...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Kemet » OT: What is Forumbiodiversity beef with ES?

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: OT: What is Forumbiodiversity beef with ES?
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously... Every time I read through the site there are members taking shots at this site i.e labeling it some pseudo "fiction" scholarship where its a homebase for Afroloons to spread our "fantasies"...

And again I see it a lot... Especially here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44381-Revisiting-the-Ancient-Egyptian-Identity

quote:
You're in the wrong forum, darling.

Fiction should be posted here:
" target="_blank">http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi[/QUOTE]

Notice how none of them truly addressed/refuted the OP's material and the OP wasn't even being Afriocentric imo, but giving his take on the Ancient Egyptian origins.

I find it ironic considering there are also many ridiculous things said on that site and a good amount of members on that site seem to be race obsessed and stuck in the Charles Coon era with their heavy usage of "oids" and even correlating it with admixture... [Eek!]

Anyways I wonder whats the beef?

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The major reasons are Posters at Egyptsearch prove that the Egyptians were Black and Blacks founded the first civilizations and continued building civilizations until 1492, when the Moors were pushed out of Europe. Mainstream and Euronuts on other forums hate Egyptsearch because , 1) fear of authentic and valid research and, 2) images to back it up regularly posted on Egyptsearch.

Euronuts are upset because some people at Egyptsearch have seen through the racism manifested by genectics. Prior to the 1980" there was very little archaeological research taking place. As a result, physical anthropologists had few skeletal remains to analyzed. As craniometrics and multivariate analysis became popular again as a research method it became obvious that the remains of the first civilizers of mankind were Blacks.

This upset the status quo, so some anthropologist began to deny that race existed as a biological entity. Around the same time, the idea of race began to decline, genetics research became popular. At first the geneticists believed you could avoid the idea of race by assigning populations on the various continents a particular series of haplogroups. In this way you still had the idea of separate races, but you only called them populations, e.g., mongoloid=Eurasian,and Negro=Sub Saharan. This made the Euronuts happy because they could deny Blacks played any role in the rise of civilization because the people of the River Valley Civilizations were assigned the haplogroups carried by the people living in the area today.

At the same time this was taking place, Egyptsearch regulars like Tukuler began to really learn concepts and methods used by geneticist and taught them to the rest of us. There was no threat to the status quo until researchers began to study ancient DNA, and do more detailed studies of the DNA of Sub-Saharan Africans.

Bayesian statistics helped maintain the status quo, because this method is used to prove the hypotheses and idea already held by the researcher. As a result, Bayesian statistic only confirm what the researcher already held to be true.

This was fine, until researchers began to publish the ancient DNA that indicated that the present inhabitants failed to carry the DNA, carried by the ancient inhabitants. The most shocking discovery was that the ancient population carried haplogroups that are presently carried by Sub-Saharan populations. These findings were not seriously discussed in the mainstream media, but at Egyptsearch they were.


Secondly,researchers developed computer programs that researchers could use to put in the basic genectic measurements, tabulate the results, and identify ones genetic history. This too seemed like a neutral inventin, until DNATribes used this tool and determined the the ancient Egyptians carried African genes. This fact was widely spread by discussions on Egyptsearch. The DNATribes research destroyed the confidence of the Euronuts, that the "Afrocentrists " at Egyptsearch were telling the truth: the Egyptians were Black.

The mainstream geneticists, using the genetic profiles of the contemporary Egyptian said that based on genetics the ancient Egyptians, PaleoAmericans, and Europeans were not Black Africans. The ancient, research on the otherhand, illustrated that the ancient populations carried different genes compared to the contemporary population. This trumatized the Euronuts. They felt confident ridculing researchers at Egyptsearch, by declaring that just because the craniometrics and skeletal remains proved the Egyptians were Black--Egyptsearch researchers were wrong without DNA evidence. This mantra ended as the ancientDNA proved the ancient and contemporary population in Egypt and the Americas were different.The Euronuts and mainstream supporters of multigenetic theory, could no longer say the DNA failed to support the Egyptsearch view the Egptians were Blacks. This is why the DNATribes research on the Amarna Egyptians is hated by mainstream and Euronut posters on the various forums.

At the same time this was taking place xyyman and myself began to discus the results researchers posted in the supplementary sections of most research articles. We found that the supplementary data, often told a different story than the one stated in the conclusion of many research papers.

Euronuts no longer have the confidence, via the genetics research, to ridicule Egypt search posters. We won. No only were the Egyptians Black, but so were the PaleoAmericans, Mesopotamian and etc. This has upset the Euronuts and mainstream researchers because they loved to claim Afrocentrists were "stealing: the cultures of other people. The ancient DNA, made it clear that Afrocentrists was not stealing the culture of anybody, they were just reporting the research that confirmed the founders of civilization were Black and African people.

Without DNA to support white supremacy and African cultural and technological inferiority mainstream and Euronuts have no support for their racist ideas. They continue to say Afrocentrists are racist for claiming that Blacks founded ancient civilizations, but deep down they know that with craniometrics and now DNA confirming the Egyptians and other River Valley civilizers were Black they don't have anything to stand on.

Because ES popularized the fact DNA supported Afrocentrism, researchers on the various forums have a beef with Egyptsearch.

Posts: 12261 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny, these suppose Somalies.


The Somalies I have met, never claim or state these things.
In fact it's the opposite.

Then again, the internet is not reallife.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Clyde, on Egypt Search, we do actual reseach and analysis. Not taking things for face fact.
Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
Funny, these suppose Somalies.


The Somalies I have met, never claim or state these things.
In fact it's the opposite.

Then again, the internet is not reallife.

Yeah I was surprised it was Somalis saying those things. [Eek!]

It seems this "horner supremacy" is mostly an online thing.

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Seriously... Every time I read through the site there are members taking shots at this site i.e labeling it some pseudo "fiction" scholarship where its a homebase for Afroloons to spread our "fantasies"...

And again I see it a lot... Especially here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44381-Revisiting-the-Ancient-Egyptian-Identity

quote:
You're in the wrong forum, darling.

Fiction should be posted here:
]http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi



Notice how none of them truly addressed/refuted the OP's material and the OP wasn't even being Afriocentric imo, but giving his take on the Ancient Egyptian origins.

I find it ironic considering there are also many ridiculous things said on that site and a good amount of members on that site seem to be race obsessed and stuck in the Charles Coon era with their heavy usage of "oids" and even correlating it with admixture... [Eek!]

Anyways I wonder whats the beef?


The people, correction, *Euronuts* on that website are all insecure white or wannabe-white neurotics whose white supremacy is severely threatened by the fact that not only Egyptians but ALL North Africans were black but worse that this black ancestry spilled over into the Middle East i.e. the 'Holy Land' and *shock* into Europe the 'Home Land'. So of course they will go about it the way fascists did during the Soviet Union by simply dismissing us as "loons" while never bother to engage with us nor the evidence we present. At least I have more respect for the Euronuts who are brave enough to confront us and debate. Those nuts actually have nuts if you know what I mean. But hey, if the biodepravity folk want to dismiss us even curse us from afar, then so be it. They know we got the data to back up our claims and that data is spreading through the net like wildfire. They are nothing more than the virtual so-called "intellectual" equivalent of what the KKK is reduced to today-- a bunch of rednecks having their chats in the woods.
Posts: 23494 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

This is a stupid comment. How could everybody in North Africa be white, yet the ancient Egyptians were Black and they lived in North Africa.

The Aterians were not white. Where is the study of ancient DNA that proves they were white.

The carriers of U6, even if this haplogroup originated in Europe would have been black skinned phenotypically not pale or white skinned. There were no white skinned people in Europe until after 2000BC.

These Europeans would have been Black not white skinned.See: Were the first Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?

Posts: 12261 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Seriously... Every time I read through the site there are members taking shots at this site i.e labeling it some pseudo "fiction" scholarship where its a homebase for Afroloons to spread our "fantasies"...

And again I see it a lot... Especially here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44381-Revisiting-the-Ancient-Egyptian-Identity

quote:
You're in the wrong forum, darling.

Fiction should be posted here:
]http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi



Notice how none of them truly addressed/refuted the OP's material and the OP wasn't even being Afriocentric imo, but giving his take on the Ancient Egyptian origins.

I find it ironic considering there are also many ridiculous things said on that site and a good amount of members on that site seem to be race obsessed and stuck in the Charles Coon era with their heavy usage of "oids" and even correlating it with admixture... [Eek!]

Anyways I wonder whats the beef?


The people, correction, *Euronuts* on that website are all insecure white or wannabe-white neurotics whose white supremacy is severely threatened by the fact that not only Egyptians but ALL North Africans were black but worse that this black ancestry spilled over into the Middle East i.e. the 'Holy Land' and *shock* into Europe the 'Home Land'. So of course they will go about it the way fascists did during the Soviet Union by simply dismissing us as "loons" while never bother to engage with us nor the evidence we present. At least I have more respect for the Euronuts who are brave enough to confront us and debate. Those nuts actually have nuts if you know what I mean. But hey, if the biodepravity folk want to dismiss us even curse us from afar, then so be it. They know we got the data to back up our claims and that data is spreading through the net like wildfire. They are nothing more than the virtual so-called "intellectual" equivalent of what the KKK is reduced to today-- a bunch of rednecks having their chats in the woods.
Yeah I notice those sissy Euroclowns are all talk. They talk a lot of crap about us so called "Afrocentrics", yet when we challenge them to come on here(ES which is a neutral free for all site hardly any mods) they back down or make some excuse not to join.

I want to debate the mod on Biodiversity. I feel I can easily own him, but if I join I feel I would quickly get banned like most people who do not share the same view as the mod.

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

This is a stupid comment. How could everybody in North Africa be white, yet the ancient Egyptians were Black and they lived in North Africa.

The Aterians were not white. Where is the study of ancient DNA that proves they were white.

The carriers of U6, even if this haplogroup originated in Europe would have been black skinned phenotypically not pale or white skinned. There were no white skinned people in Europe until after 2000BC.

These Europeans would have been Black not white skinned.See: Were the first Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?

Agreed 100%.
Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KING
Member
Member # 9422

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for KING     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
amun ra the ultimate comes on the forum and thinks he can disrespect Djehuti One of the Original Vets of the forum acting like People care what he says.

All you do is LOSE CREDIBILTY AMUN RA!!!

Are you stupid or just dumb?

Posts: 9190 | From: Peace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Thanks, but I can perfectly defend myself. Ever since Ahmahnut the Ultimate showed up in this forum he has, God knows how, but somehow on Earth misinterpreted everything I wrote which in his deranged mind I espouse the absurd Eurolunacy that North and East Africans are not related to other Africans but with Eurasians. Everyone here who knows me or rather my persona in this forum knows that for years I have been against that very Eurocentered racist notion! The guy is just another psychopath like xyzman who thinks I'm Hindu or Marc Washington who thinks every major culture in Europe from the Celts to the Vikings were black or that homosexual poster who thinks I am every white racist Euronut troll who is actually some homosexual stalker from Amsterdam! I'm telling you, this forum has become a haven for the black neurotics just as 'Biodiversity' has become a haven for the white ones!

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

Yes I know about the Banu Hilal and Banu Hassan and other Arab tribes who invaded North Africa, but I was referring to pre-Arab pre-Islamic populations indigenous to North Africa. Other than the Egyptians apparently you've never heard of the black peoples of the Maghreb region as described by the Greeks and Romans such as the Maures, Gaetuli, Aures, or Numidians-- all of whom were described as black. As far as 12,000 years ago in North Africa can you please cite a passage that says folks in North Africa were "mostly migrants from Europe" particularly Iberia?? You do realize that migration went both ways and that there are European remains especially in the Iberian Peninsula who have African genetic ancestry!!

Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa.--Frigi et al.

Posts: 23494 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

This is a stupid comment. How could everybody in North Africa be white, yet the ancient Egyptians were Black and they lived in North Africa.

I think on the contrary it is your comment which is ridiculous because North Africa is large. The distance between Egypt and Morocco is similar to between Germany and Kazakhstan. Also, Ancient DNA taken in the North-West African region were Eurasian DNA (mtDNA like H, U, V). This by itself doesn't exclude the presence of African populations in other location but it demonstrate the presence of Eurasians in the region at around 12000 years ago (cold adapted). Ancient Egyptians came from the South and have no direct relationship with them. Different DNA (E1b1a, etc) and Tropically adapted.

quote:

The Aterians were not white. Where is the study of ancient DNA that proves they were white.

I said "Beside in the far off Aterian era". Aterians were black Africans. Part of the people who stayed back in Africa (and migrated within it) during the OOA migrations.

quote:

The carriers of U6, even if this haplogroup originated in Europe would have been black skinned phenotypically not pale or white skinned. There were no white skinned people in Europe until after 2000BC.

These Europeans would have been Black not white skinned.See: Were the first Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?

Quite possible they had a darker skin than modern Europeans (especially northern), but they were not black Africans related to other African populations. As you say they were ancient European migrants.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Clyde Winters
Member
Member # 10129

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Clyde Winters   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

This is a stupid comment. How could everybody in North Africa be white, yet the ancient Egyptians were Black and they lived in North Africa.

I think on the contrary it is your comment which is ridiculous because North Africa is large. The distance between Egypt and Morocco is similar to between Germany and Kazakhstan. Also, Ancient DNA taken in the North-West African region were Eurasian DNA (mtDNA like H, U, V). This by itself doesn't exclude the presence of African populations in other location but it demonstrate the presence of Eurasians in the region at around 12000 years ago (cold adapted). Ancient Egyptians came from the South and have no direct relationship with them. Different DNA (E1b1a, etc) and Tropically adapted.

quote:

The Aterians were not white. Where is the study of ancient DNA that proves they were white.

I said "Beside in the far off Aterian era". Aterians were black Africans. Part of the people who stayed back in Africa (and migrated within it) during the OOA migrations.

quote:

The carriers of U6, even if this haplogroup originated in Europe would have been black skinned phenotypically not pale or white skinned. There were no white skinned people in Europe until after 2000BC.

These Europeans would have been Black not white skinned.See: Were the first Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?

Quite possible they had a darker skin than modern Europeans (especially northern), but they were not black Africans related to other African populations. As you say they were ancient European migrants.

You should think before you write. First I did not say they were Europeans I said if they were Europeans they would have been dark skin. If they were dark skinned they could not be white.

You stated an opinion, not a verifiable statement. To verify your comment you need archaeological and crainiometric evidence. There are three problems with this comment : 1) genes can not tell a person's race; 2) the craniometrics show the people were Africoids; and 3) there is no artifactual evidence of a back migration. If you read the archaeological evidence you would find that most of the tool kits found in Africa originated in Africa, and were taken to Europe by migrants from Africa.

Just admit you were wrong. I thought Ahmid ibn Majid was West African, lioness and Tukuler proved he was Yemeni, and I admitted they were right.

.

Posts: 12261 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
Funny, these suppose Somalies.


The Somalies I have met, never claim or state these things.
In fact it's the opposite.

Then again, the internet is not reallife.

Yeah I was surprised it was Somalis saying those things. [Eek!]

It seems this "horner supremacy" is mostly an online thing.

Understand that Italy was at war with the Horn, and they instigated the war during the late 80- beginning of the 90's.

Also, what likely angered some folks was the defeat of he American army on Somali soil.


Italy was to own what lies north of a line from the intersection of the Tropic of Cancer and the 17th meridian to the intersection of the 15th parallel and 21st meridian


 -



http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Berlin_Conference_of_1884-85#Between_France_and_Italy

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

You are hilarious.

So who populated the Northwest and northeast of Africa regions FIRST? It sure wasn't the 11th century Banu Hilal. [Big Grin]


Name 5 ancient "Berber" tribes from the region, please....let's have a good laughter.

The La Brana specimen debunks you upside down and round and round. [Wink]

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
ALL North Africans were black

Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black. Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

This is a stupid comment. How could everybody in North Africa be white, yet the ancient Egyptians were Black and they lived in North Africa.

The Aterians were not white. Where is the study of ancient DNA that proves they were white.

The carriers of U6, even if this haplogroup originated in Europe would have been black skinned phenotypically not pale or white skinned. There were no white skinned people in Europe until after 2000BC.

These Europeans would have been Black not white skinned.See: Were the first Europeans Pale or Dark Skinned?

The Arterian white? LOL

The Arterian dated back to 80 Kya. Africa was HOT HOT HOT.

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amun-Ra The Ultimate
Member
Member # 20039

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Amun-Ra The Ultimate     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

So who populated the Northwest and northeast of Africa regions FIRST? It sure wasn't the 11th century Banu Hilal.

As I just said Northwest Africa was first population by black Africans called Aterians. It's later on that Eurasian gene flow from Iberia came in. Phoenician, Semitic, Banu Hilal and other Eurasian/Arab migrations came later on in more recent times. Now they form an important part of North African history (and genetic profile).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aye... I don't know how the heck I missed this ridiculous post.

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Beside in the far off Aterian era, North Africans were not black.

What is "black" to you?

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Ancient DNA analysis of ancient body remains (12000 years ago) in North Africa have proven them to be mostly migrants from ancient Europe/Iberian peninsula (before the neolithic and steppes migrations into Europe). At least, considering the body remains analyzed thus far (all from the same location).

Wait are you talking about the 2012 Henn study? The same one that forgets certain North African H clades are unique to the region? And the same one that used Kenyans and Nigerians, two distant African groups for her samples???? They aren't even intermediate to Northwest Africans like Sahelian Africans are.

Also prove that there was large migration from Iberia/Europe. No study ever states that. Instead they state the opposite.

quote:
However, the remaining 35% of L mtDNAs form European-specific subclades, revealing that there was gene flow from sub-Saharan Africa toward Europe as early as 11,000 yr ago.
--María Cerezo (2013)
Reconstructing ancient mitochondrial DNA links between Africa and Europe

Then we have migrations from even EARLIER, with the FIRST Europeans coming from.... *drumroll* North Africa!
quote:
The first modern humans to reach Europe arrived from Africa 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. By about 30,000 years ago, they were widespread throughout the area while their close cousins, the Neanderthals, disappeared. Hardly any of these early hunter-gatherers carried the H haplogroup in their DNA.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science/

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Modern North Africans and Berber are also mostly Eurasians migrants (mainly Muslim Arabs nowadays) mixed with substantial Africans admixtures (E-M81). Nowadays, genetically and culturally they cluster more with West Asian people.

I can tell you seriously know nothing about North Africans, but Berbers especially.

Berbers are NOT one monolithic group, they're instead a language group; they're are black, white, mixed,etc,etc Berbers. They're culture is not even monolithic! But too bad Tuaregs who are the founding Berber group are predominately "African" in DNA. Also they have the oldest Berber script i.e the Tifinagh. Ha!

As for Northwest Africans. Indeed they are very admixed, some more Eurasian than others. But Northwest Africans as a whole are a result of African men and European women. Their Y-DNA and mtDNA show this very much. But some Northwest Africans are more "African" than others. I hold the opinion that Moroccans/Western Sahara show more African admixture at 40+!!!
 -

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Do you know about the Banu Hilal invasion Djehuti? Then why deny its implication?

Your point???? Doesn't take away the fact that Berbers are of Northeast African origin and the fact that even ARABS THEMSELVES referred to the early Moors(Berbers) as black!

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Ancient Egyptians were black as far as we know. North Africa, which is mainly constituted of coastal towns, was not black during the Ancient Egyptian state.

Are we forgetting that the Ancient Egyptians themselves were North Africa? Or is it because it doesn't fit your agenda? Where is proof that North Africans of the coastal towns were not black during the time of the Ancient Egyptians??? We have the Greeks, Romans and even Phoenicans refer to coastal North Africans as black! The Numidians were referred to as black. Hell during the medieval time the Vikings refereed to the inhabitants of coastal Northwest Africa as "blue men".

quote:
"They attacked Nekur off the coast Morocco. There was fierce fighting with the Moors but in the end the Vikings were victorious, and many of the"Blue-men," as they called Moors, were ultimately carried off prisoners to Ireland, where we hear of their fate the Fragments of Irish Annals."
- Cambridge Medieval History

But who are we going to believe? The Vikings themselves? Or a poster who shows slight symptoms of schizophrenia. [Smile]

quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The:
Quite possible they had a darker skin than modern Europeans (especially northern), but they were not black Africans related to other African populations. As you say they were ancient European migrants.

And???? The Southeast Asian Negritos and Indian Adaman Islanders are genetically distant from "black Africans" yet are phenotypically black. In fact they carry OLDER lineages of Eurasian DNA! Light skin did not evolve until 7,000 years. Those Eurasians migrating into Northwest Africa would have not only been a very small group, but it would have been around the same time of humans migrating from North Africa and into Europe; 40-30k years ago.

Either way they would have been a small population and would have been absorbed by E-M81 carrying Berbers from Northeast Africa. More importantly an SNP event would have undergone for U6, thus by the time of the Neolithic it would be unique to North Africa and not Eurasia. Same thing with M1. So you and Eurocentrics who argue a Eurasian origins for North Africa since the paleolithic are arguing a moot argument. Its futile.

Also when did Clyde say they were European migrants?

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:

So who populated the Northwest and northeast of Africa regions FIRST? It sure wasn't the 11th century Banu Hilal.

As I just said Northwest Africa was first population by black Africans called Aterians. It's later on that Eurasian gene flow from Iberia came in. Phoenician, Semitic, Banu Hilal and other Eurasian/Arab migrations came later on in more recent times. Now they form an important part of North African history (and genetic profile).
[Big Grin]


quote:
This paper provides a summary of all available numerical ages from contexts of the Moroccan Middle Palaeolithic to Epipalaeolithic and reviews some of the most important sites. Particular attention is paid to the so-called “Aterian”, albeit those so-labeled assemblages fail to show any geographical and chronological pattern. For this reason, this phenomenon should not be considered a distinct culture or techno-complex and is referred to hereinafter as Middle Palaeolithic of Aterian type. Whereas anatomical modern humans (AMH) are present in Northwest Africa from about 160 ka onwards, according to current research some Middle Palaeolithic inventories are more than 200 ka. This confirms that, for this period it is impossible to link human forms with artifact material. Perforated shell beads with traces of ochre documented from 80 ka onwards certainly suggest changes in human behavior.

The transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic, here termed Early Upper Palaeolithic – at between 30 and 20 ka – remains the most enigmatic era. However, the still scarce data from this period requires careful and fundamental revision in the frame of any future research. By integrating environmental data in reconstruction of population dynamics, clear correlations become obvious. High resolution data are lacking before 20 ka, and at some sites this period is characterized by the occurrence of sterile layers between Middle Palaeolithic deposits, possibly indicative of shifts in human population. After Heinrich Event 1, there is an enormous increase of data due to the prominent Late Iberomaurusian deposits that contrast strongly from the foregoing accumulations in terms of sedimentological features, fauna and artifact composition. The Younger Dryas shows a remarkable decline of data marking the end of the Palaeolithic. Environmental improvements in the Holocene are associated with an extensive Epipalaeolithic occupation.

--Gerd-Christian Weniger 1; Jörg Linstädter 2; Josef Eiwanger 3 and Abdessalam Mikdad 4


Late Pleistocene human occupation of Northwest Africa:
A crosscheck of chronology and climate change in Morocco

https://www.academia.edu/8285622/Late_Pleistocene_human_occupation_of_Northwest_Africa_A_crosscheck_of_chronology_and_climate_change_in_Morocco


quote:
 -


 -


 -


The Central Sahara is an area of great interest in human evolution partly because it currently exhibits some of the most extreme desert conditions in the world, and partly because of its geographical location – in a nexus of relationships with sub-Saharan Africa, Mediterranean Africa, and Western Asia. Fieldwork in the Ubari sand sea and the Messak (Fazzan, Libya) through the Desert Migrations Project has identified numerous Middle Stone Age (MSA) sites both along the shores of interdunal palaeolakes and on the mountainous plateaus of the area, such as the Messak Settafet. In this paper, we describe some of the evidence for the MSA in Fazzan, and discuss it in the context of the African MSA more generally. We show that this MSA record exhibits considerable typological and technological variation, and discuss the implications for hypotheses relating to the colonization of desert environment and the expansion of hominins out of sub-Saharan Africa.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618212033848


Successes and failures of human dispersals from North Africa
(2011)

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:

So who populated the Northwest and northeast of Africa regions FIRST? It sure wasn't the 11th century Banu Hilal.

As I just said Northwest Africa was first population by black Africans called Aterians. It's later on that Eurasian gene flow from Iberia came in. Phoenician, Semitic, Banu Hilal and other Eurasian/Arab migrations came later on in more recent times. Now they form an important part of North African history (and genetic profile).
Frist off, none of us have denounced that Eurasians such Phoenician, Semitic, Banu Hilal and other Eurasian/Arab migrations came later on in more recent times. Didn't enter North Africa.

Though, there are still some implications with these population. In means what they looked like.


Anyway:


quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
 -

The Negroid increment of which there is evidence in some of our Northern Neolithic Series, notably Kef-el-Agab 1 and Troglodytes 1, may have well come in the same way from the South to add to the already slightly Negroid Hamitic cast of the African Mediterraneans and of their partial derivative, the Mechta-Afalou Type.....

...Type B which fits, in all essential respects, the usual definition of the Mediterranean racial type, but sometimes shows also certain morphological peculiarities commonly known as "Boskopid," as well as Negroid features among females. Type B therefore was classified as African Mediterranean...It may have well acquired its "Boskopid" (Khoisan) traits on the road, near the headwaters of the Nile, and kidnapped a few Negro or heavily Negroid women on its way west before turning northward into Northwest Africa. The peculiar characteristics of such women could have been restricted largely to females, at least for a time, by artificial selection in the form of preferential mating.


Briggs, Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa, pgs 81,89.


A child burial was found at Taramsa-1 (c.55,000 BP): “The poorly preserved bones were those of a subadult ‘anatomically modern human’ similar in appearance to the Mechtoid populations of the north African Epipalaeolithic. The position of the body, as well as the depth of the pit in which it was found... suggest that the child had not died in this location but had been deliberately brought here to be buried” (Midant-Reynes 1992/2000 p.37).

factor 2 represents the **sub-Saharan/Caucasoid** contrast. The Caucasoid populations (Egypt, Norse, Cro-Magnon) score positively on factor 2, the sub-Saharan Teita score negatively. The modern Dogon (Southern Mali) samples are intermediate. The fossil Nubians score strongly negative, as does the Asselar skull (Central Mali). What is especially interesting is that Afalou also scores negatively, if only slightly; it occupies the same morphological position as do the modern Dogon.

C. O. Groves, A. Thorne. The Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene Populations of Northern Africa., Vol. Homo, No. 3. (1999), pp. 249-262

 -

Mechta
 -

Dogon
 -

quote:
WHAT BONES CAN TELL: BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE HUNTER-GATHERERS OF THE MAGHREB:

The extremely large skeletal samples that come from sites such as Taforalt (Fig. 8.13) and Afalou constitute an invaluable resource for understanding the makers of Iberomaurusian artifacts, and their number is unparalleled elsewhere in Africa for the early Holocene. Frequently termed Mechta-Afalou or Mechtoid, these were a skeletally robust people and definitely African in origin, though attempts, such as those of Ferembach (1985), to establish similarities with much older and rarer Aterian skeletal remains are tenuous given the immense temporal separation between the two (Close and Wendorf 1990). At the opposite end of the chronological spectrum, dental morphology does suggest connections with later Africans, including those responsible for the Capsian Industry (Irish 2000) and early mid-Holocene human remains from the western half of the Sahara (Dutour 1989), something that points to the Maghreb as one of the regions from which people recolonised the desert (MacDonald 1998).

Turning to what can be learned about cultural practices and disease, the individuals from Taforalt, the largest sample by far, display little evidence of trauma, though they do suggest a high incidence of infant mortality, with evidence for dental caries, arthritis, and rheumatism among other degenerative conditions. Interestingly, Taforalt also provides one of the oldest known instances of the practice of trepanation, the surgical removal of a portion of the cranium; the patient evidently survived for some time, as there are signs of bone regrowth in the affected area. Another form of body modification was much more widespread and, indeed, a distinctive feature of the Iberomaurusian skeletal sample as a whole. This was the practice of removing two or more of the upper incisors, usually around puberty and from both males and females, something that probably served as both a rite of passage and an ethnic marker (Close and Wendorf 1990), just as it does in parts of sub-Saharan Africa today (e.g., van Reenen 1987). Cranial and postcranial malformations are also apparent and may indicate pronounced endogamy at a much more localised level (Hadjouis 2002), perhaps supported by the degree of variability between different site samples noted by Irish (2000).

--Lawrence Barham
The First Africans: African Archaeology from the Earliest Toolmakers to Most Recent Foragers (Cambridge World Archaeology)


http://m.friendfeed-media.com/f0c1e1ca140a227fe018ee5c38da83dd5facb5fe

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My 2 Cents and observations:

1 - Being a member (not so active at the moment) over at ABF/Forumbiodiversity I can say that Clyde Winters hit the nail on the head pretty much describing their "Fear" in its entirety. IMO he was spot on about black folks right up until he talks about "Black Africans" and says PaleoAmericans were black. Different argument for a different day. yeah yeah..

2 - Amun-Ra The Ultimate taking yall to task. To question whether there were "Eurasians", "White People" etc in North Africa in antiquity is absurd. The presence of Earlier prehistoric Africans does not mutually exclude the presence of later prehistoric non-Africans. It gets to a point where you cant simply call any and every population "Black". Obviously you can use it to describe a phenotype. Whether incorrect or correct you can tie to specific uniparental and non-parental Genetic variants......People do this. Commonsense says "African" denotes a geographic range. Now with all that said "Black African" is something specific. It describes specific people that recently descent from a specific place. There are popualtions around the globe that may LOOK like them but have nothing to do with their culture language and genetics. Even when looking at ancient non African populations with dark skin - Mesolithic Europeans Hunter Gatherers for instance. You are going to be on shaky ground making nonsense attempts to group these people with Africans just because they carry an ancestral state for skin color SNP's.................which is just like a handful of SNP's!

Amun-Ra The Ultimate is talking yall to task because he is taking about cold adapted remains in the maghreb that are NOT representative ancestors of those living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. He referenced ancient remains "(mtDNA like H, U, V): found in the Maghreb....these too are NOT representative ancestors of humans living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. ITs desperate and foolish to wish these people away...or try to distract from these results by talking about earlier or more numerous black people.

Posts: 2081 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for stopping by. Anyways...
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:


2 - Amun-Ra The Ultimate taking yall to task. To question whether there were "Eurasians", "White People" etc in North Africa in antiquity is absurd. The presence of Earlier prehistoric Africans does not mutually exclude the presence of later prehistoric non-Africans. It gets to a point where you cant simply call any and every population "Black". Obviously you can use it to describe a phenotype. Whether incorrect or correct you can tie to specific uniparental and non-parental Genetic variants......People do this. Commonsense says "African" denotes a geographic range. Now with all that said "Black African" is something specific. It describes specific people that recently descent from a specific place. There are popualtions around the globe that may LOOK like them but have nothing to do with their culture language and genetics. Even when looking at ancient non African populations with dark skin - Mesolithic Europeans Hunter Gatherers for instance. You are going to be on shaky ground making nonsense attempts to group these people with Africans just because they carry an ancestral state for skin color SNP's.................which is just like a handful of SNP's!

Indeed. But the argument that I am getting from Amun-Ra is that he is essentially that SINCE the Aterian Culture, North Africa has not been "African" since. And also that Northwest African and the rest of Africa are two very different entities.

IMO Northwest Africa is a complex topic, since there have been so many migrations.


quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
Amun-Ra The Ultimate is talking yall to task because he is taking about cold adapted remains in the maghreb that are NOT representative ancestors of those living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. He referenced ancient remains "(mtDNA like H, U, V): found in the Maghreb....these too are NOT representative ancestors of humans living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. ITs desperate and foolish to wish these people away...or try to distract from these results by talking about earlier or more numerous black people.

I believe no one is trying to wish those people away. Or least not me. But Amun-Ra is not taking into account of multple contexts. And I believe it was him that bought up an earlier date. But anyways those mtDNA's especially U6 would have undergone an SNP and by the Neolithic would be unique to North Africa.

quote:
"No southwest Asian specific clades for M1 or U6 were discovered. U6 and M1 frequencies in North Africa, the Middle East and Europe do not follow similar patterns, and their sub-clade divisions do not appear to be compatible with their shared history reaching back to the Early Upper Palaeolithic."
-(2012) Divorcing the Late Upper Palaeolithic demographic histories of mtDNA haplogroups M1 and U6 in Africa

Also those Eurasians who migrated to coastal Northwest Africa would have been a small group imo, but more importantly absorbed by coming proto-Berber speakers from Northeast Africa.

We can agree to disagree.

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
My 2 Cents and observations:

Beyoku, we'll know well what he is refering at.

But in essence his claim is that North Africa was not inhabited "blacks", and that "black presence" is something recent. You know the theory: "slavery".

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was surprised when I first saw this figurine.

A Semitic slave. Ancient Egyptian figurine. Hecht Museum


 -


 -


 -


Ancient Levatin, Syrian:

Can be seen at the Cairo Museum, 2nd floor.

 -


 -


Stele eines syrischen Söldners aus Tell el-Amarna, ÄM 14122, Neues Reich, 18. Dyanastie, Amenophis IV./Echnaton, ca. 1351-1334 v. Chr. © Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung / Sandra Steiß

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
 -

Painting of King Amenhotep II from the Tomb of Kenamun


 -

This figure with light skin, red hair and black beard represents the people who roamed the Eastern desert. It belonged to the group of Egyptian enemies because together with other tribes and nations, it always presented the threat of an invading force.

Albinos are just Sooo pathetic!
Sorry lioness, Humans can't have BLACK beards "And" RED hair on the HEAD!
Btw - that is a CLOTH HEADDRESS "Not" HAIR!








 -

This figure with light skin, black beard and hair ending with tresses, represents the land of Libya. The ancient Egyptian name for the people of Libya was Tjehenu, and the Egyptians often fought against them especially in the area of Lower Egypt


 -

This figure with red hair and a black beard represents the land of Mentiu, located in Asia. Mentiu was one of the 'nine bows of Egypt', the foreign peoples outside Egypt. The ancient Egyptian considered these foreigners as enemies and used their figures in decoration as symbols of Egyptian superiority.


 -

This figure with dark skin, red hair and a black beard represents the land of Mitanni, which was located in Asia, north of today's Syria. The ancient Egyptian name for Mitanni was Naharin, one of the most challenging opponents of Egypt during the New Kingdom.




 -

This figure with black hair and a narrow hair-band represents one tribe from Crete called Menu Minos by the ancient Egyptians. The word for the Minoans appears in many Theban tombs, starting in the time of Queen Hatshepsut and continuing until the Late Period.





 -

This figure with red skin and black hair represents the people from Lower Egypt, called Ta Mehu in ancient Egyptian. The word Mehu was written with the hieroglyphic sign of a papyrus plant, which grew all around the Nile Delta, and was the symbol of Lower Egypt. The figure is depicted without a beard because the Egyptians always shaved and only foreigners had beards.


Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
My 2 Cents and observations:

Beyoku, we'll know well what he is refering at.

But in essence his claim is that North Africa was not inhabited "blacks", and that "black presence" is something recent. You know the theory: "slavery".

That is not what he said. Yall putting words in his mouth. I will QUOTE him:

quote:
As I just said Northwest Africa was first population by black Africans called Aterians. It's later on that Eurasian gene flow from Iberia came in. Phoenician, Semitic, Banu Hilal and other Eurasian/Arab migrations came later on in more recent times. Now they form an important part of North African history (and genetic profile) .
Pretty clear to me. To add to that, White skin is new, Only Ancient DNA Analysis will tell you if the images of Levantines you posted are of Africans....Who cares if they are brown skinned?

@BlessedbyHorus He data he is talking about it something you may be unfamiliar with. He is talking about THIS (Which populations do you see having Tropical limbs?) and THIS.

From memory this data has be RETESTED and the possibility of some of the lineages being L are not longer a possibility...they are nearly completely Non-African in origin. This has been touched on HERE and HERE.

Posts: 2081 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^I'm familiar with that 2013 Holday study. Me and a poster named Swenant actually had a discussion on that...A good one at that. And my point is still similar in that those population would have been small scale and then abosrbed by incoming Berber speakers from Northwest Africa.
quote:
Carriers of these maternal lineages have been later absorbed into and diversified further during the spread of Afro-Asiatic languages in North and East Africa.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206491

I am aware that weren't African, but from the Near East...

Anyways if I misinterpreted Amun, then my bad, but the way he was explaining things made it seem like he was viewing Northwest Africa as a separate entity from the rest of Africa.

Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
Clyde, on Egypt Search, we do actual reseach and analysis. Not taking things for face fact.
lol. True. The idiots there are actually afraid to
tangle more with us. They like their little "amen corner"
over there where where "the white faithful" don't actually have to
put a logical, coherent case on the table backed with real data.
Over here for the most part (aside from the "albino"
crowd), we don't deal with rhetoric but logic and
hard data. Time and time again when ES people have
gone on there we have cleaned their clocks, which
is why they usually trot out admins to "ban" our
hard driving posters under different pretexts. It usually
happens when their favored "strum truppe" boys are getting schooled.


Another tactic is the "ignore" dodge. The regular denizens
try to ignore the ES guys rather than engage our data. Another
is the trivial pursuit tactic designed to bog people
down with minute, penny-packet detail to avoid debunking of
a larger point, and divert attention from that. A lot
over there talk big, but are cowards when it comes
to actual debate, particularly the "HBD" or "hereditarian" types,
cuz we hammer their bullshiit. Its like tangling with the
old Raider secondary. Once you engage them you are
gonna get dealt some pain. Which is why they duck away usually.

 -


Horus says:

It seems this "horner supremacy" is mostly an online thing.
There are some actual Horner supremacists out there-
some trying to "distance" themselves from Africa, but
a substantial slice of such "supremacists" also seem
to be trolls, lamers hiding behind a "Horner" persona
to deflect attention from their real agenda. Its like the
alleged "black female" personas that appear in such forums
from time to time to push assorted "HBD" formulas.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=15&t=007345#000039

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There seems to be confusion and misunderstanding on both parties but Ahmanut the Ultimate especially! Nobody is saying that North Africans were always entirely black with no Eurasians present. Of course there was gene-flow from Eurasia, specifically Europe, and nobody is denying this. However the point is that not only were there still blacks present in the region but that gene-flow went both ways-- with Africans migrating into Europe as well. The Euronuts want to make it seem that North Africa population wise should be separate from so-called 'sub-Sahara' as if there was no population continuity with that region while ignoring the fact that there was and that the gene-flow worked both ways with blacks entering and having genetic influence on Europe as well. That's my point.

There was no population or rather 'racial' segregation or "whites only" or "blacks only" areas in prehistoric times when hunter-gatherer populations randomly followed their prey wherever they went even into other lands nearby.

Posts: 23494 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mindovermatter
Member
Member # 22317

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mindovermatter     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
My 2 Cents and observations:

1 - Being a member (not so active at the moment) over at ABF/Forumbiodiversity I can say that Clyde Winters hit the nail on the head pretty much describing their "Fear" in its entirety. IMO he was spot on about black folks right up until he talks about "Black Africans" and says PaleoAmericans were black. Different argument for a different day. yeah yeah..

2 - Amun-Ra The Ultimate taking yall to task. To question whether there were "Eurasians", "White People" etc in North Africa in antiquity is absurd. The presence of Earlier prehistoric Africans does not mutually exclude the presence of later prehistoric non-Africans. It gets to a point where you cant simply call any and every population "Black". Obviously you can use it to describe a phenotype. Whether incorrect or correct you can tie to specific uniparental and non-parental Genetic variants......People do this. Commonsense says "African" denotes a geographic range. Now with all that said "Black African" is something specific. It describes specific people that recently descent from a specific place. There are popualtions around the globe that may LOOK like them but have nothing to do with their culture language and genetics. Even when looking at ancient non African populations with dark skin - Mesolithic Europeans Hunter Gatherers for instance. You are going to be on shaky ground making nonsense attempts to group these people with Africans just because they carry an ancestral state for skin color SNP's.................which is just like a handful of SNP's!

Amun-Ra The Ultimate is talking yall to task because he is taking about cold adapted remains in the maghreb that are NOT representative ancestors of those living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. He referenced ancient remains "(mtDNA like H, U, V): found in the Maghreb....these too are NOT representative ancestors of humans living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. ITs desperate and foolish to wish these people away...or try to distract from these results by talking about earlier or more numerous black people.

Bump* Beyoku, Eliasalucard refuses to accept any conclusion that confirms that ancient civilization builders had dark skin to almost black, and only accepts anything that says that Assyrians are the most ancient purest population in the area and Semitics are responsible for everything in antiquity. Modern Assyrians have nothing to do with Ancient Assyrians and i'm sure there is genetic data proving that.

His entire worldview revolves around his inferiority complex towards Northern Europeans and his compensation attempts about it by saying only Assyrians are this and that X, and if a White scientists does not say it is right then it's not right etc etc.

If these people had black skin, then it matters a lot because it debunks the eurocentrist claims and right now the world functions under a haze of skin coloration, western eurocentric superiority, as a identifier of a people's worth despite cultural differences.

Posts: 1558 | From: US | Registered: Sep 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Snakepit1
Member
Member # 21736

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Snakepit1   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
My 2 Cents and observations:

1 - Being a member (not so active at the moment) over at ABF/Forumbiodiversity I can say that Clyde Winters hit the nail on the head pretty much describing their "Fear" in its entirety. IMO he was spot on about black folks right up until he talks about "Black Africans" and says PaleoAmericans were black. Different argument for a different day. yeah yeah..

2 - Amun-Ra The Ultimate taking yall to task. To question whether there were "Eurasians", "White People" etc in North Africa in antiquity is absurd. The presence of Earlier prehistoric Africans does not mutually exclude the presence of later prehistoric non-Africans. It gets to a point where you cant simply call any and every population "Black". Obviously you can use it to describe a phenotype. Whether incorrect or correct you can tie to specific uniparental and non-parental Genetic variants......People do this. Commonsense says "African" denotes a geographic range. Now with all that said "Black African" is something specific. It describes specific people that recently descent from a specific place. There are popualtions around the globe that may LOOK like them but have nothing to do with their culture language and genetics. Even when looking at ancient non African populations with dark skin - Mesolithic Europeans Hunter Gatherers for instance. You are going to be on shaky ground making nonsense attempts to group these people with Africans just because they carry an ancestral state for skin color SNP's.................which is just like a handful of SNP's!

Amun-Ra The Ultimate is talking yall to task because he is taking about cold adapted remains in the maghreb that are NOT representative ancestors of those living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. He referenced ancient remains "(mtDNA like H, U, V): found in the Maghreb....these too are NOT representative ancestors of humans living in Sub Saharan African TODAY. ITs desperate and foolish to wish these people away...or try to distract from these results by talking about earlier or more numerous black people.

He's not actually taking anyone to task, that's the stupidest thing I've read so far today.
Posts: 97 | From: Earth | Registered: Feb 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
Seriously... Every time I read through the site there are members taking shots at this site i.e labeling it some pseudo "fiction" scholarship where its a homebase for Afroloons to spread our "fantasies"...

And again I see it a lot... Especially here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/44381-Revisiting-the-Ancient-Egyptian-Identity

[QUOTE]You're in the wrong forum, darling.

Fiction should be posted here:
]http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi



quote:
Notice how none of them truly addressed/refuted the OP's material and the OP wasn't even being Afriocentric imo, but giving his take on the Ancient Egyptian origins.

I find it ironic considering there are also many ridiculous things said on that site and a good amount of members on that site seem to be race obsessed and stuck in the Charles Coon era with their heavy usage of "oids" and even correlating it with admixture... [Eek!]

Anyways I wonder whats the beef?

lol. At one point I tried to register. I then posted this article, which never made it to the public space, and my account was blocked ever since:


quote:

What does Kemet mean?

"Prior to Europe’s involvement with Egypt, the people of Ancient Egypt had many names for their country such as ‘Ta Mery’ (the beloved land), ‘Ta Sety’ (the land of the bow) which was used for the southern most regions of the country and Nubia (see below). Another name was 'Kemet', which means ‘the black land’. All of these names were originally spelt without vowels, so for example Kmt."

Today, for obvious reasons, the name Kemet is associated with a more African-centred approach to looking at ‘Egypt’. For this reason the gallery that you are currently viewing is called Virtual Kemet. In adopting this name we hope to remind people that the ‘Ancient Egypt’ is an African civilization and that whilst the culture had contact with people from other civilizations, it was essentially African in its culture and well as its geographical placement.

[...]

There are many links between ancient Egyptian and modern African culture, ranging from objects such as headrests to hairstyles such as the side lock, and this and other evidence support the idea that it was an African culture in addition to being geographically in Africa. For these reasons Egypt is seen by people of African descent as part of their cultural heritage and history. The concept of Egypt as part of Africa is not a new one. Some of the earliest travellers to Egypt came from the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome, including Greek philosophers, mathematicians, scientists, writers and poets who came to learn from the priests. To the Greeks and Romans, Egypt was an African country, and their artists depicted the Egyptians as Africans, with black skin and tightly curled hair, described by the Greek historian Herodotos in the fifth century BC as 'woolly'.


--University of Cambridge

http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/

Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elite Diasporan
Member
Member # 22000

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Elite Diasporan     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^^^Yet some people claim the "black" meant soil... But I read some convincing arguments that it does not.
Posts: 1065 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^^Yet some people claim the "black" meant soil... But I read some convincing arguments that it does not.

The Egyptians were the black skinned people of Africa.
The Nubians were not .

Posts: 32089 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ish Gebor
Member
Member # 18264

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ish Gebor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^^Yet some people claim the "black" meant soil... But I read some convincing arguments that it does not.

To me it doesn't matter. Why would it matter?
Posts: 18871 | From: pAsidaw SIGILLUM SECRETUM | Registered: Nov 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fourty2Tribes
Member
Member # 21799

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Fourty2Tribes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus:
^^^Yet some people claim the "black" meant soil... But I read some convincing arguments that it does not.

I think this is the most sensible breakdown
http://www.asarimhotep.com/documentdownloads/could_the_kongo_be_modern_kmt.pdf

Posts: 696 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova
Member
Member # 15718

Icon 1 posted      Profile for zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because ES popularized the fact DNA supported Afrocentrism,
researchers on the various forums have a beef with Egyptsearch.


This is a dubious strawman. "Popularization" of DNA and "Afrocentrism"
has little to do with it. Even without DNA, the racists/racialist
types over at Forum Biodiversity (and many make no secret of their
racist beliefs) still hate ES, because ES exposes
their facile nonsense and puts hard data on the floor showing:

a) Hard data on the greater BUILT-IN native diversity of Africans,
including Africans having the most phenotypic diversity

b) The hard data showing the reality of Egypt as an African culture and civilization

c) Hard data on the cultural links between Egypt
and the FELLOW AFRICAN cultures to the south, including religion

d) Hard data such as limb proportion data showing that ancient Egyptians
are indeed INDIGENOUS tropically adapted Africans

e) Hard data on indigenous African development and not
bogus "Hamitic invasion" versions and claims, or related variants

f) Hard data puncturing, debunking and deflating pompous and pretentious
Eurocentric claims to be "role models" of human goodness and virtue

g) Hard data debunking and exposing many of their other
claims as so much bullshiit time and time again


Note- none of the above even mentions DNA, nor is DNA needed
to establish any of the cases above. If all DNA data were to
disappear- it would make little difference. DNA only reinforces the case.
This is why they are so quick to "ban" ES members.
We see through their bullshiit and debunk it time and time again
using not emotional rhetoric, but hard data.

Posts: 5107 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3