posted
I recently bought the book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium written by Joseph L Graves.
I contacted Graves via email to ask him for some articles of his that refute J Philippe Rushton's research on racial differences (Graves was very responsive. He sent me the articles and even offered to send me a DVD of his debate with Rushton which I will put on Youtube once I receive it). I decided to buy his book to get more insight into the subject.
In an early chapter titled Pre-Darwinian Theories of Race Graves talks about Western thought on racial differences and how Europeans believed that Black Africans were incapable of building and sustaining civilization. Here is a quote from the book that mentioned Ancient Egypt directly:
quote:The abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass addressed the claims of the polygenists in "The Claims of the Negro Ethnologically Considered," an address delivered at Western Reserve College on July 12, 1854. In it he examined both the scientific methods and the political motivations of the polygenicists (particularly Morton, Nott, Gliddon and Agassiz). Douglass pointed out that the fundamental pillar of polygenist thinking and of slavery was the idea that the Negro race was not part of the human family. For example, the law in slave states did not distinguish between Negroes and other property, such as domestic animals and chairs. Douglass clearly articulated the characteristics such as of humans that are shared by all races and not exhibited by animals (anticipating many of Darwin's later arguments in The Descent of Man). Among these, Douglass included the use of hands, speech, higher emotions, the ability to obtain and retain knowledge, and adaptability to different environments.
In his address, Douglass also examined the specific claims of Morton in Crania Americana which had been published in 1839. He took particular exception to Morton's claims concerning the racial identity of the ancient Egyptians. For Morton, none of the accomplishments of ancient Egypt could be attributed to Negroes, for that would clearly grant intellectual capacities to Africans unaccounted for by the polygenist racial theory. Douglass advanced the idea that in fact Egypt was a Multiracial society lacking the modern skin color prejudice that existed in the United States and Europe. None of the Egyptologists of his time supported him on this assertion but we now know that Douglass was correct.⁸
Chapter 3 page 49
I found this quote to be interesting because Graves is a prominent evolutionary biologist who happens to be an African-American that has taught African American studies courses as a professor at Universities.
Given that he has written two books on racial theories I can't imagine that he is unfamiliar with the work of Keita so I went to the notes section of the book to see his source for his objective statement that Ancient Egypt was a "Multiracial" Civilization and here it is:
8. Bernard Ortiz de Montellano has shown that Egypt was neither a "Caucasian" society, as claimed by Morton and other nineteenth-century racists, nor solely a sub-Saharan African society, as claimed by many modern Afrocentrists; see Ortiz de Montellano, "Melanin, Afrocentricity, and Pseudoscience," Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36 (1993): 33-58; and Ortiz Montellano, "Multiculturalism, Cult Archeology, and Pseudoscience," in Cult Archeology and Creationism: Understanding Pseudoscientific Beliefs about the Past, ed. F.B. Harrold and R.A. Eve (Iowa City: University of iowa Press, 1995).
Now I have heard of Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, who is noted for his criticism of Ivan Van Sertima's theory of Pre-Columbian contact in ancient America by Africans. I've even heard of the first article referenced in these notes but never read it. I decided to track it down read it to see what evidence he provided that Ancient Egypt was Multiracial.
Here is a key quote:
quote:It is ironic that today much of Afrocentric writing about Egypt is based on the same evidence used by earlier Heliocentric authors. However, now the claim is that ancient Egypt was a black African civilization and that Egyptians (or at least the rulers and the cultural leaders) were negroid (Diop, 1974, 1981; Williams, 1974). No one disputes that Egypt is in Africa, or that its civilization had elements in common with sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in religion. However, the claim that all Egyptians, or even all the pharaohs, were black, is not valid. Most scholars believe that Egyptians in antiquity looked pretty much as they look today, with a gradation of darker shades toward the Sudan. Evidence for the racial composition of Egypt comes from a variety of sources. Berry et al. (1967), using a “measure of divergence” based on 30 nonmetrical skeletal variants, found that there were significant differences between negroid populations (Ashanti, Sudan), Mediterranean populations (Palestine), and all ancient Egyptian samples. They also found a remarkable degree of constancy in the population of Egypt over a period of 5,000 years. Recent multivariate analysis of crania (Keita, 1990) showed a pattern common to both northern Late Dynastic Egypt and the Maghreb (North Africa west of Egypt) in which both tropical African and European phenotypes, as well as intermediate patterns, were present.
Early southern Predynastic Egyptian crania showed affinities with tropical African patterns and differed notably from the Maghreb pattern. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Nile valley was primarily settled by immigrants from both the Sahara and from more southern areas and that Egyptian culture was formed by the fusion of Saharan and Nilotic peoples (Hassan, 1988). The mixture of phenotypes suggested by the archaeological and skeletal evidence is amply supported by representations in art and sculpture (Vercoutter, 1978; O’Connor, 1971; Trigger, 1978; Kelly, 1991). Brace et al. offer further review of Egyptian biological status (this volume). Egypt was a multiracial society that did not discriminate internally on the basis of color, but looked down on all foreigners regardless of color (Yurco, 1989,1990; Snowden, 1970,1989,1992; Young, 1992; Levine, 1992; Coleman, 1992). Even Martin Bernal, the most articulate proponent of Egyptian influence on Greece, agrees that in the pharaonic period Egypt was a racially mixed society with a higher incidence of negroid phenotypes in Upper Egypt (Young, 1992; Kelly, 1991; Bernal, 1992).
So there you have it. Not only does Ortiz de Montellano claim that Ancient Egypt was a Multiracial society he actually uses Keita as a reference. I'm also no stranger to writing from scholars who oppose a Black African Egypt but quote Keita as C Loring Brace did just that in his clines and clusters article (he also cites Ortiz de Montellano on a suggestion that Cheikh Anta Diop was a "inverted racist" in his Clines and Clusters article which prompted Keita to write a full length article of his own defending Diop and criticizing the entire article).
The point I want to make here is to raise some awareness about how mainstream scholars are interpreting the very same studies that we sight contending that the Ancient Egyptians were Black.
I'm sure that people here have poked holes in such arguments before but I'd like to see some discussion once more about the errors of scholars like Ortiz de Montellano.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) The Foundation of Egypt is African and comes from the South and East and had nothing to do with Multi-Racialism.
2) Greece, Rome, "Arab Empires", Persia, America, etc. Are all Multiracial, yet I don't see any labeling of those as Multiracial.
3) Egypt was a Nilotic Civilization the closest Sister Empires were A)Nubia B)Axum.
However, the claim that all Egyptians, or even all the pharaohs, were black, is not valid. Most scholars believe that Egyptians in antiquity looked pretty much as they look today, with a gradation of darker shades toward the Sudan.
No qualms here other than the use of an Invader Term "Sudan" to label a Nation that did not exist until Invaders arrived on Nile Valley Soil.
Also Egyptians of today esp. in the North have foreign admixture and Arabs and Bedoin have set up shop in the south, to pretend Egypt of today is a carbon copy of Egypt of yesterday is absurd. That said I have no problem at all with that statement.
4) What is our criteria for black??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Ortiz de Montellano seems to be suggesting is that Ancient Egypt had diverse phenotypes (and was as you say a carbon copy of Modern Egypt) with darker shades in the South of the country (basically conceding that Upper Egyptians were what we today call Black).
What I have always been puzzled by is Keita's statement that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had a coastal Northern pattern that was similar to the Maghreb and that European phenotypes were present in Egypt. I've read Keita (1990). Ortiz de Montellano seems to be implying that Egypt was a mixture of "Whites" and "Blacks". But does Keita's research actually suggest this?
We have heard him on video state that Egyptians had diverse phenotypes including in skin color and that the physical diversity was similar to that found in the past. He does note as you say that foreigners did impact Lower Egypt. When I asked Keita about the average skin color of the Ancient Egyptians directly he said the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the model in most of the country.
Some critics of the claim that Ancient Egyptians were mostly dark-skinned point out that some modern Upper Egyptians are lighter-skinned suggesting that it isn't accurate to say that all or most Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned and that Keita does not support that idea.
I really would like to investigate this matter. Interpretations of statements by scholars can be tricky. I tried to contact Keita for further insight on his view but he hasn't replied.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpheus I think all serious Egpytsearch posters should investigate this, those that are not apt to posting Pornographic links, pics of Yoruba, Pics of Indians etc.
I will come back with an argument soon..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
What I have always been puzzled by is Keita's statement that Dynastic Lower Egyptians had a coastal Northern pattern that was similar to the Maghreb and that European phenotypes were present in Egypt. I've read Keita (1990).
Let me see if I understand you correctly: Are you saying that the "coastal northern pattern" constitutes one with similarities to the Maghrebi series and that it contains European phenotypes. If so, I don't recall Keita saying that.
quote:
We have heard him on video state that Egyptians had diverse phenotypes including in skin color and that the physical diversity was similar to that found in the past.
I'm not sure why Keita would say this, after noting change in cranial patterns over time. I've heard him allude, but not directly, to coastal northwestern Africans in his Cambridge video stream, with respect to their skin tone developments, but not the AE. What video did you have in mind?
quote: Some critics of the claim that Ancient Egyptians were mostly dark-skinned point out that some modern Upper Egyptians are lighter-skinned suggesting that it isn't accurate to say that all or most Ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned and that Keita does not support that idea.
It may be a no-brainer but some people simply lack the thinking capacity to understand this: Modern Egyptian population structure is not a carbon copy of those characterizing pre-dynastic or the lead up to state formation. Ponder this basic question: if analysts have observed change in cranio-metric patterns between older dynasty series and elements of later ones, can it be logical to then say that modern Egypt is a carbon copy of AE, and can thus be used as a substitution for predynastic and dynastic Nile Valley cranial examination?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
[...]
Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses.
quote:I'm not sure why Keita would say this, after noting change in cranial patterns over time. I've heard him allude, but not directly, to coastal northwestern Africans in his Cambridge video stream, with respect to their skin tone developments, but not the AE. What video did you have in mind?
quote:It may be a no-brainer but some people simply lack the thinking capacity to understand this: Modern Egyptian population structure is not a carbon copy of those characterizing pre-dynastic or the lead up to state formation. Ponder this basic question: if analysts have observed change in cranio-metric patterns between older dynasty series and elements of later ones, can it be logical to then say that modern Egypt is a carbon copy of AE, and can thus be used as a substitution for predynastic and dynastic Nile Valley cranial examination?
Which studies have established a craniometric change in the Ancient Egyptians and during which periods? Are you referring to Zakrzewski (2007)?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpheus I edited the first post of my last response, so if you could clarify accordingly, please take a jab at it.
As for which studies detailing cranio-metric change, I would imagine you were already familiar with them, having been here for some time now. Keita's own examinations, and yes, Zakrzewki's analyses are examples.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson does mention in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs archaeological evidence for Palestinian communities living in northern Egypt in predynastic times, so I do think there was some minor Southwest Asian admixture in the northern Egyptian population. However, this same source says that most of northern Egypt was an uninhabitable swamp and that it was the southern Egyptians who laid the foundations for dynastic Egyptian civilization. So even if ancient Egypt wasn't purely black, it can still be considered an indigenous African civilization.
BTW, Morpheus, what made you think of this subject again?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Which studies have established a craniometric change in the Ancient Egyptians and during which periods? Are you referring to Zakrzewski (2007)?
Try this:
Berry, A. C., and R. J. Berry. "Genetical change in ancient Egypt." Man 2 (1967): 551-68.
It says that there was little change in crania between the predynastic and Middle Kingdoms, but during the New Kingdom (i.e. after the Hyksos occupation) there was some change. Keita cites this study in his 1993 paper "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships".
EDIT: Also try:
Zakrzewski, Sonia R. "Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania." In Program of the Seventy-Third Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 215. Tampa, FL: American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 2004.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: [QB] Morpheus I edited the first post of my last response, so if you could clarify accordingly, please take a jab at it.
As for which studies detailing cranio-metric change, I would imagine you were already familiar with them, having been here for some time now. Keita's own examinations, and yes, Zakrzewki's analyses are examples.
I've read all of the studies on Myra's site as well as many studies posted here and elsewhere but it's hard to remember everything said, who said it and where. I definitely need to do some more reading.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
BTW, Morpheus, what made you think of this subject again?
Graves' book. I've been focused on theories of racial differences in intelligence lately but when I read that comment I quoted here I felt the need to investigate.
It's one thing when people on the internet make interpretations of scientific literature that may be false and another when scholars do it.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my challenge to you all, what is the correct definition of black??
Does anyone have a problem with the following pics..
^^^^ 1)Based on all the art work displayed here on e.S would that be a decent representation of Egypt, if so why or why not..
2) Is the following Black, Med, Multiracial??
PS: I tried not to Cherry Pick, and I tried to mix up the Light and Darker Skinned Egyptians...so PLS. Don't Accuse me of Cherry Picking)
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truthcentric: What archeological evidence translates into "Palestinian communities living in northern Egypt" according to Wilkinson? How big of a community was this, so as to render it material to AE state formation; I mean, was it like some kind of a China town? What do we know about their physical characteristics?
Morpheus: You haven't responded to my earlier question pertaining to your understanding of Keita's "norther coastal pattern": Are you of the mindset that he was saying that it was similar to the Maghrebi pattern and contained European phenotypes?
BTW, Graves' observation boils down to social commentary, not a scientific discourse.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Here is my challenge to you all, what is the correct definition of black??
Does anyone have a problem with the following pics..
^^^^ 1)Based on all the art work displayed here on e.S would that be a decent representation of Egypt, if so why or why not..
2) Is the following Black, Med, Multiracial??
PS: I tried not to Cherry Pick, and I tried to mix up the Light and Darker Skinned Egyptians...so PLS. Don't Accuse me of Cherry Picking)
THESE ARE ALL BLACK PEOPLE.
SOME "BLACK" PEOPLE MIGHT BEG TO DIFFER. BUT WE SHOULD NOT CARE WHAT THEY THINK. THEY'RE IDIOTS. JUST LIKE THEIR WHITE COUNTERPARTS.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Morpheus: You haven't responded to my earlier question pertaining to your understanding of Keita's "norther coastal pattern": Are you of the mindset that he was saying that it was similar to the Maghrebi pattern and contained European phenotypes?
That's the impression I got from reading the article.
quote:BTW, Graves' observation boils down to social commentary, not a scientific discourse.
Yes, I know. I'm mentioning it because this is what some mainstream scholars regard as the correct perspective on the physical appearance of Ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
That's the impression I got from reading the article.
Where in the article?, because the Keita excerpt you cited is comparing Maghrebi series' similarity to late Dynasty northern Egyptian series.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson does mention in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs archaeological evidence for Palestinian communities living in northern Egypt in predynastic times, so I do think there was some minor Southwest Asian admixture in the northern Egyptian population.
Evergreen Writes:
The early Holocene Natufian population of SW Asia/Levant had cranial affinities with modern tropical Africans. More work needs to be done to understand the phenetic diversity of the Early Bronze Age Levant and morphological changes between the early Holocene and EBA. It may be that many of the SW Asians that migrated into NE Africa during the neolithic phase may have had phenetic affinities with Africans. There is no evidence of large-scale migration to begin with.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bernard Ortiz de Montellano has shown that Egypt was neither a "Caucasian" society, as claimed by Morton and other nineteenth-century racists, nor solely a sub-Saharan African society, as claimed by many modern Afrocentrists
"Quezacotl", please name the "modern Afrocentists" that claim AE was solely a sub-Saharan African society.
Lioness = Bernal or De Montellano. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Graves' book. I've been focused on theories of racial differences in intelligence lately but when I read that comment I quoted here I felt the need to investigate.
It's one thing when people on the internet make interpretations of scientific literature that may be false and another when scholars do it. [/QB]
The premise of Graves 2001 book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race is to debunk the concept that race is significant, that any racial differentiations in biology are too infinitesimal to entertain serious considerations. and that there is more genetic variation "within" racial groups than there are "between" them.
Therefore if he applies the term "multi-racial" to ancient Egypt is in the context that it doesn't matter anyway. He is using the term in the historical context of what Frederick Douglass wrote but it is not a concept central to the book. The overall concept of the book is that questions about if Egypt was black, white or multiracial are irrelevant issues because the concept of race is itself irrelevant and constructed by racists.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question on the racial identity of the AEs has been beaten to death ad nauseam. But like a chronic disease it just keeps coming back.
So let's dose the question again with some intellectual antibiotics.
The ancient Greeks who saw the AEs invariably described them as Herodotus did "black skins and woolly hair". Romans(Ammanius Mecellinus) described them thusly: "Homines autem Aegypti plerique subfusculi et atrati sunt": "the majority of Egyptians are very dark in colour and they wear dark clothing".
The way the Egyptians portrayed themselves puts them squarely in the populations that Western anthropologists describe as "sub-Saharan".
Was Egypt during Pharaonic times multiracial? Answer: no more so than Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
Measuring crania as means of defining Africans is just nonsensical since there are all ranges of cranial and facial structures in any African society.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The question on the racial identity of the AEs has been beaten to death ad nauseam. But like a chronic disease it just keeps coming back.
So let's dose the question again with some intellectual antibiotics.
The ancient Greeks who saw the AEs invariably described them as Herodotus did "black skins and woolly hair". Romans(Ammanius Mecellinus) described them thusly: "Homines autem Aegypti plerique subfusculi et atrati sunt": "the majority of Egyptians are very dark in colour and they wear dark clothing".
The way the Egyptians portrayed themselves puts them squarely in the populations that Western anthropologists describe as "sub-Saharan".
Was Egypt during Pharaonic times multiracial? Answer: no more so than Senegal, Gambia, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
Measuring crania as means of defining Africans is just nonsensical since there are all ranges of cranial and facial structures in any African society.
posted
The general public could care less about this issue. Afrocentrics harp on it because it is part of their stick but on the list of things people are about it ranks just below the weather patters on Pluto.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: Graves' book. I've been focused on theories of racial differences in intelligence lately but when I read that comment I quoted here I felt the need to investigate.
It's one thing when people on the internet make interpretations of scientific literature that may be false and another when scholars do it.
The premise of Graves 2001 book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race is to debunk the concept that race is significant, that any racial differentiations in biology are too infinitesimal to entertain serious considerations. and that there is more genetic variation "within" racial groups than there are "between" them.
Therefore if he applies the term "multi-racial" to ancient Egypt is in the context that it doesn't matter anyway. He is using the term in the historical context of what Frederick Douglass wrote but it is not a concept central to the book. The overall concept of the book is that questions about if Egypt was black, white or multiracial are irrelevant issues because the concept of race is itself irrelevant and constructed by racists. [/QB]
If he thinks questions of a civilization being "multiracial" are irrelevant then you don't seem to agree given your cautious application of that term when it comes to ancient Greece. Fuking hypocrite.
Note: "sub-Saharan" is another construct. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Where in the article?, because the Keita excerpt you cited is comparing Maghrebi series' similarity to late Dynasty northern Egyptian series.
LOL! It's been awhile since I discussed these topics I completely forgot that! When I debated this subject with someone I pointed out myself that the Northern Lower Egyptians being compared came from the Late Dynastic period when there was a notable craniometric change in the population. This person tried to claim that even Afrocentrists like Ivan Van Sertima do not argue for a Black Lower Egypt but I correct him with this excerpt from the book Egypt: Child of Africa:
But I'm still not clear on what phenotypes Keita believes the Lower Egyptians from the Early Dynastic - New Kingdom had. If someone could point out relevant quotes that would be appreciated.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The premise of Graves 2001 book The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race is to debunk the concept that race is significant, that any racial differentiations in biology are too infinitesimal to entertain serious considerations. and that there is more genetic variation "within" racial groups than there are "between" them.
Therefore if he applies the term "multi-racial" to ancient Egypt is in the context that it doesn't matter anyway. He is using the term in the historical context of what Frederick Douglass wrote but it is not a concept central to the book. The overall concept of the book is that questions about if Egypt was black, white or multiracial are irrelevant issues because the concept of race is itself irrelevant and constructed by racists.
Like Keita and several other Anthropologists and Geneticists Graves prescribes to the "no biological race" position believing the very concept itself to have been falsified by modern genetic research so it isn't simply that racial differences are trivial but that human biological variation itself isn't racial.
As it relates to Egypt it would probably be accurate to say that Ortiz de Montellano holds the idea that Ancient Egyptians had diverse phenotypes reflective of the modern population that would be described as Multiracial in our modern Western conception of the phrase. Something that Frederick Douglass claimed in opposition to the polygenists of his day which Graves believes to be basically true.
However I do believe Ortiz de Montellano is misquoting Keita when making this statement as Keita has said time and again that there was a major genetic impact on Egypt during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods that was concentrated to Northern Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: The general public could care less about this issue. Afrocentrics harp on it because it is part of their stick but on the list of things people are about it ranks just below the weather patters on Pluto.
The general public doesn't really care about history at all, Professor. Discussions like these are for the benefit of people actually interested in the subject. Even people like you.
I think it is important to consider what mainstream scholars have to say about the subject or what they believe because when people who are actually interested in the topic look up information they are going to attempt to find the most reliable sources available.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpheus, You have to be very very care when you use anthropology to make historical points. Anthropology makes some wonderful contributions but very off their discpline is much more tightly focued tan is ours. All of this data must be put into a larger context and it takes a good deal of time to do that. Most people on this b0oard make terrible mistakes because they are seeking bits of information that confirms to an already existing philosophy. Note that I use the word philosophy in place of theory.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Morpheus: But I'm still not clear on what phenotypes Keita believes the Lower Egyptians from the Early Dynastic - New Kingdom had. If someone could point out relevant quotes that would be appreciated.
The only thing I can conjure up right now is Keita saying that the Abydos tomb remains of the 1st dynasty contained 57% Southern patterns. I don't recall him saying the rest was northern though.
Another one I can remember, is him saying that Northern Egypt is intermediate between populations like Ashanti and Europeans.
EDIT
The quote of 57% southern patterns in Abydos 1st dynasty remains can be found in: Keita, Further analysis of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from first dynasty Egyptian tombs, using multiple discriminant functions 1992 p 250
I can't access the article, though I can infer from secondary sources that he probably viewed the remainder of these 1st dynasty tomb remains as Lower Egyptian.
Of interest, for future study, is the possibility that the Dynasty I crania from Abydos represent a hybrid between tropical Negroid or Elongated groups and those with the northern coastal pattern; the Abydos series consistently has a centroid value near the middle of the range of values, in spite of the extensive Nagada Kerma overlap. ... However, the centroid value of the combined Maghreb series indicates that the major craniometric pattern is most similar to that of northern dynastic Egyptians, not northwest Europeans. ... Furthermore, the series from the coastal Maghreb and northern (Lower) Egypt are more similar to one another than they are to any other series by centroid values and unknown analyses. ... The Badari and Nagada I cranial patterns emerge as tropical African variants (with Kerma). Badari remains show little affinity to the mass of Maghreban crania. ... All of Ihe Maghreban crania are from pre-Phoenician postneolithic tomb sites near Constantine, Algiers, and Oran and pre- Roman Carthage ... In summary, canonical variate analysis demonstrates the impressive variation suggested previously for early northern Africa. It also suggests that there was a modal craniometric phenotype common to northern-Egypt and the coastal Maghreb in the mid Holocene, intermediate to European and southern Egyptian Nile Valley/tropical series.
-Keita, Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: ancient greece was not even close to being multiracial, nobody believes that one. It is not even a topic of conversation.
Evergreen Writes: In many ways you are correct. The concept of "race" and "multiracial" is a pre-genetic hypothesis now discredited via genetics. The theory of "race" is based upon the belief that Africans, Europeans and Asians had geographically distinct pre-homosapien-sapien origins. We now know that all non-Africans derive, in the main from a sub-set of African diversity. Hence we are all one race - the human race. With regard to ancient Greece, we also know that one of the founding "bloodlines" of the ancient Greeks was the African haplogroup E. This is likely reflected in the facial form variation found as early as neolithic Greece, where we find remains of Greeks with facial forms similar to recent forrest-belt African types.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
what Evergreen says is simply his speculation. He has taken a piece of information and tried to string it into a historical theory. It is what happens when one tries to use anthropolgy and genetics to construct historical facts, it cannot be done.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: what Evergreen says is simply his speculation. He has taken a piece of information and tried to string it into a historical theory. It is what happens when one tries to use anthropolgy and genetics to construct historical facts, it cannot be done.
It's not speculation it's actually backed by science:
The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoricmodern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa.
The two E-M78 chromosomes found in Pakistan, at the eastern borders of the area of dispersal of haplogroup E3b, also belong to cluster d. On the basis of these data, we suggest that cluster d was involved in a first dispersal or dispersals of E-M78 chromosomes from eastern Africa into northern Africa and the Near East.
[...]
The relatively high frequency of DYS413 24/23 haplogroup E chromosomes in Greece (A.N., unpublished data) suggests that a cluster of the E-M78 haplogroup is common in the Aegean area, too.
We cannot trivialize human population history just because we don't like the facts, Hammer.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it amusing that European analysts have no problem describing diversity in the Nile Valley as "multiracial" but dismiss diversity in Greece [or even the Levant, or the 'East'] or Rome as one of single inbreeding group. The double standards is striking.
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus:
But I'm still not clear on what phenotypes Keita believes the Lower Egyptians from the Early Dynastic - New Kingdom had. If someone could point out relevant quotes that would be appreciated.
In retrospective, I can see why Keita's terms can indeed be confusing, because he uses this blanket terms of "northern coastal pattern" vs. "southern"/"Africoid" pattern, in lieu of old racial constructs, which he rejects as being restrictive. But IMO, his terms, perhaps while not as restrictive, can also be misleading if details of his analysis are not examined carefully.
The term "northern coastal pattern", as I have noted here before, is to be understood as an average (combined sample--as denoted by the 'centriod' value, as opposed to individual crania) pattern that assumes an intermediary position between the "southern"/"Africoid" patterns and the "west European" patterns...
This **northern modal pattern**, which can be **called coastal northern African**, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes - Keita
Keita claims that the Maghrebi series contains crania with affinity to both those in the "Tropical African"/"Southern" series and the "European" series, and crania with "intermediary" values between those seen in these entities. The latter would seem to be a code word for "hybrids", which he does in fact use in his article. He goes onto to claim that the Maghrebi series assumes a position closest to the northern Egyptian series, i.e. the Sediment and E series. Funny thing here is that Keita attributes this to Neolithic migration from "Europe" as well as that from the African interior spurred by desiccation of the Sahara, but then implies that part of the diversity [the "European"-like part] in the Maghrebi series is most likely attributable to Phoenician migration. It is funny in the sense that his Maghrebi samples were supposed to be pre-Punic specimens, and pre-Roman.
Keita acknowledges the potential cosmopolitan backdrop of the "E" series, but is less certain about that of the Sedment series. The Maghrebi series is closest to the "E" series, of all the Egyptian series, and in fact, Keita himself makes a note of this. It is closest to the "E" series than it is to the Sedment series, and the "E" series in turn, by centriod value, is closer to the European series than the Sediment series. This is why Keita's blanket term of "northern coastal pattern" on these series can be misleading, if not examined at a greater depth. In fact, I've made this observation a while back, wherein I note Keita's own acknowledgement about the need for making distinctions between these three "northern" cranial series:
The notable classification of Lachish 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). - Keita, 1988.
...as cited here:
quote:Originally posted by Mystery Solver:
For instance, let's go back to this:
By centroids,...
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.
And...
The notable classification of Lachish 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).
Two things to note:
1)By comparison, in the coastal north African crania, the Lachish crania largely fell into the northern Egyptian samples than Maghreb.
2)Maghreb crania is notably heterogeneous, as is the "E" series, yet more Lachish crania fell into the "E" series than the Maghreb samples.
If both are heterogeneous, and at the same time both show discernable trends from those of more southward African crania, then what does this say about coastal north African crania? Well, the author put it rather simply:
suggests that it is not helpful to stereotypically generalize about morphometrics of people in “North Africa.”
Note that the study data also shows both Maghreb and the "E" series to be yet discernable from the "Sedment" series of northern Egypt.
Notice again on the Discriminant plot (using centriod values) that the Lachish, a Levantine-based series, assumed its closest position to the Maghrebi and the "E" series. In fact, while the Sedment series is close to the Maghrebi and the Lachish series, and to a lesser degree the "E" series along the Function 1 coordinate, it maintains a noticeable distance from these groups, almost as distant from these series as it is from the Gabon series. So, it should not be assumed that change did not occur, as I have noted in another topic, with "northern" Egyptian crania in the span of the dynastic period. This is why I take issue with any notion that "modern Egyptian" phenotype structure can dismissively be claimed as being "similar to the past", a past which is almost never elaborated on by its propents.
It isn't clear what the specific modal pattern for the Sedment series entails from Keita's perspective, which is where the territorial maps may come in handy, but he claims that the appearance of the "northern pattern" in the "south" [which would be Upper Egypt] increases over time and characterizes ensuing diversity as being one with a bimodal contrast within it. He attributes this to what he calls "the presence of real northerners [A. Egyptians]"...
The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners.
If the northern Egyptian crania were a composite of contrasting trends itself, and Keita figures that contribution from the north to south lends a hand to a bimodal contrasting pattern in the latter territory, then how does one characterize the northern Egyptian pattern, in terms of its modality? Trimodal, mono-modal, or bimodal? Yes, Keita describes the northern pattern as "coastal northern African", but that says little of the nature of variation in the northern Egyptian pattern, since as demonstrated briefly above, the "coastal northern African" pattern is not some uniform pattern.
Through all this, it should be kept in mind that Keita has not examined predynastic northern Egyptian specimens, which is a major hindrance to his analysis, leaving him to keep begging the question of the starting/original phenotypic orientation of northern Egyptians. However, the examinations of skeletal remains in that region of that era, we are told, group them with Africans rather than Europeans, in terms of body proportions. We are also told that these specimens were not like "Palestinian"-based examples that they were compared with.
Upon examining one of the territorial maps (ten variables), which Keita himself acknowledges give a better indication of intra-series variation, I noticed that the Maghrebi series is spread along a wide area, more so than any other series. Hence, as Keita also notes, they are clearly the most heterogeneous standalone series of the bunch.
The "E" series closest neighbors generally tend to be either members of the Nagada series, the Sedment series, Maghrebi, or the European series. Every series has a Maghrebi neighbor.
The Sediment series' closest neighbors are generally elements from the Nagada series, the Maghrebi series, the Gabon series and the 'E' series.
The Gabon series' closest neighbors generally tend to be elements from the Maghrebi series, followed by the Nagada, the Sedment and the Badari series.
The Badari series' closest neighbors generally tend to be elements from the Nagada series and the Maghrebi series, and on another level, the Teita series.
The Kerma series' closest neighbors generally tend to be elements from the Nagada and European series, and to some extent, the Maghrebi series.
Nagada series have neighbors with elements from mostly Kerma, followed by elements from the Gabon, the Sedment, the Maghrebi, the "E", the Badari and the Teita series.
The European series' is mostly neighbors with elements from the Maghrebi series, to be followed by 'E' series, and to a lesser extent, the Kerma series.
On the map, there is a noticeably tendency of the Badari, the Teita and the Gabon to be concentrated on the extreme negative half of the territorial map (again, the ten variable version) along the coordinate parallel to the x Cartesian coordinate, and the Kerma, Sedment, 'E', and European series concentrated on the positive half, but the European series has the distinction of assuming a sort of boundary of the extreme positive, barring the individual Maghrebi neighbors. Elements of the Gabon and the Nile Valley series assume the role of the intermediary position along that same coordinate. The Maghrebi series encircles the entire territorial map, almost in a circumference manner, and therefore acting like the actual boundary for the entire cluster.
Interesting and complex picture, isn't it!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morpeus, My point just went right over your head. You cannot draw any historical conclusions based on the a gene or marker.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Indeed it is. I mentioned the research of Barry Kemp in a debate once noting that Dynastic Lower Egyptian had tropical limb proportions (making them dark-skinned based on ecological principles) and were unrelated to a Palestinian sample of the same time depth. An opponent responded by trying to dismiss the limb proportions evidence altogether by saying that they did not test the remains of modern light-skinned North Africans or Middle Easterners to see what their limb proportions were like in comparison.
What would you say to that line of argument?
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Morpeus, My point just went right over your head. You cannot draw any historical conclusions based on the a gene or marker.
If the scientific evidence indicates that the Neolithic migrants to Southern Europe were tropically adapted and unlike their modern counterparts but closer to Africans then it is a matter of historical record that these earlier inhabitants of Europe including Greece had close biological ties to Africa and that the genetic lineage, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup E was introduced to Greeks by these people during the Neolithic period.
That makes Evergreen's statement about Greek "bloodlines" true.
Why are you so stuck on denying mainstream science, Hammer?
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
Indeed it is. I mentioned the research of Barry Kemp in a debate once noting that Dynastic Lower Egyptian had tropical limb proportions (making them dark-skinned based on ecological principles) and were unrelated to a Palestinian sample of the same time depth. An opponent responded by trying to dismiss the limb proportions evidence altogether by saying that they did not test the remains of modern light-skinned North Africans or Middle Easterners to see what their limb proportions were like in comparison.
What would you say to that line of argument?
A long time ago I tried e-mailing Trenton Holliday, a bioanthropologist who specializes in limb proportion studies, about the limb proportions of North Africans and Southwest Asians, but all I got was an automated message telling me that he had gone off on a trip and couldn't answer his e-mail.
That said, I would ask your opponent how Egyptians would retain tropical limb proportions but not tropical skin tones. You'd think any population that turned lighter-skinned as an adaptation to a non-tropical environment would also evolve less tropical limb proportions in tandem.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morpheus: [QUOTE]If the scientific evidence indicates that the Neolithic migrants to Southern Europe were tropically adapted and unlike their modern counterparts but closer to Africans then it is a matter of historical record that these earlier inhabitants of Europe including Greece had close biological ties to Africa and that the genetic lineage, Y-Chromosome Haplogroup E was introduced to Greeks by these people during the Neolithic period.
Evergreen Posts:
The Horse the Wheel and Language
By David Anthony
"The indigenous languages of northern Syria probably belonged to the the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, like Semitic and most languages of the lowland Near East. If the first Anatolian farmers spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, it was that language, not Proto-Indo-European, that should have been carried to Greece."
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Indeed it is. I mentioned the research of Barry Kemp in a debate once noting that Dynastic Lower Egyptian had tropical limb proportions (making them dark-skinned based on ecological principles) and were unrelated to a Palestinian sample of the same time depth. An opponent responded by trying to dismiss the limb proportions evidence altogether by saying that they did not test the remains of modern light-skinned North Africans or Middle Easterners to see what their limb proportions were like in comparison.
What would you say to that line of argument?
Trenton figures that modern northern African groups have "intermediate" indices. I'm not sure if this extends to present day Egypt as a composite group. In any case, as Truthcentric noted, there are no known tropically adapted populations who are 'white' by a selection sweep. The reason for this is clear: Tropics are the region of the planet were UV radiation is most intense, and so, body adaptation to intense heat is accompanied by skin protection against harmful UV radiation, in addition to helping in the regulation vitamin D production. You might find tropical-based albinos here and there, but I doubt that is what your debating opponents have in mind. On the other hand, cold-adapted body proportions need not necessarily be accompanied by 'white skin'.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'Black Egypt' claim is a political propaganda egocentric smokescreen machine to remedy and disguise the low self-esteemed and self-hating Niger-Kordofanian speaking descended people. Self-esteem comes from SELF achievement and not from hijacking other cultures. NoI, NGE(5%), NBPP, Kwesi, Diop, Ben-Joh, Clarke, Seti, etc. are/were blood sucking pimps that feed off the credulous, gullible, egocentric, self-absorbed nature of their own people.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being emotional and going on a tantrum spree is easy. Confronting facts head-on is a lot harder; facts suggest that the core ancient Nile Valley populations were of autocthonous extract, and key skeletal features group them with Africans south of the Sahara before they do non-African groups like say, Europeans. This is corroborated by DNA findings.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
doesn't say much for the historical era and that is what we focus on. Egyptian during the historical period was not black african. What happened back to Adam and Eve is pretty much lost in the mist of time. AE's were obviously not black african because what they acomplished did not happen anywhere else in Africa.
In the case of Europeans in the historical era you can see the link that tied acomplishments together. Greece to Rome to Gaul, Britain and on to the rest of Europe.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
LOL your link has a "missing link"; it is like trying to link the head immediately to the pelvis region without the spine. Rather it should be like this:
Greece + Ancient Egyptian + Ancient East (e.g. Chinese and Indian) to Arab multicultural complex to southern Europe to Gaul, Britain and the rest of Europe.
Furthermore your caricaturization of AE not being 'black African" simply because of accomplishment is comical. In fact this comical idea would pertain more to Europe than Africa, as at the time of Greece, the rest of Europe was like a cultural desert wasteland. Whereas in Africa, there were complexes next to Egypt and they described these folks: Tehenu, Tamahu, Nehesu, Pwnt, etc. We know these were vibrant cultures, because there is evidence left of them in many cases, notwithstanding to varying degrees, and we have Egyptian accounts of these groups geopolitically/militarily challenging them at some point or another. On the other hand, what did the Greeks say about other Europeans at height of their complex?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Greece + ancient Egyptian is a figment of your immagination. Nobody buys that nonsense. Egypt was in steep decline long before Greece erupted upon the scene. If Egypt was going to influence greece they would have done so much earlier. In any event classical scholars totally reject your view.
what the Greeks said about other Euros is meaningless. Historians seek change and contunity. In other words as the result of an event what changed and what stayed the same. In the case of Greece they were the spark and fire that lit western civilization. We can trace that right to the present time. In the case of egypt no spark or fire ignited anything in africa. The Egyptians were good craftsmen but that was pretty much it. They were probably the most conservative empire in history and paled in comparison to the Greeks. After Greece Europe bloomed, after Egypt? The rest of africa did not even notice.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Greece + ancient Egyptian is a figment of your immagination. Nobody buys that nonsense. Egypt was in steep decline long before Greece erupted upon the scene.
Haha. Greece had also long declined when the Arab-based multicultural complex spread knowledge and technology to Europe in the 'medieval' era. Your protest makes no sense.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: Most people on this b0oard make terrible mistakes because they are seeking bits of information that confirms to an already existing philosophy. Note that I use the word philosophy in place of theory.
There you go again asshole with your usual double talk. It was you who ran away with the Tut RB1 western european bullshit which has been totally discredited (it was BS from the start and you know it). You get ripped apart and your theories solidly debunked from those who actually know a little something soon as you touch your keyboard. LOL. It's clear you do not possess any formal training in regard to the subjects you speak of. Any simpleton can lie, distort evidence, and misrepresent the facts in cyberspace which is an art you have perfected. This is why dolts like you, lionness, nonprophet, gigantic pussy, and others (considering all these anonymous handles are one person) will never amount to anything other than detractors and sabotuers in cyberspace. This is your only motive. You routinely fail to address substantive arguments presented from knowledgeable members when you claim you have irrefutable proof. LOL. In short, you're a miserable FAILURE. You failed and it burdens you to know this fact which is why you throw tantrums and spam endlessly to make yourself feel better to substitute your intellectual deficiencies. Now go fuk yourself.
Posts: 191 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historians call it Greco-Roman explorer. Greece and rome were a single, connected construct. Again, read calssical historians. they will tell you just what I am saying here.
Starting in 1300 we had a Renaissance of Greco-Roman thought. Not a Renaissance of egyptian or Arab thought. That sounds down right silly. Have you even bothered to study the Renaissance?
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
In any event classical scholars totally reject your view.
Sane people reject your view about AE not being black simply because of "what it accomplished".
quote:
what the Greeks said about other Euros is meaningless.
I know, because it is less than flattering, and it busts your view about AE not being black.
quote:
In the case of Greece they were the spark and fire that lit western civilization. We can trace that right to the present time.
AE and "Near East" provided the spark and fire for the birth of Greece. Arab complex knowledge and tech lit 'western civilization' as we know it.
quote: In the case of egypt no spark or fire ignited anything in africa.
There was no need for Egypt to produce spark or fire to ignite anything in Africa, because like I told you already, there were rival bustling complexes contemporaneous to Egypt. What would they need sparking for, if they were running concurrently with and rivaling Egypt? The rest of Europe though, needed a spark.
Even today, you are using Egyptian tech, which you deny. You are using a repackaged Nile Valley script [alphabets] as we speak. You using religion [if Abrahamic] that has African roots. You are using paper, a concept that started out with the ancient Egyptians. You are benefiting from medical knowledge that Greeks learnt from the ancient Egyptians. You are even using a variant of the Ancient Egyptian calender system as we speak. Africans today use these same thing. So while AE was not required to spark complex social complex in Africa, its innovations are still with us.
Finally, it was the other way around. The Saharan and Sub-Saharan cultural complexes came together to spark AE complex.
quote: They were probably the most conservative empire in history and paled in comparison to the Greeks.
They weren't that conservative. After all, they replenished their military capacity by integrating technology from their rivals or old foes, and AE provided the intellectual center for the 'western hemisphere'. Remember, the Alexandria library was in Egypt, not Greece. Why, if Greece was all that?
quote: After Greece Europe bloomed, after Egypt? The rest of africa did not even notice.
After Egypt declined, Meroe was still around, and powerful African complexes emerged thereafter in the western "Sudan", the African Horn [Aksum], and southern Africa. Aside from Rome, what other European complex of note was around at this time?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Explorer, You guys just make this stuff us out of thin air. You cannot take every accepted view of history by the top scholars in history, turn it uside down and expect to have anyone take you seriously.
Nothing in africa south of the desert rivaled egypt, you know that. Africa began to sink into a quagmire that it is still in today.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Nothing in africa south of the desert rivaled egypt, you know that. Africa began to sink into a quagmire that it is still in today.
The typical Eurocentric last refuge: When you can't deny Egyptian or any African greatness, you resort to dividing things into 'black' vs 'non-black' African or 'sub-Saharan' vs. 'northern'. I already clued you in on other folks rivaling Egypt in the geopolitical arena, and amongst this I mentioned Pwnt. It was a Kushitic ally in a military adventure into Egypt. We know this, because it was right from the horse's mouth: The ancient Egyptians. Although the complex's precise nature is not well understood, Yam was at the very least an important trade center. Where do you think these entities were located, if not south of the desert, at the time of AE?
quote:Originally posted by Hammer:
Historians call it Greco-Roman explorer. Greece and rome were a single, connected construct.
You know very well that this is just wishful thinking. Greece came first, and helped give birth to Rome. It's not a sibling situation as seemingly presented above; it's parent to offspring relation, just as AE and "Near Eastern" complexes were the same to Greece.
quote: Starting in 1300 we had a Renaissance of Greco-Roman thought. Not a Renaissance of egyptian or Arab thought. That sounds down right silly. Have you even bothered to study the Renaissance?
Eurocentric revisionism isn't going to change the fact that Arab multicultural complex is the reason modern 'western civilization' exists. You'd still be in your so-called 'dark age', if it weren't for these folks. The long dead Greeks and Romans had very little to do with it.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic