agree with you Don.Question was white people were or not part of this area!Had been ruled Egypt by white pharaohs during existed history of this civilization.
agree with you Don.Question was white people were or not part of this area!Had been ruled Egypt by white pharaohs during existed history of this civilization.
When you say 'white' do you mean "European"? If so, I agree with your statement, European people have nothing to do with Ancient Egyptian population. I expect some mixture of North African people with varying nuances of skin coloring and some Middle Easterners and possibly some from the Arabian Peninsula.
But main migration stream was from African continent out!Why do not accept we come from it?
Of course the main migration was out of Agfrica but there were back migrations to Africa; migration corridor means that people moved in all directions, left and right. It's illogical to suppose that the only possible direction for migration was toward Africa, and never toward it.
Why do you mean "why not accept where we came from"? I don't have any problems with the out-of-Africa-theory; but this was quite a long time before the Ancient Egyptians came about. So what those 2 events have to do with each other? Migration out of Africa was between 80,000-60,000 years ago, there was a backlash to Africa some 30,000 years ago. The Ancient Egyptians came about in like between 4-3,000 BC, or 5,000 years ago. So, considering that whoever came back to Africa in 30,000-20,000 years ago passed through the Levant and exactly where Egypt is located, the last event is closer to the time when Egyptians came about to start with.
The Egyptians looked like the Dravidians of India today. Dravidians are classified as Saharan-Mediterranian Black peoples.
Why would a population indigenous to southern India be a mixture of Saharan African and Mediterraneans?
The Horn Africans are more related to the Nubian type. They are fully Saharan. It's proven, that the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Elamites and the Dravidians were very similar in racial, cultural and linguistic terms hinting at the common ancestry of these groups.
Question: Why have you seemingly completely disregarded the articles from three scholars who are regarded as authorities on the subject, who have both concluded that the closest people biologically and culturally to the early ancient Egyptians are Sub Saharan East Africans and Nilotic Saharan populations? Those scholars have demonstrated this fact through anthropology, genetics, archaeology, linguistics and culture. Those are just the facts about this ancient African civilization.
"The Egyptians came, according to their own records, from a mysterious land...This region was the Egyptian 'Land of the Gods,' Pa-Nuter, in old Egyptian, or Holyland, and now proved beyond any doubt to have been quite a different place from the Holyland of Sinai.
Actually a recent 2010 genetic study has confirmed that the land of Punt was located in what is modern day Ethiopia and Eritrea as most scholars have postulated for the better half of the last century:
"Analysis of mummified baboons in the British
Museum has revealed the location of the land of Punt as the area between
Ethiopia and Eritrea. To the Egyptians, Punt was a place of fragrances,
giraffes, electrum and other exotic goods, and was sometimes referred
to as Ta-netjer, or 'God’s land'."
The mere fact that the ancient Egyptians depicted the land of Punt as having giraffes, hippos ect automatically ruled out a non African location for their self described homeland.
The migration of M-35 from the Horn of Africa (specifically Ethiopia) confirms the Egyptian claim that this was their ancestral homeland. This genetic marker is still to this day the signature marker of Egypt and Northern Africa:
The Nile Valley was the oldest and one of the most used migration corridors so I would expect mixed population.
I mean seriously why do some people have such a problem with accepting the conclusive findings (posted in the OP) which indicate that the original populace of ancient Egypt were black Africans from the south. These authorities back their opinion by anthropology, genetics, linguistics and archaeological evidence. All of which point to the Sub Saharan East African and Nilotic Saharan African origins of ancient Egypt. As time went on populations from the Mediterranean moved began to settle on the Nile. The recent peer reviewed study below confirms this to be the case in regards to the population history of ancient Egypt:
"The question of the genetic
origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the
Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study.Modern
interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous
origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early
Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be
genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period
as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower
Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians
from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during
the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and
that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are
morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently
distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007).
The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari,
are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian
sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample
is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial
variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be
more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or
European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In
addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid
of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic
populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This
suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the
inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of
local origin, and no major migration or replacement events
occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also
support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison
of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more
closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants
than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced
significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations
(Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and
Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).
Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry
et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of
archaeological evidence of major migration or population
replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley,
we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time
as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic
changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental
Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian
Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
The Nile Valley was the oldest and one of the most used migration corridors so I would expect mixed population.
I mean seriously why do some people have such a problem with accepting the conclusive findings (posted in the OP) which indicate that the original populace of ancient Egypt were black Africans from the south. These authorities back their opinion by anthropology, genetics, linguistics and archaeological evidence. All of which point to the Sub Saharan East African and Nilotic Saharan African origins of ancient Egypt. As time went on populations from the Mediterranean moved began to settle on the Nile. The recent peer reviewed study below confirms this to be the case in regards to the population history of ancient Egypt:
"The question of the genetic
origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the
Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study.Modern
interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous
origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early
Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be
genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period
as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower
Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians
from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during
the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and
that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are
morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently
distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007).
The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari,
are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian
sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample
is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial
variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be
more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or
European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In
addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid
of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic
populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This
suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the
inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of
local origin, and no major migration or replacement events
occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also
support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison
of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more
closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants
than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced
significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations
(Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and
Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).
Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry
et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of
archaeological evidence of major migration or population
replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley,
we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time
as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic
changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental
Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian
Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
These are just the facts.
Of course, the Nubians and other North Saharan populations would share genes with their neighbors the Egyptians. That is quite natural. But the paintings on the walls show clear pictures. The Egyptian people were of the Nilo-Dravdian type, not clearly Horn African or even Subsaharan. We shouldn't take historians as serious as you do. Many carry a dirty political agenda to misinform the common people. Use your own eyes and senses and only then take notes from others. I have seen your picture comparisons and liked it, but they don't look really Egyptian, sorry. But they certainly look genetically related in a distant way.
Of course, the Nubians and other North Saharan populations would share genes with their neighbors the Egyptians. That is quite natural. But the paintings on the walls show clear pictures.
That's the problem! You are making an outlandish claim which goes against all of the biological evidence presented in this thread thus far, in favor of making subjective arguments about their highly stylized artwork.
Anthropology and Genetics>>>>Subjective view points of artwork
Anthropology groups the ancient Egyptians with more southerly African populations. Those Africans mainly being from more southerly areas of Northeast Africa (Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan). Genetic evidence confirms that the original migrants to settle on the Nile were Nilotic Africans from the ancient Sahara and of course from Sub Saharan East Africa. Conversely none of this evidence shows any ties between ancient Egypt and Dravidians.
The Egyptian people were of the Nilo-Dravdian type, not clearly Horn African or even Subsaharan.
Based on what? Subjective opinions on artwork?
P.S. The Dinka of the Sudan are not "Sub" Saharan Africans either but they are still black are they not. They are in fact the darkest Africans.
We shouldn't take historians as serious as you do. Many carry a dirty political agenda to misinform the common people.
I did not cite any historians, I cited leading bio-geneticist and linguistic/cultural scholars on the matter. This is
I have seen your picture comparisons and liked it, but they don't look really Egyptian, sorry.
OK dude that's just your opinion and I have mine in regards to artwork, I don't see a resemblance in your Dravidian comparison. This is why such artwork subjective and is not the a reliable indicator to answer this question. However my opinion seems to be in line with what the biological evidence indicates about their phenotype.
The Nile Valley was the oldest and one of the most used migration corridors so I would expect mixed population.
I mean seriously why do some people have such a problem with accepting the conclusive findings (posted in the OP) which indicate that the original populace of ancient Egypt were black Africans from the south. These authorities back their opinion by anthropology, genetics, linguistics and archaeological evidence. All of which point to the Sub Saharan East African and Nilotic Saharan African origins of ancient Egypt. As time went on populations from the Mediterranean moved began to settle on the Nile. The recent peer reviewed study below confirms this to be the case in regards to the population history of ancient Egypt:
"The question of the genetic
origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the
Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study.Modern
interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous
origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early
Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be
genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period
as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower
Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians
from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during
the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and
that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are
morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently
distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007).
The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari,
are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian
sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample
is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial
variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be
more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or
European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In
addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid
of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic
populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This
suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the
inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of
local origin, and no major migration or replacement events
occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also
support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison
of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more
closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants
than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced
significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations
(Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and
Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).
Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry
et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of
archaeological evidence of major migration or population
replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley,
we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time
as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic
changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental
Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian
Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
These are just the facts.
Those are no "conclusive findings", those are suppositions. I had been in such discussion before and I don't intend to get into them again, so I'm write my opinion and end up with it. The population of Egypt was mixed, since it's impossible the people living in the most ancient and most used migration corridors to have been from one ethnicity. The question here is why some people would insist that they were only from one ethnicity /not to use the already obsolete term 'race'/, and that this ethnicity happened to be black Africans from the South only. The genetic research concludes that there was migration from the Middle East in North Africa like 30,000 years ago, therefore whoever was in Northj Afgrica by 4-3,00 BC was already mixed:
"...Haplogroup T originated at least 30,000 years ago, making it one of
the oldest haplogroups found in Eurasia, which may explain its vast
dispersal around Africa and South Asia. It also makes its place of
origin uncertain. The modern distribution T in Europe strongly
correlates with a the Neolithic colonisation of the continent by Middle
Eastern farmers, who also included members of haplogroups E1b1b, G2a, J1
and J2. The hotspot in Estonia is very likely due to a founder effect in the Neolithic population.
Although haplogroup T is more common today in East Africa than
anywhere else, its association with the rise of agriculture in the
Middle East is a strong argument in favour of a Middle Eastern origin,
and a colonisation of East Africa by Middle Eastern farmers. Another
argument in that sense is that T is descended from haplogroup K, which
is itself absent from Africa and spawned most of the Eurasian
haplogroups (L, N, O, P, Q, R and T), which are thought to have a common
origin around Central Asia. The strong incidence of T from the Caucasus
to central and southern Iran hint that early farmers might have
descended from the Caucasus to southern Mesopotamia and southwest Iran. T
might therefore be linked to the ancient Sumerians and Elamites....http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml
As far as lingustic is concerned, Ancient Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language, and closer to Berber and even Arabic that to the languages south of it, like Ancient Nubian, that were from the Nilo-Saharan group; so, this is one more evidence of mixed population.
Now, those are the facts. To present several craniometrics and to make vague assertion about "conclusive research". "most linguists and anthropologists" while avoiding any other research that shows different facts is not presenting facts, but picking and choosing what one wants to sell. I'm not buying.
Egypt was therefore compared with Tower of Babel,old kingdom that had solved unsolved problem:all people to live together!Metaphor was that:it was impossible than why we could have tried again!Gate of the Gods is plural,many gods many nations could have lived together.
Egypt was therefore compared with Tower of Babel,old kingdom that had solved unsolved problem:all people to live together!Metaphor was that:it was impossible than why we could have tried again!Gate of the Gods is plural,many gods many nations could have lived together.
Those are no "conclusive findings", those are suppositions.]
If a recent peer reviewed overall of research conducted on the population history of the Nile Valley is not sufficient enough then I think that the encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt is conclusive/authoritative to do so:
"There is now a sufficient body of
evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that
the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited
physical characteristics that are within the range of variation
for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and
tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and
Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the
Sahara and more southerly areas."(Nancy C. Lovell, "
Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the
Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven
Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp
328-332)
and
"must be placed in the context of
hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and
other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological
evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be
identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local
variation. This variation represents the short and long term
effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift,
and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography."
("Nancy C. Lovell,
" Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia
of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp
328-332)
They are basically stating that the ancient Egyptians generally looked like black Africans further to the south.
The population of Egypt was mixed, since it's impossible the people living in the most ancient and most used migration corridors to have been from one ethnicity.
Yes most scholars note that the original Egyptian populace was a mixture of Nilotic Africans and Horn Africans. After the establishment of the civilization is when small scale steady migration into the Nile from the Middle East began to take place. By Late Dynastic times Egyptian was a pretty "mixed" society, which had starks biological distinctions from it's Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic ancestors (as stated in the peer reviewed article above).
The question here is why some people would insist that they were only from one ethnicity /not to use the already obsolete term 'race'/,
Please provide peer reviewed biological evidence which states that the early ancient Egyptians were the product various black African populations those of the Levant.
The genetic research concludes that there was migration from the Middle East in North Africa like 30,000 years ago, therefore whoever was in Northj Afgrica by 4-3,00 BC was already mixed:
Actually the oldest skeletal remains found in Egypt is considered to be a descendant of more southerly African populations
What does this have to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians? Do Egyptians have a high level (or even detectable level) of Haplogroup T? Where is the study that I can read which confirms this to be true?
As far as lingustic is concerned, Ancient Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language, and closer to Berber and even Arabic that to the languages south of it, like Ancient Nubian, that were from the Nilo-Saharan group; so, this is one more evidence of mixed population.
You're actually wrong again! The ancient Egyptian language was closest to those Afro-Asiactic languages spoken in Chad and Somalia:
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a
language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called
Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east
African languages from Somalia to Chad.Egypt's cultural
features, both material and ideological and particularly in the
earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad
area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by
African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa
and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The
Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)
Also Nubians were the closest population biologically to the ancient Egyptians than anyone else and the studies presented on this very page confirm this to be true.
Now, those are the facts.[QUOTE]
Just to illustrate how obviously biased you are in this discussion (most likely due to emotional attachment issues), I will point out how you are disregarding PEER REVIEWED research from numerous authors because you simply don't like what they all seem to conclude in favor of a random website, which cites nothing to back it's claims. Is it that serious that you have to be that biased?
[QUOTE]I'm not buying.
Doesn't hurt me any, you're the one who wishes to remain ignorant of the facts.
I'm not going to argue and insinuate who is ignorant and who is not. Here some live studies, not blind quotes that I one cannot follow /and read the whole thing for themselves/. Everyone here can follow and make their own conclusions: Ancient Egyptian cluster with European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe and India: "...Abstract
Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians
from Gizeh (#60), 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma (#61) with Northwest Indians from
Punjab and Kashmir (#44), Ancient and Modern Greeks (#48),
Scandinavians from Finland, Sweden and Norway (#51, #52), and Modern
Germans (#53). (NOTE: Somalis are #63)
Ancient Egyptians from Badari, Pre-Dynastic
Egyptians from Naqada, and 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh cluster with Europeans and West/South Asians on
the negative end of the prognathism scale.
Ancient Egyptian language shows the closest relationship to Semitic, Berber and Beja: "...According to Loprieno4,
Ancient Egyptian shows thë closest relationship to Semitic, Berber and
Beja, and more distant relationship to the rest of Cushitic and Chadic. ..." "...The Ancient Egyptian language
represents an autonomous branch of the Afro-Asiatic or Hamito-Semitic
phylum, one of the most widespread language families in the world.The individual branches of the Afro-Asiatic phylum are :
-Ancient Egyptian ; -Semitic languages including Eastern
Semitic (Akkadian), Northwest Semitic (Canaaite, Hebrew, Ugaritic,
Aramaic. Phœnician} and Southwest Semitic (Arabic, South Arabian and
Ethiopic) ;- -Berber languages (or Libyco-Berber) ; - Cushitic languages (i.e. among others Beja, Agao, Somali, etc.) ; - Chadic languages (i.e. among others Hausa)...." ...http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html
Those are no "conclusive findings", those are suppositions.]
If a recent peer reviewed overall of research conducted on the population history of the Nile Valley is not sufficient enough then I think that the encyclopedia of the archaeology of ancient Egypt is conclusive/authoritative to do so:
"There is now a sufficient body of
evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that
the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited
physical characteristics that are within the range of variation
for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and
tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and
Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the
Sahara and more southerly areas."(Nancy C. Lovell, "
Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the
Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven
Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp
328-332)
and
"must be placed in the context of
hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and
other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological
evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be
identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local
variation. This variation represents the short and long term
effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift,
and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography."
("Nancy C. Lovell,
" Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia
of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and
Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp
328-332)
They are basically stating that the ancient Egyptians generally looked like black Africans further to the south.
The population of Egypt was mixed, since it's impossible the people living in the most ancient and most used migration corridors to have been from one ethnicity.
Yes most scholars note that the original Egyptian populace was a mixture of Nilotic Africans and Horn Africans. After the establishment of the civilization is when small scale steady migration into the Nile from the Middle East began to take place. By Late Dynastic times Egyptian was a pretty "mixed" society, which had starks biological distinctions from it's Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic ancestors (as stated in the peer reviewed article above).
The question here is why some people would insist that they were only from one ethnicity /not to use the already obsolete term 'race'/,
Please provide peer reviewed biological evidence which states that the early ancient Egyptians were the product various black African populations those of the Levant.
The genetic research concludes that there was migration from the Middle East in North Africa like 30,000 years ago, therefore whoever was in Northj Afgrica by 4-3,00 BC was already mixed:
Actually the oldest skeletal remains found in Egypt is considered to be a descendant of more southerly African populations
What does this have to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians? Do Egyptians have a high level (or even detectable level) of Haplogroup T? Where is the study that I can read which confirms this to be true?
As far as lingustic is concerned, Ancient Egyptian is an Afro-Asiatic language, and closer to Berber and even Arabic that to the languages south of it, like Ancient Nubian, that were from the Nilo-Saharan group; so, this is one more evidence of mixed population.
You're actually wrong again! The ancient Egyptian language was closest to those Afro-Asiactic languages spoken in Chad and Somalia:
"Ancient Egypt belongs to a
language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called
Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east
African languages from Somalia to Chad.Egypt's cultural
features, both material and ideological and particularly in the
earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad
area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by
African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa
and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The
Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)
Also Nubians were the closest population biologically to the ancient Egyptians than anyone else and the studies presented on this very page confirm this to be true.
Now, those are the facts.[QUOTE]
Just to illustrate how obviously biased you are in this discussion (most likely due to emotional attachment issues), I will point out how you are disregarding PEER REVIEWED research from numerous authors because you simply don't like what they all seem to conclude in favor of a random website, which cites nothing to back it's claims. Is it that serious that you have to be that biased?
[QUOTE]I'm not buying.
Doesn't hurt me any, you're the one who wishes to remain ignorant of the facts.
I found what you have said to be very interesting, and I have also taken into consideration what others have said too, to be as open to opinion as possible, and what I have discovered in what you have posted doesn't really contradict with what others have said. The reason for this isn't that you are wrong that much, it is because the findings you have shown heavily relies on southern Egypt for the findings you're trying to put over, and of course shouldn't be such a surprise to come up with findings due to what we already know of the connections between Egypt and Nubia(Sudan) from ancient times to the present day. As for the ancient population of Egypt as a whole and the likeness modern day Egyptians have with them now, I would ask you about ancient Egyptian paintings on walls and how the likenesses are like those of the people now. Are you saying that the ancient Egyptians painted themselves as being white instead of black? If the ancient Egyptians weren't a mixed population, then when did they become the mix that they are, taking into consideration the paintings too?
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.
Word of advice Don Quixote, the next time you copy and paste and entire argument word for word from Anthroscape, you should read the entire thread first. If you did then you would have seen where "Racialreality" was beaten so bad in the debate that in an act of cowardice he banned his primary opponent from the forum in the middle of the debate. But since you took the easy way out I will do the same:
Now if you would really like to have an original debate on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians than we do so. Otherwise your copied and pasted talking points will be met with the same talking points that thoroughly debunk them. Fair enough?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum