quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Yet no one has ever claimed Egyptians had skin colour like following:
When Eurocentrics want to inject themselves into Egyptian history, they don't have to insist an Egyptian's skin was Nordic in how light it is, so long as they can argue the skin colors they used to depict themselves in art were shades you could also find in Europe.
Often it goes a bit like this:
quote:Originally posted by Diebythesword: They're only slightly a darker reddish than the Minoans.
It makes no sense to argue Egyptians were "black".
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."
Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.
In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."
Baum 2006, p. 108
Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.
Today, foreign Greek rulers of Egypt are generally better known and celebrated than indigenous rulers. When you see the ancient civilization referenced to in everyday language, it's typically royalty, dress, or cosmetics referring to women like Cleopatra come to mind immediately. Hell, the name Egypt itself is a Europeanized word that characterizes Kemet's domination by Europeans. The Nile is what they would've called the Hapi. Just talking about the people of Khemet... and often we're already referring to them and important locations, etc through the gaze of European conquerors. And there's no Eurocentrism? Sure.
quote: "Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." - Klales, A. R. (2014). "Computed Tomography Analysis and Reconstruction of Ancient Egyptians Originating from the Akhmim Region of Egypt: A Biocultural Perspective". MA Thesis. University of Manitoba http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/jspui/bitstream/1993/23992/1/Klales_Alexandra.pdf'
Lower Egypt is also considered to be less representative of what the average Egyptian would've looked like, as much mixing has taken place since the Islamic expansion.
quote:"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times“ – Keita 2005. History in Africa, 2005, 32(1).221-246
quote:Egypt is a trans-continental country, part of it (Sinai) is a segment of Levant/West Asia (the Eurasian continent). All Afrocentrists ignore this. The Sinai was an important land-bridge between the two continents and there is consensus among scholars that Egyptian agriculture derived from the southern Levant via Sinai:
"The prevailing view among archeologists is the hypothesis identifying southern Levant as the origin of Egyptian agriculture and animal breeding (Hendrickx & Vermeersch 2000: 37; Wengrow 2006: 44; Hendrickx et al. 2010: 19). The new subsistence system could have reached Lower Egypt via Sinai, together with materials imported from the east, e.g. shells from the Red Sea and turquoise (acculturation model). Alternatively, it might have come together with Levantine farmers migrating as a result of climate changes (demic diffusion model) (Borgoginini Tarli & Manzi 1998: 36). According to F. Hassan (1984b: 222), farming was introduced to the Delta by migrants from the east. However, their movement was not linked to the mass migrations from southwest Asia. Lower Egypt is claimed to have been gradually infiltrated by drifters and refugees over a relatively long period of time (some 500 years or more). In his opinion, the change in subsistence was almost imperceptible, and thus peaceful and gradual. Levantine farmers easily adapted to local hunter-gatherers, which was facilitated by the flexible social organization and the probably exogamous marriage pattern followed by autochthonous communities (Hassan 1984b: 222)." http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AMaczynska_ma%C5%82y-pdf.pdf [/qb]
-“Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly before 10,000 yr B.P."
--Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680
--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)
--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters) Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
This is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.
There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.
Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.
"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.
These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or Somalia) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:
Ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors
The pitch-black people we see on ancient Egyptian walls must have been the ancestors of the Nuba of Kordofan and/or the Nilotic tribes that used to live in the Gezira -- tribes like the Dinka and Nuer - the blackest people in Africa.
Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.
Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.
The Dinka and Nuer have significantly darker skin than all the Africans so its not necessary for the ancient Egyptians to be as black as the Dinka to be called black just as the Greeks, Italians and Portugese don't need to be as white as the Norwegians and Swedes to be called White.
Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?
posted
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not.
Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:
Kushites portraying themselves
The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. (Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Neolithic rock art paintings in South-west Egypt ("cave of swimmers") show that the ancestors of the AE painted themselves as black and brown -- just like other Africans.
posted
These descendants of the Pharaohs mostly maintain the physical appearance of their ancestors... ancestors that were described as brown and black by contemporary eyewitnesses.
quote: Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
quote: Pseudo Aristotle: " Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
Lucian: Introducing two Greek writers...
Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'
Timolaus: ' But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place.
Apollodorus: "Aegyptos conquered the country of the blackfooted ones and called it Egypt after himself".
Aeschylus: In The Suppliants, Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics[i]' and '[i]In ships, stout-timbered and dark-prowed, they have sailed here, attended by a mighty black host, and in their wrath overtaken us'.
Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."
The Egyptian race according to the Judeo-Christian authors of antiquity
Rabbi Yuda ben Simon in a Midrashic text: Abraham says to his wife Sarah, "Now we are about to enter a place (Egypt) of ugly and black people
In a Midrash: " The black people will come out of Egypt, Kush will stretch its hands to God"
Church Father Theodore of Mopsuestia says above the Shulamite bride in the 'Song of Songs': "She was black like all the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)
Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans closely related to other Northeast Africans like Northern Sudanese, Somalis, Oromo, Afar and more. The ancient Egyptians are tied to populations in Northeast Africa and have a common origin with them; this is affirmed by all the disciplines. There is simply no way to argue against the fact that the ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with other Northeast Africans and align with them on every parameter - not Eurasians.
Data from limb ratios, genetics, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests, cranio-facial evidence and cultural anthropology all affirm that the ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans related to other Northeast Africans.
If this in-erasable truth inconveniences you or discomforts you in any way... well too damn bad. Deal with it.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of Eurocentrics try to lay claim to Egypt by pointing out that Eurasians could have easily infiltrated the Delta over millenia as if this somehow helps them.
The people of Lower Egypt would undoubtedly have mingled with the people of the Levant at the start of the Dynastic period, but it was the significantly more sophisticated, wealthier and far more powerful South that conquered the North [Narmer] and united the two lands that determined the political and cultural norms.
The South created the ancient Egyptian civilization; it was the South that created the written language; the powerful priestly class was centred in Waset -"Thebes"-; the population of ancient Egypt was concentrated in the South; invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern warrior-kings; the swampy Delta was nothing but a sparsely populated, fragmented backwater until the Southerners conquered it and built magnificent structures that have stood the test of time.
The famous Narmer palette shows him on one side wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and the other shows him wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt. It also shows the hawk emblem of Horus, the Upper Egyptian god of Nekhem, dominating the Lower Egypt personified papyrus marsh. From this, Narmer is believed to have unified Egypt."
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."
Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.
In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."
Baum 2006, p. 108
Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up. Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.
In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."
I more or less agree what Morton, Nott & Gliddon concluded in Types of Mankind about the biological affinities of the Egyptians:
"...Egyptians did present a type intermediate between other [Sub-Saharan] African and Asiatic races; and, should such be proved to have been the case, the autocthones of Egypt must cease to the designated by the misnomer of Caucasian." (p. 217)
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.
You said it by implication
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.
^^^ You are saying it right here
You are saying the range of browns from 50% - 0 is black (zero being actual black)
So you are suggesting by that that the range of browns from 51% - 100% is white
that is simple and clear logic extracted from your premise. Otherwise you need to revise your premise, above you spell out a definition of black and you include a wide range or browns. Then you should be able to make a similar definition of white as per spectrophotometer.
But you won't do that because it is too overt
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks.
Some of the art depicts Egyptaisn with reddish brown skin
Tutankhamun's burial throne
^^ this is not that reddish. Reddish doesn't matter as per your definition of black. A dark red could be less than 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer and it's obvious in the facial features the Egyptians were not homogenous.
The above Tutankhamun is probably under 50%
So why when you have been shown so much Egyptian art with clearly dark brown skin tone that is under 50%, do you keep insisting that all of them were a lighter non "black" skin tone ?
the color chart can be pulled out and this can be demonstrated in side by side comparisons with the art
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.
You said it by implication
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.
^^^ You are saying it right here
You are saying the range of browns from 50% - 0 is black (zero being actual black)
So you are suggesting by that that the range of browns from 51% - 100% is white
that is simple and clear logic extracted from your premise. Otherwise you need to revise your premise, above you spell out a definition of black and you include a wide range or browns. Then you should be able to make a similar definition of white as per spectrophotometer.
But you won't do that because it is too overt
Jablonski & Chaplin (2000) divide the world into 3 UV/solar radiation zones (low, medium, high) that correspond to what they label "light", "moderate" and "dark" skin. The high UV zone mostly (but not entirely) overlaps the tropics as expected because that latitude gets the most intense sunlight; a sizable portion of Egypt falls outside of the high UV zone (again expected) since most of the modern boundary of Egypt is not inside the tropics (the whole ancient boundary was outside since the southern frontier moved).
I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.
The low UV zone i.e. "light" skin would correspond to people with "white" skin, but it only covers the northern segment of Europe in Jablonski's study. Southern Europeans fall in the medium UV zone and have faint light brown skin; the ancient Greeks contrasted their skin colour to lighter northern European peoples. This shows up with skin reflectance data in Jabolonski for example Netherlands and Germany score 66-67% while northern Spain (Leon) 64%, and we can estimate southern Spain 62%. So there's a 5% difference between Northern & Southern Europeans, and basically that's the difference between faint light brown skin and "white" skin with no brown tint.
I don't consider Egyptians to be white and have never stated this.
People who want to label all Europeans "white" are white nationalists. And people who want to label all Egyptians "black" are black nationalists. Opposite side of same coin.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)
Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)
The Brace study is flawed, he only used 23 cranial measurements. Howells (1995) used 57 and his data shows the overwhelming majority of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic skulls from Europe are closest to medieval/contemporary European populations.
And I'm in agreement with the Keita quote, yes - Upper Egyptians plot closer in craniometric studies to northern tropical African populations like Sudanese than east Mediterranean populations because of their geographical closeness. But this works both ways: Lower Egyptians are closer to east Mediterranean populations than Sudanese. The problem with Afrocentrists is they ignore the latter. All studies on the Gizeh and Sedment crania though show them closer to Levant/Aegean than any tropical African population.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."
Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.
In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."
Baum 2006, p. 108
Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up. Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.
In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."
I more or less agree what Morton, Nott & Gliddon concluded in Types of Mankind about the biological affinities of the Egyptians:
"…Egyptians did present a type intermediate between other [Sub-Saharan] African and Asiatic races; and, should such be proved to have been the case, the autocthones of Egypt must cease to the designated by the misnomer of Caucasian." (p. 217)
Nutjob, the skin color of most Africans is reddish-brown skinned and varies from very dark to very light.
W. G. Browne claimed ancient Egyptians were white, JoshuaConnerLoon.
quote:
Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania.
[...]
Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).
[...]
Phased haplotypes were retrieved from HapMap, Release 21. For phylogenetic analysis, graphs were drawn by the use of a sim- ple nearest-neighbor approach and rooted by the use of ancestral alleles determined by comparison with other primate sequences.
[...]
"Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, eight clearly have their origins in Africa (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4). Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there."
"In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. "
[...]
Our dating for this haplotype is consistent with a non-African origin. The most likely location for the origin of C11 is, therefore, within the region in which it is fixed or nearly so. As both models for the origin of C11 imply that C3 and C10 were present in ancestors of Europeans, the observed and inferred distributions of these autosomal haplotypes are consistent with the single-out-of- Africa hypothesis derived using uniparental markers (Oppenheimer 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005).
--Victor A. Canfield et al.
Molecular Phylogeography of a Human Autosomal Skin Color Locus Under Natural Selection
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.
You said it by implication
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.
^^^ You are saying it right here
You are saying the range of browns from 50% - 0 is black (zero being actual black)
So you are suggesting by that that the range of browns from 51% - 100% is white
that is simple and clear logic extracted from your premise. Otherwise you need to revise your premise, above you spell out a definition of black and you include a wide range or browns. Then you should be able to make a similar definition of white as per spectrophotometer.
But you won't do that because it is too overt
Jablonski & Chaplin (2000) divide the world into 3 UV/solar radiation zones (low, medium, high) that correspond to what they label "light", "moderate" and "dark" skin. The high UV zone mostly (but not entirely) overlaps the tropics as expected because that latitude gets the most intense sunlight; a sizable portion of Egypt falls outside of the high UV zone (again expected) since most of the modern boundary of Egypt is not inside the tropics (the whole ancient boundary was outside since the southern frontier moved).
I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.
The low UV zone i.e. "light" skin would correspond to people with "white" skin, but it only covers the northern segment of Europe in Jablonski's study. Southern Europeans fall in the medium UV zone and have faint light brown skin; the ancient Greeks contrasted their skin colour to lighter northern European peoples. This shows up with skin reflectance data in Jabolonski for example Netherlands and Germany score 66-67% while northern Spain (Leon) 64%, and we can estimate southern Spain 62%. So there's a 5% difference between Northern & Southern Europeans, and basically that's the difference between faint light brown skin and "white" skin with no brown tint.
I don't consider Egyptians to be white and have never stated this.
People who want to label all Europeans "white" are white nationalists. And people who want to label all Egyptians "black" are black nationalists. Opposite side of same coin.
You can write all day about UV and imaginary zones, but it will not change anything. Ancient Egyptians originated in the South.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sudaniya: A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)
Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)
The Brace study is flawed, he only used 23 cranial measurements. Howells (1995) used 57 and his data shows the overwhelming majority of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic skulls from Europe are closest to medieval/contemporary European populations.
And I'm in agreement with the Keita quote, yes - Upper Egyptians plot closer in craniometric studies to northern tropical African populations like Sudanese than east Mediterranean populations because of their geographical closeness. But this works both ways: Lower Egyptians are closer to east Mediterranean populations than Sudanese. The problem with Afrocentrists is they ignore the latter. All studies on the Gizeh and Sedment crania though show them closer to Levant/Aegean than any tropical African population.
Lower Egyptians originated in Africa itself. You need to stop making up alternative facts.
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13 " Materials and Methods
quote:Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon: [qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".
" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."
Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.
In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."
Baum 2006, p. 108
Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.
But it would incorrect to infer Eurocentrism hasn't existed within "Egyptology" just because people didn't argue Egyptians had a white complexion. As you saw in one of the people here that I'd quoted, they were trying to suggest that while not typical of Europeans, they had features that were possible for Europeans to have. With buzzwords like "Eurasian" or "Caucasoid" to replace "Caucasian," Eurocentrics have attempted to be more subtle, but Eurocentrism hasn't gone away. Eurocentrism will briefly and arbitrarily extend it's identity to be more inclusive in certain areas it has to (like in academia). But such extensions have no basis in the real world.
Historically, Eurocentrism and white supremacist attitudes have been intertwined. The diffusion model is the latest attempt at minimizing Egypt's African identity to preserve the same white supremacist interests. When they suggest that "Eurasians" or foreign "Caucasoids" mixed with "real" Africans (significantly), the implication is the same theme of African dependence. This time, the theme is geared towards making Africa appear highly dependent on a foreign (and fictional) group that's identity can be extended to Europe. While white supremacists would prefer to discuss Egypt as Eurocentrically as possible, even if they can't do so overtly, as long as it's not a "black thing" they will live. That would be enough to satiate their political agendas. This slick sh!t is not lost on researchers.
--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)
--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters) Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012
quote: Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.
In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."
You said no one argued they were white. Taking back a point of view doesn't erase the prior beliefs they'd held from history. Eurocentrics like I said use words like "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" to create groups that are socially irrelevant, but academically place them near Khemet's history.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.
Seti I
Tutankhamun
^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above. The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black --and there are thousands of examples of art like this
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.
Khoisan tribes score 40-50% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm), but yes, they are lighter skinned than other Sub-Saharan groups who fall between 20-40%. My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups, while Europeans are 60-70% and are obviously lighter skinned than ancient Egyptians.
These percentages would at most discuss averages then, not what's physically possible for a population of related people. The picture of the San woman I showed earlier is just as light as those two Berber women. San may not produce it as much, but they're very capable of producing it:
The majority of Egyptian art doesn't support AE being very light. Some could've been, but a skin tone as light as those Berbers doesn't seem to be average. I'd caution against going too long into discussing skin tones because it doesn't even really matter what their skin color was even if the average had been that light. People can still be closely biologically/genetically related while having regional or local distinction. Ngwa Yellow/Red hued Igbo have had local variations, but they are not more closely related to other African groups with lighter skin than they are other black skinned Igbo. The race/African identity of Egypt is not determined by skin.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic