much attention. Threats and challenges are those whose arguments can be misconscrewed as valid by naive onlookers (or more rarely even those who actually present good arguments). This is not the case here.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': [QB] I never said that. It wasn't even implied in anything I wrote. What makes you think I suggested it?
Well nevermind then.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Head binding was practiced in many ancient cultures including Asian and European. Are you suggesting that it was only an African cultural trait?
Simpleton Gyal, after reading all of the above how exactly did you manage to come up with that? I'm pretty sure the info posted in this thread made it pretty clear that head binding/head molding is/was practiced across MANY cultures, to include Asian and European....
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I haven't seen a thread this racist and stupid since the troll Evil-Euro used to plague this forum. As al-Takruri and others have pointed out this is nothing more than a stupid strawman tactic based on Eurocentric Doctrine#1:
PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DOCTRINE: In which white anthropologists treat people as racial specimens, measuring "cephalic indices" and attempting to prove superiority of the "white" brain. Ugly racist terminology: "prognathism," "platyrhiny," "steatopygous," "sub-Egyptian." Mug-shot lineups of "the Veddan female," "Arapaho male, "Negroid type," "Mongoloid specimen" characterize this approach. Out of favor in the mid-20th-century, it has enjoyed a revisionist comeback with sociobiology and works claiming racial differentials in intelligence, such as "The Bell Curve."
It is a strawman tactic totally dependent upon the lie of the "true negro" concept and in this case the trait of full facial prognathism. It is a strawman because of the very fact that over a third of peoples in Sub-Sahara alone do not possess that trait, as if such a trait determined black African identity. It is because of such a trait or rather the lack thereof that many peoples in Sub-Sahara were classified as "Hamitic" or "caucasoid"!
The Cambridge History of Africa (Hardcover) by J. D. Fage (Editor) Cambridge University Press (March 30, 1979) p.69 Skeletal remains from the Kenya Rift previously considered as 'Afro-Mediterranean' or 'Caucasoid' have now been shown to group with African Negro samples. They date within the first millennium BC and, on physical characteristics, it is suggested that they may be of proto-Nilotic stock. But it is necessary to also make comparisons with Cushitic speakers, since burials found recently in association with a Kenya Capsian-like industry from Lake Besaka in the Ethiopian Rift, dating probably to c. 5000 BC, also show negroid features, and linguistic evidence indicates long history for Cushitic in Ethiopia.
"Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,.." - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
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....."
Suffice to say, the most common type of prognathism among dynastic Egyptians was not full facial but alveolar progranthism which is protrusion of the dental part of the mouth.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
Although alveolar prognathism was prevalent enough to be the norm among dynastic Egyptians, full facial prognathism was not unusual either.
On Sekenenra Tao, last ruler of the 17th dynasty and forefather of the 18th dynasty: His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (full facial prognathism) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination.
Seqenenra Tao is by far not the only exception and as there are others including those of the pyramid building era. And as Calabooz has pointed out, full facial prognathism was a trait common amongst the predynastic Badarians.
So enough of the nonsense! Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': I never said that. It wasn't even implied in anything I wrote. What makes you think I suggested it?
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Head binding was practiced in many ancient cultures including Asian and European. Are you suggesting that it was only an African cultural trait?
you know how they do....all of that info in this thread on headbinding/headmolding, now how the hell would she think anyone in this thread would be suggesting it....smh Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
quote:Sure thing:
"Dental Alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait, which is normal for Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in Pharaohs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the 21st dynasty (fig. 9. 10)."--James E. Harris and Edward F. Wente (An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies)
Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people or the Western world (fig 9.11)" X Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies Harris, Wente
"The cranialfacial skeleton and dentition of the New Kingdom pharaohs and queens reflect the malocclusions (dental crowding and maxillary prognathism) observed in Western societies today." (Encyclopedia Of The Archaeology Of Ancient Egypt; Bard, Shubert)
"A brief comment on dental occlusion or malocclusion and facial types is appropriate. In general, perhaps owing to extremem wear, the dentition of ancient Egyptians (Old Kingdom) and ancient Nubians rarely exhibited dental crowding. The latter, in fact, tended to have congenitally missing teeth more reequently than supernumerary teeth (Harris and Ponitz 1996). Most modern Egyptians have good molar relationships with moderate to severe crowding, If, however the queens of the New Kingdom period (early Eighteenth Dynasty) are examined by x-ray cephalometry, many resemble modern Europeans or Americans, with maxillary, or upper jaw prognathism. This condition may be either hereditary or environmental, i.e., the result of thumb sucking or other oral habits. Queen Ahmose Nefertiry is an excellent example of this type of occlusion. (Mummies, Disease & Ancient Cultures; Cockburn, Cockburn, Reyman)
“The dental analysis is concerned with morphological variation in the permanent dentition (ages 6 to adult). Each specimen was inspected for usable teeth, and up to 36 discrete dental and osseous oral traits. Additional anatomical and cultural dental features (313 possible observations per individual) were documented for potential future study. The traits are included in the Arizona State University (ASU) dental anthropology system. Procedures used in the ASU system are based on well-established criteria for scoring intra-trait variation. The dental traits in each individual were recorded, using 23 reference casts. The reason for selecting these particular traits concerns their individual and collective expression in Africa, as well as in Asia, Europe, and the Americas, to facilitate a comparison of suites of features within and among samples and regions. Once the data are recorded, the normal procedure is to determine frequencies of trait occurrence and apply one of several multivariate distance statistics (e.g., Mean Measure of Divergence) to the discrete frequency data for inter sample comparative purposes. Because this report is preliminary, statistical analyses have not yet been undertaken. However, based on a qualitative inspection of the dentitions, it appears that: 1) dental phenetic homogeneity was prevalent among the Hierakonpolis inhabitants; and 2) they exhibit dental traits that ally them with other post-Pleistocene populations in greater North Africa. Prior work shows North Africans have morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. This dental pattern was shown to be ubiquitous among samples, regardless of distance—from the Canary Islands to Egypt and Nubia—or time—from 8,000 year-old Capsians to recent Berbers in western North Africa. This pattern, termed the “North African Dental Trait Complex,” includes high frequencies of several traits such as an interruption groove on UI2, M3 agenesis, and rocker jaw, plus a low occurrence of LM2 Y-5 groove pattern. All of these features are also present in Europeans and West Asians to some degree, but are uncommon in sub-Saharan peoples. Craniometric indicators appear to support these results, and European-like discrete traits, such as alveolar orthognathism, dolichocephaly, rhomboid orbits, narrow nasal aperture, and nasal sill, are prevalent… At present, my qualitative inspection of the 14 crania appears to support the preliminary dental findings: 1) Hierakonpolis inhabitants appear to be uniform in cranial size and form, and 2) they show some resemblance to other post-Pleistocene populations of North Africa, as well as Europe and West Asia. They appear distinct from post-Pleistocene sub-Saharan Africans.” ( “Preliminary Report on Analyses of the Hierakonpolis Human Remains” Dr. Joel D. Irish, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Nekhen News volume 12 Page 9& 10 2000)
quote:When I said "dumbass white boy" it had nothing to do with the issue of prognathism. Quoting in context is a necessary skill for posters at ES. I was referring to his claims on origins of Egyptian civilization
No, you were hurling racist overtones when you claim to not believe in race.
The question asked of you had nothing to do with prognathism, you said:
quote:but prognathism has nothing to do with "race" as if it even existed in the first place.
Why are you so conscience of race if it doesn't exist?
quote:As per your link:
Prognathism is a normal characteristic found in all populations. It does not mean "Negro" any more than orthognathism means "Caucasoid." An aboriginal African skeletal population may be orthognathic without indicating "Hamitic" migrations; Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;and a single population may have (should have) both prognathic and orthognathic individuals without being considered a "mixed" population.
More on Skeletal Analysis and the Race Concept Author(s): John H. RobertsonSource: Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 3 (Sep., 1979), pp. 617-619Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for AnthropologicalResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742137 .Accessed: 26/12/2010 09:27
quote:What's your point? Of course prognathism can be observed without having been influenced by another populations, so?
So? - "Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;"
Got it? Good.
quote:Even though we do know southern groups populated the Nile Valley in the first place...
"The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt Shaw, 2003
"The fact that the material culture of the Naqada culture was later found in northern Egypt with no Nubian elements would also seem to argue against any Nubian origin for the Egyptian state." Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Shaw 2003.
While there is evidence for Eastern Desert influence on the Badarian culture (Majer 1992), Midant-Reynes (2000: 148, 164) convincingly argues for a strong element of Saharan culture: “With regards to lithics, [Holmes (1989: 183)] points out that there are some similarities with the post-Palaeolithic culture in the Sahara (an industry based on blades and flakes,in which polished axes and hollow-base arrowheads are not lacking), which means that we cannot exclude the possibility that the semicircle formed by the Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla and Kharga oases might have been the point of origin of populations who perhaps already pursued a pastoral mode of subsistence; these people might have been pushed eastwards by increasing aridity and would eventually have settled in the region of Asyut and Tahta . . . [It] might even be suggested that the Neolithic cultures of the oases and the Faiyum could be regarded as the eastern fringes of the Sahara Neolithic groups.”
the deepest genetic layer in North Africa seems to be mtDNA haplogroup U6, that is related with other U clades of West, Central and South Eurasia.
“The Aterian goes back at least 145,000 years,”. European connection? Some features, such as the molars, of these 40,000-year old specimens from Romania resemble those of earlier North African hominins. Was North Africa The Launch Pad For Modern Human Migrations? 2011
quote:the same thing goes for narrow profiles- i.e., that they need not have been influenced by another population.
Agreed, however Africa has a different population history which has been "influenced" by "other" incoming populations for millennia before the rise of Egypt.
quote:No, those words exactly aren't in the text. I'll reword that:
The Badarian had marked prognathism
Happy?
Those words aren't exactly in the text either. They are simply stated as having "prognathism".
Your little stunts aren't working.
"extremely prognathic" "marked prognathism" Have you become so desperate, you would reduce yourself to lying about words that are not even mentioned?
quote:LOL! Dude, this is so fricken hilarious, sorry but no read again:
"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or "Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990)."--Zakrzewski (2007)
Tell me where in the above are West Eurasians mentioned exactly?
It's no wonder, since the groups listed, are admixed with West Eurasians and recall: "Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;"
Can you provide a prior use of the mace head, scepter or gold used in burial practices from Sub Saharan Africa? In fact was there ever a mace head actually used prior to the rise of Egypt's first dynasties in the Sub-Sahara? How about gold? What were the burial practices of sub-saharans before the rise of Egypt?
quote:"The results presented herein suggest that the features relating to frontal and facial flatness are largely confined to populations from differing world regions: 1) the considerable flatness of the faces of east/northeast Asians, and to a lesser extent, of southeast Asians; 2) morphological complexes such as a deep infraglabellar notch and sagittally flat frontal bone with facial prognathism in Australians and Melanesians; 3) rounded forehead comparable to that in northeast Asians and transversely projecting faces as in Europeans found in the New World populations; 4) eastern Asian-like features in Polynesians and Micronesians, except for a projecting zygomaxillary region; 5) midfacial projection without prognathism in Europeans and related populations such as south and west Asians as well as north Africans; and 6) remarkable prognathism and very flat nasal bones in SubSaharan Africans."HANIHARA 2000
Thanks for bringing this up as this is the very study that shows Egyptians to be more prognathic than Somalis.
Hanihara's in-depth worldwide study (unlike the quote you presented) shows Badari fitting in the rage of Europeans and Eurasians - away from those southerly Sub Saharan groups - and that is not based solely on prognathism, but many other factors as it takes more than one trait to determine race, read it. You also failed to comment on the highlighted text.
quote:How does this change the fact that, as a result of their prognathism, Badarians have been described as forming morphological cluster with southern and I'll repeat southern groups?
"We can infer that the migration of northern mtDNA types to the south is older than the migration of southern mtDNA types to the north (or that there has been less gene flow from north to south than from south to north along the Nile River Valley) and that Egypt and Nubia have had more genetic contact than either has had with the southern Sudan. Moreover, we can tentatively infer that these migrations occurred recently enough to fall within the period of the documented historical record of human populations in the Nile River Valley." Krings et al., 1999
"It is interesting to relate this peculiar north/south differentiation, a pattern of genetic variation deriving from the two uniparentally inherited genetic systems (mtDNA and Y chromosome), to specific historic events. Since the beginning of Egyptian history (3200-3100 B.C.), the legendary king Menes united Upper and Lower Egypt. Migration from north to south may coincide with the Pharaonic colonization of Nubia, which occurred initially during the Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty, 1991-1785 B.C.), and more permanently during the New Kingdom, from the reign of Thotmosis III (1490-1437 B.C.). The main migration from south to north may coincide with the 25th Dynasty (730-655 B.C.), when kings from Napata (in Nubia) conquered Egypt." Lucotte et al., 2003
Also see Shaw (above).
quote:Moving on to the Somali thing:
Obviously- you are an idiot.
Here comes the juvenile name-calling, as expected.
quote:The logic being this:
A. Rahotep attributes Prognathism to "black people"
B. His statement admits he considers Somalis "black". Not just because he uses the term black pirates, but because he describes black pirates "anywhere near the Somali coast"
C. If the Egyptians were more Prognathic than the Somalis, the latter of which Rahotep says were black, and he attributes Prognathism to black people whom he also attribute "Negroid" terminology to, than the Egyptians being more prognathic than the Somalis would be more "black" then the Somalis.
Semantics. Badarian prognathism exactly parallels "Lapps" and "Czecho" (Europeans), Deli/NE Indian populations. ALL of those NE African populations cluster with Caucasoids. - not "southerly groups" and this is based on a detailed worldwide study.
quote:However, this is using Rahotep's words. My point is that Prognathism does NOT determine "Negroidness" just as Orthognathism is not a "Caucasoid" trait.
It depends on which type of prognathism - among other factors. If prognathism does "not determine "negroidness" then why are you pushing hard for the non-existent terms "marked prognathism" and "extreme prognathism"? Clearly, you have an agenda.
quote:Nowhere does Rahotep make the claim for Egyptians being "black"
Never said he did. But using his words
There are none, except the ones you're insistent on putting in his mouth. [/B]
quote:Is black a race? I don't think so. It only describes skin color and seeing as how the Egyptians body proportions hint at ancestry in the tropics where intense UV radiation would have resulted in substantial intensification, they would have been dark-skinned based on ecological principles. So the term black isn't out of the question.
Semantics. You told us Egypt was a "black" society even though you now claim that black is an invalid classification. So you are attaching a label that you deem arbitrary. Your hypocrisy, double-standards and outright fraud is an affront to the very scholarly debate you demand of your opponents.
quote:@Princessofthenile27 Yes, ancient Egyptians had a dark color, they were tropically adapted, and they cluster with other Africans (i.e., BLACK) idiot. Of course Eskimos aren`t black, they are cold adapted, and the MUTATION of white skin never took place in them. MrCalabooz 7 months ago
quote:I said
"So by your standards"
Meaning- using Rahotep101's logic. I never said that he specifically said that. Just exposing how contradictory his statements have been.
Like no one notices what you're implying here... maybe you should have asked him to clarify instead of assuming or inserting words in his mouth - which you have even admitted he never said.
And you're one to talk! You can't make up your mind if Egyptians were "black" or not becuase, after all, you claim not to belive in race, yet use racial terminology. And If races cannot be defined, how can you sit there and hypocritically talk about features between races? Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by A Simple Girl:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Rahotep, there is nothing to debate. I only reposted the study in your thread, but it really isn't open for discussion because we know that they practiced cranial deformation. Keita also spoke on it in a lecture. Not debatable, sorry.
Head binding was practiced in many ancient cultures including Asian and European. Are you suggesting that it was only an African cultural trait?
Simpleton Gyal, after reading all of the above how exactly did you manage to come up with that? I'm pretty sure the info posted in this thread made it pretty clear that head binding/head molding is/was practiced across MANY cultures, to include Asian and European....
Yawn.
Paleoneurosurgical aspects of Proto-Bulgarian artificial skull deformations.
The simple fact remains that these pronounced features would be more than unusual among Egyptians.
^No the simple fact is that you have been debunked once again.
The cultural achievement pissing contest that one can get drawn into is rather regretable.
^No, its your bullshitt true negro model that seeks to deny the variability of African peoples that is regrettable. Like the true hypocrite you are, you never apply your own model in reverse to whites. Show us some authentic blond, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians, not Middle Easterners, not Asiatics, but Egyptians looking like true white people, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Don't tell us that white people vary in looks. If you do you are a hypocrite because you deny that blacks should vary in how they look. So let's apply your own standard consistently across the board hypocrite. Don't run away. Show true blond, blue-eyed white Egyptians. Posting pictures of dark Italians or Turks will show you up as the hypocrite you are. It won't do, because you also deny that black people could vary in their looks. Let's have one true negro model and one true white model. Apply your same hypocritical methods and let's see what you got. Produce ancient Egyptians looking like white Brittney Spears, or white Robert Redford for example. They have to be blond, and white skinned. Don't try to duck and dodge hypocrite. Show us what you got.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101:
Merneptah doesn't fit the bill...
Ramesses' profile seems to lend itself better to comparison to an Englishman than a negroid African...
Much is made of the Rameside "hooked" nose, but I often wondered about the veracity of this. Take this x-ray image of Rameses II's skull for instance...
No sign of a nasal bone that would reveal the actual side profile of the nose bridge of the living person. Close inspection of the x-ray image suggests that instead of a bone, there was stuffing in the nose, perhaps done at the time of mummification, in order to serve as support which would have helped keep the integrity of the nose's soft tissue structure intact for a considerable length of time. Even Tut's mummy seemed to have been treated with such support, i.e. something stuffed in the nose, such that the nose bridge appeared to have a convex-like side profile. However, I'm open to seeing evidence of an actual nasal bone, that this x-ray photo apparently doesn't show, which would indicate that Rameses II really had a "hooked" nose.
Ps: Note the cranial vault that is reminiscent of those featured on Neolithic "Nubian" Wadi Halfa specimens.
Explorer, I already showed DaDummy here about Ramses II's nose, but as usual he completely ignored it like he does all evidence that contradicts him.
So I will show it you and other intelligent posters instead.
Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
If one were to go by his painted portraits, Ramses II probably had a straight nose like that of his father Seti I and his father before him.
In fact, Ramses and his forefathers would have looked no different from this modern Egyptian of rural Giza.
^ Note the same features as well as complexion.
The only picture I've seen of Ramses having a slight bent or curve to his nose would be this picture.
Yet what are we to make of this Tutsi man?
Or numbers 4 and 5 in the mugshot lineup of Tutsi men??
Really DaDumb1_01 has long been debunked!
Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
As usual, you're wrong:
The sociopolitical history and physiological underpinnings of skull deformation.
Ayer A et al. 2010
quote:In this report, the evidence, mechanisms, and rationale for the practice of artificial cranial deformation (ACD) in ancient Peru and during Akhenaten's reign in the 18th dynasty in Egypt (1375-1358 BCE) are reviewed. The authors argue that insufficient attention has been given to the sociopolitical implications of the practice in both regions. While evidence from ancient Peru is widespread and complex, there are comparatively fewer examples of deformed crania from the period of Akhenaten's rule. Nevertheless, Akhenaten's own deformity, the skull of the so-called "Younger Lady" mummy, and Tutankhamen's skull all evince some degree of plagiocephaly, suggesting the need for further research using evidence from depictions of the royal family in reliefs and busts. Following the anthropological review, a neurosurgical focus is directed to instances of plagiocephaly in modern medicine, with special attention to the conditions' etiology, consequences, and treatment. Novel clinical studies on varying modes of treatment will also be studied, together forming a comprehensive review of ACD, both in the past and present.Take note how they mention taking evidence from depictions
plagiocephaly:
"Cranial asymmetry may be present at birth or may develop during the first few months of life." Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Plastic Surgery and Section on Neurological Surgery.
=
"With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly
Disease or Amarna Artistic Style? Macroscopic and radiological inspection of the mummies did not show specific signs of gynecomastia, craniosynostoses, Antley-Bixler syndrome or deficiency in cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase, Marfan syndrome, or related disorders (eAppendix, Table 2). Therefore, the particular artistic presentation of persons in the Amarna period is confirmed as a royally decreed style most probably related to the religious reforms of Akhenaten. It is unlikely that either Tutankhamun or Akhenaten actually displayed a significantly bizarre or feminine physique. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family 2010
=
“Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.” (“Photo in the News: King Tut's Face Reconstructed” National Geographic 2005) Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
This "forum" is an absolute joke. Every other post is laced with racist insults and profanity, not to mention double speak, hypocrisy and outright lies, a clear sign that no one here is interested in or wants to engage in an honest open debate. They see "truth" as a form of group assertion they want dominance for themselves, and your submission.
The Egyptians were not "black" in the modern American sense of the word, i.e., negroid, yet Afrocentrics are willing to sometimes argue that the Egyptians did not look like a black/Sub Saharan/negroid people. STRANGE!
All of the scientific evidence indicates that dentally, craniometrically and even genetically, ancient Egyptians always cluster with Caucasians.
“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
"The sharp nasal sills indicate a Caucasoid person" "The Remains Of Queen Weret" 12th dynasty (Brier, Zimmerman; 2000)
“…the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. (“Characterization of Biological Diversity Through Analysis of Discrete Cranial Traits” Tsunehiko Hanihara, 2003)
Afrocentrics usually claim that Upper Egyptians are the "true representatives" of ancient Egyptians:
"Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo, but one out of eight loci showed a difference in comparison with a population from El-Minia city .... Fig. 2. Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baenra: All of the scientific evidence indicates that dentally, craniometrically and even genetically, ancient Egyptians always cluster with Caucasians.
“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
Where's the full citation?
quote:"The sharp nasal sills indicate a Caucasoid person" "The Remains Of Queen Weret" 12th dynasty (Brier, Zimmerman; 2000)
Because only Caucasoids can have that type of nose morphology!
quote:“…the greatest dissimilarity, is between Subsaharan Africans and the rest of the world. The Europeans, North Africans, and South Asians are then separated from the remaining groups. (“Characterization of Biological Diversity Through Analysis of Discrete Cranial Traits” Tsunehiko Hanihara, 2003)
"In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian."
Title Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt Volume 4 of Egyptian prehistory monographs
Author Pierre M. Vermeersch
Editor Pierre M. Vermeersch
Edition illustrated Publisher Leuven University Press, 2002
quote:"Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo, but one out of eight loci showed a difference in comparison with a population from El-Minia city .... Fig. 2. Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others. [/b] [/QB]
Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
"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 zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
^^Indeed. The influx of Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Arabs etc over the centuries has changed Egyptians.
quote: Originally posted by Baenra: “We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
Where's the full citation? ------------------------------------------------------------
^Indeed. He doesn't post the full citation because it has been debunked here before at ES as to his racial claims. He is spamming it across the web, even on forums like downloadpolitics.com and others, but no matter how much he spams it, it is STILL debunked, as various ES posters have repeatedly shown.
Excerpt from old ES page where he was debunked already:
Ghada Omran and Rutty, et. al (2008) in a study of Upper Egyptians (‘Genetic variation of 15 autosomal..’) found them closely related to people from the Israel area, followed by North Africans (Algeria) . Strangely, the authors do not sample OTHER areas close to Egypt. Their "North African" sample is not nearby Libya, or the Sudan, or Chad but distant Algeria. Curiously, they also EXCLUDE Nubians, even though study after study shows the Nubians matching more closely with Egyptians than most others.
Nearby Middle Easterners from Israel are included but nearby Africans are excluded, helping to stack the results in a way that emphasizes the Middle eastern component of modern Egypt. A 2004 study of Upper Egyptians by contrast, sampled closer African populations and found Egyptians share genetic relationships with the peoples of East Africa like Ethiopians. (Stevanovitch, et al. (2004) 'Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity..“)
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Modern Egypt as had a lot of influx from Arabized populations- no surprise that there would be some proximity to them. The primary Middle Eastern link is with populations in Israel, quite close to EGYPT. What is strange though is that the authors, who talk about the "general Caucasian population from Cairo" (whatever that is- it curiously is not defined), do not sample OTHER areas close to Egypt. Their "North African" sample is not nearby Libya, or the Sudan, or Chad but distant Algeria.
Curiously, they also EXCLUDE other populations near to Egypt like Nubians and Ethiopians, even though previous studies link these with the Egyptians. It would have been a perfect example to verify or refute these studies. They carefully steered away however, for distant Algeria. They strangely don't even include Nubians, even though study after study shows the Nubians matching more closely with Egyptians than most others..
As for the "white Mediterranean" claim it is complete nonsense, and is undermined by the very same study offered as "evidence." The 'Euopean" sample includes two populations with Mediterranean coastlines, France and Italy. This puts the Mediterranean claim to the test. It fails dismally. Africans, as represented by Algeria, are closer than the Mediterranized Europeans, as are the Israeli area samples. So much for "white mediterraneans.." lol
As you say, none of this though says anything about the ancients, which are the people at issue. So this "new study" dismally fails,
And if ancient Middle easterners are considered, early Middle Easterners looked like Africans. So if we want to go back in time, the first link of "Middle Easterners" is with Africans.
And strangely in this study, while the nearby Israel area provides the closest 'Middle Eastern" match, the authors conveniently exclude NEARBY AFRICAN AREAS like Nubia, the Sudan or even close geographic areas like Chad or Libya. Their "North African" sample is drawn from distant Algeria.
In addition, assorted 'Aryans' trot out what they consider to be a major talking point, "population continuity" in Egypt. But they conveniently avoid the fact that "population continuity" can still exist while said population is clearly modified by influxes of outsiders. In fact as KING as shown with his picture threads, part and parcel of the "population continuity" in Egypt is dark-skinned Egyptians and their close relations - the Nubians.
It is laughable how "population continuity" is so often seized upon by 'Aryan' proponents, when in fact it undermines their vary claims. "Population continuity" includes and is proven by the he numerous dark-skinned Egyptians of modern Egypt. The Aryan fools don't seem to realize that when they holler 'bout "population continuity" they are including numerous dark-skinned Egyptians, undermining their own 'racial' claims.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Nothing but truth coming from your post Zarahan...Catching these racists as they knowingly distort and post outdated studies is always sweet.
All that can be said about this character baenra is, he is a joke, who no one should take seriously.
I really dream about getting into the mind of an racist to see why they post stuff that they KNOW is wrong...Really what do they get out of lieing to themselves. These see the paintings on the wall in dark brown and reddish brown, yet they will still claim "Closer to eurasians" I truly believe that they know that what they post is stupid and plain wrong, yet the post it anyways. Just to keep up the lie.
Now a days they have less studies to post because more non racist europeans are taking part in looking at the past and posting FACTS. The odd stacked decked studies are done by stupid european racists who know they have an audience and want to give hope to hopeless racist euros.
Africans make studies on Africans and we will see more links and we will see less need for euros to post there ignorant and biased ideas...Just look at Brace who was a person in his first study that was extremly biased. He was schooled by his peers and then came out with an even better study that showed just how close Egypt is to Africa....We need more people like this and less like those who stack the decks so they get the results they want instead of what the results are.
Keep the fire Blazin Zarahan and know even though we may go over the same studies countless times, we have a new audience that is learning from what we are going through...It's really for them...These racists can't be helped as we can see with Rahotep101 and his posting the exact same Nefertari pic countless times and ignoring all others...They really have an agenda.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
^^Indeed. The influx of Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Arabs etc over the centuries has changed Egyptians.
Also slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000.
Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. White slaves in the 18th century were obtained from Barbary Pirate raids on European shipping and coastal communities. Egyptians were not major partipants in Barbary piracy, but some of the captives taken by the pirates reached the Cairo slave market. This source was closed off by first the American-Barbary Wars and ultimately French colonization of Algeria (1830). Circassian white slaves reached Egypt from the eastern coast of the Black Sea and from the Circassian settlements of Anatolia through Istambul. There were several sources of African slaves. This included routes across the Sahara and the Indian Ocean/Red Sea.
Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer]
Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks.
The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall population of about 5 million people.
To make a case that foreigners and slaves you have to be able to back it up by doing the math.
For example if look at the slave component, average of 25,000 in a population of 5 million that works out to be one in two hundred people. That is far from enough to change the population in significant way.
Add to this the various invasions, Persians, Assyrians, Greeks it's still not enough to alter the population to any significant degree.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
NVM obviously
quote:Other royal mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep II had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people or the Western world (fig 9.11)" X Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies Harris, Wente
Yes, I'm aware of this citation and I included the full context a few days ago. I'll say now what was discussed then- i.e., that this doesn't necessarily have to involved influence. Even though as Sundjata pointed out then the New Kingdom became more heterogeneous due to an increase of foreigners at this time period (even Harris and Wente make note of this). In any event, as you can see Here the inhabitants of Armana came from throughout Egypt.
quote:The cranialfacial skeleton and dentition of the New Kingdom pharaohs and queens reflect the malocclusions (dental crowding and maxillary prognathism) observed in Western societies today." (Encyclopedia Of The Archaeology Of Ancient Egypt; Bard, Shubert)
Harris and Wente also touch upon this. And they do note that this is common in western and American populations, then they say this:
"However, oral habbits, such as thumb sucking and abnormal tongue position in swallowing, may induce a similar malocclusion (figure. 9.8). Harris et al. have noted that the Nubian people, who have basically a normal molar relationship, may demonstrate an abnormal molar relationship or maxillary prognathism associated with oral habbits (fig. 9.9)."
Most likely environmentally caused. Thumb sucking in ancient Egypt was, from glancing at the artwork not uncommon. Harris and Wente seemingly lean towards a cultural/environmental explanation as they note the same thing in modern Nubian children and it's not a hereditary trait like alveolar prognathism, from the citation I posted that you requested. Now you respond with a whole bunch of stuff...
And then they go on to mention the heterogeneity of the New Kingdom and pretty much goes on to reinforce Berry, A.C., & Berry, R.J., 1972:
"...STABILITY and HOMOGENEITY persisted right through the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and breaks down only in the New Kingdom period, when we know from many sources that there was considerable infiltration into the Nile Valley."
Which was later again reinforced by Sonia Zakrzewski's 2005 study of epigenetic traits suggesting discontinuity from the New Kingdom onwards.
quote:....
(Mummies, Disease & Ancient Cultures; Cockburn, Cockburn, Reyman)
See above.
quote:( “Preliminary Report on Analyses of the Hierakonpolis Human Remains” Dr. Joel D. Irish, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks; Nekhen News volume 12 Page 9& 10 2000)
For some reason Joel Irish is really obsessed with mass reduced teeth, north Africans and associating them with West Asians. However...
From:
Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.
Rose JC, Roblee RD.
"David Greene studied the teeth of skeletons excavated in the Sudan just south of Egypt along the Nile and documented a long-term trend in dental-size reduction for the 10,000-year period. He suggested this reduction in tooth size was from changes in diet and methods of food processing as agriculture was adopted and refined. Analysis of more samples by numerous researchers has established this general trend in tooth-size reduction that is associated with changes in diet. As the diet has become more refined, the consequent increase in dental decay selected for smaller and less complex teeth has moved distally in relation to the skull, such that the body of the mandible now protrudes forward underneath the alveolar bone producing a chin. Because teeth have become smaller without producing excess room in the jaws, other evolutionary mechanisms must have been at work on the alveolar bone and supporting structures of the maxilla and mandible."
quote:No, you were hurling racist overtones when you claim to not believe in race.
Racist? Hardly. Maybe harsh but not racist. Nowhere in my statement did I implicate I thought all white people were dumb asses, I called Rahotep this because, as I said, he makes false claims on the origins of Egyptians civilization claiming Armenoid Caucasoids, whatever the heck those are, came and brought civilization to Egypt even in spite of the facts Kalonji presented to him here:
quote:The question asked of you had nothing to do with prognathism, you said:
Why are you so conscience of race if it doesn't exist?
Ah, I see what you're saying. You may have wanted to word it that way in the first place. As I said, my insult was definitely not a racial slur.
quote:So? - "Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;"
Got it? Good.
Of course that's true. Yet here you are arguing this:
quote:Agreed, however Africa has a different population history which has been "influenced" by "other" incoming populations for millennia before the rise of Egypt.
And before you cite a whole bunch of dental traits that are common in the West, but also NOT HEREDITARY but environmentally influenced. As I said, southern Africans populated in the Nile Valley in the first place.
quote:"The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt Shaw, 2003
Really? Are you serious? I hope you realize that this doesn't have anything to do with biological origins but the Badarian culture, If you would notice though, the same author, Shaw, immediately thereafter makes some asinine remark of the Badarian culture originating in the Levant or something of the sort.
quote:"The fact that the material culture of the Naqada culture was later found in northern Egypt with no Nubian elements would also seem to argue against any Nubian origin for the Egyptian state." Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Shaw 2003.
Again, this has to do with culture. However, it isn't necessarily true:
quote:While there is evidence for Eastern Desert influence on the Badarian culture (Majer 1992), Midant-Reynes (2000: 148, 164) convincingly argues for a strong element of Saharan culture: “With regards to lithics, [Holmes (1989: 183)] points out that there are some similarities with the post-Palaeolithic culture in the Sahara (an industry based on blades and flakes,in which polished axes and hollow-base arrowheads are not lacking), which means that we cannot exclude the possibility that the semicircle formed by the Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla and Kharga oases might have been the point of origin of populations who perhaps already pursued a pastoral mode of subsistence; these people might have been pushed eastwards by increasing aridity and would eventually have settled in the region of Asyut and Tahta . . . [It] might even be suggested that the Neolithic cultures of the oases and the Faiyum could be regarded as the eastern fringes of the Sahara Neolithic groups.”
All pointing to an African origin of the Egyptian state, tell that to Rahotep
quote:the deepest genetic layer in North Africa seems to be mtDNA haplogroup U6, that is related with other U clades of West, Central and South Eurasia.
Why do people always confuse northeast and northwest Africa and the very different demographic histories? Read and learn the difference between northeast and northwest Africa:
"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. --Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011 (Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley)
The reality is that U6 is actually quite rare in northeast Africa/Nile Valley where M1 is predominant. What does M1 in the Nile Valley suggest?
quote:East African specific component. This situation has already been observed for the Ethiopian gene pool (Passarino et al. 1998). Thus, the report of a second population in this geographic area showing a similar distribution of mtDNA haplotypes, including the same high frequency of a specific haplogroup (M1), raises the question of a hypothetical presence of an ancestral East African population. Such a population, as evoked by Passarino et al. (1998) for Ethiopia, could have settled on a wider area from Egypt to Ethiopia (including Sudan), the differences observed in current populations being due to further influences from neighbours (South Arabian peninsula for Ethiopia (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001), sub-Saharan input for Sudan as demonstrated in this study by a high exchange rate between Sudanese and Kenyan populations). A similar hypothesis of the existence of an ancestral population characterized by a specific haplogroup could also be evoked in the Maghreb with the U6 haplogroup (Brakez et al. 2001; Rando et al. 1998).
--A. Stevanovitch et al. 2004
Now notice how the speak of an ancestral East African population in the Nile Valley/Sudan whereas in northwest Africa (Maghreb) they speak of an ancestral Eurasian population as indicated by U6 but this is NOT the case for the Nile Valley as well. Suggesting separate and distinct demographic histories for east and west north Africa which again brings us back to the aforecited article by Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. (2011) suggesting the Nile Valley is genetically separated from Northwest Africa. The data in the 2004 article is also supported by Y chromosome data. Frigi et al. 2010 states that sub-Saharan Africa was a major population source for the Nile Valley during the last glacial maximum as well as northwest Africa but the difference is northwest Africans were strongly influenced by Eurasians giving them an intermediate genetic structure whereas this is not true for the Nile Valley.
quote:“The Aterian goes back at least 145,000 years,”. European connection? Some features, such as the molars, of these 40,000-year old specimens from Romania resemble those of earlier North African hominins. Was North Africa The Launch Pad For Modern Human Migrations? 2011
What???
quote:Those words aren't exactly in the text either. They are simply stated as having "prognathism".
Your little stunts aren't working.
"extremely prognathic" "marked prognathism" Have you become so desperate, you would reduce yourself to lying about words that are not even mentioned?
You see, I could have easily cited the source for me saying they had marked prognathism, but I decided to wait for you to fall into a blunder and deny it. The source in question is actually another one of Sonia Zakrzewski's other papers from 2002 where she paraphrases Strouhal (1971):
"In contrast, Strouhal (1971) considered them to have high nasal indices. He also summarized them as having narrow, average height skulls with average to narrow upper faces and a rather broad nose, with marked prognathism"--Zakrzewski (2002)
She then goes on to say that the Badarian were a morphologically homogeneous group and as noted in her 2007 article, the centroid of Egyptian samples and similar to latter material. I didn't make anything up btw, I said I'd reword it so I did, then you subsequently denied it so I posted the appropriate citation.
quote:It's no wonder, since the groups listed, are admixed with West Eurasians and recall: "Egyptians may be prognathic without implying "Negro" penetration;"
This is a sad attempt at your part. First I would like to see your evidence suggesting that the Badarian forming morphological clusters with Southern Africans can in any way be correlated with admixture; oh, and while you're at it provide the evidence of West Eurasian admixture of the groups they cluster with.
quote:Can you provide a prior use of the mace head, scepter or gold used in burial practices from Sub Saharan Africa? In fact was there ever a mace head actually used prior to the rise of Egypt's first dynasties in the Sub-Sahara? How about gold? What were the burial practices of sub-saharans before the rise of Egypt?
What exactly is the relevance of this? Egyptian culture was basically derived from ancient Saharan culture and the Sudan. However, there is also a cultural continuity that extends from sub-Saharan to north Africa. We've been over the exhaustively with another member, and you can see the evidence from the African Archaeological review I posted on this thread:
quote:Hanihara's in-depth worldwide study (unlike the quote you presented) shows Badari fitting in the rage of Europeans and Eurasians - away from those southerly Sub Saharan groups - and that is not based solely on prognathism, but many other factors as it takes more than one trait to determine race, read it. You also failed to comment on the highlighted text.
No trait determines race in the first place, not only that, but no population from the same geographic region forms a cluster when we look at craniometric data (see Hubbe et al. 2011). As for Hanihara (2000) it really doesn't even effect the fact that the Badarian are described to have formed morphological clusters with southern groups not west Eurasians. Keita (2005) in his study on Badarian crania found them to be associated with local African groups but not with Europeans thereby rejecting the idea of a colonization of El Badari by Europeans.
quote: Krings et al., 1999
Lucotte et al., 2003
Old genetic study, no surprise coming from you I suppose. If I'm not mistake, this study also used the HpaI 3592 marker which doesn't test for L3 lineages. As for Lucotte et al. Keita has written two genetic articles that address many of the things in her paper, I suggest you read them
quote:Here comes the juvenile name-calling, as expected.
You're right, sorry
quote:Semantics. Badarian prognathism exactly parallels "Lapps" and "Czecho" (Europeans), Deli/NE Indian populations. ALL of those NE African populations cluster with Caucasoids. - not "southerly groups" and this is based on a detailed worldwide study.
Not according to Keita:
"The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4)."--Keita (2005)
Now, about the prognathism, I'm curious as to why you want to associate it to Caucasians if they had nothing to do with El-Badari in the first place. Why do you think they are described as forming a morphological cluster with southern Africans and not Eurasians? Think about it. This isn't just about prognathism.
quote:It depends on which type of prognathism - among other factors. If prognathism does "not determine "negroidness" then why are you pushing hard for the non-existent terms "marked prognathism" and "extreme prognathism"? Clearly, you have an agenda.
No, it doesn't "depend". Prognathism, any type, can be found in literally any population as well as Orthognathism. Were those Bantus who lacked prognathism Caucasoid in your opinion?
And marked prognathism isn't a non-existent term, clearly.
quote:There are none, except the ones you're insistent on putting in his mouth.
I'm not putting any words in his mouth. He associates prognathism with blacks, he calls the Somalis black, and then in that very thread gave examples of prognathic Somalis, but the Egyptians are more prognathic than the Somalis, so one can see how contradictory he's being.
quote:Semantics. You told us Egypt was a "black" society even though you now claim that black is an invalid classification.
Can you read properly? Where did I say black was an invalid classification? I said the exact opposite actually. You're so eager to look for contradictory statements that you're making things up.
quote:So you are attaching a label that you deem arbitrary. Your hypocrisy, double-standards and outright fraud is an affront to the very scholarly debate you demand of your opponents.
Here is what I said, pay attention to the bold portions:
"Is black a race? I don't think so. t only describes skin color and seeing as how the Egyptians body proportions hint at ancestry in the tropics where intense UV radiation would have resulted in substantial intensification, they would have been dark-skinned based on ecological principles. So the term black isn't out of the question."
How in any way am I saying that black is an invalid classification?
quote:@Princessofthenile27 Yes, ancient Egyptians had a dark color, they were tropically adapted, and they cluster with other Africans (i.e., BLACK) idiot. Of course Eskimos aren`t black, they are cold adapted, and the MUTATION of white skin never took place in them. MrCalabooz 7 months ago
Same thing I'm saying now. You must be some kind of cyber stalker. I still maintain that light skin was not in place in the Nile Valley since it is a relatively recent mutation.
quote:Like no one notices what you're implying here... maybe you should have asked him to clarify instead of assuming or inserting words in his mouth - which you have even admitted he never said.
The contradictions in his statements are pretty obvious.
quote:And you're one to talk! You can't make up your mind if Egyptians were "black" or not becuase, after all, you claim not to belive in race, yet use racial terminology. And If races cannot be defined, how can you sit there and hypocritically talk about features between races?
You are confused. Black is not a race, it's a color. If I were to call someone a blue-eyed person would I be assigning a racial categorization for all blue eyed people? I don't think so. And I'm not discussing features between "races" simply morphological affinities of populations. Know the difference
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baenra: [QUOTE]Sure thing:
"The cranialfacial skeleton and dentition of the New Kingdom pharaohs and queens reflect the malocclusions (dental crowding and maxillary prognathism) observed in Western societies today." (Encyclopedia Of The Archaeology Of Ancient Egypt; Bard, Shubert)
"Generally, the definition of each New Kingdom pharaoh and queen represents a unique combination of dental characteristics, such as overbite, overjet, interincisal relationship, and molar relationship, which permits the identification of each mummy from x-rays of the definition alone. The observation is not surprising since the teeth or dentition remains one of the most formidable tools available to Forensic specialists. Dental alveolar prognathism, an inherited trait which is normal for Nubian people, ancient and modern, may be observed in pharaohs Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah, and Merenptah, and most of the queens of the 21st dynasty (fig 9.10). Other Royal Mummies such as Seti I, Thutmose IV, and Amenhotep III had a very straight dental profile or large interincisal angles characteristic of North Mediterranean people[b] or the Western world (fig 9.11). In summary, then, the pharaohs and queens of the New Kingdom- a period of almost 500 years-- were heterogeneous from the viewpoint of facial profile dental occlusion" (An X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies- pg 332-333)
Here is more..
"In fact, during the New Kingdom, the so-called empire period, there were many princes and priincesses of other conquered nations from Nubia to Mesopotamia, representing great cultural and genetic heterogenity" (pg 350)
[b]"Thutmose has a much more rounded cranium (than Amenhotep), and prognathism of the maxilla and mandible as well as of the dentition. His skull is most similar to that of Nubians from the ancient cemetaries of Gebel Adda examined by the Michigan expedition. Measurable variables also confirm similarities between Thutmose I and Thutmose II ( Appendix Table A1)
So please explain how in context this quote at all helps Rahotep's argument that the Egyptians lacked Prothagatism, when Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah, and Merenptah had Prognatism?? This simple fact shuts down ths argument dead as it is Rahotep arguing for Prognatism not any one else. Further no where does the study say Either Pharoah was Nubian nor Mediteranian but that they had characteristics defined by such.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Why are you so conscience of race if it doesn't exist? Race is a social consrtuct not a biological one. Calabooz is concious of Race because the very culture he lives in was founded on notions of race. You people are really stupid. Calabooz knows race socially but biologically it does not exist. The phrase "Whiteboy" pertains to a certain segment of the Western American population and has nothing to do with other people who consider themselves Caucasian or select Caucasian as their race such as Hispanics, Indians and Arabs.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:plagiocephaly:
"Cranial asymmetry may be present at birth or may develop during the first few months of life." Prevention and management of positional skull deformities in infants. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, Section on Plastic Surgery and Section on Neurological Surgery.
=
"With the exception of Yuya (cephalic index, 70.3), none of the mummies of the Tutankhamun lineage has a cephalic index of 75 or less (ie, indicating dolichocephaly). Instead, Akhenaten has an index of 81.0 and Tutankhamun an index of 83.9, indicating brachycephaly
Disease or Amarna Artistic Style? Macroscopic and radiological inspection of the mummies did not show specific signs of gynecomastia, craniosynostoses, Antley-Bixler syndrome or deficiency in cytochrome P450 oxidoreductase, Marfan syndrome, or related disorders (eAppendix, Table 2). Therefore, the particular artistic presentation of persons in the Amarna period is confirmed as a royally decreed style most probably related to the religious reforms of Akhenaten. It is unlikely that either Tutankhamun or Akhenaten actually displayed a significantly bizarre or feminine physique. Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family 2010
You sure are a selective reader. Fact of the matter is that cranial deformation was practiced in ancient Egypt during the 18th dynasty. Keita talks about it in this video series:
quote:“Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples.” (“Photo in the News: King Tut's Face Reconstructed” National Geographic 2005)
quote:The Egyptians were not "black" in the modern American sense of the word, i.e., negroid, yet Afrocentrics are willing to sometimes argue that the Egyptians did not look like a black/Sub Saharan/negroid people. STRANGE!
The American sense of the word generally recognizes any African descent person with dark skin pigmentation as black. What exactly are "black sub-Saharan people" anyways? They had broad and narrow features all apart of indigenous variation.
quote:“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
Read it. Not sure what the heck they're basing this on- no doubt some form of bias. A more elaborate and recent study:
"Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed." --A-M Mekota1 and M Vermehren
As I said- black=dark skin.
quote:"The sharp nasal sills indicate a Caucasoid person" "The Remains Of Queen Weret" 12th dynasty (Brier, Zimmerman; 2000)
What is a Caucasoid person? 12th dymasty was of Sudanese origin btw... racial bias
quote:frocentrics usually claim that Upper Egyptians are the "true representatives" of ancient Egyptians:
"Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo, but one out of eight loci showed a difference in comparison with a population from El-Minia city .... Fig. 2. Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.
Lol... no surprise with the gene flow from historic times
From the full text of the same study:
"Possible explanations for HWE departure are population substructure and admixture, since there is persistent consanguinity (27.7% in WHO report, 1994) [7] in addition to historical admixture with other ethnic groups who ruled Egypt in its past, e.g. Ottomans, Arabs (who constituted major migration waves) and Greeks."
I personally favor uni-parental lineages that are non-recombining for ancient population structure though.
BTW, this is Phoenician7
quote:This "forum" is an absolute joke.
You're the joke here sir Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Afrocentrics usually claim that Upper Egyptians are the "true representatives" of ancient Egyptians:
"Local comparisons between Upper Egyptians were carried out with other ethnic groups in Egypt, based on frequency and molecular data. No differences were observed in comparison with a general Caucasian population from Cairo in any of the nine loci compared or with Egyptian Christians from Cairo, but one out of eight loci showed a difference in comparison with a population from El-Minia city .... Fig. 2. Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.
Where is the sitation for this?? What sample Populations were tested, What is SSA and Middle Eastern and North Africa, that could be Jesus Joseph and Mary for all we know. Who took this study and what populations were tested..??
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Yes it seems the Whore went calling for his pimp after he took such a beat down on the "Rahotep Feel like Dancing" thread. LOL. Goodnow we get to debunk the fool without his pandering to his audience and hiding behind Youtube..
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:
BTW, this is Phoenician7
[QUOTE]This "forum" is an absolute joke.
You're the joke here sir
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This whole argument is to say the least retarded. Half the slaves mentioned were White and every single slave owner were either Wealthy or Nobility. How this advances your case is beyond me.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: [QB] Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
^^Indeed. The influx of Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Arabs etc over the centuries has changed Egyptians.
Also slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000.
Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. White slaves in the 18th century were obtained from Barbary Pirate raids on European shipping and coastal communities. Egyptians were not major partipants in Barbary piracy, but some of the captives taken by the pirates reached the Cairo slave market. This source was closed off by first the American-Barbary Wars and ultimately French colonization of Algeria (1830). Circassian white slaves reached Egypt from the eastern coast of the Black Sea and from the Circassian settlements of Anatolia through Istambul. There were several sources of African slaves. This included routes across the Sahara and the Indian Ocean/Red Sea.
Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer]
Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks.
The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall population of about 5 million people.
To make a case that foreigners and slaves you have to be able to back it up by doing the math.
For example if look at the slave component, average of 25,000 in a population of 5 million that works out to be one in two hundred people. That is far from enough to change the population in significant way.
Add to this the various invasions, Persians, Assyrians, Greeks it's still not enough to alter the population to any significant degree.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
HAHA! Your wording cracked me up. Notice how he cited articles confirming the Saharan origin of Egyptian civilization contradicting Rahotep's past arguments LOOL! I'll actually use that in my video on archaeology
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Yes it seems the Whore went calling for his pimp after he took such a beat down on the "Rahotep Feel like Dancing" thread. LOL. Goodnow we get to debunk the fool without his pandering to his audience and hiding behind Youtube..
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:
BTW, this is Phoenician7
[QUOTE]This "forum" is an absolute joke.
You're the joke here sir
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This whole argument is to say the least retarded. Half the slaves mentioned were White and every single slave owner were either Wealthy or Nobility. How this advances your case is beyond me.
My argument has nothing to do with who the foreigners and foreigner slaves who came into Egypt were. My argument is that you cannot argue that modern Egyptians are not largely descendants of ancient Egyptians by bringing up small amounts of foreigners who came into Egypt later. Bringing up Mexicans has no bearing. It's a different history with different numbers.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
What are you talking about?? You brought up slaves in response to Zarahan bringing up the Greek, Persian etc. settlers and control of Egypt. Yet your source had no support of your intentions, I.E to say that "Slaves" darkened Egypt in counter to Zarahan saying Eurasians lightened Egypt.
Once again there were lightskinned Egyptians in A. Egypt but they were a minority just as the southern Sudanese phenotype was a minority. The best representation are probably the people found in Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan. The people of the Delta grew and became more dominant as More importance was shifted from Upper Egypt and the South to Alexandria and Cairo. Also a whole host of people from Jews, Greeks, Romans, Turks etc populated the Delta...Where did these people go if they did not settle in.??
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] This whole argument is to say the least retarded. Half the slaves mentioned were White and every single slave owner were either Wealthy or Nobility. How this advances your case is beyond me.
My argument has nothing to do with who the foreigners and foreigner slaves who came into Egypt were. My argument is that you cannot argue that modern Egyptians are not largely descendants of ancient Egyptians by bringing up small amounts of foreigners who came into Egypt later. Bringing up Mexicans has no bearing. It's a different history with different numbers.
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
^ You still haven't explained how a population of blacks can be largely displaced by another population. And you have never explained as to how modern Egyptians are more heat adapted than the ancient ones.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
BTW, this is Phoenician7
How do you know that Baenra is Phoenician7?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
@ simple girl You have to read the Genetics and Bio studies and put them into context with the History.
In the First Dynasties the Upper Egypt and Norhtern Sudan were almost identical. Northern Sudan's A Group known as Ta Seti was incorperted into Egypt and the Egyptians conquered and took control of the Delta. If Im not mistaken the Delta was still "Rual" compared to Upper Egypt until later around the time of the New Kingdom. I could be wrong.
Second you had populations like the Hyksos at Avaris, you had the introduction of Non Africans and eventually communties of Jews, Romans, Greeks, and later Turks etc. Furhter the Delta began to grow more Urban, Power was shifted to Alexandria for hundreds of Years then later to Cairo.
I don't think they were replaced they, the Black population of Egypt, became more isolated, lost power, and became more rual.
For your latter statement, is there a study saying this, I have no read it.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Also a whole host of people from Jews, Greeks, Romans, Turks etc populated the Delta...Where did these people go if they did not settle in.??
I didn't say they didn't settle. I said they and slaves who came into Egypt did not come in large enough numbers to alter the existing general Egyptian population in a major way. The ruling class may have been different because they like to import "exotic" concubines. BTW which Jews are you referring to?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by lioness:
quote: Also slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000. To make a case that foreigners and slaves you have to be able to back it up by doing the math.
^^Listen up. Dark-skinned Africans have been in Egypt for over 6,000 years. They are not limited to 20,000-30,000 slaves during the 19th century. Why on earth would a few 19th century people be used to address change in the Egyptian population except as part of your dumb insinuation that dark skin means "foreign" in Egypt.
And what you conveniently are avoiding is that, yes indeed, there was population continuity, but the PROOF OF THAT CONTINUITY is in the dark-skinned peoples of today's Egypt. They were there at the beginning of Egypt, and they are there today. -----------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jari: So please explain how in context this quote at all helps Rahotep's argument that the Egyptians lacked Prothagatism, when Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Siptah, and Merenptah had Prognatism?? This simple fact shuts down ths argument dead as it is Rahotep arguing for Prognatism not any one else. Further no where does the study say Either Pharoah was Nubian nor Mediteranian but that they had cnaracteristics defined by such.
^^Indeed. You expose his hypocrisy here. Notice how he wants to use prognathism as a "black" marker but runs away from apply the same method to white people. If there are "true black" markers why aren't there "true white" markers? Where are the white skinned, blond, blue-eyed Egyptians? Why don't we see the same hypocritical double standard applied the other way around? The hypocrites will reveal their hypocrisy by saying that white people differ in looks, but when it comes to blacks, then the hypocrites suddenly change their tune and want as narrow a stereotype as possible. Keep on exposing them.
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. --Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011 (Mitochondrial DNA Structure in North Africa Reveals a Genetic Discontinuity in the Nile Valley
^Excellent work Calabooz. The rough genetic divide incorporates Egypt and the Sudanic/Ethiopian North East African areas in one general cluster. Too often sweeping claims about "North Africa" are based on the narrow coastal strip near the Mediterranean, but "North Africa" in several physical geography books includes huge parts of Chad, Mali, Niger, and the Sudan. Keep on schooling them.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
^^Indeed. The influx of Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, and Arabs etc over the centuries has changed Egyptians.
^^^^^no migration numbers given to support the claim modern Egyptians can be compared to "60-80% mestizo"
Posted by A Simple Girl (Member # 18316) on :
quote: Modern Egyptians are no more reflective of the ancient Egyptians than modern Mexicans (60-80% mestizo) are of the Aztecs and Mayans.
This could be partly true considering that modern Egyptians are more tropically adapted than the ancient ones.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Foreigners from Ramesses III Temple at Medinet Habu
Ramesses II, Brooklyn Museum
.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
__________________________________who's blacker?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata vers. 2.0
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
__________________________________who's blacker?
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata vers. 2.0
* The term "Black" cannot be justified as a divisive term because it describes dark skin only
The boy is slightly darker pigmented than Winnie. And the woman in your avatar is white!!!
I estimate about 90% of the world pop is brown/ black complected.
*shall we speak of the South African "black population" and historic expirences?
It will show more of the wicked nazi doctrine!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: ..... that ancient Egypt is in any sense part of their racial heritage. Like the Egyptians I have been unable to miss the fact that black Africans have a marked prognathism, often so impressive that the lips stick out as far as or even beyond the tip of the nose.
Show me that and I'll be convinced that the Egyptians were substantially black Africans. The profile must be unambiguous, not mulatto-like, the lips at least on a line with the tip of the nose when the head is upright, and well forward of a brow that would ideally be rounded, with a depressed nasal bridge. The nose must be intact in the image or mummy shown.
Hail to the queen!
Not even close leaving aside the fact that I stipulated none of the distorted images from the Amarna period. No human could have an elongated head like these carvings have...
The parents...
You asked for pictures of acient Egyptians and prognathism and you where given.
Especially the Queen Tiye you did not touch. Nor any of the other pictures I have posted on Africans from the South who do match the images of those ancients. And so did others.
Weither or not it was in the same amount of prognathism is not of any relevance, since you left out in your post where the women came from.
Your world view is distorted, from now on forward I will look differently at you white folks.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Queen Tiye Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980) Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I grant the queen Tiye statue has something approaching the look, but this is not sustained by her actual mummy, which also has long flowy hair, by the way...
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I grant the queen Tiye statue has something approaching the look, but this is not sustained by her actual mummy, which also has long flowy hair, by the way...
No matter how you twist it, turn it, flip it, alter it...etc...
Akward this image shows differently,
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Hair and the 'true negro'
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badrarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita.(1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Sampling bias and the true negro
In some Nile Valley research sampling bias persists such as drawing samples from the far north of Egypt, boscuring the region's genetic complexity. The stereotypical "true negro" type is still used to artifically separate related peoples and obscure a fuller, more accurate picture of African genetic diversity. Sampling bias appears both in DNA studies (noted by Keita) and in cranial studies (noted by Egyptologist Barry Kemp).
Keita on DNA studies drawing samples from the far north, an area with more foreign settlement and gene flow
"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results."(S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 )
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: This whole argument is to say the least retarded. Half the slaves mentioned were White and every single slave owner were either Wealthy or Nobility. How this advances your case is beyond me.
She wants to argue that the AEs were "racially mixed", had "middle skin tone between Negroid and Caucasian". She will then use mural paintings to prove they were different from not only "negro Kushites", but Euros and Asians as well. Priceless.
Is this your "mid skin tone between Caucasian and negro" - lioness vers. 2.0. I know you are familiar with the now famous mural thats posted on ES which shows Nubians with the same skin tone as the one above. No need to post again.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
"It is of interest that the M35 and M2 lineages are united by a mutation – the PN2 transition. This PN2 defined clade originated in East Africa, where various populations have a notable frequency of its underived state. This would suggest that an ancient population in East Africa, or more correctly it's males, form the basis of the ancestors of all African upper Paleolithic populations – and their subsequent descendants in the present day." (--Bengtson, John D.(ed.), In Hot Pursuit of Language in Prehistory: Essays in the four fields of anthropology. 2008. John Benjamins Publishing: pp. 3–16
- The "Typical West African Y marker" ancestry was seen in the Nile Valley itself. In Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia it was sampled more than All Non-African lineages combined. Y-chromosome (IV) E-M2: (1.2%) Lower Egypt, (27.3%)Upper Egypt (39.1%)Lower Nubia/Nile Valley."
-Ethiopians share Paternal Markers A-M13, B-B60, E-M35, E-M2, E-V6, E-M78 as well as maternal markers L0,L1,L2, and L3 with Egyptians.
All undoubtedly African. Got the facts? Good!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Two more African "Caucasians"
From the side view, as they always request.
From now on I am going to look for differentiation in Europeans/ whites. Wether they have red hair, blond hair, brown hair, no lips, very thin lips, slightly fuller lips. Slick hair, slightly thicker hair, curls etc.... They are all different races.... Even so genetically. And must be treaded and categorized as such, no matter what they say. It must be forced upon them, simple ignore what they have to say. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Pull out your nazi line masurement toolkit, and see how they actually dark-skinned caucasians.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
From now on let the descendants of these people:
believe that the ancient Egyptian were the same as themselves...
Whereas these dubious characters:
Must be intruders and impostors, and can't possibly descend from these:
Stands to reason, eh? Even though there's nothing to say the present day Coptic Egyptians have different genetic makeup to the ancient Egyptians on the whole. Even though ancient Egyptians with thick lips protruding as far as their noses are as common as blond Zulus. Even though, in other words, it's next to impossible to find an ancient Egyptian who looks like this:
Why don't we see these 'true negro' features among ancient Egyptians on a regular basis if they come from the same population?
I can see why you want to ban the words 'negro' and 'negroid' and thereby obscure things and stifle the debate. It seems quite obvious that not all dark-skinned 'black' Africans are negroids, and if closely related peoples can look so different that will take some explaining. Facial features are, after all, the result of genetics, are they not?.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Rahotep
quote:From now on let the descendants of these people: believe that the ancient Egyptian were the same as themselves... Whereas these dubious characters:
Kinda like this guy after all you did say their descendants.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Why don't we see these 'true negro' features among ancient Egyptians on a regular basis if they come from the same population?
No, ''we'' DO see those extreme features .. You're just blind as a bat.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
You people are sick.
I really hope that its just a few people who are using sockpuppets talking to themselves. Even though that is crazy within itself, it still pales to the craziness of the loons, Zarahan, Sundiata, Djehuti, Ish Gebor, etc obsessing about race, looks, and acting like Africans are some kind of sideshow exhibit.
Don't you losers have a life?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Rahotep Hypocrite, what's taking you so long in providing proof of 'true' whites -blond haired, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians?
Like the true hypocrite you are, you never apply your own model in reverse to whites. You want to use proghathism as a 'true negro' marker but don't likewise define 'true white' markers. Show us some authentic blond, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians, not Middle Easterners, not Asiatics, but Egyptians looking like true white people, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Don't tell us that white people vary in looks. If you do you are a hypocrite because you deny that blacks should inherently vary in how they look. So let's apply your own standard consistently across the board hypocrite. Don't run away. Show true blond, blue-eyed white Egyptians. Posting pictures of dark Italians or Turks will show you up as the hypocrite you are. It won't do, because you also deny that black people could vary in their looks. Let's have one true negro model and one true white model.
Apply your same hypocritical methods and let's see what you got. Produce ancient Egyptians looking like white Brittney Spears, or white Robert Redford for example. They have to be blond, and white skinned, and blue eyed which is a clear marker of Caucasians.
What's taking so long hypocrite?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
alTakruri wrote: ----------------------------------- Really, no ones ever going to convince a propanda panderer, it's their M.O. to proliferate propaganda not to engage in rational discussion and certainly never to admit anything other than their partyline.
And guess what? Anybody examining the issues beyond a superficial level knows the guy's full of John Bullshit.
Who'd argue with a fool saying 2 & 2 is 22? Well, that's exactly what some seemingly like to do. It's easy to show 2 + 2 = 4. Very little challenge, easier than work on new paradigms or expanding on known multi-disciplinary subject matter. -----------------------------------
This forum has absolutely no intellectual value. There is no one here who posts daily or regularly that I take the time to read.
This forum has more value from a psychiatric frame. If you are a psychiatric professional, student, or just an ordinary person this forum provides a variety of specimens to observe, analyze, and diagnose pathologically.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
zarahan aka Djehuti,
You're one pitiful sap.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: From now on let the descendants of these people:
believe that the ancient Egyptian were the same as themselves...
Whereas these dubious characters:
Must be intruders and impostors, and can't possibly descend from these:
Stands to reason, eh? Even though there's nothing to say the present day Coptic Egyptians have different genetic makeup to the ancient Egyptians on the whole. Even though ancient Egyptians with thick lips protruding as far as their noses are as common as blond Zulus. Even though, in other words, it's next to impossible to find an ancient Egyptian who looks like this:
Why don't we see these 'true negro' features among ancient Egyptians on a regular basis if they come from the same population?
I can see why you want to ban the words 'negro' and 'negroid' and thereby obscure things and stifle the debate. It seems quite obvious that not all dark-skinned 'black' Africans are negroids, and if closely related peoples can look so different that will take some explaining. Facial features are, after all, the result of genetics, are they not?.
You are a dumb piece of ****. Since there is not such thing a the true "negro". You keep ranting on with your nazi matra.
The word negro derived from the Spanish word negra, meaning black.
Africans are not all like the woman you keep showing.
This is why you cannot respond to the posts of other pheonotypical features amongst Africans being posted here.
And before genetics, there is a result of mutation of these genes. Like local adaption of the environment and diet. As the main factors, in short biodiversity. But retarded nazis like you don't know or even understand this. So the reason why you will fine more diversity is because the continent is LARGER than europe, even in tiny Europe you will find diversity. Amongst Asians you will find lot of diversity as well, even with in the Chinese population, Indian population or Japanese you will find phenotypes based on tribe.
Furthermore, reason why the North of Egypt had a component of indigenous light skin is because of the environment, of Mediterranean. The woman you show I believe is from Congo?
Africans cluster genetically, yet look diverse. This is why people outside of Africa mutated and morphed genetically. Linked to haplo L3, L4.
Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny. Semino O, Santachiara-Benerecetti AS, Falaschi F, Cavalli-Sforza LL, Underhill PA.
Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia, Università di Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
The genetic structure of 126 Ethiopian and 139 Senegalese Y chromosomes was investigated by a hierarchical analysis of 30 diagnostic biallelic markers selected from the worldwide Y-chromosome genealogy. The present study reveals that (1) only the Ethiopians share with the Khoisan the deepest human Y-chromosome clades (the African-specific Groups I and II) but with a repertoire of very different haplotypes; (2) most of the Ethiopians and virtually all the Senegalese belong to Group III, whose precursor is believed to be involved in the first migration out of Africa; and (3) the Ethiopian Y chromosomes that fall into Groups VI, VIII, and IX may be explained by back migrations from Asia. The first observation confirms the ancestral affinity between the Ethiopians and the Khoisan, which has previously been suggested by both archaeological and genetic findings.
Phylogenetic tree of the Y-chromosome haplotypes and their percent frequencies in the two Ethiopian groups (Oromo and Amhara) and in the Senegalese of the present study, compared with the frequencies in the Ethiopians and Khoisan previously reported by Underhill et al.(2000). Numbering of mutations is according to Underhill et al.(2001): those examined in the present study are shown in boldface type; those inferred or reported by Underhill et al.(2000) are shown in italics. Haplotype numbers in the present study are shown in boldface type; those in italics are from Underhill et al.(2001). Group numbers refer to groups reported by Underhill et al.(2001). The frequency values in parentheses correspond to the subclassification of the haplotype defined only by the M89 mutation in the report by Underhill et al.(2000).
"In Somali males, 14 haplogroups were identified. The frequency of the clade E3b was 81.1%, including 77.6% of the haplogroup E3b1 defined by the M78 mutation. The Eurasian haplogroup K2 was found in 10.4%, and 3.0% of the Somali Y chromosomes belonged to the major clade J."
Map of African areas where E3b1 cluster has been observed (the numbers of individuals are given in parentheses).10 (1) Moroccan Arabs (54), (2) Northern Egyptians (21), (3) Ethiopian Jews (22), (4) Ethiopian Amharas (34), (5) Ethiopian Wolaytas (12), (6) Mixed Ethiopians (12), (7) Ethiopian Oromos (25), (8) Somalia (224 including our Somali data), (9) Boranas (Oromos) from Kenya (seven), (10) Bantus from Kenya (28), (11) Tuaregs from Niger (22). The haplogroups or remaining paragroups are represented by different fill patterns. Lineages excluded from a haplogroup are listed within parentheses after the name of the haplogroup. The distribution of the Cushitic language in East Africa is shown in grey.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: You people are sick.
I really hope that its just a few people who are using sockpuppets talking to themselves. Even though that is crazy within itself, it still pales to the craziness of the loons, Zarahan, Sundiata, Djehuti, Ish Gebor, etc obsessing about race, looks, and acting like Africans are some kind of sideshow exhibit.
Don't you losers have a life?
It's you and your dick sucking boy friend who are race obsessed and ignoring the diversity of African phenotypes. Calling Africans Caucasians? Ignoring studies and other facial features amongst Africans, other than the one you keep showing.
And I can spend my time how ever I like it, when I like it, dimwit!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Rahotep Hypocrite, what's taking you so long in providing proof of 'true' whites -blond haired, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians?
Like the true hypocrite you are, you never apply your own model in reverse to whites. You want to use proghathism as a 'true negro' marker but don't likewise define 'true white' markers. Show us some authentic blond, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians, not Middle Easterners, not Asiatics, but Egyptians looking like true white people, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Don't tell us that white people vary in looks. If you do you are a hypocrite because you deny that blacks should inherently vary in how they look. So let's apply your own standard consistently across the board hypocrite. Don't run away. Show true blond, blue-eyed white Egyptians. Posting pictures of dark Italians or Turks will show you up as the hypocrite you are. It won't do, because you also deny that black people could vary in their looks. Let's have one true negro model and one true white model.
Apply your same hypocritical methods and let's see what you got. Produce ancient Egyptians looking like white Brittney Spears, or white Robert Redford for example. They have to be blond, and white skinned, and blue eyed which is a clear marker of Caucasians.
What's taking so long hypocrite?
Real whites have no lips, like these.
Like these,
Not like these,
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^Rahotep Hypocrite, what's taking you so long in providing proof of 'true' whites -blond haired, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians?
Like the true hypocrite you are, you never apply your own model in reverse to whites. You want to use proghathism as a 'true negro' marker but don't likewise define 'true white' markers. Show us some authentic blond, blue-eyed ancient Egyptians, not Middle Easterners, not Asiatics, but Egyptians looking like true white people, with blond hair and blue eyes.
Don't tell us that white people vary in looks. If you do you are a hypocrite because you deny that blacks should inherently vary in how they look. So let's apply your own standard consistently across the board hypocrite. Don't run away. Show true blond, blue-eyed white Egyptians. Posting pictures of dark Italians or Turks will show you up as the hypocrite you are. It won't do, because you also deny that black people could vary in their looks. Let's have one true negro model and one true white model.
Apply your same hypocritical methods and let's see what you got. Produce ancient Egyptians looking like white Brittney Spears, or white Robert Redford for example. They have to be blond, and white skinned, and blue eyed which is a clear marker of Caucasians.
What's taking so long hypocrite?
Britney is not really white, she has brown eyes. And I do see some dark hair at the root.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Ish and Zarahan you guys had your fun he been beat down compromised, turnt the hell out..show mercy?? or NOT!!.. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Ish and Zarahan you guys had your fun he been beat down compromised, turnt the hell out..show mercy?? or NOT!!..
Hummm, did I say real whites. Sorry, I meant real caucasoids.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Britney is not really white, she has brown eyes. And I do see some dark hair at the root. ^^lol..good job Ish.. Let us see now if he applies his same stereotyping to his beloved caucasoids. Let's see his double standards at work. How can Brittney be white and have these varying looks, but black people arent supposed to vary unless they can be dismissed as "mixed"? Let's see their hypocrisy at work.
Brada, we hve gone relatively easy on him, but by contrast, "Rah" and his ilk are not showing any mercy to the brothas. On forum after forum the racist dogs are pumping out every racist slur imaginable, and I don't just mean Stormfront. Ask Morpheus, he'll tell ya. Nevertheless we usually focus on credible research here on ES. Speaking as to allegedly "mixed" Africans:
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ true Caucasian right there.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Britney is not really white, she has brown eyes. And I do see some dark hair at the root.
Obvious signs of her black admixture LOL
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104:
This forum has absolutely no intellectual value. There is no one here who posts daily or regularly that I take the time to read.
This forum has more value from a psychiatric frame. If you are a psychiatric professional, student, or just an ordinary person this forum provides a variety of specimens to observe, analyze, and diagnose pathologically. [/QB]
You have a point
but that point only has value if you can point to other forums which do have more intellectual value and people that are healthier mentally.
Unless you can point to a better way you are just going to come off as a nag.
the lost sheep need your guidance
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL
There is nothing one can do except laugh at all the insanity here and what else can you expect but insanity from a racist and thus senseless thread.
As for this "Baenra", whether or not he is Phoenician7, its obvious he is one of those distorters who loves to cite select parts of his sources while failing to show the rest.
"A brief comment on dental occlusion or malocclusion and facial types is appropriate. In general, perhaps owing to extremem wear, the dentition of ancient Egyptians (Old Kingdom) and ancient Nubians rarely exhibited dental crowding. The latter, in fact, tended to have congenitally missing teeth more reequently than supernumerary teeth (Harris and Ponitz 1996). Most modern Egyptians have good molar relationships with moderate to severe crowding, If, however the queens of the New Kingdom period (early Eighteenth Dynasty) are examined by x-ray cephalometry, many resemble modern Europeans or Americans, with maxillary, or upper jaw prognathism. This condition may be either hereditary or environmental, i.e., the result of thumb sucking or other oral habits. Queen Ahmose Nefertiry is an excellent example of this type of occlusion." (Mummies, Disease & Ancient Cultures; Cockburn, Cockburn, Reyman)
But then...
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans. http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Temple/9845/mummies.htm
"The theory that the Badarian originated in the south is, however, no longer accepted." Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt Shaw, 2003
LOL Whether the Badarian originated in the south or whether it was local still does not change the fact that the Badari like **all** cultures in Egypt like Egypt **itself** is AFRICAN.
Here is what the rest of the source says:
"The origins of the Badarian are equally problematic. It seems that the Badarian Culture did not appear from a single source although the Western Desert was probably the predominant one."
"The fact that the material culture of the Naqada culture was later found in northern Egypt with no Nubian elements would also seem to argue against any Nubian origin for the Egyptian state." Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Shaw 2003.
I find this statement by Shaw here to be a non-sequitor. He specifically says that Naqada culture was later found in northern Egypt obviously implying that the culture was earlier found in southern Egypt where it originated, as he states so elsewhere. The fact that the variant found in the north has no Nubian elements but the earlier one in the south did does not refute its Nubian origins!
Here is what Shaw also stated.
"The existence of a still earlier culture called the Tasian (Deir Tasa) has been claimed. The culture would have been characterized by the presence of calcium beakers with incised designs which are also known from contexts of similar date in Neolithic Sudan. The existence however of the Tasian as a chronologically or culturally seperated unit has never been demonstrated beyond doubt. Although most scholars consider the Tasian to be simply part of the Badarian Culture it has also been argued that the Tasian represents the continuation of a Lower Egyptian tradition which would be the immediate predecessor of the Naqada I Culture. This seems however implausible first because similarities with the Lower Egyptian Neolithic cultures are not convincing and secondly because of the Tasian's obvious ceramic links with the Sudan. If the Tasian must be considered as a seperate cultural entity then it might represent a nomadic culture with a Sudanese background and which interacted with the Badarian Culture."
Then the idiot cited:
While there is evidence for Eastern Desert influence on the Badarian culture (Majer 1992), Midant-Reynes (2000: 148, 164) convincingly argues for a strong element of Saharan culture: “With regards to lithics, [Holmes (1989: 183)] points out that there are some similarities with the post-Palaeolithic culture in the Sahara (an industry based on blades and flakes,in which polished axes and hollow-base arrowheads are not lacking), which means that we cannot exclude the possibility that the semicircle formed by the Bahariya, Farafra, Dakhla and Kharga oases might have been the point of origin of populations who perhaps already pursued a pastoral mode of subsistence; these people might have been pushed eastwards by increasing aridity and would eventually have settled in the region of Asyut and Tahta . . . [It] might even be suggested that the Neolithic cultures of the oases and the Faiyum could be regarded as the eastern fringes of the Sahara Neolithic groups.”
Okay?? We are well aware of the Saharan region as the hearth of Egyptian cultures. Are you not aware that it was also the hearth of many cultures in Sub-Sahara?? After all, there was NO Sahara desert at that time which means no such division of African populations into "North" and "Sub-Saharan"!
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. 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 rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
quote:the deepest genetic layer in North Africa seems to be mtDNA haplogroup U6, that is related with other U clades of West, Central and South Eurasia.
The U6 haplogroup has been discussed many times before and it's presence is predominantly restricted to Africa only. Funny that the U clade originated about 55,000 years ago at a time when modern humans were beginning to leave Africa, so how is U "Eurasian" when it is dated to when Eurasia was first being colonized??
quote:“The Aterian goes back at least 145,000 years,”. European connection? Some features, such as the molars, of these 40,000-year old specimens from Romania resemble those of earlier North African hominins. Was North Africa The Launch Pad For Modern Human Migrations? 2011
Again, why are you associating Europeans with a time period when there were NO Eurasians at all, let alone Europeans?!! LMAO
The rest of your nonsense was already debunked by the other guys. So I'll leave that alone. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Actually this is a True Caucasian..maybe they should be called "Above Mediteranian Europeans" or Blancos??
^^^^ The Whitest Skin, the Thinnest lips, Palest Eyes etc.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
^ true Caucasian right there.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
^ true Caucasian right there.
No, not so. Real Caucasians have red hair and freckles with pale skin, including the very thin lips (as shown previously). And males usually have very hairy bodies.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Actually this is a True Caucasian..
^^^^ The Whitest Skin, the Thinnest lips, Palest Eyes etc.
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
^ true Caucasian right there.
Yes, lol you posted just a few seconds before I did.
Blonde and blue eyes is a relatively late mutation. The cause is lack of certain nutrition. (from what I know.)
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^LOL I noticed that. Yeah if there is a True Caucasian it would be the Redhead or MC1R carriers as they have the whitest skin and features. Though if im not mistaken their hair is thicker than non Red Hair Europeans. But then again thin hair is an Asian trait.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Rahotep
quote:From now on let the descendants of these people: believe that the ancient Egyptian were the same as themselves... Whereas these dubious characters:
Kinda like this guy after all you did say their descendants.
My God, if you think anyone who had the misfortune to be human cargo during the years of the triangular trade looked like Clayton-Powell then you're crazy. For as start the man's mother was a mulatto, and his paternal grasdmother was also a mulatto with cherokee blood, while his grandfather was a white slave-owner of German descent, and it shows!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Originally posted by argyle104:
This forum has absolutely no intellectual value. There is no one here who posts daily or regularly that I take the time to read.
This forum has more value from a psychiatric frame. If you are a psychiatric professional, student, or just an ordinary person this forum provides a variety of specimens to observe, analyze, and diagnose pathologically.
You have a point
but that point only has value if you can point to other forums which do have more intellectual value and people that are healthier mentally.
Unless you can point to a better way you are just going to come off as a nag.
quote:the lost sheep need your guidance
This comes from someone who doesn't know where Nubia/ Aswan is located. funny Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
These are 'true Caucasians', as this is what the indigenous people of the Caucasus look like:
What a nightmare it would be trying to find Egyptians who look like that!
The idea that caucasians have to be red haired or blue eyed is nonsense.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^LOL I noticed that. Yeah if there is a True Caucasian it would be the Redhead or MC1R carriers as they have the whitest skin and features. Though if im not mistaken their hair is thicker than non Red Hair Europeans. But then again thin hair is an Asian trait.
Actually they are like a different "race", due to the mutation they differ genetically and in visual appearance.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: This is a true Caucasian, as this is what the indigenous people of the Caucasus look like. It is also quite similar to what many Egyptuians look like.
You are clearly a dumb ass. Not even knowing your own history. That is not the true Caucasian. Yet, you are obsessed with others.
True caucasians have red hair and freckles. And even there in that image you have posted it does not look closely to Egyptians. Especially the predecessors (of) and the ancient Egyptians. As studies on crania and limb portions have shown.
Can you quote some acient Greeks texts, on the explanation of the visual appearance of ancient Egyptians? Thanks in advance.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The idea that Caucasians have to be red hair or blue eyed is nonsense
And the idea that blacks have to have thick lips, prognathism or curly hair is equally nonsensical.
Egyptians resembled Africans. Not people of the Caucasus. Therefore they were not "Caucasians".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I think deep down the idiot knows that, but his white supremacy still has the best of him.
The idiot clings to the label of "caucasoid" without realizing that even many blacks in Sub-Sahara were defined as such as well.
^ Note the orthognathy and pointed nose typical of Egpytians.
The Sub-Saharan man would also be classified as "caucasoid".
And what are we to make of this actual Egyptian man from Thebes below?
Or this Giza man from northern Egypt?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Egyptians resembled Egyptians, who often resemble Armenians and Georgians, ergo true Caucasians. How many frekled blonde or auburn-haired Georgians have you seen? Red haired people are nowhere the majority, not even in Ireland, where dark brown hair is far more common than any other type. You probably have to go to scandinavia to find a blonde majority, although the third world rapists they are importing will no doubt shortly put pay to that. The Germans also mostly have dark hair, contrary to national stereotype.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaDumb1: Egyptians resembled Egyptians, who often resemble Armenians and Georgians, ergo true Caucasians...
The only Egyptians who resemble Armenians and Georgians are those of Armenian and Georgian descent you idiot!! Or do you deny the influx of Caucasian peoples from the Caucasus into Egypt during the Ottoman period??!
Your knowledge of Egypt's population history is seriously lacking! I suggest you do research on the subject!! This belief of yours that modern Egyptians look the same as the ancient especially those living in northern Delta communities is ridiculous bullocks! Even the Egyptians of those communities acknowledge their own foreign ancestry!! LOL
Even Ausar (a REAL Egyptian) has commented on the fact that people of the northern Delta are of obvious foreign descent not only due to their obvious physical appearance but also their accents and their surnames. For example the surname 'Abaza' is Circassian (from the Caucasus) and the Abazas trace their immigration during the Ottoman Empire! The Copts of Alexandria are a much older community however they are not indigenous either as they are the descendants of Greco-Roman colonialists as Alexandria itself was a Greek colonial city founded by Alexander! These communities received more recent input from their Greek kinsmen during the Ottoman period as well which is why many have Greek surnames such as 'Anastios'.
So all these bogus claims of yours are nothing but LIES. Get over it!
Mind you Ausar who is from southern Egypt is not the only REAL Egyptian here. There is another poster who goes by 'Multisphinx' who is from the Delta region and let's just say like Ausar he is not at all afraid to proclaim his BLACK AFRICAN identity and tell you khawagas (foreigners) off!
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The idea that Caucasians have to be red hair or blue eyed is nonsense
And the idea that blacks have to have thick lips, prognathism or curly hair is equally nonsensical.
Egyptians resembled Africans. Not people of the Caucasus. Therefore they were not "Caucasians".
Are you sure about that? Georgians:
Egyptians:
Ancient Egyptians:
Clearly it would have been impossible for a Semitic Jew like Moses to be mistaken for an Egyptian, then... Not according to Exodus 2...
Africans who do not have prognathism, frizzy hair or thick lips (and who are not darker than might be expected, given the climates they inhabit), are hardly blacks, are they? The Darker southern Egyptians still tend to look more like their northern compatriots in terms of phenotype than they do like sub-saharan Africans, and Egyptians are more related to each other than anyone else.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
^ Oh please!
Countless amount of research, along with the self portrayals of Dynastic Egyptians has shown the vast majority of Ancient Egyptians to be dark skinned and not light skinned. Simply because you can cherry-pick away and make some cheesy comparisons doesn't change this fact.
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
@Rahotep,
Identify each image respectfully please?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
And I repeat.
quote:Originally posted by DaDumb1: Egyptians resembled Egyptians, who often resemble Armenians and Georgians, ergo true Caucasians...
The only Egyptians who resemble Armenians and Georgians are those of Armenian and Georgian descent you idiot!! Or do you deny the influx of Caucasian peoples from the Caucasus into Egypt during the Ottoman period??!
Your knowledge of Egypt's population history is seriously lacking! I suggest you do research on the subject!! This belief of yours that modern Egyptians look the same as the ancient especially those living in northern Delta communities is ridiculous bullocks! Even the Egyptians of those communities acknowledge their own foreign ancestry!! LOL
Even Ausar (a REAL Egyptian) has commented on the fact that people of the northern Delta are of obvious foreign descent not only due to their obvious physical appearance but also their accents and their surnames. For example the surname 'Abaza' is Circassian (from the Caucasus) and the Abazas trace their immigration during the Ottoman Empire! The Copts of Alexandria are a much older community however they are not indigenous either as they are the descendants of Greco-Roman colonialists as Alexandria itself was a Greek colonial city founded by Alexander! These communities received more recent input from their Greek kinsmen during the Ottoman period as well which is why many have Greek surnames such as 'Anastios'.
So all these bogus claims of yours are nothing but LIES. Get over it!
Mind you Ausar who is from southern Egypt is not the only REAL Egyptian here. There is another poster who goes by 'Multisphinx' who is from the Delta region and let's just say like Ausar he is not at all afraid to proclaim his BLACK AFRICAN identity and tell you khawagas (foreigners) off!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I also repeat as per the very topic of this thread:
I haven't seen a thread this racist and stupid since the troll Evil-Euro used to plague this forum. As al-Takruri and others have pointed out this is nothing more than a stupid strawman tactic based on Eurocentric Doctrine#1:
PHYSICAL CALIBRATION DOCTRINE: In which white anthropologists treat people as racial specimens, measuring "cephalic indices" and attempting to prove superiority of the "white" brain. Ugly racist terminology: "prognathism," "platyrhiny," "steatopygous," "sub-Egyptian." Mug-shot lineups of "the Veddan female," "Arapaho male, "Negroid type," "Mongoloid specimen" characterize this approach. Out of favor in the mid-20th-century, it has enjoyed a revisionist comeback with sociobiology and works claiming racial differentials in intelligence, such as "The Bell Curve."
It is a strawman tactic totally dependent upon the lie of the "true negro" concept and in this case the trait of full facial prognathism. It is a strawman because of the very fact that over a third of peoples in Sub-Sahara alone do not possess that trait, as if such a trait determined black African identity. It is because of such a trait or rather the lack thereof that many peoples in Sub-Sahara were classified as "Hamitic" or "caucasoid"!
The Cambridge History of Africa (Hardcover) by J. D. Fage (Editor) Cambridge University Press (March 30, 1979) p.69 Skeletal remains from the Kenya Rift previously considered as 'Afro-Mediterranean' or 'Caucasoid' have now been shown to group with African Negro samples. They date within the first millennium BC and, on physical characteristics, it is suggested that they may be of proto-Nilotic stock. But it is necessary to also make comparisons with Cushitic speakers, since burials found recently in association with a Kenya Capsian-like industry from Lake Besaka in the Ethiopian Rift, dating probably to c. 5000 BC, also show negroid features, and linguistic evidence indicates long history for Cushitic in Ethiopia.
"Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,.." - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
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....."
Suffice to say, the most common type of prognathism among dynastic Egyptians was not full facial but alveolar progranthism which is protrusion of the dental part of the mouth.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
Although alveolar prognathism was prevalent enough to be the norm among dynastic Egyptians, full facial prognathism was not unusual either.
On Sekenenra Tao, last ruler of the 17th dynasty and forefather of the 18th dynasty: His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (full facial prognathism) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination.
Seqenenra Tao is by far not the only exception and as there are others including those of the pyramid building era. And as Calabooz has pointed out, full facial prognathism was a trait common amongst the predynastic Badarians.
So enough of the nonsense! Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
I've been paying less and less attention to Rahotep, but now he's just on ignore.
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: ^ Oh please!
Countless amount of research, along with the self portrayals of Dynastic Egyptians has shown the vast majority of Ancient Egyptians to be dark skinned and not light skinned. Simply because you can cherry-pick away and make some cheesy comparisons doesn't change this fact.
Exactly. That was ultimately the point of AlTakuri making this thread here but of course Rahotep copped out and said he didn't want to participate. And yet here he is posting the same selective images he always has.
But in the end, I guess it's all subjective. He sees Armenoid "Caucasoids" and rational people who aren't blind see Africans with dark skin whom we would normally label black. But also as you mention, research has also prooved him wrong countless times. He just doesn't care, he'll just keep repeating the same stuff regardless of what data we provide him with
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': He just doesn't care, he'll just keep repeating the same stuff regardless of what data we provide him with
Hence the perfect reason to ignore him. We should set up debates more formally. For example, posting a ScribD rebuttal to Brandon's recent essay seems more appropriate than bickering with trolls, as well as does posting up new research. For instance, essays from school or self-initiated mini-projects. I have a few lined up, one of which ausar had suggested concerning indigenous African medicine.
Posted by Baenra (Member # 19010) on :
“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published. These people were Caucasian." (” 1988 Braunstein, M.D. et al)
"The sharp nasal sills indicate a Caucasoid person" "The Remains Of Queen Weret" 12th dynasty (Brier, Zimmerman; 2000)
Noone had an explanation for the above.
quote:Truthcentric: Where's the full citation?
In other words, you can't refute it. Funny, I don't recall you fully citing any of the studies you post. In fact, the only thing you constantly spam is the Keita chart based on 12-15 variables. Howells is based on 57 variables and worldwide comparisons so don't make me laugh.
quote:Zaharan: He doesn't post the full citation because it has been debunked here before at ES as to his racial claims. He is spamming it across the web, even on forums like downloadpolitics.com
It hasn't been debunked, not by you, not by anyone. It says, point blank they were Caucasian and I'm sure you're not getting much sleep knowing that. Never heard of downloadpolitics, so good luck proving that fake paranoid claim. You're one to talk about spam.
quote:Calaboz: Not sure what the heck they're basing this on- no doubt some form of bias.
Either prove its bias or just admit you're in denial based on your own bias. I accept Briers statement as factual, unlike you he's an Egyptologist and knows what he's talking about. You don't.
You've posted snippets that are outdated yet seem to think it refutes the more recent studies I posted. You also directed us to information that runs contrary to your own argument and on top of that, you argue against your own argument. Priceless.
BTW Personally, I left this debate after my last post to you due to my disgust at the hypocrisy and idiocy contained your pathetic exchange. I responded to your post as a courtesy. You (among others) are the one desperately arguing that ancient Egyptians were black/negroid while stating that black/negroid does not exist and since blacks/negroes do not exist on your own admission, ancient Egyptians could not have been blacks/negroids.
The majority of you deny the concept of race based on science and yet support what you call unscientific definitions of race when classifying the ancient Egyptians, so there is no reason for me to waste my time refuting a position that is inherently invalid by the arguers own admission.
If the two studies above described the mummies as black/negroid, every one of these Afrocentrists would have accepted it on its face as is. They were Caucasian.
The posters on this forum are slanderous, dripping of racism (some are overtly paranoid) towards anyone posting differing information. No one here abides by the very terms that they agreed to when they signed on and the moderators let it fly under the radar purposely. I am not interested in debating with people who have issues and chips on their shoulders and who at the very minimal deny what Caucasoid is. This place is the internets laughing stalk.
Seeking a well intentioned, respectable forum with higher standards, much higher standards. Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Rahotep
quote:From now on let the descendants of these people: believe that the ancient Egyptian were the same as themselves... Whereas these dubious characters:
Kinda like this guy after all you did say their descendants.
If I eva...lolololol....whoii Brada yuh nuh easy...lol.... Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baenra: In other words, you can't refute it.
Because you don't provide the whole fucking citation, you stupid Nazi punk!
quote:Funny, I don't recall you fully citing any of the studies you post.
I provided a lot more info about my citations than you ever did. In one case I even provided an actual link to the paper! Read my post again.
quote:In fact, the only thing you constantly spam is the Keita chart based on 12-15 variables. Howells is based on 57 variables and worldwide comparisons so don't make me laugh.
I thought we were discussing Hanihara rather than Howells...regardless, Howells's Late Period Egyptian series has been found to be not representative of Egyptian crania:
"Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series."---Zakrzewski, Sonia R. "Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania." In Program of the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 215. Tampa, FL: American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 2004.
And I love how you ignored my other citation below the Keita graph as well as my showing you that nonmetric studies like Hanihara's are not the best way to measure interpopulation affinities!
quote:Seeking a well intentioned, respectable forum with higher standards, much higher standards.
You mean you're seeking a place full of dimwitted Nazi shitheads like you. Well, if you aren't going to continue this debate, good riddance to you!
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Real whites have no lips, like these.
where is his upper lip- he has none?
Is why they do this to themSelves enuh:
They pay nuff money to have what we are born with Naturally (thanks to our Africanness).... Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^way to school them Truthcen.
--------------------------
Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote: quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The idea that Caucasians have to be red hair or blue eyed is nonsense
And the idea that blacks have to have thick lips, prognathism or curly hair is equally nonsensical.
^^Exactly.. exposing him for the hypocrite he is. Note the hypocrite's double standard, how he wants to deny black variability, while exempting his beloved "Caucasoids"..
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Phoenician7/Baenra,
What a cop out. Not only do you not understand that black is not a racial Classification like the term "Negroid" but that they are not synonymous. Nor do you even understand what "race" entails if you think that showing population affinities is the same as suggesting racial groups. The author of the statement made in your citation wasn't based on anything but their own beliefs. Which is why they said "presumably" Semetic; ergo, they say they were Caucasian based on their presumption/belief that they were Semtic which we know with absolute certainty to be untrue. You just run away and claim my citations are outdated even though I cited recent genetic articles and the same Harris and Wente book, although the poster at ES obviously have a greater understanding than do you. The only old article I cited was Barry and Berry. But as I said, it was supported by Zakrzewski (2011) and Harris and Wente's book. And yet you are the one using an article claiming Egyptians were Semitic. So, which is really outdated?
Truthcentric, wanna know why he didn't include the full context of the citation? Because he knows it bull:
"To the physician, the paleopathologic findings are of great importance. In our study, there were findings ranging from developmental anomalies to advanced geriatric disease. Although lunate triquetral fusion has never before been described in the ancient Egyptian population it was seen in two of the 12 mummies. These people were Caucasian, **presumably** Semetic"
So these people were of the mindset that the ancient Egyptians were "Semetic". Not only that, but their study doesn't have anything to do with biological affinities but developmental anomalies and advanced geriatric diseases! So as I said, the author(s) statement was based on their own belief as evident by their own wording.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
this they pay for...smh....
I've asked the resident 'white' boys in a few other threads, they keep talking bout Black Women this and that...however, WHY do 'white' women do this to themSelves (I mean, the examples are endless)
and I won't get started on the ass injections and/or implants they purchase to have, well, a Black Woman's backside...
and the deliberate exposure to melanoma and/or sun poisoning to darken their skin as dark as they can (as well as their orange spray tanning stuff, lol)...
This, which they clearly covet, we are Naturally born with:
Mama Africa and our Ancestors are stamped on our faces through the generations.... Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^way to school them Truthcen.
--------------------------
Originally posted by Calabooz:
quote: quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The idea that Caucasians have to be red hair or blue eyed is nonsense
And the idea that blacks have to have thick lips, prognathism or curly hair is equally nonsensical.
^^Exactly.. exposing him for the hypocrite he is. Note the hypocrite's double standard, how he wants to deny black variability, while exempting his beloved "Caucasoids"..
smh...no sah... this is TruthAndRights...wrong one.....
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': So these people were of the mindset that the ancient Egyptians were "Semetic".
Obviously they don't know which branch of the Afroasiatic phylum Egyptic belongs to. I'm really tired of this popular belief that the Egyptians were Semitic. Whatever one thinks about their skin color, there's no denying that Egyptic is not Semitic any more than the language we're typing in is Celtic.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Egyptians resembled Egyptians, who often resemble Armenians and Georgians, ergo true Caucasians. How many frekled blonde or auburn-haired Georgians have you seen? Red haired people are nowhere the majority, not even in Ireland, where dark brown hair is far more common than any other type. You probably have to go to scandinavia to find a blonde majority, although the third world rapists they are importing will no doubt shortly put pay to that. The Germans also mostly have dark hair, contrary to national stereotype.
Rubbish, the real caucasian has red hair and freckles and is very pale. This maybe is becoming an extinct, but is however the original caucasian treat.
Indians by the way are a direct sub-set of Africans.
The population parallel of your so called dark skinned caucasian at the Balkan are offspring are an of early African migrationists families/ groups.
This is why they carry ancestral haplotype E* in relative numbers. And In fact they can be considered a different race. Based on crania and relatively melanin dosage. Whereas the woman you showed was very pale, with dark hair, clearly is of a different race. And she did not cluster with the people from Egypt in photo collage, at all. And she and Blakans are different from for example your blonde Germans.
The diversity of the people in your photo collage are a multitude of African diversity. If not so. You could separate them based on skin tone phynotype etc....as you ussually do. The Nile Valley was populated by multiple African tribes combined creating this civilization. Not just one particular group.
Also, one of the people in that photo collage I did meet personally. The man. The second person, right side, first row. He is from Luxor/ Edfu. He is the owner and manager of a store. He and his people at that store are the direct descendants of ancient masons. There are recent, studies confirming this.
I have some pottery here, at home made by them.
Believe me, they are BLACK and Africans, as are many if not all of the people in your photo collage. And they will tell you this, nowadays, OPENLY. Yes, Western tourist have to swallow this.
And North Germans are predominantly of Nordic descant. Therefore blonde and have very thin hair. ( can you imagine), also genetically they do differ. So they in fact are another race. And not Caucasian.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Siptah: @Rahotep,
Identify each image respectfully please?
1 Tomb of Nefertari QV 66. 2 Tomb of Nefertari 3 Great Harris Papyrus showing Ramesses III 4 Hunefer Papyrus (Book of the Dead) 5 Nany Papyrus (B o t D) 6 Nebqed (B o t D) 18th Dyn. 7 Papyrus of the lady Anhai ( B o t D) 8 Moutners, tomb of Ramose, 18th Dynasty 9 Ramesses III and prince Khaemwaset, 19th dynasty. Tomb of Khaemwaset, QV 44. 10 Papyrus of the lady Anhai. (B o t D) 10b Nebqed funeral scene (B o t D) 11 B o t D, unknown provenance. 12 Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun from a chest lid, Tutakhamun's tomb, 18th Dyn. 13 Egyptian servant figurines carrying baskets. Not sure where this particular example is, but similar 11th/12th dynasty examples are to be seen in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo... And from the Palais Royale museum in Paris: 14 Nebqed (B o t D) 15 Tomb painting of couple playing senet, from University of Waterloo website http://gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/VirtualExhibits/Ancient/Senet/index.html Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Queen Tiye Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
African peoples often symbolize death by the colour white rather than black; at the same time, many African cultures see white as the colour that links them to their ancestors, and it can therefore have a positive meaning. Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Real whites have no lips, like these. [IMG]...
True Caucasians and Mediterranean Caucasians can be quite full-lipped.
Armenian: Georgian: Greek:
Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: this they pay for...smh....
I've asked the resident 'white' boys in a few other threads, they keep talking bout Black Women this and that...however, WHY do 'white' women do this to themSelves (I mean, the examples are endless)
That's a bloke, which is the scary thing (Pete Burns)
Before and after:
I don't know why he wanted to do that to himself. I don't understand why anyone would do this to themself either:
It's not exactly unknown for a black woman to attempt to become more white-looking, meanwhile...
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^Hypocrite, you have failed to produce true white blond, blue eyed ancient Egyptians. What's taking you so long? You deny blacks can vary in their looks, and carefully chose only selected pictures of who you deem to be "truly" black, so why are you posting varied looking "Caucasians"? How is it that you talk of "Mediterraneans caucasoids" yet deny the African variability of the Nile Valley? Deceitful hypocrite why are you using double standards? (edited)
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^Hypocrite, you have failed to produce true white blond, blue eyed ancient Egyptians. What's taking you so long? You deny blacks can vary in their looks, and carefully chose only selected pictures of who you deem to be "truly" black, so why are you posting varied looking "Caucasians"? Why to they vary but blacks don't vary? Deceitful hypocrite why are you using double standards?
"Deceitful hypocrite why are you using double standards?"
It's a part of the practice of white supremacy/how white supremacy works ....
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Indeed, and hypocrisy is its central feature.
Posted by The Gaul (Member # 16198) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Real whites have no lips, like these. [IMG]...
True Caucasians and Mediterranean Caucasians can be quite full-lipped.
Obviously that Armenian, Georgian, and Greek are mixed with black. They are not true caucasoids. The lips says it all.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Not right lioness... not right.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Queen Tiye:
Tiye's parents:
Never saw such classical Africans...
True, indigenous Caucasians, as I have demonstrated, usually have dark hair and eyes, olive skin and medium full lips. Fair Europeans are a sub-group.
I don't know if the 'true negro' is a construct, but the features I described at the start were certainly recognized by the Egyptians in their southern black neighbours. They seem to be ubiquitous across sub saharan africa but not in Egypt north of Nubia. Egyptians virtually never depicted themselves with such features and mummies never reveal them.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Real whites have no lips, like these.
True Caucasians and Mediterranean Caucasians can be quite full-lipped. .???
Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
Those you've posted are not true Caucasians, true cacausians have red hair, very thin lips to no lips at all, very pale skin and freckles. Why you keep posting otherwise, is beyond me?
You clearly don't know your own history.
The "relatively narrow noses" in Egypt are due to the regions relatively cool environment, depending on where one has remained. Some it did/does affect more than the other.
And why you keep posting pictures of the African woman Nefertari is just creazy and dumb. It's called wishful thinking/ dreaming.
And so is it when you posted the picture of a true African scribes man.
The lip plate argument is evident of the expansion of certain African tribe migrations.
The images you've posted don't comprise with this! Sorry!
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)...... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of neriod origin."
Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
Pull out your nazi carlton coon measurement toolkit,
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
The "relatively narrow noses" in Egypt are due to the regions relatively cool environment, depending on where one has remained. Some it did/does affect more than the other.
^^I would add that "cool environment" does not mean the Mediterranean zone. Tropical areas produce cool micro-climes routinely. Indeed, narrow noses can become that way from (a) thinner cooler air at high altitudes as in numerous East African micro environments of the tropics, and (b) the hot dry air of desert climes as in the Sahara. Both places produce narrow nosed Africans without needing any "Mediterranean" coastal area, or "wandering Caucasoids" to make for any "race mix. African peoples can thus vary widely as part of the tropical zone, and that's what the ancient Egyptians were, native, tropically adapted Africans. Just thought to point that out for new readers.
lol... st the lip pretzel guy.. The hypocrite opened the thread with carefully selected black pictures- showing blacks only look a certain way. But notice the hypocrite's double standard- he posts dark skinned Caukzoids and light skinned Caukoziids, thin-lipped ones and full lipped ones, etc. But when it comes to Africa, Africans arent allowed to vary. They are only supposed to look one way.
He has a true negro stereotype, but keeps running away from being consistent and likewise producing a 'true white' model. Hypocrite, what's taking you so long to produce 'true' white ancient Egyptians with blond hair and blue eyes- true markers of white people using your own methods? Why are you running hypocritical coward?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed, narrow noses can become that way from
.... (b) the hot dry air of desert climes as in the Sahara. Both places produce narrow nosed
do you have any studies supporting this?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Queen Tiye:
True, indigenous Caucasians, as I have demonstrated, usually have dark hair and eyes, olive skin and medium full lips. Fair Europeans are a sub-group.
I don't know if the 'true negro' is a construct, but the features I described at the start were certainly recognized by the Egyptians in their southern black neighbours. They seem to be ubiquitous across sub saharan africa but not in Egypt north of Nubia. Egyptians virtually never depicted themselves with such features and mummies never reveal them.
You have demonstrated nothing. There is not such thing as a sub-Caucasian group, and real Caucasians are pale skinned with freckles, red hair and thin to NO lips. That is the true Caucasian. The olive skin in some is due to migrations from Africa into Europe or Indians into Europe. That is why those "groups" you mention have admixture to a particular degree.
And they don't even cluster with Nordics in cranium and genes. So they are a different race anyway and anyhow.
For Ramses, it was debunked many times already. I will leave your destruction on that part to someone else, here. So they can have fun with you and your nazi white-history website. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed, narrow noses can become that way from
.... (b) the hot dry air of desert climes as in the Sahara. Both places produce narrow nosed
do you have any studies supporting this?
You as an anthropologist should know about these studies.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: The "relatively narrow noses" in Egypt are due to the regions relatively cool environment, depending on where one has remained. Some it did/does affect more than the other.
^^I would add that "cool environment" does not mean the Mediterranean zone. Tropical areas produce cool micro-climes routinely. Indeed, narrow noses can become that way from (a) thinner cooler air at high altitudes as in numerous East African micro environments of the tropics, and (b) the hot dry air of desert climes as in the Sahara. Both places produce narrow nosed Africans without needing any "Mediterranean" coastal area, or "wandering Caucasoids" to make for any "race mix. African peoples can thus vary widely as part of the tropical zone, and that's what the ancient Egyptians were, native, tropically adapted Africans. Just thought to point that out for new readers.
lol... st the lip pretzel guy.. The hypocrite opened the thread with carefully selected black pictures- showing blacks only look a certain way. But notice the hypocrite's double standard- he posts dark skinned Caukzoids and light skinned Caukoziids, thin-lipped ones and full lipped ones, etc. But when it comes to Africa, Africans arent allowed to vary. They are only supposed to look one way.
He has a true negro stereotype, but keeps running away from being consistent and likewise producing a 'true white' model. Hypocrite, what's taking you so long to produce 'true' white ancient Egyptians with blond hair and blue eyes- true markers of white people using your own methods? Why are you running hypocritical coward?
Thanks for the add up.
I steated so, because parts of the desert can be very cold during the night, while it gets hot during the day time. But the cold can be surprisingly horrific.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
How original, to show a child in suffering. And enjoying it.
Typical wicked nazi propaganda.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^this is a healthy child, not a suffering child, just a little ashy
you assume but don't know
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^this is a healthy child, not a suffering child, just a little ashy
And yes I did assume. Because the child does not look happy, with that snotty nose. If one sees that picture without a story behind it.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
there are many children that are happy to have snot running down their nose
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: there are many children that are happy to have snot running down their nose
It is not about the snot, its about the image in total. This is why you posted a white snotty child smiling. And this is why I posted a blonde Aboriginal child, smiling and happy, to make a point.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^Hypocrite, you have failed to produce true white blond, blue eyed ancient Egyptians. What's taking you so long? You deny blacks can vary in their looks, and carefully chose only selected pictures of who you deem to be "truly" black, so why are you posting varied looking "Caucasians"? How is it that you talk of "Mediterraneans caucasoids" yet deny the African variability of the Nile Valley? Deceitful hypocrite why are you using double standards? (edited)
Blond blue eyed Egyptians?? Is that a reasonable request? But one thing to keep in mind is that Egypt borders the Middle East and Europe is just across the way. No one in their right mind should believe that that Egyptians weren't geneteically affected by non Africans from the very begining.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^You're not understanding what Zaharan is doing. Rahotep is of the mindset that there is a true "Negroid" that must have thick lips, nappy hair and broad features. He wants us to find examples of these features in the artwork, a challenge which has been fulfilled I will add. So now we are asking him to find examples of what we will call "True Caucasoids" to expose his hypocrisy. After all, if he subscribes to a true Negroid concept then what about a True Caucasoid.... now he is trying to say that the ancient Egyptians had some sort of morphological affinity to people of the Caucasus region even though this claim fails to hold up.
quote:No one in their right mind should believe that that Egyptians weren't geneteically affected by non Africans from the very begining.
Gene flow, at least during state formation, was generally restricted to lower Egypt. Other than that, the Near Eastern influence was small and there is no evidence for a major presence of non-Africans among the ancient Egyptians.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Blond blue eyed Egyptians?? Is that a reasonable request? But one thing to keep in mind is that Egypt borders the Middle East and Europe is just across the way. No one in their right mind should believe that that Egyptians weren't geneteically affected by non Africans from the very begining.
^^It is a reasonable request. If the hypocrite is going to demand that blacks only look one way, then using his same methods he should likewise define a "true white" - even-steven, one standard across the board. Anything less is hypocrisy. And if Egypt as you say is near Europe or the Middle East, you should not then have any problem showing blond, blue eyed ancient Egyptians. Go to it.
Take yo pick below. African peoples have narrow noses as part of built-in native variability. They don't need any "Mediterranean" coasts or "wandering Caucasoids". They can get narrow noses from cool mountain altitudes as in the mountains of East Africa, or they can get them from the dry desert air as in the Sahara. Keep in mind too that tropical zones have periods of cool temperatures. Desert nights also produce cool temperatures, so native peoples do not necessarily need high altitudes. As far as dry desert air, narrower noses also routinely act to filter dust and moisten that dry air. But in ultra-diverse Africa, there are also broad nosed people living in deserts.
It does not rest solely on climate. As the most genetically diverse region on earth, tropical Africans can have any facial feature without needing any "wandering caucasoids" or even a particular climate to explain why. No matter which way you slice it, it's all African.
[QUOTES] ----------------------------- "Weiner suggests that longer noses are more effective for moistening the excessively dry desert air, thereby avoiding the problems of infection that may occur when the respiratory tract is abnormally dried. In her discussion of this issue, Brues (1977) feels that a longer nose may also filter dust more effectively." --Francis E. Johnston, Henry A. Selby - 1978 - Anthropology, the biocultural view --------------------------------
"many peoples who live in arid lands have narrow noses.." F. Hulse. The human species: an introduction to biological anthropology (1971), pg 340 ------------------------------
"Adaptation to night cold is also common in desert-adapted people. High altitudes demand a degree of cold adaptation plus adaptation for low air pressure and the consequent low oxygen. This adaptation is accomplished by an increase in ..." -- Encyclopaedia Britannica, inc - 1995 Micropedia, Climate, page 387 ------------------------
'An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. ' -C.L. Brace (1993) Clines and Clusters
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz' Rahotep is of the mindset that there is a true "Negroid" that must have thick lips, nappy hair and broad features. He wants us to find examples of these features in the artwork, a challenge which has been fulfilled I will add. So now we are asking him to find examples of what we will call "True Caucasoids" to expose his hypocrisy. After all, if he subscribes to a true Negroid concept then what about a True Caucasoid
I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race. Otherwise we will never arrive at any conclusion. I notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
Gene flow, at least during state formation, was generally restricted to lower Egypt. Other than that, the Near Eastern influence was small and there is no evidence for a major presence of non-Africans among the ancient Egyptians.
I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Ish Gabor,
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Take yo pick below. African peoples have narrow noses as part of built-in native variability. They don'tneed any "Mediterranean" coasts or "wandering Caucasoids".
Narrow noses are not adaptive to hot or tropical climates. Also many horn African have a genetic signature that is distinct from other Africans which would indicate some mixture from western Asia. In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race.. just because you both orginate from an arbritarily drawn chunk of land called Africa? Note, I'm not saying that HOAs are not Blacks. But in Anthropolgy, phenotypical differences are the distinguishing marks of so called races, not Haplogroups, culture, language or place of origin. To say you and Horn Africans are both Africans is one thing, but to hold that folks should see you both as the same and somehow interchangeable is something else entirely. Just sayin..
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
DELETE.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
Exactly..
Ethiopian Man Shot in LA; Police Suspect Race a Factor
Ethiopian Shot; Police Suspect Race a Factor
By Natasha Lee and Alicia Wittmeyer, Times Staff Writers
An Ethiopian immigrant was in critical condition today, after he was shot by gang members while driving with friends in Jefferson park late Monday.
Ghebremicael Asmelash, 21, was shot in the chest at close range after a confrontation with a pair of gang members that left him "very seriously injured," said Los Angeles Police Department Lt. John Pasquariello.
Asmelash and his friends were stopped at a traffic light at Adams Boulevard and Crenshaw Boulevard when a dark Honda Accord pulled up alongside them about 12:30 a.m., Pasquariello said. The men in the Accord asked Asmelash and his three friends where they were from — referring to their gang affiliation.
When someone in the car said, "Ethiopia," the driver of the Accord got out of the car, walked over and shot Asmelash once in the chest, Pasquariello said. The assailants then fled southbound on Crenshaw. Asmelash was taken to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.
Police believe the shooting is connected to the ongoing tension between Los Angeles' Latino and black communities. The gang members were Latino, Pasquariello said, although he would not confirm which gang they were affiliated with.
Asmelash and his friends were not associated with any gang activity, he said.
"Ethiopian is not a buzzword for any gang affiliation," Pasquariello said. "This guy just showed up and shot him, merely because he was of the right color or race. That does happen."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/l...l=la-home-local __________________ It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people. "
-Giordano Bruno
Minnesota: Somali Niggers Post Beatings on Youtube; Video
The woman goes into a place like Somalia....a country in anarchy swimming in tribal violence. However vile and evil rape maybe, it's a weapon during war that's been used since the dawn of time. The fact that she's a foreigner makes her more of a prize because she can bring the reward of a ransom. You can't simply go into a war zone and expect to be treated with kid gloves.
What war? They could not have mistaken her for an Ethiopian.
The fact that she is a White woman in a land of primitive forms of life made her a prize to these crude beings, any ransom would take a back seat to them each getting "their freak on" with a Heidi Klum.
You can't go into a nigger zone expecting to be treated like anything but a nigger.
When you see "Starving Africans" its usually East Africans not West Africans yet people associate that image with all of Africa..
More images associated with Afrian "Primitiveness"
Michel Savage on Ethiopians
On the October 23 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage said of Ethiopians:
"The people down there have flies around their eyes,"[b] adding, "I never went into an Ethiopian restaurant. The Ethiopians come here to eat American food."
Earlier in the broadcast, while discussing Ramadan and the continued violence in Iraq, Savage suggested that
Islam is "a bloodthirsty religion that's practiced over there by a bunch of throwbacks, and we're gonna to kill 'em." Savage called for the United States to say: "That's it, we're leaving them; we're killing them."
[b]I can just imagine them at an Ethiopian restaurant what they must carry on. Do liberals go to an Ethiopian restaurant? Could you imagine they're eating food from that area?[b]What do they eat down in Ethiopia? I never went in one. There was one in San Francisco. Why would you eat in an Ethiopian restaurant? The people down there have flies around their eyes. What would they -- what kind of cuisine comes from Eretea [sic]? I never went into an Ethiopian restaurant. The Ethiopians come here to eat American food. You don't need to wind up with flies in your baby eye -- baby's eye.[/i]
Whites are incnsistant when it comes to Africans, the only reason they care about East Africans is because of their association with Egypt and to claim East African culture as European or Caucasian. Other than that East africans are seen as much of a representation of a "Nigger" as a West African.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Whites are incnsistant when it comes to Africans, the only reason they care about East Africans is because of their association with Egypt and to claim East African culture as European or Caucasian. Other than that East africans are seen as much of a representation of a "Nigger" as a West African.
How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race. And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor,
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
The original cacuasians are and were red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
And once again you have exposed yourself on the racist and bais argument of independently / parallel inventions.
And the whole village argument is rubbish too, since we are speaking of very small populations/ tribes. Who flimsy compared to major tribes.
And your outdated argument has been debunked already, as has been stated previously. There are Africans with natural red hair, which developed independently and local. But nazi dimwits such as yourself don't know. Comprise this with all the other recent data, I have posted, you are left in the dust.
You even try to steal reptiles features. Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Whites are incnsistant when it comes to Africans, the only reason they care about East Africans is because of their association with Egypt and to claim East African culture as European or Caucasian. Other than that East africans are seen as much of a representation of a "Nigger" as a West African.
How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race. And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
Why does a pale face like you feels that what you feel about us is of any importance?
You are not relevant, don't you get it?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Ish Gebor,
There is not such thing as a sub-Caucasian group, and real Caucasians are pale skinned with freckles, red hair and thin to NO lips. That is the true Caucasian. The olive skin in some is due to migrations from Africa into Europe or Indians into Europe. That is why those "groups" you mention have admixture to a particular degree.
Lol. It seems many Afrocentrics have a distorted view of "Whites" if you go to many European countries you will find that many people are not so pale and blond. Hell even in Southern Germany/Bavaria people tend to have a sallow color which made racists like Benjamin Frankin critical of them. As folks came out of Africa they didn't just go from Black to White over night. Population became gradually lighter as they moved further North. Thus olive complexioned folks would precede pink whites. Those folks who moved into the Northern regions of Europe became even lighter over time. But those that remained in a Mediterranean climate kept there complexion. It is not necessarily indicative of any mixture.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Take yo pick below. African peoples have narrow noses as part of built-in native variability. They don'tneed any "Mediterranean" coasts or "wandering Caucasoids".
Narrow noses are not adaptive to hot or tropical climates. Also many horn African have a genetic signature that is distinct from other Africans which would indicate some mixture from western Asia. In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race.. just because you both orginate from an arbritarily drawn chunk of land called Africa? Note, I'm not saying that HOAs are not Blacks. But in Anthropolgy, phenotypical differences are the distinguishing marks of so called races, not Haplogroups, culture, language or place of origin. To say you and Horn Africans are both Africans is one thing, but to hold that folks should see you both as the same and somehow interchangeable is something else entirely. Just sayin..
Always looking for excuses.
The same ideology can be applied to Europeans. AKA the trouble maker.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Why does a pale face like you feels that what you feel about us is of any importance? You are not relevant, don't you get it?
Am I a pale face? You don't even know what race I am.
And truth and facts are always relevant.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Ish Gebor,
There is not such thing as a sub-Caucasian group, and real Caucasians are pale skinned with freckles, red hair and thin to NO lips. That is the true Caucasian. The olive skin in some is due to migrations from Africa into Europe or Indians into Europe. That is why those "groups" you mention have admixture to a particular degree.
Lol. It seems many Afrocentrics have a distorted view of "Whites" if you go to many European countries you will find that many people are not so pale and blond. Hell even in Southern Germany/Bavaria people tend to have a sallow color which made racists like Benjamin Frankin critical of them. As folks came out of Africa they didn't just go from Black to White over night. Population became gradually lighter as they moved further North. Thus olive complexioned folks would precede pink whites. Those folks who moved into the Northern regions of Europe became even lighter over time. But those that remained in a Mediterranean climate kept there complexion. It is not necessarily indicative of any mixture.
Lol it seems that many NAZIS have distorted views on Africans. And think they are of any importance.
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
You nazis have come up with so much rubbish arguments all over the Internet, it's becoming funny. You are all disputing one another with crappy claims.
Plus on top of that many Europeans populations do not even cluster in to a common clade. As they also differ in phenotype- genotype. You are not the same race, as you try to claim and imply. It is a LIE!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Why does a pale face like you feels that what you feel about us is of any importance? You are not relevant, don't you get it?
Am I a pale face? You don't even know what race I am.
And truth and facts are always relevant.
See, how stupid these folks are! With that dumb argument.
You speak no truth nor any fact, accept for nazi propaganda.
Come tell your junk amongst us, so we can smash your nazi head!
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The same ideology can be applied to Europeans.
Excpet Europe is a much smaller area and as a result Euroepans tend to look more similar to each other than many different African groups. Also Europeans share a common cultural and linguistic history for the most part, speaking related Indo European langauges, and inheriting the cultural and intellectual tradtions of Greece and Rome. You on the other hand have very little to connect you with ancient Egyptians and Eastern Africans except for the broad term "African".
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Why does a pale face like you feels that what you feel about us is of any importance? You are not relevant, don't you get it?
Am I a pale face? You don't even know what race I am.
And truth and facts are always relevant.
See, how stupid these folks are! With that dumb argument.
You speak no truth nor any fact, accept for nazi propaganda.
Come tell your junk amongst us, so we can smash your nazi head!
See your first fault is to call me a Nazi because I don't agree with your fantasies which are based on the deep psyvchological need to feel that you have accomplished something, to connect your self with greatness. It's all understandable, believe me. What you really need is a hug! Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
Well there are few of those then. SO what does that make everyone else??
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ]Why does a pale face like you feels that what you feel about us is of any importance?
You are not relevant, don't you get it?
Is there a way to make the above quote appear in HUGE EMPHASIZED LETTERS, other than just all caps...
They ALL need to real-eyes it:
WHY DOES A PALE FACE LIKE YOU FEEL THAT WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT US IS OF ANY IMPORTANCE?
YOU ARE NOT RELEVANT, DON'T YOU GET IT?
Sadly, their false sense of superiority doesn't allow them to make that important real-eyes-ation... They just don't seem to get that there are nuff of us who at the end of the day, just don't give a daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmm how they feel! Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
The word Caucasian itself first came in usage to define the white peoples of Georgia noted for their beauty:
Blacks in contrast are ugly -
All afrocentrics on this forum are in denial. Their racism against whites which fills these threads is nothing more than their insecurity and envy.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race.
What are you talking about I was responding to this comment you made..
And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes.
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race..
Please be consistant, you made the claim that "The Western World" sees the West African as a representation of the black man, when the evidence says otherwise. Majority of the "Starving African" image comes from Ethiopia, the Lip plate Ethiopian are HOA, and the recent savage image of Africa are Somali Pirates.
HOAs are seen just as savage and backward in the West until the discussion turns to Lalibella, Mogidishu, Geez. Axum, and the Ethiopian and HOA Language and genetics being related to A. Egyptians, then suddenly people want to start claiming these Starving Lip Plated Africans as "Caucasian".
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
HOA's come in different phenotypes and sizes. Most look no different than the typical West African except those living on the Highlands.
Also many slaves were taken from the East Coast of Africa as well as Madagascar so yes, many of them DO look like us, and many A.A have East African blood running in our veins.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: True Caucasians and Mediterranean Caucasians can be quite full-lipped.
"True Caucasians", so I suppose those Europeans with the thin lips are Fake Caucasians. LOL
By the way, there exists among populations of the Caucasus frequencies of African derived lineages such as mt M1 derived lineages. This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.
You say full lips is not uncommon among True Caucasians but neither is wooly hair!
And let's not get into steatopygia.
quote:Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
By the way, we all know the seated scribe had paint that was originally much darker (black). As for his features.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
It's rather hilarious. I remember DaHoslips mentioning how ancient Egyptians have full lips but the lips are not "fleshy" like a black person's. This was the same bogus argument used by racist anthropologist back then who claimed Egyptians were not "negro" because their lips were full but not everted and were thus "Mediterranean". Suffice to say, these same anthropologists included Beja, Nubians, and Ethiopians as "Mediterraneans" as well.
But here is for Egyptians not having fleshy lips.
He complains about the Tut reconstruction made by a forensic team for Discovery Channel having lips that are too fleshy as if such a trait would be inaccurate for an Egyptian.
Yet here is a reconstruction of Akhenaten..
It is in profile view but it looks very similar to this statue of him..
And here is a reconstruction of the KV35 Younger Lady who is Akhenaten's sister..
Obviously fleshy lips runs in the family as such a trait is common among Egyptians in the first place! Now the fool tries to associate the trait with Europeans of the Caucasus and Mediterranean! LOL
By the way, that he ignored my post about Caucasian and Greek communities in modern Egypt is not at all surprising. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
You on the other hand have very little to connect you with ancient Egyptians and Eastern Africans except for the broad term "African".
^^Complete bullshiit. Both ancient Egyptians, East Africans and West Africans are tropically adapted Africans and derive from the tropical zone, and are linked via Haplogroup E. In both cranial and limb proportion studies, tropical Africans cluster much more closely with Egyptians than your beloved Europeans. DNA shows the same pattern. The cultural links have already been detailed below. And as for languages, Africa has several but so what? India has hundreds of languages but you are still calling them Indian. Asia has hundreds of languages as well, from Turkey, to the Phillipines to China, but no one denies them being Asian. Why though when it comes to Africa, you apply a racist double standard that denies the Africanity of various peoples? You are no different from the hypocrite Rahotep.
Narrow noses are not adaptive to hot or tropical climates. ^^Complete nonsense, and several references have been given showing you simply don't know what you are talking about.
Also many horn African have a genetic signature that is distinct from other Africans which would indicate some mixture from western Asia.
^Simplistic nonsense. A varying genetic signature means just that- another African variant. We all know that Horners have some outside gene flow from Arabs, Italians etc in recent centuries, but FUNDAMENTALLY a distinct variation does not necessarily signify any "race mix."
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race.. just because you both orginate from an arbritarily drawn chunk of land called Africa?
^There is plenty of basis -- genetic, environmental, and cultural elements to show the fundamental unity of the African peoples, whether they be from the Horn or elsewhere. The genetics are shown by Haplogroup E, the PN2 transition and numerous other elements discussed often here at ES. The environmnetal is shown in that Horners are part of the tropical zone and are thus tropically adapted Africans just like their brethren in West, South, Central, North (excluding certain Arabized coastal regions- bu including North African areas like Chad, Mali or the Sudan) or east Africa. The cultural is seen in artifacts, religion, certain political forms etc (the king as rainmaker, regicide, aminal gods etc etc.) There are just beginning examples, that provide plenty of "basis"..
And your notion of Horn Africans "looking like me" is bogus. Africans vary in their looks just like other populations. They don't all look alike as your racist model would have it.
Note, I'm not saying that HOAs are not Blacks. But in Anthropolgy, phenotypical differences are the distinguishing marks of so called races, not Haplogroups, culture, language or place of origin. To say you and Horn Africans are both Africans is one thing, but to hold that folks should see you both as the same and somehow interchangeable is something else entirely. Just sayin
^If as you say phenotypical differences are markers of so called races, why do you lump dark-skinned, Indian peoples' some with broad noses like the Dravidians, with pale skinned narrow featured white blondes from northern Europe into a 'Caucasoid' race? Using your own approach, phenotypically they should be assigned to the black race. You contradict yourself. Here you say we should go by phenotype, yet when the Horner phenotype shows black, you start to wriggle and waffle. Why the double standard?
Based on the credible evidence you have presented so far, if you "just sayin" you are saying nonsense...
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
rahotep, myself and several others are still waiting for the afrocentrics to explain why the earliest pre-dynastic mummies are straight red or blonde haired if they were negroid.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: this they pay for...smh....
I've asked the resident 'white' boys in a few other threads, they keep talking bout Black Women this and that...however, WHY do 'white' women do this to themSelves (I mean, the examples are endless)
That's a bloke, which is the scary thing (Pete Burns)
Before and after:
Yuck! I thought that was stubble on his chin! LOL And his new lips are not only more full but everted! A bizarre look for a white person in general man or woman.
quote:I don't know why he wanted to do that to himself. I don't understand why anyone would do this to themself either:
Specific cultural patterns of beauty is the reason. Lip plates are also worn by men of the South American Suya people.
Each culture has their own bizarre views of beauty from the crippling bound feet of Chinese women to the less extreme but still painful high heels of Western women. Not too long ago white women were wearing corsets that squeezed their internal organs. Now they are getting implants in their breasts
quote:It's not exactly unknown for a black woman to attempt to become more white-looking, meanwhile...
It sure is not! We know such black women are psychologically affected by culturally dominant i.e. White ideals of beauty. Such ideals have also adversely affected Asian women as well with many Asian women bleaching their skin and in the case of East Asians getting rounder eyes through surgery.
The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.'' ===
Another lie.
The Colchains were white skinned, and even blonde.
Apollonius of Rhodes in his Argonautica describes Medea, the daughter of King Aeetes of Colchis as blonde (Argonautica, III. 829):
''Now soon as ever the maiden saw the light of dawn, with her hands she gathered up her long blonde locks which were floating round her shoulders in careless disarray''
In verse 30 of Euripides' Medea, Medea is described as having a white skinned neck: ''she is silent unless perchance to turn her snow-white neck and weep to herself for her dear father and her country and her ancestral house'', in verse 920 also when Jason adresses Medea she is described as white cheeked: ''You there, why do you dampen your eyes with pale tears and turn your white cheek away, and why are you not pleased to hear these words from me?''
Medea was a native Colchian and the daughter of the King of Colchis.
The colchians were not black.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??'' =====
No one wants to look black. Black features are ugly and hated hence all black females attempt to straighten their hair and look like white females.
Chris rock did a documentary on how black women in america spend billions on their hair to straighen it so they can look like white woman. Chris rock's own daughter told him afro/wooly hair is ugly and she wants long straight hair like white girls her age.
The fact is all black females want straight hair like whites - and there is a billion dollar industry.
In contrast there is no billion dollar industry created by white woman to look black.
Posted by Simple Girl (Member # 16578) on :
The areas surrounding the Black Sea had the earliest evidence for civilization.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles.'' ========
That only fits the description of certain groups within the Caucasoid race. The main sub-races are Mediterraneanoid and Nordic (or Aryan). Most Caucasoids today are a mixture of both these sub-races and the indigenous Mediterraneanoids are virtually now extinct (you can only find them in parts of Cornwall, England, the Basque Country between France and Spain and isolated parts of the Caucasus).
Anthropological peer reviewed journals still continue to use these sub-race terms.
Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles with thin to NO lips. And males are very hairy.
All the other attempts are baseless nonsense.
Now tell me what haplotype does the real "negroe" carry. The woman you kept showing with high prognathism. What haplo does she predomantly carry?
Show the world how stupid you are. So we can have a good laugh.
Nordics are not Arians/ Aryans. That's just another nazi fantasy you cling onto.
Iranians are the Arians/ Aryans.
Mediterraneanoid? More ridiculous nonsense!
And what you forget to venture is the haplotype of those different races you are showing. They all differ, don't look alike and are simple not of the same race. This is clear.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor,
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
The original cacuasians are and were red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
And once again you have exposed yourself on the racist and bais argument of independently / parallel inventions.
And the whole village argument is rubbish too, since we are speaking of very small populations/ tribes. Who flimsy compared to major tribes.
And your outdated argument has been debunked already, as has been stated previously. There are Africans with natural red hair, which developed independently and local. But nazi dimwits such as yourself don't know. Comprise this with all the other recent data, I have posted, you are left in the dust.
You even try to steal reptiles features.
I know I'm up against an idiot who has nothing sensible to say when I get called a nazi simply for casting doubt on the fantasy of black Egypt. I have made no insinuations about a master race, I have only pointed out obvious differences. Afrocentrists and those who deny the modern Egyptians their own ancestors, these are the racists. Idiots who think melanin makes them the only true HUE-man beings, whereas this common pigment is found in plants, creepy-crawlies and mollusks as well!
Nazi indeed. Are you mad? How do you make the leap from recognizing difference to committing genocide? My grandparents had bombs dropped on them by the Nazis. I come from the country that stood up against the Nazi Germans and the fascist Italians longer and more resolutely than any other nation. What country was Haille Selassie's refuge when the Fascists were stomping all over Ethiopia, meanwhile? Whose army liberated Belsen?
There is nothing racist about doubting whether the people of cenral east Africa ever had any contact with the Amazonian Indians, just because they both ruin their faces in the same manner. Modern whites in the west aren't the only ones who go in for such excesses of self-mutilation, either.
If you think true caucasians have to be thin lipped, pale skinned and red haired, that is your definition, not mine, but then what do you make of these ladies: Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gabor,
Among the earliest peoples described as red haired include certain Russian tribes and the Thracians, but red hair was never a primary feature of Caucasians. That said I doubt you get natural red heads who were not Caucasians, and various members of the Egyptian 19th dynasty appear to have been exactly that. Ramesses' natural red hair is mentioned in his biography by Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley, (p. 15) who cites the scientific analysis of his hair roots carried out by Balout and Roubert. This has not been debunked. Several different labs working independently returned the same results.
South Americans were, it seems, disposed to invent lip plates independently, for reasons best known to themselves. The odd white 'modern primitive' may also go in for that sort of thing, but I doubt you'll ever see a whole village of them.
The original cacuasians are and were red haired, pale skinned with freckles.
And once again you have exposed yourself on the racist and bais argument of independently / parallel inventions.
And the whole village argument is rubbish too, since we are speaking of very small populations/ tribes. Who flimsy compared to major tribes.
And your outdated argument has been debunked already, as has been stated previously. There are Africans with natural red hair, which developed independently and local. But nazi dimwits such as yourself don't know. Comprise this with all the other recent data, I have posted, you are left in the dust.
You even try to steal reptiles features.
I know I'm up against an idiot who has nothing sensible to say when I get called a nazi simply for casting doubt on the fantasy of black Egypt. I have made no insinuations about a master race, I have only pointed out obvious differences. Afrocentrists and those who deny the modern Egyptians their own ancestors, these are the racists. Idiots who think melanin makes them the only true HUE-man beings, whereas this common pigment is found in plants, creepy-crawlies and mollusks as well!
Nazi indeed. Are you mad? How do you make the leap from recognizing difference to committing genocide? My grandparents had bombs dropped on them by the Nazis. I come from the country that stood up against the Nazi Germans and the fascist Italians longer and more resolutely than any other nation. What country was Haille Selassie's refuge when the Fascists were stomping all over Ethiopia, meanwhile? Whose army liberated Belsen?
There is nothing racist about doubting whether the people of cenral east Africa ever had any contact with the Amazonian Indians, just because they both ruin their faces in the same manner. Modern whites in the west aren't the only ones who go in for such excesses of self-mutilation, either.
If you think true caucasians have to be thin lipped, pale skinned and red haired, that is your definition, not mine, but then what do you make of these ladies:
Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles, thin to NO lips.
That white-history website, it is better than comedy central. When I need a good laugh, I'll visit that. Ancient Egyptians came from the South, known as Badarians, Sahelians / Saharans. Those are not cacuasian ladies, those are African Northeast -African mythical drawings! This flys over your studip nazi head.
I take the cake,
Hi babe, play with my rings and kiss my thin lips, muah.
I am bad by myself.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: True Caucasians and Mediterranean Caucasians can be quite full-lipped.
"True Caucasians", so I suppose those Europeans with the thin lips are Fake Caucasians. LOL
By the way, there exists among populations of the Caucasus frequencies of African derived lineages such as mt M1 derived lineages. This may have to do with historical reports by the Greeks about the Colchians having African ancestry as due to their black African appearance.
You say full lips is not uncommon among True Caucasians but neither is wooly hair!
And let's not get into steatopygia.
quote:Full lips were and remain the norm in Egypt, yet some ancient Egyptian images show narrow ones.
By the way, we all know the seated scribe had paint that was originally much darker (black). As for his features.
hold on now...sorry but while it's fact that Kim Kardashian had plastic surgery to enhance her lips, it's still up in the air as to whether she PAID for that batty or whether she was BORN with it....lol...
quote: Her father was a third generation Armenian American and her mother is of Dutch and Scottish descent.[2] Her paternal great-grandparents immigrated to Los Angeles from historic Armenia (then part of the Ottoman Empire, now in Turkey). Her last name in Armenian (spelled Քարտաշեան in Armenian) means "son of a stonemason."
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
TRUE
Exodus iii, 14
God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”
Leviticus xxvi,12
“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”
Exodus xx,1-17
The Ten Commandments
Matthew v,7
The Sermon on the Mount
Mark viii,29
Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ
Luke i
The Virgin Birth
John xx,28
Proof of bodily resurrection
The Times Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: How folks react to you in soceity does not define anthropological race.
What are you talking about I was responding to this comment you made..
And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes.
In any case, Horn Africans don't look like you. So on what basis then are you both the same race..
Please be consistant, you made the claim that "The Western World" sees the West African as a representation of the black man, when the evidence says otherwise. Majority of the "Starving African" image comes from Ethiopia, the Lip plate Ethiopian are HOA, and the recent savage image of Africa are Somali Pirates.
HOAs are seen just as savage and backward in the West until the discussion turns to Lalibella, Mogidishu, Geez. Axum, and the Ethiopian and HOA Language and genetics being related to A. Egyptians, then suddenly people want to start claiming these Starving Lip Plated Africans as "Caucasian".
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: And while I can't see calling East Africans Caucasians, there is something to be said for their difference in appaearance mostly Horn Africna not so much Kenyans or Sudanese etc. Personally I consider them all Black because to be practical, I feel that they have more in common with other Africans on many levels. But if some Anthropogists decides to classify them as a distinct race based on their physical differences, I don't necessarily think that would be invalid. For as subjectiuve as the notion of race is, phenotypical diffrences is what it is all based on, after all.
HOA's come in different phenotypes and sizes. Most look no different than the typical West African except those living on the Highlands.
Also many slaves were taken from the East Coast of Africa as well as Madagascar so yes, many of them DO look like us, and many A.A have East African blood running in our veins.
Adding up to this, Sahalians/ Saharan tribes are predominantly nomadic. They at times moved from East-, Northeast to West Africa as well and vice versa. Some of them are known as Chadic. Chadics are Afrasian speakers. I understand you know this. But I had to put this in.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote: No one wants to look black. Black features are ugly and hated hence all black females attempt to straighten their hair and look like white females.
Chris rock did a documentary on how black women in america spend billions on their hair to straighen it so they can look like white woman. Chris rock's own daughter told him afro/wooly hair is ugly and she wants long straight hair like white girls her age.
The fact is all black females want straight hair like whites - and there is a billion dollar industry.
The key word above is 'ALL"...FACT/TRUTH is that not ALL Black Women want straight hair and/or want to look like 'white' women...and I am telling you this as a Black Woman who has never once had her hair straightened, and who loves and was raised to love my beautiful dark skin...
regardless, still doesn't take away from the fact that more than enough 'white' women risk sun poisoning and/or melanoma to darken their skin and pay nuff money to give themselves features that African women/women of African descent are naturally born with...
LOTS of 'white' women pay to get perms in their hair to make it curly or wavy or thick...rather than just love their own Natural lank stringy hair they were born with (not that all are born with such hair)
While there are plenty of MISguided Black Men running around chasing behind 'white women skirts, I happen to know there is NO shortage of Black Men who feel that 'white' women are the bottom of the barrel and have no interest (and have literally stated such, lol)...there is also no shortage of Black Men who will use 'white' women for a d*ck warmer, but when it comes to children and family/marriage it will be a Black Woman for them...
As a Self-Aware, Conscious and Self-Loving Afro-Caribbean Woman, I could give a rat's ass what you or any other 'white' person think about Black People- your ASSPINIONS do not count and are meaningless...and remember, you came here engaging with US, we are not over yonder attempting to engage with you.....you 'white' people just can't help yourSelves, just have to see what Black folks are up to, lolol
quote: Let Malcolm X wrap up for me:
"Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to so much so that you don’t want to be around each other? You know. Before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you."
Black People are waking up, some a lil more slowly than others....
Nuff said.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
I am not going to even join this bible reasoning ting...cah JAH know if I eva get started take for instance, the book of Genesis and the two different stories of Creation one of them, JAH mek man/woman first before the other living creations (ie, birds, animals, fish); the other, JAH mek man/woman last/after the other living creations; one, JAH create both man and woman from the dust in the ground; the other, woman came from man's rib....
we sposed to choose right?
Nobody answer that PLEASE.. yeah, mek I stay far from the reLIEgious reasoning iyah...lol..
quote: Actually, that's not in the Bible
By John Blake, CNN
(CNN) – NFL legend Mike Ditka was giving a news conference one day after being fired as the coach of the Chicago Bears when he decided to quote the Bible.
“Scripture tells you that all things shall pass,” a choked-up Ditka said after leading his team to only five wins during the previous season. “This, too, shall pass.”
Ditka fumbled his biblical citation, though. The phrase “This, too, shall pass” doesn’t appear in the Bible. Ditka was quoting a phantom scripture that sounds like it belongs in the Bible, but look closer and it’s not there.
Ditka’s biblical blunder is as common as preachers delivering long-winded public prayers. The Bible may be the most revered book in America, but it’s also one of the most misquoted. Politicians, motivational speakers, coaches - all types of people - quote passages that actually have no place in the Bible, religious scholars say.
These phantom passages include:
“God helps those who help themselves.”
“Spare the rod, spoil the child.”
And there is this often-cited paraphrase: Satan tempted Eve to eat the forbidden apple in the Garden of Eden.
None of those passages appear in the Bible, and one is actually anti-biblical, scholars say.
But people rarely challenge them because biblical ignorance is so pervasive that it even reaches groups of people who should know better, says Steve Bouma-Prediger, a religion professor at Hope College in Holland, Michigan.
“In my college religion classes, I sometimes quote 2 Hesitations 4:3 (‘There are no internal combustion engines in heaven’),” Bouma-Prediger says. “I wait to see if anyone realizes that there is no such book in the Bible and therefore no such verse.
“Only a few catch on.”
Few catch on because they don’t want to - people prefer knowing biblical passages that reinforce their pre-existing beliefs, a Bible professor says.
“Most people who profess a deep love of the Bible have never actually read the book,” says Rabbi Rami Shapiro, who once had to persuade a student in his Bible class at Middle Tennessee State University that the saying “this dog won’t hunt” doesn’t appear in the Book of Proverbs.
“They have memorized parts of texts that they can string together to prove the biblical basis for whatever it is they believe in,” he says, “but they ignore the vast majority of the text."
Phantom biblical passages work in mysterious ways
Ignorance isn’t the only cause for phantom Bible verses. Confusion is another.
Some of the most popular faux verses are pithy paraphrases of biblical concepts or bits of folk wisdom.
Consider these two:
“God works in mysterious ways.”
“Cleanliness is next to Godliness.”
Both sound as if they are taken from the Bible, but they’re not. The first is a paraphrase of a 19th century hymn by the English poet William Cowper (“God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform).
The “cleanliness” passage was coined by John Wesley, the 18th century evangelist who founded Methodism, says Thomas Kidd, a history professor at Baylor University in Texas.
“No matter if John Wesley or someone else came up with a wise saying - if it sounds proverbish, people figure it must come from the Bible,” Kidd says.
Our fondness for the short and tweet-worthy may also explain our fondness for phantom biblical phrases. The pseudo-verses function like theological tweets: They’re pithy summarizations of biblical concepts.
“Spare the rod, spoil the child” falls into that category. It’s a popular verse - and painful for many kids. Could some enterprising kid avoid the rod by pointing out to his mother that it's not in the Bible?
It’s doubtful. Her possible retort: The popular saying is a distillation of Proverbs 13:24: “The one who withholds [or spares] the rod is one who hates his son.”
Another saying that sounds Bible-worthy: “Pride goes before a fall.” But its approximation, Proverbs 16:18, is actually written: “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
There are some phantom biblical verses for which no excuse can be offered. The speaker goofed.
That’s what Bruce Wells, a theology professor, thinks happened to Ditka, the former NFL coach, when he strayed from the gridiron to biblical commentary during his 1993 press conference in Chicago.
Wells watched Ditka’s biblical blunder on local television when he lived in Chicago. After Ditka cited the mysterious passage, reporters scrambled unsuccessfully the next day to find the biblical source.
They should have consulted Wells, who is now director of the ancient studies program at Saint Joseph’s University in Pennsylvania. Wells says Ditka’s error probably came from a peculiar feature of the King James Bible.
“My hunch on the Ditka quote is that it comes from a quirk of the King James translation,” Wells says. “Ancient Hebrew had a particular way of saying things like, ‘and the next thing that happened was…’ The King James translators of the Old Testament consistently rendered this as ‘and it came to pass.’ ’’
When phantom Bible passages turn dangerous
People may get verses wrong, but they also mangle plenty of well-known biblical stories as well.
Two examples: The scripture never says a whale swallowed Jonah, the Old Testament prophet, nor did any New Testament passages say that three wise men visited baby Jesus, scholars say.
Those details may seem minor, but scholars say one popular phantom Bible story stands above the rest: The Genesis story about the fall of humanity.
Most people know the popular version - Satan in the guise of a serpent tempts Eve to pick the forbidden apple from the Tree of Life. It’s been downhill ever since.
But the story in the book of Genesis never places Satan in the Garden of Eden.
“Genesis mentions nothing but a serpent,” says Kevin Dunn, chair of the department of religion at Tufts University in Massachusetts.
“Not only does the text not mention Satan, the very idea of Satan as a devilish tempter postdates the composition of the Garden of Eden story by at least 500 years,” Dunn says.
Getting biblical scriptures and stories wrong may not seem significant, but it can become dangerous, one scholar says.
Most people have heard this one: “God helps those that help themselves.” It’s another phantom scripture that appears nowhere in the Bible, but many people think it does. It's actually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the nation's founding fathers.
The passage is popular in part because it is a reflection of cherished American values: individual liberty and self-reliance, says Sidnie White Crawford, a religious studies scholar at the University of Nebraska.
Yet that passage contradicts the biblical definition of goodness: defining one’s worth by what one does for others, like the poor and the outcast, Crawford says.
Crawford cites a scripture from Leviticus that tells people that when they harvest the land, they should leave some “for the poor and the alien” (Leviticus 19:9-10), and another passage from Deuteronomy that declares that people should not be “tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor.”
“We often infect the Bible with our own values and morals, not asking what the Bible’s values and morals really are,” Crawford says.
Where do these phantom passages come from?
It’s easy to blame the spread of phantom biblical passages on pervasive biblical illiteracy. But the causes are varied and go back centuries.
Some of the guilty parties are anonymous, lost to history. They are artists and storytellers who over the years embellished biblical stories and passages with their own twists.
If, say, you were an anonymous artist painting the Garden of Eden during the Renaissance, why not portray the serpent as the devil to give some punch to your creation? And if you’re a preacher telling a story about Jonah, doesn’t it just sound better to say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, not a “great fish”?
Others blame the spread of phantom Bible passages on King James, or more specifically the declining popularity of the King James translation of the Bible.
That translation, which marks 400 years of existence this year, had a near monopoly on the Bible market as recently as 50 years ago, says Douglas Jacobsen, a professor of church history and theology at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
“If you quoted the Bible and got it wrong then, people were more likely to notice because there was only one text,” he says. “Today, so many different translations are used that almost no one can tell for sure if something supposedly from the Bible is being quoted accurately or not.”
Others blame the spread of phantom biblical verses on Martin Luther, the German monk who ignited the Protestant Reformation, the massive “protest” against the excesses of the Roman Catholic Church that led to the formation of Protestant church denominations.
“It is a great Protestant tradition for anyone - milkmaid, cobbler, or innkeeper - to be able to pick up the Bible and read for herself. No need for a highly trained scholar or cleric to walk a lay person through the text,” says Craig Hazen, director of the Christian Apologetics program at Biola University in Southern California.
But often the milkmaid, the cobbler - and the NFL coach - start creating biblical passages without the guidance of biblical experts, he says.
“You can see this manifest today in living room Bible studies across North America where lovely Christian people, with no training whatsoever, drink decaf, eat brownies and ask each other, ‘What does this text mean to you?’’’ Hazen says.
“Not only do they get the interpretation wrong, but very often end up quoting verses that really aren’t there.”
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
rahotep, myself and several others are still waiting for the afrocentrics to explain why the earliest pre-dynastic mummies are straight red or blonde haired if they were negroid.
^^You have already been debunked on this score, and the genetic diversity of Africa can and has produced a variety of hair colors. Trying to divert attention by trotting out the old debunked "Ginger" race claim will not work. It has already been exposed on ES as shown below. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000286
Aside from hair turning yellow, red or brown due to oxidation of pigments in ancient graves, African populations routinely produce blond or reddish hair, a not surprising outcome given Africa's genetic diversity.
Switching screen names to divert attention will not help. What's taking you so long in producing your true white blond, blue-eyed, white-skinned ancient Egyptians?
[QUOTE]: [i]"As Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment... Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many darkhaired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages.." -- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna.. AJPA 1978
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Obviously I don't believe the wild claims in the Bible, but that a Levite could be mistaken for an Egyptian is a mundane claim. The Jews would have known perfectly well what Egyptians looked like.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''You have already been debunked on this score, and the genetic diversity of Africa can and has produced a variety of hair colors'' ====
More denial.
Negroids don't have long straight red or blonde hair.
Good luck finding a negro with hair like this -
compare to what negroes look like -
Please get in reality.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
@ Djehuti-
quote:The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
I have asked this question several times in various threads over the last week or more, and just as when you ask it, and when others ask it, no matter how many times, notice how the duncebat claffy 'white' bwoys always do the same thing- dance around the ting, neva ansa, just bring up Black Women again.
As 'white' men, they should be focused on their own 'white' women and what is ailing them...especially if they are proud 'white' men who love and cherish their own women/people/race....not focusing on Black Women/Black People and what is ailing them....leave that for Black People to focus and work on....
BUT....as we know, they have a fixation with Black People and just can't stay away....
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ Djehuti-
quote:The question is what the hell is the excuse for white women themselves who tan their bodies and inject their lips and now buttocks?? Is this some sort of subconscious desire to look black? If so, how come when blacks have never been culturally dominant in the West??
I have asked this question several times in various threads over the last week or more, and just as when you ask it, and when others ask it, no matter how many times, notice how the duncebat claffy 'white' bwoys always do the same thing- dance around the ting, neva ansa, just bring up Black Women again.
As 'white' men, they should be focused on their own 'white' women and what is ailing them...especially if they are proud 'white' men who love and cherish their own women/people/race....not focusing on Black Women/Black People and what is ailing them....leave that for Black People to focus and work on....
BUT....as we know, they have a fixation with Black People and just can't stay away....
Tanning became fashionable among white people only in recent times, when it was indicative of the ability to afford holidays in places like this:
hence a status symbol. In the olden days, white skin was desirable as it indicated that one didn't have to work outside like a common peasant. Therefore paleness was a status symbol. Tudor aristocrats powdered their faces to make themselves look even whiter.
Full lips are seen as sexy and sensual in women because more blood goes to the lips when they are aroused. They become fuller and darker in colour. This is why full, red lips are considered feminine and attractive, nothing to do with a latent desire to look black.
As for buttocks, that's a mystery to me. Probably owes a lot to J-Lo.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
Egpytians looked like Northindians said Ancient Greeks.
Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
---
When Gypsies arrived in Europe (who are from Northindia) they were thought to be Egyptians. The Word Gypsy derrives from Egyptian.
So probably the Egyptians were a ancient Dravidian people like the Elamites and Summerians who called themselfes "Black Heads".
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Oh well, I didn't really want to continue here so I deleted my post but whatever
quote:I understand that but at the end of the day we must agree on some solid phenotypical parameters which define each race.
No we don't. NO population from the same geographic region forms a cluster that is based on craniometric data.
quote:notice many Afrocentrics will constanly claim, when tasked to explain the light complected North Africans or Berbers, that Blacks are diverse and have a vareity of phenoptypes which supposedly would included fair haired light eyed Berbers. So which is it?
There is actually a very strong case to be made that light skin isn't indigenous to Africa. But I agree that the Berbers are predominately African.
quote:And just for the record people in the Western world are more accustomed to the image of a west African type as representing the Black man, whereas Whites are seen everywhere and tend to be predominantly dark haired with probably less than half having light eyes. I mean are not folks like Goegre Clooney or Sean Connery common fare? But someone like Iman is not.
What I wrote earlier:
This isn't true at all. You see Somalis, Ethiopians and other East Africans all taken for "black" people by western standards. Any individual of African descent with dark skin pigmentation is generally taken to be black. It has nothing to do with features in my experience.
quote:I beg to differ. Lower Egypt saw continuous input from the Hyksos to semitic migrants even the Bible attets to this. Not to mention genetics. There is some haplogroup J that predates Islam and Haplogroup T which was common in anceint comes from a back migration out of Western Asia.
That's what I said, go read again. Gene flow was restricted to lower Egypt. But predynastic Lower Egyptians still had tropical limb proportions that separated them from Near Easterners.
The Bible isn't all that reliable, is it?
as for Haplogroup T and J, you are correct that they probably have a Neolithic origin. But the frequencies were definitely affected by recent gene flow and drift
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Petty squabbles cause empty pews Roman road leads South to a brighter future Paedophile sues Catholic Church
Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.
But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”.
The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible.
In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions.
They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.
The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.”
They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.
“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”
Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.”
As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing.
Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.
The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.”
In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.
They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true.
The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.”
A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly.
That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.”
BELIEVE IT OR NOT
UNTRUE
Genesis ii, 21-22
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man
Genesis iii, 16
God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Matthew xxvii, 25
The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”
Revelation xix,20
And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”
My reference to the Bible was not with regard to the virgin birth or bodily resurrection but the mention of Semites migrating to Egypt in time of famine..something we know to have occured. Egyptians made frequent mention "Asiatics" living in their midsts, especially in the Delta region.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''You have already been debunked on this score, and the genetic diversity of Africa can and has produced a variety of hair colors'' ====
More denial.
Negroids don't have long straight red or blonde hair.
Good luck finding a negro with hair like this -
compare to what negroes look like -
Please get in reality.
Your nazi bible written by your lord, Carton Coon, states that she is the true negroid, so my question to you is what haplotype does she carry?
In modern-day Carlton Coon ideology is laughable and outdated for many reasons. The only one following this are xenophobic neo nazi like parties. So thanks for this confirmation.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
The original challenge issued herein by Rahotep has been met. There is no way to refute the studies, images etc., that were given to him.
CLOSE THREAD Posted by Iah (Member # 19043) on :
The mummies show straight-wavy hair and Caucasoid texture. Ramses II was a natural straight-wavy red head with leucoderm skin. Tiye was described as auburn-brownish. The mummies exhibit mostly straight-wavy hair types. None have negroid type hair excepting Maiherpri and he was Nubian. So if the mummies were negroid, the logic follows they should at least exhibit some similarity to Maiherpri. But they don't.
The Afrocentrics cannot point us to an ancient tribe of natural blond, red or brunet straight-wavy haired negroids with Caucasoid features much less a modern tribe.
Posted by Iah (Member # 19043) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: The word Caucasian itself first came in usage to define the white peoples of Georgia noted for their beauty:
Blacks in contrast are ugly -
All afrocentrics on this forum are in denial. Their racism against whites which fills these threads is nothing more than their insecurity and envy.
That is the underlining basis of their position. They hate white people so much they deny whites their very existence and place in history! They require internet bullying and afrocentrism to give their lives some meaning.
Posted by Iah (Member # 19043) on :
quote:
In modern-day Carlton Coon ideology is laughable and outdated for many reasons. The only one following this are xenophobic neo nazi like parties. So thanks for this confirmation. [/QB]
Afrocentric ideology is laughable. Don't pretend Afrocentrics don't use Coon when it's convenient.
"An enormous intellectual vigor allowed him to follow up hypotheses without becoming wedded to them. Never a writer of small papers, he looked for the larger significance. It may be said that Coon's major contributions to science were the fruitful formulations that followed from his assimilation and organization of massive amounts of information.
Carleton Coon's The Races of Europe (1939) began as a revision of W. Z. Ripley's 1900 work but ended as a new opus that used every scrap of published information on living populations and prehistoric human remains -- and much recorded history besides. Though some of Coon's hypotheses seem dubious today, they allowed him to structure a mass of material in a way that remains impressive. This book was reprinted some years later and is still regarded as a valuable source of data.
After holding several serious ailments at bay for some years, Carl died on June 3, 1981, at his West Gloucester home, shortly before his seventy-seventh birthday. His brilliance left a lasting mark on a generation of anthropologists.
And Keita has been squashed when it comes to race so he's not a dependable source.
Posted by Iah (Member # 19043) on :
quote:Real Caucasians are red haired, pale skinned with freckles with thin to NO lips. And males are very hairy.
Your attempt is baseless nonsense! What is this nonsense based on? What is the Norwegian white with black hair, brown eyes? A negroid? You are sick.
"The mummy of a young Amarna prince, which was discovered in an annex of the tomb of Amenhotep II, sports a very long, luxuriant side-lock of hair...Strangely enough, this young prince was not only "hairy," but his hair was also a ruddy-brown color - Ralph Ellis (Tempest and Exodus)
Fits your "real Caucasoid" description.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''What is this nonsense based on?'' =====
insecurity and self-hatred. Most afrocentrics on this forum are self-hating blacks who envy whites because of their physical diversity (blonde, red, auburn, brown hair etc). This is why the afrocentric clowns are now claiming any white person with brown or dark hair is a negro. It's laughable. Don't take their trolling seriously though.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Egpytians looked like Northindians said Ancient Greeks.
Arrian, Anabasis, Book 8:
The appearance of the inhabitants, too, is not so far different in India and Ethiopia; the southern Indians resemble the Ethiopians a good deal, and, are black of countenance, and their hair black also, only they are not as snub-nosed or so woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; but the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians in appearance.
---
When Gypsies arrived in Europe (who are from Northindia) they were thought to be Egyptians. The Word Gypsy derrives from Egyptian.
So probably the Egyptians were a ancient Dravidian people like the Elamites and Summerians who called themselfes "Black Heads".
Why would you compare Egyptians to non-Africans who received substantial African gene flow and/or looked like Africans themselves? Egyptians resembled southern Africans. Southern Iranians (Elamites) clustered with Africans (south Africans I believe) in Hanihara's craniometric study (1996) and the Greeks received significant African gene flow. So how does it make any sense in your mind to make that comparison? Since you seem like a member here to learn, I will depart with this quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332) Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
Im quite sure egyptians werent sub-saharan africans
egyptian art depicting four races (asiatic,white,egyptian and african)..
The first are RETH, the second are AAMU, the third are NEHESU, and the fourth are THEMEHU. The RETH are Egyptians, the AAMU are dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt, the NEHESU are the black races, and the THEMEHU are the fair-skinned Libyans.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: Im quite sure egyptians werent sub-saharan africans
Black Tiger, you are new so why presume that you are teaching us anything by posting that repro and laying out your amateurish description?
"Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity".--Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, Bio Anthropologist
^Anyways, I refuse to join this useless discussion. This merely warranted correction as you seem confused, also that repro you posted is fake. This one is more accurate in depicting the actual tomb scene, which shows them grouped in fours.
^Eurocentrists always post that same version of the "mural of races" that you posted because of the faded, light-brown coloring of the Egyptians. Too bad it doesn't reflect reality as much as another artists biased rendering.
Peace.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
i found it on wikipedia but yeah.....there is a difference in your pictures too between the egyptian race and the black races both in colour (brown-black) and in face shape....the egyptians have colour and face and colour of gypsies
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^I don't care about your opinion. The Egyptians had the greatest biological/morphological affinity to southern Africans and the Nile Valley WAS populated by sub-Saharan Africans in the Mesolithic era. If you want to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of your own bias then go right ahead.
Even the ancient Egyptians said they had common descent with the Nehesu
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: i found it on wikipedia but yeah.....there is a difference in your pictures too between the egyptian race and the black races both in colour (brown-black) and in face shape....the egyptians have colour and face and colour of gypsies
My sister is even lighter than the Egyptians posted in my repro and I'm Black but no where near as Black as how the southerners are depicted. African people vary in color. Also, re-read my post because I've edited it. In any event, you have your opinion and are entitled to it, maybe others won't mind schooling you a bit.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
probably egyptians thought all humans are descendant of the same God, i doubt they wanted to point out a specific relationship between them and the NEHESU at least i cant read it out of the text. The Bible also teaches all humans descendent from Adam and Eve, right?
its not only the colour, the egyptians have completely different face
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The mummy hair has been explained and debunked many times. Here it is again for newbies:
The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:
San, Southern African 55.00 Zulu, Southern African 55.00 Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00 Tasmanian (Black) 64.70 Australian (Black) 68.00 Western European 71.20 Asian Indian 73.00 Navajo American 77.00 Chinese 82.60
In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:
"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."
The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!
In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations.
A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.
From your source. Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.
And yet here is a Nubian mummy. Notice she is well preserved and there is no yellowing or straightneing of the hair.
Compare with Ramses II. Not only is his hair different but so are his facial features.
The natural inclination would be to assume the two examples represent different races.
No, I don't think that most Egyptians had nappy hair.
In fact, I don't think they looked much different from Egyptians in Egypt Today.
[IMG]http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40347000/jpg/_40347689_egyptman220.jpg [/IMG]
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
I agree Egyptians looked like Egyptians today
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz,
Why would you compare Egyptians to non-Africans who received substantial African gene flow and/or looked like Africans themselves? Egyptians resembled southern Africans. Southern Iranians (Elamites) clustered with Africans (south Africans I believe) in Hanihara's craniometric study (1996) and the Greeks received significant African gene flow. So how does it make any sense in your mind to make that comparison?
Dude the ancients mentioned Northern India. Do you know what folks in Northern India look like??
Strabo (64 BC - AD 24), Geography 15.1.13:
Here are more ancient quotes.
"As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in colour, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Aegyptians."
Marcus Manilius (1st century AD), Astronomica 4.724: "The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone."
Since you seem like a member here to learn, I will depart with this quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
And I don't deny that folks in Southern Egypt would be more Black being closer to Nubians. Northern Egyptians were more Middle Eastern.
And stop using the word African as if it'ssynonymous with Black, cause it isn't.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I really couldnt care less, just my feeling says its rude and injust what afro-centrists do stealing history "Black Vikings, Black Egyptians, Black European Nobles" etc. etc. etc. As if the whole world were negroe, thats supremacist childish stuff. I feel the same about white people claiming ancient aryans were whites. i mean i let you have the egyptians as blacks because they were forebearer of civilization but what about the reall egyptians in egypt? its like they are somehow introducers
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
BlackTiger were there Black nobels in Europe at anytime?. Black Egyptians well that speaks for itself
Intruders well what do you call Assyrian conquest Persian conquest Greek conquest Roman conquest Arab conquest Turkish conquest French conquest British conquest and at no time non of these folks fuk any native women to produce off-springs? Black Vikings??? ain't got jack to say about that The whole world as Negro? no most here don't beleive that but if you are talking about a certain phenotype as in broad featured and dark skinned then those folks lived all over the globe till today.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I mean really it all boils down to hair ?
No not just hair, facial features..everything.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Intruders well what do you call Assyrian conquest Persian conquest Greek conquest Roman conquest Arab conquest Turkish conquest French conquest British conquest and at no time non of these folks fuk any native women to produce off-springs? Black Vikings??? ain't got jack to say about that
Sure, but the conquerors are never the majority. And it is the phenotype of the majority that will always wins out.
And you left out the rule of Nubians (Blacks)over Egypt for over 200 years! That would be an infusion of Black genes. I have been to Cairo and Alexandria. The lightest folk are the upper classes who are probably mixed with Arabs and Turks. But the average guy on the street looks simimilar to the depictions in ancient Egyptian art.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Melchior and BlackTiger
There was no replacement population they simply absorbed them the people living in Egypt today are related to the people that lived in Kemet for the most part but those conquerers leave their genes along with other charactertics and Kush's rule over Kemet for a century brought in that much Black blood?? but a thousand and a half yrs of foreign conquest did nothing?? really???
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Their was no replacement population they simply absorbed them the people living in Egypt today are related to the people that lived in Kemet for the most part but those conquerers leave there genes along with other charactertics and Kush's rule over Kemet for a century brought in that much Black blood?? but a thousand and a half yrs of foreign conquest did nothings?? really???
The influence of the most recent conquerors is reflected mostly in the upper class. Now since many of you have been so helpful in pointing out instances of non African gene flow, how about we talk about the Black gene flow into Egypt?? What about the Nubian rule of Egypt which lasted 200 years. What about the countless Nubian troops that Egyptians asborbed into their armies etc? What about the many Black slaves that were imported to Egypt since under the Arab slave trade? What about the many Black immigrants from Sudan and elsewhere who have immigrated to Egypt in recent times? All of this should come close to balancing out.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Melchior,Melchior Black gene flow into Kemet is like saying Black gene flow into Kush,Axum or Mali take your pic and Kushite rule lasted 200 yrs how you figure? yes southern troops more than likely add their mix, but it couldn't alter anything really as the two population are related, and as far as Slaves according to Ausar they ended up in cities like Cairo and Alexandra. upper Kemet was the capital and hub of the nation back then and was the more populous before Greco-Roman times.
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
. Where are the Tasmanians?
.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
dont know anything about them, but if they were wiped out they probably werent a civilization or large in numbers but a small hunter and gatherer tribe.....
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
This is before the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Turks, the British and the French. And they still look like folks you find in Cairo Today. Go figure.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
I'm just amazed by how much stupid can fit into one's person...and how vividly it's been portrayed via text.
SMH
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
. Where are the Tasmanians?
.
Tasmanians were physically removed to a remote part of the island. You can't realistically compare their history to that of the Egyptians.
Besides blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to modern Egyptians.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
he won't be able to tell you.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Melchior,Melchior Black gene flow into Kemet is like saying Black gene flow into Kush,Axum or Mali take your pic and Kushite rule lasted 200 yrs how you figure?
Nubians were generally darker than Egyptians and looked more Sub Saharan. Their admixture would make Egyptians darker..more Black.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
. Where are the Tasmanians?
.
Tasmanians were physically removed to a remote part of the island.
You apparently need a history lesson-
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying." --Jared Diamond --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Destruction Of The Tasmanian Aborigines
by Runoko Rashidi
To many, the mention of Tasmania evokes humorous recollections of the Tasmanian devil--the voracious marsupial popularized in American cartoons. Tasmania is an island slightly larger in size than West Virginia, and is located two-hundred miles off Australia's southeast coast. The aboriginal inhabitants of the island were Black people who probably went there by crossing an ancient land bridge that connected Tasmania to the continent of Australia.
The Black aborigines of Tasmania were marked by tightly curled hair with skin complexions ranging from black to reddish-brown. They were relatively short in stature with little body fat. They were the indigenous people of Tasmania and their arrival there began at least 35,000 years ago. With the passage of time, the gradual rising of the sea level submerged the Australian-Tasmanian land bridge and the Black aborigines of Tasmania experienced more than 10,000 years of solitude and physical isolation from the rest of the world--the longest period of isolation in human history.
It is our great misfortune that the Black people of Tasmania bequeathed no written histories. We do not know that they called themselves or what they named their land. All we really have are minute fragments, bits of evidence, and the records and documents of Europeans who began coming to the island in 1642.
THE BLACK FAMILY IN TASMANIA
The Tasmanian aborigines were hunter-gatherers with an exceptionally basic technology. The Tasmanians made only a few types of simple stone and wooden tools. They lacked agriculture, livestock, pottery, and bows and arrows. The Black family in Tasmania was a highly organized one--its form and substance directed by custom. A man joined with a woman in marriage and formed a social partnership with her. It would appear that such marriages were usually designed by the parents--but this is something about which very little is actually known.
The married couple seems to have remained together throughout the course of their lives, and only in rare cases did a man have more than one wife at the same time. Their children were not only well cared for, but were treated with great affection. Elders were cared for by the the family, and children were kept at the breast for longer than is usual in child care among Europeans.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END OF THE BLACKS
The isolation of Tasmania's Black aborigines ended in 1642 with the arrival and intrusion of the first Europeans. Abel Jansen Tasman, the Dutch navigator after whom the island is named, anchored off the Tasmanian coast in early December, 1642. Tasman named the island Van Diemen's land, after Anthony Van Diemen--the governor-general of the Dutch East India Company. The island continued to be called Van Diemen's Land until 1855.
On March 5, 1772, a French expedition led by Nicholas Marion du Fresne landed on the island. Within a few hours his sailors had shot several Aborigines. On January 28, 1777, the British landed on the island. Following coastal New South Wales in Australia, Tasmania was established as a British convict settlement in 1803.
These convicts had been harshly traumatized and were exceptionally brutal. In addition to soldiers, administrators, and missionaries, eventually more than 65,000 men and women convicts were settled in Tasmania. A glaringly inefficient penal system allowed such convicts to escape into the Tasmanian hinterland where they exercised the full measure of their blood-lust and brutality upon the island's Black occupants. According to social historian Clive Turnbull, the activities of these criminals would soon include the "shooting, bashing out brains, burning alive, and slaughter of Aborigines for dogs' meat."
PART 2
TASMANIAN DEVILS IN HUMAN FORM
As early as 1804 the British began to slaughter, kidnap and enslave the Black people of Tasmania. The colonial government itself was not even inclined to consider the aboriginal Tasmanians as full human beings, and scholars began to discuss civilization as a unilinear process with White people at the top and Black people at the bottom. To the Europeans of Tasmania the Blacks were an entity fit only to be exploited in the most sadistic of manners--a sadism that staggers the imagination and violates all human morality. As UCLA professor, Jared Diamond, recorded: "Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis and testicles of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying. At a hill christened Mount Victory, settlers slaughtered 30 Tasmanians and threw their bodies over a cliff. One party of police killed 70 Tasmanians and dashed out the children's brains."
Such vile and animalistic behavior on the part of the White settlers of Tasmania was the rule rather than the exception. In spite of their wanton cruelty, however, punishment in Tasmania was exceedingly rare for the Whites, although occasionally Whites were sentenced for crimes against Blacks. For example, there is an account of a man who was flogged for exhibiting the ears and other body parts of a Black boy that he had mutilated alive.
We hear of another European punished for cutting off the little finger of an Aborigine and using it as a tobacco stopper. Twenty-five lashes were stipulated for Europeans convicted of tying aboriginal "Tasmanian women to logs and burning them with firebrands, or forcing a woman to wear the head of her freshly murdered husband on a string around her neck."
Not a single European, however, was ever punished for the murder of Tasmanian Aborigines. Europeans thought nothing of tying Black men to trees and using them for target practice. Black women were kidnapped, chained and exploited as sexual slaves. White convicts regularly hunted Black people for sport, casually shooting, spearing or clubbing the men to death, torturing and raping the women, and roasting Black infants alive. As historian, James Morris, graphically noted:
"We hear of children kidnapped as pets or servants, of a woman chained up like an animal in a shepherd's hut, of men castrated to keep them off their own women. In one foray seventy aborigines were killed, the men shot, the women and children dragged from crevices in the rocks to have their brains dashed out. A man called Carrotts, desiring a native woman, decapitated her husband, hung his head around her neck and drove her home to his shack."
PART 3
THE BLACK WAR
"The Black War of Van Diemen's Land" was the name of the official campaign of terror directed against the Black people of Tasmania. Between 1803 and 1830 the Black aborigines of Tasmania were reduced from an estimated five-thousand people to less than seventy-five. An article published December 1, 1826 in the Tasmanian Colonial Times declared that: "We make no pompous display of Philanthropy. The Government must remove the natives--if not, they will be hunted down like wild beasts and destroyed!"
With the declaration of martial law in November 1828, Whites were authorized to kill Blacks on sight. Although the Blacks offered a heroic resistance, the wooden clubs and sharpened sticks of the Aborigines were no match against the firepower, ruthlessness, and savagery exercised by the Europeans against them.
In time, a bounty was declared on Blacks, and "Black catching," as it was called, soon became a big business; five pounds for each adult Aborigine, two pounds for each child. After considering proposals to capture them for sale as slaves, poison or trap them, or hunt them with dogs, the government settled on continued bounties and the use of mounted police.
After the Black War, for political expediency, the status of the Blacks, who were no longer regarded as a physical threat, was reduced to that of a nuisance and a bother, and with loud and pious exclamations that it was for the benefit of the Blacks themselves, the remainder of the Aborigines were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.
In 1830 George Augustus Robinson, a Christian missionary, was hired to round up the remaining Tasmanian Blacks and take them to Flinders Island, thirty miles away. Many of Robinson's captives died along the way. By 1843 only fifty survived. Jared Diamond recorded that:
"On Flinders Island Robinson was determined to civilize and Christianize the survivors. His settlement--at a windy site with little fresh water--was run like a jail. Children were separated from parents to facilitate the work of civilizing them. The regimental daily schedule included Bible reading, hymn singing, and inspection of beds and dishes for cleanness and neatness.
However, the jail diet caused malnutrition, which combined with illness to make the natives die. Few infants survived more than a few weeks. The government reduced expenditures in the hope that the native would die out. By 1869 only Truganini, one other woman, and one man remained alive."
PART 4
THE LAST TASMANIANS
With the steady decrease in the number of Aborigines, White people began to take a bizarre interest in the Blacks, whom Whites believed "to be a missing link between humans and apes." In 1859 Charles Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species, popularized the fantasy of biological (and therefore social) evolution, with Whites at the top of the evolutionary scale and Blacks at the bottom.
The Aborigines were portrayed as a group of people "doomed to die out according to a natural law, like the dodo, and the dinosaur." This is during the same period in the United States that it was legally advocated that a Black man had no rights that a White man was bound to respect.
William Lanney, facetiously known as King Billy, was the last full-blood male Tasmanian. He was born in 1835 and grew up on Flinders Island. At the age of thirteen Lanney was removed with the remnant of his people to a concentration camp called Oyster Cove. Ultimately he became a sailor and some years he went whaling. As the last male Tasmanian, Lanney was regarded as a human relic. In January 1860 he was introduced to Prince Albert. He returned ill from a whaling voyage in February 1868, and on March 2, 1868 he died in his room at the Dog and Partridge public-house in Hobart, Tasmania.
Lanney, the subject of ridicule in life, became, in death, a desirable object. Even while he lay in the Colonial Hospital at least two persons determined to have his bones. They claimed to act in the interest of the Royal Society of Tasmania. On March 6, 1868, the day of the funeral, fifty or sixty residents interested in Lanney gathered at the hospital.
Rumors were circulating that the body had been mutilated and, to satisfy the mourners, the coffin was opened. When those who wished to do so had seen the body, the coffin was closed and sealed. Meanwhile it was reported that, on the preceding night, a surgeon had entered the dead-house where Lanney lay, skinned the head, and removed the skull.
Reportedly, the head of a patient who had died in the hospital on the same day was similarly skinned, and the skull was placed inside Lanney's scalp and the skin drawn over it. Members of the Royal Society were "greatly annoyed" at being thus forestalled and, as body-snatching was expected, it was decided that nothing should be left worth taking and Lanney's hands and feet were cut off. In keeping with the tradition no one was punished. William Lanney, the last Black man in Tasmania, was gone.
QUEEN TRUGANINI: THE LAST TASMANIAN
"Not, perhaps, before, has a race of men been utterly destroyed within seventy-five years. This is the story of a race which was so destroyed, that of the aborigines of Tasmania--destroyed not only by a different manner of life but by the ill-will of the usurpers of the race's land.... With no defences but cunning and the most primitive weapons, the natives were no match for the sophisticated individualists of knife and gun. By 1876 the last of them was dead. So perished a whole people." --Clive Turnbull
On May 7, 1876, Truganini, the last full-blood Black person in Tasmania, died at seventy-three years of age. Her mother had been stabbed to death by a European. Her sister was kidnapped by Europeans. Her intended husband was drowned by two Europeans in her presence, while his murderers raped her.
It might be accurately said that Truganini's numerous personal sufferings typify the tragedy of the Black people of Tasmania as a whole. She was the very last. "Don't let them cut me up," she begged the doctor as she lay dying. After her burial, Truganini's body was exhumed, and her skeleton, strung upon wires and placed upright in a box, became for many years the most popular exhibit in the Tasmanian Museum and remained on display until 1947. Finally, in 1976--the centenary years of Truganini's death--despite the museum's objections, her skeleton was cremated and her ashes scattered at sea.
CONCLUSION
The tragedy of the Black aborigines of Tasmania, however painful its recounting may be, is a story that must be told. What lessons do we learn from the destruction of the Tasmanians? Truganini's life and death, although extreme, effectively chronicle the association not only between White people and Black people in Tasmania, but, to a significant degree, around the world. Between 1803 and 1876 the Black aborigines of Tasmania were completely destroyed.
During this period the Black people of Tasmania were debased, degraded and eventually exterminated. Indeed, given the long and well-documented history of carnage, cruelty, savagery, and the monstrous pain, suffering, and inhumanity Europeans have inflicted upon Black people in general, and the Black people of Tasmania in particular, one could argue that they themselves, the White settlers of Tasmania, far more than the ravenous beast portrayed in American cartoons, have been the real Tasmanian devil.
POSTSCRIPT
INDIGENOUS TASMANIANS TODAY: SURVIVORS OF THE HOLOCAUST
The above article was written around 1997 and was a part of an ongoing series of articles designed to draw attention to the past and present, the history and the current status, of Black people around the world. In that sense I believe that it is basically a very good article. It should be pointed out though that it was written before my first trip to Australia. More and more, over the the course of time, I have come to find that travel is a wonderful educational experience indeed, and that during the process you often come across information not commonly found in books.
In November 1998 I was invited to speak at the World's Indigenous Peoples Conference in Toowomba, Queensland, Australia. During my Australian sojourn, in addition to the Conference, I was able to travel to several regions and three states. For the first time I interacted with large numbers of Indigenous Australians. The Conference itself was magnificent; a real triumph and one of the great experiences of my life.
Even before the Conference convened, however, I was shocked to meet for the initial time a Black man from Tasmania! He was professor Errol West of the University of Southern Queensland. Prof. West (a noted scholar and an excellent poet) and I quickly developed a close bond and soon became good friends.
We talked and socialized together a great deal and it became readily apparent that only the full-blood Blacks had perished in the holocaust, and that there were Black people living in Tasmania today. Obviously, this was in stark contrast to all of the major writings on the subject. Prof. West also gave me a very different and contrasting view of Truganini.
My trip to Australia gave me a great deal to think about and a lot to reassess. Eighteen months later I returned to Australia and saw even more of this fascinating country, and I have since learned a great deal more about the history and current conditions of the original people.
And the education hasn't stopped. Several months ago I received a series of emails from a Tasmanian sister who expressed tremendous gratitude for the article and encouraged and assured me that the Blacks of Tasmania "are alive and still fighting for our rights and the recognition that we deserve as Indigenous peoples." In 2002 I plan to travel to Tasmania itself. And the education continues.
quote:...but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
Inside the word belief is a little lie....it pays to KNOW before you open your mouth and talk....that has happened in history, yes. I take it you don't know much about the history of happened to the peoples of South and Central America when the Europeans invaded (not forgetting North Amerikkka). There were populations wiped out- completely. If you really want to learn the Truth and share it with others, rather than attempting to spout off nonsense to those who know better, try this book, for one:
A LITTLE MATTER OF GENOCIDE, HOLOCAUST AND DENIAL IN THE AMERICAS 1492 TO THE PRESENT.
Educate yourSelf.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah there were conquests but i dont believe that a military conquest can wipe out a whole population and replace them....maybe it can but i doubt it happened anywhere in history, remnants of invasions are left sure, but the core of a population stays
"The raids for, and trade in, Aboriginal women contributed to the rapid depletion of the numbers of Aboriginal women in the northern areas of Tasmania, “by 1830 only three women survived in northeast Tasmania among 72 men” [27] and thus contributed in a significant manner to the demise of the full-blooded Aboriginal population of Tasmania.
Some historians argue that European disease did not appear to be a serious factor until after 1829.[39] Other historians including Geoffrey Blainey and Keith Windschuttle, point to introduced disease as the main cause of the destruction of the full-blooded Tasmanian Aboriginal population.
The Black War of 1828-32 and the Black Line of 1830 were turning points in the relationship with European settlers. Even though many of the Aborigines managed to avoid capture during these events, they were shaken by the size of the campaigns against them, and this brought them to a position whereby they were willing to surrender to Robinson and move to Flinders Island.
In late 1831 George Augustus Robinson, a Christian missionary, brought the first 51 Aboriginals to a settlement on Flinders Island named The Lagoons, which turned out to be inadequate as it was exposed to gales, had little water and no land suitable for cultivation. Supplies to the settlement were inadequate and if sealers had not supplied potatoes, the Aborigines would have starved. The Europeans were living on oatmeal and potatoes while the Aborigines, who detested oatmeal and refused to eat it, survived on potatoes and rice supplemented by mutton birds they caught. Within months 31 Aborigines had died."
Ryan, Lyndall, The Aboriginal Tasmanians, Second Edition, Allen & Unwin, 1996, ISBN 1863739653,
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying." --Jared Diamond
Do you not understand then that basically the Tasmanaians were exposed to a form of removal and genocide unlike what happened to the Egyptians. You are making my point for me.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
What people neglect in studying the mixture of modern Egyptians is that it was not just the upper classes that mixed. The lower classes in the Delta and parts of Middle Egypt mixed with Bedouin tribes. We have first hand accounts of this.
I would also say that many here try to negate the intermarriage between Greco-Roman soliders during the Greco-Roman period. Marriage documents attest to intermarriage. Not to mention that due to turmoil in Palestine during the Hellenistic era many people from the Levant settled in parts of northern Egypt.
As far back as the Middle Kingdom large populations of western Asians flooded the Delta. Most likely this is why the Hykos were able to take advantage and invade Egypt. Ancient Egyptian texts also note the linguistic difference between extreme southern Egypt and the Delta region. Other texts complain about the migration into the Delta from Asiatics.
Plus according to Alan K Bowman's book entitled Agritculture in Ancient and Modern Egypt talk about the Egyptian custom of settling war prisoners on tracts of land.
If anybody wants references validating my statements then please read the following books:
Ancient Egypt after the Pharoahs Alan K Bowman
Agritculture in Ancient and Modern Egypt Alan K Bowman
Sons of Ishmael by GW Murray(evidence of recent foreign ancestry amongst rural populations in the Delta)
The Fatimid Armenians: Cultural and Political Interaction in the Near East (Islamic History and Civilization) [Hardcover] Seta B. Dadoyan (evidence of large amounts of Armenians in Egypt from the Byzantine period into the modern era discusses that Armenians lived side by side with Coptic Christians in their monasteries. Intermingling went on)
Ayad, B.A. 1975. The Jewish-Aramaean Communities in Ancient Egypt, The Institute of Coptic Studies, Cairo, Egypt( During the various wars in the Levant populations of Aramaeans and Jews settled in parts of the delta and middle Egypt)
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying." --Jared Diamond
Do you not understand then that basically the Tasmanaians were exposed to a form of removal and genocide unlike what happened to the Egyptians. You are making my point for me.
I am not even concerned with you/your posts. My concern is the point that I am making to the eediat who says this has not happened in history, by showing him an example that yes, populations have been wiped out and replaced.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
This is before the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Turks, the British and the French. And they still look like folks you find in Cairo Today. Go figure.
I don't know why my Fayum portraits won't show. Damn It!
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying." --Jared Diamond
Do you not understand then that basically the Tasmanaians were exposed to a form of removal and genocide unlike what happened to the Egyptians. You are making my point for me.
I am not even concerned with you/your posts. My concern is the point that I am making to the eediat who says this has not happened in history, by showing him an example that yes, populations have been wiped out and replaced.
Obviously. But that has never happened to the Egyptians. So your point is moot.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
As far back as the Middle Kingdom large populations of western Asians flooded the Delta. Most likely this is why the Hykos were able to take advantage and invade Egypt. Ancient Egyptian texts also note the linguistic difference between extreme southern Egypt and the Delta region. Other texts complain about the migration into the Delta from Asiatics.
This is swhat I am saying. In fact I dont get why people believe that Northern Egypt was somehow insulated not allowing Asiatics to move in. I'm sure the folks in the Delta area were simliar to neighboring peoples in Palestine and the Levant from the very begining. Egypt was a fusion of peoples.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''I mean really it all boils down to hair ? '' ====
Yes, partly.
The earliest pre-dynastic mummies are all long straight haired, many even with red hair.
Blacks don't have long straight red hair. Laughably the afrocentrics then spend hours on google images attempting to find an ethiopian with slightly less wooly hair...
Facts are facts. Blacks aaren't straight haired. The anthropological evidence is clear the egyptians were Caucasoid.
Good luck finding a negro with straight red hair. It doesn't exist.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Tactics for hunting down Tasmanians included riding out on horseback to shoot them, setting out steel traps to catch them, and putting out poison flour where they might find and eat it. Sheperds cut off the penis of aboriginal men, to watch the men run a few yards before dying." --Jared Diamond
Do you not understand then that basically the Tasmanaians were exposed to a form of removal and genocide unlike what happened to the Egyptians. You are making my point for me.
I am not even concerned with you/your posts. My concern is the point that I am making to the eediat who says this has not happened in history, by showing him an example that yes, populations have been wiped out and replaced.
Obviously. But that has never happened to the Egyptians. So your point is moot.
Considering I was not even referring to the Egyptians, they had not a thing to do with my point nor post, nor were they a thought, NO my point is not moot.
The youth said it had never happened to a population in history, I gave him an example where it had happened.
Point was made so shet yuh rass and fold up, this argument done.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''I mean really it all boils down to hair ? '' ====
Yes, partly.
The earliest pre-dynastic mummies are all long straight haired, many even with red hair.
Blacks don't have long straight red hair. Laughably the afrocentrics then spend hours on google images attempting to find an ethiopian with slightly less wooly hair...
Facts are facts. Blacks aaren't straight haired. The anthropological evidence is clear the egyptians were Caucasoid.
Good luck finding a negro with straight red hair. It doesn't exist.
Never mind the hair. The fact is clasical historians noted that there was a clear distinction between them and Black Ethiopians and that Egyptians resembled Northern Indians.
I would say that's about right.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Considering I was not even referring to the Egyptians, they had not a thing to do with my point nor post, nor were they a thought, NO my point is not moot.
The youth said it had never happened to a population in history, I gave him an example where it had happened.
Point was made so shet yuh rass and fold up, this argument done.
It's a wasted argument.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''I mean really it all boils down to hair ? '' ====
Yes, partly.
The earliest pre-dynastic mummies are all long straight haired, many even with red hair.
Blacks don't have long straight red hair. Laughably the afrocentrics then spend hours on google images attempting to find an ethiopian with slightly less wooly hair...
Facts are facts. Blacks aaren't straight haired. The anthropological evidence is clear the egyptians were Caucasoid.
Good luck finding a negro with straight red hair. It doesn't exist.
Never mind the hair. The fact is clasical historians noted that there was a clear distinction between them and Black Ethiopians and that Egyptians resembled Northern Indians.
I would say that's about right.
Here is a portrait of an Egyptian from the first century. Does he not look similar to a North Indian?
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by cassiterides: ''I mean really it all boils down to hair ? '' ====
Yes, partly.
The earliest pre-dynastic mummies are all long straight haired, many even with red hair.
Blacks don't have long straight red hair. Laughably the afrocentrics then spend hours on google images attempting to find an ethiopian with slightly less wooly hair...
Facts are facts. Blacks aaren't straight haired. The anthropological evidence is clear the egyptians were Caucasoid.
Good luck finding a negro with straight red hair. It doesn't exist.
Never mind the hair. The fact is clasical historians noted that there was a clear distinction between them and Black Ethiopians and that Egyptians resembled Northern Indians.
I would say that's about right.
Here is a portrait of an Egyptian from the first century. Does he not look similar to a North Indian?
^ You bet. Those Fayum portraits depict upper class foreign elites dating to the time of the Greco-Roman occupation of Egypt and no surprise they do resemble your Northern Indians as well as the vast population occupying present-day Egypt. Good luck convincing the laymen who do not know better.
Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt By Susan Walker:
quote: "The mummy, or Fayum, portraits are Egyptian only in that they are associated with essentially Egyptian burial customs. Painted in an encaustic technique, they represent mostly Greek inhabitants of Egypt." - Britannica (2007)
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The mummy, or Fayum, portraits are Egyptian only in that they are associated with essentially Egyptian burial customs. Painted in an encaustic technique, they represent mostly Greek inhabitants of Egypt." - Britannica (2007)
Thats BS! If that's true then the many of the Greeks were quite swarty with "wooly" hair. You should take a look at the Fayum portraits and think it over. But what's intersesting is that you mention that they look like vast population you find in Egypt today. That is curious especially in light of the claims that several centuries of invasions had drasitcally changed the phenotype of the Egyptians. Here we are looking at portraits from the First century, before the Byzantines, the Arab, The Turks, French and British. And yet despite all of that they look the same Today. Why then should I believe the Assyrians or Persians would have made a bigger splash in terms of Morphological changes??? Besides the Persians employed a lot of Nubian troops. And Nubians subsequently took over. The Romans said Egyptians looked similar to Northern Indians not Greeks. And when we look at the portriats that is what we see.
Here is an Egyptian funerary mask. Doesn't look so different to me.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
ROTFLMAOH
That was a nice joke.
Now on a more serious note, why does it often that African American tourists would get mistaken for native Egyptians yet whites would be singled out as "khawaga" (foreigners)??
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Cornish people who could probably pass for Egyptians:
All of these, I would venture to suggest, have lips.
ROTFLMAOH
That was a nice joke.
Now on a more serious note, why does it often that African American tourists would get mistaken for native Egyptians yet whites would be singled out as "khawaga" (foreigners)??
So true,
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
No resemblance in the least! Silly of me!
And of course I can see how these black American tourist could get mixed up with their new Egyptian friends...
I mean they look much more similar than the Cornish and Egyptian examples, eh?
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
BlackTiger said: I agree Egyptians looked like Egyptians today
^^lol, do you realize that there are numerous dark-skinned Egyptians in Egypt today and when you say "today's Egyptians" looked like the ancients, that you thus include the dark-skinned ones? The "continuity" argument used by assorted white Egypt proponents undermines their own claims.
-----------------------------------------------
^^ Djehuti, Sundjata, are you saying that the full picture of the so-called mural of "races" shows the Egyptians with skin tones quite within the range for other Africans and dark-skinned modern Egyptians? For example, the modern picture of Egyptians below is well within African skin tones from Nigeria, Senegal, Guinea,etc. People looking like the modern Egyptians below would be nothing special in West Africa. Modern scholars would find such resemblances routine. QUOTE:
"The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They can also be expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). 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. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28 -----------------------------------------------------------
So if there is "continuity" between ancient and modern, then said "continuity" always includes such dark- skinned people as well. What tomb is this so called "mural of races" from?
Dark-skin is and was always part of Egypt's ancient and modern makeup, defeating bogus "continuity" claims... Courtesy of KING's
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: BlackTiger said: I agree Egyptians looked like Egyptians today
^^lol, do you realize that there are numerous dark-skinned Egyptians in Egypt today and when you say "today's Egyptians" looked like the ancients, that you thus include the dark-skinned ones? The "continuity" argument used by assorted white Egypt proponents undermines their own claims.
-----------------------------------------------
^^ Djehuti, Sundjata, are you saying that the full picture of the so-called mural of "races" shows the Egyptians with skin tones quite within the range for other Africans and dark-skinned modern Egyptians? For example, the modern picture of Egyptians below is well within African skin tones from Nigeria, Senegal, Guinea,etc. People looking like the modern Egyptians below would be nothing special in West Africa. Modern scholars would find such resemblances routine. QUOTE:
"The biological characteristics of modern Egyptians show a north-south cline, reflecting their geographic location between sub-Saharan Africa and the Levant. This is expressed in DNA, blood groups, serum proteins and genetic disorders (Filon 1996; Hammer et al. 1998; Krings et al. 1999). They can also be expressed in phenotypic characteristics that can be identified in teeth and bones (Crichton 1966; Froment 1992; Keita 1996). 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. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28 -----------------------------------------------------------
So if there is "continuity" between ancient and modern, then said "continuity" always includes such dark- skinned people as well. What tomb is this so called "mural of races" from?
Dark-skin is and was always part of Egypt's ancient and modern makeup, defeating bogus "continuity" claims... Courtesy of KING's
I so wish I had a scanner. My parents traveled to Egypt in December 2010 (they arrived home 2 weeks before all hell broke loose there), and took over 8,000 photographs while they were there. Did I view all 8,000 photos? No. But the hundreds that I did few, there was no shortage of dark-skinned Egyptians.
I worked as a HR Manager maaaaaaaannnnny years ago. We had a 'white' American lady (blond/blue eyed), who married an Egyptian man. It was so amazing to see his paperwork labeled 'caucasion'...and he was almost dark as me.....and that is Black! Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Too bad. Those photos would be great to see Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': ^Too bad. Those photos would be great to see
I know right....because I would love to post some pictas of the temples, etc., that they took (they gave me a couple hundred photos, lol)....
I would have lost my financial mind at the markets, from what I can see from the photos
quote: But the hundreds that I did few...
That should have been "But the hundreds that I did view..."
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Ａｌｏｔ ｏｆ ｆｏｌｋｓ ｇｅｔ ｈａｎgup on the color scheme of Kemites in their art well here is almost the same thing thousands of yrs apart and half a continent away Symbolism or not this is how the Fon recorded themselves and their Yoruba enemies and everyone know what both ethnic groups looked in real life this is clearly a case of the more things change the more they remain the same.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Dark-skin is and was always part of Egypt's ancient and modern makeup, defeating bogus "continuity" claims... Courtesy of KING's
I don't think Ancient Egyptians would be considered White. And I agree that those in the South have always been the darkest, but those in the North have always been more Middle Eastern looking. Remember what the Greeks and Romans said about them looking like Northen Indians.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^^ I agree somehwat Melchior but when do you think the Northern Type became dominant??
Obviously by the Time the Greeks and Romans came from the images of the Fayium potraits.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Fayoum and the Delta were always major centres of population.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Not true the major centers were in upper kemet and the Thebaid things shifted North to the delta under Greco Roman times. I know it seems counter intuitive that their capital should not be based on or near the coast but at that time their point of view an African nation looking out wards rather than a Eurasian power looking in,count the Nomes of Kemet as far as where they started
as you can see they were moving toward the delta and for the record Ta-seti was called the first Nome aka in what is now Nubia.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
@Melchior7
Your North Indian quotes were waaay waaay late in Egyptian history. And you also fail to understand the quote I posted earlier; it was not saying *only* southern Egyptians showed characteristics of Southern Africans, but them "especially". This means that lower Egyptians, too, showed Saharan/Sub-Saharan characteristics. As for your asinine claims of the earliest Lower Egyptians resembling Middle Easterners, this is so UNTRUE. Their limb proportions grouped them with tropical Africans whereas ancient Levantines DID NOT have the same proportions showing a discontinuity from Lower Egypt ->Near East. These topics have been beat to death.
Then for some reason you assume I'm using Africa as synonymous with "black" which makes no sense why you would think that. You see, my point was that BlackTiger is using Groups with African admixture to compare to Egyptians instead of their fellow Africans, light or dark, which made no sense.
And I wasn't even talking to you LOL
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
Still never explained by the afrocentric clowns -
If the ancient egyptians were black why are the earliest pre-dnyastic mummies long straight red or auburn haired?
Good luck scanning google images for a negro with long straight red hair...
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^^ I agree somehwat Melchior but when do you think the Northern Type became dominant??
Obviously by the Time the Greeks and Romans came from the images of the Fayium potraits.
I'm pretty sure that the delta area was not uninhabitated when the Badarians were working their way up the Nile. The folks in the delta were likely similar to their neighbors in Palestine and others along the Mediteranan coast of Africa. Historically the Hyksos are the first documented Asiatic group to settle in the area. Archeaological evidence suggests there may have been Cretans living their too.
"Besides Thera and Crete, only two other sites have a record of Minoan civilization besides Avaris: Tel Kabri in Israel and Alalakh in Syria. It is speculated by the excavator of Tell Dab'a, the Austrian archaeologist Bietak, that there was close contact with the rulers of Avaris, and the large building representing the frescoes allowed the Minoans to have a ritual life in Egypt. French archaeologist Yves Duhoux proposed the existence of a Minoan 'colony' on an island in the Nile delta"
Duhoux, Yves (2003). Des minoens en Egypte? "Keftiou" et "les îles au milieu du Grand vert". Liège: Univ. Press. ISBN 90-429-1261-8.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Butzer’s (1976) figures demonstrate that throughout the dynastic period the Egyptian population numbers were denser between Aswan and Qift, and between the Faiyum and the head of the Delta. The Delta and the southern wide floodplain were more sparsely populated.
Upper Egypt as just as Dense in Population..
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Fayoum and the Delta were always major centres of population.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz
Your North Indian quotes were waaay waaay late in Egyptian history. And you also fail to understand the quote I posted earlier; it was not saying *only* southern Egyptians showed characteristics of Southern Africans, but them "especially". This means that lower Egyptians, too, showed Saharan/Sub-Saharan characteristics.
Waay late? Lol This presumes that Egyptians change due to time and the inlfuence of invasions/migrations etc. Yet you fail to realize that these quotes are from about 2000 years in the past! And they are still largely relfective of the demographic situation in Egypt Today. What does that say about the "time and invasion" factor?
I have read many of the quotes about Egyptians being tropically adapted limb wise, but the focus was always on upper Egypt because YES there was a difference. Also Limb lenth is but one trait. You should know without me having to post it, that there are other studies that focus on other traits for which Egyptians cluster more with Eurasians than subsaharans.
Then for some reason you assume I'm using Africa as synonymous with "black" which makes no sense why you would think that.
I guess because I'm so used to arguing with militant afrocentrics who hold that all that is African is Black. Surely you know the type.
You see, my point was that BlackTiger is using Groups with African admixture to compare to Egyptians instead of their fellow Africans, light or dark, which made no sense.
I'm not sure why you say they have African admixture.
And I wasn't even talking to you LOL
Well you stepped in it now.. Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
He thinks Gypsies have African Admixture, it could be that some have it if they are mixed with blacks, like the girl in my thread or there is another gypsy on DNA FORUMS who claims to have AFRAM Ancestry but i dont.
23andMe after last (18.April) update says image upload Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Fayoum and the Delta were always major centres of population.
Not true the major centers were in upper kemet and the Thebaid things shifted North to the delta under Greco Roman times. I know it seems counter intuitive that their capital should not be based on or near the coast but at that time their point of view an African nation looking out wards rather than a Eurasian power looking in,count the Nomes of Kemet as far as where they started
as you can see they were moving toward the delta and for the record Ta-seti was called the first Nome aka in what is now Nubia.
Brada is correct. Many studies on Egyptian population history confirms that during dynastic times, the majority lived along the Nile Valley NOT the Delta which was marshy. The shift happened after dynastic times where today the vast majority live in the Delta. That there were many migrations and invasions to that area is no coincidence.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
He thinks Gypsies have African Admixture, it could be that some have it if they are mixed with blacks, like the girl in my thread or there is another gypsy on DNA FORUMS who claims to have AFRAM Ancestry but i dont.
It is pretty much established that Gypsies came out of Northern India about 1000 years ago. Maybe he says this because some passed through North Africa, I don't know.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Not true the major centers were in upper kemet and the Thebaid things shifted North to the delta under Greco Roman times. I know it seems counter intuitive that their capital should not be based on or near the coast but at that time their point of view an African nation looking out wards rather than a Eurasian power looking in,count the Nomes of Kemet as far as where they started
as you can see they were moving toward the delta and for the record Ta-seti was called the first Nome aka in what is now Nubia.
Not true. Ancient, pre-Ptolemaic capital cities in the north included:
Memphis, Herakleopolis, Itjtawy (in the Faiyoum) region) Xois, Avaris, Pi-Ramesses, Bubastis, Sais and Mendes.
Posted by BlackTiger (Member # 18649) on :
yeah some passed through northafrica true....could be that african admixture is existent in some gypsies....but i think as a group they dont have significant african admixture....they look nothing like africans to me.....some ppl mistake brown skin to be indicator of african admixture but it evolved elsewhere too (indian subcontinent)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
No resemblance in the least! Silly of me!
And of course I can see how these black American tourist could get mixed up with their new Egyptian friends...
I mean they look much more similar than the Cornish and Egyptian examples, eh?
LOL Sorry but comparisons of sunburnt Cornish to Arabs has nothing to do with rural Bohari or Sa'idi who resemble the ancient portraits of their black ancestors.
As a light-skinned African American, I was often mistaken for Egyptian. Most Egyptians, despite living on the African continent, are Arabs. You would think being able to blend in would be a good thing—it definitely wasn’t when dealing with the Egyptian police, who were everywhere, often in plain clothes. That’s how I know the police aren’t around to “serve and protect” the people, but to protect Mubarak and his government from the people.
Because of my looks, my religion and my name, I have frequently been mistaken for Arab during my travels throughout the Middle East. It has been a mentally liberating sensation — to leave the racial politics of the United States (in reality, this is simply the process of exchanging the ethnic politics of one land for those of another) and not to be regarded as simply a nondescript “black.”
Over the years, I have, at various times, been mistaken for many different nationalities. But when I am in the Middle East, strangers most often mistake me for Egyptian. Of course, many African Americans look like Egyptians, right across the color spectrum. I would often scan a crowded street in Cairo and pick out the faces of Egyptians whose visages reminded me of family or friends.
There are many more examples. Now show me examples of white tourists being mistaken for Egyptians with exception of the foreign Afrangi Egyptians!
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackTiger: yeah some passed through northafrica true....could be that african admixture is existent in some gypsies....but i think as a group they dont have significant african admixture....they look nothing like africans to me.....some ppl mistake brown skin to be indicator of african admixture but it evolved elsewhere too (indian subcontinent)
True.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
There are many more examples. Now show me examples of white tourists being mistaken for Egyptians with exception of the foreign Afrangi Egyptians!
No, your average White tourist would not be mistaken for Egyptian but many Hispanics probably would. Though I have seem some Egyptians who look European. Could be descendants of British or Mamlukes. I was told there is an area somewhere in Cairo where the old British live. They speak fluent Egyptian Arabic and have copied the beavhior and mannerism of Egyptians.
Also your average AA, say someone of Denzil Washington's complexion or darker would stand out in Cairo and Alexandria.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Rahotep Not true. Ancient, pre-Ptolemaic capital cities in the north included: Memphis, Herakleopolis, Itjtawy (in the Faiyoum) region) Xois, Avaris, Pi-Ramesses, Bubastis, Sais and Mendes.
Number Egyptian Name Capital Modern Capital Translation
1 Ta-Seti Abu / Yebu (Elephantine) Aswan Land of the bow 2 Wetjes-Hor Djeba (Apollonopolis Magna) Edfu Throne of Horus 3 Ten Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) al-Kab Shrine 4 Waset Niwt-rst / Waset (Thebes) Karnak Sceptre 5 Herui Gebtu (Coptos) Qift The two falcons 6 Aa-ta Lunet / Tantere (Tentyra) Dendera The crocodile 7 Seshesh Seshesh (Diospolis Parva) Hu Sistrum 8 Abdju Abdju (Abydos) al-Birba Great land 9 Min Apu / Khen-min (Panopolis) Akhmim Min 10 Wadkhet Djew-qa (Aphroditopolis) Ifteh Cobra 11 Set Shashotep (Hypselis) Shutb The creature associated with Set 12 Tu-ph Hut-Sekhem-Senusret (Antaeopolis) Qaw al-Kebir Viper mountain 13 Atef-Khent Zawty (z3wj-tj, Lycopolis) Asyut Upper Sycamore and Viper 14 Atef-Pehu Qesy (Cusae) al-Qusiya Lower Sycamore and Viper 15 Un Khemenu (Hermopolis Magna) al-Ashmunayn Hare 16 Meh-Mahetch Hebenu Kom el Ahmar Oryx 17 Anpu Saka (Cynopolis) al-Kais Anubis 18 Sep Teudjoi / Hutnesut (Alabastronopolis) el-Hiba Set 19 Uab Per-Medjed (Oxyrhynchus) el-Bahnasa Two Sceptres 20 Atef-Khent Henen-nesut (Herakleopolis Magna) Ihnasiyyah al-Madinah Southern Sycamore 21 Atef-Pehu Shenakhen / Semenuhor (Crocodilopolis, Arsinoe) Madinat al-Fayyum Northern Sycamore 22 Maten Tepihu (Aphroditopolis) Atfih Knife
DJ knew this.
The area of the delta was swamp land made livable by drainage. goods and services were more important with the other polities on the Nile before they cared about the coast Waset or Wose was the premier city for thousands of yrs, the cities on the coast did became important but did not eclipse those of the south until the Greco Roman era
They said also that the first man who became king of Egypt was Min; and that in his time all Egypt except the district of Thebes was a swamp, and none of the regions were then above water which now lie below the lake of Moiris, to which lake it is a voyage of seven days up the river from the sea: 5, and I thought that they said well about the land; for it is manifest in truth even to a person who has not heard it beforehand but has only seen, at least if he have understanding, that the Egypt to which the Hellenes come in ships is a land which has been won by the Egyptians as an addition, and that it is a gift of the river Herodutus The Histories http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/herodotus/book02.htm
Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: "peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan." For "Hon" see page 586b.
Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.
Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country
Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:
The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria. http://www.nonsensewebsite.com/blog/tag/barbarians/ Again Ta-seti FIRST NOME AKA NUBIA.. Kemet started out as an inner African civilization and moved towards the coast that's why God's Land is in the south
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^^ I agree somehwat Melchior but when do you think the Northern Type became dominant??
Obviously by the Time the Greeks and Romans came from the images of the Fayium potraits.
Here is more on Northern Egypt some of the early cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi which predate the 1st dyansty.
"The Maadian (or Maadi-Buto)
The term Maadi-Buto or Maadian describes around twelve sites, named after the type site of Maadi in the western Delta. The sites include: Maadi, Wadi Digla (one of Maadi’s cemeteries), Heliopolis, Buto, Tura Station (Junker 1912), Giza, Merimda Beni Salama, es-Saff, Sedment (Williams 1982), Ezbet el-Qerdahi and Harageh (Engleback 1923). Both cemetery and settlement sites have been identified...The Maadi-Buto phase was not exclusive to the Cairo/western Delta area. Schmidt (1996) identifies some elements at Mostagedda and, more importantly, there were several sites in the Eastern Delta... Many hundreds of Syro-Palestinian pots have been found at Maadi, reflecting strong connections to Syro-Palestine and, probably to the evolving Uruk-Jemdet Nasr states of Greater Mesopotamia. Caneva and her co-workers report that Maadi’s lithics also tie it ‘in a wide network of communication, including the Levant and reaching northern Syria’ (1989, p.291)” (Wenke 1991, p.300).
Watson and Blin (2003) believe that they have identified an evolutionary trend in the architecture at Maadi which corresponds to examples in Palestine. Simple semi-subterranean structures were found at Maadi and may have been the prototype of another more advanced type of structure at Maadi found by Menghin and Amer, which was smaller, ovoid and accessible by steps, and these may in turn have lead to a very distinctive type of subterranean building found first found by Badawi in 1997. Badawi’s structure took the form of a rectangle with rounded edges, an entrance corridor with postholes in the middle, and depressions around the outside. It looks like a little like a prehistoric French “souterrain”. Witran and Blin point out similarities between this and Palestinian sites like Meser, Yitah’el II and Afridar in North Palestine and the typologically similar Sidon-Dakeman in South Lebanon: “By all evidence it is possible to link the Badawi structure to the Palestinian structures that we have presented as belonging to the tradition of Meser II, Sidon-Dakeman and more precisely the one of Afrider” (561)
Watrin and Blin see an evolutionary path in Palestinian architecture of the Bronze Age: “an evolution from a rectangular surface shape of buildings (succeeding the subterranean dwellings) to an ovoid sub-surface structure . . . . Around the same period, the site of Maadi appears to present an evolution from semi-underground storage spaces of elliptical shape dug into the ground to semi-underground constructions of roughly sub-rectangular shape with walls built of rubble and mud bricks, and finally to subterranean architecture of oval shape in stone. They conclude from the architectural evidence that “Maadian architecture underwent both direct/indirect internal evolutions and internal/external evolution, and that the Maadian structures evolved into a hybrid architecture featuring elements of both Egyptian and Palestinian ancestry” (Olin and Blin 2003, p.564)." http://www.faiyum.com/html/chalcolithic__maadi-buto_.html
So we can see early contacts and influence from the Palestine and the Middle East was not insignificant.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Thanks Melchior, your cool you are very uniased like unlike many other posters here. From what I can tell so far the Nile Valley from Aswan to Quift had a large population density, and from Fayium to the Head of the Delta as well.
It seems the Southern Egyptians were the dominant players at least until the Ramses House. Although many people in the North and Delta were probably just as black as Southern Egyptians. Dont forget about groups like the Natufians.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Melchior said:
but those in the North have always been more Middle Eastern looking.
^Nonsense on 3 counts: Northern Egypt has had more influence from the Mediterranean and Levant, but dark-skinned tropical Egyptians have always been in place there- in ancient times and recent. On 3 counts your claim of "always Middle eastern looking" is bogus:
{a) Dark skinned Egyptians are well represented in the north, (b) limb proportion studies of the ancient north show the population to cluster more with tropical Africans, than "Middle Easterners" and (c) 'Middle eastern looking" ALSO includes dark skin. "Middle Eastern" people come in all shades and looks. In fact, early Middle Easterners looked like tropical Africans who are not stereotyped as you would have them, but have quite a range of features.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
@ Zarahan are you sure that Girl is a Northern Fellahin, not saying its not a possibility but I have not found any data on that particular image.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Jari, based on a Google search for northern delta Egyptians. But even if she is from Middle or south it doesn't matter. We sll know that the far north, being nearer the Mediterranean and Levant had small scale movement from Hyskos, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and Arabs in various eras, but there is plenty of dark skin, (including brown skin) in the North, especially among the fellahin, the rural people. The key point is that there are those who want to whitewash these OTHER Egyptians away. As one mainstream reference notes:
"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 concept of "Middle eastern looking" is bogus and reveals a hypocritical double standard. "Middle eastern" people can be dark-skinned with non-straight hair but they still get to be "Middle Eastern". However when it comes to Africans, AFRICANS aren't supposed to vary, they are all supposed to look alike. A concept like "Middle eastern looking" exposes the hypocritical double-standard once again.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^ Zarahan I agree. Despite recent Genetics studies showing that so called "Back Migrations" went both ways, and that blacks are found out side of africa people want to still egualte blacks to one place on Earth and Give so called Caucasians a full range from Northern Europe to India and East Africa.
Plenty of Egyptians in the North would have been Dark Skinned.
I was only asking because it would be interesting if the Girl was a Northern Fellahin. Despite what location she if from she is still a Native Egyptian and remnant of Dynastic Egyptians.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
^^Indeed Jari, she very well might be. But here is another pic from a journalist who specifically went to Lower Egypt - Oshkar, Egypt, near Giza, to talk to the peasant farmers. They took this pic- 197os.
By the way your quote on density shows that as far as population, the area near the Mediterranean coast was actually one of the lower density ones, and defeats attempts to run down the south as if it were unimportant. But it is from the south that the dynasties sprung. Good quote.
"Butzer’s (1976) figures demonstrate that throughout the dynastic period the Egyptian population numbers were denser between Aswan and Qift, and between the Faiyum and the head of the Delta. The Delta and the southern wide floodplain were more sparsely populated. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Exactly, so that means that Alexandria was part of this "Sparse Population" so my question is when did the Modern Delta and Cirian Egyptians become Dominant. The Fayium Portrait are very reminicent of Modern Egyptians and we know the Fayium were Greek/Egyptian Mullattos. So We know by the Roman Occupation the Delta and Cairian Egyptians were becoming more Dominant.
I think around the fall of the New Kingdom maybe..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoslips101: Not true. Ancient, pre-Ptolemaic capital cities in the north included:
Memphis, Herakleopolis, Itjtawy (in the Faiyoum) region) Xois, Avaris, Pi-Ramesses, Bubastis, Sais and Mendes.
And what the hell do the capitals--most of which were built in the neck of Egypt (between the Delta and Valley) for obvious political reasons-- have to do with the actual population sizes in ancient versus modern times??
Population centers does NOT equal overall population sizes. Also, you forget that ancient Egypt had relatively few cities compared to other ancient civilizations contemporaneous with it. The vast majority of Egypt's population was non-urban living in villages scattered throughout the nation.
Can you say non-sequitor?
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
The population of Egypt expanded around the Napoleonic era(1790's to mid 1800's). During this period the population shift and birth rates became greater in Lower Egypt than that of Middle and Upper Egypt. Fellahin migrating from the Delta added expediently to the growing population of northern Egypt. Most of the modern Cairene population is actually made up of Delta Fellahin and Sa3eedi from Middle to Upper Egypt. Scattered amongst both are Cairenes which have been in Cairo for time immortal.
Most Khawagas posting here donot realize that Fellahin in the Delta and Middle Egypt have mixture from western Asians. Some descend from bedouins who took up agriculture during the Islamic era in Egypt.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Indeed Jari, she very well might be. But here is another pic from a journalist who specifically went to Lower Egypt - Oshkar, Egypt, near Giza, to talk to the peasant farmers. They took this pic- 197os.
By the way your quote on density shows that as far as population, the area near the Mediterranean coast was actually one of the lower density ones, and defeats attempts to run down the south as if it were unimportant. But it is from the south that the dynasties sprung. Good quote.
"Butzer’s (1976) figures demonstrate that throughout the dynastic period the Egyptian population numbers were denser between Aswan and Qift, and between the Faiyum and the head of the Delta. The Delta and the southern wide floodplain were more sparsely populated.
Here is a photo of a man from rural Giza taken more recently.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly, so that means that Alexandria was part of this "Sparse Population" so my question is when did the Modern Delta and Cirian Egyptians become Dominant. The Fayium Portrait are very reminicent of Modern Egyptians and we know the Fayium were Greek/Egyptian Mullattos. So We know by the Roman Occupation the Delta and Cairian Egyptians were becoming more Dominant.
I think around the fall of the New Kingdom maybe..
Mind you, one point that Ausar brought up was that during the Ptolemaic period the city of Alexandria was actually segregated with native Egyptians being barred from the city with exception of servants and traders!! This policy of apartheid that was implemented in Alexandria only was done for the obvious reason for fear of rebellion against the foreign Ptolemaic rulers. Nevertheless, the Ptolemies and Cleopatra in particular fully adopted the culture and customs of the people. That Alexandria was segregated from native Egyptians until after the fall of Rome makes it more difficult for 'Rahotep's' argument that Alexandrians are representative of ancient Egyptians. In fact, wasn't there a cranial study showing this is not the case at all??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The population of Egypt expanded around the Napoleonic era(1790's to mid 1800's). During this period the population shift and birth rates became greater in Lower Egypt than that of Middle and Upper Egypt. Fellahin migrating from the Delta added expediently to the growing population of northern Egypt. Most of the modern Cairene population is actually made up of Delta Fellahin and Sa3eedi from Middle to Upper Egypt. Scattered amongst both are Cairenes which have been in Cairo for time immortal.
Most Khawagas posting here donot realize that Fellahin in the Delta and Middle Egypt have mixture from western Asians. Some descend from bedouins who took up agriculture during the Islamic era in Egypt.
^^ Straight from a true Egyptian. Thanks, Ausar. I remember you mentioning this before but I forgot what time period the Delta population began to expand. And what about Ottoman times?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Rahotep Not true. Ancient, pre-Ptolemaic capital cities in the north included: Memphis, Herakleopolis, Itjtawy (in the Faiyoum) region) Xois, Avaris, Pi-Ramesses, Bubastis, Sais and Mendes.
Number Egyptian Name Capital Modern Capital Translation
1 Ta-Seti Abu / Yebu (Elephantine) Aswan Land of the bow 2 Wetjes-Hor Djeba (Apollonopolis Magna) Edfu Throne of Horus 3 Ten Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) al-Kab Shrine 4 Waset Niwt-rst / Waset (Thebes) Karnak Sceptre 5 Herui Gebtu (Coptos) Qift The two falcons 6 Aa-ta Lunet / Tantere (Tentyra) Dendera The crocodile 7 Seshesh Seshesh (Diospolis Parva) Hu Sistrum 8 Abdju Abdju (Abydos) al-Birba Great land 9 Min Apu / Khen-min (Panopolis) Akhmim Min 10 Wadkhet Djew-qa (Aphroditopolis) Ifteh Cobra 11 Set Shashotep (Hypselis) Shutb The creature associated with Set 12 Tu-ph Hut-Sekhem-Senusret (Antaeopolis) Qaw al-Kebir Viper mountain 13 Atef-Khent Zawty (z3wj-tj, Lycopolis) Asyut Upper Sycamore and Viper 14 Atef-Pehu Qesy (Cusae) al-Qusiya Lower Sycamore and Viper 15 Un Khemenu (Hermopolis Magna) al-Ashmunayn Hare 16 Meh-Mahetch Hebenu Kom el Ahmar Oryx 17 Anpu Saka (Cynopolis) al-Kais Anubis 18 Sep Teudjoi / Hutnesut (Alabastronopolis) el-Hiba Set 19 Uab Per-Medjed (Oxyrhynchus) el-Bahnasa Two Sceptres 20 Atef-Khent Henen-nesut (Herakleopolis Magna) Ihnasiyyah al-Madinah Southern Sycamore 21 Atef-Pehu Shenakhen / Semenuhor (Crocodilopolis, Arsinoe) Madinat al-Fayyum Northern Sycamore 22 Maten Tepihu (Aphroditopolis) Atfih Knife
DJ knew this.
The area of the delta was swamp land made livable by drainage. goods and services were more important with the other polities on the Nile before they cared about the coast Waset or Wose was the premier city for thousands of yrs, the cities on the coast did became important but did not eclipse those of the south until the Greco Roman era
They said also that the first man who became king of Egypt was Min; and that in his time all Egypt except the district of Thebes was a swamp, and none of the regions were then above water which now lie below the lake of Moiris, to which lake it is a voyage of seven days up the river from the sea: 5, and I thought that they said well about the land; for it is manifest in truth even to a person who has not heard it beforehand but has only seen, at least if he have understanding, that the Egypt to which the Hellenes come in ships is a land which has been won by the Egyptians as an addition, and that it is a gift of the river Herodutus The Histories http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/herodotus/book02.htm
Khentu Hon Nefer (page 554a) = founders of the Excellent Order. Budge: "peoples and tribes of Nubia and the Egyptian Sudan." For "Hon" see page 586b.
Ta Khent (page 1051b/page 554b) = land of the beginning.
Eau (page 952b/page 17b) = the old country
Ancient Egyptian’s Worldview:
The Egyptian’s view of the world was the exact opposite of the current Western one. To the Egyptian, the top of the world was in the south (upper) towards the African interior, the bottom (lower) towards the north, hence upper and lower Egypt; upper and lower Syria. http://www.nonsensewebsite.com/blog/tag/barbarians/ Again Ta-seti FIRST NOME AKA NUBIA.. Kemet started out as an inner African civilization and moved towards the coast that's why God's Land is in the south
Brada, are those really capitals or are they just sepati (nomes)?? Yes we all know the reason why the nomes are listed from south to north with Ta Seti being the very first. All archaeology shows the civilization originated in the south. Even dynasties 0-4 hail from the south.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
The population of Egypt stayed consistent until around the Napoleonic period. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of consistent census information in Ptolemaic Egypt to Roman times. We do have some census information from scattered sources from the Islamic period to Ottoman period. I believe Josephus gives the Roman Egyptian population to be about 6 million people including foreigners.
Another phenomenon often ignored is during the time of heavy taxation in both Roman and Islamic periods in Egypt's history there was a great migration of peasants from Lower Egypt into Upper Egypt. Upper Egypt was always a region in occupied Egypt that was less governed than Lower Egypt.
Most likely the heavily admixed Lower Egyptian population fled into part of Middle Egypt and Upper Egypt. Probably further into Nubia as well. This aspect is documented by Greco-Roman sources and Arabic sources. Everybody from Strabo to al-Maqrizi.
The population demographics in Egypt is very complex and deserves study from antiquity into the modern era. From the urban Egypt to rural Egypt.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Does anybody here read the books and articles I reference? All are reliable mainstream scholarship. Right know I am pressed from time because otherwise I would post appropriate excerpts.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Well you stepped in it now..
I was just clarifying. Your last post was so silly and this thread really deserved to die since the original challenge issued has been met. Your insistence that the later period Egyptians were reflective of their predecessors is so ill informed and ignores the study of epigenetic traits carried out by Sonia Zakrzewski that find Late and subsequently modern Egyptians to not be reflective of early ones. Modern Egyptians may resemble late period Egyptians, but neither late period Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians resemble Early Egyptians. And no study that has been unrefuted shows them to have any sore of affinity with Eurasians over Africans.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Djheuti
quote:Brada, are those really capitals or are they just sepati (nomes)?? Yes we all know the reason why the nomes are listed from south to north with Ta Seti being the very first. All archaeology shows the civilization originated in the south. Even dynasties 0-4 hail from the south.
those are the Nomes of upper Kemet Nomes of Lower Kemet starts with Memphis 1st Nome a city that Menes won from the Nile to make the delta habitable as reported by Herodotus if there is a mistake please jump in and make the correction each one teach one.
earlier I posted that Grave goods passed from Syria Palestine to Ta-Seti without stopping in Kemet that is in error such goods were found in Kemet proper.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Thanks Melchior, your cool you are very uniased like unlike many other posters here. From what I can tell so far the Nile Valley from Aswan to Quift had a large population density, and from Fayium to the Head of the Delta as well.
It seems the Southern Egyptians were the dominant players at least until the Ramses House. Although many people in the North and Delta were probably just as black as Southern Egyptians. Dont forget about groups like the Natufians.
Yes but the Natufians were there around 10,000 BC or so. Also I believe you know me from the Topix forums.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Melchior said:
but those in the North have always been more Middle Eastern looking.
^Nonsense on 3 counts: Northern Egypt has had more influence from the Mediterranean and Levant, but dark-skinned tropical Egyptians have always been in place there- in ancient times and recent. On 3 counts your claim of "always Middle eastern looking" is bogus:
{a) Dark skinned Egyptians are well represented in the north, (b) limb proportion studies of the ancient north show the population to cluster more with tropical Africans, than "Middle Easterners" and (c) 'Middle eastern looking" ALSO includes dark skin. "Middle Eastern" people come in all shades and looks. In fact, early Middle Easterners looked like tropical Africans who are not stereotyped as you would have them, but have quite a range of features.
Would you say these examples below are Middle Eastern looking?
In fact, early Middle Easterners looked like tropical Africans
Yes porbably very early on in prehistoric times.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Yeah I had the same name on Topix,(Jari or Jari-Ankhamun) but I don't remember your particular name from Topix, did you have another name??
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Well you stepped in it now..
I was just clarifying. Your last post was so silly and this thread really deserved to die since the original challenge issued has been met. Your insistence that the later period Egyptians were reflective of their predecessors is so ill informed and ignores the study of epigenetic traits carried out by Sonia Zakrzewski that find Late and subsequently modern Egyptians to not be reflective of early ones. Modern Egyptians may resemble late period Egyptians, but neither late period Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians resemble Early Egyptians. And no study that has been unrefuted shows them to have any sore of affinity with Eurasians over Africans.
Give me a time period for your so called "early Egyptians"
And why don't you post this study by Sonia Zakrzewski so I can prove you're a simpleton?
Oh and answer this
Waay late? Lol This presumes that Egyptians automatically change due to time and the inlfuence of invasions/migrations etc. Yet you fail to realize that these quotes are from about 2000 years in the past! And they are still largely relfective of the demographic situation in Egypt Today. Why no significant change??? Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Yeah I had the same name on Topix,(Jari or Jari-Ankhamun) but I don't remember your particular name from Topix, did you have another name??
Yes. I started out with a Jimi Hendrix avatar.
I noticed people on here seem a bit more intelligent than on Topix. I can understand why you don't visit there much anymore.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Give me a time period for your so called "early Egyptians"
The early groups would be the OK, LPD, MK, Archaic, EPD, and Badarian samples used in her study. For more details on the samples see Keita and Boyce (2006)
quote:Give me a time period for your so called "early Egyptians"
And why don't you post this study by Sonia Zakrzewski so I can prove you're a simpleton?
No need in reposting it repeatedly.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
OK Cool I know who you are now. Im sure you want to keep it a secret. Yeah Topix was once a good place but it was infiltrated by Trolls who turned everything racial.
E.S does have a better quality to its posters.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ Yeah I had the same name on Topix,(Jari or Jari-Ankhamun) but I don't remember your particular name from Topix, did you have another name??
Yes. I started out with a Jimi Hendrix avatar.
I noticed people on here seem a bit more intelligent than on Topix. I can understand why you don't visit there much anymore.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Give me a time period for your so called "early Egyptians"
The early groups would be the OK, LPD, MK, Archaic, EPD, and Badarian samples used in her study. For more details on the samples see Keita and Boyce (2006)
quote:Give me a time period for your so called "early Egyptians"
And why don't you post this study by Sonia Zakrzewski so I can prove you're a simpleton?
Ok, I read were she mentions discontinuity from the New Kingdom onwards. Just for the record, you do realize the New Kingdom comprises the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties? And this is the period that saw some of the greatest and most reknown pharoahs like Ahmose I, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun?? And of course this would include subsequent dynasties as well like the one which saw Ramses II etc.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^What's your point? She is saying that there was an increase in foreign elements during the New Kingdom (as seen by the corresponding citation).
quote:Just for the record, you do realize the New Kingdom comprises the Eighteenth, Nineteenth, and Twentieth Dynasties? And this is the period that saw some of the greatest and most reknown pharoahs like Ahmose I, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun?? And of course this would include subsequent dynasties as well like the one which saw Ramses II etc.
SO???
Several of the Pharaohs you mentioned above actually had strong southern affinities. And yes, even the New Kingdom Pharaohs represented great(er) heterogeneity due to increased influence, how is this news? This doesn't mean that every single New Kingdom individual had foreign ancestry you know. As a matter of fact, Zakrzewski's 2011 paper actually showed the inhabitants of Armana to have a specific set of characteristics (i.e., homogeneous) meaning they were indigenous
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
SO???
So basically if we follow Zakrzewski's study then modern Egyptians are not all genetically distant from the folks back during Egypt's glory days when they were kicking ass and building empires.
Several of the Pharaohs you mentioned above actually had strong southern affinities.
Yes I'm sure someone can find some little trait to focus on and put a big Afrocentric spin on things. But just the same, folks like Mathilda can point to a dental analysis indicating that they cluster more with Eurasians. In any case, Zakrzewski says from the New Kingdom onward and you are now trying to back peddle and salvage some of the New Kingdom pharoahs.
Also what foreign element does she attribute this change to? From the time period in question it would seem to be the Hyksos. I never thought they had that much of an impact. I thought that they had kept themselves apart..interesting.
And the study of the inhabitants of Akenaten's little town of Amarna doesn't speak for all Egyptians at that time, does it? Hey here is a study that shows that an area in Southern Egypt in ancient times was largerly Eurasian and has since become more BLACK!
"Attempts to extract ancient DNA or aDNA from Ancient Egyptian remains have yielded mainly Eurasian DNA types from the Dakleh Oasis cemetery site (from Southern Egypt), and they show a considerable increase in the amount of sub Saharan mitchondrial DNA over the past 2,000 years, suggesting that within this timeframe there was more migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Nile Valley than from Eurasia to the latter.[19] One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa." Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
Not what you would expect huh?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^My post flew right over your head, didn't it?
quote:So basically if we follow Zakrzewski's study then modern Egyptians are not all genetically distant from the folks back during Egypt's glory days when they were kicking ass and building empires.
How stupid are you? Where in the study did she say that? Let me answer that for you: she didn't. I'll try to make this as easy for you to understand as possible: there is discontinuity in the New Kingdom onwards because there was increasing foreign influence during that time period. As I already told you, this does NOT mean that there was suddenly a replacement or significant gene flow occurring immediately, as she specifically states that there was a gradual assimilation- i.e., over time. Which of course means that not all Egyptians all of a sudden had foreign ancestry.
quote:Yes I'm sure someone can find some little trait to focus on and put a big Afrocentric spin on things. But just the same, folks like Mathilda can point to a dental analysis indicating that they cluster more with Eurasians.
Fine, lets see this evidence then.
quote:In any case, Zakrzewski says from the New Kingdom onward and you are now trying to back peddle and salvage some of the New Kingdom pharoahs.
The reason you are so confused is because you haven't read it, right? If you would notice the little number right after she makes that claim, that means that there is a corresponding citation for said claim. In this case being Berry and Berry. I am not backtracking on anything. You just fail to put the whole thing into context. Think of it like this:
1)During the New Kingdom there is a gradual increase in foreign influence
2)Over time this influence would have a more significant effect on the population (e.g., late period)
3)Therefore, the modern population would be even more distinct from early groups because they have been more affected by migration than New Kingdom Inhabitants
That is what Zakrzewski is saying in a nutshell.
quote:And the study of the inhabitants of Akenaten's little town of Amarna doesn't speak for all Egyptians at that time, does it? Hey here is a study that shows that an area in Southern Egypt in ancient times was largerly Eurasian and has since become more BLACK!
I'm just telling you how it is. And when did I say it was representative of all of Egypt? Don't be retarded.
quote:"Attempts to extract ancient DNA or aDNA from Ancient Egyptian remains have yielded mainly Eurasian DNA types from the Dakleh Oasis cemetery site (from Southern Egypt), and they show a considerable increase in the amount of sub Saharan mitchondrial DNA over the past 2,000 years, suggesting that within this timeframe there was more migration from Sub-Saharan Africa to the Nile Valley than from Eurasia to the latter.[19] One successful study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Paabo and Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, a minority of which originated in sub-Saharan Africa." Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
This is sad indeed that you would resort to Wikipedia. You didn't even read the study, because Paabo did NOT find any Eurasian lineages. What he found were sub-Saharan lineages and the rest remained unidentified your quote is not an actual quote from Paabo and Di Rienzio liar. Learn to cite from actual scientific reports.
The frequencies obtained from the Dakleh Oasis study are flawed seeing as how they use a marker that does not test for other Sub-Saharan (e.g., L3) lineages
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
How stupid are you? Where in the study did she say that? Let me answer that for you: she didn't. I'll try to make this as easy for you to understand as possible
She didn't have to say that. Some folks can read between the lines and don't need everything spoon fed to them unlike you. The foreign influence correposnds to the occupation of the Hyksos. And the discontinuity begins around the time of their departure. Meaning that the foreign genetic influence had been occuring overtime until it reached the point where there was definitee genetitic shift in the general popluation. And that point was reached in the by the begining of the New Kingdom.
Fine, lets see this evidence then. Wait.
During the New Kingdom there is a gradual increase in foreign influence
Obviously this foreign infuence occured prior to the New Kingdom. The words she used was genetic discontinuity..genetic separation from the earlier group, in other words it was a Fait accompli. She didn't say the begining of a gradual discontinuity. She is saying that by the time of the New Kingdom a new genetic identity had been established. Try and understand the concept.
And when did I say it was representative of all of Egypt?
Don't be disingenous. You know full well why you brought it up.. to imply that by the time of Akhenaton many Egyptians still retained southern traits as you put it. If you thought this was an isolated incident, why the hell would you bring it up?
This is sad indeed that you would resort to Wikipedia.
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
Actually there are some that hold that part of Egypt has become Blacker over time. This would be due to Nubian rule and the cintinued use and mixture with Nubian soldiers, not to mention the slave trade in Egypt.
"The trans-Saharan slave trade grew significantly from the 10th to the 15th century, as vast African empires such as Ghana, Mali, Songhai, and Kanem-Bornu developed south of the Sahara and marshaled the trade. Arab slave raiders also penetrated south, up the Nile River to present-day Ethiopia, capturing thousands of slaves and sending them down the Nile to Egypt. Over the course of more than a thousand years, the trans-Saharan slave trade saw the movement of at least 10 million enslaved men, women, and children from West and East Africa to North Africa, the Middle East, and India. The slaves and their descendants contributed to the harems, royal households, and armies of the Arab, Turkish, and Persian rulers in those regions.
Slavery existed for much of the 19th century in Egypt. Slavery in the Khedivate was not unlike slavery in Ancient Egypt. The great bulk of the labor force was the landless peasantry. Slaves were a small part of the labor force and concentrated in a few specific activities. Slavery followed the pattern set during earlier historical periods, most recently Egypt's position as a province of the Ottoman Empire. Slavery was similar in Egyopt to that of the wider Arab world. The Mamuluks were destinctive to Egypt. Egypt had access to as well as access to African slaves and until the early-19th century had access to the European catives of the Barbary pirates. There were both white and black slaves as well as male and female slaves. Slavery gradually disappeared in Egypt during the 19th century. Formal abolition was just part of this transition. Although defeated by the Ottomans and Napoleon, the Mamluks still had considerable influence in Egypt and important positions. They were annililated in a great massacre conducted by Muhammed Ali (1811). This ended their rule as a ruling aristocracy. They continued to play an important role in the military and government administration. Many Mamluks and other white make slaves were owned by Turks (non-Arab Ottomans) and increasingly wealthy Egyptians. [Baer, p. 147.] The slave population of Egypt during the 19th century was an estimasted 20,000-30,000, although there is no precise accounting. Certainly they were a small fraction out of out of the overall populstion of about 5 million people. About half of Egyptian slaves were concentrated in Egyot. The number of slaves in Cairo has been estimated at 12,000-15,000 in a city of about 350,000 people. Female slaves might be kept in harems. Wealthy Turks preferred Circassian females (white women who were primarily obtained in the Caucasus). More humble Egyptain harems were more commonly Abyssinians (Africans). While male and female Negro slaves were commonly used as domestic servants. Black slaves were used as soldiers as well as the decling number of Mamluks. African slaves were also used as agricultural labor, although this was a very small part of the largely peasant labor force. The estates of the Muhammed Ali family were worked by African slaves. [Baer] The supression of the slave trade was largely brought about by the British. The first major step was the First Anglo-Egyptian Convention (1877). One focus of the effort was the Sudan. Sudan was seen by Egyptian officials as a part of Egypt. The Sudan was more traditional than Egypt itself and a more austere form of Islam widely followed. And the slave trade was an important part of the economy whoch was not the case in Egypt. British governors were appointed in the Sudan. The most notable was Charles "Chinese" Girdon. Special missions were dispatched to supress the slave trade. The Mahdist revolution delayed the effort in the Sudan (1881). More aggressive steps were taken after the establishment of the British Protectorate (1882)."
Islam's Black Slaves records: "In the 1570's, a Frenchman visiting Egypt found many thousands of blacks on sale in Cairo on market days. In 1665 Father Antonios Gonzalis, a Spanish/Belgian traveller, reported 800 - 1000 slaves on sale in the Cairo market on a single day. In 1796, a British traveller reported a caravan of 5000 slaves departing from Darfur. In 1838, it was estimated that 10000 to 12000 slaves were arriving in Cairo each year." Islam's Black Slaves, by Ronald Segal, Farrar, New York, 2001
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Here is the study about anceint Egyptian teeth. It's from Mathilda's site so..
Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7720, USA. ffjdi@uaf.edu
Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times. Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Sub Saharan teeth are described as being complex, massive teeth, not similar to the ancient Egyptians, who had simple mass reduced teeth like modern North Africans.
This chart shows the relative similarities between the teeth of different populations. As you can see, the Egyptians don’t cluster with the Sub Saharan African teeth (marked by black triangles)"
You asked to see it..
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Well you stepped in it now..
I was just clarifying. Your last post was so silly and this thread really deserved to die since the original challenge issued has been met. Your insistence that the later period Egyptians were reflective of their predecessors is so ill informed and ignores the study of epigenetic traits carried out by Sonia Zakrzewski that find Late and subsequently modern Egyptians to not be reflective of early ones. Modern Egyptians may resemble late period Egyptians, but neither late period Egyptians nor Modern Egyptians resemble Early Egyptians. And no study that has been unrefuted shows them to have any sore of affinity with Eurasians over Africans.
Correct. I don't know why anyone in the right mind would suggest that modern Egyptians are the same as ancient ones, ignoring 2,000 years of invasions and immigrations into the country. This is not only supported from the anthropological data but also documented in historical records as Ausar has stated many times. Even during the Arab colonial times the Caliphate would invite various Arab tribes to enter the country as part of an Arabization policy.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Would you say these examples below are Middle Eastern looking?
In fact, early Middle Easterners looked like tropical Africans
Yes probably very early on in prehistoric times.
^^ The top scribe above had more paint once...
His features look no different from the Somali man in the green shirt.
Two ancient Egyptian brothers of the Delta.
As far as "Middle Easterners" looking like Africans, well the Middle East is right next to Africa and there are Middle Easterners who look African even today.
Sinai
Yemen [img]
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:She didn't have to say that. Some folks can read between the lines and don't need everything spoon fed to them unlike you. The foreign influence correposnds to the occupation of the Hyksos. And the discontinuity begins around the time of their departure. Meaning that the foreign genetic influence had been occuring overtime until it reached the point where there was definitee genetitic shift in the general popluation. And that point was reached in the by the begining of the New Kingdom.
So I take it you've read the full study to understand its context? No, you haven't. How many times do I have to tell you that she is using another paper for her statement? You have no idea what she is saying, because quite frankly you don't even own the study. Now let me explain this for the last time, the article that she references for the statement on discontinuity from the New Kingdom onwards is THIS article:
Berry, A.C., & Berry, R.J., 1972, ‘Origins and Relationships of the Ancient Egyptians, Based on the Study of Non-Metrical Variations in the Skull’, Journal of Human Evolution, 1, 1972: 199-206; p.203
"...STABILITY and HOMOGENEITY persisted right through the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and breaks down only in the New Kingdom period, when we know from many sources that there was considerable infiltration into the Nile Valley."
The above article is that what she bases her statement on. Your assessment is so ill informed because you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course there was some form of minor gene flow prior to the New Kingdom, which was restricted to LOWER Egypt. But there was no significant influence until the New Kingdom.
quote:Try and understand the concept.
No, YOU try and understand what I already told you. Because you can not possibly understand the article since you haven't read it. Plain and simple.
quote:Did I? Read it here then.
You falsely made it seem as if what you posted was a quote from Paabo and Di Rienzio by using quotation marks and listing their book as the reference. The site you referred me to offers NO peer-reviewed scientific reports.
quote:Actually there are some that hold that part of Egypt has become Blacker over time. This would be due to Nubian rule and the cintinued use and mixture with Nubian soldiers, not to mention the slave trade in Egypt.
You do realize that the bit about the slave trade you posted says that there were 20-30,000 where more than half were located in Lower Egypt? Where is your evidence that the slave trade was dominant in Upper (Southern) Egypt? What you are proposing is ridiculous. Gene flow from Nubian rule is equally idiotic. What about all the gene flow from Persian, Greek etc., rule? The difference is this:
Current patterns of the most common variants (V, XI, and IV) have been suggested to be primarily related to Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom political actions in Nubia, including occasional settler colonization, and the conquest of Egypt by Kush (in upper Nubia, northern Sudan), thus initiating the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty. However, a synthesis of evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, texts, distribution of haplotypes outside Egypt, and some demographic considerations lends greater support to the establishment, before the Middle Kingdom, of the observed distributions of the most prevalent haplotypes V, XI, and IV. It is suggested that the pattern of diversity for these variants in the Egyptian Nile Valley was largely the product of population events that occurred in the late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene through the First Dynasty, and was sustained by continuous smaller-scale bidirectional migrations/interactions.--Keita, 2005 (History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration of Multiple Lines of Evidence)
These genetic variants are long before Sudanese rule of Egypt and even prehistoric Egyptians showed affinity to Sudanese groups
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. This proves there was continuity along the Nile from the Delta to Sudan and even farther.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Here is more on Northern Egypt some of the early cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi which predate the 1st dyansty.
"The Maadian (or Maadi-Buto)
The term Maadi-Buto or Maadian describes around twelve sites, named after the type site of Maadi in the western Delta. The sites include: Maadi, Wadi Digla (one of Maadi’s cemeteries), Heliopolis, Buto, Tura Station (Junker 1912), Giza, Merimda Beni Salama, es-Saff, Sedment (Williams 1982), Ezbet el-Qerdahi and Harageh (Engleback 1923). Both cemetery and settlement sites have been identified...The Maadi-Buto phase was not exclusive to the Cairo/western Delta area. Schmidt (1996) identifies some elements at Mostagedda and, more importantly, there were several sites in the Eastern Delta... Many hundreds of Syro-Palestinian pots have been found at Maadi, reflecting strong connections to Syro-Palestine and, probably to the evolving Uruk-Jemdet Nasr states of Greater Mesopotamia. Caneva and her co-workers report that Maadi’s lithics also tie it ‘in a wide network of communication, including the Levant and reaching northern Syria’ (1989, p.291)” (Wenke 1991, p.300).
Watson and Blin (2003) believe that they have identified an evolutionary trend in the architecture at Maadi which corresponds to examples in Palestine. Simple semi-subterranean structures were found at Maadi and may have been the prototype of another more advanced type of structure at Maadi found by Menghin and Amer, which was smaller, ovoid and accessible by steps, and these may in turn have lead to a very distinctive type of subterranean building found first found by Badawi in 1997. Badawi’s structure took the form of a rectangle with rounded edges, an entrance corridor with postholes in the middle, and depressions around the outside. It looks like a little like a prehistoric French “souterrain”. Witran and Blin point out similarities between this and Palestinian sites like Meser, Yitah’el II and Afridar in North Palestine and the typologically similar Sidon-Dakeman in South Lebanon: “By all evidence it is possible to link the Badawi structure to the Palestinian structures that we have presented as belonging to the tradition of Meser II, Sidon-Dakeman and more precisely the one of Afrider” (561)
Watrin and Blin see an evolutionary path in Palestinian architecture of the Bronze Age: “an evolution from a rectangular surface shape of buildings (succeeding the subterranean dwellings) to an ovoid sub-surface structure . . . . Around the same period, the site of Maadi appears to present an evolution from semi-underground storage spaces of elliptical shape dug into the ground to semi-underground constructions of roughly sub-rectangular shape with walls built of rubble and mud bricks, and finally to subterranean architecture of oval shape in stone. They conclude from the architectural evidence that “Maadian architecture underwent both direct/indirect internal evolutions and internal/external evolution, and that the Maadian structures evolved into a hybrid architecture featuring elements of both Egyptian and Palestinian ancestry” (Olin and Blin 2003, p.564)." http://www.faiyum.com/html/chalcolithic__maadi-buto_.html
So we can see early contacts and influence from the Palestine and the Middle East was not insignificant.
Your source above points to earlier sources of Maadi being in the west towards Libya. That there were some influences via trade and goods from the Levant is nothing new nor surprising.
That still does not change the fact that actual pharaonic culture began in the south not the north.
Also let's not forget this old study by A. Batrawi.
"The Racial History of Egypt and Nubia",The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (1946)
Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Lower Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism. The geographical distinction between the two groups continued during the Pre-Dynastic Period. The Upper Egyptians, however, spread into lower Nubia during that period. By the beginning of the Dynastic era the northern Egyptian type is encountered for the first time in the Thebaïd, i.e., in the southern territory. The incursion, however, seems to have been transitory and the effects of the co-existence of the two types in one locality remained very transient until the 18th Dynasty. From this time onwards the northern type prevailed all over Egypt, as far south as Denderah, till the end of the Roman period.
In Lower Nubia a slight infiltration of negroid influence is observed during the Middle Kingdom times. In the New Empire period, however, the southern Egyptian type prevails again. After the New Empire a fresh and much stronger negro influence becomes discernable till the end of the Roman period.
There is a wide gap in our knowledge of the racial history of the two countries during the Christian and Islamic periods, owing to the lack of an adequate amount of relevant material. The study of the available measurements of the living, however, apparently suggests that the modern population all over Egypt conforms more closely to the southern type. The mean measurements for the modern Nubians are rather curious. The average cephalic index for them is significantly larger than that for the Egyptians. This is contrary to expectation based on knowledge of the characteristics of the ancient populations. No satisfactory explanation could be suggested.
The distribution of blood groups in present-day Egypt shows that the mass of population is very homogeneous and there are no significant differences, in this respect, between the Moslems and the Copts. Comparisons of head and body measurements suggest the same conclusion. [pp. 154-55]
So the only difference between northern Egyptians and southern Egyptians Egyptians was that the northerners had narrower noses and a lesser degree of prognathism since it is implied they still had that trait. Notice also that he confirms there is NO difference whatsoever between Coptic and Muslim Egyptians, debunking claims of many laymen like the poster calling himself 'Rahotep'.
Here is a more recent study on limb proportions.
Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation by Barry Kemp, Publisher: Routledge; 2 edition (December 12, 2005) p.54
"Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
There you have it.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Here is the study about anceint Egyptian teeth. It's from Mathilda's site so..
Yeah, that's right, you rely on Mathilda. Little do you know, Joel Irish was co-author of a more recent study that refuted his 2006 studies hypothesis of migration not effecting the Egyptian population.
quote:This chart shows the relative similarities between the teeth of different populations. As you can see, the Egyptians don’t cluster with the Sub Saharan African teeth (marked by black triangles)"
You asked to see it..
LOL! I already knew that you would use Irish and Hanihara before you posted. You people have no idea of the evolutionary forces that cause mass reduced teeth which are changes in diet and also the development of agriculture
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Indeed! *yawn*
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Here is the study about anceint Egyptian teeth. It's from Mathilda's site so..
Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7720, USA. ffjdi@uaf.edu
Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times. Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Sub Saharan teeth are described as being complex, massive teeth, not similar to the ancient Egyptians, who had simple mass reduced teeth like modern North Africans.
This chart shows the relative similarities between the teeth of different populations. As you can see, the Egyptians don’t cluster with the Sub Saharan African teeth (marked by black triangles)"
You asked to see it..
He has no idea how many times we have seen the study above and discussed it. We've discussed dental studies alone over a dozen times, more recently here and the Irish study specifically most recently here. If one were going by these standards of reduced mass teeth then many people in Sub-Sahara like Ethiopians and even some Nigerians would not be considered "Sub-Saharan" as well!!
Honestly, Melchior must come up with something better than one study or two from of all people Mathilda, the Mistress of Anthropological Mendacity. Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Correct. I don't know why anyone in the right mind would suggest that modern Egyptians are the same as ancient ones, ignoring 2,000 years of invasions and immigrations into the country.
I'm not saying they are exactly the same only that they have not changed much.
"Clines and clusters versus “Race:” a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile"
The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well." C. Loring Brace1, David P. Tracer2, Lucia Allen Yaroch1, John Robb1, Kari Brandt1, A. Russell Nelson1Article first published online: 14 JUN 2005 DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.1330360603
Apparently there are some well learned folks who disagree with y'all.
And your pictures of Sudanese do not match up at all with my Egyptian scribes. It's too damn funny.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
melchior7, I would like to interject in regards to slavery in Medieval Egypt. Its true that Cairo and Alexandria were depots for both white and black slaves. Yes, the local rulers had Abyssinian harem women. However, southern Egypt was never a major trade center for slaves. Most of the male and female slaves from sub-Saharan Africa left very little genetic traces in modern Egypt due to the fact the females were often infertile and men were gilded-meaning they had their testicles chopped off,so people trying to invoke sub-Saharan slavery as a means to blacken modern Egypt is incorrect. Its beginning to be a fallacy stated by most Eurocentric scholars and historians All of the following is attested in Arab accounts of sub-Saharan slaves in Cairo.
Just as you invoke sub-Saharan slaves blackening modern Egypt you fail to mention that there was an active trade of white Circassians in medieval Egypt that went even into the 1800's. The Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi was a descent of one of the Circassian harem women in the late 1800's. I could just as equally argue that these slaves whitened the Egyptian population but have been neglected due to their color being white.
The other problem also with the 25th dynasty blackening the ancient Egyptians is fallacious due to the fact that most of the Nubian pharaohs ruled from Napata in Sudan and not from any region in Egypt. True, Nubians were installed in Waster as both the priests and wives of Amun but there was not much intermingling with Egyptians. By the time of the 25th dynasty the Delta region was already flooded with Libyan tribes from the previous Libyan dynasty. Pianki when he invaded Lower Egypt refused to bread bread with the local rulers in the delta.
The similar claim of Nubian mercenaries blackening the Egyptian population is also invalid. Syrian prisoner of war and mercenaries also came to Egypt in great numbers. Textual accounts attest to their large numbers. I could likewise argue that these Syrians lightened up the ancient Egyptian populations.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
BTW, Melchior7
My reference to Zakrzewski (2011) was to prove the point that there wasn't a fast diffusion of foreigners in the New Kingdom but gradual assimilation over extended periods of time. Of course, she makes this perfectly clear in her 2005 article.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The above article is that what she bases her statement on. Your assessment is so ill informed because you have no idea what you are talking about. Of course there was some form of minor gene flow prior to the New Kingdom, which was restricted to LOWER Egypt. But there was no significant influence until the New Kingdom.
If you really know anything about Egypt please tell me given the time period what this Foreign influence would likely correposnd to??
The site you referred me to offers NO peer-reviewed scientific reports.
When are you going to post the so called legitimate version which supposedly excludes the mention of Eurasian? Until then you got no case.
Gene flow from Nubian rule is equally idiotic
Only to a fool who believes that Nubians were similar in phenotype to the Egyptians which I'm sure you do. How can it not be??
Were they really the same?
How many Afrocentrics know that Nubains spoke a totally unrelated language to Egyptians. Can you explain that one to me??
Also your quote by Keita is speculation. Why don't they what those mysterious haplogroups are?
Here is what others have to say.
"One of the most common ways of assessing population relationships has been the comparative analysis of skull types. Such a study was carried out by the physical anthropologist C. Loring Brace and five co-researchers (Brace et al., 1993) who statistically analyzed a range of 24 cranial measurements from diverse world samples, including ancient Egyptians. The results of the analysis suggest that ancient Egyptian crania had elements in common with those from Southwest Asia and Neolithic Europe, as well as North and Northeast Africa. However, the Egyptian skulls showed very little similarity to African crania from the more distant south and west. The plot below shows, as accurately as is possible in two dimensions, the relationships between craniofacial configurations of the various regional samples. The predynastic sample from Upper Egypt lies very close to the West Eurasian group but also shows tendencies toward some neighboring African groups; this should not be surprising given Egypt's geographical position near the crossroads of Africa, Asia, and Europe. The northern Egyptians deviate even more strongly from the tropical African pattern, and indeed their closest relatives appear to be western Eurasians and coastal North Africans. Notice that the pooled group of Sub-Saharan Africans from the southern, central, and western regions of the continent does not resemble Egyptians at all: this group is plotted very distant from both ancient Egyptian samples. Similar conclusions are reached by Howells (1989, 1995) and Froment (1992, 1994)"
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
LOL! I already knew that you would use Irish and Hanihara before you posted. You people have no idea of the evolutionary forces that cause mass reduced teeth which are changes in diet and also the development of agriculture
I didn't say I stood by it. In a previous post I said for any study you cite that says that the Egyptians cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans, I can find another study which has them cluster with Eurasians...and modern Egyptians.
You've proably seen this before..
Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago.
Borgognini-Tarli and G. Paoli, 1982. The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians showed no signs of differing significantly from that of present-day Egyptians. According to the authors, "the bloodgroup distribution obtained for Asiut, Gebelen and Aswan necropoles shows resemblances with the present leucoderm population of Egypt and particularly with its more 'conservative' fraction (the Copts, MOURANT et al., 1976)."
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Originally posted by melchior7:
Here is more on Northern Egypt some of the early cultural centers of Merinda and Maadi which predate the 1st dyansty.
Everyone knows Maadi and Merimda were in place in the early period and had some trade with places like Palestine, The key point is that actual gene flow from "Middle Eastern" sources was quite small. And as to Maadi and such, the conservative Cambridge History of Africa notes:
"While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed."
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south."
--The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509
------------------------------
As to the population affinities of the ancient north, limb proportions of just these places show affinities more with tropical Africans than "middle Easterners", as conservative Egyptologist Barry Kemp notes below. In fact, the differences were distinct between Maadi etc and Palestine:
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." -- (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
and..
"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity." -- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28
In yet another recent study the ancient Egyptians grouped with African-Americans and tropical Africans rather than Europeans..
"These same log shape variables were subjected to two forms of cluster analysis: neighbor-joining (NJ) and unweighted pair-group method using averages (UPGMA) tree analysis. Figure 8 is the NJ tree. It has two main branches—a long and linear body build branch that includes the Egyptians, Sub-Saharan Africans (except for the Pygmies), and African-Americans and a second, less linear body form branch that includes the Inuit, Europeans, Euro-Americans, Puebloans, Nubians, and Pygmies. Note that the Nubians used in this study are thought by some to represent an immigrant population from Europe or Western Asia [see Holliday (1995)]." --Holiday, T. (2010) Body proportions of circumpolar peoples as evidenced from skeletal data. AmerJrPhyAntrho, 142: 2. 287-302
---------------------------------------------
Dental studies find Egyptians cluster most closely with other tropical Africans than Europeans or Middle easterners
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
"Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."
Limb porportions are but one trait, obviously hair and teeth were not tropically adapted fro some strange reason.
How about this.
"The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of race is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. � 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc."
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
l Borgognini-Tarli and G. Paoli, 1982. The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians showed no signs of differing significantly from that of present-day Egyptians. According to the authors, "the bloodgroup distribution obtained for Asiut, Gebelen and Aswan necropoles shows resemblances with the present leucoderm population of Egypt and particularly with its more 'conservative' fraction (the Copts, MOURANT et al., 1976)."
^Are you still recycling a "white Egypt" based on this? You might as well show your true colors. If you had actually read the study you would have seen that while Paoli finds that Egyptians resemble Egyptians more than others (no surprise there), he found higher levels of Type B and O in Egyptians and Europeans. The "leucoderm match" was based on "type A" blood, But unfortunately for your white Egypt thesis, type A is ALSO common in Africa, and in areas near to Egypt like the Sudan.
[b]Thus type 'A" blood is no marker for "white" people. Far from it. In the data below, the percentage of A in the 'negroid' Nuba EXCEEDS that of all other groups, and the 'negroid' Dinka and Nuer average of A exceeds all but the Nuba. The 'negroid' Flittas of Algeria show type A frequencies exceeding 30%, among the highest in North Africa, again debunking claims that Type A is some sort of "Caucasoid" blood marker.
Paoli's blood an analysis study in 1972 by the way found the ancient Egytians clustered more with the Saharan Black Haratin. As to blood Type B Egyptians show more clustering with other tropical Africans than Europeans or Middle easterners. quote:
Interestingly, Africa in general (independent of any racial categorization) has a higher incidence of group B than Europe or the Middle East. Whether this is the result of intermingling or the original B gene pool is unknown, however it does imply that the links between ancient Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa are deeper and older than generally recognized. " --D'Adamo (2002) "The Complete Blood Type Encyclopedia. pg 14
-----------------------------------
As to the dental study above, it has long been debunked as to assorted Aryan claims...
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. � 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc."
^Which debunks your white or "Middle eastern" Egyptian theory, and the presence of numerous dark-skinned Egyptians in place, both ancient and modern is part of that "continuity" despite more significant changes to the population during the New Kingdom era. And since limb proportion studies of Egyptians show them clustering with tropical Africans, if 'Egyptians have always been Egyptians" then they are for the most part tropically adapted Africans, rather than Europeans or "Middle easterners."
The "continuity card" debunks your own theory.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Let's not forget the fact that while type B blood may not be that high in frequency in so-called Sub-Saharan populations it is very high among black populations living in the Sahara or north of it!! Peoples like the Haratin of the western Sahara as well as the Chluh of Algeria, the Nafusa of Libya, and the Siwa of Egypt-- ALL black people-- carry very high frequencies of blood type B. Because all these peoples are Berber speakers it may be tempting to associate this trait with Afroasiatic speakers, but even the Nilo-Sahara Tubu of southeastern Libya carry high frequencies of type B as well. By the way, even the Haratin who live across the other side of the Sahara are known to possess cranial traits strikingly similar to Egyptians.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: melchior7, I would like to interject in regards to slavery in Medieval Egypt. Its true that Cairo and Alexandria were depots for both white and black slaves. Yes, the local rulers had Abyssinian harem women. However, southern Egypt was never a major trade center for slaves. Most of the male and female slaves from sub-Saharan Africa left very little genetic traces in modern Egypt due to the fact the females were often infertile and men were gilded-meaning they had their testicles chopped off,so people trying to invoke sub-Saharan slavery as a means to blacken modern Egypt is incorrect. Its beginning to be a fallacy stated by most Eurocentric scholars and historians All of the following is attested in Arab accounts of sub-Saharan slaves in Cairo.
Just as you invoke sub-Saharan slaves blackening modern Egypt you fail to mention that there was an active trade of white Circassians in medieval Egypt that went even into the 1800's. The Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi was a descent of one of the Circassian harem women in the late 1800's. I could just as equally argue that these slaves whitened the Egyptian population but have been neglected due to their color being white.
The other problem also with the 25th dynasty blackening the ancient Egyptians is fallacious due to the fact that most of the Nubian pharaohs ruled from Napata in Sudan and not from any region in Egypt. True, Nubians were installed in Waster as both the priests and wives of Amun but there was not much intermingling with Egyptians. By the time of the 25th dynasty the Delta region was already flooded with Libyan tribes from the previous Libyan dynasty. Pianki when he invaded Lower Egypt refused to bread bread with the local rulers in the delta.
The similar claim of Nubian mercenaries blackening the Egyptian population is also invalid. Syrian prisoner of war and mercenaries also came to Egypt in great numbers. Textual accounts attest to their large numbers. I could likewise argue that these Syrians lightened up the ancient Egyptian populations.
Typical Eurocentric double-think-- dismiss all black looking Egyptians as being due to recent "Sub-Saharan" usually slave ancestry, but assume that all white looking Egyptians represent the original native type from pharaonic times. This goes against all historical documentation let alone anthropological data.
There is no such thing as whites indigenous to Africa, and as Ausar has pointed out most of the slaves were transported to the Delta the home of the Arab slave masters, yet the vast majority of black Egyptians are located in the south where they have always been according to the Arabs and these natives were treated no better than slaves by the Arab and later Turkish colonialists, which is why no slaves were ever transported to the south in the first place.
Meanwhile not a word about the countless white slaves from Circassia (the Caucasus) or Albania during both Arab and Ottoman times. Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Typical Eurocentric double-think-- dismiss all black looking Egyptians as being due to recent "Sub-Saharan" usually slave ancestry, but assume that all white looking Egyptians represent the original native type from pharaonic times. This goes against all historical documentation let alone anthropological data.
There is no such thing as whites indigenous to Africa, and as Ausar has pointed out most of the slaves were transported to the Delta the home of the Arab slave masters, yet the vast majority of black Egyptians are located in the south where they have always been according to the Arabs and these natives were treated no better than slaves by the Arab and later Turkish colonialists, which is why no slaves were ever transported to the south in the first place.
Meanwhile not a word about the countless white slaves from Circassia (the Caucasus) or Albania during both Arab and Ottoman times.
Not to mention that the darker Egyptians' complexions better match the complexions of the characters in most Egyptian paintings. It's funny how people who insist that the lighter-skinned Egyptians have the strongest biological connections to the ancients ignore all those paintings depicting people significantly darker and with kinkier hair than the average Egyptian today.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Try telling that to the likes of Mr. Photoshop color palette, whites in dim-light, "Rahotep" troll! Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Melchior, You purposely made it seem as if you were citing Svante Paabo's article when you weren't. And you say I have no case? Please. Then you say this:
quote:Here is what others have to say.
Of course you prove how dishonest you're going to be in this. The quote you provided did not come from some peer-reviewed source, just some fool who compiled a bunch of outdated studies including Brace et al. '93. Not to mention how stupid the creator is and even more stupid you are for buying anything in a PDF format. You are a dishonest troll who has no interest in posting up to date material. I mean, you've resorted to a picture spam of Nubians instead of studies showing that they cluster CLOSEST with Nubians. Bias, much?
I mean, honestly:
quote:When are you going to post the so called legitimate version which supposedly excludes the mention of Eurasian? Until then you got no case.
What are you talking about, did I say I would do that? My knowledge on Paabo and Di Rienzio's study comes from other bio-antrhopologists who have mentioned it (Keita and Boyce, 1996). You do realize that even the site you used didn't claim that Paabo and Di Rienzio made any claims on Eurasian DNA YOU are the one who made it seem that way. Their claim on Eurasian DNA has no reference
quote:Only to a fool who believes that Nubians were similar in phenotype to the Egyptians which I'm sure you do. How can it not be??
Were they really the same?
This is what I mean. Your idiotic picture spam doesn't negate the scientific evidence!
quote:How many Afrocentrics know that Nubains spoke a totally unrelated language to Egyptians. Can you explain that one to me??
Why does that matter? It doesn't
The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... 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).
The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.--Kanya Godde (2009)
quote:Also your quote by Keita is speculation. Why don't they what those mysterious haplogroups are?
Gee, I don't know. Why don't you read the paper? I mean honestly, how stupid does one have to be to call the paper "speculation"? If you would have read the paper instead of sounding like an idiot, a normal habit with you it would seem, then you would realize he DOES say this. And what you have to keep in mind is that he is responding to Lucotte's papers and interpretations of Egyptian Y chromosome variation. It was Lucotte who claimed that these haplotypes were introduced to Egypt from Nubian rule and Keita subsequently refuted that notion in his study.
quote:I didn't say I stood by it. In a previous post I said for any study you cite that says that the Egyptians cluster with Sub-Saharan Africans, I can find another study which has them cluster with Eurasians...and modern Egyptians.
*sighs*
No, to put it quite simply, you can't. Every single study so far that you have found has been refuted by more recent work. The studies that show any sort of cluster with "Eurasians" are usually:
A.Based on Nonmetric traits
B.Flawed methods
Every up to date study shows the affinity is with Africans, not Eurasians
quote:You've proably seen this before..
Scientists at the University of Cairo tested DNA from the remains of pyramid workers from 2600 BC, and found that the DNA of ancient Egyptians matches that of modern Egyptians. That is, the people living in Egypt now are essentially the same as the people living there thousands of years ago.
List the actual scientific report and which journal this was published in. Or else we cannot test how valid it is.
quote:Borgognini-Tarli and G. Paoli, 1982. The ABO blood type frequencies of ancient Egyptians showed no signs of differing significantly from that of present-day Egyptians. According to the authors, "the bloodgroup distribution obtained for Asiut, Gebelen and Aswan necropoles shows resemblances with the present leucoderm population of Egypt and particularly with its more 'conservative' fraction (the Copts, MOURANT et al., 1976)."
Blood typing? Seriously? That all you got LMAO
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Ausar
Most of the male and female slaves from sub-Saharan Africa left very little genetic traces in modern Egypt due to the fact the females were often infertile and men were gilded-meaning they had their testicles chopped off,so people trying to invoke sub-Saharan slavery as a means to blacken modern Egypt is incorrect.
I do know about male slaves being castrated but Sub Saharan females being often infertile? If you could expound on that a bit. I have heard of many an Arab sultans having a Black mother etc
Just as you invoke sub-Saharan slaves blackening modern Egypt you fail to mention that there was an active trade of white Circassians in medieval Egypt that went even into the 1800's. The Egyptian feminist Hoda Shaarawi was a descent of one of the Circassian harem women in the late 1800's.
I don’t deny Cicassians or mamelukes
The other problem also with the 25th dynasty blackening the ancient Egyptians is fallacious due to the fact that most of the Nubian pharaohs ruled from Napata in Sudan and not from any region in Egypt. True, Nubians were installed in Waster as both the priests and wives of Amun but there was not much intermingling with Egyptians.
But they would need a strong military presence in the major population centers of the country in order to be able to claim rulership in any way.
The similar claim of Nubian mercenaries blackening the Egyptian population is also invalid. Syrian prisoner of war and mercenaries also came to Egypt in great numbers. Textual accounts attest to their large numbers. I could likewise argue that these Syrians lightened up the ancient Egyptian populations.
There is no doubt that Egyptians employed mercernaries from a a veriety of nations even Greeks. However Nubians soldiers have been a staple in the Egyptian Military since very early on.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Are you still recycling a "white Egypt" based on this? You might as well show your true colors.
Lets get something straight I don’t subscribe to any White or Aryan Egyptian nonsense. That notion is obviously absurd. But many on here would like to push things to the opposite extreme which I find equally wrong
Which debunks your white or "Middle eastern" Egyptian theory, and the presence of numerous dark-skinned Egyptians in place, both ancient and modern is part of that "continuity" despite more significant changes to the population during the New Kingdom era. And since limb proportion studies of Egyptians show them clustering with tropical Africans, if 'Egyptians have always been Egyptians" then they are for the most part tropically adapted Africans, rather than Europeans or "Middle easterners.
You can cherish limb proportion studies all you want, nontheless, their hair, skin color and facial features were and remain closer to folks in the Middle East, especially in Northern Egypt.
And your studies compare Anciint Egyptians to Nordics and Germans etc! How convenient. I understand this is what some Afrocentric scientists do. Of course they will cluster closer to Nubians etc but compare them to modern Berbers, Palestinians etc
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Djehuti
Typical Eurocentric double-think-- dismiss all black looking Egyptians as being due to recent "Sub-Saharan" usually slave ancestry, but assume that all white looking Egyptians represent the original native type from pharaonic times. This goes against all historical documentation let alone anthropological data.
Certainly many of those from pharaonic times look Black even some pharaohs, but many more don’t. And if you ever been to Egypt, you would know there are not many White looking Egyptians.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Responding to the above would be like acknowledging you have an argument in the first place - you don't.
I only issue this challenge in regards to your claim they looked Middle Eastern:
Make a new thread and post a craniometric study that shows them (ancient Egyptians) to lie with Middle Easterners.
Then you might have an argument worth responding to.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Truthcentric
Not to mention that the darker Egyptians' complexions better match the complexions of the characters in most Egyptian paintings. It's funny how people who insist that the lighter-skinned Egyptians have the strongest biological connections to the ancients ignore all those paintings depicting people significantly darker and with kinkier hair than the average Egyptian today.
When I hear comments like this I would tend to assume you referring to modern Egyptians who match the copper colored depictions but when many of you post photos of who you mean, it is usually dark sub saharan looking Sudanese types.
This is what I believe the ancient Egyptians looked like.
The darker ones.
The ligher ones
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz'
Not to mention how stupid the creator is and even more stupid you are for buying anything in a PDF format. You are a dishonest troll who has no interest in posting up to date material. I mean, you've resorted to a picture spam of Nubians instead of studies showing that they cluster CLOSEST with Nubians. Bias, much?
Whats wrong with info in PDF format?
What are you talking about, did I say I would do that? My knowledge on Paabo and Di Rienzio's study comes from other bio-antrhopologists who have mentioned it (Keita and Boyce, 1996). You do realize that even the site you used didn't claim that Paabo and Di Rienzio made any claims on Eurasian DNA YOU are the one who made it seem that way. Their claim on Eurasian DNA has no reference
You really should try and find the original because the quote that I posted which mentions Eurasian DNA is the only I can find and it is posted and many websites. Otherwise
This is what I mean. Your idiotic picture spam doesn't negate the scientific evidence!
No, but it goes to the heart of the matter; whatever their limb proportions, or questionable cranial measurements, the Egyptians depicted themselves differently from Nubians in terms of Phenotype and manner of dress. And more importantly many of these depictions resemble modern Egyptians today.
Why does that matter? It doesn't
Are you serious? Speaking an unrelated language from a different language family would imply a difference in origin at some point or a strong foreign influence which would likely entail some genetic impact on either of the populations.
The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.--Kanya Godde (2009)
“demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations.”
Why MAY be??
No, to put it quite simply, you can't. Every single study so far that you have found has been refuted by more recent work. The studies that show any sort of cluster with "Eurasians" are usually: A.Based on Nonmetric traits B.Flawed methods
I am new here so I am not aware of what studies have been refuted as you claim but I would appreciate if you post the study or quote which specifically address and refutes a claim I post, instead of just blurting out that it has been refuted expecting me to just take your word for it.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': I only issue this challenge in regards to your claim they looked Middle Eastern:
Make a new thread and post a craniometric study that shows them (ancient Egyptians) to lie with Middle Easterners.
Then you might have an argument worth responding to.
Lol. So if cranimetriaclly the Egyptians cluster close to Nubians then this means they all looked about the same as Nubians??
First of all most of Egyptians who cluster closest with Nubians are from Upper Egypt. And several anthropologists have identified distinct northern and southern craniometric patterns in the Egyptian population of the early predynastic period, which Keita himself describes as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant.
Then you have the depictions by the Egyptians who cleraly distinguish themsleves from Nubians with a skin color ranging from copper brown to a light beige especially with regard to Egpytian women. We have quotes by ancinet writers who claim they were lighter than Ethiopians and looked like northern Indians. We have hundreds of mummies most with striaght or wavy hair, and narrow nasal openings which is close to middle easterners. Also the Ancient Egyptians had a prepondernace of haplogroup T which came out of West Asia about 20,000 years ago. I mean WTF?
Wake up and smell the reality!
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
If its reality then you should have no problem showing us a mummy or bust of a pharoah from the dynastic era i.e 1-3 dynastys that looks middle eastern or caucasian? etc etc and not black african .
go on show us what the earliest egyptian pharoahs look like, SHOW US SOME PROOF
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: If its reality then you should have no problem showing us a mummy or bust of a pharoah from the dynastic era i.e 1-3 dynastys that looks middle eastern or caucasian? etc etc and not black african .
go on show us what the earliest egyptian pharoahs look like, SHOW US SOME PROOF
Ok. Here is Hemiunu, architect of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Actually fourth dynasty
The Great Imhotep 3rd dynasty
khasekhemwy 2nd dynasty..look high high his nose bridge was bfore it was cut off.
Khafre
But you are right many from first three dynasties dynasties do look Black.. but you can't just overlook all the rest.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: We have hundreds of mummies most with striaght or wavy hair
You are assuming that the hair has not been damaged by time and the mummification process, an assumption which has been shown to be wrong here:
The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Also people who make that statement obviously have not seen many Mummies except the ones cherry picked by mathilda. Even so this does not help, African hair varies.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
No, but it goes to the heart of the matter; whatever their limb proportions, or questionable cranial measurements, the Egyptians depicted themselves differently from Nubians in terms of Phenotype and manner of dress.
^And the "heart of the matter" debunks your racist double standard on Egypt. The Egyptians distinguishing themselves from Nubians is not the "heart of the matter." Italians distinguish themselves from Germans. That is nothing special. What is notable is the double standard that arises where Africans are concerned. The "heart" is your racist denial that ancient Egyptians are tropical Africans and group with tropical peoples in the limb, cranial x-ray and other evidence presented. You are trying to duck the evidence to shore up your crumbled racist double standard. The Romans left engravings showing Germanic peoples who speak a different language, and who look distinctly different from them. But few credible persons are running around saying that Germans are a different 'race'. But when it comes to Africa despite numerous citations of scientific evidence you sing a different, hypocritical tune.
The "heart" of the matter is your racist double standard that wants to deny African peoples their natural diversity, just like other human beings are diverse. But it has repeatedly failed. Just like any other human population, tropical Africans also known as 'black' people in sociological terms, vary in how they look. They can have narrow noses, or broad noses, frizzy hair or loose hair, dark skin or light skin. Tropical Africans can produce it all. In fact Egypt itself falls partly within the tropic zone. And on their tomb paintings Egyptians well represented the variety that is tropical Africans. The tropical African "phenotype" is and has been the ancient Egyptian makeup.
Finally your attempt to create some sort of bogus "racial" dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians fails. The Nubians are ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians. Just as Germans and ROmans speak a different language and look different, so too some Egyptians and some Nubians can have a different language and likewise can look different, and still be closely related. Your racist hypocrisy only comes out more clearly the more you post in this thread.
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
''You are assuming that the hair has not been damaged by time and the mummification process,''
''African hair varies'' =========
More denial.
The funny thing is, if a non-straight haired mummy or body is found the afrocentric clowns then claim that is evidence of a negro presence. But if a straight haired corpse is found, suddenly it has to be a fake, has to have been altered or suddenly ''black people have straight hair''...Please get in reality. Blacks have wooly hair, not straight.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: We have hundreds of mummies most with striaght or wavy hair
You are assuming that the hair has not been damaged by time and the mummification process, an assumption which has been shown to be wrong here:
The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963
But we have Nubian mummies who were well preserved (mummified) and their hair remained kinky.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
The Egyptians distinguishing themselves from Nubians is not the "heart of the matter.
Oh but it is. And I believe that the difference between a Northern Egyptian is and Nubian is greater than the difference between a a German and Italian. Also German and Italian are related langauge falling under the Indo-European tree. Both share the same original source. There is no realtionship between Nilotic and Afroiasiatic languages. Clearly you are egregioulsy misinformed.
Also with the expection of Tutankhamon, most of your images depict Nubians or dark skinned Southern Egyptians. Queen Tiye was believedd to be of Nubian extraction and looks a bit like lieutenatnt Uhura of Star Trek.
Anyway I have said that most Southern Egyptians would have been considered Black. What is the big fuss?
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ The Big fuss is that you parrot the same Eurocentric garbage without even realizing it. So called Nubia never existed during Dynastic Egypt.
You claim that Southern Egyptians would be considered black yet try to pass Egypt off as "Middle Eastern" and claim that majority of the Remains and Mummies look West Asian based on what?? Have you taken a look at majority of the Mummies, have you read the studies of Egyptian Limbs??
You claim Egypt was Darken by Slaves and the Nubian 25th Dynasty. Yet Im sure you would bitch and whine if an afrocentric said the same About Greeks and Romans and Persians who held sway over Egypt longer than the 25th. And when majority of Slaves in Egypt were Mamluk and Saqalibba. Some how these people had no effect on the complextion of Egypt.
What makes you an expert on any thing??
Your Language example is laughable. Egyptian was a language that arose in Africa and died in Africa, and is related to Languages in East Africa among others.
Also Egyptian varied from region to region..and evolved overtime.
is unlikely that an Egyptian from 3000 BC would have understood an Egyptian from 300 BC. There are also bound to have been regional differences in the pronunciation, a bit like dialects. An ancient Egyptian living in Memphis might have had a hard time trying to talk to someone coming from Elephantine.
People From Thebes probably had a better time Communicating with someone from Napata over a Delta Egyptian.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: We have hundreds of mummies most with striaght or wavy hair
You are assuming that the hair has not been damaged by time and the mummification process, an assumption which has been shown to be wrong here:
The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963
But we have Nubian mummies who were well preserved (mummified) and their hair remained kinky.
Once again the hair of the Mummy of Maiphra was not his hair but a Wig placed on the Mummy after the Mummification process..
B - 61053 - mummy of Ahmes-Inhapi - daughter of Snakhtenre Tao I, wife of Sekenenre Tao II (XVII Dynasty).
61067 - mummy of Djedptahiufankh - son of Ramesses, priest of Amun.
mummyof Neskhonsu - wife of Pinedjema II.
mummyof Nedjemet - wife of Herhor
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
mummyof Nestanebtisheri - priestess of Amun, daughter of Pinedjem II. Mummy found with coffins and shabtis
mummyof Ahmes-Sitkamose, perhaps a daughter of Kamose (XVII Dynasty). Lenght - 162 cm.
mummyof lady Rai, wet-nurse of Ahmes-Nefertari (XVIII Dynasty). She was a youngish woman. Mummy is in very good shape
mummyof unknown man E (probably XVIII Dynasty). The man was not embalmed and sown into a sheepskin. He must have been a youngish man as his teeth were only slightly worn. Lenght - 171 cm.
Where are all the Long Blond West Eurasians at...??
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
Gee, for people of West Eurasian affinity, the Egyptians were sure obsessed with African hairstyles! It's like a reverse case of Good Hair Syndrome!
Notice how many of the mummies still have fairly curly hair. On a semi-unrelated note, many of them also have a little prognathism.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
[QUOTE]Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] ^^^^ The Big fuss is that you parrot the same Eurocentric garbage without even realizing it. So called Nubia never existed during Dynastic Egypt.
What do you choose to it called then?
You claim that Southern Egyptians would be considered black yet try to pass Egypt off as "Middle Eastern"
Yes the ones in the North were.
and claim that majority of the Remains and Mummies look West Asian based on what?? Have you taken a look at majority of the Mummies, have you read the studies of Egyptian Limbs??
Can you show me many mummies with kinky hair?
You claim Egypt was Darken by Slaves and the Nubian 25th Dynasty. Yet Im sure you would bitch and whine if an afrocentric said the same About Greeks and Romans and Persians who held sway over Egypt longer than the 25th. And when majority of Slaves in Egypt were Mamluk and Saqalibba. Some how these people had no effect on the complextion of Egypt.
Who said the Persians or mamlukes had no effect on Egyptians? I'm saying it wroks BOTH WAYS!
Your Language example is laughable.
Cuz you don't know.
Egyptian was was related to Languages in East Africa among others.
The only languages it was related too were other Afroasitic languages. Prove me worng.
.
is unlikely that an Egyptian from 3000 BC would have understood an Egyptian from 300 BC. There are also bound to have been regional differences in the pronunciation, a bit like dialects. An ancient Egyptian living in Memphis might have had a hard time trying to talk to someone coming from Elephantine.
Likely all true but irrelevant. Egyptian in whatever dialect was always Afrosiatic in structure and root.
People From Thebes probably had a better time Communicating with someone from Napata over a Delta Egyptian.
I'm sure many in those areas were blingual..like in any border region.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Truth Wrote...Gee, for people of West Eurasian affinity, the Egyptians were sure obsessed with African hairstyles!
Notice how many of the mummies still have fairly curly hair.
Alot of the hair of the Mummies remind me of my Sisters and My Moms hair. Any black person knows that some blacks have Short Curly hair similar to that seen on the Mummies. While some have "Good Hair" that is longer and wavy.
Other than maybe Himeiniu all the rest of those statues represent the Phenotype found n Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan.
Your Images prove nothing other than the Egyptians fit well within the Diversity of Tropical Africans.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: If its reality then you should have no problem showing us a mummy or bust of a pharoah from the dynastic era i.e 1-3 dynastys that looks middle eastern or caucasian? etc etc and not black african .
go on show us what the earliest egyptian pharoahs look like, SHOW US SOME PROOF
Ok. Here is Hemiunu, architect of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Actually fourth dynasty
The Great Imhotep 3rd dynasty
khasekhemwy 2nd dynasty..look high high his nose bridge was bfore it was cut off.
Khafre
But you are right many from first three dynasties dynasties do look Black.. but you can't just overlook all the rest.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Where are all the Long Blond West Eurasians at...??
Don't straw man me. You know I'm not talking about Blonds Western types. Your images are interesting but it is hard to tell with the hair braided but many do seem to have striaght or wavy hair. Many noses with high ridges. Some look like Somalians or Ethiopians. The ones that do have curly or frizzy hair cast doubt on this idea that it is the mummification process which alters the hair.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
What do you choose to it called then?
What is "It"?? Nothing called Nubia never existed so how the hell can you define it??
Yes the ones in the North were.
Where in the North?? The Delta was sparsly populated and majority of Northern Egyptians during Dynastic times would have been Tropically adapted. Were there Eurasian Types in the North yes, but they were a minority as all evidence(Art, Limb Studies, etc) indicates. Further the Culture of Egypt originated in the South, Both Old and New Kingdoms had many of their ruling houses from the South.
Can you show me many mummies with kinky hair?
Already did, and further the Hair of Maiaphra WAS NOT HIS DAMN HAIR it was a Wig which is why it "Remained Kinky"...Had Maiaphra's natural hair had been left it would look no different than other Mummies. a 3000 + year old corpse does not retain its hair for that long dummy.
I already have Got Damn, get it through your head....The Egyptians wore Wigs made of Nubian Hair had Ramses or any other Mummy you Eurocentrics love to parrot had been wearing a Nubian Wig(Probably were) you would never see that Mummy on Mathilda's blog.
Who said the Persians or mamlukes had no effect on Egyptians? I'm saying it wroks BOTH WAYS!
Ass, the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks Ruled Egypt longer than any "Nubian" so even using your logic it DOES NOT work both ways..LOL. Everytime you try to squirm the evidence shows MORE Eurasians occupied Egypt than Southern Nilotics. Even your slaves example blows up in your face as majority of Slaves were direct from the Caucus region. How do you think the Mamluks were able to take control and Rule Egypt and defeat the Sudanese Army in Egypt. their Numbers were far greater.
The only languages it was related too were other Afroasitic languages. Prove me worng.
Prove what?? Egyptian Arose in Africa and Dies in Africa, prove me wrong.
Likely all true but irrelevant. Egyptian in whatever dialect was always Afrosiatic in structure and root.
Afroasiantic speakers are found in East Africa the same place the Egyptians claimed they came from and the same people the Egyptians depicted as looking the most similar to them.
Next..
I'm sure many in those areas were blingual..like in any border region.
Sure makes your language example rather irrelevent if they were Bilingial and if a Theban Egyptian could understand a Napatan over a Delta Egyptian..LOL.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Alot of the hair of the Mummies remind me of my Sisters and My Moms hair. Any black person knows that some blacks have Short Curly hair similar to that seen on the Mummies. While some have "Good Hair" that is longer and wavy.
Yeah but aren't you forgeting something?
Other than maybe Himeiniu all the rest of those statues represent the Phenotype found n Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan.
I disagre and your sudaneseman looks like someone mixed with Arab as many of the Northern Sudanese are.
"They are believed to be the largest group living in Northern and Central Sudan, with a population currently numbering around 22,000,000. For centuries, many Arab tribes of Sudan intermarried and gradually mixed with the Nubians and Bejas who had already been living there. Sudanese Arabic is their spoken dialect."
This is why many of the images people post of northern Sudanese and Beja and with sharp features and wavy hair as represenrtative of ancient Egypyians is questionable..
Your Images prove nothing other than the Egyptians fit well within the Diversity of Tropical Africans.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
In your attempt to continue your Eurocentric Tirade you contradict yourself. Fist you claim its hard to tell with the braided hair but at the same time claim the Mummy process does not alter the hair.
The Alteration of hair by the Mummification process is a scientifically established fact.
As far as your comments about Nose Ridges and Wavy/Straight hair goes, Im not going to even entertain this. Like a typical Eurocentrist you need Africans to look a certain way with the nappiest hair and Flatest nose and Biggest Blubbery lips.
None of those mummies look like an Eurasian and look more like Southern Egyptians and Northern Sudanese an other East Africans.
Any denial of this is denial of the obvious.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Where are all the Long Blond West Eurasians at...??
Don't straw man me. You know I'm not talking about Blonds Western types. Your images are interesting but it is hard to tell with the hair braided but many do seem to have striaght or wavy hair. Many noses with high ridges. Some look like Somalians or Ethiopians. The ones that do have curly or frizzy hair cast doubt on this idea that it is the mummification process which alters the hair.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
LOL, I love how you people shoot yourselves in the foot to keep your selves going. Please remind me did you not just say a few posts back that the Nubians darkend Egypt?? Did you not hold onto the view that the arab penetration into Egypt had nothing to do with Changing the Delta and Norhtern Phenotype, Now all of a sudden the Arabs are out in Sudan and Upper Egypt despite the evidence that proves any Arab Penetration was Miniscule, changing the people's phenotype but some how had no effect in the North.
Any alteration or mixing of Arabs in Sudan and Upper Egypt was Miniscule compared to the North. Southern Egypt and esp. Northern Sudan was always isolated and have less admixture from Eurasians than Northern Egypt.
You people are so pathetic its almost sad sometimes. At least stay consistant. First Egypt is the same as 5000 yrs ago then suddenly the Arabs changed the Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese, then suddenly these same Sudanese Darkened Egypt..LOL
As I said all the other images fit well with the diversity of Tropical Africans.
I disagre and your sudaneseman looks like someone mixed with Arab as many of the Northern Sudanese are.
"They are believed to be the largest group living in Northern and Central Sudan, with a population currently numbering around 22,000,000. For centuries, many Arab tribes of Sudan intermarried and gradually mixed with the Nubians and Bejas who had already been living there. Sudanese Arabic is their spoken dialect."
This is why many of the images people post of northern Sudanese and Beja and with sharp features and wavy hair as represenrtative of ancient Egypyians is questionable.. Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
BTW none of those people were Sudanese all were Egyptians, the same people you maintain are the same as dynastic Egyptians. Funny how your opinion changes on this phenotypical continuation changes when it comes to Darker egyptians Suddenly you agree with afrocnetrics about the Arabs changing the phenotype of Egypt. Its odd that its always Dark Egyptians though..LOL
So much for the Arabs having little effect on Egypt.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
What is "It"?? Nothing called Nubia never existed so how the hell can you define it??
Kush then
Further the Culture of Egypt originated in the South, Both Old and New Kingdoms had many of their ruling houses from the South
So the Badarian found the delta region uninhabited when they arrieved? Why would there even be any phiscal distinction btween upper and lower Egytptians?? Because those in the North came to mix with the local population.
the Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks Ruled Egypt longer than any "Nubian" so even using your logic it DOES NOT work both ways..LOL
First of all, the Nubians have had a presence in Egypt from the very begining. And interestingly the descriptions and depcitions of Egyptians from greco roman times, doesn't seem at all differnt from Egyptians today..you know the skin color of Northern Indians. And this is DESPITE the invasion of Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, Mamlukes, British, French etc.
Afroasiantic speakers are found in East Africa the same place the Egyptians claimed they came from and the same people the Egyptians depicted as looking the most similar to them.
They are found in North Africa and West Asia too. And we know what those folks look like.
Sure makes your language example rather irrelevent if they were Bilingial and if a Theban Egyptian sould understand a Napatan over a Delta Egyptian..LOL.
But that is niether here nor there. The fact they spoke different languages brings into question the so called relatedness of Egyptians and and their southern counterparts.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
The Egyptians wore Wigs made of Nubian Hair
Really?
“The Nubian fan bearer, Maherpra, was also buried in the Royal Valley, but in contrast to the previous highly artificial styles he wore a unique coiffure of short tight spirals of his own heliotrichous (Negroid) hair set over his shaven head, creating the impression of a totally natural style.” (Daressy 1903, page 74-75. “The Ostragon” volume 13, number 2, 2002)
“The physical features and hair of his properly mummified body make it certain that Maiherpri was of Nubian origin. He is the only known Nubian to be buried in this exclusive royal cemetery, and his position was of a valued servant…burial items included… a copy of the Book of the Dead in which he appears as the dark-skinned deceased.” (“Historical Dictionary Of Ancient And Medieval Nubia" Richard Lobban 2004)
“Thus the demonstrably negroid features of the high official Maiherpri did not prevent him from attaining the special privilege of a burial in the Valley of the Kings at about the time of Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.). In the same way, a man called Aper-el whose name indicates his Near Eastern roots, rose to the rank of vizier (the highest civil office below that of the king himself) in the late 18th Dynasty. (“The Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt” Ian Shaw 2003)
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
LOL, I love how you people shoot yourselves in the foot to keep your selves going. Please remind me did you not just say a few posts back that the Nubians darkend Egypt?? Did you not hold onto the view that the arab penetration into Egypt had nothing to do with Changing the Delta and Norhtern Phenotype, Now all of a sudden the Arabs are out in Sudan and Upper Egypt despite the evidence that proves any Arab Penetration was Miniscule, changing the people's phenotype but some how had no effect in the North.
Lol. You're missing the obvious. The Arabs obviously didn't alter the northern Egyptians much becuase they were already similar in phenotype. I have laways maintained that Northern Egyptians were Middle eastern looking, have I not. And that includes Cairo and Memphis. The Sudanese however were likely darker in the past as Arab mixture has been extensive. Haplogroup J1 can be found with high frequency in the "northern parts of Sudan (J-12f2(xJ2-M172): Arabs 45%, Nubians 41%, Copts 39%, Beja 36%)"
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Kush then
Kush was but one entity among many others now defined as "Nubia". Further the Kushites had nothing to do with the Nehesi of Ta Seti, or the Nehesi of Yam, or the Nehesi of Punt.
So the Badarian found the delta region uninhabited when they arrieved? Why would there even be any phiscal distinction btween upper and lower Egytptians?? Because those in the North came to mix with the local population.
What are you taking about here??, clairity please..
First of all, the Nubians have had a presence in Egypt from the very begining
Again what is Nubia..?? Are you now saying the Kushites were in Egypt from the Begining?? Also the Sudanese are the closest physically and culturally to the Egyptians.
Any presence was Minor because you had Euasian Control of Egypt for the same amount of time if not longer than any Nubian Control.
And interestingly the descriptions and depcitions of Egyptians from greco roman times, doesn't seem at all differnt from Egyptians today..you know the skin color of Northern Indians
Again other sources describe the Egyptians as Brown and Black or Melanchos with wholly hair. My guess is it depended on where the person visited Egypt. The Delta egyptians by Greco romans times were already mixed enough to resemble Eurasians like the Fayium portraits which represent Greco-Egyptian Mulattos. Eurasians began to penetrate Egypt back during the edn of the New Kingdom. so it makes sense that By Greco Roman times the Delta was inhabited by Mulatto Eurasians.
They are found in North Africa and West Asia too. And we know what those folks look like.
Relevence?? Egyptian arose in Africa and dies in Africa, for the 100th time.
N
E
X
T
But that is niether here nor there. The fact they spoke different languages brings into question the so called relatedness of Egyptians and and their southern counterparts.
You have yet to prove how. I speak English not a Wast African Language am I now an Englishman?? The Language Branch of the Egyptians was related to East Africans whom the Egyptians depicted as looking most similar to them and where they claimed to come from, EAst Africa not West Asia nor North Africa who the Egyptian depicted as being distinct from them similar to the Kushites.
Next.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
As I said the Maiphra was wearing a wig not his own hair. Further nothing proves Maiphra was a Nubian.
As far as hair goes..
"Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badrarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "wooly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa.." (S. O. Y. Keita. (1993). "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54)
Fletcher (2002) in Egyptian Hair and Wigs, gives an example of what she calls "disturbing attempts to use hair to prove assumptions of race and gender" involving 1800s European researcher F. Petrie, who sometimes sought to use excavation reports to prove his theories of Aegean settlers flowing into Egypt. Such disturbing attempts continue today in the use of hair for race category or percentage claims involving the ancient peoples.[b] A study of the hair of [b]Egyptian mummies by Titlbachova and Titllbach (1977) found a wide range of hair in mummies, including not only straight hair but wavy and curled hair, indicating a range of variability within the population, hardly unusual for a genetically diverse place like Africa. The peoples of the Nile valley it seems, could have a variety of hair just as Europeans have a variety of hair types.[i] (Titlbachova, S., and Z. Titlbach. 1977. Hair of Egyptian mummies. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde, 104:79-85)[
[i]The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions.."
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: The Egyptians wore Wigs made of Nubian Hair
Really?
“The Nubian fan bearer, Maherpra, was also buried in the Royal Valley, but in contrast to the previous highly artificial styles he wore a unique coiffure of short tight spirals of his own heliotrichous (Negroid) hair set over his shaven head, creating the impression of a totally natural style.” (Daressy 1903, page 74-75. “The Ostragon” volume 13, number 2, 2002)
“The physical features and hair of his properly mummified body make it certain that Maiherpri was of Nubian origin. He is the only known Nubian to be buried in this exclusive royal cemetery, and his position was of a valued servant…burial items included… a copy of the Book of the Dead in which he appears as the dark-skinned deceased.” (“Historical Dictionary Of Ancient And Medieval Nubia" Richard Lobban 2004)
“Thus the demonstrably negroid features of the high official Maiherpri did not prevent him from attaining the special privilege of a burial in the Valley of the Kings at about the time of Thutmose III (1479-1425 B.C.). In the same way, a man called Aper-el whose name indicates his Near Eastern roots, rose to the rank of vizier (the highest civil office below that of the king himself) in the late 18th Dynasty. (“The Oxford History Of Ancient Egypt” Ian Shaw 2003)
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
What are you taking about here??, clairity please..
There was lighter skinned folks living in the delat, likelyoutnumbered Badarians. That is why Northern Egyptians became lighter.
Any presence was Minor because you had Euasian Control of Egypt for the same amount of time if not longer than any Nubian Control.
The presence wasn't just from Nubaian rule but Nubians slaves mercenaries etc.
Eurasians began to penetrate Egypt back during the edn of the New Kingdom. so it makes sense that By Greco Roman times the Delta was inhabited by Mulatto Eurasians.
"Mulattos" you say. And so after the Byzantines, the Arabs, malukes, circassians etc many still look like mulattos. Thats interesting.
Relevence?? Egyptian arose in Africa and dies in Africa, for the 100th time.
See below.
I speak English not a Wast African Language am I now an Englishman??
That's not a good analogy. But at the very least your speaking English is because of the fact that your ancestors were imposed upon by a DIFFERENT group of people and this usually entails some genetic input as well. So if the Egyptians were realted to the Kushites as you would call them, then either the kushites were invaded by Nilotes after the Badarians moved North, or perhpas the Badarains orginally spoke a nilotic language and came to adopt the language of the folks they conquered.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Just as Egyptians used hair from Nubians so to they used hair from Meds.. Also as stated earlier Egyptians wore Nubian Wigs the same as Maiphra
Such exchanges or use of hair appear elsewhere in the Nile valley. Tomb finds show Nubians themselves wearing wigs of straight hair. But one Nubian from the Royal valley, of the 12th century, named Maherpra, was found to be wearing a wig himself, made up of tightly curled 'negroid' hair, on top of his natural covering (Fletcher 2002). The so-called "Nubian wig" also appears in Egyptian art relief's depicting daily life, a stylistic arrangement thought to imitate those found in southern Egypt or Nubia. Such wigs appear to have been popular with both Egyptians and Nubians. Fletcher 2004 notes that the famous queen Nefertiti made frequent use of the Nubian wig: "Nefertiti and her daughter seem to have set a trend for wearing the Nubian wig.. a coiffure first worn by Nubian mercenaries and clearly associated with the military." A detail of a wall scene in Theban tomb TT.55 shows the queen wearing the Nubian wig.
To further debunk you hair claims.. Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
Among Europeans for example, some people have curlier hair and some have straighter hair than others. Various peoples of East and West Africa also have narrow noses, which are different from other peoples elsewhere in Africa, nevertheless they still remain Africans. DNA studies also note greater variation within selected populations that without. Since Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world, such routine variation in characteristics such as hair need not indicate any racial percentage or admixture, but simply part of the built-in genetic diversity of the ancient peoples on the continent. Indeed, the Semna study author notes that blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark-haired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages. As regards hair color variation, reddish type hair is associated with the presence of pheomelanin, which can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology" Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
So basically this is saying that the hair of the Nubians varied and wasn't always so curly to begin with. This kind of a change of position.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Lol. You're missing the obvious. The Arabs obviously didn't alter the northern Egyptians much becuase they were already similar in phenotype.
Wrong..Admixture from Arabs is much higher in the North than the South. Any Admixture changed(Lightnened) the phenotype of the North More than the South. If this was the case in the South then why are the people Im posting not lightskineed but Dark Skinned matching the image of Dynastic Egyptians.
Haplogroup J1 can be found with high frequency in the "northern parts of Sudan (J-12f2(xJ2-M172): Arabs 45%, Nubians 41%, Copts 39%, Beja 36%)"
J1-M267 possibly orignated in East Africa. The J1 found in East Africa is different than the Middle Eastern Version and is found more in East Africa and Southern Arabia than the Middle East.
to quote Explorer..
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: So in summation, they are essentially basing their intro-reckoning at this time...
1)on high frequency and sizeable paragroup turnout in East Africa.
2)on ruling out European origin on the one hand, due to the general relative rarity of this haplogroup therein, and on the other hand, ruling North Africa and Caucasus out due to rigid downstream-haplotype allocation to well-defined clades within respective paraphyletic groups. Ps - let's add 'low diversity' to that.
3)on observations 1 & 2 leaving the so-called Middle East out as the alternative origin to East Africa, even though data available to these authors was limited, primarily due to the region's general recognition for frequency peaks for this haplogroup.
I have to go, but essentially nothing you provided proves extensive mixture in the South and N. Sudan. quoting from Wikipedia wont help.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Exactly what I have been saying the whole time, look Im not denying there were Eurasian types in Egypt, but they were the Minotiry just as the Southern Sudanese type was a Minority. The Egyptians depicted both the Delta Egyptian type and the Southen Sudanese type to be foreign. the Best representation are Upper Egyptians and Northen Sudanese.
How can admixture make these people look exactly how their forefathers depicted themselves??
Aswani Egyptian..
As far as hair goes funny how Modern Upper egyptians and Northern Sudanese have the same hair as their Foremothers and Forefathers..
well I have to go, peace.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
So basically this is saying that the hair of the Nubians varied and wasn't always so curly to begin with. This kind of a change of position.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Melchior7,
I take it you have been unable to find a study that shows the ancient Egyptians to cluster with Near Easterners?
quote:Whats wrong with info in PDF format?
When did I say this? What I said was, that you accept anything in PDF format as a reference source. I mean, come on! You tried to pass off something written by some Euro-centric individual with extremely outdated references as a reliable source. That speaks volumes on your overall research capability
quote:You really should try and find the original because the quote that I posted which mentions Eurasian DNA is the only I can find and it is posted and many websites. Otherwise
No, you are an idiot. The quote you posted from that website does not claim Paabo and Di Rienzio made any such claim about Eurasian DNA YOU are the one who falsely made it seem that way. I already told you this, so you obviously have some inability to comprehend what is directed towards you. The claim about 'Eurasian' DNA was most likely from another article, which the website failed to identify.
And, why should I need the original? Are you insinuating that Keita and Boyce somehow fabricated or misinterpreted Paabo and Di Rienzio's statement?
BTW, just so you know - just because you see something on the web, doesn't mean it is reliable. That is why we use peer-reviewed academic sources here.
quote:No, but it goes to the heart of the matter; whatever their limb proportions, or questionable cranial measurements, the Egyptians depicted themselves differently from Nubians in terms of Phenotype and manner of dress. And more importantly many of these depictions resemble modern Egyptians today.
Oh I see - you are one of the people who like to use subjective artwork over objective scientific evidence? Didn't you realize that even the Egyptians stated quite clearly they shared descent with the Nehesu?
quote:Are you serious? Speaking an unrelated language from a different language family would imply a difference in origin at some point or a strong foreign influence which would likely entail some genetic impact on either of the populations.
Of course. You are as ignorant in linguistic studies as you are in genetic and craniometric studies. You see, I know this, because as usual you are pulling sh!t out of your a$$.
From a linguistic point of view:
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
quote:Why MAY be??
You sure are a selective reader. Of course you probably haven't read the full paper. She says "may be" because she suggests two hypothesis' for the clustering of Egyptians and Nubians:
1)Common adaption to similar environments (in situ)
2)Gene flow
In the course of her paper she leans on the gene flow hypothesis while not ruling out the former. Regardless of that, they still clustered together. And as we know, there was bi-directional gene flow along the Nile Valley. The Egyptians and Nubians also shared common origins.
quote:I am new here so I am not aware of what studies have been refuted as you claim but I would appreciate if you post the study or quote which specifically address and refutes a claim I post, instead of just blurting out that it has been refuted expecting me to just take your word for it.
I did. I have already responded to all of the studies you have cited. I then told you that they were all outdated.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
J1-M267 possibly orignated in East Africa
Ok. Here. And this isn't from wikipedia.
"Yonan et al. 2008
Abstract Northwest Africa & the HOA, both regions that provide a suitable region for examination of the demographic impact of the semitic speakers in contrast to non semitic speakers, because its complex recent history of both regions involved a permanent co-existance of two different populations with distinct geographical origins and their own particular languages -North African berbers and Somali/Oromo speakers in contrast to Arabic/Amharic semitic speakers. To address this issue, we analyzed Y chromosome haplotypes of 735* Semitic & non-Semitic speaking males from Northwest Africa & the HOA. While the data clearly shows that the bigger portion of the Semitic population adapted their haplotypes from the native genepool it also shows a minor contribution into the non-semitic speaking north Africans ruling out the theory of a predominant neolithic origin of J1 (M267) in North Africa.
Intersting guy, the Explorer. I am debating him on another thread. What is he, a professor or some kind of anthropologist? I wonder what he says about haplogroup T in Egypt.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Lol. So if cranimetriaclly the Egyptians cluster close to Nubians then this means they all looked about the same as Nubians??
It means that these two populations would have resembled each other, yes. Even though we can't know exactly what they looked like, we know the populations they had morphological affinities with.
quote:First of all most of Egyptians who cluster closest with Nubians are from Upper Egypt.
OK....?
quote:And several anthropologists have identified distinct northern and southern craniometric patterns in the Egyptian population of the early predynastic period, which Keita himself describes as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant.
What is this supposed to mean? You do realize that the Lower Egyptian sample Keita used was from Howell's database ('E' series) which has been found to be distinct from earlier Egyptians by Zakrzewski (2002, 2004) due to prolonged admixture (Kemp, 2006; AP Starling and JT Stock, 2007) therefore it can not be taken as representative of earlier specimens.
quote:Then you have the depictions by the Egyptians who cleraly distinguish themsleves from Nubians with a skin color ranging from copper brown to a light beige especially with regard to Egpytian women
This is just so stupid.
quote:We have quotes by ancinet writers who claim they were lighter than Ethiopians and looked like northern Indians
If you don't want to pay attention to what I'm telling you then goodbye. Your quotes were from after the New Kingdom
quote:We have hundreds of mummies most with striaght or wavy hair, and narrow nasal openings which is close to middle easterners.
This is simply your eyeball anthropology. Harris and Wente (1980) found several Royal Mummies to have characteristics common in Nubian populations.
quote:Also the Ancient Egyptians had a prepondernace of haplogroup T which came out of West Asia about 20,000 years ago. I mean WTF?
Where is the evidence that the ancient Egyptians had Haplogroup T at any sort of significant frequency?
quote:Wake up and smell the reality!
Take your own advice. Read scientific reports and stop with your biased bullsh!t that has no basis in reality
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz
I made a long reply to your last post but it didn't go through. When I hit refresh and tried to back page it was gone. I am about to go soon. But anyway your little quote about the proto Egyptians being neighbors and borroing words form other Africans groups doesn't really amount to much since obviously at some point all these groups were distant from each other in order to develop totally different and related languages languages etc.
Where is the evidence that the ancient Egyptians had Haplogroup T at any sort of significant frequency?
It means that these two populations would have resembled each other, yes. Even though we can't know exactly what they looked like, we know the populations they had morphological affinities with
We can't know exactly what they looked like..RIIIIGHT!
Egyptians
Nubians Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Exactly what I have been saying the whole time, look Im not denying there were Eurasian types in Egypt, but they were the Minotiry just as the Southern Sudanese type was a Minority. The Egyptians depicted both the Delta Egyptian type and the Southen Sudanese type to be foreign. the Best representation are Upper Egyptians and Northen Sudanese.
How can admixture make these people look exactly how their forefathers depicted themselves??
Aswani Egyptian..
As far as hair goes funny how Modern Upper egyptians and Northern Sudanese have the same hair as their Foremothers and Forefathers..
well I have to go, peace.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Hair studies of Nubians have also been undertaken. One study at Semna, in Nubia (Daniel Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262), found curling patterns intermediate between Northwest European and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Crimping and curvature data patterned in a northwest Europe direction. These data plots however do not necessarily indicate race admixture or percentages, or the presence of European migrants or colonists (see Keita 2005 below), but rather a data pattern of variation in how hair curls. This is a routine occurrence within human groups.
So basically this is saying that the hair of the Nubians varied and wasn't always so curly to begin with. This kind of a change of position.
I do think some of the ones in your bottom photo look like ancient Egyptians.
Do you think the folks in ancient Memphis would have looked Eurasian?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Gee, for people of West Eurasian affinity, the Egyptians were sure obsessed with African hairstyles! It's like a reverse case of Good Hair Syndrome!
Rahotep's answer:
LMAO Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: If its reality then you should have no problem showing us a mummy or bust of a pharoah from the dynastic era i.e 1-3 dynastys that looks middle eastern or caucasian? etc etc and not black african .
go on show us what the earliest egyptian pharoahs look like, SHOW US SOME PROOF
Ok. Here is Hemiunu, architect of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Actually fourth dynasty
The Great Imhotep 3rd dynasty
khasekhemwy 2nd dynasty..look high high his nose bridge was bfore it was cut off.
Khafre
But you are right many from first three dynasties dynasties do look Black.. but you can't just overlook all the rest.
High noses? You are clearly delusional. Out of your list only the statue of Hemiunu bears a high nose.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Melchior, you are one of the most ignorant persons who has ever posted here. This itself takes the cake:
quote:I made a long reply to your last post but it didn't go through. When I hit refresh and tried to back page it was gone. I am about to go soon. But anyway your little quote about the proto Egyptians being neighbors and borroing words form other Africans groups doesn't really amount to much since obviously at some point all these groups were distant from each other in order to develop totally different and related languages languages etc.
The above just makes absolutely no sense. You see, after I provided you with the appropriate linguistic evidence the Egyptians originated to the south in the Sudan/Sahara, you come back with the above?!
How do you figure that two populations have to be distant from each other to develop different languages? What principle is that statement based on? Not only that, but you totally ignore the evidence of common origins in the south via linguistic evidence.
quote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmcC7f5cHFg
Just something to think about.
Worst video I have ever seen. The uploader of the video has to be incredibly dull to state that haplogroup T made it into Egypt 20,000 years ago. That itself makes no sense. Anybody can tell you that haplogroup T would have been introduced during the Neolithic/ Whoever says it was introduced 20,000 years ago is on crack seeing as how the ancestors to the ancient Egyptians were still in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, even as haplogroup T corresponds to Near Eastern domesticates during the Neolithic, there was no major presence of Near Easterners. The high frequency if hg T in modern Egypt has been effected by drift. Not to mention the diversity of this haplogroup still has to be explored within Africa, especially since there was recently a sample from Uganda Nilotic with this haplogroup which is interesting.
quote:We can't know exactly what they looked like..RIIIIGHT!
Egyptians
As I keep telling you; artwork is subjective. And your selective pictures won't refute objective scientific reports. Now look at the hundreds of images here:
If you think the above people look Middle Eastern you just aren't familiar with African phenotypes
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: I do think some of the ones in your bottom photo look like ancient Egyptians.
All of the people in that image were Egyptians and match perfectly with images Egyptians left behind of themselves.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Do you think the folks in ancient Memphis would have looked Eurasian?
I would have to see if any studies have meen made on Memphite Egyptians and have to see the images left from their tombs, but from what I have seen so far and read so far NO, Some folks were Eurasian looking Some looked like Southern Sudanese Most looked like Upper Egyptians and Northern Sudanese.
Further Memphis was founded by and ruled by majority Southern Egyptian Royals.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Calabooz
It means that these two populations would have resembled each other, yes. Even though we can't know exactly what they looked like, we know the populations they had morphological affinities with
We can't know exactly what they looked like..RIIIIGHT!
Egyptians
Nubians
You are being selective here..
More depictions of Egyptians..
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
Its obvious what the Dominant Phenotype was and who they resemble but you seem rather stuck on passing a minority off as a representation of Egypt..
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Do you think the folks in ancient Memphis would have looked Eurasian?
As a matter of fact, ancient Lower Egyptian skeletons have been compared with those of the ancient southern Levant, the closest Eurasian region to Egypt, and the Lower Egyptians still tended more towards Africans and were distinct from the Levantines. So even if ancient Lower Egyptians were slightly lighter-skinned than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, any Eurasian admixture in them would have been much more minor than you want.
Source: Smith, P. "The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE." In Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium BCE. Edited by E. C.M van den Brink and T. E. Levy., 118-28. Leicester, UK: Leicester Univ Press, 2002.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
High noses? You are clearly delusional. Out of your list only the statue of Hemiunu bears a high nose.
What do you say about kafre then?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Calabooz
How do you figure that two populations have to be distant from each other to develop different languages? What principle is that statement based on?
Lol. Common sense. I can't believe you can't grasp that. It's not just different languages, But UNRELATED langauges. Do you know anything about language families? The spread of a language is often associated with the spread of a particular haplogroup btw. R for Indo-Europeans languages, J for semitic etc.
Not only that, but you totally ignore the evidence of common origins in the south via linguistic evidence.
The evidence would imply that the different groups eventually came to live in proximity of each other and borrowed certian linguistic terms and cultural ideas. Borrowings and cultural exchanges have occured between Indo-European and semitic, Uralic and Indo-European etc But this doesn't tell us about ultimate origins. The Urheimat for Afroasiatic is believed to be the Horn of Africa, though some dispute that. Niger Congo languages,the Nuba mountains, Nilo-Saharan languages,somewhere in the Eastern Sahara.
Anybody can tell you that haplogroup T would have been introduced during the Neolithic/ Whoever says it was introduced 20,000 years ago is on crack seeing as how the ancestors to the ancient Egyptians were still in sub-Saharan Africa.
And therein lies your problem. You believe that the Egyptians stem from ONE group of people, the Badarians from the south. Whereas I believe they are a fusiopn of differnt peoples.
As far as haplogroup T. It does seem younger than 20,000 years but just before the Neolithic...
"Since haplogroup T is not associated with the R1, G and J lineages that entered Africa from Eurasia relatively recently, Luis et al. (2004) suggest that the presence of the clade on the continent may, like R1* representatives, point to an older introduction from Asia. The Levant rather than Southern Arabia appears to have been the main route of entry, as the Egyptian and Turkish haplotypes are considerably older in age (13,700 ybp and 9,000 ybp, respectively) than those found in Oman (only 1,600 ybp). According to the authors, the spotty modern distribution pattern of haplogroup T within Africa may therefore represent the traces of a more widespread early local presence of the clade. Later expansions of populations carrying the E1b1b, E1b1a, G and J NRY lineages may have overwhelmed the T clade-bearers in certain localities."
J. R. Luis et al.: The Levant versus the Horn of Africa: Evidence for Bidirectional Corridors of Human Migrations (Errata), American Journal of Human Genetics
If you think the above people look Middle Eastern you just aren't familiar with African phenotypes
Yeah I know that ploy. Africans are DIVERSE. That allows you to claim just about anyone. I have argued with a few who claimed that light eyed, fair complected Berbers were just an example of African diversity and have no relation with any non african peoples...
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
^ I would say you need better eyes.
There are no high projecting noses on the statues of khefren and Khasekhem.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
As a matter of fact, ancient Lower Egyptian skeletons have been compared with those of the ancient southern Levant, the closest Eurasian region to Egypt, and the Lower Egyptians still tended more towards Africans and were distinct from the Levantines. So even if ancient Lower Egyptians were slightly lighter-skinned than their Upper Egyptian counterparts, any Eurasian admixture in them would have been much more minor than you want.
Yeah but you have to ask yourself an honest question. How do people living in a hot climate with origins from Sub Sharan Africa end up with light skin?? How exactly does that jibe with tropical adaptation?
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
There are no high projecting noses on the statues of khefren and Khasekhem.
Yeah Khefren's nose looks perfectly flat. Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Its obvious what the Dominant Phenotype was and who they resemble but you seem rather stuck on passing a minority off as a representation of Egypt..
The darker types certianly do exist, as to who is the majority or minority, I will need to examine that further.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
^ You must believe Khasekhem has a flat nose seeing as you only made a reference to Khafra in your post ,hence i assume you retract on your point made about Khasekhem bearing a high projecting nose, yes? As for khafra, his features have been discussed ad nauseum on this forum. You can find many threads pertaining to the king in the archives.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Lol. Common sense. I can't believe you can't grasp that. It's not just different languages, But UNRELATED langauges. Do you know anything about language families? The spread of a language is often associated with the spread of a particular haplogroup btw. R for Indo-Europeans languages, J for semitic etc.
I can't believe you can't grasp that you have no idea what you are talking about. Who says they're unrelated exactly, and can you not properly comprehend what the authors are saying? The first speakers of the Egyptians language were most likely located in the Sudan or Sahara and this is based on the fact of the shared vocabulary. The evidence all in all is not indicative of just borrowing certain linguistic terms. You are just in denial. As a matter of fact, if you had bothered to read the full context of the citation I presented, as well as the article and the evidence provided therein, you would realize that what you are saying has no basis in fact and is simply wishful thinking on your part. IF the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language showed affinities to contemporary Saharan/Sudanese and they originated to the south, this in no way supports your initial suggestion which you assumed was supported by linguistics. Just so you know, the Y chromosome marker B-M60 also suggests a significant presence amongst earlier Egyptians.
Even more fanciful thinking is how you are assuming that the Egyptians and Nubians were different. You seem to think that linguistic evidence supports this suggestion, and yet, it doesn't. At all. You choose to ignore the biological data as well which shows the Egyptians and Nubians to cluster indicating a biological relationship which we also know because of gene flow since ancient times and common origins. Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on and you are a product of your own bias and interpretation of artwork, not scientific data. Everything you said is unsubstantiated (edited spelling mistake.)
You're done here.
BTW, just so you know your article is saying that the hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic. To the contrary, it is saying that it would have been introduced at 9,000 years ago at around 7-6,000 B.C. consistent with Near Eastern domesticates being introduced with no major presence of Near Easterners
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I can't believe you can't grasp that you have no idea what you are talking about. Who says they're unrelated exactly, and can you not properly comprehend what the authors are saying? The first speakers of the Egyptians language were most likely located in the Sudan or Sahara and this is based on the fact of the shared vocabulary. The evidence all in all is not indicative of just borrowing certain linguistic terms. You are just in denial. As a matter of fact, if you had bothered to read the full context of the citation I presented, as well as the article and the evidence provided therein, you would realize that what you are saying has no basis in fact and is simply wishful thinking on your part. IF the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language showed affinities to contemporary Saharan/Sudanese and they originated to the south, this in no way supports your initial suggestion which you assumed was supported by linguistics. Just so you know, the Y chromosome marker B-M60 also suggests a significant presence amongst earlier Egyptians.
You still don't understand. Oh well..
Even more fanciful thinking is how you are assuming that the Egyptians and Nubians were different. You seem to think that linguistic evidence supports this suggestion, and yet, it doesn't. At all. You choose to ignore the biological data as well which shows the Egyptians and Nubians to cluster indicating a biological relationship which we also know because of gene flow since ancient times and common origins. Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on and you are a product of your own bias and interpretation of artwork, not scientific data. Everything you said is basically conjuncture. Nah..you waste my time.."Conjunture"??
BTW, just so you know your article is saying that the hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic. To the contrary, it is saying that it would have been introduced at 9,000 years ago at around 7-6,000 B.C. consistent with Near Eastern domesticates being introduced with no major presence of Near Easterners
BTW reread your quote. It is highly refelctive of your manner of thinking, INCOHERENT!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^Looks like you to understand how bad your thinking is. So answer the question:
If the linguistic evidence supports a relationship between Egyptians and Sudanese. So via linguistics, they ARE related which totally refutes your notion earlier, and suggests an origin for the ancient Egyptians further south consistent with other fields of research.
You think something is true and yet you cannot even provide any evidence to reinforce it
BTW, your reply is reflective of a cop out. Dwelling on my spelling mistakes (FYI, I meant to say that your article ISN'T saying hg T in Egypt is pre-Neolithic). You are making unsubstantiated statements that you fail to provide evidence to, and when presented with evidence to the contrary you backtrack. Your conclusions are guesses
Posted by cassiterides (Member # 18409) on :
The Aryans (Indo-Europeans) were fair haired and white. Throughout the Rig-Veda and other ancient Indians texts the Aryans are described as blondes and pale skinned, sharply contrasted to the 'black' dasyu (dravidian indians).
The claim Aryans are not a race, and secondly were not blonde is a post-ww2 invention that only was invented because of political correctness. You can blame Hitler for what led to the demonization of blonde haired white people.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Here is the end of the matter, all lines of evidence supports that the ancient Egyptians have origins to the south and relationship with Saharans/Sudanese. If you are of the mindset that the ancient Saharans/Sudanese were Middle Eastern looking, well, that's just your problem.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
I thought you quit.
If the linguistic evidence supports a relationship between Egyptians and Sudanese. So via linguistics, they ARE related which totally refutes your notion earlier, and suggests an origin for the ancient Egyptians further south consistent with other fields of research.
No, the implication via lingustics is not that they are related. It's like saying that Melungeons who lived in North carolina have picked up some Cherokee loan words and tradtions. From this we can surmise that the Melungeons at one time lived in close proximity to the Cherokee and that there was significant interaction between the two peoples. These is what your source is implying. But the Egyptian language and Nubian are not related.
It seems likely that the Badarians orginated from somewhere in Afro-Asiatic Somalia and worked their way up the Nile where they encountered Nilo Saharan speaking peoples. There was an interchange of ideas and some linguistic terms which helped spark Nubian culture but did not alter their language. Presumably more Nilo Saharans moved East into Sudan while the Badarians pushed further North. And without checking I'll bet this limb porportion/ craniometric similarity with Nubians extends to Somalians and Horn Africans too.
Posted by melchior7 (Member # 18960) on :
Here is the end of the matter, all lines of evidence supports that the ancient Egyptians have origins to the south
I agree. But where disagree is that I beleive that the Badarians who mgrated North into Egypt encountered a people already living there, and mixed with them. And we know there was a separate culture in the delta in Predynastic times. Remeber Menes esentially unified two nations.
If you are of the mindset that the ancient Saharans/Sudanese were Middle Eastern looking, well, that's just your problem.
No but apparently some folks living in Northern Egypt likely were prior to the Badarians. I honestly believe that light complexions and sharp features of some of the Egyptians entails some kind of migration from West Asia. And if you want to claim that some of these so called "mediterranean" traits are present in Beja and Horn Africans too, with regard to rather diverse genetic make up, there is a case to be made that they inherit some West Asian influence as well.
Bottom line, there has always been a lot of diversity in East Africa due to its proximity to the Arabian peninsula and West Asia.
Posted by Simple Girl (Member # 16578) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7
I agree. But where disagree is that I beleive that the Badarians who mgrated North into Egypt encountered a people already living there, and mixed with them. And we know there was a separate culture in the delta in Predynastic times. Remeber Menes esentially unified two nations. [/QB]
And the Delta has barely been excavated and has thousands of unexplored sites.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: No, the implication via lingustics is not that they are related
I just want to clear up this one last thing. Your statement was that the linguistic data suggests a difference in origins amongst the Egyptians and "Nubians". However, what the data I am showing you is implicating is that the earliest Egyptian speakers were located in the Sudan/Sahara which I maintain is consistent with a close relationship they have been known to have with Sudanese by other fields of research.
As for your other statements, I suggest you do some more research, which I will BTW no longer do for you.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Priceless.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
