Start out by responding to the shyt that you ran from in the other thread;
lol No I don't. The evidence speaks for itself supreme cultural continuity from Khamet into contemporary Equatorial Africa and vicinity. Once again we see the Khametic religion on display among peoples in Western Africa supporting a migration from Nile Valley civilization.
The Nok civilization was the first agricultural civilization in West Africa, and that only makes sense as even admitted by White academia to have diffused from Nile Valley civilization;
The History of Crop Cultivation in West Africa: A Bibliographical Guide M. A. Havinden
You have agriculture coming from Nile Valley civilization, and you have Nile Valley religion coming into Western Africa as a result of a wholescale movement of people between 2,000 and 1,500 BC. Now is there context behind why there may have been a migration during this period? Did the Hyksos dominate parts of Khamet and the Sinai which were formerly owned by natives? There were natives in that region despite the bulk of the peoples being in the south. We know that because the Hyksos were reportedly brutal to the natives in the region. So we have a circumstance (hostile takeover/war) that warrants a migration of people during the period when the Nok (& Olmec ) civilization begins to spring up.
"Tracing the Bantu Expansion from its source"
The Greenbergian theory of the Bantu migration from Cameroon has been debunked on every level. No genetic evidence from early West-Central African to Southern suggest the presence of the Bantu. Not not to mention it FAILS to explain why E-M2 dominates the Western Sahara as well. Archaeology nor ecology supports this theory. Not to mention NO BANTU'S claim this Greenbergian theory of their origin. Here is the criticism of the theory that was OMMITED in the final version of UNESCO 1974;
UNESCO deleted S. Lwanga-Lunyiigo on 'Bantu movement' from the paperback. Even in the 1988 they apologized for printing SLL's original contribution which begins:
"Basing my conclusion on archaeological evidence, I suggested recently that the speakers of Bantu languages occupied from very early times a broad swath of territory running from the Great Lakes region of East Africa to the shores of the Atlantic in Zaire and that the supposed movement of Bantu speakers from West Africa to central, eastern, and southern Africa did not take place. [24]" [24] Lwanga-Lunyiigo, S. (1976) The Bantu problem reconsidered Current Anthropology 17,2, pp. 282-6
Start out by responding to the shyt that you ran from in the other thread;
Well, since you have no real evidence (actual artifacts from Egypt in West Africa from the actual time of Ancient Egypt) your idea remains a speculation. Nothing wrong with that.
If they start to find a lot of these things in West Africa (from roughly the same time or shortly after you find them in Egypt, and other places) then your speculation will be more credible:
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: My research into Eurasian and American archaeology, linguistics and etc., is well known. The fact peer reviewed journals published my work illustrates my expertise in the fields.
Serious scholars do mostly not discuss your articles since the articles are considered pseudo science by a majority of them (ie by those who at all have heard about you).
Has for example Dr Ann Cyphers ever commented on any of your articles about Mesoamerica and Olmecs? Or Enrique Villamar Becerril? Or Karl Taube? Or Richard Diehl? Do they at all take you seriously enough to debate you?
Seems Bernhard Ortiz de Montellano are among the few that at all bothered to debate you extensively. And he also debated you regarding if most of your writings at that time at all could be counted as peer reviewed. I am sure you remember those discussions. I even remember that he mailed some of the editors who received your comments if they were peer reviewed or not. He really had good patience. You should give him credit for taking time to debate you, instead of calling him a liar. At least he did not ignore you.
But you show no gratitude, instead you call him a white supremacist.
You are no real scientist, you have no practical experience in any of the fields I asked you about. So why would most scholars in those fields take you seriously enough to spend time refuting your bad articles? Most ignore you.
So now you can post all references to the articles again if you like. The scientific community will still not take you seriously. And you will not make it better by calling a lot of people white supremacists. I even once saw a discussion (I think on Facebook) where someone asked you why you do not publish in mainstream archaeological magazines. And you answered that those magazines were white supremacist magazines. No wonder people ignore you
In a way it is a pity, since I bet you are not stupid, just mislead.
So that was it, now I will ignore you at least in this thread, since this discussion really is beside the original topic of the thread.
Bernhard Ortiz de Montellano was a racist. He was a troll who discovered during his debates with me that he lacked an understanding of the true history of Mesoamerica.Failure to know the literature regarding the history of Blacks in the Americas always meant he could not support his racist ideas in a forum where he could not control the debate, and delete information that proved his ideas to lack any validity.
If his attacks of my work were valid and reliable it would have been published. His attacks were groundless and based on white Supremacist ideas that could easily be disconfirmed.
Only a fool would expect the Academe to support my work. It can not support my work, because my work destroys the myths of white supremacy. Look at what happened to you. You came here hoping to support the White Supremacist view that Egypt was not a Black civilization and you failed.
As a proud Foundational Black American scholar I fight White Supremacy--not support it.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Only a fool would expect the Academe to support my work. It can not support my work, because my work destroys the myths of white supremacy
So you are right and the whole Academia is wrong? Talk about delusions of grandeur. Especially from someone without any practical experience from any of the fields of knowledge I asked you about.
But keep on dreaming
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Start out by responding to the shyt that you ran from in the other thread;
Well, since you have no real evidence (actual artifacts from Egypt in West Africa from the actual time of Ancient Egypt) your idea remains a speculation. Nothing wrong with that.
If they start to find a lot of these things in West Africa (from roughly the same time or shortly after you find them in Egypt, and other places) then your speculation will be more credible:
Ok. MODS....He is clearly trolling at this point, and should be banned! He doesn't want to have this debate about Khamet with people whom bring strong evidence that he has no answer to, AND THEN he keeps going on about his DEBUNKED stance/lie.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It was answered on the first page.
Maybe someone have something more to add, or someone who have not participated in this thread yet want to post something?
It doesn't seem like much has been added, IDK how the convo turned to the Etruscans and Olmecs but either way.
Outward physical features are reflected in metric analyses, if you want to know what kind of features the ancient Egyptians had, and what modern groups they are closest to in regards to this, look at metric studies. Nubians, Bejas, Somalis and Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians/Eritreans fit pretty well.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It was answered on the first page.
Maybe someone have something more to add, or someone who have not participated in this thread yet want to post something?
It doesn't seem like much has been added, IDK how the convo turned to the Etruscans and Olmecs but either way.
Outward physical features are reflected in metric analyses, if you want to know what kind of features the ancient Egyptians had, and what modern groups they are closest to in regards to this, look at metric studies. Nubians, Bejas, Somalis and Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians/Eritreans fit pretty well.
Metric results don't show this + you generalize all of ancient egypt based on simply a few predynastic samples from upper egypt ?
If we want to see how they looked like we simply have to admire how they depicted themselves and none of what they produced looked like modern horners
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It was answered on the first page.
Maybe someone have something more to add, or someone who have not participated in this thread yet want to post something?
It doesn't seem like much has been added, IDK how the convo turned to the Etruscans and Olmecs but either way.
Outward physical features are reflected in metric analyses, if you want to know what kind of features the ancient Egyptians had, and what modern groups they are closest to in regards to this, look at metric studies. Nubians, Bejas, Somalis and Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians/Eritreans fit pretty well.
Metric results don't show this + you generalize all of ancient egypt based on simply a few predynastic samples from upper egypt ?
If we want to see how they looked like we simply have to admire how they depicted themselves and none of what they produced looked like modern horners
"a few pre dynastic samples" lol, since the 19th century early ancient Egyptians have been grouped with Horn Africans on the basis of metric craniofacial data, the clustering of ancient Egyptians and Horn Africans continues into the dynastic period in the south and is acknowledged and accepted by mainstream anthropologists. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as very similar to the people of Punt, which included Eritrea to Eastern Somalia, either way, we can argue about data but I'm not getting into who the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves closest to, because it's largely subjective and you'll just start spamming cherrypicked lightskin artwork.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It was answered on the first page.
Maybe someone have something more to add, or someone who have not participated in this thread yet want to post something?
It doesn't seem like much has been added, IDK how the convo turned to the Etruscans and Olmecs but either way.
Outward physical features are reflected in metric analyses, if you want to know what kind of features the ancient Egyptians had, and what modern groups they are closest to in regards to this, look at metric studies. Nubians, Bejas, Somalis and Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians/Eritreans fit pretty well.
Metric results don't show this + you generalize all of ancient egypt based on simply a few predynastic samples from upper egypt ?
If we want to see how they looked like we simply have to admire how they depicted themselves and none of what they produced looked like modern horners
"a few pre dynastic samples" lol, since the 19th century early ancient Egyptians have been grouped with Horn Africans on the basis of metric craniofacial data, the clustering of ancient Egyptians and Horn Africans continues into the dynastic period in the south and is acknowledged and accepted by mainstream anthropologists. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as very similar to the people of Punt, which included Eritrea to Eastern Somalia, either way, we can argue about data but I'm not getting into who the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves closest to, because it's largely subjective and you'll just start spamming cherrypicked lightskin artwork.
Again idk what you're talking about Datas are clear :
Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with modern Afghans and modern North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of modern Europeans and modern West Asians. (Hanihara T and Ishida H, (2005))
The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. (Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993.)
Let alone the non-metric datas... you seem to be confused by the fact that horners are already clustering with other west eurasian groups and modern upper egyptians still cluster with east africans still do they look Like horners to you ? Obviously no. So stop we wuzzing it's cringe at this point especially that your folks have a prestigious history I don't see the point of larping as egyptian respect yourself.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: It was answered on the first page.
Maybe someone have something more to add, or someone who have not participated in this thread yet want to post something?
It doesn't seem like much has been added, IDK how the convo turned to the Etruscans and Olmecs but either way.
Outward physical features are reflected in metric analyses, if you want to know what kind of features the ancient Egyptians had, and what modern groups they are closest to in regards to this, look at metric studies. Nubians, Bejas, Somalis and Afro asiatic speaking Ethiopians/Eritreans fit pretty well.
Metric results don't show this + you generalize all of ancient egypt based on simply a few predynastic samples from upper egypt ?
If we want to see how they looked like we simply have to admire how they depicted themselves and none of what they produced looked like modern horners
"a few pre dynastic samples" lol, since the 19th century early ancient Egyptians have been grouped with Horn Africans on the basis of metric craniofacial data, the clustering of ancient Egyptians and Horn Africans continues into the dynastic period in the south and is acknowledged and accepted by mainstream anthropologists. Ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as very similar to the people of Punt, which included Eritrea to Eastern Somalia, either way, we can argue about data but I'm not getting into who the ancient Egyptians depicted themselves closest to, because it's largely subjective and you'll just start spamming cherrypicked lightskin artwork.
Again idk what you're talking about Datas are clear :
Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with modern Afghans and modern North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of modern Europeans and modern West Asians. (Hanihara T and Ishida H, (2005))
The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. (Brace, C. L., D. P. Tracer, L. A. Yaroch, J. Robb, K. Brandt, and A. R. Nelson. 1993.)
Let alone the non-metric datas... you seem to be confused by the fact that horners are already clustering with other west eurasian groups and modern upper egyptians still cluster with east africans still do they look Like horners to you ? Obviously no. So stop we wuzzing it's cringe at this point especially that your folks have a prestigious history I don't see the point of larping as egyptian respect yourself.
That Hanihara study is a metric dental analysis, this is how I know you haven't read that paper, also, it doesn't mean anything in regards to their phenotype and it doesn't mean much when it comes to genetics,
I can tell you haven't read that Brace study either, look at the dendrograms, when Brace says Sub Saharan he's referring to his Haya, Gabon, Dahomey and Zanzibar sample, not the Somali sample.
When have I claimed to be Egyptian?
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: That Hanihara study is a metric dental analysis, this is how I know you haven't read that paper, also, it doesn't mean anything in regards to their phenotype and it doesn't mean much when it comes to genetics,
I can tell you haven't read that Brace study either, look at the dendrograms, when Brace says Sub Saharan he's referring to his Haya, Gabon, Dahomey and Zanzibar sample, not the Somali sample.
When have I claimed to be Egyptian? [/QB]
??? I knew it was dental but haven't you mentionned "metric" datas ? and yes It means a lot when it comes to genetics, here from the same source :
quote:Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data
As for Brace what are you talking about ? :
Ancient egyptians certainly didn't look like modern horners since horners have obvious SSA traits which the ancient egyptian remains lack + it's quite obvious when we look at their iconography but yes I suppose that's "subjective" "cherrypicked" "foreigners"
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: That Hanihara study is a metric dental analysis, this is how I know you haven't read that paper, also, it doesn't mean anything in regards to their phenotype and it doesn't mean much when it comes to genetics,
I can tell you haven't read that Brace study either, look at the dendrograms, when Brace says Sub Saharan he's referring to his Haya, Gabon, Dahomey and Zanzibar sample, not the Somali sample.
When have I claimed to be Egyptian?
??? I knew it was dental but haven't you mentionned "metric" datas ? and yes It means a lot when it comes to genetics, here from the same source :
quote:Fourth, the patterning of dental variation among major geographic populations is more or less consistent with those obtained from genetic and craniometric data. Fifth, once differences in population size between sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, South/West Asia, Australia, and Far East, and genetic drift are taken into consideration, the pattern of sub-Saharan African distinctiveness becomes more or less comparable to that based on genetic and craniometric data
As for Brace what are you talking about ? :
Ancient egyptians certainly didn't look like modern horners since horners have obvious SSA traits which the ancient egyptian remains lack + it's quite obvious when we look at their iconography but yes I suppose that's "subjective" "cherrypicked" "foreigners" [/QB]
OP asked about the ancient Egyptian phenotype, do I have to explain that when I said "metric data" I wasn't referring to dental stuff as that has no bearing on what the ancient Egyptians looked like.
Since you think this is a good reflection of the genetic data, you would maintain that South Indians are genetically closer to Somalis than they are to North Indians? That ancient Egyptians are significantly closer to Afghans than to Israelis/Iranians?
No suprise you chose to screenshot the dendrogram where Somalis and ancient egyptians are most distant, its insane how disingenuous you are.
"The D' values of Mahalanobis showed a combined series (Naqada I/II and other non-specific Naqada period remains) to be more similar to Tigrean and Nubian groups than to those from northern late dynastic Egypt (Mukherjee et al. 1955)."
-Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt.
Like I said, these affinities have been noted since the 19th century and are still noted today.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: OP asked about the ancient Egyptian phenotype, do I have to explain that when I said "metric data" I wasn't referring to dental stuff as that has no bearing on what the ancient Egyptians looked like.
Such dental datas can give us genetic/craniometric informations about who these people were.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Since you think this is a good reflection of the genetic data, you would maintain that South Indians are genetically closer to Somalis than they are to North Indians? That ancient Egyptians are significantly closer to Afghans than to Israelis/Iranians?
Why not ?? If the datas show it I'm no specialist to go against it ...I'm not the kind to refuse facts because they go against my narrative.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: No suprise you chose to screenshot the dendrogram where Somalis and ancient egyptians are most distant, its insane how disingenuous you are.
"The D' values of Mahalanobis showed a combined series (Naqada I/II and other non-specific Naqada period remains) to be more similar to Tigrean and Nubian groups than to those from northern late dynastic Egypt (Mukherjee et al. 1955)."
-Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt.
Like I said, these affinities have been noted since the 19th century and are still noted today. [/QB]
Me disingenuous ? Alright can you explain to us then why do you post an outdated and debunked paper ? :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: OP asked about the ancient Egyptian phenotype, do I have to explain that when I said "metric data" I wasn't referring to dental stuff as that has no bearing on what the ancient Egyptians looked like.
Such dental datas can give us genetic/craniometric informations about who these people were.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Since you think this is a good reflection of the genetic data, you would maintain that South Indians are genetically closer to Somalis than they are to North Indians? That ancient Egyptians are significantly closer to Afghans than to Israelis/Iranians?
Why not ?? If the datas show it I'm no specialist to go against it ...I'm not the kind to refuse facts because they go against my narrative.
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: No suprise you chose to screenshot the dendrogram where Somalis and ancient egyptians are most distant, its insane how disingenuous you are.
"The D' values of Mahalanobis showed a combined series (Naqada I/II and other non-specific Naqada period remains) to be more similar to Tigrean and Nubian groups than to those from northern late dynastic Egypt (Mukherjee et al. 1955)."
-Gebel Ramlah: Final Neolithic Cemeteries from the Western Desert of Egypt.
Like I said, these affinities have been noted since the 19th century and are still noted today.
Me disingenuous ? Alright can you explain to us then why do you post an outdated and debunked paper ? :
quote:However, there is also one major difference; Mukherjee and associates placed their Badarian Egyptian sample within the sub-Saharan cluster, while puzzling over this unexpected affinity (Mukherjee et al., 1955: 86). Inspection of the original D2 matrix (their Table 5.6: 84) does, in reality, indicate a Badarian affiliation to North Africans, not sub-Saharan samples. It is therefore likely that an error was made in construction of their original figure when converting inter-sample distances to x- and y-coordinates. A similar plotting inaccuracy would have taken place in Figure 4 if the Badarian (BAD) sample had erroneously received a negative rather than positive x-coordinate.
This divergence also carries over to the craniometric data, as evidenced by the MDS of D2 values (Figure 4) that are provided in Mukherjee et al. (1955). Their Tigrean sample from Ethiopia is associated with North Africans cranially, and intra-regional sample affinities do differ, but the north–south dichotomy is otherwise maintained.
https://imgur.com/a/uwOmd5f The error he's talking about is Badarians clustering with Ashantis and Igbos, not Tigre Eritreans, Sub Saharans in this case, isn't a geographic reference. Tigres don't even cluster anywhere near this area
https://imgur.com/a/P2uJnxC In the paper's own craniometric analysis, Tigre Eritreans fall in the lower Nubian/Upper Egyptian cluster
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Again, you clearly didn't read the study.
This divergence also carries over to the craniometric data, as evidenced by the MDS of D2 values (Figure 4) that are provided in Mukherjee et al. (1955). Their Tigrean sample from Ethiopia is associated with North Africans cranially, and intra-regional sample affinities do differ, but the north–south dichotomy is otherwise maintained.
https://imgur.com/a/uwOmd5f The error he's talking about is Badarians clustering with Ashantis and Igbos, not Tigre Eritreans, Sub Saharans in this case, isn't a geographic reference. Tigres don't even cluster anywhere near this area
https://imgur.com/a/P2uJnxC In the paper's own craniometric analysis, Tigre Eritreans fall in the lower Nubian/Upper Egyptian cluster [/QB]
Tigrayan are literally the most eurasian shifted horners and display way less SSA traits than somalis but anyway they are still quite different from the ancient egyptian samples :
and if you had actually paid attention there is no north-west african, middle eastern or european samples in this study.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Again, you clearly didn't read the study.
This divergence also carries over to the craniometric data, as evidenced by the MDS of D2 values (Figure 4) that are provided in Mukherjee et al. (1955). Their Tigrean sample from Ethiopia is associated with North Africans cranially, and intra-regional sample affinities do differ, but the north–south dichotomy is otherwise maintained.
https://imgur.com/a/uwOmd5f The error he's talking about is Badarians clustering with Ashantis and Igbos, not Tigre Eritreans, Sub Saharans in this case, isn't a geographic reference. Tigres don't even cluster anywhere near this area
https://imgur.com/a/P2uJnxC In the paper's own craniometric analysis, Tigre Eritreans fall in the lower Nubian/Upper Egyptian cluster
Tigrayan are literally the most eurasian shifted horners and display way less SSA traits than somalis but anyway they are still quite different from the ancient egyptian samples :
and if you had actually paid attention there is no north-west african, middle eastern or european samples in this study. [/QB]
Again, dental metric studies have a high degree of plasticity, which is why they aren't ideal in looking at genetic relationships, anyway OP asked about phenotype, so you should be looking at metric cranial data, not dental data lol.
Whats your point about Tigre's being West Eurasian shifted? I never said otherwise, what does this change. When it comes to physical features Somalis aren't as SSA shifted as you think, relative to Tigres, they have a higher incidence of wavy/straight hair and a lower nasal index(thinner and longer nose), they are also less prognathic than many North Africans(including some ancient Egyptians) and Europeans.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Again, dental metric studies have a high degree of plasticity, which is why they aren't ideal in looking at genetic relationships, anyway OP asked about phenotype, so you should be looking at metric cranial data, not dental data lol.
Whats your point about Tigre's being West Eurasian shifted? I never said otherwise, what does this change. When it comes to physical features Somalis aren't as SSA shifted as you think, relative to Tigres, they have a higher incidence of wavy/straight hair and a lower nasal index(thinner and longer nose), they are also less prognathic than many North Africans(including some ancient Egyptians) and Europeans. [/QB]
That's worse then cranial datas are clear about their affinities (let alone non metric datas). Anyway now you try to pass tigrayans for your regular somalis yes sure.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SlimJim: Again, dental metric studies have a high degree of plasticity, which is why they aren't ideal in looking at genetic relationships, anyway OP asked about phenotype, so you should be looking at metric cranial data, not dental data lol.
Whats your point about Tigre's being West Eurasian shifted? I never said otherwise, what does this change. When it comes to physical features Somalis aren't as SSA shifted as you think, relative to Tigres, they have a higher incidence of wavy/straight hair and a lower nasal index(thinner and longer nose), they are also less prognathic than many North Africans(including some ancient Egyptians) and Europeans.
That's worse then cranial datas are clear about their affinities (let alone non metric datas). Anyway now you try to pass tigrayans for your regular somalis yes sure. [/QB]
You've added nothing of substance to this conversation, you've dodged every piece of evidence I posted and spammed studies you didn't read, some of which, were in agreement with me.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
LIONESS STOP WRITING ME. I DON'T PLAY THAT DELETING POST SHYT. THERE'S NO FOKING REASON TO DO THAT, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT MAKES Y'ALL LOOK FOKING STUPID ARGUING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. YOU ARE NOW REGARDED AS NOTHING MORE THAN A DAMN TROLL.
There are Egyptian sculptures in good condition that could resemble this man Instead he picks one with a broken off nose because he thinks we are too stupid to notice
If you're going to do cherry picked propaganda at least do it right
Big O why do you post stuff like this here? This has no references to what's claimed in the text or refence for the artifact images. It's presented like the readership here is young teen level. Most people who post here are on a much higher research level, more like university level And I've seen you post references and talk about some of the details but these graphics are like an insult to our intelligence Look at zarahan's graphics, he shows all the sources Level up please
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fond of the small wooden models, they seem more "down to earth" in some way than the great monuments. I do not know how realistic they are but at least they are often very vivid.
And they also feel so far away from todays silly race obsessions.
Here is some figures on a wooden boat model from the tomb of Meketre, ca. 1981–1975 B.C.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually I was asking about how close ancient Egypt was phenotypically to some photos I showed. The first attempt to such thread was closed, so I brought up the subject again. Then all the race ideologists came upon the thread.
I actually do not care what color or race they were. I am not an Egyptian, and I have not invested ideologically in their history. I just can think it is a bit pity when foreign race ideologists try to hijack their history and their ancestors.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Actually I was asking about how close ancient Egypt was phenotypically to some photos I showed. The first attempt to such thread was closed, so I brought up the subject again. Then all the race ideologists came upon the thread.
I actually do not care what color or race they were. I am not an Egyptian, and I have not invested ideologically in their history. I just can think it is a bit pity when foreign race ideologists try to hijack their history and their ancestors.
I think you do care, this is your opening post
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weird , many posters go on and on about how black the ancient Egyptians were, but faced with a question about how they looked like (with examples from a site about human phenotypes) it gets moved and locked.
Seems no one wants to exemplify how they think the ancient Egyptians really looked like (except Antalas who gave an honest answer) instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans, without really wanting to visualize how the people there looked like.
The phenotypes I posted all exist in the Nile valley and its surrounding.
This means you care about the term "black" and enough so to make a thread about it and the Egyptians
and then you said this very inflammatory thing
" fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt."
Using the obsolete word here "negro", now considered offensive by many and suggesting the fact that even though African Americans and Egyptians are largely African, that there should be no dreams of any kind of connection between fellow Africans
And while AAs being about 14% of the U.S. population and that has a certain amount of weight politically, where you are in Sweden people of African descent are perhaps 2% or less.
So why are you on this mission? why all this concern about "phenotypes"
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ ^ Î can be interested in phenotypes without being ideological invested in them. But I see some people here seems a bit fanatical about race, and they seem ideologically invested in the Ancient Egyptians being black. It seems they dream about some ancient dreamland in Egypt (and other places in the world) where everyone looked like them.
But I bet Egyptians in Egypt do not care too much about the ideological quarrells about how their ancestors looked.
I am personally more concerned about those who try to steal Native American history and take credit for their achievements. Native Americans are a small minority at least In the USA, and they nearly lost everything, much of their land, many were forbidden to speak their language or practice their religions. Upon that they must now fight to defend their history, and their ancestors achievements against crazy Afrocentrics and Wabocentrics, and other ethnocentrics, who try to distort their past and erase them from history. Some of those persons are also among them who scream loudest about ancient Egypt.
But maybe we better keep this thread about Egypt so it does not end up all over the place again..
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hair is also a part of ones phenotype. It is interesting to read a report from excavations at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43. at Hierakonpolis.
A quote
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times.
quote: Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered in association with male Burial no. 79, his hair originally falling in a wavy style ending in small ringlet-type open-center curls. Together with other burials uncovered this season, this reveals the great attention paid to appearance, the hair obviously of great importance to both men and women alike.
posted
Anu M'bantu and Fari Supia did not study any mummies They read some articles on other people who studied mummies but they had no access to mummies.
>> And they never claimed to study any mummies That's completely made up by Big O.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Combs do not really prove much, many types of combs round the world have looked fairly alike, regardless of what hair type their users had.
And all Egyptian combs were not "Afro combs". Different types of combs have been found.
Some examples of combs from different parts of the world and different time periods: Americas, Scythian, Carolingian (Europe) 700s, Viking, Egyptian and Susquehannock (America)
The best evidence of what hair type ancient peoples had is preserved hair. Pictures can also be of help sometimes.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Combs do not really prove much, many types of combs round the world have looked fairly alike, regardless of what hair type their users had.
And all Egyptian combs were not "Afro combs". Different types of combs have been found.
Some examples of combs from different parts of the world and different time periods: Americas, Scythian, Carolingian (Europe) 700s, Viking, Egyptian and Susquehannock (America)
The best evidence of what hair type ancient peoples had is preserved hair. Pictures can also be of help sometimes.
Well all know that the Black people in Khamet do not have the same texture of hair as pointed out to you above. That non Afro hair texture predates the existence of a pale skinned population.
Secondly the existence of Afro combs outside of Africa is just proof of Afro donning Blacks settling in all of those regions that you listed.
john ogilby america | ... the book America ], c1673 by Arnoldus Montanus (Ogilby), Amsterdam
Here are the Black native Americans who predate Columbus. The Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age Europeans were Black, as the CONSISTENT biological evidence that your trolling ass keeps running from has shown;
quote:Well all know that the Black people in Khamet do not have the same texture of hair as pointed out to you above. That non Afro hair texture predates the existence of a pale skinned population.
Secondly the existence of Afro combs outside of Africa is just proof of Afro donning Blacks settling in all of those regions that you listed.
--
Here are the Black native Americans who predate Columbus. The Mesolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze Age Europeans were Black, as the CONSISTENT biological evidence that your trolling ass keeps running from has shown;
Stop with your pseudo history. You have got blacks on your brain. We have many ancient mummies in the Americas who had straight hair. We have blond, straight or lightly wavy hair preserved from Danish bronze age tombs, and still they have combs that were not unlike the Egyptians.
There is no proof that the ancient European neolithic people were black. They had genes for light hair and skin, just like mesolithic Scandinavians before them.
And please do not come dragging with the same old pictures from John Ogilbys book as all Blackcentric pseudo scholars use to do. Ogilby had no first hand experience of any Native Americans. Also: His book is actually a translation from a Dutch book. And the engraver most probably did not see any Native Americans either, but relied mostly on hearsay and misunderstood second hand information, paired with a portion of pure fantasy, which was common in Europe at that time. Also one must take into consideration that Europeans were often better acquainted with Africans, so many times they modelled pictures of how they imagined Native Americans from Africans.
By the way, how can a picture from 1673 predate Columbus? Columbus arrived in the Caribbean in 1492. Sounds weird.
From the Scandinavian Bronze age we have blonde hair preserved. And here is a comb from the same time.
It is just silly when some people try to insert Blacks also in cultures where the people were not Black/African.
Be happy with your own ancestors. Do not try to leech on other cultures and take credit for their achievements. It is just silly.
B t w your Bronze lady is from Roman time and had her hair donned in a style not uncommon in the Roman empire. That hairstyle is fully obtainable with European, straight or wavy hair as experiments have shown.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is big_O even allowed here nobody takes him seriously + he keeps spamming pseudo science
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I was looking around the Human Phenotypes website where the OP got those images. While it does have some useful information on how different populations around the world look, I honestly cringe at all the "-id" or "-oid" terminology it throws around. Maybe I'm just too much of a PC SJW, but that kind of language seems borderline racialist to me.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: By the way, I was looking around the Human Phenotypes website where the OP got those images. While it does have some useful information on how different populations around the world look, I honestly cringe at all the "-id" or "-oid" terminology it throws around. Maybe I'm just too much of a PC SJW, but that kind of language seems borderline racialist to me.
It would be interesting to know how many photos each of those composite photos consists of.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why is big_O even allowed here nobody takes him seriously + he keeps spamming pseudo science
Yeah because you bring so much to the table beside your anti-blackness.
No he is a clown who takes his talking points from Mr imhotep who is also a pseudo soundbite clown.
How do you argue "All" Ancient Egyptians had "Afro Hair", talk about their hair being in a range from Zulu to Australian Aborigines when Australian Aborigines DONT even have Afro Hair?
How you talk about Hair to prove Africanity but associate Ancient Egyptians with Australian Aborignes who are 100% Non-African?
How you have one image saying they *ALL* had "Afro Hair" then you make a second graphic about mummies having straight and wavy hair
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why is big_O even allowed here nobody takes him seriously + he keeps spamming pseudo science
Yeah because you bring so much to the table beside your anti-blackness.
No he is a clown who takes his talking points from Mr imhotep who is also a pseudo soundbite clown.
How do you argue "All" Ancient Egyptians had "Afro Hair", talk about their hair being in a range from Zulu to Australian Aborigines when Australian Aborigines DONT even have Afro Hair?
How you talk about Hair to prove Africanity but associate Ancient Egyptians with Australian Aborignes who are 100% Non-African?
How you have one image saying they *ALL* had "Afro Hair" then you make a second graphic about mummies having straight and wavy hair
Unless there are different group altogether,the Tazmanians had Afro hair texture and the Torres Straight Islanders also have Afro textute. So Big O isn't technically wrong,it's just the Australian Aborigines,who aren't mixed that are shown in media are wavy/curly hair types.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Why is big_O even allowed here nobody takes him seriously + he keeps spamming pseudo science
Yeah because you bring so much to the table beside your anti-blackness.
No he is a clown who takes his talking points from Mr imhotep who is also a pseudo soundbite clown.
How do you argue "All" Ancient Egyptians had "Afro Hair", talk about their hair being in a range from Zulu to Australian Aborigines when Australian Aborigines DONT even have Afro Hair?
How you talk about Hair to prove Africanity but associate Ancient Egyptians with Australian Aborignes who are 100% Non-African?
How you have one image saying they *ALL* had "Afro Hair" then you make a second graphic about mummies having straight and wavy hair
Unless there are different group altogether,the Tazmanians had Afro hair texture and the Torres Straight Islanders also have Afro textute. So Big O isn't technically wrong,it's just the Australian Aborigines,who aren't mixed that are shown in media are wavy/curly hair types.
"Did you know"™® Oceanic and South Pacific population are not Monolith. They descend from a diverse set of people with diverse looks. Their ancestors likely existed ALL along the southern Route out of Africa and into the Americas. Linking African hair with Australian hair to prove African origin is silly because Australians are not Africans so its self defeating. Australians are one of the populations genetically furthest from Africa. This is why these race models are broken. Folks are parroting people who are *MONETIZING* (for personal gain) political unity based on melanin under the guises of doing "Research". They are grifters selling a product : Pride.
This is why i cant stand this 'hit and run' / 'soundbyte' 'scholarship'. No analysis, no source just a meme. It provides others with an excuse not to READ and do real work.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Psamtik I is one of the last great pharaohs of Kemet who expelled the Assyrians and established the 26th-dynasty.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Ulotrichous hair, Yolngu Matha speakers, Arnhem, northern Australia, from Ten Canoes.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) civilization begins to spring up. 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic