quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Again, the bottom line point here, notwithstanding your attempts to deny and avoid it, is that the whole debate over ancient Egypt is a debate over the skin color of the majority of the ancient population.
Maybe in Hollywood, the media and among trolls on the internet, but you were talking about white supremacists in science. Among the academics discussed throughout this thread, this simply wasn't true. And we'll see that in a minute when you're going to skirt around answering how these Giza reserve heads should be classified ethnically:
There is no skin color paint here for Eurocentric observers to manipulate (the busts are unpainted or the paint has faded), but the problem of 'racial' ambiguity is still there. But, of course, you already know this. Denial is just your way of coping.
And for the people who try to disown these ancient Egyptians: you're not going to worm out of this by saying that they look 'racially' ambiguous because they were admixed. This is completely irrelevant. African Americans are admixed as well; they generally look unambiguous enough to be called 'black' in the West and contrasted with 'whites'.
The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity. Even if you try to stick to the more objective skin pigmentation-based use of the term, at some point you're going to run into problems that can be avoided. The newbies can be forgiven for not realizing this. But if you're a "vet" and you still vehemently deny this, you're washed up and need to retire. Also, if you've been repeatedly told this in one-on-one coaching over a time span of years (like the troll who calls himself "Tropicals Redacted") and you still try to sweep this under the rug, you're a liar and you need to retire as well.
Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry. You have been spinning your wheels on this thread trying to make up all sorts of excuses and arguments as to why simple words like "black skin" or "white skin" aren't completely sufficient to describe populations who have certain ranges of skin colors. And to this point, the dictionary shows that this is exactly how societies have used language to describe such outward observed characteristics. And you can find similar terms in many languages. None of which require any advanced understanding of chemistry or biology. You are simply making up nonsense as to why simple language is not enough to convey observed facts....
quote: The word 'black' doesn't cover the complexities of African biodiversity.
Does the word chair, require an advanced understanding of woodworking? Does the word rocket ship require an advanced understanding of jet propulsion? Of course not. You are simply delusional and silly.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I am not arguing about the word black here. I have been to Egypt (several places). And I know they identify with being black.
BTW, in general I think it's a bad idea to go down that road of self-identifications. I shouldn't even be posting that article. But I'm doing it this time because for some reason people just like to lie about the meaning of 'black' in every day use. Not saying that you're making that argument, but no one in the article is subscribing to Doug's claim that people understand 'black' to mean skin pigmentation in every day use.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: I noticed that in the plot, surrounding people populations have been excluded, which I think is weird. Why would one do so? And yes, I do think it would have produced more 'satisfying' results. Instead of trying to plot European populations.
Plenty of Sahelian samples in the paper below. Makes no difference whatsoever as far as the 'racially awkward' relationships of the northern Sudanese and Kharga oasis samples. There is still no binary distinction with Africans on the one hand and non Africans neatly on the other hand.
But I get it. We just have to look harder, right? Just like the Euronuts who are trying to find the 'white hope' sample with no African ancestry that will magically cluster with predynastic Egyptians to the exclusion of regional samples.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's like showing a Celtic settlement, yet plotting Amerindians to see which fits best, and leaving out surrounding populations.
Other than the various Sub-Saharan samples, Brace et al used one lower Nubian sample, two (Upper[?]) Nubian samples, one neolithic Algerian sample, a single X group Nubian individual and a Somali sample. The latter four didn't fail to show strong relationships with the predynastic Egyptian sample. I think that's a clue in and of itself.
Swenet, the dictionary is a compilation of the definition of words in "everyday use". Your attempts to deny this are showing that you are against language. Black as a word describing color is a term in "everyday use" and people have been calling Africans "blacks" in everyday use for thousands of years.
At this point you are simply just continuing a dead end journey swearing you make sense.
And if you and the folks following you were serious, then you would be fighting against all the English language newspapers, books, tv shows, news shows and so forth that use the word "black" in every day use on a consistent basis. But you don't. You choose to come here and talk that garbage here on a forum about ancient Egypt and claim that this usage of the term is a distortion of African scholarship.
Skin color is real and words to describe skin color are valid, logical and consistent with "everyday use" of language. You are simply out of your mind stupid in trying to avoid the point that the debates about Egypt are implicitly about SKIN COLOR and nothing else.
You keep trying to run from this and deny this or try and distract from it but that is the bottom line issue and has always been the bottom line issue. Words are not the issue.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry.
Note that Doug is so confused, he doesn't even know what he's responding to anymore. For the record, what he's pretending to respond to is my response to his claim that there wasn't a genuine confusion about the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians. As you can see, Doug doesn't address that point. He keeps fidgeting and skirting around the fact that it wasn't about skin color all along in academics, as he's claiming.
This is not up for debate. Modern day statistics come to the EXACT same conclusion as the racist academics Doug says were engaging in pseudoscience when they juxtaposed Nile Valley populations with Africans elsewhere. If it were just about skin pigmentation, modern day statistical analysis would have settled the matter conclusively instead of occasionally coming out like Brace et al 1993:
quote:We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its col- umn loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predy- nastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.
—Brace et al 1993
^But that's "racist" too, right? Reporting harsh statistical realities that don't jibe with convenient racial politics?
But what else do you expect on a forum where some people apparently are even in denial about the fact that the modal phenotype of modern Upper Egyptians approaches HESDY GERGES, not some dark brown skinned type we would expect to find more typically in dynastic Egypt:
Time to wrap this up. The thread is going off-topic, anyway. If I see something worth commenting on I might pitch in again later. I think I've made my point for now.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
1) in and during my posting I had some crossovers, as I was trying to figure things out. So yes, the source is Ptolemy's Geography by the author Claudius Ptolemaeus. But I only found about that later, to who this particular Ptolemy is. Initially it tought it was about/ referring to the Ptolemaic's.
But I like to see what the actual Greek text states. Whether it's semantics and a matter of interpretation, or has a philosophical approach to it. Do I doubt the translation, a bit yes.
2) the odd part is, did he only see people of darker complexion at far South? It appears as odd to me, since he had to cross Siwa etc... I need to read more on his endeavors and journeys. I am trying to understand what gradient of color complexion the text is referring at.
Keep in mind he was writing in the Common Era, and he was comparing the Egyptians (presumably on average) of that time with "pure", ultra-dark Kushites way down in Meroe. You know the Egyptians had already assimilated generations of foreign migrants (e.g. mercenaries and conquerors) by this date. Not that there weren't still some darker ones present in Upper Egypt, but you know the Egyptians of that time wouldn't look like their predynastic through New Kingdom ancestors. So is there really a problem here?
Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Swenet, the dictionary is a compilation of the definition of words in "everyday use". Your attempts to deny this are showing that you are against language. Black as a word describing color is a term in "everyday use" and people have been calling Africans "blacks" in everyday use for thousands of years.
Doug is trying to switch definitions now. Before he said "black" and "white " are color ranges (but he never showed what the ranges are). Now he say it means African
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Nova: Building Pharaoh's Chariot (Full Documentary)
Here is a color sample from the painting
These supposedly credible venues like PBS do one thing on the poster but when you watch the documentary they use a person noticeably lighter than as depicted in the art
^ This is still from the documentary of a soldier in Ahmose's army they talk about
^ yet in the documentary they show this flabby ass white boy
The solution to this however is not to get bogged down in an endless semantic argument about the word "black" which has no measurable definition. The solution is to show the art and compare it to what is depicted in these documentaries but more importantly to send a letter to the producer and director
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I don't know. I posted the Oxford complete definition. Maybe too much for some to peruse, so:
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Well ain't that nuthin.
When to use B L A C K ? Every time.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians. and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
When to use B L A C K ? Every time.
Again the problem as depicted here is dual membership
and is also common in North Africa and somewhat in the horn
-in advance, no Jim Crow created rule nonsense, thanks
Obama's memberships >>>
Therefore the terms "black" and "white" utterly destroyed
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I've said repeatedly in this thread, dictionaries, including the Oxford dictionary, generally have an entry acknowledging the racial use of 'black', in addition to other uses. People will go to extreme lengths to lie about this. Always fact-check everything people say, especially when claims go against the grain and sound like someone just cooked it up.
quote:Usage Black, designating Americans of African heritage, became the most widely used and accepted term in the 1960s and 1970s, replacing Negro. It is not usually capitalized: black Americans. Through the 1980s, the more formal African American replaced black in much usage, but both are now generally acceptable. Afro-American, first recorded in the 19th century and popular in the 1960s and 1970s, is now heard mostly in anthropological and cultural contexts. Colored people, common in the early part of the 20th century, is now usually regarded as offensive, although the phrase survives in the full name of the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. An inversion, people of color, has gained some favor, but is also used in reference to other nonwhite ethnic groups: a gathering spot for African Americans and other people of color interested in reading about their cultures. See also colored (usage) and person of color.
quote:"Usage note 3, 21. Black, colored, and Negro —words that describe or name the dark-skinned peoples of sub-Saharan Africa and their descendants—have had a complex social history in the United States."
quote:usage: Black, colored, and Negro have all been used to describe or name the dark-skinned African peoples or their descendants. Colored, now somewhat old-fashioned, is usu. offensive. It is still used, however, in the title of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. The term colored is also used among blacks to refer to another black who acts as if he or she were superior. In the late 1950s black began to replace Negro and is still widely used and accepted, whereas Negro is not. Common as both adjective and noun, black is usu. not capitalized except in proper names or titles (Black Muslim; Black English). However, members of the African-American community have expressed a strong preference for use of capital “B” for both the noun and the adjective, to parallel the names of other ethnic groups. African-American, urged by leaders in the American black community, is now widely used in both print and speech, esp. as a term of self-reference. Afro-American is accepted but less widely used, mostly as an adjective."
quote:Words that avoid giving offense: black Use the adjective black (sometimes spelled Black) to refer to people with dark skin whose families originally came from Africa. Avoid using black as a noun because this is sometimes considered offensive. Black Americans usually prefer to be called African-American. Black people in the U.K. whose families originally came from the Caribbean often prefer to be called African Caribbean. In Australian English, use black to refer to the people whose families were living in Australia before Europeans arrived and settled.
quote:3. also Black a. Of or belonging to a racial group having brown to black skin, especially one of African origin: the black population of South Africa. b. Of or belonging to an American ethnic group descended from African peoples having dark skin; African-American.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Unfortunately the author did not refer to the original Ptolemy text. So I had to look it up. But from what I understand the author of the classical Greek text is Claudius Ptolemaeus.
The book I quoted clearly says in its title and elsewhere that it's a translation of Ptolemy's Geography. Are you saying the quote isn't in Ptolemy's Geography?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It's somewhat odd, because Claudius Ptolemaeus lived at Alexandria.
That he lived near the Tropic of Cancer is implied in that quote when he says "on our side of the equator . . . on the Summer Tropic" and refers to place in Nubia as "places to the south of here". Please clarify what is odd about his residence in the Delta.
1) in and during my posting I had some crossovers, as I was trying to figure things out. So yes, the source is Ptolemy's Geography by the author Claudius Ptolemaeus. But I only found about that later, to who this particular Ptolemy is. Initially it tought it was about/ referring to the Ptolemaic's.
But I like to see what the actual Greek text states. Whether it's semantics and a matter of interpretation, or has a philosophical approach to it. Do I doubt the translation, a bit yes.
2) the odd part is, did he only see people of darker complexion at far South? It appears as odd to me, since he had to cross Siwa etc... I need to read more on his endeavors and journeys. I am trying to understand what gradient of color complexion the text is referring at.
Keep in mind he was writing in the Common Era, and he was comparing the Egyptians (presumably on average) of that time with "pure", ultra-dark Kushites way down in Meroe. You know the Egyptians had already assimilated generations of foreign migrants (e.g. mercenaries and conquerors) by this date. Not that there weren't still some darker ones present in Upper Egypt, but you know the Egyptians of that time wouldn't look like their predynastic through New Kingdom ancestors. So is there really a problem here?
Yes, that's true, had admixture going on about one millennium, prior to Ptolemy's exsistance.
But I know of settlements who do have ( and had) dark skinned Egyptians. Perhaps it's the "ultra dark" such as the Nuba people. They are exceptionally dark skinned. Most of Africans have dark brown skin with reddish undertone.
When I was in Egypt I was told that Ptolemaic (Greeks and Romans) never went to the South in masses. They stayed in the North (Med climate) E-V13 is evident of this.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
What do you mean?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
"Aid workers believe sub-Saharan refugees are treated by different informal rules than those of Arab origin - excluded from schools, facing hurdles opening businesses and finding work, and hampered in legal cases."
I am not sure if that is necessarily the case, .... But my focus was more on indigenous dark complected Egyptians from way-back, not recent immigrants.
I know Syrian refugees received the same kind of treatment. So they too had flee to Europe. The case you described could be because of xenophobia.
-------------------------------------------
Good point. Most likely the Syrians are disliked as economic competition/ refugees who strain local services etc etc. But with black people, there seems a definite racial animus directed against them,over and above the the competition. Or perhaps the tensions play out "racially" or assume a racist tinge when Africans show up.
Below an African-American woman recounts her experiences. Her final statement is interesting- warning African Americans about romanticizing assorted peoples overseas. I have read similar accounts elsewhere. Ironically, if you are seen as clearly African American- or more accurately clearly American, some report receiving better treatment. Sunni M. Khalid got better treatment after he started jumping around like, and mentioned Muhammed Ali, to prove he was an American.
On the flip side her take on "romanticizing" may be somewhat limited though. Few black folk "romanticize" MODERN Egypt- after all as Asar Imohotep and others point out- it is the 'Arab Republic of Egypt." Asar and his tour had to tread very carefully about talking about "African ancestors" etc if near the watchful scrutiny of Arab Islamic gatekeepers. But her larger point is for black Americans not to be naive about people overseas- whatever talk of "brotherhood" may be bandied about. Keep your powder dry and your rifle within reach, metaphorically speaking.
I disagree with ex-New Black Panther Party leader Khallid Muhammed on several points, but he was uncompromising about dealing with this kind of thing. If he is to be believed, in one of his videos he saw some Arab officials in Mecca manhandling and mistreating an elderly black woman pilgrim from Nigeria and he took off on them.
