Forensic experts believe they have identified the skeleton of the queen’s younger sister, murdered over 2,000 years ago
by Daniel Foggo
ARCHEOLOGISTS and forensic experts believe they have identified the skeleton of Cleopatra’s younger sister, murdered more than 2,000 years ago on the orders of the Egyptian queen.
The remains of Princess Arsinöe, put to death in 41BC on the orders of Cleopatra and her Roman lover Mark Antony to eliminate her as a rival, are the first relics of the Ptolemaic dynasty to be identified.
The breakthrough, by an Austrian team, has provided pointers to Cleopatra’s true ethnicity. Scholars have long debated whether she was Greek or Macedonian like her ancestor the original Ptolemy, a Macedonian general who was made ruler of Egypt by Alexander the Great, or whether she was north African.
Evidence obtained by studying the dimensions of Arsinöe’s skull shows she had some of the characteristics of white Europeans, ancient Egyptians and black Africans, indicating that Cleopatra was probably of mixed race, too. They were daughters of Ptolemy XII by different wives.
The results vindicate the theories of Hilke Thür of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, who has long claimed that the skeleton was Arsinöe. She described the discovery of Arsinöe’s ethnicity as “a real sensation which leads to a new insight on Cleopatra’s family”.
Fellow experts are now convinced. Günther Hölbl, an authority on the Ptolemies, said the identification of the skeleton was “a great discovery”.
The forensic evidence was obtained by a team working under the auspices of the Austrian Archeological Institute, which is set to detail its findings at an anthropological convention in the United States later this month.
The story of the discovery will also be the subject of a tele-vision documentary, Cleopatra: Portrait of a Killer, to be shown on BBC1 at 9pm next Monday.
The institute’s breakthrough came about after it set out to examine Thür’s belief that an octagonal tomb in the remains of the Roman city of Ephesus contained the body of Arsinöe.
According to Roman texts the city, in what is now Turkey, is where Arsinöe was banished after being defeated in a power struggle against Cleopatra and her then lover, Julius Caesar.
Arsinöe was said to have been murdered after Cleopatra, now with Mark Antony following Caesar’s death, ordered the Roman general to have her younger sibling killed to prevent any future attempts on the Egyptian throne.
The distinctive tomb was first opened in 1926 by archeologists who found a sarcophagus inside containing a skeleton. They removed the skull, which was examined and measured; but it was lost in the upheaval of the second world war.
In the early 1990s Thür reentered the tomb and found the headless skeleton, which she believed to be of a young woman. Clues, such as the unusual octagonal shape of the tomb, which echoed that of the lighthouse of Alexandria with which Arsinöe was associated, convinced Thür the body was that of Cleopatra’s sister. Her theory was considered credible by many historians, and in an attempt to resolve the issue the Austrian Archeological Institute asked the Medical University of Vienna to appoint a specialist to examine the remains.
Fabian Kanz, an anthropologist, was sceptical when he began this task two years ago. “We tried to exclude her from being Arsinöe,” he said. “We used all the methods we have to find anything that can say, ‘Okay, this can’t be Arsinöe because of this and this’.”
After using carbon dating, which dated the skeleton from 200BC-20BC, Kanz, who had examined more than 500 other skeletons taken from the ruins of Ephesus, found Thür’s theory gained credibility.
He said he was certain the bones were female and placed the age of the woman at 15-18. Although Arsinöe’s date of birth is not known, she was certainly younger than Cleopatra, who was about 27 at the time of her sister’s demise.
The lack of any sign of illness or malnutrition also indicated a sudden death, said Kanz. Evidence of the skeleton’s north African ethnicity provided the final clue.
Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist, reconstructed the missing skull based on measurements taken in the 1920s. Using computer technology it was possible to create a facial impression of what Arsinöe might have looked like.
“It has got this long head shape,” said Wilkinson. “That’s something you see quite frequently in ancient Egyptians and black Africans. It could suggest a mixture of ancestry.”
What a shame that this skull was lost!!
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:The breakthrough, by an Austrian team, has provided pointers to Cleopatra’s true ethnicity. Scholars have long debated whether she was Greek or Macedonian like her ancestor the original Ptolemy, a Macedonian general who was made ruler of Egypt by Alexander the Great, or whether she was north African.
Evidence obtained by studying the dimensions of Arsinöe’s skull shows she had some of the characteristics of white Europeans, ancient Egyptians and black Africans, indicating that Cleopatra was probably of mixed race, too. They were daughters of Ptolemy XII by different wives.
...
“It has got this long head shape,” said Wilkinson. “That’s something you see quite frequently in ancient Egyptians and black Africans. It could suggest a mixture of ancestry.”
Spoken like ancient Egyptians and black Africans were two mutually exclusive things, yet their description [last bit] says otherwise. Hopefully, Arsineo looked nothing like some of the images we've seen of Cleopatra on coins.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
Keep in mind subjective descriptions of skull shape prove nothing.
At worst, a "computer" twice attributes a large number of skulls from the same region (once, with Spanish crania and, once with skulls of an ancient indigenous Sudanese group) to populations, spanning continants, they couldn't possibly have been from.
At best, one Brace study found similarities between Neolithic and Bronze Age ( <-- around the time of ancient Greece) South Eastern European skulls and those of Niger-Congo speakers, that were not found between some Egyptian samples and the latter. Meaning, even with "black african" features, Cleo could have still been Greek or even possibly Macedonian.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Forensic tools like that of FORDISC are becoming something of an archaic concept, with blatant limitations as noted time and again, notwithstanding persistence of holding onto old outdated concepts. DNA sequencing has become possibly the best thing that has happened to the field of forensics. It's the way to go, for greater precision into discerning a suspect's or victim's ancestry than craniometry.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
"ancient egyptians and black africans"
a little reality check for you guys
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
^?
Let's let the Texan have its fun, lmfao
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Forensic tools like that of FORDISC are becoming something of an archaic concept, with blatant limitations as noted time and again, notwithstanding persistence of holding onto old outdated concepts. DNA sequencing has become possibly the best thing that has happened to the field of forensics. It's the way to go, for greater precision into discerning a suspect's or victim's ancestry than craniometry.
Yes, though, it would be easier if testing ancients were possible. Not that we don't already know much as far as populations are concerned.
Although Macedonia is distinct we can't forget their ties to Greece. So from this i imagine the famous Cleopatra may have had some Egyptian or some Greek in her.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
the Greeks and Macadonians were the same people.
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
I hope this doesn't go the way of the "Nefertiti discovery." When someone as important as Cleopatra or even her blood sister is claimed as Black or African (by a DNA study of some sort), there is usually an attempt to explain it away afterwards. Or either the term African will be dropped and replaced with something else less controversial like "Mediterrean."
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: "ancient egyptians and black africans"
a little reality check for you guys
Semantics. Even at the very least, according to your literalist interpretation of what exactly that means, it would suggest that she simply chose not to impose a label on the ancient populations while still comparing them to modern "Black Africans", or that she avoids classification of the former due to noted controversies, yet alludes to the fact that they would be inclusive as they share exclusive traits, hence, are relatives of the same African reality. This is evident since there was no attribution of "admixture" between so-called ancient Egyptian and "Black African" but rather the assumption was on the part of an admixture between African and Macedonian. Your desperation is duly noted though.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Evidence obtained by studying the dimensions of Arsinöe’s skull shows she had some of the characteristics of white Europeans, ancient Egyptians and black Africans, indicating that Cleopatra was probably of mixed race, too. They were daughters of Ptolemy XII by different wives.
^^This is what A.P. is going around paraphrasing.
This is similar to the whole Susan Anton thing where the journalistic interpretation of what the anthropologists find or even say, isn't at all reflective. Guys like A.P. jump at senseless dichotomies like that, even in the face of blatant contradiction, as has been noted..
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: the Greeks and Macadonians were the same people.
Alack and alas...
Established research says otherwise. Greeks are actually closer to those "darker" types south of the Sahara, relatively speaking, than your Macedonians.
HLA genes in Macedonians and the sub-Saharan origin of the Greeks A. Arnaiz-Villena, K. Dimitroski, A. Pacho, J. Moscoso, E. Gómez-Casado, et. al Tissue Antigens (2001) Volume 57, Issue 2 , Pages118 - 127
From abstract: 1) Macedonians belong to the "older" Mediterranean substratum, like Iberians (including Basques), North Africans, Italians, French, Cretans, Jews, Lebanese, Turks (Anatolians), Armenians and Iranians, 2) Macedonians are not related with geographically close Greeks, who do not belong to the "older" Mediterranenan substratum, 3) Greeks are found to have a substantial relatedness to sub-Saharan (Ethiopian) people, which separate them from other Mediterranean groups. Both Greeks and Ethiopians share quasi-specific DRB1 alleles.. Genetic distances are closer between Greeks and Ethiopian/sub-Saharan groups than to any other Mediterranean group and finally Greeks cluster with Ethiopians/sub-Saharans in both neighbour joining dendrograms and correspondence analyses. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt."
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: "ancient egyptians and black africans"
a little reality check for you guys
Alack....
and alas...
Those pesky limb proportion studies just refuse to airbrush "bleks" away...
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
This is what the Times article pictures Arsinoe to look like via forensic reconstruction. QUOTE:
"Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist, reconstructed the missing skull based on measurements taken in the 1920s. Using computer technology it was possible to create a facial impression of what Arsinöe might have looked like.
Honestly, close scrutiny suggests that this doesn't necessarily reveal anything about Cleopatra (they had different mothers). The only valuable contribution here is the further implication of ancient Egyptians with the dominant African population. The evidence as we all know isn't lacking, it's the consensus and we may be getting closer to one that more readily reflects the obvious.
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
"ancient egyptians and black africans"
a little reality check for you guys
You missed "your train"...
Here's the real "reality check" you should try yourself. It's a good thing:
“It has got this long head shape,” said Wilkinson. “That’s something you see quite frequently in ancient Egyptians and black Africans.”
This means notwithstanding the author's *politics*, i.e. the play of words, her remark [as noted above, from biological data done by experts] could not escape the conclusion that there is no such thing as ancient Egyptians being mutually exclusive with "black Africans".
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: Honestly, close scrutiny suggests that this doesn't necessarily reveal anything about Cleopatra (they had different mothers). The only valuable contribution here is the further implication of ancient Egyptians with the dominant African population. The evidence as we all know isn't lacking, it's the consensus and we may be getting closer to one that more readily reflects the obvious.
Could be, but the BBC article posted by Evergreen states that Cleo's mother was African, based on this find about her sister. Did Cleo and Arsinoe have different mothers? I havent come across anything yet to say the mothers were different.. The BBC article seems to be saying that they had the same mother.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/also_in_the_news/7945333.stm
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: This is what the Times article pictures Arsinoe to look like via forensic reconstruction. QUOTE:
"Caroline Wilkinson, a forensic anthropologist, reconstructed the missing skull based on measurements taken in the 1920s. Using computer technology it was possible to create a facial impression of what Arsinöe might have looked like.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan: Could be, but the BBC article posted by Evergreen states that Cleo's mother was African, based on this find about her sister. Did Cleo and Arsinoe have different mothers? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/also_in_the_news/7945333.stm
It says it in the article posted in this thread:
"Evidence obtained by studying the dimensions of Arsinöe’s skull shows she had some of the characteristics of white Europeans, ancient Egyptians and black Africans, indicating that Cleopatra was probably of mixed race, too. They were daughters of Ptolemy XII by different wives. "
Posted by The Explorer (Member # 14778) on :
Even if they had different mothers, this does not rule out the possibility of both having been African "brides", unless specifically indicated so, and how so.
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
Quite so. The fact that the skull's features were distinctive enough, so distinctive that the forensic anthropologist using old style race classifications can call them African shows that the possibility is quite credible. Under the "Caucasoid Egypt" theory that skull is a virtual impossibility- white Greek and Asiatic- should yield something "Caucasian."
But yet here we have it- a conservative old school anthropologist, using conservative old school categories, finds clear evidence of what you have elsewhere called tropical African variant.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
quote: "ancient egyptians and black africans"
a little reality check for you guys
The fact is, the history belongs to us southern Egyptians, northern Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians and so forth, the history does NOT belong to anyone else.
Concern yourself with your celtic and germanic anglo-saxon ancestors.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
sudaniy wrote: -------------------------- The fact is, the history belongs to us southern Egyptians, northern Sudanese, Somalis, Ethiopians and so forth, the history does NOT belong to anyone else. --------------------------
What does Ethiopia and Somalia have to do with Ancient Egypt? You need to stop living in a make believe fantasy world. Please fix your country, whichever of the two it is, so you don't have play make believe on internet forums for self-esteem.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
they have nothing to do with ancient egyptians. You would have to go back 50,0000 years before any of thee people would have a common ancestor with egyptians. again, her sidister, not her, is part Greek, part ancient egyptian and part black african.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: What does Ethiopia and Somalia have to do with Ancient Egypt? You need to stop living in a make believe fantasy world. Please fix your country, whichever of the two it is, so you don't have play make believe on internet forums for self-esteem.
I think Sudaniya is from northern Sudan and not from either Somalia and Ethiopia, so get your facts straight.
And as for your question, Ancient Egyptians belonged to the NE african ethnicity and so are Somalis and Ethiopians, nuff said.
Remember AE equelled Upper Egypt and Upper Egypt is more or else a Horn african region.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: they have nothing to do with ancient egyptians. You would have to go back 50,0000 years before any of thee people would have a common ancestor with egyptians. again, her sidister, not her, is part Greek, part ancient egyptian and part black african.
Forget Ancient egyptians, Ethiopians and Somalis are more related to southern Ancient Greeks than your Germanic ass is, as Sudaniya told you stick to the vikings and celts.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Stop with all the separation nonsense you weirdos, the only one in here who is delusional is American Patriot with his 50,000 years common ancestry nonsense. His knowledge of the Pn2 clade is obviously lacking. Either way you cut it, AEs had absolutely nothing whatsoever, I mean NOTHING to do with white Nordic anglo-saxons... They are interlopers in the field of African studies. I can sit up here and tell Yonis that his Somalid obsession is misguided but I can't deny him his connection to Africa as an African. Patriot on the otherhand, has no business telling anybody who is closely related to whom as his ancestors are the biggest outliners in this discussion.
A.P. wrote:
is part Greek, part ancient egyptian and part black african.
None of the anthropologists gave that description, this is a flawed interpretation by some naive journalist and even they didn't use the words you do. They quoted them as implying that "Ancient Egyptian and Black African" are not mutually exclusive (as further noted by the lack of physical distinction they made between them and further implied in the audio clip) just like your Macedonian and Greek. You are so illogical and hold on to any discrepancy in flawed wording that you may find. You are a deceptive cherry-picking lunatic A.P... Your logic can't hold up to scrutiny.
^Listen to the audio from the actual head of the archeological team. He says that she was "African Greek" (direct quote).. Further demolishing your false dichotomy as Africans are treated as being mutually exclusive as Macadonians and Greeks were (since the Ptolemys were not Greek!).
quote: What does Ethiopia and Somalia have to do with Ancient Egypt? You need to stop living in a make believe fantasy world. Please fix your country, whichever of the two it is, so you don't have play make believe on internet forums for self-esteem.
I am not an Habash nor a Somali. The ancient Egyptians identified both Sudan and Punt/Somalia as their land of origin.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Argyle
quote: What does Ethiopia and Somalia have to do with Ancient Egypt? You need to stop living in a make believe fantasy world. Please fix your country, whichever of the two it is, so you don't have play make believe on internet forums for self-esteem.
I am not an Habash nor a Somali. The ancient Egyptians identified both Sudan and Punt/Somalia as their land of origin.
The exact location of Punt is unknown, but you are right it's the the Horn of africa and you are correct that they called this region ancestral land. They were very perceptive.
Don't mind argyle he always chases his tail.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
South Ancient Greeks are related to ethiopians .. . . .
which comes first the chicken or the egg.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: they have nothing to do with ancient egyptians. You would have to go back 50,0000 years before any of thee people would have a common ancestor with egyptians. again, her sidister, not her, is part Greek, part ancient egyptian and part black african.
Forget Ancient egyptians, Ethiopians and Somalis are more related to southern Ancient Greeks than your Germanic ass is, as Sudaniya told you stick to the vikings and celts.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
There are no ancient Greeks related to Ethiopians xyy, there is no evidence to support that view.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
Greeks carry E3b just like Ethiopians also alot of southern europe carry E3b also read this:
The network of the E-M78 chromosomes reveals a strong geographic structuring, since each of the clusters a, b, and g reaches high frequencies in only one of the regions analyzed. Cluster a ... is very common in the Balkans (with frequencies of 20%–32%), and its frequencies decline toward western Europe, 7.4% in Sicily, 7.0% in continental Italy, 4.3% in Corsica, 3.0% in France, 2.2% in Iberia and 1.1% in Sardinia, and northeastern (2.6%) Europe. In the Near East, this cluster is essentially limited to Turkey (3.4%). The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece suggests that cluster a of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too
Fulvio Cruciani, et al Phylogeographic Analysis of Haplogroup E3b (E-M215) Y Chromosomes Reveals Multiple Migratory Events Within and Out Of Africa Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:1014–1022, 2004
this is from Rasol:
1) Less than 50 percent of Greek paternal ancestry is of European origin [R1b + I], these lineages make up over 90% of much of Northern Europe.
2) Almost 25% of Greek paternal heritage is African, and nearly another 1/4 is SouthWest Asian. These lineages make up less than 10% of Northern European heritage.
3) Civilisation began in Nile Valley Africa, and Mesopotamian SouthWest Asia several thousand years prior to European civilisation, when Europeans finally developed a civilisation...it was in the Greek zone of Afro-Asian/European MIXTURE. During this time, there is NO civilistion in Northern Europe....therefore it is entirely insensible to attribute Greek civilisation to Nordic barbarians. Peoples who did not yet have civilisation. People whom the ancient Greeks themselves considered to be savages.
Now Patriot I have given you some facts about Greeks, Could you provide some facts that counter what I just posted?
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
That is not proof King.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
See this is what I am talking about. Africans and Europeans have common ancestors, yet we let the color of our skin dictate how we see each other. Europeans are groomed to hate Africans and look down on them. Africans are told to Fear and blame Europeans for there problem.
This has to stop. We have to start anew. It's time we "bigup" the HUMAN RACE. We are so similar that it is just plain dumb to hate each other. We ALL have a common enemy, The Elite. It's time we work together to shape mankind in a better way. Ask yourself what can we accomplish by working together to stop our problems. We have seen what can happen through hate. We saw and "watched" the genocide of Jews, Rwandans, Cambodians. The Elite play on our differences and instigate violence by playing one side, against the other. It's the Fear Factor. People have to not be fearful of each other. We should learn about other ethnicites and find out how others live. Learning about what seperates us, will benefit the Future(children) and give them a chance to grow up with friends from ALL Ethnicites and realize that they can reach whatever there dream is. There is NOTHING that a ethnicity can't do. With proper guidance Children can grow up to be whatever they want to be. We see that differences are minute because Africans in Europe, and the US are leaders in education. This shows that stuff that racists hang on to like I.Q. scores is nonsense. Africans with proper guidance can be leaders in Education, and Europeans can be good at music and sports. The stereotypes have to go. I may not of worded this post good, but I hope the main point did not fly over peoples head. Unity is the Goal.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
You have to be Joking, How is the E3b lineage not proof of Links between Greeks and Ethiopians?
How about you post FACTS refuting what I posted, your one liners are not enough evidence.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
It is no proof, you have told me no history. You do not know how it got there and ythus have no proof. You are, thus, making assumptions.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Patriot
It's proof to anyone with half a brain. Your stupid one liners are not going to save you read this:
E-M35 has been found in Africa, the Near East, and Europe -> where it is believed to have arrived in Neolithic times (Hammer et al. 1998; Semino et al. 2000)
Now tell me again how greeks are not linked to Africans?
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:King wrote: See this is what I am talking about. Africans and Europeans have common ancestors
No, Africans and Europeans don't have common ancestors only some Europeans have common ancestors with africans. Your mother theresa approach is quite pathetic King, no need to clinge on to something that don't exist. American patriot is a WASP and these have no recent connection to Africa what so ever, they are on the complete opposite end.
AP needs to stick to the celts and vikings, right now he's surfing on exotic waters.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Doesn't matter where it is found King, that does not tell you anything. You have no proof the Greeks are linked to Africans.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
Alright now you've got your 15 minutes of fame (goofy entertainment) move on, your next 15 minutes is schedueled next week.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Yonis2, The existence of a genetic marker is NOT history, it tells you nothing historical. When you learn how to use data you might make some progress.
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
Nope but history tells us that the greeks new more about Horn of Africa than they did 90% of Europe, read or google "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea", you even find ancient stelas inscripted in ancient greek in Ethiopia.
They knew nothing or showed any interest of the barbarian lands in northern Europe.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
History does not tell you that Yonis. You are making another assumption. Only a complete moron would try to detach Greece from the rest of Europe. Classical civilization spread all over Europe and is the foundation of European civilization. Contending otherwise is beyond absurd.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Yonis2
I am not "Mother Theresa". How I view things, is how it should be. It's people like patriot and you who bring down what really could be accomplished. You speak of Europeans with African Ancestors as if that somehow makes it okay to show them respect. What about the rest of the Europeans? They deserve the same respect. We have all kinds of Hating, why not try to respect your opponent instead of always slinging mud.
Africans and Europeans, Both need to grow up. We are more alike then we are different. It is because of people like you we now have people running around saying foolishness like "Somalid" this "Negrid" that. Just another way to hate.
Face reality, The world is getting smaller sooner(Hope) rather then later we are going to have to recognize that we belong to ONE RACE not somalid or Negrid, or Europid.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
How much facts are you going to dismiss with your one liners? Read and Learn
Journal of Human Evolution (1972) 1, 307 - 313 "...one can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in natufian hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and MACEDONIAN first farmers (Angel, 1972 - The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population), probably FROM NUBIA.
Oh look, a map showing benin sicklecell in Europe. Even more links to Africa. Can you refute this.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
respect? What does that have to do with any of this? The facts you are giving me are fine King. The problem is they have nothing to do with the history of greece nor do they prove that the greeks had an any african ancestors.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
So far I have come with nothing but FACTS, You have your one liners. You have not shown ANYTHING that even looks like facts.
The Facts and I repeat state:
one can identify NEGROID traits of nose and prognathism appearing in natufian hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and MACEDONIAN first farmers (Angel, 1972 - The People of Lerna: Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population), probably FROM NUBIA.
Now read this:
The People of Lerna : Analysis of a Prehistoric Aegean Population
Review of Lerna, a preclassical site in the Argolid, results of excavations conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. I. The Fauna by Nils-Gustaf Gejvall. Field lists of skeletal material, 1935-1958 (includes lists of material from Agora, Corinth, Mycenae, Argos, Lerna, Eleusis, Pylos....
In classical Greece, Lerna was a region of springs and a former lake near the east coast of the Peloponnesus, south of Argos. It is most famous as the lair of the Lernaean Hydra, the chthonic many-headed water snake, a creature of great antiquity when Heracles killed it, as the second of his labors.
Now please post your facts, that counter this.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
OK King...but again your facts tell us nothing about the history of greece. Nothing you said CONNECTS any black africans to greeks in terms of history. I am questioning the conclusions you are drawing BASED on the information you are offering. They found skeletans, so what, that proves nothing. That data could mean any number of a thousand things King, of which we know nothing.
What you are doing is trying to tell me what a house looks like based on one nail. You just do not have anything.
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
Hahaha! Funny thread. Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Patriot, I respect every person I debate, You not posting ANY facts, makes it hard for me to respect you. If you want to be taken seriously post something other then your overused one liners. Now this is a STUDY on Greeks Read and Learn:
Read this Patriot:
Greeks are genetically related to sub-Saharans
Summary:
Much to our surprise, the reason why Greeks did not show a close relatedness with all the other Mediterraneans analyzed was their genetic relationship with sub-Saharan ethnic groups now residing in Ethiopia, Sudan and West Africa (Burkina-Fasso). Although some Greek DRB1 alleles are not completely specific of the Greek/sub-Saharan sharing, the list of alleles is self-explanatory. The time period when these relationships might have occurred was ancient but uncertain and might be related to the displacement of Egyptian-Ethiopian people living in pharaonic Egypt http://www.makedonika.org/processpaid.aspcontentid=ti.2001.pdf
This debate is completly onesided. Post some FACTS or be ignored.
Peace
Posted by Yonis2 (Member # 11348) on :
quote:AmericanPatriot wrote: Classical civilization spread all over Europe and is the foundation of European civilization. Contending otherwise is beyond absurd
Classical civilization did not "spread all over europe", the ideas were adopted recently. If i today adopt the ideas of classical chinese does that mean i was always connected to the chinese?
The fact is greeks had more connections with coastal africans than they ever were with central/northern europeans, these were dismissed as "barbarians", their own words.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Ik am taken seriously every day of my life King and I cannot teach you historical method if you refuse to learn.
King, You are very careless for someone who claims to be interested in this stuff. Go back and very carefully read your last post. Again, there is NO historical connection shown here between any Africans anbd ancient greeks.
"Might have occured" "time was ancient and uncertain and might be related to displaced Egyptians"
might, might , might
Your entire post makes my point. There is not ONE OUNCE of history in that post, not a drop.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
How about I post from the Study:
Table 5 shows the presence of these Greek alleles mainly in sub-Saharan populations from Ethiopia (Amhara, Oromo), Sudan (Nuba) and West Africa (Rimaibe, Fulani, Mossi).
It may be deduced from these data that sub-Saharans and Greeks share quasi-specific HLA-DRB1 alleles. The neighbor-joining tree (Fig. 1) and the correspondence analyses (Figs 2 and 3) confirm this Greek/sub-Saharan relatedness.
Now where in the study do they say might? Read ther study not the Abstract.
Now Patriot you claim to want to teach, yet all you talk is one liner posts with nothing of substance in them. How do you expect ANYONE to take your seriously. How can anyone learn from you? Just for you Professor: When you hear probably, or "Might" think that it is as close to FACT as you can come. given the precense of Benin Hbs sickle-cell autosome, and 24% African paternal ancestry in modern Greece, the studies Probably or "Might" be right.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
People take me seriously King, I am not worried about that. What concerns me is that you insist on making the same mistake over and over again. You are trying to infer a historical conncetion with no data. None of what you posted is history. How can I respond to nothing? The genetic marker is NOT a historical connection.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Yonis, You simply have no clue about European history, no a drop. Spain and Portugal were part of classical Europe, Gaul (France) was part of classical Europe, Britain was part of classical Europe. Barbarian was a greek term that refered to everyone who was not Greek. Hell, the Egyptians and Persians were barbarians. You totally mistake the use of the term.
This is all part of sick house of straw you guys have built in your minds that has nothing to do with anyone's history. I posted all of the key books on the subjects but you guys do not read.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Hey Patriot here is another study for you to reads:
Hum Immunol. 2001 Sep;62(9):1051-61. Related Articles, Links
The correlation between languages and genes: the Usko-Mediterranean peoples.
Arnaiz-Villena A, Martinez-Laso J, Alonso-Garcia J.
Department of Immunology and Molecular Biology, H. 12 de Octubre, Universidad Complutense, 28041, Madrid, Spain. aarnaiz@eucmax.sim.ucm.es
The usko-Mediterraneans peoples are defined as ancient and present day populations that have lived in the Mediterranean/Middle-East/Caucasus area and have spoken a Basque related language. The present day existing populations show an HLA genetic relatedness which is more or less close according to geographical distance. The Greek sample is an outlying in all genetic analyses, because Greeks have a significant genetic input from sub-Saharan Ethiopians and Blacks. This probably occurred in Pharaonic times. Present day comparisons between genes and languages show a lack of correlation: Macedonian, Palestinians, Kurds, part of Berbers, Armenians, and Turks belong to the old Mediterranean substratum, but they do not speak a language included in the old Mediterranean Dene-Caucasian group. This is due to an "elite"-imposed culture and language. Other ethnic groups speak an "old Mediterranean language" or "usko-Mediterranean language" modified by Roman Latin (i.e., Spanish, Italians), or by other not fully explained processes (Jews). Therefore, the correlation between genes and languages may exist at a macrogeographical level, but not when more precise microgeographical studies are done, as shown in the present "usko-Mediterranean" peoples model.
Now really Professor, How can you continue to deny what these studies say.
What we do know
1.Greeks have 24% african Paternal DNA.
2."Probably" the marker would of been even higher thousands of years ago.
3. Greeks also have Benin Sickel cell Haplotype.
Now read this: Sub-Saharan-originating Y-group E-M78 (a derivative of sub-Saharan-originating E3b) is found at relatively high levels in Greeks (and some other Mediterraneans), which suggests, in addition to the more recent admixture, a very ancient sub-Saharan contribution to the Greek genepool (Semino, 2004 and Cruciani, 2004). The fact that the most prevalent form of E-M78 found in Greeks is a later, mainly local (Mediterranean) variation is irrelevant, since the parental E-M78 originated in eastern Africa, as did all of its ancestral markers. Various descendants of E3b, E-M78's ancestor, are shown to exist in many Mediterraneans in this study (though all are simply marked "E3b"), which also shows sub-Saharan Y-group A in Cypriots (although it isn't specified whether these are Greek or Turkish, so, perhaps it is a cross-section; Greek-identified Cypriots are far more numerous). East-African-Specific M1 has also been reported in Greeks (Richards, 2000 and supplementary data).
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The genetic marker is NOT a historical connection.
YOu know little then about the various sources that historians use at their disposal to reconstruct a narrative of the past. You are obviously no historian.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:AmericanPatriot wrote: Classical civilization spread all over Europe and is the foundation of European civilization. Contending otherwise is beyond absurd
Classical civilization did not "spread all over europe", the ideas were adopted recently. If i today adopt the ideas of classical chinese does that mean i was always connected to the chinese?
The fact is greeks had more connections with coastal africans than they ever were with central/northern europeans, these were dismissed as "barbarians", their own words.
This is correct.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Sundjata
I pass the ball to you. Go school this guy.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Pure Bull ****. Excuse my language. You would literally fail a sophomore world history class with those answers and you know it. You guys are not that ignorant. This is just a silly part of the bizarre spin that has been created go promote an alternative history that nobody but radicals consider.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Pure Bull ****. Excuse my language. You would literally fail a sophomore world history class with those answers and you know it. You guys are not that ignorant. This is just a silly part of the bizarre spin that has been created go promote an alternative history that nobody but radicals consider.
Whatever.. You're delusional and your ego must be inflated from taking your "history of welding" class leading up to your teaching credential. Historians are not limited by the evidence they use. To suggest that historians are arbitrarily selective in their sources is nonsensical. Honestly, your confidence doesn't at all reflect your knowledge of historical methodology.
"a historian is someone who creates history, a coherent interpretation of the past based on remains of the past that survive into the present." - John Edward Philips
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
I have the textbooks goofey and the crap you preach is not in them. You are a black radical nut. You can preach that trash to kids that come on here but anyone with a 10th grade education is going to call you out.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: [QB] I have the textbooks goofey and the crap you preach is not in them.
I'm actually quoting and paraphrasing from a textbook.. This is something that you think that you're exempt from (providing sources).. I can in no way see you as an authority or take anyone seriously who tells blatant lies about history and the process of its recovery.
I honestly don't think anyone takes you seriously.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Baloney, you are a fraud. Do you want the name and publisher and chapter numbers of every world history text? Not a damn one of them peddle your trash. I cannot respond to nothing Sundjata. You have not a single clue about how historical method works. You and I both know you have no education. If you want the books and chapters Ill give you every single one. You will not look at them because you know what a limb you have walked out on.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Keep dreaming. No one cares about your wishful thinking.
More for the Eurocentric faux scholar:
quote:One traditional conception of history was that it was based on documentation in the form of written texts. If there were no written documents there could be no history. It was logical to designate as prehistory any period before writing. This rubric is still not entirely obsolete. The more common conception today is that history is based on evidence. Prehistory, then, should be a non-entity. If there is evidence, there can be history; if there is no evidence, there is nothing to write about.[]......Archaeologists, linguists, demographers, population geneticists, as well as historians, are observers of human societies through time, but their specialities are organized in separate disciplines. Increasingly an overlap occurs and multidisciplinary strategies are being pursued.
- Daniel McCall
quote:Hard lines should not and cannot be drawn between history and other disciplines. This is true not only because there are various approaches to history, but because there are histories of various subjects, each with its own disciplinary imperatives. In addition, all disciplinary boundaries are ultimately arbitrary human creations, thus subjective and subject to change, as has been shown by the recent explosion of interdisciplinary scholarship. In Japan archaeologists are considered historians. In the U.S. they are classified as anthropologists. Where lines are drawn between disciplines is arbitrary. The important thing is not to leave anything out in dividing up scholarship.
- John Edward Philips
quote:What can human biology offer to the “reconstruction” of African history? The question is complicated because it includes the word “history,” and serving all of “history’s” many areas of study is difficult. To look at African history and biological anthropology as a unit brings to mind a variety of activities. For example, the human biologist may study the skeletons of southern Africans from before and after contact with Europeans, assessing changes in health, disease and ways of life in frontier communities; these new data can clarify how a particular contact affects the local population. Studies of skeletons from successive time periods in Nubia, Egypt, or Mali could add to knowledge about health and population diversity over time. In these examples, archaeology or historical texts have identified the subjects. The biological anthropologist then provides data to shed more light on, or add dimensions to, what is known about the peoples or societies of interest. The unique methods of physical anthropology provide a biological viewpoint on “historically” known (at some level) communities.
- S.O.Y. Keita
Excepts from, John Edward Philips et. al. "Writing African History (Rochester Studies in African History and the Diaspora)". University of Rochester Press (October 30, 2007).
Like I've stated, absolutely nobody takes you seriously. Your deception is duly noted and shall be stored for future reference. Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
You sure are going all out for someone who doesn't take a lowly welder seriously. But then again, we all know this is just your ego talking. You cant resist showing us all how well read you are – that is – when you do understand what you read, you Negroid featured Central African Nubian you.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^You're in the same category as he is..
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You have no clue what you are talking about. You put up these quotes without any idea of what they are talking about. Lets get back to the textbooks. I called you a frad and uneducated because you (1) have no understanding of historical method (2) are negated by every main line text in the business. Now my question is, how stupid are you? All of the book alerts I posted were some of the top stuff in the biz, you have not and did not read a single one of them. I offered to put up basic text info and you KNOW what the result of that is going to be.
Point, If you CANNOT establish a history you HAVE NO HISTORY. None, nada, zippo. Posting a genetic marker from ten thousand years ago is not a history. It is what it is, you can learn method or you can continue to be a tool.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:You put up these quotes without any idea of what they are talking about
To the contrary, it is YOU who obviously reads at a remedial level, hence, you have no rebuttal to the above which obviously deflates your agenda so you talk over it and continue on with your inane rants (and they ARE rants).
I'm done with you son, you are a hopeless dunce. Have fun living in denial. Peace..
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
You are done because you do not want to confront the texts and that is where I have you dead to rights. You know what the result is going to be.
Anytime you are ready to do that son you let me know. Until that time peddle your crap to some other poster.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^No, I'm done because you're a lunatic who doesn't make any sense. I've posted my sources. We'll allow the neutral observers to determine who is and who isn't correct. Peace...
Posted by akoben (Member # 15244) on :
Wow, this is the second time Captain America says he's "done" with the welder! lol
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Kind of like the guy in the computer lab at the mental institution getting all of the other nuts to agree with him. You are done because of the textbooks. If we go there they are going to void your entire argument. Since you know that you have reached a dead end.
What kind of half brained fool would claim that a genetic marker is a history?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Sundjata,
Why oh why do you go on and on with these idiots lowering yourself to their sub-basement level?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Why oh why do you go on and on with these idiots lowering yourself to their sub-basement level? ----------------------------
Because he believes in the Eurocentric race myth of their superiority to him and he cares what they think.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Some of us continue to do our best fighting arrogance and ignorance everyday.
Fallacies of Afrocentrism Grover Furr
A few days ago I posted an article I wrote back in '91 when the college's black student org. invited Leonard Jeffries to come to speak. In it I ran through, though very briefly (for space), some of the fallacies of Afrocentrism. Here is a little more about them, in no special order.
Afrocentrism seriously distorts Egyptian history. Egyptians were not "black" (Negroid) on the whole, though a few dynasties of rulers were. But Egyptians were also not racists, it seems, and people of different colors intermarried. We could do well to follow their lead in this! There is no evidence that Nefertiti or Cleopatra were 'black', for example. Nefertiti was not "white" (i.e. European) either (Cleopatra was either 3/4 Greek or, perhaps, entirely so, not Egyptian at all).
Greeks did not "steal" their culture from Egypt. In the ancient Mediterranean world, cultural influences moved around a lot. The Egyptian rulers and their acolytes (like all the "-hoteps", Imhotep, Ptahhotep, et al.) were an oppressive and expoitative aristocracy. Cheikh Anta Diop, whom Afrocentrists admire but, it seems, seldom read, has a very interesting review of Jacques Pirenne's History of Ancient Egypt in one of his books. Diop comments favorably about Pirenne's description of revolutions against the Egyptian rulers by lower-class Egyptians -- something one would expect in an exploitative society. But the Afrocentrists who so admire Diop never mention this aspect of Ancient Egypt! In short, what they admire is the aristocratic, exploitative aspect of it. "African culture" is not a unity: there are many, many cultures in Africa. Ancient Egyptians are not the ancestors, either culturally or genetically, of the peoples of West Africa or of the American black population. The whole "ice man-sun man" thesis of Francis Welsing is racist crap, without a shred of evidence to support it. Welsing seldom publishes her 'research'; same with Jeffries. I know: I've tried to get it; with lots of effort, I've gotten a very little bit. The infamous "Melanin" Conferences at which these ideas are promoted are virtually secret, their 'proceedings', if any, not available to anyone. The premises of Afrocentrism are false and racist against blacks, among others.
it is false and racist that anyone has any business taking "pride" in the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, since intelligence, creativity, etc., are not inherited, and furthermore no one can take any credit for anything they have not achieved themselves. This is the case even if modern blacks were the descendants of ancient Egyptians, which they are not. Besides, if one takes credit for the "achievements" of one's distant ancestors, why not also assume the blame for the atrocities committed by the same ancestors? it is false and racist to say that "blackness", "melanin" (or "whiteness", etc.) confers intelligence, or any characteristics at all. If it were true, all blacks with any degree of white ancestry would be "sub-human" just as the "ice person" thesis claims whites are; most American blacks, if not all, therefore. Where does Afrocentrism come from? Historically, it's a reaction to the tremendous upsurge of racism spurred by 18th and 19th century European imperialism. I think Bernal [Black Athena, Volume I] is right when he points out that after 1800 study of Egypt -- and also of the Semitic mid-east -- was systematically denigrated for racist reasons. Some scholars reacted against this marginalization of Egypt and the Mid-East, including some black scholars (but not only them). This is the ancestry of Afrocentrism, sketched by Bernal rather convincingly. What is not convincing about Bernal (Volumes 1 and 2) is his derivation of Greek civilization from Egyptian colonists. However, even if it were true, it would not mean what the Afrocentrists say it means.
Today, Afrocentrism is a racist, highly conservative, nationalist pseudo-science (by the latter term I mean: based upon phony scholarship and premises). It victimizes black students almost exclusively, since it is they who have this nonsense foisted off upon them as truth.
The fact that it is tolerated and even promoted at various universities, including the one I teach at, is a tribute to higher education's racism against black students. This kind of worthless, reactionary crap would never be tolerated if it were being purveyed to white students!
Afrocentrism is another form of authoritarianism. It tells black students: Believe "your leaders" because they are black! Since there's no evidence worthy of the name for these theses, "believe your black leaders" is all that's left.
Who are these misleaders, phony scholars? I do not see any division into "responsible" and "irresponsible." Asante and Karenga write the same kind of nonsense as Jeffries and Welsing. If you want to read some real authoritarian crap from somebody with a Jesus complex (i.e. he believes he's the chosen of God), read Asante's Afrocentricity, in which he claims the belief structure was "granted" him as a "vision", like Paul on the road to Damascus. He even reprints it!
Afrocentrism, being racist against blacks, is useful to the racist US ruling class, and I think that's why it's tolerated. It serves to inculcate racist, anti-white views among black students, and to keep them obedient to whatever the highly conservative 'authorities' tell them.
The same kind of nationalism flourished in the '60s, where it served to keep blacks from uniting with anti-racist whites to fight racism. That's the function of Afrocentrism today, and very valuable it is to the tactic of "divide and conquer", by which white and black workers and students are kept divided from one another.
However, Afrocentrism is nowhere near as influential as overt anti-black racism of the Murray/Herrnstein Bell Curve kind, or of the D'Amato/Christy Whitman/Joe Bruno kind. Anti-black racism is sharply on the increase, under the guise of "attacking Affirmative Action", attacks on welfare, and so on.
Racism is on the increase because the ruling class always uses racism to divide the working class against one another, the better to fleece it -- to lower the standard of living and increase profits. Afrocentrism helps them, and so continues to flourish, as do the right-wing fascists, militias, etc., all of which are also racist to the core.
Racism is the key issue here. If there were a mass anti-racist movement involving many whites, as there was in the '60s, the "cultural nationalists" like the Afrocentrists, like the Farrakhans, would be an insignificant force as they were then. As it is, with racism against blacks rising rapidly, and no multi-racial, anti-racist movement, it is the nationalists who appear, to some, to be at least 'doing something' about racism, something to assert the equality and dignity of black people. They are not doing this; but the appearance that they are is what attracts many black students and others.
You want to weaken Afrocentrism? FIGHT ANTI-BLACK RACISM!
Grover Furr, English Department
Back to Grover Furr's Politics and Social Issues Page
quote:Name: Grover Furr School: Montclair State University Location: Montclair, NJ Department: English
His remarks are just as irrelevant as yours. He'd get a better reception if he commented on something within his field of expertise such as the book which sums up you and your ilk: "Ship of Fools"
Posted by Troll Whisperer (Member # 16426) on :
quote:However, Afrocentrism is nowhere near as influential as overt anti-black racism of the Murray/Herrnstein Bell Curve kind, or of the D'Amato/Christy Whitman/Joe Bruno kind. Anti-black racism is sharply on the increase, under the guise of "attacking Affirmative Action", attacks on welfare, and so on.
At least one of Furr's statements that I agree with.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
At some point whisperer people have to grow up and look at the world the way it really is, not the way they want it to be. Running around in looney land to make a racial point amounts to a wasted life.
Posted by thegaul (Member # 16198) on :
American Parrot
I guess you often spout off (parrot) a bunch of nothing because you copy and paste from text full of nothing. Any anthropological studies supporting you and Grover? DNA analysis? Linguistical stuidies? Case in point, ol' Grover wrote:
"Afrocentrism seriously distorts Egyptian history. Egyptians were not "black" (negroid) though a few dynasties of rulers were."
Exactly how were the AEs not "black (negroid)"? What proof does both he and you stand on that proves this in any minute way? Can you provide anything except a one-liner to explain this stance? I've ask you before but you keep running and dodging like a scared rat. What is a "negroid" specifically?
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan:
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: [qb] the Greeks and Macadonians were the same people.
Alack and alas...
Established research says otherwise.
I think you confuse the modern (Slavic) Republic of Macedonia with Ancient Macedonia. Ancient Macedonians were a Greek tribe
Macedonia is a geographical region whose area covers parts of three Balkan countries.
The Former Yugoslavic Republic of Macedonia does not encompass more than 38% percent of the territory of Macedonia.
Greek province of Macedonia
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
The Ancient Egyptians were an ethnic mix from Africa and the Levant. All you have to do is look at the map. In looking at a map of Africa and the Middle East it is easy to see how 30,000 years ago immigrants came back into Africa from the levant because the nile area was lush with vegetation and was so fertile. They mixed with the people that were already there to from the Egyptian race. This is history and all the wishing in the world is not going to change it.
Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
Unfinished Thought:
quote: The Ancient Egyptians were an ethnic mix from Africa and the Levant. All you have to do is look at the map. In looking at a map of Africa and the Middle East it is easy to see how 30,000 years ago immigrants came back into Africa from the levant because the nile area was lush with vegetation and was so fertile. They mixed with the people that were already there to from the Egyptian race. This is history and all the wishing in the world is not going to change it.
You have absolutely NO evidence to support your assertions. The ancient Egyptians were indigenous North East Africans, akin to modern populations residing in southern Egypt, northern Sudan and the horn of Africa. They were NOT mixed.
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
The only black african dynasty to rule Egypt was the 25th. Most of the estimates that I have seen put upper egypt at 5% black and lower Egypt 1%, the rest were caucasians.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^You're making up more crap.. Only a racist would make such a claim with no evidence to support it. You simply look to appease your nazi, whitehistory.com trash philosophy..
........................
Notice how everyone who holds on to this dumb charade of some mysterious ancient white race in Africa, never offer ANYTHING more than circular reasoning (it's true because it's true) and one line clown jabs..
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
he's an agent provocateur, i see no need to respond to such comments when he once actually conceded something quite different (much different) in that "race of the ancients" thread in the other ("ancient egypt") forum.
He always comes back and forgets, cuz he's pullin your legs.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by unfinished thought.: The Ancient Egyptians were an ethnic mix from Africa and the Levant.
That's somewhat misleading, considering Egypt was scarecly inhabited leave for the some of Egypt further up stream (Upper Egypt / Lower Sudan region) until about 5,000 years ago:
quote:In the Paleolithic period [before 5000 B.C.] the Delta and Nile Valley were virtually uninhabitable. The annual flood [inundation] of the river Nile would have placed all areas of the Nile Valley under water for three months of each year, and at other times it was covered with thick vegetation that provided habitation for a variety of wild animals. In the north much of the low lying Delta was converted with papyrus swamps. At this time people lived on the desert spurs and hunted prolific game. As the climate became drier and the vegitation of the Nile Valley gradually changed , they were able to move down into the valley once the inudation receded . Here during the Neolithic period[c. 5000-4000 B.C.] they began to cultivate the land ,gorwing grain and learning to domesticate animals.
Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Cultural Atlas of) - John Baines; Hardcover page 59
Influences were not limited to the upper Nile Valley (as far up as the Northern Ethiopia and Eritrea region which is probably the location of ancient "Punt") though.
^Egyptian Western desert
There was an influence from Saharan Africa as well.
A dramatic climate shift allowed for people and animals to move into the grasslands of what is now the Sahara desert. You can even see early examples of characteristics usually assumed to be totally unique to the "mysterious" Egyptians like mummification and their stylistic wall art in cases.
They were culturally a Nile Valley people, Lingually so, the society was so, and they were culturally influenced by newcomers from the West aswell.
This is what we have evidence for. We also have evidence of their next door neighbors in South Western Asia coming in as well, primarily when they became politically active in the region, but also through early trade. There is probably a significant amount of influence from the Levant some time into the Middle Kingdom.
But at origin, saying the people or culture have roots in Asia (especially while denying such influence for Grecians) is also misleading:
quote: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
- Barry Kemp, Anatomy of a Civilization
We could say whatever we want, but instead of making vaguities up devoid of meaning and based on feeling i like to be realistic, else it's just plain BSing. It just so happens that the Nile streches in to the heart of Africa -- not Asia.
You guys are getting a little carried away with Texas Pat! You can continue to post evidence that the Egyptians are as ethnically black African as their Sudanese neighbors and that Greeks have African mixture from the Neolithic until your fingers cramp, but it won't make a difference to the nutty professor!!
NOW, getting back to the topic!
First of all, ethnically speaking, the ancient Greeks and ancient Macedonians were NOT the same despite what Pat or even what modern day Greek nationalists try to claim. Judging by ancient records from the Greeks themselves as well as archaeological data, the Greeks and Macedonians were two different yet closely related people-- about as ethnically related to each other as the Egyptians were to Kushites. Genetics aside, we educated posters already know that the Greeks further south along the Mediterranean carry more African mixed lineages than their Macedonian neighbors to their north, but overall culturally and linguistically they were related.
As for this finding about Cleo's sister, it is very enlightening and answers alot of questions. For one thing, I and many others were under the impression that the Ptolemy elite as colonialist rulers were strictly endogamous, as in marrying members of their ethnic group only and not outsiders including native Egyptians. These findings apparently have overturned this but is not that surprising. For one thing, it was a common custom especially back in ancient times for foreign rulers to intermarry with locals to legitimize their reign. And another thing was that in Egyptian culture itself, a king can only be recognized as pharaoh as long as he marries a Nile woman of royal or noble lineage. Even before this discovery there were questions as to whether the Ptolemy men took native Egyptian women as true wives or just concubines. I seriously doubt the native Egyptians would tolerate the latter if they were even aware of such intermarriage. I'm surprised they would even tolerate intermarriage with a foreigner at all, if one remembers the thread by Yonis about a certain royal letter.
Posted by Freehand (Member # 10819) on :
yes that comes to mind!
Posted by unfinished thought. (Member # 16076) on :
Historians on Ancient Macedonia
Ulrich Wilcken, ‘Alexander the Great’ W.W. Norton & Company, Reissue Edition March 1997
“It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the Greek people that migrated southward…”
Emeritus Professor of the University of Paris, Olivier Masson, Université de Paris X et Ecole des Hautes Etudes
“The latest archaeological findings have confirmed that Macedonia took its name from a tribe of tall, Greek-speaking people, the Makednoi (ma(e)kos = length). They shared the same religious beliefs as the rest of the Hellenic world but up until the Classical period remained outside the cultural and political development of the southern city states.”
John V.A. Fine, ‘The Ancient Greeks: A Critical History’ Harvard University Press, 1983, pgs 605-608.
“Since so little is known about the early Macedonians, it is hardly strange that in both ancient and modern times there has been much disagreement on their ethnic identity. The Greeks in general and Demosthenes in particular looked upon them as barbarians, that is, not Greek. Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost unanimously recognises them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and ‘NorthWest Greeks’ who, after long residence in the north Pindus region, migrated eastwards. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months, and the like suggest strongly that the language was a Greek dialect. Macedonian institutions, both secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics and legends identify or link the people with the Dorians. During their sojourn in the Pindus complex and the long struggle to found a kingdom, however, the Macedonians fought and mingled constantly with Thracians, Paeonians, and probably various Greek tribes."
J.R. Hamilton, ‘Alexander the Great’ Hutchinson, London
“That the Macedonians were of Greek stock seems certain. The claim made by the Argead dynasty to be of Argive descent may be no more than a generally accepted myth, but Macedonian proper names, such as Ptolemaios or Philippos, are good Greek names, and the names of the Macedonian months, although differed from those of Athens or Sparta, were also Greek. The language spoken by the Macedonians, which Greeks of the classical period found intelligible, appears to have been a primitive north-west Greek dialect, much influenced by the languages of the neighboring barbarians.”
Robin Lane Fox, ‘Alexander the Great’ Penguin USA, Reissue Edition, September 1994
“These plains would be the envy of any Greek visitor who crossed their southern border by the narrow vale of Tempe and the foot of Mount Olympus. He would pass the frontier post of Heraclion, town of Heracles, and stop at the harbour town of Dion, named after the Greek god Zeus, ancestor of the Macedonian kings, and site of a yearly nine-day festival of the arts in honour of Zeus and the nine Greek Muses. There he would walk through city gates in a wall of brick, down the paved length of a sacred way, between the theatre, gymnasiums and a temple with Doric pillars: suitably, the nearby villages were linked with the myth of Orpheus, the famous bard of Greek legend. He was still in a world of Greek gods and sacrifices, of Greek plays and Greek language, though the natives might speak Greek with a northern accent which hardened ‘ch’ into ‘g’, ‘th’ into ‘d’ and pronounced King Philip as ‘Bilip’. Bearing on up the coast, he would find the plain no less abundant and the towns more defiantly Greek.’
Nicholas G. L. Hammond, ‘Philip of Macedon’ Duckworth Publishing, February 1998
“Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine, descent… Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian…The Macedonians over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member of the Greek-speaking peoples.”
Robert Morkot, ‘The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece’ Penguin Publishing USA, January 1997
“Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers, but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis (Epirot province), Orestis and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into their territory, they were essentially Greeks.”
“The first Greek-speaking people in the southern Balkan Peninsula arrived in Macedonia, Thessaly, and Epirus sometime after 2600 B.C. and developed, probably due to the extreme mountainous nature of the country, their several different dialects.”
Eugene N. Borza, ‘Makedonika’, Regina Books, Claremont CA, p.114
“Our understanding of the Macedonians’ emergence into history is confounded by two events: the establishment of the Macedonians as an identifiable ethnic group, and the foundation of their ruling house. The “HIGHLANDERS” or “MAKEDONES” of the mountainous regions of western Macedonia ARE DERIVED FROM NORTHWEST GREEK STOCK; THEY WERE AKIN BOTH TO THOSE WHO AT AN EARLIER TIME MAY HAVE MIGRATED SOUTH TO BECOME THE HISTORICAL “DORIANS”, and to other Pindus tribes who were the ancestors of the Epirotes or Molossians. That is, we may suggest that NORTHWEST GREECE PROVIDED A POOL OF INDO-EUROPEAN SPEAKERS OF PROTO-GREEK from which were drawn the tribes who later were known by different names as they established their regional identities in separate parts of the country.”
The ancient Macedonians were descendants of the protohellenic tribe of Makednoi. Descendants of the same tribe were the Dorians that were settled in Peloponnissos:
That relation between the Macedonians and the Dorians is also confirmed by the following facts:
* The movement of the Dorians to the south (1100BC) is known as Cathod of the Herakleides. At the same time the kings of ancient Macedonia were also known as Herakleides. * In the ancient Greek mythology the Dorians and the Macedonians are considered as relatives, as well as the rest of the protohellenic tribes. * The ancient Macedonian dialect was very similar to the doric dialect.
Any tribe that existed in the area before the arrival of the Macedonians had either left, or, had gradually been absorbed by the Greeks. For example, Thukydidis reports that the Macedonias drove the Pierians out of Pieria. The Pierians moved Eastern of the Strymonas river on the foot of the Paggaio mountain, and that's why that area was named as Pieriki.
It seems that the dominant tribe, amongst the Macedonians were the Argead tribe, who originated in Orestis. The neighboring with predatory nations, like the Illyrians and the Thracians resulted in many trouble. That resulted in the formation of the kingdom of Makedonia, at about the 8th century BC. According to Herodotus the first king of Macedonia was Perdikkas.
The kingdom's initial lands was the area of Pieria. The other Macedonian tribes that lived outside the kingdom of Macedonia, were organized into small kingdoms, that recognized the authority of the Argead kings. There is no serious doubt on the Greekness of that kingdom. Every evidence that has been discovered in the area of Macedonia reflects a flourishing Greek civilization and reveals no sign of a hypothetical non-Greek Macedonian nation. The most strong evidence is that the era after Alexander the Great and until the conquer of Greece by the Romans, was named Hellenistic Period (323BC-168BC). That term was used for the first time by the German historiographer I.G.Droyzen at about 1830-1840, and it is the most descriptive term for that era.
There are more then 65000 findings in Macedonia (1985) that prove that Macedonians were nothing else but Greeks.
Prejudice toward Greeks on the part of Greeks was not limited to those who lived on the fringes of the Greek world. The Boeotians, inhabitants of central Greece, whose credentials were impeccable, were routinely mocked for their stupidity and gluttony. Ethnicity is a fluid concept even at the best of times. When it suited their purposes, the Greeks also divided themselves into Ionians and Dorians. The distinction was emphasized at the time of the Peloponnesian War, when the Ionian Athenians fought against the Dorian Spartans. The Spartan general Brasidas even taxed the Athenians with cowardice on account of their Ionian lineage. In other periods of history the Ionian-Dorian divide carried much less weight.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
