It is incredibly easy to scan through ancient literature and myths and claim that indigenous WHITE people appear in all ancient civilizations and geographic places across the globe.
Basically this is all afrocentrics do, though instead of scanning for references to white, they do instead for black.
This thread which show how easy a white form of afrocentrism can be -
Let's start with New Zealand -
Maori myth makes note of an indigenous pre-Maori race called the Patupaiarehe, Turehu or Pake-pakeha meaning “moon-light people”. The Patupaiarehe were also red haired and pale white skinned. The folklorist James Cowan wrote:
“Patupaiarehe were a much lighter complexion than the Maori, their hair was of a dull golden or reddish colour.” (Fairy Folk Tales of the Maori, 1925, p.2-5).
From the Maori book THE LORE OF THE WHARE-WĀNANGA Written down by H. T. Whatahoro from the teachings of Te Matorohanga and Nepia Pohuhu, priests of the Whare-wānanga of the East Coast, New Zealand (Translation by Percy Smith,chapter VI):
''The Turehu—were of a more advanced civilization than the Maori people at the date of the visit, and these people are described as fair in complexion, with flaxen hair''
In Māori mythology, a race of pale spirit beings, the tūrehu, or pakepakehā live in the forests and mountain tops,[1] and are sometimes hostile to humans.
The Turehu, also referred to as Patupaiarehe, Ngati Hotu and the Urukehu (red heads), were resident in New Zealand when the Maori first landed.[2] These pre-Maori people, were sometimes described as fair complexioned, with red[3] or blond hair and blue eyes[citation needed] and pakepakehā is considered one of the possible sources[4] of the Māori word pākehā - used to refer to Europeans.
--- Therefore the white race is indigenous to New Zealand, the dark skinned maori are not native, whites were there before them.
Now on to Micronesia.
The Matang of Gilbert Islands
Micronesians across the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific Ocean, have a tradition of a reddish haired, blue eyed, pale white skinned race who once inhabited the region as natives. These traditions were reported by the British author Sir Arthur Francis Grimble (A Pattern of Islands, 1952):
"The loving kindness of the Baanaban islanders, in common with the whole Gilbertese race, towards Europeans sprang from no feeling of inferiority, but on the contrary, from a most gracious sense of kinship. Their chief ancestral heroes had been, according to tradition, fair-skinned like ourselves. Au of the Rising Sun with his sister-spouse Titua'abine of the Lightning; Tabuariki the Thunderer and his consort TEVENE'I of the Meteor; Ri'iki of the Milky Way, Taburima'i the White King, and the woman Nimananoa, the Navigatress - all of these heroic beings, sprung from the branches and roots of a single ancestral tree, were of the red-complexioned, blue-eyed strain called 'The Company of the Tree, the Breed of Matang', from which the race claimed decent in the male line.''
- Therefore the indigenous micronesians are infact white people.
etc etc
I could scan indigenous myths from across the globe which state that indigenous white people were there first. This is all afrocentrics do, but instead they look for the mention of a dark or black skinned people.
As can be seen above, it can easily be claimed that the indigenous new zealanders and indigenous micronesians were white people, just by looking at a few scant myths. This is all afrocentrism amounts to but with reference to dark people hence Ivan Sertima and other afrocentrics are claiming the black or 'dark dwarves' of Nordic mythology proves an ancient indigenous black pygmy presence in scandinavia. Now the same can be done in sub-saharan african myths but with a white presence -
In Central Africa, Boshongo Africans have an mythology which asserts a divine figure called “Bomazi” was the first native to the Congo River, he was not dark skinned but a “light white skinned man”. In Ghana, Ashanti Africans have a tradition of a native pale skinned divine child who was in their land first, according to the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology a “white child with large ears…came down from heaven and first settled the territory”. Furthermore according to the Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa, the author of several books on African myths and legends, there was once an indigenous pale skinned “golden haired race of blue eyed men” called the Mzungu who inhabited africa before the dark negros.
Using these myths anyone could easily say that white people are indigenous to sub-sahara africa.
This is all afrocentrics do, but reversing the skin colour.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
any one thats goes on about afrocentrism but says nothing about eurocentrism is a biased fool
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglophile_Pyramidiot: It is incredibly easy to scan through ancient literature and myths and claim that indigenous WHITE people appear **in all ancient civilizations and geographic places across the globe.**
Really??!
Is this why you believe Egyptians of northeast Africa were not black either even though they were indigenous Africans??
What about the Asiatic Mesopotamians?
^ As if Eurocentrism is not baseless. LOL Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: any one thats goes on about afrocentrism but says nothing about eurocentrism is a biased fool
In the case of the Anglophile_Pyramidiot he is not only a fool but INSANE if he actually believes the outdated, debunked, garbage he cites!!
Yeah as if whites are indigenous to Polynesia and Micronesia! These whites somehow mysteriously vanished and were replaced by people of color!! LMAO
As a Filipino I must tell you I've actually read old Western literature that has described my people as "Mediterranean caucasoids" admixed with "mongoloids"! Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
"I've actually read old Western literature that has described my people as "Mediterranean caucasoids" admixed with "mongoloids"! "
lol mental illness
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. That is exactly what the likes of Anglophile and other whites who want to whitewash the world suffer from.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
ROFLMFAO!!!!
Everybody look, it's Perahu the clown, it's ok to laugh!!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^These Albino kids get sillier all the time.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
More of a Reddish Mahogany Brown and their facial features varied quite a bit. They were genetically closest to the Nubians more so than any other group of people. In terms of looks, modern day Nubians are today the best representation of what AE people looked like.
I would say their features on a the average were intermediate. Having fleshy lips, dark skin, low nasal root, moderate prognathous.
Sanee is rather a good example of these intermediate features but she is rather light skinned.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: It is incredibly easy to scan through ancient literature and myths and claim that indigenous WHITE people appear in all ancient civilizations and geographic places across the globe.
Basically this is all afrocentrics do, though instead of scanning for references to white, they do instead for black.
This thread which show how easy a white form of afrocentrism can be -
Let's start with New Zealand -
Maori myth makes note of an indigenous pre-Maori race called the Patupaiarehe, Turehu or Pake-pakeha meaning “moon-light people”. The Patupaiarehe were also red haired and pale white skinned. The folklorist James Cowan wrote:
“Patupaiarehe were a much lighter complexion than the Maori, their hair was of a dull golden or reddish colour.” (Fairy Folk Tales of the Maori, 1925, p.2-5).
From the Maori book THE LORE OF THE WHARE-WĀNANGA Written down by H. T. Whatahoro from the teachings of Te Matorohanga and Nepia Pohuhu, priests of the Whare-wānanga of the East Coast, New Zealand (Translation by Percy Smith,chapter VI):
''The Turehu—were of a more advanced civilization than the Maori people at the date of the visit, and these people are described as fair in complexion, with flaxen hair''
In Māori mythology, a race of pale spirit beings, the tūrehu, or pakepakehā live in the forests and mountain tops,[1] and are sometimes hostile to humans.
The Turehu, also referred to as Patupaiarehe, Ngati Hotu and the Urukehu (red heads), were resident in New Zealand when the Maori first landed.[2] These pre-Maori people, were sometimes described as fair complexioned, with red[3] or blond hair and blue eyes[citation needed] and pakepakehā is considered one of the possible sources[4] of the Māori word pākehā - used to refer to Europeans.
--- Therefore the white race is indigenous to New Zealand, the dark skinned maori are not native, whites were there before them.
Now on to Micronesia.
The Matang of Gilbert Islands
Micronesians across the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific Ocean, have a tradition of a reddish haired, blue eyed, pale white skinned race who once inhabited the region as natives. These traditions were reported by the British author Sir Arthur Francis Grimble (A Pattern of Islands, 1952):
"The loving kindness of the Baanaban islanders, in common with the whole Gilbertese race, towards Europeans sprang from no feeling of inferiority, but on the contrary, from a most gracious sense of kinship. Their chief ancestral heroes had been, according to tradition, fair-skinned like ourselves. Au of the Rising Sun with his sister-spouse Titua'abine of the Lightning; Tabuariki the Thunderer and his consort TEVENE'I of the Meteor; Ri'iki of the Milky Way, Taburima'i the White King, and the woman Nimananoa, the Navigatress - all of these heroic beings, sprung from the branches and roots of a single ancestral tree, were of the red-complexioned, blue-eyed strain called 'The Company of the Tree, the Breed of Matang', from which the race claimed decent in the male line.''
- Therefore the indigenous micronesians are infact white people.
etc etc
I could scan indigenous myths from across the globe which state that indigenous white people were there first. This is all afrocentrics do, but instead they look for the mention of a dark or black skinned people.
As can be seen above, it can easily be claimed that the indigenous new zealanders and indigenous micronesians were white people, just by looking at a few scant myths. This is all afrocentrism amounts to but with reference to dark people hence Ivan Sertima and other afrocentrics are claiming the black or 'dark dwarves' of Nordic mythology proves an ancient indigenous black pygmy presence in scandinavia. Now the same can be done in sub-saharan african myths but with a white presence -
In Central Africa, Boshongo Africans have an mythology which asserts a divine figure called “Bomazi” was the first native to the Congo River, he was not dark skinned but a “light white skinned man”. In Ghana, Ashanti Africans have a tradition of a native pale skinned divine child who was in their land first, according to the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology a “white child with large ears…came down from heaven and first settled the territory”. Furthermore according to the Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa, the author of several books on African myths and legends, there was once an indigenous pale skinned “golden haired race of blue eyed men” called the Mzungu who inhabited africa before the dark negros.
Using these myths anyone could easily say that white people are indigenous to sub-sahara africa.
This is all afrocentrics do, but reversing the skin colour.
No not all of us. Some are more radical than others. Afrocentrism is more about the study of African heritage. Egyptians were African regardless of your opinion about their looks. For centuries Europeans and Asiatics claimed Egypt as their own heritage. Now Africans are claiming it back. Now there are some that go too far with that and try to claim that Egyptians were no different than the Bantu. That is not Afrocentrism but rather Afro-Nutism. However, there is evidence supporting a connection between the Bantu and Ancient Egypt but is more likely a Cushitic connection or even a Canaanite one.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion Quote: I would say their features on a the average were intermediate. Having fleshy lips, dark skin, low nasal root, moderate prognathous.
osirion - Please tell me what it is with ass-holes like you and prognathism?
I keep looking around for prognathic Blacks and I can't find any. So please help me out. There are millions of Egyptian statues and busts. Please post a few that are prognathic.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
You mean like the Sphinx?
Here listen to Charlton Heston talk about the Sphinx being that of a Black African:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
More of a Reddish Mahogany Brown and their facial features varied quite a bit. They were genetically closest to the Nubians more so than any other group of people. In terms of looks, modern day Nubians are today the best representation of what AE people looked like.
I would say their features on a the average were intermediate. Having fleshy lips, dark skin, low nasal root, moderate prognathous.
Sanee is rather a good example of these intermediate features but she is rather light skinned.
Sorry, but she's not hot Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ shes alright. thats not the point.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion - The Sphinx is NOT a real person.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ neither are any of the other artifacts.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: It is incredibly easy to scan through ancient literature and myths and claim that indigenous WHITE people appear in all ancient civilizations and geographic places across the globe.
Basically this is all afrocentrics do, though instead of scanning for references to white, they do instead for black.
This thread which show how easy a white form of afrocentrism can be -
Let's start with New Zealand -
Maori myth makes note of an indigenous pre-Maori race called the Patupaiarehe, Turehu or Pake-pakeha meaning “moon-light people”. The Patupaiarehe were also red haired and pale white skinned. The folklorist James Cowan wrote:
“Patupaiarehe were a much lighter complexion than the Maori, their hair was of a dull golden or reddish colour.” (Fairy Folk Tales of the Maori, 1925, p.2-5).
From the Maori book THE LORE OF THE WHARE-WĀNANGA Written down by H. T. Whatahoro from the teachings of Te Matorohanga and Nepia Pohuhu, priests of the Whare-wānanga of the East Coast, New Zealand (Translation by Percy Smith,chapter VI):
''The Turehu—were of a more advanced civilization than the Maori people at the date of the visit, and these people are described as fair in complexion, with flaxen hair''
In Māori mythology, a race of pale spirit beings, the tūrehu, or pakepakehā live in the forests and mountain tops,[1] and are sometimes hostile to humans.
The Turehu, also referred to as Patupaiarehe, Ngati Hotu and the Urukehu (red heads), were resident in New Zealand when the Maori first landed.[2] These pre-Maori people, were sometimes described as fair complexioned, with red[3] or blond hair and blue eyes[citation needed] and pakepakehā is considered one of the possible sources[4] of the Māori word pākehā - used to refer to Europeans.
--- Therefore the white race is indigenous to New Zealand, the dark skinned maori are not native, whites were there before them.
Now on to Micronesia.
The Matang of Gilbert Islands
Micronesians across the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific Ocean, have a tradition of a reddish haired, blue eyed, pale white skinned race who once inhabited the region as natives. These traditions were reported by the British author Sir Arthur Francis Grimble (A Pattern of Islands, 1952):
"The loving kindness of the Baanaban islanders, in common with the whole Gilbertese race, towards Europeans sprang from no feeling of inferiority, but on the contrary, from a most gracious sense of kinship. Their chief ancestral heroes had been, according to tradition, fair-skinned like ourselves. Au of the Rising Sun with his sister-spouse Titua'abine of the Lightning; Tabuariki the Thunderer and his consort TEVENE'I of the Meteor; Ri'iki of the Milky Way, Taburima'i the White King, and the woman Nimananoa, the Navigatress - all of these heroic beings, sprung from the branches and roots of a single ancestral tree, were of the red-complexioned, blue-eyed strain called 'The Company of the Tree, the Breed of Matang', from which the race claimed decent in the male line.''
- Therefore the indigenous micronesians are infact white people.
etc etc
I could scan indigenous myths from across the globe which state that indigenous white people were there first. This is all afrocentrics do, but instead they look for the mention of a dark or black skinned people.
As can be seen above, it can easily be claimed that the indigenous new zealanders and indigenous micronesians were white people, just by looking at a few scant myths. This is all afrocentrism amounts to but with reference to dark people hence Ivan Sertima and other afrocentrics are claiming the black or 'dark dwarves' of Nordic mythology proves an ancient indigenous black pygmy presence in scandinavia. Now the same can be done in sub-saharan african myths but with a white presence -
In Central Africa, Boshongo Africans have an mythology which asserts a divine figure called “Bomazi” was the first native to the Congo River, he was not dark skinned but a “light white skinned man”. In Ghana, Ashanti Africans have a tradition of a native pale skinned divine child who was in their land first, according to the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology a “white child with large ears…came down from heaven and first settled the territory”. Furthermore according to the Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa, the author of several books on African myths and legends, there was once an indigenous pale skinned “golden haired race of blue eyed men” called the Mzungu who inhabited africa before the dark negros.
Using these myths anyone could easily say that white people are indigenous to sub-sahara africa.
This is all afrocentrics do, but reversing the skin colour.
Let us scan your outright racist lies,
The concept of the 'dying Maori', then, was replaced with that of the 'whitening Maori'. While they were expected to retain aspects of their PAGE 20Maoridom into the foreseeable future, 'brown Europeans' would resile from the 'beastly communism' of the tribal collectivity. They were expected to embrace individualism fervently, maximise their profits by selling the land to those with the superior technology to use it efficiently (whites), and behave in such a fashion as not to disrupt 'the natural order of things'. Antipodean life should as far as possible replicate that of the Home Counties of England. Maori were deemed to have a head start over other indigenous peoples. As the Minister of Defence said in 1914, they were 'the chief of the dark races'.15
Thus they would easily learn from 'the Englishman', the ideal imperialist who 'loves order and justice'. Because he had secured 'orderly government at Home', the coloniser 'knows how to establish it in new lands'. The English nation and its auxiliaries had, in short, a 'civilising mission' in the British Empire. While this was clearly based on exploitation of colonial peoples and extraction of their resources, it was rationalised by a mixture of altruism and scientism. Maori were assessed to be 'advanced' enough to be invited to learn to become (ultimately, full) participants in the superior political economy and culture. Such an intellectual paradigm has now largely disappeared, at least in raw form, but vestiges remain that still have an impact on historiography — and, by extension, on national mythology.
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: It is incredibly easy to scan through ancient literature and myths and claim that indigenous WHITE people appear in all ancient civilizations and geographic places across the globe.
Basically this is all afrocentrics do, though instead of scanning for references to white, they do instead for black.
This thread which show how easy a white form of afrocentrism can be -
Let's start with New Zealand -
Maori myth makes note of an indigenous pre-Maori race called the Patupaiarehe, Turehu or Pake-pakeha meaning “moon-light people”. The Patupaiarehe were also red haired and pale white skinned. The folklorist James Cowan wrote:
“Patupaiarehe were a much lighter complexion than the Maori, their hair was of a dull golden or reddish colour.” (Fairy Folk Tales of the Maori, 1925, p.2-5).
From the Maori book THE LORE OF THE WHARE-WĀNANGA Written down by H. T. Whatahoro from the teachings of Te Matorohanga and Nepia Pohuhu, priests of the Whare-wānanga of the East Coast, New Zealand (Translation by Percy Smith,chapter VI):
''The Turehu—were of a more advanced civilization than the Maori people at the date of the visit, and these people are described as fair in complexion, with flaxen hair''
In Māori mythology, a race of pale spirit beings, the tūrehu, or pakepakehā live in the forests and mountain tops,[1] and are sometimes hostile to humans.
The Turehu, also referred to as Patupaiarehe, Ngati Hotu and the Urukehu (red heads), were resident in New Zealand when the Maori first landed.[2] These pre-Maori people, were sometimes described as fair complexioned, with red[3] or blond hair and blue eyes[citation needed] and pakepakehā is considered one of the possible sources[4] of the Māori word pākehā - used to refer to Europeans.
--- Therefore the white race is indigenous to New Zealand, the dark skinned maori are not native, whites were there before them.
Now on to Micronesia.
The Matang of Gilbert Islands
Micronesians across the Gilbert Islands in the Pacific Ocean, have a tradition of a reddish haired, blue eyed, pale white skinned race who once inhabited the region as natives. These traditions were reported by the British author Sir Arthur Francis Grimble (A Pattern of Islands, 1952):
"The loving kindness of the Baanaban islanders, in common with the whole Gilbertese race, towards Europeans sprang from no feeling of inferiority, but on the contrary, from a most gracious sense of kinship. Their chief ancestral heroes had been, according to tradition, fair-skinned like ourselves. Au of the Rising Sun with his sister-spouse Titua'abine of the Lightning; Tabuariki the Thunderer and his consort TEVENE'I of the Meteor; Ri'iki of the Milky Way, Taburima'i the White King, and the woman Nimananoa, the Navigatress - all of these heroic beings, sprung from the branches and roots of a single ancestral tree, were of the red-complexioned, blue-eyed strain called 'The Company of the Tree, the Breed of Matang', from which the race claimed decent in the male line.''
- Therefore the indigenous micronesians are infact white people.
etc etc
I could scan indigenous myths from across the globe which state that indigenous white people were there first. This is all afrocentrics do, but instead they look for the mention of a dark or black skinned people.
As can be seen above, it can easily be claimed that the indigenous new zealanders and indigenous micronesians were white people, just by looking at a few scant myths. This is all afrocentrism amounts to but with reference to dark people hence Ivan Sertima and other afrocentrics are claiming the black or 'dark dwarves' of Nordic mythology proves an ancient indigenous black pygmy presence in scandinavia. Now the same can be done in sub-saharan african myths but with a white presence -
In Central Africa, Boshongo Africans have an mythology which asserts a divine figure called “Bomazi” was the first native to the Congo River, he was not dark skinned but a “light white skinned man”. In Ghana, Ashanti Africans have a tradition of a native pale skinned divine child who was in their land first, according to the New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology a “white child with large ears…came down from heaven and first settled the territory”. Furthermore according to the Zulu Shaman Credo Mutwa, the author of several books on African myths and legends, there was once an indigenous pale skinned “golden haired race of blue eyed men” called the Mzungu who inhabited africa before the dark negros.
Using these myths anyone could easily say that white people are indigenous to sub-sahara africa.
This is all afrocentrics do, but reversing the skin colour.
You are the embodiment of the devil, as the liar you are!!!
The dying Māori and Social Darwinism
Māori population, 1840–2009
Darwinism
In 1859 Charles Darwin published his famous Origin of species, and a new era in European racial theory followed. Darwinism, the theory of evolution through the selection of favourable variations by the ‘struggle’ for existence, was not in itself racist. Animals competed peacefully for food with members of their own group. Those with peculiarities suited to particular environments, such as longer necks among proto-giraffes, got more food and therefore had more offspring. Their offspring tended to have long necks too, those with the longest ate more and bred more, and so over many generations the full giraffe species originated. Social Darwinism misinterpreted Darwin’s competition within groups to mean conflict between groups, and saw the struggle between races as the engine of human progress. The Origin of species did not in fact deal with human evolution and Darwin himself did not directly engage with it until 1871, in his Descent of man. The issue was sensitive because the theory of evolution implied that humans were descended from apes. In the racialist context of the times, however, people were quick to deduce Social Darwinism from Darwinism proper.
Scientific learning
In 1863, nine months after reading the Origin of species, the settler-soldier Arthur Atkinson wrote, ‘I find one lies in wait to shoot Maoris without any approach to an angry feeling – it is a sort of scientific duty’.1
Fatal impact
Social Darwinism built on earlier ideas of ‘fatal impact’, whereby inferior races melted away as a result of European contact. In the 1830s, after extensive travels in northern New Zealand, English visitor Edward Markham wrote:
It seems to me that the same causes that depopulated the Indian Tribes are doing the same all over the World. In New Zealand the same as in Canada or North America, And in Southern Africa the Hottentots are a decreasing people and by all accounts the Islands of the South Seas are the same. Rum, Blankets, Muskets, Tobacco and Diseases have been the great destroyers; but my belief is the Almighty intended it should be so or it would not have been allowed, Out of Evil comes Good.2
Most of the many references to the ‘dying Māori’ lamented their passing, and very few suggested deliberate extermination. But, in the heat of warfare in the 1860s, some did. In 1868 a Wellington newspaper wrote: ‘They are determined to fight, and we, in self-protection, must treat them as a species of savage beasts which must be exterminated to render the colonisation of New Zealand possible’.
Up with the play
Some New Zealand intellectuals were close followers of contemporary European science. This is shown in letters from Judge William Martin and his wife Mary-Ann to their friend and noted naturalist, Richard Owen in England. In 1844, the Martins hoped that the Māori, ‘this fine race’, might avoid fatal impact, ‘the common fate of aborigines’. In 1860, they noted the pressure that archaeological discoveries of ‘great antiquity’ placed on the Biblical time-span ‘unless we are content to accept the theory of those who cut the knot by asserting a number of primitive stocks’. By 1862 they were ‘highly amused’ by the Darwinian ‘Gorilla controversy’.4
Uses of racial theory
The usefulness of racial theories for Europeans was always more important than its accuracy. For example, polygenists claimed that different races could not interbreed, or at least that mixed-race people would soon prove infertile, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Racial theory buttressed the European self-image as the most advanced of races and put paid to doubts about the morality of their attempt to take over the world.
Even the most able writers could simultaneously accept two contradictory racial theories, or even all three. In 1863 the geologist Ferdinand Von Hochstetter managed to be monogenist, polygenist and Social Darwinist in a single chapter. He dismissed the evidence of Polynesian links with South-East Asia, and declared that the Polynesians had their ‘own sphere of creation’. He then both celebrated Māori ‘progress in civilization’ and predicted their inevitable extinction.
Richly endowed by nature with intellectual and physical powers, of a lively temper, energetic and open minded, and with natural wit, the Maori is fully aware of his progress in moral improvement and culture; yet he is not capable of attaining the full height of a Christian civilized life; and it is from this very incompleteness, that his race is doomed to gradual extinction … Compared with the fresh and full vigour, with which the Anglo-Saxon race is spreading and increasing, the Maori is the weaker party, and thus he is the loser in the endless 'struggle for existence'.5
The belief that Māori were dying out declined from about 1914, when evidence of Māori population increase became undeniable, though many continued to believe that Māori would be fully assimilated into the majority culture, surviving only as a ‘golden tinge’ on the skins of the Pākehā.
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
Lol, hilarious.
I take it, you're a clown anyway.
You dumb xenophobic fascist.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pair'o'balls_butnobrains: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
Yes and according to you the Bantu Tutsi and Hima and the Nilo-Saharan Hema are "mixed". Keep telling yourself these things if it makes you feel better. After all, to you it's not about EVIDENCE, FACTS, or overall REALITY, but about what makes you feel good.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
....
"Comparisons of allele frequencies showed **high divergence values between North Africans and Europeans (δ > 30%) in markers: rs4540055 (allele A) and rs16891982.** Our study adds data that can be used as training set genotypes for future ancestry investigations in forensic cases and suggests these AIM-SNPs can **successfully differentiate** North Africans and Mediterranean Europeans."--K. Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ Pairo'eyesbutnobrains : No, no, no! That's wrong! That study was written by a biased Afrocentrist!
Behold my brown caucasoid brethren!
You see? Definitely far more related to us Europeans than African negroes! Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': ....
"Comparisons of allele frequencies showed **high divergence values between North Africans and Europeans (δ > 30%) in markers: rs4540055 (allele A) and rs16891982.** Our study adds data that can be used as training set genotypes for future ancestry investigations in forensic cases and suggests these AIM-SNPs can **successfully differentiate** North Africans and Mediterranean Europeans."--K. Fadhlaoui-Zid et al. 2011
Major fail.
Only two SNPs? Whoopty Fuckin' Doo! That is utterly meaningless, try whole genome data.
North Africans are genetically far closer to Europeans than to authentic Negroids.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Lol, even northwest Africans are closer to sub-Saharans.
Northwest Africans are the ones with significant Eurasian mtDNA, yet northwest Africans and northeast Africans are genetically separated by a genetic discontinuity.
We have no evidence of a European presence amongst the ancient Egyptians. On the other hand, we have tons of genetic evidence that sub-Saharan Africa was a major population source for the Nile Valley.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.
Upper Egyptians cluster with Caucasoids and are genetically far more Caucasoid than anything else.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ they are closer to Nubians than any other group. And Sub-Saharans in these comparisons do not include Horn Africans, Fulani, Taureg, and many other groups of people that would not support the author's position.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^The above results are expected given the steady rate of migration to Egypt from the Middle east and Europe over the past 2-3,000 years.
quote:Of course there is documented historical migration into Africa, and it is postulated that a small amount of gene flow [1%] per generation into a regional population can radically alter gene frequencies in a few thousand years (Cavalli-Sforza e t al. 1994)
--S.O.Y. Keita
^Yet even with proportionately higher migration from Eurasia over the past few millennia, Egyptians still shift much more towards the African populations than do Eurasian groups while they also still carry predominately African Y-chromosomes which undoubtedly reflects their starting orientation as an aboriginal Northeast African population genetically akin to the south (from whence they ultimately migrated).
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
The same article says that they were closer to Middle Easterners than North Africans when they ARE north Africans LOL! BTW Perahu the retard, look at what your own citation source goes on to say:
"Possible explanations for HWE departure are population substructure and admixture, since there is persistent consanguinity (27.7% in WHO report, 1994) [7] E. Abd AlSalam, A report presented to the Regional Consultation on Community Genetic Services, Hereditary disorders, World Health Organization Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, Alexandria, 1994.[7] in addition to historical admixture with other ethnic groups who ruled Egypt in its past, e.g. Ottomans, Arabs (who constituted **major migration waves**) and Greeks."
This is after all, the modern population we're talking about. Crania from Upper Egypt is closer to the Horn, Sudan, etc., not Europeans or Middle Easterners
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Also take note of the sub-Saharan samples used:
Central African Republic (Biaka), Congo (Mbuti), Senegal (Mandenka), Nigeria (Yoruba), Namibia (San), South Africa (Bantu), Kenya (Bantu)
Instead of more responsible choices that one would expect e.g., the Horn, Sudanese, Saharan's etc.,
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Interesting read. Topic: Eurocentrists and prognathism
Keita 1992 also dismisses notions of a "Mediterranean race":
“Mediterranean,” connoting a “race,” “one interbreeding population,” at the craniometric level, is questionable as defining the “Middle East” during the Bronze Age (Finkel, 1974,1978), invalid as a term linking geography to a uniform external phenotype (see Snowden, 1970; MacGaffey, 1966; Keita, 1990), inaccurate as a metric taxon for many groups previously assigned to it (Rightmire, 1975a,b), and problematic as a bony craniofacial morphotype denoting a “race” or mendelian population because of its varied soft-part trait associations and wide geographical distribution (see “Hamitic” in Coon et al., 1950; Gabel, 1966; MacGaffey, 1966; Hiernaux, 1975; Rightmire, 1975a).
“Hamitic”, a label once used for some African groups (Fulani, Galla, Beja, southern ancient Egyptian), is seen by some as equivalent to “Mediterranean White” (e.g., Vercoutter, 1978), but Hiernaux (1975) points out that it is incorrect to view fossil and living groups once so designated as being “closely related to Caucasoids of Europe and western Asia.” The term “Hamitic” has been dropped by linguists and historians as well as by anthropologists because of its contradictions, its inadequacies, and the theory of race and race history to which it was attached (McGaffey, 1966; Sanders, 1969; Hiernaux, 1975).
Likewise “Brown Race” is sometimes used as a synonym for Mediterranean White, though this interpretation is historically somewhat inaccurate (MacGaffey, 1966). Sergi (1901), perhaps the father of the original Mediterranean Race concept (Angel, 1983, personal communication), saw this taxon as being “autonomous” in origin, not of the Black or White “races.” Physical anthropologists express divergent views on the characteristic bony craniofacial morphology which is to define the “Mediterranean type” (personal correspondence from the late J.L. Angel, M-C. Chamla, and A. Wiercinski)."
-- Keita S. 1992. Further Studies of ancient crania from North Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254 (1992)
SUMMARY- the tropical/arid tropic civilization of Egypt 1) Southern Egypt, from which the genesis of Ancient Egypt civilization sprang, lies in the tropical zone, from the Tropics of Cancer to Capricorn. The rest of Egypt is very similar, and lies in the immediately adjacent subtropical or arid tropic zone, NOT the cold-climate zones of Europe or Asia. The Tropic of Cancer passes through Egypt at 23°26′N 25°0′E.
(Thompson and Perry, 1997; Griffiths, 1976)
2) The peoples of ancient Egypt, in the aforementioned tropical and semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners. (Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia. (Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
4) The ancient Egyptians in their tropical and sub-tropical/arid tropic environment, did not need cold climate people to develop their distinct culture. Several strands of culture from religion to material living put the Egyptians closer to nearby Africans than to cold-climate Mediterraneans, Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita, 1996, 2004; Yurco 1989, 1996; Williams, 1980; Britannia 1984; Wilkinson 1999; Wendorf, 2001) 5) European/Asiatic cold climate or light skin inspiration was unneeded by the tropically adapted Africans of ancient Egypt. They peopled the Nile Valley from the Sahara and the Sudan, and ancient Egypt is part of a tropical African lineage. Indigenous development sprang from a long tradition going back deep into the Sahara and the Sudan. (Lovell, 1999; Lefkowitz, 1993, 1996; Keita 1993, Irish 2006)
6) European/Asiatic cold climate or light skin inspiration was unneeded by the tropically adapted Africans of ancient Egypt. DNA studies show the Egyptians link with other Africans via Haplogroup "E" to a much greater extent than cold climate Mediterraneans, Europeans or Middle easterners. (Keita 2004, 2008; Richards 2003; Battaglia, 2008; Cruciani 2007; Lucotte 2003; Stevanovitch et al 2004) 7) African people have a range of physical variation and don't need any inspiration or mixes from cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics to explain why. Features like narrow noses, thin lips, height etc are all indigenous to Africa. Africa has both the highest phenotypic diversity and the highest genetic diversity in the world and don’t need cold-climate/light skin inspiration for that established fact. All cold-climate/light skinned Europeans and Asiatics are SUBSETS of original African diversity. Modern DNA studies find even though some African peoples look different, they are genetically related through the PN2 transition clade of the Y-chromosome. Thus light-skinned African Libyans and dark-skinned Zulus are all genetically related Africans, even though they don't look exactly the same. (Keita 2004; Tishkoff 2002, Ely et al, 2006, Stevanovitch 2004)
8) African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
9) Not needing cold-climate/slight-skinned inspiration, the peoples of ancient Egypt are more closely linked with fellow tropical Africans in terms of cranial studies than with Europeans or Asiatics. Analysis of skeletal and cranial remains reveals that the ancient Egyptians of the early Dynastic and pre-Dynastic phases, link closer to nearby Saharan, Sudanic and East African populations than Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples. Greeks, Romans, Hyskos, Arabs and others were to appear later in Egyptian history. Craniometric studies generally place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to the range of tropical Africans in the Nile Valley and East Africa than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (Keita 1990, 1993, 1996, 2004; Hiernaux 1975; Froment 2002; Kemp 2005)
10) Comparatively recent (in evolutionary terms) Europeans and Asiatics LOOKED LIKE tropical Africans with dark skin and other features, before cold-climate adaptation changed them. Light skin color is a RECENT development for Europeans and Asiatics. The foundations of civilization in terms of key animal and plant domesticates, and associated technology in Europe and Asia were thus laid by these dark-skinned migrants from Africa, who resembled today's Africans, undermining claims of the efficacy of white skin in laying the basic foundations or in building advanced civilizations such as that built by the tropically adapted peoples of the Nile Valley.
(Jablonski 2000; Brace 2005; Hanihara 1996; Rethelford 2000)
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ancient Egyptians were mainly brown Caucasoids. They were genetically closer to Europeans than to pure breed Negroids.
oh,what the heck.this should help clear things up too.
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
"Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times..." (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)
"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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 501-509)
German Institute for Archaeology -excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. In several of the noble specimens: "The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." (Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues", Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13)
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)
"There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times. Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less native are not supported by archaeology... In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"
"The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
HERE IS THE WORK OF THE ANTHROPOLOGIST SO STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY LEFKOWITZ, NANCY LOVELL:
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
and
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
Limb proportion studies Quotes: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. 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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". AJPA 121 (3): 219-229.
and S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54
"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Peoples of the Sahara were an important part of the foundations of ancient Egypt and pioneered in several features that were to appear in Egypt, including religion, cattle cults, stone construction and astronomy etc. Some mainstream scientists consider the Saharans more organized on some counts than the early Egyptians. Also the Saharan culture shares clear links with other African peoples. Of note again is the southern direction of this cultural pioneering and growth, not the north, the Middle East, or the Mediterranean.
UNESCO - General History of Africa: Volume II This lengthy period includes the civilization of Ancient Egypt, the history of Nubia, Ethiopia, North Africa and the Sahara, as well as of the other regions ...
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ they are closer to Nubians than any other group. And Sub-Saharans in these comparisons do not include Horn Africans, Fulani, Taureg, and many other groups of people that would not support the author's position.
That is because those Africans you just mentioned are heavily Caucasoid admixed as well.
Ancient Egyptians are very distant from pure Negroids on the molecular level.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': Also take note of the sub-Saharan samples used:
Central African Republic (Biaka) Congo (Mbuti) Senegal (Mandenka) Nigeria (Yoruba) Namibia (San) South Africa (Bantu) Kenya (Bantu)
Authentic Negroid types who make up over 90% of Sub-Saharan Africa's population.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The above results are expected given the steady rate of migration to Egypt from the Middle east and Europe over the past 2-3,000 years.
Oh noes! the good ol' sand-crackers have been there excuse.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Oh noes! the good ol' sand-crackers have been there excuse.
Clown. Even the author of the article says the exact same thing. You obviously haven't even bothered to read half the things you cite because you don't have them LOL!
quote:Authentic Negroid types who make up over 90% of Sub-Saharan Africa's population.
Wtf... lol? If they take samples geographically unreasonable to compare to Egyptians than this obviously suggests bias.
quote:That is because those Africans you just mentioned are heavily Caucasoid admixed as well.
Not this sh1t again!
My Last comment in response to you. You've obviously gone overboard with the name change and avatar, you can't be take seriously
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid
you have to explain why the first egyptians looked like the guys below
Notice how distant Copts (modern versions of the Ancient Egyptians) are from the Sub-Saharan samples in the first principal component. Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
The Copt samples
displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as
much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they
actually represent a living record of the peopling of
"Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group
might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern
Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation"
you have to explain why the first egyptians looked like the guys below
Q. did the first ancient egyptians look like the guys above
A.yes or no
Q.is the 2 guys above ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
A. yes or no
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images on google it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
The Copts like the Ancient Egyptians are first and foremost a Caucasoid population. Genetically they cluster far away from Negroids.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
i made a thread for you RAHOTEP and ancient caucasoid
please answer it and no stalling
any way
"The Copt samples
displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as
much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they
actually represent a living record of the peopling of
"Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group
might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern
Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation"
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
I am speaking of autosomal DNA here, which is far more important in determining race than uniparental lineages.
Copts are practically completely Caucasoid.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
so african americans and half white africans are caucasoid??
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: so african americans and half white africans are caucasoid??
African Americans are ~80% Negroid, and their Negroid component is of the broadest most Negroid type of all. They are not Caucasoid.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
what about half white africans ??
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
It depends on where the African parent is from. If he or she is from North Africa or the Horn of Africa the offspring are mainly Caucasoid. However, if half Negroid African, the offspring are *not* Caucasoid.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
Excellent analysis, I concur.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Rahotep, More stupidity. Completely ignoring the info I gave you months ago
You are a pseudo-scholar. You try to pass off your statements as reliable and thoroughly researched but they lack research more than anything else.
No surprise Perahu, Dienkes b|tch agrees with Rahotep, Phoenician7's b|tch Posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) based on pair-wise FST genetic distances of Upper Egyptian and other diverse global populations. OCE, Oceanian; ME, Middle Eastern; NAF, North African; EAS, East Asian; SSA, sub-Saharan African; UEGY, Upper Egyptian; SAS, South Asian; EUR, European. The figure shows that Oceania and American populations are very distant from Upper Egyptians (marked by a grey triangle) and other populations. The Upper Egyptian population is closer to the Middle Eastern, North African, South Asian and European populations than others.
Upper Egyptians cluster with Caucasoids and are genetically far more Caucasoid than anything else.
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: Have it your way, here is a study with Saharan and Sub-Saharan samples closer to Egyptians.
answer the questions on my thread please
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
As for Menes/Narmer the Palette image is more reliably identified as an image of the first pharaoh, and his features there are pronouncedly more like those of the Copts pictured above than like black Africans, even allowing for stylization and charicature. In fact Narmer's profile is closer to that of Louis IX of France than like the black African depicted in a new-kingdom Egyptian image.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
whats taking so long
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
In better light and not distorted, the Menes/Narmer head looks like this:
Does it really look so different from the modern Copts?
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
"As for Menes/Narmer the Palette image is more reliably identified as an image of the first pharaoh"
no its a very rough carving of people the narmer palette. you cant use that to identify someone
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
My point was that the king's name appears on the palette, but not on the statue, so we can't be sure who the statue is of. It's a guess.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
"Does it really look so different from the modern Copts"
will you answer the questions on my thread please
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
adrianne
You are a dumbass.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Clearly there were Egyptians who looked like Huni (bless his chubby cheeks), and others that did not. Most looked as Egyptians still look.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Perahu's most desperate attempt thus far:
Babiker et al. 2011
One of the things that immediately jumped out at me from the aforementioned article article is this:
"The mixed ancestry of basically all individuals is probably a consequence of the **limited number of markers (and of the set of markers not being particularly informative about ancestry) rather than an indication of recent admixture**
Are you unable to read Perahu? Furthermore, if you would notice, the same article only claims RECENT gene flow into the Nile Valley from Eurasia, not ancient.
Don't think I forgot about your coptic BS Rahotep. Thankfully, Perahu's article directly contradicts your claims, AGAIN:
"The low number of private alleles in the Coptic groups (0.075 ± 0.053) may be a result of the recent migration of this population from Egypt, where they may have been influenced by gene flow from Asia and Europe"
Take note, the above mentions gene flow from non-Africans to Coptics IN Egypt. From Hassan et al. 2008 we know that Copts have not been effected by their recent history in Sudan.
Also note, low number of private alleles suggests some amount of gene flow.
But what we are told of the Somali:
"The mean number of private alleles was greatest in the Somali (0.400 ± 0.171)"
However, despite this fact, the authors STILL make a mention of Somali's being of mixed origin. The corresponding citation for this claim? You guessed it, Sanchez et al. (2005). That made the erroneous suggestion that Somalis are closer to Eurasians than sub-Saharan Africans even though their results show:
1)The Somali population is almost completely African
2)The Somali population is a branch of the East Africans
3)The Somali population has been affected by RECENT gene flow from the 7th century onwards.
Therefore, Babiker et al. 2011 erroneous suggestion that the Somali population is of "mixed origin" falls flat. As this would suggest half African/Eurasian which is not the case. However they do offer an alternative explanation for the distinctiveness of the Somali cluster which is a stronger effect from the Bantu expansion. It seems more like their great diversity vs. less diversity is the cause though.
The main thing to emphasize here is that the "mixed status" of the samples IS NOT NECESSARILY FROM ADMIXTURE BUT LOW NUMBER OF GENETIC MARKERS TESTED.
Perahu, the chart you edited to suit you agenda is so laughable
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dahotips101: The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
True. Yet you fail to realize that such nutty 'Afrocentrism' is nothing more than a mere inversion of centuries of Eurocentrism. Why did you not read the very sources the author of this thread first cited about how whites were aboriginal to Polynesia and Micronesia?? You do realize that Westerners have attributed every advanced culture from Africa to India and Siberia to Peru as the work of ancient 'whites'! Some Afrocentrics today merely have twisted this around to make all these ancient populations black. So tell me which is worse? The former is worse is in that it was actually published and used in academic circles for centuries unlike the fringe Afrocentric claims of today!!
quote:If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images on google it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Well first of all, Egypt IS in Africa. As for Egyptian images on google. Apparently you haven't seen much of them since the vast majority do show black figures. No doubt you prefer those works where the paint is faded or lost and/or those that show non-stereotypical traits like narrow noses and thin lips. As for pan-Africa, we know there is no such thing as 'race' to begin with but as far as culture is concerned if you knew anything at all about indigenous African culture you would realize that there are many indeed a myriad of elements that connect the various and disperse cultures of the African continent. As far as geographical and temporal distance between the Nile Valley and West Africa, you obviously don't know that these were connected via the vast Saharan region which wasn't always desert but green and fertile as archaeology shows.
So, in other words you should try educating yourself on the matter first before making your unsubstantiated claims. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote: The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Copts are not an ethnic group but a RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that many Copts especially in the Egyptian Delta are of GREEK ancestry. This is why the Alexandrian Church father above looks no different from a Greek Orthodox one! You also cling to stereotypes of "true negro" while ignoring the diversity of indigenous Africans. There are many blacks in Sub-Sahara who do not have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces and as such were once classified as "Hamitic caucasoids" you moron!
quote: As for Menes/Narmer the Palette image is more reliably identified as an image of the first pharaoh, and his features there are pronouncedly more like those of the Copts pictured above than like black Africans, even allowing for stylization and charicature. In fact Narmer's profile is closer to that of Louis IX of France than like the black African depicted in a new-kingdom Egyptian image.
And I suppose these Nubian princes have the same profile as King Charlemagne!
quote: In better light and not distorted, the Menes/Narmer head looks like this:
Does it really look so different from the modern Copts?
Does it really look like a "caucasian" to you??
What about this statue of Amenhotep III??
The same in color.
You are just as retarded as Dienekes' Parokeet.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^The above results are expected given the steady rate of migration to Egypt from the Middle east and Europe over the past 2-3,000 years.
Oh noes! the good ol' sand-crackers have been there excuse.
It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOL Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOL
Upper Egyptians are genetically almost completely Caucasoid. See where they (UEG) cluster.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Ad hominem. Address what was posted in the link or get lost.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You know the jig, Sundjata. He will claim not only modern Egyptians as pristine genetic representatives of the ancients but specifically those of coastal Alexandria eastern Damietta, while at the same time dismissing the rural and isolated peoples of Luxor and Sohag (the Thebald to Egyptologists) as being due to "Sub-Saharan" influence by slaves from Sudan! LOL
Indeed. Expecting no more from Mr. "Dienekes et al." which is why he goes around posting cropped photos all day of misrepresented graphs and plots accompanied by stupid interpretations that the author of said study would never condone. Most genome-wide studies so far find modern Egyptians to be intermediate genetically between Northern Europeans and West Africans and only historical reconstruction of demographic shifts and migration over time can account for when this mixture occurred. Of course he's going to ignore Calabooz' post since it's perfectly logical. When the samples are pooled you get different results than when they are not pooled yet you get weird results (Arabs being much closer to Nilotics than Nubians, pooled Egyptians closer than Copts) when they are not pooled due to the limited number of markers used. Either way it is clearly stated that the Copts are affected by admixture and according to Peraclown's stupid image graphics the Egyptians would lie within the "zone of admixture".
Recap:
quote:The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.[]......In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
--Keita and Boyce
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Also you like always seem to ignore the Upper Egyptians
Here is what a native Egyptian says about Southern Egyptians and Northern Sudanese AKA Nubians....
quote:Originally posted by Caipira:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:I understand what you are saying but to me the so called Sudanese and Upper Egyptians have similar looks and variety just the N. Sudanese are Darker the Upper Egyptians are Lighter but they have the same variety. I know that the current cultures of Sudanese and Egyptians are different but duiring Pharonic times this was not the case. Upper Egypt was ruled by Nubians alot during Pharonic times.
Sudanese is a term brought by Invaders like Indians label is here in America.
Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parokeet of Dienekes: It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
How so? And Asoul a.k.a. the troll of many aliases is? Ausar seems to know a lot of not only modern and recent Egyptian history but the local communities as well. Anyway as Sundjata stated it's irrelevant to the actual substantial evidence we cite.
quote: Upper Egyptians are genetically almost completely Caucasoid. See where they (UEG) cluster.
That chart was debunked countless times before and years before you showed up even. Besides where is the validity of any study that uses terms like "caucasoid".
Speaking of which...
Rat-ho-pig, why the silence to my points on your erroneous posts??
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
On what grounds??
Everything Ausar has said about Egypt has been confirmed by other Egyptians as well. Also to note your boy Abaza has been called out as a fake poser by other Egyptians.
All Upper Egyptians
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: It isn't an excuse and even native Egyptians acknowledge this. See this post by the moderator, ausar.
It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: so african americans and half white africans are caucasoid??
African Americans are ~80% Negroid, and their Negroid component is of the broadest most Negroid type of all. They are not Caucasoid.
you mean most have admixture,not all.just to clear it up or make more clear. second,the average admixture in african americans from what i read is about 10 to 13% not 20%.of course some past studies have mention the average was 20% then when down to 17-18,not more recent studies put it around around 12.5%-13% some say 10%-13%.
It's clear that african americans are not Caucasoid,at least that's clear to you.
Anyway i had a enough of this talk,moving on the next subject in my next reply.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Puzzling ancient rock carvings found in Sudan Quote: By Owen Jarus
updated 5/16/2011 2:54:59 PM ET Share Print Font: An archaeological team in the Bayuda Desert in northern Sudan has discovered dozens of new rock art drawings, some of which were etched more than 5,000 years ago and reveal scenes that scientists can't explain. The team discovered 15 new rock art sites in an arid valley known as Wadi Abu Dom, some 18 miles from the Nile River. It’s an arid valley that flows with water only during rainy periods. Many of the drawings were carved into the rock faces — no paint was used — of small stream beds known as "khors" that flow into the valley. Some of the sites revealed just a single drawing while others have up to 30, said lead researcher Tim Karberg of the Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster in Germany. “We asked the local people about the rock art and they said that it would be very old, before their grandfathers,” Karberg told LiveScience. Knight rider A number of the images appear to date back around 1,500 years ago, to a period when Christianity was spreading in Sudan. They include depictions of crosses, a church, which may show a nearby, ancient monastery called al-Ghazali, and one remarkable picture of a knight riding an animal with horns."One is a depiction of an armed rider, with a lance and a shield, a kind of knight depiction," Karberg said, suggesting this may be an image of St. George, the legendary soldier said to have slain a dragon. Drawings of St. George are known from Sudan and texts discussing him have been found within the country. “Our texts attest to the popularity of the Saint in Christian Nubia,” wrote historian Gerald Brown, in a study he did on the subject. The team also found detailed representations of cattle at Wadi Abu Dom that, based on rock drawings found at other sites, are probably from the late Bronze Age. During this time, more than 3,000 years ago, the northern parts of the country were occupied by the Egyptian empire. Mystery carvings Another, even more mysterious, set of rock art appears to be at least 5,000 years old and shows a mix of geometric designs. The "oldest rock art we found are the spiral motifs," said Karberg, which, as their name suggests, twist up in a way that is hard to interpret. Similar drawings have been found in the Sahara Desert. They were created at a time when Africa was a wetter place, with grasslands and savannah dominating Sudan; people were moving to a lifestyle based on animal husbandry and, in some instances, farming. Understanding what these drawings mean is difficult. Some researchers connect the "spiral motifs to some astronomical or astrological forms," Karberg said, but he thinks it might have more to do with math. "The regularity of the spiral might be one of the earliest mathematical ideas the people developed."
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ they are closer to Nubians than any other group. And Sub-Saharans in these comparisons do not include Horn Africans, Fulani, Taureg, and many other groups of people that would not support the author's position.
That is because those Africans you just mentioned are heavily Caucasoid admixed as well.
Ancient Egyptians are very distant from pure Negroids on the molecular level.
wrong again, evil villian.one example of how wrong you are is that early nubians did not have any Caucasoid admixture.second any admixture that came in happen at the end of the meroe period only in lower nubia for some.
the rest of nubia did mix with Caucasoids if you want to put it that way.
later the lower nubia population had nubians that came in from upper nubia so most of the lower nubian poulation was unmixed again.
by the time the late middle ages most lower nubians had admixture that came from arabs in recent times
now modern egypt in early modern times had most nubians that were mixed,keep in mind too that northern lower nubia is in modern egypt now.
so it's clear that most nubians in sudan are not mixed at all,but egypt may be a different story and egypt today is not so clear,but some nubians from sudan have been moving into egypt over the past decades,so most likely even today in modern egypt most nubians may not be mixed in egypt today .
The reason because in recent decades some nubians from sudan have been coming in,so most nubians of egypt today may not be mixed,but there is still a large number in modern egypt that are.
so what just said was non-sense and the other stuff too,but i am more clear about the nubian stuff then the other stuff.I AM bit clear on ancient egypt too,but not has much has nubia,But i know this for egypt,most ancient egyptians still were unmixed blacks by the time the roman came in.they may still have been before the arabs came in too.
so anyway the real original indigenous ancient egyptians were black,not Caucasoids .
LET OTHERS EXPLAIN TO YOU MORE CLEARLY THE OTHER STUFF.
I just posted the facts,get it in you head.i made it clear to you has i can. IF I HAVE TO I WILL KEEPING REPEATING THESE FACTS OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL FOLKS LIKE YOU GET IT.
I hate repeating myself OVER AND OVER AGAIN,but their is no other choice.
Anyway you racist types with fake info are a big waste of time.I COME BACK after a fews weeks,and like said nothing has change with RACIST guys.
Give the them facts and they do not read it and if they do,they do not care,but i came back to give some more support abit because i was pump up and abit fresh or some left energy over from a another forum i came from.
These last two replies are just hit and run comments,so i will not be coming back to read any replies to mY replies IN THIS THREAD HAS WELL. I can't stand wasting time anymore,besides most of my time is on any blog is reading modern news on modern africa,since we all know that most of modern africa is controlled by blacks,like south africa and nigeria,and postive things are happening there too.
once in while i will read about the african past on blogs,and if i read about the african past more often it will be from books,not on the internet.
Has for the rest of you guys,keep giving those facts,has for me i think that's enough here,because like is i said i have very little patience now to debate issues like this.leaving this thread now.
bye.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:....nothing has change with RACIST guys.
Greetings.
With all due respect, does this really surprise you? Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote:It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Its not debtable that another Egyptian poster named Masreyya validated alot of what I post. She only briefly posted here.
However, if you have discrepancies with any of my claims on modern Egypt feel free to call me out. I invite criticism contrary to what you may have heard.
Let me also clarify that I never stated that every resident of Upper Egypt was ''black'' in the classical sense. I simply stated that many people in Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor and Aswan can be considered black by western standards. Some even resemble eastern Africans. Even amongst the fellahin in the Delta there are individuals which may be considered black in western countries like America.
However, there are also Egyptians which are whiter than some western/southern Europeans. The majority of Upper Egyptians are lighter than the ones in Luxor and Aswan. Most are not white but light brown in color.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Well, those dark Egyptians must descend from invaders. Here's an ancient Egyptian (Khaemwase), and they aren't exactly the same colour as him, so they must be foreigners!
That's what I'd say if I used intelligence-insulting logic such as afrocentrists resort to on a regular basis.
The fact of the matter is that all modern Egyptians, dark or light, are likely to have substantial amounts of Ancient Egyptian blood in them. The Copts, dark or light, are essentially pure descendants of ancient Egyptians. Negroes from south of the sahara are almost guaranteed to have no ancestors who had anything to do with Egypt whatsoever. Even if they were clasified as being of the same race as the Egyptians, which they are not, they are from unconnected cultures. The black-diaspora fixation with Egypt is therefore a vain, futie & illegitimate exercise in cultural approrpriation. The attempt to disassociate modern Egyptians from the ancients, and to deny their status and legacy, is especially sordid and despicable.
As for Amenhotep III, the fact that you can find an Obama or a Colin Powell does not mean there are no Americans who look like Kennedy or Clinton.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Dahotips101: The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.
True. Yet you fail to realize that such nutty 'Afrocentrism' is nothing more than a mere inversion of centuries of Eurocentrism. Why did you not read the very sources the author of this thread first cited about how whites were aboriginal to Polynesia and Micronesia?? You do realize that Westerners have attributed every advanced culture from Africa to India and Siberia to Peru as the work of ancient 'whites'! Some Afrocentrics today merely have twisted this around to make all these ancient populations black. So tell me which is worse? The former is worse is in that it was actually published and used in academic circles for centuries unlike the fringe Afrocentric claims of today!!
quote:If I was an Afrocentrist I think I would stick to Egypt. At least that's vaguely plausible, and if you trawl through enough Egyptian images on google it's possible to find a few to support your claim, while ignoring the many that don't. Then one can keep propagating the myth of a pan-African race and culture, and ignoring the geographical and temporal distance between Egyptian and West African cultures; and pretend to descend from pharaohs.
Well first of all, Egypt IS in Africa. As for Egyptian images on google. Apparently you haven't seen much of them since the vast majority do show black figures. No doubt you prefer those works where the paint is faded or lost and/or those that show non-stereotypical traits like narrow noses and thin lips. As for pan-Africa, we know there is no such thing as 'race' to begin with but as far as culture is concerned if you knew anything at all about indigenous African culture you would realize that there are many indeed a myriad of elements that connect the various and disperse cultures of the African continent. As far as geographical and temporal distance between the Nile Valley and West Africa, you obviously don't know that these were connected via the vast Saharan region which wasn't always desert but green and fertile as archaeology shows.
So, in other words you should try educating yourself on the matter first before making your unsubstantiated claims.
I don't know why any European would feel the need to claim Micronesia or Polynesia. I've also heard claims about stoneage white colonization of the Americas which seems far-fetched. The evidence for ranging Caucasians in Asia as far as China is undenaiable, what with Taklamakan desert mummies such as Cherchen Man and the 'Loulan Beauty' exhibiting such obvious 'white' traits. There are Afghans, Persians, Berbers and even Egyptians, whose ancestry in their native lands goes back to prehistoric times, yet whom I would struggle to pick out form a line-up of white British people. However I would not dream of claiming the achievements of their ancestors as part of my heritage as a northern European. Colour is a very arbitrary basis for solidarity. Culturally I probably have more in common with a black Jamaican than a blue-eyed Afghan.
It is worse for Afrocentrists, because they commit the crime they accuse whites of committing in the past. They do to actual Egyptians, for instance, what they claim whites have done to them. They also implicitly admit that their own real ancestors were not worth having, since they have to fixate on cultures in other regions entirely, from Egypt to Mexico! They also promote a myth of a pan-African race, and appropriate a geographical term for a racial meaning. They ought to call themselves negrocentrists, as 9 times out of 10 they are more interested in the black race than the African continent. If they can't pretend that Egypt or Cathage were black, they don't want to know.
The Sahara was hostile desert for the best part of Egyptian history. It set in during the early Old Kingdom, at the latest. It was a far greater barrier to human movement than the Mediterranean Sea or the Indian Ocena, especially as Camels were yet to be domesticated. Egypt is not all in Africa, the Sinai is in Asia, and it was crossed in two directions many times in the past, long before the rise of dynastic Egypt. Egyptians were as much neighbours of Arabs, Phoenicians, Syrians, Anatolians, Cypriots, Cretans, and Libyans as they were of Nubians.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
By the way Copts are defined as an ethnoreligious group, not just a Church.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
quote:It is debatable whether Ausar really is Egyptian.
Its not debtable that another Egyptian poster named Masreyya validated alot of what I post. She only briefly posted here.
However, if you have discrepancies with any of my claims on modern Egypt feel free to call me out. I invite criticism contrary to what you may have heard.
Let me also clarify that I never stated that every resident of Upper Egypt was ''black'' in the classical sense. I simply stated that many people in Upper Egypt particulary around Luxor and Aswan can be considered black by western standards. Some even resemble eastern Africans. Even amongst the fellahin in the Delta there are individuals which may be considered black in western countries like America.
However, there are also Egyptians which are whiter than some western/southern Europeans. The majority of Upper Egyptians are lighter than the ones in Luxor and Aswan. Most are not white but light brown in color.
Take a DNA test and post your results on this forum like Charlie Bass did .
If your result match your Egyptian ancestry, nobody will ever bother you again.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ You gonna pay for his DNA test sir...?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: ^^^^ You gonna pay for his DNA test sir...?
If he is willing to take it, yes. I am dead serious.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
OK then carry on..
BTW I don't understand what this will prove everything Ausar claims is pretty much what other Egyptians claim. As a matter of fact Ausar told me majority of Egyptians are wheat colored.
The person you should be testing is the Abaza troll.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Perahu, I don't particulary care if anybody questions my Egyptian ancestry. Its not particulary relevent except if one wishes to slander someone. I just know that I have insight into modern Egypt that alot of posters here donot have. You can interpret that however you want.
One poster here is hell bent on taking me down because I donot permit their excessive spam.
As far genetic tests I donot believe there has ever been a through one done on modern Egyptians. For instance I have never seen one done to determine if the Copts and Muslim Egyptians are related to each other or distinct.
Regardless of what you believe my ancestry is I encourage you to show where I made an incorrect statement about modern or ancient Egypt.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
For real I cant recall where Ausar has ever said anything that other Egyptian Posters have claimed. Ausar I don't know if you recall a poster called Caip Abaza is the fake Egyptian and was called out plenty of times on it.
Here is another Egyptian that says the same thing Ausar says..
quote:Originally posted by Caipira: ]Southern Upper Egyptians (I purposely wrote Southern since as far southwards as in Sohag there might be some very light skinned Lower Egyptian looking types) are not that different from Northern Sudanese, but that's logical because they live close to each other. There is a gradual change of phenotype in the Nile Valley with rather light skinned types, not much different from Palestinians or Lebanese in the Egyptian Delta and pitch black types in Southern Sudan.
As for the name "Sudanese" being of "non-indigenous" origin, I don't see any why it should be a reason for not using it. There is an internationally recognized country called Sudan with its citizens being called Sudanese and calling themselves that way. If we were to reject it on the ground of it not being of "indigenous origin", we could just as well reject the word French, because it was brought into the region by barbarian Frankish invaders. It just doesn't make any sense.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Ausar
It is very easy to verify your Egyptianess genetically. Get yourself a 23andme kit, like Charlie Bass did (it is only 99 dollars, don't be such a cheap bastard).
When you receive your results, send it to Dr. Dienekes Pontikos for further analysis in his state of the art Dodecad Project.
If you show excessive Northwest African, we know you are an Algerian. If you show excessive West African and North European, we know you are an African American.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
C'mon ausar, take up this challenge. Let the world know you are Egyptian. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Lets say Ausar is genetically "Algerian" how is that relevent to anything. He obviously grew up in Egypt which is why everything he says is verified by other Egyptians.
BTW, I thought you said you were gonna pay for the DNA test, Why should Ausar accept demands from some renegade Arab trying to question his ethnicity.
Put up the Money, buy the Kit and have it sent to Ausar, If you are so curious YOU should pay all the expenses.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: The Copts like the Ancient Egyptians are first and foremost a Caucasoid population. Genetically they cluster far away from Negroids.
What are these men?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ausar
It is very easy to verify your Egyptianess genetically. Get yourself a 23andme kit, like Charlie Bass did (it is only 99 dollars, don't be such a cheap bastard).
When you receive your results, send it to Dr. Dienekes Pontikos for further analysis in his state of the art Dodecad Project.
Paragroup E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
The downstreams.
Albania 27.5% Greece 27% Serbia 24% Macedonia 23% Cyprus 20% Bulgaria 16% Bosnia-Herzegovina 14.5% Portugal 12.5% Italy 11% Turkey 11% Austria 9% Belarus 9% Slovakia 9% Switzerland 9% Ukraine 8% France 7% Croatia 6% Czech Republic 6% Romania 6% Spain 6% Germany 5.5% Netherlands 4.5% Belgium 4% Poland 3.5% Slovenia 3% Denmark 2.5% Estonia 2.5% Russia 2.5% England 2% Ireland 2% Wales 2% Scotland 1.5% Finland 1% Lithuania 1% Norway 1% Sweden 1% Latvia 0.5% Iceland 0%
If you show excessive Northwest African, we know you are an Algerian. If you show excessive West African and North European, we know you are an African American.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: C'mon ausar, take up this challenge. Let the world know you are Egyptian.
What are these people?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Repost,
Paragroup E-M78 represents 74.5% of haplogroup E*, the highest frequencies observed in Masalit and Fur populations.
The downstreams.
Albania 27.5% Greece 27% Serbia 24% Macedonia 23% Cyprus 20% Bulgaria 16% Bosnia-Herzegovina 14.5% Portugal 12.5% Italy 11% Turkey 11% Austria 9% Belarus 9% Slovakia 9% Switzerland 9% Ukraine 8% France 7% Croatia 6% Czech Republic 6% Romania 6% Spain 6% Germany 5.5% Netherlands 4.5% Belgium 4% Poland 3.5% Slovenia 3% Denmark 2.5% Estonia 2.5% Russia 2.5% England 2% Ireland 2% Wales 2% Scotland 1.5% Finland 1% Lithuania 1% Norway 1% Sweden 1% Latvia 0.5% Iceland 0%
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Ish Gebor
You are dumb.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoisDum1000: Well, those dark Egyptians must descend from invaders. Here's an ancient Egyptian (Khaemwase), and they aren't exactly the same colour as him, so they must be foreigners!
That's what I'd say if I used intelligence-insulting logic such as afrocentrists resort to on a regular basis.
And here is his father Ramses the Great
According to your broken logic he is a Mediterranean with a deep dark tan. LOL
quote:The fact of the matter is that all modern Egyptians, dark or light, are likely to have substantial amounts of Ancient Egyptian blood in them. The Copts, dark or light, are essentially pure descendants of ancient Egyptians...
Nobody is saying otherwise.
Just look at the percentage of African E lineages among 'Arab' Egyptians of northern metropolitan Egypt alone.
quote:Negroes from south of the sahara are almost guaranteed to have no ancestors who had anything to do with Egypt whatsoever. Even if they were clasified as being of the same race as the Egyptians, which they are not, they are from unconnected cultures. The black-diaspora fixation with Egypt is therefore a vain, futie & illegitimate exercise in cultural approrpriation. The attempt to disassociate modern Egyptians from the ancients, and to deny their status and legacy, is especially sordid and despicable.
Apparently you fail to understand there is no such thing as 'race' scientifically. For the very reason that the Egyptians were and in some cases still are racially classified as the same as other northeast Africans including their close neighbors the Beja and Nubians as well as Ethiopians and Somalis-- all of whom designated as "Mediterranean".
You fail to realize that the Sahara as desert did not always exist and that the prehistoric ancestors of the Egyptians and those of West Africans co-existed in the central part of the Sahara.
What exactly do these studies mean to you??
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. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)[/b]."--Anselin (2009)
quote:As for Amenhotep III, the fact that you can find an Obama or a Colin Powell does not mean there are no Americans who look like Kennedy or Clinton.
Irrelevant. *ALL* indigenous Egyptians i.e. those of predynastic through phraonic were 'black' by today's racial standards.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
1.Q. did the first ancient egyptians look like the guys above
A.yes or no
2.Q.are the guys above ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
A. yes or no
3.Q.do the guys above look like SUB SAHARAN africans
A.yes or no
whats taking so long to answer
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Ish Gebor
You are dumb.
And you are even dumber!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaDumHo1000: Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
WRONG. Mostly EGYPTIANS, Siwa BERBERS and an albino baby.
By the way, I noticed you ignored most of my responses to you. No problem, bloke. LOL Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
''The pottiest Afrocentric claim I've heard was that the Vikings and Anglo Saxons were black (black hebrews, no less). Other amusing claims include the Greeks, the Carians, the Celts, the Elamites, William Shakespeare, Queen Charlotte, Jesus, Buddha, the Olmecs, the Indoneians, the Xia dynasty Chinese, Hannibal, Septimus Severus and Socrates.'' ====
Most Afrocentric claims regarding these are not serious, but are parody. That's why its hard to tell the difference between a real afrocentric and a troll.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
Almost right! But you have a habit of being off all the time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: For real I cant recall where Ausar has ever said anything that other Egyptian Posters have claimed. Ausar I don't know if you recall a poster called Caip Abaza is the fake Egyptian and was called out plenty of times on it.
Here is another Egyptian that says the same thing Ausar says..
Ausar was born in Egypt and his father is Egyptian. That his mother is Algerian makes him 100% North African. And him having an Egyptian father and being born and raised in Egypt makes him 100% more Egyptian than 90% of the people who post in this forum. It doesn't matter what people think since they obviously think a lot of crazy things. What matters is what evidence or substance one gives and Ausar has more than once demonstrated a considerable amount of knowledge about his homeland.
And the fact that he happens to be BLACK also helps reveal the rubbish many people write about North Africans being "caucasians" LOL Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
1.Q. did the first ancient egyptians look like the guys above ========
No.
The first bust you show dates from 700 BC, meaning 2000+ years after Menes lived.
======= 2.Q.are the guys above ANCIENT EGYPTIANS =======
No.
========
3.Q.do the guys above look like SUB SAHARAN africans ===========
Yes. And Sub-Saharan Africans led to the downfall of ancient egypt as the replaced the indigenous caucasian population.
1. so what did the first egyptians look like,they are some of the oldestv kings
2.if the guys above HUNI and menes are not ancient egyptians , who are they then???
3.if HUNI and MENES look sub saharan too you, then you are admiting that the first egyptians were black, they are from the dynastic era dynastys 1-3
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The modern Copts have been genetically isolated for 1400 years, due to the religious apartheid that prevailed in Islamic Egypt. For all that time Copts could only intermarry with other Egyptian Christians if they wished their children to be Christians. Despite this fact, the Copts do not have a homogenous look. Do Copts look just like ancient Egyptians? Absolutely!
EgyptianG, Meriam George, Morris Sadek and the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Although not homogenous, some general points hold true. The darkest Copt looks sufficiently different from a black African to make the Afrocentrists claims on Egypt seem nonsensical, even if they could not be called white either. Copts don't tend to have fleshy lips, wide, high-arched nostrils, flat nasal bridges or projecting lower-faces, which are all classic features of black African populations. Their noses tend to be bulbous, rather than broad. They tend to have straight, wavy or curly hair, but not frizzy. They may have some Nilotic ancestry (as all human beings apparently do) but negroid traces in them are slight at best.
"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with their kin in southern Egypt is indicated by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the predominant M78 subclade among southern Egyptians... "The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology." (Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
The webpage you posted itself is self-explanatory.
Distorted rubbish!
quote:Originally posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist: 1.Q. did the first ancient egyptians look like the guys above ========
No.
The first bust you show dates from 700 BC, meaning 2000+ years after Menes lived.
======= 2.Q.are the guys above ANCIENT EGYPTIANS =======
No.
========
3.Q.do the guys above look like SUB SAHARAN africans ===========
Yes. And Sub-Saharan Africans led to the downfall of ancient egypt as the replaced the indigenous caucasian population.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Godde K. et al.
Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. kgodde@utk.edu
"The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the Results suggest homogeneity between the two populations."
DNA analysis shows that Egyptians group with African peoples from the Sudan, Ethiopia, East Africa and parts of Cameroon, not with Europe or the Middle East.
Notes on E-M78 and Rosa DNA study linking Egyptians with East and Central Africans. DNA study (Rosa et al. 2007) groups Egyptians with East and Central Africans. Other DNA studies link these peoples together.
Quote:“the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78“(Sanchez 2005). Codes: Egy=Egypt. Or= Oromo, Ethiopia. Am=Amahara, Ethiopia. Sud=Sudan. FCA=Cameroon. Maa= Massai, Kenya.
Note: Eighty (80)% or more of the haplotypes in Cameroon are of West African origin (Rosa et al. 2007, Cerny et al. 2006). Ethiopia, Cameroon and most of the Sudan is located below the Sahara, and thus sub-Saharan.-- Rosa, et al.(2007) Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7:124
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
''An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances'' =======
The original egyptians died out thousands of years ago. You must be a simpleton if you believe the modern Arabs/mongrels inhabiting egypt are related to the ancient egyptians.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
This man is probably 60% Caucasoid. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^ Why do people continue to post to this nut..?? Seriously..
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Because the truth hurts.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: The Copts like the Ancient Egyptians are first and foremost a Caucasoid population. Genetically they cluster far away from Negroids.
What are these men?
I don't know what anyone/everyone else here sees, but they look like Black Men to me....
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah, but remember caucasoids are allowed to have even pitch black skin that's a major proposition of this kind of outdated physical anthropology.
To be caucasoid all a black need do is not fit the mythological true negro archetype or have a culture/civilization that whites want to claim, ergo Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis readily received and expanded on by outdated anthropolgy/ethnography.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
All these individuals show significant Hamitic Caucasoid admixture in their facial features. They do not have a Negroid cranium, skin color is superficial.
If we were to depigment them, they'd look Italian.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
This man does look Negroid.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
he is an 3rd dynasty PHAROAH
how many people in ancient egypt do you think looks similar in features to this king????????
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: he is an 3rd dynasty PHAROAH
how many people in ancient egypt do you think looks similar in features to this king????????
Not many, maybe around 5%.
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Perahu
quote:All these individuals show significant Hamitic Caucasoid admixture in their facial features. They do not posses Negroid features, skin color is superficial.
And if you caught anyone of these so called Hamitic Caucasoid men who do not posses "negroid" features Fuking your sister/daughter it is YOU!! who will have a baby.
BTW Hamatic came from Kemetic meaning BLACK!!! now where in the Caucasus do any of the above men came from and when??
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Hamitic Caucasoid Africans are those who are on the top of the African racial hierarchy:
1. Hamitic Caucasoids - most progressive. 2. Nilo-Hamites 3. Nilotes 4. Capoids (Khoisan) 5. Authentic Negroids 6. Pygmoids - least progressive.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
See, Perahu proves my point. The joker sees my trap set and stupidly steps right in it, so easy a capture is a worthless opponent.
With all these -oid terms one forgets that if a subject is not archetypical than if they are one -oid then surely they are another -oid too.
If the subject isn't authentic caucasian but merely caucasoid -- like a caucasian, without being a true blanco -- then that subject must also have traits in common with either the negro or mongol archetypes and thus also be negroid or mongoloid too.
Notice caucasian and mongol are geographic adjectives whereas negro is not geographic and is not even applied to all blacks (negro is Spanish for black) but only to an imagined stereotype that has no locatable region such as the Caucasus or Mongolia. Race scientist intent on inventing the true negro abandoned using Ethiopian and Ethiopoid the logical co-term complementing Mongol and Caucasian, neither of which speak to the real description or place of origin of Africa's blacks, Asia's yellows, and Europe's whites.
Seen?
These clowns are so clueless they don't even know when to properly use the archetype term instead of its -oid derivative.
Crackers will continue using and defending these misfit terms no matter how illogical because it fills their need for control by labeling that which is not as if it is something which is.
Eurocentrism is base.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
"Originally posted by adrianne: he is an 3rd dynasty PHAROAH
how many people in ancient egypt do you think looks similar in features to this king???????? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not many, maybe around 5%"
then show us what the earliest egyptian pharoahs look liked .
Q. show us caucasoid proto egyptians??
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Ah, but remember caucasoids are allowed to have even pitch black skin that's a major proposition of this kind of outdated physical anthropology.
To be caucasoid all a black need do is not fit the mythological true negro archetype or have a culture/civilization that whites want to claim, ergo Speke's Hamitic Hypothesis readily received and expanded on by outdated anthropolgy/ethnography.
if I laugh any harder at the ridiculousness of that, I will piss up miSelf.....
quote: And if you caught anyone of these so called Hamitic Caucasoid men who do not posses "negroid" features Fuking your sister/daughter it is YOU!! who will have a baby.
EXFRIGGINACTLY!
The ole' "Jim Crow test" is a good test to use, if you know what I mean lol..... if in 1960 they couldn't use the "whites only" fountains; if they had to sit at the back of the bus; if they couldn't eat at a Southern lunch counter, etc;, and most importantly: would he get lynched if he kissed a 'white' gyal in the middle of main street at high noon.....Brada, you get the point, lol Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Dr who??? State of the what??? Hahhahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha shashah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quit playin'. You Eurocentric and Medicentric clowns are such comedians. Thanks, I needed a good laugh!
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: , send it to Dr. Dienekes Pontikos for further analysis in his state of the art Dodecad Project.
ROTFLOL
It's obvious we are dealing with a psychotic person if he thinks Pontikos somehow has a doctorate in anything let alone a science. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anglophile_Pyramidiott: so what did the first egyptians look like ===========
Predominatly Mediterraneanoid but with a fairer Nordic ruling class (much like the ancient Greeks and Romans).
LMAO Sorry but no anthropologists claim such nonsense especially the "Nordic elite" part. Anthropologists did once claim them as "Mediterranean" but of the same type as Ethiopians and Nubians NOT southern Europeans!
quote:
Yes note the remnants of the seated scribe's original skin color especially on his knees in this older picture.
Caucasian?
I think not!
^ Unless you consider this very black Sub-Saharan above as "caucasian".
quote:
I can see the "caucasian" argument for Ranofer but the seated couple??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: The Copts like the Ancient Egyptians are first and foremost a Caucasoid population. Genetically they cluster far away from Negroids.
What are these men?
I don't know what anyone/everyone else here sees, but they look like Black Men to me....
The second guy from the bottom looks like he may have some foreign ancestry, but no doubt Pairanuts will claim ALL of them including the Masaai as "Eurasian mixed". This is what DaHopits fails to understand-- that anyone with narrow noses and thin lips is "caucasian".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
Perhaps an even better comparison is this rural Giza Egyptian man.
Posted by AphRe7 (Member # 18920) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid: [QUOTE]Originally posted by adrianne: so african americans and half white africans are caucasoid??
African Americans are ~80% Negroid, and their Negroid component is of the broadest most Negroid type of all. They are not Caucasoid. [/QUOTE
No 21st century anthropologist worth his weight in salt would ever use such antiquated terms such as "negroid" and "caucasoid". They would also refrain from making blanket assumptions about race/ethnicity. If you are going to argue your point effectively, I suggest you, at the very least, enroll for some college classes on the subject. This would be a lot more productive than copying and pasting technical essays and studies you have very little knowledge about. This applies to ANYONE genuinely interested in Ancient Egypt.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps an even better comparison is this rural Giza Egyptian man.
Very Caucasoid facial features.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps an even better comparison is this rural Giza Egyptian man.
Trotter and Gleser's (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 (1952) 469–514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79–123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313–324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374–384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9–4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
"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 neriod origin."
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Perhaps an even better comparison is this rural Giza Egyptian man.
Very Caucasoid facial features.
An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
K. Goddea, b, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author
a)Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
b)Department of Science, South College, 3904 Lonas Dr, Knoxville, TN 37909, USA
Received 31 July 2008; accepted 10 August 2009. Available online 19 September 2009.
Abstract
Many authors have speculated on Nubian biological evolution. Because of the contact Nubians had with other peoples, migration and/or invasion (biological diffusion) were originally thought to be the biological mechanism for skeletal changes in Nubians. Later, a new hypothesis was put forth, the in situ hypothesis. The new hypothesis postulated that Nubians evolved in situ, without much genetic influence from foreign populations. This study examined 12 Egyptian and Nubian groups in an effort to explore the relationship between the two populations and to test the in situ hypothesis. Data from nine cranial nonmetric traits were assessed for an estimate of biological distance, using Mahalanobis D2 with a tetrachoric matrix. The distance scores were then input into principal coordinates analysis (PCO) to depict the relationships between the two populations. PCO detected 60% of the variation in the first two principal coordinates. A plot of the distance scores revealed only one cluster; the Nubian and Egyptian groups clustered together. The grouping of the Nubians and Egyptians indicates there may have been some sort of gene flow between these groups of Nubians and Egyptians. However, common adaptation to similar environments may also be responsible for this pattern. Although the predominant results in this study appear to support the biological diffusion hypothesis, the in situ hypothesis was not completely negated.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Anglophile_Pyramidiott: so what did the first egyptians look like ===========
Predominatly Mediterraneanoid but with a fairer Nordic ruling class (much like the ancient Greeks and Romans).
LMAO Sorry but no anthropologists claim such nonsense especially the "Nordic elite" part. Anthropologists did once claim them as "Mediterranean" but of the same type as Ethiopians and Nubians NOT southern Europeans!
quote:
Yes note the remnants of the seated scribe's original skin color especially on his knees in this older picture.
Caucasian?
I think not!
^ Unless you consider this very black Sub-Saharan above as "caucasian".
quote:
I can see the "caucasian" argument for Ranofer but the seated couple??
Yes, its obvious this fool has never been to Egypt. Just like many of these xenophobic racist white fools.
Now he claim them Nordic? Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Still majority Caucasoid.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: He is not a pale face white boy like you.
His facial structure is highly Caucasoid and not like Negroids.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ancient Egyptians were Caucasoid:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ^ they are closer to Nubians than any other group. And Sub-Saharans in these comparisons do not include Horn Africans, Fulani, Taureg, and many other groups of people that would not support the author's position.
That is because those Africans you just mentioned are heavily Caucasoid admixed as well.
Ancient Egyptians are very distant from pure Negroids on the molecular level.
Pure monkey speak from a retarded ape that thinks repeating the same lies over and over again will make them facts, none of those groups above are heavily "caucasoid" mixed, you have been smacked and owned repeatedly on this issue, so have a banana and think ape it ape:
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: He is not a pale face white boy like you.
His facial structure is highly Caucasoid and not like Negroids.
Your argument is invalid.
I say biodiversity!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Still majority Caucasoid.
What is caucasiod?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable. Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable. Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
Eurocentrism/Caucasoid-centrism depends on a myth of a pan-Eurasian race that stretches from Europe, the Middle East, North Africa and India, and is all about boosting the egoes of Europeans and European-Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable. Egypt had nothing to do with Europeans or with the ancestors of European-Americans.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
@IshGebor Other African peoples are irrelevant. Only the Coptic Egyptians (which includes the descendants of Coptic Christians who converted to Islam, and who may therefore identify as Arabs) are the descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Only Egyptians have any claim on Egypt's legacy.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Still majority Caucasoid.
What is caucasiod?
First man is very Negroid.
The latter two are substantially Caucasoid, middle one being slightly more Caucasoid.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: It's quite laughable. Egypt had nothing to do with Europeans or with the ancestors of European-Americans.
It's quite laughable. Egypt had nothing to do with West Africans or with the ancestors of African-Americans.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Still majority Caucasoid.
It was Africans who gave rise to that so called phenotype, not the other way around. Africans had this presence long before Europeans/ whites/ or the so called Nordic type/ Caucasian type. What causes these small feutures in the first place?
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It was Africans who gave rise to that so called phenotype, not the other way around. Africans had this presence long before Europeans/ whites/ or the so called Nordic type/ Caucasian type. What causes these small feutures in the first place?
They are non-Caucasoid.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: @IshGebor Other African peoples are irrelevant. Only the Coptic Egyptians (which includes the descendants of Coptic Christians who converted to Islam, and who may therefore identify as Arabs) are the descendants of Ancient Egyptians. Only Egyptians have any claim on Egypt's legacy.
You do realize what you wrote is rubbish?
I am asking you a simple question on biodiversity, and it's obvious you can't respond properly.
Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: It was Africans who gave rise to that so called phenotype, not the other way around. Africans had this presence long before Europeans/ whites/ or the so called Nordic type/ Caucasian type. What causes these small feutures in the first place?
Well, there you have it. Your own stupidity has debunked you. in this on thread.
And you are obviously too dumb to even understand this yourself!
But it's O.K!
Let me ask you again, what caused this so called "Caucasian" phenotype?
And from where do you know that the Berber woman is 80% so called negroid? Posted by adrianne (Member # 10761) on :
"Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Let me ask you again, what caused this so called "Caucasian" phenotype?
It developed in West Asia. People who look this way are derived of West Eurasian populations.
This phenotype did not originate in Africa. You won't find paleolithic African skulls with Caucasoid features.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
North Sudanese are genetically 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian). You seem under the impression they are completely African, they are not.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Still majority Caucasoid.
What is caucasiod?
First man is very Negroid.
The latter two are substantially Caucasoid, middle one being slightly more Caucasoid.
The one in middle in phenotype is far from that so called caucasian phenotype. The first man has the smallest features nose and lips.
Tell me, what did it for you to categorize him and the last one as closer?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
North Sudanese are genetically 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian). You seem under the impression they are completely African, they are not.
Case reopened!
Really?
So West Eurasian is merely Caucasoid? Which groups do you speak of? Did you not call them negroid just the other minute?
You seem to be under the impression that South Europeans are completely European.
I am waiting for you to explain the mutation to the so called Caucasian phenotype!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Let me ask you again, what caused this so called "Caucasian" phenotype?
It developed in West Asia. People who look this way are derived of West Eurasian populations.
This phenotype did not originate in Africa. You won't find paleolithic African skulls with Caucasoid features.
So who were the first in this phenotype, if its from West Eurasia/ West Asia? And why did it morph to this phenotype? When did this take place?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
Yes, everybody by now knows it arose in the South and spread from there up North. Only folks who still believe in outdated sources cling on to stuff from way back.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
North Sudanese are genetically 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian). You seem under the impression they are completely African, they are not.
Are they 50% Caucasoid?
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
and what do these Sudanese people look like, which country borders Egypt:
rebel widow Rebecca Garang, whose husband was the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement
These are all various people of the Sudan....yeah, I can see how the original ancient Egyptians would have been 'white' and/or dam near 'white' and looked nothing like any of these people....
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
"You are loosing it"
And genetically Egypt is closer to other Africans!
DNA analysis shows that Egyptians group with African peoples from the Sudan, Ethiopia, East Africa and parts of Cameroon, not with Europe or the Middle East.
Notes on E-M78 and Rosa DNA study linking Egyptians with East and Central Africans. DNA study (Rosa et al. 2007) groups Egyptians with East and Central Africans.
Other DNA studies link these peoples together.
Quote:
“the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78“(Sanchez 2005). Codes: Egy=Egypt. Or= Oromo, Ethiopia. Am=Amahara, Ethiopia. Sud=Sudan. FCA=Cameroon. Maa= Massai, Kenya.
Note: Eighty (80)% or more of the haplotypes in Cameroon are of West African origin (Rosa et al. 2007, Cerny et al. 2006). Ethiopia, Cameroon and most of the Sudan is located below the Sahara, and thus sub-Saharan.-- Rosa, et al.(2007) Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 7:124
Ancient Egyptians really disliked the "Eurasian". Did you know that? Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
All of these people are various people of Sudan...
no, I don't see how the original ancient people of Kmt would have looked anything like them...it's not logical... Posted by anguishofbeansanddodo (Member # 6729) on :
Not simultaneously,
Get your history right!!
Shivers...
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeansanddodo:
Not simultaneously,
Get your history right!!
****wondering if my point flew over this one's head****
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations. Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: "Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations"
egypt is just by the sudan where the first nome was
CASE CLOSED
and what do these Sudanese people look like, which country borders Egypt:
rebel widow Rebecca Garang, whose husband was the leader of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement
yeah, I can see how the Original Ancient Egyptians would have been 'white' and/or dam near 'white' and looked nothing like any of these people....
Yes, they genetically cluster with Egyptians in the paragroup. Who happen live in somewhat relatively colder areas, varying from place to place.
The expulsion of this gene pool shows down streams in European populations. Of these African populations who moved into West Asia together with the spread of the Afroasiatic phylum dispersal.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations. Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Let us try this again, since you are a bit slow (for an anthropologist.)
Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
Michelle H. Raxter1,*, Christopher B. Ruff2, Ayman Azab3, Moushira Erfan3, Muhammad Soliman3, Aly El-Sawaf3
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks... brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’. .. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Godde K. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. kgodde@utk.edu
"The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the Results suggest homogeneity between the two populations."
Shall we review the invasion of the last 3 ky in Egypt?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
North Sudanese - 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian)
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Good find!! a Good Representation of Ancient Egypt. Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Why are you dunces arguing with the boy?
Does what he says matter that much to you?
Pathetic.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Good find!! a Good Representation of Ancient Egypt.
Their facial features are mostly Caucasoid, not Negroid.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
His features represent the Faces of the Founders of Ancient Egypt, the Tropical Adapted Africans and his brothers in sisters in East Africa.
Thank you for posting such a good representation of A. Egypt it will be put to good use in my coming debunking of Rahotep..
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: Good find!! a Good Representation of Ancient Egypt.
Their facial features are mostly Caucasoid, not Negroid.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Rahotep
Berbers are not that closely related to Egyptians.
See this genetic chart. Berbers have significant genuine European DNA (dark blue cluster) while Egyptians are derived of West Asians (light green/blue clusters).
Posted by anguishofbeansanddodo (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
White girls. Hmmm. Yes please. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Berbers range from Light to Dark. Like a Typical Eurocentrist you fail to recognize this.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
This makes sense considering the history of White European slavery in North Africa...
OLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. Robert Davis
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa
Im have 100% respect for this man Davis for speaking the Truth, facts that the historical academia tries to ignore. The History books should reflect this. It pisses me off when I read about Nubia or West African kingdoms they always talk about the main export was Slaves and Gold.
It also helps explain this..
^^^ Euro-Arab Mongrels of the result of slavery..
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Rahotep
Berbers are not that closely related to Egyptians.
See this genetic chart. Berbers have significant genuine European DNA (dark blue cluster) while Egyptians are derived of West Asians (light green/blue clusters).
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeansanddodo:
Not simultaneously,
Get your history right!!
Shivers...
That is right they don't look the same, yet cluster genetically closer to each other. Strangely hmmmm?
But lived in different regions, as they have done for a long time.
Even in tiny Europe we see differences in phenotype, from the North to the South. French differ from Germans and British, who on their turn differ from East Europeans.
Northeast Africa is already larger than the entire of Europe, with more diversity in environment and landscape.
Is Africa most diverse is geno- and phenotype?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
It seems the ancient Nubians being analysed must be caucasoid-admixed, as look at the company they keep on a pooled sample:
Negroids are very far away from Egyptians.
Do these two groups look homogenous to you?
What's this all about?
Do the captors and the captives look like long-lost cousins?
Brace:
'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
Keita:
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
Yeah I'd say so...
What happened to the 'tropical proportions' of these guys?
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
This phenotype is not the only amongst Berbers. By far not. most look like what you would consider a Mutt.
Berbers are predomantly E-M81 and downstream of E-M78. The parent clade of E-M78 is E-M35.
E-81 arose in Northwest Africa about 5-6 ky.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: This makes sense considering the history of White European slavery in North Africa...
OLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. Robert Davis
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa
Im have 100% respect for this man Davis for speaking the Truth, facts that the historical academia tries to ignore. The History books should reflect this. It pisses me off when I read about Nubia or West African kingdoms they always talk about the main export was Slaves and Gold.
It also helps explain this..
^^^ Euro-Arab Mongrels of the result of slavery..
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Rahotep
Berbers are not that closely related to Egyptians.
See this genetic chart. Berbers have significant genuine European DNA (dark blue cluster) while Egyptians are derived of West Asians (light green/blue clusters).
Slavery of the Saqaliba and Mamluks is just part of it.
Invasions in Northwest Africa play there part too.
Invasions by the Greeks, Romans, Vandals, Vikings, Ottomans....etc...
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
I'll take this opportunity to show you pitiful fools how to administer a proper intellectual thrashing.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Don't run from this thrashing..............We're waiting..........................
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:It seems the ancient Nubians being analysed must be caucasoid-admixed, as look at the company they keep on a pooled sample:
How hard is it for you to grasp what a pooled sample is? Here is what Kemp has to say on that Denrogram from HIS book:
quote:In a database of humab cranial variation worldwide (CRANID) based on standardized sets of measurements, the population that is used to characterize ancient Egypt lies firmly within a Europe/Mediterranean bloc (figure 16a, p. 52). The original source is the largest series of skulls from Egypt (1,500), collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th-30th Dynasties. Some of the skulls bear weapon injuries. The cultural material found with them is wholly Egyptian, but was small in quantity. Conceivably the community was immigrant, perhaps mercenaries and their families. Or it could be that, by this period, northern Egyptians, so long exposed to population mixing, were tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier
--Barry J. Kemp (2006)
Zakrzewski 2002 also found the same thing:
quote:The other dramatic result seen in Table 3 is that the **Late Period Group is easily defined morphologically, and stands as a distinct cluster apart from the other Egyptian populations studied.** Other studies of Egyptian cranial variation have frequently placed this series as standing apart from ‘Africans’ as a whole (Keita 1995). In his classic study of 17 global cranial series, Howlls (1973) found that this population clustered with tropical Africans or northern Europeans depending on the clustering analysis technique used, and similarity to Aegean populations has also been described (Musgrave and Evans 1980). The Late Period sample has been described as either a Saite population from the Delta area or as an intrusive Greek population living in Egypt (Berry et al. 1967). Further research comparing this sample to other Saite and Greek samples is required to locate the geographic origin of this group- this study merely shows that **it is distinct from the preceding populations.**
-Zakrzewski (2002): Exploring Migration and Population Boundaries in Ancient Egypt: A Craniometric Case Study
For the last time Rahotep, the pooled Egyptian sample is just that, pooled. It doesn't mean the early Egyptians and late Egyptians cluster together because they do NOT.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: It seems the ancient Nubians being analysed must be caucasoid-admixed, as look at the company they keep on a pooled sample:
Do the captors and the captives look like long-lost cousins?
Brace:
'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
Keita:
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
Yeah I'd say so...
What happened to the 'tropical proportions' of these guys?
Second picture. Who are the people in that picture what is their history? Are they E-M35? A bit more info would be nice.
The main cluster of Northeast Africans is E-M78.
Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
Michelle H. Raxter1,*, Christopher B. Ruff2, Ayman Azab3, Moushira Erfan3, Muhammad Soliman3, Aly El-Sawaf3
"We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites... Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical... Intralimb indices are not significantly different between Egyptians and American Blacks... brachial indices are definitely more ‘African’. .. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formula may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains." ("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf,(Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-5
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404. Epub 2009 Sep 19.
Godde K. Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, 250 South Stadium Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. kgodde@utk.edu
"The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians. If Nubians and Egyptians were not biologically similar, one would expect the scores to separately cluster by population (e.g. Nubians compared to Nubians would have small biological distances, and Nubians compared to Egyptians would have high biological distances). However, this was not the case in the current analysis and the Results suggest homogeneity between the two populations."
Boy sit your ass on the sideline. Don't you see I'm administering an intellectual thrashing? Ain't nobody reading that ****. Quit cluttering up the thread and let the others observe and learn.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor -------------------------------- --------------------------------
Don't bother me clown. I'll get back to finishing your scholarly beatdown on the African civilization thread later. You remember the one where you ran like a scared hare.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
I've seen African Americans who look like all four of those individuals you have posted.
People,
Now that is what I call a lightning beatdown.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Many Europeans were taken into slavery by Muslim North African pirates, this is true. The idea that fair skinned Berbers descend from these European captives, however, is belied by the fact that the peoples Libya and the Maghreb were characterized as fair skinned caucasoids by the ancient Egyptians. There are also medieval images of white Moors as well as black ones.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Brace:
'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
You do Realize that Brace's 1993 study was extremely flawed, RIGHT? As a matter of fact, you have yet to explain why his RECENT study found the exact opposite:
So in his 2005 study he found that modern Egyptian occupy a different twig than the Ancient Egyptians and that ancient Egyptians cluster with Sub-Saharan Somalis, Tanzania Haya Dahomey Congo and modern and Ancient Nubians. His '93 study has been criticized by so many.
quote:Keita:
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
All this means is that the range of phenotypes was always present. It doesn't mean the modern populations looks identical to the ancient. What we see instead is a demographic shift in phenotype so that one eventually becomes more common than before.
Minor migration rates can cause a drastic difference in only a few thousand years.
quote:A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). .
--Schillaci MA et al. (2009)
And then we have:
quote:Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to **ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region**.
--AP Starling and JT Stock
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Egyptians you seem to forget about Rahotep
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
Yeah I'd say so...
What happened to the 'tropical proportions' of these guys?
Folks this intellectual thrashing has been brought to you by Argyle.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor -------------------------------- --------------------------------
Don't bother me clown. I'll get back to finishing your scholarly beatdown on the African civilization thread later. You remember the one where you ran like a scared hare.
Lol, still you did not prove any of what you claimed. While I gave you source after source. All valid, source after source!
Reread that study by that scholar, how many times he used the words likely, probably etc....lol
I gave you international databases. Still you claim you won? Smh lol
I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
Anyone with half-a-brain would understand after all the sources being displayed. lol
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Sample of Nubians taken:
Nubians
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
The reason why this Perahu is now tripping over and contradicting himself is because the man is Senegalese.
This particular race loon is trying to save face by using geography to trump even his debunked racial typology.
You see he figures that if he says the Senegalese man is "caucasoid" then African Americans will have a link to the rest of "non-Negroid" Africa. Since obviously the man would link "west" Africa to the imaginary "caucasoid" race taxonomy group. This is because west euros have created the bogus "west African" term to try and sandbox AAs to a certain section of Africa.
This is how some of these loons differ. Most of his race typology nimrods would stick to their pseudoscience and claim the man was part caucasoid. This perahu doesn't because he is trying to seal most of Africa off from of all people African Americans. If the man was from any other part of Africa you can bet he would be called "caucasoid".
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
The high frequency of J1 is recent, and R1b they likely aqquired from Afro-Asiatic speakers. You use Hassan et al's data yet you don't pay attention to their interpretation Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
How the hell would modern Egyptians manage to be related more closely to Moroccans than ancient Egyptians? There's something wrong there.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Many Europeans were taken into slavery by Muslim North African pirates, this is true. The idea that fair skinned Berbers descend from these European captives, however, is belied by the fact that the peoples Libya and the Maghreb were characterized as fair skinned caucasoids by the ancient Egyptians. There are also medieval images of white Moors as well as black ones.
Berbers have admixture due to slavery and invasions. This shows in the autosomal.
The Berber gene arose in Northwest Africa. After the dispersal from Northeast- East Africa. As a downstream.
You may want to sum up and show the many haplotypes found within Berber populations. So we can verify them one by one correlating with recent historic events.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu
rahotep101
Why are you running from me...............Argyle................the mighty?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Perahu
rahotep101
Why are you running from me...............Argyle................the mighty?
Sample of Nubians taken:
Nubians
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor wrote: ---------------------------------- You may want to sum up and show the many haplotypes found within Berber populations. So we can verify them one by one correlating with recent historic events. ----------------------------------
Another example of the berbers that were brought as slaves to the Americas.
Your image is a perfect example.
Don't cry now Ish Gebor. We all know how upset you get at the thought of slaves being anyone but people whom you think are "negroid".
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz':
quote:Brace:
'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
You do Realize that Brace's 1993 study was extremely flawed, RIGHT? As a matter of fact, you have yet to explain why his RECENT study found the exact opposite:
So in his 2005 study he found that modern Egyptian occupy a different twig than the Ancient Egyptians and that ancient Egyptians cluster with Sub-Saharan Somalis, Tanzania Haya Dahomey Congo and modern and Ancient Nubians. His '93 study has been criticized by so many.
quote:Keita:
'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
All this means is that the range of phenotypes was always present. It doesn't mean the modern populations looks identical to the ancient. What we see instead is a demographic shift in phenotype so that one eventually becomes more common than before.
Minor migration rates can cause a drastic difference in only a few thousand years.
quote:A comparison of regional levels of diversity (i.e., Upper and Lower Egypt) reveals a greater average distance to the centroid among Lower Egypt dynastic populations (Table 7). This increased level of diversity is likely the result of greater extraregional in-migration during the dynastic period relative to that in Upper Egypt, and/or genetic drift, or differences in group sizes. When we mapped levels of diversity onto an MDS plot of geographic distances, we were able to identify a clinal pattern of increasing group structure from predynastic groups in Upper Egypt to dynastic groups in Upper Egypt and to dynastic and Greek period groups of Lower Egypt (see Fig. 4). .
--Schillaci MA et al. (2009)
And then we have:
quote:Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to **ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region**.
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Explain all of this point by point. You see folks this is how the race loons work. They cut and paste gibberish in hopes of someone blindly believing that they actually defended their point.
I'm calling his bluff by making him explain each detail of what he has just posted.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Another way to look at it?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
Please, stop dreaming.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
What makes the woman 80% "Negroid"?
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: How the hell would modern Egyptians manage to be related more closely to Moroccans than ancient Egyptians? There's something wrong there.
Nothing is wrong. It is actually an expected result. The modern population has experienced diffusion from non-Africans, influencing their phenotype and causing them to cluster with another hybrid population. Now you can go ahead and admit your lack of understanding on what a pooled sample does.
@Perahu- yeah, but the ancient Egyptians descend from sub-Saharan Africans NOT West Asians. Subsequently, Early west Asians resembled Africans.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu wrote:
quote: North Sudanese - 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian)
Define "Caucasoid"?
What makes those men 50% "Caucasoid"?
How can those men be anything "Caucasoid" when they are from the desert of Africa?
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu wrote:
quote: North Sudanese - 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian)
Is Omar Al Bashir 50% "caucasoid"?
Is Ali Osman Taha 50% caucasoid?
Is Hassan Al Turabi 50% caucasoid?
Is Musa Hilal 50% caucasoid?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by DaDumHo1000: Mostly Nubians, a few southern Egyptians, and a Nigerian albino baby, that looks like Charles Dance if he was hit in the face with a fryingpan.
WRONG. Mostly EGYPTIANS, Siwa BERBERS and an albino baby.
By the way, I noticed you ignored most of my responses to you. No problem, bloke. LOL
Does history repeat itself?
Nigerian couple’s white baby for genetic tests. This a good sign that should put the minds of Nigerians to rest. Note that the parents are cock sure that infidelity is out of the equation.
The white baby girl Nimanchi, born to black parents is to undergo full genetic tests as her parents, Ben and Angela Ihegboro are seeking to discover whether they have any white ancestry.
The couple who are devout Christians believe there are no whites on either side of their families that could have led to four_day_old Nmachi’s skin colour.
Ben and Angela agreed to let experts study Nmachi as geneticist Dr Mark Thomas, of University College, London, said the odds of the baby’s white colouring were “between many millions to one and a million to one”.
He said: “I suspect there’s been a mixture of a mutation, like albinism, combined with a dormant white gene.” But other experts hintthat there are three possible explanations for the birth of Nmachi _ albinism, a genetic mutation or some dominant white genes that entered her parents’ backgrounds some generations ago.
Doctors have already said that they do not believe Nmachi is an albino, but it is possible that both of her parents carried light skin genes and they mutated in the correct way to produce a light skinned baby. However, her parents say they do not have any white ancestry in their backgrounds.
A genetic scientist at the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) and College of Medicine, University of Lagos (CMUL), Idi Araba, said the rare occurrence is most likely to be a genetic mutation, which could cause more genetic mutations down the line.
The bottom line from most medical experts is that more research will have to be done to find out if Nmachi has even a form of albinism that could be described as a genetic mutation, but for now she is healthy and happy and that is all her parents are concerned about.
But there are curiosities. Ben’s mother Amebo, 70, is unusual in having blue eyes.
The 44-year-old customer services adviser, said: “It doesn’t matter to us quite how she came about but we will do what we can to find answers. She’s a beautiful, miracle baby and we love her. She could be green and yellow _ we would love her the same.”
It’s an unusual case, but it’s not unheard of. Skin and eye colour are determined by melanin, and the amount or type of melanin is controlled by about a dozen different genes, For the Ihegboros, Nmachi’s blue eyes and blond hair must be the result of a trace of white ancestry from each of her parents’ genes.
It is known that in mixed race humans, the lighter variant of skin tone may come out in a child and this can sometimes be startlingly different to the skin of the parents.
This is not the first instance that a couple of one race has given birth to a baby of another race, but it is certainly not common.
All that other stuff about the pop of Egypt was correct.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor wrote: ---------------------------------- Please, stop dreaming. ----------------------------------
What is it that you want me to stop dreaming?
That vague crap won't cut it with me. Point to the post in question.
We're waiting...........................
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Perahu.....................We're waiting..............
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: North Sudanese - 50% Caucasoid (West Eurasian)
But if they are 50% Caucasoid?
How come he has, from a "purely" cranium base point of few more so called Caucasoid features? And even in visual appearance he has smaller features. While he is 100% negroe?
On purpose I picked his picture, as dark as him, he of course is not the only one with this phenotype. I hope you can understand that.
Now, when are you going to explain what causes these phenotypes what is the condition required to mutate to this?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote: ---------------------------------- Please, stop dreaming. ----------------------------------
What is it that you want me to stop dreaming?
That vague crap won't cut it with me. Point to the post in question.
We're waiting...........................
You don't have to wait..... All you have to do is check the valid peer reviewed links I have posted. International db''s and such, ya' know?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Another way to look at it?
That map is a bit of a distortion. Egypt never ruled Punt or that much of Nubia.
Anyway I think you're missing the concept of an empire... Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: But if they are 50% Caucasoid?
How come he has, from a "purely" cranium base point of few more so called Caucasoid features? And even in visual appearance he has smaller features. While he is 100% negroe?
Because as I said earlier Perahu thinks he has no choice at this point. If he says the Senegales man is "caucasoid", in his mind that opens the flood gates for African Americans to have an association with everything else in Africa, especially Ancient Egypt. Which is what this is all about for Perahu.
His racial hierachy fantasyland with AAs at the bottom is in outright jeopardy if that Senegalese man is considered "caucasoid". This is why he is making a fool out of himself by his hypocrisy and contradiction.
This Perahu creature would have been better off debatewise if he had stuck with his pseudoscience and claimed the man was "caucasoid". He wouldn't come off as a contradicting hypocritical imbecille. LOL!
Posted by Khufu (Member # 17461) on :
That's a big boo boo Perahu made.LOL
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Senegal was within the reach of the most southerly-ranging Berbers, and being coastal was also likely to be visited by European mariners, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking! If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Another way to look at it?
In addition, why?
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by adrianne: the ancient egyptians were african, african americans are descended from africans
the ancient egyptians were NOT europeans european americans are descended from europeans NOT africans
Egypt is geographically much closer to West Asia than to most Sub-Saharan African nations.
Another way to look at it?
That map is a bit of a distortion. Egypt never ruled Punt or that much of Nubia.
Anyway I think you're missing the concept of an empire...
Maybe it's because you don't know, but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
Tribes moved from East to West and vice versa. The Sahelian played a major part in these movements.
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
Ish Gebor wrote: ------------------------------------- Maybe it's because you don't know, but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
Tribes moved from East to West and vice versa. The Sahelian played a major part in these movements. -------------------------------------
Tribes?
Tribes?
Folks, I rest my case. This fool has clearly had his mind sodomized by racist western scholars.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
KMRT.....
really, it's a shame.....SMFH
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Senegal was within the reach of the most southerly-ranging Berbers, and being coastal was also likely to be visited by European mariners, so I wouldn't read too much into that. The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking! If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
Anyway,
Scandals of Ancient Egypt Home Documentary Scandals of Ancient Egypt?
Appears to be the tittle of that program?
Who made it.
Where is that image located at in Egypt?
By the way, you don't have to show me pictures of Egypt. I have so many I can dazzle you. But I don't put personal pics online. you keep trying and trying.
Most of the images show dark brown pigmentation and caramel. Not white.
Do you really think that part of the world could not have produced a lighter of brown complexion? And the abundance of captives shown are from Eurasia, so called Asiatics. Or as I look at it, Indo-Arians.
The man was one example out of many.
Do you know the man? What tribe are those females from, have they always resided there? Who are they?
The first people who entered and built ancient Egypt, entered from South, Sahelians. Not from the middle east or lala land.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
Yes, tribes.
You do know what a tribe is, right?
People in Africa in general go by tribe. There are many Berber tribes for example. Egypt has many tribes. Nubian is a cluster name of multiple tribes. Etc....
Funny is, you really think you are going to win this?
Your rubbish website with outdated nonsense is not going to help you.
Mostly the remnants show people like in the South of Egypt. There is were most of the remnants are anyway.
Certainly the most "important ones".
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DumHoTips: Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable...
Where have you read any in here use the word "race" except you and your cohorts?? The Egyptians were indigenous Africans and as such they were indeed black. It is simple as that. Tell me, do you believe in a pan-European race??
quote:Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
How many times must we tell you that the division of African populations into Sub-Sahara and North is totally false. How many times must we repeat that the Sahara did not always exist and even then it was never a barrier.
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. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)
Funny how Nubia just a few miles away from Egypt is also not Sub-Saharan yet you seem to identify them as "negro".
quote: Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Nobody is saying there are Egyptian descendants in other parts of Africa, you fool! Wally is perhaps the only person in here who believes that and I agree it is erroneous. The Egyptians never left their homes in the Nile Valley. What we are saying is that as indigenous Africans they were indeed black people but many of them especially in the north became mixed with Eurasian foreigners. This is all supported by history as well as anthropology.
quote:Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations.
Are you serious?? Do you not realize that all these features you speak of are also found among some Sub-Saharan (BLACK) populations as well??! Why else do you think Paironuts wants white-wash peoples in Sub-Sahara??!
quote:Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Nope. Geography places Egypt strictly in Africa. The only part considered in Asia is the Sinai Peninsula which wasn't even part of dynastic Egypt until the imperial New Kingdom times. Also the Hamitic hypothesis is actually completely discredited unless you want to follow your friend Paironuts in claiming Rwandans and Tanzanians as Hamites also because of their features!
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
No, I already responded, and I have more info for her.
I suggest you start reading the international databases I have provided. All you need to do is click the link, hyperlink. From page to page. It really is that easy. Good luck with it.
A few who slipped in here and there, at time by choice as they moved as free people to England. Anyway, it's by far not a vast majority or even near, half etc...most of the population you claimed came aftherwards, not during, but after, as was shown by multiple credible sources. Like 97% foresure. This part flyes over your head.
The history of Iberia however is interesting, as they took Berber females there as (sex) slaves. Not the fake guance. But most enslaved African populations came from the West African part of Africa.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by DumHoTips: Afrocentrism/negrocentrism depends on a myth of a pan-African race, and is all about boosting the egoes of black Americans, fundamentally. It's quite laughable...
Where have you read any in here use the word "race" except you and your cohorts?? The Egyptians were indigenous Africans and as such they were indeed black. It is simple as that. Tell me, do you believe in a pan-European race??
quote:Egypt had nothing to do with sub saharan Africa or with the ancestors of black Americans.
How many times must we tell you that the division of African populations into Sub-Sahara and North is totally false. How many times must we repeat that the Sahara did not always exist and even then it was never a barrier.
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. Egypt rapidly found a method of disciplining the river, the land, and the people to transform the country into a titanic garden. Egypt rapidly developed detailed cultural forms that dwarfed its forebears in urbanity and elaboration. Thus, when new details arrived, they were rapidly adapted to the vast cultural superstructure already present. On the other hand, pharaonic culture was so bound to its place near the Nile that its huge, interlocked religious, administrative, and formal structures could not be readily transferred to relatively mobile cultures of the desert, savanna, and forest. The influence of the mature pharaonic civilizations of Egypt and Kush was almost confined to their sophisticated trade goods and some significant elements of technology. Nevertheless, the religious substratum of Egypt and Kush was so similar to that of many cultures in southern Sudan today that it remains possible that fundamental elements derived from the two high cultures to the north live on.--Joseph O. Vogel (1997)
"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)[/b]."--Anselin (2009)
Funny how Nubia just a few miles away from Egypt is also not Sub-Saharan yet you seem to identify them as "negro".
quote: Ish Gebor getting desperate. The fact remains that Ancient Egyptians have descendants only in modern Egyptians, not in these fine-featured Africans from further south. These people are irrelevant, however they came to look as they do.
Nobody is saying there are Egyptian descendants in other parts of Africa, you fool! Wally is perhaps the only person in here who believes that and I agree it is erroneous. The Egyptians never left their homes in the Nile Valley. What we are saying is that as indigenous Africans they were indeed black people but many of them especially in the north became mixed with Eurasian foreigners. This is all supported by history as well as anthropology.
quote:Egyptians also usually had straight or wavy hair of Caucasian type, and lighter skin (even blue eyes sometimes), they had mass-reduced teeth and relatively large ears, placing them with Caucasian populations.
Are you serious?? Do you not realize that all these features you speak of are also found among some Sub-Saharan (BLACK) populations as well??! Why else do you think Paironuts wants white-wash peoples in Sub-Sahara??!
quote:Geography also placed them with Caucasian poulations. Part of Egypt is in Asia. There is Caucasian DNA in sub saharan East Africans, even as far south as the Lemba of S. Africa, who appear to have their remote ancestry in lost Israelites. The Hamitic hypothesis is far from discredited, but is largely irrelevant to the question of Egypt.
Nope. Geography places Egypt strictly in Africa. The only part considered in Asia is the Sinai Peninsula which wasn't even part of dynastic Egypt until the imperial New Kingdom times. Also the Hamitic hypothesis is actually completely discredited unless you want to follow your friend Paironuts in claiming Rwandans and Tanzanians as Hamites also because of their features!
It probably is too much for them. So they rather ignore and live in their fantasy.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaDumHo: North Africa was Caucasian by default. Berbers:
What is hugely entertaining is the fact that Black Americans twerps deny the Africanness of these people, whose ancestors have been in North Africa since since prehistoric times; and call themselves African when their own ancestors have not been near Africa in 200-300 years. It really is funny.
What is truly entertaining is that Euronuts like yourself deny that the reason why such Berbers are white is because of recent European ancestry while at the same time you ignore more pristine types as like the peoples below and instead dismiss them as recent peoples from Sub-Sahara instead of actual authentic Berbers!!
What's laughable is your belief in white people being aboriginal to the African continent!! LMAO Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
@ both Ish Gebor and Djehuti-
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's laughable is your belief in white people being aboriginal to the African continent!!
that's not just laughable, lol...it's hysterically laughable... and in reading this/your post, I have to wonder how the hell did you ever miss this:
quote:....but those borders are from colonial time. The scramble of Africa. Ancient Africa had different borders based an tribe.
I think nuff people either don't real-eyes or don't know/never learned that lil piece of info there....that the borders of Africa were all changed when the European nations carved up Mama Africa like a Thanksgiving turkey, changing the already established borders, etc to suit their needs (the colonizers, not the African people already living there) ....which, many of those same people don't real-eyes, is one of the reasons there is so much warfare and carrying on going on over there.... Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: This makes sense considering the history of White European slavery in North Africa...
OLUMBUS, Ohio – A new study suggests that a million or more European Christians were enslaved by Muslims in North Africa between 1530 and 1780 – a far greater number than had ever been estimated before. Robert Davis
In a new book, Robert Davis, professor of history at Ohio State University, developed a unique methodology to calculate the number of white Christians who were enslaved along Africa’s Barbary Coast, arriving at much higher slave population estimates than any previous studies had found.
Most other accounts of slavery along the Barbary coast didn’t try to estimate the number of slaves, or only looked at the number of slaves in particular cities, Davis said. Most previously estimated slave counts have thus tended to be in the thousands, or at most in the tens of thousands. Davis, by contrast, has calculated that between 1 million and 1.25 million European Christians were captured and forced to work in North Africa from the 16th to 18th centuries.
Davis’s new estimates appear in the book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800 (Palgrave Macmillan). “Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland.”
“Much of what has been written gives the impression that there were not many slaves and minimizes the impact that slavery had on Europe,” Davis said. “Most accounts only look at slavery in one place, or only for a short period of time. But when you take a broader, longer view, the massive scope of this slavery and its powerful impact become clear.”
Davis said it is useful to compare this Mediterranean slavery to the Atlantic slave trade that brought black Africans to the Americas. Over the course of four centuries, the Atlantic slave trade was much larger – about 10 to 12 million black Africans were brought to the Americas. But from 1500 to 1650, when trans-Atlantic slaving was still in its infancy, more white Christian slaves were probably taken to Barbary than black African slaves to the Americas, according to Davis.
“One of the things that both the public and many scholars have tended to take as given is that slavery was always racial in nature – that only blacks have been slaves. But that is not true,” Davis said. “We cannot think of slavery as something that only white people did to black people.”
During the time period Davis studied, it was religion and ethnicity, as much as race, that determined who became slaves.
“Enslavement was a very real possibility for anyone who traveled in the Mediterranean, or who lived along the shores in places like Italy, France, Spain and Portugal, and even as far north as England and Iceland,” he said.
Pirates (called corsairs) from cities along the Barbary Coast in north Africa – cities such as Tunis and Algiers – would raid ships in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, as well as seaside villages to capture men, women and children. The impact of these attacks were devastating – France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships, and long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants. At its peak, the destruction and depopulation of some areas probably exceeded what European slavers would later inflict on the African interior.
Although hundreds of thousands of Christian slaves were taken from Mediterranean countries, Davis noted, the effects of Muslim slave raids was felt much further away: it appears, for example, that through most of the 17th century the English lost at least 400 sailors a year to the slavers.
Even Americans were not immune. For example, one American slave reported that 130 other American seamen had been enslaved by the Algerians in the Mediterranean and Atlantic just between 1785 and 1793.
Davis said the vast scope of slavery in North Africa has been ignored and minimized, in large part because it is on no one’s agenda to discuss what happened.
The enslavement of Europeans doesn’t fit the general theme of European world conquest and colonialism that is central to scholarship on the early modern era, he said. Many of the countries that were victims of slavery, such as France and Spain, would later conquer and colonize the areas of North Africa where their citizens were once held as slaves. Maybe because of this history, Western scholars have thought of the Europeans primarily as “evil colonialists” and not as the victims they sometimes were, Davis said.
Davis said another reason that Mediterranean slavery has been ignored or minimized has been that there have not been good estimates of the total number of people enslaved. People of the time – both Europeans and the Barbary Coast slave owners – did not keep detailed, trustworthy records of the number of slaves. In contrast, there are extensive records that document the number of Africans brought to the Americas as slaves.
So Davis developed a new methodology to come up with reasonable estimates of the number of slaves along the Barbary Coast. Davis found the best records available indicating how many slaves were at a particular location at a single time. He then estimated how many new slaves it would take to replace slaves as they died, escaped or were ransomed.
“The only way I could come up with hard numbers is to turn the whole problem upside down – figure out how many slaves they would have to capture to maintain a certain level,” he said. “It is not the best way to make population estimates, but it is the only way with the limited records available.”
Putting together such sources of attrition as deaths, escapes, ransomings, and conversions, Davis calculated that about one-fourth of slaves had to be replaced each year to keep the slave population stable, as it apparently was between 1580 and 1680. That meant about 8,500 new slaves had to be captured each year. Overall, this suggests nearly a million slaves would have been taken captive during this period. Using the same methodology, Davis has estimated as many as 475,000 additional slaves were taken in the previous and following centuries.
The result is that between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.
Davis said his research into the treatment of these slaves suggests that, for most of them, their lives were every bit as difficult as that of slaves in America.
“As far as daily living conditions, the Mediterranean slaves certainly didn’t have it better,” he said.
While African slaves did grueling labor on sugar and cotton plantations in the Americas, European Christian slaves were often worked just as hard and as lethally – in quarries, in heavy construction, and above all rowing the corsair galleys themselves.
Davis said his findings suggest that this invisible slavery of European Christians deserves more attention from scholars.
“We have lost the sense of how large enslavement could loom for those who lived around the Mediterranean and the threat they were under,” he said. “Slaves were still slaves, whether they are black or white, and whether they suffered in America or North Africa
Im have 100% respect for this man Davis for speaking the Truth, facts that the historical academia tries to ignore. The History books should reflect this. It pisses me off when I read about Nubia or West African kingdoms they always talk about the main export was Slaves and Gold.
It also helps explain this..
^^^ Euro-Arab Mongrels of the result of slavery..
LMAO It's funny how the Euronuts love talking about blacks being enslaved but never about whites being enslaved and it is a historical FACT as you just pointed out that many white Christians in Europe were exported to North Africa, especially women. Yet the Euronuts expect these whites and their descendants to be the authentic aboriginal North African Berbers while the Black Berbers are somehow suppose to be the slave descendants from Sub-Sahara!!
This shows you how backwards their logic is!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What's laughable is your belief in white people being aboriginal to the African continent!!
that's not just laughable, lol...it's hysterically laughable... and in reading this/your post, I have to wonder how the hell did you ever miss this:
Indeed. I've been trying to tell DaDumWon that the division of African populations into 'North' and 'Sub-Sahara' is false! As proof of this the white-washing of North Africa was not sufficient enough since it is proven North Africans are related to Sub-Saharans which is why even Sub-Sahara is not safe from white-washing!!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The fact remains that the vast majority of people from that region are decidedly negroid in appearence, and could never be mistaken for Egyptians, ancient or modern.
There are plenty of West African people who would fit right in in Ancient Egypt. On the other hand i doubt any Europeans such as yourself would feel at home. Modern Egypt is not the same as Ancient Egypt as it has been explained to you time after time.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
Compared to...
And still the descendants of people who looked like the former seek to claim the heritage of those who resembled and still resemble the latter. Shocking!
I like how you talk about Afrocentrics cherry picking images and being selective when you do the same damn thing. I notice you always resort to the few images of light Egyptians and avoid the Images with the Dominant phenotype, The Dark Skinned Egyptians, like the Plague.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: If you can find me a picture of an Egyptian whose lips stick out beyond his nose then I'll buy into the suggestion that Egypt was black.
This is absurd, not every black peoples lips stick out beyond their nose. Egyptians displayed a facial type typical of Africans al over the continent.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Ish Gebor wrote:
quote: I moved on because I got tired of your stupidity and nonsense!
You moved on because you saw that the jig was up. After Clyde and dana came in with even more facts, evidence, and scholarship; Your ass ran for the hills.
I see that you don't even want to write clearly to let everyone know what we are talking about. Why? Are you embarrassed by the fact that you fought tooth and nail to defend euro loon propaganda?
I don't blame you. Anybody like you Ish Gebor who tries to say that blacks are to be divided by phenotype and assigned to a race propagandic history ought to be ashamed of himself like you currently are.
Folks check out the scholarly beatdown that was given to him by me, then by Clyde and dana.
Plus you were obviously talking about North Africa as that American scholar showed, while your initial question was another. So I responded as to the Americas as a whole. Those stories you claimed are not known in the Caribbean and Latin America.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This shows you how backwards their logic is! [/QB]
again, you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are/'logic' is, lol.....
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ both Ish Gebor and Djehuti-
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
I have learned one thing today.
I am a dark-skinned caucasian? Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by TruthAndRights: @ both Ish Gebor and Djehuti-
now you know how schizophrenic 'white' supremist beliefs are, lol.....I personally don't have the time to pick up any and every little argument on this forum, much less to go back and forth non-stop about the same ish time and time and time again, but I guess some do...
I have learned one thing today.
I am a dark-skinned caucasian?
DWBCL stappit LMFBAO
soooooooooooooooooooooooo....which water fountain would you be drinking from (with impunity), during 1945 in the United States, 'whites only' or 'colored only'? Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
What those stupid monkeys keep calling "Negroid" is a variant of tropical African, one of many.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
If you don't mind, I'll ask that same member this question in this thread as well (I've asked it in a next thread), since it's in line with your question, lol:
quote: Can you please post for the members here, a current mainstream map showing us where Negro Land is located?
I asked another member this over a year ago, but said member has not as of yet provided us with that information....
Posted by AphRe7 (Member # 18920) on :
All I see is baskets and baskets full of cherries. Does the one with the fullest basket win?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
This image is from the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, if anyone was wondering. Still waiting to see an Egyptian who looks like those Senegaliese ladies, with the same profile. The best that afrocentrists seem able to do is find ones who look like mulattos.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
I've defined it before, in terms similar to those given on the wikioracle, which I will copy and paste as I can't be bothered to repeat myself:
'Use in physical anthropology: Ashley Montagu lists "neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars"[7]
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology.'
The pan-European race is called 'Caucasian', and it spills out into Asia and Africa, which is why I don't think it's valid to use the term 'European' as a racial indicator.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^And herein lies the problem with that definition; populations who share those traits can be biologically distinct therefore they cannot be considered apart of the same race, especially when they develop in situ. Here is the reality of the matter Rahotep, no population is homogeneous, not even Europeans. All have some form of physical diversity to some extent. And in regards to sub-Saharan populations where diversity is greatest, it becomes impossible to apply racial terms altogether
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Patently the Egyptians of any era exhibit few if any of these triats, however, whereas tropical central/west Africans exhibit all of them. The traits are genetically transmitted, so obvious conclusions can be drawn.
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': ^And herein lies the problem with that definition; populations who share those traits can be biologically distinct therefore they cannot be considered apart of the same race, especially when they develop in situ. Here is the reality of the matter Rahotep, no population is homogeneous, not even Europeans. All have some form of physical diversity to some extent. And in regards to sub-Saharan populations where diversity is greatest, it becomes impossible to apply racial terms altogether
Respectfully, bredrin, is how long are you going to beat your head against the wall?
The man just ah try come in like croakin lizard over and over again...when he's nothing but an ole john crow wey chat bere sheggery....kmrt....
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
^You're right. Ironically, Rahotep says he doesn't want to repeat himself, but that's all he does. Especially since DJehuti showed him pictures of west and central Africans with narrow features a few months ago. He's just playing stupid. "Genetically Trasmitted features" he says LOL!
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
There's no such thing as Africans with narrow facial features who come out as 100% African. All the Africans who resemble Caucasoids carry loads of West Eurasian admixture.
Posted by Omo Baba (Member # 18816) on :
^^^^Do you even read your own posts?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Tuaregs, Fulanis, North Sudanese, Tutsi, Ethiopians, Somalis, Eritreans, you name it...they have West Eurasian DNA.
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Even if the Egyptians evolved in situ, and just happen to look like their Eurasian neighbours, they still have/had little or nothing to do with sub-saharan Africa and never spread their civilization there. They never left Egypt either. The Afrocentrist project to lump Egypt with the negro cultures is still a vain endeavour.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Perahu ignored, due to the repetitive nature of his post (all addresse prior to this)
1)Ancient Egyptians did not look like their non-African neighbors as their crania classifies with sub-Saharan Africans
2)The ancient Egyptians descend from sub-Saharan Africa so they DO HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT
3)There are cultural and genetic ties with Egypt to Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa/Sudanese. And it is the opposite, prehistoric West Asians were the ones who resembled Africans (see the Cranial comparisons from Hanihara)
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Egyptians: ~83% West Eurasian, ~17% Sub-Saharan African Northwest Africans: ~77% West Eurasian, ~23% Sub-Saharan African Ethiopians: ~53% West Eurasian, ~45% Sub-Saharan African, ~2% South Asian
Per Behar et al. 2010
See image below (Red is Sub-Saharan African): Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Cranial measurement is bogus as an indicator of racial identity. It is possible for whites to exhibit long heads (in proportion to head height) and negroes to exhibit short ones, and vice versa. This is quite obvious. Mostly they are about the same.
Everyone descends from sub-saharan Africans, that does not mean Sub-Saharan Africans have the right to claim credit for any culture north of the Sahara or beyond Africa.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
I like how you use a White European over a East African or Northern Sudanese who has the same features as Tut.
Funny how its easy for you to push your agenda here unlike in the Cherry Picked thread..lmao.
King Tut on his best day looked nothing like a European.
Why did you take your graphic down, realized how you contradicted yourself Winston??
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Cranial measurement is bogus as an indicator of racial identity. It is possible for whites to exhibit long heads (in proportion to head height) and negroes to exhibit short ones, and vice versa. This is quite obvious. Mostly they are about the same.
Posted by anguishofbeansanddodo (Member # 6729) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
King Tut on his best day looked nothing like a European.
How about on his worst day, did he?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial feayures were more in line with the caucasoid...
As for the cherrypicking topic... Every damned thread on this site degenerates into a battle of the racial cherrypickers why get involved in another?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
This is a Strawman Fallacy. Once again no one here is claiming Egypt or any culture. Egypt was founded by Tropical Africans who looked no different than Modern East Africans. Northern Sudanese and Upper Egyptians are the best example of the Dominant phenotype in A. Egypt.
Has nothing to do with Caucasian or Negriod or claiming culture.
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Everyone descends from sub-saharan Africans, that does not mean Sub-Saharan Africans have the right to claim credit for any culture north of the Sahara or beyond Africa.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
You are right lets stop fighting for a moment.
You seem to have some reason in you unlike the other Eurocentics, so Let me ask you...
You claim to defend Modern Egyptians. Did you know before I researched I had no idea Black Egyptians Existed. Did you know majority of people think that the Egyptians in Cairo and the Delta represent Egypt.
Do you know how many people don't even know the Egyptians from Luxor, Aswan, Kom Ombos etc. even exist..??
Where is their defending and representation at??
Where are the Movies, Games, Pictures, etc showing the Egyptians from Aswan, Kom Ombos, Luxor, etc. when it was that Phenotype that founded Egypt and NOT the Delta Egyptians, and for arguments sake lets say the Delta Egyptians looked the same back in the day, Well what about the Royal Families from the south?? What about the 12th, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 18th Dynasty??
What about the Amun Priesthood from Waset??
Where is their representation at??
You seem to care about one set of Egyptians over the other..
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
Every damned thread on this site degenerates into a battle of the cherrypicker's why ger involved in another?
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Upper Egyptians are 60-70% Caucasoid Central Egyptians are 70-80% Caucasoid Lower Egyptians are 80-85% Caucasoid
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:Cranial measurement is bogus as an indicator of racial identity.
And yet YOU are the one who uses racial terms that use characteristics of the crania LOL!
Based on which populations the Egyptians cluster with, we know that these populations are a good representative of how they looked. Not racial identity as race doesn't exist.
quote:It is possible for whites to exhibit long heads (in proportion to head height) and negroes to exhibit short ones, and vice versa. This is quite obvious. Mostly they are about the same.
That's not what crania is limited to.
quote:Everyone descends from sub-saharan Africans, that does not mean Sub-Saharan Africans have the right to claim credit for any culture north of the Sahara or beyond Africa.
Let me reword that, the ancient Egyptians were *recent* descendants of sub-Saharan Africans. I showed you this several times now. Sub-Saharan Africans populated the Nile Valley during the Mesolithic. As I said, there are deep and ancient cultural connections with sub-Saharan Africa and Egypt. On the other hand, you are attributing to me things I never asserted, i.e., that they should claim other civilizations
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
I have not lept to the defence of the darker Egyptians for the obvious reason that no one seems to be going around claiming that they are the descendants of foreign invaders. Not as far as I've noticed. There are Afrocentrists making such claims about the lighter Egyptians, ignoring the fact that this type are also amply represented by historical images, mummies etc. There's also been a misconception that all modern Egyptians look like Hawass and Mubarac and that no ancient Egyptians looked like them. When one is are arguing against someone who has resorted to cherrypicking sources, it is a natural reaction to polarise the other way, and to stress the conflicting evidence.
Most Egyptians that I've spoken to tend not to identify as black Africans. I think I've encountered one Copt who preferred 'brown African' and one other Coptic Christian who liked to think that Egyptian Muslims were largely Arabs, probably I suspect because he didn't like the idea of mass conversions to Islam by his compatriots. Islamic prejudice also seems to encourage a lot of Muslim Egyptians to embrace an Arab identity because Arabs have an honoured place in Islam, but most Egyptians just identify as Egyptians. Rightly so. Obviously Copts never identify as Arabs, despite speaking Arabic in daily life. They have a pre-islamic identity and retain a number of pre-christian pharaonic traditions and terms, even the old language in their religious rites. Many 'black-Egypt' advocates, especially from the US, seem to be entirely ignorant about the Coptic Christians, & that they even exist.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
quote:ignoring the fact that this type are also amply represented by historical images, mummies etc.
Prove it. alTakuri made a thread for that exact reason.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
~80% Caucasoid
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaDumOne: It seems the ancient Nubians being analysed must be caucasoid-admixed, as look at the company they keep on a pooled sample:
LOL According to the same racialized standards Sub-Saharans like Ethiopians, Somalis, and even some Tanzanians and Ugandans would be caca-soid mixed as well as pointed out many times by your friend Paironuts!
quote:Negroids are very far away from Egyptians.
Do these two groups look homogenous to you?
Do these two West Africans look homogeneous to you??
It’s called WAR. Kush and Egypt were enemies and during the 17th dynasty the Asiatic Hyksos tried to make an alliance with Kush to split Egypt between them. It is all politics. What? You think there was something racial behind this conflict?! LOL
quote:Do the captors and the captives look like long-lost cousins?
I don’t know. Do these captives look like their long-lost cousins to you?
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
The fact still stems down to that the Darker Egyptians are a better image of Ancient Egypt. The Lighter Egyptians would have been a minority until Foreign Incursions by Eurasians into late Dynastic Egypt. To deny that the Delta and Lower Egyptians have been impacted by foreign blood is beyond absurd, and the same can be said about Upper Egyptians but their admixture is less than that in lower Egypt.
As far as the Copts go, alot of Copts are Dark Skinned, not all are lilly white like most people like to post. If you recall The Copt you posted to match the skin of Seti is a good example of a Dark Skinned Copt. That Man you posted skin wise looks no different than many upper Egyptians.
As far as black goes, Black, White, Brown etc is a Social Construct. I know Indians who are a Hell lot Darker than me, and Ive Seen some Indians wearing baseball Caps(Hiding their Hair) who look no different than the Average African American. Yet these people who are Jet Black like a Burned Log are supposed to be "Caucasian" and my Dad who has Green Eyes and Reddish Brown Skin was Segregated under Jim Crow Laws is black...
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:DaDumOne continues: Brace: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
He meant ancient Egyptians, fool!
quote:Keita: 'In terms of physical diversity it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt.... in terms of craniofacial features, skin colour and what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past'
Yeah I'd say so...
Similar does NOT mean same, dummy! Are you saying that after centuries of invasion and immigration in historical times a population would virtually be unchanged??!
quote:What happened to the 'tropical proportions' of these guys? Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Are you brain damaged??! Tropical proportions is not the same as stature!! Of course Pygmies still have tropical proportions as they are still tropically adapted, and is independent of their stature you nitwit!!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Is Racial Prejudice on the Rise in Egypt, or are Egyptians Merely Obsessed with Skin Colour? by Gamal Nkrumah
It is not an entirely curious fact that most Egyptians seem fixated on blue-eyed blondes. For one thing, the country is peopled essentially by dark-skinned, dark-haired people, and familiarity does breed contempt. Blue-eyed blondes are an exotic rarity. Mind you, an ever increasing number of well-heeled Egyptian women are desperately resorting to skin-lightening creams, light coloured-tinted contact lenses and hair bleaching dyes in an often farcical attempt to attain the golden-locked look.
Admittedly, all this is part of a global trend. Yellow-thatched Japanese youngsters are a common sight in Tokyo nowadays. Mercifully, the phenomenon hasn't quite caught on in Cairo, yet.
The whitening of Egypt has become a lucrative industry. Television commercials bombard viewers with a baffling array of skin-lightening creams and hair-straightening contraptions, creams and shampoos to effect the "white" look.
"Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when it's the only one you have," noted French philosopher Emile Chartier. Perhaps, he didn't have the single-minded struggle to be "white" in mind. To pass as white has become, for some, their veritable raison d'jtre.
The Egyptians see themselves as essentially sumr, or "dark". However, for all intents and purposes this is a most confusing and contentious term. If an individual is described as asmar, the masculine, or samra, the feminine, they could range in colour from the southern Sudanese ebony or indigo black, a west African chocolate or mahogany black, the various copper and honey-toned Ethiopian and Somali types, to the olive or off-white dark-haired Mediterranean or Middle Eastern-looking type.
Samara, or "Darkie", traditionally a term of endearment, has today taken on pejorative connotations in contemporary Egypt. The ugly forces of "shadism" are also at work in the country. Shadism, as a social and politico-economic occurrence was, and perhaps still is, pervasive in the Caribbean and among African Americans. Lighter-skinned blacks, who presumably had a greater infusion of white blood have been considered socially superior to darker, full-blooded blacks.
Suspected of actually being the slave-masters' progeny, they have been encouraged to assume overseer roles over the unadulterated blacks. In due course, they were accorded special social status, assumed political leadership and monopolised what economic opportunities presented themselves to the black elites. Those who have "good hair", meaning straighter and less kinky hair were also favoured.
In Egypt, no such historical tradition existed. But the perverted logic of shadism is sadly very much at work. Darker is uncouth, unpolished, crude and common. Lighter is, accordingly, more desirable, preferred, simply superior, and to ignore this is to ignore one of the salient features of contemporary Egypt.
At some theoretical level it is understandable that black conjures up images of the ugly, pathetic and wretched in the Egyptian psyche. Egypt has become progressively whiter over the millennia. Even so, songs praising dark-skinned or black beauty ranging from the now classic "Asmar ya asmarani" [Dark one, oh dark one] sung by a coterie of now long-departed superstars including Faiza Ahmed and Abdel-Halim Hafez to the more contemporary "Habibi laun al-chocolata", [My love is the colour of chocolate], by Nubian singer Mohamed Mounir. This genre has always been a characteristic feature of Egyptian lyrical folklore.
Songs such as "Asmar malek rouhi" [The dark one owns my soul], and "Alu al-samar ahla walla al-bayad ahla" [They asked whether darkness was more comely than whiteness], another popular song by Soad Mohamed, clearly indicate a collective acknowledgment of the attractiveness of darkness among Egyptians. Indeed, darkness is generally perceived to confer upon the individual the peculiarly Egyptian concept of damm khafif loosely translated as "charming" or "humorous".
This is attested to by the popularity of references to darkness in the context of love and romance in the popular Egyptian song.
"Asmar, asmar tayeb malu, walla samaru sirr gamalu" [So what if he is dark, that is the secret of his beauty], Mohamed Qandil's "Gamil wa asmar" [Beautiful and Dark], predated the "Black is Beautiful" slogan of the 1970s civil rights movement in the United States.
Racism as an institutionalised political and economic phenomenon never existed in Egypt.
There are many Nubian and Sudanese singers based in Cairo, the cultural capital of the Arab world, but their music is a different genre altogether. A few, such as Jawaher, a popular Sudanese singer, manage to penetrate the Egyptian pop-song market with smash hits such as "Ana bahebb al-asmarani" [I love the dark one]. Yet another is "Gani al-asmar gani" [The dark one came to me] a hit song sang by Etab, a Saudi singer who is herself black.
Nevertheless, it has to be mentioned that even in the realm of the popular song where traditionally references to whiteness or lightness of skin are minimal, there are a few exceptions. "Al-oyoun al-khodr saharouni" [Her green eyes bewitched me], by Muharram Fouad is one such exception.
Sadly, this fondness of darkness in popular songs is not reflected on the street. "I've never been called a nigger to my face more times in my life," Steffan, an African American studying in Cairo, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Some Egyptian youth may listen to a lot of rap music and may not know how offensive the word is.
But some of the young adults I've heard it from, I hold accountable. They understand how offensive the word is," he said. "It's telling that discussion of race is so minimal that people could get away with using ignorance as an excuse for using the word nigger," he added.
When black Africans are asked whether they felt they were subject to racial prejudice while in Egypt, most queried had terrible stories of personal experiences to tell. African Americans, on the whole, were less emphatic. Some said that they did not suffer from any form of racial discrimination when in Egypt.
"Lighter-skinned Egyptians have treated me just fine. Speaking for myself, I have not experienced racism from Egyptians," said a friend from Oakland, California. "When I am in Egypt, it is as a visitor.
Most Egyptians instinctively know that I am African American, but there are some who think I am Egyptian or Nubian. But, whatever they think I am, I believe they think I am rich," she explained. "So whether I am in Cairo, Luxor or Aswan, Egyptians are always kind and polite to me. In fact, a lot of them want to talk to me. The Nubians, of course, always call me their Nubian 'sistah'."
The fact that shopkeepers, hoteliers and the public at large tend to equate Americans (be they black or white) with dollars and relative wealth might account for the impression that African Americans are less likely to face racial prejudice than sub-Saharan Africans in Egypt and are more likely to be accorded a warmer reception. "One other thing, I am always treated nicely by staff whether I am in a five-star hotel or a no-star hotel," my Californian friend said.
Africans from countries south of the Sahara, including the southern Sudanese and not excepting the large African diplomatic community in Cairo, have more troubling tales to tell.
However, racial prejudice is not exclusively directed at those from sub-Saharan Africa. Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation.
But, a more accurate explanation would be that Egypt has for thousands of years been ruled by foreign, and lighter-skinned, invaders -- Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Turks, the French and British. A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots.
Moreover, Napoleon Bonaparte's French expedition was notorious for sowing its seeds in places like the Delta city of Mansoura whose women are reputedly "exceptionally beautiful"; in Egyptian common parlance that means fair-skinned, with light-coloured eyes and hair.
Not only are the poorer classes darker in complexion, but they tend to display more "African" cultural traits. Much of the music they enjoy has rhythmic beats that are reminiscent of those of the music of Africa south of the Sahara, with an emphasis on drums and percussion. The elite tend to favour classical Western-influenced music or Middle Eastern (Turkish and Persian) musical strains dominated by stringed instruments. While the poorer and working classes are more likely to dance spontaneously and with abandon in public, the elites tend to be more restrained. Much clapping and ululation accompanies street parties in low income areas, the elites, in sharp contrast, shun these "baladi" literally "country" traits, suggestive of the African.
"The foremost issue is the darkness of your skin and your manner of dress. The darker your skin and the more ethnic, or African, your style of dress, the more stares and harassment you will receive," explained Thomas Ford, an African American resident in Cairo.
"As a Black man, an African American, I have been fortunate enough not to have experienced anything first hand. I have been welcomed with open arms."
Again, like many of his compatriots, he sees a qualitative difference between racism in Egypt and racism in his native US. "I will say that, in general, racism in Egypt is much less of an issue than in other parts of the world. But anyone who denies its existence is fooling himself." Ford spoke of a "subtle level of racism" that is "hard to define". Racism in Egypt, he said, was more prevalent among the educated and socioeconomic and political elites than among the poor and working classes. "In some ways it is almost non-existent compared to what I have experienced in the US, but at the same time there are some pervasive issues in Egypt involving race." [/i]
Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
''A woman by the name of Nitocris ruled next. It is said that she was braver than any man of her day and more beautiful than any contemporary woman, blonde haired and red cheeked. The third pyramid is said to have been built by her.''
Good luck finding a blonde haired, rosy cheeked negro or ''tropical dark african'' Posted by Anglo_Pyramidologist (Member # 18853) on :
Note how the afrocentrics quote mythology when it suits them i.e the references to Osiris being a ''black god' which they believe proves he was based on a negro population, yet at the same time the hundreds of ancient egyptian references to blue eyes and red haired gods/goddesses they claim are mistranslations or suddenly are only symbolic...
Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial feayures were more in line with the caucasoid...
As for the cherrypicking topic... Every damned thread on this site degenerates into a battle of the racial cherrypickers why get involved in another?
King Tut features are not Caucasian, and the same can be obviously said about his progenitors.
The European in your image clearly lacks prognathism, low nose bridge, flat nose, sharp vertical chin, and steep jaw. All of which the aforementioned are far more common in Negroids than Caucasoids.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:DaDumOne continues:
Brace: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
He meant ancient Egyptians, fool!
Brace: We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well.
Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
This image is from the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, if anyone was wondering. Still waiting to see an Egyptian who looks like those Senegaliese ladies, with the same profile. The best that afrocentrists seem able to do is find ones who look like mulattos.
Ok I see,
Ramses III and Hathor.
Facsimile of tomb painting of Ramesses III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 20, reign of Ramesses III, ca. 1184–1153 B.C.
Ramesses III, second king of Dynasty 20, was the last great ruler of the New Kingdom. Three times during his reign, he successfully repelled invasions by the Sea Peoples and Libyans, who had first tried to invade Egypt during the reign of Ramesses II. These wars brought considerable wealth to Egypt and many new temples were built. The king constructed a huge and still well-preserved mortuary temple for himself at Medinet Habu in Thebes, as well as adding the temple of Khonsu to the Amun Temple complex at Karnak. This copy of a painting from the tomb of his son Amenherkhepeshef in the Valley of the Queens shows the king and his son, who wears the sidelock of youth, with the goddess Hathor. The king wears an elaborate garment with a feather pattern and long sashes. Three of his sons, all named Ramesses, succeeded him as pharaoh.
Ramses III
For your question on those females from Senegal, I responded to that. And it's likely you did not understand why I put on the picture of that man from Senegal. Whoever he is, his accomplishments in live are his. If one would find his remaining after thousands of years how would he been considered based on cranium?
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Originally posted by rahotep101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial feayures were more in line with the caucasoid... All in the family... Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101:
quote:Originally posted by Calabooz': What is a Negroid, "Rahotep101"? It seems to me as if this term cannot even be clearly defined. Not only that, by it groups people into a racial category despite biological affinity. Hence, the reasons why it is no longer in popular usage except among Euro-centric individuals who have an obsession with Africa.
I've defined it before, in terms similar to those given on the wikioracle, which I will copy and paste as I can't be bothered to repeat myself:
'Use in physical anthropology: Ashley Montagu lists "neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars"[7]
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology.'
The pan-European race is called 'Caucasian', and it spills out into Asia and Africa, which is why I don't think it's valid to use the term 'European' as a racial indicator.
Then, how is it possible that many of the pics of the men I posted, are negroid?
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:DaDumOne continues: [qb] Brace: 'Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations'
He meant ancient Egyptians, fool!
Google 'Pleistocene'
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Originally posted by rahotep101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial feayures were more in line with the caucasoid... All in the family...
We have the actual skulls of Tutankhamun, of his father Akhenaten (from KV 55) and of his mother (KV35YL), who may be Nefertiti. (The features of the mummy match the Nefertii bust even if it is not Nefertiti) Do you want to try matching those to negroids instead of the most distorted artworks you can find? There is no evidence of Egyptians practicing head binding, so epic fail, basically.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHo101: Many Europeans were taken into slavery by Muslim North African pirates, this is true. The idea that fair skinned Berbers descend from these European captives, however, is belied by the fact that the peoples Libya and the Maghreb were characterized as fair skinned caucasoids by the ancient Egyptians. There are also medieval images of white Moors as well as black ones.
Actually the earliest depictions of Libyans by ancient Egyptians show them to be no different than them i.e. dark brown (black) skin etc. Lighter types didn't appear until the late Middle Kingdom period. Most people with sense know that whites are not indigenous to Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Berbers have admixture due to slavery and invasions. This shows in the autosomal.
The Berber gene arose in Northwest Africa. After the dispersal from Northeast- East Africa. As a downstream.
You may want to sum up and show the many haplotypes found within Berber populations. So we can verify them one by one correlating with recent historic events.
Correct. By the way, the boy in the picture is not Berber but is actually half Somali half Italian. Note that he represents 1st generation admixture alone and he looks like most Alexandrian Egyptians and coastal Berbers. Any surprises there??
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DumHoTips101:
This image is from the temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu, if anyone was wondering. Still waiting to see an Egyptian who looks like those Senegaliese ladies, with the same profile. The best that afrocentrists seem able to do is find ones who look like mulattos.
Why must you compare Egyptians with Africans hundreds of miles away when there are black Africans much closer like in Sudan and Libya who resemble Hathor in terms of features. As far as complexion obviously she is painted in the symbolic yellow color.
quote:I've defined it before, in terms similar to those given on the wikioracle, which I will copy and paste as I can't be bothered to repeat myself:
'Use in physical anthropology: Ashley Montagu lists "neotenous structural traits in which...Negroids differ from Caucasoids... flattish nose, flat root of the nose, narrower ears, narrower joints, frontal skull eminences, later closure of premaxillary sutures, less hairy, longer eyelashes, [and] cruciform pattern of second and third molars"[7]
In physical anthropology the term is one of the three general racial classifications of humans — Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Under this classification scheme, humans are divisible into broad sub-groups based on phenotypic characteristics such as cranial and skeletal morphology.'
The pan-European race is called 'Caucasian', and it spills out into Asia and Africa, which is why I don't think it's valid to use the term 'European' as a racial indicator.
Do you not realize anthropology has long dropped those erroneous racial terms as well as the entire concept of race??! So apparently you believe in a “pan-European” race but not a pan-African one! Why is that?? How come this “pan-European” race of yours “spills out into Asia and Africa” as you put it but blacks cannot even inhabit the entire continent but are only restricted to south of the Sahara??!
quote: Patently the Egyptians of any era exhibit few if any of these triats, however, whereas tropical central/west Africans exhibit all of them. The traits are genetically transmitted, so obvious conclusions can be drawn.
You are obviously lying to yourself if you think black Africans are limited to one specific phenotype, yet didn’t you admit elsewhere that black peoples can vary and there are those who possess so-called “Caucasian” features??
quote: Even if the Egyptians evolved in situ, and just happen to look like their Eurasian neighbours, they still have/had little or nothing to do with sub-saharan Africa and never spread their civilization there. They never left Egypt either. The Afrocentrist project to lump Egypt with the negro cultures is still a vain endeavour.
Are you completely brain-dead??! We cited plenty of evidence showing that they did NOT look like their Eurasian neighbors but their African ones, more specifically northern Sudanese!! How could they have nothing to do with Sub-Sahara when they share ancestry with Sub-Saharans via the Saharan region itself when it was fertile before it became desert!! I cited two sources showing both a genetic and cultural connection to so-called Sub-Saharans yet apparently you ignored them!! You are obviously an imbecile who just ignores evidence when it doesn’t suite you! Posted by Siptah (Member # 17601) on :
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHotip101: Lest you think I'm hiding this... Tut's head was unusually long, but his facial features were more in line with the caucasoid...
Lest we think you're a complete and utter moron... There is nothing "unusual" about Tut's elongated skull. This is a trait known as extreme dolichocephaly and is in fact quite common among BLACK Africans including those in Sub-Saharan regions.
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.-- Drs. Harris & Wente X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980)
As far as his facial features are concerned here is what one expert said of Tut's skull who helped with the National Geographic reconstruction.
Dr Susan Anton: I actually didn't choose the term "North African Caucasoid" that is the term used by another team (there were three that worked on separate reconstructions)...
A narrow nose is more typical of more northerly located populations because nose breadth is thought to be at least in part related to the climate in which ancestral populations lived. A narrow and tall nose is seen most frequently in Europeans. Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins..
Ausar tells her about the importance of considering African phenotypic diversity since many anthropologists have already confirmed about the tremendous diversity of facial features in Sub-Sahara alone and that these traits include hyper-dolicocephaly and alveolar prognathism which is Tut's and the other 18th dynasty's "buck-teeth".
To which Dr. Anton answered: Yes this is true and this is precisely why I felt (although I did not know where the individual was from) that this was an individual of African ancestry, and why I so stated.
Alveolar prognathism was taken into account (at least by me, I can't speak for the other groups) and is another part of the reason for my estimation of African ancestry in this individual. You should recall that all the other groups that worked on this individual knew that this was Tut's skull. We did not know either who this was particularly or if it was a forensic case or an archaeological case (I worked from the CT reconstruction of the skull from which it is impossible to infer such.
This is why the concept of "caucasian" features and the very classification is baseless and false!
This is why even some populations in Sub-Sahara were once classified as "caucasian" such as the man below, and why some idiots like Paironuts continue to do so!
quote:As for the cherrypicking topic... Every damned thread on this site degenerates into a battle of the racial cherrypickers why get involved in another?
LOL This is like the tefflon pan calling the porcelain kettle black, since YOU are the biggest cherry picker of them all! With the vast majority of ancient Egyptian portraits showing their true dark (black) complexions you choose instead those with the lightest i.e. faded and lost paint. Even here with your Tut comparison you choose an African American with mesocephalic head instead of an actual East African with dolicocephaly! You are a transparent fraud through-and-through!! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by DaHoisDum101: Google 'Pleistocene'
What for?!! I know what Pleistocene is! Is that not an ancient or rather prehistoric period?!! Why do you insist that modern Egyptians are the exact same as their prehistoric ancestors when all anthropology and even history shows this to not be the case!!
quote:We have the actual skulls of Tutankhamun, of his father Akhenaten (from KV 55) and of his mother (KV35YL), who may be Nefertiti. (The features of the mummy match the Nefertii bust even if it is not Nefertiti) Do you want to try matching those to negroids instead of the most distorted artworks you can find? There is no evidence of Egyptians practicing head binding, so epic fail, basically.
It is YOU who has failed epically. Even your own collage of pictures betrays you!
Do you really consider Tut a non-black "caucasian"??
Yes we have the skulls of Tut's parents-- his father was Akhenaten but his mother was NOT Nefertiti but actually a full sister of Akhenaten and here is what their reconstructions look like:
KV55 (Akhenaten)
KV35 (Akhentaten's sister & Tut's mother)
If they look too "negroid" for your taste blame the WHITE reconstruction artists. LOL Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Lest we think you're a complete and utter moron... There is nothing "unusual" about Tut's elongated skull. This is a trait known as extreme dolichocephaly and is in fact quite common among BLACK Africans including those in Sub-Saharan regions.
From a recent study:
''Interestingly, some of the HapMap3 haplotypes from the segments proposed by Green et al. (Green et al. 2010), and fulfilling our criteria of Neandertal admixture, also turn out in Maasai, where, however, their occurrence can be due to recent back-to-Africa migration (Sikora et al. 2010).''
The Maasai have Hamitic Caucasoid admixture:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ That study on "neanderthal" ancestry among Africans was discussed and refuted before as well as any back-migration theories. LOL Even back-migration was used explain the presence of underived R1* among West Africans like Cameroonians even though they are stereotypically "negroid" looking.
I hope you realize that nobody in here takes your lunatic ass seriously which is why I ignore your posts.
My responses are strictly for DaHoTips101 since he seems to have some semblance of reasoning left in him, NOT you!
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Don't make me pull out the genetic charts LOL.
Oh well..
Caucasoid West Eurasian ancestry is present in Nilo-Hamites.
Hamitic theories were correct.
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Don't make me pull out the genetic charts LOL.
Oh well..
Caucasoid West Eurasian ancestry is present in Nilo-Hamites.
Hamitic theories were correct.
Hamitic theories were incorrect you ape.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Hamitic theories were incorrect you ape.
Mr. 90% SSA.
You are biologically more African than the average Maasai. Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu:
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Hamitic theories were incorrect you ape.
Mr. 90% SSA.
You are biologically more African than the average Maasai.
Maasai are biologically African and are African you monkey how could they be more biologically African than me? Retard! Apparently an ape like you doesn't understand the difference between shared ancestral African ancstry and recent admixture which none of these genetic tests can discern, clearly Y chromosone and mtDNA would prove such an "Hamitic" migration if it did happen and this is not the case with Maasai, so swing on a vine chimp and blow it out of your rear end, as I already posted, your so called "True Negroids" are more phenotypically variable than those you call hybrids, get a life.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Europeans who penetrated deep into Africa were able to tell apart true Negroids from Hamitic Caucasoid influenced Negroids. European colonialists classified people in Rwanda as Tutsi if they resembled Caucasoid facial features (long nose etc) and if they owned more than 10 cows.
Hamitic theories are now supported by the latest genomic research. Previously inferred Hamitic admixed blacks (like the Maasai) do indeed show greater affinity with Caucasoids compared to the true Negroids.
Hamitic theories were correct after all. 19th century Hamitic theories trumped modern genomic research!
Posted by .Charlie Bass. (Member # 10328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Europeans who penetrated deep into Africa were able to tell apart true Negroids from Hamitic Caucasoid influenced Negroids. European colonialists classified people in Rwanda as Tutsi if they resembled Caucasoid facial features (long nose etc) and if they owned more than 10 cows.
Hamitic theories are now supported by the latest genetic research, showing that previously inferred Hamitic admixed blacks (like the Maasai) do indeed show greater affinity with Caucasoids compared to the true Negroids.
Hamitic theories were correct after all. 19th century Hamitic theories trumped modern genomic research!
Basically you have no evidence to boot, good little monkey.
Posted by Perahu (Member # 18548) on :
Charlie
19th century European colonists in Africa would surely classify you as true Negroid and not as Hamitic. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ European colonialists were of course mistaken. Since the very classification of "caucasoid" is invalid. Anybody with narrow noses and faces were considered "caucasoid" and this was not limited to Africans. Even peoples in eastern Asia and the Pacific were once labeled as "caucasoid" also!
"Claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been shown to be wrong,.." - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.
Jean Hiernaux The People of Africa (1975) p.53, 54
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
These studies were further backed up by genetics pointing to Africa being the origin of mankind and thus Africans possessing the greatest genetic diversity.
Non existence of "caucasoid" means non existence of "caucasoid genes".
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: [QB] It seems the ancient Nubians being analysed must be caucasoid-admixed, as look at the company they keep on a pooled sample:
Negroids are very far away from Egyptians.
Do these two groups look homogenous to you?
What's this all about?
Do the captors and the captives look like long-lost cousins?
I will keep short. YOUR FIRST COMMENT, is non-sense.
now- first picture and first image. there are different groups there shown,the first art work there is from nigeria,the images at the bottom left and right,are nubians and the other images hard to say.
the second image- black egyptians .
2rd picture,nubians fighting black egyptians.
3rd picture- nubian prisoners WITH BLACK EGYPTIANS.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Perahu: Sample of Nubians taken:
Nubians
3/39 = 7.7% B-M60 - Nilotic 3/39 = 7.7% E1b1b-M215(xE1b1b1a-M78) - North East Africa 5/39 = 12.8% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 1/39 = 2.6% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/39 = 10.3% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) - Western Asia 2/39 = 5.1% I-M170 - Western Asia 16/39 = 41.0% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) - Western Asia 1/39 = 2.6% J2-M172 - Western Asia 4/39 = 10.3% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
Sudanese Arab
3/102 = 2.9% A3b2-M13 - Nilotic 6/102 = 5.9% E1b1b1a1-V12(xE1b1b1a1b-V32) - North East Africa 7/102 = 6.9% E1b1b1a1b-V32 - North East Africa 4/102 = 3.9% E1b1b1a3-V22 - North East Africa 10/102 = 9.8% F-M89(xH1-M52, I-M170, J-12f2, K-M9) Western Asia 4/102 = 3.9% I-M170 Western Asia 46/102 = 45.1% J-12f2(xJ2-M172) Western Asia 2/102 = 2.0% J2-M172 - Western Asia 3/102 = 2.9% K-M9(xL-M11, O-M175, P-M74) - Western Asia 1/102 = 1.0% R1-M173(xR1b1-P25) - Western Asia 16/102 = 15.7% R1b1-P25 - Western Asia
This is how you cite a source, swine. Considering that the Egyptian Arab population samples are gathered from the Northern-most Delta region, this is expected.
quote:J is the most common group of the Omani collection (frequency 47.9%), followed in succession by E (23.1%), R (10.7%), and K2 (8.3%). In Egypt, the order of the polymorphic groups is slightly different: E (39.5%), J (32.0%), G (8.8%), K2 (8.2%), and R (7.5%). Noteworthy is the asymmetrical representation of groups A, B, and E in the sub-Saharan versus the Afro-Asiatic samples (98.8% vs. 32.1%, respectively).
Still primarily African in the Delta. Where are Bejas and Nubians referred?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: In North Africa, J1 first entered Ethiopia with the spread of Semitic speakers Eritrea (11%), Ethiopia (9%), Ethiopia-Amhara (33.3%). It spread later to North Africa in historic times (as identified by the motif YCAIIa22-YCAIIb22; Algerians 35.0%, Tunisians 31%), where it became something like a marker of the Arab expansion in the early medieval period. J1 also seems to be found with high frequency in the northern parts of Sudan (Arabs 45%, Nubians 41%, Copts 39%, Beja 36%), and present with lower frequency in the region of Darfur (Masalit 6%, Fur 6%). Haplogroup J1 may be found in as many as 20% of Egyptian males, with the frequency of this haplogroup tending to be comparatively high in the south of the country.
Hisham Y. Hassan et al., "Y-Chromosome Variation Among Sudanese: Restricted Gene Flow, Concordance With Language, Geography, and History," American Journal of Physical Anthropology (2008). J-12f2(xJ2-M172) in 46/102 Sudanese Arabs of the Gaalien, Meseria, and Arakien tribes, 16/39 Nubians, 13/33 Copts, 15/42 Beja, 2/32 Masalit, and 2/32 Fur.
LOL There you go DUMB ****! Beja and Nubians heavily mixed with Non African DNA, yet you all bitch and moan about Modern Egyptians being "mixed" Dumb FUCKS!
You sound insane. As I said before, modern Egyptians have extensive native extraction. That is especially the case outside of the Delta. This admixture you're presenting fails to demonstrate anything.
Ancient Egyptians were indigenous, tropically adapted, Black Africans. The population within East and North Africa were originally and are still tropically adapted, black Africans. There has been extensive gene-flow between that population and Asians.
However J has nothing to do with Caucasia or white people. We're not going to allow that foolish assumption to run. I don't even think European-specific haplogroups exist since cold adaptation and pale skin represent very recent adaptation.
Calm down idiot.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_01:
quote:Originally posted by White Nord: LOL But what the **** does that have to do with these figures dumb ****!
"Levant versus the Horn" Nubians 41%, Bejas 36% J1 frequency!
Inferior swine, you can't even cite sources properly. What the hell are you quoting? J frequency brought into those regions were earlier and those Asians resembled African populations.
Haplogroup J1 Possible time of origin 15,000 to 24,000 BP
Possible place of origin, Arabian Plate.
In northern sudan,its seems that up to only 41% of the nubians have some (J-12f2(xJ2-M172) while,most do not meaning meaning the rest of the nubians in northern sudan have only african dna.
up to 45% of arabs in northern sudan have some (J-12f2(xJ2-M172),the rest do not.
nubians in chad,kenya uganda etc and the rest of sudan have african dna period.
so if we want to go there,most black arabs and most nubians in sudan do not have any arab admixture or any outside admixture from any white arab or any other white,just to make it clear to you.
now moving on.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
These guys need to read this over and over again,SO THEY COULD GET some of these facts in there thick heads.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
"Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times..." (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)
"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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 501-509)
German Institute for Archaeology -excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. In several of the noble specimens: "The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." (Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues", Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13)
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)
"There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times. Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less native are not supported by archaeology... In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"
"The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
HERE IS THE WORK OF THE ANTHROPOLOGIST SO STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY LEFKOWITZ, NANCY LOVELL:
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
and
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
Limb proportion studies Quotes: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. 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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". AJPA 121 (3): 219-229.
and S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54
"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Peoples of the Sahara were an important part of the foundations of ancient Egypt and pioneered in several features that were to appear in Egypt, including religion, cattle cults, stone construction and astronomy etc. Some mainstream scientists consider the Saharans more organized on some counts than the early Egyptians. Also the Saharan culture shares clear links with other African peoples. Of note again is the southern direction of this cultural pioneering and growth, not the north, the Middle East, or the Mediterranean.
UNESCO - General History of Africa: Volume II This lengthy period includes the civilization of Ancient Egypt, the history of Nubia, Ethiopia, North Africa and the Sahara, as well as of the other regions ...
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by TruthAndRights (Member # 17346) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: These guys need to read this over and over again,SO THEY COULD GET some of these facts in there thick heads.
quote:Originally posted by kenndo:
"An examination of the distance hierarchies reveals the Badarian series to be more similar to the Teita in both analyses and always more similar to all of the African series than to the Norse and Berg groups (see Tables 3A & 3B and Figure 2). Essentially equal similarity is found with the Zalavar and Dogon series in the 11-variable analysis and with these and the Bushman in the one using 15 variables. The Badarian series clusters with the tropical African groups no matter which algorithm is employed (see Figures 3 and 4).. In none of them did the Badarian sample affiliate with the European series."(S.O.Y. Keita. Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data. Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)
"Some have argued that various early Egyptians like the Badarians probably migrated northward from Nubia, while others see a wide-ranging movement of peoples across the breadth of the Sahara before the onset of desiccation. Whatever may be the origins of any particular people or civilization, however, it seems reasonably certain that the predynastic communities of the Nile valley were essentially indigenous in culture, drawing little inspiration from sources outside the continent during the several centuries directly preceding the onset of historical times..." (Robert July, Pre-Colonial Africa, 1975, p. 60-61)
"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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2007). "Population continuity or population change: Formation of the ancient Egyptian state". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 132 (4): 501-509)
German Institute for Archaeology -excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. In several of the noble specimens: "The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin." (Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues", Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13)
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afro-Asiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)
"There is no archaeological, linguistic, or historical data which indicate a European or Asiatic invasion of, or migration to, the Nile Valley during First Dynasty times. Previous concepts about the origin of the First Dynasty Egyptians as being somehow external to the Nile Valley or less native are not supported by archaeology... In summary, the Abydos First Dynasty royal tomb contents reveal a notable craniometric heterogeneity. Southerners predominate. (Kieta, S. (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)"
"The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions." (Frank Yurco, "An Egyptological Review," 1996 -in Mary R. Lefkowitz and Guy MacLean Rogers, Black Athena Revisited, 1996, The University of North Carolina Press, p. 62-100)
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
HERE IS THE WORK OF THE ANTHROPOLOGIST SO STRONGLY RECOMMENDED BY LEFKOWITZ, NANCY LOVELL:
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
and
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)
Limb proportion studies Quotes: "The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. 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." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". AJPA 121 (3): 219-229.
and S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54
"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Kebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." (Keita 1993)
"When the unlikely relationships [Indian matches] and eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series." (Keita 1993)
"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
Peoples of the Sahara were an important part of the foundations of ancient Egypt and pioneered in several features that were to appear in Egypt, including religion, cattle cults, stone construction and astronomy etc. Some mainstream scientists consider the Saharans more organized on some counts than the early Egyptians. Also the Saharan culture shares clear links with other African peoples. Of note again is the southern direction of this cultural pioneering and growth, not the north, the Middle East, or the Mediterranean.
UNESCO - General History of Africa: Volume II This lengthy period includes the civilization of Ancient Egypt, the history of Nubia, Ethiopia, North Africa and the Sahara, as well as of the other regions ...
Respectfully, they will not do so...give thanks for posting the info for those who don't know it and as a review for those who do...however, you're just beating your head against the wall with regards to certain ones...
You can lead a horse to water but if it's not thirsty, it nah go drink....
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
edit- for the first reply i posted, it was suppose to say 2nd image.
TruthAndRights
QUOTE- Respectfully, they will not do so...give thanks for posting the info for those who don't know it and as a review for those who do...however, you're just beating your head against the wall with regards to certain ones...
Yeah,you are right,there justs some folks out there that will believe our sun is blue. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. And that is exactly why there is no use limiting your studies of ancient Nile Valley cultures to 'Nubia' only! Because all studies show Egyptians to be closely related to Nubians, the Euronuts have long began a campaign to white-wash them as well! Hell, there are Euronuts who are even trying to white-wash Africans as far south as Uganda and Tanzania! LOL
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
LMAO ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Whoopty Fuckin' Doo! That is utterly meaningless, try whole genome data. 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
