...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   
Author Topic: Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So JCM is Cassiteredes...lol

WOW...smh

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
And anyone could argue "Europe" is much too large and to focus on specific ethnic groups or countries. You chose to say "Europe" because it fits your history of white supremacist, Eurocentrism. Europe being "just right" in size is Eurocentric. I chose to say Africa because compared populations in Africa are often not consistent in research.

Africa is three times larger in size than Europe (km²). That is why it isn't used as a geographical label to cluster populations in studies because you end up with far too heterogeneous populations (genetic distances between European populations are a lot smaller than between African populations). This has been demonstrated since Nei and Roychoudry (1972) and Cavilli-Sforza et al (1994).

You're only clinging to an African cluster to suit your political interests (pan-Africanism).

My focus is non-broad clustering and always has been; I never said I preferred a "European" grouping you dunce. What I said is since Europe is a lot smaller than Africa - it is more useful because the population samples are closer genetically/craniometrically (but not in pigmentation). My actual focus has been local levels of analysis, hence why I posted the AE's are Egyptians, i.e the only people who can claim biological affinity to them are modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese/southern levant peoples (4 years ago - I said Copts). This is complete opposite of your agenda to try to lump Egyptians with western sub-Saharan Africans (people with completely different morphologies etc.).

Also west Africans have great morphological diversity, contrary the believe they don't. Your source on genetics is actually a bit dated, 1972, 1994? But in biological terms, indeed Northern Sudanese and Southern-Middle Egyptians can claim to have the closest affinities. The North becomes debatable more and more.


 -



 -


 -


 -


quote:

E-M78 subclades

The distribution of E-M78 subclades among Sudanese is shown in Table 2. Only two chromosomes fell under the paragroup E-M78*. E-V65 and E-V13 were completely absent in the samples analyzed, whereas the other subclades were relatively common. E-V12* accounts for 19.3% and is widely distributed among Su- danese. E-V32 (51.8%) is by far the most common sub-clades among Sudanese. It has the highest frequency among populations of western Sudan and Beja. E-V22 accounts for 27.2% and its highest frequency appears to be among Fulani, but it is also common in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups.

[...]

The Fulani, who possess the lowest population size in this study, have an interesting genetic structure, effectively consisting of two haplogroups or founding lineages. One of the lineages is R-M173 (53.8%), and its sheer frequency suggests either a recent migration of this group to Africa and/or a restricted gene flow due to linguistic or cultural barriers. The high frequency of sub-clade E-V22, which is believed to be northeast African (Cruciani et al., 2007) and haplogroup R-M173, suggests an amalgamation of two populations/cultures that took place sometime in the past in eastern or central Africa. This is also evident from the frequency of the ‘‘T’’ allele of the lactase persistence gene that is uniquely present in considerable frequencies among the Fulani (Mulcare et al., 2004). Interestingly, Fulani language is classified in the Niger-Congo family of languages, which is more prevalent in West Africa and among Bantu speakers, yet their Y-chromosomes show very little evidence of West African genetic affiliation.

It seems, however, that the effective size of the pastorlists and nomadic pastoralists is generally much smaller than groups of sedentary agriculturalists life style. This is intriguing in the sense that one would expect nomadic tribes to be more able to admix, spread, and receive genes than their sedentary counterparts.




--Hisham Y. Hassan, Peter A. Underhill, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza, and Muntaser E. Ibrahim

Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History

"Caucasoid" features are not found at high frequency in west sub-Saharan African populations. Broad-featured west sub-Saharan Africans might want this to be the case because they despise their phenotype, but here's a reality check-

Nigerian nasal index:
"The commonest type of nasal variability is Type A (70.5%), Platyrrhine nose, Type B (26.7%) especially in females (mesorrhine) and Type C (leptorrhine) (2.8%)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22030966

So only 3% of Nigerians have narrow noses. O dear.

The mantra "Sub-Saharans have the greatest phenotypic variation" Afrocentrists spam on this forum ad nauseam ignores the geographical structure of this variation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, it is not the case that "Caucasoid" features are common across the whole of East Africa, with the exception of some northern Ethiopian populations and Somalis and even then these "Caucasoid" traits at high frequency are confined to the nasal/mid-facial part of the skull, not other regions. Hence Somalis do not plot close to Europeans in craniometric analyses that use many measurements covering all surface-area of the skull (see Howells' data on East Africans).

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
The point is you use the term "black" to cover those lighter skin shades. You're politicalizing the word. If you truly recognise Egyptians were lighter brown skin shades (than more southern populations), why not recognise the cline, instead of using a very broad category black. Why not call Egyptians light or medial brown than black? Answer: this doesn't play into your politics"

Were the Greeks&Romans also playing an Afrocentrist political game?


“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.” (Aristotle, _Physiognomy_, 6)

Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because
of that the body of itself creates, because of disturbance by heat, like
loss of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations…” (Aristotle, Problemata_ 909, 7)

Dialogue:

Lycinus (describing an Egyptian): ‘this boy is not merely black; he
has thick lips and his legs are too thin…his hair worn in a plait 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…’

(Lucian, _Navigations_, paras 2-3)

Dialogue:

“Aegyptos conquered the country of the black-footed ones and called it Egypt after himself” (Apollodorus, Book II, paras 3 and 4)

Dialogue:

Danaos (describing the Aegyptiads): ‘I can see the crew with their
black limbs and white tunics.’ (Aeschylus, _The Suppliants_, vv. 719-20, 745)

“…the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look.” (Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII para 16)


"Mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look"

 -

 -

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 3 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Punos Rey

I made the same error of using those translations 5-6 years ago. This is what layperson's do. However, if you study ancient Greek colour terms at a more academic level you will realise leukos does not strictly translate as white, and melas/melan not strictly as black. These terms are more ambiguous and cover a wider spectrum of shades/colours, so when they are applied to skin colour - melanchroos applied to Egyptian skin was a colour as light as bronze or a light brown.

read my posts here-

quote:
An example is the Iliad. 20. 496 where barley is described as leukos.

 -

Does this look white to you?
Leukos ranges from chalk-white to a faint light brown like barley [in context this would explain Greek leukos-armed godesses, not as pale-white but a faint brown]. Similarly we find melas used to describe things that are not pitch-black or dark brown, but shades that are lighter brown.

And [see especially the Gladstone quote]:

quote:
The suffix chroes/chros means skin, while melan/melas refers to a dark colour range; it is not limited to black. And the first appearance of the word melanchroos in classical literature (Homer) is describing Odysseus (a native Greek from Ithaca), not a black.

To quote the classicist W.E.Gladstone-

"Oyusseus, on his restoration to beauty by Athene, becomes melanchroos (Od. xvi. 171). The melanchroos [p.377] of his herald, in Od. xix. 245, does not seem to bear any different sense. Homer's melas means dark rather than black, and is itself but indefinite; we are obliged to take these words as referring to an olive complexion."

Do you see I am consistently applying this? If you're saying melanchroos is black when applied to Egyptians, then you run into the problem that Greek deities are actually white, when the truth is the Greeks depicted their gods in their image as a faint light brown or olive complexion.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can't have it both ways. Either melas allows for a range of darker pigmentation as does the word leukos for lighter, or it allows only for a very limited light brown pigmentation. You're saying melanchroes as applied to Egyptians only allowed for light brown skin, which is patently ridiculous given people like Tiye, Senusret I, Amenhotep III, et all who trended towards the even darker end of that range.


What color is Tiye??? She was from Akhmim in Upper Egypt btw not North Sudan.

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
You can't have it both ways. Either melas allows for a range of darker pigmentation as does the word leukos for lighter, or it allows only for a very limited light brown pigmentation. You're saying melanchroes as applied to Egyptians only allowed for light brown skin, which is patently ridiculous given people like Tiye, Senusret I, Amenhotep III, et all who trended towards the even darker end of that range.


What color is Tiye??? She was from Akhmim in Upper Egypt btw not North Sudan.

I'm saying melanchroos when applied to-

Individual Greeks like Odysseus = sunburnt or faint light brown.
Egyptians as an average = light brown to medium brown
Nubians as an average = dark brown i.e black

There is overlap with the two colours i.e. the lightest spectrum of melas with the darkest spectrum of leukos, meaning the lightest brown shades like the barley crop I posted. Colours of course grade into each other, this is to be expected.

In contrast the afrocentric model is

everyone melanchroos in Africa = black and completely ignore the skin colour variation cline in the Nile valley running from the nile delta, to upper Egypt, to Sudan

"Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt." (Snowden, 1997)

On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black." (Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.)

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok. I see what this is, this is a semantic wordgame as far as what the word "Black" means which obviously changes depending on era and context. Yet I don't see how "melanchroes" is any different from the English usage of the word black as a term for dark skinned people with an origin in Africa or Oceania&Austrailia. Even if used in its most narrow dense for African-Americans who descend from the TAST it still covers a *range* of darker pigmentation from high yellow people (many of whom would actually place somewhere on the darker end of leukos) to people nearly pitch black. I'm personally an order of magnitude lighter complexioned than Queen Tiye yet people call me black without hesitation. Semantic word shenanigans like this are why I try and avoid using it in the first place.

Also your saying that the AE's southernmost relations are to Sahara-Sahelian peoples is also nonsensical as genetic affinities especially with the people of Sudan, Ethiopia and the Horn is a *fact*. Also as has been stated the Nile operates as a highway for bidirectional gene flow, and there also used to be a tributary of the Nile, the Yellow Nile which flowed westward right into interior Africa.

The AE also certainly encountered people resembling the "Tribal African" broad featured stereotype, and said types would've also been in Egypt, not just Northeast Africans.

 -

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Snowden was not a bio-anthropologist, so it's laughable referencing him. The ancient Egyptian population was concentrated in Upper Egypt, so the average Egyptian would have approximated around Queen Tiye's complexion or just slightly under -- which is in the range of other Northeast Africans; Northeast Africans that the average European has no problem identifying as black. So protestations regarding AE are dismissed.

Upper Egypt thoroughly dominated ancient Egypt politically, culturally, economically, militarily and demographically. Ancient Egypt was created when the significantly more organised, wealthier, more sophisticated and undoubtedly more powerful South subdued the sparsely populated North -- one that was the diametric opposite of all these features.

The vast majority of the dynasties came from the South; the powerful priestly class was situated in Waset -"Thebes"- and invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern warrior-kings.

Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.

The above source clearly asserts that admixture in Lower Egypt occured in later dynastic periods, especially when the Macedonian Greeks conquered Egypt -> very late into ancient Egypt's history.

It's clear that the people of the Levant and other populations in "Eurasia" played no noteworthy role in the establishment of ancient Egypt.

Even if one were to concede that Lower Egyptians were admixed (half black)... I very much doubt that they would have been considered anything other than black - using Western standards. Obama has very rarely been referred to as anything but black, and this has been one of the central points of angst among his detractors, so Europeans can't just overturn their standards when it suits them.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Oshun

You accuse the troll of trying to de-Africanize ancient Egypy -an impossible task- and it really is beside the point. The troll is irrelevant. What does it matter what he thinks? He can't actually do anything. He has just about as much chance of pulling off your accusation as he has of destroying the sun.

You're apealing to a moron, as though he mattered in the slightest; a brain dead hick so ignorant that he doesn't even realise (with the exception of North Sudan) the other Northeast Africans are actually Sub-Saharan Africans. This includes Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea and Djibouti.

These Sub-Saharan Africans created Punt, D'mt and Aksum and are related to the other Northeast Africans that created ancient Egypt, Kush, Wawat, Yam, Irtjet, Temeh and Setju.

Scholars now recognise that ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant, but the ancient Egyptians may also have had ancestors from the Central Sahara and the Western desert. The ancient Egyptians spoke a language closely related to Chadic and the language group was actually the closest linguistic group to ancient Egyptian; Chadic is a language group that extends from Chad to Nigeria - so there really is no divorcing ancient Egypt from West African populations as well.

Do you really expect the troll to understand that the Sahara was once lush during the predynastic period and that populations now in the North have their origins in the South?

The retard argues that civilizations were less advanced the further South you travelled deeper into Africa from the Mediterranean, in complete opposition to the fact that Upper Egypt was far more advanced than Lower Egypt, so his retarded theory dies before it even ventures out of Egypt.

Kush was also more powerful, sophisticated and advanced than the "Nubians" further North in Lower "Nubia"; ancient Egypt was a Sudanese transplant and owes its existence to its kin and kith in the South ... people that were virtually indistinguishable from Upper Egyptians; they stem from a common origin and shared the same culture.

The ancient Greeks noted that the ancient Sudanese always maintained that ancient Egypt was merely our colony and the modern disciplines affirm this. Isn't that grand?

The dunce also seems to laughably assert that there was apparently something special about the Mediterranean... implying that it was seminal in the formation of ancient Egypt.


We know this to be nonsense; the theory is retarded, just like all his positions. The only way this would make sense is if ancient Egypt was actually established in Lower Egypt on the Mediterranean, and was preceded by advanced civilizations in the Mediterranean that it then drew upon for inspiration. There were none.


Ancient Egypt was established in the South, on the banks of the Nile - thousands of years before the Mediterranean benefitted from Egypt's intellectual largess and accomplishments... which is precisely how the Mediterranean Europeans became civilized.

The people of the Levant have no claims to ancient Egypt, and it's only the indigenous Upper Egyptians and North Sudanese that have any direct rights to ancient Egypt.

LOL. What an idiot. So Lower Egyptians don't have "direct rights" to their own Egyptian history/ancestry, but Upper Egyptians do. You're just making this up as you go along. The reason you want to distance Lower Egyptians to Egyptian civilization is they are lighter skinned and don't fall into your "black" political grouping.

"In summary, the peoples of the Nile Valley present a continuum, from the lighter northern Egyptians to the browner Upper Egyptians to the still browner Nubians and Kushites and to the ultra-dark brown Nilotic peoples. Millennia of slow, gradual intermingling with neighboring populations of Nubians and Libyans, and from time to time with foreigners from more distant areas, created this population. In addition, there has been some mingling with Bedouin populations of the desert regions." http://cojs.org/were_the_ancient_egyptians_black_or_white-_frank_j-_yurco-_bar_15-05-_sep-oct_1989/

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
You were using descriptions of their Gods and mythological figures to suggest the Greek people were white.

No.

If anyone is really interested in stuff I was posting 6 years ago, see here to get the correct context of what I said about white Greeks gods. Oshun is lying as usual.

July, 2011-

quote:
Indo-Europeans often seem to have been small minorities in the countries they penetrated... anthropologists who have studied the hair or pigmentation of the ancient Greeks have concluded only around 7% were blonde. The Indo-Europeans in Greece therefore only reflected the physique of the higher classes, who claimed descent from the fair Gods.
I was talking about a theory that a small Indo-European elite (who had fairer pigmentation) ruled over the darker Greek masses i.e. caste-like stratification, following this article: http://www.geocities.ws/race_articles/greekface.html My mythology discussion of gods is in context pf the caste-pigmentation theory that says the blonde elites claimed descent from the gods; I estimated the white skinned fair-haired IE caste in Greece was as little as 7% of the population; this is no longer even a hypothesis I defend.

... Regardless, nowhere did I claim the typical Greek was white (93% as not white skinned/blonde haired), but the opposite

No, you did not limit such descriptions strictly to the elite:

quote:

Ruddy was also applied to physically describe ordinary Greek (and Roman) citizens:

''TRACHALIO
Have you seen to-day, while you've been standing here, any young man, of courageous aspect, ruddy, stout, of genteel appearance, come by this way, who was taking with him three men in scarfs, with swords?''
- T. Maccius Plautus, Rudens 2.2

''PAMPHILUS
Then I'll tell you how to know it; a huge fellow, ruddy, with curly hair, fat, with gray eyes and freckled countenance.''
- P. Terentius Afer (Terence), Hecyra III. 4

It doesn't really matter though. I'm losing interest in playing around now. This thread was created because you "real tawk" and the other resident white supremacists of the board hijacked another guy's topic to make it about race. What they were literally colored is irrelevant because the discussion itself had derailed to talk about where the Egyptians fit racially. Neither blacks nor whites define races by literal colors. Races at best describe the stereotypical color schemes for people in certain area. Your involvement in the topic was strawmanning to b!tch about Afrocentrists and to make divides on social races about literal pigment instead of Pan regional identity. Afrocentrism nor Pan Africanism divide races by literal pigments. Likewise, "whiteness" is a social name for a pan European identity that works off a stereotype for their appearance. Whiteness also includes people who don't have pink/white skin. Greeks and Italians are not a different race if many of them don't fit the stereotype.

quote:
quote:
I think you missed the part where I said I don't believe the average AE skin tone was especially light. And for those it was I make "no distinctions" as far as what? I'm not blind, I know they're not the same skin shade. That doesn't mean that light skinned people are automatically genetically more distant to darker skinned people. A lighter skinned Ngwa Igbo is not going to be more closely related to a lighter skinned San than a darker skinned Igbo.
The point is you use the term "black" to cover those lighter skin shades. You're politicalizing the word.
Read the name of the topic. Do I believe in biological races? No. But this thread was made in response to you and other white supremacists derailing someone else's topic to make it about race and to talk about Afrocentrics. Socially people are ascribed pan regional identities and light skin or dark skin, they associate with that identity. If you're going to discuss their labels for people, you can't strawman the foundation. White and Black to Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics are pan identity concepts that are given a label. The label happens to be a color. Membership to the groups given theses labels doesn't require anybody to be literal those colors though. Throughout history there are many positive and negative examples of stereotypes influencing the words people use to describe entire groups of people, even if they don't physically or behaviorally meet the stereotype.

quote:
If you truly recognise Egyptians were lighter brown skin shades (than more southern populations), why not recognise the cline, instead of using a very broad category black. Why not call Egyptians light or medial brown than black? Answer: this doesn't play into your politics.
As it relates to science I said AE gravitate more to Africans, and that I regionalize Africa because there's no consistency in what groups are used in Africa to compare to AE in research. They are meant as stand-ins for an "African" group and sometimes the research will be very open about saying this.

However if I'm being asked if they were "black," while you guys are talking about Afrocentrics calling Egyptians black then that means we're talking about blacks as a social group, not blacks as a color. Afrocentrism isn't discussing literal colors.


quote:
quote:

1. This should be pretty obvious but Pre Dynastic Egyptians for thousands of years lived in lands that were not "Saharan." To say it moar: They and today's "Sub Saharan Africans" lived alike in an Africa without a bigass desert. You're applying modern geological constructs to ancient people who hadn't lived in a full blown desert for very long before dynastic Egypt started. The Sahara hadn't completely returned in a window span of a few centuries before Dynastic Egypt or a few centuries after.

This is nonsense. The movements were more westward than southward, but those settlements to the south were not into lower latitude Sub-Saharan Africa, but the northern fringe/Sahel - so what's your point?

[Roll Eyes] Indeed what is your point. Many African Americans and other such Sub Saharan descended people came from the Sahel but are still classified as sub Saharan. The Sahel isn't regarded as a "genetic barrier" to SSA like the Sahara. Also going to say this again but: There was no Saharan African for there to be a sub saharan African. The whole point of people even trying to separate Saharan Africans from SSA the Sahara provided a geological barrier for genetic continuity with SSA and so Egyptians became genetically distant. However even if we're going to pretend the Nile doesn't extend into SSA, the Sahara had either only been around a few centuries before or AFTER dynastic Egypt.

quote:
quote:
The populations that made Egypt came from the South and moved North, this is why we see the affinities we do to many SSA populations.
They don't show close affinities to SSA populations, with the possible exception of the northern fringe or Sahel groups. Also its disputable "Egypt came from south", since you ignore the Lower Egyptian contributions.
But the state and culture largely came from Upper Egypt, not Lower Egypt.


quote:
And you're not bigoted? [Roll Eyes] Since Lower Egypt is closer to Europe and Levant than Upper Egypt, this is why Afrocentrists downplay Lower Egyptian contributions and obsess with Upper Egypt. waycism much? [/QB]
Lower Egyptians were still culturally assimilated to Upper Egyptians, regardless of whatever levels of mixture they may have eventually developed over time:

"Evidence in Lower Egypt consists mainly of settlements with very simple burials,
in contrast to Upper Egypt, where cemeteries with elaborate burials are found.
The rich grave goods in several major cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent the acquired wealth of higher social strata, and these cemeteries were probably associated with centers of craft production. Trade and exchange of finished
goods and luxury materials from the Eastern and Western Deserts and Nubia would have taken place in such centers. In Lower Egypt however, while excavated settlements permit a broader reconstruction of the prehistoric economy, there is little evidence for any great socioeconomic complexity... Archaeological evidence points to the origins of the state which emerged by the 1st Dynasty in Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of from from the Predynastic to the 1st Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that originating in Upper Egypt."

--K. Bard (2005). Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. 28

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
--Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation.( Routledge. p. 52-60)(2005


"The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country”
—A Companion to Ancient History Edited by Andrew Erskine (2009)

Indigenous Lower Egyptians adapted to their environment the same way the San did, and so light skin of that sort is to be expected.


Lower Egypt has been so demographically damaged that there is simply no way of identifying the modern derivatives of all the invasions with the ancients. Ancient Egypt was the first truly cosmopolitan society in history and did allow Syrians and other Levantines to serve as soldiers and scribes, so there may been a very small population of these people in Lower Egypy during the later periods.

The Pharaohs also had Asiatic concubines, but it would be laughable to parcel out the heritage of ancient Egypt to a minority of latecomers.

In any case, Upper Egyptians were the alpha majority and really did create the civilization.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
Snowden was not a bio-anthropologist, so it's laughable referencing him. The ancient Egyptian population was concentrated in Upper Egypt, so the average Egyptian would have approximated around Queen Tiye's complexion or just slightly under -- which is in the range of other Northeast Africans; Northeast Africans that the average European has no problem identifying as black. So protestations regarding AE are dismissed.

Upper Egypt thoroughly dominated ancient Egypt politically, culturally, economically, militarily and demographically. Ancient Egypt was created when the significantly more organised, wealthier, more sophisticated and undoubtedly powerful South subdued the sparsely populated North -- one that was the diametric opposite of all these features.

The vast majority of the dynasties came from the South; the powerful priestly class was situated in Waset -"Thebes"- and invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern warrior-kings.

Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose."
--Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians.

The above source clearly asserts that admixture in Lower Egypt occured in later dynastic periods, especially when the Macedonian Greeks conquered Egypt -> very late into ancient Egypt's history.

It's clear that the people of the Levant and other populations in "Eurasia" played no noteworthy role in the establishment of ancient Egypt.

Even if one were to concede that Lower Egyptians were admixed (half black)... I very much doubt that they would have been considered anything other than black - using Western standards. Obama has very rarely been referred to as anything but black, and this has been one of the central points of angst among his detractors, so Europeans can't just overturn their standards when it suits them.

And just googling the consensus on archaeology:

"Although some scholars have suggested that the rise of the Egyptian territorial state was due to Nubian expansion, based largely upon the excavation of the Nubian A-Group cemetery at Questul (Williams 1986), the archaeological evidence confirms that the political unification of Egypt did not rely upon a Nubian initiative (Wengrow, 2006: 171-173)." (Gilbert, 2013 "Levant and North Africa: archaeology")

What is your idea Egypt was "Sudan transplant" based on then?

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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 )

Your citation is only disputing the notion that the incense Qustul burner (found in "Nubia") with one of the earliest examples of Pharaonic iconography is evidence that "Nubians" were responsible for the unification of dynastic Egypt. The "Nubians" and Upper Egyptians are recognised by bio-anthropologists as being virtually indistinguishable - reflecting their common origin.

We'll get back to the A-Group and the significance of the Qustul incense burner.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
No, you did not limit such descriptions strictly to the elite

My 2011 thread on ancient Greek pigmentation is here-

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=004993;p=1

Everything I posted there contradicts you cherry-picking my comments elsewhere and taking them out of context. Yes, I'm not interested in playing games with you; in the above 6 year old thread I clearly state the average ancient Greek was not white, but a faint light brown or olive skin colour. I've never classified southern Europeans with northern Europeans in pigmentation, furthermore I wouldn't like to see someone from my own family mix with darker (eye, hair, skin) phenotypes, that includes southern Europeans where these features predominate. So much for your stupidity trying to insinuate I am some sort of "pan-Europeanist". Because you're a pan-Africanist you project your politics onto me, when it doesn't even apply.

quote:
This thread was created because you "real tawk" and the other resident white supremacists of the board hijacked another guy's topic to make it about race.
"Real tawk" is black...  - He's just not a self-hating black like you. There are some decent black people on this forum who don't believe in your afrocentric pseudo-science and who also embrace their own local heritage, rather than clinging to a "pan" African ideology and identity.

quote:
What they were literally colored is irrelevant because the discussion itself had derailed to talk about where the Egyptians fit racially. Neither blacks nor whites define races by literal colors. Races at best describe the stereotypical color schemes for people in certain area. Your involvement in the topic was strawmanning to b!tch about Afrocentrists and to make divides on social races about literal pigment instead of Pan regional identity. Afrocentrism nor Pan Africanism divide races by literal pigments. Likewise, "whiteness" is a social name for a pan European identity that works off a stereotype for their appearance. Whiteness also includes people who don't have pink/white skin. Greeks and Italians are not a different race if many of them don't fit the stereotype.
I did not bring "race" at all into the discussion, this is something you did. At the end of the day, you're still labelling Egyptians as black in pigment to fit your political agenda, when labelling them "light brown" or "medial brown" would be far more accurate and useful.

quote:
As it relates to science I said AE gravitate more to Africans, and that I regionalize Africa because there's no consistency in what groups are used in Africa to compare to AE in research. They are meant as stand-ins for an "African" group and sometimes the research will be very open about saying this.
They don't gravitate more to Africans. And by saying this you're now abandoning clines and adopting a non-arbitrary cluster aka racialist approach, you show no consistency at all - the same for your bogus anti-racist persona. I say the latter because there is extreme racism posted against whites on this forum and you've never criticized it. Right now, in the other forum section whites are called "albino mutants" and "subhumans" etc. [Roll Eyes] If you are going to pretend to be anti-racist, please try to be consistent.

quote:
But the state and culture largely came from Upper Egypt, not Lower Egypt.
With no/minimal Nubian involvement though.

quote:
Lower Egyptians were still culturally assimilated to Upper Egyptians, regardless of whatever levels of mixture they may have eventually developed over time:

"Evidence in Lower Egypt consists mainly of settlements with very simple burials,
in contrast to Upper Egypt, where cemeteries with elaborate burials are found.
The rich grave goods in several major cemeteries in Upper Egypt represent the acquired wealth of higher social strata, and these cemeteries were probably associated with centers of craft production. Trade and exchange of finished
goods and luxury materials from the Eastern and Western Deserts and Nubia would have taken place in such centers. In Lower Egypt however, while excavated settlements permit a broader reconstruction of the prehistoric economy, there is little evidence for any great socioeconomic complexity... Archaeological evidence points to the origins of the state which emerged by the 1st Dynasty in Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of from from the Predynastic to the 1st Dynasty. This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that originating in Upper Egypt."

--K. Bard (2005). Encyclopaedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. 28

Yes, but the Faiyum A culture from where Neolithic spread into Egypt was in lower Egypt.

All this though is off-topic. The only people who can claim close connection to ancient Egyptians are modern Egyptians, followed to a lesser extent by the neighbouring peoples, north and south. You though are trying to connect far more distant southern populations including western sub-Saharan Africans (!) "negroids" to Egypt. This is what I was criticizing and always have done since posting here. Like I said, I have no problem with other posters here just saying ancient Egyptians = modern Egyptians and northern Sudanese.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid
Not sure where you being up Neanderthal.
You are still not wxomaint how your can decipher the genetic history of a population without using ancient DNA. YES, IBD does matter BUT Egyptians haveiltiole lines or ancestry from MOBILE nomadic populations that come from multiple places.

Furthermore go ahead and look at ancient European DNA to see how close in proximity very divergent populations lived.

I've not much looked at the Neolithic European period. But let's look at Upper Paleolithic, a "modern" UP specimen (Oase) is estimated to be 7.5% Neanderthal-

"We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html

This doesn't contradict an long-term Pleistocene IBD model, but it is problematic for OOA that posits no to negligible admixture. Up to 9% is not negligible, especially not when you take into account the small population size(s) in Europe at that time.

Again you are talking up a genetic argument but you are not familiar with African or even your own European genetic ancestors. Ancient Egypt was known to be settled by nomadic groups in the past. You cannot talk about the genetic affinity of Egyptians without known the genetic affinity of their parent groups.

If you take a look at your ancient European ancestors they have far flung ancestry that amalgamated over time into what They are today. Europeans (like ancient Egyptian) are not a core population but a composite one. Egypt lays at the crossroads of different types of ancestry leading in and out of Africa. If you are still hard stuck on IBD please comment on the Autosomal STR data that DOES exist. Or the uniparental data that DOES exist.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Faiyum was a nome of Upper Egypt, not Lower Egypt. This unwillingness to commit to prior research is precisely why trolls are stuck in a morass of self-induced ignorance.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Faiyum was a nome of Upper Egypt, not Lower Egypt. It is this laziness and unwillingness to commit to prior research before sending these laughable assertions into emission that make trolls like this a complete joke. This is precisely why trolls are stuck in a morass of self-induced ignorance.
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sigh.


quote:
Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains.

Marin A, Cerutti N, Massa ER.

Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell'Uomo, Universita degli Studi di Torino.

We conducted a molecular investigation of the presence of sicklemia in six predynastic Egyptian mummies (about 3200 BC) from the Anthropological and Ethnographic Museum of Turin. Previous studies of these remains showed the presence of severe anemia, while histological preparations of mummified tissues revealed hemolytic disorders. DNA was extracted from dental samples with a silica-gel method specific for ancient DNA. A modification of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), called amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) was then applied. ARMS is based on specific priming of the PCR and it permits diagnosis of single nucleotide mutations. In this method, amplification can occur only in the presence of the specific mutation being studied. The amplified DNA was analyzed by electrophoresis. In samples of three individuals, there was a band at the level of the HbS mutated fragment, indicating that they were affected by sicklemia. On the basis of our results, we discuss the possible uses of new molecular investigation systems in paleopathological diagnoses of genetic diseases and viral, bacterial and fungal infections.

PMID: 11148985 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE

quote:

Relationship of the Sickle Cell Gene to the Ethnic and Geographic Groups Populating the Sudan
Abdelrahim O. Mohammeda, Bekhieta Attallab, Fathya M.K. Bashira, Fatima E. Ahmedc, Ahmed M. El Hassanc, Gafar Ibnaufd, Weiying Jiange, Luigi L. Cavalli-Sforzae, Zein Al Abdin Karrarb, Muntaser E. Ibrahimc

Departments of
aBiochemistry,
bPediatrics, Faculty of Medicine University of Khartoum,
cInstitute of Endemic Diseases, University of Khartoum, and
dFederal Ministry of Health, Khartoum, Sudan;
eDepartment of Genetics, School of Medicine Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., USA


Address of Corresponding Author

Community Genetics 2006;9:113-120 (DOI: 10.1159/000091489)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

The presence of a geographical pattern in the distribution of the sickle cell gene (S gene) and its association with malaria is well documented. To study the distribution of the S gene among various ethnic and linguistic groups in the Sudan we analyzed a hospital-based sample of 189 sickle cell anemia (SCA) patients who reported to the Khartoum Teaching Hospital between June 1996 and March 2000 and 118 controls with other complaints, against their ethnic and linguistic affiliations and geographic origin. Electrophoresis for hemoglobin S and sickling tests were carried out on all patients and controls as a prerequisite for inclusion. The majority of patients (93.7%) belonged to families of single ethnic descent, indicating the high degree of within-group marriages and thus the higher risk of augmenting the gene. SCA was found to be predominant among the Afro-Asiatic-speaking groups (68.4%) including nomadic groups of Arab and non- Arab descent that migrated to the Sudan in various historical epochs. Those patients clustered in western Sudan (Kordofan and Darfur) from where 73% of all cases originate. The proportion of patients reporting from other geographic areas like the south (3.1%), which is primarily inhabited by Nilo-Saharan-speaking groups (19% of the whole sample) who populated the country in previous times, is disproportionate to their total population in the country (2 = 71.6; p = 0.0001). Analysis of the haplotypes associated with the S gene indicated that the most abundant haplotypes are the Cameroon, Benin, Bantu and Senegal haplotypes, respectively. No relationship was seen between haplotypes and the various hematological parameters in the sub-sample analyzed for such association. These results provide an insight into the distribution of the sickle cell gene in the Sudan, and highlight the strong link of the middle Nile Valley with West Africa through the open plateau of the Sahel and the nomadic cattle herders and also probably the relatively young age of the S gene.

Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
[/quote]

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He has lost and has thoroughly proven himself to be completely ignorant of even the most elementary facts. It was fun while it lasted. [Big Grin]
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
lol. calm down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Egypt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faiyum

"Faiyum[1] (Arabic: الفيوم‎‎ El Fayyūm pronounced [elfæjˈjuːm]; Coptic: ̀Ⲫⲓⲟⲙ Phiom) is a city in Middle Egypt."

Its classified as Middle Egypt today even if it was technically Upper Egypt in ancient times. You missed my point that even using this technicality - Faiyum/the Faiyum Oasis is in northern Egypt. In context, I use lower/upper Egypt to mean north/south.

 -

This isn't southern Egypt, but northern. Your argument was more advanced culture came primarily from the south not north. But all evidence shows the opposite for the Neolithic period.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm completely calm, mate. In fact, this is akin to watching videos of stupid people just acting out and receiving immediate karma. The concept of "Middle Egypt" is a 19th Century administrative invention. The people of Faiyum were Upper Egyptians and were intimated with the rest of their peope in Upper Egypt, so your pathetic attempt to assign them to Lower Egypt in order to prop up the significance of the latter is just a complete fail.

Upper Egypt was larger, more populated, wealthier, more sophisticated and far more significant than Lower Egypt, and there is simply no way of circumventing this fact. This further demonstrates just how dominant Upper Egypt was; it's remarkable that the people of Upper Egypt occupied such a large territory.

Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted; created ancient Egypt; were undoubtedly the demographic majority, and since they resemble their kin - other Northeast African blacks, you lose. [Razz] [Big Grin]


Your context and the manner in which you employ it, is irrelevant. Question to forum: Should I go by the administrative units established by my ancestors or should I subscribe to the subjective whims of some insignificant salty European on the net? Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions... get real, mate - nobody cares about your context.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by beyoku:
@Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid
Not sure where you being up Neanderthal.
You are still not wxomaint how your can decipher the genetic history of a population without using ancient DNA. YES, IBD does matter BUT Egyptians haveiltiole lines or ancestry from MOBILE nomadic populations that come from multiple places.

Furthermore go ahead and look at ancient European DNA to see how close in proximity very divergent populations lived.

I've not much looked at the Neolithic European period. But let's look at Upper Paleolithic, a "modern" UP specimen (Oase) is estimated to be 7.5% Neanderthal-

"We find that on the order of 6–9% of the genome of the Oase individual is derived from Neanderthals."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v524/n7564/full/nature14558.html

This doesn't contradict an long-term Pleistocene IBD model, but it is problematic for OOA that posits no to negligible admixture. Up to 9% is not negligible, especially not when you take into account the small population size(s) in Europe at that time.

Again you are talking up a genetic argument but you are not familiar with African or even your own European genetic ancestors. Ancient Egypt was known to be settled by nomadic groups in the past. You cannot talk about the genetic affinity of Egyptians without known the genetic affinity of their parent groups.

If you take a look at your ancient European ancestors they have far flung ancestry that amalgamated over time into what They are today. Europeans (like ancient Egyptian) are not a core population but a composite one. Egypt lays at the crossroads of different types of ancestry leading in and out of Africa. If you are still hard stuck on IBD please comment on the Autosomal STR data that DOES exist. Or the uniparental data that DOES exist.

Like I said, not much looked at Neolithic. But if you study the genomes of Upper Palaeolithic you will find a core ancestral population, not a composite (although of course I don't argue for complete genetic isolation, there was recurrent gene flow, albeit restricted/small scale).

Nonsense about "three lineages" being widespread in UP Europe debunked-

"A previous genetic analysis of early modern humans in Europe using data from the ~37,000-year-old Kostenki14 suggested that the population to which Kostenki14 belonged harboured within it the three major lineages that exist in mixed form in Europe today a lineage related to all later pre-Neolithic Europeans, (2) a ‘Basal Eurasian’
lineage that split from the ancestors of Europeans and east Asians before they separated from each other; and (3) a lineage related to
the ~24,000-year-old Mal’ta1 from Siberia. With our more extensive sampling of Ice Age Europe, we find no support for this."

continued [I won't get into the problems with this paper and Oase 1 and Ust-Ishim, but anyway]-

"Second, from the time of Kostenki14 about 37,000 years ago until the time of the Villabruna Cluster about 14,000 years ago, all individuals seem to derive from a single ancestral population with no evidence of substantial genetic influx from elsewhere."

- Fu et al. 2016 "The genetic history of Ice Age Europe"

When it comes to the Mesolithic and Early Neolithic there was gene flow into Europe from West Asia, however estimates range from 20 - 70% (Pinhasi et al, 2012, see quote below). This is a broad range that is compatible with different hypotheses about how agriculture spread with relatively small numbers of migrants (still consistent with IBD) or moderate to large scale mixture or near population replacement etc.

"genetic studies have delivered diverse and often conflicting inferences on the contribution of NE/A farmers to the modern European gene pool. Estimates for this contribution
have varied from 20% to 70%." - Pinhasi, Ron, et al. "The genetic history of Europeans." Trends in Genetics 28.10 (2012): 496-505.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm completely calm, mate. In fact, this is akin to watching videos of stupid people just acting out and receiving immediate karma. The concept of "Middle Egypt" is a 19th Century administrative invention. The people of Faiyum were Upper Egyptians and were intimated with the rest of their peope in Upper Egypt, so your pathetic attempt to assign them to Lower Egypt in order to prop up the significance of the latter is just a complete fail.

Upper Egypt was larger, more populated, wealthier, more sophisticated and far more significant than Lower Egypt, and there is simply no way of circumventing this fact. This further demonstrates just how dominant Upper Egypt was; it's remarkable that the people of Upper Egypt occupied such a large territory.

Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted; created ancient Egypt; were undoubtedly the demographic majority, and since they resemble their kin - other Northeast African blacks, you lose. [Razz] [Big Grin]


Your context and the manner in which you employ it, is irrelevant. Question to forum: Should I go by the administrative units established by my ancestors or should I subscribe to the subjective whims of some insignificant salty European on the net? Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions... get real, mate - nobody cares about your context.

lol lol. Do you really expect people to think you're an Egyptian, Nubian, Beja, Sudanese Arab or whatever you claim? Location: Australia and most likely you're African-American. All posters on this forum (including a former mod called Ausar) who claimed to be Egyptian/Nubian/Sudanese Arab turned out to be impersonating one.

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:

Again you need to go back to the genetic drawing board if you think you dont need Ancient DNA to asses Ancient Egyptian genetic affinity.

MODERN and BRONZE AGE Europeans are NOT Upper Paleolithic Europeans.

MODERN and BRONZE AGE Ancient Egyptians are NOT going be to be Upper Paleolithic North East Africans.

Both groups will be a combination of their prehistoric stone age ancestors and all other groups that settled in the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Holocene. Keita, who I believe you support stated AE is going to be closest to their "Pre-Neolithic ancestors". Who are their Neolithic vs Pre-Neolithic ancestors?

Modern Euros are ANE, WHG, BE, ENF. Neanderthal....etc.
IF you dont know what those acronyms mean then you better get to reading.

If you think Kostenki is Homogenous please look here.
 -

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is not necessarily the case, the various Muslim geographers, please dont insult them by calling them "Arabs" differed on their classification on Bilad Es Sudan, some considered various Berbers, Egyptians and other North Africans as part of Sudan...

Check here..

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1148/bilad-sudan-included-parts-egypt

Also...

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1074/north-south-relationship-mahgreb-sudan

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
[QUOTE]

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
This is not necessarily the case, the various Muslim geographers, please dont insult them by calling them "Arabs" differed on their classification on Bilad Es Sudan, some considered various Berbers, Egyptians and other North Africans as part of Sudan...

Check here..

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1148/bilad-sudan-included-parts-egypt

Also...

http://egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/thread/1074/north-south-relationship-mahgreb-sudan

quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
[QUOTE]

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?


Looks dubious. The first claim on that link is based on the word Guechet meaning at-wahal -'the oases' and then tries to identify it with an Egyptian oasis. However -

"The origin and meaning of the name Guechet is less clear. Editors of the modern French translation of Leo' Description (1956) suggested that is refers to Awdaghust... Awdaghust was vividly described by al-Bakri; in a late ninth-century Arabic source it was called 'Ghust'."
- some scholarly text on google books anyone could find within 5 seconds of searching for this. The afronut on ESreloaded of course choose to not mention it.

If Guechet is Awdaghust as editors of a modern (French) translation point out then it has nothing to do with Egypt. Furthermore, Awdaghust is the same latitude as Sudan, not Egypt.

I don't see any evidence that Bilad Es Sudan refers to lands above the tropic of cancer.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
So much for your stupidity trying to insinuate I am some sort of "pan-Europeanist". Because you're a pan-Africanist you project your politics onto me, when it doesn't even apply.
quote:


I sure hope people care to read what you said, at this point they'll have to read and make decisions for themselves. You don't have any proof I'm projecting. I said academically the groups of Africans AE are compared to are wholly inconsistent, even though the data says the AE lean to them. The only central theme connecting them all is being "African." Some researchers will even say that's exactly what they're doing. Do not project what could potentially be a problem within academia onto me because you've been outed.


quote:
This thread was created because you "real tawk" and the other resident white supremacists of the board hijacked another guy's topic to make it about race.
"Real tawk" is black...
 -

Now that's funny!


quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
Listen, you moron, the people of Egypt today are the descendants of ancient Egypt, not you sub-Africans.


Why speak in a disassociating way. "not you 'Sub Africans'?" Suuuure he's black.


quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
Blacks have been coddled by White America since the days of slavery that weening them off White American teat has proved challenging, to say the least.

No black person would say sh!t like this. Only white supremacists think the indignities of slavery were an indulgence to blacks.

Black ancestors were "coddled" by being beaten, raped/buck broke, sold from their family and forced to build an infrastructure they could have no ownership in?

Blacks were "coddled" when whites destroyed the American black Wall Street and regularly lynched black business owners to stifle competition?

Was it coddling black folks for the South to rely on mass incarceration of blacks to rebuild the destroyed South? a tactic they've relied upon for economic building ever since they were forced to rejoin the Union?

Bullsh!t. Finding a black person who talks like that is about as easy as finding a flaming black white supremacist (which is what I would then call him). But it's more likely he's white. White supremacists have been pretending to be black for years. Pics or GTFO.

quote:

There are some decent black people on this forum who don't believe in your afrocentric pseudo-science and who also embrace their own local heritage, rather than clinging to a "pan" African ideology and identity.

I didn't know "decent" blacks had to be white supremacist @ssholes. I don't "cling" to a Pan African identity either. I was correcting lies and strawman arguments about what Afrocentrics and Pan Africanists believe. I'd also just got done explaining the achievements of SSA and Mande civilizations. I don't need Egypt or Pan Africanism to embrace my heritage. If Real Tawk were genuinely interested in emphasizing appreciation for more local heritage instead of being a white supremacist troll, he'd do more of what I've done and focus his topics and responses more on subjects like West African Mande civilizations, or SSA achievements. Generally his topics and responses read like a white supremacist troll, much like yours.


quote:
What they were literally colored is irrelevant because the discussion itself had derailed to talk about where the Egyptians fit racially. Neither blacks nor whites define races by literal colors. Races at best describe the stereotypical color schemes for people in certain area. Your involvement in the topic was strawmanning to b!tch about Afrocentrists and to make divides on social races about literal pigment instead of Pan regional identity. Afrocentrism nor Pan Africanism divide races by literal pigments. Likewise, "whiteness" is a social name for a pan European identity that works off a stereotype for their appearance. Whiteness also includes people who don't have pink/white skin. Greeks and Italians are not a different race if many of them don't fit the stereotype.
I did not bring "race" at all into the discussion, this is something you did.
Nope!

quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
quote:
Originally posted by Real tawk:
don't kid yourself. people are not even putting effort into debating Afrocentrists these days. You are more of an amusement.

Why would Afrocentrics be an "amusement" if the world has "marched on?" You soundin like a girl who says to the homegirls she over her man, but when he roll through she jump out her seat. You can't put effort into a debate because the research does not support you.Your thirsty @$$ is still in here derailing a thread to prove some faded picture murals are evidence of Ancient Egyptians not being African because it's the best you guys can do. This thread wasn't even really discussing race but you're so over it, you're going to inject race into the conversation. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
The fact is no one in mainstream academia takes you people seriously. We know your pseudohistorical claims are borne out of social trauma.

And no one should take you seriously. I'm embarassed to have to say you type like an overseas American caricature. you do not think scientifically at all and are lazy. First, bandwagon fallacies are not scientific. The legitimacy of an idea lies not within knowing many people believe something, but the support that is the foundation for that consensus.

Blacks especially should NEVER trust anything without reviewing the research. Discarded scientific theories of today were widely believed years ago (often to their detriment). Having said that, mainstream research is increasingly corroborating an indigenous foundation for Egypt, and that it was a characteristically African civilization. Make a new thread to contest the research, we'll be waiting. [Wink]

The "debate" moved on from 5+ years ago. Very few people on internet forums now argue there was large scale migration into Neolithic/Early Dynastic Egypt from West Asia. Most Afrocentrists have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.
Afrocentrics don't define who can be called black by whether or not you have literal black or dark brown skin. That has been a position they've held long before many of them knew what Egypt was. Even a red Igbo was considered black. They didn't just make that up when they learned of Egypt. Afrocentrics and Pan Africanists use "black" as a sociopolitical term which can extend to people that have lighter shades. To most Pan Africanists and Afrocentrics, if it was indigenous African, it was black. Black, African and/or biologically SSA are generally synonymous.


quote:
quote:
As it relates to science I said AE gravitate more to Africans, and that I regionalize Africa because there's no consistency in what groups are used in Africa to compare to AE in research. They are meant as stand-ins for an "African" group and sometimes the research will be very open about saying this.
They don't gravitate more to Africans. And by saying this you're now abandoning clines and adopting a non-arbitrary cluster aka racialist approach,
This again? Okay.

quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

"geographical" is meaningless if you're saying it's wrong to lump people in by region. To refer to regions is to make arbitrary "clusters." I'll even go as far as to say you don't have to discuss a specific ethnic group anymore because that's clustering too.

Yes, which is unavoidable.

 -


quote:
[qb] you show no consistency at all - the same for your bogus anti-racist persona. I say the latter because there is extreme racism posted against whites on this forum and you've never criticized it.

I've defended people who are targeted for defending what they feel to be an infringement on their heritage, or even offer links and cordial conversation that would support the opinions that particular instances that racism against whites exists, even if it's not heavily institutionalized like the racism towards blacks. These trolls also say a lot of disparaging things about blacks and I ignore the offensive comments they make then too for the same reasons your own people ignore it.

2 reasons I don't interact with them, but will from time to time engage white supremacists:

The first is that I won't be a mule or mammy out of for whites who've collectively made it clear they give no fvcks about the racist trolls on this site. I don't even normally engage these people when they are racist against my own race and/or mulattoes (more on that in my second point). Black people always expected to get up and start the movement of getting mad and fighting tirelessly for others' issues even when they generally seem unbothered or unfazed by what's going on. This is precisely why MIA got dragged for asking why Beyonce didn't do a Muslim Lives Matter movement (tho blacks could be Muslim). Blacks eventually became infuriated b/c that's a movement for y'all to start and for blacks to participate in. We're out here fighting our own battles, exhausted from our own long days and suffer more poverty than other groups. Your ppl are not entitled to what little energy, time, outrage and so on we have after we deal w/ our own problems each day, Definitely not to go cape on sh!t I ain't seen your people give enough fvcks for they d@mn self. What kinda buck dancing sh!t is that? Your people know of this site. Some will listen to what's new about science but the trolls are a nuisance that is generally ignored. And why are they? WELL now for my second point.


To the best of my knowledge these individual black racist trolls are not creating black supremacy movements online that have evolved over the years to organize laws, and legal policy. The white supremacist/radicalization movement on the other hand has been developing in this country/around the world for years. It started (and continues) online and threatens the very fabric of the country's democracy in real life.

Because of what your sh!t has done over the years, non-racists are more likely to respond to you b/c they they know you @ssholes are not just trying to be mean online. You're trying to recruit and radicalize people so that they can turn the hate you helped create into public policy. Black trolls go back to working 9 to 5 for non racist blacks, sellout blacks, or non blacks. What have they organized to institutionally do? They ain't doing sh!t. When I ignore them, even when their trolling is directed tomy own people the world will continue to be as it was. Quit playing like you somehow don't know there's a difference. Your white supremacist sh!t is moving to affect official public policies, which angers people on an entirely different level and gives you attention many of us (Black and white) won't give the black racist trolls.

quote:
If you are going to pretend to be anti-racist, please try to be consistent.
Dumb@ss black racist troll that's contented to live and depend on the very people he hates < white supremacist movement radicalizing people online and is serious for pushing laws that will take people's rights. Even knowing this I try to ignore the white supremacists too, but sometimes I'll feel annoyed enough to respond. I sometimes want to turn the annoyance of seeing a white supremacist radicalization effort and make it into a funner experience of dismantling white supremacy. You guys don't just leave your stupid little ideas online. You're using the internet to affect the real world.

quote:
You though are trying to connect far more distant southern populations including western sub-Saharan Africans (!) "negroids" to Egypt.
I'm not going to repeat the fact researchers make African or SSA "clusters" anymore. And AGAIN with the "sub-Saharan" sh!t. If the Sahara hadn't fully returned until a few centuries before (if not a few centuries after) dynastic Egypt, and they had access to SSA via the Nile where was the "genetic isolation" to make the distinction between Sub Saharan Africa? Africans that didn't live in the Sahara had access to the peoples that made dynastic Egypt for many thousands of years. The whole idea of making a "Sub Saharan" and "Saharan" category was because Sahara is a genetic barrier in the minds of many thinkers. Or for other thinkers, much of the Arab back migrations settled northward.


 -

 -

 -

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm completely calm, mate. In fact, this is akin to watching videos of stupid people just acting out and receiving immediate karma. The concept of "Middle Egypt" is a 19th Century administrative invention. The people of Faiyum were Upper Egyptians and were intimated with the rest of their peope in Upper Egypt, so your pathetic attempt to assign them to Lower Egypt in order to prop up the significance of the latter is just a complete fail.

Upper Egypt was larger, more populated, wealthier, more sophisticated and far more significant than Lower Egypt, and there is simply no way of circumventing this fact. This further demonstrates just how dominant Upper Egypt was; it's remarkable that the people of Upper Egypt occupied such a large territory.

Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted; created ancient Egypt; were undoubtedly the demographic majority, and since they resemble their kin - other Northeast African blacks, you lose. [Razz] [Big Grin]


Your context and the manner in which you employ it, is irrelevant. Question to forum: Should I go by the administrative units established by my ancestors or should I subscribe to the subjective whims of some insignificant salty European on the net? Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions... get real, mate - nobody cares about your context.

lol lol. Do you really expect people to think you're an Egyptian, Nubian, Beja, Sudanese Arab or whatever you claim? Location: Australia and most likely you're African-American. All posters on this forum (including a former mod called Ausar) who claimed to be Egyptian/Nubian/Sudanese Arab turned out to be impersonating one.

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?

Oh, man, you got me. [Big Grin]

This is the first time I'm being accused of being non-Sudanese.

It's usually Eurocentrics that pretend to be aggrieved Egyptians all over the net. Abaza was one such character.

Based on the little I've come to expect from you, I'm really surprised that you didn't make a mess of the Arabic citation. Your refusal to accept facts that debunk your long cherished beliefs really is irrelevant. I'm not here to sway you one way or the other; my intention is to make use of your stupidity and instransigence -- to use it as proxy in order to debunk certain misconceptions and myths.

Sudan -North and South- is comprised of more than just the few groups you seem to be aware of. I truly believed in the New Sudan vision and so I identify as Sudanese first and foremost. I have ancestry from both sides of the Greater Sudan border...

..Which brings me to my next point. The Arab geographers did not include our brothers in the South as part of Bilad as-Sudan, even though they stumbled upon them as early as the 15th Century, so are we to assume that the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo, Anyuak, Burun, Maban, Oduk and others are not black?


The British differed with the Arabs on this and actually used the term in reference to Southern Egypt and Sudan. [Big Grin]

One could also question why regions like Lower "Nubia", the Siwa Oasis and Egypt's Southeast red sea coast were not included by the Arab geographers. Were Lower "Nubians", Siwa and Beja not black at that point? [Razz] The Arab geographers primarily used this term in reference to black *countries* they came across in the Medieval period. The Arabs already had a name for Egypt, so why on earth would they create a new term for multiple non-contiguous regions in Egypt where even large groups of Western-Asia Arabs and Turks had already settled in?

The indigenous people of the Siwa oasis in Northern Egypt are black as are the indigenous people of Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Edfu, Kom Ombo in the South and the people of the red sea coast.

I thought this could not get anymore amusing but you've truly outdone yourself in retardation. You now realise that Lower Egypt really was not all that significant and that the tropically adapted black Upper Egyptians were so preponderant that you now want to claim them. Good luck with that... the science is against you and we do have the living and breathing people of Upper Egypt.

A moron in a forum certainly isn't going to overturn genetics, bio-anthropological data and archaeological evidence. Good luck indeed.

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why are we ceding Lower Egypt to this guy??? The Lower Egyptians were just as indigenous and less tropically adapted than the Upper Egyptians/Sudanese but STILL reflected an African origin. There is no reason to suppose they were Caucasian or less African and they are one of the best testaments to how thoroughly admixed Modern Egypt is compared to AE.

--------------------
 -

Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square.

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 14 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Why are we ceding Lower Egypt to this guy??? The Lower Egyptians were just as indigenous and less tropically adapted than the Upper Egyptians/Sudanese but STILL reflected an African origin. There is no reason to suppose they were Caucasian or less African and they are one of the best testaments to how thoroughly admixed Modern Egypt is compared to AE.

You are right of course, and this is precisely why I have continously provided citations re-affirming that Lower Egyptians were indigenous Africans and that there is no evidence of a mass migration of "Eurasians" into Lower Egypt before the Roman period.

I have repeatedly made it clear that even *if* one were to concede that Lower Egyptians were biracial, they would still be considered black using western standards. I emphasise Upper Egypt to hammer home the point that ancient Egypt has its beginning in the South and that the opposition has thus lost the contest before the debate has even begun.

I like playing with them. [Big Grin]

Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let's not forget that even if there were some Middle Eastern and Mediterranean types who had settled in northern Egypt during dynastic times, this sort of multicultural population would not be surprising for the Mediterranean basin. It also was a thing in the Roman Empire (link), yet no one denies the founding population of Rome would have been Mediterranean Latin people.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Punos_Rey
Administrator
Member # 21929

Member Rated:
5
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Punos_Rey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Nodnarb

EXACTLY!! BINGO!!!

--------------------
 -

Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square.

Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sudanese
Member
Member # 15779

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sudanese     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've been asking certain people for evidence that Lower Egypt was significantly intimated with the Levant in the predynastic stage and the early dynastic period the same way Upper Egypt and "Nubia" were virtually indistinguishable as far back as the predynastic period... and I have yet to be provided with such evidence. What's taking so long? Where is it?
Posts: 1568 | From: Pluto | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun:
*A load of gibberish*

Real tawk is African-American, he's a former Black Hebrew Israelite. He grew up brainwashed by Afrocentric and BHI pseudo-histories; at some point in his life he had a reality-check and distanced himself from his former held views. Very commendable. I used to talk with him over 5 years ago here (like me he has several accounts). He's not a white guy impersonating a black man since his knowledge of BHI is too good; BHI isn't something a white person would know much about.

On the subject of waycism, no-one anymore takes the word 'racist' serious. Its now misused to silence people. And normally the people throwing around this term are racists themselves (like you). Please don't pretend you like white people; the anger and bigotry is in your posts. And you're still blaming poor old white folks for slavery from centuries ago, that living whites have nothing to do with. By that stupid reasoning should I hate living Scandinavians since bands of Vikings over a millennia ago, captured and used Anglo-Saxons as thralls?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/vikings-may-have-first-taken-seas-find-women-slaves

Aside from Nodarb who is very atypical (well he can actually take the moral high-ground here?) all white posters on this forum, past and present, dislike or hate blacks, myself included, and I had two mates who used to post here who I hadn't spoken to in years. I re-found them on YouTube recently, to find them posting "nigger" jokes and talking non-stop about how bad blacks are etc. This isn't even my style and I couldn't care less about what black people do or get up to; my focus was always about bio-anthropology and related subjects in relation to Egypt. Race gets brought into it because of Afrocentrism.

And let us not forget virtually all the black posters on this forum (funnily enough excluding Real tawk who recants BHI), dislike or hate whites. Lets not deny this.. Type "Egyptsearch" on a search-engine and you see this forum is considered a black supremacist/racist forum against whites on about a dozen or more other websites... yes its quite notorious. Also like I said - just go into the other thread section to see white people called "pink monkeys", "cavemen" "albino mutants" and so on.

Funny story: is some Afrocentrist loons on this forum 4 years ago harassed and threatened me since I don't agree with their views about Egyptians being black. They found my university I was studying at the time and said they were going to contact my tutors as well as distribute leaflets on my uni campus trying to smear me as much as possible: "I'm a racist who doesn't think ancient Egyptian were black!". I presume someone did email/make contact with my tutors. I was called in a room and it was briefly discussed at the beginning of 2013. So my tutor just clicked this website to read a thread at the time that all white men have small penises and are pedophiles. [Roll Eyes] (that thread is still up) and plenty other hate speech aimed at whites. My tutors realised this is a troll/black supremacist site and the attacks on me were just coming from black racists. No one disciplined me at all and I graduated. So if you really want to play the same ad hominem approach labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a racist, go ahead. It no longer works because people don't fear this word "racist" anymore.

I remember another white poster on this forum (rahotep) who was bullied off this site by afrocentrists nutjobs who went as far as creating blogs on him, getting his personal details etc. Last I knew of rahotep was on YouTube a year or more back.

Note that I am infamous across the web for problems I can cause people, yet I choose not to retaliate to these afrocentrists. Why? Well because its so stupid to get worked up about debating bio-anthropology or history, calm down people.. I have bigger fish to fry, like actual pedophile scumbags, only yesterday who sent me a threat of stalking a child at local primary school near me http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=4820. You know I could have completely destroyed those lives of those afrocentrists here who targeted me? I could have created 1000 blogs, websites, even .coms., then got their doxes and so on. But I didn't.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Punos_Rey:
Why are we ceding Lower Egypt to this guy??? The Lower Egyptians were just as indigenous and less tropically adapted than the Upper Egyptians/Sudanese but STILL reflected an African origin. There is no reason to suppose they were Caucasian or less African and they are one of the best testaments to how thoroughly admixed Modern Egypt is compared to AE.

You are right of course, and this is precisely why I have continously provided citations re-affirming that Lower Egyptians were indigenous Africans and that there is no evidence of a mass migration of "Eurasians" into Lower Egypt before the Roman period.

I have repeatedly made it clear that even *if* one were to concede that Lower Egyptians were biracial, they would still be considered black using western standards. I emphasise Upper Egypt to hammer home the point that ancient Egypt has its beginning in the South and that the opposition has thus lost the contest before the debate has even begun.

I like playing with them. [Big Grin]

I'm not arguing ancient Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed. What I am saying is since there was gene flow (restricted/small scale but recurrent), there is a smooth gradient/cline running from south levant > lower Egypt > upper Egypt > lower Nubia > Upper Nubia. For your theory to work you would have to be some discontinuity or steepness in the cline from the south levant > lower Egypt. I dispute this position, for example craniometric studies have Sedment and Gizeh samples showing south levant ties. ALso this has been my position now since 2013. The fact you think I don't change my views shows you don't know me, I constantly amend/change/modify or even retract former views in light of new evidence, or more often the case I get a better understanding of the subject. Take into consideration when I joined this forum in 2010 I was still a teenager. I've recently just turned 26. The early years I was here I had no understanding of these topics, not even population genetics. I didn't even know what evolution was or how it worked.

I change my views all the time, most recently my work on Plato's Atlantis. http://shimajournal.org/issues/v10n2/d.-Smith-Shima-v10n2.pdf "It should be
noted that the author of this article formerly proposed a historical site for Atlantis in Greece
(Smith, 2013). He no longer defends his earlier fringe hypothesis and since 2015 has argued
the Atlantis story is fiction, with no underlying basis in history." I changed my view within two years in two published studies.

If there is more genetic data on modern Egyptians and their % of admixture, I would change my views in light of this straight a way.

Perhaps you missed the fact pre-2013 I argued for Hamitism, but post-2013 do not. I now argue ancient Egyptian civilization was indigenous.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Candice Lynn Potter:

On the subject of waycism, no-one anymore takes the word 'racist' serious. Its now misused to silence people. And normally the people throwing around this term are racists themselves (like you). Please don't pretend you like white people; the anger and bigotry is in your posts.

This guy just takes whatever people say and goes

 -

k. got it.

quote:
And you're still blaming poor old white folks for slavery from centuries ago, that living whites have nothing to do with.
What I was saying is that it was disgusting to describe what blacks went through as white coddling. The world doesn't call modern Germans Nazis but would and should be disgusted if someone were to say a horrific experience like the holocaust was the "coddling" of Jews, Romani, etc. "Coddling" is the last word a black person would use to describe the type of horror that was Jim Crow, slavery, etc. While most blacks don't know abot BHI whites have been infiltrating those types of things for years. They are in the minority, but are exceptionally educated. If he doesn't post a pic, I won't buy it. And if he is black he's still racist against black people. Many black people on this board have a very odd mixture expressing racism for both black and white people. Maybe they think that makes their opinions more objective. IDK.

quote:
This isn't even my style and I couldn't care less about what black people do or get up to; my focus was always about bio-anthropology and related subjects in relation to Egypt. Race gets brought into it because of Afrocentrism.
But Afrocentrics didn't march in to derail the the original thread that spawned this topic. This thread was to get you and your likes OUT of a discussion that had nothing to do with race. You and your little white supremacist buddies went into the thread and hijacked it with race baiting so people would have no choice in reading your bilge. When asked to make your own topic, you REFUSED so I made this one. Now it's "Afrocentric's fault." Uh, no it's not. Today anyway, this is your L.

quote:
Also like I said - just go into the other thread section to see white people called "pink monkeys", "cavemen" "albino mutants" and so on.
What on the ancient Egypt section? I seldom visit there. Last time I did I posted news, it was about Russians passing a new law that the US was calling a gateway to domestic violence. They seemed to think it was about spanking. But I hadn't really read many posts in there to see what it's about. I prefer sticking to Egyptology.

Anyway, I can see how sticking to the Ancient Egypt section of the forum can warp most non racists people's brains black or white. I'm sort of weary of posting on ES and have taken breaks before b/c the general tone can leave a lot to be desired.

Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/Dead/Krom/Atlantid:
quote:
Originally posted by sudaniya:
I'm completely calm, mate. In fact, this is akin to watching videos of stupid people just acting out and receiving immediate karma. The concept of "Middle Egypt" is a 19th Century administrative invention. The people of Faiyum were Upper Egyptians and were intimated with the rest of their peope in Upper Egypt, so your pathetic attempt to assign them to Lower Egypt in order to prop up the significance of the latter is just a complete fail.

Upper Egypt was larger, more populated, wealthier, more sophisticated and far more significant than Lower Egypt, and there is simply no way of circumventing this fact. This further demonstrates just how dominant Upper Egypt was; it's remarkable that the people of Upper Egypt occupied such a large territory.

Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted; created ancient Egypt; were undoubtedly the demographic majority, and since they resemble their kin - other Northeast African blacks, you lose. [Razz] [Big Grin]


Your context and the manner in which you employ it, is irrelevant. Question to forum: Should I go by the administrative units established by my ancestors or should I subscribe to the subjective whims of some insignificant salty European on the net? Hmmm, decisions, decisions, decisions... get real, mate - nobody cares about your context.

lol lol. Do you really expect people to think you're an Egyptian, Nubian, Beja, Sudanese Arab or whatever you claim? Location: Australia and most likely you're African-American. All posters on this forum (including a former mod called Ausar) who claimed to be Egyptian/Nubian/Sudanese Arab turned out to be impersonating one.

And here's my question to you, if Upper Egyptians are blacks, why did Arabs only give the name bilād as-sūdān (بلاد السودان), or "the lands of the Blacks", to Sudan and not (Upper) Egypt?

Oh, man, you got me. [Big Grin]

This is the first time I'm being accused of being non-Sudanese.

It's usually Eurocentrics that pretend to be aggrieved Egyptians all over the net. Abaza was one such character.

Based on the little I've come to expect from you, I'm really surprised that you didn't make a mess of the Arabic citation. Your refusal to accept facts that debunk your long cherished beliefs really is irrelevant. I'm not here to sway you one way or the other; my intention is to make use of your stupidity and instransigence -- to use it as proxy in order to debunk certain misconceptions and myths.

Sudan -North and South- is comprised of more than just the few groups you seem to be aware of. I truly believed in the New Sudan vision and so I identify as Sudanese first and foremost. I have ancestry from both sides of the Greater Sudan border...

..Which brings me to my next point. The Arab geographers did not include our brothers in the South as part of Bilad as-Sudan, even though they stumbled upon them as early as the 15th Century, so are we to assume that the Dinka, Nuer, Chollo, Anyuak, Burun, Maban, Oduk and others are not black?


The British differed with the Arabs on this and actually used the term in reference to Southern Egypt and Sudan. [Big Grin]

One could also question why regions like Lower "Nubia", the Siwa Oasis and Egypt's Southeast red sea coast were not included by the Arab geographers. Were Lower "Nubians", Siwa and Beja not black at that point? [Razz] The Arab geographers primarily used this term in reference to black *countries* they came across in the Medieval period. The Arabs already had a name for Egypt, so why on earth would they create a new term for multiple non-contiguous regions in Egypt where even large groups of Western-Asia Arabs and Turks had already settled in?

The indigenous people of the Siwa oasis in Northern Egypt are black as are the indigenous people of Luxor, Esna, Aswan, Edfu, Kom Ombo in the South and the people of the red sea coast.

I thought this could not get anymore amusing but you've truly outdone yourself in retardation. You now realise that Lower Egypt really was not all that significant and that the tropically adapted black Upper Egyptians were so preponderant that you now want to claim them. Good luck with that... the science is against you and we do have the living and breathing people of Upper Egypt.

A moron in a forum certainly isn't going to overturn genetics, bio-anthropological data and archaeological evidence. Good luck indeed.

The Arab geography for "land of the blacks" is virtually identical to the ancient Greek usage of Aethiops: those populations below the tropic of cancer i.e. northern Libyans/berbers were not aethiops - only th southern interior nomadic tribes were; in Herodotus the Garamantians are not black/aethiops but hunted the black/aethiops tribes below them. For the same reason Egyptians were not Aethiops/blacks because they have lighter brown pigmentation. The tropic of cancer was the yardstick of black, consistent in several ancient and medieval cultures.
Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@ Oshun

one of the thread my tutor saw -
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=15;t=007155

quote:
This White devil has multiple personality disorder from lack of melanin
quote:
Either way it doesnt matter the white race has serious mental issues and diseases brought about by being a inferior sub-human race not superior to melinated Hue-mans
quote:
Poster on the forum recognizes the White dmeon and exposes him
quote:
The White race is a degenrate race of insecure beast. When they finally begin to see there world falling apart the white race will do anything to maintain their way of life
quote:
males love to play dungeons and dragon and world of warcraft in their childhood and adult hood, and white females love to have full blown conversations with plastic dolls. That is some insane sh1t to be talking to imaginary people. The white race is insane.
My "racist" posts are completely mild compared to this (I don't even use slurs) and yet (a) blacks on this forum tried to harass/threaten me by contacting my university tutor calling me a white supremacist to expel me, (b) notice how none of these blacks who are supposedly "anti-racist" complained about the racist quotes above on this forum. Not once. That's because these blacks are not anti-racists at all. They just use the word racist to attack white people with.

Also note I am not the person in the above thread that person accused me of [it was some Chinese guy, and he later showed up]. I don't believe in the big black dick hoax. I've refuted this with actual studies, although I won't derail this thread with talk about sex organs.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Come on Cass lets not play the victim shall we, you were just as notorious for your pseudo scholarship and racist posts..Are you still an adherent to British Israel-ism?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beyoku
Member
Member # 14524

Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for beyoku     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
@Cass-
quote:
I'm not arguing ancient Lower Egyptians were significantly mixed. What I am saying is since there was gene flow (restricted/small scale but recurrent), there is a smooth gradient/cline running from south levant > lower Egypt > upper Egypt > lower Nubia > Upper Nubia. For your theory to work you would have to be some discontinuity or steepness in the cline from the south levant > lower Egypt. I
You fail because you are learned on facial-cranial data but are lost when it comes to genetic affinity. All the while you are trying to make a genetic argumrnt using phenotype as a basis. There isn't just a south/north cline of ancestry there would likely also be an East/West one revolving around multiple different types of Eurasian, Sub Saharan, Saharan and coastal North African ancestries.

What you are saying is just to simple for the settlement history of the Nile valley and doesn't pass the sniff test.

Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BrandonP
Member
Member # 3735

Icon 1 posted      Profile for BrandonP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, I tend to skip over most of the insanity that guys like Clyde and Mike111 post. They're clearly too embedded in an alternate universe to take seriously. I will say I have little love for black separatists in general. I've cut off more than one tie with people who used to be my friends because I saw them spewing black separatist or anti-white invective.

That said, I don't see black separatists as wielding the same degree of influence as their white counterparts. They might make a lot of noise on places like Tumblr or certain websites with a predominantly black audience, but elsewhere on the Web it's usually the white racists I see. Just look at the Steam gaming community I frequent, it's chock full of white supremacist scum who yell "WE WUZ KANGZ" whenever someone posts a mod with black people in it. Black separatists are jerks, but they're not very powerful jerks.

--------------------
Brought to you by Brandon S. Pilcher

My art thread on ES

And my books thread

Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ase
Member
Member # 19740

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Ase     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
You know, I tend to skip over most of the insanity that guys like Clyde and Mike111 post. They're clearly too embedded in an alternate universe to take seriously. I will say I have little love for black separatists in general. I've cut off more than one tie with people who used to be my friends because I saw them spewing black separatist or anti-white invective.

That said, I don't see black separatists as wielding the same degree of influence as their white counterparts. They might make a lot of noise on places like Tumblr or certain websites with a predominantly black audience, but elsewhere on the Web it's usually the white racists I see. Just look at the Steam gaming community I frequent, it's chock full of white supremacist scum who yell "WE WUZ KANGZ" whenever someone posts a mod with black people in it. Black separatists are jerks, but they're not very powerful jerks.

Thank you Nodnarb. My thoughts summarized. Black and white ppl can both afford to ignore their racism towards both sides and we generally do. Whatever out there stupid sh!t is being said about my ppl or yours, they're not taking this sh!t and affecting public policy with it so no one gives a fvck about them. Affecting education is quite extreme but you bait them and instigate angry racial threads. You and your ilk derailed a non racial thread to provoke outrage. That's the only reason this thread was even made: So that we didn't have you guys derailing every single thread to MAKE us talk to you about it. Meanwhile WE try to ignore them and y'all. So whatever beefs and crazy sh!t y'all racist trolls do to each other on that fvcksh!t is your battle. We're not caping, especially not for nobody who thinks we're inferior. Take your smart@$$ and go fix the troll sh!t you instigate. Thats different from radicalizing ppl online and making policy to affect ppl that don't even know yall. Like i said even as i know yall do that I try to ignore it if I can.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is true, I mean I find it Ironic that lay whites and others will ridicule Black Diffusionism We Wuz Kangs stuff but never seem to have such anger when whites do the same, Where were these people shouting "We Wuz Kangs" when whites were and are still cast as non White populations such as Egyptians and Arabs, like in the Mummy movies?? If they consider the Ancients as the same as the Modern Egyptians why are they not upset that Russians and Englishmen are being cast as Egyptians? Like I said on another thread I was shocked that on the History Channels Vikings the Moors in Al Andalus were not only cast with Arab/North Africans but large numbers of Blacks, considering the show is geared toward a White audience(Its an awesome show btw).Not only that they portrayed the Moors in a very respectable light tbh....so I feel that some in higher places are paying attention and are not just pandering to us but actually giving us a more positive image.

quote:
Originally posted by Nodnarb:
You know, I tend to skip over most of the insanity that guys like Clyde and Mike111 post. They're clearly too embedded in an alternate universe to take seriously. I will say I have little love for black separatists in general. I've cut off more than one tie with people who used to be my friends because I saw them spewing black separatist or anti-white invective.

That said, I don't see black separatists as wielding the same degree of influence as their white counterparts. They might make a lot of noise on places like Tumblr or certain websites with a predominantly black audience, but elsewhere on the Web it's usually the white racists I see. Just look at the Steam gaming community I frequent, it's chock full of white supremacist scum who yell "WE WUZ KANGZ" whenever someone posts a mod with black people in it. Black separatists are jerks, but they're not very powerful jerks.


Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 10 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Come on Cass lets not play the victim shall we, you were just as notorious for your pseudo scholarship and racist posts..Are you still an adherent to British Israel-ism?

No, I became a debunker of it. Since I was a former proponent, I know all the dirty tricks such as dubious citations, quotes taken out of context etc. Below is an example of a non-existent quote attributed to the historian George Rawlinson by British Israelites I got removed from the British Israelism Wikipedia article:

quote:
George Rawlinson wrote:

“ We have reasonable grounds for regarding the Gimirri, or Cimmerians, who first appeared on the confines of Assyria and Media in the seventh century B.C., and the Sacae of the Behistun Rock, nearly two centuries later, as identical with the Beth-Khumree of Samaria, or the Ten Tribes of the House of Israel.[15]

- This quote actually does not exist. George Rawlinson never wrote it! Yet shockingly its been on the Wikipedia page for years? British Isrealites invented this quote. At least it is not found in [15]. Also BI sources cannot even agree if this quote came from George or his brother Henry Rawlinson.AncientScribal (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Later confirmed by an admin there and removed:

quote:
I searched extensively through all four volumes of the book using archive.org's keyword search facility, using several keywords, just in case the passage had been slightly mistranscribed. I could find no evidence whatever that it exists in any edition of the book. What the Rawlinsons do say about rhe Cimmerians is wholly inconsistent with it. I also found a book online yesterday in which the author said he's been through all of Rawlinson's writings but could not find the passage (I somehow can't find that book online now, so I can't link it).
The sad thing is the sort of people adding these false sources, know themselves they are lying; I used to do this myself. lol.

But on that subject, I still think there might be evidence the 'lost' tribes of Israel moved to Armenia/Caucasus. My mistake years ago was trying to connect the tribes or peoples in that region with those in mainland Europe, as far as the British Isles.

This is why me and real tawk got on because we both came from similar (in a sense) backgrounds. As mentioned above real tawk is a former Black Hebrew Israelite. The difference between me and him though is he said he was a BHI for most his life (several decades), while I was only into British Israelism for a relatively short period of time. That guy is also a lot older, I got out of this stuff before I had finished university in my early 20s.

Also, I am not playing victim here at all on the issue of race. My point is there is a double standard among black posters who called me racist, when the melanists (those people who cling to the "albino" theory) have been posting things far more offensive than myself, but these supposed anti-racist black people who decided to try to expel me from university for racism, never said a word about the racism of the melanists.

Racism Cuts Both Ways

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Candice Lynn Potter:


Aside from Nodarb who is very atypical (well he can actually take the moral high-ground here?) all white posters on this forum, past and present, dislike or hate blacks, myself included,

then why do you converse with blacks on Egyptsearch?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cass/:
[QUOTE]No, I became a debunker of it. Since I was a former proponent, I know all the dirty tricks such as dubious citations, quotes taken out of context etc.

Good to hear, yes both proponents of Hebrewism be they black or white rely heavily on misrepresenting the Hebrew sources and scriptures.


quote:
But on that subject, I still think there might be evidence the 'lost' tribes of Israel moved to Armenia/Caucasus. My mistake years ago was trying to connect the tribes or peoples in that region with those in mainland Europe, as far as the British Isles.[/QB]
Oh For sure, I mean if the Hebrews migrated to Ethiopia, the Khazar empire and Rome, no doubt they could have moves to the Caucus Areas.

quote:
This is why me and real tawk got on because we both came from similar (in a sense) backgrounds. As mentioned above real tawk is a former Black Hebrew Israelite. The difference between me and him though is he said he was a BHI for most his life (several decades), while I was only into British Israelism for a relatively short period of time.[/qb]
You may not know it but I also was a BHI for a short while but my skeptical nature helped me realize it was a racist false doctrine. Like You I know the exact scriptures and sources BHI distort to present their agenda.

TBH I never understood why people want to claim to be Hebrews anyway, they contributed very little if anything to ancient History until the Middle Ages...


quote:
Also, I am not playing victim here at all on the issue of race. My point is there is a double standard among black posters who called me racist, when the melanists (those people who cling to the "albino" theory) have been posting things far more offensive than myself, but these supposed anti-racist black people who decided to try to expel me from university for racism, never said a word about the racism of the melanists.[/qb]
Well If I recall correctly it was one poster who targeted you personally, Carl Oliver Coke(cant remember his pseudonym at the time), I dont think anyone else went to that trouble, but yes I agree there is a double standard so to speak when it comes to the Melananists vs white racists. You should be familiar with my disputes with them, and Al-Takruri and Lioness has also confronted Mike et al on his BS. That said I dont even engage them anymore doesnt mean I agree with them.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Concerned member of public
Banned
Member # 22355

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Concerned member of public   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:
Originally posted by Candice Lynn Potter:


Aside from Nodarb who is very atypical (well he can actually take the moral high-ground here?) all white posters on this forum, past and present, dislike or hate blacks, myself included,

then why do you converse with blacks on Egyptsearch?
Learn things? I've been inactive here for quite a while before posting a few week back. Regardless, I partly credit some black posters on here for making me realise Hamitic theory is nonsense. I was on a Hamitic forum (http://hamiticunion.proboards.com/) 4 years back and there was black posters there who hold the Hamitic theory. Do you think because I dislike blacks, I cannot learn from them? About my views on lack of sub-Saharan African accomplishments, it does not apply to individual blacks on internet forums. My views are formed on averages, not the individuals I come across. Note that most black people on these forums discussing these bio-anthropology/Egyptology topics are not representative of the average black person. These topics are niche and specialized.

About Egypt, there is actually little difference to what I am saying than to the posters here if you read closely. We basically disagree on pigmentation, which is actually trivial. I also propose modern Egyptians are far less mixed than black posters here maintain, but this doesn't mean much when the main dispute concerns ancient, not modern Egyptians.

Posts: 949 | From: England | Registered: Oct 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
the lioness,
Member
Member # 17353

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for the lioness,     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
why do you dislike blacks?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
-Just Call Me Jari-
Member
Member # 14451

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for -Just Call Me Jari-     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The question on how much the modern Egyptians are mixed is certainly something most people here differ on, at the end of the day Modern Egyptians still have a large amount of African DNA

 -

Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

Brace used 24 measurements, Howells used 57. See my other replies. One of the reasons CRANID was invented is so there is a moderate amount of measurements (29) as a minimum - to avoid the problems with FORDISC which some anthropologists have used with too few measurements [although Howells used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP or POPKIN and this is the standard number used in FORDISC publications, including the 3.0 manual].

Note that Brace uses less measurements (24) than CRANID's absolute minimum (29). Howell's 57 measurements reliably cover the whole crania; the problem with using fewer measurements is they don't cover the complete surface-area of the skull, or not accurately, and so won't capture overall craniometric similarity. There is clear discrepancy between Howells and Brace's data based on this fact. Howell's has Natufians closest to a European population sample (Zalavar).

Natufians don't show Sub-Saharan African craniometric ties - if the data is read correctly and importance of number of measurements is understood. Anyway, if you respond this is "Eurocentrism" remember that Howells used a lot more measurements on the Gamble's Cave/Elmenteita skulls to falsify earlier anthropologists like Coon that these crania are Caucasoid. Coon (1939) thought prehistoric East Africans were Caucasoid/'White' skeletally because he used less than 10 measurements.

"Both of the Gamble’s Cave skulls seem to be fully or nearly “white” in the skeletal sense." - Coon, 1939

You obviously missed the point that Howells used the Giza E series of skulls which were shown to be foreigners and not native Egyptians as pointed out by Sonia Zakrzewski back in a 2002 study. As for Natufians, some (though not all) do show sub-Saharan affinities like blurred margins, avleolar prognathism, and even post-bregmatic depression, all of which together are considered classic diagnostic "negroid" traits. Unless you cite the specific measurements instead of throwing out number of measurements used, you are not getting anywhere.

By the way, even Coon said the Natufians had a "slight negroid tendency" which he said was common for "proto-mediterraneans" LOL How very telling of him, and now the DNA evidence confirms their African/"negroid" ancestry.

Posts: 26252 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 13 pages: 1  2  3  ...  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3