...
EgyptSearch Forums Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

» EgyptSearch Forums » Egyptology » What Ethincity/Race where the Ancient Egyptians? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
So i am relativley new to this topic and am aware of lots of studies that would indicate that the Egyptians where indingeous to the Nile, yet you have studies like this contradicted all those previous studies https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm
So i am really confused, what where they, at least according to you guys?
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Read that study they reference in the article, very. very. carefully:

quote:
Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, which is unsurprising given the long and complex connections between Egypt and the Middle East. These connections date back to Prehistory and occurred at a variety of scales, including overland and maritime commerce, diplomacy, immigration, invasion and deportation. Especially from the second millennium BCE onwards, there were intense, historically- and archaeologically documented contacts, including the large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt, whose origins lie in the Middle Bronze Age Levant.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694#discussion

When they say that the mixing with Levanites was very notable in second millennium B.C they are referring to a period of time that dates after 2,000 B.C not before (though SOME ancestry does date before). Just be sure to understand they are not talking about the Old Kingdom. Nearing the second intermediate period Asiatics were flooding into northern Egypt and it soon angered Egyptian leadership. Many of these immigrants would assimilate into Egyptian society too.

Tell me, will Mestizos migrating from Southern/Central America into the United States soon mean the U.S was founded by Mestizos once they become a sizeable population? Such "race realists" would seem to be arguing this if we were to make an analogy to modern cultures. Hm.. I don't understand why (just kidding, yes I do). Egypt is 5,000 years old. Dynastic Egypt lasted for 3,000 years. What is required to make one correct in claiming it African or black? Are you arguing that if it wasn't black or African everywhere and the whole time it wouldn't qualify as an African or "black" civilization? I suppose being that rigid may do it but then Europeans would have no claim to Greece or Rome and will soon lose the U.S. Characteristically dynastic Egypt was African regardless of biological composition if that's what you mean.
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
Oh ok thanks for the clarification, so the Ancient Egypts cultural origins where a indingeous one, but due to its proximity to the Near East their was immigration by osmosis, am i correct? So that would logically infer that most of the admixture would have occured in the North, yet these mummy samples are from the Middle Kingdom and supposedly showed very little affinity to sub saharan Africans, which is very confusing seeing that spits in the face of all the peer reviewed evidence.
Their is a contradiction here, would you know why the Samples would come back showing what they did?
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
Oh ok thanks for the clarification, so the Ancient Egypts cultural origins where a indingeous one, but due to its proximity to the Near East their was immigration by osmosis, am i correct?
So that would logically infer that most of the admixture would have occured in the North, yet these mummy samples are from the Middle Kingdom and supposedly showed very little affinity to sub saharan Africans, which is very confusing seeing that spits in the face of all the peer reviewed evidence.
Their is a contradiction here, would you know why the Samples would come back showing what they did?
 
Tyrannohotep
Member # 3735
 - posted
The vast majority of the mummies sampled in that study were from the Third Intermediate to Roman Period, and all of them came from one locality in northern Egypt. The finding that northern Egyptian remains from that time span look substantially different from older (as well as more southerly) remains has come up more than once in the literature:
 -

And this is from Keita and Boyce in 1996 (full text here on ES):

quote:
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
That said, it's not necessarily the case that the late dynastic northern Egyptians sampled in Schuenemann et al are completely free of African ancestry. From the original paper (here):
quote:
Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations.
And this might be a conservative estimate considering this is probably just "sub-Saharan" (e.g. West/Central) African ancestry. The indigenous Northeast African ancestry could be much higher, especially since we know populations like the Natufians and Neolithic Levantines (which the sampled mummies supposedly resembled) had plenty of that (source here). Keep in mind that Northeast African ancestry is going to resemble that of OOA populations more than that of West/Central Africans since OOA originally branched off from a subset of Northeast Africans.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
Building to what Tyrannohotep said, the state was essentially the product of southern Egyptians, who physically resembled (and exchanged cultures) with "Nubians." If nothing else the argument of an African or black origin for Egypt rests on this point. Those attempting to argue Egypt was black are often less concerned with genetic African affinity as much as they are arguing phenotypes of the Egyptians can easily be found among groups labeled black today.

Even though some of the Levanite ancestry dates to predynastic times, KMT was not born from northern Egyptians. the northern provinces were subject to southern Egyptian conquest and it was this "unification" that formed dynastic Egypt. When Europeans conquered the Americas, or colonized to name African land "Rhodesia" how were the states they crafted African or Native American in character simply because native non whites were living there?
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
Interesting, so according to you guys what would the phenotype of Egpyt have been? Did they resemble groups in the Horn Of Africa the most ie Somalis or did where they some sort of combination between various African groups?
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
If you're generalizing upper and lower Egypt phenotypes, and generalizing how those phenotypes changed across time periods, what you see today is probably representative of the diversity that existed. If you're being more specific you'll likely wind up with a different answer. If for example you asked what Lower Egyptians looked like before/after the Hyksos began moving into Egypt, or how the southern Egyptian cultures that founded pharonic Egypt had looked when they did it, it'd likely be a different answer.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noorlazboss:
Oh ok thanks for the clarification, so the Ancient Egypts cultural origins where a indingeous one, but due to its proximity to the Near East their was immigration by osmosis, am i correct?
So that would logically infer that most of the admixture would have occured in the North, yet these mummy samples are from the Middle Kingdom and supposedly showed very little affinity to sub saharan Africans, which is very confusing seeing that spits in the face of all the peer reviewed evidence.
Their is a contradiction here, would you know why the Samples would come back showing what they did?

Why do north Africans have to have genetic affinity to sub saharan Africans to be "Black" or "African?" Moreso a question towards Black because we all know the words "Sub Saharan" offer language that is supposed to convey subtle attitudes of the "true negro." This persists in science even though people indigenous to areas outside this region assume a black identity or are labeled black by the same racists.
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
so to be more specific Lower Egypt today as it is now with all the heavy admixture is representative of Old kingdom Egypt? or would it be more representative of New Kingdom Egypt after the Hyksos?
Seeing we know that North Africa was a lot more "Black" in its ancient past as compared to the present, it would be rather odd to think of Ancient Egypt being as admixed as modern day Egypt anytime during its history, up until the muslim invasion.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
"Asiatics" were roaming through the Delta from pre history. Predynastic Lower Egypt has been found to have Asiatic settlements, it's the extent to which it happened that changed. Available evidence suggests (from that link you provided no less) that the Old Kingdom Egyptian Delta was likely less mixed than the New Kingdom's.

...Another hurdle for racists is going to be in making clear the Delta Old Kingdom phenotype, or that the descendants of the Natufians (that many have suggested may've provided Near Eastern inflow) would not be treated as black today. Race is phenotypical and they have an uphill task ahead of them. "Blacks" can have caucasoid facial structures. So their describing ancient faces that way doesn't prove they'd have been "white" today.
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
The only group i can think of that has dark skin and Caucasoid features outside of Southern India are the somalis and Ethiopians. If that was the phenotype that was predominant in Ancient Egpyt. The Ancient Egyptians would have been classified as black today, by ALL MEANS.
 
Oshun
Member # 19740
 - posted
There was variation within time periods. When the state formed, the southern cultures of Egypt pushing for dynastic Egypt often had broader features. These characteristics contrasted from the features deemed "Caucasoid" which were more prevalent in the north. As time went on during the dynastic period,these differences in structure between groups reduced out over time, suggesting a common sense of ethnic identity (and endogamy) had developed. My general point though has been that proving whiteness in Africa requires a greater expression of evidence than people suggesting bone structures common to Europeans. Blacks (especially Africans) can have that bone structure and are known to as a whole have more phenotypic diversity than any other group.
 
Elmaestro
Member # 22566
 - posted
quote:
Originally posted by Noorlazboss:
The only group i can think of that has dark skin and Caucasoid features outside of Southern India are the somalis and Ethiopians. If that was the phenotype that was predominant in Ancient Egpyt. The Ancient Egyptians would have been classified as black today, by ALL MEANS.

Which features do you have associated with "caucasoid;" gracial frontal curvature, prognathicism, Dolicephaly...?
 
Noorlazboss
Member # 22036
 - posted
I really dont think Caucasian is a real thing, as to say a biological defined race. What i meant was, the Egyptians where known to have slimmer facial features and that those features are not exlcusive to whites.
Therefore if the arugment was used "look at their features" as to negate their "blackness" it would not be a sound argument.
 



Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3