posted
"Almoravid" and "Big Mike" whup some ass on Topix using the ES "base" .. lol.. just like it was designed to be used, along with its general educational function... Good going guys..
quote:Originally posted by HidayaAkade: Very noble, but will it change their thinking?
Don't need to change their thinking, for they will not be convinced, as can be seen by the ton of scholarly citations Almoravid and Bib Mike present and how they duck, dodge and deny, with little substantive reply. That being the case, the objective is not to convince, but to hit them hard, while building up the base of the people- a more balanced dataset of African bio-history. The main key is continual expansion of that knowledge base.
Patrol and SOn of Ra if you are Almoravid and Big Mike you are doing a great job. I was impressed not only with the data brought to bear but how you qualified arguments, staying consistent with the data and avoiding strawman traps. "Big Mike" noted how the term "black" is sometimes used as a diversionary tactic- to sidetrack hard data on the floor into petty race labeling back and forth than can be then used as a smokescreen to bury the scholarship.
In the end opponents were reduced to setting up bogus strawmen like "Y'all are saying all Northern Egyptians are identical to Nubians, or West Africans.." etc etc, and other laughable strawman nonsense to supposedly "refute." Likewise bogus strawman claims that "no one else" lived in Egypt besides indigenous tropical Africans, when anyone dealing with credible data knows that there has always been interchange with other regions outside Africa- from war captives, to slaves, to merchants, to nomads of the "Middle East" and Maghreb, as well as the late-coming Persians, Greeks, Romans Arabs, etc. Who is supposedly "denying" this in affirming the African foundations and roots of the Nile Valley civilizations(s)?
And it is sometimes implied that Afro Americans should "stick with West Africa" (but white Brits aren't likewise supposed to "confine" themselves to Britain) and that they need some sort of "clearance" or "permission" or "approval" from "native" Egyptians (bogus or otherwise) or white people to study or make informed comment on the Nile Valley. Why do they need "approval" from anybody to deal with what is part of Africa, inhabited by African peoples? We don't need no badges of approval from anyone.
Troll Patrol says: Irony is that a lot of the opposite posters are Southern European descent. Mostly Spanish, Basque. Like Barros, curious and ilk. I don't know if there is a deeper meaning to it.
Such people may have this idea o Africa and Africans as pitiful refugees from someplace with no history or culture- and must therefore bow and kowtow to Greece or Spain, and need some kind of rubber stamp of approval from white or Arab types to study and think about their own continent. COuld be these types are upset because (a)their approval is not needed and (b) the "whitewash filter" used in the past (including Wiki "stealth" edits or Wiki admin sandbagging) no longer works. Like the man said: "We don't need no badges.."
Yeah that is a very sad site. Don't forget people like Bigsmoke and SEXYBLKWOMEN. Well keep on accruing data to build the base, keep on hammering and debunking deniers, keep on carefully qualifying arguments to defeat bogus strawmen. Keep "the patrol" hitting hard..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HidayaAkade: Very noble, but will it change their thinking?
As someone once told me, "save the savable". Of course there are some deranged minds that are just too far gone. Forget them! Better to educate those capable of learning and accepting valid information.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just skimmed thru and all I saw " Cro magnon is Eurasian!" "Afronazis", and the whole "sub Saharan" nonsense. This is why we need more conscious and informed black folks to study history and genetics. Or decade after decade, we will have the old " Africans lived in huts doing nothing, while non Africans came thru and saved them from themselves."
Posts: 200 | From: Akahara | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HidayaAkade: Or decade after decade, we will have the old " Africans lived in huts doing nothing, while non Africans came thru and saved them from themselves."
Please, nobody sane believe that anymore. Don't tell me you take those people seriously? Do we have to define ourselves in relation to what racist and deranged people think on the internet? They are all kind of idiots and trolls on the internet.
Get yourself some African history book. Written by black or white people and you'll get over the internet racist overhang you seem to have fallen to.
Maybe this book about African history:
The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 a History to 1800 by Christopher Ehret
Or a hundred others.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
The aspect I agree with HidayaAkade is about the need for more African scholars to do research about African history. It's also important to fund such ventures. Western archeologists or geneticists who do works in Africa are often subsided by their governments or various organizations (I saw a few instance of online funding too). There's really a lack of archeological and genetic research done in Africa.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ The lack of archaeological research alone in West Africa is ridiculous and pathetic. Some make the excuse that political conflicts in that region make archaeology difficult, yet conflicts in the Western part of Africa are not as big a problem as they are in Central Africa or even parts of the Nile Valley. The truth is the (predominantly white) Western archaeological scholars have little to no interest in West Africa no doubt due to ignorance on that very region. I mean look how recent sites like the Eredo Ramparts and Tichitt-Walata were discovered and seem to only scratch the surface of West Africa's ancient history and advanced civilizations of the past.
Eurocentric Doctrine #s 6 & 9: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE: If advanced science, art, or architecture is found in Africa or South America, then Phoenecians, Greeks, Celts, Vikings (or, in the extreme case, space aliens) must be invoked to explain their presence. (Here, whiteness often functions as a relative concept, as "lighter than.") This bias gives rise to a pronounced tendency to date American or African cultures later than warranted, and as a result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up.
The AFRICAN GAP DOCTRINE: After examining the first humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, this historical approach completely skips over most of the African archaeological record. It discusses ancient Egypt but ascribes its civilization to "the Middle East," denying its African identity and archaeological connections with Saharan and southern Nilotic civilizations. Saharan civilization, Ile-Ife or Mwanamutapa are not discussed at all. Africa is simply dropped from historical consideration until the era of European slaving and colonization, when it is portrayed as culturally and technologically deficient. The existence of female spheres of power in Africa is ignored.
^ Of course in the case of #6, Euronuts now attribute Africa's ancient achievements to prehistoric Eurasians. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol aka Ish Gebor: One only has to look at the pages, over the many years....and the many threads.
No, it will not change the thinking by them.
However, it will give people unaware, common readers a different perspective.
Irony is that a lot of the opposite posters are Southern European descent. Mostly Spanish, Basque. Like Barros, curious and ilk.
I don't know if there is a deeper meaning to it.
There is no deeper meaning.
Years ago Explorer and Rasol explained it all and it is simple. European scholars have long established the FACT that southern Europeans have admixture from North Africans. Modern genetics has only confirmed this. Thus Europeans in general but especially southern Europeans themselves in particular had the essential prerogative to white-wash these North Africans.
This is the very reason why ancient North Africans including and especially the Egyptians were labeled as "Caucasians" or "Eurasians" believed to be separate from "Negroids" of "Sub-Sahara".
Unfortunately not only skeletal remains refute this but so too genetics with PN2 (E) clade via the Y-chromosome and now as Swenet points out mtDNA L types!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HidayaAkade: Or decade after decade, we will have the old " Africans lived in huts doing nothing, while non Africans came thru and saved them from themselves."
Please, nobody sane believe that anymore. Don't tell me you take those people seriously? Do we have to define ourselves in relation to what racist and deranged people think on the internet? They are all kind of idiots and trolls on the internet.
Get yourself some African history book. Written by black or white people and you'll get over the internet racist overhang you seem to have fallen to.
Maybe this book about African history:
The Civilizations of Africa: A History to 1800 a History to 1800 by Christopher Ehret
Or a hundred others.
I don't take them seriously because I know better but it's annoying being in the minority who really knows about Africa. It's not about sanity, it's about the misinformation that is spread and now is considered fact. Most people still believe anything the "mainstream" media says about Africa. As for books I already have 80+.
Posts: 200 | From: Akahara | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
@DJ . I was trying to get my hands on the Doctrine for awhile. Will link on ESR. See, you can be useful.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ The lack of archaeological research alone in West Africa is ridiculous and pathetic. Some make the excuse that political conflicts in that region make archaeology difficult, yet conflicts in the Western part of Africa are not as big a problem as they are in Central Africa or even parts of the Nile Valley. The truth is the (predominantly white) Western archaeological scholars have little to no interest in West Africa no doubt due to ignorance on that very region. I mean look how recent sites like the Eredo Ramparts and Tichitt-Walata were discovered and seem to only scratch the surface of West Africa's ancient history and advanced civilizations of the past.
Eurocentric Doctrine #s 6 & 9: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE: If advanced science, art, or architecture is found in Africa or South America, then Phoenecians, Greeks, Celts, Vikings (or, in the extreme case, space aliens) must be invoked to explain their presence. (Here, whiteness often functions as a relative concept, as "lighter than.") This bias gives rise to a pronounced tendency to date American or African cultures later than warranted, and as a result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up.
The AFRICAN GAP DOCTRINE: After examining the first humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, this historical approach completely skips over most of the African archaeological record. It discusses ancient Egypt but ascribes its civilization to "the Middle East," denying its African identity and archaeological connections with Saharan and southern Nilotic civilizations. Saharan civilization, Ile-Ife or Mwanamutapa are not discussed at all. Africa is simply dropped from historical consideration until the era of European slaving and colonization, when it is portrayed as culturally and technologically deficient. The existence of female spheres of power in Africa is ignored.
^ Of course in the case of #6, Euronuts now attribute Africa's ancient achievements to prehistoric Eurasians. LOL
As you spoke on conflict areas. East Africa is the place where mostly conflict are, subduing Central Africa.
This is why it surprises me when genetic studies profile the Horn of Africa.
Especially those studies I from during the 90s and the late studies we see now are usually based on early studies from the 90s.
I have always wondered how they did those studies under such horrific conditions. Especially when you balance cost vs effectiveness and efficiency.
"1982 Ethiopian-Somali Border War Djiboutian Civil War 1991 - 1994 Ethiopian-Eritrean War 1998 - 2000, between Eritrea and Ethiopia Somali Civil War 1986–present (several issues involved) Operation Restore Hope - 1992 - 1993, UN intervention War in Somalia - 2006 - 2009, Ethiopian intervention"
quote:result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up
Awesome statement. The most recent claim by them is, caucasoids entered Africa 40-Kyr ago.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol aka Ish Gebor: One only has to look at the pages, over the many years....and the many threads.
No, it will not change the thinking by them.
However, it will give people unaware, common readers a different perspective.
Irony is that a lot of the opposite posters are Southern European descent. Mostly Spanish, Basque. Like Barros, curious and ilk.
I don't know if there is a deeper meaning to it.
There is no deeper meaning.
Years ago Explorer and Rasol explained it all and it is simple. European scholars have long established the FACT that southern Europeans have admixture from North Africans. Modern genetics has only confirmed this. Thus Europeans in general but especially southern Europeans themselves in particular had the essential prerogative to white-wash these North Africans.
This is the very reason why ancient North Africans including and especially the Egyptians were labeled as "Caucasians" or "Eurasians" believed to be separate from "Negroids" of "Sub-Sahara".
Unfortunately not only skeletal remains refute this but so too genetics with PN2 (E) clade via the Y-chromosome and now as Swenet points out mtDNA L types!
I am in agreement.
quote: The presence of sub-Saharan L-type mtDNA sequences in North Africa has traditionally been explained by the recent slave trade. However, gene flow between sub-Saharan and northern African populations would also have been made possible earlier through the greening of the Sahara resulting from Early Holocene climatic improvement. In this article, we examine human dispersals across the Sahara through the analysis of the sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroup L3e5, which is not only commonly found in the Lake Chad Basin (∼17%), but which also attains nonnegligible frequencies (∼10%) in some Northwestern African populations. Age estimates point to its origin ∼10 ka, probably directly in the Lake Chad Basin, where the clade occurs across linguistic boundaries. The virtual absence of this specific haplogroup in Daza from Northern Chad and all West African populations suggests that its migration took place elsewhere, perhaps through Northern Niger. Interestingly, independent confirmation of Early Holocene contacts between North Africa and the Lake Chad Basin have been provided by craniofacial data from Central Niger, supporting our suggestion that the Early Holocene offered a suitable climatic window for genetic exchanges between North and sub-Saharan Africa. In view of its younger founder age in North Africa, the discontinuous distribution of L3e5 was probably caused by the Middle Holocene re-expansion of the Sahara desert, disrupting the clade's original continuous spread.
--Eliška Podgorná et al.
Annals of Human Genetics Volume 77, Issue 6, pages 513–523, November 2013
The Genetic Impact of the Lake Chad Basin Population in North Africa as Documented by Mitochondrial Diversity and Internal Variation of the L3e5 Haplogroup
quote:Originally posted by HidayaAkade: I don't take them seriously
Yes, you do.
No i don't and if I did, I would believe the same thing they did. I would run to all the mainstream and Eurocentric sites, and not be on this site or ESR for that matter.
My strong points may not be genetics but I am no NOOB to Diasporic history.
Posts: 200 | From: Akahara | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cacausoids were always in Africa. ...Europeans entered Africa relatively recently.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Speaking of Noobs, the one above me is still speaking nonsense about "Caucasoids".
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: As you spoke on conflict areas. East Africa is the place where mostly conflict are, subduing Central Africa.
This is why it surprises me when genetic studies profile the Horn of Africa.
Especially those studies I from during the 90s and the late studies we see now are usually based on early studies from the 90s.
I have always wondered how they did those studies under such horrific conditions. Especially when you balance cost vs effectiveness and efficiency.
"1982 Ethiopian-Somali Border War Djiboutian Civil War 1991 - 1994 Ethiopian-Eritrean War 1998 - 2000, between Eritrea and Ethiopia Somali Civil War 1986–present (several issues involved) Operation Restore Hope - 1992 - 1993, UN intervention War in Somalia - 2006 - 2009, Ethiopian intervention"
Interesting point, though I specifically was referring to archaeology. As for East Africa, perhaps getting genetic samples was not as difficult since the vast majority of these samples come from hospitals and clinics which are areas that are least affected by wars I would imagine. Archaeology on the other hand is a different matter. You are talking about areas of excavation which may or may not be on private property and/or may be directly in a war zone.
quote:
quote:result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up
Awesome statement. The most recent claim by them is, caucasoids entered Africa 40-Kyr ago.
Yes, but such a claim is again predicated on the very notion of "caucasoid" in the first place. It is this debunked notion (like all racial) notions that needs to stay debunked yet I notice even some Africanists get caught up in such ridiculous racial labels like the poster above me.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol aka Ish Gebor: One only has to look at the pages, over the many years....and the many threads.
No, it will not change the thinking by them.
However, it will give people unaware, common readers a different perspective.
Irony is that a lot of the opposite posters are Southern European descent. Mostly Spanish, Basque. Like Barros, curious and ilk.
I don't know if there is a deeper meaning to it.
There is no deeper meaning.
Years ago Explorer and Rasol explained it all and it is simple. European scholars have long established the FACT that southern Europeans have admixture from North Africans. Modern genetics has only confirmed this. Thus Europeans in general but especially southern Europeans themselves in particular had the essential prerogative to white-wash these North Africans.
This is the very reason why ancient North Africans including and especially the Egyptians were labeled as "Caucasians" or "Eurasians" believed to be separate from "Negroids" of "Sub-Sahara".
Unfortunately not only skeletal remains refute this but so too genetics with PN2 (E) clade via the Y-chromosome and now as Swenet points out mtDNA L types!
quote:This work develops a hypothesis on the origin of a cultural complex which was established in the southwest quadrant of the Iberian Peninsula around the transition from the IV to III millennium BC*. The rupture observed between the cultural groups studied herein and those proceeding them in southern Iberia can also be explained by other mechanisms not migratory movements but important accelerations in the change of human behavior. In addition, the close similarities with other peri-Mediterranean cultures may be due to convergence phenomena. The diffusionist explanation that we are presenting has previously been put forward based only on archeological arguments (Escacena et al. 1988). If we recall again the hypothesis that accredits the cultural dispersion to population movements, it is in order to offer an understanding for other studies, above all, genetic and linguistic ones, that support these connections of the North African world with the Iberian Peninsula during the recent prehistoric period.
--J. L. Escacena Carrasco
Prehistoric Iberia 2000, pp 125-162
Applications of Evolutive Archeology: Migrations from Africa to Iberia in the Recent Prehistory
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ Speaking of Noobs, the one above me is still speaking nonsense about "Caucasoids".
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: As you spoke on conflict areas. East Africa is the place where mostly conflict are, subduing Central Africa.
This is why it surprises me when genetic studies profile the Horn of Africa.
Especially those studies I from during the 90s and the late studies we see now are usually based on early studies from the 90s.
I have always wondered how they did those studies under such horrific conditions. Especially when you balance cost vs effectiveness and efficiency.
"1982 Ethiopian-Somali Border War Djiboutian Civil War 1991 - 1994 Ethiopian-Eritrean War 1998 - 2000, between Eritrea and Ethiopia Somali Civil War 1986–present (several issues involved) Operation Restore Hope - 1992 - 1993, UN intervention War in Somalia - 2006 - 2009, Ethiopian intervention"
Interesting point, though I specifically was referring to archaeology. As for East Africa, perhaps getting genetic samples was not as difficult since the vast majority of these samples come from hospitals and clinics which are areas that are least affected by wars I would imagine. Archaeology on the other hand is a different matter. You are talking about areas of excavation which may or may not be on private property and/or may be directly in a war zone.
quote:
quote:result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up
Awesome statement. The most recent claim by them is, caucasoids entered Africa 40-Kyr ago.
Yes, but such a claim is again predicated on the very notion of "caucasoid" in the first place. It is this debunked notion (like all racial) notions that needs to stay debunked yet I notice even some Africanists get caught up in such ridiculous racial labels like the poster above me.
1) I do believe that may happened, if so it was done unwillingly. So, the samples were gathered illegally. Under false conditions.
2) I think there is some misunderstanding here. In terms of social vs biological dimensions.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ah shut up twit! Take your ass back to your own base at Mathilda's! LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks" , while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks" , while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Amun-Ra did any of the pre-late period ancient Egyptians or per-Christian Nubians have wavy straight hair or straight hair?
hair that when grown long hangs down ?
If they did that would mean modern American standards of a black person includes somebody with that type of hair
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks" , while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Amun-Ra did any of the pre-late period ancient Egyptians or per-Christian Nubians have wavy straight hair or straight hair?
hair that when grown long hangs down ?
If they did that would mean modern American standards of a black person includes somebody with that type of hair
By modern American standards, would you say Ancient Egyptians were "blacks"?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: "Any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depends on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as "blacks" , while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.” - Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Amun-Ra did any of the pre-late period ancient Egyptians or per-Christian Nubians have wavy straight hair or straight hair?
hair that when grown long hangs down ?
If they did that would mean modern American standards of a black person includes somebody with that type of hair
By modern American standards, would you say Ancient Egyptians were "blacks"?
If the modern American standard of black includes wavy straight or straight haired people as blacks, then some ancient Egyptians, the ones who did not have kinky hair, one just this one point they might also be black.
However I question whether the modern American standard includes such people and that the Oxford Encyclopedia may not be representing the modern American standard of who is black properly.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ You know what black people are according to American standard, you just don't want to face that Ancient Egyptian were blacks.
Ancient Egyptians as well as African-americans and other African people, even in your avatar photo, do many things with their hair including braiding, straightening, extensions, etc.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ You know what black people are according to American standard, you just don't want to face that Ancient Egyptian were blacks.
Ancient Egyptians as well as African-americans and other African people, even in your avatar photo, do many things with their hair including braiding, straightening, extensions, etc.
I'm not talking about altered hair. I'm talking about hair in it's natural state.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ You know what black people are according to American standard, you just don't want to face that Ancient Egyptian were blacks.
Ancient Egyptians as well as African-americans and other African people, even in your avatar photo, do many things with their hair including braiding, straightening, extensions, etc.
I'm not talking about altered hair. I'm talking about hair in it's natural state.
Is hair brushing included? What about no hair brushing for 6 weeks, is it natural enough or more weeks maybe? Beside possibly hair extensions and wigs, those are some of the things African people do with their natural hair.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ You know what black people are according to American standard, you just don't want to face that Ancient Egyptian were blacks.
Ancient Egyptians as well as African-americans and other African people, even in your avatar photo, do many things with their hair including braiding, straightening, extensions, etc.
I'm not talking about altered hair. I'm talking about hair in it's natural state.
Is hair brushing included? What about no hair brushing for 6 weeks, is it natural enough or more weeks maybe? Beside possibly hair extensions and wigs, those are some of the things African people do with their natural hair.
.
Lady Rai, an Egyptian princess who lived between 1580 and 1550 BC.
This is the wooden Queen Tiye statuette wearing a wig type thing
Queen Tiye mummy:
Again, Queen Tiye
Queen Tiye
^^^ All of these are photos of the Queen Tiye mummy (except the first Lady Rai above them). This is the mummy DNATribes tested In these particular photos you can easily see the texture of the hair
there are various possibilities for the hair
1) the mummy's hair is how her hair looked in it's natural state. Some indigenous Africans people have this type of hair. (When I say this type of hair, I mean this exact type of hair)
2) the mummy's hair is how her hair looked in it's natural state. Because her hair is not afro type hair she was part non-African
3) She had afro hair. She straightened her hair artificially, either combed out or also with some sort of fats or chemical treatment
4) She had afro hair but mummification chemicals straigtened her hair.
I'm going to rule out 4) the mummification straightened her hair because we see some mummies that have kinky hair. (althiugh there is a chance of different mummification chemicals being used on different mummies) But I also rule this out because if she had an afro according to this picture and it only got straightened out after mummification it would have been a huge afro and it's seems unlikely given the art and having to wear wigs on top of it.
That leaves 1, 2 and 3 I'm still uncertain about it
.
^^^ This is Rameses II, a picture where you can see the texture of his hair, not frizzy at all, It appears to be stringy.
So if the Queen Tiye the explanation was
3) She had afro hair. She straightened her hair artificially, either combed out or also with some sort of fats or chemical treatment
Then men would also be straightening their hair artificially but had afros naturally. It's possible
DNATribes report on Queen Tiye has not been peer reviewed, Nevertheless it indicated she was an indigenous African.
^^^ could an indigenous African have this particular type of hair, exactly like this, not bushy and stiff but loose like this and for it not to be a result of a comb out or chemical treatment?
It's a mystery to me
if you look at possibilities of non African ancestry an example an Indian woman:
^^^ If you mixed this woman with an African and the child lived in Africa and dressed as an African you might have a broad featured person, who might look entirely African featured to some people yet have the straight wavy hair hair from the Indian ancestry. There could be a variety of proportions over several generations not necessarily 50/50. Some Indian women with straight hair already look like they have near African features, yet they can be distinguished gentically. This is features crossover between populations.
So if we look at random photos of people living in Africa that have African looking features and straight hair you can't tell for sure if they are indigenous or perhaps half Indian or half Arab. You can't tell by looking. Many of these people claim Arab ancestry anyway.
In other words you will see people post people who live in Africa have African looking features and straight ahir and conclude just by posting those pictures they have proven African have this type of hair.
The problem is where are some photos of several adult African males together in a photo, with hair just like that Queen Tiye mummy? I wouldn't describe it as bushy and stiiff. It seems fairly lank with some waviness If that type of hair is indigenous one should easily find a particular African tribe with hair like that but you don't see that. There should be a namable tribe representing that.
The other possibility as you mentioned is that Queen Tiye and Rameses II had afros. But they straighten their hair artificially. It's possible.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This Man E aka the Screaming mummy an unknown man between the ages of 18 and 20 found with Ramses III in the royal burial chamber.
They found genetic evidence that the corpse, known as the Screaming Mummy for its open mouth and contorted face, was related to Ramses and may have been Prince Pentawere.
_______________
He appears to have frizzy hair, looks afro type
One point of view on Egyptsearch is that if white people can have various types of hair including even somewhat of an afro than it is unfair an racist to not say the exact same thing about Africans, that they can therefore have straight hair. Then a whole bunch of pictures go up, the same ones that always get posted trying to prove Africans can have any type of hair. We are supposed to assume the people are thoroughly indigenous because they live in Africa and are dark skinned. It's impossible they have and Arabian or Indian ancestry, suggesting such a thing is racist
It's a predictable reaction. I just don't see any scientifc articles which have a primary focus on what indigenous African hair types are, all there are are the pictures spams. So until there is more scientific analysis of what hair types are indigenous to Africa I am not going to just assume that thy have to have some kind of built in fairness thing in comaparison to so called white people.
Even if you say that indigenous Africnas wouln't have that Queen Tiye and Rameses mummy type hair you can still argue that maybe they straightened their hair. That was one of the open possibilities
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: ^^ You know what black people are according to American standard, you just don't want to face that Ancient Egyptian were blacks.
Ancient Egyptians as well as African-americans and other African people, even in your avatar photo, do many things with their hair including braiding, straightening, extensions, etc.
I'm not talking about altered hair. I'm talking about hair in it's natural state.
Is hair brushing included? What about no hair brushing for 6 weeks, is it natural enough or more weeks maybe? Beside possibly hair extensions and wigs, those are some of the things African, people do with their natural hair.
It's obvious by now, you're chatting with a racist person, who is trying to discredit African history and her original inhabitance at all cost. And what I've noticed is, according to that person, Europeans can have all types of hair texture, facial features and color complexion, while these are all being claimed as indigenous traits, at all cost.
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
[/QB]
Well you fucked up
while we don't know the ancestry of any of these people the last guy we know is half European and you're supposed to be posting people with high percenatges of African like 80% +
I said post a tribe of African, several men with straight hair, not individuals who may be part Arab or Indian.
I'm giving you a whole continent. I want to see an Africna tribe dressed in traditional grab with straight hair. That should be easy you have a billon people
Your posts have no credibility as anthropology. You find photos of people in Africa, know nothing about their background, post no sources or background info on them and then you pretend its science, here I found a guy in Africa who has dark skin and African features, therefore he could not be part Arab or part Indian he must be thoroughly indigenous that is why you are an amateur.
I thought you were the man with all the research, You can't find me one article or book citation documenting striaght hair of a particular African tribe?
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The part where you **** up is, you don't know the ancestry of the people I posted and if I actually do know now their background.
While at the same time, you always scrap pictures from the Internet to make a point, but it's always a failing point.
All that you are is a silly pathetic individual who has no traveling and or field experience. So you rely on rubbish and prejudice notions.
I have explained and debunked you from archeology and anthropology paper and private field work.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: you don't know the ancestry of the people I posted and if I actually do know now their background.
You are lying Tell us what their genetic background is and if they permed their hair or not
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: you don't know the ancestry of the people I posted and if I actually do know now their background.
You are lying Tell us what their genetic background is and if they permed their hair or not
Lioness truth be told, those guys look like Somalis. Show me how much Somalis you know straight there hair?
The president of Somalia has straight hair, is he also an arab?
Someday you will have to understand, that no one ethnicity holds a patent on hair, features etc. Not all euros have straight hair, not all blacks have curly hair, and not all asians have slanted eyes. The Beauty of the Creators Human family.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^^ The lack of archaeological research alone in West Africa is ridiculous and pathetic. Some make the excuse that political conflicts in that region make archaeology difficult, yet conflicts in the Western part of Africa are not as big a problem as they are in Central Africa or even parts of the Nile Valley. The truth is the (predominantly white) Western archaeological scholars have little to no interest in West Africa no doubt due to ignorance on that very region. I mean look how recent sites like the Eredo Ramparts and Tichitt-Walata were discovered and seem to only scratch the surface of West Africa's ancient history and advanced civilizations of the past.
Eurocentric Doctrine #s 6 & 9: IF IT WAS GREAT, IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHITE: If advanced science, art, or architecture is found in Africa or South America, then Phoenecians, Greeks, Celts, Vikings (or, in the extreme case, space aliens) must be invoked to explain their presence. (Here, whiteness often functions as a relative concept, as "lighter than.") This bias gives rise to a pronounced tendency to date American or African cultures later than warranted, and as a result dating for these regions is constantly having to be revised further back into the past as evidence of greater antiquity piles up.
The AFRICAN GAP DOCTRINE: After examining the first humans hundreds of thousands of years ago, this historical approach completely skips over most of the African archaeological record. It discusses ancient Egypt but ascribes its civilization to "the Middle East," denying its African identity and archaeological connections with Saharan and southern Nilotic civilizations. Saharan civilization, Ile-Ife or Mwanamutapa are not discussed at all. Africa is simply dropped from historical consideration until the era of European slaving and colonization, when it is portrayed as culturally and technologically deficient. The existence of female spheres of power in Africa is ignored.
^ Of course in the case of #6, Euronuts now attribute Africa's ancient achievements to prehistoric Eurasians. LOL
It is not the responsibility of Europeans to tell the African story. It is up to Africans to tell our story. I am of the belief that African countries need to produce more people willing to do the field work. Programs need to be established that teach students how to use African source materials to discover or uncover ancient civilizations, laying under the sand. One method would be to rely on the epics told by modern Djeliw. A example of such a epic tale is the story of a Mande emperor who abdicated his throne to try and discover new lands, to the west of Africa. This would have happened hundreds of years before Europeans, excluding the vikings, would attempt to sale to the Americas. Another example is the story of kukiya, a Kingdom, contemporaneous with Ancient Egypt and Kush that was somewhere in West Africa. The king was not from the region, but presumably from somewhere else in Africa. His subjects were in fact described as being dwarfs. This story fits when it is remembered that tall stature West Africans were not in the region prior to the establishment of Ouagadou (with some exceptions I am sure).
My point is, using oral traditions and coupling it with sound archeological efforts can help the continent, but again it needs to be done by AFRICANS or those of African decent. Why? Because Africans are not going to take the piss, in terms of distorting information because it will dismiss euro-centric psycho babble.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you Typezeist I was complaining to an African pastor that European erased black people from the most important part of world history. The African pastor told me it is for Africans to write their own history and not for Europeans to write it for Africans. History shouldn't be the secret of one ethnic group. African history shouldn't be kept a secret to protect against racism European, West Asian and Latin American African tribes that bleach out by mixing.
Oral history most of the time is more accurate then written history. Oral history cant be censure or be edited by the government and the clergy. One African told me a little bit of oral history, it is very different then mainstream history. Emperor Napoleon I revealed that history is lied agreed upon.
I would like to learn about the Twa Kukiya kingdom who was contemporary to Ancient Egypt and Kush. I like the words psycho babble. Psychopatic racist is another words that I like.
quote:Originally posted by mena7: I agree with you Typezeist I was complaining to an African pastor that European erased black people from the most important part of world history. The African pastor told me it is for Africans to write their own history and not for Europeans to write it for Africans. History shouldn't be the secret of one ethnic group. African history shouldn't be kept a secret to protect against racism European, West Asian and Latin American African tribes that bleach out by mixing.
Oral history most of the time is more accurate then written history. Oral history cant be censure or be edited by the government and the clergy. One African told me a little bit of oral history, it is very different then mainstream history. Emperor Napoleon I revealed that history is lied agreed upon.
I would like to learn about the Twa Kukiya kingdom who was contemporary to Ancient Egypt and Kush. I like the words psycho babble. Psychopatic racist is another words that I like.
Get books on and about the Tarikhs. One was partly written by Dr. John Hunwick of North Western university. It talks about Kukiya in brief, if I remember right. Also Tarikh Al Sudan talks about it a bit also. We have African's of the diaspora in the west that should be doing this work too. But many have been so brain washed that they don't find Africa of any interest. It doesn't help that some African's treat our brothers in the West like they are "others". But this too is because many Africans are ignorant as hell about history. In Africa, in many countries, African history is NOT taught. It is European history that is taught in school, how sad and pathetic. Many Africans believe that we were sitting around killing and eating each other until whites came and saved us from ourselves. So how can you expect the ignorant sons of the soil to want to do more, no less to recognize their kin across the water? These people (Europeans) have done a number on Africa, but I fully believe we will wake up one day.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor: you don't know the ancestry of the people I posted and if I actually do know now their background.
You are lying Tell us what their genetic background is and if they permed their hair or not
Lioness truth be told, those guys look like Somalis. Show me how much Somalis you know straight there hair?
The president of Somalia has straight hair, is he also an arab?
Someday you will have to understand, that no one ethnicity holds a patent on hair, features etc. Not all euros have straight hair, not all blacks have curly hair, and not all asians have slanted eyes. The Beauty of the Creators Human family.
would have to see him without the sun glasses. he doesn't look partciularly Somali to me. the other guy maybe.
"Looking Somaili" is comprised of African and non-African elements, excluding the small recent Austrailain element. The population of Somalia is 9.6 million
quote:Originally posted by KING:
The president of Somalia has straight hair, is he also an arab?
It would not be unusual on a genetic basis for him to be partly Arab. He also comes from a tribe that claims Arab descent
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
[/QB]
Printer-friendly view of this topic