If you're a dark-skinned black woman in Egypt, you're likely to be sexually propositioned by men and slighted by women there. At least, that's what African-American journalist Sunni Khalid observed during his three years in the North African country with his Kenyan Somali wife. Although Khalid is light enough to pass for an Egyptian Arab, his wife, Zeinab, cannot and experienced race-based sexism there as a result. "Whenever my wife would come to the airport to pick me up, she'd often have to fend off several Arab men, who assumed that, as a black woman, she was somehow immediately 'available' to their desires, whether she was married or not," recalled Khalid in a thoughtful piece called "Egypt's Race Problem." I've never been to Egypt, but as a black woman who's traveled to countries such as Mexico, Italy and Spain, I've experienced similar treatment. Particularly in Italy and Mexico, I endured men leering at me, catcalling me and insisting that I meet them for dates. On many of these occasions I was with non-black American women who were stunned at the attention I attracted. But this attention had little to do with me personally and much to do with lasting negative perceptions about people of African descent.
"For too many Egyptians, sub-Saharan Africa is a stereotypical exotic land of thick jungles and masses of poor, starving and black-skinned savages," Khalid explains. But I'd argue that this is a global perception of "black Africa" and not just an Egyptian one. Along with this perception is, of course, the idea that black women are sexually promiscuous and insatiable, which is why non-black men around the world don't hesitate to proposition black women. In Egypt, though, Khalid's wife didn't just attract sexual attention, but rude behavior from Egyptian women. In high-end shops, for example, Egyptian women would cut in front of her in line. Once while Khalid and his wife dined at an upscale restaurant, an Egyptian woman scolded him for bringing "a woman like that into a place like this." She assumed Zeinab was a prostitute. When Khalid tried to explain that the woman in question was his wife, the Egyptian woman wouldn't hear it.
But it's not only dark-skinned women who face bigotry in Egypt. Khalid says that before leaving Egypt, he met with sub-Saharan African students who told him they faced racial harassment just strolling down Cairo streets.
Moreover, Khalid writes that male and female refugees from sub-Saharan African nations such as Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea routinely face security roundups in Cairo. He notes that in December 2005, Egyptian riot police killed as many as 100 Sudanese refugees who were protesting mistreatment, but that the tragedy hardly garnered any outcry.
What's stunning about Khalid's remembrance of his time in Egypt is that many African Americans—most of whom originate, of course, from sub-Saharan Africa—not only romanticize Egypt but have claimed it as their own. Some name their children after Egyptian Queen Nefertiti or Egyptian gods and goddesses such as Osiris and Isis. To boot, whenever a white actress plays the role of Cleopatra, the black community loudly objects. Perhaps it's time for African Americans to learn more about how many people in the country they've romanticized hold them in such low regard.
-----------------------------------------
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
^^The Egyptian who was "too black".. -------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Nada Zatouna Incident: The Strange Case of the Racist Egyptian Pharmacist that came out of Nowhere!! 44171_10151405584933907_2133818881_n
Nada Zatouna
A black Egyptian director and activist is refused service in a pharmacy and Egyptians protest but Mubarak-era myths of a “innocent” society and false ideas about Africa still keep people from really interrogating racism even in revolutionary Egypt.
The other week went by like any other in Egypt when a girl was refused service in a store and was insulted by employees because of the color of her skin.
A pharmacist passed her by in line when it was her turn to buy medicine, stared straight in her face as he probably did many others with faces too dark before her, and without fear of losing his humanity or his job he said “I don’t take anything from people who are not white.” With that he instructed another employee to take the money from her black hands that were apparently not good enough for him to touch.
The difference this time though is that this girl was Nada Zatouna, a well-known Egyptian political activist and filmmaker in Cairo who is also Nubian and who is also a revolutionary and this, this small fact would upset the natural order of things in Cairo.
“I swear on my mother’s head aafashaaax them!!!” cried Nada on Facebook publicly about Seif Pharmacies, the famous chain of pharmacies that refused her. Arabic-learners, I’ll link you to my favorite Egyptian dictionary website to help you translate this not so polite Arabic gem. 532129_10151545147473648_1705700227_n
Nada Zatouna and supporters protest racism. You picked the wrong ‘Samara’ to mess with…fool!
But this was not the time to be decent or polite, it was time to fight. Nada with the support of her friends took to Facebook determined to instigate, incite, and interrupt the minds of the Egyptian public. Her online testimony circulated and in only a matter of hours after publishing it garnered over 400 shares and now stands at over 2,000. (Read the translation of the testimony here)
Nada’s testimony spread and quickly struck fear and shock into the minds of Egyptian social networkers. What was most scary about what happened to Nada was the fact that it sounded so much like those horrible stories we heard coming out of the Jim Crow U.S. or apartheid-era South Africa, it’s certainly not something that could come out of Egypt, Om ad-Dunia?!
Newspaper op-eds and Facebook comments about Nada’s experience all acted like this has never happened before. The incident was strange. Came out of nowhere. No historical precedent. An innocent society! An innocent people! How is this happening in Egypt? A moral breakdown of an innocent society!
“This is the first time this has happened in Egypt!” one comment says in Arabic.
“Is what you’re saying real?!” another one said in response to Nada on her wall.
“We’ve never had this in Egypt before! How could this happen?! Wallahi this is a new problem,” another comment in an online discussion says.
Even the Facebook protest page created in support of Nada bought into this narrative of never-before-seen -super-duper-new problem of racism!
“All of our lives we have never known anything about “black” or “white” and then comes someone who discriminates!” the Facebook page laments.
Then when the weeping and the gnashing of teeth subsided a bit, then came some voices of clarity, sanity and honesty, ones whom I genuinely appreciate and I have translated for you below:
Tamer Mowafy was one of the first to take down the pretentiousness in the reactions of some commentators and directly criticize the sentence claiming Egyptians were innocent of any knowledge of racism on the Facebook protest page for Nada.
When considering what happened to Nubian filmmaker and activist Nada Zatouna it’s important to point out that many people in Egypt retain false ideas about Africa.
In Egypt there is an elephant in the room and that elephant is Africa. Egypt has an Africa problem and that is not new. There exist many misconceptions of Africa among people here. There are three false premises dealing with Africa in particular that many Egyptians believe and which make life more difficult for all blacks in Egypt.
Though many may not verbally admit it, their actions and statements reveal just how pervasive these false premises are in the collective unconscious of a society that silently breeds discriminatory men in pharmacies…
The Three False Premises FOXNEWS-EGYPT
For many in Egypt this Fox News internet meme of Egypt in Iraq might as well as be true.
1.) Egypt is not in Africa Its quite usual to hear Egyptians of all classes and educational backgrounds to laugh and talk about Africa as if they were not on the continent. When blacks walk the streets here they shout “Afreeqee” or “African” at us as if it is a bad word, along with a whole host of names you cannot shout back of course because those who say these things do not realize what continent they are on. This statement is geographically incorrect, culturally incorrect, and just flat out all over wrong and foolish but most Egyptians go about their lives like it’s true.
2.) There are no Black people in Egypt – This statement is never said aloud here but it is embedded in hearts. Everyone knows what an “Aswani” is, but that doesn’t stop some Egyptians from mocking my Nubian friends on why they speak Arabic so well, it doesn’t stop them from assuming that all blacks in this country are foreigners or refugees as in the case of Nada Zatouna.
3.) There is no racism – Egyptians who have watched racial insults thrown my way while we walk the streets together will say this statement proudly minutes later… This is actually a very common belief here and found among all classes and groups who only imagine racism to be something of those Americans, Germans, or Israelis. Others who advocate this idea are staunch nationalists who wish to shield Egypt and Arabs from criticism especially from foreigners or from fellow citizens who they deem are being “divisive” by bringing the issue up.
Not one of these statements is true, not one of them. But you can always find at least one person in the room who will believe at least one of them if not all three even if they do not openly state it.
The Bifurcation of a Continent and of a People
Mervat Hatem an Egyptian feminist and political scientist at Howard University, one of the United States’ oldest historically black universities, explains in her paper the division of Africa into two regions ignores the ways cultures and peoples have historically blended, interacted and shared traditions among each other.
Hatem says this artificially created division is recent but still influences the way many perceive Africa, from the ordinary citizen to the academic. These “imaginative geographies” she tells us were promoted by the West in their drive to pursue political interests but also to reinforce Africa’s subordinate status as “the other.”
In Egypt, many have internalized these colonial era “imaginary divisions.” They “otherize” Africa and Africans by saying they are not really on the continent. They cannot think outside colonially drawn and enforced borders and geographies.
To be one and of the continent yet refuse it at the same time, to rebuke the people you believe are more “native” is as much a colonialist mentality as it is a colonialized one… and unfortunately it’s not just one pharmacist on Asr Al-Aini Street who thinks like this.
Notes:
* White Westerners love premise number two in particular – A white expat friend once laughed when another black expat argued that blackness was relevant in revolutionary Egypt. But since of course there no “black” people here she just found that nonsense hilarious! This type of thinking by Westerners also leads to weird things like this for Nubians settling abroad.
* Mervat Hatem’s “Why and How Should Middle East and African Studies Be Connected? “International Journal of Middle East Studies / Volume 41 / Issue 02 / May 2009, pp 189-19 --------------------------------------------------
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Swenet, again, you keep trying to make something simple into something complex. Describing a persons skin color as it relates to the environmental adaptation of human biology does not require an advanced degree in biochemistry.
Note that Doug is so confused, he doesn't even know what he's responding to anymore. For the record, what he's pretending to respond to is my response to his claim that there wasn't a genuine confusion about the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians. As you can see, Doug doesn't address that point. He keeps fidgeting and skirting around the fact that it wasn't about skin color all along in academics, as he's claiming.
This is not up for debate. Modern day statistics come to the EXACT same conclusion as the racist academics Doug says were engaging in pseudoscience when they juxtaposed Nile Valley populations with Africans elsewhere. If it were just about skin pigmentation, modern day statistical analysis would have settled the matter conclusively instead of occasionally coming out like Brace et al 1993:
quote:We collected measurements for a single specimen from what was called the Nubian X Group in Reisner’s terminology (Reisner, 1909). This was a population that immediately preceded the early Christian Nubians of AD 550 (Carlson and Van Gerven, 19791, and, in the subjective treatment of a generation gone by, had been regarded as evidence for a “Negroid incursion’’ (Batrawi, 1935; Smith, 1909; Seligman, 1915). As our figures show, the probability of finding our representative specimen in a sub-Saharan population is 0.009, which is highly unlikely. Its col- umn loadings are generally similar to the loadings in the column for the Predy- nastic Naqada sample, and, except for the fact that it is only marginally unlikely that it can be excluded from the Giza sample, it cannot be denied membership in the Naqada, European, or South Asian samples.
—Brace et al 1993
^But that's "racist" too, right? Reporting harsh statistical realities that don't jibe with convenient racial politics?
But what else do you expect on a forum where some people apparently are even in denial about the fact that the modal phenotype of modern Upper Egyptians approaches HESDY GERGES, not some dark brown skinned type we would expect to find more typically in dynastic Egypt:
Time to wrap this up. The thread is going off-topic, anyway. If I see something worth commenting on I might pitch in again later. I think I've made my point for now.
The only one confused here is you, because you continuously keep trying change the subject from using words like black as a reference to skin color into some complex scientific discussion requiring specialized terminologies and phraseology in order to convey very deep biological realities to the non trained eye.
Then you go right on to make a statement about the "modal phenotype" of modern upper egypt without any actual evidence from modern Egypt. As if to suggest there are no black skinned people in modern Egypt, because some aren't that dark, which is a round about way of suggesting that black skin wasn't that prevalent in Ancient Egypt.
But again, notwithstanding that, you have proven the point that this issue is one of skin color and not words as you try to claim.
Obviously you know that but rather than admit it you keep up your silly games.
We are talking about skin color and words used to describe skin color. Your dumb behind takes a quote from Brace and act like it is intended to describe skin color but it does not. The "measurements" referred to here have absolutely nothing to do with skin color which is where you are wrong. The specimens included in Brace's quote had skin colors and to sit here and claim that those skin colors are not as valid in terms of scientific study as any other "metric" of human biology is you talking out the crack of your behind. Skin and therefore skin color are aspects of human biology and as valid as any other. That is the point you are trying to run away from. And as has been shown over and over again, European racists have indeed tried to equate skeletal metrics with skin color in trying to assign certain measurements to populations and imply that similarity in one biological feature equates to similarity in other feature, as in skin color. This tactic has been used going all the way back to Morton who was the most famous of those who used the method of cranial measurements to try and equate the skin color of ancient Egyptians to Europeans.
So no, this isn't complex it is simply you don't want to address the issue of skin color which is the issue and has always been the issue.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"member of a black-skinned race of Africa," 1550s, from Spanish or Portuguese negro "black," from Latin nigrum (nominative niger) "black, dark, sable, dusky," figuratively "gloomy, unlucky, bad, wicked," of unknown origin (perhaps from PIE *nekw-t- "night;" see Watkins). As an adjective from 1590s. Use with a capital N- became general early 20c. (e.g. 1930 in "New York Times" stylebook) in reference to U.S. citizens of African descent, but because of its perceived association with white-imposed attitudes and roles the word was ousted late 1960s in this sense by Black (q.v.).
quote: Meaning "English language as spoken by U.S. blacks" is from 1704. French nègre is a 16c. borrowing from Spanish negro.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Lioness, what do you mean?
quote: The Berber-Abidiya region is situated just south of the fifth Nile cataract in Sudan. This project, a joint mission with the Sudanese National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM), is focussed on the late Kushite city of Dangeil (third century BC – fourth century AD) and associated cemeteries.
Current Am Eng usage, Asian & African blacks, echoes the Greeks Eastern & Western Aithiopians including the Roman/Byzantine Eastern & Western Aethiopians, and expands the Zanj's sets of Indian Ocean & African blacks.
Again, multiple "memberships" destroy the dualist "black and white paradigm "
see berbers, etc, etc
Lioness, what do you mean?
I mean that Barack Obama is a "member of" both so called "white" and so called "black" skin hypothetical color groups
Therefore he cannot be categorized by people like Doug and Tukuler who think that all the world's people can be classified as either "white" or "black"
Doug provides absolutely zero scientific methodology on how to determine who is "black" and who is "white" ( it's a joke that has been ongoing 32 pages) and Tukuler thinks old writers are what determine it, again zero science
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Lioness, ^that is in theory the case, in practicality it's different. But yes, it's all relative. Btw, you will have people who are "unmixed" but light complected, and mixed people who are dark complected. It's all relative.
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or Black Syrians, who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly black; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, who were of a darker complexion. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^that is in theory the case, in practicality it's different. But yes, it's all relative. Btw, you will have people who are "unmixed" but light complected, and mixed people who are dark complected. It's all relative.
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or Black Syrians, who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, are nearly black; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, who were of a darker complexion. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice negro-ish pictures you posted there. Good clearance.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
King Charles I
.
Yes, it's all relative, like calling these people white. Whether classic or recent:
However:
quote:All Africa is black or tawny
Source: Benjamin Franklin, "Observations Concerning the Increasing of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, &c." (Boston: Printed by S. Kneeland, 1755)
"I was on the whole much pleased, and from what I then saw, have conceived a higher opinion of the natural capacities of the black race, than I had ever before entertained. Their apprehension seems as quick, their memory as strong, and their docility in every respect equal to that of white children."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Nope, that is where start to analyze and segregate facts from fiction.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus]/b]:
[b]Part 2: Levant an extension of Africa? And were the Ancient Canaanite's black? Like I said I've always held the view that at least Southern Canaan(Levent) was an extension of African until at least the period of the Romans and Christianity. To me the Levant was an extension of Northeast Africa going as far back to the Neolithic with the Natufians. This is just my personal opinion. Though the Levant is just a hopscotch away from Africa. :yeshrug: Not only that , but Southern Canaan(Levant) is ACTUALLY apart of Africa if you like at their tectonic plates. So where does Africa really end?
The Levant was always a crossroad, but from the studies I read it seems the migrations were mostly coming from Africa and into the Middle East. The most known were the Natufians. Who were said to spread the AA language, but also spread agriculture to the middle east and Europe. The Natufians basically were one of the earliest colonizers of the area. African culture pre-dominated the area, even for the pre-dynastic culure of Egypt.
quote:"Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35).The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia .
Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37). The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations. A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow(1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39). The combined archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data, therefore, suggest bidirectional migration of peoples between northern Africa and the Levant for at least the past ~14 ky."
^^^From what I read from above proto-Semitic most likely originated in the Levant among the Natufians during the period of the bronze age. So the early Semitic speakers could have just been migrating Africans.
quote:Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.
Cranio wise the Natufians cluster with Niger-Congo like people:
I am aware that this is well before the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians, but again African culture pre-dominated the area. These are the people who made up part of the later Phoenicians long before there was a Phoenicia. And before the colonization of the area by the Egyptians.
But lets talk about the Ancient Canaanites and Phoenicians themselves.
With the Phoenicians I get the sense because southern Canaan was so heavily influenced by North East Africans, since at least the Neolithic, the Phoenicians were maybe a distant branch of Africans..
This makes sense because Ta-Seti established relations with Byblos even before the unification of Egypt. Egypt would come to have an overwhelming cultural and economic influence over Byblos. And one must note that Southern Canaan was Egypt's oldest colony.
Now I am aware that there were Ancient Canaanites who did not look black, but white(keeping it real), but after doing some research around the web, I found that the white looking Canaanites/Syrians were differentiated from the majority black looking Canaanites by the Greeks. IIRC Canaan and Syria received large immigrants north from the Caucasus. The Greeks called the new non-black Syrians "Leucosyrian" meanng white and the black ones "Melanosyrians" meaning burnt. It's interesting because the Phoenicians ere said to belong to the 'black' - Melanosyrian branch along with many other Southern Canannites.
Lets see how the Greeks and others themselves described the two:
quote:Leucosyri, to distinguish them from the people from beyond Taurus, which bear also the name of Syrians, but who, compared to the cistauric populations, are to have the dye browned by the heat of the sun, while those do not have it, difference which gave place to the denomination of Leucosyri.
Strabo Geography 12:3:
quote:.. the populations of the one and other Cappadoce, Cappadoce Taurique and Cappadoce Pontique, even nowadays, are often called Leucosyri or Syrian white, by opposition apparently to other Syrians known as Melanosyri or [COLOR=#ff0000]Black Syrians[/COLOR], who can be only the Syrians established across Taurus, and, when I say Taurus, I give to this name his greater extension, I prolong the chain until Amanus.[Antioch]."
Strabo Geography 16:1:2
quote:The Cha'ab Arabs, the present possessors of the more southern parts of Babylonia, [COLOR=#ff0000]are nearly black[/COLOR]; and the "black Syrians," of whom Strabo speaks, seem intended to represent the Babylonians.
George Rawlinson The Seven Great Monarchies Of The Ancient Eastern World, Vol 4
quote:Sayce has identified the Hittites with the "White Syrians" of Strabo as contrasted with "the Black Syrians or Semitic Aramaeans, east of the Amanus"
Henry George Tomkins Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie's Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 18.
quote:LEUCOSYRI, the ancient name of the Syrians inhabiting Cappadocia, by which they were distinguished from the more southern Syrians, [COLOR=#ff0000]who were of a darker complexion[/COLOR]. (Herod. i.72, vii.72; Strabo, xvi. p.737; Pliny, H.N. vi.3; Eustath. ad Dionys. 772,970.)
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, Volume II, Pages 171-172
Now lets look at how some of these "Melanosyrians" of southern Levant/Canaan were depicted:
Face of a Canaanite man (fragment) from Beth Shan Painting on a jar (about 1300 BCE)
Canaanite God Reshef
More...
So one could conclude that the Canaan was inhabited by blacks and it had a close relationship with Northeast Africa, though there were later migration from non-blacks to the area. Just my opinion. As for the Phoenicians, this thread really wasn't about them, but the area they are from but if one was to take in account of Canaanites being Ham's descendants and Phoenicians being descendants of Canaanites, then shouldn't one conclude that the Phoenicians may have been black?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: yes, all relative Below is a book written by a Scottish spy John Macky (d. 1726) called 'Memoirs of the Secret Services' In the book Macky makes repeated references, more than I have shown, to royals as "black". The qualification for these people being "black" seems to be that they have a slight brown tint compared to fair skinned pale looking people.
Rembrandt Harmensz. van Rijn 1606 –1669 Twee trommelaars 1638 Pen en krijt op papier, 22,9 x 17,1 cm British Museum, Londen.
quote: Blanke, John (fl. 1507–1512), royal trumpeter, was employed as a musician at the courts of Henry VII and Henry VIII, making his first recorded appearance there in 1507. He is thought to have been of African descent, but his age, place of birth, and parentage are unknown. His surname may have originated as a nickname, derived from the word blanc in French or blanco in Spanish, both meaning ‘white’. Blanke was part of a wider trend for European rulers to employ African musicians, dating from at least 1194, when turbaned black trumpeters heralded the entry of the Holy Roman emperor Henry VI into Palermo in Sicily. It has been suggested that Blanke arrived in England with Katherine of Aragon when she came to marry Arthur, prince of Wales, in 1501. While there is no record of Blanke's arrival, there is evidence of other Africans in Katherine's retinue, including Catalina de Cardones, who was born in Motril, Granada. However, the Tudor court employed musicians from across continental Europe, and Blanke may have come from Spain, Portugal, or Italy, all of which had growing African populations at this time.
Between 1507 and 1512 Blanke was one of eight royal trumpeters under the leadership of Peter de Casa Nova. The first payment to ‘John Blanke, the blacke Trumpet’ was made in early December 1507, when he was paid 20s. (8d. a day) for his services in the previous month (TNA: PRO, E 36/214, fol. 109). Monthly payments for the same amount continued throughout the following year. Blanke played at the funeral of Henry VII on 11 May 1509, when he wore black mourning livery, and then at the coronation of Henry VIII on 24 June, when he was dressed in bright scarlet. Following the death of the Italian trumpeter Domynck Justinian (last recorded as performing at Henry VIII's coronation), Blanke successfully petitioned the king to grant him Justinian's position and wage of 16d. a day. He complained that his current wage was ‘not sufficient to mayntaigne and kepe hym to doo your grace lyke service as other your trompeters doo’ and asked that his ‘true & faithfull service’ be considered, adding that he intended to continue to serve the king ‘during his lyf’ (TNA: PRO, E101/417/2, no. 150). On 12 and 13 February 1511 Blanke played at the Westminster tournament, a flamboyant Burgundian-style joust held to celebrate the birth of the short-lived Prince Henry on new year's day. The event would have required many fanfares, and the royal trumpeters were paid more than ten times their daily wage.
John Blanke is depicted twice on the 60 foot long Westminster tournament roll of 1511, which was produced in the workshop of Thomas Wriothesley, Garter king of arms. He is shown first riding a grey horse with a black harness. All the trumpeters wear yellow and grey livery, while their double-curve instruments are decorated with the royal quarterings. The trumpeters appear again at the end of the day's jousting. Here, in the more frequently reproduced portrait, Blanke's horse is shown as black with a crimson harness. His dark face contrasts strikingly with those of his companions, but his one visible hand, holding the trumpet, is incongruously shown as white. In both depictions Blanke wears a turban, which is brown and yellow in the first image, and green with a linear design in gold in the second, while his companions are bareheaded.
John Blanke married in January 1512, though the identity of his wife is unknown. Henry VIII sent the great wardrobe a warrant, dated 14 January, to deliver to ‘John Blak, our trompeter’, a gown of violet cloth, and also a bonnet and a hat, ‘to be taken of our gift against his marriage’ (PRO: TNA, E 101/417/6, no. 50). After this no further reference to Blanke has been found in the royal records and he is not mentioned in the full list of trumpeters on 31 January 1514. That he achieved a prominent position in the royal household, was paid wages, negotiated an increase in his pay, and was able to marry, suggest that Blanke was not enslaved.
John Blanke is the only identifiable black person portrayed in sixteenth-century British art. Alongside his relatively high-status occupation and connection to Henry VIII, this has made Blanke the most widely recognized and cited example of an African in Tudor England. In the first decade of the twenty-first century Blanke featured in teaching resources including BBC programmes for seven- to eleven-year-olds, and in the National Archives' guide to black history; his image was the most requested for reproduction of those held by the College of Arms. From 2003 he featured in the National Trust's annual ‘Black History Month’ exhibition at Sutton House, Hackney.
The English and Scottish surname Black is derived from the Middle English term blak(e) meaning “black’”(Old English blæc, blaca), a nickname given from the earliest times to a swarthy or dark-haired man. The second possible origin is as a shortened form of Black-Smith, a worker in cold metals, as distinct from a White (Smith), one who worked in hot metals.
The surname was popular in Scotland from the 15th Century. Adam Black of Edinburgh (1784 - 1874), a publisher, acquired the rights to the Encyclopedia Britannica in 1827. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Wulfhun des Blaca which was dated circa 901, in the "Old English Bynames Register."
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] ^ In other words this is where Eurocentrism begins, these discussions of skin color and ethnicity
Nope, that is where start to analyze and segregate facts from fiction.
I'll help you
"black" and "white" are fictional concepts
Yes, they are, that's why they are relative and social concepts, negro-ish.
However, the fiction is propossed when the social characteristics suite best. For instance when it comes to ancient Egypt. That is why this thread has taken this long, 32 pages to be exact.
Anonymous French Illuminator
Conversion of a Saracen
France (c. late 1300s)
Illumination on Vellum, 318 x 220 mm.
Illumination. Jehan Germain, bishop of Chalon-sur-Saône, Le Débat du Chrétien et du Sarrasin, fol. 14 sup v : Conversion of a Saracen.
Paris, Bibliothèque nationale., Département des Manuscrits.
The Image of the Black in Western Art Research Project and Photo Archive, W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for African and African American Research, Harvard University
Renaud de Montauban, 1468 –1470
quote:Black Moors in Scotland
Africans have been present in Europe from classical times. In the 2nd and 3rd centuries Roman soldiers of African origin served in Britain, and some stayed after their military service ended. According to the historians Fryer, Edwards and Walvin, in the 9th century Viking fleets raided North Africa and Spain, captured Black people, and took them to Britain and Ireland. From the end of the 15th century we begin to see more evidence for the presence of Glossary - Black Moors in the accounts of the reign of King James IV of Scotland, and later in Elizabethan England.
[...]
After James IV's death at Flodden in 1513 during the Franco-Scottish invasion of England, fewer references to Africans appear in the accounts. Interestingly, however, in 1594, during the reign of James VI, a richly attired Black Moor was paid to help pull the chariots during celebrations to mark the birth of James's eldest son, Henry Frederick. Nothing more is known about this man except that he lived in Edinburgh.
quote: Royal marriages were used to reinforce periods of good relations between England and Scotland. On 8 August 1503 Margaret Tudor, daughter of Henry VII of England, married James IV of Scotland.
Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample (Trento Holliday 2013)
Natufian limb ratios of El-Wad Terrace, Israel are clustering in this chart with cold adapted Europeans
Posts: 42937 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Swenet, why they used European populations in the plot, and excluded Sahara-Sahel populations?
Certain quarters claimed and still claim that 'black' in the racial sense covers ancient Egyptian variation. Brace et al set out to test that claim and that is the result. No need to be salty with Brace et al. People need to show some responsibility for their actions. They make themselves easy targets for refutation by insisting on racial language. They make their beds but don't want to lay in it. Of course, when their racial terminology backfires people get angry with Brace and flip flop to the 'safe' position that 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation. When they think it's safe to revert back to their racial use of the term, you can see them talk about someone being "genetically black" or having "black features".
But pray tell. What would be the added benefit of including more Sahelian populations in Brace et al's analysis? And which Sahelian populations specifically would have to be included to produce more 'satisfying' results?
Were Upper Egyptians, Southern Egypt's Nubians, North Sudanese, Egypt's Eastern desert Beja and Somalis used by Brace?
I can't imagine that any "Eurasian" population would be craniofacially closer to the ancient Egyptians than any of these Northeast Africans.
Forgive my for my ignorance on the matter, but didn't Northeast Africans leave Africa to colonise the world? Isn't this the reason that Eurasians would plot somewhat closely with us?
If you look at the Brace plot, you will see that Nubians and Somalis do plot relatively close to predynastic Upper Egyptians. But then, you will also notice that Australo-Melanesians plot close to the pooled sub-Saharans despite being even more genetically divergent from them than Saharans ever were, so the graph isn't a perfect reflection of genetic relationships among these populations. But it does suffice to show ancient Egypto-Nubians had a different craniofacial morphology on average from the sub-Saharan norm.
I would say what it boils down to is whether Northeast Africans indigenous to the Sahara would count as "Black" in traditional Western understandings the way sub-Saharans typically are. Clearly you, as a Northeast African from Sudan, identify as Black, and I presume you accepted that identity from some influence out there. But the very fact that the "true Negro" archetype has been a recurring theme in debates here on ES shows that there's also a tendency to delimit "Black" identity to sub-Saharans with broad facial features. What Swenet seems to be saying is that by chucking out color labels, you can skirt that "True Negro" issue entirely.
What special use do you see in the word "Black" that "African" couldn't cover just as well?
My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
I don't advocate for the use of racial language in bio-anthropology but I have observed a double standard in the field. The use of Caucasian [racial language] seems to be accepted whereas black or Negro would be rejected for being inapplicable.
"African" isn't enough for me because there are people on this continent [Mediterranean-looking Berbers] that speak our languages and share their paternal DNA with us but are mostly "Eurasian" and have their origins outside the continent and so the word African is simply insufficient.
I want precision and so I prefer *Northeast African*, and I would so very much love to see bio-anthropologists clearly associating North Sudanese, the Oromo and Somalis with the ancient Egyptians. I want there to be no confusion on this matter.
Ps: Traditional Western understandings of what it means to be "black" are beyond irrelevant.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^One thing that also favors reading two separate clines in that Ptolemy text is that there is a Greek tradition of describing Nile Valley Aethiopians like tall Nilo-Saharan speakers. I don't think Ptolemy's audience would have been able to read "pure Aethiopian" in isolation of that context so that it only reads 'jetblack skin'. By the time of Ptolemy, Greek geographers and historians had documented the appearance of Nile Valley Aethiopians for hundreds of years.
Ptolemy seems to be focusing entirely on colour and "type" could mean anything and so I'm hesitant to ascribe this to features. We would have to refer to a classical academic to clarify things for us.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
These people you speak of don't use 'black' in a way African Americans and other westerners (including many on this forum) use it in every day use. So, either it's a problem across the board or it's not a problem at all.
Why is the quoted piece below, where the guy is sorting 'black' people based on facial features, not a problem?
quote:Well , I gonna say what I know
Originally, Egyptians were black people and this can be found in the pictures in the pyramids and also in the traditional hairstyles all over africa(today) that relfect the ancient hairstyles of the egyptians. Prisoners that the egyptians captured are depicted on the walls of the pyramids, they range from black people through semites to white people. Where as the racial differences can be made out between white, asian and semite prisoners. There is "NO DIFFERENCE" in the pictures between black prisoners and the egyptians.
They didnt refer to themselves as bronze but as the "red man" this was due to the reddish colour of a black mans skin. (if you're white you wouldnt know about this, try looking closesly at black skin) They called themselves The Red man to distinguish themselves from other africans who were not as advanced as them. Genetically there is no differnece. Not until the Persian and Semetic integration did they move to other parts of Africa and embue their knowledge on the different people.
And I do think theres a conspirancy by so called Egyptologists to present a white face to egypt. For example White Cleopatra played by Elizabeth Taylor and YO! What happend to the Sphinx's Nose? I'm sure it was a black mans nose and they got rid of it. I mean even if it fell off, it would still be there, I'm sure its big enough
Egyptologists like Kemp and Shaw apply the same standard of 'black' as that guy but come to a different conclusion (i.e. the caricatured Nubian captives on the Egyptian monuments have 'black' features but many or most Egyptians depicted next to them, don't). So, this racial use of 'black' is only 'outrageous' when it leads to unsatisfying conclusions? It's only 'wrong' when Brace et al investigate these claims and the results don't conform to preconceived notions? Then 'black' is all of a sudden restricted to skin color and has "nothing to do with facial features". Right
Posters like that guy I just quoted are co-signed and cheered on all the time on this forum. So why the double standard?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just saying didn't the 1993 Brace study(if that's the one you guys are talking about) over empathizes on nose shape and is the reason why the Egyptians grouped more with Europeans?
Again, just asking. Once more I understand perfectly what you are saying.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: My issue isn't the use of "black" but the instance and consistency of its use. Egyptologists and other scientists are opposed to the use of "black" in reference to the ancient Egyptians, but when the BBC and PBS make documentaries [featuring Egyptologists and others] talk of the "black" Pharaohs is now conveniently proper and objective.
These people you speak of don't use 'black' in a way African Americans and other westerners (including many on this forum) use it in every day use. So, either it's a problem across the board or it's not a problem at all.
Why is the quoted piece below, where the guy is sorting 'black' people based on facial features, not a problem?
quote:Well , I gonna say what I know
Originally, Egyptians were black people and this can be found in the pictures in the pyramids and also in the traditional hairstyles all over africa(today) that relfect the ancient hairstyles of the egyptians. Prisoners that the egyptians captured are depicted on the walls of the pyramids, they range from black people through semites to white people. Where as the racial differences can be made out between white, asian and semite prisoners. There is "NO DIFFERENCE" in the pictures between black prisoners and the egyptians.
They didnt refer to themselves as bronze but as the "red man" this was due to the reddish colour of a black mans skin. (if you're white you wouldnt know about this, try looking closesly at black skin) They called themselves The Red man to distinguish themselves from other africans who were not as advanced as them. Genetically there is no differnece. Not until the Persian and Semetic integration did they move to other parts of Africa and embue their knowledge on the different people.
And I do think theres a conspirancy by so called Egyptologists to present a white face to egypt. For example White Cleopatra played by Elizabeth Taylor and YO! What happend to the Sphinx's Nose? I'm sure it was a black mans nose and they got rid of it. I mean even if it fell off, it would still be there, I'm sure its big enough
Egyptologists like Kemp and Shaw apply the same standard of 'black' as that guy but come to a different conclusion (i.e. the caricatured Nubian captives on the Egyptian monuments have 'black' features but many or most Egyptians depicted next to them, don't). So, this racial use of 'black' is only 'outrageous' when it leads to unsatisfying conclusions? It's only 'wrong' when Brace et al investigate these claims and the results don't conform to preconceived notions? Then 'black' is all of a sudden restricted to skin color and has "nothing to do with facial features". Right
Posters like that guy I just quoted are co-signed and cheered on all the time on this forum. So why the double standard?
It is a problem, Swenet. I don't know why these people insist on exclusively associating "black" with people with wide features.
The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
If someone lies and says there was never really a serious reason for academics to rope tug over the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians, Brace's results are valid to disprove that. In that case, it doesn't really matter where the measurements were taken. It was said that their population affinity was necessarily immediately "obvious" since the early days of anthropology and that lie was targeted by posting Brace.
If someone were to say that that's the only or typical result you can get with skeletal analyses involving ancient Egyptians (which is what many Euronuts are insinuating or claiming), that's where that critical note re: Brace would come in.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Just saying didn't the 1993 Brace study(if that's the one you guys are talking about) over empathizes on nose shape and is the reason why the Egyptians grouped more with Europeans?
Again, just asking. Once more I understand perfectly what you are saying.
If I understand this correctly, this is actually a white woman?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
This question can be problematic. The Eurasian samples are IN Eurasia, they're not necessarily biologically Eurasian. Reread what I said in this post about cluster C:
Cluster C is not 'Caucasoid'. Even IF the samples in Eurasia would have been closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample, most of them are mixed with North Africans and still have a degree of resemblance to OOA Africans.
But, that said, to answer your question, in one analysis the Somali and X group individuals seem to be closest to the predynastic Egyptians. But most of the samples were excavated on the African continent, so it's missing the relationship values of some of the other samples. In the other analysis, the Portugese neolithic sample was closest to the predynastic Egyptians, followed by the late dynastic and Indian samples (a tie).
Remember that Brace's results are primarily about cranio-facial resemblance. In the case of the Indian sample, a lot of genetic closeness is virtually ruled out (aside from generic genetic closeness, considering that Indians are OOA people). However, in this discussion the values of genetically distant Eurasian sample samples like Indians are still relevant given the claims that have been made in this thread about physical resemblance.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
If someone lies and says there was never really a serious reason for academics to rope tug over the population affinity of the ancient Egyptians, Brace's results are valid to disprove that. In that case, it doesn't really matter where the measurements were taken. It was said that their population affinity was necessarily immediately "obvious" since the early days of anthropology and that lie was targeted by posting Brace.
If someone were to say that that's the only or typical result you can get with skeletal analyses involving ancient Egyptians (which is what many Euronuts are insinuating or claiming), that's where that critical note re: Brace would come in.
If I am reading you correctly you're saying the Brace results proves that certain people were lying about claiming to always knowing the affinity of the Ancient Egyptians?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
I originally doubted this, since some of the subjects are portrayed with linen clothing that would suggest Egyptian influence like that absorbed by Kush. But then, that would be assuming Egyptian influences stopped at Kush which might not necessarily be the case. Who knows, there might very well have been communities of South Sudanese-type people further up the Nile who still had cultural and commercial ties to Egypt and Kush, and maybe those are the people depicted in the Egyptian artworks.
That said, I also believe Egyptians had a need to distinguish themselves from foreigners in art even if it meant taking creative liberties with the truth. If all those images of Sudanese were given reddish-brown skin like the Egyptian characters, would people necessarily figure out they were meant to be foreign nationals? I doubt so.
Incidentally we do have a few ancient Greek images (apparently) depicting Egyptians that look like this: The guy on the left is said to be the mythical Egyptian king Busiris and his counterpart on the vase (right) is Heracles. Now we know late dynastic Egyptians who lived when that vase was made didn't all look like the stereotyped image of Busiris here, but then the Greek artist who made the vase had to distinguish the Egyptian from the Greek somehow. Possibly he considered Egyptians to be part of a larger "African" construct and chose to represent that with the African phenotype furthest removed from his native Greeks, similar to how the artists at Firaxis chose to depict the Ethiopian Zara Yaqob for their game Civilization IV: Posts: 7083 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
What I meant to say is that some Euronuts use Brace to say that the relationship of Egyptians to samples in Eurasia is due to the sharing of 'Caucasian' ancestry shared by all samples in that cluster. They insist on spamming Brace (as opposed to posting some other studies that came out somewhat differently) because they're trying to insinuate or claim that predynastic Egyptians ALWAYS cluster in what they see as that 'Caucasian' cluster.
In that case, one would draw attention to certain choices made by Brace et al, which influence their results. In that case, that argument is relevant.
But for the reasons why I posted Brace, that doesn't really matter. For instance, in this thread, the argument was made that the population affinities of ancient Egyptians were always apparent. It was said by Doug that it was pseudoscience that led to wrong classifications. Brace et al's results prove that's complete nonsense. This Brace paper is one in a long line of papers that prove that to be nonsense.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: Were Eurasians closer to the ancient Egyptians than the Nubians of Upper Egypt and the people of North Sudan? I would find that hard to believe. How many Nubians of Upper Egypt and North Sudan were used in that study? I basically want to know if the study was free of manipulation.
This question can be problematic. The Eurasian samples are IN Eurasia, they're not necessarily biologically Eurasian. Reread what I said in this post about cluster C:
Cluster C is not 'Caucasoid'. Even IF the samples in Eurasia would have been closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample, most of them are mixed with North Africans and still have a degree of resemblance to OOA Africans.
But, that said, to answer your question, in one analysis the Somali and X group individuals were closest to the predynastic Egyptians. But most of the samples were excavated on the African continent, so it's missing data. In the other analysis, the Portugese neolithic sample was closest to the predynastic Egyptians, followed by the late dynastic and Indian samples (a tie). Remember that this is about cranio-facial resemblance.
I think I get it now. Question: In the analysis involving neolithic Portugese, Nubians were used, right? I do find it a little strange that Predynastic Nubians would be further removed from predynastic Egyptians than neolithic Portugese in that one specific analysis.
Like you said neolithic Eurasians resembled Africans at this point and mixed with them, so the confluence is understandable
In either case the Eurocentrics are trumped by data from limb ratios, genetics, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests, cultural anthropology and linguistics.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: The gratuitous use of the word "Nubian" for the people depicted as pitch-black in ancient Egyptian reliefs needs to be investigated and properly contextualized. The people with pitch-black skin and wide features don't even reside anywhere North of Kosti so I am genuinely perplexed.
I think that those people with pitch-black skin and wide features may have been the ancestors of the Nilotic tribes in the Gezira and the Niger-Congo "Nuba" of Kordofan.
I originally doubted this, since some of the subjects are portrayed with linen clothing that would suggest Egyptian influence like that absorbed by Kush. But then, that would be assuming Egyptian influences stopped at Kush which might not necessarily be the case. Who knows, there might very well have been communities of South Sudanese-type people further up the Nile who still had cultural and commercial ties to Egypt and Kush, and maybe those are the people depicted in the Egyptian artworks.
That said, I also believe Egyptians had a need to distinguish themselves from foreigners in art even if it meant taking creative liberties with the truth. If all those images of Sudanese were given reddish-brown skin like the Egyptian characters, would people necessarily figure out they were meant to be foreign nationals? I doubt so.
Incidentally we do have a few ancient Greek images (apparently) depicting Egyptians that look like this: The guy on the left is said to be the mythical Egyptian king Busiris and his counterpart on the vase (right) is Heracles. Now we know late dynastic Egyptians who lived when that vase was made didn't all look like the stereotyped image of Busiris here, but then the Greek artist who made the vase had to distinguish the Egyptian from the Greek somehow. Possibly he considered Egyptians to be part of a larger "African" construct and chose to represent that with the African phenotype furthest removed from his native Greeks, similar to how the artists at Firaxis chose to depict the Ethiopian Zara Yaqob for their game Civilization IV:
That is exactly right, friend. The people of Kush depicted themselves in the same way that the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves and I really do believe that the pitch-black people we see in those reliefs are "Nuba" or Nilotic tribes like the Dinka, Nuer, Shilluk and so on.
I posted images of Lower Nubians that were depicted in the same fashion as the Egyptians. The people of Punt were also almost identical to the ancient Egyptians in the reliefs that I've seen.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
What I meant to say is that some Euronuts use Brace to say that the relationship of Egyptians to samples in Eurasia is due to the sharing of 'Caucasian' ancestry shared by all samples in that cluster. They insist on spamming Brace (as opposed to posting some other studies that came out somewhat differently) because they're trying to insinuate or claim that predynastic Egyptians ALWAYS cluster in what they see as that 'Caucasian' cluster.
In that case, one would draw attention to certain choices made by Brace et al, which influence their results. In that case, that argument is relevant.
But for the reasons why I posted Brace, that doesn't really matter. For instance, in this thread, the argument was made that the population affinities of ancient Egyptians were always apparent. It was said by Doug that it was pseudoscience that led to wrong classifications. Brace et al's results prove that's complete nonsense. This Brace paper is one in a long line of papers that prove that to be nonsense.
Okay I get it now. Btw keep up the good work. Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
In both analyses the Nubian samples are used. And in the second analysis, several other neolithic European samples were closer to the predynastic Egyptian sample. This doesn't say anything about Nubian vs Eurasian relationships to ancient Egyptians. Remember that this is not a conclusive picture. These Nubian samples are just two Nubian samples, presumably Upper Nubian ones (more distant from Egypt). There are many other Nubian samples that would have been closer to the ancient Egyptians if they were included.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic