posted
Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance.
You get first move Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet. If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, which is to say Ancient Egyptian blood. Unlike the Muslims, though, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that goes with the imposition of an Islamic state).
Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind, and with no idea as to the age of said skull. Obviously they went by present day North Africans, which includes modern Egypians.
quote:Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet. If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, ahich is to say Ancient Egyptian blood, but unlike the Muslims, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years).
Beginning with point one:
"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")
Which is further supported:
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."--Hassan et al., (2008)
The point of the above intending to demonstrate that the Copts did indeed change. Not to mention the Copts have significant non-African admixture
"J-12f2 and J-M172 represents 94% and 6%, respectively, of haplogroup J with high frequencies among Nubians, Copts, and Arabs. Haplogroup K-M9 is restricted to Hausa and Gaalien with low frequencies and is absent in Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo. Haplogroup R-M173 appears to be the most frequent haplogroup in Fulani, and haplogroupR-P25 has the highest frequency in Hausa and Copts and is present at lower frequencies in north, east, and western Sudan. Haplogroups A-M51, A-M23, D-M174, H-M52, L-M11, OM175, and P-M74 were completely absent from the populations analyzed."--Hassan et al., (2008)
Sure, you may be thinking that the Copts are in Sudan, so they may not be reflective of Egyptian Copts in Egypt, but Hassan et al., states:
"The relatively high-effective population size of the Copts is unlikely to have been influenced by their recent history in the Sudan. The current communities are known to be largely the product of recent migrations from Egypt over the past two centuries"
Looking at their data (figure 3) the Copts are closest to the Nubians, the only Nilo-Saharan group to have significant non-African genes, (Which the Nubians apparently gained from Afro-Asiatic groups)
To expand on the above...
Copts- Significant frequencies of J1, J2, and R1b (data from Hassan et al., (2008)
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind, and with no idea as to the age of said skull. Obviously they went by present day North Africans, which includes modern Egypians.
What does north African mean to you, Caucasoid? Sudanese are northeast Africans. It should be noted, that northeast Africa is separated from northwest Africa by a genetic discontinuity:
quote:The distribution of subsets of haplogroups U6 and M1 also suggests the presence of a discontinuity between Libya and Egypt, separating western North Africa from eastern North Africa. Even if both haplogroups are thought to have been carried by a back-to-Africa migration from the Near East, significant increased U6 frequencies have been detected in the West compared to the East. The network of all U6 sequences found in the database presents two nodes with star-like shape, U6a* and U6a1. In a similar way, M1a1 is the node with starlike topology in haplogroup M1, and the node where most of the eastern sequences are found. Time estimates of these nodes are 13.5 6 3.7, 13.0 6 5.7, and 13.1 6 7.0 kya for haplogroups U6a*, U6a1, and M1a1 respectively. The most plausible explanation of the frequency distribution of M1a, U6, and M1b1 lineages, their coalescence age estimates, and the star-like shape would be an early split in the back to Africa migration followed by a period of stability and a period of expansion. The split would have produced two different migration waves, one westward, represented by U6 and possibly M1b1 in lower frequencies, and the other southward, represented by M1a. Each haplogroup would have increased its frequency by drift and subsequently accumulated diversity over time. Coalescent time estimates point to a possible second expansion of these haplogroups at the end of the LGM, simultaneously with some Eurasian haplogroups, as suggested by Olivieri et al. (2006). Moreover, all but one M1a1 sequence are found in eastern North Africa, which suggests that this subclade might have appeared in the East, and only after that have migrated westwards at this period.
-- Karima Fadhlaoui-Zid et al., (2011)
^Basically, classifying the skull as "north African" hardly means anything. As Northeast Africans are genetically separated from northwest Africans.
See the Moderator's email correspondence with Susan Anton for clarification on Tut's classification:
There are numerous other comparisons that can be made where modern Egyptians are closer to Asiatics in appearance than Ancient Egyptians
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times"--Keita (2005)
"Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006)."--Irish (2009)
"Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar(Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
--AP Starling and JT Stock (2007)
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: A few things to be going on with.
Point 1. No historical evidence for a mass migration out of Egypt. Abundant evidence for ethnic continuity, especially into Coptic Christian community, who preserve among other things the language of the ancients, albeit with a Greek-based alphabet.[/URL]
The Topic of the Copts has already been discussed to death here.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: If they descended from Greek settlers they would have spoken Greek. If they descended from Arab invaders they would be Muslim. [/URL]
How absurd! The Copts language is written in Greek, the Copts took on Greek Names, The Copts relationship with the Greeks is obvious from the depiction of Fayium Egypto-Grecian Mullattos(Who look oddly like Modern Greeks as well as Alexandian and Ciarian Egyptians You Eurocentrics love to post.)
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: (The Coptic Christians can't be distinguished physically from their Muslim compatriots, which indicates that the Muslims also have much Coptic, which is to say Ancient Egyptian blood. Unlike the Muslims, though, the Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that goes with the imposition of an Islamic state).
I wonder why you Racists always Run to Ciaro and Alexandria to Prove your point, Running From Natives of Luxor and Aswan and Upper Egypt.(Natives not Settlers from Turkey and arabia and the North)...
More on this later.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Point 2. Skull of Tutankhamun identified as a North African by anthropologists (eg. S. Anton) working blind,
Dr. Anton's Response to this matter...
From: "Susan C Anton" <susan.anton@nyu.edu> [Add to Address Book] Add to Address Book To: email withheld
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:26:22 -0400 Subject: Re: North African ''caucasoid'' and European nose opening Tut-ankh-amu
Dear name withheld,, Thanks for your email. I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions). The French team was responsible for the reconstruction that was on the cover of National Geographic Magazine and they also used that term.
Our team, myself and Michael Anderson of Yale, were the ones that did the plaster reconstruction without knowledge of whose skull we were working on. I did the biological profile (assessment of age at death, sex and ancestry), Michael made the actual reconstruction. Based on the physical characters of the skull, [b]I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry, possibly north african. The possibly north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation. A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins - the nose was a bit unusual. Because their is latitudinal variation in several aspects of the skull (including nose size/shape), the narrowness of the nose suggested that he might be from a northerly group. This is also, I presume, what the French focussed on. I have not been in direct contact with the French group, but my understanding is that by their definition of 'caucasoid' they include Peoples from North Africa, Peoples from Western Asia (and the Caucasus, from where the term derives), and Eureopean peoples. So I don't think that they were referring to a specific set of those peoples. I personally don't find that term all that useful and so I don't use it. That it was attributed to me by the media is an incorrect attribution on their part. I also never said he had a European nose, although I am sure I did say that the narrow nose was what led me to suggest North Africa as a possibility and that a narrow nose is more typically seen in Europe. Not a great sound-bit that, so I guess it gets shortened to European nose.
As you also note, skin color today in North Africa can range from much lighter than what they chose to much darker. And we don't know how well today's range matches that of the past, although I suspect there was also a range of variation in the past, as is normal for any biological population. Michael's reconstruction did not include an inference of skin color (or eye color), the French team's did and their inference was, I understand, based on a 'average' skin tone for Egypt today. I don't know the specifics of how they did that. I think, however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin. That said, skin and eye color will always be an inference.
I hope that helps explain. Susan
Susan C. Antón Joint Editor, Journal of Human Evolution Director, MA Program in Human Skeletal Biology Associate Professor, Center for the Study of Human Origins Department of Anthropology NYU 25 Waverly Place, New York, NY 10003 (212)992-9786
King Tut's features are no different than other East africans and Nilotics.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Yes. It's blindingly obvious you selectively chose ancient dynastic portraits with their original dark paint faded off (like Nefertiti and the seated scribe) and put them in with mummy portraits from the Greco-Roman period, along with modern day fair-skinned Afrangi elite.
This is quite different from the TRUE PICTURE.
Courtesy of Wally...
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Y-Chromosome Analysis in Egypt Suggests a Genetic Regional Continuity in Northeastern Africa Franz Manni et al., (2002)
"Abstract: The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region."
Classical genetic studies show a high degree of genetic heterogeneity in the modern Egyptian population, suggesting that this population is descended from a mixture of African, Asian, and Arabian stock (Mahmoud et al. 1987; Hafez et al. 1986). Genetic heterogeneity within the Egyptian gene pool is also supported by more recent studies using autosomal STR markers (Klintschar et al. 1998; 2001)."--Franz Manni et al., (2002)
Mind you, the Egyptians being sampled in that study are from Lower Egypt (Cairo), crushing your earlier statements LOL
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt. For the population to change in any major way, that only leaves the option of them being bred out by newcomers.
Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all. I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinned northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nobody is saying Egyptians left Egypt, only that foreigners entered Egypt and mixed with the natives! This is established in all historical records from the Hyksos, to the Assyrians, to the Persians, to the Greeks, to the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Turks along with Albanians, Circassians, and others etc. in their empire.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Djehuti Why do Afrocentrsist kid themselves that their edited little selections are the 'true picture'? it is only half the picture, and still looks more like modern Egypt than anything else. Why isn't this 'the true picture'? It's as true...
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Djehuti Why do Afrocentrsist kid themselves that their edited little selections are the 'true picture'? it is only half the picture, and still looks more like modern Egypt than anything else. Why isn't this 'the true picture'? It's as true...
Because as I have stated before, ALL of the portraits in your collage picture above were posted in this forum many times in full view form. Also, some of those portraits have lost their paint and we have posted older photos showing the original dark paint that was their black skin. Others have also compared some of those portraits to black peoples in Sub-Sahara who share the same features.
So you're wasting your time.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
What a Racist.
You claim the Egyptians are the same but make an excuse that the Darker Egyptians are that way because of bogus factors.
1) the Medjay were a police force No Doubt and were depicted Darker than the Ave. Egyptians but by a Few shades.
Egyptian Spearmen
2) Why is it that Eurocentric racists always talk about the 25th Dynasty??
What about the 3rd Dynasty
3rd
Is Dojser Negro enough for you??
Huni
Is Huni Negro Enough for you??
What about the Elehantine I.E Ta-Seti origin of the 5th, 6th, and 12th Dynasty??
What about the 12th Dynasty Family that founded the Amun priesthood at Waset(Thebes)
Are they Negro enough for you??
Neshy and Kemmou interatction goes back to the Predynastic.
3) Racist distortion seeing as the Saqalibba Slavery in Egypt which eventually led to the Rise of the Mamluk Rulers.
Like a Typical Racist you seem to ignore the Saqalibba Slavery in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all.
What History books are you reading. Might want to start with the Persians and end with the Ottoman Turks.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
We already talked about the Copts and already proved there are Darker Copts and Lighter Copts and that the Copts had relations with Armenians and Greeks.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Dude the Copts Wrote in Greek, Took Greek Names etc. The Greeks Still continued to Rule over Egyptians until the arab Invasions. Also the Fayium Portraints represent a clear Egypto-Grecian mulatto population.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinend northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
All this talk about Copts and Egyptians yet a little racist such as your self never puts up a Luxor, Aswani, or other Dark Skinned Upper Egyptians up as proof of the decendants of egypt without inserting some Bogus notion that they are decendants of slaves or Nubians..
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days. It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent. Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt.
Who in this thread has said that the ancient Egyptians ever left their home nation? You are either confusing us with someone else or creating a pathetic strawman argument.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL. Largely avoiding the research presented
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Easy tigers. There is no evidence, as I said, of Egyptians migrating en masse into black Africa, apart from the military desertion mentioned by Herodotus which still left Egypt full of Egyptians! (This was many years before the Persian invasion, and even after that Egyptians stayed in Egypt.) Not a single Egyptian, or even Meroitic object has been found south or west of Nubia.
WTH does that have to do with anything? When did we claim there was a mass migrations of Egyptians to the south? We never did. Another strawman argument on your part. It is widely accepted however, that sub-Saharan Africans populated the Nile Valley
"Our findings are in accordance with other studies on Y-chromosome markers that have shown that the predominant Y-chromosome lineage in Berber communities is the subhaplogroup E1b1b1b (E-M81), which emerged in Africa, is specific to North African populations, and is almost absent in Europe, except in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and Sicily. Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001)"
Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al., (2010)
Underhill et al., 2001:
"The expansion of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East into Europe is also represented in the NRY data, although suggesting a relatively localized area of impact. As mentioned before in relation to African NRY history, a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with the M35}M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant (Fig. 3g)."
quote:It's established that Egyptians never left Egypt. For the population to change in any major way, that only leaves the option of them being bred out by newcomers.
LOL. Are you retarded?
1)Nobody ever claimed Egyptians migrated out of Egypt
2)You completely ignored the genetic data I provided that clearly states the modern Egyptians have changed and the Copts also have significant frequencies non-African lineages. It doesn't take a lot of gene flow to drastically alter the genes of a populations, as Keita notes in 1996 and 2010:
"Ancestry must not be confused with explanation, or gene history with population or culture history. Known ancestors and the “ancestors of one’s genes” are not the same things necessarily (Weiss and Long 2009)"-Keita (2010)
A small amount of gene flow per generation into a population or geographic region can drastically change its original gene frequencies in only a few thousand years, as noted by Cavalli-Sforza (1991)."-Keita (2010)
You are still avoiding the other data I presented in response to your initial post.
quote:Proving a negroid element to ancient north Africa is irrelevant. I was not asked about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians but about whether they have changed phenotypically since the time of the pharaohs. I say no, and that Egypt was and remains a diverse society. A negroid element is not entirely absent from modern Egypt, and if anything it might be expected to have incresed somewhat over the centurues, due to three well attested historical factors:
DO you see how you completely failed to grasp the point of the quote I provided? Here, let me reiterate and go into more detail:
"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")
The point of the above quote was not to prove anything "Negroid", such a thing is laughable. As I clearly explained when I first posted this quote, it shows that the Egyptian phenotype DID change. I also cite AP Starling and JT Stock (2007) where they specifically state a demographic change withing the Nile Valley. You are scientifically illiterate, and fail to comprehend basic facts when presented to you.
quote:1. Medjay mercenaries settling in later dynastic Egypt and providing law enforcement services for the Ramesside kings.
2. The Nubian occupation of the 25th dynasty.
3. The Islamic slave trade. Thousands of negro slaves sold in Zanzibar each year until the 19th century, ending up in Cairo and elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.
LOL. You fail to base your statements that dark skin increased in Egypt on anything scientific. What we really have is as follows:
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
--Keita, S.O.Y. (1996)
^Gene flow was far greater from the Middle East than from south of Egypt. So where does that leave you? A growing resemblance towards Middle Eastern/European populations.
quote:Afrocenrists seem to assume that more Eurasian than black African settlement took place in Egypt. There is no evidence for this at all. I suspect the Egyptian population was great enough to absorb all comers without changing dramatically, but there seems to have been migration from all directions, the waves effectively cancelling each other out.
See my above citation. There was more migration from the Middle East than south of Egypt- a known fact. It isn't as if migration from areas south of Egypt would matter, seeing as how Egyptians came from the south to begin with! The majority of African lineages in Egypt are pre-pharaonic lineages, with a possible exception of haplotype IV, although it isn't likely that this haplotype was introduced from the Bantu expansion, it might have been much earlier.
quote:Arab genetic influence is irrelevant in consideration of the Christian Copts, for reasons given. Armenian Christians were only settled in Alexandria and Cairo, whereas Copts are found in all parts of Egypt. In the cities mentioned, the Armenians had their own churches and communities and I doubt there was much mixing with Coptic Egyptians. (Incidentally the Colchians didn't go anywhere either, and probably resembled modern Georgians and Armenians rather than black Africans.
Dude, you are retarded. I provided you with a plethora of info on the Copts. I also provided you with info on the modern population genetics, in where Egyptian from Cairo were sampled and were revealed to have a mixture of African and non-African genes. You just love to ignore things huh?
quote:Greeks colonists in Egypt did not mix much with the Copts due to language and cultural barriers. (Few Latins ever settled in Egypt, meanwhile). After the Council of Chalcedon the Greeks (i.e. the Byzantine/ Eastern Roman Empire) considered the Egyptians to be Monophysite heretics, and were by all accounts so unpleasant to them that many Egyptians actually viewed the Muslim invasion as a liberation!
Relevance? You are clinging to your own opinions in spite of what the actual genetic data tells us!
Copts- J1, J2, R1b, all in high/significant frequencies in the Copts
quote:Copts means Egyptians, Copts retain the term 'Res en Keme' for themselves, People of Egypt. Not to be confused with Coptic Christianity in Sudan and Ethiopia, which was simply a branch of Christianity in communion with and under the authority of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. Christian Ethiopias are called Coptic Christians (though their church is now autonomous) but they are not Copts.
Ignoring the genetic data, AGAIN. I could care less about the above
quote:Anthropological studies send out mixed messages regarding ethnic continuity in ancient Egypt. Brace and Irish seemed to indicate that there was little or no change from predynastic to Roman times, and I hope I have established that the Egyptian Copts have been effectively preserved as an isolated sect since Roman times. Christian Nubians, that said, are among the few outside populations with whom the Egyptian Copts could have mixed, so some Copts could well be a bit darker now than their ancient Egyptian ancestors were. By the way all the modern Egyptians I showed before are Coptic Christians, who can have no recent connections with 'Asiatics'.
Go look at the dendrogram from Brace (2005) it doesn't look like the modern Egyptians go anywhere near the ancient Egyptians. The ancient Egyptians are closest to modern Somalis and Nubians.
Irish (2006) stated that the only outliers in his study were Greek and Roman Egyptians whom he notes had traits reminiscent of Europeans and West Asians. In his 2009 study, which I referenced earlier, he clearly states that there was increased migrations during the Roman and Greek eras., what does that tell you?
quote:North Africa obviously means north of the Sahara, and might include some Nubians. Egyptian relatedness to Berbers is fairly irrelevant to the question of Egyptian ethnic continuity.
Some Nubians? Sudan is in northeast Africa and there is genetic continuity with Sudanese and southern (darker) Egyptians while there is NONE with northwest Africans.
quote:I've rambled on, but in short, L',you've not managed to contradict a single one of my points, and neither has Jari. Are those darker Copts meant to be Armenians, or are you agreeing with me that the Egyptian population has not changed after all? In which case, thanks!
Wow, that is a funny claim. I responded to all of your posts with recent research all of which attests to substantial input into the Egyptian gene pool from the Middle East.
Why did you ignore my citation of AP Starling and JT Stock? Because, they clearly refute your moronic claims by stating that Nubians are more similar to ancient Egyptians than later Egyptians who mixed significantly with Mediterranean populations. You are arguing against scientific data with your unsupported opinions.
Rahotep101: Offers his own opinions
Everybody else: has offered scientific research which contradict Rahotep101's opinions
Rahotep101: Doesn't understand and continues on with his unsupported opinions.
It is really sad how you were unable to address a single thing. You said it yourself:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: I've rambled on...
You have rambled on indeed. Ramblings that have not addressed anything I have provided herein.
quote:Greek settlers in Egypt seldom learned Egyptian, so would hardly have adapted their alphabet to the native lingo. What happened was the Egyptians realized that Greek alphabet was infinitely more efficient (and moreover that the old hieroglyphics were innately linked to the paganism that they were abandoning in favour of Christianity). It also represented a political and cultural realignment. It was no bigger a deal than the Turks switching from Arabic to Latin script to write Turkish, a change which took place in the 1920s, or thereabouts. They didn't suddenly ceased to be Turks! Similarly Ancient Egyptians stayed Egyptian despite ditching the clunky old writing system.
You have not listed one scientific study that states the ancient Egyptian population stayed the same for 5,000 years. I have listed several studies that state the same thing- i.e., that the ancient population was significantly influenced by Mediterranean populations. What you said above is basically is basically irrelevant.
quote:Northern Egypt was as much part of Ancient Egypt as the south was. The Delta was one of the most densely populated regions of the country. Only the damper climate accounts for less surviving archaeology- that and it continued to be densely populated so more stonework was recycled. The lighter-skinned northerners were no less Egyptian than the darker southerners. The situation remains so. Was someone supposed to be challenging the view of ethnic continuity?
Did I ever deny any of the above? Nope, I didn't. Strawman fallacy from you, this is your fourth strawman fallacy argument since joining.
There was no biological uniformity throughout a 5,000 year period, are you insane? Nor was there "ethnic" continuity, because the majority of Egyptians are ethnically Arabic. I never claimed the ancient Egyptian population was replaced, so don't go posting more of your fallacy arguments
quote:I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days. It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent. Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
Behold, more strawman arguments from Rahotep101. Please learn to understand our arguments before placing us within your afro-centric stereotypes. Nobody said the modern population was replaced. It is however supported by genetic evidence provided earlier in this thread that the modern population is essentially a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and sub-Saharan genes.
quote:As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
Nobody claimed there was. Change your name to "The Strawman", because that is all you do
It should be noted, that in modern Egypt there is a north-south cline (Smith, 2002) but in ancient Egypt there was a south-north cline (Kemp, 2006)
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You need to provide a link to the full studies and not just your cherrypicked statements from these studies.
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I have free access to online journals. You would have to pay, do you want to pay?
Edit: If you would really like, you may check the Uploaded Studies thread I started. You can download the PDF files I uploaded there
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by L': ^I have free access to online journals. You would have to pay, do you want to pay?
I shouldn't have to pay. You're the one spamming these threads with your handpicked comments from these studies, but won't provide the whole source for the person you're trying to debate.
Looks to me like you're trying to gain a certain advantage by doing so.lol
Posts: 676 | From: the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:I shouldn't have to pay. You're the one spamming these threads with your handpicked comments from these studies, but won't provide the whole source for the person you're trying to debate.
Looks to me like you're trying to gain a certain advantage by doing so.lol
Spamming? Not at all. I am simply responding to Rahotep101's posts, there is nothing being spammed. This would be spamming
I'm not selfish, I do give others access to these studies:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: I've discovered that the term 'racist' has been redefined in certain circles to mean one who tells the truth about Egyptian history, so the accusation tends to wash over me these days.
I don't give a damn what you feel about the label. Anyone who with a Straight face declare that the Cairan and Alexandrian Egyptians he put up are Unmixed with out any foreign admixture, but in the very same breath declare that Slaves from the Muslim era "Darkened" the Egyptians is a racist distorter of history.
Maybe you might be able to pull something like that with an aforcentric, but not me. Because first off any black Slavery in Egypt or North Africa for that matter PALES in comparison to the Saqalibba Slavic and Turk Slavery and other periods of White Slavery in North Africa that people like you tend to ignore.
Second off the So called black Slaves in Egypt tended to be settled in the Delta and Cairo not Upper Egypt. Upper Egypt was settled but tended to resist assimilation and admixture. Same with the So Called Nubians. So the Idea that the Luxor, Aswani and other Native Upper Egyptians are Dark due to Salvery is Absurd. Esp. Considering the Amount of Saqalibba AKA white Slaves in Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: It is of no consequence to me what colour Egyptians are or were (mostly the same colour as it happens). What bothers me is people going about declaring that modern Egyptians are invaders and impostors, while simaltaneously laying claim to their ancestors, purely on the basis of having ancestors who came from the same continent.
Yeah but I have yet to see you say a damn thing to "Phonecian7" who links himself to egypt Via some imagined "Caucasian" heritage. I have yet to see you talk about or make videos on the Nordics who claim Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Any African from outside of Egypt itself has no greater claim on Egypt's past than the people of Finland do on the Great Wall of China, and they certainly have no business impugning the Egyptianness of Egyptians or calling others 'racist'.
This is a stupid notion, As Egypt itself rose out of a culture that is similar to other African Cultures, the art left behind resembles other Africans etc. This is no different than a Bunch of Tin Isles, Celtic and Teutonic European laying claim and showing their respect to Greece and Rome.
Yet, I have yet to see you say anything about Tin Isle Celts, Anglos, and Teutons laying claim to Greece.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: As far as I'm aware there was no population transplant between the third and fourth dynasties, or between the twelfth and the nineteenth, so what are you trying to prove now?
What are you talking about?? Where did I say or ever say there was a population transplant, what I said was that there was always a connection between Egypt and the Civilizations and Lands and people to the south.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
rahotep101's opinion is irrelevant. Until he himself recognizes the double standard of the west selling 'nubia' as the land of Blacks despite that 'nubians' and ancient Egyptians were biologically coextensive (Godde, 2009), then the basis for his dichotomy of 'black' and 'Egyptian' is irrelevant. Those of his ilk can NEVER address this blatant disconnect. Susan Anton's reasoning was not based on any comparative North African material but generalized phenotype also seen in the Horn nor did she use the word "Caucasoid". Ancient Egyptians were also tropically adapted while North Africa is not in the tropics and Brace (2005) dendrograms show ancient Egyptians clustering with modern Nubians before they do so with Modern Egyptians so something obviously changed despite his simplistic denials. Those such as Rahotep refuse to see evidence that contradicts their dogma.
No one claims direct Egyptian descent or that Egyptians migrated south or that many modern Egyptians don't descend directly from their ancient ancestors. Only that it is totally ridiculous to assume, even without viewing data that clearly contradicts the notion, that Egyptians for the past 5,000 years stayed absolutely stagnant. This is utterly ridiculous.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] The matter of alleged Egyptian similarities to Nubains is irrelevant to the matter of ethnic/ phenotypical continuity in Egypt. Also, there are Nubians and Nubians. Some are very black and negroid, some look more caucasoid, or shall we say Hamitic? Dynastic Egyptians used the former type as the stereotype, and clearly differentiated the Nubians physically from themselves. The unpleasant experience of these negroid nubians at Egyptian colonial hands does not appear to have been vastly different from the experience of other black Africans at later Arab and European hands, which poses the question why black people should wish to be associated with Ancient Egyptians!
Dude, this is the most idiotic argument of all time. No smart human being has ever won a debate by posting up 3,000 year old cartoon caricatures with ancient political undertones. Egyptians are shown smiting Asiatics, Lybians, and anyone defying Egypt and I will not entertain your argument by creating more picture spam in the absence of sound data and historical context.
It's like seeing a picture of a Chinese smiting a Mongol or a Roman smiting a Gaul and calling it "racial". How childishly uneducated.
Terms like "Hamitic" and "Caucasoid" have been debunked and out of use in anthropology since the 70s. You can tell the people who get all of their information from biased/Eurocentric discussion forums by the terms they use. If you read any of Huxley's work you see how language limits interpretation and can enslave the mind, which is why Eurocentrics use such terms. By using "Caucasoid" as a word supposedly representing a world population group spanning all of Europe, SW Asia, SE Asia, North Africa and the Horn of Africa, you limit room for interpretation of features in these respective regions being due to local adaptations. In the case of Africa, Hiernaux already showed that these are not "Hamitic" features but elongated African features and are indigenous as they are seen on some of the blackest (darkest) populations in the world.
"Negroid" is one variant among many and it just so happened that SOME of the populations below Egypt expressed such phenotype. Others did not. People from Punt were depicted just like Egyptians. Scenes of "Nubian" wrestlers, medjay spearmen, and royal gift bearers from the tomb of Huey all are depicted as significantly favoring Egyptians. Other foreigners hardly ever favor Egyptians, it is only other Africans who are so diverse, some favored them, some didn't, of course since Egypt was just a sub-set of a larger African reality. You argument is simple, unbalanced, and ill-informed.
quote:Alleged tropical adaptation is also irrelevant, as predynastic Egypt had a tropical climate, supporting lions and hippos and probably ostriches.
Only the southern tip of Egypt is in the tropics and ancient Egypt's border at Aswan is above the tropic of cancer so ancient Egypt was not tropical. Also, these tropical adaptations have to do with annual mean temperature and Egypt's temperature significantly drops during nightfall. Reports have described Egyptian limb indices as "super tropical", not just tropical and Raxter (2011), despite your assumptions predicted intermediate ratios that were not realized once the measurements were preformed. Bard in her Black Athena rebuttal, even claimed without knowing about this data that Egyptians were adapted to the sub-tropics. Egypt is NOT a place where these adaptations would develop, period.
The problem with Eurocentrics is that when faced with data that contradicts their rigid belief systems, they simply ignore it or raise the bar.
quote:Also these undeniably negroid Nubians are found in the land that lies between the Egyptians and the other narrow-featuered populations of Africa, i.e. Ethiopia and Somalia, which rather shows the geographical and ethnic disconnect between Egyptians and Horn Africans.
No disconnect. "Negroid" as explained is one variant in a vast continuum of features throughout Africa. People have been moving around, interacting, shifting geographic locations and settling in different areas for millenia. The connection comes from language, culture, and biology.
* They spoke a language that emerged in or near the Horn.
* Genetics research show population movements from the horn and into the Nile valley and levant around the time ancestral ancient Egyptian/Afrisan languages were being spread.
* The culture of pre-dynastic Abydos, and thus Egyptian civilization was rooted in earlier central Saharan and more southernly Nilotic traditions.
* Skeletal adaptations place the ancestors of ancient Egyptians in a tropical environment somewhere south of their established borders.
Who lives south of Egypt today? I think a combination of those people, with reference to the indigenous elements of modern Egypt may shed the most accurate picture of what we're after here. Recall again though, it's complicated as Brace (2005) found ancient Egyptians to be more similar to modern Sudanese than to modern Egyptians. Pointing out the pristine representative of ancient Egypt is therefore a tall order (some would call that an understatement).
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone taking bets on how long rahotep101 will last?
His game is really weak, I say a few weeks, maybe a few months.
BTW rahotep101, we really don't know "WHO" these people are. In Egyptian history, White ass-holes like yourself call all people of this particular phenotype Nubians.
But as can be seen in these soldiers (and other artifacts), thought depicted darker, Egyptians and Nubians were phenotypically the same.
Troop of Egyptian Soldiers - From the Asyut tomb of Prince Mesehti - 11th dynasty
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype. It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past. By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment. You believe in race when it suits you, i.e. when you want to construct the idea of a single 'African' race. Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia? If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians? I think there's mileage in the Hamitic hypothesis yet.
All this is aside from the point of Egyptians looking the same now as they did in Dynastic times, and by their own artwork clearly distinct from negroid nehesu. Images such as that from Horemhab's tomb are stereotypes, of course, even charicatures, but they weren't arrived at arbitrarily.
Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives, sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-bearing royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
Indeed Egyptians used Nubian mercenaries, sometimes against other Nubians. Later, of course, Nubians used Egyptian mercenaries, again against other Nubians!
By the way Egyptians used black Sudanese mercenaries well into medieval times. The European crusaders they came up against recognized the blacks as something different from the Egyptians, for the Egyptians were lumped together with 'Saracens'.
The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics? One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
Mike111. I'm touched by the warmth of that sentiment. Not to ignore the evidence of the carvings of soldiers, I've already made the point that there appear to have been different types of Nubians, hamitic/Caucasoid ones and negro ones, both darker than the Egyptians. Sorry to keep calling a spade a spade, but I speak as I find.
LOL Rahotep, You realize you just proved our point. In the Picture Collage you made, One Image of Taraqo is part of the "Hamite" category while another is part of the "Bantu" category. Some of the Nubians paying Tribute are the same skin tone as the Egyptians...
My question to you is why do you insist on segrgating Africans based on Eye-ball anthropology??
Why not apply this to Europeans and to Greece and Rome and the Teutons and Celts??
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype. It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past. By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment.
I love how racists dismiss any science contradicting their worldview as "politically correct". If you have such a beef with the current bio-anthropological paradigm, at least try to refute it. However, since your failure to address most of the data cited against you illustrates scientific illiteracy on your part, I have no confidence that you will bother to do so.
quote:Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia? If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians?
Elongated African features are adaptations to arid environments. Nigeria is humid so we shouldn't expect Nigeria to have elongated features.
quote:Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives, sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-bearing royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
Are you trying to portray Egyptians as having a special opprobrium against black people? Because they didn't care much for Asiatics or Libyans either. Egyptians were undoubtedly xenophobic and chauvinistic, but there's no reason to assume that they were racist in a modern sense.
quote:If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south. Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics?
Just because two groups of people are biologically related does not mean they will have similar technology. The Mayans share a Native American heritage with the Lakota, yet you don't see pyramids all over the northern Great Plains where the Lakota live. To think that biologically related peoples should be technologically equivalent shows a racist equation of biology with technological development.
quote:One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
I am already really fucking sick of this strawman. No one who has argued against you in this thread has claimed that any sub-Saharan or African Diaspora people living today is descended from ancient Egyptians.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @Sundjata If you showed an image of a Roman smiting a gaul, (if there were such images) you would be hard-pressed to spot a difference in phenotype.
To the contrary, Kalonji just recently posted a great piece directly demonstrating this double standard, noting that some of the skin tone and phenotypic variation in ancient Macedonia is even wider ranging than that seen between most Egyptian and so-called "Nubian" portraiture/art.
quote: It's funny how historical evidence gets dismissed as picture spam when it doesn't support your fictitious view of the past.
I simply do not engage in picture spam. It is a silly and childish game of eye-ball anthropology that can never play as substitute for more reliable data, such as language, culture, and biology. Those who rely on art work I've come to realize are weak in regards to synthesizing hard data so they try to lower everyone's standards to the subjective realm of 3,000 year old art. I can easily post images that support what I'm saying while dismissing yours and insisting that yours support mine all along anyways. It is all subjective, unscientific and distracting.
quote: By insisting certain phrases are 'debunked' or defunct you just seem to be denying the obvious, and hiding behind the political correct vagueness of the prevailing scientific establishment.
PC is the antithesis of racist expression, no? Is the free expression of racist ideology that one believes in wholeheartedly not the extreme of what you're suggesting is an extreme leftist approach from anthropology circles? So if you attribute one extreme to one camp why is it not clear that you don't belong to the opposing camp? Anyone can throw around ad hominem attacks, especially when they're too lazy to address the actual evidence on the ground, right? That the no race arguments make the best sense is of no consequence, right?
quote: You believe in race when it suits you, i.e. when you want to construct the idea of a single 'African' race. Why are 'Elongated African features' (Hamitic) only found in the parts of Africa that face Eurasia?
Such features are found everywhere and even within the same family and among isolated peoples who have never had contact with Eurasians. Such people are also some of the darkest people on earth and have elongated limb proportions. A case of admixture among these groups would seem to have had an effect of more than just a few cranio-facial features that are so coveted by the race theorists.
quote: If it was an indigenous adaptation why isn't it found among Nigerians?
It is. Even if it wasn't, how is the environment of Nigeria similar to the Horn or Nile Valley?
quote:I think there's mileage in the Hamitic hypothesis yet.
Yet you're alone in a sea of doubt. No one stands with you. You were left behind with Seligman.
quote:All this is aside from the point of Egyptians looking the same now as they did in Dynastic times, and by their own artwork clearly distinct from negroid nehesu.
Some nehesu were not depicted as distinct from Egyptians as shown to you and in some cases some Egyptians depicted themselves similarly to what you deem is standard "nehesu". Your use of the term "Negroid" is a ridiculous red herring.
quote: Images such as that from Horemhab's tomb are stereotypes, of course, even charicatures, but they weren't arrived at arbitrarily.
Of course not. Some people south of Egypt approached that resemblance, some looked different. Africa is very diverse. Always has been.
quote:Nubians in Egyptian art were usually shown as bound captives,
This is indeed false, there are images of nehesu mercenaries and members of the royal family. nehesu seemed to be a generic term describing people to the south of Egypt and relations with the various peoples there were different. For instance, during the 17th dynasty Egyptians were being helped by the Medjay in their expulsion of the Asiatic Hyksos while at the same time, other Medjay, along with Kushites were raiding settlements in upper Egypt.
quote: sometimes awaiting excution, or as enemies in battle being scattered in a disorderly mass, or as tribute paying subjects (rather than gift-be [QUOTE]aring royals as you fondly imagine). Egyptianized Nubians like Kemist and Maiherpri were exceptiona.
See above. Also, there is no evidence that Kemsit or Maiherpri were non-Egyptian (or born outside of Egypt). Whatever this is based on, it is not textual evidence.
quote:Indeed Egyptians used Nubian mercenaries, sometimes against other Nubians. Later, of course, Nubians used Egyptian mercenaries, again against other Nubians!
Mercenaries were also used against Asiatics, as noted. Asiatics were never used against "Nehesu".
quote:By the way Egyptians used black Sudanese mercenaries well into medieval times. The European crusaders they came up against recognized the blacks as something different from the Egyptians, for the Egyptians were lumped together with 'Saracens'.
This has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.
quote:The ultimate source of the Egyptian language and religion is also irrelevant to the question of continuity since dynastic times. If Egyptians are indeed of horn African stock, however, you've got to wonder how it can be that no comparably advanced civilization of at least equal antiquity is found in the south.
This is an argument from genetic determinism that has nothing to do with how archaeologists view state formation, which has more to do with sedentism, availability of resources, and social stability, which all in some way relate to geography (in this case, the Nile). Africa is dynamic and Egyptian civilization saw the right conditions to sprout at the right time.
Dumb question logically as well, it's like me asking if Greeks came from Anatolia, then why wasn't there a comparable civilization at that time in Anatolia. This question is a non-sequitur.
quote: Where are Somalia's pyramids or hieroglyphics? One thing's for sure, Somalis don't descend from actual Ancient Egyptians. Only modern Egyptians can make such a claim.
See above. I guess Pyramid building is in some people's DNA.
What an amateur.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@JustCallMeJari I don't think I've proven your point, as I always said Nubia was a mixture of caucasoids and negroids, but with more of the latter, and more admixed, hence members of the same dynasty might look more like one sort of the other.
The fact remians that there are two distinct types being demonstrated by that little selection. Sure Nordic Teutons and Mediterranean Latins also represent different caucasian types. However, phenotypically, the Hamitic Horn Africans and North Africans look as much like either Teutons or Romans as they do like negroes. Did not an editor of 'Essence' magazine complain about the Somali model Iman that she looks like a white woman dipped in chocolate? Are Somalia or Ethiopia less humid than than other African countries similarly close to the equator? I don't think this argument holds up.
@Truthcentric. I love how afrocentrists and their friends call people who tell the truth about ancient Egyptian history 'racists'. It used to be an insult. Quite obviously 'caucasian' is still used as a racial, anthropolical term. If the police find a white body, in the US, and a coroner or pathologist examines it, they say 'a caucasian'. If they find a black one, however they say 'African American', because 'African' has become a polite euphemism for 'black' or 'negro'. This would be fine if Africa was a race rather than a place. Black Americans are not 'Africans' any more than white ones are Germans or Irish or whatever their distant ancestors were. Actual Africans include people of all different races, several of which are old enough to be considered indigenous, despite ostensibly lacking any black element.
I am fully aware that the Egyptians subjected the Libyans and Syrians to the same indignities as the Nubians suffered, at least in their visual propaganda. Fundamentally Nubians were for Egyptians just another enemy, to be defeated, subjugated and exploited. They were not part of the proto-ummah that was the world of Ma'at. There's nothing very filial about the relationship between the two peoples.
If you are not believers in an Egyptian diaspora into sub-saharan Africa (like my chum Raidio1 on youtube) I wonder what probelm you have with the notion of Egyptians still being in Egypt, the same as they were. Do you then condemn the black Americans (primarily) who call modern Egyptians 'invaders' 'hairy Arabs' 'neanderthals' and worse, and who call Egypt 'our land' and the ancients 'our ancestors'?
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
rahotep101 - You used the word Caucasoid above. Did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of narrow nose, thin lips. Or did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of Albinos with narrow nose, thin lips?
I mean, you do understand that the first refers to a phenotype. The other refers to the White (Albino) subspecies of humans often erroneously called Europeans (Asians actually).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rahotep101- You have been literally unable to provide a single peer-reviewed paper that supports your claims. All you have is your opinions.
In the mean time, the peer-reviewed studies presented herein still stand, undressed by you. All you have done is resorted to pathetic strawman fallacies.
As a matter of fact, my last posts addressed to you were ignored, why is that? Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
They're all the same, come here spewing racist nonsense; but when confronted with provable truth and facts, they disappear.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^What exactly does that idiot have to do with what's being discussed here? If cass could afford a plane ticket I'm sure he'd do the same thing.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Just post the Kemp dendogram... wherein the light skinned North African type, represented by the modern Cairo samples, fall short of approaching dynastic and predynastic material, with the exception of some late dynastic samples. There is a clear trend visible on that dendogram, with (pre)dynastic Egyptian samples - originally resembling material to the south of Egypt - going towards the phenotypical diversity visible in modern Egypt, as time progresses. That should end the discussion right there.
This presentation just screams TYPOLOGICAL. You are still stuck in the 50s of the 20th century, wherein populations are phenotypically fixed and only migration of types can explain intermediate and deviating looks. Like Keita says, you fail to look at skeletal traits in an adaptive context.
The tribute bearing Nehesy in the Bantu category are much more likely to be genetically tied to the Puntites in the Hamitic category, than either is to the rest of the peoples in your preposterous Bantu category, despite their broad looks.
Bantu is a linguistic category, not a physical ''type'', and they don't collectively look like what you depict on your slide, because they don't represent a type.
Bantu speakers vary way more in cranial traits than the folks in your Hametic category.
I will discuss this in the third part of my vid briefly.
Your blatant idiocy shows, because you've placed two depictions of the same pharao - the one wearing the crown with the double serpent - in two different categories, Bantu and Hametic.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
As for the laughable "Rah", he keeps shooting himself in the foot with his own information. He lists the Nubians as unrelated "Bantu". But the Nubians, as Kemp's dengrograms show and scientific studies show are ethnically the CLOSEST people to the ancient Egyptians.
SO much for those "unrelated" "Bantu" .. lmao..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
First vid, still kinda unrefined though, in terms of cadance, especially at the end. Astenb gave me a couple of points as well. Will polish it in the next few dayz, but just to let everyone know where its at.
Oh yeah, and Casserites, if you're reading this, thanks for your quotes on how the Greeks/Romans distinguished themselves from Northern Europeans. I used some of them in my vid, sucker!!!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: rahotep101 - You used the word Caucasoid above. Did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of narrow nose, thin lips. Or did you mean Caucasoid in the sense of Albinos with narrow nose, thin lips?
I mean, you do understand that the first refers to a phenotype. The other refers to the White (Albino) subspecies of humans often erroneously called Europeans (Asians actually).
I find it ironic that you can accuse others of spewing ignorant racist nonsense when you come out with stuff like that! Albinism is the inability to produce melanin pigment, hence not only powder white sakin but white hair and pink eyes due to red bloodcells showing through. I don't know if you've been to Europe, but if that's what you're expecting, you're in for a shock! Albinism is an affliction that can affect members of all human races, and various animal species. It results from a recessive gene and it would be difficult to breed a species of albinos.
Posts: 870 | From: uk | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^^^ You will have to do like Most people when it comes to Mike111, Ignore him. He is a racist who advocates that whites are sub-humans and defects and everything he spouts is based off of his own opinion.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^What exactly does that idiot have to do with what's being discussed here? If cass could afford a plane ticket I'm sure he'd do the same thing.
"Provide evidence that Egyptians remained phenotypically the same for five thousand years. A claim which you continue to make without offering evidence, here's your chance."
The video shows people from America who believe that the phenotype of Egyptians has been changed by various invasions can then go to Egypt and point at someone and accuse them of being of that invader ancestry. You may know better but many other people do not and they take the information about various foreign occupations of Egypt and think they can tell who is who by looking.
It's a replacement theory that is being promoted. Are there migration numbers large enough to prove it?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^So what? His views for instance, have nothing to do with mine and I happen to agree that Egyptian phenotypes have not remained constant for the past 5,000 years. That's a far cry from me traveling to Egypt and telling some random person that he doesn't belong there. That's ignorant. About as ignorant as you assuming that by injecting this garbage you're making some kind of point.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To add to what Zaharan posted and the studies I presented earlier
quote:This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic. Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt—such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semal 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980)—show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators (Angel 1972; Berry and Berry 1967, 1972; Keita 1995) and has been recently reinforced by the study of Brace et al. (2005), which clearly shows that the cranial morphology of prehistoric and recent northeast African populations is linked to sub-Saharan populations (Niger-Congo populations). These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations.
-- F. X. Ricaut and M. Waelkens (2008)
Look at Brace (2005) and you will obviously see modern Egyptians separated from the ancient Egyptians:
As a matter of fact, Zakrzewski (2002) found that the late period Egyptians were cranially distinct from earlier specimens:
"The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the Late Period Group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied. Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from ‘Africans’ as a whole (Keita 1995). In his classic study of 17 global cranial series, Howlls (1973) found that this population clustered with tropical Africans or northern Europeans depending on the clustering analysis technique used, and similarity to Aegean populations has also been described (Musgrave and Evans 1980). The Late Period sample has been described as either a Saite population from the Delta area or as an intrusive Greek population living in Egypt (Berry et al. 1967). Further research comparing this sample to other Saite and Greek samples is required to locate the geographic origin of this group- this study merely shows that it is distinct from the preceding populations."-Zakrzewski (2002)Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study
Posts: 1502 | From: Dies Irae | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
rahotep101 - I do hope that you understand that as a "Modern" European, you are either a Germanic, like the young man above, or a Slav, or a Turk.
Here is how The Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (56-118 A.D.) describes Germans in his book Tacitus: Germany Book 1 [1]
I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. All have fierce blue eyes, red hair, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion. They are less able to bear laborious work. Heat and thirst they cannot in the least endure; to cold and hunger their climate and their soil inure them.
Whereas today, Red hair is the most "RARE" of all hair colors. How did you go from millions and millions of Red haired Germans?
Admixture with the indigenous Black Europeans. Thus you are no longer "PURE" Albinos.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ Ausar why is this garbage allowed in this thread?? This has nothing to do with the Topic at hand and is nothing but passive trolling...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What peer-reviewed publication makes the claim that Egyptians now have a different colour or phenotype to their ancient ancestors? I haven't seen the least evidence to suggest any change in the fundamental makeup of Egyptian society from the Old Kindom to this present day. I don't know why anyone would even try to suggest such a change, unless they were trying to link Egypt's past glory to some other group.
Anthropological studies seem often to contradict. Data can be assessed by various criteria and different results can arise, as Keita himself has admitted. It all seems a bit equivocal, so I prefer to stick to historical evidence.
That said, The pooled samples, on the chart Zarahan provides, (Kemp) support the idea of general continuity from ancient times to the present for Egypt in general. Modern and Ancient Egyptians are placed closer together than any other groups. (Close to Nubia, but closer to Greece than to Negroid Africa. The compilers of this study obviously think there is such a thing as a negro race, it seems! Nubians and Ethiopians are on a completely different branch to the negroids, according to that. Keita has some work to do in order to discredit the Hamitic hypothesis!
Brace and Irish both broadly concluded that the population was little changed in Egypt since remote Antiquity. 'Egyptians were Egyptians'. That said Egyptianness wasn't contingent on genetics, in the first place,but culture and allegiance. The Saite pharaohs were as great as the earliest ones, and just as patriotically Egyptian whether or not they had Libyan blood too.
As for adaptive context, I've yet to hear a reason why Sudanese should look different from Nigerians, or why there should be both narrow and broad featured Nubians, both inhabiting regions of identical climate. I'm not saying people manifesting either negroid or hamitic traits couldn't be closely related, but the particular genes for these features surely came from different places.
I was in error using the term 'Bantu' but it somehow sounds nicer than 'negroid'. I think my meaning was cear. It seems the two Nubian statues are both usually identified as Taharqa, so woops and well spotted! I've seen the first image identified as Tanutamani, sometimes, however. You must admit the two statues have completely different features. If you came to these images blind you would be unlikely to come to the conclusion that they were of the same ethnicity, let alone that they were the same individual.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
There are numerous other comparisons that can be made where modern Egyptians are closer to Asiatics in appearance than Ancient Egyptians
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic