posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I want to wait for Amun Ra to comment on what number he thinks dynastic Egyptians would locate and then I'll comment

---

Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole.

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I want to wait for Amun Ra to comment on what number he thinks dynastic Egyptians would locate and then I'll comment

---

Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole.

---

OK but exactly where within the "Upper Paleolithic"
would said Egyptians cluster with Eurasians? Is it
50kya? 30kya? 20? 10?

---

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
Up above it says that in the Upper Paleolithic, the
inhabitants of Egypt cluster with Eurasians. I am
trying to pin down exactly when and where within
the 40,000 years said to be the Upper Paleolithic that
this was the case. Was it at 50kya? 20kya? What were
the affinities of the inhabitants of Egypt during
this time span? You mentioned the archaeological record
and biometric continuity above. What does the record
show as to the inhabitants of Egypt at this time?

---

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


chart from
Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers.
Pontus Skoglund
(numbers and "Basal Eurasian" added-lioness)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole.

---

That sounds reasonable. Is there really an argument going on or is it spliittig hairs?
A position at 5-6 would place dynastic Egyptians closer to the East African Nilotic Dinka people and further from Yoruba in comparison



^^^ they are basically distinguishing three main types of African
Pgymy, Bantu and Nilotic
aka Mbuti, Yoruba, Dinka


Now let's look at the DNA Tribes chart
I carefully measured the distances and estimated how it would translate into the tree chart
I believe have the sequence order correct.
The result is a bit different. Enter the Khoisans.
They seem to have have placed Khoisans closest to non-African
It seems not to correspond to their other Basal Eurasian report unless Khosians occupied the horn at the time and were the Basal Eurasians.
"Basal Eurasians" according to Razib Khan's interpretation of articles using this term are a ghost population with no living direct descendants


DNA Tribes






DNA Tribes



So are Eurasians closer to Dinka or Khoisans ?


Also we may have to switch the order of statements in certain situations
If you say Egyptians are closer to Eurasians than bantu it implies back migration admixture. There might be some of that but if instead of saying "Egyptians were closer to" we instead say "Eurasians are closer to" then it excludes the admixture possibilities and could be interpreted as Africans existing first and Eurasians coming later

Now if we look at that posiition 5 again from the treemix chart
from the Skoglund article and we add DNA Tribes position for Khoisans. Then the ancient Egyptians are closer to Khoisans than any other African-am I not correct? Yet the DNA seems not to support this

A lot of the articles we read don't dovetail with one another all the time

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

---

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


chart from
Genomic Diversity and Admixture Differs for Stone-Age Scandinavian Foragers and Farmers.
Pontus Skoglund
(numbers and "Basal Eurasian" added-lioness)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole.

---

That sounds reasonable. Is there really an argument going on or is it spliittig hairs?
A position at 5-6 would place dynastic Egyptians closer to the East African Nilotic Dinka people and further from Yoruba in comparison

---

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:



( priest Ptahmai mit seiner Familie, 13. cent. B. C. (from Saqqara, today: Berlin, Neues Museum, Ägyptische Sammlungen)

---

close up of above Ptahmai



what a you kiddin me?

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate :
For example, the BMJ/JAMA/DNA tribes results on
Ancient Egyptian mummies for me, beside Ramses
III=E1b1a, is not really about Southern Africans,
Great Lakes Africans and West Africans. Ancient
Egyptians were also their own people after all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
^^^It clearly refutes your claim than Ancient Egyptians were genetically closer to Eurasians than West, Southern and Great Lakes Africans.

---

How? How does the apparent fact that 2 of at least
41 Amarna alleles being found more or less exclusively
in SSA according to DNA Tribes, disprove my point
that the native Upper Palaeolithic Egyptian
population was a pre-OOA remnant African population?

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:
blablablabla

---

SMH. All that spam for nothing. None of that SPAM
will ever compensate for your faillure to address
the bio-anthropological data of actual ancient
Egyptian remains, and their comparison to other
Africans. No matter how hard you run, statstical
and live data will always catch up with your lying
ass. SPAMMING cultural parallels has nothing to
do with this thread or with specifying the bio-
ethnic composition of Ancient Egypt and Nubia.
Ancient Egypt and Nubia were biologically rooted
in the Eastern Saharan region. I know it's hard to
swallow, but you're done, boy.



Emphasis mine. Lower Nubians and Egyptians in
yellow, West/Central Africans in blue. The Tigre
sample in red, and the centroid of the Jebel Moya
sample was not highlighted. Screen taken from
Irish 2006.

(JEM) Jebel Moya
(EGE) Egyptian ‘E’
(NAQ) Naqada
(BAD) Badarian
(SED) Sedment
(EGN) Egypt ‘Negroes’
(KER) Kerma
(AGR) A-Group
(BGR) B-Group
(CGR) C-Group
(DGR) D-Group
(MER) Meroitic
(XGR) X-Group
(TAI) Taita
(CAM) Cameroons
(TIG) Tigrean
(ASH) Ashanti
(TET) Tetela
(FRV) Fernand Vaz
(IBO) Ibo

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate :
For example, the BMJ/JAMA/DNA tribes results on
Ancient Egyptian mummies for me, beside Ramses
III=E1b1a, is not really about Southern Africans,
Great Lakes Africans and West Africans. Ancient
Egyptians were also their own people after all.

---

Just like your fellow troll, Akachi, you make no
sense whatsoever. Either the native holocene
Egyptians were Eastern Saharans or they were
West/Central Africans. Which one is it?

---

As long as you don't say Eurasian, I'm with you buddy...

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:
What "Black Hebrew Israelite stuff"?

---

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Migrations into India “did occur, but rarely from western Eurasian populations.” There are low frequencies of the western Eurasian mtDNA types in both southern and northern India. Thus, the ‘caucasoid’ features of south Asians may best be considered ‘pre-caucasoid’— that is, part of a diverse north or north-east African gene pool that yielded separate origins for western Eurasian and southern Asian populations over 50,000 years ago.

---

--U.S. biological anthropologist Todd R. Disotell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Our results suggest that Maasai ancestors
were well mixing with Non-African ancestors
until about 80kya, much later than the YRI/Non-
African separation. This is consistent with a
model where Maasai ancestors and Non-African
ancestors formed sister groups, which together
separated from West African ancestors and
stayed well mixing until much closer to the
actual out-of-Africa migration.

---

--Schiffels and Durbin (2014)

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
The core problem I see with Akachi and Amun-Ra is that they seem to approach the Nile Valley civilizations from a Pan-African perspective.

---

quote:

---

Africans have always been genetically and culturally diverse and that one subset of them may be fraternal to OOA.

---

quote:

---

I'm all for portraying ancient Egypto-Nubian civilization as an indigenous African development and don't like the pop-culture trend to whitewash (or tanwash) them one bit. I also think connections between the Nile Valley and other regions of Africa are worth looking into.

---

quote:

---

What's problematic is the insinuation by the Pan-African mindset that Africa was always a single, genetically and culturally homogeneous country. Why can't African people have different cultures and phenotypes just like people on other continents?

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, the construct of "Black African" is a fundamentally European one that was imposed onto Africans. Prior to the European "colonial" invasions, I don't think ancient Egyptians, Nubians, Zulus, Yoruba, etc. would have agreed on a common Black identity that brought them together. They probably would have conceived themselves more along the lines of culture or nationality just like people elsewhere in the world. As to whether ancient Egyptians or Nubians would have identified as Black people had their culture and phenotype persisted to the modern post-colonial era, that we can only speculate.

---

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Africans have always been genetically and culturally diverse and that one subset of them may be fraternal to OOA.

---

Ok, but why do you want ONLY modern East African populations to be fraternal with OOA migrants at the moment of the OOA migrations, instead of both East and West Africans for example? All CT carriers and all L3 carriers? (who btw continued to interact and admix with one another after the OOA migrations, developing among other thing the E, EP2, L3eikx, etc haplogroups. All subsequent to the OOA migrations). So why only East Africans, why not all CT carriers for example to be more fraternal with OOA migrants at the moment of the OOA migrations? Why only East Africans instead of both East and West Africans and all CT/L3 carriers in general? That sounds like the hamitic race myth, but for what and based on what?

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I want to wait for Amun Ra to comment on what number he thinks dynastic Egyptians would locate and then I'll comment

---

Of course for individuals all the numbers are possible since there was also "foreigners" in Ancient Egypt (think Hyksos for example). As well as their descendants of course. But in general, especially at the foundation stage, current genetic results on Ancient Egyptians (Ramses III=E1b1a, BMJ, JAMA, DNA Tribes), as well as other archaeological results (cultural continuity, biometric continuity affected by changes in lifestyle not migrants, etc) lead me to believe that they would be closer to say 5-6 on average. So basically Africans slightly admixed with neighboring Eurasians populations, but still mostly African as a whole.

---

OK but exactly where within the "Upper Paleolithic"
would said Egyptians cluster with Eurasians? Is it
at 50kya? 30kya? 20? 10?


lioness said:
let's disregard the term and not get caught up in the semantics of "Upper Paleolithic"
Does Nazlet Khater cluster with Eurasians?

The term is significant for it takes in a huge 40,000
year time span. So for 40,000 years the inhabitants of
Egypt were mostly "Eurasian"? Then bout 10kya they
switched back to mostly "African"?

---

Nazlet Khater clusters with Eurasians?

Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:


lioness said:
let's disregard the term and not get caught up in the semantics of "Upper Paleolithic"
Does Nazlet Khater cluster with Eurasians?

---

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truthcentric:
The core problem I see with Akachi and Amun-Ra is that they seem to approach the Nile Valley civilizations from a Pan-African perspective. That is to say, they want all the dark-skinned peoples of Africa and the Diaspora to be united into one cultural or genetic unit that excludes anyone they don't perceive to be Black. Of course this quasi-racialist construct doesn't square well with the facts that Africans have always been genetically and culturally diverse and that one subset of them may be fraternal to OOA.

I'm all for portraying ancient Egypto-Nubian civilization as an indigenous African development and don't like the pop-culture trend to whitewash (or tanwash) them one bit. I also think connections between the Nile Valley and other regions of Africa are worth looking into. What's problematic is the insinuation by the Pan-African mindset that Africa was always a single, genetically and culturally homogeneous country. Why can't African people have different cultures and phenotypes just like people on other continents?

Furthermore, the construct of "Black African" is a fundamentally European one that was imposed onto Africans. Prior to the European "colonial" invasions, I don't think ancient Egyptians, Nubians, Zulus, Yoruba, etc. would have agreed on a common Black identity that brought them together. They probably would have conceived themselves more along the lines of culture or nationality just like people elsewhere in the world. As to whether ancient Egyptians or Nubians would have identified as Black people had their culture and phenotype persisted to the modern post-colonial era, that we can only speculate.

---

Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I did not say
" Does Nazlet Khater cluster with Eurasians?"

stop the nonsense [/QB]

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

Emphasis mine. Lower Nubians and Egyptians in
yellow, West/Central Africans in blue. The Tigre
sample in red, and the centroid of the Jebel Moya
sample was not highlighted. Screen taken from
Irish 2006.

(JEM) Jebel Moya
(EGE) Egyptian ‘E’
(NAQ) Naqada
(BAD) Badarian
(SED) Sedment
(EGN) Egypt ‘Negroes’
(KER) Kerma
(AGR) A-Group
(BGR) B-Group
(CGR) C-Group
(DGR) D-Group
(MER) Meroitic
(XGR) X-Group
(TAI) Taita
(CAM) Cameroons
(TIG) Tigrean
(ASH) Ashanti
(TET) Tetela
(FRV) Fernand Vaz
(IBO) Ibo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos)
series classified with West/Central Africans.

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:


I've joined this forum after the DNA results were out. Before that I wasn't sure if Ancient Egyptians were truly Africans even if I read Diop's and similar works.

---

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I did not say
" Does Nazlet Khater cluster with Eurasians?"

stop the nonsense

---

Not even away for a day and people are already misrepresenting
my views. If not you Lioness I don't know who posed that
misleading question,

---

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Centric:

As to whether ancient Egyptians or Nubians would have identified as Black people had their culture and phenotype persisted to the modern post-colonial era, that we can only speculate.

---

• 
  
  
  This translation supercedes my previous
  postings, is tentative, not literal, rather
  designed for 21st century understandings.

• Excerpts originally posted by alTakruri on October 04, 2006:
  
  Transliteration and translation of the 1st 5 columns
  of the Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30
  
  
  

  code:

  ---

  CAPS = multi-literal phonogram; 
  :    = determinative; 
  []   = unvoiced phonetic compliment; 
  .    = suffix 

  ---

  code:

  ---

  Col1: å-n                HRW   n    nn.[n-n]
        Says(interogative) Heru  to   these:  
  -
  Col2: [HHQ3].`a-w-t.plural        RA
        "Herds                 (of) Ra
  -
  Col3: å-m.w:plural        DWA.t:pr
        Dwellers       (in) netherworld.
  -
  Col4: KM[m].t:nwt          d-sh-r.t:nwt    AKH
        Black community.   Red community.
  -
  Col5: [kh]:scroll     n    th-n:plural  HQA.w:plural       RA
        Beatification   to   ye           subjects      (of) Ra!  

  ---

  
  
  
  The "four types" -- or better, the "subjects of Ra" -- scene depicts the sun in
  the 5th night hour with Heru addressing the dead. He verbally divides them
  into the blacks (Nile Valley folk, i.e., Egyptians and Nehesis) under his protection,
  and the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.
  
  
  Heru is addressing all four types, first with a general intro
  to the entire party of the afterlife dead (who died that day) still
  in their shrouds. He "beatifies" them, reanimates them with
  "spirit" (breath/wind), and releases them from their shrouds.
  Then after all that he addresses each group in turn speaking
  of the origins of their creation and assigning their "patron" deity.
  First the RT RMTW and then in from sunrise to sunset order the
  AAMW, NHHSW, and TMHHW .
  
  The NWT ideogram means neither people nor land.
  
  The
  glyph depicts a crossroads indicating a village or city, i.e. a
  settlement or habitation. thus the use of it to mean community
  in its broad application for the corpus of the dead. It [mostly]
  appears as the determinative following the name of a city.
  
  
  Now if one wants to take black as meaning literal black skin, then
  go ahead. I recognize a range of skin tones among blacks and
  also recognize the difference as used in Africa between blacks
  and reds, both of whom may be African, and blacks and reds
  where reds means coloureds and whites. As an example, in
  medieval Arab writings they class themselves as reds in
  distinction to black Africans of Biled es Sudan but as blacks
  in distinction to red/white Eurasians like Persians, Slavs, etc.
  
  ____________________________________
  
  
  In scene 30 Horus establishes the blacks and the
  reds as two communities not races, a concept not
  introduced until the birth of anthropology in the
  18th century in expansionist Europe.
  
  In scene 30 Heru states that the blacks are the
  creations of his or Re's tears/semen and under
  his patronage whereas the reds have Sekhmet as
  their patron.
  
  The blacks are the RT RMT yw and the NHHSW Nile dwellers.
  The reds are the A3MW and TMHHW of the adjoining deserts.

Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:

---

The fact that "Tigreans" are included in the definition of "Negroid" in this instance undermines what I'm saying. The definition of "Negroid" has varied, because scholars in the past have tried to make this exclusively the black classification. Depending on their intent, they would narrow the definition to "true negroid" or included the vast populations of Sub Saharan Africa as such (the latter likely because of our common black skin tone ranges/ and were just being honest in calling them all variations of "black"). In this case the author included the vast populations of Sub Saharan Africa as "Negroid" and highlighted the diversity as a result of doing such. None the less it doesn't negate that Tigreans (which were used above) are physically distinct from the "true Negroid" populations noted as "Niger-Congo" in both Brace's and those same "Niger-Congo" or "Sub Saharan" (as opposed to Northeast African samples) later reiterated in Ricaut's study:



Their (Tigrean) affinity (generally Horner) has been noted as a primary affinity with Pre-Dynastic Egypt just as the "Negroid" Bantu (Niger-Congo outshoot), but also to be distinct from them within that purple primary affinity box outlined.

The Niger-Congo (Bantu) speakers group are considered the "core" or so called "true Negroid" (now called "Sub Saharan African") group in these analysis unless stated otherwise. All of this below points to a distinct group of African:






What is the identity of this distinct group of black Africans? What is the name of our group? "Niger-Congo speakers"? We don't seem to have an identity, and when people hint at our identity some people have been taught to see any noted distinction of our special brand of black African as "insulting" (because of perceived ignorance of indigenous African diversity).

---

Also Zaharan on the ancient Nubian language, you already know my stance on the bullshit (fake/Western devised plot) "Afro-Asiatic" language family.



Let this renown African scholar (who actually speaks African languages unlike the Western linguist who devised their BS theory) Dr. Theophile Obenga explain why, and sooo simply (you can't argue with common sense)!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81dn2MwGq4Q

So your language counter-argument is just more silliness.

Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:


the reds (folk dwelling east or west of the Nile) under Sekhet's protection.....



I recognize a range of skin tones among blacks and
also recognize the difference as used in Africa between blacks
and reds, both of whom may be African, and blacks and reds
where reds means coloureds and whites. As an example, in
medieval Arab writings they class themselves as reds in
distinction to black Africans of Biled es Sudan but as blacks
in distinction to red/white Eurasians like Persians, Slavs, etc.

---

Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

You sure have a lot to say for a pesky insect that
has been swatted and reduced to a greasy smear on
the wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos)
series classified with West/Central Africans.

---

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
You sure have a lot to say for a pesky insect that
has been swatted and reduced to a greasy smear on
the wall.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


At best 2% of the dynastic Upper Egyptian (Abydos)
series classified with West/Central Africans.

---

---

You no point! You no point, because you have no narrative with any of this **** that post as "counter evidence". I mean to literally argue based on your interpretation of this one analysis that only 2% (over a third of the population according to UNESCO Conference presented in earlier post) of the population of ancient Egypt was "Negroid" (explained above):





" All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features,I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:

' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians
because, like them, they are black with woolly hair ...

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance)

"In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

" Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

" In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks , must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

Shows that your interpretation of this **** lacks any context or common fucking sense! Why in the Hell would the most adorned (and yet "mysterious") individual artwork in ancient Egypt be of a Negroid individual is "Negroid" Africans only made up 2% of the population. Not to mention that my posting of general pharaonic artwork has you literally screaming for me to get banned (like typical lying scared white bitch), because of this obvious truth that the "Negroid" element was the dominant group in ancient Egypt (and the Middle East/the so called "Asiatics").

Posts: 348 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2014  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Akachi:
a third of the population according to UNESCO Conference presented in earlier post

---

You're full a sh!t, boy. Your own source
debunks you, as usual (we've already seen that
Brace, Irish and Holliday want nothing to do with
your claims). But, your previous phuckups aside,
where does the part come in that "30% negroid"
necessarily invokes the True Negro or a non-
northeast African type for you to say that your
citation is in conflict with the 2% W/C African
my citation mentions?

It is to be noted, first, that these results
are not unanimously acceptedeven by anthropologists
(Keith, 1905, p. 295; Zaborowski-Moindron, 1898,
p. 597-611) and, secondly, that the word 'Negroid'
is ambiguous. Anthropologists frequently draw a
distinction between it and the word 'Negro', without,
however, going into further details of its characteristics.

Oh, I get it. Is this is the part where you run
away from my post, hide a couple of days and then
come back to act like nothing just happened and
where you continue to promote the same crap which
your own sources distance themselves from?

Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged |