quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Bottom line, the fundamental point is that this isn't about words
it is about skin color.
We all know what "black" means
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
If these populations identified as light skinned Eurasians, they would not have depicted themselves the way they did with obvious black African features.
quote: Beginning in the predynastic period, some differences between the populations of Upper and Lower Egypt were ascertained through their skeletal remains, suggesting a gradual clinal pattern north to south.
When Lower and Upper Egypt were unified c. 3200 BC, the distinction began to blur, resulting in a more homogeneous population in Egypt, though the distinction remains true to some degree to this day. Some biological anthropologists such as Shomarka Keita believe the range of variability to be primarily indigenous and not necessarily the result of significant intermingling of widely divergent peoples.
Keita describes the northern and southern patterns of the early predynastic period as "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" and "tropical African variant" (overlapping with Nubia/Kush) respectively. He shows that a progressive change in Upper Egypt toward the northern Egyptian pattern takes place through the predynastic period. The southern pattern continues to predominate in Abydos, Upper Egypt by the First Dynasty, but "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity."
A group of noted physical anthropologists conducted craniofacial studies of Egyptian skeletal remains and concluded similarly that "the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well."
Genetic analysis of modern Egyptians reveals that they have paternal lineages common to indigenous North-East African populations primarily and to Near Eastern peoples to a lesser extent—these lineages would have spread during the Neolithic and were maintained by the predynastic period.University of Chicago Egyptologist Frank Yurco suggested a historical, regional and ethnolinguistic continuity, asserting that "the mummies and skeletons of ancient Egyptians indicate they were Africans of the Afro-Asiatic ethnic grouping".He writes:
"Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times... [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990; Brace et al., this volume)... The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East Africa, Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a [Nile Valley] continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume). Language research suggests that this Saharan-[Nile Valley] population became speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages... Semitic was evidently spoken by Saharans who crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers there, possibly around 7000 BC... In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct Afro-Asiatic African culture rooted in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara." A 2006 bioarchaeological study on the dental morphology of ancient Egyptians by Prof. Joel Irish shows dental traits characteristic of indigenous North Africans and to a lesser extent Southwest Asian and southern European populations. Among the samples included in the study is skeletal material from the Hawara tombs of Fayum, which clustered very closely with the Badarian series of the predynastic period. All the samples, particularly those of the Dynastic period, were significantly divergent from a neolithic West Saharan sample from Lower Nubia. Biological continuity was also found intact from the dynastic to the post-pharaonic periods. According to Irish:
[The Egyptian] samples [996 mummies] exhibit morphologically simple, mass-reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well (Brace et al., 1993)... an inspection of MMD values reveals no evidence of increasing phenetic distance between samples from the first and second halves of this almost 3,000-year-long period. For example, phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD ¼ 0.050), 11–12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time... Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well... Gebel Ramlah [Neolithic Nubian/Western Desert sample] is, in fact, significantly different from Badari based on the 22-trait MMD (Table 4). For that matter, the Neolithic Western Desert sample is significantly different from all others [but] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples.
A study published in 2017 described the extraction and analysis of DNA from 151 mummified ancient Egyptian individuals, whose remains were recovered from Abusir. The study was able to measure the mitochondrial DNA of 90 individuals, and it showed that Ancient Egyptians had the greatest affinity for modern Middle Eastern (Arabs, Levantine and Anatolian) and North African populations and had significantly more affinity with south-eastern Europeans than with sub-Saharan Africans. Genome-wide data could only be successfully extracted from three of these individuals. Of these three, the Y-chromosome haplogroups of two individuals could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1 common in North Africa. The absolute estimates of sub-Saharan African ancestry in these three individuals ranged from 6 to 15%, which is slightly lower than the level of sub-Saharan African ancestry in Egyptians from Abusir, who range from 14 to 21%. The study's authors cautioned that the Mummies may be unrepresentative of the whole Ancient Egyptian population, since they were recovered from the northern part of Egypt and that the Southern part might have more Sub-Saharan component being closer to Nubia. and that they only dated from the late New Kingdom to the Roman Period. As a result mummies from the earlier classical periods of Egyptian history such as the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom further to the south were omitted.
posted
@Firewall I fail to see how what you posted contradicts anything I wrote. In fact, your post is ideal for refuting the typical claims made by Afrocentrists.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyway, maybe now people will actually address the topic which is the article posted by the OP which completely contradicts everything he is claiming. Even though it is full of weasel words and pseudo-science, it still confirms that the ancient Nile Valley crania cluster together with Sudanese and East Africans, as "black Africans".
Thus in the following article: AFFINITES MORPHOLOGIQUES ENTRE ANCIENNES POPULATIONS D'EGYPTE ET DE NUBIE (MORPHOLOGIC AFFINITIES BETWEEN EARLY POPULATIONS OF EGYPT AND NUBIA), they write the following:
quote: 1) First of all, below a distance CH2 = 0.125, we encounter a set of populations morphologically indistinguishable from Mirgissa characterized by the absence of significant differences for the seven characters considered (Billy, 1975). We find here all the series of Middle and Lower Egypt: Sakkarah 1st dynasty (Si) and 4th dynasty (S4), Deshasheh-Medum (DM) from the 4th to the 6th dynasty, the E Egyptians of Gizeh (26th to 30th dynasty).
This set corresponds to a morphological type characterized by large dimensions of the cranial box associated with a high face, a narrow nose and a low projection of the facial bone. We can locate the origin of this type in the North, in the region of Fayoum, and follow its expansion in Upper Egypt, as shown by the presence in this same set of series At (royal tombs of Abydos 1st dynasty), A18 (Abydos 18th dynasty), T18 and Tl9 (Thebes 18th and 19th dynasties) It is found in Sudanese Nubia at Sessebi (SS) and at Mirgissa from the Second Intermediate Period.
2) The second grouping, in a narrow band of CH2, between 0.17 and 0.27, includes, in one sex as in the other, all the series of Upper Egypt from the fourth millennium to Roman times, with the exception of the male series of Shekh-Ali (SH), moreover considered by Thomson and Maciver (1905) as unrepresentative. All the Nubian series of dynastic age, with the exception of those of group C, are found precisely in this group; these are the series of groups A, B, D of Batrawi, those of Kerma and El Kubanieh.
This is the same group to which corresponds a common morphological type which, although related to the preceding type of Middle and Lower Egypt, differs from it by a narrow head and, in its Nubian variant, by a tendency with lower faces and wider noses. This morphological type thus covered, during the dynastic era, a vast central zone of the Nile valley probably extending well beyond towards East Africa, as evidenced by the still existing relationship with the current Ethiopian or Somali populations. We see for example in fig. 3, which makes it possible to situate the Nubian populations in their African context, that the Tigray and Somali-Galla series fit perfectly into the Nubian group and are very far from the subset of black Africans delimited by dotted lines.
Thus, by virtue of its diffusion and its durability, this morphological type must in all likelihood be assimilated to the population background of the Egyptian-Nubian complex.
3) Figure 2 finally shows that the most “distant” populations, those grouped above a line CH2 = 0.27, are essentially Nubian.
These are the series of group С of Batrawi or of Wadi-Halfa (WHC) to which the series 'contemporary and geographically close 4th El Kubanieh-Nord (KN) is related. But these are above all the post-dynastic series Meroitic (M) and (AK) from Aksha or those of group X from Batrawi (X), from Wadi-Halfa (WHX) and from Wadi-Qitna (WQX).
On the whole, they correspond to a skull that is always narrow and of small dimensions, a low face, a relatively wide nose coupled with a protrusion of the facial mass which is accentuated from group С to groups X and Meroitic. These are all characteristics that reflect the certain existence of a Negroid component within these populations. Such a result is also illustrated in Fig. 3 which underlines an increasingly marked relationship with the African black (circled subset) by passing from Meroitics to the series of group X.
Thus, the three fundamental morphological types which result from the analysis of the generalized distances between populations make it possible to conclude that the establishment, from the beginning of the dynastic era, of a morphological substrate in Upper Egypt and in Nubia, flanked by , in the North, by a group with large heads located in the Fayoum region and, in the South, by populations with marked Negroid characteristics, such as at Djebel Moya below Khartoum.
After a long period of stability during the third millennium, the Egyptian-Nubian population base was first affected by a Negroid contribution to the Middle Empire which developed in Lower Nubia to the gates of Upper Egypt in El Kubanieh. The cultural change from groups A and В to group C, which takes place at the same time, therefore seems to be linked to an influx of new ethnic groups and to a modification of the population, as confirmed by the increase in the overall variability of the group A to group С (Batrawi, 1945).
From the Second Intermediate Period, there is a profound change in the physiognomy of the Theban populations that must be associated with a massive immigration of broad-headed marginal elements from Lower Egypt. The wave overwhelmed Upper Egypt and Nubia (group D) in the New Kingdom and then extended to Upper Nubia (Mirgissa and Sessebi). It therefore appears that the transition from the culture of group С to the pharaonic culture in Lower Nubia is due to a majority contribution of Egyptians.
After a long period of depopulation which affected it for a millennium, Lower Nubia was occupied at the beginning of our era by populations with a very different physiognomy from those of the Pharaonic group, with Negroid characters already affirmed as we have underlined. . There is no doubt that the introduction of the black element in Lower Nubia comes mainly from this period and is amplified with the passage from the Meroitic culture to that of the X group. of CH2 and by the increase in variability which mainly affects “negroid characters” (Billy, 1975). Finally, it should be noted that the ascending current of black infiltration does not reach Upper Egypt since the samples from this same period at Denderah (D', D") or Manfalut (MA) do not show any differences with respect to the bottom of Egyptian-Nubian population established since the beginning of the dynastic era.
quote:This is the same group to which corresponds a common morphological type which, although related to the preceding type of Middle and Lower Egypt, differs from it by a narrow head and, in its Nubian variant, by a tendency with lower faces and wider noses. This morphological type thus covered, during the dynastic era, a vast central zone of the Nile valley probably extending well beyond towards East Africa, as evidenced by the still existing relationship with the current Ethiopian or Somali populations.
Black African given that Sudan and Ethiopia are literally named 'land of the blacks'.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're lying when you say "99% Sub-Saharans" even though Horners ARE Sub-Saharans, you idiot! Sub-Sahara is a geographical term that encompasses many populations from Horn Africans to South African Khoisan.
^ As you can clearly see Horn Africans like Oromo only slightly closer to "you" than they are to West Africans. Overall they are intermediate between North Africans and West Africans. West Africans in turn are closer to you than they are to South African aboriginals. Yet West Africans, Horn Africans, and South Africans are ALL 'Sub-Saharan'. Genetic relations range in degrees of relation. All human populations are related but some are more related than others. The reason why West Eurasians (Europeans & Southwest Asians) cluster so closely with North Africans is because of African admixture. That's why South Asians and East Eurasians are farther away from Africa in terms of genetic relations.
quote:I never said anything about "100% African" Although I do question how much of the alleged "Eurasian" ancestry is truly non-African in origin. What's interesting is how you try to conflate phenotypical features with ancestry.
So do you agree that these Sub-Saharans below are not "caucasoid"?
I'm waiting for an answer.
quote:Hey nitwit, apparently you cannot comprehend the fact that C.L. Brace shows Eurasians like Andamanese and some Melanesians are morphologically "negroid" even though they were far from Africa while there is crania deep in Sub-Sahara (Kenya) that are morphologically "caucasoid". This is why Brace say "race is a social construct" with little basis on biology.
quote:...The ancestry I am referring to is AFRICAN. Africans vary in features which is the point I have proven in this thread. As far as black skin. Here is what Brace said:
"*African entails Black*, but Black does not entail African"
Gee, why would Brace say the above? I suggest you read his book Race is a Four Letter Word where he discusses in detail the reasons why racial groups are not scientifically valid.
Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
So he actually thinks the reddish brown color of ancient Egyptians matches the complexions of the modern Egyptians he cherrypicked, including Zahi Hawass in the shadows?! LMAO
By the way, the left person he includes in his list of 'blacks' is an Andamanese person from Southeast Asia thus totally Eurasian NOT African.
Here are better examples of modern reddish brown Egyptians.
posted
This nonsense has gone on long enough and should have been addressed immediately by demanding Antalas put in his own words a definition of the traits of a "Black" or "Negroid" person. Not a picture show, not him hiding behind study excerpts. He is perfectly fine with using Black as a scientifically valid category(instead of the socially and contextually defined category it has always been) when it suits him. The throwing together of Negroid/Black/Sub-Saharan as synonyms and then shifting goalposts when challenged(on terms that by their historical use have been defined differently) is silly. Either agree on a definition at the onset and go from there or don't use it at all.
@Antalas: you want to help Egyptians preserve their heritage against "complexed racists"(an ironic gesture if I've ever seen one), go join a political action club, and keep yourself in Deshret.
Thread closed.
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic