posted
I like how people will use that quote then go find the lightest Indians they can to prove their point. Not all Northern Indians are light many are Dark but not as Dark as the Dravidians..
You can see many Indians have the Reddish Brown color like many Modern Day Southern Egyptians
Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
Now compare the Northern Indians above to How the Egyptians represented themselves
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
How the hell do you know what the Contrast was. All you can do is cherry pick the lightest Indians to prove your point when Most Indian people are brown skinned in color. Even the Light Indians you post are an off brown in color..
In contrast to the Brown Color of most Indians some Indians can get black as hell. That was the damn contrast Brown compared to black, as in the case with Egypt and Kush. Posting some White looking Indian b-tch does not reflect majority of Indians.
Hell I have plenty of Indian friends and only one is f-ing white looking. The Depths you people will go to Deafricanize Egypt and other cultures.
And Lets be honest trying to use Modern Indiians to prove your point wont work with me. The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc.
Also these statements were made in the Roman era, well after the Dynastic period and well after foreign Eurasian barbarian invasions of Egypt.
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
Those Southern Egyptians reflect the Reddish brown color and phenotype as depicted by the Egyptians themselves. Egyptian Culture and Innovation came from the South.End of story.
I can care less about Delta Egyptians, they get enough recognition as it is.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
How the hell do you know what the Contrast was. All you can do is cherry pick the lightest Indians to prove your point when Most Indian people are brown skinned in color. Even the Light Indians you post are an off brown in color..
In contrast to the Brown Color of most Indians some Indians can get black as hell. That was the damn contrast Brown compared to black, as in the case with Egypt and Kush. Posting some White looking Indian b-tch does not reflect majority of Indians.
Hell I have plenty of Indian friends and only one is f-ing white looking. The Depths you people will go to Deafricanize Egypt and other cultures.
And Lets be honest trying to use Modern Indiians to prove your point wont work with me. The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc.
Also these statements were made in the Roman era, well after the Dynastic period and well after foreign Eurasian barbarian invasions of Egypt.
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
Those Southern Egyptians reflect the Reddish brown color and phenotype as depicted by the Egyptians themselves. Egyptian Culture and Innovation came from the South.End of story.
I can care less about Delta Egyptians, they get enough recognition as it is.
" The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc."
I think you oughta know that the main reason that Northern Indians are light is because of the migration of Indo European peoples over three thousand years ago. They were probably even lighter in Roman times since currently many indians from the South have moved into major cities all over. So nowadays there is more mixture.
Your southern Egyptians do not look like Northern Indians. Eveyone knows that Northern Indians can look like Middle Easterners or even Hispanics. The contrast is between light brown/Tan and dark brown. I'm not really trying to imply that they were "White" skiinned..just lighter than what many here are claiming. But I admit posting those near White Indian girls gave me a devious pleasure. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not going to argue with you on this. You know damn well majority of Indians are Dark Brown to Light Beige in skin color, with majority being Brown. Ghandi was a damn Brahmin and looked nothing like a white person or hispanic. And for the upteenth time Im not playing into your "Middle Eastern Looking" game because Indains don't even live in the damn Middle East and one would be retarded if they could not tell a Pakistani and a Syrian apart.
And I can care less about what a Damn Barbaric Roman thought, as the Romans invaded Egypt well after Eurasians barbaric savages flocked to the Nile Valley like Flies and breeded themselves like rats into the phenotype of the Nile Valley during the late Dynastic periods. It was the "Southern Egyptian" look that came to caricature Egyptians as the Rome AKA "Men Par Excellence"
What a bunch of Eurasian barbarics do is not of my concern or care.
and As usual you are a low down dirty liar and deciever, whose only purpose is to Eurasianize African culture.
I know you purposely posted the lightest Indians you could find. ITs how you operate.....I peeped your deceptive ways way back on topix.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
How the hell do you know what the Contrast was. All you can do is cherry pick the lightest Indians to prove your point when Most Indian people are brown skinned in color. Even the Light Indians you post are an off brown in color..
In contrast to the Brown Color of most Indians some Indians can get black as hell. That was the damn contrast Brown compared to black, as in the case with Egypt and Kush. Posting some White looking Indian b-tch does not reflect majority of Indians.
Hell I have plenty of Indian friends and only one is f-ing white looking. The Depths you people will go to Deafricanize Egypt and other cultures.
And Lets be honest trying to use Modern Indiians to prove your point wont work with me. The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc.
Also these statements were made in the Roman era, well after the Dynastic period and well after foreign Eurasian barbarian invasions of Egypt.
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
Those Southern Egyptians reflect the Reddish brown color and phenotype as depicted by the Egyptians themselves. Egyptian Culture and Innovation came from the South.End of story.
I can care less about Delta Egyptians, they get enough recognition as it is.
" The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc."
I think you oughta know that the main reason that Northern Indians are light is because of the migration of Indo European peoples over three thousand years ago. They were probably even lighter in Roman times since currently many indians from the South have moved into major cities all over. So nowadays there is more mixture.
Your southern Egyptians do not look like Northern Indians. Eveyone knows that Northern Indians can look like Middle Easterners or even Hispanics. The contrast is between light brown/Tan and dark brown. I'm not really trying to imply that they were "White" skiinned..just lighter than what many here are claiming. But I admit posting those near White Indian girls gave me a devious pleasure.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Im not going to argue with you on this. You know damn well majority of Indians are Dark Brown to Light Beige in skin color, with majority being Brown. Ghandi was a damn Brahmin and looked nothing like a white person or hispanic. And for the upteenth time Im not playing into your "Middle Eastern Looking" game because Indains don't even live in the damn Middle East and one would be retarded if they could not tell a Pakistani and a Syrian apart.
And I can care less about what a Damn Barbaric Roman thought, as the Romans invaded Egypt well after Eurasians barbaric savages flocked to the Nile Valley like Flies and breeded themselves like rats into the phenotype of the Nile Valley during the late Dynastic periods. It was the "Southern Egyptian" look that came to caricature Egyptians as the Rome AKA "Men Par Excellence"
What a bunch of Eurasian barbarics do is not of my concern or care.
and As usual you are a low down dirty liar and deciever, whose only purpose is to Eurasianize African culture.
I know you purposely posted the lightest Indians you could find. ITs how you operate.....I peeped your deceptive ways way back on topix.
quote:Originally posted by melchior7:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
How the hell do you know what the Contrast was. All you can do is cherry pick the lightest Indians to prove your point when Most Indian people are brown skinned in color. Even the Light Indians you post are an off brown in color..
In contrast to the Brown Color of most Indians some Indians can get black as hell. That was the damn contrast Brown compared to black, as in the case with Egypt and Kush. Posting some White looking Indian b-tch does not reflect majority of Indians.
Hell I have plenty of Indian friends and only one is f-ing white looking. The Depths you people will go to Deafricanize Egypt and other cultures.
And Lets be honest trying to use Modern Indiians to prove your point wont work with me. The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc.
Also these statements were made in the Roman era, well after the Dynastic period and well after foreign Eurasian barbarian invasions of Egypt.
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
Those Southern Egyptians reflect the Reddish brown color and phenotype as depicted by the Egyptians themselves. Egyptian Culture and Innovation came from the South.End of story.
I can care less about Delta Egyptians, they get enough recognition as it is.
" The Indian people esp in the North have been subject to many people Including Greeks, Persians, Sythians, Turks, Mongols, etc."
I think you oughta know that the main reason that Northern Indians are light is because of the migration of Indo European peoples over three thousand years ago. They were probably even lighter in Roman times since currently many indians from the South have moved into major cities all over. So nowadays there is more mixture.
Your southern Egyptians do not look like Northern Indians. Eveyone knows that Northern Indians can look like Middle Easterners or even Hispanics. The contrast is between light brown/Tan and dark brown. I'm not really trying to imply that they were "White" skiinned..just lighter than what many here are claiming. But I admit posting those near White Indian girls gave me a devious pleasure.
Beige color is what I'm taling about. Here is South Carolina governor Nikki Hailey both of her parents are from Punjab. This is what I'm talking about.
And what's the matter with Eurasians? On topix you were open minded. Here, you seem like a staunch Afrocentirc. What happened?
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
That Woman is not beige she is white. If you think majority of native Indains or Egyptians for that matter look like that then there is no point in furthering this discussion as you are clearly in denial.
Here is what the ave. Egyptian would have looked like during Dynastic times..
To Hell with some Punjan Persian/Sythian blooded Indian. and BTW, Punjab is one of the most invaded areas in India. Even the name Punjab is Persian in origin. No wonder you would choose Punjab to prove your point.
And I have no problem with Eurasians, but let Eurasian stay with their Empires and Kingdoms and Africans stick with theirs. I find it funny how you will Harp and break your neck to claim Ethiopians and Horners are descendants of Eurasians and Eurasian admixture but will fight toothe and nail against the idea of Black Arabs as if some invisable barrier that allowed Eurasians to "Back Migrate" to Africa but prevented Africans from going into Asia. I have yet to see you frequent history forums with as much enthusiasm proclaiming the African and Black people in Mesopotamia, India a Southern Europe. Awefully quiet on that SSA blood pumping through the veins of the Greeks.
As I said your only goal here is to Eurasianize African culture at any chance you get.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Hell with some Punjan Persian/Sythian blooded Indian. and BTW, Punjab is one of the most invaded areas in India. Even the name Punjab is Persian in origin. No wonder you would choose Punjab to prove your point.
And? You may say that Persian is an indo European language but so is Hindi. Both brought to these areas by the same people.
I find it funny how you will Harp and break your neck to claim Ethiopians and Horners are descendants of Eurasians and Eurasian admixture but will fight toothe and nail against the idea of Black Arabs as if some invisable barrier that allowed Eurasians to "Back Migrate" to Africa but prevented Africans from going into Asia.
I never denied there was Black admixture in Arabs. I have also said that there was an ancient Veddoid strain in South West Asia. However I just challenged another poster to how and when the modern Semitic/Eurasian type came to dominate in the Middle East. You have to admit, it does seem somewhat puzzling.
I have yet to see you frequent history forums with as much enthusiasm proclaiming the African and Black people in Mesopotamia, India a Southern Europe. Awefully quiet on that SSA blood pumping through the veins of the Greeks.
I think folks tend to get a little carried away on those topics. Technically you could say african Blood is pumping through the veins of everybody.
As I said your only goal here is to Eurasianize African culture at any chance you get No I'm here to try and keep a balanced perspestive. To me an objective person is someone who would say that Egypt does have a sub saharan foundation but at the same time does has a number of Eurasian influences but culturally and racially. To cliam they were all Blacks is not very realistic. You accuse of showing only the extremes in the pictures I point, to buttress my point, yet I find you do the same. You have posted some of the darker images of egyptians.. Yet you overlooked or forgot ones like this
And this.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malcontent7: I guess you don't know what Northern Indians look like. You don't care much for truth, do you?
Your own statement should be made to YOU! I know enough to know that the majority of northern Indians are still quite dark and complexion wise would be considered 'black' in the states.
People of downtown Delhi
LOL It looks like Bollywood has you fooled if you think light-skinned Indians are the majority even in the north!
quote: Lolz.
Another biased reconstruction. The features of the skull, particularly the dolichocephalic head speak African. The facial features in particular are not unusual of northeast Africans and even some West Africans like Fulani. But the skin complexion is obviously wishful thinking, something YOU suffer. I find it hilarious they would give this white woman the braided African hairstyle. Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
How it looked before with more remnants of original paint.
quote:And this.
Yes we can see this is the face of a black man, though his complexion would likely have been darker if not for the paint loss.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I like how people will use that quote then go find the lightest Indians they can to prove their point. Not all Northern Indians are light many are Dark but not as Dark as the Dravidians..
You can see many Indians have the Reddish Brown color like many Modern Day Southern Egyptians..
While Southern Indians are Darker..
Indeed. The point is, the indigenous people of northern India are still quite dark. Southern Indians are darker, but that still does not dispel the FACT that indigenous northerners are still dark enough to qualify as black!
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malcontent7: Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
The fairest Indians in the country are found in Kashmir which the ancient Greeks knew little about! The main area of ancient India (which included modern Pakistan) that Greeks knew of was the Indus Valley which did include the Punjab. There are still many dark (black) types in Punjab today, but you do realize that the Punjab was the site of many invasions during Medieval times which brought many Central Asian groups such as the Mughals, so who do you think represent the original ancients?? Just like Egyptians, you ignore the recent history of invasions and immigrations in a pathetic effort to claim the fair types as original! LOL
quote:Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
Let's see.
Here is artwork of ancient NORTHERN Egytians.
Modern Northern Egyptian man from RURAL Giza.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
How it looked before with more remnants of original paint.
Djehuti, you're still telling lies after I schooled you on this.
The bottom of the wax covered statue had brownish discoloration heaviest on the legs becasue it was closer to the ground and wax picks up dirt. Then they cleaned it. This is documented. Stop making up lies. Any fool can see the lighter orangish brown is the original color and the faded parts are blotchy white of the limestone, this on the cleaned version, second from above.
another scribe, similar color, in daylight lighting:
the same sculpture photographed in dark gallery with spot light:
another, again not the chocolate brown color of dirty wax
Are there some Egyptian artworks which show an actual intended original chocolate brown color? Yes there are many variations. But not in the seated scribe we are talking about. Traces of this wax are found on Egyptian sculptures and tombs as far back as 2500 BC.
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Why are YOU lying?? So you insist that there was no paint loss and that the complexions of the statues are the same as when they were first painted?? Notice that even the neck collar and even some of the hair color is faded off, you twit! Who do you think you are fooling?? Do you wonder why everyone calls you a lyinass??
If the seated scribes were lighter than chocolate brown, then they likely were the same color as other northern Egyptians like these brothers:
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Notice the profile the ancient lady is no different from her modern sisters in rural Luxor.
Your own statement should be made to YOU! I know enough to know that the majority of northern Indians are still quite dark and complexion wise would be considered 'black' in the states.
Bullcrap! There are many Idians from the South in Dehi its the capital city Duh! I have been to Inida, you haven't. And if Northern Indians were that dark there would be no point in mentioning the contrast between North And South indian to describe the difference between Egyptians and Ehtiopians.
[b](which included modern Pakistan) that Greeks knew of was the Indus Valley which did include the Punjab. There are still many dark (black) types in Punjab today, but you do realize that the Punjab was the site of many invasions during Medieval times which brought many Central Asian groups such as the Mughals, so who do you think represent the original ancients?? Just like Egyptians, you ignore the recent history of invasions and immigrations in a pathetic effort to claim the fair types as original! LOL
Dude the main historic event that accounts for their light phenotype was the arrival Indo European speakers several hundred years before the Greeks. The North has been light skinned ever since. If you want to waste your time and argue agaisnt it, be my guest.
And those women in your last picture are obviously Caucasians! Give it up already.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me an objective person is someone who would say that Egypt does have a sub saharan foundation but at the same time does has a number of Eurasian influences but culturally and racially.
Any Eurasian influence is minute and insignifigant until late Dynastic times, and led to the eventual fall or Egypt.
To cliam they were all Blacks is not very realistic.
Who said anything about the Egyptians being "all black"?? Don't pull that pathetic strawman BS argument with me . What I find funny is how when it comes to Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia etc. suddenly the minority of Non Africans and Non Blacks become an important factor but when it comes to Greece, Numidians, Carthage, Arabs and Berbers suddenly you see no problem as claiming them as "Eurasian" "Caucasian" White or Middle Eastern Looking, and dismiss any blacks off as "Not Representing what most _________ looked like. But when it comes to Egypt suddenly you wanna be balanced.
You accuse of showing only the extremes in the pictures I point, to buttress my point, yet I find you do the same. You have posted some of the darker images of egyptians.. Yet you overlooked or forgot ones like this
I can care less about those types because they represent a Minority. and it funny because you are not one to talk about overlooking images you don't like. BTW, Rahotep looks like the average Nilotic Egyptian found in the South.
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: [
As I said earlier your only purpose is to Eurasainize any African Culture you can. Any African person without Blubbery Lips and Nappy Pepper Corn hair is suddenly Mixed, Middle Eastern Looking, or Eurasian. Then in the same breath you have a fit when Afrocentrics claim Blubbery lipped and curly haired Olmec, Greeks, Romans etc as being black.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any Eurasian influence is minute and insignifigant until late Dynastic times, and led to the eventual fall or Egypt.
Yeah cause the Hyksos weren't Eurasians.
Who said anything about the Egyptians being "all black"??
Well what the fcuk then???
Don't pull that pathetic strawman BS argument with me . What I find funny is how when it comes to Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia etc. suddenly the minority of Non Africans and Non Blacks become an important factor but when it comes to Greece, Numidians, Carthage, Arabs and Berbers suddenly you see no problem as claiming them as "Eurasian" "Caucasian" White or Middle.
Thats cuz most of the Berbers weren't Blacks and the Greeks certainly weren't. Elementary my dear Watson..elementary.
I can care less about those types because they represent a Minority.
Sez you. Used to be when you looked a book on Egyptology you would see many depictins of light skinned folks but if now if you look at Afrocentric Websites they show the Blackest Egyptians they can find. Are you going to deny you all don't have an agenda?
As I said earlier your only purpose is to Eurasainize any African Culture you can. Any African person without Blubbery Lips and Nappy Pepper Corn hair is suddenly Mixed, Middle Eastern Looking, or Eurasian.
This is true. The earliest Africans, Khoisans and Pygmies were prefectly adaptated to their environment. Lighter skin, straight noses etc are likely the result of Back migrations of people who came from a different environment. I mean why were the Egyptians lighter than the Sudanese with finer hair and features?? Cuz they were mixed.
Then in the same breath you have a fit when Afrocentrics claim Blubbery lipped and curly haired Olmec, Greeks, Romans etc as being black
Aside from the appearance of the Olmec statues what evidece do you have that they were Africans, Genetic? Historical? material culture?? The Greeks..well I am open minded to the ideas that some of orginal pelasgians or Helots may have had African or dravidian characteristics. But the Achaeans and Dorians they were Indo- Europeans who came from the North and brought Greek language and culture to the islands. And I don't know of any Black native Romans.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Why are YOU lying?? So you insist that there was no paint loss and that the complexions of the statues are the same as when they were first painted??
post cleaned statue, Djhooti claims choclate brown paint was removed from:
You are saying that when the Louvre museum removed a dirty layer of wax wix had picked up dirt they were actually removed a chocolate brown paint pigment.
That is a lie.
It's based on nothing other than you looking at photos on the internet and pretending.
You should know better than to spread that type of conspiracy theory.
At the same time you promote a true Negro theory based on a chocolate brown skin tone rather than an indigenous African variety of tones inclusive of skin tones less dark. Some of the skin tones of indigenous Africans are the same as people in other parts of the world as opposed to your ranking system
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
jari see if you can get a match for the Nofret. I assume that you assume she was the same color as Rahotep so ignore the statue color . I leave it up to you.
see "igbo wedding" in google images for reference
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Who said anything about the Egyptians being "all black"??
Well what the fcuk then???
"Hyksos" is just a term for "Foreign" Princes or "Desert Dwellers" as the Hyskos of the North were called. And I don't see how the Hyksos were anything but a hated bunch of Barbarics who adoped Egyptian Culture, Gods, Language and Customs. The Egyptians not only defeated them in war they drove them out of the Nile Valley and even out of the Levant. The people who led this were Upper Egyptians related to Beja and other Sudanese groups.
I don't recall any Egyptians going to the Levant and adopting Levantine Culture and Speaking Levantine or Eurasian languages.
Thats cuz most of the Berbers weren't Blacks and the Greeks certainly weren't. Elementary my dear Watson..elementary.
1) The Berbers were black, their Language and Origins come from Africa and the Sahran Berbers were and are black.
2) The same argument can be made about Egyptians majority were not Eurasian.
Sez you. Used to be when you looked a book on Egyptology you would see many depictins of light skinned folks but if now if you look at Afrocentric Websites they show the Blackest Egyptians they can find. Are you going to deny you all don't have an agenda?
Maybe because majority of Egyptian art work shows Dark Skinned people. I don't speak for any other person or any "Afrocentric" so I can't tell you if they have an agenda. Majority of Afrocentrics like Myra and Diop's agenda was to put Egypt's origns back in Africa and to spread the Truth that Egypt and its orgins and culture and people had nothing to do with anyone except various African people.
My agenda is to give a voice and recognition to Egypt's black native population in Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan.
This is true. The earliest Africans, Khoisans and Pygmies were prefectly adaptated to their environment. Lighter skin, straight noses etc are likely the result of Back migrations of people who came from a different environment. I mean why were the Egyptians lighter than the Sudanese with finer hair and features?? Cuz they were mixed.
This is your ignorant opinion and you have no proof or evidence that Light Skin and non nappy hair did not evolve in Africa other than your opinion and tired outdated arguments by bogus Internet Antropologists.
Evidence already proves these features evolved in Africa.
Aside from the appearance of the Olmec statues what evidece do you have that they were Africans, Genetic? Historical? material culture??
Where did I say they were Africans, you confused little cretan. Its your dumbass who should be claiming that, if you uphold a True Negro strerotype. Not me..
The Greeks..well I am open minded to the ideas that some of orginal pelasgians or Helots may have had African or dravidian characteristics. But the Achaeans and Dorians they were Indo- Europeans who came from the North and brought Greek language and culture to the islands. And I don't know of any Black native Romans.
As I said when it comes to Greeks, Romans, etc who obviously had blacks in their ranks suddenly the Minority does not matter. Suddenly you lose you so called "Balance" but when it comes to Africans if you aint got Blubbery Lips and Peppercorn nappy hair you are a Eurasian, Mixed or Middle Eastern.
You are stuck in the 20th century, trying to Eurasianize African culture. A biased bigot peice of turd.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hyksos" is just a term for "Foreign" Princes or "Desert Dwellers" as the Hyskos of the North were called. And I don't see how the Hyksos were anything but a hated bunch of Barbarics who adoped Egyptian Culture, Gods, Language and Customs. The Egyptians not only defeated them in war they drove them out of the Nile Valley and even out of the Levant. The people who led this were Upper Egyptians related to Beja and other Sudanese groups.
The Hyksos were most Canaanites(Eurasians) And some of them were enslaved after the expulsion. What do you think happened to many of their women? The Nile Delat has been a refuge for Near Eastern types since time Immemorial. You see it in the Bible.
I don't recall any Egyptians going to the Levant and adopting Levantine Culture and Speaking Levantine or Eurasian languages.
What Eurasian langauge is there in the Levant that they would pick up on? But they did have a string presence in the Levant made vassal states out of many in the region. And they took foreign women for themselves as well.
The Berbers were black, their Language and Origins come from Africa and the Sahran Berbers were and are black.
The vast majority today are not Black. The Guanche weren't Black. Ancient writers only claimed that many North African are were dark which they still are but they reserved the term Aethipoes for Blacks. As you will recall our buddy Manilius has our Moors as being lighter than Indians and Egyptians. I think most people today would agree with that assertion.
"In Manilius' order complexions from the most dark to the least dark are - Aethiopes - India - Aegyptia - Afrorum - Mauretania"
So why should I believe there was some drastic change??
Majority of Afrocentrics like Myra and Diop's agenda was to put Egypt's origns back in Africa and to spread the Truth that Egypt and its orgins and culture and people had nothing to do with anyone except various African people.
It has nuthin to do with YOU. And many critics have found flaws with Diop's assertions.
This is your ignorant opinion and you have no proof or evidence that Light Skin and non nappy hair did not evolve in Africa other than your opinion and tired outdated arguments by bogus Internet Antropologists.
Evidence already proves these features evolved in Africa.
No they don't. Everywhere you have these "Non African" features you havenon African haplogroups like J, T R and mtDNA H V and U etc. And these people usually live at the etreme ends of Africa. That seems like a very curious coincidence to me. You can run but you can't hide.
Where did I say they were Africans, you confused little cretan. Its your dumbass who should be claiming that, if you uphold a True Negro strerotype. Not me..
Well I'm not from Crete..but why did you bring the Olmecs up then? If you are confused take a a few deep breaths, stand up, stretch, walk around and then come back.
You are stuck in the 20th century, trying to Eurasianize African culture. A biased bigot peice of turd.
Harsh words from the butt hurt. Admit you've been spanked! Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hyksos were most Canaanites(Eurasians) And some of them were enslaved after the expulsion. What do you think happened to many of their women? The Nile Delat has been a refuge for Near Eastern types since time Immemorial. You see it in the Bible.
The Hyksos were probably the only people in Egyptian history to experience something close to Genocide at the hands of the Egyptians. Not only were they expelled out the Delta but their strong holds were Burned and Sacked in the Levant. The Egyptians ran their ass out the Damn Levant son.
Why you keep harping on the Hysos I don't know I doubt I would want to be a Eurasian Hysos back in that time. BTW, no one knows what the Hyksos looked like so what is the big deal. The Egyptians from Upper Egypt dealt with them.
and as I said like flies drawn to a light the Eurasian Barbabarics were drawn to Km.t like the dirty stinking savages they were this eventually led to the fall of Km.t..
What Eurasian langauge is there in the Levant that they would pick up on? But they did have a string presence in the Levant made vassal states out of many in the region. And they took foreign women for themselves as well.
Its called Subjugation. Your Eurasians were adopting Egyptian/African Culture not the other way around. And Slave Women prove nothing. Your Eurasians would have come scraping on their Knees to the African Sutens.
The vast majority today are not Black
Your point..??
The Guanche weren't Black.
We have already been through this the Guanches were associated with Athiopies black and others were also called "Off Black" In other word essentially the same as Modern Taureg who are in the large black.
It has nuthin to do with YOU.
Where did I claim as such, Strawman fallacy..
And many critics have found flaws with Diop's assertions.
Many more flaws in his opponents arguments and his whole premise that Egypt was African in origin has been largely correct.
No they don't. Everywhere you have these "Non African" features you havenon African haplogroups like J, T R and mtDNA H V and U etc. And these people usually live at the etreme ends of Africa. That seems like a very curious coincidence to me. You can run but you can't hide.
This is your opinion based on your own ignorance. You have no proof that Genetics proves Phenotype. Africans are the most diverse of Humans and their features are native to the continent. Ill believe Keita, and educated man over your clown Google Scholar ass.
but why did you bring the Olmecs up then
You are stupid. If you claim that Africans only can have a certain look then you are no different than people like Mike who claim Olmecs as blacks. You comprehension skills are lacking to say the least.
Harsh words from the butt hurt. Admit you've been spanked!
save your childish chest bumping for those of your intelligence level. Google scholar You are nothing but nat compared to an Eagle. An ant can't crush a Dinosaur.
Your attempts to Eurasianize African cultures wont work here son, maybe Topix but not here. You will continue to get slapped down.
You're dismissed..
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: "In Manilius' order complexions from the most dark to the least dark are - Aethiopes - India - Aegyptia - Afrorum - Mauretania"
So why should I believe there was some drastic change??
east dark are (a)- Aethiopes (b)- India (c)- Aegyptia (d)- Afrorum (d)- Mauretania"
A
B
C
D(Saharan Type)
D(Coastal Type)/(mixture with European Migrants)
You're dismissed...
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: I like how people will use that quote then go find the lightest Indians they can to prove their point. Not all Northern Indians are light many are Dark but not as Dark as the Dravidians..
You can see many Indians have the Reddish Brown color like many Modern Day Southern Egyptians
Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
Now compare the Northern Indians above to How the Egyptians represented themselves
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
The Northern Indians at that time were the Jats and the Meds. Most northern Indians are still dark, especially Punjabis!
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Snowden "Manilius Astronomica 4.729-30; Lucan 4.678-679…” noted “the similarity of the color in the Moor and the Indian (concolor Indo Maurus)…” (p. 259).
The word Indian referred to Abyssinians, Beja and Eritrea and South Arabian Himyarites (Sabaeans) in their time along with peoples along the Indus of the same complexion. As in Nonnus where they are called the woolly haired "Indi" or Blemmyes (Beliya or Beli ) along the Orontes.
To the south of the Indi in the time of the Periplus of the Indian Ocean thought to have been written by Flavius lived the very tall people in Saurashtra whom Herodotus called the "Eastern Ethiopians" and implied were IDENTICAL in culture to the "western Ethiopians" and of the same height.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: Any Eurasian influence is minute and insignifigant until late Dynastic times, and led to the eventual fall or Egypt.
Yeah cause the Hyksos weren't Eurasians.
Who said anything about the Egyptians being "all black"??
Well what the fcuk then???
Don't pull that pathetic strawman BS argument with me . What I find funny is how when it comes to Egypt, Ethiopia, Nubia etc. suddenly the minority of Non Africans and Non Blacks become an important factor but when it comes to Greece, Numidians, Carthage, Arabs and Berbers suddenly you see no problem as claiming them as "Eurasian" "Caucasian" White or Middle.
Thats cuz most of the Berbers weren't Blacks and the Greeks certainly weren't. Elementary my dear Watson..elementary.
I can care less about those types because they represent a Minority.
Sez you. Used to be when you looked a book on Egyptology you would see many depictins of light skinned folks but if now if you look at Afrocentric Websites they show the Blackest Egyptians they can find. Are you going to deny you all don't have an agenda?
As I said earlier your only purpose is to Eurasainize any African Culture you can. Any African person without Blubbery Lips and Nappy Pepper Corn hair is suddenly Mixed, Middle Eastern Looking, or Eurasian.
This is true. The earliest Africans, Khoisans and Pygmies were prefectly adaptated to their environment. Lighter skin, straight noses etc are likely the result of Back migrations of people who came from a different environment. I mean why were the Egyptians lighter than the Sudanese with finer hair and features?? Cuz they were mixed.
Then in the same breath you have a fit when Afrocentrics claim Blubbery lipped and curly haired Olmec, Greeks, Romans etc as being black
Aside from the appearance of the Olmec statues what evidece do you have that they were Africans, Genetic? Historical? material culture?? The Greeks..well I am open minded to the ideas that some of orginal pelasgians or Helots may have had African or dravidian characteristics. But the Achaeans and Dorians they were Indo- Europeans who came from the North and brought Greek language and culture to the islands. And I don't know of any Black native Romans.
Egyptians and many populations south of Egypt were an are the exact same color. And most Berber clans today are of course the same color they were when mentioned in early texts. Most of the major tribes of people that were known as Berbers are still dark brown and black and color.
Those tribes as listed over and over again by the early Arab writers were the Zanata, Masmuda (from whom came the original Ghomara), Kitama, Hawara, Sanhaja.
Any group of people that speaks Berber or Arab today is called Berber or Arab. These are names for nationalities and not ethnicities.
No tribe of fair-skinned people whether Scythian, Vandal, people of the sea, Turk, Iranian, Syrian, Albanian, Armenian, or slave-descended was ever named Maurus or Berber in North Africa by the early Near Eastern or Byzantine writers.
There were different populations of the Canary Islands and so called Gaunches according to both tradition and anthropology including the dark brown ones related to Phoenicians and Berbers as well as ones European affiliation.
And of course Olmec's showed clearly both African type and Native American type skeletons as is oft mentioned in early anthropological studies.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Why are YOU lying?? So you insist that there was no paint loss and that the complexions of the statues are the same as when they were first painted??
post cleaned statue, Djhooti claims choclate brown paint was removed from:
You are saying that when the Louvre museum removed a dirty layer of wax wix had picked up dirt they were actually removed a chocolate brown paint pigment.
That is a lie.
It's based on nothing other than you looking at photos on the internet and pretending.
You should know better than to spread that type of conspiracy theory.
At the same time you promote a true Negro theory based on a chocolate brown skin tone rather than an indigenous African variety of tones inclusive of skin tones less dark. Some of the skin tones of indigenous Africans are the same as people in other parts of the world as opposed to your ranking system
Trollers never win.
Doesn't look removed to me.
Just a bit faded. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hyksos were probably the only people in Egyptian history to experience something close to Genocide at the hands of the Egyptians. Not only were they expelled out the Delta but their strong holds were Burned and Sacked in the Levant. The Egyptians ran their ass out the Damn Levant son.
It is believed by some that Hyksos settlde in Edom and some became Iraelites. I doubt that their genetic imprint was sinficantly eradicated from Northern Egypt.
and as I said like flies drawn to a light the Eurasian Barbabarics were drawn to Km.t like the dirty stinking savages they were this eventually led to the fall of Km.t..
Talk about bigotry..
Its called Subjugation. Your Eurasians were adopting Egyptian/African Culture not the other way around. And Slave Women prove nothing. Your Eurasians would have come scraping on their Knees to the African Sutens.
More bigotry. I see you harp on the term African to make yourself feel good. Lol.
Your point..??
Unless some drastic migration occured, they likely never were, not in historical times anyway.
We have already been through this the Guanches were associated with Athiopies black and others were also called "Off Black" In other word essentially the same as Modern Taureg who are in the large black.
Total BS many Guanches were swarthy Middle Eastern looking types and some were fair with blond hair etc.
Many more flaws in his opponents arguments and his whole premise that Egypt was African in origin has been largely correct.
African only in a very general sense.
This is your opinion based on your own ignorance. You have no proof that Genetics proves Phenotype. Africans are the most diverse of Humans and their features are native to the continent. Ill believe Keita, and educated man over your clown Google Scholar ass.
Lol. Wishful thinking. I'm talking about a consistent coincidence of genes and phenotypes, not mention the coincidence of the folks in question living near similar looking non African people. If something doesn't click in your brian when you stop to consider this, then you have to be close to retarded or else a serious deluded individual.
You are stupid. If you claim that Africans only can have a certain look then you are no different than people like Mike who claim Olmecs as blacks.
Have I not spoke about Papuans and andamese in the past? Face it, it was stupid of you to bring up the Olmecs, having no clear point.
save your childish chest bumping for those of your intelligence level. Google scholar You are nothing but nat compared to an Eagle. An ant can't crush a Dinosaur.
And an ant crushing a dinosuar is a very silly and childish anaology. But interestingly dinosaurs are extinct, non existent, just like the validity of many of your afrocentric calims so you just might be on to something.
Your attempts to Eurasianize African cultures wont work here son, maybe Topix but not here. You will continue to get slapped down.
You and I both know that I wouldn't be on here if I wasn't having fun.
I simply know too much to be slapped down...
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: I like how people will use that quote then go find the lightest Indians they can to prove their point. Not all Northern Indians are light many are Dark but not as Dark as the Dravidians..
You can see many Indians have the Reddish Brown color like many Modern Day Southern Egyptians
Hey I have been to India. Your pictures don't reflect the CONTRAST the ancients were refering to with regard to Northern Indians and Southern Indians. Why don find pictures of Punjabis or kashmiris.
Now compare the Northern Indians above to How the Egyptians represented themselves
Those are southern Egyptians. You really think those in the North and the Delta looked like that???
The Northern Indians at that time were the Jats and the Meds. Most northern Indians are still dark, especially Punjabis!
Oh boy.. I will deal with you tomorrow.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that their genetic imprint was sinficantly eradicated from Northern Egypt.
Unfortunately...
Talk about bigotry..
More bigotry. I see you harp on the term African to make yourself feel good. Lol.
No, Bigotry is a bunch of Europeans coming to Egypt and claiming White people created it because the native Upper Egyptians were to dumb to do so. Bigotry is ignoring the Upper Egyptians and not giving them their fair stake and hand in building and Founding Km.t Bigotry is is giving all the credit to a bunch Eurasian living in the Delta who had nothing to do with the foundation of Km.t, thats Bigotry.
What Im doing is noble.
Total BS many Guanches were swarthy Middle Eastern looking types and some were fair with blond hair etc.
Hmm, I thought we were talking about the Garamantes not the guanches. Anywho, who gives a damn about the Guanches, they were not the only natives of the Canaries.
Lol. Wishful thinking. I'm talking about a consistent coincidence of genes and phenotypes, not mention the coincidence of the folks in question living near similar looking non African people. If something doesn't click in your brian when you stop to consider this, then you have to be close to retarded or else a serious deluded individual.
All this blabbering and you have still to post a shred of evidence that HGs in question equal a certain Phenotype and that the True Negro is valid. You would think with you chest bumping and noise you are making you would post something, yet here we are.
As I said I'll believe Keita an educated man than some run of the mill rinky-dinky google scholar such as yourself.
African only in a very general sense.
Genetics, Religion, Culture, Language, Phenotype, Customs, Tropical Adaption etc.
More wishful thinking from the Eurasian bigot whore.
Have I not spoke about Papuans and andamese in the past? Face it, it was stupid of you to bring up the Olmecs, having no clear point.
You are too stupid. Your dumb ass is the one claiming a Negro sterotype, the same people who claim such are Mike and Clyde who claim everyone on Earth was black including the Olmec, and their main evidence are the heads.
I.E You are no better than Mike and Clyde, you comprehend dumbass.
And an ant crushing a dinosuar is a very silly and childish anaology. But interestingly dinosaurs are extinct, non existent, just like the validity of many of your afrocentric calims so you just might be on to something
More ass talk, not walk.
You and I both know that I wouldn't be on here if I wasn't having fun.
I simply know too much to be slapped down...
Not really, all you can do is give opinions, Eyeball and propagate the True NEgro sterotype, other than that you don't know sh@t.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malcontent7: Bullcrap! There are many Indians from the South in Delhi its the capital city Duh! I have been to India, you haven't. And if Northern Indians were that dark there would be no point in mentioning the contrast between North And South indian to describe the difference between Egyptians and Ethiopians.
LOL And how the hell do YOU know where I have been?? I know actual Indians from northern India and even the light ones say that light complexion is not as common as many think.
As for the difference. You mean like the same difference the Greeks stated between themselves and the Scythians and Germanics?? LOL So one is white and the other is not?
quote: Dude the main historic event that accounts for their light phenotype was the arrival Indo European speakers several hundred years before the Greeks. The North has been light skinned ever since. If you want to waste your time and argue against it, be my guest.
Dude! YOU are sadly mistaken. Archaeology and definitely genetics has shown that there was NO invasion or major incursion of populations during Vedic Aryan times. The Aryans if they did enter, were a population too minute to change the overall populace and Aryanization was a cultural process! Modern genetics has found that the vast majority of Indians, including northerners are indigenous. Those who do have foreign lineages, these date to Medieval times of known historical invasions from the Kushana, to the Mughal, to Persian immigration of Ottoman times!
quote:And those women in your last picture are obviously Caucasians! Give it up already.
LOL They are "caucasian" based on what? Their noses??
I suppose these West African men are "caucasian" as well..
You have yet to define what "caucasian" is. According to you they range from fair-skinned Eurasians like Europeans and Iranians to mahogany brown Africans Egyptians and Ethiopians! LOL YOU give it up! Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: The Northern Indians at that time were the Jats and the Meds. Most northern Indians are still dark, especially Punjabis!
Indeed. Including today most Indians even in the northern areas are quite dark and have complexions no different from mahogany to toffee colored Africans. Of course there are fair types, but these are a minority, though they increase in a northern gradient to Kashmir as well as a western gradient to Pakistan. Kashmir is quite near Central Asia and of course Pakistan via the Khyber pass was the main point of entry for invasions. So that fair types exist here is no surprise.
quote: According to Snowden "Manilius Astronomica 4.729-30; Lucan 4.678-679…” noted “the similarity of the color in the Moor and the Indian (concolor Indo Maurus)…” (p. 259).
The word Indian referred to Abyssinians, Beja and Eritrea and South Arabian Himyarites (Sabaeans) in their time along with peoples along the Indus of the same complexion. As in Nonnus where they are called the woolly haired "Indi" or Blemmyes (Beliya or Beli ) along the Orontes.
To the south of the Indi in the time of the Periplus of the Indian Ocean thought to have been written by Flavius lived the very tall people in Saurashtra whom Herodotus called the "Eastern Ethiopians" and implied were IDENTICAL in culture to the "western Ethiopians" and of the same height.
Yes. What ignoramuses like Malcontent fail to realize is that early Greco-Romans actually called Indians (including northerners) as eastern 'Ethiopians'! Herodotus in his early description of Indians went so far as to mention that not only were they black (people of the Indus Valley) but that the men ejaculated black semen! Nobody knows how or why Herodotus made the bizarre comment about the semen since he made no such claim about any other black peoples. So far recent scientific evidence has verified other claims he made like gold-digging giant ants which were actually marmots, but as of yet to be verified is the black semen.
Posts: 26322 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over Ugg Boots the last few years Uggs have a sham sole, http://uggbootsclearance-ie.net ,while this has the drippy bendable skin of the sheep facing out as it has the woolen part of the skin facing in. The Ugg is unique in the stage of comfort ugg boots sale . http://www.best-uggclearance.com ,It is rather promising to buy baby Uggs and they now come in all UGG boots is made from the name "ugg gumboot" referred to a slightly Australian gumboot made with prices up to or over $500 a brace in some luggage for everyone, http://www.uggboots-outlet-ie.net ,from modest circulation and cold feet. Ugg boots are not only comfortable and thaw, But nowadays with the technology development, http://uggclearance-ugg.net Ugg boots are particularly made by Australia sheepskin, just like to sport Ugg boots, it is the time to splurge money you buy other shoes on the summertime while cordial on the winner time, however, http://www.uggbootsclearance1.us , is really a little costly for me, but I am eager to consume money in them.
Posts: 138 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Bigotry is a bunch of Europeans coming to Egypt and claiming White people created it because the native Upper Egyptians were to dumb to do so
Well then your emotions have clouded your reasoning. That's not what I'm claiming. We know that the Egyptian culture was started in Upper Egypt.
that HGs in question equal a certain Phenotype and that the True Negro is valid. You would think with you chest bumping and noise you are making you would post something, yet here we are.
As I said I'll believe Keita an educated man than some run of the mill rinky-dinky google scholar such as yourself.
I don't know what Ketia says about it. However it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that if folks in Arabia have light skin, long noses and speak an Afroasitic langauge, and that their neighbors in the Horn of Africa tend to have similar features and also speak an Afroasiatic langauge that there might be some connection. And before you argue that these traits originate in East Africa, I would point out we know that many of the orginal inhabitants of Arabia who had come from the Horn orginally were dark skined dravidian/Africoid looking folks.
Obviously Light skinned people later migrtaed southward and crossed over into the Horn.
Genetics[b] Right cause haplogroup T and J are African and E1b1b goes all the way into Europe but is confined mostly to East Africa. And King Tut was found to be R1b Lol!
[b]Religion Right cause Osiris dying and being resurreted is middle east...I mean African. As is Maat weighing hearts after death. Yeah we see this all over the African continent.
Culture You mean like creating pyramids to house the dead, mummification, hieroglyphic writing?
Phenotype Only in the South
Your dumb ass is the one claiming a Negro sterotype, the same people who claim such are Mike and Clyde who claim everyone on Earth was black including the Olmec
Umm Jari claiming that there is a basic African phenotype, doesn't mean other non Africans can't have a similar phenotype who live in a similar environment. That doesn't make them African. I would never argue that.
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL And how the hell do YOU know where I have been?? I know actual Indians from northern India and even the light ones say that light complexion is not as common as many think.
It's pretty obvious to me that you have never benn out from under the Rock you call your home
As for the difference. You mean like the same difference the Greeks stated between themselves and the Scythians and Germanics?? LOL So one is white and the other is not?
Huh?
Dude! YOU are sadly mistaken. Archaeology and definitely genetics has shown that there was NO invasion or major incursion of populations during Vedic Aryan times. The Aryans if they did enter, were a population too minute to change the overall populace and Aryanization was a cultural process! Modern genetics has found that the vast majority of Indians, including northerners are indigenous. Those who do have foreign lineages, these date to Medieval times of known historical invasions from the Kushana, to the Mughal, to Persian immigration of Ottoman times!
Dude if you read what I wrote you will notice that I mention the arrival of Indo European speakers not invasion, though I leave the possiblity open. Also these Indo Europeans had enough influence to leave genetic markers like R1a which are predominate among Brahmin and the Indo European langauges which dominate from North India all the to Bangaldesh. In case you didn't know southern Indians speak Dravidian, a totally unrelated language family.
"The entire map of base (ancestral) haplotypes and their mutations, as well as “ages” of common ancestors of R1a1 haplotypes in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East show that approximately six thousand years ago bearers of R1a1 haplogroup started to migrate from the Balkans in all directions, spreading their haplotypes. Their closeness should not be surprising, since a recent excavation of 4,600 yearold R1a1 haplotypes28 revealed their almost exact closeness to present-day R1a1 haplotypes...
Archaeological studies have been conducted since the 1990’s in the South Ural’s Arkaim settlement and have revealed that the settlement was abandoned 3,600 years ago. The population apparently moved to Northern India. That population belonged to Andronovo archaeological culture. Excavations of some sites of Andronovo culture showed that eight inhabitants out of nine shared R1a1 haplogroup and haplotypes29 as follows, dating between 5,500 and 1,800 years bp....This provides rather strong evidence that the R1a1 tribe migrated from Europe to the East between 5,000 and 3,600 years bp. The pattern of this migration is exhibited as follows: 1) the descendants who live today share a common ancestor of 4,825 years prior, 2) the Andronovo archaeological complex of cultures in North Kazakhstan and South and Western Siberia dates 4,300 to 3,500 years bp, 3) the reach to South Ural some 4,000 years bp, is where they built Arkaim, Sintashta (contemporary names) and the so-called “a country of towns” on South Ural around 3,800 ybp, 4) by 3,600 ybp they abandoned the area and moved to India under the name of Aryans. There they have “established” a common ancestor of R1a1 Indians 3,675 years bp, which chronologically corresponds to the events on the South Ural.... The obtained data suggest that the first bearers of R1a1 haplogroup lived in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Macedonia) about 11,600 years bp. It is unknown whether R1a1 appeared in the Balkans presumably from R1 or R1a or arrived from a yet unknown location. It was found that haplogroup R1b appeared from R1 about 16,000 years bp apparently in Asia."
You have yet to define what "caucasian" is. According to you they range from fair-skinned Eurasians like Europeans and Iranians to mahogany brown Africans Egyptians and Ethiopians! LOL YOU give it up!
I'll go with Europeans and West Asians. Some East Africans show "caucasian traits" which likely the result of some mixture from back migrations etc.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
The Northern Indians at that time were the Jats and the Meds. Most northern Indians are still dark, especially Punjabis!
Wrong most are not dark. Must we really contest this?
"It is important to understand the mindset. Why do many Indians perceive fair skin as beautiful The Indian race is the most diversified when it comes to skin colour. You will find all skin colours here, from almost black to as light as any white person. On an average, Kashmiris and Punjabis tend to be light skinned, while South Indians often tend to have darker skin. Of course, you will find those with light and dark skin in every community. Perhaps because there are more Indians with dark skin, light skin is seen as rarer and more beautiful Similarly, most Indians have black or brown eyes, so if an Indian has coloured eyes, he or she is immediately thought of as having beautiful eyes." http://www.indiaparenting.com/beauty/article.cgi?art_id=148&sec_id=10
According to Snowden "Manilius Astronomica 4.729-30; Lucan 4.678-679…” noted “the similarity of the color in the Moor and the Indian (concolor Indo Maurus)…” (p. 259).
Give you give us the complete passage?
The word Indian referred to Abyssinians, Beja and Eritrea and South Arabian Himyarites (Sabaeans) in their time along with peoples along the Indus of the same complexion. As in Nonnus where they are called the woolly haired "Indi" or Blemmyes (Beliya or Beli ) along the Orontes.
And yet Arrian and Strabo further quailify this comaprision by saying that Ehtiopians wre more similar to SOUTHERN Indians and Egyptians, Northern ones.
Egyptians and many populations south of Egypt were an are the exact same color. And most Berber clans today are of course the same color they were when mentioned in early texts.
And yet so many of the quotes on this thread say other wise, starting with Manilius.
Most of the major tribes of people that were known as Berbers are still dark brown and black and color.
But the vast majority of berbers are not dark brown or Black.
Those tribes as listed over and over again by the early Arab writers were the Zanata, Masmuda (from whom came the original Ghomara), Kitama, Hawara, Sanhaja.
Well here is how the Moroccans depict Ibn Batutta (who was of the Lawata tribe which I believe is a branch of the Sanhaja) on their currency.
Maybe you should write a compliant to the Moroccan Embassy.
No tribe of fair-skinned people whether Scythian, Vandal, people of the sea, Turk, Iranian, Syrian, Albanian, Armenian, or slave-descended was ever named Maurus or Berber in North Africa by the early Near Eastern or Byzantine writers.
If they were Scythians or Vandals etc then of course they weren't Berbers. That's a no brainer.
You may be interested in knowing however that the Greek historian Ephorus says the Tartessians held that Ethiopians (Blacks) only reached up as far north as the Atlas mountains in Morocco. Apparently they were pushed further back as the coastal Berbers expanded and with arrival of Islam. The Portuguese by the way claimed that some of the Bafur in Mauritania were very light skinned.
And of course Olmec's showed clearly both African type and Native American type skeletons as is oft mentioned in early anthropological studies.
Where is the genetic or cultural evidence please?
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
No tribe of fair-skinned people whether Scythian, Vandal, people of the sea, Turk, Iranian, Syrian, Albanian, Armenian, or slave-descended was ever named Maurus or Berber in North Africa by the early Near Eastern or Byzantine writers.
If they were Scythians or Vandals etc then of course they weren't Berbers. That's a no brainer.
You may be interested in knowing however that the Greek historian Ephorus says the Tartessians held that Ethiopians (Blacks) only reached up as far north as the Atlas mountains in Morocco. Apparently they were pushed further back as the coastal Berbers expanded and with arrival of Islam. The Portuguese by the way claimed that some of the Bafur in Mauritania were very light skinned.
Some of these Vandals, Sea People, etc. migrants, being migrants would become separated from former "tribal" affiliations and become permanent residents of Africa, if they spoke Berber they would be considered Berbers by the ancient writers, becoming part of a new culture. The caveat here is saying "no tribe of" This term tribe is used loosely by some of these writers. The implication is of people who have always lived where they lived, yet an example, American Indians were thought to have come from Asia. Consider the arbitrary point from which they come from Asia, devise a new "native" American cultural identity and someone decides they are then indigenous. How many years to qualify? The term "Berber" is not what the people called themselves. It was applied by ancient writers to people living in North Africa who spoke Berber. These ancient writers did not designate that Berbers were only certain "tribes" such as Tuareg.
Posts: 42968 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This troll is only here to yank chains for attention as its obvious and outright lie proves. Not two weeks ago he was taught the full quote here. DJ thought he ignored it but MelanoPhobe was just waiting for the opportunity to mangle it so to get his jollies off not to make any kind of valid point.
Ephorus wrote in the 4th century BCE. Tartessos was directly across the Pillars of Heracles, i.e., the Strait of Gibraltar, from Mauretania.
quote: Originally posted 18 November, 2009 by Dana Marniche: "Ephorus says the Tartessians report that Ethiopians overran Libya as far as Dyris, and that some of them stayed in Dyris, while others occupied a great part of the sea-board; and he conjectures it was from this circumstance that Homer spoke as he did: 'Ethiopians that are sundered in twain, the farthermost of men.'" Strabo Geography 1.2.26
Nothing about them quitting at Dyris [Atlas] (which by the way is way far north, see map).
Nothing about anybody pushing them [Aethiopes] anywhere, if there was pushing they did it.
Such is the factual case and why Maur and Aethiop can at times be synonymous in 1st millenium Latin.
- - -
Admit he deliberately lied for attention? Nah, he'll just respond with more gobbledygook troll's bait like a toddler throwing a tantrum for its parents attention.
It may seem tactical to ignore the rube except some unknowing surfer may get taken in by melanophobe's con job.
quote:Originally posted by melanophobe7: You may be interested in knowing however that the Greek historian Ephorus says the Tartessians held that Ethiopians (Blacks) only reached up as far north as the Atlas mountains in Morocco. Apparently they were pushed further back as the coastal Berbers expanded and with arrival of Islam.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of these Vandals, Sea People, etc. migrants, being migrants would become separated from former "tribal" affiliations and become permanent residents of Africa, if they spoke Berber they would be considered Berbers by the ancient writers, becoming part of a new culture.
True when they assimilated and thus no longer seen as Vandals or whatever.
-------------------- In the vast pasture of life you're bound to step in some truth. Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing about them quitting at Dyris [Atlas] (which by the way is way far north, see map).
What does "AS FAR AS" indicate to you?? All the major cities in Morocco lie north of the Atlas.
Nothing about anybody pushing them [Aethiopes] anywhere, if there was pushing they did it.
I didn't claim to get that from the quote. I also mentioned the advent of Islam being a cause for the Berbers moveing South. Could I claim a Greek histroian from 300 b.c said this??? Must've been one hell of a clairvoyant huh?
Only that they settled Dyris and went on to occupy the seaboard too.
Yeah, the Atlantic seaboard. If they reached the Mediterrean, then they wouldn't have bothered to say they reached all the way to Dyris would they?? Common sense. Duh! Lol!
"Some of what is said by Ps.- Scylax (?5 th/?4 th c. Greek) is confirmed by Strabo saying that Aithiopes/Blacks held the coast right up to Dyris (= the Atlas region, Morocco) and this would include the Lixitae."
Again how could they hold the coast UP TO the Dyris which are the Atlas mountains, unless they mean the Atlantic coast??
Such is the factual case and why Maur and Aethiop can at times be synonymous in 1st millenium Latin.
Whatever. Who were the inhabitants North of the Atlas??
Admit he deliberately lied for attention? Nah, he'll just respond with more gobbledygook troll's bait like a toddler throwing a tantrum for its parents attention. It may seem tactical to ignore the rube except some unknowing surfer may get taken in by melanophobe's con job.
Actually YOU might do better trying to ignore me. As it is your attempts to seem the wiser only result in your looking the fool. A very pitiful fool at that. LOL!
Posts: 682 | From: East Coast | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
Ephorus wrote in the 4th century BCE. Tartessos was directly across the Pillars of Heracles, i.e., the Strait of Gibraltar, from Mauretania.
Once again here is the actual quote not some anonymous internet paraphrase.
quote: Originally posted 18 November, 2009 by Dana Marniche: "Ephorus says the Tartessians report that Ethiopians overran Libya as far as Dyris, and that some of them stayed in Dyris, while others occupied a great part of the sea-board; and he conjectures it was from this circumstance that Homer spoke as he did: 'Ethiopians that are sundered in twain, the farthermost of men.'" Strabo Geography 1.2.26
Nothing about them quitting at Dyris [Atlas] (which by the way is way far north, see map).
Nothing about anybody pushing them [Aethiopes] anywhere, if there was pushing they did it.
As it was already known of various Aethiopes along the Atlantic and the Aethiop push is northward to Dyris and the Tartessians were located in what now is Spain the seaboard Ephorus mentions is obviously the Mediterranean.
Such is the factual case and why Maur and Aethiop can at times be synonymous in 1st millenium Latin.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, the Atlantic seaboard. If they reached the Mediterrean, then they wouldn't have bothered to say they reached all the way to Dyris would they?? Common sense. Duh! Lol!
"Some of what is said by Ps.- Scylax (?5 th/?4 th c. Greek) is confirmed by Strabo saying that Aithiopes/Blacks held the coast right up to Dyris (= the Atlas region, Morocco) and this would include the Lixitae."
Again how could they hold the coast UP TO the Dyris which are the Atlas mountains, unless they mean the Atlantic coast??
quote:Originally posted by al~Takruri: Such is the factual case and why Maur and Aethiop can at times be synonymous in 1st millenium Latin.
Whatever. Who were the inhabitants North of the Atlas??
Now let's examine the webpage Tantrum Toddler leans on and see in full context what it really says there, OK.
According to Pseudo- Scylax (= Ps.- Scylax), all the inhabitants of the coast of Atlantic-facing Africa from the River Senegal to beyond the Atlas Mountains were Aithiopes. Some of what is said by Ps.- Scylax (?5 th/?4 th c. Greek) is confirmed by Strabo saying that Aithiopes/Blacks held the coast right up to Dyris (= the Atlas region, Morocco) and this would include the Lixitae. Michael Skupin uses a translation of "Hanno" saying the Lixitae were a people of Aithiopia (= Af. sth. of Egypt) not of Libya (Af. west of Egypt on this definition). Gaituli may just mean "From the South" but even today, from the south in Africa still tends to mean from Sub-Saharan Africa, the more so if it is correct the Mauri were a leading component of the Mauri with a name meaning Black and leading on to the term of Moors.
Lies are so easily unravelled. Melanophobe's internet source supports * northward Aethiop movement beyond Atlas * Moor <- Mauri = black i.e., synonymous w/Aethiop
Anyway it's looked at Morocco north of the Atlas includes Mediterranean as well as Atlantic sea- boards all of which was called Mauretania a name taken from Mauri per Manilius.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right cause Osiris dying and being resurreted is middle east...I mean African. As is Maat weighing hearts after death. Yeah we see this all over the African continent.
First off Osiris was not ressurected. He was cut up into peices, scattered around Egypt, reassembled via Mummification and brought to life in the Underworld. The idea of Dying and Ressurecting in the Underworld or Life After Death etc is a universal aspect of many Human beliefs.
Osiris was not ressurected in the sense that he came back to physical life. His "ressurection" was to the underworld and spoke to the Beliefs associated with Mummification.
2)The weighing of the heart is a Nile Valley(African) invention.
Connection between Egyptian and African religions are well documented, I believe Budge dedicated a book to this.
You mean like creating pyramids to house the dead, mummification, hieroglyphic writing?
The Pyramids were devolped by Egyptians(Africans), the only other people to make use of the Pyramid as a tomb were the Nubians.
Also, Just so you know, because you obviously don't there are many smaller Pyramids in Upper Egypt that date from the 3rd Dynasty onward. BTW, have you seen how Djoser looked like, If you did Im sure you would be upset.
2) The Oldest "Mummified" Mummy in Africa is the African Lybian Uan.
3) Hieroglyphic writing developed in the South and the only other people to learn, use and develop their own Heiroglyphics were the Kushites/Nubians.
Demotic was developed during the 25th Dynasty..
So essentially you lose in you attempts to de-Africanize Egypt. You might have some points when it the Coastal Berbers and North Africans, but you aint Eurasianizing Egypt. Won't work, Egypt's connections are way to African bub..
Im sorry.
Posts: 8806 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by melchior7: To Hell with some Punjan Persian/Sythian blooded Indian. and BTW, Punjab is one of the most invaded areas in India. Even the name Punjab is Persian in origin. No wonder you would choose Punjab to prove your point.
And? You may say that Persian is an indo European language but so is Hindi. Both brought to these areas by the same people.
I find it funny how you will Harp and break your neck to claim Ethiopians and Horners are descendants of Eurasians and Eurasian admixture but will fight toothe and nail against the idea of Black Arabs as if some invisable barrier that allowed Eurasians to "Back Migrate" to Africa but prevented Africans from going into Asia.
I never denied there was Black admixture in Arabs. I have also said that there was an ancient Veddoid strain in South West Asia. However I just challenged another poster to how and when the modern Semitic/Eurasian type came to dominate in the Middle East. You have to admit, it does seem somewhat puzzling.
I have yet to see you frequent history forums with as much enthusiasm proclaiming the African and Black people in Mesopotamia, India a Southern Europe. Awefully quiet on that SSA blood pumping through the veins of the Greeks.
I think folks tend to get a little carried away on those topics. Technically you could say african Blood is pumping through the veins of everybody.
As I said your only goal here is to Eurasianize African culture at any chance you get No I'm here to try and keep a balanced perspestive. To me an objective person is someone who would say that Egypt does have a sub saharan foundation but at the same time does has a number of Eurasian influences but culturally and racially. To cliam they were all Blacks is not very realistic. You accuse of showing only the extremes in the pictures I point, to buttress my point, yet I find you do the same. You have posted some of the darker images of egyptians.. Yet you overlooked or forgot ones like this
And this.
Retarded jackass, those features are indigniuos to Northeast Africa. They weren't east Indians, you jackass.
Posts: 22245 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Lolz. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic