quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ LOL You complain about bias in this forum, but speak for yourself!! Most of the people here are NOT as you claim "Nordic" or "Bantu".

So already you lose credibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by R U 2 religious:
The first link on this forum (Ancient Egypt and Egyptology),reads "The Race of the Ancient Egyptians" ...

Please read it ... the start of this thread was a waste of space, time and finger strokes ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

From what I have read, we have a significant number of African American posters: ie - West African/Native American w/ some European heritage. Then we have some belligerant European posters with a Nordiccentric viewpoint. Of course we have a few outlanders such as yourself being of Melanesian or Polynesian heritage.

What we don't seem to have much of are actual East African posters though they being so Islamiccentric are not likely to be non-bias.

Okay I must admit, a Melanesian/Polynesian person is more likely to as unbias as we can get.

So let the discussion begin. Is it possible that the elite Egyptians (non-Fellahin) are actually of foreign ancestry perhaps Summerian? If that was true what would we expect to see as evidence?


There would be archaelogical evidence: pottery, religious artifacts and certain tools used for agriculture etc.

Is there really not a connection between Summeria and Egypt in this way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:


Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

From what I have read, we have a significant number of African American posters: ie - West African/Native American w/ some European heritage. Then we have some belligerant European posters with a Nordiccentric viewpoint. Of course we have a few outlanders such as yourself being of Melanesian or Polynesian heritage.

What we don't seem to have much of are actual East African posters though they being so Islamiccentric are not likely to be non-bias.

Okay I must admit, a Melanesian/Polynesian person is more likely to as unbias as we can get.

So let the discussion begin. Is it possible that the elite Egyptians (non-Fellahin) are actually of foreign ancestry perhaps Summerian? If that was true what would we expect to see as evidence?


There would be archaelogical evidence: pottery, religious artifacts and certain tools used for agriculture etc.

Is there really not a connection between Summeria and Egypt in this way?

---

I am Filipino NOT Polynesian or Melanesian, and it really shouldn't matter what a person's ancestry is. It is irrelevant to and is not going to change the FACTS!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:


Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?

---

Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - Click

^Nuff said....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:


Berbers are considered African regardless of the phenotype. Why would Hawas need to state that Egyptians are not African unless he had evidence support a migration of neolithic farmers into the Delta during neolithic times. Does not even Keita allude to the possibility?

---

Keita declares it 'conceptually wrong to say that "Africans" split from "Caucasians", "Mongoloids", "Australoids" etc. ad nauseam, as has sometimes been done, or even the reverse, because these terms carry certain stereotyped physical trait associations'. An understanding of this concept shows us clearly that 'there is no evidence that the region was empty and primarily colonised by non-African outsiders, who had differentiated outside and then returned to Africa' (emphasis in original). Keita's summary position is that 'It is not a question of "African" "influence"; ancient Egypt was organically African. Studying early Egypt in its African context is not "Afrocentric," but simply correct' (emphasis added). - Click

^Nuff said....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Keita states that the region was not primarily colonized by non-Africans. This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
[QB] Mesopatamian influence in stone tools? Is this assumption only or is there supporting direct evidence?

-------


Some scholars agree that the shift from Naqada I to Naqada II was the result of more intense interaction and trade with foreign groups from west Asia. The cultural group spreads with settlements stretching from Nubia to as far north as the Delta. These settlements are now larger, with the usual round huts now being joined by rectangular red stone houses. A greater improvement in variety of artefacts represents a new socio-economic shift. The characteristic red pottery with a black rim first seen at Naqada is now found in use as far north as Buto. Indeed the spread of Naqada culture into Lower Egypt is more likely to be the result of a more cohesive Egypt, rather than invading stronger southern groups conquering over the north. Copper and gold sources in the Eastern Desert are being exploited to produce copper tools and worked gold objects. Extremely well accomplished stone tools and a greater amount of mud-brick buildings reflect an increasing Mesopotamian influence. Evidence would suggest that these large settlements are regions of strong influence, with more lavish tombs belonging to a chief figure of the community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Keita states that the region was not primarily colonized by non-Africans. This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.

---

^^Well, since Keita made no mention of this explicitly, the burden of proof would be on you to establish what the non-African presence was, if there was one. By my understanding, 'primarily', as opposed to secondarily, basically means mostly, so why would we be emphasizing a probability of a minority population that MAY have been present, yet can't be established with any certainty?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.

---

quote:

---

Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.

---

quote:

---

That would most likely be Mesopatamian.

---

quote:

---

This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.

---

1) We have proof that Ghana is a post-colonial society in which westerners have settled.

2) Tennis shoes and air planes are merely but a few aspects of Ghanian daily life and it certainly doesn't dominate the culture.

quote:

---

Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.

---

What is your point? I mean, it is the 21rst century isn't it? Are we disputing that America is an American empire in light of these facts (that East Asia contributes a lot to world commerce?)

quote:

---

That would most likely be Mesopatamian.

---

1) If Hawass never mentioned Mesopotamia, then why would you?

2) I've provided sources which says that Mesopotamia basically had nothing to do with Egypt.

What should we expect from you in response? A way to spin it, using your own half thought out speculation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.

---

No it doesn't actually.

Proof that set X is not primarily positive, does not imply that some of set X is negative.


However Africa, Europe and Asia have all had some colonisation by non Africans, non Europeans and non Asians, so that observation is trivial.

Keita is correctly denoting that the set quantity definition of African, Asian and European are based on -PRIMARY- affinity, not on absolute purity.

A conception that restricts African, Asian or Europen to purity means that African, Asian and European cannot exist, where purity cannot be proven. Which effectively mean -> they cannot exist.

Such conception in biohistorical discourse is typically hypocritical as Eurocentrists attempt to expand the concept of what is European regardless of often quite staggering evidence of massive mixtures [East Asian, South West Asian, and African].

Meanwhile they attempt to dilute the concept of what is non European by applying a ludicrous [impossible] standard of purity.

It's a phony argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Ghanians drive cars, fly planes and wear Nike tennis shoes and yet there are very few Westerners living in Ghana Africa.

---

1) We have proof that Ghana is a post-colonial society in which westerners have settled.

2) Tennis shoes and air planes are merely but a few aspects of Ghanian daily life and it certainly doesn't dominate the culture.

quote:

---

Trade does not require population replacement. Look at the Japanese or most of the world in general. Trade! However, Hawas did say that Egypt was not African which suggests the people were of non-African origin not just the culture.

---

What is your point? I mean, it is the 21rst century isn't it? Are we disputing that America is an American empire in light of these facts (that East Asia contributes a lot to world commerce?)

quote:

---

That would most likely be Mesopatamian.

---

1) If Hawass never mentioned Mesopotamia, then why would you?

2) I've provided sources which says that Mesopotamia basically had nothing to do with Egypt.

What should we expect from you in response? A way to spin it, using your own half thought out speculation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I am somewhat perplexed. How can someone like Hawas say that Egypt is non-African and yet there is only speculative evidence? So many scholars saying the same thing but it is all speculative?

---

quote:

---

So lets talk about the stone tools that was mentioned as being Mesopatamian influenced in the so called pseudo-science post I gave.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I am trying to understand how we can conclude that Egypt is non-African.[QUOTE]

Who are "WE"? WE, on this forum couldn't care less about the unsubstantiated ideas of Zahi Hawass or anyone else who makes bogus claims that are both devoid of sense and lack elaboration/evidence. If you're interested in socio-politics or psychology, then I suggest you try a forum pertaining to such issues.

[QUOTE]I have heard that for most of my life and it is rather perplexing except when looked at like the history of American.

---

quote:

---

America is in America but it is non-American. Simply put, the indigenous people of America did not create America as we understand it. In fact, the indigenous people of America have been almost annhilated.

---

quote:

---

When looking at American history it is straightforward to see the connection between it and European history.

---

quote:

---

Language/Culture/Religion

---

quote:

---

For Hawas to say that Egpt is non-African then where did it come from - Mars?

---

quote:

---

Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from.

---

Nonsense! Have you ever heard of a place called "Africa"..

quote:

---

Lets explore that possibility.

---

quote:

---

What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I am somewhat perplexed. How can someone like Hawas say that Egypt is non-African and yet there is only speculative evidence? So many scholars saying the same thing but it is all speculative?

---

This is false and even if true, it is irrelevant. What I am asking for from you is evidence of the proposal that Egyptian culture was a Mesopotamian transplant, or that they were "heavily influenced" by non-Africans. Instead, you cite a non-archaeologist, slash biased Arab Egyptian as the root of "so many scholar's speculation", when I have directly cited a premiere archaeological source in Wilkinson (who indeed represents the established consensus) showing you that AE civilization was indigenous. Yet you choose to ignore this by appealing to imaginary scholars and politically motivated quacks like Hawass. Why?

quote:

---

So lets talk about the stone tools that was mentioned as being Mesopatamian influenced in the so called pseudo-science post I gave.

---

What stone tools? That little excerpt you've provided doesn't elaborate in the least, in addition, the evidence proposed is the same evidence rejected by mainstream Egyptologists who note such dynastic theories to basically be rooted in nonsense. It wouldn't be at all surprising that a few Mesopotamian items turn up through trade, but again, it has nothing to do with enough influence that needs to be emphasized or noted as undermining the African creation and sustainment of the said civilization. It seems that you're reaching to find a missing link that isn't there. With out evidence, your fringe theories and obscure citations will get no airtime here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I am trying to understand how we can conclude that Egypt is non-African.[QUOTE]

Who are "WE"? WE, on this forum couldn't care less about the unsubstantiated ideas of Zahi Hawass or anyone else who makes bogus claims that are both devoid of sense and lack elaboration/evidence. If you're interested in socio-politics or psychology, then I suggest you try a forum pertaining to such issues.

[QUOTE]I have heard that for most of my life and it is rather perplexing except when looked at like the history of American.

---

The fact that you've bought into it while being too lazy to dive face in and do your own research sounds like a personal problem, but please don't impose your life experiences onto us here, by creating such threads but being reluctant to except the information provided, or not being satisfied enough to merely adhere the advice of other members and check the thread at the very top of the forum page.

quote:

---

America is in America but it is non-American. Simply put, the indigenous people of America did not create America as we understand it. In fact, the indigenous people of America have been almost annhilated.

---

How does this relate to the history of the nie valley, especially seeing as how the indigenous people were never annihilated?

quote:

---

When looking at American history it is straightforward to see the connection between it and European history.

---

Similar to how when one looks at culture in ancient Egypt, "it is straightforward to see the connection between it and other African cultures"..

quote:

---

Language/Culture/Religion

---

All shared with Egypt and other Nile valley inhabitants.

quote:

---

For Hawas to say that Egpt is non-African then where did it come from - Mars?

---

What ever occurs in Hawass' world is irrelevant to the data already put before you..

quote:

---

Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from.

---

Nonsense! Have you ever heard of a place called "Africa"..

quote:

---

Lets explore that possibility.

---

For what? It has as much substantiation as a colonization from Mars..

quote:

---

What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

Irrelevant. What we have found indicates indigenous development. Nuff said.

Now let's discuss the probable colonization of Greece by mainland Africans/ancient Egyptians, shall we?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Recent studies into paternal Y chromosome analysis shows that Polynesians are also genetically linked to peoples of Melanesia Therefore it is current belief that the Polynesian people are a hybrid ethnicity between indigenous peoples of parts of Southeast Asia and peoples of Melanesia. Being that the original inhabitants of the Phillipine Islands are remnants of the first migratory wave from East Africa to Australia and are commonly referred to as being of the Melanesian ethnicity (though technically incorrect), it is not entirely incorrect to refer to people of the Phillipines as Polynesian since technically they are gentetically equivalent.

---

You are correct. But here is a map to give a clearer picture:



The predominant Y-chromosomal lineage for Filipinos is O which is also common among other parts of eastern Asia. Of course there are older lineages present as well like C which Polynesians display higher frequencies of than O as well as other older lineages. Polynesians are a more 'mixed' with black aboriginal groups of course this isn't to say Filipinos aren't. But all of his is besides the point of your thread.

quote:

---

As for intepretation of facts being bias, as you have many times lamented, a so called Eurocentric bias does exist in the literature on Egyptian history. Such said bias is political in nature and is not inherent to a particular ethnicity and thus African Americans can exhibit the same flaw in judgement.

---

quote:

---

Consequently, have we really examined the evidence in it totality here or is it skewed. What trade, what migration patterns supports a link between Egypt and the Levant pre-dynastic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...

---

Irrelevant. I said "place" and not "state" of Mesopatamia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
You sound a bit bias.

---

quote:

---

I am not making conclusions I am only asking questions.

---

quote:

---

Are you afraid for someone to ask questions?

---

quote:

---

What about agriculture? Isn't it of West Asian origins practiced by the Natufians well before it was practiced by the Egyptians? From cranial measurements they appear to be similar to West Africans. Could they have introduced agriculture to their neighbors? Is there a Natufian / Egyptian link?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Are you sure you have been unbias in your search for knowledge on this subject?

---

About as sure as I am that you're a troll..
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
You sound a bit bias.

---

You started accusing people of that before you even started ranting, basically preparing yourself for the use of silly ad hominem attacks before your position is eventually destroyed by verified facts, inferred from the evidence according to mainstream scholarship.

quote:

---

I am not making conclusions I am only asking questions.

---

You are asking questions and making ridiculous conclusions on top of them, by asserting that based on what Hawass said, AE society could have only came from Mesopotamia, and other nonsense like that. Your questions are also for the most part rhetorical, and it is mainly under this guise where you promote your bunk Mesopotamian theory, though without credible citations and evidence to make a case, so you use semantics and flimsy logic.

quote:

---

Are you afraid for someone to ask questions?

---

Why is that when they have all been answered in part here, and mostly in the thread at the top of the forum page which you refuse to or are too lazy or illiterate to read.

quote:

---

What about agriculture? Isn't it of West Asian origins practiced by the Natufians well before it was practiced by the Egyptians? From cranial measurements they appear to be similar to West Africans. Could they have introduced agriculture to their neighbors? Is there a Natufian / Egyptian link?

---

Most likely there is a Naufian/Egyptian link, as noted through geography and agriculture, though there is no cultural continuity between them as far as I'm aware.

Though, this abstract should help answer your question:

Male Badarian crania were analyzed using the generalized distance of Mahalanobis in a comparative analysis with other African and European series from the Howells’s database. The study was carried out to examine the affinities of the Badarians to evaluate, in preliminary fashion, a demic diffusion hypothesis that postulates that horticulture and the Afro-Asiatic language family were brought ultimately from southern Europe. (The assumption was made that the southern Europeans would be more similar to the central and northern Europeans than to any indigenous African populations.) The Badarians show a greater affinity to indigenous Africans while not being identical. This suggests that the Badarians were more affiliated with local and an indigenous African population than with Europeans. It is more likely that Near Eastern/southern European domesticated animals and plants were adopted by indigenous Nile Valley people without a major immigration of non-Africans. There was more of cultural transfer. - Source

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:Mesopatamia is the only place it could have come from. Lets explore that possibility. What would we expect to find if there was a connection.

---

There never has been a 'Mesopotamian' people, state, language, ruling class, culture, etc. Mesopotamia only relates to the the cultures and peoples who live/have lived between the Tigris and Eurphrates rivers. Ancient Egypt is NOT a derivative of the various cultres that existed in Ancient 'Mesopotamia'...

---

Irrelevant. I said "place" and not "state" of Mesopatamia.

---

Ok. If Egypt were influenced by cultures from Mesopotamia then please identify which cultures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find? [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Are you sure you have been unbias in your search for knowledge on this subject?

---

About as sure as I am that you're a troll..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find?

---

We should be able to find solid EVIDENCE of said influence. Evidence which does not exist.

EDIT: And BTW, IF Egypt is a product of 'Mesopotamia', please identify which Mesopotamian culture or people gave rise to Egypt... [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
At least a portion of your post was useful.

---

quote:

---

Domesticated animals and plants are non-indigenous?

---

quote:

---

I am not sure if I agree with this

---

quote:

---

but lets go on since even if it wasn't indigenous the people that most likely introduced it were essentially African themselves to a large degree consequently if there was a migration of people it would have been a population that appeared somewhat similar to the indeginous people (perhaps actually more tropically adapted).

---

quote:

---

We also see a change in the way housing is built between the Naqada I and Naqada II periods.

---

quote:

---

The typical African round huts start taking on auxillary square mud adjuncts.

---

quote:

---

This is actually intriguing.

---

quote:

---

At the same time we start seeing stone vessels. It appears as if a social class is born. I have yet to find evidence that supports this as being of foreign design.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Resorting to name calling. Don't be so shy tell me how you really feel?

I suppose for African Americans this is an issue of offense. For someone to deny what is obvious - an African Egypt, must appear as being largely a racist begotry to such a great degree. From their point of view we have someone with a great deal of authority distorting facts with a great deal of racist intent.

---

quote:

---

Get beyond the emotional and lets deal with all the evidence.

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?

---

quote:

---

I have looked and found nothing and I am wondering if anyone has found anything. It used to be taken for granted that Egypt was non-African. It reminds me of the flat world belief - just taken for granted based on superficial understandings.

How do people like Hawas maintain their scientific standings without scientific data?

---

quote:

---

Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Is there anything that supports a non-indigenous origination of Egypt? Have you really looked?

---

Yes, I've been looking for years and haven't found anything, and obviously you haven't either. Which is why naturally I'm of the contention that ancient Egypt was irrefutably an African civilization. Why in the world would I break my neck to contradict the obvious? The burden of proof is not on me, since my position is already established, and lacking evidence, all those opposed only open themselves up for ridicule by making foolish claims to the contrary, yet providing nothing by way of substantiation. The difference is, I don't put too much energy into things that are fringe.

Why haven't I looked high and low for evidence of something where that evidence is lacking? Well, I've considered the evidence, found none, and therefore it isn't worth my time to dwell on it, or anyone else's' time who bases their views from available evidence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Again, I want to explore the evidence. Round huts to Square mud huts - is this evidence?

---

Evidence of Egyptian ingenuity, yes..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
At least a portion of your post was useful.

---

Unfortunately, I can't say the same in your case, but in any event..

quote:

---

Domesticated animals and plants are non-indigenous?

---

No.. See, this is why it is always good to pay attention or at least have some kind of idea what you're talking about before you address a topic. There are certain plants and animals that were domesticated in Egypt, thought to have been indigenous to the near east, as some of the same plants (like barley) were first domesticated in the near east, and then somehow made its way into the Nile valley by cultural exchange or seed transportation, but population replacement has been ruled out. Animal domestication is now thought to have come from the south and southwest.

quote:

---

I am not sure if I agree with this

---

I'm not concerned with your unqualified and random disagreement.

quote:

---

but lets go on since even if it wasn't indigenous the people that most likely introduced it were essentially African themselves to a large degree consequently if there was a migration of people it would have been a population that appeared somewhat similar to the indeginous people (perhaps actually more tropically adapted).

---

This makes no sense. While it indeed can be probable, your reasoning is flawed. The only thing to be inferred from the abstract is that plants not indigenous to Egypt somehow made their way into Egypt, but the earliest Egyptian remains from this period suggest relationships with tropical Africans, therefore we can only conclude that whomever helped bring food production into the Nile valley had no influence on the biological make-up of the indigenous inhabitants, unless these agriculturalists were indeed Africans themselves, though this is not the only probable option. Either way, it doesn't matter, now does it?..

quote:

---

We also see a change in the way housing is built between the Naqada I and Naqada II periods.

---

Changes from Naqada I to Naqada II were gradual and again, not the result of peoples who were biologically akin to people in the Sumerian region. Naqada groups were found to be most similar to Kerma Nubians (Click here) , while individual high status elites buried in the region closely resembled A-group Nubians. (Click here)

quote:

---

The typical African round huts start taking on auxillary square mud adjuncts.

---

* Please provide a citation which states that the typical African housing structure consists of round huts.

* Please provide a citation that states Egyptians lived in these said huts during Naqada I phase..

* Please provide evidence that any such change in Egyptian architectural design was abrupt and not gradual, with continuity, like Wilkinson says


You seem to be unaware that you are promoting a discarded theory called "the Dynastic race" theory.

The Egyptologists of the early 20th century concluded that the classic ancient Egyptian civilization had been brought to the Nile Valley by a "dynastic race" of invaders. They believed that the invaders were both culturally and politically superior to the native Prehistoric Egyptians, and that they swiftly established themselves as rulers of the country. At the time, the dubious science of cranial metrology, that is, using skull measurements to attempt to determine racial characteristics, was fashionable. It was also used in support of this "superior race" theory in Egypt.

These superior, invading people were believed to have come from a land to the east of Egypt, reflecting the widespread view that the Orient was a primary source of early culture. The royal art of Egypt during the 1st Dynasty was thought to be similar to that found in Mesopotamia, and so many believed that the earliest kings of Egypt came from present day Iraq. In the 1930s, this theory was given further credence by Hans Winkler, a German who became well known in Egyptology for his exploration of the Eastern Desert. There, he found an abundance of ancient rock art between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea. Significantly, numerous images of boats were especially striking, and were also very similar to water crafts found in early Mesopotamian art.

However, in the early 20th century, the chronology of the ancient world was still very poorly understood, and so Winkler did not know at the time that these Egyptian boats predated their Mesopotamian counterparts by many centuries. Hence, he argued that the Mesopotamians invaded Egypt by way of the Red Sea, leaving traces of their passage on the rocks as they traveled to the Nile River.

This invasion theory was very much a product of its time. Individuals such as Hitler encouraged this approach, but in fact diffusionist theories involving superior racial groups bringing civilization to indigenous peoples were popular among many of the colonial powers of western Europe. At the time, Africa was known as "the heart of darkness", and was thought to be incapable of producing an advanced culture without outside influence. In fact, it was the defeat of Nazism, and the granting of independence to many of the former European colonies in Africa, that would finally drive such theories from popularity.

Though invasion theories would persist among a few Egyptologists for some time, and even see a resurrection in popular works as late as the 1990s, most scholars abandoned their search for the foreign origins of Egyptian civilization. Today, we look instead for indigenous development and the roots of dynastic Egyptian culture within the Nile Valley itself and the immediate territory surrounding this cradle of civilization. - The Origin of Egyptian Civilization

quote:

---

This is actually intriguing.

---

Only to those not caught up..

quote:

---

At the same time we start seeing stone vessels. It appears as if a social class is born. I have yet to find evidence that supports this as being of foreign design.

---

Well, instead of pondering on your own original research, it would be nice if you'd provide some kind of credible citations that would help support some of your assumptions. If you merely wanted to ask questions, they've been answered. What else do you have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct. Hmm, Sabeans and the Ethiopians? Clear genetic and achaeological evidence supporting the fact that the pre-Aksumite kingdoms of Ethiopia had significant Sabean influence.

---

quote:

---

AGAIN I AM NOT PROMOTING ANYTHING.

---

quote:

---

If there is some form of evidence I want to know about it.

---

quote:

---

Mesopatamia has been taught as the origin of civilization not because of a simple racist agenda but because of religious belief.

---

quote:

---

Irregardless, we definately know agriculture was introduced. What else if anything?

---

quote:

---

This alludes to SOME colonization by non-Africans.

---

quote:

---

rasol writes:
No it doesn't actually.

Proof that set X is not primarily positive, does not imply that some of set X is negative.


However Africa, Europe and Asia have all had some colonisation by non Africans, non Europeans and non Asians, so that observation is trivial.

Keita is correctly denoting that the set quantity definition of African, Asian and European are based on -PRIMARY- affinity, not on absolute purity.

A conception that restricts African, Asian or Europen to purity means that African, Asian and European cannot exist, where purity cannot be proven. Which effectively mean -> they cannot exist.

Such conception in biohistorical discourse is typically hypocritical as Eurocentrists attempt to expand the concept of what is European regardless of often quite staggering evidence of massive mixtures [East Asian, South West Asian, and African].

Meanwhile they attempt to dilute the concept of what is non European by applying a ludicrous [impossible] standard of purity.

It's a phony argument.

---

quote:

---

Egypt was no more in complete isolation than Greece.

---

quote:

---

I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia

---

quote:

---

Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct.

---

Actually, all theories of European or SouthWest Asian invasions to other parts of the world are -popular- in the ws.t because they appeal to white racism.

In fact this appeal is the key to the advancement of theories that would in any other context, certainly be dismissed as speculative at best and utterly ridiculous at worst.


In contrast, the most unpopular theories of demic diffusion [invasion is a needlessly childish provocation/term], are those that document Black and African migrations into Europe and SouthWest Asia.

Want to claim credit for advancing -unpopular- ideas based upon fact?


Start here ->




This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - European Journal of Medical Genetics Volume 49, Issue 1, January-February 2006, Pages 43-56
 

---

Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Did I say it was influenced? I asked a question - IF it was influenced what should we be able to find?

---

We should be able to find solid EVIDENCE of said influence. Evidence which does not exist.

EDIT: And BTW, IF Egypt is a product of 'Mesopotamia', please identify which Mesopotamian culture or people gave rise to Egypt...

---

What would that solid evidence look like? I am expecting to find tools since what makes Egypt intriguing is their craftmanship. Perhaps at least some writting and certainly religious icons. Perhaps Egypt isn't the place to look. We could look else where further into the Sahara perhaps. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

Lets see, unpopular invasion theories that have proven to be correct.

---

Actually, all theories of European or SouthWest Asian invasions to other parts of the world are -popular- in the ws.t because they appeal to white racism.

In fact this appeal is the key to the advancement of theories that would in any other context, certainly be dismissed as speculative at best and utterly ridiculous at worst.


In contrast, the most unpopular theories of demic diffusion [invasion is a needlessly childish provocation/term], are those that document Black and African migrations into Europe and SouthWest Asia.

Want to claim credit for advancing -unpopular- ideas based upon fact?


Start here ->




This present study confirms the relatedness of Greeks to Sub-Saharan populations. This suggests that there was an admixture between the Greeks and Sub-Saharans probably during Pharaonic period or after natural catastrophes (dryness) occurred in Sahara. - European Journal of Medical Genetics Volume 49, Issue 1, January-February 2006, Pages 43-56

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia

---

Pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. - Christopher Ehret.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

Evergreen Writes:

This statement is inaccurate. "Western" heritage in general is based upon a Nile Valley foundation. African-American's are not distinct in this regard.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evergreen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

Evergreen Writes:

This statement is inaccurate. "Western" heritage in general is based upon a Nile Valley foundation. African-American's are not distinct in this regard.

---

I don't mean indirect cultural heritage, I meant Egyptian heritage as in ancestry. Though the term African American is inclusive of Somalian, Ethiopians, etc, so you could stretch it a bit I suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia

---

Pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. - Christopher Ehret.

---

I did mention pottery patterns not pottery itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia

---

Pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. - Christopher Ehret.

---

I did mention pottery patterns not pottery itself.

---

Double speak...
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
^ touche'!
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 
I'm reminded of old professor Horemheb [and odious ex. discussant on ES], who tried to prove that the Greeks invented the alphabet.... when that failed, he retreated into the redundant claim that the Greeks invented 'the greek' alphabet.

^ Actually one of the most common duplicities in western discourse posits:

Even if we didn't invent...we still invented it, and here is why......

.....

[insert nonsensical excuses here]

......

....


 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ LOL
 

---

Posted by Leito (Member # 14189) on :
 
Do I have to always come down from my throne to explain these simple matters to you ?

I worked hard on this, for more than 16 hours a day for the last few minutes.
Watch and Learn.
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I have dug around and kind find only minor pottery patterns that seem to be imported from Mesopatamia

---

Pottery develops in the southern Sahara 2,500 years before Middle Eastern pottery. - Christopher Ehret.

---

I did mention pottery patterns not pottery itself.

---

It doesn't matter since there is a continuity in design patterns of indigenous pottery from the Neolithic/early Badari culture, to Naqada, into 1rst Dynasty times.

The shapes of most Naqada I pottery vessels were different from Badarian, and burnished surfaces were no longer rippled; but continuity can be traced in such features as white-painted designs inside bowls derived from patterns incised in Badarian bowls. This Naqada I painted pottery became elaborate and included complex representations. Increased technical competence in other crafts is apparent in the presence of copper tools, glazed steatite, and high-quality linen textiles. Other objects, especially ivories, further developed Badarian types. In Naqada II, black-topped and red-polished pottery was first augmented, then replaced by buff or hard pink vessels fired in a closed kiln, and sometimes decorated with red paint in a new style. In Naqada III, only the pink-buff pottery was left among the Egyptian vessels (Kaiser 1957: 72-73; Kroeper and Wildung 1985: 69-72). Painting became less common, done in a third style related to formal art on the ivories and palettes. Stone vessels became truly elaborate and these and other industries develop without interruption (Petrie 1920: 34-36; Krzyzaniak 1977: 140-156), possibly already organized along lines familiar from later representations. - Neolithic Period to Egypt's Dynasty 1

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

Please provide us with the source of your alledged "fact".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

Please provide us with the source of your alledged "fact".

---

Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans. Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American. So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that. E3a and E3b are equivalent? Nope, what is it about 10K years of separation or so? Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe? Interesting complication there. How about the Gernman Mulhausen people.

---

quote:

---

Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans. Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American. So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that. E3a and E3b are equivalent? Nope, what is it about 10K years of separation or so? Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe? Interesting complication there. How about the Gernman Mulhausen people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
[QUOTE]So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt.

---

Please provide us with the source of your alledged "fact".

---

Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans. Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American. So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that. E3a and E3b are equivalent? Nope, what is it about 10K years of separation or so? Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe? Interesting complication there. How about the Gernman Mulhausen people.

---

Let aside the fact that you have presented no citation to verify these numbers, it is obvious that you're citing modern Egypt as J is most likely a product of the Arab migrations of the common era. I don't believe either that African Americans as a whole are directly descendant from AE during the formative period (many here would disagree), though both west Africans and Ancient Egyptians shared common ancestry via the Sahara and are connected nonetheless as both e3a and e3b are PN2 derivatives. Neither the former or the later are/were related to Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Still_Not_Done:
osiriun wrote

quote:

---

Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans. Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American. So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that. E3a and E3b are equivalent? Nope, what is it about 10K years of separation or so? Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe? Interesting complication there. How about the Gernman Mulhausen people.

---

Are you some kind of a laymen? Because that would help understand the stupidity of your what you've just posted. Is this a sample size or for all 45 million African Americans?


I already know the answer. But I want to see if you will actually say it.


Are you telling everyone that they have tested 40 million African Americans? If not then how can you state for certain all of these %'s that you are plastering up. As a matter of fact you have not even given us the size of the test sample. Which again really indicates that you are a laymen who doesn't even understand basic science.


Finally what is your ethnicity since you are so concerned abou everyone else's. Why are you angered about African Americans studying Egypt?

Your posts wreaks of "Onions" and "Bananas".


It's funny how desperate certain ethnic groups are to have AAs be mixed. It appears that AAs have a look that is unsettling to certain people. Maybe its because they see a resemblance with some AAs and some members of their own ethnic group. That drives them to the most insane fantasies in order to avoid certain common sense conclusions.


Have a good nights rest osiriun.

O O
[][]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans.

---

quote:

---

Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American.

---

quote:

---

So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that.

---

quote:

---

Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I really am not going to waste my time arguing the validity of mathmatical statistics.

As I already stated before, African Americans most have a small percentage that are E3b being that recent East African migrants to America are considered part of the African American experience. However, the vast majority of African Americans come from areas in Africa that are predominantly E3a.

Essentially if you are African American you are most likely West African derived which primarily means Bantu. E3a left the Nile Valley over 10K years BCE.

---

Obviously what we are witnessing here is what happens when the Eurocentric fallacy of a Eurasian origin of Egypt/civilization/etc is thoroughly debunked.

Didn't this thread begin as a means to explore the alledged "Mesopotamian" origin of Ancient Egyptian civilization? How did this now become a debate about the relationship between AA's and the AE's?

Penis Envy?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Penis Envy. LOL


However -

Good discussion Osiriun

But . . .again all of this was/is covered in the top thread.

Key points are

1. AE are best represented by the Beja, Fellahins, “Nubians” of Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia. Not Arabs or Nords(Germanic People)
2. It is understood these are indigenous Africans. Origins in Sahara/Nile area
3. Genetic make up of the East Africans “seems” to be predominantly E3b and smaller percentage of E3a.
4. Both types are found in East and West Africa
5. Question – are these groups, Baja etc, black Africans? Answer is YES. Do they think so themselves, some do some don’t. See other threads for that debate. Ignorance or Arab indoctrination maybe the excuse for them. ie they know no better(Yaz/Yonis). Poor souls!! Genetics and Anthropology prove they are.
6. Do the AA who maybe predominantly E3a have claims to AE? Again discussed in the mentioned thread. YES. AA are proud to point out the ONLY civilization that lasted for over FOUR THOOOOUSAAAAAND years. And it is a BLACK civilization. We from the diaspora, were probably not from the same ethnic black group as the AE. But they were undoubtedly BLACK AFRICANS. Just as most if not all Europeans are proud call Greek theirs, although that is in doubt NOW, AA are point out that AE as theirs.

So. . . .can we move on to something else. Close this thread. I see nothing new coming of this although I like the angle Osiriun attempted. And his /her ethnicity should not matter. We are here to learn the TRUTH and have civil discussions about AE.
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Rather simple - African Americans - 60% E3a. Almost 90% E3a in areas that Africans Americans were, how would I say, traded by Africans.

---

Source?

quote:

---

Given that African Americans are also 20% R1b and I forget the number for Native American.

---

Source?

quote:

---

So lets see, Egypt and E3a and R1b??? Nope, not much of either. E3b and J1/J2? Yep there's plenty of that.

---

Source?

quote:

---

Bantu and Oromo equivalent? Both African though so much more closely related than Europeans except, wow, those Natufians and those Egyptian migrants into Southeast Europe?

---

Source?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
If you are African American then you should be interested enough to know these numbers and have the source available.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Penis Envy. LOL


However -

Good discussion Osiriun

But . . .again all of this was/is covered in the top thread.

Key points are

1. AE are best represented by the Beja, Fellahins, “Nubians” of Egypt, Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia. Not Arabs or Nords(Germanic People)
2. It is understood these are indigenous Africans. Origins in Sahara/Nile area
3. Genetic make up of the East Africans “seems” to be predominantly E3b and smaller percentage of E3a.
4. Both types are found in East and West Africa
5. Question – are these groups, Baja etc, black Africans? Answer is YES. Do they think so themselves, some do some don’t. See other threads for that debate. Ignorance or Arab indoctrination maybe the excuse for them. ie they know no better(Yaz/Yonis). Poor souls!! Genetics and Anthropology prove they are.
6. Do the AA who maybe predominantly E3a have claims to AE? Again discussed in the mentioned thread. YES. AA are proud to point out the ONLY civilization that lasted for over FOUR THOOOOUSAAAAAND years. And it is a BLACK civilization. We from the diaspora, were probably not from the same ethnic black group as the AE. But they were undoubtedly BLACK AFRICANS. Just as most if not all Europeans are proud call Greek theirs, although that is in doubt NOW, AA are point out that AE as theirs.

So. . . .can we move on to something else. Close this thread. I see nothing new coming of this although I like the angle Osiriun attempted. And his /her ethnicity should not matter. We are here to learn the TRUTH and have civil discussions about AE.

---

quote:

---

It seems rather important to you to qualify them as "Black" Africans. Does this mean that elements that are non-Black are ignored and therefore there is bias in your research on the subject?

---

Can you explain why qualifying a society as Black indicates bias if there are non Black elements?

How is this any different that qualifying a society as European if there are non European, or Jewish, or Arab, or Islamic, or for that matter as - Egyptian - if there are 'non' [such] elements?

The AE refer to their own soceity as 'Black', are you saying that this is somehow 'wrong' according to you?

The Greeks used the term Black to qualify Ancient Egpytians - are you saying that this indicated bias?

Why?

Your argurment seems to be predicated on opposition to the word Black.

Please provide your logical explanation of when it is -permitted- according to you to use the word Black.

Otherwise...

Isn't this and obvious indication that there is anti-Black bias *in your research*?

In fact, isn't your entire argument really a pseudo-intellectual airing out of bias?
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I said. . . .and is mentioned many times in this forum.

1. Ae may have minute amount of "outsiders". I don't beileve there were closed borders. Just like Greeks were mixed, taking into consideration you line of logic. ie a few Arabs equates to mixed or non-black civilization. So the Greeks werenon-white?. . .. yeah

2. The AE called themselves black.

3. the Mural - Gates of nation depicted themselves as the same "types" as their southern neighbours.

So I will say, YEEEESSSS. Black is a good term to use.

Again another wasted thread but started off with some promise.

LOCK and CLOSE. Nothing new.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Black is a good term to use.

---

quote:

---

Again another wasted thread.

---

Agreed, due to a a pseudo-intellectual practising sophestry in search of a justification of his Kemo-phobic bias.

He is relatively polite, but he persists in weak, illogical and bigoted arguments, which are no less weak, illogical and bigoted, no matter how politely he persists in them.
 

---

Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Isn't this and obvious indication that there is anti-Black bias *in your research*?

In fact, isn't your entire argument really a pseudo-intellectual airing out of bias?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

It seems rather important to you to qualify them as "Black" Africans. Does this mean that elements that are non-Black are ignored and therefore there is bias in your research on the subject?

---

Can you explain why qualifying a society as Black indicates bias if there are non Black elements?

How is this any different that qualifying a society as European if there are non European, or Jewish, or Arab, or Islamic, or for that matter as - Egyptian - if there are 'non' [such] elements?

The AE refer to their own soceity as 'Black', are you saying that this is somehow 'wrong' according to you?

The Greeks used the term Black to qualify Ancient Egpytians - are you saying that this indicated bias?

Why?

Your argurment seems to be predicated on opposition to the word Black.

Please provide your logical explanation of when it is -permitted- according to you to use the word Black.

Otherwise...

Isn't this and obvious indication that there is anti-Black bias *in your research*?

In fact, isn't your entire argument really a pseudo-intellectual airing out of bias?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Seems quite likely vice-versa is true. Like alot of Near-Eastern influence in Egypt as well as some European. Certainly we see this influence in Nubia and Aksumite societies. Only reasonable that such influence exist in Egypt.

What doesn't anyone want to talk about it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Although the Gerzean Culture is now clearly identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean which were interpreted in previous years as evidence of a Mesopotamian ruling class, the so called Dynastic Race, coming to power over Upper Egypt. In recent years however, this theory has been discounted. Nonetheless, distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period which are indicative of trade contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt,[16] and the silver which appears in this period can only be obtained from Asia Minor.[14] In addition, Egyptian objects are created which are clearly mimicking Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly.[17] Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial maceheads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style.[15]

Pear-Shaped Mace
in hieroglyphs



The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water.[18] During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt.[18] Nonetheless, the fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of Wadys which lead to the Red Sea is indicative of some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade could potentially cross the Sinai and resume sea travel as well).[19] Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.[18] Nonetheless, Egyptologists usually take great pains to note that the Gerzean Culture is still by far predominantly indigenous to Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Although the Gerzean Culture is now clearly identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean which were interpreted in previous years as evidence of a Mesopotamian ruling class, the so called Dynastic Race, coming to power over Upper Egypt. In recent years however, this theory has been discounted. Nonetheless, distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period which are indicative of trade contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt,[16] and the silver which appears in this period can only be obtained from Asia Minor.[14] In addition, Egyptian objects are created which are clearly mimicking Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly.[17] Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial maceheads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style.[15]

Pear-Shaped Mace
in hieroglyphs



The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water.[18] During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt.[18] Nonetheless, the fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of Wadys which lead to the Red Sea is indicative of some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade could potentially cross the Sinai and resume sea travel as well).[19] Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.[18] Nonetheless, Egyptologists usually take great pains to note that the Gerzean Culture is still by far predominantly indigenous to Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Although the Gerzean Culture is now clearly identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean which were interpreted in previous years as evidence of a Mesopotamian ruling class, the so called Dynastic Race, coming to power over Upper Egypt. In recent years however, this theory has been discounted. Nonetheless, distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period which are indicative of trade contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt,[16] and the silver which appears in this period can only be obtained from Asia Minor.[14] In addition, Egyptian objects are created which are clearly mimicking Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly.[17] Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial maceheads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style.[15]

Pear-Shaped Mace
in hieroglyphs



The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water.[18] During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt.[18] Nonetheless, the fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of Wadys which lead to the Red Sea is indicative of some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade could potentially cross the Sinai and resume sea travel as well).[19] Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.[18] Nonetheless, Egyptologists usually take great pains to note that the Gerzean Culture is still by far predominantly indigenous to Egypt.

---

What is the source of this quote?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
Wikipedia (Predynastic Egypt-Foreign contact).

---

quote:

---

I don't like the way Europeans ignore the Jewish/Semitic (J1/J2) influence in their society either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Although the Gerzean Culture is now clearly identified as being the continuation of the Amratian period, significant amounts of Mesopotamian influences worked their way into Egypt during the Gerzean which were interpreted in previous years as evidence of a Mesopotamian ruling class, the so called Dynastic Race, coming to power over Upper Egypt. In recent years however, this theory has been discounted. Nonetheless, distinctly foreign objects and art forms entered Egypt during this period which are indicative of trade contacts with several parts of Asia. Objects such as the Gebel el-Arak knife handle, which has patently Mesopotamian relief carvings on it, have been found in Egypt,[16] and the silver which appears in this period can only be obtained from Asia Minor.[14] In addition, Egyptian objects are created which are clearly mimicking Mesopotamian forms, although not slavishly.[17] Cylinder seals appear in Egypt, as well as recessed paneling architecture, the Egyptian reliefs on cosmetic palettes are clearly made in the same style as the contemporary Mesopotamian Uruk culture, and the ceremonial maceheads which turn up from the late Gerzean and early Semainean are crafted in the mesopotamian "pear-shaped" style, instead of the Egyptian native style.[15]

Pear-Shaped Mace
in hieroglyphs



The route of this trade is difficult to determine, but contact with Canaan does not predate the early dynastic, so it is usually assumed to have been by water.[18] During the time when the Dynastic Race Theory was still popular, it was theorized that Uruk sailors circumnavigated Arabia, but a Mediterranean route, probably by middlemen through Byblos is more likely, as evidenced by the presence of Byblian objects in Egypt.[18] Nonetheless, the fact that so many Gerzean sites are at the mouths of Wadys which lead to the Red Sea is indicative of some amount of trade via the Red Sea (though Byblian trade could potentially cross the Sinai and resume sea travel as well).[19] Also, it is considered unlikely that something as complicated as recessed panel architecture could have worked its way into Egypt by proxy, and at least a small contingent of migrants is often suspected.[18] Nonetheless, Egyptologists usually take great pains to note that the Gerzean Culture is still by far predominantly indigenous to Egypt.

---

What is the source of this quote?

---

Wikipedia (Predynastic Egypt-Foreign contact). He is a google scholar, which is why he has a really hard time answering questions and is so non-responsive. Even the wiki article echoes what we've been saying, while refuting him. That the Dynastic race from Mesopotamia is a discarded, old racialist theory now seen as bunk, citing Egypt as "overwhelmingly indigenous". I seriously suggest that he be ignored from here on out since he's totally unable to defend his position by citation and/or reason, yet, sees fit going to google and typing in the key words to what he wants to find all in one string, while citing the first results that he gets as evidence for his bogus claims.. It only leads to a circular battle of obscure or dated citations, bogus claims without citations, or a misrepresentation of citations by way of cherry picking. The guy is a joke and waste of time....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
Wikipedia (Predynastic Egypt-Foreign contact).

---

The word pathetic doesn't even begin to do this justice...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

quote:

---

I don't like the way Europeans ignore the Jewish/Semitic (J1/J2) influence in their society either.

---

Why shouldn't they? You play the same racist games that they do, only against Blacks.

All the words you use Jewish/Semitic, European, are just like Black - just ethnonyms describing groups of people.

Any time you single out the word 'black' and imply that in order to use this term, some ridiculous qualification must be met, your discourse is hypocritical.

You should know from experience that your methodology is utilized by NAZI's who deny the existence of 'jews' in history in any context other than murder of Christ, and degradation/degineration of so called 'western' society.

They can play the same game of 'question the use of the term semite or jew' as you play with 'black'.

And they are no more disingenuous than you are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Yup .. . another fraud!!! reading the Wikipedia link. It even clearly shows the indegenous development of AE. Yes there was trading with Asia just like most societies trade with their closest neighbours.

Thanks to Sundiata for exposing the fraud.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
Wikipedia (Predynastic Egypt-Foreign contact).

---

The word pathetic doesn't even begin to do this justice...

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

However, I am not interested in that I am interested in the Eurasian influence in Egypt since pre-dynastic times and what is the truth versus the fiction of yesteryear.

---

If you are so intereseted in it, why not just do resesarch? Surely you have the resources with the net being one of them. The only thing is to make sure that the sources are valid.

I have been doing research on Egypt for years and I couldn't find anything 'Eurasian' about its culture.

Perhaps you can find better luck.
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Get the F##%% OUTTA HERE!! with that mumbo jumbo child psychology!! You got the benefit of the doubt. You came across as a player. As stated earlier your title was just bait.

Let's move on!!!

---

quote:

---

Shame on you for jumping to conclusions.

---

quote:

---

When did I say you couldn't call Egypt Black?

---

quote:

---

Is that what I really said?

---

quote:

---

However, Black is perhaps not the best term.

---

quote:

---

However, I am not interested in that.

---

quote:

---

I am interested in the Eurasian influence in Egypt since pre-dynastic times and what is the truth versus the fiction of yesteryear.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
^ It's bait, it just isn't any good, so no one has taken it.

quote:

---

Shame on you for jumping to conclusions.

---

Your argument is contradictory.

Appealing to shame doesn't make the contradictions go away.

quote:

---

When did I say you couldn't call Egypt Black?

---

You implied that to refer to Ancient Egypt as Black was and indication of bias. This insinuation is contradictory and hypocritical. The contradictions remain unaddressed.

quote:

---

Is that what I really said?

---

Yes it is. Why are you asking what you said. Don't you even know?

quote:

---

However, Black is perhaps not the best term.

---

Your remarks are as arrogant as they are ignorant.

No one cares about your biased/worthless opinions of whether Black or Jew or European is or is not the 'best' term.

It contains no evidentiary information.

And it reveals your need/guilt to rationalise your bias to yourself and to others.

quote:

---

However, I am not interested in that.

---

Sure are are, you brought it up. I simply noted your hypocrisy in doing so. That you feign non-interest is just another defense mechanism to hide your bias behind.

It's not working.

quote:

---

I am interested in the Eurasian influence in Egypt since pre-dynastic times and what is the truth versus the fiction of yesteryear.

---

That is exactly what makes your discourse biased.

A truth seeker must follow evidence wherever it leads and weigh it accordingly.

Your fallacious approach is known as confirmation bias -> to only show interest in information that can confirm prior belief, while failing to process information that contradicts said belief.

It is characteristically denoted by someone who says -> {I am only interested in [finding evidence of my Pet theory], I am not interested in anything that may contradict it.}

You fail to process that the Kemetians referred to themselves as Black - because that contradicts your anti-Black bias.

You fail to process that pottery was invented in Africa thousands of years prior to spreading to the Levantine, because it directly contradicts your backwards-thinking attempts to view pottery patterns in terms of 'Eurasian' influence on Africa.

Your discourse is so, easily, demonstrated to be biased.

By all means, continue your biased discourse.

But make no mistake: you may consider yourself formally debunked.

---

You need to go back and read the thread and quote me correctly.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^^Actually, I've read everything you've typed in here (unfortunately) and he's hit the nail on the head..
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ Now that I went back and read all your posts Osiriun, Rasol is right.
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 
Right. Then I will be back with clear supporting evidence.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Which will do what to rebut Rasol's observation (as opposed to supporting it)? You're now putting yourself up to the task of providing something no one here has yet been able to provide though, so good luck..
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Now that I went back and read all your posts Osiriun, Rasol is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:
^Which will do what to rebut Rasol's observation (as opposed to supporting it)? You're now putting yourself up to the task of providing something no one here has yet been able to provide though, so good luck..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Right. Then I will be back with clear supporting evidence.

---

Still waiting..
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ But of course he won't be back with anything valid especially not after what he wrote in his very first post that I missed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Please non-inflammatory view points only and please no name calling. Also, please don't give strawmans such as - they had red hair and narrow noses since evolution being what it is can produce those variation in situ North Africa.

---

quote:

---

West Africans split from the Nilotic people of East Africa well before the first dynasty. Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt. Posters should not have an emotional bias in this discussion since it is not based on the defunct racist terms of Black and White. Fact, what most people consider to be European (English, German, Swedes, etc) are significantly differentiated from Egyptians in the same way most (not all) West Africans are. West Europeans split from a common Egyptian ancestor some 20years before the 1 dynasty.

---

^ West European ancestry originated in Egypt 20 years before the first dynasty?! ROTFL

So much for unbias objectivity!
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ But of course he won't be back with anything valid especially not after what he wrote in his very first post that I missed!

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Please non-inflammatory view points only and please no name calling. Also, please don't give strawmans such as - they had red hair and narrow noses since evolution being what it is can produce those variation in situ North Africa.

---

Red hair is not a typical African trait and the only ones with red hair in north Africa are white Berber groups like Kabyle and Rifians who have nothing to do with Egypt.

quote:

---

West Africans split from the Nilotic people of East Africa well before the first dynasty. Fact, African American heritage does not include Egypt. Posters should not have an emotional bias in this discussion since it is not based on the defunct racist terms of Black and White. Fact, what most people consider to be European (English, German, Swedes, etc) are significantly differentiated from Egyptians in the same way most (not all) West Africans are. West Europeans split from a common Egyptian ancestor some 20years before the 1 dynasty.

---

^ West European ancestry originated in Egypt 20 years before the first dynasty?! ROTFL

So much for unbias objectivity!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

I meant 20K years..

---

Where did you hear that West Europeans diverged from an Egyptian ancestor 20,000 years ago??

quote:

---

..As for Red Hair or Blond Hair, I believe if that there was to be found Africans with such hair it is not proof of European gene flow in and of itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

I meant 20K years..

---

Where did you hear that West Europeans diverged from an Egyptian ancestor 20,000 years ago??

quote:

---

..As for Red Hair or Blond Hair, I believe if that there was to be found Africans with such hair it is not proof of European gene flow in and of itself.

---

Yes, but there are two plausable reasons why red and blonde hair is found: Either the embalming chemicals from mummification have altered the hair, or the Egyptians simply dyed their hair that color before they died. Egyptologists state that many Egyptians during their old age would dye their gray hairs red using henna (a practice still common in parts of Africa today). Ramses died at an unsual very old age so...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
It seems rather important to you to qualify them as "Black" Africans. Does this mean that elements that are non-Black are ignored and therefore there is bias in your research on the subject?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
What I meant: Obviously Rasol needed to qualify the type of Africans because there are non-Black Africans or else Africans would suffice alone. Europeans do not need to qualify themselves or their heritage as White Europeans since it has largely been assumed to be a given (ah but genetics - complicated matter now). If there are non-Black Africans then the question is from where do they originate and how long ago and are they really African? I presume that non-Black Africans are the result of migrations from the Levant and more recent Greek and Roman influence. These recent migrants are not African.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
There were certainly non-Black Africans in Egypt, however, if you put a great deal of importance on the Blackness of Egypt the question is naturally what about the non-Black influences. It is similar to calling the United States a White Civilization. Would not Black Americans balk at such a generalization? Certainly the United States was originally a White dominated society but that has changed over a significant amount of time. What I find difficult in discussion with AA on the issue of AE is that they seem to think that a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic Egypt somehow takes away from their contribution to the formation of one of the greatest civilizations. I think that is ludicrous since even Greece owes a great deal to Near Eastern influence including some African ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Blacks apparently do not like to be called Black anymore. Isn't African American much more appropriate for their ethnicity? If Blacks do not like to be called Blacks is it any wonder that many people of mixed ancestry such as the modern day Egyptians do not either?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Anyone can see that its a unique and indigenous civilization but there was trade. All EVIDENCE must be considered and treated with equal important regardless of their ORIGIN. This is a scientific pursuit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Since no one wants to help me find the truth of how much Mesopatamian influence there was in the Nagada periods I will continue to look and post it here and you can then rebut it all you want and further increase my knowledge on the subject. Your insults mean nothing to me - I have no emotional investment whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Right. Then I will be back with clear supporting evidence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Funny, I have seen hundreds of tomb paintings and portraits from Egypt and non showing any 'blondes' or 'red-heads'. Care to post these pictures you've seen here?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
It seems rather important to you to qualify them as "Black" Africans. Does this mean that elements that are non-Black are ignored and therefore there is bias in your research on the subject?

---

We have to qualify them as Indigenous Black Africans because of people coming with White, Nordic, Caucasian, Mediterranean, Eurasian, Arab, mixed nonsense similar to you. The AE were clearly stated to be blacks by them self, the Greeks, the Romans, and many other sources. Some people have chosen to confuse, ignore, or forget in the last couple of hundred years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
What I meant: Obviously Rasol needed to qualify the type of Africans because there are non-Black Africans or else Africans would suffice alone. Europeans do not need to qualify themselves or their heritage as White Europeans since it has largely been assumed to be a given (ah but genetics - complicated matter now). If there are non-Black Africans then the question is from where do they originate and how long ago and are they really African? I presume that non-Black Africans are the result of migrations from the Levant and more recent Greek and Roman influence. These recent migrants are not African.

---

What difference does it make of who migrated into Ancient Egypt. The civilization was already founded by Indigenous Black Africans. Greece is the first acknowledged white civilization and the Greeks had admixture. By the time the Greeks migrated to Egypt the civilization was already thousands of year old and still an Indigenous Black African civilization. Even according to the Bible, by the time the Hebrews migrated to Egypt the Ancient Egyptians were already a civilization and this is before the Greeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
There were certainly non-Black Africans in Egypt, however, if you put a great deal of importance on the Blackness of Egypt the question is naturally what about the non-Black influences. It is similar to calling the United States a White Civilization. Would not Black Americans balk at such a generalization? Certainly the United States was originally a White dominated society but that has changed over a significant amount of time. What I find difficult in discussion with AA on the issue of AE is that they seem to think that a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic Egypt somehow takes away from their contribution to the formation of one of the greatest civilizations. I think that is ludicrous since even Greece owes a great deal to Near Eastern influence including some African ones.

---

Doesn’t matter. Before America was a white civilization it was a Native American Civilization. America is considered a white civilization and black people aren’t balking. However many white people have a problem with AE being an Indigenous Black African Civilization. Why is that?
Since Greece and Rome owes a great deal of influence to the Near East and Africans may be you should have the historians correct history. Good luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Blacks apparently do not like to be called Black anymore. Isn't African American much more appropriate for their ethnicity? If Blacks do not like to be called Blacks is it any wonder that many people of mixed ancestry such as the modern day Egyptians do not either?

---

Not true. I am a black man and like being called a black man.
Modern day Egyptians are many people from Arab to indigenous Beja. You know the negative context that has been applied to being black. That is why many people don’t want to be labeled black. Don’t play dumb.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Anyone can see that its a unique and indigenous civilization but there was trade. All EVIDENCE must be considered and treated with equal important regardless of their ORIGIN. This is a scientific pursuit.

---

Doesn’t matter again. The Greeks and the Romans had trade. Does that make them less white?
However pursue away in your scientific pursuit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Since no one wants to help me find the truth of how much Mesopatamian influence there was in the Nagada periods I will continue to look and post it here and you can then rebut it all you want and further increase my knowledge on the subject. Your insults mean nothing to me - I have no emotional investment whatsoever.

---

Obviously you do have some emotion investment in it or you would waste as much time pursuing it. All evidence has been presented to you and you choose to ignore it. While you are at it you may want to find the Egyptian influence on Mesopotamia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Right. Then I will be back with clear supporting evidence.

---

As Sundiata stated:
We are still waiting and you are losing credibility. However, I doubt you have much left and people will start to ignore you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
It seems rather important to you to qualify them as "Black" Africans. Does this mean that elements that are non-Black are ignored and therefore there is bias in your research on the subject?

---

We have to qualify them as Indigenous Black Africans because of people coming with White, Nordic, Caucasian, Mediterranean, Eurasian, Arab, mixed nonsense similar to you. The AE were clearly stated to be blacks by them self, the Greeks, the Romans, and many other sources. Some people have chosen to confuse, ignore, or forget in the last couple of hundred years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
What I meant: Obviously Rasol needed to qualify the type of Africans because there are non-Black Africans or else Africans would suffice alone. Europeans do not need to qualify themselves or their heritage as White Europeans since it has largely been assumed to be a given (ah but genetics - complicated matter now). If there are non-Black Africans then the question is from where do they originate and how long ago and are they really African? I presume that non-Black Africans are the result of migrations from the Levant and more recent Greek and Roman influence. These recent migrants are not African.

---

What difference does it make of who migrated into Ancient Egypt. The civilization was already founded by Indigenous Black Africans. Greece is the first acknowledged white civilization and the Greeks had admixture. By the time the Greeks migrated to Egypt the civilization was already thousands of year old and still an Indigenous Black African civilization. Even according to the Bible, by the time the Hebrews migrated to Egypt the Ancient Egyptians were already a civilization and this is before the Greeks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
There were certainly non-Black Africans in Egypt, however, if you put a great deal of importance on the Blackness of Egypt the question is naturally what about the non-Black influences. It is similar to calling the United States a White Civilization. Would not Black Americans balk at such a generalization? Certainly the United States was originally a White dominated society but that has changed over a significant amount of time. What I find difficult in discussion with AA on the issue of AE is that they seem to think that a multi-cultural/multi-ethnic Egypt somehow takes away from their contribution to the formation of one of the greatest civilizations. I think that is ludicrous since even Greece owes a great deal to Near Eastern influence including some African ones.

---

Doesn’t matter. Before America was a white civilization it was a Native American Civilization. America is considered a white civilization and black people aren’t balking. However many white people have a problem with AE being an Indigenous Black African Civilization. Why is that?
Since Greece and Rome owes a great deal of influence to the Near East and Africans may be you should have the historians correct history. Good luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Blacks apparently do not like to be called Black anymore. Isn't African American much more appropriate for their ethnicity? If Blacks do not like to be called Blacks is it any wonder that many people of mixed ancestry such as the modern day Egyptians do not either?

---

Not true. I am a black man and like being called a black man.
Modern day Egyptians are many people from Arab to indigenous Beja. You know the negative context that has been applied to being black. That is why many people don’t want to be labeled black. Don’t play dumb.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Anyone can see that its a unique and indigenous civilization but there was trade. All EVIDENCE must be considered and treated with equal important regardless of their ORIGIN. This is a scientific pursuit.

---

Doesn’t matter again. The Greeks and the Romans had trade. Does that make them less white?
However pursue away in your scientific pursuit.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Since no one wants to help me find the truth of how much Mesopatamian influence there was in the Nagada periods I will continue to look and post it here and you can then rebut it all you want and further increase my knowledge on the subject. Your insults mean nothing to me - I have no emotional investment whatsoever.

---

Obviously you do have some emotion investment in it or you would waste as much time pursuing it. All evidence has been presented to you and you choose to ignore it. While you are at it you may want to find the Egyptian influence on Mesopotamia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
Right. Then I will be back with clear supporting evidence.

---

As Sundiata stated:
We are still waiting and you are losing credibility. However, I doubt you have much left and people will start to ignore you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Funny, I have seen hundreds of tomb paintings and portraits from Egypt and non showing any 'blondes' or 'red-heads'. Care to post these pictures you've seen here?

---

Actually there are a few. Ask Rasol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I think Black is fine. After some consideration, if Europeans can claim Greece as a completely White society then Egypt should be referred to as Black. I don't know where that leaves Eurasians though. Seems like we don't get credit for anything anymore.

---

^It is obvious that your apparent search for "credit" is what fuels your bias, therefore it seems that you may in fact need a psychologist more so than a history lesson.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Actually there are a few. Ask Rasol.

---

LOL I'm asking YOU since you were the one who claimed to see such pictures of red-head and blonde Egyptians! Care to post pictures of these or explain where or what tomb these pictures come from?!
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

Actually there are a few. Ask Rasol.

---

LOL I'm asking YOU since you were the one who claimed to see such pictures of red-head and blonde Egyptians! Care to post pictures of these or explain where or what tomb these pictures come from?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sundiata:

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
^ Funny, I have seen hundreds of tomb paintings and portraits from Egypt and non showing any 'blondes' or 'red-heads'. Care to post these pictures you've seen here?

---

Actually there are a few. Ask Rasol.

---

^^osiriun .. I can assure you that if you continue to make claims with out backing them up, you will inevitably lose credibility here and ultimately be ignored and/or ridiculed for your stubborn and foolish insistence on making unsubstantiated claims. Please post the picture/s as you were requested to do, or simply refrain from making such claims. It is really annoying. I for one, am on the verge of ignoring you completely. You seem to be very unsure, wishy washy, clueless, and stubborn. As indicated by a statement that you made in another thread, your emphasis on Mesopotamia is explained.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osiriun:
I think Black is fine. After some consideration, if Europeans can claim Greece as a completely White society then Egypt should be referred to as Black. I don't know where that leaves Eurasians though. Seems like we don't get credit for anything anymore.

---

^It is obvious that your apparent search for "credit" is what fuels your bias, therefore it seems that you may in fact need a psychologist more so than a history lesson.

---

Don't be silly. Fact is that I am very aware of who the Egyptians are and are not.
 

---

Posted by Sundiata (Member # 13096) on :
 
^Ok osiriun, I'm glad that you are.. So now what is the use for this thread?
 

---

Posted by osiriun (Member # 14297) on :
 
I wanted to see if anyone really has the nerve to suggest that the Egyptians are not African.

Its was SARCASM!

But for AAs like yourself, if you want to meet someone that is directly descendent of AE then just go to Upper Egypt and find a Fellahin farmer(peasant). Its not that difficult. If you want to meet a Nubian, fine, they still exist take a trip. I really don't know why Europeans think its necessary to reconstruct Egyptians in their own likeness, it is completely transparent to everyone how foolish they are being (except to themselves). Just think, why reconstruct Tutankahmun when we have the gold mask and hundreds of depictions of him. All really rather stupid.

But I still wonder, just how much influence came from the Mesopatamian region into Egypt. Not that it would change much of anything but for someone like me it is interesting to discuss.

From my understanding it certainly wasn't a dynastic race but a group of people suffering from drought that moved into the delta searching for good grazing land. They didn't conquer anyone they did become part of the early Egyptian society but they were more like migrant workers. Shared knowledge, sure, but obviously nothing sophisticated which is clearly evident by how Egyptians write. If Mesopatamians had a significant influence on pre-dynastic Egyptians they we wouldn't see hieroglyphs would we?
Why wouldn't they have brought their written language with them from Mesopatamia? Obviously contact was minor and those people absurbed into the society.
 

---

Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually there are a few. Ask Rasol.

---