quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
The "debate" moved on from 5+ years ago. Very few people on internet forums now argue there was large scale migration into Neolithic/Early Dynastic Egypt from West Asia. Most Afrocentrists have also modified their position to realise the Egyptians were Saharan [North] Africans, not Sub-Saharan Africans. My only issue with the latter is that they still call Saharan Africans "black"; the average skin colour of northern Saharan peoples, including modern Egyptians, is too light to be labelled black and living Egyptians do not consider themselves to be black either.

---

Stop talking about what you think "online consensus" is and make your own thread to discuss real research. We give no fvcks what "consensus" is without data. I honestly can't hold out hope for much data though (not from you guys), as it seems y'all have some sort of reading comprehension problem. STOP derailing this guy's thread and make your OWN thread.

---

Consensus based on data is this. And it doesn't play into anyone's politics. That's why people like you won't accept it - it doesn't fit your pan-Africanist political agenda.

---

quote:

---

Afrocentrists are wrong to describe the ancient Egyptians as black people (even if "black" is only describing dark brown skin/black pigmentation). This is because there was a gradient of skin color, ranging from a light brown among northern coastal and Nile-Delta Egyptians in Lower Egypt, to a dark brown in Upper Egypt and Nubia.

---

Except black isn't exclusively dark brown/black. Sub Saharan Africa has colors ranging from light brown to dark.

quote:

---

The "Black Egyptian hypothesis" was criticized and rejected at UNESCO's Symposium on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script in Cairo in 1974[34] (published 1978). Afrocentrist C. A. Diop attended this symposium and when asked "what proportion of melanin was sufficient for a man to be classified as belonging to the black race" failed to provide an answer.[35]

---

Precisely because blacks are NOT just dark brown or black. Blacks can have colors that overlap with other groups It's funny they use contradictory references to "prove" they're not black.

quote:

---

I have encountered arguments that the ancient Egyptians were much 'blacker' than their modern counterparts, owing to the influx of Arabs at the time of the conquest, Caucasian slaves under the Mamlukes, or Turks and French soldiers during the Ottoman period. However, given the size of the Egyptian population against these comparatively minor waves of northern immigrants, as well as the fact that there was continuous immigration and occasional forced deportation of both northern and southern populations into Egypt throughout the pharaonic period, I doubt that the modern population is significantly darker or lighter, or more or less 'African' than their ancient counterparts.

---

quote:

---

Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously.

Luca Pagani. Tracing the Route of Modern Humans out of Africa by Using 225 Human Genome Sequences from Ethiopians and Egyptians 4 June 2015

---

quote:

---

“”Afrocentrists claim that Egyptian civilization was a "black" civilization, and this is not accurate [...] Most scholars believe that ancient Egyptians looked pretty much like today’s Egyptians - that is, they were brown, becoming darker as they approached the Sudan (Snowden 1970, 1992; Smedley 1993).[33]

---

Then those researchers would be engaging in "true negro" stereotypes by denying the biological diversity of Africa. This academically racist behavior has been noted and condemned by academics like Keita. For thousands of years there had been NO Sahara. The Sahara had just started coming back, which forced many populations that made kemet to move towards the Nile in the first place. Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa, but let the Sahara come back for centuries and even with a body of water that moves through (and can give them ready access to the people below the Sahara) and whoop! they're not black!
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
Here's the problem with Afroloons quote-mining this:

"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously."

Note how you cut off what follows:

"The Ethiopian populations showed, as expected,
a more variable spectrum of genetic introgression
(Figure 1B). Consistent with previous reports,13 the Amhara and Oromo were shown to have around 50% of their genome derived from non-Africans, the introgressed
proportion in the Somali and Wolayta amounted to
40%–30%"

So are you now saying Ethiopian and Horn populations are 1/3 to 1/2 Eurasian? This is something you deny in your other posts. Note also Zaharan etc does this same. You will quote Pagani et al for the Egyptians being 80% Eurasian, but not Ethiopians/Horners being up to 50% Eurasian.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Except black isn't exclusively dark brown/black. Sub Saharan Africa has colors ranging from light brown to dark.

---

I dispute that claim (since I'm talking population averages, not cherry-picking individuals or looking at atypical variation like only 5% of a Sub-Saharan African tribe have light brown skin), but I'll go along with it for sake of argument: are West Asians and Southern Europeans then black? They have light brown skin shades. That's the double standard you employ.

Africans with light brown skin are black, but not non-Africans with the same/similar pigmentation?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Here's the problem with Afroloons quote-mining this:

"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously."

Note how you cut off what follows:

"The Ethiopian populations showed, as expected,
a more variable spectrum of genetic introgression
(Figure 1B). Consistent with previous reports,13 the Amhara and Oromo were shown to have around 50% of their genome derived from non-Africans, the introgressed
proportion in the Somali and Wolayta amounted to
40%–30%"

So are you now saying Ethiopian and Horn populations are 1/3 to 1/2 Eurasian? This is something you deny in your other posts. Note also Zaharan etc does this same. You will quote Pagani et al for the Egyptians being 80% Eurasian, but not Ethiopians/Horners being up to 50% Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Colored dots indicate genetic diversity. Each new group outside of Africa represents a sampling of the genetic diversity present in its founder population. The ancestral population in Africa was sufficiently large to build up and retain substantial genetic diversity.

---

quote:

---

According to the current data East Africa is home to nearly 2/3 of the world genetic diversity independent of sampling effect. Similar figure have been suggested for sub-Saharan Africa populations [1]. The antiquity of the east African gene pool could be viewed not only from the perspective of the amount of genetic diversity endowed within it but also by signals of uni-modal distribution in their mitochondrial DNA (Hassan et al., unpublished) usually taken as an indication of populations that have passed through ‘‘recent’’ demographic expansion [33], although in this case, may in fact be considered a sign of extended shared history of in situ evolution where alleles are exchanged between neighboring demes [34].

• Figure S1 Neighbor joining (NJ). NJ tree of the world populations based on MT-CO2 sequences. The evolutionary relationship of 171 sequences and evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 0.20401570 is shown. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. Codon positions included were 1st+2nd+3rd+Noncoding. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated from the dataset. There were a total of 543 positions in the final dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were conducted in MEGA4. Red dots: east Africa, Blue: Africa, Green: Asia, Yellow: Australia, Pink: Europe and gray: America. (TIF)

• Figure S2 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 2nd and 3rd coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 nuclear microsatellite loci from 469 individuals of 24 world populations. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The figure, besides a separate clustering of east Africans, indicates the substantial contribution of Africans and east Africans to the founding of populations of Europe and Asia.
  (TIF)

• Figure S3 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). The 3rd and 4th coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. The central position of east Africans and some other Africans emphasizes the founding role of east African gene pool and the disparate alignment on coordinates along which the world populations were founded including populations of Aftica aligning along the 4th dimension.
  (TIF)

Figure 4. Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). A. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite Marshfield data set across the human genome for 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS plot was constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin program (Table S3). B. First and second coordinates of an MDS plot of 848 Microsatellite loci, across the human genome in 469 individuals from 24 populations from Africa, Asia and Europe. MDS uses pairwise IBS data based on the 848 loci generated by PLINK software and plotted using R version 2.15.0. East Africans cluster to the left of the plot, while Beja (red cluster in the middle), assumes intermediate position. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097674.g004

• Figure S4 Multidimensional Scaling Plot (MDS). First and second coordinates of an MDS plot based on MT-CO2 data set constructed from pairwise differences FST generated by Arlequin v3.11. Population code as follows: Nara: Nar, Kunama (Kun), Hidarb (Hid), Afar (Afa), Saho (Sah), Bilen (Bil), Tigre (Tgr), Tigrigna (Tig), Rashaida (Rsh), Nilotics (Nil), Beja (Bej), Ethiopians(Eth), Egyptians (Egy), Moroccans (Mor), Southern Africans (Sth), Pygmy (Pyg), Saudi Arabia (Sdi), Asia (Asi), Europe (Eur), Native Americans (NA), Australians (Ast), Nubians (Nub), Nuba (Nba)
  (TIF)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Except black isn't exclusively dark brown/black. Sub Saharan Africa has colors ranging from light brown to dark.

---

I dispute that claim (since I'm talking population averages, not cherry-picking individuals or looking at atypical variation like only 5% of a Sub-Saharan African tribe have light brown skin), but I'll go along with it for sake of argument: are West Asians and Southern Europeans then black? They have light brown skin shades. That's the double standard you employ.

Africans with light brown skin are black, but not non-Africans with the same/similar pigmentation?

---

quote:

---

Figure 2 | Ancestral variants around the SLC45A2 (rs16891982, above) and SLC24A5 (rs1426654, below) pigmentation genes in the Mesolithic genome.



The SNPs around the two diagnostic variants (red arrows) in these two genes were analysed. The resulting haplotype comprises neighbouring SNPs that are also absent in modern Europeans (CEU) (n = 112) but present in Yorubans (YRI) (n = 113). This pattern confirms that the La Braña 1 sample is older than the positive-selection event in these regions. Blue, ancestral; red, derived.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Except black isn't exclusively dark brown/black. Sub Saharan Africa has colors ranging from light brown to dark.

---

I dispute that claim (since I'm talking population averages, not cherry-picking individuals or looking at atypical variation like only 5% of a Sub-Saharan African tribe have light brown skin), but I'll go along with it for sake of argument: are West Asians and Southern Europeans then black? They have light brown skin shades. That's the double standard you employ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Here's the problem with Afroloons quote-mining this:

"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously."

Note how you cut off what follows:

"The Ethiopian populations showed, as expected,
a more variable spectrum of genetic introgression
(Figure 1B). Consistent with previous reports,13 the Amhara and Oromo were shown to have around 50% of their genome derived from non-Africans, the introgressed
proportion in the Somali and Wolayta amounted to
40%–30%"

So are you now saying Ethiopian and Horn populations are 1/3 to 1/2 Eurasian? This is something you deny in your other posts. Note also Zaharan etc does this same. You will quote Pagani et al for the Egyptians being 80% Eurasian, but not Ethiopians/Horners being up to 50% Eurasian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

There are no Sub-Saharan African populations with light brown skin. Like I said, I'm talking populations (as averages), not individuals.

My point is that the average ancient Egyptian was lighter skinned than Nubians: the former distinguished themselves to the latter based on their skin complexion (see Great Hymn to Aten). How could Egyptians be black if they did this?

---

The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.


I chose this SPECIFIC Khoisan population for an example based on the Basal position on the human tree and lack of Eurasian affinity:


 

---

Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
Since this conversation got started over color conventions in ancient Egyptian art, I wonder what posters here make of various quilts from Dahomey, wherein the Dahomeans portray themselves as a lighter, more reddish color than other West Africans (who are jet black).




I am not aware of any evidence that the people of Dahomey really would have had reddish skin lighter than that of other West Africans. It's an artistic convention that I presume came out to distinguish themselves from other African groups. Who's to say ancient Egyptian artists weren't doing the same thing in their paintings?
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
Its so amazingly stupid that African Americans are called sub saharans despite being centuries removed from Sub Saharan Africa,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
If you had said "Its so amazingly stupid that so called 'African Americans' are called Africans despite being centuries removed from Africa, that would be one thing an opinion about an identifying term with a certain logic to it, but your comment doesn't make sense.
If one is talking about "Sub Saharan Africa" the other half to that would be North African or Saharan African
So if Sub Saharans migrated or were taken to America centuries ago that would not transform their Sub Saharan Africaness to North Africaness
African Americans are from all over Africa but primarily from West Africa.
A similarly not making sense statement would be "Its so amazingly stupid that so called 'African Americans' are called West Africans despite being centuries removed from Africa"
The logic doesn't work.

Somebody could argue that "Blacks" in America are no longer African because they have been cut off form African culture for centuries and have their own culture.
But one could not argue that having been out of Africa for several hundred years would change their affiliation to a region in Africa, Sub Saharan, Saharan, West, North, East ,South etc

Of course culture is not biology and biology takes thousands of years to significantly change not hundreds.


"Black" is an ambiguous social construct term therefore it not solid to take a position on as an absolute.

One could say that all the people from the West, South, East and North are all Africans but Cass Connor Moon argues that similarly Chinese and Europeans are on the same continent
-yet are clearly quite different.

The answer to this is get away from geographic terms and social construct terms "black" "brown" "white" "red" and look at the DNA and physical morphology.
E1b1a for instance

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.

---

Khoisan tribes score 40-50% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm), but yes, they are lighter skinned than other Sub-Saharan groups who fall between 20-40%. My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups, while Europeans are 60-70% and are obviously lighter skinned than ancient Egyptians.






The Berber population in the above study score 57-59%, i.e. a light brown/bronze colour, and this is how Lower Egyptians would have looked in my view.



The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan:

"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black."
- Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
There are no Sub-Saharan African populations with light brown skin.

---

LOL Good grief. You dumb box of rocks.

quote:

---

Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.



Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation.

For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions.

This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator.

Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
The Berber population in the above study score 57-59%, i.e. a light brown/bronze colour, and this is how Lower Egyptians would have looked in my view.

---

Your view / alternative fact is completely irrelevant.






Melanin Dosage Tests: Ancient Egyptians




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

-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"
Materials and Methods

https://www.academia.edu/8742479/Melanin_Dosage_Tests_Ancient_Egyptians_DRAFT_


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10520290500051146
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
The Berber population in the above study score 57-59%, i.e. a light brown/bronze colour, and this is how Lower Egyptians would have looked in my view.

---

quote:

---

In this study we analyzed 295 unrelated Berber-speaking men from northern, central, and southern Morocco to characterize frequency of the E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup and to refine the phylogeny of its subclades: E1b1b1b1-M107, E1b1b1b2-M183, and E1b1b1b2a-M165. For this purpose, we typed four biallelic polymorphisms: M81, M107, M183, and M165. A large majority of the Berber-speaking male lineages belonged to the Y-chromosomal E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup. The frequency ranged from 79.1% to 98.5% in all localities sampled. E1b1b1b2-M183 was the most dominant subclade in our samples, ranging from 65.1% to 83.1%. In contrast, the E1b1b1b1-M107 and E1b1b1b2a-M165 subclades were not found in our samples. Our results suggest a predominance of the E1b1b1b-M81 haplogroup among Moroccan Berber-speaking males with a decreasing gradient from south to north. The most prevalent subclade in this haplogroup was E1b1b1b2-M183, for which diffferences among these three groups were statistically significant between central and southern groups.

---

quote:

---

My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups

The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I will say this thread provides a textbook example of why terms like "black" can cause problems in these discussions. People have different ideas of what it means, and those who want to include or exclude certain populations will shift its defining goalposts to suit their own ends. For example, people who don't want ancient Egyptians to be called "black" will insist that only the darkest African populations, or maybe those with broad West or Central African features, will qualify as "black", and there isn't really anything you can do to change their minds. So these discussions have become a waste of time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.

---

Khoisan tribes score 40-50% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm), but yes, they are lighter skinned than other Sub-Saharan groups who fall between 20-40%. My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups, while Europeans are 60-70% and are obviously lighter skinned than ancient Egyptians.


The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan:

"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black."
- Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.

---

You have to do some critical thinking and BE CONSISTENT:
How are you DEFINING Black? As an African American NOT of full African Ancestry Am I Black? Are those Khoisan "Black" ?

These Guys (Egyptians) are Darker than me.


"The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though," No, the Lower Egyptians would be been lighter. The Upper Egyptians formed the based on the people in the Region and should be used as the aboriginal yardstick. Now you DO KNOW that the VAST majority of the population in ancient times lived in the Southern Part of the country?

In all these years of Euroclowness, Yall can never define "Black" in a way that Excludes Egyptians while at the same time being consistent when dealing with other populations in Africa. Your definition is always something you made up Yourself...and is quite plastic. Sometimes its based on features, sometimes not...sometimes is location...some times not. Sometimes skin tone and ancestry, sometimes not....yall just keep changing the goal post because in yall mind you KNOW its quite hard to remove a population from a description that is mostly based on two things : Skin color and location.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I usually try not to get involved with these types off discussions but...

quote:

---

My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups

The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan

---

Based on what?

Maghrebs and amazigh share share major genes directly related to pigment with europeans btw.
what are you basing any of this on?
Latitude may play a role in skin color variation but it doesn't determine your skin color.
The points are virtually baseless as for every tit, theirs a tat. ...and I know you know this already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

---

The vast majority of people do not regard the first two rows of those photos to be black and some would also dispute the third and fourth rows, only the 5th and 6th are less/not ambiguous. In fact if you went up to these people in the first two rows of photos and called them "black" they would probably be insulted.

This afrolunacy of calling anyone with a brown skin shade (even light brown) "black" has no basis in reality. Your own communities would not except the women and boy in the first photo row as "black" and you even know this.

---

You are a LUNATIC. You are DELUSIONAL. Those very same people will tell you they are BLACK.

Tell, loony what community is it you are referring at? Show me how bright you are.



This co-clown passed as black for years, however this is what "many" North African women look like, including the "hair texture".





Now, back to reality:













 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
I usually try not to get involved with these types off discussions but...

quote:

---

My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups

The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan

---

Based on what?

Maghrebs and amazigh share share major genes directly related to pigment with europeans btw.
what are you basing any of this on?
Latitude may play a role in skin color variation but it doesn't determine your skin color.
The points are virtually baseless as for every tit, theirs a tat. ...and I know you know this already.

---

I'm basing it on living non-Egyptian populations at the same latitude and these peoples closely resembled their ancestors in ancient times phenotypically, including skin colour. So why is it they virtually all score as a mean 50-60% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm)? Why should ancient Egyptians be different?

Egypt is the same latitude as Libya, Algeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, northern India, Nepal, and southern China. Populations at that latitude have 50-60% skin reflectance -- data is in Jablonski & Chaplin (2000).

Algeria (Aures): 58.05
Libya (Cyrenaica): 53.50
China (Southern): 59.17
Nepal: 50.42
Pakistan: 54.24
India (Northern): 53.26
Saudi Arabia: 52.50

If I'm wrong, then someone would need to explain why Egyptians are a "special case" in reflectance spectroscopy. Furthermore, we have ancient accounts such as Strabo who likened the skin colour of the ancient Egyptians to northern Indians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
The vast majority of people do not regard the first two rows of those photos to be black and some would also dispute the third and fourth rows, only the 5th and 6th are less/not ambiguous. In fact if you went up to these people in the first two rows of photos and called them "black" they would probably be insulted.

This afrolunacy of calling anyone with a brown skin shade (even light brown) "black" has no basis in reality. Your own communities would not except the women and boy in the first photo row as "black" and you even know this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.

---

Khoisan tribes score 40-50% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm), but yes, they are lighter skinned than other Sub-Saharan groups who fall between 20-40%. My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups, while Europeans are 60-70% and are obviously lighter skinned than ancient Egyptians.


The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though, but it doesn't approach 'black' until Sudan:

"On the average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudan of the Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears to the eye as bluish black."
- Trigger, B. [1978]. “Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?”. Wenig, Steffen (ed.). In: Africa in Antiquity: The Arts of Ancient Nubia and the Sudan. Brooklyn Museum, New York.

---

You have to do some critical thinking and BE CONSISTENT:
How are you DEFINING Black? As an African American NOT of full African Ancestry Am I Black? Are those Khoisan "Black" ?

These Guys (Egyptians) are Darker than me.


"The Upper Egyptians would have been a darker brown though," No, the Lower Egyptians would be been lighter. The Upper Egyptians formed the based on the people in the Region and should be used as the aboriginal yardstick. Now you DO KNOW that the VAST majority of the population in ancient times lived in the Southern Part of the country?

In all these years of Euroclowness, Yall can never define "Black" in a way that Excludes Egyptians while at the same time being consistent when dealing with other populations in Africa. Your definition is always something you made up Yourself...and is quite plastic. Sometimes its based on features, sometimes not...sometimes is location...some times not. Sometimes skin tone and ancestry, sometimes not....yall just keep changing the goal post because in yall mind you KNOW its quite hard to remove a population from a description that is mostly based on two things : Skin color and location.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
lol, you're lying.

Egyptians hate blacks. Just google racism in Egypt. Most the racism is directed at Sudanese who have darker skin; they're looked down upon in Egyptian society. Egyptians classify Sudanese as blacks, but not themselves because they're lighter brown skinned.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-16/egypt-soccer-team-owners-racist-comment-leads-online-protests

"Sudanese and Nubian people living in Egypt told al-Araby about their experiences in the country and the kind of treatment they were subjected to based on the colour of their skin.

"In the street, people call you different names if you are black, like chocalata or samara," Mamado Hawary, a Sudanese-Egyptian living in Cairo, told al-Araby al-Jadeed."

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/7/23/being-black-in-egypt

---

LOL You are the one who is lying, your response is a typical and obvious one, VERY PREDICTABLE. However, the comment section counteracts what you're trying to propel.


Besides all this, Cairo is a place with lots of immigrants who are not from Africa, or natively African. Mortada Mansour is least likely a descendant of ancient Egyptians. This subject is about that, remember loon, it is specifically about people like in the photo collage, not about some random individuals who confuse themselves for a primary for ancient Egyptians, and who are prejudice against darker skinned people.

Since you are slow (retarded), I will repeat it for you a few times:

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

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

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

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





And I am still waiting, from which community I am supposed to be?

quote:

---

"…sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."

---

quote:

---

According to this recent study modern Egyptians are 80% non-African and 20% African. And the non-African admixtures are dated to around 750 years ago. Well, after the foundation of Ancient Egypt or the precursor cultures (Badarians, Tasians, Nabta Playa, etc).

"Using ADMIXTURE and principal-component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1A), we estimated the average proportion of non-African ancestry in the Egyptians to be 80% and dated the midpoint of the admixture event by using ALDER20 to around 750 years ago (Table S2), consistent with the Islamic expansion and dates reported previously."

---

quote:

---

“The Late Period is often singled out as the time when mass immigration into Egypt altered the character of the country”

---

quote:

---

“With the passage of time, each wave of new immigrants has assimilated into the local mix of peoples , making modern Egypt a combination of Libyans, Nubians, Syrians, Persians, Macedonians, Romans, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, Greeks, Italians, and Armenians, along with the descendants of the people of ancient Egypt.”

---

quote:

---

"It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was ALMOST UNDERPOPULATED in Old Kingdom times. In effect, a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was UNDERDEVELOPED and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
lol, you're lying.

Egyptians hate blacks. Just google racism in Egypt. Most the racism is directed at Sudanese who have darker skin; they're looked down upon in Egyptian society. Egyptians classify Sudanese as blacks, but not themselves because they're lighter brown skinned.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-16/egypt-soccer-team-owners-racist-comment-leads-online-protests

"Sudanese and Nubian people living in Egypt told al-Araby about their experiences in the country and the kind of treatment they were subjected to based on the colour of their skin.

"In the street, people call you different names if you are black, like chocalata or samara," Mamado Hawary, a Sudanese-Egyptian living in Cairo, told al-Araby al-Jadeed."

https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/7/23/being-black-in-egypt

---

quote:

---

Arabs, however, have their own misplaced bigotry toward darker-skinned people – even of their own ethnicity. The issue of Arab and African identity is still a sad reality even though lots of Arabs with darker skin live all over the Arab world, including Egypt, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states. But this could be considered more geographic bigotry than racism. In the US, 9/11 changed everything, including the complexity of skin colour and racism in the Arab American community – racial profiling and discrimination has risen substantially as has the assaults on Arabs and Muslims.

---

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2015/01/17/notes-america-arab-americans-new-blacks/


I wonder what your excuse is going to be now?




Head of a Syrian
KhM 3896a
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4906




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896b
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4907




Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896c
TILE; NEW KINGDOM

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4908


A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis




http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/oct/27/old-ale-beer-history
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Queen Tiye



Amenhotep III








Akhenaten




King Tut:


 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 


[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/2274895602_9789682690_o_zps1hsgmnvs.jpg.html]



[/QB] [/QB]

[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/nak_zpsg3dqapwr.jpg.html]







[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/hb_07.228.34_zps2tywog7y.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 




The pharaoh Senusret I:









 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/antefoqer_mpd_018_zpso0i02dkr.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
^ One does not even have to find ancient examples of black Southwest Asians.

Arabians










 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/Amenhotep_III_5_zpsjif2na96.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/08011038_zpsqjoxiq0t.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
More Arabians













The point is the Anglo-idiot is gravely mistaken if he thinks he can white-wash Southwest Asia, even his hero Carleton Coon spoke of black types in the region though obviously he did not consider them "negro" but either "Mediterranean" or "Veddoid". Both labels by the way have been used to describe ancient or prehistoric North Africans of the Nile Valley.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/1312984420_e85cbd7f2d_zpseejiy70t.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/518577955_fcdc244487_zpshy3q8wcf.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/987428292_d427a40eeb_zpsnenn4kev.jpg.html]

[URL=http://s328.photobucket.com/user/takhent/media/painted-wall-relief-inside-ramses-ii-temple-beit-el-wali-in-kalabsha-B5M1N5_zpsqb0svqzn.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/912812901_d528d6b5fb_zpsoftigasx.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
picture book
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 









[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/tt5613_zpsn8o5zpjm.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/OVGStatueofTjH9t_zps63vyro7d.jpeg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/img_3974_zpssscv0kwd.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/djehoutyhotep_27_zps018k6kty.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 












[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/8xESchermafbeNSg_zpspuawsrho.png.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/220317_709b8295fd_zpsksjq8bcm.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/ob_fc15b4_figure-4-folding-stool-tomb-of-userhat-thebes-eig_zps74wk8jqi.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 






Narmer - Founder of the Egyptian civilization










[URL=http://s328.photobucket.com/user/takhent/media/egyptian-art-offering-scene-from-ka-em-rehus-tomb-at-sakkara-c-2300-CWHC7P_zpsqnykjfqj.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 


Tut
















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/picture-28-119_zpsuae8kemb.png.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 











[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/m13505-6_zpseev63elo.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 




















 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 


















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/08010867_zpspsibzoth.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/08010423_zpsru3km4hm.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/1ozsspx1175hs5_zpsjubqxh4v.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/djoserhelio.jpg.html]


[URL=http://s328.photobucket.com/user/takhent/media/egypt-saqqara-mastaba-of-ti-5th-dynasty-relief-CC9H0C_zpssylxpvpy.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

















 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/3349400951_a049fef513_z_zpsvbifvywx.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 




[URL=http://s328.photobucket.com/user/takhent/media/AH1L10Senn_zpsv3qgw6gp.jpg.html]






 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Yet no one has ever claimed Egyptians had skin colour like following:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Diebythesword:
They're only slightly a darker reddish than the Minoans.



It makes no sense to argue Egyptians were "black".

---

 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 














 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

Today, foreign Greek rulers of Egypt are generally better known and celebrated than indigenous rulers. When you see the ancient civilization referenced to in everyday language, it's typically royalty, dress, or cosmetics referring to women like Cleopatra come to mind immediately. Hell, the name Egypt itself is a Europeanized word that characterizes Kemet's domination by Europeans. The Nile is what they would've called the Hapi. Just talking about the people of Khemet... and often we're already referring to them and important locations, etc through the gaze of European conquerors. And there's no Eurocentrism? Sure.

quote:

---

"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." - Klales, A. R. (2014). "Computed Tomography Analysis and Reconstruction of Ancient Egyptians Originating from the Akhmim Region of Egypt: A Biocultural Perspective". MA Thesis. University of Manitoba http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/jspui/bitstream/1993/23992/1/Klales_Alexandra.pdf'

---

quote:

---

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times“ – Keita 2005. History in Africa, 2005, 32(1).221-246

---

 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Descendants of the Pharaohs in Luxor, Esna, Edfu and Kom Ombo:














[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/nubian-lil-girls1_zps5zmkvj2y.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Egypt is a trans-continental country, part of it (Sinai) is a segment of Levant/West Asia (the Eurasian continent). All Afrocentrists ignore this. The Sinai was an important land-bridge between the two continents and there is consensus among scholars that Egyptian agriculture derived from the southern Levant via Sinai:

"The prevailing view among archeologists is the hypothesis identifying southern Levant
as the origin of Egyptian agriculture and animal breeding (Hendrickx & Vermeersch 2000:
37; Wengrow 2006: 44; Hendrickx et al. 2010: 19). The new subsistence system could have
reached Lower Egypt via Sinai, together with materials imported from the east, e.g. shells
from the Red Sea and turquoise (acculturation model). Alternatively, it might have come
together with Levantine farmers migrating as a result of climate changes (demic diffusion
model) (Borgoginini Tarli & Manzi 1998: 36).
According to F. Hassan (1984b: 222), farming was introduced to the Delta by migrants
from the east. However, their movement was not linked to the mass migrations from southwest
Asia. Lower Egypt is claimed to have been gradually infiltrated by drifters and refugees
over a relatively long period of time (some 500 years or more). In his opinion, the change
in subsistence was almost imperceptible, and thus peaceful and gradual. Levantine farmers
easily adapted to local hunter-gatherers, which was facilitated by the flexible social organization
and the probably exogamous marriage pattern followed by autochthonous communities
(Hassan 1984b: 222)."
http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/AMaczynska_ma%C5%82y-pdf.pdf [/qb]

---

-“Furthermore, the archaeology of northern Africa DOES NOT SUPPORT demic diffusion of farming from the Near East. The evidence presented by Wetterstrom indicates that early African farmers in the Fayum initially INCORPORATED Near Eastern domesticates INTO an INDIGENOUS foraging strategy, and only OVER TIME developed a dependence on horticulture. This is inconsistent with in-migrating farming settlers, who would have brought a more ABRUPT change in subsistence strategy. "The same archaeological pattern occurs west of Egypt, where domestic animals and, later, grains were GRADUALLY adopted after 8000 yr B.P. into the established pre-agricultural Capsian culture, present across the northern Sahara since 10,000 yr B.P. From this continuity, it has been argued that the pre-food-production Capsian peoples spoke languages ancestral to the Berber and/or Chadic branches of Afroasiatic, placing the proto-Afroasiatic period distinctly
before 10,000 yr B.P."

--Source: The Origins of Afroasiatic
Christopher Ehret, S. O. Y. Keita, Paul Newman;, and Peter Bellwood
Science 3 December 2004: Vol. 306. no. 5702, p. 1680

--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)

--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters)
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 



This is a map of all the kingdoms of ancient Sudan -- kingdoms that were contemporaries of ancient Egypt. The word "Nubian" is applied to all of them and this is where the confusion arises.

There was no kingdom or entity called "Nubia" in ancient times. There were no people (s) called "Nubians". These "Nubians" spoke different languages (belonging to different linguistic groups) and had markedly different physical appearances.

Some of Egypt's Southern neighbours [those to the immediate South] very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians. Those further South did not.


"Nubia" is a corruption of the ancient Egyptian word Nubt -- a word for gold. There was a city in Upper Egypt called Nubti, which would have been the original Nubia.


These are the people of Punt (modern day Northeast Sudan or Somalia) and they resemble the ancient Egyptians:







Ancient Egyptian soldiers and sailors







The pitch-black people we see on ancient Egyptian walls must have been the ancestors of the Nuba of Kordofan and/or the Nilotic tribes that used to live in the Gezira -- tribes like the Dinka and Nuer - the blackest people in Africa.


Upper Egypt has had shared affinities with specific people 'Nubia' for tens of thousands of years, and this is why specialists understand that 'Nubians' were ethnically the closest people to the ancient Egyptians since the predynastic period.

Eurocentrics [ignorant, dishonest cretins] insist on creating an artificial dichotomy between the people of the South and the ancient Egyptians by presenting the pitch-black ancestors of the "Nuba" and the Dinka as the quintessential "Nubians" while ignoring people that so very closely resembled the ancient Egyptians.

The Dinka and Nuer have significantly darker skin than all the Africans so its not necessary for the ancient Egyptians to be as black as the Dinka to be called black just as the Greeks, Italians and Portugese don't need to be as white as the Norwegians and Swedes to be called White.


Here's a picture of a black man from Swaziland standing next to a Hematite mine and his skin tone matches the red ochre that we see used to represent the ancient Egyptians. Contrast him to a Dinka, and what he's not black anymore?



 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The people to the immediate South had the same skin tone as the ancient Egyptians but those further afield did not.

Lower "Nubians" as portrayed by ancient Egyptians:



Kushites portraying themselves











The ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with the people of the immediate South - people in Upper Egypt and North Sudan.


"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. (Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The Neolithic rock art paintings in South-west Egypt ("cave of swimmers") show that the ancestors of the AE painted themselves as black and brown -- just like other Africans.







Bushmen rock art




Northwest Sahara rock art




Chad rock art


 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The descendants of the Pharaohs in Upper Egypt:













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/10410272_9d49ac8d57_b_zpsskssohl7.jpg.html]



 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 


















 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[IMG]http://i525.photobucket.com/albums/cc332/kushke
met08/img_0666p_zpsdtxkz0rr.jpg[/IMG]

[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/Edfu-Temple-and-Denderah-Temple-2010-020_zpsxqt7bhiu.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/0305_03_zpsrtcwzodd.jpg.html]

[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/Egyptian_child_zpsn7cordzx.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 












[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/qurna-18251820_zps9i5avtsb.jpg.html]


[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/P4180675_zps7ae047vu.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/karnak_zpsx3j5dcdm.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/egypt-tourism-egypt-economy-at-medinet-habu-complex-west-of-luxor_zpsyakabvud.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 













[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/children%20luxor_zpsocdsnxcs.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
These descendants of the Pharaohs mostly maintain the physical appearance of their ancestors... ancestors that were described as brown and black by contemporary eyewitnesses.

quote:

---

Ammianus Marcellinus: "the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."

---

quote:

---

Pseudo Aristotle: " Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two."

---

Lucian: Introducing two Greek writers...

Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'

Timolaus: ' But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus. All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place.

Apollodorus: "Aegyptos conquered the country of the blackfooted ones and called it Egypt after himself".

Aeschylus: In The Suppliants, Danaos, fleeing with his daughters, the Danaids, and pursued by his brother Aegyptos with his sons, the Aegyptiads, who seek to wed their cousins by force, climbs a hillock, looks out to sea and describes the Aegyptiads at the oars afar off in these terms: 'I can see the crew with their black limbs and white tunics[i]' and '[i]In ships, stout-timbered and dark-prowed, they have sailed here, attended by a mighty black host, and in their wrath overtaken us'.

Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."

The Egyptian race according to the Judeo-Christian authors of antiquity

Rabbi Yuda ben Simon in a Midrashic text: Abraham says to his wife Sarah, "Now we are about to enter a place (Egypt) of ugly and black people

In a Midrash: " The black people will come out of Egypt, Kush will stretch its hands to God"

Church Father Theodore of Mopsuestia says above the Shulamite bride in the 'Song of Songs': "She was black like all the Egyptians and Ethiopians.
 

---

Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
 
Sudaniya

Simply Beautiful Pictures.

God Bless You
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)

Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
The ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans closely related to other Northeast Africans like Northern Sudanese, Somalis, Oromo, Afar and more. The ancient Egyptians are tied to populations in Northeast Africa and have a common origin with them; this is affirmed by all the disciplines. There is simply no way to argue against the fact that the ancient Egyptians stem from a common origin with other Northeast Africans and align with them on every parameter - not Eurasians.


Data from limb ratios, genetics, skin reflectance analysis, melanin dosage tests, cranio-facial evidence and cultural anthropology all affirm that the ancient Egyptians were Northeast Africans related to other Northeast Africans.

If this in-erasable truth inconveniences you or discomforts you in any way... well too damn bad. Deal with it.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
A lot of Eurocentrics try to lay claim to Egypt by pointing out that Eurasians could have easily infiltrated the Delta over millenia as if this somehow helps them.

The people of Lower Egypt would undoubtedly have mingled with the people of the Levant at the start of the Dynastic period, but it was the significantly more sophisticated, wealthier and far more powerful South that conquered the North [Narmer] and united the two lands that determined the political and cultural norms.

The South created the ancient Egyptian civilization; it was the South that created the written language; the powerful priestly class was centred in Waset -"Thebes"-; the population of ancient Egypt was concentrated in the South; invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern warrior-kings; the swampy Delta was nothing but a sparsely populated, fragmented backwater until the Southerners conquered it and built magnificent structures that have stood the test of time.

The famous Narmer palette shows him on one side wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and the other shows him wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt. It also shows the hawk emblem of Horus, the Upper Egyptian god of Nekhem, dominating the Lower Egypt personified papyrus marsh. From this, Narmer is believed to have unified Egypt."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/predynastic.htm

Here is the great ancestor of all indigenous Upper Egyptians and North Sudanese - Narmer:

[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/5e33cde4b79333a7f0e65c3c943eeced_zpsqvatgxvn.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by KING:
Sudaniya

Simply Beautiful Pictures.

God Bless You

---

Thanks, King.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
None of Sudaniya's photos are Egyptians. They're all Nubians and even have "Nubian" in the URLs.

No one disputes Nubians are black because they have dark brown skin hues. Egyptians though are lighter brown skinned.

Egyptian football team:


 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks.

---

Some of the art depicts Egyptaisn with reddish brown skin


Tutankhamun's burial throne



^^ this is not that reddish. Reddish doesn't matter as per your definition of black. A dark red could be less than 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer and it's obvious in the facial features the Egyptians were not homogenous.

The above Tutankhamun is probably under 50%

So why when you have been shown so much Egyptian art with clearly dark brown skin tone that is under 50%, do you keep insisting that all of them were a lighter non "black" skin tone ?

the color chart can be pulled out and this can be demonstrated in side by side comparisons with the art
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

You said it by implication

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.

---

^^^ You are saying it right here

You are saying the range of browns from 50% - 0 is black
(zero being actual black)

So you are suggesting by that that
the range of browns from 51% - 100%
is white

that is simple and clear logic extracted from your premise.
Otherwise you need to revise your premise, above you spell out a definition of black and you include a wide range or browns.
Then you should be able to make a similar definition of white as per spectrophotometer.

But you won't do that because it is too overt

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)

Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up. Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.

In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."

I more or less agree what Morton, Nott & Gliddon concluded in Types of Mankind about the biological affinities of the Egyptians:

"…Egyptians did present a type intermediate between other [Sub-Saharan] African and Asiatic races; and, should such be proved to have been the case, the autocthones of Egypt must cease to the designated by the misnomer of Caucasian." (p. 217)

---

quote:

---

Although the lineage containing this haplotype must have originated in Africa, C3 is rare in Africa (1.0% in MKK) but widely distributed in East Asia, the New World, and Oceania.

[...]

Frequencies display strong population differentiation, with the derived light skin pigmentation allele (A111T) fixed or nearly so in all European populations and the ancestral allele predominant in sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Lamason et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2007).

[...]

Phased haplotypes were retrieved from HapMap, Release 21. For phylogenetic analysis, graphs were drawn by the use of a sim- ple nearest-neighbor approach and rooted by the use of ancestral alleles determined by comparison with other primate sequences.

[...]

"Of the remaining 10 common core haplotype groups, all ancestral at rs1426654, eight clearly have their origins in Africa (Figure 3B, Figure 4, and Table S4). Three early diverging haplotypes, C1, C2, and C4, are rare outside of Africa and clearly originated there."

"In the lineage containing the majority of haplotypes, each of the three branches, containing C5, C6-C7, and C8-C11, give strong evidence of having originated in Africa. C5 reaches its greatest abundance in West Africa and is rare outside of Africa. Within the other two branches, C6 and C9, which are the most common haplotypes in Africa, are also common worldwide, whereas C7 is abundant in East Asia and much less common but widespread in Africa. "

[...]

Our dating for this haplotype is consistent with a non-African origin. The most likely location for the origin of C11 is, therefore, within the region in which it is fixed or nearly so. As both models for the origin of C11 imply that C3 and C10 were present in ancestors of Europeans, the observed and inferred distributions of these autosomal haplotypes are consistent with the single-out-of- Africa hypothesis derived using uniparental markers (Oppenheimer 2003; Macaulay et al. 2005).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

You said it by implication

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
All populations within the tropics score under 50% on a reflectance spectrophotometer (685 nm). So black would be someone who's skin reflects under 50% of visible light; this is the most objective definition, i.e. skin colour is measured by the percentages of the different wavelengths of light reflected. Modern Egyptians like other North Africans (Libyans, Algerians) score above 50% because they're at a higher latitude.

---

^^^ You are saying it right here

You are saying the range of browns from 50% - 0 is black
(zero being actual black)

So you are suggesting by that that
the range of browns from 51% - 100%
is white

that is simple and clear logic extracted from your premise.
Otherwise you need to revise your premise, above you spell out a definition of black and you include a wide range or browns.
Then you should be able to make a similar definition of white as per spectrophotometer.

But you won't do that because it is too overt

---

Jablonski & Chaplin (2000) divide the world into 3 UV/solar radiation zones (low, medium, high) that correspond to what they label "light", "moderate" and "dark" skin. The high UV zone mostly (but not entirely) overlaps the tropics as expected because that latitude gets the most intense sunlight; a sizable portion of Egypt falls outside of the high UV zone (again expected) since most of the modern boundary of Egypt is not inside the tropics (the whole ancient boundary was outside since the southern frontier moved).

I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.

The low UV zone i.e. "light" skin would correspond to people with "white" skin, but it only covers the northern segment of Europe in Jablonski's study. Southern Europeans fall in the medium UV zone and have faint light brown skin; the ancient Greeks contrasted their skin colour to lighter northern European peoples. This shows up with skin reflectance data in Jabolonski for example Netherlands and Germany score 66-67% while northern Spain (Leon) 64%, and we can estimate southern Spain 62%. So there's a 5% difference between Northern & Southern Europeans, and basically that's the difference between faint light brown skin and "white" skin with no brown tint.

I don't consider Egyptians to be white and have never stated this.

People who want to label all Europeans "white" are white nationalists. And people who want to label all Egyptians "black" are black nationalists. Opposite side of same coin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
A 2005 study by Afrocentric critic C. Loring Brace groups ancient Egyptian populations like the Naqada closer to Nubians and Somalis than European, Mediterranean or Middle Eastern populations. Brace also shows that where Europeans appear to link with Africans its OLDER Europeans that do so- Mesolithics, Neolithics etc. These looked like Africans because they derived from the Out Of Africa Migration(s) and thus retained some tropical characteristics before becoming tropically adapted over time. In fact, ancient Europeans are MORE SIMILAR to North Africans than to modern Europeans per Brace. The comparison is with dark-skinned people looking like Africans, who were living in old Europe, to dark-skinned Africans in Africa itself. (Brace, et al. The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 January 3; 103(1): p. 242-247. (doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509801102)

Craniometric studies also place ancient Upper Egyptian populations closer to populations in tropical Africa (the nearby Sudan) than to Mediterraneans, or Middle Easterners. (S.O.Y Keita, "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa," American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 83:35-48 (1990)

---

The Brace study is flawed, he only used 23 cranial measurements. Howells (1995) used 57 and his data shows the overwhelming majority of Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic skulls from Europe are closest to medieval/contemporary European populations.

And I'm in agreement with the Keita quote, yes - Upper Egyptians plot closer in craniometric studies to northern tropical African populations like Sudanese than east Mediterranean populations because of their geographical closeness. But this works both ways: Lower Egyptians are closer to east Mediterranean populations than Sudanese. The problem with Afrocentrists is they ignore the latter. All studies on the Gizeh and Sedment crania though show them closer to Levant/Aegean than any tropical African population.

---

Lower Egyptians originated in Africa itself. You need to stop making up alternative facts.







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

-- A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2 Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"
Materials and Methods

https://www.academia.edu/8742479/Melanin_Dosage_Tests_Ancient_Egyptians_DRAFT_


http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10520290500051146
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

quote:

---

Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.

In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:


I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.

---

Seti I



Tutankhamun

^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above.
The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black
--and there are thousands of examples of art like this
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
The Ju Hoan khoisan skin tone is generally "Light" compared to Other Sub Saharan Africans. It has a golden tone that is VERY typical.

---

Khoisan tribes score 40-50% on a reflectance spectroscopter (685 nm), but yes, they are lighter skinned than other Sub-Saharan groups who fall between 20-40%. My argument though is the ancient Egyptians would match modern groups at their latitude at 50-60% such as Berber groups, while Europeans are 60-70% and are obviously lighter skinned than ancient Egyptians.

---

These percentages would at most discuss averages then, not what's physically possible for a population of related people. The picture of the San woman I showed earlier is just as light as those two Berber women. San may not produce it as much, but they're very capable of producing it:



The majority of Egyptian art doesn't support AE being very light. Some could've been, but a skin tone as light as those Berbers doesn't seem to be average. I'd caution against going too long into discussing skin tones because it doesn't even really matter what their skin color was even if the average had been that light. People can still be closely biologically/genetically related while having regional or local distinction. Ngwa Yellow/Red hued Igbo have had local variations, but they are not more closely related to other African groups with lighter skin than they are other black skinned Igbo. The race/African identity of Egypt is not determined by skin.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
There is absolutely no need to engage with that pathological liar; I made my posts entirely for the benefit of third party observers - specifically Africans and the diaspora. The opinions of a cretin and a troll are beyond irrelevant. The opinion (s) of all contemporary Europeans in relation to African history is irrelevant.

The facts speak for themselves and do not require any form of validation - especially not from them; impart the truth to our own and they can continue to distort to their hearts content.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[The opinion (s) of all contemporary Europeans in relation to African history is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[The opinion (s) of all contemporary Europeans in relation to African history is irrelevant.

---

what about Arabs?

---

The Arab identity is linguistically contingent. Arabs are not an ethnic group or a racial group and so you have to start with this understanding before posing such a question. The indigenous people of Egypt in the South may consider themselves Egyptian Arabs (as do some Sudanese groups) so some indigenous people that identify as Arabs are of tremendous importance and must be treated with respect and regard.

The other Arabs are irrelevant with regard to African history. All others are irrelevant in relation to African history. There is certainly a place for engaging with those non-Africans that are receptive to objective evidence, however, seeking the validation of non-Africans is demeaning, pathetic and unwarranted; they either accept objective material evidence or be dismissed and ignored.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
Sudaniya is posting photos of Nubians/Sudanese, but saying they are Egyptians. But he didn't check the URLs he's posting ; they have "Nubian" and "Nubian girls" in their titles. Egyptians are not black - so he's spamming photos of darker skinned Nubians while titling them Egyptians trying to fool people. He's just discredited himself.

Also, the ancient Greek term Afrocentrists translate as "black skin" is highly ambiguous; as classicist Alan B. Lloyd notes: "Melanchroes could denote any colour from bronzed to black". When it is used to describe ancient Egyptians, it refers to a light brown/bronze complexion because ancient Greeks likened the Egyptian skin hue to north Indians.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:


I don't think populations who fall in the medium UV radiation zone with "moderate" skin are "white". For example North African populations such as Berber groups and the Egyptians would fall in the "moderate" skin category - light brown to reddish-brown. They score between 50 and 60% skin reflectance.

---

Seti I



Tutankhamun

^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above.
The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black
--and there are thousands of examples of art like this
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Sudaniya is posting photos of Nubians/Sudanese, but saying they are Egyptians. But he didn't check the URLs he's posting ; they have "Nubian" and "Nubian girls" in their titles. Egyptians are not black - so he's spamming photos of darker skinned Nubians while titling them Egyptians trying to fool people. He's just discredited himself.

---

Even if some are Nubian, why would it be a problem? Y'know I'm just curious...but would you think someone whose about 1/4th Maasai (and let's say 3/4ths non African) serves as a better representative of the average Maasai than say related Nilotic peoples like the Samburu? Because what you're suggesting is that highly admixed descendants are better representations of what Egypt would've been like than groups that didn't mix as much, and were closely related.

QUOTE:
"Morphological and genetic research seems to provide further support for the topic. According to Grigson (1991, 2000) Egyptian cattle of the 4th millennium BC were morphologically distinct from Eurasian cattle (Bos taurus) and Zebu (Bos indicus), meaning that African cattle may have been domesticated from the local wild Bos primigenius before the aforementioned date.... The zoological, genetic and linguistic studies thus not only suggest an African origin for cattle domestication, but also provide a precise time frame and geographicallocation which, generally speaking, fits well with that proposed by the CPE (Combined Prehistoric Expedition). A further element which might give support to the matter comes from the archaeological record, namely the pottery.

To sum up, Nubia is Egypt’s African ancestor. What linked Ancient Egypt to the rest of the North African cultures is this strong tie with the Nubian pastoral nomadic lifestyle, the same pastoral background commonly shared by most of the ancient Saharan and modern sub-Saharan societies. Thus, not only did Nubia have a prominent role in the origin of Ancient Egypt, it was also a key area for the origin of the entire African pastoral tradition."
--Gatto M. 2009. The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa A View from the Archaeological Record. British Archaelogical Reports: Egypt in its African Context: BAR S2204- Archaeopress. 21-29


"Genetic continuum of the Nubians with
their kin in southern Egypt is indicated
by comparable frequencies of E-V12 the
predominant M78 subclade among
southern Egyptians."
[Hassan et al. Y-chromosome
variation.." Am J. Phy Anthro. v137,3.
316-323

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese."
S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments
on Ancient Egyptian Biological
Relationships," History in Africa 20
(1993) 129-54

"A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at Predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently non-elite cemeteries and that the non-elite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the
high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring
populations in southern Egypt. "

T. Prowse, and N. Lovell "Concordance
of cranial and dental morphological traits
and evidence for endogamy in ancient
Egypt" American journal of physical
anthropology. 1996, vol. 101, no2, pp.
237-246 (2 p.1/4)

Meanwhile modern Egyptians (especially towards the North) have been especially mixed since the Islamic expansion. They're accurate picture of how khemet would've looked like? I'm sure people that looked like modern Egyptians were there, but not as commonplace. The level of mixture we see in Modern Egypt wasn't like that in ancient times.



 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Oshun

You are dealing with a mentally ill troll with no intelligence or reasoning capacity.

Everybody is free to check the URLs; the pictures are all from Luxor, Edfu, Kom Ombo and Esna. The troll is a pathological liar and is projecting his vices onto others. The pictures (perhaps with the exception of just one) show indigenous black Egyptians in Luxor, Esna , Edfu and Kom Ombo. I excluded the 'Nubians' of Aswan but that was a mistake considering that they are descendants of the 12th Dynasty and can never be excluded from their cousins in Upper Egypt. The 'Nubian's are acknowledged as ethnically the closest people to Egypt and stem from a common origin with ancient Egyptians tens of thousands of years into the past.

The people of Aswan have infinitely greater claims to Pharaonic Egypt than any person in Cairo and Alexandre.

The 12th Dynasty originated in Aswan - where the "Nubians" reside; and it is this dynasty that completed the expulsion of Asiatic invaders. Perhaps the dunce would like to argue to Egyptologists that Senusret I and his dynasty were not Egyptians.

The people of Aswan are descendants of this great Pharaoh and of the illustrious 12th Dynasty... they are descendants of the Pharaohs.

the XIIth Dynasty (1991-1786 B.C.E.) originated from the Aswan region. As
expected, strong Nubian features and
dark coloring are seen in their sculpture
and relief work. This dynasty ranks as
among the greatest, whose fame far
outlived its actual tenure on the throne.
Especially interesting, it was a member of
this dynasty- that decreed that no Nehsy
(riverine Nubian of the principality of
Kush), except such as came for trade or
diplomatic reasons, should pass by the
Egyptian fortress at the southern end of
the Second Nile Cataract. Why would
this royal family of Nubian ancestry ban
other Nubians from coming into
Egyptian territory? Because the Egyptian
rulers of Nubian ancestry had become
Egyptians culturally; as pharaohs, they
exhibited typical Egyptian attitudes and
adopted typical Egyptian policies."

- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)


" Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the
late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150
B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same
culture as the Egyptians and even
evolved the same pharaonic political
structure."
- (F. J. Yurco, 'Were the ancient
Egyptians black or white?', Biblical
Archaeology Review (Vol 15, no. 5,
1989)


There is now a sufficient body of
evidence from modern studies of skeletal
remains to indicate that the ancient
Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians,
exhibited physical characteristics that are
within the range of variation for ancient
and modern indigenous peoples of the
Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general,
the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and
Nubia had the greatest biological affinity
to people of the Sahara and more
southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, "
Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and
New York: Routledge, 1999) pp
328-332)

and

"must be placed in the context of
hypotheses informed by archaeological,
linguistic, geographic and other data. In
such contexts, the physical
anthropological evidence indicates that
early Nile Valley populations can be
identified as part of an African lineage,
but exhibiting local variation. This
variation represents the short and long
term effects of evolutionary forces, such
as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural
selection, influenced by culture and
geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, "
Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in
Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of
Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and
New York: Routledge, 1999). pp
328-332)


"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. . (Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

Which fits in very nicely with this:

Diodorus Siculus: "The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies, which was led into Egypt by Osiris, which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent."


Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he will join the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns) Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt .


Ammianus Marcellinus: " the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look.

Glorious Pharaoh Senusret I
















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/50175611.jpg.html]


I see black people.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
Even if we were to accept the falsehood that Lower Egyptians were essentially Eurasians, the retarded troll doesn't seem to realise that this is a non-starter; he doesn't seem to realise that since ancient Upper Egyptians were closely related to 'Nubians' (irrefutable fact) that he's already lost. It was the significantly more sophisticated, wealthier and far more powerful South that conquered the North [Narmer] and united the two lands that determined the political and cultural norms.

The South created the ancient Egyptian civilization; it was the South that created the written language; the powerful priestly class was centred in Waset -"Thebes"-; the population of ancient Egypt was concentrated in the South; invaders were almost invariably expelled by Southern warrior-kings; the swampy Delta was nothing but a sparsely populated, fragmented backwater until the Southerners conquered it and built magnificent structures that have stood the test of time.

The famous Narmer palette shows him on one side wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt, and the other shows him wearing the red crown of Lower Egypt. It also shows the hawk emblem of Horus, the Upper Egyptian god of Nekhem, dominating the Lower Egypt personified papyrus marsh. From this, Narmer is believed to have unified Egypt."

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/predynastic.htm

sample populations available from
northern Egypt from before the 1st
Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi
Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline
variation along the Nile valley it did not,
from this limited evidence, continue
smoothly on into southern Palestine. The
limb-length proportions of males from
the Egyptian sites group them with
Africans rather than with Europeans."
(Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy
of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p.
52-60)


Karl Butzer has estimated that two areas of greatest population
density in dyanstic times were between Luxor{Waset} and Aswan
{Elephantine}
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
To quote one of my favourite posters:

The reference to Black skinned and woolly haired Egyptians has been translated as such in Herodutus Histories not only by Rawlinson, but Aubrey De Selincourt and most others and indeed, I am unaware of any African translation of Herodotus the Histories. The idea that "Black skinned and woolly haired" is an "Afrocentric" interpretation is therefore a non-starter.

And the notion of intepreting Herodotus in some other way (where Black does not mean "Black" is largely a sop to Eurocentric political correctness and disingenuousness- re-writing the Histories.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 















[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/08011038_zpsqjoxiq0t.jpg.html]
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 

(actually taken in Pakistan, but she is from a Thar Desert ethnicity)

LARGE image







These are the only Northern Indians that approach the skin tone of Upper Egyptians.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Sudaniya is posting photos of Nubians/Sudanese, but saying they are Egyptians. But he didn't check the URLs he's posting ; they have "Nubian" and "Nubian girls" in their titles. Egyptians are not black - so he's spamming photos of darker skinned Nubians while titling them Egyptians trying to fool people. He's just discredited himself.

Also, the ancient Greek term Afrocentrists translate as "black skin" is highly ambiguous; as classicist Alan B. Lloyd notes: "Melanchroes could denote any colour from bronzed to black". When it is used to describe ancient Egyptians, it refers to a light brown/bronze complexion because ancient Greeks likened the Egyptian skin hue to north Indians.

---

quote:

---

"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).

These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."

---

quote:

---

The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002).

[...]

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants

[...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

But it would incorrect to infer Eurocentrism hasn't existed within "Egyptology" just because people didn't argue Egyptians had a white complexion. As you saw in one of the people here that I'd quoted, they were trying to suggest that while not typical of Europeans, they had features that were possible for Europeans to have. With buzzwords like "Eurasian" or "Caucasoid" to replace "Caucasian," Eurocentrics have attempted to be more subtle, but Eurocentrism hasn't gone away. Eurocentrism will briefly and arbitrarily extend it's identity to be more inclusive in certain areas it has to (like in academia). But such extensions have no basis in the real world.

Historically, Eurocentrism and white supremacist attitudes have been intertwined. The diffusion model is the latest attempt at minimizing Egypt's African identity to preserve the same white supremacist interests. When they suggest that "Eurasians" or foreign "Caucasoids" mixed with "real" Africans (significantly), the implication is the same theme of African dependence. This time, the theme is geared towards making Africa appear highly dependent on a foreign (and fictional) group that's identity can be extended to Europe. While white supremacists would prefer to discuss Egypt as Eurocentrically as possible, even if they can't do so overtly, as long as it's not a "black thing" they will live. That would be enough to satiate their political agendas. This slick sh!t is not lost on researchers.


--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)

--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters)
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012

quote:

---

Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.

In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."

---

You said no one argued they were white. Taking back a point of view doesn't erase the prior beliefs they'd held from history. Eurocentrics like I said use words like "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" to create groups that are socially irrelevant, but academically place them near Khemet's history.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
To quote one of my favourite posters:

The reference to Black skinned and woolly haired Egyptians has been translated as such in Herodutus Histories not only by Rawlinson, but Aubrey De Selincourt and most others and indeed, I am unaware of any African translation of Herodotus the Histories. The idea that "Black skinned and woolly haired" is an "Afrocentric" interpretation is therefore a non-starter.

And the notion of intepreting Herodotus in some other way (where Black does not mean "Black" is largely a sop to Eurocentric political correctness and disingenuousness- re-writing the Histories.

---

Because those scholars are/were not experts in ancient Greek colour. The experts do not automatically translate melas as black and leukos as white. An example is the Iliad. 20. 496 where barley is described as leukos.



Does this look white to you?
Leukos ranges from chalk-white to a faint light brown like barley [in context this would explain Greek leukos-armed godesses, not as pale-white but a faint brown]. Similarly we find melas used to describe things that are not pitch-black or dark brown, but shades that are lighter brown. but experts who examine this stuff in better context of ancient Greek colour terminology are "Eurocentrists"...
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 


The word melanchroes (not melas) was used to describe the ancient Egyptians and has been rightly translated as black, much to your chagrin. The Upper Egyptians were the dominant majority and they looked like this, so keep telling yourself that these people were not black, so that we can all continue to laugh at your desperate stupidity.




[URL=http://s525.photobucket.com/user/kushkemet08/media/268_Egypt_Tiye.jpg.html]

Ammianus Marcellinus: " the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look.

There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.


You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
To quote one of my favourite posters:

The reference to Black skinned and woolly haired Egyptians has been translated as such in Herodutus Histories not only by Rawlinson, but Aubrey De Selincourt and most others and indeed, I am unaware of any African translation of Herodotus the Histories. The idea that "Black skinned and woolly haired" is an "Afrocentric" interpretation is therefore a non-starter.

And the notion of intepreting Herodotus in some other way (where Black does not mean "Black" is largely a sop to Eurocentric political correctness and disingenuousness- re-writing the Histories.

---

Because those scholars are/were not experts in ancient Greek colour. The experts do not automatically translate melas as black and leukos as white. An example is the Iliad. 20. 496 where barley is described as leukos.



Does this look white to you?
Leukos ranges from chalk-white to a faint light brown like barley [in context this would explain Greek leukos-armed godesses, not as pale-white but a faint brown]. Similarly we find melas used to describe things that are not pitch-black or dark brown, but shades that are lighter brown. but experts who examine this stuff in better context of ancient Greek colour terminology are "Eurocentrists"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

There is no such thing as "Eurocentrism": the Asiatic/Dynastic race theories and Hamiticism do not say migrants from Europe created ancient Egyptian civilization, but peoples from Southwest Asia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

But it would incorrect to infer Eurocentrism hasn't existed within "Egyptology" just because people didn't argue Egyptians had a white complexion. As you saw in one of the people here that I'd quoted, they were trying to suggest that while not typical of Europeans, they had features that were possible for Europeans to have. With buzzwords like "Eurasian" or "Caucasoid" to replace "Caucasian," Eurocentrics have attempted to be more subtle, but Eurocentrism hasn't gone away. Eurocentrism will briefly and arbitrarily extend it's identity to be more inclusive in certain areas it has to (like in academia). But such extensions have no basis in the real world.

Historically, Eurocentrism and white supremacist attitudes have been intertwined. The diffusion model is the latest attempt at minimizing Egypt's African identity to preserve the same white supremacist interests. When they suggest that "Eurasians" or foreign "Caucasoids" mixed with "real" Africans (significantly), the implication is the same theme of African dependence. This time, the theme is geared towards making Africa appear highly dependent on a foreign (and fictional) group that's identity can be extended to Europe. While white supremacists would prefer to discuss Egypt as Eurocentrically as possible, even if they can't do so overtly, as long as it's not a "black thing" they will live. That would be enough to satiate their political agendas. This slick sh!t is not lost on researchers.


--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)

--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters)
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012

quote:

---

Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.

In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."

---

You said no one argued they were white. Taking back a point of view doesn't erase the prior beliefs they'd held from history. Eurocentrics like I said use words like "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" to create groups that are socially irrelevant, but academically place them near Khemet's history.

---

There is no such thing as "Eurocentrism": the Asiatic/Dynastic race theories and Hamiticism do not say migrants from Europe created ancient Egyptian civilization, but peoples from Southwest Asia. And as I keep repeating, no one has ever said ancient Egyptians were white skinned; this is a straw man Afrocentrists like Doug set up.

Furthermore, I dispute the Asiatic/Dynastic race theories and Hamiticism have anything to do with racism. They trace back to Biblical thinking, i.e. Old Testament geneology. Same for the tripartite "Caucasoid"/"Negroid"/"Mongoloid" racial division - invented to match Noah's three sons (Cuvier) and in Blumenbach Caucasoids (Caucasians) are archetypal (i.e. the original or progenitor race everyone else sprung from) because the Caucasus mountains was where he thought Noah's Ark landed.

"the term “Caucasoid” traces back to the Old Testament story of Noah”s Ark"
- Takezawa Y: Problems with the terms: “Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid” and “Negroid”. Zinbun. 2011, 43: 61-68

---

""the term “Caucasoid” traces back to the Old Testament story of Noah”s Ark"

Where in the Torah is the word Caucasoid written?

SHOW IT!!!


The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors





http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergi_bernal/2359958575/in/set-72157603132968848/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergi_bernal/2475694262/in/set-72157603132968848/
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
[qb] Problem is afrocentrists (esp. doug) keep setting up the straw man that "eurocentrics" (who don't even exist - no one has ever claimed Europeans founded Early Dynastic Egypt) state the Egyptians were "white".

---

" Egypt progressed, and why, because it was Caucasian."

Campbell 1851, p. 10–12.

In 1854, Josiah C. Nott with George Glidden saod "the Caucasian or white, and the Negro races were distinct at a very remote date, and that the Egyptians were Caucasians."

Baum 2006, p. 108

Please do better about your claims, this could be found with a basic wiki search. Today, Eurocentrics don't as often say words like "Caucasian" directly, but will use buzzwords like "Caucasoid" and "Negroid" or "Eurasians" to low key inject themselves into the conversation.

---

Morton, Nott & Gliddon described the Egyptians as reddish-brown skinned and darker than Greeks. My point was no anthropologist has ever said Egyptians had a white complexion; this is a straw man Doug sets up.

---

But it would incorrect to infer Eurocentrism hasn't existed within "Egyptology" just because people didn't argue Egyptians had a white complexion. As you saw in one of the people here that I'd quoted, they were trying to suggest that while not typical of Europeans, they had features that were possible for Europeans to have. With buzzwords like "Eurasian" or "Caucasoid" to replace "Caucasian," Eurocentrics have attempted to be more subtle, but Eurocentrism hasn't gone away. Eurocentrism will briefly and arbitrarily extend it's identity to be more inclusive in certain areas it has to (like in academia). But such extensions have no basis in the real world.

Historically, Eurocentrism and white supremacist attitudes have been intertwined. The diffusion model is the latest attempt at minimizing Egypt's African identity to preserve the same white supremacist interests. When they suggest that "Eurasians" or foreign "Caucasoids" mixed with "real" Africans (significantly), the implication is the same theme of African dependence. This time, the theme is geared towards making Africa appear highly dependent on a foreign (and fictional) group that's identity can be extended to Europe. While white supremacists would prefer to discuss Egypt as Eurocentrically as possible, even if they can't do so overtly, as long as it's not a "black thing" they will live. That would be enough to satiate their political agendas. This slick sh!t is not lost on researchers.


--"We can REJECT a simple model of long-term continuous gene flow between the Near East(QATAR/ARABIA) and North Africa" (contradicting simplistic claims of hordes of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa)

--"Maghrebi populations do not represent a large-scale demic diffusion of agropastoralists from the Near East/Arabia." (again debunking simplistic claims of "Middle Easterners" flowing into Africa to "tutor" the natives- a staple claim in some quarters)
Genomic Ancestry of North Africans Supports Back-to-Africa Migrations. Henn et. Al 2012

quote:

---

Also I would not label Morton, Nott or Gliddon "Eurocentrists". They actually changed their views to argue ancient Egyptians were native Saharan Africans, not a colony of Asiatics or Indo-Arabians as Morton formerly argued.

In 1854, Nott & Gliddon (Types of Mankind, p. 232) quote a letter Morton wrote in 1850: "You allude to my altered view in Ethnology, but it consists in regarding the Egyptian race as indigenous people of the valley of the Nile. Not Asiatics in any sense of the word, but autochthones of the country and the authors of their own civilization." Nott & Gliddon also modified their views to support Morton. In another letter Morton wrote: " recant so much of my published opinions as respects the origin of the Egyptians. The never came from Asia, but are the indigenous or aboriginal inhabitants of the valley of the Nile."

---

You said no one argued they were white. Taking back a point of view doesn't erase the prior beliefs they'd held from history. Eurocentrics like I said use words like "Caucasoid" or "Eurasian" to create groups that are socially irrelevant, but academically place them near Khemet's history.

---

There is no such thing as "Eurocentrism": the Asiatic/Dynastic race theories and Hamiticism do not say migrants from Europe created ancient Egyptian civilization, but peoples from Southwest Asia. And as I keep repeating, no one has ever said ancient Egyptians were white skinned; this is a straw man Afrocentrists like Doug set up.

Furthermore, I dispute the Asiatic/Dynastic race theories and Hamiticism have anything to do with racism. They trace back to Biblical thinking, i.e. Old Testament geneology. Same for the tripartite "Caucasoid"/"Negroid"/"Mongoloid" racial division - invented to match Noah's three sons (Cuvier) and in Blumenbach Caucasoids (Caucasians) are archetypal (i.e. the original or progenitor race everyone else sprung from) because the Caucasus mountains was where he thought Noah's Ark landed.

"the term “Caucasoid” traces back to the Old Testament story of Noah”s Ark"
- Takezawa Y: Problems with the terms: “Caucasoid”, “Mongoloid” and “Negroid”. Zinbun. 2011, 43: 61-68

---

quote:

---

CAUCASIAN RACE HYPOTHESIS
In 1844, Samuel George Morton, one of the pioneers of scientific racialism and polygenism, published his book Crania Aegyptica with the intention of proving that the Ancient Egyptians were not black.[103] In 1855 George Gliddon and Josiah C. Nott published Types of Mankind with the same intention.[104] All three authors concluded that Egyptians were intermediate between the African and Asiatic races. They acknowledged that Negroes were present in ancient Egypt but claimed they were either captives or servants.[105] George Gliddon in his book Ancient Egypt: Her monuments, hieroglyphics, history and archaeology (1844) wrote: "The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."[106] However, it is now largely agreed that Dynastic Egyptians were indigenous to the Nile area, in Africa.

---

https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/the-samuel-george-morton-cranial-collection/









 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Anyone familiar with the context, source or supplementary commentary/literature to go along with this image?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
To quote one of my favourite posters:

The reference to Black skinned and woolly haired Egyptians has been translated as such in Herodutus Histories not only by Rawlinson, but Aubrey De Selincourt and most others and indeed, I am unaware of any African translation of Herodotus the Histories. The idea that "Black skinned and woolly haired" is an "Afrocentric" interpretation is therefore a non-starter.

And the notion of intepreting Herodotus in some other way (where Black does not mean "Black" is largely a sop to Eurocentric political correctness and disingenuousness- re-writing the Histories.

---

Because those scholars are/were not experts in ancient Greek colour. The experts do not automatically translate melas as black and leukos as white. An example is the Iliad. 20. 496 where barley is described as leukos.



Does this look white to you?
Leukos ranges from chalk-white to a faint light brown like barley [in context this would explain Greek leukos-armed godesses, not as pale-white but a faint brown]. Similarly we find melas used to describe things that are not pitch-black or dark brown, but shades that are lighter brown. but experts who examine this stuff in better context of ancient Greek colour terminology are "Eurocentrists"…

---

quote:

---

Herodotus (c. 484 – 425/413 BCE) was a writer who invented the field of study known today as `history’.

---

quote:

---

Outside influence and admixture with extra- regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).

---

quote:

---

“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

And I don't see what your problem is with Nott & Gliddon's conclusion that Egyptians plot intermediate as a gradient between Sub-Saharan Africans and Asiatics. That's what modern craniometric and genetic data supports, its also plain common-sense if you look at the geographical position of Egypt.

---

The problem is when someone writes The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician that this is patently false and you yourself said they weren't white. There is no need to speculate and obfuscate with semantics and terminology there is a massive amount of art where you can see the skin tone. Much of it is dark brown not light brown. You choose to ignore it, that is dishonest.



Seti I



Tutankhamun
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


The word melanchroes (not melas) was used to describe the ancient Egyptians and has been rightly translated as black, much to your chagrin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

And I don't see what your problem is with Nott & Gliddon's conclusion that Egyptians plot intermediate as a gradient between Sub-Saharan Africans and Asiatics. That's what modern craniometric and genetic data supports, its also plain common-sense if you look at the geographical position of Egypt.

---

LOL @ this retard.






Reconstruction of Phoenician from Achziv, Israel

http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/publications.asp





Head of a Syrian
KhM 3896a
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4906





Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896b
TILE; RAMESSES III/USERMAATRE-MERIAMUN

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4907






Head of a Beduin from Syria
KhM 3896c
TILE; NEW KINGDOM

http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=4908


"The Phoenicians likely referred to themselves as Canaanites."


A Syrian mercenary drinking beer in the company of his Egyptian wife and child, c. 1350 BC. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis




http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2010/oct/27/old-ale-beer-history
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above.
The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black
--and there are thousands of examples of art like this [/QB]

---

I don't normally do picture spams, but look how easy it is to finder lighter brown shades in the art-
















 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
What it the above supposed to prove?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


The word melanchroes (not melas) was used to describe the ancient Egyptians and has been rightly translated as black, much to your chagrin.

---

The suffix chroes/chros means skin, while melan/melas refers to a dark colour range; it is not limited to black. And the first appearance of the word melanchroos in classical literature (Homer) is describing Odysseus (a native Greek from Ithaca), not a black.

To quote the classicist W.E.Gladstone-

"Oyusseus, on his restoration to beauty by Athene, becomes melanchroos (Od. xvi. 171). The melanchroos [p.377] of his herald, in Od. xix. 245, does not seem to bear any different sense. Homer's melas means dark rather than black, and is itself but indefinite; we are obliged to take these words as referring to an olive complexion."

---

quote:

---

Were the ancient Greeks and Romans colour blind?

Wednesday 19 February 2014 11:50AM


Homer left historians with the impression that the ancient Greeks and Romans had an underdeveloped appreciation of colour. The ancients, in fact, were a shade more sophisticated than that and understood colour in a completely different way to us, argues Mark Bradley

Gladstone noted that Homer actually uses very few colour terms, that black and white predominate, and that he uses the same colours to describe objects which look quite different.


According to Bradley, the Greeks viewed chroma (in Latin color) as essentially the visible outermost shell of an object. So a table wouldn't be brown, it was wood-coloured. A window would be glass-coloured. Hair would be hair-coloured, skin would be skin-coloured. 'They wouldn't talk in terms of the abstract colours that we are used to today.'

The term 'synaesthetic' can be used to broadly describe the different kind of association that the ancient Greeks made between the five senses. 'If colours are the external manifestations of objects, then the perception of that colour can tap into other ideas such as smell, liquidity, saturation, touch, texture.'

In what we would tend to think of as purely visual, the ancient Greeks brought other senses into play. 'In antiquity, in pre-modern societies, there is much more capacity for the way you describe the world to tap into several different senses simultaneously,' says Bradley.

So what of Homer's wine-dark sea (oinops pontos)? Bradley describes this as antiquity's best-known colour problem and one that's given rise to various theories. One interpretation is that it describes the sea at sunset when it's a sort of fiery red. Another interpretation hold that it's an allusion to a now obsolete type of French wine called le petit bleu or le gros bleu, a blue wine, which, if it even existed in antiquity, might explain the metaphor.

---

—Amanda Smith

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bodysphere/features/5267698


So, tell how did Homer describe these?









 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

^^ this is what you mean by "moderate" not black skin tone , all of the three above.
The problem is that they are all far from above 50% for skin reflectance as we can see on any chart that gradates white to black
--and there are thousands of examples of art like this

---

I don't normally do picture spams, but look how easy it is to finder lighter brown shades in the art-

---

You have a scribes posted and some scribes were Asiatic

Try finding some pharaohs of lighter shade.


Seti I



Tutankhamun

There is a variety of skin tones depicted yet you deny the darks ones and there are so many thousands of them
-and the pharaohs are most commonly depicted mid to dark brown not light
But will you admit to it?
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
^And eventually, the dark and the lighter complexioned are of the same abstract. This is what science tells us.

In JoshuaConnerLoon's deplorable mind there was a color barrier. SMH

You have been on this for years and where has it got you? In a position of being ridiculed. Seek another hobby.








 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
[QB] ^And eventually, the dark and the lighter complexioned are of the same abstract. This is what science tells us.

---

If you look at the wide variety of features the population does not look homogenous.
DNA tests performed on Egyptian remains have been very few
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 

note the first registrar see the brown and definitely Black skinned men..well those are Phoenicians.

And when you say llte brown are you including this Phonecian


Or this guy

Now Iam sure you would just love to label this guy a Nubian,maybe he is a descendant of one or perhaps not, but what we do know is ppl like him were no strangers or foreigners to the area, matter of fact they were present as far back as the Natufian days, now I am not gonna argue that they all looked like the above all the time, and if I take a second look at the registrar the much darker types seemed to a significant but still a minority.

High yella type.

Darkish brown type.

A very lite skinned type although with heavy features, possible a north Syrian..all are Phoenicians and their off spring the Carthaginians showed just as much variety in other art forms..point is there were no one way to be Phoenician or other Levantine.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
^And eventually, the dark and the lighter complexioned are of the same abstract. This is what science tells us.

---

If you look at the wide variety of features the population does not look homogenous.
DNA tests performed on Egyptian remains have been very few

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:
[QB]
note the first registrar see the brown and definitely Black skinned men..well those are Phoenicians.

---

close up top row, they are not Phoenicians, they are believed to be from Punt, note the baboons
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 
"they are believed to be from Punt".

Could be, and ironically there are in the same color variety.

quote:

---

English: The tomb of Rekhmire the vizier, the highest ranking official under the pharaohs Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II (New Kingdom) during a period when Egypt’s empire stretched to its farthest extent and was at the peek of her prosperity. Representation from foreigners, bringing trades, tibutes and taxes to the tomb owner.

• The people of Punt who bring incense trees, baboons, monkeys and animal hides.

• The people of Kefti (probably Crete), carrying pots and cubs.

• The Kushites (Nubians) who bring animals of equatorial Africa (giraffes, leopards, baboons, monkeys and dogs), offering ivory, animal hides and gold.

• People from Syria

• Slaves

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:


The word melanchroes (not melas) was used to describe the ancient Egyptians and has been rightly translated as black, much to your chagrin.

---

The suffix chroes/chros means skin, while melan/melas refers to a dark colour range; it is not limited to black. And the first appearance of the word melanchroos in classical literature (Homer) is describing Odysseus (a native Greek from Ithaca), not a black.

To quote the classicist W.E.Gladstone-

"Oyusseus, on his restoration to beauty by Athene, becomes melanchroos (Od. xvi. 171). The melanchroos [p.377] of his herald, in Od. xix. 245, does not seem to bear any different sense. Homer's melas means dark rather than black, and is itself but indefinite; we are obliged to take these words as referring to an olive complexion."

---

I see plenty of black folks here. Not all of them of course.....but plenty of them. I have been to Egypt. If you go to Egypt with the idea that no black people exist.....you are going to be disappointed and NOT because you find Nubians. You will be equally disappointed when you step into Ethiopia looking for caucasoids.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=QnyCGiwGGSQ
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
They're not black they're Hamitic
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 

Note the national dress,puntities do not dress like that, these people appears to be Phoenician nationals, that they or their ancestors ultimately came from further south is a given, black folks of that Phenotype are not strangers to the region that they maintained trade links with folks further south,goes back to the Ta-Seti finds.
Also these guys were not bringing the ivory and Baboons to the Phoenicians proper but to Ramses.

This man of a later period is a continuation.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
The tomb of vizier Rekhmire, ca. 1450 BCE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

Note the national dress,puntities do not dress like that,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Thread's a poor ripoff of the 3 yr old ESR original

Grand Procession pt1 (link)

where I made one image from Hoskins' 4 parts and
the identity question was answered and xlation
of hieroglyphs were given in the 3rd to last post.
Unfortunately Arara Sabalu deleted all his contributions.

quote:

---

Getting back on topic ...

The inscription in the upper right corner of the entire painting
explicitly names only three tributaries -- Punt, Retenu, Keftiu
-- being the 1st, 4th, and 2nd registers respectively.

As for the 3rd and 5th registers the selfsame inscription only
says they are from the "south country" and "all countries"
beholden to Tuthmosis III.




Except for the far top right the hieroglyphics are too small to read
for the most part and zooming in only makes it even harder to see.

According to Hodel-Hoenes & Warburton
register 1: the prince of Punt
register 2: princes of Crete and Mediterranean islands
register 3: princes of southern lands and the Antiu (cavern dwellers)
register 4: princes of Retenu and northern lands clear to the far north
register 5: captive children of southern and northern lands for workshops

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ not the actual wall painting however, a copy redone on paper by a modern illustrator

---

Tomb of Rekhmire

https://youtu.be/brgKjehOHVU



 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:
Anyone familiar with the context, source or supplementary commentary/literature to go along with this image?

---

---

This is an illustration from the Noah Webster’s dictionary of 1828.





NOAH Webster is called the “Father of American Scholarship and Education.” His name is synonymous with the textbook on American language – the dictionary.


http://nypost.com/2006/10/16/noah-webster-father-of-the-dictionary/
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
^ Note the illustration for Caucasian lower left
 

---

Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
The tomb of vizier Rekhmire, ca. 1450 BCE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

Note the national dress,puntities do not dress like that,

---

Yes they do dress like that and if they didn't that doesn't make them Phoenicians. You will have to do better with visual references supporting your two claims
a) punt garment example
b) phoenician garment example

---

Punt garment example note they dressed in a similar fashion to other Nile valley folks, the repo of the registrar labeled them along with their brown skinned nationals as belonging to the same nation, it is us moderns who want to see them as apart from the others based off what they appeared to look like.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ Note the illustration for Caucasian lower left

---

quote:

---

Upon Webster's death in 1843, the unsold books and all rights to the copyright and name "Webster" were purchased by brothers George and Charles Merriam, who then hired Webster's son-in-law Chauncey A. Goodrich, a professor at Yale College, to oversee revisions. Goodrich's New and Revised Edition appeared on 24 September 1847, and a Revised and Enlarged edition in 1859, which added a section of illustrations indexed to the text. His revisions remained close to Webster's work, but removed what later editors referred to as his "vexcrescences".

In 1850, Blackie and Son in Glasgow published the first general dictionary of English that made heavy use of pictorial illustrations integrated with the text, The Imperial Dictionary, English, Technological, and Scientific, Adapted to the Present State of Literature, Science, and Art; On the Basis of Webster's English Dictionary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
The tomb of vizier Rekhmire, ca. 1450 BCE

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brada-Anansi:

Note the national dress,puntities do not dress like that,

---

Yes they do dress like that and if they didn't that doesn't make them Phoenicians. You will have to do better with visual references supporting your two claims
a) punt garment example
b) phoenician garment example

---

Punt garment example note they dressed in a similar fashion to other Nile valley folks, the repo of the registrar labeled them along with their brown skinned nationals as belonging to the same nation, it is us moderns who want to see them as apart from the others based off what they appeared to look like.

---

You said they were Phoenicians.


As we can see the skirts in the illustration we have been talking about form the tomb of Rekhmire are not far off from the skirts of the Puntite, most likely in the coastal region of what is today Eritrea or somewhere in the horn, possibly
Of course they are not of the Egyptian nation. The scene is of several types of foreigners paying tribute to Egypt




^^ The obese Queen of Punt here is dissimilar to depictions of Egyptian women
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

---

So what? Europeans can have the same colors as Jews and Jews have frequently worked to attain whiteness (and largely succeeded). IDK How there's still debate, he called them "white men." He referred to AE by a label or identity that not only involves Europeans, but has always been Eurocentric.


"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"

Get it yet? HE SAID THAT! Stop trying to revise history, he said they were WHITE! Academic use of the words Caucasoid, Eurasian etc do the same thing: Bring European identity or whiteness into the discussion of Egypt.

---

You're distorting the quote. My point was no one has ever said the ancient Egyptians were white skinned and that quote confirms this. Gliddon likens AE pigmentation to east Mediterranean populations, who are light brown. The term "white men" has no reference to skin colour, in correct context Gliddon is using it as a synonym for Caucasian. If you want to play silly word games like this then I guess whenever you see the word Mongoloid, that must mean Mongols only...

The simple point I made is no scholar has ever said AE's had white skin in the sense of actual "white" (light-pink) as observed at highest frequency in northern Europeans. The claim ancient Egyptians were white (pigmentation) is an Afrocentric straw man.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

---

So what? Europeans can have the same colors as Jews and Jews have frequently worked to attain whiteness (and largely succeeded). IDK How there's still debate, he called them "white men." He referred to AE by a label or identity that not only involves Europeans, but has always been Eurocentric.


"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"

Get it yet? HE SAID THAT! Stop trying to revise history, he said they were WHITE! Academic use of the words Caucasoid, Eurasian etc do the same thing: Bring European identity or whiteness into the discussion of Egypt.

---

You're distorting the quote. My point was no one has ever said the ancient Egyptians were white skinned and that quote confirms this.

---

quote:

---

Gliddon likens AE pigmentation to east Mediterranean populations, who are light brown. The term "white men" has no reference to skin colour, in correct context Gliddon is using it as a synonym for Caucasian.

---

quote:

---

The simple point I made is no scholar has ever said AE's had white skin in the sense of actual "white" (light-pink) as observed at highest frequency in northern Europeans. The claim ancient Egyptians were white (pigmentation) is an Afrocentric straw man.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
If you read the full quote from Gliddon you get the proper context-

"The Egyptians were white men, of no darker hue than a pure Arab, a Jew, or a Phoenician."

The Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians are light brown skinned, not white. That's why he uses those examples of Arab or Jews, rather than say Celts or Germanics.

---

So what? Europeans can have the same colors as Jews and Jews have frequently worked to attain whiteness (and largely succeeded). IDK How there's still debate, he called them "white men." He referred to AE by a label or identity that not only involves Europeans, but has always been Eurocentric.


"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"
"The Egyptians were white men"

Get it yet? HE SAID THAT! Stop trying to revise history, he said they were WHITE! Academic use of the words Caucasoid, Eurasian etc do the same thing: Bring European identity or whiteness into the discussion of Egypt.

---

You're distorting the quote. My point was no one has ever said the ancient Egyptians were white skinned and that quote confirms this.

---

I'm not distorting the quote. He said AE were white. No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.

quote:

---

Gliddon likens AE pigmentation to east Mediterranean populations, who are light brown. The term "white men" has no reference to skin colour, in correct context Gliddon is using it as a synonym for Caucasian.

---

Which is still Eurocentric and interchangeable in language with European. The Egyptians did not come from Eurasia, the Caucus mountains or the European peninsula.

quote:

---

The simple point I made is no scholar has ever said AE's had white skin in the sense of actual "white" (light-pink) as observed at highest frequency in northern Europeans. The claim ancient Egyptians were white (pigmentation) is an Afrocentric straw man.

---

Eurocentrism does not require people to say AE/K had WHITE skin or even light pink. This is a strawman YOU keep using. Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence. For example, Eurasians is a loaded term that tries to create a fictional identity that involves Europeans. "Caucasoid" tries to claim certain features to whites and attributes them to an identity that again includes Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

the term “Caucasoid” traces back to the Old Testament story of Noah”s Ark"

Where in the Torah is the word Caucasoid written?

SHOW IT!!!

The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors

---

The insane Anglo must be stupid too if he doesn't realize that the very racial concept of "caucasian" is itself a Eurocentric concept and is the very crux of Eurocentric thought thus proving Eurocentrism itslef! LOL

Hey Ish, where is the man below from?



He reminds me of Thutmose IV


 

---

Posted by Thereal (Member # 22452) on :
 
If I'm not mistaken he's a sahrawi or another type in north Africa.minor but the head shape is not exact, the mummies forehead is sloping while the guys appears vertical.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:

There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.

You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.

---

Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.

Behold:

[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type.
(Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)

The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region.
(William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)

The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves.
(V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)

Moving to the opposite geographic extremity, the very small sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty(Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline of variation along the Nile Valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans.
(Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation)

LOL
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Speaking on Prognathism

I don't believe Thutmose the 4th resembles that man in question above Djehuti. Mainly because of the prognathism, with thutIV being much more prognathic. Also where the columella meets the superior philtrum; the area where the skin lays over the nasal bridge is angled differently. I remember pointing this out in the past; when we assign an "Aquiline" phenotype of a mummy with deteriorated soft tissue, we overlook key differences between populations. Particularly when samples between populations share a high bridge. One of them is the apex of the nose, on Thutmose it is far higher than that of the man in question, exposing much more of his nostrils from and anterior or profiled veiw which is also partially due to the difference prognathism as well.

just my 2 cents.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[qb]
There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.

You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.

---

Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.

Behold:

[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type.
(Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)

The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region.
(William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)

The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves.
(V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)

---

Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.
 

---

Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 
I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.



Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.

---

quote:

---

Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.

---

quote:

---

No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.

---

(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.

quote:

---

I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.

---

quote:

---

Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.

---

quote:

---

Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

the term “Caucasoid” traces back to the Old Testament story of Noah”s Ark"

Where in the Torah is the word Caucasoid written?

SHOW IT!!!

The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors

---

The insane Anglo must be stupid too if he doesn't realize that the very racial concept of "caucasian" is itself a Eurocentric concept and is the very crux of Eurocentric thought thus proving Eurocentrism itslef! LOL

Hey Ish, where is the man below from?



He reminds me of Thutmose IV

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[qb]
There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.

You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.

---

Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.

Behold:

[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type.
(Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)

The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region.
(William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)

The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves.
(V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)

---

Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.

---

quote:

---

Ofer Bar-Yosef cites the microburin technique and “microlithic forms such as arched backed bladelets and La Mouillah points" as well as the parthenocarpic figs found in Natufian territory originated in the Sudan.

---

quote:

---

Christopher Ehret noted that the intensive use of plants among the Natufians was first found in Africa, as a precursor to the development of farming in the Fertile Crescent.

---

quote:

---

In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005), in concordance with a process of demie diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

---

quote:

---

According to legend, Christian Hungarians who had only recently been brought under the control of the Ottoman Empire formed a part of the Ottoman army that was fighting in southern Egypt. Evidently, a portion or the entirety of the fighting unit remained there and intermarried with the local Nubian women.

According to local Magyarabs, their ancestor was Ibrahim el-Magyar, a general who came from Buda (present-day Budapest) in 1517, he married with a local Nubian woman, they had a son called Ali, Ali had five sons: Selabi, Mustafa, Djelaleddin, Musa and Iksa, Ali's five sons were the ancestor of all Magyarabs. Magyarabs are the members of the World Federation of Hungarians (Magyarok Világszövetsége) since 1992 and still consider themselves as Hungarians.


They were not discovered by Europeans until 1935, when László Almásy, himself a Magyar, and his co-worker, the German engineer and explorer Hansjoachim von der Esch, happened upon their tribe in the Nubian region.

Representatives of the tribes had attempted to make contact with Hungarian officials, but were unable to do so because of the outbreak of World War II.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarab_people

http://web.archive.org/web/20050213015534/http://w3.datanet.hu/~demokrat/muh1-429.htm



 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.

---

I see we're going in circles:

a.

quote:

---

Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.

---

b.

quote:

---

No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.

---

(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.

quote:

---

I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.

---

I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted. This does NOT mean however that "Caucasoid" "Eurasian" and other such fictional identities have completely left. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009537;p=1

quote:

---

Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.

---

Whatever dude. Still got people trying to push the idea AE and Europeans shared common ancestry. The media will push this type of misinformation often. but they seem less excited to cover data that places AE in Africa. While these theories are less popular, white supremacists will still cling to whatever they think will support their diffusion/new race theories to hold onto mental images of a dependent Africa and/or De Africanize KMT and it's achievements.

quote:

---

Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.

---

You can keep saying he changed his views, but like I said changing a view is not the same as proving he never had it. You said Eurocentrism never existed remember?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
[qb]
There is no getting around the fact that the Upper Egyptians stem from a common origin with 'Nubians'; created the ancient Egyptian civilization; and were the dominant majority in ancient Egypt, so your desperate references to Lower Egypt are ultimately self-defeating.

You can't even begin to challenge the facts of Upper Egypt's biological affinities and since they were the source of the civilization and the demographic majority... you lose.

---

Sudaniya, even Lower Egypt cannot help the insane Anglo.

Behold:

[of remains in the Fayum]The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type.
(Beatrix Midant-Reynes, The Prehistory of Egypt)

The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern region.
(William C. Hayes, Most Ancient Egypt)

The dead were buried in a cemetery outside the settlement, but very poorly furnished at Maadi. At Heliopolis, where the cemetery alone is so far known, the funerary gifts are slightly richer and the orientation more regular--head to the south facing east. The bodies were wrapped in skins or papyrus mats. Gazelles and dogs were also ceremonially buried in the cemetery. In both cases the skeletons belong to taller and stouter folk than the predynastic inhabitants of Upper Egypt. But the Heliopolis skulls display a distinct prognathism which is generally reckoned a negroid feature, while even those from Maadi are pentagonoid like other predynastic crania. Neither site, therefore, shows the Giza type that is prominent in Early Pharaonic and Old Kingdom Graves.
(V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East)

---

Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables. None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme); another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:


"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'" - R. Belcher1, F. Williams et. al.,

where were the other East Africans , i.e., the Cushitic and Nilotic groups represented in Howell's study?


Last, but not least...


From Howells' book, Who's Who is skulls:

p. 96

"The second kind of departure from DISPOP may be allied to the above but involves prehistoric specimens. As above, Fish Hoek, firmly Bushmen in other tests, is here, with no Bush in the reference framework, either European or Asian, not African. So the difficulty of placing the Elmenteita, Afalou, and Teviec specimens, seen earlier and repeated here, comes to the fore again: robusticity? or lack of kin among reference populations? I consider either to be plausible.


p.101

"Beyond actual recent peoples matters change somewhat. Relatively late prehistoric specimens confirm expectable affiliations in many cases; in others the assignment is unreasonable. Certain earlier cases, like Mladec 1, seem to fall into place among modern populations of an area. However, such specimens as Afalou 5, Teviec 11, Elmenteita A and B, and Upper Cave 101 all are generally recognized as modern anatomically but are here probabilistically well removed, while suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

---

quote:

---

The utility and efficacy of FORDISC has been criticized for providing 'incorrect' classifications, however these disputed results are often due to inappropriate reference samples

---

quote:

---

Howells database: lacks the distinct morphology necessary for classifying unknown crania.

---

quote:

---

"We question the utility of ANY forensic application that attempts to constrain cranial variability into discrete biological 'races'"

---

quote:

---

Howells E series cannot be considered a typical Egyptian series

---

quote:

---

Howells’ data attribute the Nubian specimens to populations on several continents, whereas the Forensic Data Bank series provides no explainable pattern of population.

---

quote:

---

Individual crania were classified according to the best fit with Howells database but the samples clearly were inadequate to elucidate the specific geographical origin of the Spanish population

---

quote:

---

These results suggest that
Fordisc 2.0 cannot accurately identify the
biological affinity of ancient Nubians.

---

quote:

---

Because the populations used are defined not on the basis of biology but on the basis of the variation in skeletal series or on self assignment to folk cat-egories; our results suggest that the attempt to classify populations into races—as if all of these groupings were biologically equivalent, will continue to fail (Armelagos and VanGerven 200)

---

quote:

---

suggesting affiliations which are not credible.

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

the attempt above, to construct regional or "racial" groups or units, like "Caucasoid" by pooling modern Europeans, have not been successful, being too rigid to encompass the much broader variation that we clearly observe."

---

quote:

---

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

---

quote:

---

Herodotus (c. 484 – 425/413 BCE) was a writer who invented the field of study known today as `history’.

---

quote:

---

Outside influence and admixture with extra-regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).

---

quote:

---

“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“

---

quote:

---

The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations. Howell’s samples lack the distinct morphology necessary to make Fordisc 2.0 a useful tool for classifying unknown crania.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables...

---

quote:

---

None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme);

---

quote:

---

another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.

---

Not according to canonical variates.



Natufians at least metrically group closer to West Africans than even to northeast Africans let alone "Hungarians". LOL

As for Kemp, what you've "covered" has no bearing on the fact that their skeletal structures align with Sub-Saharans than with Levantines much less Europeans. So your lies have no bearing.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.



Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.

---

Its covered in Brace's study, i.e. i'm arguing there was selection for the derived SLC24A5 allele in Egypt. So I don't have to explain its moderate-to-high frequency in northernmost North African populations by just admixture. A recent paper has shown there's evidence for selection of derived SLC24A5 allele in northern India. And northern India is the same latitude as Egypt.

"Both our sequence and genome-wide genotype data confirm that this gene has been a target for positive selection among Europeans. However, the latter also shows additional evidence of selection in populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and North India but not in South India." ( Mallick et al. 2013)

In India, the frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele ranges from 3% to 100% in different ethnic groups and those with the lower frequencies tend to be from South India as expected for latitudinal/climatic selection model. However, the authors of the above paper warn that some "micro-migrations" have caused complexities, e.g. "Saurashtrians, who migrated from “Saurashtra” region of Gujarat to South India (Madurai) for work, have a relatively high rs1426654-A allele frequency of 0.70. It is believed that those Saurashtrians presently dwelling in Madurai were invited by Nayak kings for their expertise in silk-weaving."
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
Basically this guy is trying to claim that the indigenous traits of a population in the Nile Valley of Egypt could have adapted to look TOTALLY different than other Nile Valley Africans. Note, all Nile Valley Africans are black Africans and come in various shades of brown from the coal black Dinka and Nuer to the Ethiopians, to the Bedja and other folks. And somehow all their 'scientific facts' contradicts all the evidence otherwise. This is the racism we are talking about, where you make up things to justify claiming whatever you want to claim no matter if the actual hard evidence says otherwise.

Black Egyptians TODAY in Egypt and this is after thousands of years of foreign Non African influence. Note they look NOTHING like the foreign white Egyptologists and every bit like the ancient portraits.

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2013/09/09-Final-Group-Photo.jpg

Even this person is typical of the Nile Valley and seen elsewhere as in Ethiopia.



From:
https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/category/excavations/

And these black folks have been working for Europeans since they have been excavating in Egypt. But the Europeans continually LIE and pretend such black folks don't exist and therefore never existed in Egypt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYSL2YE31OI

There is no confusing the native Egyptian types, especially those from Upper Egypt, with any of the European archaeologists.

But that doesn't stop many Europeans from fantasizing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFOmhMXPIdU
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

The fact remains no one has ever argued (a) Early Dynastic Egyptian civilization was created by European migrants or (b) that ancient Egyptians were white skinned.

---

I see we're going in circles:

a.

quote:

---

Eurocentrism does not require people to say the Egyptians had features most common to Northern Europeans. It simply means that a person is trying to describe the origins of AE in a way that involves Europeans or to support other racist political interests Eurocentrism supports such as Africa being incapable of independence.

---

b.

quote:

---

No one HAS to argue the Egyptians were literally white skinned to argue they were white and connected to modern Europeans. Many white people are not literally white skinned. White people can for example have olive complexions.

---

(Indo)European ancestors were not uniformly within the European peninsula 3000 BC. Many lived near the middle east which is why it's so tempting for Eurocentrics to discuss a wandering group of "Eurasians" or "Asiatics" that would've made supposed back migrations the Africans would've relied upon for their civilization.

quote:

---

I don't see "Eurocentrism". What you're talking about is Asiatic/Dynastic race theory, or Hamiticism. Both are dead in academia.

---

I agree that an indigenous African origin that was not "distinct" from the rest of Africa is becoming increasingly accepted. This does NOT mean however that "Caucasoid" "Eurasian" and other such fictional identities have completely left. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009537;p=1

quote:

---

Virtually no scholar today is arguing ancient Egyptian civilization was made by 'Caucasoids' from southwest Asia. Among layperson's there also has been a shift to abandon the antiquated Caucasoid/Hamitic theories, hence I have observed this on forums over the past 5 years.

---

Whatever dude. Still got people trying to push the idea AE and Europeans shared common ancestry. The media will push this type of misinformation often. but they seem less excited to cover data that places AE in Africa. While these theories are less popular, white supremacists will still cling to whatever they think will support their diffusion/new race theories to hold onto mental images of a dependent Africa and/or De Africanize KMT and it's achievements.

quote:

---

Gliddon himself in the 19th century changed his views to argue ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development. These Caucasoid/Hamitic theories were already losing proponents over a century ago.

---

You can keep saying he changed his views, but like I said changing a view is not the same as proving he never had it. You said Eurocentrism never existed remember?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:


Even African American biologists agree with my position on this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
[QB] Basically this guy is trying to claim that the indigenous traits of a population in the Nile Valley of Egypt could have adapted to look TOTALLY different than other Nile Valley Africans. Note, all Nile Valley Africans are black Africans and come in various shades of brown from the coal black Dinka and Nuer to the Ethiopians, to the Bedja and other folks. And somehow all their 'scientific facts' contradicts all the evidence otherwise. This is the racism we are talking about, where you make up things to justify claiming whatever you want to claim no matter if the actual hard evidence says otherwise.

Black Egyptians TODAY in Egypt and this is after thousands of years of foreign Non African influence. Note they look NOTHING like the foreign white Egyptologists and every bit like the ancient portraits.

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2013/09/09-Final-Group-Photo.jpg

Even this person is typical of the Nile Valley and seen elsewhere as in Ethiopia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

Those quotes are worthless because they're discussing so few traits/variables...

---

So goes your typical excuse. Those authors I cited described the crania as "negroid" in appearance with the exception of Kemp who cited limb proportions which show a disconnect to the Levant and connection to sub-Saharans. Of course in your twisted mind the prognathism of the skulls is not a 'negroid' trait but a "capoid" trait like the mesolithic Nubians! LOL

quote:

---

None of those Lower Egyptian crania show strong craniometric ties to Sub-Saharan African populations in multivariate studies that take into account 57 measurements (the standard figure used by Howells and the FORDISC programme);

---

I think you are referring to Howells' E series of Egyptian skulls which have been proven to be of non-Egyptian ancestry and of foreign extraction anyway. Also, how many times have I said metric affinities are not as good indicators of genetic relations as non-metric traits anyway.

quote:

---

another example is Natufian skulls that have "negroid" features if you focus on selective features of their crania, but when many measurements were taken by Howells (covering all landmarks of the skull), he found the closest Natufian match is with Zalavar (medieval Hungarians). Natufians aren't overall similar to Sub-Saharan Africans. And the Kemp thing I've covered many times already.

---

Not according to canonical variates.



Natufians at least metrically group closer to West Africans than even to northeast Africans let alone "Hungarians". LOL

As for Kemp, what you've "covered" has no bearing on the fact that their skeletal structures align with Sub-Saharans than with Levantines much less Europeans. So your lies have no bearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2016/07/conservators-in-tomb.jpg

^^ This guy is Black ?? [/QB][/QUOTE]

LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:


No, no, no., absolutely not. This is why I avoid saying "indigenous African", but say "indigenous" (to Egypt) or "indigenous (east) Saharan".

Ancient Egyptians so not have close biological ties to Sub-Saharan Africans, but eastern Saharan Africans.

---

Why the false dichotomy? Having a close relationship to some modern East Saharan African populations, doesn't mean AE had no close biological connection to SSA. This should be a nobrainer if you know the climate history of Africa. The Naqada, Badarian, Tasian and Green Saharan cultures form the basis of Ancient Egyptian people and culture at their formative stage. Dynastic Egypt only began about a few centuries after the Green Sahara had turned into a desert. They survived by living along a RIVER that extended into SSA. They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.

quote:

---

Even African American biologists agree with my position on this. A member of this forum emailed Joseph L. Graves expecting him to support the "black Egypt" theory and not my position, but Graves supports me and has said ancient Egyptians in his view were not black in pigmentation; he has been to Egypt and seen the north-south gradient/cline in skin pigmentation for himself. Someone has these email replies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.

---

So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2016/07/conservators-in-tomb.jpg

^^ This guy is Black ??

---

quote:

---

LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.

---

Boy, you fucked up again.




 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:
They were not biologically isolated to create the distinctions from the rest of Africa racists crave so vehemently.

---

So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".

---

"blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization?"

As if that and the remaining (westerners) doesn't happen. Give me a break.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Williams et al only correctly classified 8/42 Nubian crania (20%) with the nearest geographical reference sample (Lower Egyptians, "E series") because they used 11 or 12 measurements.

"Several aspects of the study by Williams et al. (2005) warrant scrutiny. First, as pointed out by Hubbe and Neves (2007), Williams et al. employed only 11 of the theoretical maximum of 21 measurements that could have been used in their analysis. Had they incorporated more information into their analysis by using more measurements, in all likelihood a larger proportion of Nubian crania would have been correctly classified." (Bulbeck, 2011)

Although this study mentions a theoretical 21 maximum, Howells (1995) used 57 for FORDISC's predecessor DISPOP to get the most reliable results: "The measurements are 57 in number for
all cases (though most are provided with a
slightly larger number, not used in my reports)."
https://web.utk.edu/~auerbach/Howells.pdf

---

quote:

---

"A mummy of an Egyptian priestess dating from the 22nd dynasty (c. 770 BC),
completely enclosed in an anthropoid (human shaped) coffin, was scanned
on a CT scanner. An accurate reconstruction of the cranium was generated
from 115 × 2 mm CT images using AVS/Express on a SGI computer. Linear
measurements were obtained from six orthogonal cranial views and used
in a morphometric analysis software package (CRANID). The analyses
carried out were both linear and nearest neighbour discriminant analysis.
The results show that there is a 52.9% probability that the mummy is an
Egyptian female, with a 24.5% probability that the mummy is an African female."

---

quote:

---

We conclude that if sex allocations are overlooked, CRANID can accurately assign 39% of specimens to geographically closest matching reference samples and 48% to major geographic regions. Better source population representation may improve goodness of fit, but known sex-differentiated samples are needed to further test the utility of CRANID.

[…]

Another similar program called FORDISC, developed by Richard Jantz and Stephen Ousley of the University of Tennessee (Jantz & Ousley, 1993), also uses discriminant analyses to classify skulls of unknown origin. Like CRANID, FORDISC uses Howells' dataset as a reference sample but with additional samples from the American Forensic Data Bank and the Terry and Hamann-Todd Collection. FORDISC is used widely internationally but it has particular relevance to the American context because the American Forensic Data Bank forms a large proportion of the reference materials (Ubelaker et al. 2002). CRANID has greater validity in Australia and Europe because of greater representation of indigenous Australian and European reference crania.

[…]

Discussion

Wright (2010) reports an LDA classification accuracy of 68.2% for the 74 sex-differentiated reference samples in CRANID. In contrast, the classification accuracy in our study is no more than 39% for local groups and no more than 48% for regional groups. Accuracy rates could have been even lower if sex attributions were taken into account because male and female group attributions were summed if needed to provide the 0.5 summed attribution probability.

Five crania showed lack of goodness of fit with the database. Several possibilities are cited in the manual to account for lack of fit and incorrect attribution: incorrect measurements, deformed or extreme cranium, poor representation of the source population in the database and mixed ancestry. It is worth considering each of these possibilities in turn. As outlined above, we used stringent inter-observer repeatability tests to ensure that measurements were taken accurately. We are confident that lack of goodness of fit was not due to errors in measuring. We also ensured that none of the crania in our study was intentionally or pathologically deformed.

Poor representation of source population is a likely reason for poor statistical fit and incorrect attribution. All test specimens fell within 2 standard deviations from the centroid for the database, but for the specimens with poor statistical fit, the distances from the nearest neighbour were within 2–3 three standard deviations from the mean for the database. They had high probabilities of attribution (between 0.5 and 0.9), although not to the geographically closest available reference samples. This suggests that the exact source populations were not represented in CRANID and the variability in the available samples did not accommodate that of the test specimen. Many of the geographically closest reference samples for the specimens in this study came from ancient populations, e.g. Iron Age Lachish, Neolithic Denmark, Medieval London, Roman Poundbury, 26–30th Dynasty Egypt and Latte Period Guam. Although in some cases CRANID still selected these as the geographically closest attributions, secular changes in the contemporary test specimens could have precluded them from being assigned to ancient populations (Jantz & Ousley, 2005).

---

—Lauren Kallenberger and Varsha Pilbrow

J Anat. 2012 Nov; 221(5): 459–464.
Published online 2012 Aug 27. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7580.2012.01558.x
PMCID: PMC3482354
Using CRANID to test the population affinity of known crania

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3482354/

quote:

---

Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.

---

quote:

---

Outside influence and admixture with extra-regional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007).

---

quote:

---

“While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations.“

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2016/07/conservators-in-tomb.jpg

^^ This guy is Black ??

---

quote:

---

LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.

---

Boy, you fucked up again.

---

According to Doug and Djehuti LL Cool J is too light to be black,
he has a mulatto complexion like Obama









^^ You have to be at least this dark to be black
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 




Ish, Ish
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2016/07/conservators-in-tomb.jpg

^^ This guy is Black ??

---

quote:

---

LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.

---

Boy, you fucked up again.

---

According to Doug and Djehuti LL Cool J is too light to be black,
he has a mulatto complexion like Obama









^^ You have to be at least this dark to be black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:




Ish, Ish

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
I think it's funny how Atlantid keeps insisting that he believes AE were biologically indigenous Africans while simultaneously asserting they were tan-skinned like Arabs. He seems to have missed out on the recent findings that those North Africans who have lighter skin carry West Eurasian alleles for lighter skin that would have evolved little earlier than 20 kya, and didn't even become widespread outside of northern Europe until ~5 kya.



Unless there's a separate, indigenous North African allele for lighter skin out there that I'm not aware of, he'll have to explain why all the tan-skinned North Africans have so many of these West Eurasian alleles if he thinks they're biologically African to the same degree as he concedes the AEs were.

---

Its covered in Brace's study, i.e. i'm arguing there was selection for the derived SLC24A5 allele in Egypt. So I don't have to explain its moderate-to-high frequency in northernmost North African populations by just admixture. A recent paper has shown there's evidence for selection of derived SLC24A5 allele in northern India. And northern India is the same latitude as Egypt.

"Both our sequence and genome-wide genotype data confirm that this gene has been a target for positive selection among Europeans. However, the latter also shows additional evidence of selection in populations of the Middle East, Central Asia, Pakistan and North India but not in South India." ( Mallick et al. 2013)

In India, the frequency of the derived SLC24A5 allele ranges from 3% to 100% in different ethnic groups and those with the lower frequencies tend to be from South India as expected for latitudinal/climatic selection model. However, the authors of the above paper warn that some "micro-migrations" have caused complexities, e.g. "Saurashtrians, who migrated from “Saurashtra” region of Gujarat to South India (Madurai) for work, have a relatively high rs1426654-A allele frequency of 0.70. It is believed that those Saurashtrians presently dwelling in Madurai were invited by Nayak kings for their expertise in silk-weaving."

---

quote:

---

In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-­day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol

What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.


http://www.blackpast.org/aah/ll-cool-j-smith-james-todd-1968

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol

What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.


http://www.blackpast.org/aah/ll-cool-j-smith-james-todd-1968

---

Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol

What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.


http://www.blackpast.org/aah/ll-cool-j-smith-james-todd-1968

---

Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else

---

I use my brain, you need to use your brain. I have no deal with what others have to say. I don't play your childish games. No sane person in America is going to claim that sh*t. LL is considered a black man, And it has been like that historically for tens of millions of blacks with lighter complexion. So don't bring that bullshit to me.

This complexion also can be found in West Africa, and no sane West Africa is going to make crazy distinctions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:
I have no idea why you are posting that other dude? lol

What exactly are you trying to say? What has he to do with the subject? Neither do I see what other poster opinion has to do with this? Plus I have no time for your ongoing childish games.


http://www.blackpast.org/aah/ll-cool-j-smith-james-todd-1968

---

Use your brian, Doug and Djehuti say "black" means strictly the darkness level of a person's skin nothing else

---

I use my brain, you need to use your brain. I have no deal with what others have to say. I don't play your childish games. No sane person in America is going to claim that sh*t. LL is considered a black man, And it has been like that historically for tens of millions of blacks with lighter complexion. So don't bring that bullshit to me.

This complexion also can be found in West Africa, and no sane West Africa is going to make crazy distinctions.

---

According to Egyptsearch we are going by the old Greco Roman definition of black, caramels are not included

---

Deplorable child, I have no time for your games. Let it marinate!






Mosaic With Hunting Scenes

Roman (3rd century A.D.)

Mosaic, 270 x 370 cm.

Musée National du Bardo, Tunis.

quote:

---

"Our work developed from a program of research focused on an early Saharan civilization known as the Garamantes, located in southwestern Libya (Mattingly 2006, 2011). We have previously identified two Garamantian sites as having urban characteristics, Old Jarma and Qasṛ ash-Sharrāba, and have speculated on the existence of further Saharan towns (Mattingly and Sterry 2013). In the case of Jarma, we have presented a detailed urban biography of the site (Mattingly et al. 2013: 505–544). The specific aims of this paper are to provide a fuller evaluation of what is known historically about Zuwīla and to present in detail the available archaeological data and a more precise chronology for the site. In its final section we advance a plausible sequence of development of this important Saharan oasis centre based on all the currently available evidence. A gazetteer of archaeological monuments is provided as Appendix 1 and a summary of the material dating evidence as Appendix 2.

The early medieval period has generally been considered pivotal in the extension and intensification of trans-Saharan trade and this has also been linked with the spread of Islam from the Maghrib across the Sahara (Austen 2010: 19–22). On the southern fringes of the Sahara there is firm evidence of trans-Saharan contacts in the earlier first millennium AD at sites such as Kissi in Burkina Faso and Culabel and Siouré in Senegal (MacDonald 2011; Magnavita 2013).

[...]

The Roman sources refer to kings of the Garamantes and to their metropolis at Garama (Old Jarma in the Wādī al-Ajāl, 250 km to the west of Zuwīla), strongly suggesting that Garamantian power was exercised over an extensive area (Figure 2). We have argued that there was in this period a Garamantian state that controlled the various oasis zones of Fazzān (Mattingly 2003: 76–90, 346–351, 2013: 530–534). As we shall see, there is evidence to show that Zuwīla originated as an oasis settlement in this period (contra Lewicki 1988: 287 and Levtzion and Hopkins 2000: 460) and that it had arguably grown to be a centre of above average size by the Late Garamantian period."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:




Ish, Ish

---

 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:




Ish, Ish

---

---

The entire thing is B.S.






 

---

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


Arguing about skin complexion. And NO lioness, the Arab man you posted is NOT the same complexion as L.L. Cool Jay. Dishonest dunce.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

LL Cool Berber
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Look lets not fall into a big derail of the point. Yes it's very possible someone with that complexion can be mixed. It's also true that the complexion is indigenous. When we consider that admixture can reach 80% in modern Egypt, the context that person is placed in with respect to Egypt's history can give us some idea of how mixture may be somewhat responsible for that guy's features. But simply eyeballing people without calling on data is not very scientific. We honestly don't need to do this type of thing. We can, but it's not all that necessary. We already have the studies that show Africans have the most skin diversity. The ball is in their court to show otherwise. But back to the point: AE were not biologically isolated from the rest of Africa. They were not disconnected from the rest of Africa.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


LL Cool Berber

---

LOL The Arab looking man looks distorted here.



What happened? I know you're desperate but photoshop?? LOL

Meanwhile what about these Arabs from rural Jordan?






 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

LL Cool Berber

---

LOL The Arab looking man looks distorted here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
So by that mind-set, blonde haired Swedes can claim or try to attach themselves to ancient Greek civilization? African-Americans/west sub-Saharan Africans who latch onto Egypt self-hate their own history and heritage. And I will think you will find they're the real "racists".

---

??? All of Europe and white America associate themselves with Ancient Greece and Rome...

The thing you fail to see is the cultural similarities. As opposed to the greeks who viewed the Egyptians as "Overly superstitious and spiritual." A "black" group can look at sh!t they did in Aegypt and say, "wow, other black people who may or may not be related to me did this too? they oiled their skin because the sun would make it too dry? they locked and braided their hair to avoid breakage? They sported Afros and wore wigs and weaves (from Sheep BTW), The performed circumcision in a similar fashion to how central Africans did? they used color symbolism in spiritual folklore? Oh snap, paranymonious symbolism is universally African? The female played such an important role in this society just like (insert 88% of SSA here), oh ****, this revered civilization was birthed by similar kin whether or not we're recently related!"

Dissociating Egypt from SSA is pointless, the only reason I see for perusing this is.... and I hate to say it.... Lingering concepts of White Supremacy.

---

quote:

---

Mummies Reveal Egyptians Styled Hair with 'Product'


Ancient Egyptians might have been just as vain as humans today. They seem to have styled their hair with fat-based products to enhance their appearance and accentuate their individuality, new research suggests.

"Personal appearance was important to the ancient Egyptians so much so that in cases where the hair was styled, the embalming process was adapted to preserve the hairstyle," the researchers, based at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom, write Aug. 16 in the Journal of Archaeological Science. "This further ensured that the deceased's individuality was retained in death, as it had been in life, and emphasizes the importance of the hair in ancient Egyptian society."

The researchers studied hair from 18 mummies (15 mummified in a desert cemetery called the

and three from museum samples of unknown origin) who lived around 300 B.C. in ancient Egypt. By taking a close look at the hairs under a microscope, the researchers noticed that nine of these mummies had an unknown substance coating their hair. [Top 10 Weird Ways We Deal With the Dead]

Chemical analyses of the coating revealed it was made up of fatty acids from both plant and animal origins.

The researchers believe that this fat-based hair gel was used by the Egyptians to mold and hold the hair in position to enhance appearance, since some of the deceased that had been mummified naturally in the desert also had fats in their hair. When mummified using embalming chemicals, the undertakers seem to have taken special care to retain the deceased's hairdos, as they used different chemicals on different parts of the body.

"It is evident that different materials were used for different areas of the body," the researchers write. "The hair samples from the Dakhleh Oasis were not coated with resin/bitumen-based embalming materials, but were coated with a fat-based substance."

The mummies had all different kinds of hairstyles depending on age, sex and presumed social status. Researchers have previously discovered objects in Egyptian tombs that seem to be curing tongs, so they might have been used in conjunction with the hair product to curl the hair into place, the researchers speculate.

---

quote:

---

Ancient Egyptians used 'hair gel'

Mummy analysis finds that fat-based product held styles in place.


The ancient Egyptians styled their hair using a fat-based 'gel', an analysis of mummies has found. The researchers behind the study say that the Egyptians used the product to ensure that their style stayed in place in both life and death.

Natalie McCreesh, an archaeological scientist from the KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology at the University of Manchester, UK, and her colleagues studied hair samples taken from 18 mummies. The oldest is around 3,500 years old, but most were excavated from a cemetery in the Dakhleh Oasis in the Western Desert, and date from Greco-Roman times, around 2,300 years ago.

They include males and females ranging in age from 4 to 58 years old. Some were artificially mummified, whereas others were preserved naturally by the dry sand in which they were buried.

Microscopy using light and electrons revealed that nine of the mummies had hair coated in a mysterious fat-like substance. The researchers used gas chromatography–mass spectrometry to separate out the different molecules in the samples, and found that the coating contained biological long-chain fatty acids including palmitic acid and stearic acid. The results are published in the Journal of Archaeological Science1.

McCreesh thinks that the fatty coating is a styling product that was used to set hair in place. It was found on both natural and artificial mummies, so she believes that it was a beauty product during life as well as a key part of the mummification process.

The resins and embalming materials used to prepare the artificially mummified bodies were not found in the hair samples, suggesting that the hair was protected during embalming and then styled separately.

"Maybe they paid special attention to the hair because they realized that it didn't degrade as much as the rest of the body," says McCreesh. The product was found on both male and female mummies, showing that both sexes cared about their eternal hairdo.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:




^^ This guy is Black ??

---

LOL. This is exactly my point. 99.9% of people don't consider that guy black (he's too light brown skinned), nor would this guy identify as black himself. If Doug thinks this guy is black, then most Southern Europeans and Middle Eastern populations must be black too.

---

What I said was this guy is not "Out of Place" as a Nile Valley African and yes he is black, just like this guy is. You are trying to say that his light brown skin and other "features" make him less black and less African than other Africans.

Wrong. That is fake nonsense.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeresenay_Alemseged
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/31/world/africa/zeray-alemseged-selam-ethiopia/

Light brown skin is not a feature of "white people" by definition. And those features originate in Africa not Europe (pointy noses, etc). Yet this is the underlying argument of their "race theories", wherein they try to claim certain features as "non African" when those features originated in Africa to begin with.

And plenty of black folks have those features.

Current President of Ethiopia Mulatu Teshome

 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
We're talking pigmentation only. As others have pointed out - Doug is a massive "flip-flopper" who constantly shifts definitions of who is black from pigmentation to the social construct (that has different criteria that depend on the classifier). Make up your mind.

I don't consider these examples you posted to have black skin pigmentation. Also note that Doug is cherry-picking the lightest brown skinned Ethiopians he can find. As a comparison, here's the Ethiopian football team:




 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
Coon, 1939-

"In the three highland groups of Amharas, Gallas, and Sidamos, the Amharas are lightest skinned, with the majority of shades concentrated in the medium brown category, between von Luschan #21 and #25; individually the series runs as light as #13, a brunet-white, which is approximately the color of the former Emperor, Hailie Selassie. At the other extreme it reaches #34, which is almost jet black, nearer the color of the great Emperor Menelik II. Thus among the Amharas almost the entire range of human skin color intensity is covered, with the exception of rosy or pinkish-white, which probably does not exist among Ethiopians. The Gallas run somewhat darker, with their concentration in the medium to chocolate-brown class, between #22 and #29; their range is somewhat less than that of the Amharas, and the rare brunet-white of the former is in some cases replaced by a yellow of Bushman intensity. Most of the Sidamos are darker than #30, and are thus really dark brown or black.... Among the Somalis... the majority are lumped around the von Luschan #29. Numbers 27 and 30 account for most of the others; hence there is a single and characteristic Somali color, which is a rich, glossy, chocolate-brown, which accounts for seven-eights of the entire Somali group. A very few are darker, and individuals are as light as light brown, in a very few cases as light as Arabs."
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers). Coon's data on this is verified by modern reflectance spectrophotometry. The Afrocentrists on this forum completely ignore population means and cherry-pick atypical or outliers in a population, e.g. 7/8 Somalis have dark brown skin (Coon), but Afrocentrists will focus on the minority 1/8 who do not. There's not much point in wasting time with this stupidity. By the same reasoning someone could argue northern Europeans are "frizzy" haired because studies found very curly/frizzy hair at a negligible <1% frequency.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
We're talking pigmentation only. As others have pointed out - Doug is a massive "flip-flopper" who constantly shifts definitions of who is black from pigmentation to the social construct (that has different criteria that depend on the classifier). Make up your mind.

I don't consider these examples you posted to have black skin pigmentation. Also note that Doug is cherry-picking the lightest brown skinned Ethiopians he can find. As a comparison, here's the Ethiopian football team:

---

Doug wasn't arguing every SSA or African that identifies as "black" has literal jet black or dark brown skin. Why can't ethiopians, west Africans, etc have lighter skin without mixture? I don't think Doug was trying to say that darker tones are absent, but that it's not unheard of to see lighter skin in these ethnic groups. It's not something that needs whites either.



Genetic Architecture of Skin and Eye Color in an African- European Admixed Population – Mark Shriver (2013)


"Our results indicate that Cape Verdean pigmentary variation is the result of variation in a different set of genes from those determining variation within Europe, suggest that long-range regulatory effects help to explain the relationship between skin and eye color, and highlight the potential and the pitfalls of using allele distribution patterns and signatures of selection as indicators of phenotypic differences..

The strong effect of genomic ancestry on skin color is also striking in the context of eye color; there is only a weak correlation between skin and eye color in Cape Verdeans (R‘2 =0.14), and African genomic ancestry is also weakly correlated (R‘2 = 0.08) with eye color (Figure 1c, 1d). Overall, these observations point to different genetic architectures for skin and eye color...

These results suggest that an APBA2 (OCA2) mutation conferring light skin arose BEFORE the spread of humans out of Africa, and that a HERC2 (OCA2) mutation conferring pale eye color arose much later."

No. Stop. Light Skin is indigenous to Africa. You already admitted your issues accepting Egypt as part of Africa is political and has nothing to do with science.










1. There are FOUR skin pigmentation gene not ONE. The four genes are ADDITIVE!!! That means the more you have of the four genes the lighter is that population/person.

2. They concluded that there is NOT a direct correlation between so called “European” admixture and light skin in Cape Verdeans. Hence “unexplained heritability”. This what one of the charts I posted shows. They used mathematical models to come to that conclusion.

3. They included other primates in the study, which is sound science, to determine the ancestral (underived) genotype. Concluding that the genes origin is IN Africa. Thus their conclusion “light skin originated” BEFORE AMH left Africa.
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.

quote:

---

In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-­day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.

---

---Towards a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA (2014)

Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers).

---

Even among AE the "mean" wasn't very light skin. Like some African populations it was certainly there, but not as overstated as lot of people seem to make it.


AE typically used colors like this:





While light skin was likely present, people still whining about Egypt being part of Africa will use things like faded/poorly preserved murals to discuss what the average looked like. Take the thread they attempted to hijack a few days ago. All that squabbling and ignoring the better preserved pigment of the face, the faded pigment of the arms still would not have been passing the paper bag test in the U.S (and if so, hardly).




OMG OMG The AE had platnium blonde hair OMG OMG!



 

---

Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.

quote:

---

In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-­day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.

---

---Towards a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA (2014)

Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event.

---

A more recent major study criticized the Reich and Moorjani et al studies. Basu et al 2016 show "ANI" are not closely related to Europeans/Near Easter's (see their PCA), but some Central Asians (dividing them into two groups, one being central-south Asians like the Burusho and Pashtuns from Pakistan). Really no surprise since northern India is a geographical neighbour to Pakistan.

See PCA here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594/F3.large.jpg

So there was a migration of Indo-European speaking peoples from Pakistan to north India 2000-1000 BCE. None of this refutes what I said, that light skin alleles are selected at that latitude. [/QB]

---

So the closest ANI affinity is with certain light-skinned Central Asians rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners. So what? It doesn't refute my argument that these alleles for lighter skin aren't native to India but were instead brought in by groups from further north. It doesn't matter whether these groups were closer to Europeans or Central Asians.
 

---

Posted by sudaniya (Member # 15779) on :
 
This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.


The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"

Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
There are no Ethiopian/Horn African populations with mean light brown skin hues; they range from medium to chocolate/dark brown (of course lighter skinned individuals can be found, but those are outliers). Coon's data on this is verified by modern reflectance spectrophotometry. The Afrocentrists on this forum completely ignore population means and cherry-pick atypical or outliers in a population, e.g. 7/8 Somalis have dark brown skin (Coon), but Afrocentrists will focus on the minority 1/8 who do not. There's not much point in wasting time with this stupidity. By the same reasoning someone could argue northern Europeans are "frizzy" haired because studies found very curly/frizzy hair at a negligible <1% frequency.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

But you made my point for me. "Light Brown" skin does not equate to Eurasian admixture or closeness to Eurasian populations outside of Africa, even as the mean skin complexion of most AE people was much darker.

---

Light brown may or may not be the result of an African person who has non-African ancestry.



The term "black" is a social contruct because shades of brown are what are being discussed rather than shades of blacks which might be called greys

But if one insists that the term "black" is relevant and it pertains to darkness level alone then one would have to select the range of numbers above that should be "black" and then attribute a generalized color or colors to the remaining numbers

But of course nobody wants to go there and attempt a selection, attempt to make a standard so instead the term can be adjusted one way or the other at the moment
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nodnarb:
Of course certain Indians have derived light-skin alleles like those of Europeans. Unfortunately for you, it probably is due to recent admixture.

quote:

---

In India, nearly all people today are admixed between two distinct genetic groups, one most closely related to present-­day Europeans, Central Asians, and Near Easterners, and one most closely related to an isolated population living in the Andaman islands (Reich et al., 2009). Moorjani et al., 2013 showed that much of this admixture occurred within the last 4,000 years.

---

---Towards a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA (2014)

Incidentally, 4 kya coincides will the collapse of the indigenous Harappan civilization and the incoming of Indo-Europeans from Central Asia. So we even have a historical correlate for this admixture event.

---

A more recent major study criticized the Reich and Moorjani et al studies. Basu et al 2016 show "ANI" are not closely related to Europeans/Near Easter's (see their PCA), but some Central Asians (dividing them into two groups, one being central-south Asians like the Burusho and Pashtuns from Pakistan). Really no surprise since northern India is a geographical neighbour to Pakistan.

See PCA here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/6/1594/F3.large.jpg

So there was a migration of Indo-European speaking peoples from Pakistan to north India 2000-1000 BCE. None of this refutes what I said, that light skin alleles are selected at that latitude.

---

So the closest ANI affinity is with certain light-skinned Central Asians rather than Europeans or Middle Easterners. So what? It doesn't refute my argument that these alleles for lighter skin aren't native to India but were instead brought in by groups from further north. It doesn't matter whether these groups were closer to Europeans or Central Asians. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
My point is native northern Indians pre-Indo-European migration(s) were same complexion; they were from roughly the same latitude as the Indo-Aryan migrants, not much further north. For example, in Basu et al's map one of south-central-Asian populations (Sindhi) appear at an identical (or even slightly lower) latitude to a north Indian population sample. So why would migrants from Pakistan at roughly the same latitude be significantly darker skinned? I'm simply arguing everyone at that latitude was the same complexion in ancient times - the same applies to Egypt.

---

You liar, Indo-Europeans did come from further north (in eastern Europe specifically). So even going by your logic, they would have been lighter-skinned than the ancient Indian or Pakistani populations that assimilated them.


Not to mention, you still haven't explained why the light-skin alleles found in modern North Indians (and North Africans) are the exact same ones that developed >20 kya in Europe. How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.

"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."

"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration_theory#Anthropology:_elite_recruitment_and_language_shift

The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


https://www.penn.museum/sites/artifactlab/files/2013/09/09-Final-Group-Photo.jpg

Even this person is typical of the Nile Valley and seen elsewhere as in Ethiopia.

---

could easily be an Arab
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 
@ nodarb

I've seen you create mods trying to darken skin colour of Egyptians in computer games.

I own most the Settlers games, including these toy figures that came with a limited edition collectors copy of settlers III



My view is this is accurate for what the average ancient Egyptian would have looked like in pigmentation, but there was obviously a cline along the Nile, so Upper Egyptians approaching Nubia would have been somewhat darker.
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
my god...

None of what you're arguing even matters. Pakistan, India, North Africa & Europe's Widespread distribution of slc24a5 is due to the same fvcking even't. It's almost fringe science to believe a population independently selected for the same snp elsewhere w/o introgression.

You have to prove that pre-Nile valley inhabitants were apart of the bottleneck resulting in the reduction of genetic diversity & widespread distribution of slc24a5 of Maghrebs & OOA populations.

Like I said before, claims of Aegyptians having mysteriously lighter skin outside of the range of typical African pigmentation is fundamentally baseless at this point in time.
 

---

Posted by Nodnarb (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
Indo-Aryans moved into northern India from Pakistan (mostly corresponding to the modern Punjab region, but a few more southern sites), not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe (the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland.) The time between Indo-Aryans moving into northern India and the PIE dispersal(s) is 2000-3000 years. I think you've completely missed how Indo-European culture, including languages spread. There's very little if any genetic continuity between PIE's and Indo-Aryans (as with Indo-Iranians and other groups that split millennia after PIE). Look up elite dominance model of how languages spread.

"David Anthony, in his "revised Steppe hypothesis" notes that the spread of the Indo-European languages probably did not happen through "chain-type folk migrations," but by the introduction of these languages by ritual and political elites, which are emulated by large groups of people."

"A relatively small immigrant elite population can encourage widespread language shift among numerically dominant indigenes in a non-state or pre-state context if the elite employs a specific combination of encouragements and punishments." (Anthony, 2007)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration_theory#Anthropology:_elite_recruitment_and_language_shift

The average Indo-Aryan who settled in northern India c. 1900 - 1500 BCE did not look like someone from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe, or eastern Europe.

---

One linguist's hypothesis on how Indo-European may have spread, as quoted by Wikipedia, is still not going to save your ass from the reality of northern Indians and North Africans having substantial levels of light-skin alleles of recent (>20 kya) West Eurasian origin. A reality which you persistently evade.


How does that square with your apparent belief that the presence of these alleles (and the resulting lighter skin color) in these populations isn't due to recent admixture?
 

---

Posted by JoshuaConnerMoon (Member # 22355) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.


The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"

Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
This whole thread has gone off the rails. It's a mess. The troll has no leg to stand on and is just wasting our time. He does not even dispute the fact that Upper Egyptians were/are closely related to other "eastern Saharans" like North Sudanese and the people of the Horn. To concede Upper Egypt is to lose the debate before it has even begun.


The people of Upper Egypt were physically, linguistically and culturally related to other populations in Northeast Africa and stem from a common origin in the Predynastic period. This is not disputed by any serious, rational person in any of the disciplines. It was a "Sudanese transplant"

Upper Egypt created the Egyptian civilization and established virtually all its political and cultural features; Upper Egyptians conquered the sparsely populated, disorganised, weaker and poorer North; Upper Egyptians were the demographic majority, and since they resembled (still do) other Northeast Africans... there is nothing to debate. The ancient Egyptians were black like other Northeast Africans.

---

My position is summarised by this quote-

"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)

Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.

Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".

How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).

---

And you are lying again. The AE clustered closest with other Nile Valley Africans, like the so-called Nubians before any other population. They had no similarity in looks or features to any other populations other than Africans which is what you are trying to claim. On all fronts this has been proven to you over and over again but you will just make up whatever facts you want to pretend otherwise.

These Egyptians look like black Africans to me:

http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/egypt-opens-luxor-tombs-to-spur-tourist-interest-11364014902603


http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-traders-and-tourists-on-a-hill-above-the-valley-of-the-kings-excavations-5863967.html

Just like their ancestors:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/manna4u/32764228921/

You are basically ignoring the facts and just using whatever justification to reinforce your belief. In other words, stop lying.
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoshuaConnerMoon:
My position is summarised by this quote-

"Lower Egyptian groups have tended to pool more with European and Mediterranean groups, while Upper Egyptians are biologically more similar to southern African groups. The geographic proximity of Lower Egyptians to the Mediterranean Sea and of Upper Egyptians to Nubia likely explains the phenotypic and genotypic differences between the two areas." (Klales, 2014)

Taken as a whole, Egypt plots intermediate between Sudan, in the south, and the east-Mediterranean, in he north. But when you examine Lower/Upper Egypt individually you find them closest to their neighbours.

Concerning terminology, Brace et al. call Egyptians as "[indigenous] Egyptians" and nothing else. They criticize the term "African".

How many studies on ancient Greeks call them biologically "European"? None I know of for the simple reason Europe is not homogenous culturally/genetically, so using the term "European" is too simplistic and not appropriate. This is also why I avoid calling Egyptians, Africans (in a biological context).

---