This is topic Hair of mummified remains... in forum Deshret at EgyptSearch Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000286

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
Posted by Ausar:
A common Eurocentric tactic to prove that various famous civlizations were blonde or red haired is to point out that mummies have blonde or red hair. Little do most Eurocentrists know that blonde and redhair in mummies can sometimes be explained by enviromental and archaeological reasons.
You can also get such hair coloring from dying. Ancinet Egyptian women and men often used henna which turned their natural hair color reddish colors. This is not only common in Egypt but across Eastern Africa and parts of the so-called Middle East.

Little do people understand there is a logical and scientific explanation to explain the hair color and apperance of mummies. When the body decomposes in solution it turns the mummy into a dehydrated state much like beef jerkey. You cannot tell a race of a mummy simply by looking at the face or any other body structure. The only way any such ethnic affinities of any mummy can be told is through X-ray analysis and by bone structure.


The only X-ray studies that have been done by any anatomist are the early ones during the early 1900's by Sir Grafton Smith and later ones done by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks. Harris is a dentist and Weeks is both an Egyptologist and has a PHD in physical anthropology.


As far as genetic material from the mummies, this is very hard to come by,and most of the material has been from ABO blood typing. Very few genetic studies have been conducted on the mummies. Some studies by Sasvo Paabo,a Sweedish geneticist, have been published in various Scientific journals.

DNA material in mummies can only be extract through deep tissues and also through teeth.


See the following for more details about hair,apperance, and genetic studies on mummies.


From: Rogers, Spencer Lee, _Personal identification from human

remains_ 1987, "Hair often survives for a considerable time after

death and can be recognized as to color and to some extent texture. A

study in which hair was buried experimentally in the soil for a two

year period revealed that there was no appreciable change until after

one month, but it became streaked and brittle after one year. Two

years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried

underground." (p.8) On the same page it reads: "The color of eyes

during life cannot be determined from their appearance on a cadaver

since all eyes become a greenish brown shortly after death."


Here is a relevent study about DNA from mummies:


DNA decay rate in papyri and human remains from
Egyptian archaeological sites.

Marota I, Basile C, Ubaldi M, Rollo F.

The writing sheets made with strips from the stem
(caulis) of papyri (Cyperus papyrus) are one of the
most ingenious products of ancient technology.

We
extracted DNA from samples of modern papyri varying in
age from 0-100 years BP and from ancient specimens from
Egypt, with an age-span from 1,300-3,200 years BP.

The
copy number of the plant chloroplast DNA in the sheets
was determined using a competitive PCR system designed
on the basis of a short (90 bp) tract of the
chloroplast's ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large
subunit (rbcL) gene sequence.

The results allowed us to
establish that the DNA half-life in papyri is about 19-
24 years.

This means that the last DNA fragments will
vanish within no more than 532-672 years from the
sheets being manufactured. In a parallel investigation,
we checked the archaeological specimens for the
presence of residual DNA and determined the extent of
racemization of aspartic (Asp) acid in both modern and
ancient specimens, as a previous report (Poinar et al.
[1996], Science 272:864-866) showed that racemization
of aspartic acid and DNA decay are linked.


The results
confirmed the complete loss of authentic DNA, even in
the less ancient (8th century AD) papyri. On the other
hand, when the regression for Asp racemization rates in
papyri was compared with that for human and animal
remains from Egyptian archaeological sites, it proved,
quite surprisingly, that the regressions are virtually
identical. Our study provides an indirect argument
against the reliability of claims about the recovery of
authentic DNA from Egyptian mummies and bone remains.
Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


Many Eurocentrics have used the Yuya mummy to often prove that caucasians were predominant in Ancient Kmt. We find this to a claim that is never supported by concrete data. Yuya,an offical in Waset, seems to have had a Eur-Asian origin. The wife of Yuya Thuya,which would later to become the mother of Queen Tiy is of Egyptian stock. Her mummy is morphoogicaly different than that of Yuya's.

Sir Grafton Smith found out when he examined the mummies that Yuya fits the profiles of foreginers than he does of Egyptians.

Here's what anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote about this mummy,
after examining it in 1905:

"The form of the face (and especially the nose) is such as we find more
commonly in Europe than in Egypt."

Indeed, the distinctly foreign (i.e. "Semitic") characteristics of Yuya's
mummy were sufficiently pronounced as to move Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman to
speculate, in his book "Stranger in the Valley of the Kings" (Harper * Row,
1987) that Yuya might have been the Hebrew patriarch Joseph

About Thuya which was Yuya's wife:


Like the mummy of her husband the wrappings of the mummy of Thuya had
been severly damaged by robbers.

The bandages have been covered with
black resin,which still bear the impression of stolen jewerly.

The mummy presents some unusual features for the Period.

The
emablimng incision is almost vertical and has been sewn up with a
string. No plate covers the wound,which gapes open,exposing the linen
packing filling the body cavity.

The arms are fully extended with the palms of the hand flattened
against the thighs.

The mummy is of a small old lady with typical Egyptian features who
was possibly over fifty when she died.

Thuya has scantly white hair,know turned yellow by the materials
used in the embalimng \, On the top her head the hair is very thing
much like a pony tail in photographs,are in fact,the remains of the
linen wrappings around the head and back of the neck of the mummy

page 112-113

Faces of the Pharoahs

Robert Parthiage

Here is a statement about apperance of mummies:


How can we identify the pharaohs?
The pharaohs have been dead for thousands of years.

There are no descriptions of their physical appearance, and even the best preserved royal mummies bear little resemblance to living human beings in their prime.

Egyptian sculptures, however, were almost always inscribed with the names and titles of their owners.

A sufficient number of inscribed statues have survived to allow us to recognize the most important pharaohs, and in most cases it is now possible to identify bodiless heads, which have lost their inscriptions, as specific rulers.
http://www.clemusart.com/archive/pharaoh/rosetta/rosefaq.html

Vistors to museums around the world find it fasinating to see the
mummified faces of the ancient dead. But although Egyptians mummies
often very well preserved,with much of the soft tissue clinging to
the skull,the faces inside the wrapping almost certainly are
different than what the person must have looked like.

page 32

Egypt revelaed Magazine

other references is Robert Partrige

who wrote the book faces of the pharoahs

***Eurocentrics often use apperance of mummies to determine their racial origins** The following is a Eurocentric fallacy.

see also about hair color:

Microscopic study tells more about the original hair color,which may
have faded or been changed by enviromental conditions,the
mummification process,or the use of dyes.

The microscope can also
reveal details of styling techniques,such as shard blades to cut hair
as early as 3000BC.

Hair can be subjected to trade element analysis,usually by neutron
activation technique,which can reveal details of diet and
nutrictional deficienes,dieases,enviromental pollution,and even the
use of drugs or poisons-all of which remain locked in the hair long
after they have left the rest of the body.

Page 40

Egypt revelaed

Joann Fletcher

more information about hair:

On Human Hair as a Race Character, Dr Pruner-Bey Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol 6 (1877) p71-

The red hair, on the contrary, seems represented, at least by some individuals, in all known races, whether equatorial or boreal...
From what precedes, we arrive at the conclusion that the colour of the hair alone is insufficient to characterise a race... p73-4

The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963

Hair is largely made up of the fibrous protein keratin.

This substance is extremely resistant to decomposition and enzymatic digestion, mainly owing to the presence of disulphide cross linkages of the amino acid cystine. These join together the long polypeptide chains of the molecule.

If the crosslinkages are broken by reduction or oxidation, altered keratin is readily attacked by proteolytic enzymes.

This resistance of keratin explains durability of hair in ancient burials...These changes can occur on the living animal; thus atmospheric weathering of the fleece of sheep results in loss of cystine from the exposed tips of the fibres.

Permanent waving alters keratin cross linkages, and these changes have been detected using florescence microscopy.

It is probable that if the preparations employed during mummification contained reducing or oxidizing agents or alkaline substances the hair keratin would be damaged...


Normal human hair had a bluish-green florescence with acridine orange but permanently waved hair had a reddish florescence with associated fractures of the fibres...

Hair bleached with hydrogen peroxide also showed this change due to oxidation of the keratin... in some samples such as predynastic Egyptian hair the whole hair was altered in this way.

by Andrew Wilson


Archaeological Hair


The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Predynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.


Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life. All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions). Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment. Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.


http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
How come Rameses is said to have natural red hair? Could he have been a white pharaoh? They examined his hair and concluded that he was born a red head.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Ebony Allen wrote:

quote:
How come Rameses is said to have natural red hair? Could he have been a white pharaoh? They examined his hair and concluded that he was born a red head.

His hair could have been dyed. Afterall he was in his 70s or 80s when he died. Most people that age have grey hair without dye.


Plus there are Indigenous Africans who have red hair. The same thing with non-brown eyes. Indigenous Africans have those as well. There are even Albinos.


Quit acting like Powder is God.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
How come Rameses is said to have natural red hair?

1st things 1st.

Said by whom?
 
Posted by Myra Wysinger (Member # 10126) on :
 
Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262

As Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. This color was seen in a large proportion of the Semna sample, and also noted by Titlbachova and Titlbach (‘77) on Egyptian material, where it also may have resulted from the mummification process. However, the large number of blond hairs that are not associated with the cuticular damage that bleaching produces, probably points to a significantly lighter-haired population than is now present in the Nubian region. Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many darkhaired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages (J. Zabkar, personal communication).

Only one sample (M197) showed cuticular damage and irregularities definitely consistent with bleaching, although bleaching could not be ruled out in some of the blond samples.

.pdf file

.
 
Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ebony Allen:
How come Rameses is said to have natural red hair? Could he have been a white pharaoh? They examined his hair and concluded that he was born a red head.

I don't know but there are many threads on Ramses attesting to his obscure origins. Linguistic dissimilarities are noted in the form of him giving one of his daughters a non-Egyptian/Semitic name and Cranio-Facial patterns even show a definite non-affinity with Egyptians of the previous dynasty leading into question that maybe the Ramsoids were of at least partly foreign extraction.

"Description of X-ray images of Royal Mummies in X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies"

quote:
Ramesses II

Father: Seti I, Mother: Queen Mut-Tuy
Rounded forehead with sagittal plateau. Slight, rounded glabella. Proclined upper incisors; receding chin with high ANB. Rather long ramus with weak inclination of mandible. Orthognathous.

Compared to say:

quote:

"The Elder Lady"

First identified as Queen Tiye

The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.

"In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity,
while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types
and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.


Though see this as well, since it should be informative and much of it was already covered by Rasol via Ausar.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/hair2.html

And:

Was Ramses II a Redhead?
 
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262

As Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. This color was seen in a large proportion of the Semna sample, and also noted by Titlbachova and Titlbach (‘77) on Egyptian material, where it also may have resulted from the mummification process. However, the large number of blond hairs that are not associated with the cuticular damage that bleaching produces, probably points to a significantly lighter-haired population than is now present in the Nubian region. Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many darkhaired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages (J. Zabkar, personal communication).

Only one sample (M197) showed cuticular damage and irregularities definitely consistent with bleaching, although bleaching could not be ruled out in some of the blond samples.

.pdf file

.

This study honestly surprised me. I always thought the Kushites had nappy hair. Maybe there was regional variation (with southern Kushites having nappier hair)?

EDIT: Actually, it sort of makes sense that northern "Nubians" would evolve less kinky hair than some other Africans. With all the sand out there it would be advantageous to have less tightly curled hair; wouldn't it be difficult to get sand out of really tightly curled hair?

Maybe that is why people evolved straight hair: so it would be easier to get desert sand out of the hair.

The problems I have with this study are a) it isn't specific as to which East African samples it uses (maybe people like the Beja would score similarly to northern "Nubians") and b) it seems to imply that less curly hair = less African admixture, as if Eurasian ancestry is needed to have less curly hair as opposed to that hair type involving in situ in northeast Africa.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Dr Watterson at the University of Chicage has pretty much put all of that to rest. Queen Tiye had bright red hair, as did Ramses and others. They subjected the hair to tests with new microscope technology to determine the true color. It is all in her bood about Akhenaten.
 
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:
Originally posted by Myra Wysinger:
Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262

As Brothwell and Spearman (‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. This color was seen in a large proportion of the Semna sample, and also noted by Titlbachova and Titlbach (‘77) on Egyptian material, where it also may have resulted from the mummification process. However, the large number of blond hairs that are not associated with the cuticular damage that bleaching produces, probably points to a significantly lighter-haired population than is now present in the Nubian region. Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many darkhaired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages (J. Zabkar, personal communication).

Only one sample (M197) showed cuticular damage and irregularities definitely consistent with bleaching, although bleaching could not be ruled out in some of the blond samples.

.pdf file

.

This study honestly surprised me. I always thought the Kushites had nappy hair. Maybe there was regional variation (with southern Kushites having nappier hair)?

EDIT: Actually, it sort of makes sense that northern "Nubians" would evolve less kinky hair than some other Africans. With all the sand out there it would be advantageous to have less tightly curled hair; wouldn't it be difficult to get sand out of really tightly curled hair?

Maybe that is why people evolved straight hair: so it would be easier to get desert sand out of the hair.

The problems I have with this study are a) it isn't specific as to which East African samples it uses (maybe people like the Beja would score similarly to northern "Nubians") and b) it seems to imply that less curly hair = less African admixture, as if Eurasian ancestry is needed to have less curly hair as opposed to that hair type involving in situ in northeast Africa.

Many Africans in Sudan and Egypt have straighter hair. That is a fact. The numerous photos of people like the Beja make this clear. The problems with studies like this are that they are not conclusive. A handful of questionable results cannot be taken as conclusive or indicative of anything and are therefore misleading. Sudanese have been dyeing their hair red along with many other East Africans for a very long time. Again, this is something that anyone with any amount of knowledge on East Africa would know. Again, without putting such research into context, it can be distorted and misleading.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
the hair was straight, and sometimes red because the people were North African caucasians.
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Dr Watterson at the University of Chicage has pretty much put all of that to rest. Queen Tiye had bright red hair, as did Ramses and others. They subjected the hair to tests with new microscope technology to determine the true color. It is all in her bood about Akhenaten.

Get lost!
You introduced nothing new to the conversation and are merely, wasting space.
There are MANY un-natural reasons for having red hair. You prove nothing.
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
the hair was straight, and sometimes red because the people were North African caucasians.

There is no such thing as "Caucasian".
There is only, black, Albino, and melaninated shades in between. All the same human.
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
Pure distortion. Weather will do many things to hair AND skin. Case and point. You have a naturally mummified body such as 'Ginger' that changed colors. Then you have this body in he Darfur Desert that SEEMS to be going through a similar natural mummification process. (High Heat, zero moisture, dry air etc.) I had to crop the picture because it is large but you see BOTH the skin AND the hair are changing to a bright orange color. Now this is just during decomposition. WHO KNOWS how it will look if its actually covered in sand and preserved for another 4000 years! Its almost as if the skin on naturally mummifed bodies have been literally "Sandblasted" and turn the color of the sand.

 -

Many pictures of mummified PETS also show a similar changed in color of the skin in hair. I was in East Africa for Months and not ONCE did I see a bright orange donkey. I HAVE seen mummified donkeys with an Orange coat though.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
Just an observation

quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
the hair was straight, and sometimes red because the people were North African caucasians.

^He posts as if your saying myths, telling stories.

rasol (thread starter) and everyone else seem to post facts.
 
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
 
 -

 -

Please excuse the nature of the pictures.
 
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
the hair was straight, and sometimes red because the people were North African caucasians.

Geez, just when you thought it was safe to come back to EgyptSearch, there's new loonies crawling out of the trailer park. AmericanPathetic, you do know that the ancient Egyptians routinely KILLED people with red hair don't you? REad herodotus account, assuming you can.
And just because rubes like you make this SO easy! Here's a pic of Queen Tiye.

 -

I like this sculpture. It really showcases that "straight, red hair" and that "caucasian" (your term dumbass, not mine!) skin you were talking about. Notice how her long straight, hair cascades softly onto her pale, white shoulders. [Big Grin]

I'm not suprised you were actually dumb enough to call the Egyptians "North African caucasians." Guess your buddies over at StormFront never told you the Caucasus mountains aren't located in Africa, and that the Egyptians were an ABORIGINAL African people, not emigres.

Do yourself a favor: try reading something that wasn't posted on StormFront. Use your head for more than a hatrack.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
sportsbilly is telling us much about his IQ with cheap, meaninglass personal attacks. It makes one think he was raised by trash in a garbage dump and taught no manners. The mummy of the elder lady, thought by many to be Queen Tiy does in fact have long wavy red hair consistent with being the north african caucasian that she was.
Dr Watterson's research shows that the hair was indeed red.
What you guys do is simply reject any information that does not meet your preconcieved case. It is exactly ewhy afrocentrics are not taken seriously.
I have never visited stormfront but from what I know about it it is the same as this board except it is the other extreme.
 
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
 
I take you as seriously as I take any other ignorant troll with more brass than brains.

I won't get into a "what skin color/hair texture did the ancient egyptians have" flamewar with you. This issue has been beaten to death, as has your "evidence." Read the archives and there you'll find it littered with the bones of fools far smarter than you who have tried to argue the case of white Egypt. You're not the first. This is why nobody is responding to your post but me.
It's all been done before. If you don't want to read that's your problem.


Every few years or so some loudmouth refugee from StormFront stumbles in here spouting the same, three or four talking points you got from StormFront, almost ALL of them centered around hair. "Dr So-and-So" or "Professor What's-His-Name" did some research, performed a comparative analysis etc..." And when the "evidence" is shown, it's ALWAYS a theory full of qualifying language: "the evidence SUGGESTS; the data WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE; one POSSIBLE reason for this COULD be etc...
It's always theoretical, never once is it conclusive.

So far these straws people like you clutch at have NEVER been numerous or comprehensive enough to form a whole body of evidence. However, these unrelated and unimportant fragments do serve one vital purpose: they help people like you keep doubt alive...in your own minds.

That's okay. There's still people out there who think the earth is really flat. Seems I'm talking to one now. But not anymore. You are the weakest link. Good bye.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^Sportbilly, this Americanpatriot character is none other than an old troll under a new name. I believe he went by hore before calls himelf a teacher.


quote:
The mummy of the elder lady, thought by many to be Queen Tiy does in fact have long wavy red hair consistent with being the north african caucasian that she was.
Dr Watterson's research shows that the hair was indeed red.

A hair analysis would not be as significant as an anthropological analysis (besides, hair color does not equate to non African ancestry) . Now let's take a look at an anthropological analysis. Please tell me below in this anthropological analysis where you see an imaginary "Caucasian"?


James Harris and Edward Wente conducted an x-ray analysis of the New Kingdom royal mummies with the results published in their book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980). Included in the work were cephalograms of Pharaohs of the XVII-XX Dynasties and their queens.


"The Elder Lady"


 -

First identified as Queen Tiye

The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.


 -


The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Sportbilly, the fact is that you guys yell and scream, quote the same people over and over, and reject all evidence that does not support your points. This is exactly what is done on Stormfront on the other end of the spectrum.
The ideas put forth here by many on Greece are so nutty that one would think they are coming from the computer lab mental institution. These ideas are not the least bit crazier than the Aryan nonsense you read on Stormfront.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^Please address my post, unless you're purposely eluding. Obviously you are, as usual.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Sorry knowledge, first of all the "as usual comment" was out of line. I am not interested or influenced with these cheap insults. Your data was interesting, I have seen it before. Just as logic and historical evidence show strong connections between the egyptians and north african caucasians in syria and north africa it is also clear that they have connections to their neighbors in Nubia. No thinking person would say otherwise, just as no thinking person would say they were black africans.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
just as no thinking person would say they were black africans.
What constitutes a black African? Please elaborate...


You can also address this anthropological assessment you regard as a mere connection to Nubia.

What anthropological assessment would the following fall under? If we're going to use your classifications of black African?


Know of any Europeans or Near Easterners who possess these following cranio-facial characteristics?

Prognathism, rounded forehead, projecting glabella, vertical zygomatic arches etc..


The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.


What connections do Ancient Egyptians have with north African Caucasians, and Syrians?


Who are these North African Caucasians?

and

What makes them Caucasian?


Ill be looking forward to your response.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Have you ever walked up to the mummy case and taken a look at Ramses II? He looks like shinebien the Jewish tailor. We just went through a Tut reconstruction that found his mummy to be North African caucasian.

If you have no idea who North African caucasians are one has to question your academic background, that is a really basic concept that no serious scholars are questioning. 90% of the population of African is black, negroid, and almost all of them are sub saharian. The populations of north africa are not negroid, nor have they been in the historical era.
Dr Hawass made it clear in the recent Pyramid village excavations, "the population makeup of ancient Egypt is the same as our poulation today."
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Also, do you consider Ethiopians Caucasians?

If so, how do you account for Ancient Africans over 100kya resembling Ethiopians and Southern Sudanese today?

Do you propose Ancient Caucasians infiltrating 100kya into East Africa to make them Caucasians?


quote:
"From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.

Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."

"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...***much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today,***" Pearson said.


 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Have you ever walked up to the mummy case and taken a look at Ramses II? He looks like shinebien the Jewish tailor. We just went through a Tut reconstruction that found his mummy to be North African caucasian.
No one cares for eyeball anthropology, a real anthropological assessment would constitute your point, in which you have yet to propose. Thinking on doing so, soon?

Pray tell, what reconstruction was this, which portrayed Tut a "Caucasian"?

quote:

If you have no idea who North African caucasians are one has to question your academic background, that is a really basic concept that no serious scholars are questioning.

I know who are erroneously labeled "Caucasian" i.e, Magrabians etc... I was simply asking for a straight forward response, which it seems you are unable to give.

Now, do you know why they are classified as "Caucasian"


quote:
90% of the population of African is black, negroid, and almost all of them are sub saharian.
What makes them Black? Pray tell.... Is it genetically of skeletally?


quote:
The populations of north africa are not negroid, nor have they been in the historical era.
Please tell me what constitutes Negroid classification in your use of old school anthropology?


quote:
Dr Hawass made it clear in the recent Pyramid village excavations, "the population makeup of ancient Egypt is the same as our poulation today."
This is what happens when you quote people without knowing what's going on, as the lineages which unite modern Egyptians and Ancient Egyptians are African lineages such as E3b etc...
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

Lets look at the mummies:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

and then theres this:

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.

So Professor what do you have to say about these facts.

Peace
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
After you address my above two posts you can also address the following.

Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale or North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted?


http://wysinger.homestead.com/zakrzewski_2007.pdf


The origins of the ancient Egyptian state
and its formation have received much attention through
analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and
trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric
variation within a series of six time-successive
Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence
for migration over the period of the development of social
hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation,
based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal
components analysis, discriminant function analysis,
and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and
temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial
Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population
continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and
high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting
that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous
process. Nevertheless, significant differences were found
in morphology between both geographically-pooled and
cemetery-specific temporal groups, indicating that some
migration occurred along the Egyptian Nile Valley over
the periods studied. Am J Phys Anthropol 132:501–509,
2007.

-------
You can also read this pdf.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*

Stature is comprised of contributions from several
body portions, i.e., from the lower limb and from the
trunk and cranium. The analyses performed on each
individual bone were undertaken to see whether the
small stature change found could be assigned to
differences in growth of either the lower limb or the
trunk (employing upper limb measurements as an
indirect proxy for trunk size). Both upper and lower
limb measurements (individual long bone lengths)
exhibited significant change through time, although
neither upper limb length (humerus radius) nor
lower limb length (femur tibia) themselves exhibited
significant change through time. All long bone
lengths that changed display the same trend of increasing
in length up until the start of the Dynastic
period, and then decrease to the MK. None of the
body ratios separating upper and lower portions exhibit
statistically significant change through time.
This pattern supports suggestions that the relative
constancy of stature (i.e., the relatively low level of
change through time) cannot easily be compartmentalized.
This result is in agreement with previous
research that found no significant change in body
proportions between the Predynastic period and the
Middle Kingdom (Masali, 1972; Robins, 1983).
The ancient Egyptians have been described as
having a “super negroid” body plan (Robins, 1983). Variations in the proximal to distal segments of each
limb were therefore examined. Of the ratios considered,
only maximum humerus length to maximum
ulna length (XLH/XLU) showed statistically significant
change through time. This change was a relative
decrease in the length of the humerus as compared
with the ulna, suggesting the development of
an increasingly African body plan with time. This
may also be the result of Nubian mercenaries being
included in the sample from Gebelein.
EGYPTIAN STATURE AND BODY PROPORTIONS 227
The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural
indices for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
hum good questions. Some of this stuff is interesting but we just simply do not have the data we need to make concrete conclusions. We have people on this board who want to creeate an entire history based on a genetic marker in Europe thousands and thousands of years ago.
We may have all of the answers in a few years but we do not have them now. Historians must be cautious before we leap out too far without complete information.
Further, this black everything view you hear on this board is all politically driven. Even if every Egyptian and chinaman was solid black it would have nothing to do with any blacks living today. It was simply too long ago.
Egypt was at a crossraods and this contained populations from many places but I think Dr Hawass is correct. If you want to see what Ancient egyptians looked like spend a few days in Cairo today.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^Simple and elusive. I take your post as a sign of defeat, since you really have no answers, just mere opinions. No significant data to back up anything you say.


Answer one simple question..

Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?


http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*


The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural
indices for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.


-----

Just in case you're wondering what tropical adaptation means.


Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans

Trenton W. Holliday


Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Almost everyone in north africa then and now were/are caucasians. Why are you so dedicated to this campaign to racialize the ancient egyptians? What is the point?
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
Knowledge is hopless. This person is just plain stupid.To understand how he works check out the race of the Egyptians thread. He is under the name celt...and touts te same retoric for about 10 pages..all the while never backing his rants up with evidence. He also has been under the name Horemheb and as "The Professor". Notice that he once again ddges any academic conversation with you and uses the North African strawman....

Its just best to laugh at the Professor...he is very ignorant. He thinks becuase he is a red head that people resembling him once ruled over the Nile in the blazing heat and desert....Like I saiod just laugh.
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
Meant to say IT IS Hopelesss...why can't we edit anymore?
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Never used the name Celt Jari. Just here defending basic history. It is always ashame when young minds are lost to ideology and racism.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

You failed to adress my Post, so I will repost. Here is some *FACTS* for you.

Lets look at the mummies:

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

and then theres this:

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.

So Professor what do you have to say about these facts.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Interesting post, other evidence says otherwise. Obviously Egypt is in Africa but Egyptians are much more closely related to the ancient Syrians. We agree wth AE's have been influenced by all of their neighbors and others as well.
Dr Hawass, "Ancient Egyptians were North African caucasians."
I'll ask again...what is the point? What does it matter if they were black Africans or not?
You also know that the vast majority of Egyptologists are not interested in that question, they seldom mention it at all.
Whether of not they were or were not black africans has nothing to do with today.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Patriot, after you're done posting insignificant drivel, feel free to answer the following post you willfully ignored.





Answer one simple question..

Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?

If not, then I humbly ask you not to post anymore.


http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*


The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural
indices for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.


-----

Just in case you're wondering what tropical adaptation means.


Brachial and crural indices of European Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic humans

Trenton W. Holliday


Among recent humans brachial and crural indices are positively correlated with mean annual temperature, such that high indices are found in tropical groups. However, despite inhabiting glacial Europe, the Upper Paleolithic Europeans possessed high indices, prompting Trinkaus (1981) to argue for gene flow from warmer regions associated with modern human emergence in Europe.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
the hair was straight, and sometimes red because the people were North African caucasians.

quote:
Originally posted by sportbilly:
Geez, just when you thought it was safe to come back to EgyptSearch, there's new loonies crawling out of the trailer park. AmericanPathetic, you do know that the ancient Egyptians routinely KILLED people with red hair don't you? REad herodotus account, assuming you can.

It's like I said, his extremely weak-sauce posts read as if they were some exotic race-myth / fantasy or story -- hopefully this is just intentionally dimwitted trolling and he doesn't really hope believe that anyone takes his posts seriously.

Especially when the vets have posted in a scholarly manner and he follows up with a few grunts like a class-clown disagreeing with the teacher just to disagree.

 -

Grunter always reponds to discussion forum messages with a single word or a short phrase, and he [b]NEVER[b/] edits quoted material. Profundus Maximus, Philosopher, Tireless Rebutter, and other verbose Warriors find Grunter a particularly exasperating opponent because he will answer their lengthy pontifications with a simple "Yeah!". "Whatever", "Wrong.", etc. While Grunter is not a strong Warrior, he is very elusive and difficult to engage in direct battle, and only by his extended silence is there any indication that he has been vanquished.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

Please post this "Other" evidence Linking Ancient Egyptians to Syrians. Unlike you I have many evidence I would like you to look at, here is some more:

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.

Now we Have Links to Nubians.

Also read this:

The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. 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. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472

and finally this:

Sir Alan Gardiner:
These were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock , a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)

Patriot can you refute *any* of this information.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
It is not a matter of refuting the information King. You are going back a long way and making a vague point. You may well be correct about that and still not be able to tie it to historical Egypt. Egypt also bordered on Syria at the time. It is niave to think that that border was closed to migration for centuries. You would have me believe that there were caucasians in Libyia on one side, caucasians in Syria on the other and yet Egypt was free of them.
Let me ask again. What's the point? Why does it matter?
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Never used the name Celt Jari. Just here defending basic history. It is always ashame when young minds are lost to ideology and racism.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000028;p=18

That is'nt you..????????? Same retoric...same dogging of acedemic sources...Same M.O.....Sorry, but you have been exposed AGAIN professor......

Oh- And if you are not the same guy owcome you did'nt say anything when Djhuti and I called you Professor...HUH Horemheb?
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
I am not going to reply to that kind of nonsense. You can call me Elvis if you wish, I could care less.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....????


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?

If not, then I humbly ask you not to post anymore.


http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*


The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by ****comparing the intermembral,
brachial, and crural indices****

for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
My advice to you knowledge is to go to school and take any basic geography class. You can find many of them on line. ALL of them will teach you that north africans are caucasians and that the black african population is south of the desert.

You also did not answer my question. What does it matter?
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
I see you can't answer a simple question, let alone hold an intellectual debate.


It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself.


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?


^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....????
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot


SO far, I gave you two studies about mummies that said the same thing and you ignored it. Will repost please tell me what you think:

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

Now whats your comments about these studies, these studies are not done before historic Egypt so there should be no problem,

also I want your evidence about Ancient Egyptians being related to Ancient Syrians.

Peace
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
I see you can't answer a simple question, let alone hold an intellectual debate.


It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself.

Like I said Hopeless....Typical American
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
KIng: Dr hawass; "Ancient Egyptians are the same people as those who live here today. North African caucasians." he has the best experts in the world digging up these massive grave yards.
Syrians? Check out Ramses II and compare him to any Jew you have ever seen.

again: what is the point?
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jari-Ankhamun:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
Never used the name Celt Jari. Just here defending basic history. It is always ashame when young minds are lost to ideology and racism.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000028;p=18

That is'nt you..????????? Same retoric...same dogging of acedemic sources...Same M.O.....Sorry, but you have been exposed AGAIN professor......

Oh- And if you are not the same guy owcome you did'nt say anything when Djhuti and I called you Professor...HUH Horemheb?

You're right.
He does use the Hore, American Hammer, American Patriot, and Celt niches, as well as a couple of others I've suspected over the years.

Ask Hammer if Slavery was of the greatest benefit to Africans, and if he believes slavery and the white man brought civilization to Africa.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

I gave you two studies that linked Ancient Egyptians to other africans.

You give me the words of a biased Hawass, then you tell me to compare Ramses to Jews.

Is this your idea of scholarship?

I want studies that link Ancient Egypt to Ancient Syrians.

I also notice you have no comments towards the studies I posted, will repost until you comment on them:

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

Now whats your comments on these studies.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

Don't think that your foolish take on Hawass is going to make me stop from asking you about the mummies. Hawass's words are insignificant since alot of those other egyptian egyptologist disagree with him. Now after that deetour lets get back to the mummies:

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.

Now we Have Links to Nubians

Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and
immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

Now comment on these and stop trying to sidetrack the thread.

Peace
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.

Zawi Hiwass is either fully aware of the African contributions to Egypt seeing as how he is literally surrounded with Reliefs, statues, busts,..ect of African people with dark skin calling themselves Egyptians, in which case he IS biased or indenial. If not Zawi Hiwass is a moron.

as far as the Nefertiti bust goes It really does'nt matter to most...she has brown skin not white and she would fit in perfect in many East African populations.....but the fact that the reliefs and other bust of Nefertiti as so much different than that one in Berlin is the cause of suspicion....

by the way why are youignoring Knowledgeinski's questions...PROFESSOR?
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
You dio not know the color of her skin Jari. I good historian would never jump to a conclusion like that. Suspicion is caused because yous over and over attack every piece of art that questions your case. I an ignoring his question because there is no way to answer it. I do not question data showing Nubian influence in Egypt.
What I question is some of the conclusions you guys try to attach to it.
A Historians gather information and eventually arrive at a theory . You guys start with a point and then gather all of the evidence that agrees with it while rejecting everything that does not. It is more akin to ploitics, not history.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

I am not letting you off the hook the studies on the Mummies:

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.

Now we Have Links to Nubians

Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and
immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues

A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2

Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13

"Materials and methods
In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately
1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."

Now comment on these and stop trying to sidetrack the thread.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
I said it was good information King, what more do you want. I am not on a hook that I need to be let off of.

Peace
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

If it is good information, why do you continue to spout the "north african caucasoid" nonsense?

The truth is that Ancient Egypt had more to do with Africa then any other region:


Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
This is why king. You cannot take a piece of information and draw the conclusions you guys try to draw. Example: that there was an african marker in souther Europe thousands of years ago is clear. What does it mean? Who knows? People on this board take that fact and CREATE an entire historical narrative from a single shred of evidence with nothing to support it.
The origins of Egypt might be from Africa but they are also from the east as well.
Most people in Egypt look a lot more Syrian than they do african.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

What you promote is wrong, you promote outsiders came and created Egyptian civilization. Egyptian civilization was indeginous to Africa, there is no "East as well":

The people who bear the greatest resemblence to the ancient Egyptians, at present, are the Nubians; and next are the Abyssinians;
page 530

Edward Lane
Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
King, You have just bought into the afrocentric myth. It make make you feel good but it will never be accepted to the extent you believe it. I could come back here 5 years from now and the board would still be complaining. Some of the ideas are good and some are down right silly.

I would still like to know what difference it makes.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
King, You have just bought into the afrocentric myth. It make make you feel good but it will never be accepted to the extent you believe it. I could come back here 5 years from now and the board would still be complaining. Some of the ideas are good and some are down right silly.

I would still like to know what difference it makes.

Tell me American Patriot what is hard to understand or answer about the following? As you conveniently ignore **MY** questions it's clearly evident you have no answer and realize that by answering my questions you will be forced into admitting Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted individuals. Which equates to tropical African indigenous ancestry. Or as you would call it, "black African".


No European population or Syrian, near Eastern population is extremely tropically adapted.


^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....????


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?


http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*


The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by ****comparing the intermembral,
brachial, and crural indices****

for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
You can also address this anthropological assessment you regard as a mere connection to Nubia.

What anthropological assessment would the following fall under? If we're going to use your classifications of black African?


Know of any Europeans or Near Easterners who possess these following cranio-facial characteristics?

Prognathism, rounded forehead, projecting glabella, vertical zygomatic arches etc..


The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
The question is meaningless. Today's Egyptian population makes clear the nation is tied to the east. There has never been a mass migration into Egypt except from the south in the last 2000 years. Nobody has said there was no Nubian population in Egypt. The last figures I saw put that number at about 5%, 1% in lower egypt.

Again, what is the point? What difference does it make?
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
American patriot yet again you purposely ignore the questions. Of course my post is extremely meaningful as it proves Egyptians were tropical Africans, and is why you're blatantly ignoring it. The ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted, as we can see from the study I posted, what is insignificant about this? Please explain...

Btw no study proves what you're saying about Syrians and North African Caucasians being related to ancient Egyptians, if so, then where is this study?

No European population or Syrian, near Eastern population is extremely tropically adapted.


^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....???? Why are you ignoring this question? If you're intelligent, this would be an easy question to answer.


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
Hammer is mistaking (mislabeling) African Albinos for whites
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Syrians are caucasians Knowledge. I am not ducking your questions I just will not draw these sweeping conclusions from one or two pieces of evidence. History does not work that way. xIf I asked those who disagree with you, like Dr Hawass, and others the would quote research as well. The U of Memphis eyptology folks stated that afrocentrics have bizarre views on Egypt. he commented that the name of the country refered to the soil not the people.
In any event I wonder why you seem to be so obsessed with the question. It does not seem very important in the scheme of things.
You can tie Greece to the modern world but ancient egypt cannot be tied to anything, especially africa.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^Poor and evasive excuses for not answering, as usual. For everyone reading this thread, they know you've lost this debate a long time ago.

Of course you're ducking and dodging, stalling etc...

Try again, I could care less what anyone's opinion is, you're just showing your obvious defeated self, by not answering.

Ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted do you understand what this means?

Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
I told you your facts look good.
Zahi Hawass: "We know that the common man in ancient Egypt are the same people, direct ancestors, of modern egyptians."
Should I believe him or you?

Why is this issue important?
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
Yes modern Egytians are descended from Ancient populations as genetics tell us, simply because they carry ***indigenous African haplotypes***. But modern Egyptians also carry non African lineages Ancient Egyptians never had. It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself.

Now that I've answered all of your questions as usual.


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
"We know that the common man in ancient Egypt are the same people, direct ancestors, of modern egyptians."
Should I believe him or you?

Just like Europeans who are descended from upper Paleolithic Europeans who resembled tropical peoples Africans and Australians, as seen below. Europeans don't reemble their Upper Paleolithic ancestors.


Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]


"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus
Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie
1996

----------

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112104129.htm

Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.

The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull (Hofmeyr) from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.

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


http://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7367.full.pdf+html?sid=4fe8c6d0-a57b-49c0-ac09-a5f3a6e6b88f

European early modern humans and the fate
of the Neandertals
Erik Trinkaus*

"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton, lie at or exceed two standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males ,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."

"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.


Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in
comparison to recent African crania in a number
of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately
thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall,
flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of
the maxilla; and comparatively large molar
crowns.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
That is not what Dr Hawass said. he said that the Ancient egypttians found in the Pyramid cemetaries were the direct ancestors of today's egyptians.
here is the point, you do not comprehend.....conclusions cannot be reached based on individual pieces of data.
I am not an Egyptian specialist. I have to depend on those that are for the latest data.
If I get on the phone and call the guys at the University of Memphis something tells me I will get a different story than I am getting from you.

You never did say why all of this was so important.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
You're simply an elusive coward, sorry but I call it like I see it. Since this information debunks you, you'll disregard it, but sorry guy, this stands strong. Ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted. You must have a hard time reading, or as it seems you just cherrypick and read what suits your own agenda. It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself. Until you address specifically what I am asking of you, consider yourself debunked.


Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?


http://wysinger.homestead.com/egyptian_body_proportions.pdf

Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body
Proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*


The nature of the body plan was also investigated
by ****comparing the intermembral,
brachial, and crural indices****

for these samples with values obtained
from the literature. No significant differences were
found in either index through time for either sex.
The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians
had the “super-negroid” body plan described by Robins
(1983). The values for the brachial and crural
indices show that the distal segments of each limb
are longer relative to the proximal segments than in
many “African” populations (data from Aiello and
Dean, 1990).

This pattern is supported by Figure 7
(a plot of population mean femoral and tibial
lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early
Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae
than predicted from femoral length. Despite these
differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations.
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
You are being stiff necked knowledge. This is the M.O. you guys use. You pick out some historical detail and build a case around it. To be successful though you have to be able to suck people into an endless argument over that point. I have seen it a hundred times here. It's bogus because historians do not think that way.

You will not answer my question about why it matters because you know where that leads you. This is all about black racism and afrocentric politics. It has nothing to do with egyptian history.
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
That is not what Dr Hawass said. he said that the Ancient egypttians found in the Pyramid cemetaries were the direct ancestors of today's egyptians.
here is the point, you do not comprehend.....conclusions cannot be reached based on individual pieces of data.
I am not an Egyptian specialist. I have to depend on those that are for the latest data.
If I get on the phone and call the guys at the University of Memphis something tells me I will get a different story than I am getting from you.

You never did say why all of this was so important.

YOU ARE D.U.M.B !!

This is how I know you are not a professor of anything.
You throw out dumbness and expect to be taken seriously.
Do you ask your students to provide evidence to support their conclusions?
So, why don't you?
You say, Dr. so and so says this.
How are we supposed to judge the validity of what he said if you don't provide the data to support it?

Hammer, get lost. You have the intelligence of a George Bush. None
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.

This Nefertiti?


 -

Relief of Queen Nefertiti, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1352–1336 B.C.


 -


Statue of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Ahmose, ca. 1550–1525 B.C.
Egyptian

 -

Sculptor's model of the head of Akhenaten, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1349–1336 B.C.
Egyptian

 -




Head of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1390–1352 B.C.
Egyptian

 -

Head of Tutankhamun, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Tutankhamun, ca. 1336–1327 B.C.
Egyptian

 -

Head of Queen Tiye, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1388–1340 B.C.
Egyptian

 -


Osirid figure of Merneptah, New Kingdom, Dynasty 19, reign of Merneptah, ca. 1213–1203 B.C.
Egyptian

 -
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
None of those people looked like that knowledge. Egypians of that time were no into realistic art.
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
None of those people looked like that knowledge. Egypians of that time were no into realistic art.

O.K so none of the people looked like that...so according to you...  -

Is Fake..If you knew anything you would know that relief of Nefertiti that was posted was made during the Armana where the art was as realistic in Egyptian history....NICE strawman though.

 -
 -
<a href="http://s179.photobucket.com/albums/w286/jrpone/?action=view¤t=untitled-2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w286/jrpone/untitled-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>
 -
 -
 -
 -
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
You ned to do cat scans on the mummies to get any ideas on what there people looked like. I notice you guys post 'NONE' of the scores of art pieces that do not look remotely negroid. Most people see through this spin.
If you had a more balanced view people would take you much more seriously.
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
Balanced view. LMAO

Still, you post nothing but ancient Dixiecrat emotions. LOL

Hammer how do you think all the noses got broken off those busts? By people like yourself who perfer to destroy history then acknowledge it.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

This makes little sense, most of the Egyptian pics are as African as any other country.

Please show me the portraits that do not look Black.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Most of the Tut stuff comes to mind. Much old kingdom art is very non african. The standard thutmose the III work with the syrian looking nose stands out. In fact most AE art does not look african. Some of the art you guys present as african are clearly what we would now call arabs. The Rahotep statue is exactly what old kingdom kings looked like.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
so you think these bust of tut are not black:

 -

 -

 -

Please tell me you are not so brainwashed by eurocentric ideas that you actually think TuT was not Black. Your evidence is flimsy and very stupid.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
tut was not black, everyone knows that. He was a north african caucasian. the only people I have seen call him black are some of the people on this board. Hawass, the recreators, national Geo and really every responsible scholar sees him as black.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

I just showed you all of his bust made when he was alive.

You actually think this :
 -

You really see caucasian in his skin color nose lips and ears?

If that is what you think, then you are more pathetic then I thought.

Please tell me your just joking.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
we have his boad king. You know that arabs and black often do not look that much different in these stautes. His nose does not look negroid either in these statues or on his mummy.
I understand you have convinced yourself this stuff is true but its a cruel joke.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

you are in deeeeeep denial. Anyone that looks at the bust of King tut and says he is not Black has got to be an Idiot or just plan blind.

I respect you Patriot but man you need glasses King Tut is clearly Black his features and skin color make him look like any other African.

As for your Arab nonsense arabs did not enter Egypt until later.

I beg you Patriot please tell me you are kidding. The cruel joke is on you:

 -

You can look at a Black Man and say he is caucasian with a straight face.

Wow that is sad.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
The AE and todays arabs and jews are the sam people.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

You just ignored my post and made a stupid comment about arabs and Jews. AE is related to people down the nile not west of Egypt this is clear to anyone that has reaserched it.

 -

Again to you the bust of tut and his mask look caucasian?

That is sad that some is this blinded by eurocentric ideology. Patriot your views are some of the most foolish views I have seen. It is as if you have no shame.

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
Hawass: "Tut was a north african caucasian."
That pretty much sums it up.

You have still never answered my question about why all of this is so important to you??????
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

Hahhahahahahhah you make me laugh, the words of Hawass trumps all the evidence you see of Tut.

hahahahahaha

You are so in deep denial, this is shameful. Patriot your evidence has got to be the worst bit of evidence I have read, I can't stop laughing.
SO this is a picture of a "North African Caucasian"

[IMG]http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/king-tut1.jpg [/IMG]

and This

[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/1/220811_5c5e11d79f_o.jpg [/IMG]

Wake up professor you are living in a world of delusions. You are the first person that has seen the busts and was still stuck on Tut not being Black. Your a sad case.

Peace
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Patriot

Here is the pics of TUT again, tell me again how he is caucasian. Hahahahaahh


 -

 -

Wake up

Peace
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
looks like a young Palestinian boy to any objective person.
King you are mired in ideology, that is why you will not, indeed cannot answer my question.
Hawass interacts on a daily basis with the top scholars in the world on all aspects of ancient egypt. You would have me reject his views and accept yours. Talk about delusional.
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
The AE and todays arabs and jews are the sam people.

Man are you just playing around..? I mean come on ...first off Zawi Hiwass is no antorpologist, archologist...he is head of Antiqities..THATS IT. The NAtional Geographic one suppored the idea that Nubia was peopled by White Caucasians.....

Here ae credible NON AFROCENTRIC...anthropogy and archeology information of the Nile Valley and Egypt
http://www.ontheknol.com/frontpage-knol/peopling-of-the-nile-valley
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html
http://hej3.as.utexas.edu/~www/wheel/africa/nabta_01.htm

Whats your excuse now professor?
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
So I should believe you guys over the national geographic? You guys are making a weak case. You cannot just dismiss hawass. Are you saying you know more about ancient egypt than he does?
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot


hahahahahahaha

Delusions is what you see when a clear Black African, is said to look like a palestine boy.

Professor with every passing post you make yourself look more and more like a fool.

The most funny thing is that you can stare in the face of a black guy, and say he is caucasian.

This is almost comical, you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole you can't climb out of. So this pic:

 -

Looks like someone from the socalled middle east?

hahahahah

Also Hawass's words on what the Egyptians looked like is not important like I said before some of his ownn collegues are against his words. He is not an expert on the ethnicity of AE.

Stay off the drugs professor they are making you see things that is not there.

Peace
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Patriot

national geographic is notorious for being liars of history, for the longest while they claimed that Kush was caucasian like AE. You bring up clear biased people and you want us to take you seriously.

I can't help but laugh at your nonsense, hahahahahah

We showed you Busts and you are still stuck on your stupid "north African caucasian". Thats sad

wake up professor.

Peace
 
Posted by Jari-Ankhamun (Member # 14451) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:
So I should believe you guys over the national geographic? You guys are making a weak case. You cannot just dismiss hawass. Are you saying you know more about ancient egypt than he does?

Fool, did you read any of the information I provided...? Zawi Hiwass is no expert on the peopling of Egypt..he is head of Antiquities. The National Geopgraphic is a magazine that supported the notion that the Nubians were white....Where is their credibility...its obvious it is a biased source.

Anyone who studies the people and origin of Egypt and the Nile Valley concudes the Egyptians were primarily of African origin and were and African people simular to Sib Sahrans and East Africans.

Even Mary Lefkrowitz the Classist who DEBUNKED Afocentrism concluded after studing Egypt thatthe Egyptian people and Egypt as a nation was of Southern in origin and indiginous to Africa!!!!
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
They are liars because they do not agree with you King.
I never run into anyone who agrees with you guys and I'll bet I talk to more historians than you do. Most of them see you guys as out on the fringe, you know that.
when you come up with all of this wild crazy greek stuff it destroys your credibility.
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
TheAmericanPatriot

hahahahhahah

Of course there liars, NatGeo used to say that the Kush kingdom and the Nubians were white. Like Jari said where is there credibility.

You post two soruces that have no clue about AE ethnicity and one that covers up the truth.

Hahahahahaha

This has got to be the biggest joke I have read. April foolday is over. Professor you are in a deep delusional pit. You need help.

I pray you are just joking and the pics I showed you actually wakes you up from your dream.

Peace
 
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Patriot

Tell me again how these people looked like "north African Caucasians" hahahahahahah:


 -


 -

You are making yourself look foolish professor

Peace
 
Posted by meninarmer (Member # 12654) on :
 
LOL, why ya'll waste your time with a worthless cat like Hammer is sad.
You are speaking with a person who defends every page of the Bell Curve, and believes Africans owe a debt to whites for saving them from barbaranism by the introduction of slavery.
How you expect to somehow show this person THE LIGHT is amazingly naive.
 -
 
Posted by Ebony Allen (Member # 12771) on :
 
Excuse me dumb AmericanPatriot. Tell us what you mean by Negroid features in Egyptian artwork then maybe we can settle this more easily.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Ebony Allen wrote:

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


You know......We all know that you're a white boy. So don't think you're fooling anyone.


PS. Does your erection have pink blisters on it as well?

BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ As usual, Gaygoyle projects. Not only does he project his racism onto others but apparently also his STDs LOL [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
 -
ROTFLMAO @ Hore's usual idiocy and especially at what Sportsbilly said! That was hilarious! [Big Grin]

You guys continuously post all this valid data and info at Hore and all he does is denies it all. It seems like a waste doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

..Your data was interesting, I have seen it before. Just as logic and historical evidence show strong connections between the egyptians and north african caucasians in syria and north africa it is also clear that they have connections to their neighbors in Nubia. No thinking person would say otherwise, just as no thinking person would say they were black africans.

Yes you've seen that data hundreds of times before as well as all the other data we show you, and all you say is that it's interesting. So you don't deny that the cranial features of the Elder Lady and other royal mummies display African affinities since the Egyptians were Africans!

And what of these "North African Caucasians" you speak of?? Can you answer Knowledge's question and state what defines a North African "caucasian" let alone their presence in "Syria"?? Can you tell us what source you get this from??

quote:
Have you ever walked up to the mummy case and taken a look at Ramses II? He looks like shinebien the Jewish tailor. We just went through a Tut reconstruction that found his mummy to be North African caucasian.

If you have no idea who North African caucasians are one has to question your academic background, that is a really basic concept that no serious scholars are questioning. 90% of the population of African is black, negroid, and almost all of them are sub saharian. The populations of north africa are not negroid, nor have they been in the historical era.
Dr Hawass made it clear in the recent Pyramid village excavations, "the population makeup of ancient Egypt is the same as our poulation today."

All the above is ridiculous.

First of all you can't eyeball a mummy which is a shrivelled up flesh and tell how it looked like exactly in real life.

Second, you again bring up Tut's latest reconstruction forgetting that Tut had about five reconstructions done with the latest being the Nat Geo one. You also apparently forgot what the anthroplogist who took part in the recontrusction actually said!

Third, academic background has NOTHING to do with it. We asked you to define North African "caucasian". In science and academia, a person must be able to define the very terms and concepts that one uses lest those terms are not objective in the first place. We've gone over racial concepts such as "caucasoid" and "negroid" before and why they are invalid. So why don't you define them for us and explain why you think such terms are valid.

Fourth, again for the hundredth time, blacks are indigenous to *ALL* of Africa and not just south of the Sahara. How do you explain all the black populations that live in the Sahara as well as north of it in the Meditteranean?? Do you not remember the many times we even told you that the Sahara desert did not always exist??

Lastly, do you not remember what I said concerning Hawass's genetic findings of the pyramid workers?? How are all modern Egyptians the same as ancient Egyptians when Egypt experienced invasions and immigrations since the fall of dynastic Egypt? Do you not even know what genetic factors the pyramid workers have in common with today's Egyptians??

My, my, professor, so many questions but no valid answers. [Embarrassed]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
To the examples of Egyptian art provided, TheAmericanPatriot wrote:

None of those people looked like that knowledge. Egypians of that time were not into realistic art.

LMAO [Big Grin]

This is the stupid excuse you always make for Egyptian artwork that looks too obviously African!!

So what are you saying? That whenever Egyptians wanted to portray themselves "unrealistically" or in an "exaggerated" manner they would portray themselves as black?!! ROTFL [Big Grin]

Guys, now you know this professor is nutty!
 
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
 
oh please Djehuti, You guys post the nuttiest dopey stuff out of the moonbeam zone and then have the guts to be critical of someone else.
The Greek stuff alone simply wipes out and credibility you might have.
The negroid Minoans .... now that one will take the academic community by strom.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
What is nutty about what I posted? Please Elaborate...


This thread is not about Greece, so stay on topic.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Your data was interesting, I have seen it before. Just as logic and historical evidence show strong connections between the egyptians and north african caucasians in syria and north africa it is also clear that they have connections to their neighbors in Nubia. No thinking person would say otherwise, just as no thinking person would say they were black africans.

Once again the bolded above sounds like something pulled right out of the ApologeticPatriot's ass, and we'll never know, as the self-proclaimed 'Professor' seems to be too stupid to cite a source or copy and paste a link if the source is online.

The rest of the post is just poisoning the well. Just the third grade logic (and maybe Professor's 'scientific method') of "Only a _____ would think this or that".

What he doesn't know is that folks here are posting solely because they want to as a 'Professor post' merits no response (99.9999 ^ 2 % of the time).
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot:

Oh please Djehuti, You guys post the nuttiest dopey stuff out of the moonbeam zone and then have the guts to be critical of someone else.

And exactly what is so nutty or dopey about our info which is based on actual science and scholarship, unlike yours?!!:

Is it that ancient Egyptians were black Africans (which is no big twist since Egypt is in Africa)??

Or that Africans expanded out of North Africa into the Levant and Mediterranean during the Neolithic (which also is no big twist since Africa is right next to the Mediterranean and Levant)??

Tell us 'professor' which is it??

quote:
The Greek stuff alone simply wipes out the credibility you might have...
How so when it is based on actual scientific findings??!

quote:
The negroid Minoans .... now that one will take the academic community by storm.
Actually it did back in the late 1800s when anthropologists unearthed the earliest human remains in Crete and other Mediterranean islands dating from the Neolithic. We discussed this many times before including here but apparently your mind can't grasp it can it?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
[Embarrassed] *Sigh* Anyway, getting back to the topic of this thread...

I've posted this article from Myra's site before and I'll post it again for relevance:

FOR YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public.
But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00

Zulu, Southern African 55.00

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations(1)
.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.


Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time.
As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.

 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Just as logic and historical evidence show strong connections between the egyptians and north african caucasians in syria
^ I do like the tortutously concocted 'north african caucasian of syria' though.

Desparate times call for desparate rhetorics, eh Professor? [Cool]

And why so desparate?

Here's why:

If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.

The limb-length proportions of males from the [lower] Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans.
- Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL Of course, what is new about the 'professor' just pulling things out of his 'wazoo' as they say in Texas, despite actual scholarly evidence. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
lol.. King you have to understand, that many Caucasoids in Egypt and indeed in northern and eastern Africa are all in disguise. That's right, they are going "incog-negro". In the words of one of Cavalli-Sforza's 1964 Encyclopedia article reference, peoples like Ethiopians for example, are "a white people with black skin."

That's why Patriot can't find dem there missing Caucasoids.. lol
 
Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ My Ethiopian mistress sure isn't white. Trust me I've seen all her secret places. And they're more dark than pink despite her generally fair skin complexion. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan:
lol.. King you have to understand, that many Caucasoids in Egypt and indeed in northern and eastern Africa are all in disguise. That's right, they are going "incog-negro". In the words of one of Cavalli-Sforza's 1964 Encyclopedia article reference, peoples like Ethiopians for example, are "a white people with black skin."

That's why Patriot can't find dem there missing Caucasoids.. lol

Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity

Cited from The Concept of Race
Edited by Ashley Montagu
The Free Press
p. 135-136

C. Loring Brace


....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area.....although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course. What you have to understand Zaharan, is that there is no such thing as racial classifications such as "caucasoid" or "negroid" for the reasons cited above by Knowledge. Peoples with long narrow faces and long narrow noses have NOTHING to do with the Caucasus Mountains or Europe! And blacks, even those of Africa, do not necessarily have broad faces or broad noses etc. which is why there is no "negroid". The same ignorant folks like 'patriot' don't realize that the same pseudoscience that spoke of 'North African caucasoids' also spoke of 'East African caucasoids' in the form of Ethiopians and Somalis!!

Getting back to the topic of the thread, here are some examples of Africans below whose hair is of the variety the Egyptians had and not 'kinky' or 'nappy' as some stereotype blacks.

Malian
 -

Algerian
 -

Egyptians
 -

Ethiopian
 -

Somalian
 -

^ Add the natural hair texture of these Africans with the effects of the mummy embalming chemicals as I cited in my previous post and you get the mummified hair we see today.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti,

Those people look like African Americans. Djehuti its good that you're spreading knowledge about these particular African nationalities (Algeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mali, and Somalia) and the ancestral connection they share through history with African Americans via the slave trade.


Again nice work Djehuti. Thanks.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL How so, when there were no major slave ports in those countries to America?? Show me historic evidence of slaves being imported from those countries to America.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ Southern Europeans of course also tend to have dark curly hair.

According to argoyle - southern European hair must also be evidence of the 'slave trade'.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
rasol wrote:

--------------------------------
Southern Europeans of course also tend to have dark curly hair.

According to argyle - southern European hair must also be evidence of the 'slave trade'.
---------------------------------


Post where I've written such a thing. We're waiting.


It seems that are you saying that southern Europeans weren't used as slaves. Is that what you are saying?


Or are you implying something much more eurocentric? Are you saying that there was a slave trade of Africans to southern Europe? If so, which Africans (as if we don't already know who he means)?


I will be happy to post evidence to the contrary. : )
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Isn't it funny how the dummies who are always talking about "egypt be black", also write posts that implies they believe that slaves were people that were considered by Coon to be "true negroes".


I told you these people believe in racial hierarchies both outside of Africa and within.


You see the white man considers Ancient Egypt to be the only thing of value in Africa. So people like knowledgeiskey and Djehuti revolve their life around it.

The white man in order to claim Ancient Egypt needs to claim other Africans in order to make their grab for AE look legitimate. Therefore they tend to come out of the woodwork to defend those people.


The white man also needs to set up a juxtaposition with another group of people so he can say "see we look more like the Ancient Egyptians than those people, therefore we are related to the AEs".

Which is why you have mentally ill posters like knowledgeiskey and Djehuti claiming that only "sub-saharan west African negroids" were the people used as slaves throughout the world.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
I'd say that dark hair [predominance] in Southern Europeans and shared traits among Africans could both point to a shared ancient ancestry (so called "mixture"), as well as more recent ancestry, or even our ancient origins as a whole,

so it's not necissarily "evidence of the slave trade".
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Isn't it funny how

Imposter, stop trying to fake people out when not only have you never posted anything of any value, but when most contributing members have cited evidence of European slaves, and when no active contributing members (to non-political topics about the AE and Africa in general) endorse such an idea (true negro).

Get a life, Russle.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Who in hell is Russle? I ask because some of you seem infatuated with him. Maybe that is why you people post homosexual pornography night and day.
 
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
 
^ He meant "Russell" which is your real name isn't it Russell. [Wink]
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
-------------------------------
-------------------------------

I posted what I did to you because I wanted to show people how much of a racist you are to Africans whose look you don't like. I knew you would be stupid enough to reply in your typical race typology lunacy.


This is a sick bastard people. He basis his race mysticism on whether he likes the way people look or not.


In his mind Algerians, Malians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Somalis look good and are caucasoid in his mind so their is no way they would have been used as slaves.

He has no business bringing that Carlton Coon race mythology to this forum.


A more important point to ponder is what happened in his life to make him engage in such depraved racial mythology?


How did you get this way Djehuti?
 
Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
 
^ Your Projections are getting out of hand. Are you even conscious of anything you do at this point old man!? [Big Grin]

 -
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
How so, when there were no major slave ports in those countries to America?? Show me historic evidence of slaves being imported from those countries to America.
Look at the shakanery he's trying to pull to keep his pretty people out of slavery. How sick is this boy?


What is a major slave port?

What is a major slave port to America?

People have been loading and unloading people, animals, and cargo since man has been seafaring. There is no special port needed to load people on a boat. You're making up stuff to keep your racial beliefs alive.


You're not even sounding marginally intelligent.


How did the Spanish load and unload all of those animals, cannons, and personnel when they first got to the Americas?

How did the English and French unload all of their people, cargo, and animals when they first got to the Americas?

How did the arabians, turks, persians get brought over to the Americas as slaves?

How did the Indians, Chinese, and Japanese get brought over as slaves?

Are you saying that the above people were brought over but people from Algeria, Mali, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Somalia weren't?

Or are you saying that Arabians, Turks, Persians, Indians, Chinese, and Japanese were not used as slaves period, therefore people from people from Algeria, Mali, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Somalia wouldn't have been either? And if so it is because you believe they are caucasoid?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Some of these fools don't understand that rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti are intellectual frauds. Just because they talk up a black ancient egypt doesn't mean they like Africans.


rasol and knowledgeiskey parrot what they hear from their eurocentric masters. Djehuti paraphrases what he hears from rasol. LOL.


These people believe in white supremacy which is why their lives revolve around Ancient Egypt. See the white man wants Ancient Egypt, therefore to them Ancient Egypt is valuable.


The eurocentrists created racial typologies so they could claim Ancient Egypt. This is why they obsess Ancient Egypt and knowledgeiskey and Djehuti have a diabolical racist hate for those the eurocentrists call "negroid". Because they are slaves to the eurocentric propaganda.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Some of these fools don't understand that rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti are intellectual frauds. Just because they talk up a black ancient egypt doesn't mean they like Africans.

What does "liking Africans" and "talking up a black egypt" have to do with the scholarship they post and how does this make them intellectual frauds? You're not even smart enough to be an intellectual fraud, so you're probably just jealous of their intellect (any forum members besides argyle's that is).

Basically, what you just posted above would have been akin to posting a guide entitled, "Why No One Should Waste Their Time Reading My Meaningless, Citationless, devoid of proof Posts".

*

This is an interesting piece of psych projection here:

quote:
Originally posted by arrrgghhhhh.. gay:

These people believe in white supremacy which is why their lives revolve around Ancient Egypt.

quote:
See the white man wants Ancient Egypt, therefore to them Ancient Egypt is valuable.
[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

Hey Argyle, why so angry lately? The more inflamed posts you post the more we can all see the real (somewhat slow) you.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves wrote:
---------------------
What does "liking Africans" and "talking up a black egypt" have to do with the scholarship they post and how does this make them intellectual frauds?
---------------------


BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

With the kind of idiocy you wrote above, its no wonder you're the forums butler. : )
 
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Some of these fools don't understand that rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti are intellectual frauds. Just because they talk up a black ancient egypt doesn't mean they like Africans.


rasol and knowledgeiskey parrot what they hear from their eurocentric masters. Djehuti paraphrase what he hears from rasol. LOL.


These people believe in white supremacy which is why their lives revolve around Ancient Egypt. See the white man wants Ancient Egypt, therefore to them Ancient Egypt is valuable.


The eurocentrists created racial typologies so they could claim Ancient Egypt. This is why they obsess Ancient Egypt and knowledgeiskey and Djehuti have a diabolical racist hate for those the eurocentrists calls "negroid". Because they are slaves to the eurocentric propaganda.

Thanks for giving us a concise projection of your thoughts and your life situation.

Better the devil you know.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Notice the pecking order of the pack.

You have rasol and knowledgeiskey are leader and secondary leader.


Djehuti is the omega puppy and tries to always intervine when the above two are getting an intellectual thrashing but ironically they don't come to his rescue. LOL


You have Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves and other posters who come to rasol's, knowledgeiskey's, and Djehuti's rescue, yet they never reciprocate the favor.


Interesting observations indeed.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Notice how the intellectual frauds are avoiding the questions asked of them.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
meninarmer wrote:
-----------------------------
LOL, why ya'll waste your time with a worthless cat like Hammer is sad.
You are speaking with a person who defends every page of the Bell Curve, and believes Africans owe a debt to whites for saving them from barbaranism by the introduction of slavery.
How you expect to somehow show this person THE LIGHT is amazingly naive.
------------------------------

Because their minds have been sodomized by the white man. They believe in white supremacy which is why they go to such lengths to prove their worth to him. People who believe in white supremacy tend to do that.


Notice that they always refer to him respectfully as "Professor". Who in their right mind would do that?


Notice how they don't do the same with Clyde Winters (not saying that I agree with Clyde on anything but still). Its because they believe that Clyde is an Afrocentrist and the white man has told rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti that Afrocentrism is bad. Therefore they will never refer to him respectfully as "Professor".
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
Better the devil you know.

Truth.

Now he's bitching about pecking orders [Big Grin] and people coming to others defenses and whatnot (instead of answering a simple question).

@ Hori: I take it he probably took alot of heat for things at work?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves wrote:
----------------------------------
Now he's bitching about pecking orders and people coming to others defenses and whatnot (instead of answering a simple question).
----------------------------------

What question? Your strawman angry question?

No, not angry. Now try another strawman.

You're angry that you now realize that you are a low ranking pack member. LOL


You're also angry that your idols (rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti) have been exposed as intellectual frauds and are receiving a first class intellectual thrashing from which they are desperately trying to escape.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Notice how the intellectual frauds are avoiding the questions asked of them.

Lol gaygoyle is upset since he, nor his girlfriend Eva/Akoben can refute the below post. This haunts his mind all day.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000505;p=32

quote:
Originally posted by Knowledge:
Due to their recent post OOA Neolithic African admixture into their population.


E3b, A, E3a[yes], L1, L2, L3, M1, U6, Benin Hbs autosome......

^ All found in West Eurasia....and not in East Eurasia, SouthEast Asia, Australia, New Guinnea, Melanesia.

^^Which confirms Cavalli's distance matrix...Now can you debunk or address the recent African admixture in Europeans that would make Europeans appear intermediate between Africans and Oceanic(non African) populations????


 -

So he/she goes around ranting and raving.
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
lol, and he calls the diahrria he soils himself in and stinks up the forum with "intellectual [Big Grin] thrashings".

>> Gurgles104, how does "liking Africans" and "talking up a black egypt" invalidate the scholarship they post (if at all) and so make them intellectual frauds?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:

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

strawman alert!

Translation: I have suffered yet another scholarly beatdown. So now I have to lie in order to distract from what was said.
 
Posted by Lord Sauron (Member # 6729) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Notice the pecking order of the pack.

You have rasol and knowledgeiskey are leader and secondary leader.


Djehuti is the omega puppy and tries to always intervine when the above two are getting an intellectual thrashing but ironically they don't come to his rescue. LOL


You have Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves and other posters who come to rasol's, knowledgeiskey's, and Djehuti's rescue, yet they never reciprocate the favor.


Interesting observations indeed.

Please keep speaking your mind! [Big Grin] We want to know what's in your wall [Big Grin] [Big Grin] .
 
Posted by HORUS of EDFU (Member # 11484) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
Better the devil you know.

Truth.

Now he's bitching about pecking orders [Big Grin] and people coming to others defenses and whatnot (instead of answering a simple question).

@ Hori: I take it he probably took alot of heat for things at work?

Heat? Nah [Big Grin] . He took a lot of Dick that's for sure.

Who would hire a brain dead old-ass spastic homo except some type of predatory gay manager with an excessive budget!?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
So the psycho-fag idiot actually thinks I'm racist and that I believe in some ridiculous racial hierarchy because he believes I think whites enslaved blacks who were only "true negroes" in appearance while leaving alone blacks with "caucasoid" features?! [Eek!] [Eek!]

ROTFLOL
 -

It's a FACT that the vast majority of slaves transported to the Americas came from West and Central Africa and not East or Northeast Africa. Why?? Because it's much more convenient to ship slaves across the Atlantic from the coasts of West and Central Africa than to sail around to the other side of the continent! The British or Americans didn't even have the presence or power to get slaves from the countries the psycho-fag mentioned which were either under Arab-Islamic authority or in the case of Ethiopia had asylum from European enslavement due to the fact that they were a Christian nation.

It had nothing do with something so stupid as the features of Africans! There is no such thing as "true negro" or "caucasoid" features!

Here is an example of a West African man with so-called "caucasoid" features.

 -

^ Yet as a West African, I'm sure his people was also a source of slaves for Americans.

Here is an example of an East African man from Ethiopia who would fit the stupid "true-negro" stereotype:

 -

^ Yet as an East African it is highly unlikely any of his people were taken as slaves to America.

Again, the only one who keeps bringing up the stupid "true-negro" racial crap is your truly-- the ass-leaking, psycho-fag Argay!! [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Now unless the pathetic, emasucalted, masochist, punk who is beaten and gang-raped daily in real life for pleasure and loves to call my name in this forum (perhaps hoping I can beat and rape him?) can refute the above, let's move on...
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Now does anyone sane and intelligent have anything else to say about the topic which is the hair of mummies??
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
It's a FACT that the vast majority of slaves transported to the Americas came from West and Central Africa and not East or Northeast Africa.

How do you know? Opinion based on your sick race mythology doesn't count.


Also why did you leave northwest Africa out of your list? You can't pull that shakanery with me, I'll call you out.


Also define "west" and "central" Africa. I.E. what countries makeup "west" and "central" Africa?


quote:
Because it's much more convenient to ship slaves across the Atlantic from the coasts of West and Central Africa than to sail around to the other side of the continent!
Well Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Mali are closer to the U.S. and are in "west" Africa. They are much closer to the U.S. than so called "subsaharan" Africa. So using your logic they were the natural candidates to be brought over to the U.S. right?


If not why would people from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Mali not be brought over?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
Because it's much more convenient to ship slaves across the Atlantic from the coasts of West and Central Africa than to sail around to the other side of the continent!
You really are an intellectual fraud. Not intelligence at all.

England, France, and Spain were sailing all around the world in the 1600s trading with people across the globe so your convenience argument is well dead in the water.


How do you explain all of the Indians, Persians, Arabians, and Turks were brought over as slaves?

Or are you saying they were not brought over?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
-------------------------------
Yet as a West African, I'm sure his people was also a source of slaves for Americans
-------------------------------

You're not making any sense which further highlights your anti-intellectual nature.

Why would they go all the way down to "west" Africa when they could go to North Africa and pick up the "non-negroid" (this includes the so called "berbers")?


If they would go down to "west" Africa and bring Fulanis over as slaves then surely Algerians, Moroccans, Mauritanians, Tunisians, and Malians would have been brought over also. Are you saying those people from those countries weren't brought over as slaves?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

----------------------------
The British or Americans didn't even have the presence or power to get slaves from the countries the psycho-fag mentioned which were either under Arab-Islamic
----------------------------

What do you mean specifically by presence or power? Are saying that the British and Americans were running around "west" and "central" Africa snatching up defenseless people you think were "negroes"?

You can't possibly be that sick.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:

How do you know? Opinion based on your sick race mythology doesn't count.

Unlike you I don't believe in 'race' or any mythology of it. I know based on FACTS that were discussed here

quote:
Also why did you leave northwest Africa out of your list? You can't pull that shakanery with me, I'll call you out.
I said West Africa, does that not include northwest Africa? There were slave ports in Senegal and Mauritania so what's your point? The only shakanery is the b.s. you write in this forum all the time as well as the kinky games you play with your boyfriends!

quote:
Also define "west" and "central" Africa. I.E. what countries makeup "west" and "central" Africa?
Don't need to. Everything was explained to you in the link above as well as actual slave trade routes, dumbass.

quote:
Well Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Mali are closer to the U.S. and are in "west" Africa. They are much closer to the U.S. than so called "subsaharan" Africa. So using your logic they were the natural candidates to be brought over to the U.S. right?
Algeria and Tunisia are NOT on the Atlantic coast, and all of those countries as Islamic nations were NOT active participants in the trans-Atlantic slave-trade to America idiot. If anything they were still importing white slaves from Europe!

quote:
If not why would people from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Mauritania, Mali not be brought over?
Slave traders had better access to peoples from Mauritania and Mali than those other countries.

And again your answers were given in the link above, and my previous post debunked your claims of "true negroes" living in West Africa only etc!

Why is a white british gay loser like you so obsessed with African Americans and slave ancestry anyway?? The topic of this thread is Hair of mummified remains.

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic or no rebuttal to the answers I gave, GET YOUR LEAKY PUMMELED ASS OUT OF HERE.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
--------------------------
Slave traders had better access to peoples from Mauritania and Mali than those other countries.
--------------------------


Notice, no facts or evidence just opinion.

What do you base what you say on? Why would Mauritania and Mali provide better access than Algeria and Morocco? Do you believe that the former is more "negroid" than the later.


People here are noticing how your mind works.


Mauritania and Mali - more caucasoid than "west" Africa. Ergo "west" Africans are slaves.


Algeria and Morocco - more caucasoid than Mauritania and Mali. Ergo Mauritanians and Malians are slaves.


How sick.

Coon style shell game race pathology. But why should we be surprised since you are indeed a non-African.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
I'm taking the clown apart folks, I'm taking him apart. You see its easy to intellectually defeat a racist like Djehuti. Facts and evidence always trump race fantasy.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
-------------------------
Algeria and Tunisia are NOT on the Atlantic coast, and all of those countries as Islamic nations were NOT active participants in the trans-Atlantic slave-trade to America idiot. If anything they were still importing white slaves from Europe!
-------------------------


So you're saying that slaves did not come from Algeria or Tunisia? Is that what your saying?


Shall I post links?


Were you this dumb before or after you were conceived? Or frankly are you a racist?
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL Of course I am neither dumb nor racist but that YOU on the other hand are exactly both!

You come up with stupid questions but you haven't even refuted any of the info I gave you.

quote:
Psycho ass-pirated fool wrote:

I'm taking the clown apart folks, I'm taking him apart. You see its easy to intellectually defeat a racist like Djehuti. Facts and evidence always trump race fantasy.

LMAO You realize you've taken no one apart or beat down anyone in the forum but have always made an insane fool of yourself. All the folks you address are as annoyed as I am by you.

As usual, we discuss something about ancient Egypt and you still bitch and whine about African American slave ancestry. Yet you are neither American nor of African descent!

[Embarrassed] As I said, if you have nothing to contribute get your ass out. Begone, you gangraped-loving loser!
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
LOL! He's dodging folks. He's trying hard to escape the intellectual thrashing he's enduring by using strawman, ad hominem, and non-seqtuires.


It won't work. People are noticing that you are sidestepping the questions being asked because you know your psychotic race loon view will be exposed even greater.


Your intellectual thrashing will continue.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti
-------------------------------
As usual, we discuss something about ancient Egypt and you still bitch and whine about African American slave ancestry.
-------------------------------

Interesting since you're a filopeeeeeno who is passionate that "west" Africans and slave are one in the same. You are even on record saying that if a "west" African is not dark, he must be admixed.

What's funny also is that I don't make you say the racialist things you say which are reminiscent of Blumenbach, Coon, and Howell's race psychotic depravity.

If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. What you say will be challenged, examined, and debunked.

Now I will continue with your intellectual thrashing
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
LOL! He's dodging folks. He's trying hard to escape the intellectual thrashing he's enduring by using strawman, ad hominem, and non-seqtuires.


It won't work. People are noticing that you are sidestepping the questions being asked because you know your psychotic race loon view will be exposed even greater.


Your intellectual thrashing will continue.

Actually you're presenting strawmen, being that you've provided NO evidence for your initial claims therefore your initial claim is invalidated, to where you have no grounds to ask questions.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Knowledgeiskey718 wrote:

--------------------------------
Actually you're presenting strawmans, being that you provided NO evidence for your initial claims therefore your initial claim is invalidated, to where you have no grounds to ask questions.
--------------------------------

Aaaaaaahhhhh, you're feeling left out. You want a scholarly beatdown also.

You shall have it. ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeee

You should know by now that evidence and facts are my forte. Unlike your race myth consumed ass. You must really need for "west" Africans to be slaves and non-"west" Africans to not be slaves. The question is why?

Now the beatdown begins.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
^^^^^I'm Waiting.........
 
Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
 
Argyle, if you haven't noticed by now, we're getting really fucking tired of your pathological trolling, off-topic posting, spreading false slander about other posters, and racist slurs here. All you do is create an uncivil forum environment. You're lucky I am not a mod or I would ban your ass to high heaven.
 
Posted by Knowledgeiskey718 (Member # 15400) on :
 
quote:
Gaygoyle writes:
Aaaaaaahhhhh, you're feeling left out. You want a scholarly beatdown also.

You shall have it. ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeee

You should know by now that evidence and facts are my forte.

Now the beatdown begins.

Gaygoyle.....do you plan on starting this supposed "beatdown" soon??
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ The leaky ass derranged b*tch is just mad cuz his life sucks so he comes here to defile this intellectual forum the same way men defile his body. And he knows the ONLY reason why he's gotten away with it is that there's NO moderating going on! If there was, his leaky nasty ass would have been banned a LONG time ago! [Embarrassed]

What's funny is the leaky fag complains about me being racist against African Americans and West Africans, yet it was a West African who exposed his nasty ass for the degenerate psycho that he is and besides me, all the African Americans on this board are punk him out all the time!

Nobody is buying your bullsh*t Argay, get out!!
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
T. Rex wrote:

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

aaaaaaahhhhhhhh, yet another character that refuses to answer questions because he's afraid his racism will be exposed for all to see.


Answer my questions that were posed in the thread below and you may warrant my further attention.

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000616;p=2

What's taking you so long T. Rex? : )
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
 -  -

argyle, who lashes out at Doug (and hates on African Americans) when ever he or anyone else posts any article that hints at racism against Africans, and who then accuses them of whining is now pretending to be mad at racists right now. Of course.

quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
rasol .. intellectual .. rasol .. rasol .. rasol .. intellectuall .. rasol ... rasol ... rasol ..

Go back and have your CP search the text for "rasols" yourself.

I wonder why all of the apr ass cee member seem to really not like rasol (or most other regular contributors), and always mention *intellect* when talking about him/us. Maybe it's...

 -

quote:
Originally posted by HORUS of EDFU:
quote:
Originally posted by Alive-(What Box):
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Sauron:
Better the devil you know.

Truth.

@ Hori: I take it he probably took alot of heat for things at work?

Heat? Nah [Big Grin] . He took a lot of Dick that's for sure.

Who would hire a ***brain dead***** old-ass spastic homo except some type of predatory gay manager with an excessive budget!?

Oh shyit!!!
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Oh shyt is right!

The over-sodomized idiot loves to make false accusations of racism against me all the time, without any proof! Yet notice that whenever I contribute some scholarly info or continue an intelligent discussion about ancient Egypt or Africa, the b*tch suddenly trolls!

It's obvious what the demented deviant's agenda is. And EVERYONE in this forum with sense is being aggravated!
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Let's not let the degenerate its way and get back to the topic as well as logic and sanity...

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

I've posted this article from Myra's site before and I'll post it again for relevance:

FOR YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public.
But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00

Zulu, Southern African 55.00

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations(1)
.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.


Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time.
As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.

Anyone else got anything valid to say about the topic??
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
I said West Africa, does that not include northwest Africa?
Now I will continue administering your intellectual thrashing.


So then why are you saying that they did not come from Algeria or Morocco? Are they not in "northwest" Africa, which by your own admission is in "west" Africa? If you look at a map with your slant eyed ass you would see that those two African countries are the closet African countries to the U.S.. So again your lack of intellect has now been further exposed.


Its interesting to note that first you say that people from Mauritania were not brought over then when the stupidity of your logic and your racism was exposed you say now there was a "slave" port there (which by the way you avoided discussion about) and people were brought from there. Why does your little map not have Mauritania on it? Apparently by your own words your sources are wrong. So why should anyone take you seriously?


Again you dirty rat eating filopeeeeno, your African racial hierarchy has been exposed again.


First its Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Tunisia, and Mali are not "west" African. Then when called out you retreat and say they are.


Then you say that well Mauritanians had slaves come from there but Morocco and Algeria didn't.


You rank people according to your debunked caucasoid racialism shows how debased your mind is.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
Show me historic evidence of slaves being imported from those countries to America.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=algeria&as_epq=north+african+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo= &as_nhi=&safe=images


This also explains a large segment of the populations of Puerto Rico, Domicanc Republic, and also smaller populations of other countries in the Americas including the U.S..


Are we now to believe that people came from Algeria but not Mali, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Somalia? Your logic leaves one to think that you are extremely intellectually impotent Djehuti.


Its funny that I'm the one who has all of the facts and evidence and you don't seem to ever post anything thing that your racist opinions based on the eurocentricism.

How come?


Notice how easy it is to take an intellectual lightweight like Djehuti apart.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Poor Djehuti outside of paraphrasing rasol he's reduced to racially charged pseudoscience.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ actually everyone's on topic except you, as usual...

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
Let's not let the degenerate its way and get back to the topic as well as logic and sanity...

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

I've posted this article from Myra's site before and I'll post it again for relevance:

FOR YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public.
But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00

Zulu, Southern African 55.00

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations(1)
.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.


Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time.
As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.

Anyone else got anything valid to say about the topic??

 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
rasol wrote:
--------------------------
actually everyone's on topic except you, as usual...
--------------------------

Now, Now, my intellectual fraud. I merely posted a detail that I noticed about images posted. And your failed disciple brought in a racially charged angle based on his African racial hierarchy dimentia.


If the boy can't stand the heat, then the boy should stay out of the kitchen. This is an intellectual forum where scholarship should be upheld and race mythology scorned.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
I asked Djehuti to define "west" and "central" Africa. And like he always does when asked to be specific he distracts and never gives the detail of what was asked. (See Below)


Djehuti replied:
-----------------------------
Don't need to. Everything was explained to you in the link above as well as actual slave trade routes, dumbass.
-----------------------------


Well if we go by your links Mauritania, Morocco, Mali, and Algeria are not "west" Africa. Which contradicts what you said earlier about them being in "west" Africa. Which is it? Are they in "west" Africa as you said, or are they not in "west" Africa as the links that you say view as your evidence say?


This is the utmost in sloppy scholarship. Did you even go to school?


Well it really doesn't matter Djehuti doesn't it? Because once again you have been discredited as the unscholarly dumbed down simpleton you are.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=algeria&as_epq=north+african+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=100&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo= &as_nhi=&safe=images
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

--------------------------
loves to make false accusations of racism against me
--------------------------


Everyone who has been on this forum for a while has seen your demented racial viewpoints. al has called you out on several occasions and supercar has referred to you as a submissive troll.

Your own senior pack leaders have called you out. LOL : )
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

Let's not let the degenerate its way and get back to the topic as well as logic and sanity...


quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:

I've posted this article from Myra's site before and I'll post it again for relevance:

FOR YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

Many Black scholars try skillfully to avoid the hair problem. This is a mistake!

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public.
But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.00

Zulu, Southern African 55.00

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.00

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

In another study, hair samples from ten 18th-25th dynasty individuals produced an average index of 51! As far back as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey analyzed six ancient Egyptian hair samples. Their average index of 64.4 was similar to the Tasmanians who lie at the periphery of the African-haired populations(1)
.

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50.

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.


Hair is made of keratin protein. Keratin is composed of amino acid chains called polypeptides. In a hair, two such chains are called cross-chain polypeptides. These are held together by disulphide bonds. The bulk of the hair, the source of its strength and curl, is called the cortex. The hair shafts are made of a protective outer layer called the cuticle.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time.
As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.

Anyone else got anything valid to say about the topic??

 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Let's not allow the psychotic trolls who are the true racists distract from the topic, which I see now is their true goal.

 -

Notice the hair texture of the African man above is no different from that of many Egyptian mummies. [Smile]
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
-----------------------------------
Let's not allow the psychotic trolls who are the true racists distract from the topic, which I see now is their true goal.
-----------------------------------


This from someone who said that if "west" Africans were not dark, then it is because they are admixed.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Of course if I really said that, you would be able to actually quote me, but anyway...

Anything to add on the topic, someone sane??
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
Let me see if I have all the data you are presenting right.
Based on the environmental factors you mention, hair color
in ancient mummies can be misinterpreted. But I am wondering also
if hair differences are not part of built in African genetic diversity?
Looking again at that Senna research:

(Hrdy 1978- Analysis of Hair Samples of Mummies from Semna South,
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (1978) 49: 277-262)


Hair samples of Egyptian and Nubian mummies have undergone a number
of studies. ( Pruner-Bey (1877, Virchow (1898), (1899, Brothwell
and Spearman (1963)). Hair color in ancient remains is often influenced
by environmental conditions. Brothwell and Spearman (1963) studied
ancient mummies using a variety of techniques. They found the state of
preservation of the samples closely related to environmental factors of
the burial sites, pointing out that reddish-brown ancient color hair
is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment.
(Brothwell. D., and R. Spearman 1963 The hair of earlier peoples.
In: Science in Archaeology. D. Brothwell and E. Higgs, eds.
Thames and Hudeon, London. )

Thus variations in hair color among mummies do not necessarily
suggest the presence of blond or red haired Europeans or Near Easterners
flitting about Egypt before being mummified, but the influence of
environmental factors impacting surviving remains.

Other sources of hair color variation could include the mummification
process with its use of alkalines and sodium, can also bleach surviving
hair samples into various colors ranging from a browning to yellowing,
as also noted by Brothjwell and Spearman. Varying hair color is also
not unusual in Africa. Blondism for example is found in various regions.

The author asserts that Nubians may have had lighter hair in the past
than now, and argues that the samples were better preserved from environmentl
damage. Is this really so, and if there was a lighter haired population,
is that based on race admixture or yet more routine variability in African
populations? It should be noted that a large portion of the Senna sample
had bleaching- the reddish-brown oxidation of melanin - noted by Brothwell
and Spearman, and the author specifically do not rule this out as an
influence on the study.

Curling data showed a pattern intermediate between Northwest European
and African samples. The X-group, especially males, showed more African
elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables.

Seems to me that this intermediate position would not indicate race
admixture or percentages, but simply a data pattern of variation in how
hair curls. This is a routine occurrence within human groups. Among
Europeans for example, some people have curlier hair and some have
straighter hair than others. Various peoples of East and West Africa
also have narrow noses, which are different from other peoples elsewhere
in Africa, nevertheless they still remain Africans. DNA studies also
note greater variation within selected populations that without. Since
Africa has the highest genetic diversity in the world, such routine
variation in characteristics such as hair need not indicate any racial
percentage or admixture, but simply part of the built-in genetic diversity
of the ancient peoples on the continent.

As regards diameter, the study found that the average diameter of the
Semna sample was close to both the Northwest European and East African
samples. This again suggests a range of built-in indigenous variability,
and calls into questions various migration theories to Nubia and the Nile Valley.

As far as the populations most likely to be in Nubia, in 1971 Czech
anthropologist Strouhal asserted that the original Nubian population were
all white Europids, overrun by waves of late-coming blacks. This
view is given great weight in various "Aryan" websites but has has been
thoroughly debunked by modern scholarship. It thus seems unlikely an assortment
of white people would have been waiting patiently in Nubia for blacks to
overrun them, thus creating that there "mixed" pattern of hair.

Another theory given weight on said websites is of native black stock that
was transformed by waves of incoming white people- thus giving rise to all
that "mixed" hair (Northwest Europeans like Germans, Swedes, Danes, Scots etc)
in some versions. This too seems unlikely. Both skeletal and DNA studies i
ndicate that the peoples of the Sahara, Sudan and East Africa have much
closer connections to Nubia and the Nile Valley than Europeans.
See "UNFAIR" below.

Rather than confirm racial percentage or white migration models, the hair
studies seem a confirmation of the OOA model: built-in African genetic
variability giving rise to numerous variations in hair color, texture and
form. This variability would first begin in Africa, spreading to various
parts of the continent, before spreading out to different parts of the globe.

I find that Hrdy's 1978 study seems to hold to a "true Negro" model, in that
variability is viewed as either clustering towards the northwest European
average or "African elements" - in other words, its got to be either black or
white, with "black" or "negroid" defined more narrowly. The study design is
front-loaded using this fundamental underlying assumption, as are other referenced,
defining "negroid" hair in the narrowest terms possible.


When race models are cross-checked against other data, such as the limb
proportion studies noted by Knowledge, the melanin data of Dejuhut, King, etc,
the DNA data presented by Rasol, as well as the various studies by Keita,
built-in indigenous genetic variabilty seems a much more balanced and solid
explanation of hair differences in Nile Valley populations than models that
postulate race percents and admixtures and/or demic diffusion type influxes
of incoming European or Near Eastern colonists.


Interestingly, the author Hrdy in passing also notes that blondism, especially
in young children, is common in many dark-haired populations (e.g.,
Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages. This
again suggests routine built-in genetic variability in the ancient populations
rather than influxes of Europeans or related populations.


USE OF NORTHWEST EUROPEANS BY KEITA "UNFAIR"?

Some on various websites have argued that that the use of Northwest Europe
as a point of comparison with Africans is "unfair". But when Hrdy above
does it, they do not complain, but embrace any information on "African" hair
being "closer" to that of Europeans, proof of European migration or admixture
into the Dark Continent. They do not complain about the 1993 Clines and
Clusters analysis by Brace which excluded the Maghreb, Sudan and Horn of
Africa from its grouping of "African" peoples, and seemed to suggest a
population relationship between Scandanavians and Horn of Africa peoples.
Indeed, they embrace this methodology.

In his 2005 EARLY NILE VALLEY FARMERS FROM EL-BADARI, Aboriginals or
“European”Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered
With Other Data.) Keita put such methods to the test, testing the notion
of population replacement of ancient African stocks in Egypt (the Badari)
by an influx of ancient European farmers or colonists. What he found was
that no matter how the data algoritm was sliced, the ancient samples
clustered much closer to Saharo-tropical Africans than to the Northwest
European samples. One of his conclusions was that similarities between
African data (skulls, hairs whatever) and others was not due to gene flow,
but a subset of built-in African variability.

The notion of influxes of ancient Euro farmers into the indigenous
populations thus seems a shaky one. Is such testing by Keita "unfair" seeing that the influx
model holds such great sway?
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

-----------------------------------
Of course if I really said that, you would be able to actually quote me
-----------------------------------


You fuckin filthy filopeeeeeno heap of dung. There is no way that I'm going to waste time trying to track down your sick racial pathology without a search function.


The fact that your sorry ass is actually lying about what you've said, says even more about what kind of degenerate you are. I called your rat eating ass on it earlier this year.


Pitiful fucker spends all of his time on an African site trying to passively forward his racist agenda given to him by his white masters, who in the past and still to this day still call his backwards ass people niggers.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LMAO @ the frustration of the pathetic nut short of a fruitcake! Argay, I suggest you join the rest of your pitiful boyfriends here [Big Grin]

Moving on...
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
To Zarahan, the studies about light colored hair or even blondism are not surprising. We know that phaelomelanin, the pigment responsible for color lighter than black in hair is not uncommon among Africans, especially those with wavier hair textures. As for 'blondism', while it is more rare among Africans it still does occur, particularly among young children so the genetic causes may be similar to those of aborigines of the Pacific and Australia where blondism among children is much more common.

Somalian
 -

Egyptians
 -

^ Notice the Somali and Egyptians above have a very suttle tinge of lightness to it where it is not exactly jet-black.


Malian
 -

Ethiopian
 -


^ Now notice the very light colored tips of the girls above. It would not take much for embalming chemicals to bleach the rest.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
Those are great pics. Living proof of Africa's genetic variability. None of the pics you post need indicate any kind of race mix at all. It seems that Africans vary widely in how they look, just like other people. This simple fact seems hard for many to accept, but there it is in living color.


I am glad you post those pics because the matter of wigs and hairpieces seem to crop up. Many ancient Egyptian wigs use straightish hair, which some claim shows European migrants or mixes, but your pics show that such hair is nothing unusual in the Nile Valley and Sahara, and your reference to how even other dark-haired populations like Australians have these blondism variants shows that they are not at all uncommon among humans as a whole. Seems also that hair was someties dyed using henna and other colorants as noted earlier by someone. So the Egyptians had plenty of material and Nile Valley and Saharan people to use as a source for their wigs, without needing any hordes of invading Caucasoids to provide hair diversity.

More on wigs and hair:
http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/nilevalleyhair.htm

"Egyptian practice of putting locks of hair in mummy wrappings. Racial analysis is also made problematic by the Egyptian practice of burying hair, in many "votive or funerary deposits buried separately from the body, a practice found from Predynastic to Roman times despite its frequent omission from excavation reports." (Fletcher 2002) In examining hair samples Fletcher (2004) notes that care is needed to determine what is natural scalp hair, versus hair from a wig, versus hair extensions to natural locks. Tracking the exact source of hair is also critical since the Egyptians were known to have placed locks of hair from different sources among mummy wrappings. (The Search for Nefertiti, By Joann Fletcher, HarperCollins, 2004, p. 93-94, 96)"

"Many Egyptian wigs have been found with what is defined as straighter 'cynotrichous' hair, perhaps imported from elsewhere to make the wigs or procured locally. Tomb finds show Nubians themselves wearing wigs of straight hair. But one Nubian from the Royal valley, of the 12th century, named Maherpra, was found to be wearing a wig himself, made up of tightly curled 'negroid' hair, on top of his natural covering (Fletcher 2002). The so-called "Nubian wig" also appears in Egyptian art relief's depicting daily life, a stylistic arrangement thought to imitate those found in southern Egypt or Nubia.

"Such wigs appear to have been popular with both Egyptians and Nubians. Fletcher 2004 notes that the famous queen Nefertiti made frequent use of the Nubian wig: "Nefertiti and her daughter seem to have set a trend for wearing the Nubian wig.. a coiffure first worn by Nubian mercenaries and clearly associated with the military." A detail of a wall scene in Theban tomb TT.55 shows the queen wearing the Nubian wig."

 -

Nubian infantrymen shown with distinctive Nubian wig. From Deir el-Bahri, Temple of Hatshepsut New Kingdom, Eighteenth Dynasty, 1480 B.C.


Also:
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-nile-valley-hairdos-remind-you-of.html

shows the egyptians were into hair weaves, braiding, extensions etc, etc..
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:
-----------------------------
Show me historic evidence of slaves being imported from those countries to America.
-----------------------------


I'm making you look dumber and dumber with each reply.


North Africa

http://google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&suggon=0&as_qdr=all&q=%22slaves+from+northern+africa%22+americas


Berbers

http://google.com/search?as_q=america&hl=en&suggon=0&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=berber+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=a ny&as_d t=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images]http://www.google.com/search?as_q=america&hl=en&suggon=0&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=berber+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_ filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_oc ct=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images


Southern Africans

http://google.com/search?hl=en&suggon=0&as_q=&as_epq=slaves+from+southern+africa&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_ nlo=&as _nhi=&safe=images


Ethiopians

http://web.syr.edu/~affellem/napti.html


East Africans

http://jwsr.ucr.edu/archive/vol5/number1/v5n1r1.php
(east african slaves in new york)
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:
Those are great pics. Living proof of Africa's genetic variability. None of the pics you post need indicate any kind of race mix at all. It seems that Africans vary widely in how they look, just like other people. This simple fact seems hard for many to accept, but there it is in living color.
^ As Africa is the base source for all humans, then of course this is the case.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
Quite true. It would also cover the "red hair" of the mummy of Rameses, given so much weight on certain websites.

They usually refer to a 1980s analysis of Rameses, which found evidence of dyeing to make the hair red, but some elements were untouched by the dye. They concluded that this was red hair on the basis of the presence of pheomelanin. However, pheomelanin conditions, particularly its association with sulfur, can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue. (Jolle 1996). Thus the red hair discovered on Rameses is within the range of dark-haired people, and common human population genetics flowing from original African sources.

Most "red" hair is found in northern and western Europe, and even then it appears in minor frequencies within Europe - some 4% of the population. So it unlikely such folks would be flitting in and out of Egypt to create red haired caucasoid pharoahs.

The study did not find 'European" red hair, a point missed on these websites but the overall
colour being a light fair red with some tendency towards yellow. In otherwordsm reddish-yellow, not "European" red. Claims of incoming Swedes or Germans are thus quite dubious.


The Rameses analysis referenced also found the hair to be cymotrich or wavy. This was pounced on by various Aryan analysts as "proving" non-African origins in favor or Nordic parentage. But isnt wavy hair again a characteristic quite within the range of overall African or Nile valley physical and genetic diversity? A "pure" Nordic or white straight hair was not found as should be expected under assorted Aryan models.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Knowledgeiskey718........


You asked for a scholarly beatdown?


Well you got it in the form of my dismantling the intellectually challenged Djehuti. : )


ha ha ha heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Err umm Djehuti the below further cement you as a dullard and a braindead racist. Wonder what kind of strawman he will use to counter the evidence and facts below.


white people
http://archive.salon.com/books/it/2000/06/15/white_slaves/

West Asians
http://toptraveldealz.com/bermuda/bermuda-history.html

Turks
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22turkish+slaves%22+america

Indians
http://google.com/search?as_q=america&hl=en&suggon=0&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=east+indian+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_o cct=any &as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Japanese
http://google.com/search?as_q=&hl=en&suggon=0&num=100&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=japanese+slaves&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&cr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as _dt=i&a s_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images

Chinese
http://google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&suggon=0&as_qdr=all&q=+%22chinese+slaves%22+%22latin+america%22&btnG=Search

Persians
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22persian+slaves%22+america
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Ignoring the idiocy, let's continue...
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan:

Those are great pics. Living proof of Africa's genetic variability. None of the pics you post need indicate any kind of race mix at all. It seems that Africans vary widely in how they look, just like other people. This simple fact seems hard for many to accept, but there it is in living color.

I am glad you post those pics because the matter of wigs and hairpieces seem to crop up. Many ancient Egyptian wigs use straightish hair, which some claim shows European migrants or mixes, but your pics show that such hair is nothing unusual in the Nile Valley and Sahara, and your reference to how even other dark-haired populations like Australians have these blondism variants shows that they are not at all uncommon among humans as a whole. Seems also that hair was someties dyed using henna and other colorants as noted earlier by someone. So the Egyptians had plenty of material and Nile Valley and Saharan people to use as a source for their wigs, without needing any hordes of invading Caucasoids to provide hair diversity.

More on wigs and hair:
http://www.geocities.com/nilevalleypeoples/nilevalleyhair.htm

"Egyptian practice of putting locks of hair in mummy wrappings. Racial analysis is also made problematic by the Egyptian practice of burying hair, in many "votive or funerary deposits buried separately from the body, a practice found from Predynastic to Roman times despite its frequent omission from excavation reports." (Fletcher 2002) In examining hair samples Fletcher (2004) notes that care is needed to determine what is natural scalp hair, versus hair from a wig, versus hair extensions to natural locks. Tracking the exact source of hair is also critical since the Egyptians were known to have placed locks of hair from different sources among mummy wrappings. (The Search for Nefertiti, By Joann Fletcher, HarperCollins, 2004, p. 93-94, 96)"

"Many Egyptian wigs have been found with what is defined as straighter 'cynotrichous' hair, perhaps imported from elsewhere to make the wigs or procured locally. Tomb finds show Nubians themselves wearing wigs of straight hair. But one Nubian from the Royal valley, of the 12th century, named Maherpra, was found to be wearing a wig himself, made up of tightly curled 'negroid' hair, on top of his natural covering (Fletcher 2002). The so-called "Nubian wig" also appears in Egyptian art relief's depicting daily life, a stylistic arrangement thought to imitate those found in southern Egypt or Nubia.

"Such wigs appear to have been popular with both Egyptians and Nubians. Fletcher 2004 notes that the famous queen Nefertiti made frequent use of the Nubian wig: "Nefertiti and her daughter seem to have set a trend for wearing the Nubian wig.. a coiffure first worn by Nubian mercenaries and clearly associated with the military." A detail of a wall scene in Theban tomb TT.55 shows the queen wearing the Nubian wig."

 -

Nubian infantrymen shown with distinctive Nubian wig. From Deir el-Bahri, Temple of Hatshepsut New Kingdom, Eighteenth Dynasty, 1480 B.C.


Also:
http://exploring-africa.blogspot.com/2008/10/do-nile-valley-hairdos-remind-you-of.html

shows the egyptians were into hair weaves, braiding, extensions etc, etc..

Actually, what alot of people don't know is that wigs that give a slick, straight-haired appearance is not even hair at all but made from plant fibers. I was surprised years ago to learn that such wigs were also worn among West African peoples as par examplar the Wolof of Senegal from Diop's Origins book. The Wolof and other wigs bear a striking resemblance to the Egyptians, even the plant fiber ones that give a straight haired appearance. I am willing to bet that such a common tradition between Egyptians and West Africans stems from shared Saharan origins.

quote:
Quite true. It would also cover the "red hair" of the mummy of Rameses, given so much weight on certain websites.

They usually refer to a 1980s analysis of Rameses, which found evidence of dyeing to make the hair red, but some elements were untouched by the dye. They concluded that this was red hair on the basis of the presence of pheomelanin. However, pheomelanin conditions, particularly its association with sulfur, can also be found in persons with dark brown or even black hair as well, which gives it a reddish hue. (Jolle 1996). Thus the red hair discovered on Rameses is within the range of dark-haired people, and common human population genetics flowing from original African sources.

Most "red" hair is found in northern and western Europe, and even then it appears in minor frequencies within Europe - some 4% of the population. So it unlikely such folks would be flitting in and out of Egypt to create red haired caucasoid pharoahs.

The study did not find 'European" red hair, a point missed on these websites but the overall
colour being a light fair red with some tendency towards yellow. In otherwordsm reddish-yellow, not "European" red. Claims of incoming Swedes or Germans are thus quite dubious.

The Rameses analysis referenced also found the hair to be cymotrich or wavy. This was pounced on by various Aryan analysts as "proving" non-African origins in favor or Nordic parentage. But isnt wavy hair again a characteristic quite within the range of overall African or Nile valley physical and genetic diversity? A "pure" Nordic or white straight hair was not found as should be expected under assorted Aryan models.

^ Correct. Add the minimal phaelomelanin naturally found in the hair with the info I gave above about how embalming chemicals used in mummification plus the centuries of super-dry conditions, and you can see how Africans with a slight brownish or reddish tinge to their hair can be fully 'red-head' or even 'blonde' when their mummies are exhumed millennia later.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

-------------------------------
Ignoring the idiocy
-------------------------------


Translation: I have been defeated intellectually. I believe that only sub-saharan negroids were slaves and not the caucasoids whom I like. I had my "fantasy wishfull thinking" as my only evidence.

Argyle has presented hardcore evidence that thouroughly debunks my race mythology. I am humiliated since I cannot counter the facts that Argyle has bestowed upon this forum. I will now try my damnest to run away and avoid further exposure of my racist beliefs.
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
Djehuti quote:

Actually, what alot of people don't know is that wigs that give a slick, straight-haired appearance is not even hair at all but made from plant fibers. I was surprised years ago to learn that such wigs were also worn among West African peoples as par examplar the Wolof of Senegal from Diop's Origins book. The Wolof and other wigs bear a striking resemblance to the Egyptians, even the plant fiber ones that give a straight haired appearance. I am willing to bet that such a common tradition between Egyptians and West Africans stems from shared Saharan origins.

Looking at the Nubian wigs, and the styles borrowed from the Nubian military men by even Neferti, I have no doubt that it is so with other areas, like the Sahara. I think the book by Toby Wilkinson (Toby A. H. Wilkinson, Early Dynastic Egypt, Routledge, 1999) backs you up as he shows how many Saharan styles, motifs and icons show up also in Egyptian art and representations.


Another piece of data to the pie:

The presence of all that straight hair in wigs, apart from the African genetic variability that could have made such hair a routine occurrence, could also be simply linked with imports of varying types of hair. Looking at one of the articles:


Fletcher (2002) shows that many Egyptian wigs have been found with what is defined as straighter 'cynotrichous' hair. This however is hardly a marker of massive European or Near Eastern presence or admixture. Fletcher notes that the Egyptians often eschewed their own personal hair, shaving carefully and using wigs widely. The hair for these wigs was often obtained through trade. Indeed, according to Fletcher, "hair itself being a valuable commodity ranked alongside gold and incense in account lists from the town of Kahun."

Egyptian trading links with other regions is well known, and a commodity like straighter 'cynotrichous' hair could have been easily obtained via the Sahara, Levant, the Maghreb, Mediterranean contacts, or even the hair of Asiatic war captives or casulaties from Egypt's numerous conflicts. There is thus little need to postulate mass influxes of European admixtures or populations to account for the hair types in wigs. If it wasn't local, it could have been easily gotten through a booming trade.
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL So basically the Egyptians like many black people today just had their weaves and wigs made from imported hair.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Djehuti wrote:

----------------------------
^ LOL So basically the Egyptians like many black people today just had their weaves and wigs made from imported hair.
----------------------------


Look at this vile filthy foreigner laughing and mocking black people.


Folks I told you this sick depraved bastard hangs out at the white supremacists sites.


Why don't you just leave Africans and black people alone you freak?
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL So basically the Egyptians like many black people today just had their weaves and wigs made from imported hair.

lol.. SWEET IRONY! Some things apparently
haven't changed much.

PS: Throwing out this question. Some have
attempted to claim Rameses got his "red" hair
from the Berbers. Aside from the shaky or non-
existent evidence that Ramesees or his father
came from any Berber tribe or people, don't the
Berbers themselves have a genetic link with
other Africans? I saw a page here sometime ago.
Was it E1a or b? that linked them up?

Also Paoli had some old blood typing data
linking ancient Egyptians to black Haratin of the Sahara.
Arent they Berber too?


Seems to me that any attempt to play a "Berber
card" to sustain the caucasoid race percent
model would still come up a losing hand.
 
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
quote:

Also Paoli had some old blood typing data
linking ancient Egyptians to black Haratin of the Sahara.
Arent they Berber too?

Berber is a language group native to Africa, it's not - as Eurocentrists have tried to imply - "and ancient race of native white africans"

Here is the definitive Egyptsearch Berber thread:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/001029.html
 
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by argyle104:
Djehuti wrote:

quote:
Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL So basically the Egyptians like many black people today just had their weaves and wigs made from imported hair.


^Yeap. He sure loves to point out what Kemet had in common with modern and contemporary Africans/blacks. To the detriment of racist imposters like yourself.
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
Alive-(What Box) aka Jeeves wrote:

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

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


No you spooky tooth cretin, I'm not one of those people who is so desperate for Ancient Egypt that I'm going to allow some racist foreigner to mock and demean Africans or "blacks" just because he says something about Ancient Egypt being African.


Keebler Teeth, let me repeat myself
-----------------------------
I told you these people believe in racial hierarchies both outside of Africa and within.


You see the white man considers Ancient Egypt to be the only thing of value in Africa. So people like rasol, knowledgeiskey, and Djehuti revolve their life around it.

The white man in order to claim Ancient Egypt needs to claim other Africans in order to make their grab for AE look legitimate. Therefore Djehuti, Knowledgeiskey, and rasol come out of the woodwork to defend those people.


The white man also needs to set up a juxtaposition with another group of people so he can say "see we look more like the Ancient Egyptians than those people, therefore we are related to the AEs". Which is why Djehuti and Knowledgeiskey are racist against those Africans.
-----------------------------
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by zarahan:

PS: Throwing out this question. Some have
attempted to claim Rameses got his "red" hair
from the Berbers. Aside from the shaky or non-
existent evidence that Ramesees or his father
came from any Berber tribe or people, don't the
Berbers themselves have a genetic link with
other Africans? I saw a page here sometime ago.
Was it E1a or b? that linked them up?

Rasol answered your questions above with the link. 'Berber' is a branch of the Afrasian language phylum and like most other branches is native to Africa only. Also, most Berber speakers are black and even those groups who inhabit the Mediterranean coast are at best mixed looking with dark features while white Berbers with red or blonde hair like the Kabyle or Rif are only a small minority. The lineages that usually tie Berbers to other Africans are paternal haplogroups like E3b, but older ones like E2 and A also exist. Even many white Berbers carry these African lineages while possessing high frequencies of European maternal lineages which explains their 'white' appearance.

quote:
Also Paoli had some old blood typing data linking ancient Egyptians to black Haratin of the Sahara. Arent they Berber too?
Yes, the Haratin are Berbers of Morocco, just as the Jerba are Berbers of Tunisia, Tuareg are Berber of Algeria, and Siwa are Berbers of Egypt--all of whom are black.

quote:
Seems to me that any attempt to play a "Berber card" to sustain the caucasoid race percent model would still come up a losing hand.
As I just showed above, it certainly does!
 
Posted by zarahan (Member # 15718) on :
 
^^Outstanding links and info.

Looking up Berbers, Looked up a book mentioned by Rasol, 'the berbers' which says that the original Saharans were 'negroid' and left behind their distinctive art and iconography in rock carvings and art. QUOTE:

"The really original aspect of the North African prehistoric cultures is evident not on the Mediterranean coast but in the Sahara, in the highlands of Tibesti and Tassili, the Hoggar and west to the Atlantic coast. In these areas, and to a lesser extent in Kabylia and the Saharan Atlas, are found numerous elaborate rock carvings and paintings. From these we can deduce much.. A neolithic civilization combining fishing with stock raising grew up here whose connections are far closer to the Sudan than to the Capsian to the north. The people were negroid, as both their rare skeletons and the splendid frescoes they painted on the cliffs of the Tassili range demonstrate."


It also claims that said native peoples were overrun by incoming Caucasoid Mediterraneans who brought horses and chariots with them, and that around the end of the second millenium, the Saharan rock art changed from largely pastoral scenes to show the coming of alien white invaders who appear as: QUOTE:

"elongated white men with characteristic long hair and pointed beards. Some confirmation of this racial shift comes from physical anthropology, although the skeletons seem to show closer resemblance to groups from the upper Nile Valley than to contemporary material from the Maghreb."

What is interesting is that the frescoes that supposedly show this white invasion, are backed up anthropologically by skeletal material from the Upper Nile Valley, in other words, Southern Egyptians, not Libyans or Mediterranean Caucasoids. Of course as we know, it is in this area that Keita et al shows cranio-skeletal material that matches a tropical African pattern. The limb proportion studies of Zakrzewski also confirm Keita's data. Hence those "long haired" chariot drivers or horsemen need not be incoming white people at all, but good old Nile Valley African stock, since the backup skeletal evidence noted by the authors themselves, resembles the "darker" areas of Egypt. Makes one skeptical of the author's claimed "racial shift".

The Long-hair is interesting because it again shows the diversity of peoples and styles in Africa. Both Nubians and Egyptians themselves wore wigs of long hair, andhair was a routine trade item in Egypt. So the "elongated white men" with the long hair might simply have been your average elongated Africans wearing some hair pieces.

Seems also questionable whether the frescoes actually depict "invasions" or "conquests". It is a possibility, but why not also the presence of other Saharan or perhaps Egyptian groups looking to trade or something? Hell, they may have come to buy hair for new wigs!
 
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
 
zarahan wrote:

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

Quiet sockpuppet!

Shalle we call you socko? : )
 
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ This coming from the twerp who always has guys' hands up his ass, literally! [Roll Eyes]

To Zarahan: That's why you should always beware of sources which refer to racial labels such as "caucasoid" or "caucasian". We know that elongated features and long hair are not unknown to indigenous Africans.
 


(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3