quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ This kind of empty rhetoric response reminds me of Professor Horemheb. Also, the bizarre claim to have seen mummies, and to be able to eyeball their ethnicity based on that.
Any relation?
This beautiful Black woman, is a British reconstruction of and Egyptian royale mummy [possibly Nefertiti].
Nevermind the ancient Egyptians depiction of Queen Nefertiti.
posted
Indeed, the way this 'Celt' writes with his talk of 'spin' and how both sides (white and black) will somehow be disappointed, as well as the silly speculations, and obvious outdated racial beliefs, all sound like Hore.
The guy questions how "black" the Egyptians were, if they were 100% or not, yet does not question how white the Greeks were-- whether they were 100% white.
The guy speaks of blacks being synonymous with "sub-Saharan" even though the Sahara was not always a desert and even when it did become one, was it never a barrier between populations south or north of it, let alone in it.
This person speaks of Egyptians being of an entirely different "race" from blacks, even though Egypt is IN the continent of Africa. His first post makes some silly analogy with India, even though India's populations are of diverse backgrounds in their own right and that the black populations are the oldest.
The 'newcomer' speaks of "negroid" hair, when the hair forms of black Africans (which is what I assume he meant by negroid) vary and ranges from the tightest coiled---the spiral tuft forms seen among people like the Khoisan, to the loose-- curly and wavy forms seen among people like Ethiopians, Somalians, and.. well Egyptians!.
And most of all, this poster obviously ignores all the data collected in the years from artwork, historical records, archaeology (yes even from Egyptology itself!!), physical anthropology, and most recently genetics--- all of which prove the indigenous African (black) nature of the Egyptians.
So yeah, this person sounds alot like old Hore. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Indeed, the way this 'Celt' writes with his talk of 'spin' and how both sides (white and black) will somehow be disappointed, as well as the silly speculations, and obvious outdated racial beliefs, all sound like Hore.
The guy questions how "black" the Egyptians were, if they were 100% or not, yet does not question how white the Greeks were-- whether they were 100% white.
The guy speaks of blacks being synonymous with "sub-Saharan" even though the Sahara was not always a desert and even when it did become one, was it never a barrier between populations south or north of it, let alone in it.
This person speaks of Egyptians being of an entirely different "race" from blacks, even though Egypt is IN the continent of Africa. His first post makes some silly analogy with India, even though India's populations are of diverse backgrounds in their own right and that the black populations are the oldest.
The 'newcomer' speaks of "negroid" hair, when the hair forms of black Africans (which is what I assume he meant by negroid) vary and ranges from the tightest coiled---the spiral tuft forms seen among people like the Khoisan, to the loose-- curly and wavy forms seen among people like Ethiopians, Somalians, and.. well Egyptians!.
And most of all, this poster obviously ignores all the data collected in the years from artwork, historical records, archaeology (yes even from Egyptology itself!!), physical anthropology, and most recently genetics--- all of which prove the indigenous African (black) nature of the Egyptians.
So yeah, this person sounds alot like old Hore.
And you sound like you're trying your best to cover all grounds just in case. Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ Now whether the above looks "100% negroid" or not is silly and specious. However, I will say that one person of Somali descent one time said that the features shown above and definitely the reconstruction of Fletcher's mummy look just like that of a Somali [East African (black)] woman.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I'll have to go against the grain on this board and dispute the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were entirely or overwhelmingly "black". While I agree that the southern predynastic people who founded Egyptian civilization, as well as their southern dynastic descendents, were of tropical African affinity, the physical anthropological evidence also indicates that northern Egyptians had "coastal north African" features, and coastal north Africans aren't usually black. And frankly, I've seen a lot of this coastal north African tendency in dynastic sculptures and reserve heads, which mostly come from northern tombs like Saqqara and Giza (it's a real pity we haven't discovered many southern tombs other than the Valley of the Kings). While I like it that the greatest civilization in the pre-Roman world had a large black African population and I would prefer it to have been entirely black, the evidence clearly suggests that there were too many non-black Egyptians to call Ancient Egypt a black African civilization (just as America or the Roman Empire are not white European civilizations).
I'm going to be lynched for certain.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll have to go against the grain on this board and dispute the contention that the Ancient Egyptians were entirely or overwhelmingly "black".
All we ask is that you bring evidence and not noise.
quote:While I agree that the southern predynastic people who founded Egyptian civilization, as well as their southern dynastic descendents, were of tropical African affinity
Does this mean you agree that were Black, or not?
quote:the physical anthropological evidence also icates that northern Egyptians had "coastal north African" features
Present this evidence, and present your proof that the -original- *indiginous* population of Northern Egypt was not Black.
quote:coastal north Africans aren't usually black.
Are you denying that modern coastal lower Egypt is largely of relatively recent, and non indigenous ancestry, including Syrian, Arab, Jewish, Greek and Roman?
Don't the people of modern lower Egypt largely resemble the Aamu asiatics in physical character and *not* the Km.t [which means Blacks] of Ancient Egypt?
Yet you refuse to admit that the KM.t were Black?
Is that and objective conclusion based on evidence, or a denial of the evidence for essentially 'spurious' rationale.
Hawass states that you can still see the -faces- on the AE tombs in modern *upper* Egypt?
Why do think Hawass makes this distinction?
Isn't he effectively, and begrudginly admitting the overwhelming evidence of a distinction in physical character between Ancien Egypt and modern Cairo?
Do you deny this distinction?
If you admit it, then why attempt to define ancient Km.t by *modern* lower Egypt?
If you feel that this was always the case - why did the AE generally present the Asiatics of a distinct appearance and lighter complexion?
In association with this, why did the AE refer to Asiatics as Reds, and themselves as Blacks, if this were *not* the case?
quote:I've seen a lot of this coastal north African tendency in dynastic sculptures and reserve heads, which mostly come from northern tombs like Saqqara and Giza
Please present your evidence.
quote: I would prefer it to have been entirely black
The issus is that you apparently -require- Km.t to have been a segrated -all Black African- society in order to acknolwedge it as Black, even though the ancient Kemetians and ancient Greeks had no such bizarre needs in order to denote the obvious - which was that Ancient Egyptians were Blacks.
Can you name any civilisation that is -entirely- Black, or entirely African, or entirely European, or entirely Asian or entirely White, or entirely Arab?
If so, please list them.
If not, then does this mean you claim that there is no European, or Arabian, or Black, or African civilisation......because it does not meet the requirements of segregation from other participants?
If you cannot resolve the above, can you explain why you hold Black Africans to and apparent double standard?
quote:While I like it that the greatest civilization in the pre-Roman world had a large black African population and I would prefer it to have been entirely black,
Do you consider Rome and entirely 'white' civilisation? On what basis. Is it not the case that African precense and influence can be established in Southern Europe since the Neolithic, thru the Greco Roman era, thru Moorish times and unto today.
Is it not the case that a Black and African character can be detected in millions of modern European citizens?
Please specify how Europe is different that Km.t in this respect?
quote:The evidence clearly suggests that there were too many non-black Egyptians to call Ancient Egypt a black African civilization
If the evidence is so clear, why is it that your post consists only of rhetoric, but no actual evidence of any kind?
quote:I'm going to be lynched for certain.
Is this statement meant to pre-empt us from asking for substantiation, or give you and excuse for not presenting any?
We're waiting......
quote:We don't know that said evidences are -indisputable-, but it is a fact that you've failed miserably to dispute them.
Anyone else lurking ES who feels they can dispute the evidence presented - is cordially invited to try.
posted
^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?
Re: Rasol,
He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'; he presumes this be the case on the dubious account that coastal north Africans aren't [living groups?] "usually" black. And of course, the recent Zakrzewski study must have flown over his head. Perhaps the bones of northern Egyptians alone won't tell us much about the skin pigmentation, but your points and questions pertaining to artwork showing visible distinctions between AE and the Aamu [Asiatic groups], are in the right direction to giving us clues straight from the people who lived the times in question, amongst other things, about this. The same goes for the questions about ancient Greek and Roman populations being entirely 'white'. Hopefully, unlike Celt, Tyranno will actually have the courage to defend his unsubstantiated propagations.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the [northern] Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples, and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.
Can Tyro comment on the above. Why are late dynastic Northern series distinct from early and pre-dynastic series?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I believe Tyranno thinks his photo collection is all he can produce as evidence to your requests. Yet even that presentation hasn't been explained as to how it helps his case.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'
The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans. Usually, people of this type, while not white, aren't black, either, unless you have proof that this type is different from stereotypical "Mediterranean Caucasian" (for lack of a better descriptive term) North Africans living today.
quote:^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?
Well, I suppose we cannot make any determinative statement about their skin color, so yes, they may have been "black" in skin color. However, their facial features are not like those of tropical Africans (unless you have photos of tropical Africans with similar features), and, sorry, when most people discuss the "blackness" of Egyptians, they mean their affinities with tropical Africans. That's what this debate has always been about.
quote:He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'
The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.
Why?
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
Usually, people of this type, while not white, aren't black, either, unless you have proof that this type is different from stereotypical "Mediterranean Caucasian" (for lack of a better descriptive term) North Africans living today.
Your claim, and so, I'd like to know how you know they aren't 'white' or 'black'?
Also, what is "Mediterranean Caucasian"? Did they come from Caucasia? How are they supposed to be like "coastal north African type"? What does this have do with 'coastal north Africans', considering that Europe was to be the frontier then, and Europeans weren't coming into the Nile Valley, until much later in dynastic period?
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
quote:^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?
Well, I suppose we cannot make any determinative statement about their skin color, so yes, they may have been "black" in skin color.
Who is 'we' here? This is about you supporting your posts, and passing them as proof that they weren't supposedly 'black'.
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
However, their facial features are not like those of tropical Africans (unless you have photos of tropical Africans with similar features), and, sorry, when most people discuss the "blackness" of Egyptians, they mean their affinities with tropical Africans.
What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
That's what this debate has always been about.
Well, based on your capacity to support your claim, it remains to be seen if we have a 'debate' here.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
However, their facial features are not like those of tropical Africans (unless you have photos of tropical Africans with similar features), and, sorry, when most people discuss the "blackness" of Egyptians, they mean their affinities with tropical Africans.
What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?
I thought I might help Tyranno have something to work with for starters in his pending response to the question above, amongst others, given what we know:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
^and now, for answers, to the cited question [and *other ones* in my last post].
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'
The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.
Why?
Read Keita 1990 "Studies of Crania from Northern Africa".
quote:Your claim, and so, I'd like to know how you know they aren't 'white' or 'black'?
Also, what is "Mediterranean Caucasian"? Did they come from Caucasia? How are they supposed to be like "coastal north African type"? What does this have do with 'coastal north Africans', considering that Europe was to be the frontier then, and Europeans weren't coming into the Nile Valley, until much later in dynastic period?
By "Mediterranean Caucasian", I'm referring to the lighter-skinned (olive) type often found on the North African coast today. I apologize for poor wording. Still, what evidence do you have that the coastal North African type observed by Keita is different from modern coastal North Africans?
quote:^What is 'non-black' about the figures you posted? That dark color seems to have peeled off some, while others remain in their white clay state?
Well, I suppose we cannot make any determinative statement about their skin color, so yes, they may have been "black" in skin color.[/QUOTE]Who is 'we' here? This is about you supporting your posts, and passing them as proof that they weren't supposedly 'black'.
quote:What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?
Pointy noses, thin lips, and lack of prognathism. If you can point out to me tropical Africans without these features, I will concede defeat.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He doesn't even know what the "northern coastal type" supposedly entails, to be calling them 'non-black'
The north coastal type is intermediate between Europeans and tropical Africans.
Why?
Read Keita 1990 "Studies of Crania from Northern Africa".
That's a copout. I've read Keita, but I want to understand what you mean by the terms you applied; Keita didn't post your claims.
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
By "Mediterranean Caucasian", I'm referring to the lighter-skinned (olive) type often found on the North African coast today.
Why call them "Mediterranean Caucasian"? What does coastal north Africans "today" have to do with coastal north Africans of the Nile Valley in prehistory or dynastic periods, prior to the coming of Europeans into that region? Essentially, this means the questions you cited still stand, since you dodged them.
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
I apologize for poor wording. Still, what evidence do you have that the coastal North African type observed by Keita is different from modern coastal North Africans?
Evidence has already been presented to you by Rasol; see his post. And also Keita, whom you've claimed to have read. What is your response to that?
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
quote: What facial features are not like those of tropical Africans, and why?
Pointy noses, thin lips, and lack of prognathism.
So lack of prognathism, but presence of pointy nose & thin lips are nowhere to be found in tropical Africa, according to whom, based on what objective citation, and what set of parameters used?
quote:Tyrannosaurus:
If you can point out to me tropical Africans without these features, I will concede defeat.
Ridiculous. Self-selected picture spam is the best you can do, to support your claim?...you haven't even really explained yet how those supposedly help you; nonetheless, somehow you wish that I counter something you've failed to produce.
No; what you need to do, is to respond to Hiernaux, detailing tropical African diversity. How do you take it from there, so as to answer your still unsubstantive claims about "non-tropical African" features in your photo collection?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hopefully, unlike Celt, Tyranno will actually have the courage to defend his unsubstantiated propagations. [/QB]
Courage is having the intellectual honesty to admitt what is real and what isn't. So far I haven't seen you nor a few others on this board with that type of courage.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
^ Now whether the above looks "100% negroid" or not is silly and specious. However, I will say that one person of Somali descent one time said that the features shown above and definitely the reconstruction of Fletcher's mummy look just like that of a Somali [East African (black)] woman.
I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted. Anyone that knows anything about ancient Egyptian reliefs such as those you have chosen know that they are exaggeratted depictions of Queen Nefertiti. Care to show the other more realistic representations of the Queen?
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted
Well, Professor, not our fault you posts links with authentic iconography of Black Nefertiti, which bears a striking resembles to the reconstruction of the Mummy, or that you're too stupid to know how to embed pics. in posts.
quote:Courage is having the intellectual honesty to admit...
....that you can't answer the questions or present any evidence.
But then, neither you nor Tyro have such courage, so....
quote:I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted
Well, Professor, not our fault you posts links with authentic iconography of Black Nefertiti, or that you're too stupid to know how to embed pics. in posts.
quote:Courage is having the intellectual honesty to admit...
....that you can't answer the questions or present any evidence.
But then, neither you nor Tyro have such courage, so....
Anything else?
Rasol you are a very disrespectful individual and certainly void of any resposibility when it comes to being a purveyor of honesty and truth.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ lol. Actually I replied to your ad homina attacks regarding "courage."
Don't start what you can't finish.
Otherwise you only show us that like most bullies, you are also a cry baby a hypocrite, and a sore loser....
Black Queen of ancient Km.t
The above is in fact resonably representiave of -most- of the inscribed Nefertiti iconography, even though the objective reproduction was not based on the assumption that she was Nefertiti.
Indeed, some of the likenesses to the Nefertiti family iconography are startling. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol...with an ego as big as yours,it is virtually impossible for one to be honest. Now show us the famous bust of Nefertiti. You know, the one that resides in a particular museum in Germany.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
T-rex, we all appreciate you visiting this forum, and we encourage learning especially through asking questions but lately you’ve been asking questions that have already been answered all too many times before. Now you are making ridiculous claims based false premises which I take it are misunderstandings of the answers we have given you.
You accept that ancient Upper Egypt was black buy ancient Lower Egypt was not. I don’t understand how you can make such a claim when all evidence shows that the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are related:
From Batrawi: Since early neolithic times there existed two distinct but closely related types, a northern in Middle Egypt and a southern in Upper Egypt. The southern Egyptians were distinguished from the northerners by a smaller cranial index, a larger nasal index and greater prognathism…
The findings of the above study from the 1940s still has not changed. Lower Egyptians differ from Upper Egyptians only in that they have a slightly larger cranial index, a smaller nasal index, and lesser prognathism (which was still present). Does this mean they were not black? Of course not. As I will explain (and has been explained innumerable times in this forum).
Among the so-called “evidence” you presented were statues of Lower Egyptians which were either unpainted or had their paint worn off. Here are images below of Lower Egyptians whose paint still hasn’t quite worn off yet.
Very nicely preserved paint on these
You cited Keita for his term ‘north African coastal type’, but you seem confused on what he meant when he described them as “intermediate”, even though we explained to you what he meant almost a dozen times now including this thread here: Inspection of Keita’s term of "coastal northern [African] pattern"
There is no excuse for such ignorance, even after we've given you all the explanations. And that especially goes for your limited views on how tropically adapted (black) Africans look. I don't know if you realize it, but you are espousing the false "true negro" fallacy that states true black Africans only have very full (broad) lips, a high degree of prognathism, and round noses. According to you, Lower Egyptians were not black because most of their depictions show long straight noses as if there aren't any black Africans who have such features.
Again as Mystery cited:
Jean Hiernaux "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
The funny thing is that most of the portraits of Lower Egyptians bear a striking resemblance to Tuareg and other Berber speaking black populations of North Africa, especially in features like the long straight nose. Such a feature is even stereotyped as the 'Tuareg nose' among peoples in West Africa while for others in East Africa such a feature is associated with some Sudanese even though they have close to jet-black skin. Such is the diversity of indigenous (black) Africans.
(Come to think of it, I was at the store today buying some 4th of July fireworks and I saw several Ethiopian youth there-- all of whom had features like long pointy noses and full but small lips. African diversity right in my hometown LOL)
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: I see that the more realistic representations from that website were omitted. Anyone that knows anything about ancient Egyptian reliefs such as those you have chosen know that they are exaggeratted depictions of Queen Nefertiti. Care to show the other more realistic representations of the Queen?
LOL Sorry to disappoint you, but the portraits of Nefertiti represent the majority of her depictions. You obviously have not seen much of the findings from Amarna for you to be saying such nonsense. Exactly what portraits constitute as being "realistic"??
Speaking of which, what do you mean by "exaggerated". Exactly what is "exaggerated" about her in those portraits? Her "negroid" features?! LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rasol....what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that whites may have had something to do with building ancient Egypt? You know, I really don't know why I even had to ask that question. It's blatantly obvious that you are afraid that white people may of had something to do with ancient Egypt. Your total lack of respect and apathy for your fellow human beings as well as your disdain for intellectual honesty has me debating on whether I should take you to school on a few things.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Rasol....what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that whites may have had something to do with building ancient Egypt? You know, I really don't know why I even had to ask that question. It's blatantly obvious that you are afraid that white people may of had something to do with ancient Egypt. Your total lack of respect and apathy for your fellow human beings as well as your disdain for intellectual honesty has me debating on whether I should take you to school on a few things.
What does "had something to do with" mean? Nobody said that there were no whites or other peoples in ancient Egypt. Listen carefully to what is being said. What is being said is that the ORIGINAL populations of Egypt primarily derive from Saharan and Southern Nile valley tropically adapted people from IN AFRICA. That has been shown over and over again based on up to date research. The original Northern Egyptian type, prior to the invasions and appearance of people from the Levant and Europe were of this same type. These are ALL black Africans. You are trying to say that because Egypt was so great and glorious and so large, that it is O.K. to arbitrarily determine the composition of Egyptian society based on a belief of ancient Egypt being a "melting pot", like America or Europe. Sorry, Egypt was not that sort of melting pot in dynastic times. Egypt was NOT like America or Europe where blacks are on the bottom and the whites are at the top. This is pure absolute nonsense. That doesn't mean that various non African groups were not present in Egypt. It just means that the majority of the population and ruling elite were made up of INDIGENOUS Africans. It is only someone who is desperate to make up history who would try and claim that saying the Egyptians were INDIGENOUS AFRICANS is somehow trying to distort the truth.
If you want to make such assessments about the difference between Northern and Southern Egyptians in ancient times, dont rely on a handful of images from a museum or museums(s). There are HUNDREDS of images of Northern Egyptians from the Northern Burial site of Saqqarah.
The Tomb of Kagemni at Saqqarah by itself has that many:
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Yonis I could care less what race or color other people inside of ancient Egypt were. The point is,if they were there, then let the truth be known. There's some people that need to take off their sunglasses, and there's others that need to put theirs on.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Yonis - I am doing research on the original Isreali. Can you point me to some links. Thanks.
As for Celts . Not sure why more knowledgeable posters are wasting so much bandwidth on him. He should read first before bringing up topics that has been beaten to death on this forum.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Yonis - I am doing research on the original Isreali. Can you point me to some links. Thanks.
I meant to say that the original israelis looked no different than modern palestinians rather than the ashkenazi jews who are eastern/northern european derived who make the majority today. that's it. I hope you didn't think i was insinuating that they looked tropical african? Since i've read of such movements in america like "the black israelites".
Posts: 1420 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Yonis - I am doing research on the original Isreali. Can you point me to some links. Thanks.
I meant to say that the original israelis looked no different than modern palestinians rather than the ashkenazi jews who are eastern/northern european derived who make the majority today. that's it. I hope you didn't think i was insinuating that they looked tropical african? Since i've read of such movements in america like "the black israelites".
Yeah. There are lot of static about who the original Isreali were. Just wanted to seperate truth from fiction. I knew about the Ashkenazi. But I read more into what you said. I always believed the Jesus looked like an Arab. The same people who are being targetted today.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannosaurus: Djehuti, rasol, and Mystery Solver, I think I owe you an apology for my stupidity and ignorance. I was wrong.
T-rex, there was nothing stupid about your inquiry. Ignorant yes, but not so much stupid. It's good and in fact essential to always ask questions. However, be prepared for answers or evidence thereof. If you have claims of your own, be prepared to back them up with evidence. It is simple as that. And perhaps the best thing is knowing when you are wrong and accepting facts. ( This is perhaps the hardest thing for the professor to learn).
Speaking of which...
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Rasol....what are you afraid of? Are you afraid that whites may have had something to do with building ancient Egypt? You know, I really don't know why I even had to ask that question. It's blatantly obvious that you are afraid that white people may of had something to do with ancient Egypt. Your total lack of respect and apathy for your fellow human beings as well as your disdain for intellectual honesty has me debating on whether I should take you to school on a few things.
LOL If I didn't know any better Hore, I'd say your post above is not only a silly ad-hominem taunt, but a projection of your true feelings-- that it is YOU who fears the lingering and undeniable fact that Egypt was a civilization built by blacks, especially considering that it is in Africa!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis: There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Indeed, but that such migrations were confined to the Delta is also evident, even from historical records by the Egyptians themselves. Any major Asiatic incursion that affected the whole country did not take place until the Islamic-Arab invasion.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: What does "had something to do with" mean? Nobody said that there were no whites or other peoples in ancient Egypt. Listen carefully to what is being said. What is being said is that the ORIGINAL populations of Egypt primarily derive from Saharan and Southern Nile valley tropically adapted people from IN AFRICA...
And where are the "whites" above in the tomb depictions??
Where is the evidence of there being a major presence of "white" (as in European?) people at in Egypt until perhaps the Tamahou, and after them, the Greeks??
Still what do 'white' people have to do with the development of Egyptian civilization or any civilization in Africa for that matter??
On the other hand, we have evidence of the opposite-- blacks in Europe, particularly Greece, and during the formation of its civilization in the Neolithic.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celt has it backwards. The Ancient Egyptians had an influence on European civilizations. The Scots have a legend of being descended from an Egyptian queen. There are many megaliths in Europe, but the Nabta Playa megaliths are 1000 years older.
The culture and philosophies of the Ancient Egyptian are African combining elements of the Sudan and Sahara. There language was in the AfroAsiatic language family.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Now let's not be too hasty and jump to a 'Winters' conclusion of African migrants to Scotland. The Celtic peoples of the British Isle and even Ireland have legends of ancestors coming from Russia to Africa.
What we are dealing with right now are not legends but facts. And yes Nabta Playa and even the megalith stuctures of Niger are a couple of millennia older than that of Stone Henge.
Egypt developed in Africa by native Africans. I don't understand why it's so hard for [some] people to accept that! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Red,White, and Blue + Christian: Celt has it backwards. The Ancient Egyptians had an influence on European civilizations. The Scots have a legend of being descended from an Egyptian queen. There are many megaliths in Europe, but the Nabta Playa megaliths are 1000 years older.
The culture and philosophies of the Ancient Egyptian are African combining elements of the Sudan and Sahara. There language was in the AfroAsiatic language family.
I wonder if you even realize what you have just implied.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Now let's not be too hasty and jump to a 'Winters' conclusion of African migrants to Scotland. The Celtic peoples of the British Isle and even Ireland have legends of ancestors coming from Russia to Africa.
What we are dealing with right now are not legends but facts. And yes Nabta Playa and even the megalith stuctures of Niger are a couple of millennia older than that of Stone Henge.
Egypt developed in Africa by native Africans. I don't understand why it's so hard for [some] people to accept that!
Not hard for me to accept at all. We just need to come to some kind of real undeniable proof before we try to project that as a fact. To say there were no other groups of people within the Northern part of Africa is false. There is evidence of other people even before the dawn of ancient Egypt.
Posts: 197 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celt: Not hard for me to accept at all. We just need to come to some kind of real undeniable proof before we try to project that as a fact.
We already have proof from years of archaeology, history, linguistics, physical anthropology, and through the recent years of genetic studies. What more proof do you want?
quote:To say there were no other groups of people within the Northern part of Africa is false. There is evidence of other people even before the dawning of ancient Egypt.
Such as?? May you please cite this evidence?
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
There was considerable migration from the levant region during the middle kingdom, this has been proven by this study but i wouldn't go so far and call them white. people from palestine and the original israelis are not white.
Yonis - I am doing research on the original Isreali. Can you point me to some links. Thanks.
I meant to say that the original israelis looked no different than modern palestinians rather than the ashkenazi jews who are eastern/northern european derived who make the majority today. that's it. I hope you didn't think i was insinuating that they looked tropical african? Since i've read of such movements in america like "the black israelites".
As for hype about the supposed north-south dichotomy of AE, same is not afforded by Southern Europeans and "southwest Asians", but reality tells us differently:
An analysis of crania from Tell-Duweir using multiple discriminant functions. Keita SO.
…Finkel (1974, 1978), after a normal equivalent deviate analysis of numerous diachronic ancient “Middle Eastern” cranial series, including some Egyptian, Iranian, Turkish, Syrian, and Greek ones, as well as the Lachish Iron Age series, is able to conclude that this broad region’s populations do not have the characteristics of a single breeding population, i.e., a model viewing this area as a single breeding region with a single morphometric pattern fails. Thus the “Mediterranean race” concept is seen to be questionable-if not invalid-at least on the craniometric level. Furthermore, he is able to conclude that the Iron Age Lachish series differed significantly in several variables from the Bronze Age series from the site. He ascribes the difference between the two Lachish series to microevolution secondary to migration and gene flow. Nevertheless, Finkel is able to show that these and other series from within the boundaries of modern Israel form a “ super-population.” He finds a diachronic difference only at the Lachish site; his study utilizes a total of 48 cranial series. Musgrave and Evans (1980), using principal coordinates analysis (PCO), undertook an analysis of several “Greek,” Cretan, Minoan, Egyptian, and the Lachish series in an effort to answer the question of early eastern Mediterranean island population origins, and to investigate biological relationships with Egypt. The Lachish series is not found to plot near any Greek or eastern Mediterranean island series. However, of interest is the consistent tendency of the Egyptian Twenty sixth-Thirtieth Dynasty “E” series to position nearer to the Greek series than to the corpus of other Egyptian series. It is well to note that not only does the “E” series come from northern Egypt, perhaps always more cosmopolitan (Hoffman, 1980), but that its dates overlap the Greek period of Egyptian history. Musgrave and Evans suggest, on the basis of their results, that the Lachish series represents Egyptians, and hence they agree with Risdon…
INTERPRETATION, DISCUSSION, AND CONCLUSIONS
The Lachish series is found to plot nearest the Maghreb and “E” series, both of whose centroids plot nearer the Romano-British groups than any of the other series; the D2 value between these series is significant as previously noted.
Examination of the classification results (when Lachish is run as an unknown) shows that the “E” series receives the plurality, with the Maghreb series receiving a very small percentage. The results seem to indicate that the morphometric patterns of crania in the Lachish series show a great range of variation with many crania classifying into Egyptian and Nubian series, even when Lachisch is available as a choice. This suggests that the Lachish series might contain crania from these areas. Historically it is known that Egypt had long been in contact with this area, as noted earlier. The Bible (I1 Kings) recounts the destruction wrought by Sennacherib, and suggests an alliance of the Judean Kingdom with Egypt during the time of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty, when Nubia ruled Egypt (Abu Bakr, 1981). Nowhere is this more vividly revealed than in this warning to Sennacherib as he approached Jerusalem. “Behold, Tirhakah the Ethiopian (Nubian) has come out to fight against thee” (II Kings 19: 8-9). Tirhakah was one of the pharaohs of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty.
The notable classification of Lachisch crania into the northern Egyptian, but not Maghreb, series suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.” This Maghreb series is actually quite morphmetrically heterogeneous (Keita, 1983). The classification of a number of crania into the Romano-British series is noteworthy, and suggests evidence for a Romano-British presence. This is, of course, impossible, since there were no Romano-British during the time of the Judean Kingdom, nor were there any First Dynasty Egyptians, etc. It can be said only at best that these crania morphometrically resemble the various other series at the group or individual level. Theoretically only groups, which in reality an unknown series could have affinities or identities with, can or should be used (Blackith and Reyment, 1971). This is clearly not the case here for most series if the Lachish series’ crania are accepted as truly being of the date assigned to the site by archeology. This reality axiom is especially true when the individuals of the Lachish or any other series are evaluated as unknowns and the results are in terms of specific identities. It is clear as implied earlier that the idea of similarity must be informed by a larger theoretical framework…
In conclusion, the Lachish series centroid plots near those of the Maghreb and “E” series, the latter’s morphomentrics known to overlap with eastern Mediterranean crania. However, “Keith’s problem” is illustrated because this mean value hides the variation revealed by the analysis of the series as individual unknown crania, and shows many to have strong resemblances to more southern (both Egyptian and non-Egyptian) series even when Lachish is a choice. It is possible to say that the objective evidence does not deny an hypothesis of biological heterogeneity in some general sense at Lachish, which specific historical and archaeological data unequivocably predict. It is suggested that the Egypto-Nubian presence is supported. - Keita, 1988.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Israelites were part Egyptian and Nubian. The Bible itself is the link you need. Zipporah Moses' wife was Cushite. Yosef ben Israel's wife was Egyptian and many Egyptians/Nubians were with the Hebrews as they fled Kemet going toward Canaan which was an Egyptian colony. Throughout the Bible Cushites are mentioned constantly as living in Israel. So, the Ancient Israelites were at least part Black.
Posts: 1115 | From: GOD Bless the USA | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Actually, according to the Bible, Canaan (which is located in the Levant) was considered a nation of 'Ham' and brother to Egypt, Kush, and Punt. For a long time there was speculation as to why, but such a legend may indeed be based on truth as we have evidence of African migration into the Levant during the Mesolithic.
And Mystery is also correct about the ridiculous bias in assessing Egypt as "Northern vs. Southern" populations. The same feature can be said of populations within a given area of Western Asia and even Europe (which I have studies for).
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing about the statues from the old kingom at the Egyptian museum is that they seem to be the most ATYPICAL images from Egyptian art of the period. Meaning that all the mastabas, tombs and temples from the period seem to show much darker and unambiguous African images than those of the statues in the Museum. Almost all of these statues are either white (meaning no paint left), light tan or orangeish, which makes them look quite strange compared to all the browns of the images in the Mastabas and tombs themselves.
The point being that by having all these faded and lighter colored images together in one place, it creates a FALSE perception of the typical features of the art from the time. Not to mention the impression one gets about the people themselves.
From these mastabas you get images in context, which gives you a better view of a how Egyptians viewed themselves as a group, as opposed to the handful of images in the museum which number less than those in one of these mastabas.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The funny thing about the statues from the old kingom at the Egyptian museum is that they seem to be the most ATYPICAL images from Egyptian art of the period. Meaning that all the mastabas, tombs and temples from the period seem to show much darker and unambiguous African images than those of the statues in the Museum. Almost all of these statues are either white (meaning no paint left), light tan or orangeish, which makes them look quite strange compared to all the browns of the images in the Mastabas and tombs themselves.
The point being that by having all these faded and lighter colored images together in one place, it creates a FALSE perception of the typical features of the art from the time. Not to mention the impression one gets about the people themselves.
Are you implying there's some sort of conspiracy?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Black Queen of ancient Km.t
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
This is perhaps the hardest thing for the professor to learn).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic