quote:

---

The National Geographic film feature on the 25th Dynasty deserves to be reviewed critically due to the ongoing interest in Egypt. It is important to say at the outset that it is not clear whether the producers/programmers or the academics had the most to do with final production. Nor is it clear what role PBS played in content decisions, or which outside scholars were invited to make comments before release. The ultimate responsibility in a public academic project like this belongs to both the contributors and producers. One would hope that there would have been more diversity in those involved in the production, diversity in representatives from a number of fields that have something to say about historiography—including the philosophy of science. Diversity would have been beneficial from fields that have something to say about concepts of identity as well and the flaws in reading back into the past certain kinds of attitudes and perspectives by giving ancient peoples the voices of the living. Posted here will be some initial comments about the program that will be followed at various times in the future by posts that tie various issues together. (National Geographic also published an issue of its magazine with “Black Pharaohs” as the cover story. The magazine piece has not been reviewed sufficiently by the range of anthropologists and critical scholars in various fields, and many of the comments made here would apply to that piece.)

The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry. The issue is not whether Petrie (and others) were right or wrong, but whether or not the film’s authors/producers have ignored the variation in Egyptological opinion about what some would call the “racial” “make-up” of the Egyptians—a northern Nilotic people. We can ask what or whose concept of “race” is being used? And we can most certainly say that one notion of race has to do with the social reaction to phenotype, be it in statuary, wall paintings, or folks standing in front of you. Some populations—and families– are highly variable in the phenotypic traits that we react to so much. Egyptological opinion aside the authors did not consider the variation in anthropological and anatomical reports in anthropological studies over the last 100 years. These reports when read critically and cross-checked against each other and current understanding of variability and models of evolution are quite interesting. The producers cannot get around the fact that they have done something that ignores the data that indicates that the notion of race does not apply to modern humans. They have imposed some ideas onto the past in a particular way. When one critically examines the linguistic, archaeological and biological data from numerous sources in a form of meta-analysis, the emergence of the ancient Egyptians in northeastern Africa becomes clear.

The authors have done something else, something that is clearly problematic. They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.) They have psychologized the ancient Egyptian attitude as seeing all Nubians (and by extension all dark-skinned folk, including some Egyptian individuals and communities) as obligatorily separate from themselves—like certain elements in western societies today. It cannot be shown that there was a term in Egyptian that could be judged commensurate with that phrase literally or in concept. It cannot be shown, according to reputable Egyptologists, that the Egyptians described human variation in terms of color terminology. Various wall paintings that depict various peoples and color ranges in Egyptians—when these are reliable–are doing just that and should not be alleged to be presenting an Egyptian visual textbook on “race” in anticipation of being discovered by later people. The authors have imposed onto the Egyptians what is clearly a “White” Western mindset replete with a particular racialist background. They have projected a “white” mentality back into a world that had no background for the sociocultural notion of race propounded by Westerners, and did not have in their science something commensurate with the Western science that produced “races” and racialism.

History will not justify their statements, nor will the attitudes of modern Egyptians towards Nubians or Sudanese to the degree that these are negative—presentism in this context would be so ahistorical. What would the authors state as evidence for their claim of Egyptian shame? The authors might point to the “damnatio memoria”—the erasure of the 25th Dynasty or some of it being remembered via the chiseling out of names. However, the Egyptians did this to Akhenaton, other Amarna elites and Hatshepsut—who were not Kushites. The historical specifics of this are likely relatable to a certain 26th delta based king who felt bereaved against the Kushites because of how they had treated his father. Perhaps it was about legitimacy—erase the memory of the previous kings. It would be inappropriate to commit the logical error of affirming the consequent and generalize to all Egyptians. It would be illogical to suggest that the Egyptians as a nation and culture had this attitude towards all dark-skinned Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites, or had it built into their culture and laws such that they would be ashamed. The authors might also claim that the Kushites were resented due to their ascendancy in Thebes—an ascendancy that some might want to read as naked brutal conquest, for which there is no evidence. The Thebans allied themselves with the Kushites. Piankhi’s campaign of 727 BC was the put down of rebellion in the delta region some 20 years or so after his coronation as King of Upper and Lower Egypt—which clearly had Egyptian support. Is there evidence that the Kushites had no core Egyptian support because of their average darker colour? Is there evidence of guerilla warfare against the Kushite dynasty by mass numbers of Egyptians or the elites in general? Is there any evidence that the Kushites were viewed as appropriating Egyptian culture with which it shared some deep roots at some level?

The imposition of certain western identities as reified with notions of whiteness with correlated assumptions onto the ancient Egyptians can be seen in various interpretations of how the Egyptians behaved towards Nubians and others. One example is that the Egyptians colonists in Nubia withdrew from border regions after the Kushites gained ascendancy at the end of the New Kingdom. Archaeology and history clearly would seem to be best interpreted as indicating that the colony separated from Egypt and wanted to be affiliated with Kush. There was an entanglement of cultures and peoples, even as there had been in the earliest days of Egyptian origins in what David Wengrow calls the “primary pastoral community” an endogenous phenomenon that includes the Badarian predynastic culture, whose identity is rooted in an African agency, synthesis and emergence irrespective of the ultimate source of some its elements. Later developments at Hierakonpolis, Naqada and Abydos emerged from this source, as did likely the language that would be the basis of dynastic Egyptian if Satzinger is correct.

Of course none of this to say that the Egyptians never had conflicts with or attitudes about some fellow Nilotic and other neighbors—especially those deemed to be rivals, but what was its cause? Was it “racial” in all that this means in the social history of the US and the West? Was it constructed around a notion of color? Does a careful reading of various sources perhaps suggest that there were various groups of more southern Nilotics and Saharans some of whom had better relations with Egyptians.

An opportunity was lost with this particular National Geographic project, an opportunity to examine the 25th Dynasty from different levels of analysis, to see Egyptian history from different perspectives, and to examine ideas about how current notions of identity mixed up with ancestry and physical traits in the context of racism should not be imposed upon the past. There are so many more interesting things about the 25th Dynasty and the Nilotic world that could have been used to anchor the PBS offering than the title “Black Pharaohs”… From the perspective of micro-history they could have attempted to contrast a perspective of the world through the eyes of not only the 25th, but other dynasties that were foreign. For example how many of the other dynasties took on the role of revivalists to any serious degree (as did the 25th)?

In their defense maybe the authors thought they needed to say “Black Pharaohs” in order to get an audience, and maybe PBS just went along—even if this were so they could have used the piece to argue against their own title—assuming that what they seemingly conveyed is just an error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[QB] This would be a guest post that SOY Keita wrote for Sally-Ann Ashton's "Kemet Expert" blog. As you can imagine, he's not a fan of racializing the Kushite conquerors of Egypt as the "Black Pharaohs".

Comments on the National Geographic Televised Program: “Black Pharaohs”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
These are black Africans by todays defs.





These are nig gas by todays defs.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
White colonists, racists and nationalists created Egyptology as a tool to appropriate the history and culture of Egypt as part of their geopolitical and colonial white supremacist project. Therefore the idea of the "blackness" or "whiteness" of Egypt comes out of THAT racial and political agenda and nothing more or less. That same agenda needs Egypt to be tied to the Bible. It is part of the same political, social and scientific agenda behind Eugenics. It is the same agenda that created slavery. It is the same agenda that created the "Middle East" or "Near East" as a geopolitical construct to serve the interests of colonial powers and so forth. Therefore, anybody who looks at this science and the writing and telling of "history" as objective or about truth and facts is a failure at and no student of history.

And the point of all of this is to show that no matter how "scientific" and "objective" Keita is as a scientist and how much trust and faith he has in the "scientific method", it has no bearing on how the system is going to package and promote Egypt to the world. It is the most telling example of how this has absolutely nothing to do with science, facts, objectivity, rationalism or rigorous analysis. Anybody who still believes this and still pushes this has an agenda and is not living in reality or dealing with reality. There is no lack of evidence and facts showing that the Kushites were not the first blacks to rule in Egypt. Keita knows it and everybody knows it. And everybody SHOULD know that the reason why National Geographic produced this show has nothing to do with those facts.

And certainly "Afrocentrists" haven't spent the last 500 years going around the world destroying cultures, stealing artifacts, promoting black supremacy, altering artifacts and promoting fake history to support it. But of course don't let those facts get in the way of some folks ignoring the institutions, people and organizations that HAVE done this in order to promote a fantasy of "objective" science that does not exist. Legitimizing lies, deception and propaganda does not make you a historian.


 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
This is a generation that doesn't realize the struggle is continuous.
This is a generation that has no idea of JimCrow/Apartheid/political colonialism.
This is a generation that doesn't believe the world can revert to the way it was before 1984.


Science is a creation of humankind.
Scientists are human beings.
Science is affected by individual
scientist notions of nationalism
and racial pride.

Anthropology is a science born
specifically from nationalism
and racial pride.

Genetics started as eugenics.
Eugenics is highly concerned
with white European caucasian
hierarchy.

Of course we've all mostly been
raised to adore science the same
as previously generations really
believed religion was infallible.

Anything made by humanity is
stained with humanity's flaws.

I and many here are subject to
be marketplace items should we
foolishly venture into Libya.
Will Trump pull a Wilson and
institute racism in government?
Conservative nationalism and
its mate racism are on the
rise in the West (including
Israel).

I know its hard facing realities
of black life (my life can be
snuffed out at the whim of an
American policeman for no criminal
reason and nobody can do a thing to
redress it). But retreating to a
DreamLand of science free from
racist influence is not a
viable option.

Better to address social reality
everywhere it impacts anything
relating to me.


Back to Keita. In this vein read his
• Race:confusion about zoological and social taxonomies and their places in science. AJHG 2001
• Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Social Divergence. AA 1997

Nat'l Geo black Pharaohs special issue and DVD?
Maybe those threads weren't axed out the archive.
Would make interesting rereading in light of this thread.


Black people can't afford to
swallow swill about science
is pure and objective
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Keita saw the writing on the wall a while back I suspect, don't forget he was warning afrocentrics from painting some Pan-African black utopia on Ancient Egypt and that many of the types present in modern Egypt would have been present in Ancient Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

I want to hear Keita's thoughts on the Abusir findings from last year. Given what he already knows about late dynastic northern Egyptians, he probably has less criticism of the findings themselves than how people have interpreted them. I also want to see what he has to say about your theory about African population structure and how it relates to Egyptians and Nubians. If he is still active, he might have something to say on those topics very soon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Keita saw the writing on the wall a while back I suspect, don't forget he was warning afrocentrics from painting some Pan-African black utopia on Ancient Egypt and that many of the types present in modern Egypt would have been present in Ancient Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part) and politics. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

I want to hear Keita's thoughts on the Abusir findings from last year. Given what he already knows about late dynastic northern Egyptians, he probably has less criticism of the findings themselves than how people have interpreted them. I also want to see what he has to say about your theory about African population structure and how it relates to Egyptians and Nubians. If he is still active, he might have something to say on those topics very soon.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.

---

quote:

---

In contrast, modern Egyptians are shifted towards sub-Saharan African populations. Model-based clustering using ADMIXTURE37 (Fig. 4b, Supplementary Fig. 4) further supports these results and reveals that the three ancient Egyptians differ from modern Egyptians by a relatively larger Near Eastern genetic component, in particular a component found in Neolithic Levantine ancient individuals36 (Fig. 4b). In contrast, a substantially larger sub-Saharan African component, found primarily in West-African Yoruba, is seen in modern Egyptians compared to the ancient samples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.

---

What does this even mean?^^^^^?

---

I dunno.

Does it mean there was no Nazi Germany?
Does it mean all documentation of
scientific racism is an invention
of cry baby blacks, you know, like
in those memes some whites post?


Science is just a tool
the mechanic can put to
either good or bad use.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
Title : Northeast African genomic variation shaped by the continuity of indigenous groups and Eurasian migrations - Nina Hollfelder, Published: August 24, 2017


Is this a rebuttal to Abusir paper? Lol! It disputes Abusir?

-----
Authors summary
This admixture process largely coincides with the time of the Arab conquest, spreading in a southbound direction along the Nile and the Blue Nile. Nilotic populations occupying the region around the
White Nile show long-term continuity, genetic isolation and genetic links to ancestral East African people. Compared to current times, groups that are ancestral to the current day
Nilotes likely inhabited a larger area of northeast Africa prior to the migration from the Middle East as their ancestry component can still be found in a large area. Our findings
reveal the genetic history of Sudanese and South Sudanese people, broaden our knowledge on demographic history of humans, and quantify the impact of large-scale historic
migration events in northeast Africa.

also
Quote:
The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan. They are traditionally
strongly endogamic which could account for low levels of admixture. In terms of specific Nilotic populations, the f3 test showed no significant signal of gene flow with external
populations for the Nuer and Baria (Fig 3A), however, we detected indications of external

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

For those who did not get it. Notice the groups to identified. Remember I said the Abusir mummies are Kenyans, Tanzanians, Sudanese and my man's...Horners..

Quote:"The Nilotes are predominantly pastoralist populations, they live in Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, and are the most ****PROMINENT*** ethnicity in South Sudan"

I love being right!



 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Did he see the writing on the wall that no matter how you phrase it, how you package it or how you present it in attempts to being "objective" that these peoples and institutions don't care about the facts and have an agenda and purpose which has nothing to do with promoting true history?

---

Most of these people and institutions have nothing to do with history but population genetics. Again Doug how is any of this information so upsetting to you? At the end of the day modern Egyptians and even Northern Sudanese are majority African(North African) and Egypt is still African, with majority of its culture stemming from the South.

Id say the people with an Agenda are the Egyptologists who ignore and outright don't care about places in Africa that might harbor Egypt's origins like Nabta Playa, abu ballas, etc

quote:

---

I don't see how "Afrocentrists" have anything to do with it. And if AE was a black Utopia so what? If the facts support it how is that a problem? Was China as an Asian utiopia a problem?

---

Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role. And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.

---

Actually it goes back to the predynastic. But yes numerous times "Southerners" or "Nehesi" from the South openly came to rule in AE sometime even with the name "Nehesi" on the throne. But more importantly legitimacy on the throne came through Southern Queens which has been a recurring theme since day one.

To tell the truth though being "objective" means pointing out lies, distortion and propaganda no matter where it comes from. That is the most honest definition of it. It means not taking a side and just following the facts. Unfortunately for a lot of people being "objective" means turning a blind eye to the institutitions of science as a source of deception. And a lot of scientists who know the facts will gladly go along with the party line to get their paychecks. [/qb]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Henn also used LD to confirm it was always a South to North migration.

ie LD is similar to STR. That is how we knew the Amarnas' were SSA regardless of the uniparental markers....which to date was never released. I would asume they were mtDNA U5b also ...SSA STR but "Eurasian" Haplgroups.

eg Senegalese carrying U5b but SSA STR.

Oh! But wait! Luxmanda carried Eurasian ancestry but African mtDNA L2a...wait! How does that work again(sic)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.

---

Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.

---

Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

---

Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sudaniya:
I doubt there will be any sincere attempt to perform DNA analysis on early Dynastic Southern Egyptians; everything will continue to be geared toward Northern Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.

---

Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

---

Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned.

---

No, just no.... tribalism/ethnocentrism, nationalism predate everything, it is the base human need for self interest and survival.

---

What, and the science implied in making nature work for you to make tools, medicine and hunting weapons is not a base human need for survival?

quote:

---

There is no where you would find "science" void of context and culture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elmaestro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Henn also used LD to confirm it was always a South to North migration.

ie LD is similar to STR. That is how we knew the Amarnas' were SSA regardless of the uniparental markers....which to date was never released. I would asume they were mtDNA U5b also ...SSA STR but "Eurasian" Haplgroups.

eg Senegalese carrying U5b but SSA STR.

Oh! But wait! Luxmanda carried Eurasian ancestry but African mtDNA L2a...wait! How does that work again(sic)?

---

Download Wordpad and veiw these two files.... Being that you know all about genetics and LD and all that Jaz you can figure out what's going on... If you have trouble for some reason (or if you're talking out the side of your neck), just scroll all the way down and look at results... If you still can't interpret it, feel free to pm me.

You'll probably glitch, time out, 404 crash when you do figure out what's going on though. But I'll give you leeway for a redemption arc. Hopefully you learn, so you can do the honors of breaking down whats going on here publicly for ES.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xKGiUeiozEWkGLfokDpcdxJkzNJ1Sn3V/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nM6FngaBWR9WPdyw8I4zbpzWcBMCkIJ1/view?usp=sharing

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

The concept there is the priority of black people should be social justice first science second, that the light skinned majority has created a skin color system biased toward themselves and that has to be undone first on a cultural level

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by xyyman:
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! My man, You know you are slipping? Explain to the readers why Natufians NOW have Sub-saharan ancestry when it was not observed in prior studies. As I said back then it is impossible for Natufians NOT to be of African origin. Euros got the power(and information which they keep hidden) but Africans has always had the smarts and innovation ie Neolithics. Only a matter of time. This may probably go over the head of many but here goes....

---

I'm not slipping... you're just getting desperate.

Read the files Xyyman.

And don't even bother with the misdirection or strawmen... I was postulating Natufian SSA affinity/Admixture since I read Lazaradis' preprint, hints towards it were there. You're offering no new revelation or perspectives here. Though I bet you still can't explain the generally large genetic distance between Natufians and SSA's can you?

Anyways, lets not detract from Keitas comments... in the meantime you can read the files Xyyman.
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
It is time you brothas ...and sistas start downloading and processing the data yourself. Keita is not going to do it. DNATribes threw us a bone. Time we start doing this ourselves.

Get the correct reference panels. Get Samples from Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa. Compile a database. We cannot rely on the few honest Europeans do do this for us.

I just don't have the time.......
 

---

Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
 
Why are you running away from data downloaded and processed by a fellow black brotha?

Stop the baseless grandstanding and read the files


Show us you have an ounce of a clue as to what you're talking about
 

---

Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
 
As I said when done properly Europeans are sub-set of Africans with the mouth Great Lakes being the epicenter for origin of the Neolithics. ALL DATA WHEN PROPERLY/UNBIASLY TESTED SHOWS THIS! ALL!!!

I know I am 1000% correct!!!!!! Give it time. The Anthropological evidence shows that, the archeological evidence, and the genetic evidence.


 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
There has literally never been a time or place that science has been separate from politics, religion, or nationalism/ethnocentrism. Science and scientist always have a p.o.v., agenda or stated philosophy, if you dig deep enough you will find it. In the west there is no just "benevolent" use of science, it will either be capitalized or weaponized as a tool of economic or political domination at some point. A view that scientific knowledge or the pursuit thereof is an untouched moral high-ground is naivete in the extreme.

---

Last time I checked, it took scientific inquiry like Keita's to challenge the Eurocentric model of ancient Egyptian origins. Even Diop appealed to science when making his arguments. Not to mention, "Out of Africa" wouldn't even be a theory without science digging up the data to back it up. It is true that individual scientists can have biases that persuade them to misinterpret data, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

---

Certainly, protoscience and science-minded individuals predate modern racism, nationalism and other things she mentioned.

---

No, just no.... tribalism/ethnocentrism, nationalism predate everything, it is the base human need for self interest and survival.

---

What, and the science implied in making nature work for you to make tools, medicine and hunting weapons is not a base human need for survival?

quote:

---

There is no where you would find "science" void of context and culture.

---

Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.

---

Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role. And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.

---

It was an African centered individual (Tukuler) who analysed data the media suppressed and objectively demonstrated the relationship with modern Egyptians and Europeans before Abusir. Just compare the media promotion of Abusir to Tut and Nefertiti's ancestry test.

The 'extreme' argument is mostly correct. Its usually someone like Sara Suten Seti calling pale arabs/turks or Europeans invaders. Arabians invaded Egypt at least twice with Turks once. They changed the name of the country, the religion, language, phenotypes and arguably were the people who shot up the Sphinx and recently threatened to cover the pyramids in wax. Its not just a strawman its a weak strawman.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Even if that is true, which is not what you originally argued, but even if that is true, science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived politics. People have tried, but they failed. Anyone trying to marry science with their brand of pre-conceived politics sooner or later finds himself with his pants down. So trying to reduce science to politics is just a fallacy. Science has never supported anyone's pre-conceived political agenda.

---

Some might says that the Out of Africa theory supports an African political agenda as and also the concept of Egypt being the first large scale "civilization" that therefore Africans should be respected as the originators of modern humanity and civilization

---

Lol. You're saying that to me as if I need a reality check on the central role of Africa or as if I'm against teaching the important role of Africa in world history. But that is not really politics. That is just a part of education. That doesn't come from a place of where you've already decided on what you want to believe about where your people and others fit in the world and then waiting patiently for the science to fall in place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I strongly disagree

There was a time not long ago when very old human skulls had not been found and there wasn't technology to date them. So no one had strong evidence suggestive where humanity began.
a) OOA is still a theory. Some Chinese finds have also challenged aspects of the theory
b)The idea that Egypt was the first civilization not Sumer or elsewhere is also a theory.
c)to what extent Egypt was an indigenous African culture is also debated
d) to what extent Greek civilization used ideas
from Egyptian civilization is also debated

---

quote:

---

A scientific point of view is that all of the above is indefinite and the jury is still out to varying degrees for each of these

So you can take a position on these issue from an attempt to be as objectively scientific as possible, probably with a certain amount of uncertainty(mummies from a wide diversity of burial site locations have not yet been tested)
And you can also debate people you think have tainted their view with politics

Or you can decide all of these based on a political agenda and express minimal uncertainty. This point of view sees the politics are more important to one's own survival than a detached scientific analysis.

Those indeed are the main premises that are discussed in this forum. You can decided to attempt to look at it scientifically or culturally depending on what your priorities are a scientific narrative or a political history and stance with some science mentioned in that context

---

quote:

---

c)to what extent Egypt was an indigenous African culture is also debated

---

By who?

Thanks to people like Hansberry and
Diop only a fool argues non-African
origins of Lower Nile Valley civ.

There's not a serious scholarly book
out there that doesn't acknowledge
AEs roots and trunk are African.

Please quote and cite even one college
grad level book written or edited by
well known Egyptologists and degree
holders in related multidisciplinary
fields.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
The logical fallacies are twerking on egyptsearch. If you are arguing that OOA doesn't support an African centered agenda then you are either over analyzing or you follow a stupid breed of Afrocentrist. The only Afrocentrist that I know of who isn't either a fool or ok with OOA is the dude who operates this channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpdZsiyVTCQr1Y0hAlRI5Rw/featured

of no coincidence, he is also one of only a handful of African centered individuals who might devalue ancient Egypt because it was too mulatoish.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration). This is due to serial founder effect and isolation by distance. It also predicts that populations who split off earlier, who settled far away from the exit points, will have more opportunities for admixture among themselves. Given Africa's geography, with the exit points on opposite sides of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and relatively difficult to reach, this inevitably contributes to the SSA vs North Africa distinction Afrocentrists are in denial about.

So yes, they do celebrate OOA and think it supports their agenda. But it doesn't.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

It was an African centered individual (Tukuler) who analysed data the media suppressed and objectively demonstrated the relationship with modern Egyptians and Europeans before Abusir.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
I strongly disagree

There was a time not long ago when very old human skulls had not been found and there wasn't technology to date them. So no one had strong evidence suggestive where humanity began.
a) OOA is still a theory. Some Chinese finds have also challenged aspects of the theory
b)The idea that Egypt was the first civilization not Sumer or elsewhere is also a theory.
c)to what extent Egypt was an indigenous African culture is also debated
d) to what extent Greek civilization used ideas
from Egyptian civilization is also debated

---

My main point is that a scientific point of view is that all of the above are not entirely certain

The politcial point of view is that doesn't matter because black people are subject to discrimination and therefore first priority is to address the discrimination as a matter of survival and how it pertains to history before getting into all the subtle nuances of things like DNA, percentages, Admixture programs, crania etc.

Doug's point of view is that Egyptology itself, the theme of this forum is what " White colonists, racists and nationalists created Egyptology as a tool to appropriate the history and culture of Egypt as part of their geopolitical and colonial white supremacist project."

He would argue that the science used in Egyptology is slanted and selected to enhance it's primarily objective of white supremacy.
Therefore Egyptology, a white supremacist concept, is using so called science to promote it's aims and on an Egyptology forum, responsible people should go there and battle against it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
As I have admitted in the past, I originally came to this whole AE debate wanting to rebut white supremacist narratives of native African inferiority and inability to build complex civilizations.

---

(see by new "what if" thread
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=009903

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Lol. Should have known that the lioness plot twist was coming.

But on some of your points, you're only disagreeing with yourself. Not with me. For instance, when you set up your plot twist earlier you said that some argue that OOA fits the Afrocentric agenda. I don't think that is true. I think OOA is deeply anti-Afrocentric as I said a couple of days ago.

---

that is an absurd point of view only a Swenet could have

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

OOA increases the importance of Africa's role in prehistory, so its good for education and understanding Africa's contribution to humanity. But it's not useful for Afrocentrism, even though they think it is.

---

Again, absurd Swenetian idea, you are saying that Afrocentrists (African centered) folks think OOA is useful for Afrocentrism but for some reason it is actually not ???

We have a lot of oddballs in this forum, it's not just me

A scientific point of view is that all of the above is indefinite and the jury is still out to varying degrees for each of these. The scientific method is always open to updating assumption if new evidence is discovered

So you can take a position on these issue from an attempt to be as objectively scientific as possible, probably with a certain amount of uncertainty(mummies from a wide diversity of burial site locations have not yet been tested)
And you can also debate people you think have tainted their view with politics

Or you can decide all of these based on a political agenda and express no uncertainty. This point of view sees the politics are more important to one's own survival than a detached scientific analysis.

Those indeed are the main premises that are discussed in this forum. You can decided to attempt to look at it scientifically or culturally depending on what your priorities are a scientific narrative or a political history and stance with some science mentioned in that context

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

a) Chinese discoveries sensationalized as contradicting OOA, just contradict that there was one OOA. This was recently discussed in two threads, one by elMaestro and one by Tyrannohotep. See those threads for more information.

---

quote:

---

wikipedia:

The recent African origin of modern humans, also called the "Out of Africa" theory (OOA), recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), replacement hypothesis, or recent African origin model (RAO), is, in paleoanthropology, the dominant model of the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Swenet:

Egypt was the first nation-state. So Africa has that in the bag, even if they jury is still out on other issues.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
c) Ancient Egypt was not an eastern Carthage. And even Carthage is not the best example of true ancient colonies like Ionia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
" d) to what extent Greek civilization used ideas
from Egyptian civilization is also debated"


d) Not really. We all know why it's controversial. It's fabricated outrage for the most part.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Again, absurd Swenetian idea, you are saying that Afrocentrists (African centered) folks think OOA is useful for Afrocentrism but for some reason it is actually not ???

---

I'm not really interested in getting bogged down in another thread. But before I take a back seat, could you give some examples of "absurd Swenetian ideas"?

This should be good.


 

---

Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Science itself has never supported racial pride or nationalism, no matter whose it is. The notion that science will uniquely support anyone's pre-conceived politics and that someone just happens to have been born on the 'right' side of life to where they get all the perks of science/history/race/god is just self-delusion. But keep thinking you're 'the one' and that your politics and presentisms are special.

---

What does this even mean?^^^^^?

---

quote:

---

If evidence is simultaneously used to update belief over a set of exclusive and exhaustive propositions, Bayesian inference may be thought of as acting on this belief distribution as a whole.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
To some degree Bernal did the same thing. He borrowed a lot of ideas from Afrocentric books. The difference between Egyptsearch lurk authors and Bernal is Bernal added his own expertise to it and focused everything into a coherent self-contained set of books. Whereas the Egyptsearch lurk authors just use a patchwork of sources that only have in common that they're supposed to hype their readers. They don't even show an understanding of what they're writing. And some of the things they're posting as hype material (e.g. Africa being the center stage of OOA theory) are deeply anti-Afrocentric. You could say that much of the difference in quality and appeal between these books boils down to the angle used and the focus on that angle throughout the book.

At least, that's how I see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
To some degree Bernal did the same thing. He borrowed a lot of ideas from Afrocentric books. The difference between Egyptsearch lurk authors and Bernal is Bernal added his own expertise to it and focused everything into a coherent self-contained set of books. Whereas the Egyptsearch lurk authors just use a patchwork of sources that only have in common that they're supposed to hype their readers. They don't even show an understanding of what they're writing. And some of the things they're posting as hype material (e.g. Africa being the center stage of OOA theory) are deeply anti-Afrocentric. You could say that much of the difference in quality and appeal between these books boils down to the angle used and the focus on that angle throughout the book.

At least, that's how I see it.

---

^ Swenetian concepts

You say here also with no explanation you say

"some of the things they're posting as hype material (e.g. Africa being the center stage of OOA theory) are deeply anti-Afrocentric."

OOA or an equivalent expression of the idea that humankind began in Africa is the foundation of Afrocentrism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
For more see Doug, he is the expert on Swenetian dogmas

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Clyde Winters:
As you can see Geneticists do not practice science which is hypothesis building. they use Bayesian methods,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
To some degree Bernal did the same thing. He borrowed a lot of ideas from Afrocentric books. The difference between Egyptsearch lurk authors and Bernal is Bernal added his own expertise to it and focused everything into a coherent self-contained set of books. Whereas the Egyptsearch lurk authors just use a patchwork of sources that only have in common that they're supposed to hype their readers. They don't even show an understanding of what they're writing. And some of the things they're posting as hype material (e.g. Africa being the center stage of OOA theory) are deeply anti-Afrocentric. You could say that much of the difference in quality and appeal between these books boils down to the angle used and the focus on that angle throughout the book.

At least, that's how I see it.

---

^ Swenetian concepts

You say here also with no explanation you say

"some of the things they're posting as hype material (e.g. Africa being the center stage of OOA theory) are deeply anti-Afrocentric."

OOA or an equivalent expression of the idea that humankind began in Africa is the foundation of Afrocentrism

For more see Doug, he is the expert on Swenetian dogmas

---

Lol. Call for help because she can't give examples.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ this is diversionary. I made a long post a moment ago and instead of dealing with that I'm supposed to remember a list a wacky stuff he said in the past

---

You made the claim, you back it up.

Still waiting. Or are you trolling?


 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Did he see the writing on the wall that no matter how you phrase it, how you package it or how you present it in attempts to being "objective" that these peoples and institutions don't care about the facts and have an agenda and purpose which has nothing to do with promoting true history?

---

Most of these people and institutions have nothing to do with history but population genetics. Again Doug how is any of this information so upsetting to you? At the end of the day modern Egyptians and even Northern Sudanese are majority African(North African) and Egypt is still African, with majority of its culture stemming from the South.

---

So the "institutions" that these people work for can lie and that's OK? I mean if you are objective why do you tolerate lies from anybody? Does it really matter if the guys in the dirt doing the excavation is the one doing the lying or not? Your argument makes no sense.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

Id say the people with an Agenda are the Egyptologists who ignore and outright don't care about places in Africa that might harbor Egypt's origins like Nabta Playa, abu ballas, etc

---

So you don't see 300 years of an agenda in AE? And in reality the point is that if they lie about AE they will lie about ALL history, whether African, Asian or anywhere else. Again, if you are "objective" you will be against liars no matter when or where they operate. I don't accept people lying about European history no more than I accept lies about African history.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:

---

I don't see how "Afrocentrists" have anything to do with it. And if AE was a black Utopia so what? If the facts support it how is that a problem? Was China as an Asian utiopia a problem?

---

Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role.

---

What is the black kemet stuff? Is there an "Asian Chinese stuff"? Is there a "black Nigerian stuff"? I don't get your point. Again, does this mean that it is acceptable for folks to lie to your face about the obviously black presence in AE? Or are you only concerned about Afrocentrics? Either blacks were in AE as proven and shown by the facts or not. And the "objective" view is to go where the facts lead and right now the facts do absolutely lead to a "black kemet". And when was the last time that Keita challenged the liars and distorters within the institutions he works with or for about their "white stuff"? Sounds like to me you are saying you are saying that being "objective" means accepting lies and distortions from the institutions and bodies who historically created and promoted such things. I don't call that objective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.

---

What does that have to do with calling out liars and frauds for what they are no matter where they are? How does that have anything to do with you talking to anybody on this thread? Is anybody on this thread doing that? Do you accept the attitudes of Egyptology that historically treated AE history as European history and not Egypt's history? Again, sounds like your "objectivity" is selective.

Again, the history of African scholarship, including folks labeled as "Afrocentric" has to be seen in the context of challenging the institutions of and practice of racism within science. Has their work been perfect? Of course not, but the goal and aim of removing racism from the study of, discussion of and presentation of history has not changed. And whenever people use the Afrocentric strawman typically it is a DEFENSE for the racist paradigm within the scientific community. It isn't because they care about Afrocentrics being right or wrong as opposed to not wanting Africans to challenge white dominance in the fields of anthropology and history in Africa or the world.

The fact that someone has to explain that on a forum like this is amazing. To critique and analyze the flaws of African scholarship in the hope of improving it is one thing. But to sit here and pretend that the goal and aim of removing racism from the study of and presentation of history is no longer valid is something different. That should go without saying.

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
The thing that bothers me about the whole 25th dynasty "Black Pharaohs" thing is that it blatantly distorts the facts that as early as the 4th dynasty you had so called Nubian aka black pharaohs on the throne of kmt. Hell the 12th Dynasty Senusret went through all sorts of PR and Propaganda via the neferti Prophesy to legitimize and Egyptianize his Nubian heritage.

---

Actually it goes back to the predynastic. But yes numerous times "Southerners" or "Nehesi" from the South openly came to rule in AE sometime even with the name "Nehesi" on the throne. But more importantly legitimacy on the throne came through Southern Queens which has been a recurring theme since day one.

To tell the truth though being "objective" means pointing out lies, distortion and propaganda no matter where it comes from. That is the most honest definition of it. It means not taking a side and just following the facts. Unfortunately for a lot of people being "objective" means turning a blind eye to the institutitions of science as a source of deception. And a lot of scientists who know the facts will gladly go along with the party line to get their paychecks.

---

[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration). This is due to serial founder effect and isolation by distance. It also predicts that populations who split off earlier, who settled far away from the exit points, will have more opportunities for admixture among themselves. Given Africa's geography, with the exit points on opposite sides of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and relatively difficult to reach, this inevitably contributes to the SSA vs North Africa distinction Afrocentrists are in denial about.

So yes, they do celebrate OOA and think it supports their agenda. But it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Even though the Nubians and the Nilotes are linguistically closer to each other than to the Afro-Asiatic groups, the Nubians showed the greatest genetic differentiation (FST between 0.02 and 0.04) to the Nilotes. To investigate whether this signal of genetic differentiation is driven by the Eurasian admixture into the Nubians (as seen in Fig 2), we created pseudo-‘unadmixed’ (in terms of not having Eurasian admixture) allele frequencies (see SI) and calculated Wright’s FST, which showed that an ‘unadmixed’ Nubian gene-pool is genetically similar to Nilotes (S7B Fig).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration). This is due to serial founder effect and isolation by distance. It also predicts that populations who split off earlier, who settled far away from the exit points, will have more opportunities for admixture among themselves. Given Africa's geography, with the exit points on opposite sides of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and relatively difficult to reach, this inevitably contributes to the SSA vs North Africa distinction Afrocentrists are in denial about.

So yes, they do celebrate OOA and think it supports their agenda. But it doesn't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration). This is due to serial founder effect and isolation by distance. It also predicts that populations who split off earlier, who settled far away from the exit points, will have more opportunities for admixture among themselves. Given Africa's geography, with the exit points on opposite sides of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and relatively difficult to reach, this inevitably contributes to the SSA vs North Africa distinction Afrocentrists are in denial about.

So yes, they do celebrate OOA and think it supports their agenda. But it doesn't.

---

Here is the problem Swenet. That label of "Eurasian" on that exit route doesn't mean those lineages arose in Eurasia. The semantics of this are problematic. Case in point, does Eurasian DNA in Ethiopia make Ethiopians less black African? No. Does African DNA in Europe make Europeans less white? No. Does European DNA in African Americans make them white? Nope.

DNA lineages do not prove phenotype. Eurasian genes in Africa before the people left Africa are African.

The whole issue on the recent DNA from Egypt is you are working in a vacuum. If you had a full set of DNA samples from across the Nile Valley THEN you could actually make better predictions. But even then you still need multi-disciplinary data to confirm and reinforce assumptions. If there are JET BLACK mummies in AE from that same time frame and they also carry the same lineages as those who are supposedly "EUrasian" then what? I keep asking this and nobody seems to pick up on the implication. I mean they are already claiming L MTNDA as Eurasian when it is mostly carried by blacks.

My concern here going all the way back to the "when to use black" thread is accuracy in terminology that is unambigous. If black can carry Eurasian DNA lineages then finding Eurasian DNA in some AE mummies doesn't NECESSARILY mean what you think it means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration). This is due to serial founder effect and isolation by distance. It also predicts that populations who split off earlier, who settled far away from the exit points, will have more opportunities for admixture among themselves. Given Africa's geography, with the exit points on opposite sides of most of Sub-Saharan Africa, and relatively difficult to reach, this inevitably contributes to the SSA vs North Africa distinction Afrocentrists are in denial about.

So yes, they do celebrate OOA and think it supports their agenda. But it doesn't.

---

Here is the problem Swenet. That label of "Eurasian" on that exit route doesn't mean those lineages arose in Eurasia. The semantics of this are problematic. Case in point, does Eurasian DNA in Ethiopia make Ethiopians less black African? No. Does African DNA in Europe make Europeans less white? No. Does European DNA in African Americans make them white? Nope.

DNA lineages do not prove phenotype. Eurasian genes in Africa before the people left Africa are African.

The whole issue on the recent DNA from Egypt is you are working in a vacuum. If you had a full set of DNA samples from across the Nile Valley THEN you could actually make better predictions. But even then you still need multi-disciplinary data to confirm and reinforce assumptions. If there are JET BLACK mummies in AE from that same time frame and they also carry the same lineages as those who are supposedly "EUrasian" then what? I keep asking this and nobody seems to pick up on the implication. I mean they are already claiming L MTNDA as Eurasian when it is mostly carried by blacks.

My concern here going all the way back to the "when to use black" thread is accuracy in terminology that is unambigous. If black can carry Eurasian DNA lineages then finding Eurasian DNA in some AE mummies doesn't NECESSARILY mean what you think it means.

---

The point I'm making is much more fundamental. What I'm saying is that you can't have an OOA theory without African ancestry having varying degrees of closeness to people outside of Africa. Bickering over the details of what that implies for Egypt is not really necessary right now because if we can't agree on this fundamental point then it's pointless to argue about the implications. I'm strictly talking about how populations split from each other when they expand, and how that automatically distributes human ancestry along a cline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration).

---

They wrote the memo.


This is already known. The degree is still questionable. The grey area is not coming from African centered people.

The big huggabaloo with OOA and African centered people is not the relationship to ancient Egyptians and Europeans its the Yakub idiots that think white people were created and the conservatives who follow the old isolated, mutated stuck in the caucasus mts OOA model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I am not Afrocentric. Neither authentic university
taught Afrocentrism nor the white media distorted
Afro-eccentricism.

I see through Afrikan Eyes, a term invented by
an African American psychology student in 1978.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Of course Afrocentrists think OOA supports them. I don't deny that. But that's just because they still don't have the memo.

OOA predicts that populations close to the exit points of Africa will be genetically closer to Eurasians (independent of any backmigration).

---

They wrote the memo.


This is already known. The degree is still questionable. The grey area is not coming from African centered people.

The big huggabaloo with OOA and African centered people is not the relationship to ancient Egyptians and Europeans its the Yakub idiots that think white people were created and the conservatives who follow the old isolated, mutated stuck in the caucasus mts OOA model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
I am not Afrocentric. Neither authentic university
taught Afrocentrism nor the white media distorted
Afro-eccentricism.

I see through Afrikan Eyes, a term invented by
an African American psychology student in 1978.

---

Seeing things through 'Afrikan Eyes' will eventually lump you with media's distortion.

Good example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4szHBhv-ZEo&t=216s

Notice the like/dislike ratio.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The point I'm making is much more fundamental. What I'm saying is that you can't have an OOA theory without African ancestry having varying degrees of closeness to people outside of Africa. Bickering over the details of what that implies for Egypt is not really necessary right now because if we can't agree on this fundamental point then it's pointless to argue about the implications. I'm strictly talking about how populations split from each other when they expand, and how that automatically distributes human ancestry along a cline.

---

Again. There is no Eurasian DNA before humans left Africa. If a lineage arose in Africa it is African. Thats all. The point is whether certain lineages that are claimed to be "Eurasian" are actually African. That is my point.

If Nubians and the AE have similar levels of "Eurasian" DNA from 6000 years ago, then you can't claim that this DNA is a sign of mixture due to contemporary Eurasian migration, as in Asiatic or Levantine migrations into Lower Egypt.

---

quote:

---

All the populations that inhabit the Northeast of Sudan today, including the Nubian, Arab, and Beja groups showed admixture with Eurasian sources and the admixture fractions were very similar. The admixture component in the northeastern groups cluster with the greater European and Middle Eastern group assuming few clusters, and for greater number of assumed clusters, when a predominantly Middle Eastern cluster emerged, the admixture in northeastern Sudan connected to the Middle East (ADMIXTURE, Fig 2, f3, S10 Fig). According to historical and linguistic studies, and recent Y-chromosome data it has been suggested that the northeastern Sudanese populations especially Nubians and Beja were strongly affected by Eurasian migrations since the introduction of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula through Egypt and the Red Sea starting around 651 A.D [9, 35].

Assuming that the Nubian population is a mixture of an incoming Eurasian (TSI is used as a proxy) group and a resident group that is genetically similar to the current day Nilotes (Nuer is used as a proxy), first contact is dated using patterns of LD-decay [34] to roughly 56 generations ago for the Danagla (54.45 ± 10.34, Z = 5.26437) and the Mahas (58.35 ± 12.2, Z = 4.78402); the Halfawieen have received Eurasian admixture later, around 19 generations ago (19.31 ± 3.81, Z = 5.05949, S7 Table, Fig 3C). Assuming a generation time of 30 years, the admixture dates for Danagla and Mahas predate the Arab expansion in the 7th century, and may suggest that the migrations and admixture predate Islamic conquest. However, the confidence intervals overlap with the 7th century, and these admixture estimates largely coincide with the Arab expansion into the northeast of Sudan. It is known from historic sources that Arabic groups encountered the Nubians first in the 7th century, and were held back from advancing further into the Sahel until the fall of Dongola in 1315/1316AD [36] and the collapse of the Kingdom of Makuria. This is consistent with the later date for the admixture into Halfawieen and the Arabic populations of Sudan. Previous studies [37, 38] have found a similar pattern for populations of Maghreb, where admixture times coincide with the time of the historically documented Arab conquest.

---

quote:

---

So what can be gleaned from this ancient DNA analysis? For starters, certain mtDNA haplogroups that today are primarily concentrated below (or above) the Sahara may not always have been. Such appears to be the case with the L5 clade to which the NUB04b specimen apparently belongs. More importantly, these lineages may originally have had quite different population affinities than their present-day distribution would suggest.

As the earliest ancient specimen so far found to carry haplogroup L5, it would be interesting to know just what are NUB04b’s general phenotypic affinities. To this end, the researchers provide a graphic illustrating the marked difference in skull form between the later Meroitic, Post-Meroitic/X-Group and Christian (MXCH) period inhabitants of Wadi Halfa and the earlier Mesolithic period dwellers:

The Mesolithic period inhabitants were clearly a more robust people, with a rugged osteological framework. Comparative craniofacial and anthropometric analyses of these ancient specimens versus later MXCH samples, modern Nubians and ancient and modern Egyptian samples have been conducted by various anthropologists. These analyses have consistently grouped the Mesolithic Wadi Halfa crania with those of present-day “Negroid” populations, while the MXCH and modern Nubian samples have instead typically clustered with Egyptians and other surrounding populations with a generally “Caucasoid” craniofacial pattern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
The point I'm making is much more fundamental. What I'm saying is that you can't have an OOA theory without African ancestry having varying degrees of closeness to people outside of Africa. Bickering over the details of what that implies for Egypt is not really necessary right now because if we can't agree on this fundamental point then it's pointless to argue about the implications. I'm strictly talking about how populations split from each other when they expand, and how that automatically distributes human ancestry along a cline.

---

Again. There is no Eurasian DNA before humans left Africa. If a lineage arose in Africa it is African. Thats all. The point is whether certain lineages that are claimed to be "Eurasian" are actually African. That is my point.

If Nubians and the AE have similar levels of "Eurasian" DNA from 6000 years ago, then you can't claim that this DNA is a sign of mixture due to contemporary Eurasian migration, as in Asiatic or Levantine migrations into Lower Egypt.

---

You didn't even read my last post, did you? In my last post I said nothing about Eurasian DNA or Nubians. I said that expanding populations leave descendants behind in new territory and cause clines to form. For convenience sake (because I know this is how you hold conversations hostage) I refrain from labeling anything Eurasian. The point is that OOA forces African ancestry along that such clines, and that Afrocentrists have deep-seated discomfort with that.

If you disagree with that, then you can give a detailed and on-topic reply. If not then there is nothing to debate because I see a lot of push back (as usual), but no substance.

---

OOA does not disprove that Africa is the parent population of OOA? so why would "Afrocentrics" be threatened? Threatened by what? I really don't see how your analogy makes absolutely any sense.

We had this discussion before and I was absolutely clear then about what I PERSONALLY had objection to with your line of reasoning. If population A is the OOA population that never left Africa and population B is the population that separated from population A and moved into Europe, population A is still African no matter what. There should be no debate on that. Please don't mix up my point with some other random concerns about Afrocentrics or anybody else. I am not them.
 

---

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


Swenet you're saying something that could be described by this?
 

---

Posted by Punos_Rey (Member # 21929) on :
 
Just a reminder from the much vaunted Abusir study:

quote:

---

However, we note that all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt. It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced. Throughout Pharaonic history there was intense interaction between Egypt and Nubia, ranging from trade to conquest and colonialism, and there is compelling evidence for ethnic complexity within households with Egyptian men marrying Nubian women and vice versa. Clearly, more genetic studies on ancient human remains from southern Egypt and Sudan are needed before apodictic statements can be made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
]https://images2.imgbox.com/55/fc/nPJ6SoL7_o.jpg

Swenet you're saying something that could be described by this? [/qb]

---

See this graphic below for a good analogy:



Source:
The First Modern Human Dispersals across Africa
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080031

Notice the long black vertical arrow from which all the other horizontal arrows branch off. That is how you should imagine OOA expanding northwards and leaving descendants behind at different latitudes. But in this illustration, the long black vertical arrow stops in Ethiopia (it doesn't extend to Egypt). But in OOA, something like that arrow would go all the way up to Egypt, and non-Africans would only get 'off the bus' in Egypt. The ancestors of most Sub-Saharan Africans got off the bus way earlier (see all the horizontal arrows in southern and equatorial Africa). That is what OOA theory says, and what Afrocentrics either don't know, or pretend to not understand.

Needless to say this has implications for population substructure in Africa. And Afrocentrics don't want to deal with that issue. I've had conversations with many of them about this and I've never seen them get more out of character than when you bring this up in relation to precious Egypt. And it doesn't matter if you tell them it would still be indigenous African ancestry that settled around Egypt. They simply accuse you of being racist/Eurocentric/pretending to be black online or question your loyalty to the 'cause', like science is some sort of sect.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken
 

---

Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

But can you really blame dark skin people of recent African descent( trying really hard not to use black). What with the many people in this world who believe people like us contributed nothing to history and never went farther than sticks and mud huts for houses. What with so many people viewing us as naturally inferior. Hell I can hardly go to any video on youtube that feature dark skin African people or their recent descendants without reading a comment about our IQ (I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not). You can't even talk about African history without doubters coming, talking about us making up history to make us feel better. I study African history extensively and you don't know how angry it makes me when people comment that a high advance African civilization is impossible because Africans aren't capable of that.

You won't see other people dealing with what we have to deal with. You find a buried advance civilization in North America, you wont have people doubting that the brown natives in North America built it. But have that happen in Africa and you will have a thousand naysayers saying it is from a non-african or "white" african source. We already know this to be true because it already happened. So. Many. Times. There was a recent discovery of an old civilization in Tanzania that was recently discovered underwater. One of the articles that wrote about it, implied that it was an old Roman colony. The writer did not even consider the African population( who did built it!).

Those who are trying to introduce true African history and influence to the world, have to have twice as much evidence for our history, because many people will. not. accept. it. otherwise. And you have to be REALLY specific with it too. You can't just say African because than people will picture light skin North Africans. "Black" is obviously a political term, but the reason so many of us use it is because most people recognize what you mean by "black" African. They wont mistake it for anything else. So as a result, we have to use science to defend our history. It not just Ancient Egypt either. Its the other civilizations found throughout Africa that is attributed to a foreign source.

This is why I don't blame some black people for going too far at times. Its maddening having to constantly defend your place in history. Its maddening having people doubt your people's ability. It also doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of conspiracy theories on historians and scientist being anti-black, especially on Ancient Egyptian origins.

I use to think most were nonsense myself until I saw the evidence, one such evidence I discovered this year. There is a bias against black people today, and someone or some people are trying their hardest to keep anything black African from Ancient Egypt.

Years ago, I saw this picture of an Ancient Egyptian figure that they dubbed "Nubian Girl". There was no evidence that she was Nubian, but this is how they classified her.

This is how she looked like:


This is her now, which I recently discovered this year.


You can still see the dark brown paint around her eyes and they got rid of her hair on the side. Someone was given the go ahead to change this little girl, and they have been doing that to a lot of statues and wall paintings that I've seen( ignoring the dark brown paint and painting it a lighter color). With people allowing the alteration of ancient artifacts, you have to ask yourself, what else are they doing to hide the African origins?

We already see a media bias on Ancient Egyptian results. That old news about Tut being related to southern Europeans was announced on several blogs, talked about on several websites, and discussed on the news. Ramesses III being related to other Africans got zero traction, and only discussed on forums. You see, they have already won the information war. They will spread their pro-European viewpoint all over the dang world( and have already done so). So any mummies showing an african affinity will not be discussed on every news site. It just wont.

You have people distorting Ancient Egyptian artifacts to fit their viewpoint. You have the media on the side of a "Eurasian" Ancient Egypt. You have Egypt banning the genetic testing on the mummies and only a selective number of mummies being tested. You have a small number of insignificant people fighting for an African Egypt. While some of these people do go too far, it amazes me how quick some of you are to dog those who fight for it.

People have been using science to back their viewpoints since the beginning of time. From the racialist to those who are anti vaccine, people take scientific results and use them for their own benefit. It should not be a crime for those who support an African background of ancient African civilizations to do the same thing.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
And you have to be REALLY specific with it too. You can't just say African because than people will picture light skin North Africans. "Black" is obviously a political term, but the reason so many of us use it is because most people recognize what you mean by "black" African. They wont mistake it for anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

But can you really blame dark skin people of recent African descent( trying really hard not to use black). What with the many people in this world who believe people like us contributed nothing to history and never went farther than sticks and mud huts for houses. What with so many people viewing us as naturally inferior. Hell I can hardly go to any video on youtube that feature dark skin African people or their recent descendants without reading a comment about our IQ (I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not). You can't even talk about African history without doubters coming, talking about us making up history to make us feel better. I study African history extensively and you don't know how angry it makes me when people comment that a high advance African civilization is impossible because Africans aren't capable of that.

You won't see other people dealing with what we have to deal with. You find a buried advance civilization in North America, you wont have people doubting that the brown natives in North America built it. But have that happen in Africa and you will have a thousand naysayers saying it is from a non-african or "white" african source. We already know this to be true because it already happened. So. Many. Times. There was a recent discovery of an old civilization in Tanzania that was recently discovered underwater. One of the articles that wrote about it, implied that it was an old Roman colony. The writer did not even consider the African population( who did built it!).

Those who are trying to introduce true African history and influence to the world, have to have twice as much evidence for our history, because many people will. not. accept. it. otherwise. And you have to be REALLY specific with it too. You can't just say African because than people will picture light skin North Africans. "Black" is obviously a political term, but the reason so many of us use it is because most people recognize what you mean by "black" African. They wont mistake it for anything else. So as a result, we have to use science to defend our history. It not just Ancient Egypt either. Its the other civilizations found throughout Africa that is attributed to a foreign source.

This is why I don't blame some black people for going too far at times. Its maddening having to constantly defend your place in history. Its maddening having people doubt your people's ability. It also doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of conspiracy theories on historians and scientist being anti-black, especially on Ancient Egyptian origins.

I use to think most were nonsense myself until I saw the evidence, one such evidence I discovered this year. There is a bias against black people today, and someone or some people are trying their hardest to keep anything black African from Ancient Egypt.

Years ago, I saw this picture of an Ancient Egyptian figure that they dubbed "Nubian Girl". There was no evidence that she was Nubian, but this is how they classified her.

This is how she looked like:


This is her now, which I recently discovered this year.


You can still see the dark brown paint around her eyes and they got rid of her hair on the side. Someone was given the go ahead to change this little girl, and they have been doing that to a lot of statues and wall paintings that I've seen( ignoring the dark brown paint and painting it a lighter color). With people allowing the alteration of ancient artifacts, you have to ask yourself, what else are they doing to hide the African origins?

We already see a media bias on Ancient Egyptian results. That old news about Tut being related to southern Europeans was announced on several blogs, talked about on several websites, and discussed on the news. Ramesses III being related to other Africans got zero traction, and only discussed on forums. You see, they have already won the information war. They will spread their pro-European viewpoint all over the dang world( and have already done so). So any mummies showing an african affinity will not be discussed on every news site. It just wont.

You have people distorting Ancient Egyptian artifacts to fit their viewpoint. You have the media on the side of a "Eurasian" Ancient Egypt. You have Egypt banning the genetic testing on the mummies and only a selective number of mummies being tested. You have a small number of insignificant people fighting for an African Egypt. While some of these people do go too far, it amazes me how quick some of you are to dog those who fight for it.

[b]People have been using science to back their viewpoints since the beginning of time. From the racialist to those who are anti vaccine, people take scientific results and use them for their own benefit. It should not be a crime for those who support an African background of ancient African civilizations to do the same thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

They have suggested that the Egyptians saw themselves as “white” in some biocultural or political sense akin to some contemporary Europeans and Americans, and were ashamed that they had been “conquered” by “black Africans”—a term which no Egyptian or Kushite would know or have used, and which was invented by European colonialists. (And it does not matter who uses it, or that its use has persisted, even sometimes being used by those who know better.)

---

---

Outrageous! Heresy! Lol.

Not surprising that Keita feels that way. Keita is trained in the scientific method as part of his education. Nationalism, racial pride and that sort of thing has no place in science. It has a place in life, if that is where you're at in life, but it has nothing to do with science. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. It's generally the people who were never interested in science to begin with, who try to merge their politics and African (pre)history. They are interested in activism (at least, the lip service part), politics and using science for those purposes. Nothing more. Hence, why their beliefs never change in response to anything. Not even DNA.

---

But can you really blame dark skin people of recent African descent( trying really hard not to use black). What with the many people in this world who believe people like us contributed nothing to history and never went farther than sticks and mud huts for houses. What with so many people viewing us as naturally inferior. Hell I can hardly go to any video on youtube that feature dark skin African people or their recent descendants without reading a comment about our IQ (I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not). You can't even talk about African history without doubters coming, talking about us making up history to make us feel better. I study African history extensively and you don't know how angry it makes me when people comment that a high advance African civilization is impossible because Africans aren't capable of that.

You won't see other people dealing with what we have to deal with. You find a buried advance civilization in North America, you wont have people doubting that the brown natives in North America built it. But have that happen in Africa and you will have a thousand naysayers saying it is from a non-african or "white" african source. We already know this to be true because it already happened. So. Many. Times. There was a recent discovery of an old civilization in Tanzania that was recently discovered underwater. One of the articles that wrote about it, implied that it was an old Roman colony. The writer did not even consider the African population( who did built it!).

Those who are trying to introduce true African history and influence to the world, have to have twice as much evidence for our history, because many people will. not. accept. it. otherwise. And you have to be REALLY specific with it too. You can't just say African because than people will picture light skin North Africans. "Black" is obviously a political term, but the reason so many of us use it is because most people recognize what you mean by "black" African. They wont mistake it for anything else. So as a result, we have to use science to defend our history. It not just Ancient Egypt either. Its the other civilizations found throughout Africa that is attributed to a foreign source.

This is why I don't blame some black people for going too far at times. Its maddening having to constantly defend your place in history. Its maddening having people doubt your people's ability. It also doesn't surprise me that there are a lot of conspiracy theories on historians and scientist being anti-black, especially on Ancient Egyptian origins.

I use to think most were nonsense myself until I saw the evidence, one such evidence I discovered this year. There is a bias against black people today, and someone or some people are trying their hardest to keep anything black African from Ancient Egypt.

Years ago, I saw this picture of an Ancient Egyptian figure that they dubbed "Nubian Girl". There was no evidence that she was Nubian, but this is how they classified her.

This is how she looked like:


This is her now, which I recently discovered this year.


You can still see the dark brown paint around her eyes and they got rid of her hair on the side. Someone was given the go ahead to change this little girl, and they have been doing that to a lot of statues and wall paintings that I've seen( ignoring the dark brown paint and painting it a lighter color). With people allowing the alteration of ancient artifacts, you have to ask yourself, what else are they doing to hide the African origins?

We already see a media bias on Ancient Egyptian results. That old news about Tut being related to southern Europeans was announced on several blogs, talked about on several websites, and discussed on the news. Ramesses III being related to other Africans got zero traction, and only discussed on forums. You see, they have already won the information war. They will spread their pro-European viewpoint all over the dang world( and have already done so). So any mummies showing an african affinity will not be discussed on every news site. It just wont.

You have people distorting Ancient Egyptian artifacts to fit their viewpoint. You have the media on the side of a "Eurasian" Ancient Egypt. You have Egypt banning the genetic testing on the mummies and only a selective number of mummies being tested. You have a small number of insignificant people fighting for an African Egypt. While some of these people do go too far, it amazes me how quick some of you are to dog those who fight for it.

[b]People have been using science to back their viewpoints since the beginning of time. From the racialist to those who are anti vaccine, people take scientific results and use them for their own benefit. It should not be a crime for those who support an African background of ancient African civilizations to do the same thing.

---

Not that I don't understand where you're coming from, but I don't think it's helping your case if you say that it's okay for them to say alternative facts because of all this context. I'm subjected to the same difficulties and it doesn't make sense to me at all that that gives me a pass to get sloppy in presenting information to the best of ability. To me, this is about integrity and the need for people to be held accountable for the information they put in the minds of people who don't know any better.

Also, a lot of people benefit directly from duping people who follow them on African history. Do you seriously think they are only motivated by all this context and not one bit by profit and keeping their readership?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
When I'm saying people use studies to fit their agendas, that doesn't simply go to those with more extreme views nor am I arguing for people who refused to listen to data that does not fit their viewpoint. I am arguing for those people who are using these studies for a racial benefit. Again, I would much prefer not to do so, but face with so much doubt against any contribution of darker skin African people and their descendants, I can't fault people looking for data that help to prove a point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies, but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
By the way...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies, but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline.

---

Given everything you've said about African population substructure and how native North Africans would naturally have more affinity with non-Africans, what would you say to a white supremacist who claimed that "black Africans never had a civilization worthy of the name"? Because, like HabariTess said, a lot of people get into this whole Egypt debate looking to rebut white supremacist narratives. I started out as one of these people. If it turns out that the African population that ancient Egyptians and Kushites belonged to was separate from the ones most SSA belong to, could one really point to Egyptian or Kushite civilizations as counterpoints to claims of Africans never achieving anything of note?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
By the way...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies, but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline.

---

Given everything you've said about African population substructure and how native North Africans would naturally have more affinity with non-Africans, what would you say to a white supremacist who claimed that "black Africans never had a civilization worthy of the name"? Because, like HabariTess said, a lot of people get into this whole Egypt debate looking to rebut white supremacist narratives. I started out as one of these people. If it turns out that the African population that ancient Egyptians and Kushites belonged to was separate from the ones most SSA belong to, could one really point to Egyptian or Kushite civilizations as counterpoints to claims of Africans never achieving anything of note?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

But can you really blame dark skin people of recent African descent( trying really hard not to use black). What with the many people in this world who believe people like us contributed nothing to history and never went farther than sticks and mud huts for houses. What with so many people viewing us as naturally inferior. Hell I can hardly go to any video on youtube that feature dark skin African people or their recent descendants without reading a comment about our IQ (I wish I was exaggerating, but I'm not). You can't even talk about African history without doubters coming, talking about us making up history to make us feel better. I study African history extensively and you don't know how angry it makes me when people comment that a high advance African civilization is impossible because Africans aren't capable of that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
Years ago, I saw this picture of an Ancient Egyptian figure that they dubbed "Nubian Girl". There was no evidence that she was Nubian, but this is how they classified her.


You can still see the dark brown paint around her eyes and they got rid of her hair on the side. Someone was given the go ahead to change this little girl, and they have been doing that to a lot of statues and wall paintings that I've seen( ignoring the dark brown paint and painting it a lighter color). With people allowing the alteration of ancient artifacts, you have to ask yourself, what else are they doing to hide the African origins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
But can you really blame dark skin people of recent African descent( trying really hard not to use black). What with the many people in this world who believe people like us contributed nothing to history and never went farther than sticks and mud huts for houses.

---

This one has always tickled me especially since most Aegyptians lived in "mud huts".

Stone was rarely ever used for houses meant for living people including the pharaoh.

quote:

---

Only in the rare cases of stone being more readily available than river mud would people live in stone buildings. The workers building distant necropoles or quarrying rock might be housed like this (see Deir el Medine). Otherwise even pharaohs lived in brick palaces and rock was reserved for the dead and the gods.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
]https://images2.imgbox.com/55/fc/nPJ6SoL7_o.jpg

Swenet you're saying something that could be described by this?

---

See this graphic below for a good analogy:



Source:
The First Modern Human Dispersals across Africa
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080031

Notice the long black vertical arrow from which all the other horizontal arrows branch off. That is how you should imagine OOA expanding northwards and leaving descendants behind at different latitudes. But in this illustration, the long black vertical arrow stops in Ethiopia (it doesn't extend to Egypt). But in OOA, something like that arrow would go all the way up to Egypt, and non-Africans would only get 'off the bus' in Egypt. The ancestors of most Sub-Saharan Africans got off the bus way earlier (see all the horizontal arrows in southern and equatorial Africa). That is what OOA theory says, and what Afrocentrics either don't know, or pretend to not understand.

Needless to say this has implications for population substructure in Africa. And Afrocentrics don't want to deal with that issue. I've had conversations with many of them about this and I've never seen them get more out of character than when you bring this up in relation to precious Egypt. And it doesn't matter if you tell them it would still be indigenous African ancestry that settled around Egypt. They simply accuse you of being racist/Eurocentric/pretending to be black online or question your loyalty to the 'cause', like science is some sort of sect. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


Either way, nobody is claiming that Eurasian genes in modern Sudanese makes them non black. And that would be roughly equivalent to what we are talking about in predynastic/dynastic AE.

---

Assuming that Barack Obama is black then looking at DNA is irrelevant.

So one could apply that to the Egyptians. Just look at the art. If a lking is depicted dark skinned or the mummy looks dark, the person is black so there is no need to look at DNA
 

---

Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
 
Well the recent DNA results is proving you and folks like Sara-Suten Seti wrong, not only are those Europid/Turkish Egyptians legit, some of their ancestry dates back to dynastic Kemet. Keita tried to warn yall, now you guys are in the same league as Storm Front and the Nordic Egypt folks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Well it was Keita in his own words telling Afrocentrics to stop playing the Black Kemet stuff without understanding how Genetics is going to play a role. And lets stop playing games you have folks, African Americans travelling to Egypt telling Modern Egyptians they are not the Real Egyptians etc. Though that is the extreemists of the movement most folks would never have imagined Eurasian types playing such a role....fact is Afrocentrism is going to have to come to grips with Levantine and possible Mediterranean/Europid type folks in Egypt, and not seen as foreigners but full fledged citizens.

---

It was an African centered individual (Tukuler) who analysed data the media suppressed and objectively demonstrated the relationship with modern Egyptians and Europeans before Abusir. Just compare the media promotion of Abusir to Tut and Nefertiti's ancestry test.

The 'extreme' argument is mostly correct. Its usually someone like Sara Suten Seti calling pale arabs/turks or Europeans invaders. Arabians invaded Egypt at least twice with Turks once. They changed the name of the country, the religion, language, phenotypes and arguably were the people who shot up the Sphinx and recently threatened to cover the pyramids in wax. Its not just a strawman its a weak strawman.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
How do you "get off the bus" in Africa? That quip is seriously why I have a problem with your glib statements.

---

The bus represents the expanding population. Getting off the bus represents populations splitting from that expanding population. Very simple analogy. But maybe you're looking for a pretext to be disagreeable because you can't defend a more appealing OOA scenario.

quote:

---

At no time does that line into Egypt you are proposing imply non African. So why do you keep bringing it up? "Getting off the bus" means crossing the Mediterranean or a line that moves Out of Egypt into the Levant. That would be the only way for such DNA to have left the domain of Africa. Otherwise you are still talking about African genetic lineages.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

This one has always tickled me especially since most Aegyptians lived in "mud huts".

Stone was rarely ever used for houses meant for living people including the pharaoh.

[QUOTE]Only in the rare cases of stone being more readily available than river mud would people live in stone buildings. The workers building distant necropoles or quarrying rock might be housed like this (see Deir el Medine). Otherwise even pharaohs lived in brick palaces and rock was reserved for the dead and the gods.

---

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/building/ [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken

---

I think Tishkoff et al are still considering the southern African point of origin. But it's true that researchers are split between southern Africa and East Africa. Now North Africa has been added to the mix with the 300ky AMH remains found there. But the point is not really where exactly in Africa L started to migrate. (I could argue that it was closer to southern Africa than to East Africa, but that would not be necessary right now). The point is that African ancestry is situated along that cline. Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies , but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline. The recent Moroccan aDNA (IAM) is also on that cline, and the ancestors of that population likely got 'off the bus' very late, just like Eurasians, causing them to be more related to Eurasians than any African sample we know about outside of the Maghreb. Although they're not really close to any population outside of the Maghreb.

---

This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.

The racial use of "black African"

If you are Somali and black skinned you are a black African. Why don't you get of the bus anywhere in middle America or Paris, France and test this out? Or how about Tel Aviv? Count 5 minutes before someone calls you a Cushi... lol.



This is exactly what I mean by emotionalism/tribalism/egoism will always affect the way science is interpreted. Obviously the bias that I detect in your statement is to argue for a separate evolution for some eastern Africans, trying to isolate West Africans/YRI or true negro from other "meta" African populations. YRI is a subset of Mende so using this population to compare to other populations is problematic. Why not just use Mende proper?

And the need to put down "Afrocentrist" silly silly, there are serious Afrocentric academics not youtube Afrocentric pop street preachers and to lump the two in to one category is amateur crackers. A robust criticism of Eurocentricism in Academia and Science is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
How do you "get off the bus" in Africa? That quip is seriously why I have a problem with your glib statements.

---

The bus represents the expanding population. Getting off the bus represents populations splitting from that expanding population. Very simple analogy. But maybe you're looking for a pretext to be disagreeable because you can't defend a more appealing OOA scenario.

quote:

---

At no time does that line into Egypt you are proposing imply non African. So why do you keep bringing it up? "Getting off the bus" means crossing the Mediterranean or a line that moves Out of Egypt into the Levant. That would be the only way for such DNA to have left the domain of Africa. Otherwise you are still talking about African genetic lineages.

---

What are you talking about, man? I'm talking about African populations along a cline, from Khoisan to Eurasian. In other words, I'm talking about Africans. Doug, on the other hand, keeps talks about the exact point when Eurasians became Eurasian. Lol. And this is another thing that doesn't make any sense in your posts, because your genes don't know where you are located, geographically speaking. It's not like it becomes marked in your genes as a special event when you step foot outside of Africa. So why would location matter when it comes to when Eurasians arose?

Eurasian arose in Africa, not in Eurasia. This is well known and should definitely not be confusing given all the years you've been here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.

---

I dont know what type of commentary you are making....but it doesnt make any sense.
He is making a GENETIC distinction.




-Compare the genetic distinction between Somali and Nigerians to The Other Eurasians on the Chart.
-Notice the Cline from African hunter Gatherers to Nigerians is almost as long as the cline between ALL EURASIAN Groups in the study.
-Notice the Cline from African hunter Gatherers to Somali is 1.5 times longer than ALL Eurasians on the chart.

Do you understand the implications?

Genetic "Eurasians" start at Sardinian
Geographic "Eurasians" start at Bedouin B.

Do you understand the difference and its implications?

I swear folks that registered like 2 months ago nd just dipping their feet into Bio/anthro/history always trying to school folks that have been studying 10+ years.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So why do you keep bringing it up then as something random Afrocentrics should b "shook" about "concerned" about or "worried" about? I mean you keep beating on this argument but then say that these are all Africans anyway. And why do you keep putting me in this? I already said what my concern is about CLARITY IN TERMINOLOGY. I don't think there should be a disagreement on that. I personally am not concerned about a cline within Africa, but you keep addressing this to random Afrocentrics and that is not me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.

---

I dont know what type of commentary you are making....but it doesnt make any sense.
He is making a GENETIC distinction.




-Compare the genetic distinction between Somali and Nigerians to The Other Eurasians on the Chart.
-Notice the Cline from African hunter Gatherers to Nigerians is almost as long as the cline between ALL EURASIAN Groups in the study.
-Notice the Cline from African hunter Gatherers to Somali is 1.5 times longer than ALL Eurasians on the chart.

Do you understand the implications?

Genetic "Eurasians" start at Sardinian
Geographic "Eurasians" start at Bedouin B.

Do you understand the difference and its implications?

I swear folks that registered like 2 months ago nd just dipping their feet into Bio/anthro/history always trying to school folks that have been studying 10+ years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken

---

I think Tishkoff et al are still considering the southern African point of origin. But it's true that researchers are split between southern Africa and East Africa. Now North Africa has been added to the mix with the 300ky AMH remains found there. But the point is not really where exactly in Africa L started to migrate. (I could argue that it was closer to southern Africa than to East Africa, but that would not be necessary right now). The point is that African ancestry is situated along that cline. Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies , but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline. The recent Moroccan aDNA (IAM) is also on that cline, and the ancestors of that population likely got 'off the bus' very late, just like Eurasians, causing them to be more related to Eurasians than any African sample we know about outside of the Maghreb. Although they're not really close to any population outside of the Maghreb.

---

This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.

---

Damn. I really 'revealed' myself. You really got me there. Definitely didn't see that coming. Not after all those times I said Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by beyoku:
I swear folks that registered like 2 months ago nd [b]just dipping their feet into Bio/anthro/history always trying to school folks that have been studying 10+ years.[]/b

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken

---

I think Tishkoff et al are still considering the southern African point of origin. But it's true that researchers are split between southern Africa and East Africa. Now North Africa has been added to the mix with the 300ky AMH remains found there. But the point is not really where exactly in Africa L started to migrate. (I could argue that it was closer to southern Africa than to East Africa, but that would not be necessary right now). The point is that African ancestry is situated along that cline. Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies , but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline. The recent Moroccan aDNA (IAM) is also on that cline, and the ancestors of that population likely got 'off the bus' very late, just like Eurasians, causing them to be more related to Eurasians than any African sample we know about outside of the Maghreb. Although they're not really close to any population outside of the Maghreb.

---

This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.

---

Damn. I really 'revealed' myself. You really got me there. Definitely didn't see that coming. Not after all those times I said Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA

---

Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.
 

---

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



what Swenet is trying to say is that the people in the right hand circle are more related to each other than the people in the left hand circle are to Egypt
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So why do you keep bringing it up then as something random Afrocentrics should b "shook" about "concerned" about or "worried" about? I mean you keep beating on this argument but then say that these are all Africans anyway. And why do you keep putting me in this? I already said what my concern is about CLARITY IN TERMINOLOGY. I don't think there should be a disagreement on that. I personally am not concerned about a cline within Africa, but you keep addressing this to random Afrocentrics and that is not me.

---

Who addressed you? You barged into a conversation I was having with someone, twice in this thread, after getting triggered by something I said. You sound like those paranoid couch potatoes who watch tv and think the news reporter was talking about them.

Nobody talked about you, Doug. Lioness mentioned your name as a joke, but that's about it. Lol. SMH.

Let's just stop this conversation because half the time I don't see a coherence in how your comments relate to what I said. And as I said from the beginning, I'm trying to wrap this up. So I don't know where you get it from that I'm dragging you in this.

---

Still the point stands and lets be clear, your DNA cline between West and East Africa does not make ancient East Africans into Eurasians. It also does not make African populations who were ancestral to OOA into Non Africans or Non Blacks.

I am curious why you keep avoiding confirming or denying what I just said.

If you agree then fine and if not then fine, but hiding behind genetic terminology and avoiding actually saying what your mean does not reflect a grasp on genetics.

Thats what I mean and this is what i meant before but of course you keep trying to pretend that you aren't aware of that. This isn't a new conversation between you and me.

Genetics does not disprove black African as a viable biological concept.

Yet you keep throwing up clinal charts in THIS thread as if it proves something. Proves what? How does it disprove that ancient Nile Valley and Horner Africans were mostly black to begin with?

Not understanding the relevance of that clinal chart or African clines to this discussion or how Afrocentrics somehow don't understand what African genetic diversity is or are confused about it or shook by it as if it disproves that these folks weren't black to begin with.

Not to mention if using the term black is so bad and unscientific then where is the outrage at National Geographic for using it?

If it is valid in the 25th dynasty it is valid anywhere else the evidence supports it. Yet folks are more worried about attacking "Afrocentrics" then they are dealing with that double standard and inconsistency in the institutions they claim are so objective.
 

---

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



Relief of Ramses II, ca. 1279-1213 B.C.E. Limestone


Swenet, this is real simple

Doug says dark skin = black

Accordingly every depiction of Ramses shows him with dark skin. Therefore he was black and haplogroups are irrelevant.
The only thing relevant to blackness genetics wise are pigmentation genes
 

---

Posted by Yatunde Lisa (Member # 22253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
RAMESSES II



Relief of Ramses II, ca. 1279-1213 B.C.E. Limestone


Swenet, this is real simple

Doug says dark skin = black

Accordingly every depiction of Ramses shows him with dark skin. Therefore he was black and haplogroups are irrelevant.
The only thing relevant to blackness genetics wise are pigmentation genes

---

So to you, "black" is a euphemism for West African? What else do you consider relevant to blackness besides skin? Do tell???

Which one of these children is black? but they are twins, notice the blond on the left...



 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.

---

quote:

---

The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.

---

He's talking about the people who want all "black" Africans, AE and Kushites included, to cluster with one another into a single "Negroid" meta-population to the exclusion of anyone outside of Africa. You can see how obsolete racial models have an influence on this thinking. Truth is, not even the Africans who live south of the Sahara qualify as one meta-population.

quote:

---

The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans).
Source: Human DNA sequences: more variation and less race

---

This, BTW, doesn't necessarily make native North Africans not "black" by all definitions of the word. As been pointed out many times before, people have used "black" as phenotypic rather than genetic descriptors. Our own Djehuti, for instance, tends to use "black" for all dark-skinned populations around the world, even total OOA ones like Negritos or Melanesians. It does, however, throw a monkey wrench into the concept of a monophyletic "black race" that influences the thinking of certain "Afrocentric" activists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:
So to you, "black" is a euphemism for West African? What else do you consider relevant to blackness besides skin? Do tell???

---

In that post my opinion is irrelevant.

It was a comment on Doug vs Swenet.

Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him.
From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.

In other words was the person dark skinned or not, nothing else.

The only thing relevant in that context genetically would be if skin pigmentation genes were analyzed

Diop's position was similar that phenotype is most important, genotype less important
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 



I doubt he thinks they're black.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Oshun:


I doubt he thinks they're black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him.
From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.

---

Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.



Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
wrong, I have studied Dougianism black is black
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
wrong, I have studied Dougianism black is black

---

Ask him and see for yourself.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
I am not worthy
 

---

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


don't hate educate
 

---

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


Cheddar Man evidence
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.

---

If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.

---

If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.

---

If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.

---

before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Well the recent DNA results is proving you and folks like Sara-Suten Seti wrong, not only are those Europid/Turkish Egyptians legit, some of their ancestry dates back to dynastic Kemet. Keita tried to warn yall, now you guys are in the same league as Storm Front and the Nordic Egypt folks.

---

Neither I or someone making a flippant generalization like calling pale Arabs invaders deny that some of their ancestry is old, so again its a strawman argument. Don't associate me with Storm Front.


 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him.
From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.

---

Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.



Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.

---

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism

---

I'm not a nationalist I'm a powerist. Nationality without power is exploitation waiting to happen. I know many black nationalist are interested in power so I'll defend them in the context that I did. I am not interested or qualified in defining or promoting black nationalism with the current power vacuum. Ask me about black power and I can give you a well researched answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.

---

If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
It doesn't matter what you are in regard to the below. The term "black nationalist" was used. You both made comments about it.
Therefore it's meaning should be agreed upon before going further in my opinion

---

I partially defined it as people with some shared interest in black power. I'll let Tyrannohotep take from there since he brought it up.
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Chedda Mon might be as black as me. I don't know if phenotype predictors are updated. They tend to error on the side of predicting that people with this complexion

Have darker skin with lighter eyes and/or hair.


Haplogroup frequency in Europe: check
Doesn't have albino pigment genes that would cluster with people classified as white: check
Disliked by racist: check

Cheda Mon and all but one of the Arman's are blacker than me.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him.
From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.

---

Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.



Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.

---

quote:

---

The archaeological site of Sedeinga is located in Sudan, a hundred kilometers to the north of the third cataract of the Nile, on the river's western shore. Known especially for being home to the ruins of the Egyptian temple of Queen Tiye, the royal wife of Amenhotep III, the site also includes a large necropolis containing sepulchers dating from the kingdoms of Napata and Meroe (seventh century BCE–fourth century CE), a civilization1 mixing local traditions and Egyptian influences. Tombs, steles, and lintels have just been unearthed by an international team led by researchers from the CNRS and Sorbonne Université as part of the French Section of Sudan's Directorate of Antiquities, co-funded by the CNRS and the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.2 They represent one of the largest collections of Meroitic inscriptions, the oldest language of black Africa currently known.

---

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/winter-2018/article/archaeologists-unearth-tombs-in-ancient-nubia

I wonder what cluster "black Africa" falls into?

The point again is that these people do not believe that there were blacks in AE other than servants and maybe mercenaries. Otherwise AE was a white Eurasian culture.

But of course no debate here from these folks about that. Gotta go find some "evil Afrocentrics" to argue with I guess.

Because these "objective" folks would like to pretend that Keita was not saying the AE were also black because as a scientist that kind of language must be below his intellect.......
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ So what is your evaluation of Cheddar Man, Doug? Does he count as "black" to you?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ So what is your evaluation of Cheddar Man, Doug? Does he count as "black" to you?

---

quote:

---

Assuming the statuette was intentionally changed what would the reason be for removing the side lock hair ?

---

My guess is, they know very well that most of the people who happen to pass this figure at the museum, isn't going to remember every detail of what they saw. More likely than not, most people forget half the things they see and what they do remember fades with time. Knowing this, choosing to alter the figure is not going to raise eyebrows, even to those who did see it in person because it just wouldn't be something that sticks. Just in case someone might recognize the original, the hair is cut off to dupe those who might just remember a little brown girl with the hair on the side.

We aren't sure if the picture of the brown little girl is an official picture, or if someone else just so happened to take the photo. Its possible that the people who chose to alter it did not know there was an photo of it. Either way, even if someone were to notice, they could easily say the alteration is a part of the revitalization process, and that the dark brown paint is only there due to age.

I mean, they've been getting away with it for awhile. Its the same as this statue. You have pictures before the "revitalization" process, which didn't stop them from lighting it up.




 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 
^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
[QB]

quote:

---

Assuming the statuette was intentionally changed what would the reason be for removing the side lock hair ?

---

My guess is, they know very well that most of the people who happen to pass this figure at the museum, isn't going to remember every detail of what they saw. More likely than not, most people forget half the things they see and what they do remember fades with time. Knowing this, choosing to alter the figure is not going to raise eyebrows, even to those who did see it in person because it just wouldn't be something that sticks. Just in case someone might recognize the original, the hair is cut off to dupe those who might just remember a little brown girl with the hair on the side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy.

--Louvre Museum

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/seated-scribe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
[QB]

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him.
From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.

---

Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.

---

That is definitely brown paint covering it.

Here is another photo of it.



Also, revitalization has been happening to a lot of Ancient Egyptian artworks. There are photos of people repainting the walls in Egypt. They call it "restoration". Even said so in the link I recently posted in another thread.

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/travel-and-tourism/2014/03/04/Rock-hewn-tombs-from-Ancient-Egypt-discovered-in-Aswan.html

quote:

---

Can you copy and paste the text of this article at this link please, I have a problem with my browser where I cant' read it, thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[qb] ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.

---

That is definitely brown paint covering it.

Here is another photo of it.

---

quote:

---

The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy.
--Louvre Museum

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/seated-scribe

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
[qb] ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.

---

That is definitely brown paint covering it.

Here is another photo of it.

---

I just showed the quote form the museum. It had a layer of wax, wax accumulates dirt and they took off the wax

quote:

---

The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy.
--Louvre Museum

https://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notices/seated-scribe

---

---

Um, wax overpainting? That doesn't make any sense. The statue was originally painted brown, but some parts of it obviously chipped off and faded away through time. Hence why the original looks so patchy. You still see the brown paint that covered majority of the statue. They "restored" it by wiping away the original paint job.

If they get their hands on this, they will "restore" the statue to its original white surface.



 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
Wax overpainting sounds like a dog whistle lie.


 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
https://www.dur.ac.uk/archaeology.museum/whatshere/discover/

^ search " statuettes (boxwood) servant girl statuette
1410 BCE-1310 BCE; Amenhotep III/Amenophis III/Nebmaatre

^ Durham University is a collegiate public research university in Durham, North East England, with a second campus in Stockton-on-Tees.

This is current location of "servant girl statuette' mentioned elsewhere as " Nubian girl carrying a cosmetic jar, c. 1350 B.C."

many more photos of the item at above link





_____________________________________________________


http://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.theroot.com/nubian-women-in-ancient-egypt-1790898154&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwixtsm-zOrZAhWBNd8KHRXpBkQQFggtMAo&usg=AOvVaw3Ht9BmLL1nrh1oY4et25oJ

A young black woman stands in a delicately swaying posture, holding a large lidded jar balanced on her hip. Her distinctively African facial features are represented with great skill and sensitivity, and her eyes are realistically painted in black and white. This seemingly subtle touch, together with her naturalistic stance, imparts a captivating sense of life to her figure. The vibrant effect is perhaps surprising, given the small scale of the figure, only several inches high. Variously described as a dancer or a servant, the girl is naked except for a golden girdle spanning her hips and an amulet around her neck, incised and painted black. Her figure is carved from boxwood, an exceptionally dense and fine-grained material. The naturally light color of the wood seems to have been meticulously stained a brownish red to approximate the rich hue of a dark-skinned person. Most scholars characterize her as Nubian — that is, a native of a land extending from southern Egypt far into the African interior. The minimal dress of the serving girl may seem surprising to the modern observer but was quite in keeping with female attendant figures of the time, especially adolescent girls. Her shaved head and plaited side lock are also typically Egyptian, while the amulet of the popular god Bes worn around her neck indicates a more distant provenance. The appeal to Bes for divine protection against all manner of evil influences became extremely popular among the Egyptian people during the New Kingdom, a vibrant period of cultural renewal and territorial expansion. The uniquely frontal representation of the deity, as well as its odd combination of physical characteristics, has always been considered of foreign origin, perhaps lying well within sub-Saharan Africa. This captivating figure was excavated during the 19th century in a funerary district on the west bank of the Nile River near the priestly center of Thebes in central Egypt. The girl seems part of the burial goods of Meryptah, the chief priest of Amun under Pharaoh Amenhotep III (circa 1390-1352 B.C.). Among the scanty survivals was another statuette of an Asiatic servant, meaning a native of the Middle East. These figures, and perhaps others, were deposited in the tomb to care for their master in death as their actual counterparts had in life. Attractive as ornament, this elegant figure also serves a practical purpose as a cosmetic vessel. The outsized jar she supports once held some type of prized makeup material, most likely kohl, a kind of mascara, or an unguent made of powdered color suspended in animal fat. The lid protected the contents and pivots outward to permit access. Recipes for these ancient concoctions survive, testimony to the importance of personal adornment in the upper levels of society in ancient Egypt. Many of the surviving cosmetic jars and utensils feature representations of figures atypical of Egyptian society. In addition to this example and its companion, there is a jar held by a black man, and another carried by a dwarf. It seems that the act of pampered service represented by these figured vessels was intentionally coupled with the obligatory, comprehensive subservience of the other. A more concise statement of the layered authority and social structure of the New Kingdom Egyptian state is hard to imagine. There had often existed some degree of accommodation, both cultural and ethnic, between the people of Nubia and Egypt. Even during periods of Egyptian dominance, Nubia retained a considerable ability to negotiate relations with its powerful northern neighbor. In addition to Nubia being a source of valuable raw materials, gold and its famed archers, politically motivated unions were often formed between the Nubian elite and their Egyptian counterparts. In many cases, Nubian women became part of the royal family itself and produced heirs to the throne. Tiye, one of the wives of Amenhotep III, may have been Nubian. Among her children was the well-known reformer pharaoh Akhenaton. One of the most tangible results of these intercultural marriages, and of population dynamics in general, manifested itself in the progressively darker complexion of people living in the southern area of Egypt between Thebes and the first cataract of the Nile. The girl with the unguent jar therefore was not an ethnically isolated presence in the household of Meryptah. She may have been technically free, with the status of the baket, or servant, but may also have been a slave. Interestingly, one ancient Egyptian word for slave was hem, a term derived from the word for "body," and sometimes also used to refer to statuettes buried with the dead to serve them in the afterlife. Despite this girl's humble status, upward mobility may still have been possible through adoption into her owner's family. If a female slave became a concubine of the male head of household, she might even have provided heirs in the more exalted manner of Tiye. The young woman seen here serves as a vivid intermediary between two great civilizations whose relationship, at times quite contentious, ultimately resulted in a mutually beneficial exchange of culture and identity. The nature of ancient Egyptian civilization, too often seen in isolation from its neighbors, would not have been as vibrant or authentic without the many contributions of this fabled land to the south. [/QB][/QUOTE]
 

---

Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
 
Thanks Lioness.

Noted:

quote:

---

The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.

---

So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.

ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.

ETA Also notice they aren't calling her the little Nubian servant girl anymore, just servant girl. Just what I expected.
 

---

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

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
Thanks Lioness.

Noted:

quote:

---

The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.

---

So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.

ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.

---

what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood
 

---

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

Statue of Metjetji
late 5th Dynasty 2375-2345 BCE Wood
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri.
Wood and gesso with paint, copper, alabaster and obsidian
Dimensions:
31 5/8 x 6 3/8 x 15 5/16 inches (80.33 x 16.19 x 38.89 cm)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/mharrsch/29913459896

http://art.nelson-atkins.org/objects/16780/statue-of-metjetji



 

---

Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
Thanks Lioness.

Noted:

quote:

---

The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.

---

So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.

ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.

---

what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
Thanks Lioness.

Noted:

quote:

---

The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.

---

So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.

ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.

---

what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood

---

Which was originally painted dark brown. Just like the Scribe statue. Whipping away the paint and exposing the material underneath is an odd way to "restore" an item. Why not take the Mona Lisa, wipe away the paint, and just show the canvas underneath? Why alter an ancient artifact like that? Why not preserve what is found?

Again, whipping away the original paint to expose the surface underneath is not restoration. Its an agenda.

---

why are you saying this skin tone is painted? ^^^



 

---

Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
 
You dont see the difference in color between the wood and the coating over it in the before pic?
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
You dont see the difference in color between the wood and the coating over it in the before pic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:
You dont see the difference in color between the wood and the coating over it in the before pic?

---

can't an old piece of wood have become dirty from dust in the air?

- also please delete the quote part above with text and pictures already posted , thanks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Many assumptions. You don't know anything about the materials, composition of paints, woods, restoration procedures, the histories of these pieces, nor have you seen them in person.

---

Do you not see how the statue went from Nubian servant girl to just servant girl? Why would they even classify her as Nubian if they did not believe that her dark paint job was correct?
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
The Root used a blue filter on the
photograph from the original 1976
Image of the Black in Western Art
p.78 fig 47 seen below.



I can't tell if she's Nubian.

She wears the Egyptian sidelock
of youth. But that's no proof she
wasn't born Nubian.

The whites who acquired the piece,
as the whole of mainstream (i.e., the
white caucasian Western worldview)
Egyptology and academia in general,
supposed a servant with over moderate
lip thickness and nose breadth cannot
be a native born and bred Egyptian.
 

---

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


case closed, the Root altered the original photo to be darker
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
The Root is the same white own black faced shit-site that cited Not out of Africa like it was a solid source.

https://www.theroot.com/egyptians-are-not-my-brothers-1790862698

I really dislike The Root. This nonsense about a 'Nubian' servant is so them.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
The Root is the same white own black faced shit-site that cited Not out of Africa like it was a solid source.

https://www.theroot.com/egyptians-are-not-my-brothers-1790862698

I really dislike The Root. This nonsense about a 'Nubian' servant is so them.

---

quote:

---

The Root:

Most scholars characterize her as Nubian — that is, a native of a land extending from southern Egypt far into the African interior. The minimal dress of the serving girl may seem surprising to the modern observer but was quite in keeping with female attendant figures of the time, especially adolescent girls. Her shaved head and plaited side lock are also typically Egyptian, while the amulet of the popular god Bes worn around her neck indicates a more distant provenance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


case closed, the Root altered the original photo to be darker

---

I've seen the darker photo posted on several websites. It possible that it wasn't the Root, and they simply posted it. Whoever did it did a good job since it is hard to tell any alterations made. I'll take my L on this one.
 

---

Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
 
Altering the color of a photo is very easy you put it into photoshop and adjust color controls three is no brushing or anything like that, just move some slider controls
The Root darkened the photo. Ask yourself why. It is the same photo, same angle and it's in the same book they reference.
You can still form a conspiracy theory with that only it's going to have to be form a different perspective. Go ahead and make one up. Make one up as an exercise


Possibly it's a different edition that was printed with different color controls for the whole book.
But look at your assumptions, including you kept saying it was painted but it is not except for the details.
These same issues will come up in other photos of other artifacts

Every situation is different, consider the original source of a given photo not the fact it's on many webistes

Look at this:




Nefertiti, standing figure, limestone

Why the two different colors? It is probably just the color settings on the camera. One photographer prefers the photos to have more warm colors, reds and yellows a little enhanced
another prefers cooler colors blues and greens to be more enhanced
You can buy light bulbs now here you can make the same choice.
The two photos are legitimate, not some attempt at a scam

They are both legitimate photos but you need further information to know exactly what the precise real life color is.

Another thing is lighting. A photo of an object could be made in a museum gallery where for dramatic effect they have the room very dim but there's a spotlight on the object.
A photo in that condition will look different from the same object in a well lit room or again outdoors

And as I said before there is also the quality of a photo in a book. A lower quality book can have a lot of nice photos of art in it but the color might not be accurate to the real object.




^^ This for instance, the face is not a copy
It's entirely fake. Yet it's on many websites presented as real
 

---

Posted by HabariTess (Member # 19629) on :
 
I know about the difference in lighting and color, thanks. I also know the above is a fake.

That image being altered is very surprising, and the fact I saw it years ago is what made it seem more authentic. I was going to message the owners of this statue for more information since I was going to do a redraw of the darker skinned figure and recently found the lighter one. I should not have mention this in this discussion until I had talked with the museum first.

Like I said, I'm taking my L on this one.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?

In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?

Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?

Obviously this isn't about the word black as the National Geographic folks and other folks in the "scientific community" have no problem using it to refer to Africans in Sudan..... And there is nobody who is rushing to get DNA from Sudan to prove how they were "black". So what data is missing OTHER than DNA as to not make this determination possible? And we certainly don't have a lot of DNA from Rome or China but that doesn't stop them from calling them white Europeans and Chinese. Oh but in Africa.....

Or is there nothing missing they just don't WANT to call them that no matter what?

Because at the end of the day it is hard to believe that there is so much complexity that requires this to drag on and on and on and on as if something "extra" is required.

Obviously DNA isn't required to prove skin color. And certainly that is what we are talking about when we say "Black Pharaohs" because last I checked nobody waited for some aDNA from ancient Nubia to make that declaration.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by HabariTess:


That image being altered is very surprising,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?

In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?

Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?

In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?

Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So who really thinks that there is a 'lack of DNA' or some other technical reason why the AE could not be primarily classified as black during the Dynastic?

In other words who believes there are "missing facts" that we need to figure this out?

Sure I get that DNA and other things help us flesh out our knowledge of the people, the culture and relations with other groups. It also helps us understand immigration and population movements. But seriously? Is anybody under the illusion there isn't enough data ALREADY to support this?

---

This really sums up how Doug thinks. It's completely backwards. In Doug's mind, his beliefs are proof, and DNA evidence only distracts from his inner proof.

"I already know I'm right, and my inner rightness trumps DNA. Even if DNA comes out contradicting what I said, that is just evidence that there is something wrong with the DNA."
--Doug M

---

Really? So why is it OK to call Ancient Nubians black then? Where is the DNA data? Where is the craniofacial data? I don't hear 'technicalities' being used to justify it with ancient Nubia. That is correct that IS how I think. What FACTS make the Nubians black but the AE not black. Simple question. I mean we are talking about the same meaning of black aren't we or is this supposedly only I think about?

Again. I am asking the question what "technicality" is stopping it from being used in Egypt?

Or to put it a different way what piece of DNA or other evidence is MISSING from AE to make that statement?

I am asking a serious question and not talking about rhetoric. Is this about DNA is it about melanin dosage tests. WHAT criteria is required to say that AE was black or NOT black?

For example what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mummy_Neskhons_Smith_02.JPG

BTW this is a LATE period mummy from the 21st dynasty.

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/21B.htm
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Another post that makes no sense. Why would I have to answer for someone else use of 'black' in regards to anyone? And what is the scientific value in "why is it okay when they do it"? Take your politics elsewhere Doug. Has nothing to do with the bioanthropological issues at hand.
 

---

Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
 
Skippy was on the staff of the revised 2010
edition of Image 1976. Afaik the Root belongs
to Skippy.

The Root didn't invent the Nubian ID.
But knowing Skippy he'd want to darken
to support Eurocentric conclusions on
light Egyptians and Nubians as jet. I
mean for those Eurocentrics who don't
swallow Reisners Nubians as caucasian.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Another post that makes no sense. Why would I have to answer for someone else use of 'black' in regards to anyone? And what is the scientific value in "why is it okay when they do it"? Take your politics elsewhere Doug. Has nothing to do with the bioanthropological issues at hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Look at this:




Nefertiti, standing figure, limestone


They are both legitimate photos but you need further information to know exactly what the precise real life color is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So for you the issue is political. That is the technicality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
No. The politics part has nothing to do with me. It has to do with you. If I'm interested in bioanthropology and DNA, what makes you think pointing to other people's social constructs to validate your own, is going to mean something to me? That is what you just did--you tried to validate your own social construct by mentioning the social construct of an Eurocentric. But why should I have to answer for that. Those weren't my words, so take it up with the person who said that.

Your rethoric and your repeated efforts to downplay aDNA tells me that you operate in politics, not in bioanthropology. Don't try to flip the script on me and say that the issue is political for me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
OK. So for you the issue is political. That is the technicality.

And no I was not saying you had to answer for National Geographic because they are going to say what they want to say regardless and so are most people.

I am only talking about the "attitudes" of some folks on this forum.

Basically calling the AE black or not black or something else is a "political" assessment not based on science or biology. So we can't use those words in order to avoid "political" sensibilities.....

Right.

So I think there should be a new rule on this forum that NO DISCUSSION AT ALL of skin color should ever come up in any context because it is political..... Somebody might be offended.

Just stick to anything else but skin color.
We don't want to hurt anybodies feelings about being left out of something black, white or other.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:


For example what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mummy_Neskhons_Smith_02.JPG

BTW this is a LATE period mummy from the 21st dynasty.

http://anubis4_2000.tripod.com/mummypages1/21B.htm [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Now he has this colorless "b & W" photo up and he is asking '" what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So what proof is required that isn't already there? I already asked the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
There was also another servant statuette that was found that is supposed to be an Asiatic

---

Now that I'm curious about.


I've heard Lady Kemsit called a Nubian and these hairstylist her Asiatic servants. I regard the term Nubian as either being a Kushite or nonsense. Unless Mentuhotep II imported wives from Kush and Asia they are Egyptians. I do wonder about the origin and authenticity of this picture.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
Now he has this colorless "b & W" photo up and he is asking '" what EXTRA data is missing that is necessary to state this is a mummy of a black person"

---

Welcome to the strange world of Doug M.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
So what proof is required that isn't already there? I already asked the question.

---

What proof is already there? Dark skin on the murals? You denounced some forms of dark skin as being non-black. So you basically made the murals unreliable evidence. You say blackness has nothing to do with facial features, so you basically made the skeletal evidence inadmissible. You shot yourself in the foot by denouncing Basal Eurasian and EEF as non-black, so you definitely can't refer to Basal Eurasian-type ancestry. Besides, you already said that blackness has nothing to do with DNA.

So, what proof, exactly, are you talking about when you say there is an abundance of proof that AE were black? By making all these self-defeating claims you have already admitted that you can't prove the AE were black in your use of the term.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I see Doug's point. White supremacist created the black race and appropriated/created Nubians. They generally consider Nubians to be black only wavering when the connection to Egyptians are too strong. Based on much of their same criteria Egyptians would be black too. Sometimes its exact the same criteria because its based on the same art.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


case closed, the Root altered the original photo to be darker

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:



^^ This for instance, the face is not a copy
It's entirely fake. Yet it's on many websites presented as real

---

quote:

---

Thutmose III Bust sculpture

Item No. 301 Weight: 23 lbs (10.4 kg). Dimensions: W: 9"" H: 12.5"" D: 7.5"" (23cm x 32cm x 19cm). Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Made of cast stone and hand-finished in antique finish. Egyptian pharaoh of the 18th dynasty (reigned ca. 1504 - 1450 BC) often regarded as the greatest of the rulers of ancient Egypt. Thutmose III emerged as the sole ruler of Egypt and as a great conqueror after the death of Hatshesput. He consolidated all of Syria except Phoenicia into his empire and enriched Egypt with wealth and power. According to the stele of Thutmose III, over 350 cities fell to the Egyptians under his rule. There is little doubt that his numerous campaigns were extremely successful. He has in fact been referred to as the ""Napoleon of ancient Egypt"" because of his military expansion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.

I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.

I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.

---

what is bioanthroplogically "black" ? what defines that? what are the parameters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
No you don't see my point.

---

That is exactly how this

quote:

---

Really? So why is it OK to call Ancient Nubians black then? Where is the DNA data? Where is the craniofacial data? I don't hear 'technicalities' being used to justify it with ancient Nubia. That is correct that IS how I think. What FACTS make the Nubians black but the AE not black.

---

quote:

---

There is abundant evidence in all areas from AE as to what they were in terms of general phenotype. Art is only part of it. There is the mummies, there is the archaeology and the general historic record. All of this shows that the AE were en extension of the Nile Valley and Sahara. Neither the Nile Valley or Sahara are in Europe or Asia. The only way for these people to have been unlike most Africans on the Nile Valley or Sahara would be through population replacement.

Hence, most folks claiming Egypt as "white" or "light skin" are basically saying that at some time in the distant past Eurasians came in and basically mixed with and replaced the indigenous population to the point where their phenotype would not match that of other "indigenous" African groups.

OBVIOUSLY that did not happen. But right now folks are trying to pretend that DNA proves that this happened and that therefore all the other evidence doesn't count. Or some others would like to pretend that the presence of "Eurasian" DNA makes the discussion moot (as if phenotype magically stopped existing) and want to pretend that any discussion of phenotype is invalid. Phenotype is part of biology and is no less valid in AE than anywhere else.

Ultimately if the facts support the idea of a particular phenotype being common then fine. But what some folks are doing is trying to avoid the issue of phenotype all together, trying to make it seem that phenotype is 'irrelevant' and that we should just look at DNA and chromosomes and leave phenotype out of it.

Why?

And why doesn't that apply to the rest of Africa?

It is just a cowardly way of saying they don't REALLY want to challenge white racists on their BS. They know they can't stop the institutions and organizations run by Europeans from promoting Egypt as white, so rather than challenge that, they sit up here and pretend to be "objective" and "obvlivious" to the reality or racial politics STARTING in these same European institutions and act like they only care about science for science's sake. Contradicting the point that this same science has been historically and currently to promote a political racial agenda. And top of that not only do they not challenge white institutions they make a big show out of attacking African scholarship as if it is "as bad" or "worse" then Europeans...... Basically trying to insult Africans for telling their own history.

This isn't about facts. It is basically about folks fronting and pretending to be something they are not.

If "Nubians" can be black and have "Eurasian" mixture today then why couldnt the AE who were the closest populations to them physically and culturally also not also have beeb black with so-called "Eurasian" DNA? Not to mention what if that DNA isn't really "Eurasian" to begin with.

These are the points at hand. Some folks just want to pretend that DNA trumps everything else and it doesn't. "Eurasian" DNA doesn't trump black skin anywhere else in Africa, yet in AE somehow it magically changes blacks to whites.

You even have scholars claiming that Eurasians introduced L3 into Africa 70k years ago. Obviously none of this has anything to do with skin color.

People know this but they still persist in this nonsense that DNA lineage = skin color when it doesn't.

If that was the case most blacks in America aren't blacks.

At the end of the day folks like Keita who can be as "non racial" and "non political" all they want. It won't change what European controlled institutions publish or produce about history in the Nile Valley one bit.

And that is the point of the thread while other folks want to pretend it isn't.

---

True. Based on that criteria I would not be black and like I said all but one Egyptian royals tested were forensically more SSA than I. I'm not passing btw. I just dloaded a police report where the police assumed I was black based on appearance.

We need to remind people that Ancient Egyptian DNA was tested back in 85, then again in 92/93, then again in 2008,10,11,12,13. We had some published data etc you probably know the history. In 17 we get one locale in a reported 'Semitic' burial after Egypt was invaded and its borders pushed below said region. The media heavily reported it as the first and the de facto.

You see what I mean? The laymen are ahead of egyptsearch. The laymen would pose that if you really wan't to know Egyptians genetically you test many regions, you would start with the oldest, the cultural hubs and focus on named individuals/royalty. The laymen would pose that if you test a region you release the results, not one haplogroup and statements about modern Egyptians being the same or derived from SSA lineages and other.

This new dynastic race theory doesn't have the genetic evidence to support it. The old theory was that ancient Egyptians left Africa did an offbeat Caucasian dance and came back from the south working their way up while mixing with the locales. The new theory is that they share lineages with out of Africa groups so even if they never left Africa in bulk they are more distant from Angolans than say Greeks. You can't make that case when genetic testing is so janky and even if you did you would still be talking about a race of Africans who were culturally more Wakandan than modern Angolans yet then again so were ancient Greeks .
 

---

Posted by Fourty2Tribes (Member # 21799) on :
 
...Dp
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
top being political Swenet.

I thought you only cared about science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What proof do you feel is required?

I already asked the question and you still have not answered it.

What defines "black" in your opinion in genetics, biology or anthropology? Since you object to it so dam much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And the reason why I ask (and why you wont answer) is because even if that "standard" was met, European institutions, organizations and public media STILL would not portray the AE as black. So rather than accept that as the political reality of white European racism, you pretend that there is some "objective reason" why they don't and won't accept these facts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
If you say that AE were 'black' then you should have no problem staying away from the politics and proving it using bioanthroplogy.

I know you want to say it's a political issue for me, so you can absolve yourself from proving it.

---

what is bioanthroplogically "black" ? what defines that? what are the parameters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
top being political Swenet.

I thought you only cared about science.

---

I do. And science tells me there is nothing uniquely African-looking about that mummy. She looks racially ambiguous. But that is besides the point. You said black is skin pigmentation, and then you posted a mummy with no skin pigmentation preserved and call it black. This is why it's impossible to discuss something with you sometimes, because you're all over the place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
What proof do you feel is required?

I already asked the question and you still have not answered it.

What defines "black" in your opinion in genetics, biology or anthropology? Since you object to it so dam much.

---

I'm not going to fall for your attempts to put the burden on me. Either you can provide bioanthro data showing AE are black, or you can't. And if you come back with another diversion talking about "but what evidence are you looking for" I will simply assume that can't prove they were what you think they were.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
And the reason why I ask (and why you wont answer) is because even if that "standard" was met, European institutions, organizations and public media STILL would not portray the AE as black. So rather than accept that as the political reality of white European racism, you pretend that there is some "objective reason" why they don't and won't accept these facts.

---

Irrelevant non-science. Make a thread about Europeans if you want to vent about them. Either you can prove AE were black in your use of the term, using bioanthro data, or you can't. Very simple.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

Also, I told you before, I don't have to answer for Europeans and their institutions. I'm also not interested or invested in their approval, but you obviously are. This is why you think you're dropping a bombshell when you say that Europeans don't care when you use proper scientific terminology. You're not dropping a bombshell. You're simply being Capt'n Obvious and drifting off into your usual politics and monologues about Europeans.

---

So again you just jump up and put YOURSELF between people who have VALID concerns with these institutions as the topic of the thread says and pretend this has something to do with you. National Geographic and their use of the term black is not controlled by YOU. WHY they use it and WHEN they use it is not up to YOU to decide. Therefore anyone addressing that is not addressing YOU they are addressing those facts. YOU shoulnd't be trying to tell people how to address something YOU don't control and can't change.

And this is what Keita was ultimately addressing which absolutely has to do with the word black. Which means even Keita knows that there is more than enough evidence for the AE to also be labeled as black. Otherwise why do you think he responded this way to National Geographic. And if objecting to National Geographic is political and the use of the term black is political then by definition Keita is being political and Afrocentric.

Sometimes you have to address lies and depicting AE as white Eurasians in the dynastic era is simply a lie. Depicting Tut as a white child is a lie. Don't give me that nonsense there is no evidence otherwise. This issue has been political since before anybody on this forum was born. And to pretend that somehow it STOPPED being political or that these institutions of science or academia are really "objective" and concerned about facts is just a straight out lie.
 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.

You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.

I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.

Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.
 

---

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


^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?


These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown

What the hell is going on here?

Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black"
Who started that?
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.

You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.

I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.

Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.

---

quote:

---

The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?


These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown

What the hell is going on here?

Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black"
Who started that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.

You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.

I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.

Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.

---

Dude. You have been on this forum how long? My post history is there going back over 10 years. I am not going to sit here and rehash what has been said before.

Bottom line you don't believe that the AE were black. That's all. Politics have nothing to do with it. You don't "win" your argument by claiming politics. That is just you spinning again. And don't give me that garbage argument you don't use the word black because DNA is better. Cheddar man just contradicted you. Science isn't politics.

In fact Keita just contradicted you idiot. I don't know how it is you keep AVOIDING the point of the dam thread. Keita and his disagreement over National Geographic and their representation of ancient Egyptians. Nobody was asking for your opinions on the word black.

I dind't say this, Keita did:

quote:

---

The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.

---

So obviously you want proof there it is.

It proves this issue has always been political based on racism.

It proves you can't avoid racism in science.

It proves this issue has nothing to do with facts or evidence.

It proves that Swenets position is BS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?


These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown

What the hell is going on here?

Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black"
Who started that?

---

Kunwariya Bai, 40, pictured with her grandson, lives in Tantar village in Baiga Chak
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 
Edit: Nope. No. Will be staying indoors for the 5-10 page shitstorm brewing above. Have some aspirin ready Swenet.



 

---

Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
 
^I should probably do the same thing and let it go. aDNA is going to take care of ideologues sooner or later anyway. It already is. And that was foreseeable before any Natufian or Egyptian genomes were published:

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on 26 May, 2016 10:24:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
That is bizarre because this very chart is often used by Amun Ra and other ES members that West Africans (and SAs and Central Africans) have the closest similarities to the AEs.

---

Ancient Egyptian aDNA, especially the indigenous ancestry in their genomes that was there in the Upper Palaeolithic, is going to hurt a lot of folks' feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:
Aint nobody got time to read all that. Just more obfuscation of the central issue.

You've shown that you can't prove that AE were black in your use of the term. To hide that fact, you keep introducing new topics that have nothing to do with moving the conversation forward. Typical Doug tapdancing to hold the conversation hostage for 5000 thread pages.

I'm not going to let you troll the sh!t out of substantiating your original claim. Either you have the evidence, or you don't. It's as simple as that. And you obviously don't have the evidence. It's as clear as day.

Just admit that you operate solely in politics and don't know your way around bioanthropology.

---

Dude. You have been on this forum how long? My post history is there going back over 10 years. I am not going to sit here and rehash what has been said before.

Bottom line you don't believe that the AE were black. That's all. Politics have nothing to do with it. You don't "win" your argument by claiming politics. That is just you spinning again. And don't give me that garbage argument you don't use the word black because DNA is better. Cheddar man just contradicted you. Science isn't politics.

In fact Keita just contradicted you idiot. I don't know how it is you keep AVOIDING the point of the dam thread. Keita and his disagreement over National Geographic and their representation of ancient Egyptians. Nobody was asking for your opinions on the word black.

I dind't say this, Keita did:

quote:

---

The title from the outset is problematic. It “racializes” the identity of some ancient peoples in line with some older scholastic thinking which itself was the product of a colonialist and blatantly racist era. One famous Egyptologist spoke of the “Nigger Kings” in reference to the 25th Dynasty. The title of the program implies an absolute dichotomy between Egyptians and Nubians that even certain biased Egyptologists from the past would have questioned. Note that even Petrie, father of the Dynastic Race construct, spoke of various Egyptian dynasties other than the 25th as having Sudanese or Nubian ancestry.

---

So obviously you want proof there it is.

It proves this issue has always been political based on racism.

It proves you can't avoid racism in science.

It proves this issue has nothing to do with facts or evidence.

It proves that Swenets position is BS.

---

Like I said, aint nobody got time to read all that. Come back when you have evidence that AE skin was 'black' in a way that excludes Cheddar Man and only includes Africans.

---

quote:

---

I get it Swenet. You believe AE were basically heavily mixed populations of Eurasian migrants. We will see.

---

This is exactly what I mean. I never said that I think the AE were heavily mixed populations. The issue is obviously more complex than that with AE being divided in upper and lower Egypt and admixture over time. And even if I said that I think they were heavily Eurasian, what does that have to do with the specific issue of it being impossible to prove the AE were black in the way you're using the term? In ancient times, dark skin colour was completely divorced from recent African ancestry for the trillionth time. So I don't know why you keep conflating my position with AE being non-African. My position--that you can't prove that AE were 'black' in your use of the term--holds true, whether I believe the AE were 100% African or 100% Eurasian. It doesn't matter. The fact is simply that if you say 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation, you can't prove that AE were Cheddar Man 'black', Raqefet Natufian 'black', Chalcolithic Canaanite 'black' or Nilote 'black'. This is simply an outcome of your premises, so your attempts to flip the script and make it about me being a non-believer are baseless. Moreover, admixture with these populations would not result in a light skinned population, so your attempts to make admixture with ancient Eurasians about black and white are just dumb and political. All these populations had ancestral skin pigmentation alleles. Or is this too difficult to understand for you? Because you apparently think the whole pre-Neolithic world being dark skinned is a win for Afrocentrics and has no implications for making dark skin in ancient Egypt more difficult to interpret.

In the Afrocentric mind information exists on isolated islands and they can't see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. So, just like OOA, it will take decades before they get the memo that Cheddar man being dark skinned is ultimately not a win.

The fact that you can't understand what I'm telling you, even if I put it bold caps, tells me that you are 1000000% political and that your thinking patterns are permanently fused to the point where you can only see, and think in terms of your own politics. And you're so deep in the rabbit hole that you will never see it. And even as you're reading this, you will deny it. So, in your next post you will inevitably come back and make it my problem.



But like I said, I'm done with this conversation.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 
Okay. I don't know what the long winded argument was about but I do agree with Keita that the Kushite pharaohs labeled as "black" is nothing more than a strawman argument implying the Egyptians were not black or somehow "white".

Of course Keita himself has proven through several studies that the typical Kushite cranial morphology is no different from those of Egyptians of the pyramid period, yet nobody lablels the pyramid dynasty pharaohs as "black". And then there is the whole issue of racializing Africans only or in this case 'certain' Africans as "blacks". Yet you never hear this same rhetoric applied to, say, Europeans. When Greece was conquered by her northern neighbor Macedon, Alexander the Great and his successors were not referred to as "white kings".
 

---

Posted by Tyrannohotep (Member # 3735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course Keita himself has proven through several studies that the typical Kushite cranial morphology is no different from those of Egyptians of the pyramid period, yet nobody lablels the pyramid dynasty pharaohs as "black".

---

quote:

---

For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It
We asked a preeminent historian to investigate our coverage of people of color in the U.S. and abroad. Here’s what he found.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:

quote:

---

I get it Swenet. You believe AE were basically heavily mixed populations of Eurasian migrants. We will see.

---

This is exactly what I mean. I never said that I think the AE were heavily mixed populations. The issue is obviously more complex than that with AE being divided in upper and lower Egypt and admixture over time. And even if I said that I think they were heavily Eurasian, what does that have to do with the specific issue of it being impossible to prove the AE were black in the way you're using the term? In ancient times, dark skin colour was completely divorced from recent African ancestry for the trillionth time. So I don't know why you keep conflating my position with AE being non-African. My position--that you can't prove that AE were 'black' in your use of the term--holds true, whether I believe the AE were 100% African or 100% Eurasian. It doesn't matter. The fact is simply that if you say 'black' only refers to skin pigmentation, you can't prove that AE were Cheddar Man 'black', Raqefet Natufian 'black', Chalcolithic Canaanite 'black' or Nilote 'black'. This is simply an outcome of your premises, so your attempts to flip the script and make it about me being a non-believer are baseless. Moreover, admixture with these populations would not result in a light skinned population, so your attempts to make admixture with ancient Eurasians about black and white are just dumb and political. All these populations had ancestral skin pigmentation alleles. Or is this too difficult to understand for you? Because you apparently think the whole pre-Neolithic world being dark skinned is a win for Afrocentrics and has no implications for making dark skin in ancient Egypt more difficult to interpret.

In the Afrocentric mind information exists on isolated islands and they can't see how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together. So, just like OOA, it will take decades before they get the memo that Cheddar man being dark skinned is ultimately not a win.

The fact that you can't understand what I'm telling you, even if I put it bold caps, tells me that you are 1000000% political and that your thinking patterns are permanently fused to the point where you can only see, and think in terms of your own politics. And you're so deep in the rabbit hole that you will never see it. And even as you're reading this, you will deny it. So, in your next post you will inevitably come back and make it my problem.



But like I said, I'm done with this conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
This would be a guest post that SOY Keita wrote for Sally-Ann Ashton's "Kemet Expert" blog. As you can imagine, he's not a fan of racializing the Kushite conquerors of Egypt as the "Black Pharaohs".

Comments on the National Geographic Televised Program: “Black Pharaohs”

quote:

---

The National Geographic film feature on the 25th Dynasty deserves to be reviewed critically due to the ongoing interest in Egypt. It is important to say at the outset that it is not clear whether the producers/programmers or the academics had the most to do with final production. Nor is it clear what role PBS played in content decisions, or which outside scholars were invited to make comments before release......


.

---

---

Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?
 

---

Posted by Oshun (Member # 19740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Swenet:


But like I said, I'm done with this conversation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:




The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.

Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......

Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...

That line of reasoning is stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.

Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......

Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...

That line of reasoning is stupid.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?

---

Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".

---

quote:

---

I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.

The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

The people who created Cheddar Man called him black. They are scientists. They are Europeans. English is a European language. Black is defined in the English dictionary. That is the only "standard" that applies. Nobody anywhere was complaining about how they used the term because they didn't understand what they meant. They didn't say "Cheddar Man black" because no such term exists in English. That is something you made up.

Likewise when National Geographic said "Black Pharaohs" they didn't say "Nubian Black" they just said black. Nobody was confused about what they meant......

Just saying. English is a major language and most English speakers understand what black means just fine. THey use it every day in popular culture, media, the news, history books and everywhere else...

That line of reasoning is stupid.

---

That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black". I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin. The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.

---

Thats not the thing. Like I said people use the term everyday in English language cultures all over the planet. You see it in movies like "Get Out". You see it in popular culture like Hip Hop: Fear of a Black Planet. You see it in social justice movements like "black lives matter". It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe. Nobody is confused about what that means when used for AE. It only means people who have similar dark skin complexions as the majority of the populations of Africa.

When people are complaining or arguing and spending a lot of time whining about the term "black", it really isn't about the word. It is about the underlying definition and what it means in terms of skin complexion. Everbyody knows that Africans have a wide range of dark skin complexions. So when somebody is arguing and stalling or otherwise pushing back on using the term, the only reason they are doing it is because they don't feel the underlying definition applies to AE. So basically we are back to the same old issue that was always the core problem: skin color. Did the AE have light skin like Europeans and other "Eurasians" or did they have dark skin like Africans? That's all. It isn't a language issue. People know that but they use the issue of semantics and language to simply hide and not expose their true hand. This is why some folks can appear pro African but still be on the fence when it comes to the AE being black (and this goes even for some black folks).

And yes science can answer the question about the skin color of the AE, especially on individual mummies. The point is though that there is no "technicality" that defines when a color is dark enough or light enough to be called black. If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word. By that definition Khoisan are black, just like Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black. And it is consistent. Now if people want to make up new ways of defining black outside what is in common usage within the English language, then that is just another stalling tactic.


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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7Z8Q43cfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxmyRQIiF2A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNWgn8F8_g
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 
And also seeing how Europeans created the concept of RACE in the first place, it is amazing how folks try to pretend that it came from African scholars. this is just the latest scam they are running to prolong the nonsense they keep pushing. So Blumenbach, Seligman and all these other folks who created the concepts we know of as race, plus all the European scientists writing in the 19th and 20th centuries weren't racist when they push explicitly racist ideas, yet black Africans who are trying to correct racialization of the historical narrative are racist because they use the term black...... GTFOH. Obviously this is implicitly and explicitly just hypocrisy at its finest.
 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black".

---

 

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
Like I said people use the term everyday in English language cultures all over the planet. You see it in movies like "Get Out". You see it in popular culture like Hip Hop: Fear of a Black Planet. You see it in social justice movements like "black lives matter". It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe.

If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word. By that definition Khoisan are black, just like Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

No Djehuti, what I said was you are jumping through hoops claiming 'special exception' for Malays being considered as black. All that other stuff you said is meaningless. I post a black "Malay" and you claim that the label "Malay" is a racial label meaning all the people are some special subset of Asian humanity. But then you go on to claim they are mixed, but what population in Asia or on earth is NOT mixed? What does that have to do with it. You are going in circles making illogical arguments in order to reinforce an argument that the Malays are a separate "race" as in separate from the Aborigines of Malaysia. HOw on earth is that? How do you have an aboriginal population that is NOT the basis of the modern population in the same area? See that is the problem you are spouting some old European nonsense because it is the Europeans who word for word codified everything you are arguing about Malays and you can't show me any such thing prior to European writings in the 18th and 19th century. Remember the concept of Malay being a "brown race" came from Blumenbach himsself. And the whole point is to separate these people from the "blacks" when obviously the browns can only come from blacks as black people are brown in the first dam place. And what I mean is that those Malays who are dam brown are basically black folks and not some special separate category.




When I say black I only mean people with various ranges of brown skin based on biological adaptation to tropical and subtropical environments and that is not limited to Africa

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

It means dark skinned people from Africa. Just like "white" means light skinned people from Europe.

If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:



As populations inhabiting tropical and subtropical environments black people can and have been found all over the globe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
If the skin color is dark and the result of biochemical changes in melanin related to AFRICAN DNA evolution then it is black according to the current definition of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000266;p=2

WHO SAID that Alicia Keys was a TEXTBOOK example of a black person? YOU RETARD.

WHO SAID that Alicia Keys had BLACK SKIN?

YOU RETARD.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Alicia Keys is black and Sade is black

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
this issue isn't difficult because black is not a culture, ethnicity, language or custom. It referes to skin color. Skin color is a fact of human nature and exists all over the planet. People with dark skin are not limited in their range on the earth, not now and most certainly not many thousands of years ago, when the first humans exited Africa and were ALL therefore black.

YOU are AFRAID of blacks being ONE IDENTITY as blacks

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shomarka Keita :

We can ask what or whose concept of “race” is being used? And we can most certainly say that one notion of race has to do with the social reaction to phenotype, be it in statuary, wall paintings, or folks standing in front of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?

---

Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.

---

it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place

---

Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black.
Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's
the choice of many one black parent
biracials to go black like Irish-Luo
ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush
green beer and Lambay with Paddy
friends 2day; and here's to all
me not really Black Irish but
Brogue sounding Caribbes).


Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and
Arabic writers identified whole populations
in Africa and Asia as black.

But now all a sudden ...



While many do, like 'Raven' Symone,
everyone 's not running away from black.
It's psychotic thinking scientists don't
use the term when publications and media
prove otherwise.


Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is
already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.
 

---

Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

That 'Afronuts' have no problem calling a spade a spade.

---

quote:

---

Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.

Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.

Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
No. More like Afronuts tend to jump the ship ahead of themselves when making claims that a people who don't have fair or pale skins are automatically "black". It's the ridiculous habit of black-painting peoples from Pre-Neolithic Europeans to Jomon Japanese and their Ainu descendants which makes them no different from the Euronuts who do the polar opposite of white-washing populations which is why they are just as nutty and nobody takes them seriously.

---

quote:

---

Again, this is the problem-- politics polluting scientific discourse and objectivity. But yes I tend to distinguish real 'liberals' from far leftists who do nothing more than play games of tokenism proclaiming black peoples here or Muslim peoples there regardless of what the actual evidence says as part of their mental exercise of white guilt and self-deprication. In the case of skin complexion, it is a matter of semantics if one were separating "brown" from "black" as there is no exact marker or border between the two but let's be real Europeans during the Holocene who did not have the mutation for pale skin were automatically as dark as an African??! [/QB]

---

The fake liberals that I worry about are conservatives pretending to be open minded and liberal thinking while fighting for the status quo (white supremacy). An example of this is The Root. When they talk more about colorism than reparations its showing that they have laid down.

What you are talking about with Cheda Man does not exist. This wasn't just a matter of not having mutations for pale skin they had the pigment genes of dark skin people who would be classified as black. The real flaw is that they are holding on to the mutation for blue eyes. Chances are Chedda was Khoisan complexion with brown eyes instead of dark brown with blue eyes. This isn't a case of leftwing internationalist throwing dark skin people a bone and don't even regard white guilt because of this

White Guilt is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist.
These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.
 

---

Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ashton provided resources for creating this
very same EgyptSearch we're using right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?

---

Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.

---

it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place

---

Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black.
Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's
the choice of many one black parent
biracials to go black like Irish-Luo
ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush
green beer and Lambay with Paddy
friends 2day; and here's to all
me not really Black Irish but
Brogue sounding Caribbes).


Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and
Arabic writers identified whole populations
in Africa and Asia as black.

But now all a sudden ...



While many do, like 'Raven' Symone,
everyone 's not running away from black.
It's psychotic thinking scientists don't
use the term when publications and media
prove otherwise.


Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is
already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:


White Guild is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist.
These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ It's a victim mentality.

---

quote:

---

You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"

- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)

meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it

And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No [/QB]

---

I don't want reparations in the form of honest history I wan't dishonest media to pay reparations so they won't be dishonest in the future. There are corporations that own Hollywood who's taxes should go to reparations. Nat Geo just admitted to their racist depictions so whats the use in writing letters? This isn't on the criminal this is on the government.

The black media ignored the 'Nefertiti' mummy's ancestry test along with Tut's and the rest of the fam. I was one of the few people to spread the word on that. I let people know about how they censored it on Wikipedia down to how they removed DnaTribe's home page and previous citings. I put my money in to that and will put more. I think I did my part.

Im reading and researching for a book right now. Its called the Miseducation of the Albino. Its about stuff like why you would relate black people getting reparations to a victim mentality, why the 'black' media would ignore King Tut's ancestry tests, why Chedda probably did not have blue eyes and more.

I just finished the last major rewrite about a movie script set in ancient Egypt so I do finish stuff but this book will be long in the making because this... is thorough.
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:


^^^ I found this picture of an Egyptian man. His hair is black but his skin appears to be brown. What's up with that?


These Asian guys from an Island off of Papua New Guinea they appear more black than brown

What the hell is going on here?

Who came uo with this whole thing calling people "white" or "black"
Who started that?

---

It was the folks who came up with the “white race” is superior. These folks are know as white supremacists.




Summary of the Argument of The Invention of the White Race

By its author, Theodore W. Allen.

http://clogic.eserver.org/1-2/allen.html


Origin of white supremacy

1865-70, Americanism

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy


Definition of domination
1: supremacy or preeminence over another
2: exercise of mastery or ruling power
3: exercise of preponderant, governing, or controlling influence


31. The essential elements that gave to Protestant Ascendancy after 1689 in Ireland and white supremacy in continental Anglo-America the character of racial oppression were those that first destroyed the original forms of social identity among the subject population, and then excluded the members of that population from admittance into the forms of social identity normal to the colonizing power. The codifications of this basic organizing principle in the Penal Laws of the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and the slave codes of white supremacy in continental Anglo-America present four common defining characteristics of those two regimes: 1) declassing legislation, directed at property-holding members of the oppressed group; 2) the deprivation of civil rights; 3) the illegalization of literacy; and 4) displacement of family rights and authorities.46


Origin of white supremacy

1865-70, Americanism

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/white-supremacy
 

---

Posted by Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:


White Guild is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist.
These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.

---

^ It's a victim mentality. You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"

- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)

meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it

And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tukuler:
Ashton provided resources for creating this
very same EgyptSearch we're using right now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punos_Rey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
[qb]

Is this a little peculiar or is it just me?

---

Dr. Ashton is a huge proponent of an African genesis/predominance for AE. I don't see what's peculiar?.

---

it was surprising to see a light skinned European behind a blog on "African centered Egyptology" and also using the word "kemet" all over the place

---

Keys is a half n half who self-IDs black.
Sade's nonna called her Tar Baby. It's
the choice of many one black parent
biracials to go black like Irish-Luo
ex-POTUS Barack O'bama (ok 2 mush
green beer and Lambay with Paddy
friends 2day; and here's to all
me not really Black Irish but
Brogue sounding Caribbes).


Chinese, Sanskrit, Hebrew, Greco-Latin and
Arabic writers identified whole populations
in Africa and Asia as black.

But now all a sudden ...



While many do, like 'Raven' Symone,
everyone 's not running away from black.
It's psychotic thinking scientists don't
use the term when publications and media
prove otherwise.


Why go on and on about it? Everybody's mind is
already made up. Ain't nothing going to change.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrannohotep:
Is it OK if I or someone else close this thread? It's wandered way off topic and I'm getting sick of the current conversation here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:


What you are talking about with Cheda Man does not exist. This wasn't just a matter of not having mutations for pale skin they had the pigment genes of dark skin people who would be classified as black. The real flaw is that they are holding on to the mutation for blue eyes. Chances are Chedda was Khoisan complexion with brown eyes instead of dark brown with blue eyes. This isn't a case of leftwing internationalist throwing dark skin people a bone and don't even regard white guilt because of this

White Guilt is largely a dog whistle betwixt racist.
These are still people following a Eurocentric perspective else they would dump the blue eye thing. Blue eyes were in Africa before Homo-Sapiens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:
^ It's a victim mentality.

---

I see why everyone calls you a white man. There are plenty black women who say the same. The reality lioness, I'm trying to limit victim mentalities in the American way. You can't live in the reparations capital of the world, be the number one victim of human rights violations for 100s of year and not produce people who are going to call a spade a spade. Thus the best way to significantly limit said victim mentalities is to get on code and fight for some form of compensation. Even then you would not end it. There is no better way to reduce a victim mentality than with justice.

quote:

---

You have people here on Egyptsearch complaining endlessly about each new National Geographic presentation that comes out waiting for reparations in the form of black history asking why can't the "white" " authorities " just come out and say "The Egyptians were Black Africans"

- instead of getting together and organizing to write their own Egyptsearch books ( perhaps in a compilation where a different person writes each chapter/s)

meanwhile people like Jonathan Owens and Asar Imhotep are doing it

And was there any Egyptsearch protest of the Nefertiti done organized letter sending? No

---

I don't want reparations in the form of honest history I wan't dishonest media to pay reparations so they won't be dishonest in the future. There are corporations that own Hollywood who's taxes should go to reparations. Nat Geo just admitted to their racist depictions so whats the use in writing letters? This isn't on the criminal this is on the government.

The black media ignored the 'Nefertiti' mummy's ancestry test along with Tut's and the rest of the fam. I was one of the few people to spread the word on that. I let people know about how they censored it on Wikipedia down to how they removed DnaTribe's home page and previous citings. I put my money in to that and will put more. I think I did my part.

Im reading and researching for a book right now. Its called the Miseducation of the Albino. Its about stuff like why you would relate black people getting reparations to a victim mentality, why the 'black' media would ignore King Tut's ancestry tests, why Chedda probably did not have blue eyes and more.

I just finished the last major rewrite about a movie script set in ancient Egypt so I do finish stuff but this book will be long in the making because this... is thorough. [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness,:

---

It’s funny you always will show people from other continents in comperison to what is supposedly black, blacker and blackest and at the same time will marginalize poeple from the African continent itself, when they don’t conform the “racial stereotypes” created by “whites”. That’s just pure comedy.

So, this begs for the question, what do you mean with when you say “I am black”? Black like who, what “black American” for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".

---

Afronuts have no problem calling a spade a spade.

quote:

---

I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.

The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.

---

Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.

Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.

Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.

---

quote:

---

Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."

---

quote:

---

"This individual had the African variants for the pigmentation genes."

---

quote:

---

The mixture of African and European traits implies that the racial transformation of modern humans was still in progress long after they left Africa, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone.

Study leader Professor Carles Lalueza-Fox, of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, said: ‘The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ish Gebor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
That's the thing. Whenever European scientists or scientists in general use racial labels or terms I always have retain some skeptecism. That Cheddar Man was dark skin is not in doubt but the question was exactly how dark was he?? Was he dark enough to be truly labeled as "black". Recall the genetic findings of the 7,000 year old La Brana hunter-gatherer showing them to have dark skin and blue eyes, yet nobody except Afronuts were quick to call them "black".

---

Afronuts have no problem calling a spade a spade.

quote:

---

I mean unlike Egyptian mummies whose intact skins were subject to melanin dosage tests and found to be "packed with melanin", we only have bones of the Old European hunter gatherers and remnant DNA with autosomes showing they didn't have the mutation for pale skin.

The reason for my skepticism is that I'm aware that European academia now has for lack of a better phrase, a "left wing" bias based on multiculturalism in a way as to proclaim a black or even Muslim presence in early Europe.

---

Real liberals and not sobs like Doug Weller have no problem calling a spade a spade too.

Weller is the dude who brags about marching with MLK while censoring King Tut's ancestry test on wikipedia.

Its racist people, typically those classified as white who will try to tell you someone with the same pigment genes as brown and black humans are just dark skin, swarthy and/or olive when they are not located in their black race regions.

---

quote:

---

Lalueza-Fox states: "However, the biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans, which indicates that he had dark skin, although we can not know the exact shade."

---

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140126134643.htm

quote:

---

"This individual had the African variants for the pigmentation genes."

---

https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/this-is-how-europeans-looked-7-000-years-ago-548938

quote:

---

The mixture of African and European traits implies that the racial transformation of modern humans was still in progress long after they left Africa, with changes in eye colour coming before alterations in skin tone.

Study leader Professor Carles Lalueza-Fox, of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona, said: ‘The biggest surprise was to discover that this individual possessed African versions in the genes that determine the light pigmentation of the current Europeans.

---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546421/Blue-eyed-caveman-7-000-year-old-DNA-reveals-European-African-traits.html

---

If OOA is accurate then all human diversity is a result of human migrations out of Africa and adaptations to various environments around the world. Therefore, the farther you go back in any population the more it should converge on an "African" phenotype. OOA is something that came out of "mainstream" science.

The problem is that the European model of human history still promotes the concept that Europe is the basis of human diversity in phenotype AND the basis of all human advancements in history.

Hence a poster about the show "First Man" on curiosity stream which shows a Eurasian female:



Eurasians didn't come on the scene until way late and certainly light skin even later. Yet the commercial for the show makes it seem as if light skinned ancient apes turned straight into light skin ancient humans.

https://vimeo.com/218190929

I didn't watch the show but this can't be far off what is actually in the program.

https://blog.curiositystream.com/archives/1406

But African scholars who point these contradictions out are supposedly bad people.

So if the show is first man, why are they talking about Apes? And how on earth do the first humans start in Eurasia when the first humans didn't leave Africa for over 200,000 years after humans were born? So what kind of first humans are they talking about?

This was produced by a French team across various Eurasian countries/colonies for primarily a European audience..... go figure.
 

---

Posted by Europa (Member # 22905) on :
 
Doug M,

I think the french producer of First Man show, Frederic Fougea's anachronism related to human evolution history is to pleased Eurasians including himself by misguide the truth about the history of human evolution. With Internet, people around the world have access to what is going on, including to different human species that still living or recently in history lived among us. One of them is an Eurasian guy with strong Neanderthal traits, Nikolai Valuev. He's intelligence level is pretty good, he was the World Boxer champion, and produced a son with normal skull. After he retired from boxing he became Russian politician. There are millions of Nikolai Valuev in Eurasia and Caucasus regions. Here is the picture of the physical profile of Nikolai Valuev. http://allrus.me/tallest-and-heaviest-russian-boxer-nikolai-valuev/.

Another picture of him with Don King and Donald Trump. Don King, and Donald Trump helped him to make millions.

Eurasians in fact are an admixture of many homos, including Homo Floresiensis which survived until relatively recent times, 12,000 to 8,000 years ago. By that time, African Homo Sapiens were living in Eurasia and Eastern Asia for over hundred thousand years interbreeding with them, creating a new short modern human species which migrated to Central America, Bolivia, Peru and Chile. Their average height is about 3 to 4 ft tall. Are millions of them living in Central and South America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

Modern Humans are very diverse. But, the most weird humans and subhumans species I ever saw are the recent excavated Peruvian mummies of Nazca. A extensive segment of Peruvian people carry their DNA.

Scientists and Doctors findings about Nazca Mummies Video. It was after Fox News and other News sources called Nazca Mummies fallacious.

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

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

Alien' mummies from Peru have human chromosome numbers, but not anatomy – scientists
https://www.rt.com/news/421098-peru-alien-mummy-dna/

How could them born like that?
They also found that she had scoliosis, dwarfism and other bone disorders. She also had turricephaly, which causes the skull to be steeped upward and somewhat pointed. She had mutations in genes associated with craniodermal dysplasia and Greenberg skeletal dysplasia.

Nolan says it likely wasn’t a coincidence that one child had all these different deformities. He describes a genome as similar to a football team: Sometimes, a few genes can interact with other genes and one bad “player” can influence the whole organism.

“When you put together multiple [deformities] at a time, you get this sort of domino effect,” he explained. “And that’s what we think we see with this phenotype
http://www.newsweek.com/atacama-alien-skeleton-mystery-revealed-dna-analysis-embargo-1pm-857336

If you think these scientists, including Peruvian doctors, and anthropologists are wrong or racist I am sure they will politely accept your scientific challenge.

La Zana from Russia is another case to be studied. Her DNA is from 100% African Homo Sapiens which migrated over a hundred thousand years to Eurasia, She had black or dark gray skin, covered with dark reddish auburn fur, not hair. If her DNA is 100% African as Bryan Sykes said, how could she be covered in dark reddish auburn fur? Or was she a survivor of interbreed of Homo Sapiens to an Asian Hominid or primate which was alive in 1800s in Eurasia? On Russian history of La Zana by scientists AA. Mashkovtsev and B.F. Porshnev she was captured hundred of miles from Abkhazia, in the high Caucasus mountain forest and taken to Abkhazia Village where she was given to a black Abkhazian tribal prince. Homos like her was well documented on Buddhist temples of Nepal, Mongolia, China, Central Asia and other regions of Eastern Asia,including Indonesia and Malaysia, since ancient times and middle ages. In the Central and Eastern Asia they are called Almas.
BTW, I do have the complete history of La Zana written by two Russian scientists AA.Mashkovtsev and B.F. Porshnev. It is long and more detailed than what has been published on European and American News sources.

Zana: Did DNA Tests Show 19th Century ‘Half Human, Half Ape’ Abkhazian Woman ‘100% Sub-Saharan African’?
Science

JohnThomas Didymus
https://www.inquisitr.com/1981659/zana-did-dna-tests-show-19th-century-half-human-half-ape-abkhazian-woman-100-sub-saharan-african/
 

---