The geneticist is someone who's worked on ancient Egyptian mummies!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I mention this because Anson wrote in the previous page:
quote: SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: SMH. My post was barely submitted and it is already subjected to strawman attacks. This is hilarious. How can you be so desperately reaching for points to antagonize? I was clearly talking about specialists who have seriously studied the origin of the ancient Egyptians. What does that have to do with the views of a randomly contacted geneticist? Geneticists are automatically qualified to talk about the origins of the AE now, simply because they know genetics? SMH.
quote:Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
--Coon
^This is coming from Coon, mind you. Like I said, it's simply a rampant misconception among illiterate commentators like Doug M. These paranoid loons think that there is a massive conspiracy among specialists on this topic and that they believe that the AE weren't in the African American skin pigmentation range.
Swenet you are lying again. This is explicitly what coon said in regards to the Badarians. there is no confusion about what he means. He called them 'white'.
quote: After this excursion let us return to Upper Egypt, to a number of sites close to that section of the valley in which the Tasians had previously lived, From the type site, Badari, come the earliest skulls of a definitely Egyptian group which have yet been discovered. These Badarians lived about 4000 B.C., after the climate had become considerably drier than it was in Tasian times, so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white, while the hair was black or dark brown in color, thick, of fine texture, and usually wavy in form. .... Morant shows that the Badarian cranial type is closely similar to that of some of the modern Christians of northern Ethiopia who incidentally do not show negroid characteristics in the skull and also to the crania of Dravidian-speaking peoples of southern India. One might add that living Somalis show a close approximation to this physical type in most respects, and the extremely narrow jaw in which the Badarians seem to reach a world extreme may be duplicated among both Somalis and the inhabitants of southern India. In Europe, the closest parallel to the Badarian type is found among modern Sardinians, but this is not as close as their relationships to other and later Egyptians.
So right there it shows that what you are saying is totally and blatantly false. Coon calls these people 'white' and then he refers to another person named Morant in terms of the observations of these cranial measurements but the point here is that those cranial measurements completely contradict his skin color assessment. So again, like I have said over and over again, the issue is skin color and nothing else. You simply keep running from it and pretending that using other terms and other ways of talking about the issue changes the point. It does not. You are simply wrong. His assessment of cranial relationships does not suggest a correlation to his assessment of skin color, which is why what you are saying in terms of avoiding specific terms relevant to skin color is insane because bottom line that is the dam point.
Over and over and over again on this thread you keep claiming that the issue isn't about skin color and that these scientists aren't talking about skin color or even worse that they are somehow in agreement in some way on the skin color of the AE and that we just need to adjust our language to understand that we are in agreement. This is false. They are not in agreement with many folks about this and the point of disagreement is specifically skin color primarily among other things.
Period.
Using the term black people is specific and deliberate as to avoid any dam confusion and any attempts to divert and hide behind language because it is unambiguous in terms of what kinds of skin colors are being talked about and that is the reason I use it, because that is the point i am trying to make.
And to sit here and think you are going to post first Samuel Morton and Carleton Coon as somehow saying the AE were anywhere near the complexion of what we call 'black people' is totally and absolutely ridiculous and shows just how stupid you sound.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not my fault that you don't know how these terms are applied by racialists. Without copping out, prove this necessarily means "white" as you understand it and/or that this terminology excludes the populations I mentioned in my previous post (Dravidians, Abyssinians, etc).
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: It's not my fault that you don't know how these terms are applied by racialists. Without copping out, prove this necessarily means "white" as you understand it and/or that this terminology excludes the populations I mentioned in my previous post (Dravidians, Abyssinians, etc).
Simply put he means white like Europeans. The only one confused by this is you. So like I said before it is on you to show how he is claiming that they were not white and brown like Africans who are called by everyone else 'black people'. Your lies are simply ridiculous.
quote: The pigmentation of the Egyptians was usually a brunet white; in the conventional figures the men are represented as red, the women often as lighter, and even white. Although the hair is almost inevitably black or dark brown, and the eyes brown, Queen Hetep-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a definite blond. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with fine red horizontal lines, and her skin is white. This is the earliest known evidence of blond- ism in the world. Later Egyptian reliefs, however, frequently represented Libyans as blond, and in early Egyptian times, the territory of the Libyans extended to the Delta itself. The Egyptian representation of foreigners is quite accurate; besides the Libyans, who have Nordic features as well as coloring, Asiatics, with prominent noses and curly hair, sea peoples from the Mediterranean, with lighter skins and a more pronounced facial relief than the Egyptians, are also shown, as well as negroes.
The blondism of Hetep-Heres II apparently belonged to the Delta and to the connections outside to east or west, rather than to Egypt proper, for it never recurred as an important or characteristic Egyptian trait. The Mediterranean pigmentation of the Egyptians has probably not greatly changed during the last five thousand years.
The point here is this people are hypocrites, liars and pseudoscientists concerned more with promoting the image of the 'white race' as superior to all others, specifically 'black people'. You on the other hand seem to think that they are not talking about a distinction between white people and black people as the ROOT of racism. You are seriously simply lying.
What does brunet white even mean? It has no real definition other than being some kind of 'white'. Yet you are going to claim that somehow this is somehow meaning the same as what we mean as black. You are really going out of your way to make yourself look stupid.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
"white" or "brunet" in racialist language does not necessarily mean white pigmentation. Are you going to prove that it does in Coon's case, or are you just going to stall and troll?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
"white" in racialist language does not necessarily mean white pigmentation. Are you going to prove that it does in Coon's case, or are you just going to stall and troll?
YOu are stalling because you claim that brunet white means the same color as Nubians. Your retarded behind is simply wrong and refuses to admit that you are wrong. Nowhere does Coon claim that the AE as "brunet whites" were "brown" like the Nubians. You have been caught in another lie so there is no need to sit here and try and change the subject moron.
This is what you said and you are wrong:
quote:Almost all of the racists and racialists who had elaborate racist schemes and ideologies thought that the founding AE had the same level of skin pigmentation as modern day Nubians. Extremely influential racist specialist on this subject like Coon, Baker, Morton, Strouhal, etc. all fit into this category.
So please stop trying to save face as you have been shown to be a complete fraud on this issue...
Like I said, you are simply trying to make these racists into 'objective' scholars whose language means something else than what it really means. Their language is meant to obfuscate and promote their agenda and is not 'objective' or in agreement with anyone on the side of a 'black' AE in any way shape or form. Your dumb behind is simply trying to justify why we should follow their nonsense logic and terminologies rather than simply sticking to the point and being clear and unambiguous by using terms like 'black people'. Because now your dumb butt would have us to believe that 'brunet white' is the same as what we mean by 'black African' which includes 'brown Nubian' and it certainly does not. Coon is not in agreement with me or many other folks on this because if we take what you said to be literally true (which it is not) he is saying that the AE were the same complexion as the Nubians (or some subset) which would mean that he is in agreement semantically with them being in the same range as people called 'black'. He is not and you are simply shooting pure bull sh*t out of your butt hole.
The issue is skin color it has always been about skin color and there is no way around it.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: What do you think the reaction would be if a Hollywood studio made a major film about ancient Egyptian and used Ethiopians and Somalis?
Do you think there'd be no comments on their racial backgrounds?
Do you think the term 'black' would be mentioned in the press and online?
For what it's worth, last year I made a mod for the game Age of Mythology that gave its ancient Egyptian characters darker skin. You can see it and the attached comments panel here. I did not modify the characters' facial features, nor did I invoke obvious racially loaded language like "black" or "African" in my description. That still didn't stop commentators from complaining I made the Egyptians look "Black", in many cases implying I had confused them with the "Nubians" or Kushites.
Obviously none of these guys are specialists in Egyptology or bio-anthropology, so their commentary is not necessarily informative of what academics (even old racist ones like Coon) would think. And some of them could very well consider Northeast Africans a different "race" from West and Central Africans. But I will admit that for these trolls at least, merely darkening the Egyptian characters' skin color in that mod was enough to make them scream "Afrocentrism".
Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners. Hence all the speculation that any perceived overlap between their features and those of "Caucasoids" has to be the product of non-African admixture. Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
quote:The skin color of both these oasis populations is likewise on the brunet side. In Siwa it falls for the most part between the von Luschan #12 and #15, which is a dark brunet-white or a light brown, and 10 per cent of the group has pinkish-white skin. In Awjila it runs from #16 to #24, and is often a medium brown.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
quote:so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white
^After complaining about my use of a Coon citation that said that Badarians were like Somalis in most physical respects, this clown starts using Badarian mummified skin as evidence that the Badarians had yellowish skin.
At the end of the day, Doug completely failed to prove that most specialist have said that the AE were pale.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
All I know is you said it means brown Nubian. So what does it mean since you claim to be the one who knows what it means.
The point is you claim that brunet white is the same as a brown Nubian. You said that so you certainly need to prove that this is indeed what Coon meant. Just as you also need to prove that Samuel Norton meant the same thing.
My argument is they didn't. Their full works are online and anybody can read it for themselves.
But certainly, the names and subjects of these two works you quoted from are defining how white Europeans are different and superior from everybody else: namely "Races of Europe" by Carleton Coon and "Observations of Egyptian Ethnography derived from Anatomy history and monuments" by Samuel Morton.
I have already shown you that Coon is definitely not lumping these people with Nubians in terms of skin color, but lets now go to Morton:
quote: It is not, however, to be supposed that the Egyptians were really red men, as they are represented on the monuments. This colour, with a symbolic signification, was conven- tionally adopted for the whole nation, (with very rare exceptions,) from Meroe to Mem- phis. Thus, also, the kings of the Greek and Roman dynasties are painted of the same complexion.
Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archseologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral- Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
The well known observation of Ammianus Marcellinus, " Homines Egyptii pUrique subfusculi sunt, et atrati," is sufficiently descriptive, and corresponds with other positive evidence, in relation to the great mass of the people; and when the author subsequently tells us that the Egyptians' blush and grow red," we find it difficult to associate these ideas with a black, or any approximation to a black skin.
So again, you are shown to be a liar. None of these people are claiming the AE to be 'brown' like the Nubians. You keep misrepresenting the argument and being a mouthpiece for white folks, constantly trying to misrepresent every side of this issue because you are desperate for approval by some sect of white society but you just come off looking like a clown for denying the obvious facts that these people are not in agreement on the issue of the AE being anywhere near in complexion to what would be called black people and you are simply lying about it.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you floundering clown, you don't know what you're talking about. Posting citations like a chicken without a head. That Samuel Morton quote refers to what he calls "Austral Egyptians", which I pointed out. When I quoted it, I acknowledged that Morton doesn't say the same about his other "Egyptian" types.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: You're just demonstrating that you have no idea what the old terminology means. Even when you post stuff out of sources you're not familiar with like a chicken without a head, you're asking me to clean up after you.
quote:In fact, the foreheads of Ethiopians are in some instances lighter than their shirt protected bodies. In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II.
--Coon
quote:The skin color of both these oasis populations is likewise on the brunet side. In Siwa it falls for the most part between the von Luschan #12 and #15, which is a dark brunet-white or a light brown, and 10 per cent of the group has pinkish-white skin. In Awjila it runs from #16 to #24, and is often a medium brown.
--Coon
Where does it say that "brunet" or "white" in the racialist sense refers to white pigmentation?
And for someone who is harping on skin color as opposed to craniofacial measurements and anthro comparisons, you have a lot of blindspots as to your own excerpts from Coon.
quote:so dry, in fact, that in many cases the skin and hair of their dead have been naturally preserved. The skin was apparently brunet white
^After complaining about my use of a Coon citation that said that Badarians were like Somalis in most physical respects, this clown starts using Badarian mummified skin as evidence that the Badarians had yellowish skin.
At the end of the day, Doug completely failed to prove that most specialist have said that the AE were pale.
Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above. Again, on the point which you clearly now trying to avoid, where is it that Coon says the AE specifically approached the same colors that he specifically calls out in terms of reference to the color scales of von Luschan. That is the issue here. You still have not shown where Coon is saying that the AE were the same complexion as these people you liar.
And certainly you have a whole series of examples of Coon talking about skin colors in terms of a color scale yet you are still denying that this is about skin color. What kind of absolute retard are you?
And are you claiming we need to carry around color scales when we talk about the skin color of black people in order to be understood? GTFOH.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is what Doug does all the time. He asks a question (I was supposed to prove that "brunet white" could also include Abyssinian skin pigmentation). Then I post proof. Then he shifts the goal posts and uses my answer as evidence that I'm wrong on some other point.
In other words, his request to post evidence that 'brunet white' doesn't mean pale was fulfilled. Instead of admitting that he messed up, he starts moving the goal post:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: This is what Doug does all the time. He asks a question (I was supposed to prove that "brunet white" could also include Abyssinian skin pigmentation). Then I post proof. Then he shifts the goal posts and uses my answer as evidence that I'm wrong on some other point.
In other words, his request to post evidence that 'brunet white' doesn't mean pale was fulfilled. Instead of admitting that he messed up, he starts moving the goal post:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Where in any of this does it show Coon claiming the AE having specific skin color ranges to any of the people above.
Stop lying. You said twice that these racists said the AE were the same color as the Nubians and both times I showed you to be wrong. And now you claim that Coon talking about the Ethiopians or some other folks like the Siwa (with specific color chart designations) somehow means that he is saying the AE were the same color as these people or as the 'Nubians' using any specific color codes from any color charts. YOU are the one saying that and I am calling you on it as someone who is putting words into peoples mouths. Just like you did for Morton:
quote: Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archaeologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral-Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
Which you said was support for Morton saying the AE were the same complexion as "Nubians" when clearly he was NOT saying that and said so explicitly.
And here is another quote from Coon in the same dam book, showing you to be an inveterate liar on all fronts:
quote: It can be shown that Sumerians who lived over five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia are almost identical in skull and face form with living Englishmen, and that predynastic Egyptian skulls can be matched both in a seventeenth century London plague pit, and in Neolithic cist-graves in Switzerland. Modern dolichocephalic whites or browns are very similar in head and face measurements and form. The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean
Again your misquoting and picking of passages from Coon misses the point. He is claiming the AE to be literally closest to white Europeans.
Again you are a dam liar and trying too dam hard to make the obsevations of racists as reliable references on any dam thing especially the skin color of the AE.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
...when Ridley Scott casted for Black Hawk Down, he didn't use Somalis...Africans are interchangeable....and black...
In any big budget Hollywood film where Horners played the ancient Egypts the press and audiences would see black people, and react accordingly...that's the reality.
quote: Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
quote: For what it's worth, last year I made a mod for the game Age of Mythology that gave its ancient Egyptian characters darker skin. You can see it and the attached comments panel here. I did not modify the characters' facial features, nor did I invoke obvious racially loaded language like "black" or "African" in my description. That still didn't stop commentators from complaining I made the Egyptians look "Black", in many cases implying I had confused them with the "Nubians" or Kushites.
Obviously none of these guys are specialists in Egyptology or bio-anthropology, so their commentary is not necessarily informative of what academics (even old racist ones like Coon) would think. And some of them could very well consider Northeast Africans a different "race" from West and Central Africans. But I will admit that for these trolls at least, merely darkening the Egyptian characters' skin color in that mod was enough to make them scream "Afrocentrism".
Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners. Hence all the speculation that any perceived overlap between their features and those of "Caucasoids" has to be the product of non-African admixture. Would public opinion of Northeast Africans' "Black" status change if people could be convinced that their peculiar range of phenotypes isn't necessarily all due to non-African genetic influences? I dunno.
posted
Doug is obviously a mental case. Everyone can go back to my posts and see I fulfilled my part of the bargain. All citations show that the groups I referred to were thought to be in the specified pigmentation range and thought to be related to Afro-Asiatic speakers, even by people who were racists for a living.
Doug M said they were all believed to be pale Europeans. Look at where his goal post shifts have led him to now. Completely silent on his earlier falsified positions and desperately trying to find flaws in mine to hide that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put he means white like Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Doug is obviously a mental case. Everyone can go back to my posts and see I fulfilled my part of the bargain. All citations show that the groups I referred to were thought to be in the specified pigmentation range and thought to be related to Afro-Asiatic speakers, even by people who were racists for a living.
Doug M said they were all believed to be pale Europeans. Look at where his goal post shifts have led him to now. Completely silent on his earlier falsified positions and desperately trying to find flaws in mine to hide that.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Simply put he means white like Europeans.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: No they accept that the Ancient Egyptians looked like Charleton Heston and not even olive skinned white Europeans.
SMH.
Bullsh*t I asked you where Coon and Morton said the AE skin colors the same as Nubians and you have not. You are a liar and continue to lie.
And at this point you still haven't shown how your 6 pages of antics have proven that black African is not a perfectly legitimate and reliable reference to the skin color of African populations.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Again, you floundering clown, you don't know what you're talking about. Posting citations like a chicken without a head. That Samuel Morton quote refers to what he calls "Austral Egyptians", which I pointed out. When I quoted it, I acknowledged that Morton doesn't say the same about his other "Egyptian" types.
Which means he did not consider the AE to be the same complexion as Nubians which is what you said idiot.
To sum it up, you said that black people is not a good term as nobody agrees on what it means and that scientists, including the racists all admit the AE were some kind of brown, which you claim means they are in agreement with what other folks mean by black Africans. That has been shown to be a lie.
You then said that African scholars were not debating the skin color of the AE, specifically Diop. Another lie.
You said that people in Europe and elsewhere were not talking about skin color when they use terms like 'black people' and 'white people' in language. Another lie.
You said that other folks were not talking about the skin color of the AE and other folks when they said black or used other terms, another lie.
You are simply lying continually trying to pretend that 1) this isn't fundamentally about skin color and that 2) objective science agrees with folks on this board in terms of the skin color of the AE as it pertains to them being called 'black people'. Another lie.
You simply failed on all fronts in this regard and have proven to be trolling in support of white folks and their racist views and outlook on the issue meaning preferring to avoid getting to the point rather than play along with them and their word games.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In regards to the racists I mentioned and their beliefs about AE pigmentation, I said that they perceived AE to be in the pigmentation range of African Americans and modern day Nubians and that they were perceived to be 'racially' related to Nubians and related groups.
My part of the bargain has withstood scrutiny despite Doug M's trolling.
In regards my observations re: Morton's perceived affinity of Egyptians to Nubians, this is what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
I never said it applied to ALL Egyptians. More floundering and desperate antics on Doug's part.
I'll let level-headed onlookers be the judge of whether my posts in regards to there being more than one tradition of 'black' makes sense and resonated with them. If not, I'll make adjustments to my presentation where needed.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you're in no position to be discussing ANY of this. The racists specialists you described are a figment of your imagination. Your positions on the supposedly consistent European use of 'black' over a period of 3000 years has been falsified. As a matter of fact, which of your positions haven't been falsified?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
And don't forget to scroll down to the "similar thread" section. Then you can fade to the background like you always do when you get thrashed.
This is more of a cultural thing, and the negative typing of African Americans. The people go by ethnicity first before anything else. This is what makes the racial and color categorization so weird. It was all imposed by westerners, supposed anthropologists.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Is The Color of the Ancient Egyptians..(THINK)
Notice that the goofs will try and drive people away from Claiming Truth by mocking the very People they claim they are defending?
Remember that that person who followed Dr. Winter Around for his discussion of Some Native Americans being Black and
BLACK AFRICANS!!! VISITED THE AMERICAS BEFORE EUROPEANS!!!
He claimed he was defending The Native Americans With "QUETZCOATEL STATED IF AFRICANS CAME TO AMERICAS THAT THE NATIVE AMERICANS WOULD OF EATEN THEM "
THEY DONT EVEN GIVE RESPECT TO THE VIKINGS!!! FOR COMING TO AMERICA BEFORE THE RACIST GOOF COLOUMBUS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BLOODTHIRSTY VIOLENCE!!!
Credit Doug M for showing the lying picture of Tut and how they dressed him.....
look at DOUGS DISCOVERING THE PICTURE OF FAKE TUT tell me what those goofs are doing posting a Picture of Tut like that
Don't get things twisted, ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK!!!
No need to twist and jump through hoops cause they, european racist goofs just deserve to get humiliated for there so blatant Mockery of Peoples....
remember those EUROPEAN GOOFS DRANK HUMAN MUMMIES (Cannibals) AND CONVINCED BRITISH PEOPLE TO EAT BLOOD SAUSAGE AND BLOOD PUDDING etc........
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: In regards to the racists I mentioned and their beliefs about AE pigmentation, I said that they perceived AE to be in the pigmentation range of African Americans and modern day Nubians and that they were perceived to be 'racially' related to Nubians and related groups.
Well people who can read will see you are lying. First off, you said that 'objective scientists' and modern scientists are not racist if they don't use the term 'black people' Yet throughout this thread you have constantly referred to white racists as you even called them and not once have you cited any so called objective scholar. So you are lying.
Here is one example of a full passage of one of these racists who you claim that the AE were similar to brown Nubians. Give it up you are wrong and talking blatant nonsense....
quote: Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-brown colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archseologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral- Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
The well known observation of Ammianus Marcellinus, " Homines Egyptii pUrique subfusculi sunt, et atrati," is sufficiently descriptive, and corresponds with other positive evidence, in relation to the great mass of the people; and when the author subsequently tells us that the Egyptians' blush and grow red," we find it difficult to associate these ideas with a black, or any approximation to a black skin.
Point blank you are a liar and continue to lie and have only to this point promoted the views of racists as if somehow or someway these racists are in agreement with folks on this board on what they mean by black Africans and the AE. So give it up already. You are proven wrong and just wont admit it.
quote: My part of the bargain has withstood scrutiny despite Doug M's trolling.
In regards my observations re: Morton perceived affinity of Egyptians to Nubians, this is what I said:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Here is an example of a hardcore racist/white supremacist 'scientist' saying that the dark skinned Egyptians (as contrasted with this author's perception of "Mediterranean" lower Egyptians) had the skin pigmentation of modern day NUBIANS:
I never said it applied to ALL Egyptians. More floundering and desperate antics on Doug's part.
I'll let level-headed onlookers be the judge of whether my posts in regards to their being more than one tradition of 'black' makes sense and resonated with them. If not, I'll make adjustments to my presentation where needed.
You, on the other hand, have shown that you're in no position to be discussing ANY of this. The racists specialists you described are a figment of your imagination. Your positions on the supposedly consistent European use of 'black' has been falsified. As a matter of fact, which of your positions haven't been falsified?
You have not done anything to support any part of any bargain. From the beginning I asked you whether the AE were black or not as a yes or no question. You consistently have not answered that question yet you are sitting here trying to defend the words of known racists as if they are somehow saying something that is in agreement with what many folks mean when they say black Africans. You are simply a fool and a liar.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
If there is only one rigid tradition of 'black', explain why maps reconstructed from Greek and Middle Eastern texts depicted "Cush" and "Aethiopia" all over tropical Eurasia and Africa ~1000BC until the around the Common Era. Why did contemporary terms related to 'black' gradually start to refer exclusively to Africa by then?
I acknowledge that tradition of black and brown skin (see the two maps I just posted). But I also acknowledge that towards the time of Christ, an additional meaning arose that excluded a lot of black and brown people in the Middle East and started focusing on Africa as the source of 'blacks'.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Child of the King.
If there is only one rigid tradition of 'black', explain why maps reconstructed from Greek and Middle Eastern texts depicted "Cush" and "Aethiopia" all over tropical Eurasia and Africa ~1000BC until the around the Common Era. Why did contemporary terms related to 'black' gradually start to refer exclusively to Africa by then?
Because they considered them all black folks from the Southern Hemisphere which is actually consistent to what we know about the tropical basis for black skin. And there is really nothing inconsistent about it. Aethiopes, means burnt face and is a reference to skin color.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^You're not answering the question. You know you can't answer the question without considering my observation that there was more than one tradition. That's why.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: @Child of the King:
I acknowledge that tradition of black and brown skin (see the two maps I just posted). But I also acknowledge that towards the time of Christ, an additional meaning arose that excluded a lot of black and brown people in the Middle East and started focusing on Africa as the source of 'blacks'.
Don't all blacks come from Africa? Clarify why you see something wrong with this statement? I mean what part of this is incorrect?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question was, why is population X in Arabia considered black 400BC and no longer in 400AD, even though they're still around, LOOKING EXACTLY THE SAME.
Start providing answers as to why 'Cush' and 'Aethiopia' were no longer applied to these people as consistently as before:
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: ^You're not answering the question. You know you can't answer the question without considering my observation that there was more than one tradition. That's why.
Wait so you are saying that the map of Aethiopia is not the same as calling these people black people.
Are you even serious?
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not knowing what these traditions are brotha, Can you post these traditions...
Also divders(whisperers) seem to have the abilty to CONvince Peoples they different negatively....
Read This Swenet:
quote: Acts 14:1-2,4,5
1 The same thing happened in Iconium. Paul and Barnabas went to the Jewish synagogue and preached with such power that a great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers.
2Some of the Jews, however, spurned God's message and poisoned the minds of the Gentiles against Paul and Barnabas.
4But the people of the town were divided in their opinion about them . Some sided with the Jews, and some with the apostles.
5Then a mob of Gentiles and Jews, along with their leaders, decided to attack and stone them.
Notice that even though, The APOSTLES WERE TEACHING THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION FOR GENTILES....
SOME!! JEWS WERE ABLE TO CONVINCE SOME OF THE GENTILES TO HATE THE APOSTLES, THE MINDS OF GENTILES WERE POISONED!
SOME GENTILES AND IGNORANT JEWS TEAMED UP TO ATTACK THE APOSTLES....
whisperers seem very CONvincing, negatively!!! that gentiles would try and Harm those who were teaching them the only way to Salvation..
THEY GENTILES WOULD ATTACK PEOPLES TRYING TO SAVE THEM EVEN IF THAT COST THEM SALVATION
DON'T HATE JEWS.... JEWS NOT THE PROBLEM(think)
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: The question was, why is population X in Arabia considered black 400BC and no longer in 400AD, even though they're still around, LOOKING EXACTLY THE SAME.
Start providing answers as to why Cush and Aethiopia were no longer applied to these people as consistently as before:
The populations in these regions changed that's why. In some areas most people are not black anymore even if there is a good number of blacks there. That simply reflects the facts that populations have changed over time. Not to mention place names have changed to represent changes to political boundaries, states and kingdoms.
But that does not mean that when they originally called these areas Cush or Aethiopia they were not talking about black people. In fact most of that map still is populated by black people. Arabia is only a small part of this map.
And another thing you are talking about how outsiders identified foreigners. The people of these areas did not call themselves Aethiopes. That is a Greek word for the people they saw as a general description of their skin color.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That it applied to dark skinned people is self-evident.
Your explanation doesn't explain why the term suddenly became narrow, even inside Africa in a certain sense. And how do you go from it applying to tropical Eurasia + Africa, to just Africa in a span of just a couple of centuries. Even Strabo apparently felt his contemporaries were out of touch, and he made no mention of demographic events that introduced significant changes.
quote:And if the moderns have confined the term of Ethiopians to those only who dwell near to Egypt, and have also restricted the Pygmies in like manner, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients. We do not speak of all the people who fought against Troy as merely Achćans and Argives, though Homer describes the whole under those two names. Similar to this is my remark concerning the separation of the Ethiopians into two divisions, that under that designation we should understand the whole of the nations inhabiting the sea-board from east to west. The Ethiopians taken in this sense are naturally separated into two parts by the Arabian Gulf, which occupies a considerable portion of a meridian circle, [Note] and resembles a river, being in length nearly 15,000 stadia, [Note] and in breadth not above 1000 at the widest point.
--Strabo
^They're clearly still there in Arabia by his time (this is also attested by Josephus' comments on the Cushites in Arabia). Strabo also seems to think his contemporaries are being unreasonable for applying the term Aethiopia in a restricted sense.
Moreover, over time Greeks started implementing terms like "white-Aethiopian" and similar combined terms to populations in North Africa, presumably to describe populations that looked mixed to them. They could have done the same in Arabia if this shift happened due to assimilation of the indigenous Cushites. They never did.
Even known heroes who were perceived to be 'black' initially (e.g. Memnon) weren't considered 'black' anymore in later times by Greco-Romans. In biblical texts we see the same tribal names increasingly being confused (e.g. Cushite tribes were also placed in Jokshan's lineage). Sometimes it's completely unclear from the context whether Jokshan's lineage is referred to or Ham's lineage.
The Ptolemy piece I've reposted several times in this thread probably explains why. Pure Aethiopians were perceived to only include pitch-black people towards the interior of Africa. The darker the people who came to their attention, the more their goal post for "true Aethiopian" shifted to only include the darkest people known at the time. Greeks conquered Egypt later on, so more opportunities to interact with equatorial Africans arose. The lower Nubians who were "black" at first in Homer's time then suddenly became "moderately black" by comparison.
But I'm not out to change anyone's positions. I'll let people make up their own mind. Just don't try to act like I'm making this up as I go along or that it's a non-issue.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, the best thing you can do is to simply go over all the observations made here and elsewhere and come up with terms that work for you. If you're going to change anything, you should change it strengthen your own position, avoid strawman attacks and present an accurate picture to lay people. If you think Africoid fits this purpose, then use it.
I agree though with Doug's observation that the academics and opponents elsewhere who aren't qualified to speak on AE origins, aren't necessarily going to change their views because you apply more objective terminology. I don't recall ever having said this.
In fact, not too long ago I had a discussion with someone about Brace et al (1993) in regards to objective language. Brace not only seems to have said that the AE indigenous origins were questionable (he seems to have flip flopped several times), but he also said that the term 'Africa' preferably shouldn't be used in reference to the AE; he seems to think that 'Africa' primarily means SSA, when it doesn't/shouldn't:
quote:Consistent with the position we have developed above, we would have to argue that these statements are hopelessly simplistic, misleading, and basically wrong. Even the categorical labeling of the civilization of ancient Egypt as “fundamentally African” (Bernal, 1987, 1989) is misleadingly simplistic. To the classical world, there were several Africas: the “north face of Africa” along the Mediterranean coast, the “Black Africa” to the south, and especially the connection via the Nile through Nubia to the Sudan (Adams, 1977) that formed “almost a ‘third Africa’” (Brilliant, 1979). When the debt of Greece and later Rome to that “third Africa” is stressed by the label “Black Athena,” it is misrepresented. Even the use of the term Afroasiatic, however justified, should be accompanied by the note that this implies no more than the identification of the language family that includes ancient Egyptian and modern Arabic, Hebrew, and Somali (Greenberg, 1955; Gregersen, 1977).
^You can tell he hasn't studied African history, otherwise he would have never suggested that AE speaking a language related to Arabic and Hebrew undermines the use of "Africa". The fact that they speak AA pulls Arabs and Hebrews to Africa, not the other way around.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Interesting and thanks. Yeah I definitely know I won't be changing opinions, which is why I don't argue with people about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or African diversity like I use to do on the internet. Because people already have fixed opinions.
And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
But I hope you and Doug can come to a agree-disagreement. Good debate between you two. Just think the ad homine is not necessary.
Anyways "Africoid" may be my own personal term to describe indigenous African people across the continent.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
The descending order of the most the most blunders and flip flops is this:
1) Assyriologists and graduates of Middle Eastern studies (most resistant to Afro-Asiatic originating in Africa) 2) Egyptologists 3) Bioanthropologists 4) Bioanthropologists specialized in AE ethnic background
I don't know where Classicists fit on average, although I suspect it's the same as Egyptologists. #4 only rarely say that the AE were pale skinned whites, not even the hardened racists among them (this doesn't mean that they all consider AE fundamentally African). I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4 or maybe even #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace et al 1993. It's not all bad.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
The descending order of the most the most blunders and flip flops is this:
1) Assyriologists (most resistant to Afro-Asiatic originating in Africa) 2) Egyptologists 3) Bioanthropologists 4) Bioanthropologists specialized in AE ethnic background
#4 only rarely say that the AE were pale skinned whites. I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace 1993. It's not all bad.
I think this is a REALLY good way to look at academia when involving the Ancient Egyptians.
IMO the mainstream media/Hollywood would be #0.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: ^Interesting and thanks. Yeah I definitely know I won't be changing opinions, which is why I don't argue with people about the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or African diversity like I use to do on the internet. Because people already have fixed opinions.
And I agree 100% that certain people in academia like Egyptologist aren't qualified to speak on the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Anthropologist have been much better in that area than Egyptologist who always get "lost" when discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians or their "race".
But I hope you and Doug can come to a agree-disagreement. Good debate between you two. Just think the ad homine is not necessary.
Anyways "Africoid" may be my own personal term to describe indigenous African people across the continent.
TBH, "Africoid" sounds too evocative of old-school racialism for my personal taste. Especially with the "-oid" suffix. But whatever works for you.
With regards to arguing about the Egyptians' "race" over the Internet, I think people fall into that trap because they want to influence how ancient Egypt is portrayed in pop-culture media like movies, books, or video games. And I still empathize with that sentiment. But I don't think this is the way to go about it. You'd probably have to contact casting agents, book illustrators, or game developers if that's possible rather than pick fights with random strangers on random forums. Or maybe do what I've chosen to do and learn how to produce your own media. People here know I'm an artist and occasional writer, and I'm currently studying game design and development at a small college here in San Diego. Arguing with morons on the 'Net is useful only if you're really bored out of your mind.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
But I don't see how "Africoid" has to do with old school racism??? If anything its the complete opposite. Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
If Africans are a shade of brown then why would you call Africans black if they are brown?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown, with the Dinka and other Nilotics being the only true exception that I can think of...
If most Africans are a shade of brown then why would you call them black if they are brown?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
they absolutely do not mean brown the way anyone else on this forum or anyone else means brown when it comes to the AE or any other African population. Because all black Africans are a shade of brown. And these people are not calling them brown in the sense they were in the same range of color as black Africans.
"Brown skinned African" is not good enough for Doug. He said it was about color. Yet he admits they are brown. Persumably he now wants "black" to mean dark brown only because Europeans might include shades of brown too light for his liking.
Yet he says only the Dinka and other Nilotics are black people.
There is no consistency to Doug's remarks, the goal post is constantly shifted
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown
^^ Finally a truthful statement about color from Doug.
Color is a visual thing. So if Doug observes most Africans are visually identifiable shades of brown and then says that this means "black" when applied to Africans. obviously something more than observing color is going on. It's a "you know what we mean" wink,wink type of thing going on. After stating their color, brown, he insists that an exaggetatted stereotype of brown be applied as "black" Applying circular logic he keeps saying that this is only about color yet when his eyes see the color he ignores the color "brown" and says black is brown. It makes no sense. It's anti-science to disregard observation in place of political terminology.
Furthermore a much bigger challenge to white supremacy would be to call Africans brown becasue that would affilaite them with all the othre brown skin people of the world.
-that's why Europeans didn't do that, they called brown Africans "Negroes", the word for "Black" in Spanish.
I use the word "black" for people but I understand what it is. It is not an accurate description of the color of most Africans' skin. It's a political symbol made for whoever feels at a given moment that it is an advantage for them to be part of the group of people calling themselves this. Other people might group themsleves ideologically or religiously.
The thing that would solve this is if African Americans actors would be cast in a feature film to portray the Pharoahs and most of the Egyptian populaltion.
Art carries more weight in the public mind than what academics say or don't say.
That would have much more impact than trying to force academics to pay lip service.
Art doesn't have to be accurate but it can sometimes raise issues more strongly than other methods
posted
BlessHorus says: I think Brace fits somewhere in between #3 and #4. He has barely studied North African history, but he is already light years ahead of most who fit in #1, 2 and 3. See if you can get your hands on Brace 1993. It's not all bad.
True to some extent. In the 1993 article Brace skewers Eurocentric race models in Africa. His sardonic comment about "wandering Caucasoids" is a classic, as is his expose elsewhere of racist scholar JP Rushton's obsession with negro penis size, based not only on such "research" as him paying college students to measure ejaculation "ranges" but also in part on Rushton's own confessed, reputed "self-assessment" in that area. Ruston is widely followed and quoted by assorted racists, "HBD" and "hereditarian" types. This speaks for itself, even without the extensive debunking of Rushton on the merits of his work.
But in 1993 there were also a number of problems, as discussed numerous times on ES. Brace's sampling and definition issues have long been noted.
Nodarb says: "Africoid" sounds too evocative of old-school racialism for my personal taste. Especially with the "-oid" suffix. But whatever works for you.
"Africoid" has nothing to do with any "old school racialism." It iis a term with a valid basis, that seeks to capture INDIGENOUS African bio-cultural diversity. None less than SOY Keita uses it in his 1990 articles on that diversity. Assorted Wikipedia racists destroyed the old Africoid article some years back and now redirect queries to "Negroid" hoping to bury what credible scholars have said on the topic, and producing, as is conveniently designed, a weak article that removes numerous recent scholarly references but conveniently leaves references to obsolete racist Carleton Coons.
Pathetic fools. DO they think that buries anything, or that they are doing anything as they "guard" their laughable "stealth" edits? People don't take their work seriously, not with so many other avenues of accurate info on the web. They think this will make the data "disappear" but they fail miserably. We have already picked it up on ES, and broadcast it far and wide.
QUOTE:
""There is little demarcation between the predynastics and tropical series and even the early southern dynastic series. Definite trends are discernible in the analyses. This broadly shared "southern" metric pattern, along with the other mentioned characteristics to a greater or lesser degree, might be better described by the term Africoid, by definition connoting a tropical African microclade, microadaptation, and patristic affinity, thereby avoiding the nonevolutionary term "Negroid" and allowing for variation both real and conceptual." --Keita 1990. Studies of ancient crania in North Africa
^And Keita is absolutely right.
^^Over 10,000 hits in Google and counting fools.. Your little "edits" don't mean anything ..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^That wasn't me that said that, but Swenet. Just saying.
But I agree 100% with your stance on "Africoid" which is what I've been trying to argue about the term.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's important to base our opinion on science and the current scientific researches.
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: Again, I for one would say Northeast Africans are popularly considered to be somewhat related to "Black people" in Africa; they're just assumed to be hybrid between "pure Blacks" as seen in West and Central Africa and Middle Easterners.
This is true to some degree.
*Modern* northeastern African populations are indeed hybrids in various degrees between Africans and Eurasians. But here's the catch: this apply to MODERN people living there. Ancient north-eastern Africans were not hybrids (at least not to the current level). According to science, the Eurasian admixtures in Northeast Africa (including Egypt, Somali, Ethiopia, etc) is recent. Most of it from the last 3000 years so this is much earlier than the foundation of Ancient Egypt or their origin in the green Sahara, Nabta Playa, Tasian, Badariand and Naqada culture. 3000 years ago is around 1000BC. The Ancient Egyptian state was founded around 4000BC.
Those latest studies come down to what everybody has been saying for years. Ancient Egyptians are not like the modern Egyptians in term of ethnicity. Modern Egyptians are made up of Ancient Egyptians, Kushites, Greeks, Romans, Muslim Arabs, Ottoman, Mamluk, Banu Hilal people. Ancient Egyptians were indigenous black Africans like the Kushite, Ashanti, Ghana/Wagadu, Zulu (etc) kingdoms. Modern Egyptians are made of many people including Eurasians (mostly muslim Arabs).
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or the precursor cultures (Badarians, Tasians, Nabta Playa, etc).
quote:Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic