Print Page | Close Window

question about the Egyptians..?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Questions & Answers
Forum Discription: Problems with your history homework or just curious?
Ask All Empires! Unregistered users may post
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17482
Printed Date: 02-Dec-2022 at 08:48
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: question about the Egyptians..?
Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Subject: question about the Egyptians..?
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 14:25
Were the ancient egyptians black people?



Replies:
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:03
They don't look like it from their artwork. 

-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:11
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Were the ancient egyptians black people?
 
 
Do you think modern day Egyptians are black people?
 
 


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:13
Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Were the ancient egyptians black people?
 
 
Do you think modern day Egyptians are black people?
 
 


no i dont but I think modern day Egyptians look nothing like the Egyptian statues, and images that Egyptians drew of themselves...


Posted By: Leonardo
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:17
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Originally posted by Leonardo

Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Were the ancient egyptians black people?
 
 
Do you think modern day Egyptians are black people?
 
 


no i dont but I think modern day Egyptians look nothing like the Egyptian statues, and images that Egyptians drew of themselves...
 
 
 
The Copts are direct descendants from ancient Egyptians, do you think they are black people?
 
 


Posted By: Denis
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:20
Its not wise to compare modern Egyptians to Ancient ones - this was before the Arabic intrusions so they would have looked considerable different.

-------------
"Death belongs to God alone. By what right do men touch that unknown thing"

Victor Hugo


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:22
Originally posted by Denis

Its not wise to compare modern Egyptians to Ancient ones - this was before the Arabic intrusions so they would have looked considerable different.


Exactly and plus the africans were their before the middle easterners invaded Africa.....


Posted By: Patrinos
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:31
Why such theories like "Black Egyptians" or..."Black Athena" are spread in American Universities,or aren't they?



-------------
"Hellenes are crazy but they have a wise God"
Kolokotronis


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 15:43
Originally posted by Patrinos

Why such theories like "Black Egyptians" or..."Black Athena" are spread in American Universities,or aren't they?



honestly i dont know.....But i only asked because all the Egyptians i've seen have black people features.....


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 17:11

We had a very long thread on this a while back: I'll try to find it. From what I know, the Arab invasions have actually had little impact on the demographics of Egypt as well as many other so-called "Arab" countries such as Syria, Lebanon or Iraq. These countries already spoke Semitic languages such as Coptic or Aramaic, so it was very easy for them to adopt a related language -Arabic, as the lingua franca of commerce, and eventually to start speaking it exclusively. The actual number of Arabs who migrated to Egypt was probably too smal to really affect the way that Egyptians looked. Same goes for the Greeks and Romans who were confined exclusively to urban areas. The Egyptians of today probably look a lot like they did 3000 years ago; and some Egyptians you will meet are black because current-day Egypt covers areas which were historically part of Nubia as well (also because Nubians, possibly even more so than the Greeks mixed in with the Egyptians).

Just because the Egyptians were African (because that's the continent they're on after all!), that does not make them "black". Africa has a bewildering variety of people, and it so happens that the people inhabiting the northern areas (Egyptians and Berbers) are a good deal more fair-skinned than say people from Nigeria. This does not make them "white". The distinction is very arbitrary and arguable. I actually think that Afrocentrists who say that Egyptians were black because they were African are guilty of a form of racism towards black-people themselves because they are implcitly denying the vast variations in appearance which occur among the so-called "black people" (it's kind of like saying that "they all look the same"). Just compare the appearance of Ethiopians with that of Congolese people or of the Khoisan and you'll see what I mean.

Also, such statements deny the evidence present in all of Egyptian art, which clearly differentiated Egyptians (who were depicted with reddish skin for men and pale skin for women) from other people such as Nubians who were very black, but also from lighter-skinned people from the Middle East.



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 19:16
Originally posted by Decebal

people such as Nubians who were very black, but also from lighter-skinned people from the Middle East.



all nubians are not dark skinned.....And yes nubians and Khoisan(Bushmen) people do look dffierent but they are both of the same race though...


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 19:28
I assume that since Egyptians live near Meditteranean Sea... I think they can't be completely black, like the Arabics. Because Egyptian Empire stretched to Sudan... I think people there are black migrated to the heart of Egyptain Empire due to slavery, work, war, etc.
 
 


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 21:57

White people (Caucasoids) have existed in Africa since the beginning of times. There are some theories that place the origin of whites in Africa itself. Other shows back-immigration into Africa in neolythical times of people that resembled Berbers and Canarian settlers (the ancestors of the Carthagians and Moors). Even today you can find blue eyed peoples in North Africa as in ancient tims. So what's the big deal.

Egyptians are Mediterranean people, closely related to Middle Easterners, Lybians and also with some southern people of some negroid ancestry. They are not "Blacks" in the sense they don't look like the stereotype of a Western Subsaharan African, but remember that Egypt is in the North East and not in Western Central Africa. Easter Africa, from Egypt down to Somalia have a long history of admixture between different peoples.
 
As far as I know, egyptians have always had the same look. Even more, there are studies that have show pyramid workers were of the same genetic stock of modern Egyptians. They are a population that is in between Ethiopians and the Levante's peoples, and that show in theirs phenotype.
 
Definitively some Pharaons have negroid features, but it is also quite clear that many others would be considered today mainly white people.
 
Now, if ancient Egyptians didn't mark the difference between races why modern Black Americans have the right to do so? I wonder.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:34
 
 
pinguin your whole argument is stupid. black people come in different shades and features. with your argument germanics are white people and  dark meditereneans are not. caucasoids means nothing some masai, some somalians are white then yesDisapprove the culture of ancient egypt is very african. the egyptians came from the south and that is the correct and current scholarly view.menes,djoser, look black to me. i have looked at some of your post in other threads you seem to have a problem with black people for some reason always putting down there cultures. 


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 22:53
The reason why people think egyptians are black is because they lived very near the nubians (blacks) which had a completely different kingdom to the south since they were very close to each other they traded and even intermarried but there were many nubians who lived inside the egyptian kingdom such as slaves, citizens and even nobles but egyptians themselves were brownskinned that look "almost" identical to modern age egyptians due to lot's of mixing in their genes.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:02
most black african people are brown skinned, how do you explain the old kingdoms busts are of black people like menes, djoser try and look them up.


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:11
Originally posted by viola76

 
 
pinguin your whole argument is stupid. black people come in different shades and features. with your argument germanics are white people and  dark meditereneans are not. caucasoids means nothing some masai, some somalians are white then yesDisapprove the culture of ancient egypt is very african. the egyptians came from the south and that is the correct and current scholarly view.menes,djoser, look black to me. i have looked at some of your post in other threads you seem to have a problem with black people for some reason always putting down there cultures. 
 
I believe that Pinguin's arguement is not "stupid" as you rudely commented. If black people come in different shaes and feature, I think that merely strengthens Pinguin's point.
 
Originally posted by Pinguin

 
 
Egyptians are Mediterranean people, closely related to Middle Easterners, Lybians and also with some southern people of some negroid ancestry. They are not "Blacks" in the sense they don't look like the stereotype of a Western Subsaharan African, but remember that Egypt is in the North East and not in Western Central Africa. Easter Africa, from Egypt down to Somalia have a long history of admixture between different peoples.
 
And Egypt was quite distinct from what you point out as "black culture". No other African civilizations built pyramids or worship Egyptians gods, or believe in Egyptian's point of view regarding the afterlife. Egypt was unique because her empire was separated from the other emerging Western and Eastern Civilizations... and no powers were strong enough to challenge Egyptians until the tribes of Lybians came in... which is much later. Due to this, Egyptian strangely created their own culture, different from the rest of other African cultures. And they are indeed different...
 
As for the physical appearance, people living in near the coast and are living in different altitude than any other Africans make them look different from other Africans. Look at the latitude. Other than Egyptain Empire, the similar latitudes in Africa are Sahara desert, preventing any major civilization to from in similar region as Egyptian. Furthermore, the reason why their color is similar to Arabics is because they are right beside Egypt relative to the Earth's lattitude.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:19
When i mean to brown people is when the egyptians were not black but had brown skin like an "indian" and what do you mean by black features? if they were dark like u say why isn't it like that on their wall paintings which is also dated from the old kingdom..........


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:23
Originally posted by viola76

 pinguin your whole argument is stupid. black people come in different shades and features.

Not really. If a black person has light skin then is not a black person anymore. That's a tautology.
 
In fact, it is better to speak of Egyptians, Congolese or Somalians rather than using those terms of the time of slavery: white and black peoples.
It is really wishfull thinking (and very naive) to believe that a person from Ethiopia share the same culture that a Pigmey, a Khoi-San or a Zulu just because they have dark skin.
 
Originally posted by viola76

with your argument germanics are white people and  dark meditereneans are not. caucasoids means nothing some masai, some somalians are white then yesDisapprove the culture of ancient egypt is very african.
 
What do you mean by "very African"?  As far as I know, the Egyptian culture is very Egyptian.
 
Originally posted by viola76

the egyptians came from the south and that is the correct and current scholarly view.menes,djoser, look black to me. i have looked at some of your post in other threads you seem to have a problem with black people for some reason always putting down there cultures. 
 
I have no problem with black people. However, for some reason, I can detect afrocentrists a  mile away. (Particularly Van Sertima Church's followers)
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:44
 
lillou
 
most paintings of the old and middle kingdom do show brown coloured egyptians. why dont you look through the internet.
 
[ http://worldart.sjsu.edu/Prt13*1$292*15424 - worldart.sjsu.edu ]
 
pinguin
 
then dark skinned italians greek portugese arent white compared to germans. tautology
 
Who said i said if you are black you same the same culture?
Egyptian culture is egyptian it dosent mean it isnt african . when i get time ill post the culture of egypt and its africaness.
Why am i a afrocentrist? is it because i think the ancient egypts were black african? are you a eurocentric.
 
pekau ill deal with the culture as i said above. the asiatics certainly didnt share egypts beliefs.
do you honestly think the egyptians from taseti and thebes were a differet colour then the so called nubians on ta_setis border?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:52
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

...
all nubians are not dark skinned.....And yes nubians and Khoisan(Bushmen) people do look dffierent but they are both of the same race though...
 
If you see at the map, in Nubia there is a cline, a gradual change of genetic frequencies from the Mediterranean to the Central African genotypes. Of course in between there are peoples that look like both extremes.
 
Now, I wouldn't say Bushmen are of the "same race" as Nubians, Bantues, Malgaches and other peoples of Africa, just because they share some skin colors. As the matter of fact the bushmen has been identified as the closest group alive to the common ancestors of all mankind. If you pay attention to them you will see that features associated with modern East Asians, Europeans and all the rest of peoples are already present in that group.
 
People forget that the genetical diversity inside Africa is greather than the one outside it.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:07
Originally posted by viola76

 
then dark skinned italians greek portugese arent white compared to germans. tautology
 
And who cares about it? Everyone knows that southern europeans are a different people when compared with northern europeans. That's quite clear to me, no matter than thousand of years of admiture between north and south have erased and somehow blured those differences. Southern europeans (the stereotype) are short, brown skinned strongly build, very hairy, dark haired and eyed, have round chin, smaller noses, etc. Northern europeans are usually taller, have big feet, light hair and eyes, rose skin, etc. etc. So, the very idea to apply a single term to everyone of them (white) seem quite idiotic to me.
 
Originally posted by viola76

Egyptian culture is egyptian it dosent mean it isnt african .
 
Africa is a continent: a geographical locality. Egypt is a place located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, right besides Arabia, the Levante and the Mediterranean sea. Places that have a lot in common with Egypt since the beginning of times, perhaps as much as with places a lot farther away down south
 
Moreover, Africa is the original name of Morroco and Algiers.
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
when i get time ill post the culture of egypt and its africaness.
Why am i a afrocentrist? is it because i think the ancient egypts were black african?
 
Well, you should define what is a black african first. I believe that's really a though job. You can easily say all mankind is black african because everyone of us came from ancestors that lived in Kenya 60.000 years ago. In the other hand, if you define "Black African" in a very limited way, it is probably you left Egypt outside.
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
are you a eurocentric.
 
No. I am Chilean. Actually I am more interested in the culture of Native Americans than in Europe.
 
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
pekau ill deal with the culture as i said above. the asiatics certainly didnt share egypts beliefs.
do you honestly think the egyptians from taseti and thebes were a differet colour then the so called nubians on ta_setis border?
 
Why it is so important the color of Egyptians, I wonder.
 
If this is a problem of identity I believe it is a waste of time. Egyptians are not related with modern Africans of the diaspora. The later are mainly of Western African ancestry which is no related at all with Egypt.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:21
Originally posted by pinguin


.
 
Now, I wouldn't say Bushmen are of the "same race" as Nubians, Bantues, Malgaches and other peoples of Africa, just because they share some skin colors. As the matter of fact the bushmen has been identified as the closest group alive to the common ancestors of all mankind.
  


Its more than just skin color Pinguin they dont have any caucasian features....Their noses are round and flat.....They have thick lips like todays africans not as  big though, and nappy hair so therefore they are black people.....They do look a lil asian in the eyes i agree on that much but mankind came from Africa as science has stated so obviously the asians came into existance because of the africans.....




Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:24
 
 the original question was is, was the a.e black. im answering what you are writing this is a forum. why is it if a black guy reckons the egyptians were black they have low self esteem and no identity. if a white guy reckon they were white or semetic no one on this board accuses him of stealing others history, he has self esteem issues etc. etc


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:31
To AfrikaJamaica:
 
The problem is, my friend, that any of the above defines a race. Curly hair, for example, is present in Europeans, Arabs and South Asians. Dark skin is also quite common in South East Asia and the pacific; actuallly, I believe that some people of Southern India are darker than the average Subsaharan African. There are blonds between Aboriguinal Australians and people of the Pacific. North East Asians are in average lighter than Europeans! Thick lips and prognatism is common both in the "Asian" and "African" peoples. etc.
And I have seen some Native Americans identical to Japaneses and others to Italians!
 
What I mean is that groups like white, black, yellow are just simplifications of mankind. The world is quite a lot more diverse that those pretty limited classifications. And I repeat, there are more genetical diversity INSIDE Africa than outside.
 
Consider, for example, the physical differences between Pigmeys and Zulues or between Somalians and Nigerians. Take for example the Malgaches. Do you know they are half Indonesians? Curious, isn't?
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:50
Originally posted by viola76

 
 the original question was is, was the a.e black. im answering what you are writing this is a forum. why is it if a black guy reckons the egyptians were black they have low self esteem and no identity. if a white guy reckon they were white or semetic no one on this board accuses him of stealing others history, he has self esteem issues etc. etc
 
I don't think anybody seriously think Egyptians were Blacks (if by that mean a phenotype similar to the one of Congo or Nigeria). People really knows Egypt is located in Africa and that the ancient population had a varied phenotype that goes from Palestinean-like to Ethiopian-like. That's not something new at all, and it is not something very relevant for the topic either. People also knows (from the Bible and other sources) that in ancient times peoples crossed from Mesopotamia to the Levante and Egypt.... walking. Nothing similar happened between Egypt and Subsaharan Africa, that was really a world appart for most of history.
 
Egypt is important because it was ONE of the founding civilizations of Eurasia, together with Mesopotamia and the peoples of the Middle East.  And it is also important because Greeks admired them. Egypt is not the older civilization at all, because those other civilizations came first. But Egypt is recognized as the first solid country that existed in history, besides, Egypt seem more human than those oriental civilizations.
 
What people does not accept easily is the semantic game of changing the identity of ancient Egypt by a series of permutations, following some very twisted arguments. Saying that Egypt is the product of Black Africa, for example, seem artificial and biassed to more impartial observers.
 
That's all.
 
Pínguin
 


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:54
Originally posted by pinguin

To AfrikaJamaica:
 
The problem is, my friend, that any of the above defines a race. Curly hair, for example, is present in Europeans, Arabs and South Asians.

 


Yes but Curly hair is very different, then nappy black people hair which the Bushmen clearly have just that(nappy black people hair).....
there is no caucasian, asian, or arab person i've ever seen with hair this nappy look at the man, and the boy's hair in this pictures it looks like lil twists all over his head thats a major trait in the black people race......The bushmen are black man......And i've never heard of the Malgaches i will look into it though.....


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:03
 
why do you keep on using this west central africa thing shades of black vary. most africans are not dark black.  ethiopia is subsaharan. what do you mean egypt  was one founding civilization of eurasia? define what the civilization of middle eastern and mesopotamia is. but the original egyptians were most likely black . they came from the south the first provence of egypt was ta seti, ta seti was the point of contact with the nubians. no mainstream source is really clear what the difference was between the nubians and the egyptians. do you know what the difference was?
 
where do you get your sources?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:22
Originally posted by viola76

... but the original egyptians were most likely black . they came from the south the first provence of egypt was ta seti, ta seti was the point of contact with the nubians. 
 
Ah... Ta Seti; marvelous name. By the way, I was in a Ta-Seti forum  in internet once. In there that great phylosopher, Clyde Winters, used to exposse his theories. Like the one that explain Vikings were Blacks, for example LOL
 
Now, there is evidence of the influence in early Egypt of the Mesopotamian cultures. Besides, Jerico, in the Levante, is quite a lot older that any city in Egypt. The highest cultures worldwide were (at the time of the beginning of Egypt) in the Middle East, and not in Subsaharan Africa. Guess from were the influences came from.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:25

Well, I believe in the theory that the origin of mankind were the Indo-Europeans... and they were once located around the Black Sea. See my Atlantis theory in the intellectual discussion.

Well, I am getting confused. Egyptian Empire advanced to the South once the splitted Egypt unified. It's possible that "black Africans" migrated from south since we have no clear evidence... but even so, that must have been several thousands of years before Egyptian Empire emerged as world power... and by then, their skin color may have altered due to new environment, as I have mentioned in my previous post.
 
I think I am also getting your point as well. Egyptians were originally black, and black people have small variation of color difference. Well, define black people. Really, I think calling anyone white or black is pointless because it's like varifying human beings male or female. For instance, Far East Asians are often called "brown or yellow people", but that's horrible generalization. Yes, most of us have relative brown skin... but many people living in similar condition as Western world have their skin color very close to being white since the man-made cities and environment control systems (ex. air conditioner) are slowly turning people to less brown and yellow as we used to be.
 
 


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:34
 
jericho is a wall or building.?
 
are you not hearing me. the culture came from the south all modern egyptology books will tell you this.
 
ian shaw. oxford history of egypt


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:40

 ok why dont we all post peer reviewed sources

 

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

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, Kush*tes, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kush*tes and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.


References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt
. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt
. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:43
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/NabtaPlaya.pdf - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/NabtaPlaya.pdf


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:44
 
 
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf - http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/badari.pdf


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:46
here are some other top peer reviewed sources
 
http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=11&mforum=africa - http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=11&mforum=africa


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:46

What? Jericho is a wall or building? It's a building... but I don't see your point...

And Egyptian culture coming from South is merely among the hundreds of other theories with convincing evidence. Just because the book's published does not mean they are unquestionably right...
 
And you obviously did not read my theory. Indo European language are root of every early languages that we know so far... even if the cradle of life came from South of Africa.... its influence is simply minor until they went up and slowly changed to different race/civilization.
 
But even if you are right, the culture must have changed to adopt to the new environment. If so, then it's meaningless to argue whether Egyptians are black or not. They became a new unique people with their own culture, own physical characteristics, their beliefs and such. I mean, why is it so hard to accept that? So far, you have not presented convincing arguement.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:49
no mate the egyptians didnt speak a indo european language
 




Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.

During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.

Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.

After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History

Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.


References Cited:

Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993

Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995

Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982

Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984

.



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:51
some videos to enjoy
 
http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa - http://www.forumcityusa.com/viewtopic.php?t=34&mforum=africa


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:55
a site what proves their were black pharoahs before the 26th dynasty
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search - http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search =


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 06:54
And what's the point? That Egyptians as a whole were Nigerians?
 
Or perhaps you want to prove that Egyptians were the ancestors of modern Black Americans?
 
Perhaps you should read this instead. It was written by a Black man that was upset of the way African Studies are distorting history :
 
Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes
 
 
http://www.amazon.com/Afrocentrism-Mythical-Pasts-Imagined-Homes/dp/1859842283/ref=cm_cr-mr-img/002-7688662-8976014 - http://www.amazon.com/Afrocentrism-Mythical-Pasts-Imagined-Homes/dp/1859842283/ref=cm_cr-mr-img/002-7688662-8976014
 
Afrocentrism, asserts Oxford historian Howe in this forceful scholarly critique, is a dogmatic ideology promoting a mythical vision of the past that involves an erroneous belief in fundamentally distinct African ways of knowing and feeling. Using archaeological and other studies, he refutes the claims of influential Afrocentrist Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop, who held that ancient Egypt was a black African civilization and that a single cultural system unified the African continent. Howe deftly exposes the shaky underpinnings of Cornell historian Martin Bernal's popular tome, Black Athena, which claims that classical Greece was massively indebted to Egyptian and Semitic sources, and to Egyptian colonization. Tracing the evolution of Afrocentric views from 19th-century pamphleteers, romantic anthropologists, occultists and political activistsAboth black and whiteAthrough contemporary Black Muslim doctrine and what he considers the distortions of U.S. academics such as Leonard Jeffries, Ron Karenga and Molefi Asante, Howe finds that much Afrocentric writing "slips from ethnocentrism and neoconservatism into full-blown racism, sexism and homophobia." A major contribution to the debate, this dense study will appeal mostly to scholars. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
 
Regards,
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 06:55
Originally posted by pekau

What? Jericho is a wall or building? It's a building... but I don't see your point...

 
Jericho was one of the oldest cities in the world. That's the point.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 09:42

If I were to make a statement such as "Hebrews' original homeland was in Asia, therefore the Hebrews are Asian and they have an Asian culture", then pretty much everyone would point out that this is a wildly inaccurate and misleading statement because Asia is so large and diverse. For some reason, Afrocentrists don't have a problem making a similar statement about Egyptians in Africa though...

Here's the problem the way I see it: during colonial times, Europeans were looking for an explanation for their supposed superiority and they divided humanity in some convenient but very inaccurate divisions called races. All the Sub-Saharan Africans were termed "blacks". This of course came at a time when European knowledge of African peoples, cultures and civilizations was extremely limited, so the generalization is not only arbitrary, it is also ignorant. During post-colonial times, Afrocentrists, instead of pointing out the vast variations which occur in the Africans' appearance and culture (Africa being the most diverse continent from that point of view, being the original home of mankind), instead accepted the racist classification of all Africans as black. They tried to show afterwards that Egypt was a "black" and "African" culture (whatever that means) and that all other cultures, especially the European ones borrowed from it. So you see, by accepting this arbitrary and racist division and turning it back on the Europeans, the Afrocentrists are in fact guilty of taking the same attitude as the old-time racist Europeans but in reverse. Instead of the old racist motto of "Africans did not have a civilization of their own and borrowed everything from the Europeans and Arabs", the Afrocentrists say "Europeans did not have a civilization of their own and borrowed everyhting from the Egyptians who were black". The two statements are very similar, wouldn't you say?

The crux of the Afrocentric racist argument rests on the assumption that Egyptians were "black" and "culturally African", ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a black race and an African culture. Rather Africa is the most diverse continent in terms of the peoples' appearance and it is also extremely diverse culturally. This is natural because Africa is the oldest continent as fas as human habitation is concerned. Anyway, to prove that the Egyptians were "black", they point to a few statues of pharaohs (which don't show skin color anyway) and some of their features (such as thick noses or broad lips). Of course, those traits are not the exclusive appanage of Sub-Saharan Africans, who have a wide variety of facial features; also many Middle-Easterners, Asians, Indians,etc, have them as well. Rather, what has happened is that most Afrocentrics are from the United States or other parts of the Americas, where most African people come from West Africa and are therefore more homogenous in appearance. They assume therefore that all African people must look like them, and they look for features such as frizzy hair, broad lips and thick noses in the Egyptians. They ignore however the fact that not only are those features not exclusive to black people, but also the fact that many Africans don't even have them. What's worse, Afrocentrists ignore the overwhelming evidence against their argument which is evident in Egyptian painting and most sculptures besides the ones they hold as proof of the Egyptians' "blackness".

AfrikaJamaika and viola, instead of wasting your energies on proving an argument which is flawed from the beginning and racist to boot, why not concentrate insted on spreading the word about the rich cultures and civilizations of Africa? Instead of appropriating a culture as "African", why not explore the variety of all the cultures in Africa?



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 10:31
Originally posted by pekau

 I think calling anyone white or black is pointless because it's like varifying human beings male or female.
  


Its not my fault man that is the way our world leaders look at things I didn't create the Caste System....People being put into a racial category is how they do things and i can't do anything but accept it.....Honestly it would be better if we we're all seen as human beings but thats not the way it is....


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 10:32
What evidence do afro-centrists use?
 
I've always thought that todays Egyptians are the descendents of the ancient ones.
 
Of course the people have mixed, but how come the population of Egypt isn't black?
 
If ancient Egypt was black, where are they today? Did they flee?


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 10:52
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Originally posted by pekau

 I think calling anyone white or black is pointless because it's like varifying human beings male or female.
  


Its not my fault man that is the way our world leaders look at things I didn't create the Caste System....People being put into a racial category is how they do things and i can't do anything but accept it.....Honestly it would be better if we we're all seen as human beings but thats not the way it is....
 
that's bull: you may not have control over the world, but you have control over how you yourself think. You have a choice between accepting racism and thinking differently. From what I've seen from your posts, you are obsessed with the concept of race: that at least you can change for yourself. The change has to start somewhere. By promoting racist ideas (even if they are meant to bolster the people who have suffered from racism), you actually undermine the idea that you yourself said (that "it would be better if we we're all seen as human beings ").
 
By the way, read my post above to see what I think of Afrocentrists...


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 10:52
Originally posted by Cent

What evidence do afro-centrists use?
 
If ancient Egypt was black, where are they today? Did they flee?


I wouldn't doubt it based on the way that life is set up, when good things happen bad things always follow...For example your people can be ruling the world or a Country for many years but one day another race of people will dominate it atleast one time....Some other groups of people will dominate them one day, and it will continue to go on like that until the civilization is no more........


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 10:57
Originally posted by Decebal

The crux of the Afrocentric racist argument rests on the assumption that Egyptians were "black" and "culturally African", ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a black race and an African culture.




If there is no such thing as a black race and African Culture why is there such thing as a White race, and a Aryan Nation?.....


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 11:02
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Originally posted by Cent

What evidence do afro-centrists use?
 
If ancient Egypt was black, where are they today? Did they flee?


I wouldn't doubt it based on the way that life is set up, when good things happen bad things always follow...For example your people can be ruling the world or a Country for many years but one day another race of people will dominate it atleast one time....Some other groups of people will dominate them one day, and it will continue to go on like that until the civilization is no more........
 
What are you talking about? So the Egyptians (supposedly black) got massacred?
 
Of course the culture vanishes, but NOT the people. They get assimilated. So if ancient Egypt was BLACK, the people living today should be black - and they're not.
 
The people who live in Egypt today and blacks are VERY different, they do not look like eachother.
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 11:03
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Originally posted by Decebal

The crux of the Afrocentric racist argument rests on the assumption that Egyptians were "black" and "culturally African", ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a black race and an African culture.




If there is no such thing as a black race and African Culture why is there such thing as a White race, and a Aryan Nation?.....
 
I think you've listened too much to Racist bullsh*t.
 
 


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 11:10
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

...

If there is no such thing as a black race and African Culture why is there such thing as a White race, and a Aryan Nation?.....
 
You bet. There is no such thing as the White Race.
 
What exist are western peoples, like the Greeks, the Romans, the Iberians, the Germans, the Russians and all others. Saying they all are part of the same race is just simplify things too much.
 
Where do you left the Mongols, the Gypsies, the Jews, the Arabs, the Turks, the brown Southerners and so many other peoples that are also part of Europe since ancient times?
 
Even more, don't you know there still European peoples that don't speak an Indoeuropean language? like Basques and Finns.
 
The white/black contrast is just part of the U.S. culture, and it does not reflect the reality of the world as a whole. It does not even come close.
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 11:17

Egyptians of the ancient times and the present are actually the same people, with some admixture from mediterraneans and southerners, of course, because time does not pass in vain, but not much as one could think. That's what genetics shows anyways.

Now, Egyptian Culture of the ancient times is not really extinguished. Its language, at least, still survives as the sacred tongue of the Coptic Church, so there is undeniable continuity in there.
 
Civilizations don't evaporate. There is always things that remain.
 
Pinguin
 


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 12:11
Originally posted by Decebal

 
By the way, read my post above to see what I think of Afrocentrists...



ok well if you dont want to see it from a Afrocentrists view which i dont blame you....Hear your own race talking about it....Watch these videos then reply when you are done watching them.....


(part 1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs


(part 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZKMzU207MM

(part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s

(Return to Glory White scholars and scientists talking deep about who the Egyptians were.....)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JLzgoF6N8p8


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 12:23
And what's the news?
 
Do they prove the Ancient Egyptians are different from what we have always known?
 
What's the point of all this?
 
What was the purpose of the question in the first place if you don't want to hear answers?
 
 
Pinguin
 
 


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 12:34
Originally posted by pinguin

[
 
The white/black contrast is just part of the U.S. culture, and it does not reflect the reality of the world as a whole. It does not even come close.
 
Pinguin


Yes it does Pinguin even the lighter skinned middle eastern people, disrespect the darker skinned middle eastern people racism is global not just in the U.S.


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 12:36
Originally posted by pinguin

And what's the news?
 
Do they prove the Ancient Egyptians are different from what we have always known?
 
What's the point of all this?
 
What was the purpose of the question in the first place if you don't want to hear answers?
 
 
Pinguin
 
 


DID YOU WATCH THE MOVIES IF U DIDN'T THEN THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT ABOUT THEM IF U HAVENT' WATCHED THEM...U haven't said whether u have watched them or not now did u watch them yet or not? And i mean all of them all the way threw..And what do you mean whats the point of this? The point is that its not all Afro-centrist thinking even guilty conscience  caucasian people are starting to tell the truth....


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 13:12
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

Originally posted by pinguin

[
 
The white/black contrast is just part of the U.S. culture, and it does not reflect the reality of the world as a whole. It does not even come close.
 
Pinguin


Yes it does Pinguin even the lighter skinned middle eastern people, disrespect the darker skinned middle eastern people racism is global not just in the U.S.
 
OMG?!
 
What do you know about this, huh? Have you ever been in the Middle East?
 
Of course racism exists everywhere, but do not compare the Middle East with U.S.
 
 


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 13:23
Originally posted by Cent

 
OMG?!
 
What do you know about this, huh? Have you ever been in the Middle East?
 
Of course racism exists everywhere, but do not compare the Middle East with U.S.
 
 



I know for a fact because i heard it on the radio once if i can find it on the net i will post it up for you....As i have said IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEOS THAT I POSTED UP ABOUT THIS VERY TOPIC THEN YOU HAVE NO REASON TO REPLY ANYMORE ....Because we are way are currently way off topic.....


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 13:33
"I know for a fact because i heard it on the radio once if i can find it on the net i will post it up for you"
 
So, you heard on the radio that lighter skinned Middle Easterners disrespect darker ones?
 
Really? On the radio? So because you hear it on the radio, it must be a fact?


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 15:41
your wasting your time africa. ive given them up to date peer reviewed sources, but they just ignore them and talk about afrocentricm. why dont decebal pinguin cent give me up to date peer reviewed sources concerning ancient egyptians. pinguin you dont have to look nigerian to be black. you sound like a naive teenager. cent upper egypt is full of black people not as in the colour black but as shades of dark brown. decebal you are a moderator show me some up to date peer reviewed sources for ancient egypt. did you even read the ones i posted, i assume to you they are afrocentrics.


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 15:48
"cent upper egypt is full of black people not as in the colour black but as shades of dark brown"
 
You mean arabes? Berbers? Copts? Are they black? Hell no.
 
There are  black people in Egypt, no one is argueing about that.
 
But ancient Egypt was black? That's too far off.
 
First you have to define black, second define black culture.
 
Egypt was Egypt neither black nor white.


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 15:52
 
egypt was in africa so what you have to do is prove the culture wasnt african. prove to me the culture came outside of africa. define european culture to me then.?
 
how many egyptians do you think look like this
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search - http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search =


Posted By: Cent
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 15:53
European? As I've said Egypt isn't EUROPEAN!
 
Egypt was Egypt. They had their own culture.


-------------
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:16
 
cent you cant deny a lot of egyptians look like this
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search - http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search =
 
 
did egyptian culture come from abroad or not?
 
if not then it is a african ciulture


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:17

The only people who focus on such things as the color of ancient Egyptians are the extremists: Afrocentrists who want to prove that Egyptians were black, or white supremacists who want to prove the exact opposite. Most modern academics don't bother writing articles about it, but instead there is a general consensus that ancient Egypt was a multiracial society.

Some of these pages would be useful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_characteristics_of_ancient_Egyptians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Racial_characteristics_of_ancient_Egyptians


Take a look at the map which depicts the range of skin colors of humanity. You will notice that Africa is by far the most diverse continent in this respect. How can we say then that being from the African continent automatically means being "black"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png


I don't know if you can read French, but the French Wikipedia is a lot better than the English one:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origine_des_anciens_%C3%89gyptiens - http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origine_des_anciens_%C3%89gyptiens



-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:20
Originally posted by viola76

 
cent you cant deny a lot of egyptians look like this
 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search - http://youtube.com/watch?v=bN1KYkeBYTk&mode=related&search =
 
 
did egyptian culture come from abroad or not?
 
if not then it is a african ciulture
 
the whole point is defining "african culture". As I said before, if I said that Hebrews or Iranians are from Asia hence they must have "Asian culture", then that would be quite inaccurate and misleading, because it ignores the vast cultural and appearance differences between the various people which live in Asia. The same idea applies to Egyptians: they lived in Africa, but that doesn't make their culture "African" no more than Iranians are "Asian".


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:22
 
i cant read french but ive look at the others.
 
multiracial society.
 
the culture came from the south. what duid the northeners bring.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:23
agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. - Chrisopher Ehret

Pottery is several thousand years older in Africa than the 'middle east'


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:33
 
where do you people get your sources from concerning ancient egypt.


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:34
Originally posted by viola76

agriculture was invented in Africa in at least three centers, and maybe even four. In Africa, you find the earliest domestication of cattle. The location, the pottery and other materials we've found makes it likely that happened among the Nilo-Saharan peoples, the sites are in southern Egypt. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between archaeology and language on this issue. - Chrisopher Ehret

Pottery is several thousand years older in Africa than the 'middle east'
 
I don't where you are getting this... The oldest towns in the world are in the Middle East. Catal Huyuk and Jericho are each about 11,000 years old. Towns require pottery, for food storage.
As an aside, the oldest pottery in the world is in Japan...


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:37
Originally posted by viola76

 
i cant read french but ive look at the others.
 
multiracial society.
 
the culture came from the south. what duid the northeners bring.
 
To start with, wheat and barley, as well as animals such as the sheep, the goat and the donkey were all domesticated in the Middle East. Egyptian civilization would scarcely have been possible without them.


-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:42
Swissinfo

Swiss archaeologist digs up West Africa's past

A Swiss:led team of archaeologists has discovered pieces of the oldest African pottery in central Mali, dating back to at least 9,400BC.

The sensational find by Geneva University's Eric Huysecom and his international research team, at Ounjougou near the Unesco:listed Bandiagara cliffs, reveals important information about man's interaction with nature.

The age of the sediment in which they were found suggests that the six ceramic fragments : discovered between 2002 and 2005 : are at least 11,400 years old. Most ancient ceramics from the Middle East and the central and eastern Sahara regions are 10,000 and between 9:10,000 years old, respectively.

"At the beginning, the very first piece we found stayed in my desk drawer for years, as I didn't realise how old it was," Huysecom told swissinfo.

Huysecom heads a 50:strong interdisciplinary team, composed of 28 international researchers ? mainly from Germany, Mali, Switzerland, France and Britain : on the largest current archaeological research project in Africa, entitled "Human population and paleo:environment in West Africa".

Ounjougou was selected as the location, "as everything led us to believe that there we could follow the evolution of man, the environment and the climate", explained Huysecom.

The site is an archaeologist's dream: a ravine made up of layers of easy:to:date sediment rich in West African history.

Significant findings

Since the launch of the project in 1997, the team has made numerous discoveries about ancient stone:cutting techniques and tools, and other important findings that shed light on human development in the region.

But the unearthing of the ancient fragments of burnt clay is one of the most significant to date. Huysecom is convinced that pottery was invented in West Africa to enable man to adapt to climate change.

"Apart from finding the oldest ceramic in Africa, the interesting thing is that it gives us information about when and under what circumstances man can invent new things, such as pottery," he explained.

"And the invention of ceramic is linked to specific environmental conditions ? the transformation of the region from desert into grassland."

Grasslands

Some 10,000 years ago, at the end of the ice age, the climate is thought to have fluctuated between warm and cold periods. This led to the formation of an 800:kilometre:wide band of tropical vegetation extending northwards from the Sahel region, which attracted people who slowly moved north from southern and central Africa.

Wild grasses and pearl millet started sprouting on the former desert land. But for man to be able to eat and properly digest the new plants, they had to be stored and cooked in pots.

"Man had to adapt his food and way of life by inventing pottery," said the Geneva professor.

The invention of ceramic also coincided with that of small arrowheads : also discovered by the team ? and which were probably used to hunt hares, pheasants and other small game on the grassy plains.

To date, East Asia ? the triangle between Siberia, China and Japan ? is the only other area where similar pottery and arrowheads have been found which are as old as those in West Africa, explained Huysecom.

"This is important, as they both appear in same way, at the same time and under similar climatic conditions, which indicates that man has certain modes of adaptation to cope with environmental changes," he commented.

Ahead of the final publication of the team's research findings this year, Huysecom is returning to Ounjougou to rejoin his colleagues, in particular those from West Africa "who are extremely proud of the discovery".

He plans to scour the region for caves and other settlement sites to try and find out exactly where the pottery came from so as to determine more precisely the age of the fragments.

"We know [from the sediment] that they are at least 11,400 years old, but they could be 50 or even 1,000 years older



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:50
"the oldest pottery in the world is in Japan"
 
the article meant neolithic pottery


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:52
"wheat and barley, as well as animals such as the sheep, the goat and the donkey were all domesticated in the"
 
fair point, there was a cultural transfer of things. but the culture it self came from the south.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 16:55
http://archaeology.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_khartoummesolithic.htm -
 
 
http://archaeology.about.com/library/glossary/bldef_khartoummesolithic.htm
 
http://www.planetquest.org/learn/nabta.html - http://www.planetquest.org/learn/nabta.html


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:01

I still can't get why Blacks Americans are so concerned with Egypt.

Egypt and its heritage is EGYPTIAN, not Black American.
 
Terms like Africa, Blackness, and similar does not make any sense in this context.
 
What are you trying to prove? That Egypt is the heritage of Black American peoples?
 
Or are you trying to prove that racist theory that says the Black Man was the source of all the culture of mankind, including the myth of Yakub?
 
If so, it is riduculous... period.
 
 
Pinguin


Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:16
Pinguin, couldn't have said it better myself.

-------------
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte

Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi



Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:24

lol this topic is jokes



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:25
 
none of the above
 
did i say the a.e are related to black americans? yes or no?
 
why are white people past and present trying to make a.e  white or semetic people?
 
no i dont beleive the ykub theory or black man made everything.
 
im simply arguing my point that the original egyptians had dark brown skin and they were from the south. its eurocentric ideas that have started this whole egyptian debate ,
why couldnt they just accept the fact that the egytptians were dark brown people instead of turning them into white or light semetic people totally excluding dark skin people from it. and ill say again saying a.e dont look like west africans so that means they are not black is stupid and ridiculous
. i work with somalis and ethiopians and a few sudanese and some look different from each other but they are still as AFRICAN AS THESE NIGERIANS YOU KEEP GOING ON ABOUT.  PERIOD


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:33
Originally posted by viola76

... 
im simply arguing my point that the original egyptians had dark brown skin and they were from the south...
 
That's not the whole truth. Every schollar knows there was also a neolythical immigration of "outsiders" from the Middle East back into Africa, that crossed all North Africa and that ended in the Canarias! Where do you think the Berber people came from?
 
Please, take a look at the genographic project map. Perhaps that's the piece that's missing. Egypt was very diverse from the very beginning.
 
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html - https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
 
Besides, culture is carried by people. It is just nosense to believe all culture came in just one direction (south to north) when there was a lot more development going on in other direction (east-west)
 
Pinguin


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:38
egypt was multiracial it had "egyptians" and "blacks" who lived side by side.


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:39
TO ALL THE PEOPLE ON HERE WHO CLAIM IM BEING AFRO-CENTRIC THEN HEAR THE VIDEOS FROM THESE WHITE PEOPLE...As i have said before but none of you said whether or not you watched the videos.. When you have watched these videos then make your decision and reply otherwise your just trying to hide the truth ......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs

http:///www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZKMzU207MM - http:///www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZKMzU207MM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLzgoF6N8p8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLzgoF6N8p8



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:41
 
Every scholar knows there was also a neolithic migration from africa that spread to southern europe.
 
The berbers are from africa.
 
i have looked at the g. project which is a little bit misleading.
 
E3A comes from E3B which is "sub saharan" african.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3b - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3b
 
yes people fom the west sahara did go to the nile valley.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:44
 
yes africa thats all some people use is the word afrocentrism even though a lot of the information are from white people. instead of deconstructing the peer reviwed studies they attack me and you with afrocentrism.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 17:57
Originally posted by viola76

 
Every scholar knows there was also a neolithic migration from africa that spread to southern europe.
 
The berbers are from africa.
 
i have looked at the g. project which is a little bit misleading.
 
E3A comes from E3B which is "sub saharan" african.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3b - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E3b
 
yes people fom the west sahara did go to the nile valley.
 
The point is simple. At neolitical times people crossed Egypt from East, West and South!!!
 
There was not a PREFFERED DIRECTION. That's why saying Egypt was founded from the south ONLY, it is non sense. Yes, the first waves came from the South, but after there was sustantial people outside Africa it is just logical to realize some went back!
 
This whole thing does not make more sense. What are we trying to prove? That Egyptians were not Egyptians?
 
Pinguin
 
 


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:07
 
No im proving the culture as in.
 
code of manners.
 
language.
 
religion.
 
dress.
 
rituals.
 
law.
 
morality.
 
system of the belief.
 
art.
 
literature.
 
science.
 
came from the south and replace the lower egyptian culture. SIMPLE


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:25

Interesting.

Yes. I must agree that there, in the Sahara, there was an interesting group of people, and that same escaped South and others to Egypt.
 
Now, the idea that they brought all the culture to Egypt without nothing in return, it still very ungrounded:
 
code of manners, language, religion, dress, rituals, law, morality, system of the belief, art.
 
Remember that nothing has changed. Egypt was still very close to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and influences come and go. 4000 BC was a time where the Middle East was at its peak.
 
In the matter of language, you should realize that Afroasiatic languages, that include Arab, Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian, reached from North Africa, Arabia and to the Middle East without discontinuiity. Bantu languages are the ones located down south. If the influences from the so called "Black Africa" would be so strong, I would expect Ancient Egypt to be a Bantu dialect, and not an Afroasiatic tongue!
 
But what new is in all this. Egypt continue to be a crossroad, as we always has knew.
 
Pinguin
  
 


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:30
 
 
"Remember that nothing has changed. Egypt was still very close to the Mediterranean and the Middle East, and influences come and go. 4000 BC was a time where the Middle East was at its peak."
 
sudan is just by the first nome of egypt
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:34
Originally posted by viola76

 ...
  
sudan is just by the first nome of egypt
 
 
And what is you conclusion?


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:36
 
"in the matter of language, you should realize that Afroasiatic languages, that include Arab, Hebrew and Ancient Egyptian, reached from North Africa, Arabia and to the Middle East without discontinuiity. Bantu languages are the ones located down south. If the influences from the so called "Black Africa" would be so strong, I would expect Ancient Egypt to be a Bantu dialect, and not an Afroasiatic tongue!"
 
the afroasiatic speakers  is african that spread to egypt and the middle east. as i keep on saying forget this black africa thing east africans are black. the afroasiatic languages come from east africa.
 
im not saying the there wasnt cultural exchanges but from what we know as of archeaology sources the culture came from the south.
 


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:38
Perhaps you should take look to the distribution of the Afroasiatic languages. (Those regions are not precisely what was in old times were known as "Black Africa".)
 
 


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:40
 
my conclusion is the predynastic and dynastic egyptians were not that different in looks and culture to the people in sudan. if you look at the pottery that was in sudan. red with black around the top, you will see that the pottery found in egypt which is younger look the same.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:42
 
people who spoke afroasiatic languages from predynastic times came from east africa and migrated to the middle east and europe. i dont see your point what you are trying to say.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:42

And what if so?

 



Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:45
 
er what is your point.
 
ive given you peer reviewed studies which you and the others can deconstruc if you wish , you have just given me your opinions.


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:53
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic
 
most likely from east africa


Posted By: LilLou
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 18:59
does it really matter if egyptians are "black eventho i doubt, what does that prove?


Posted By: viola76
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 19:03
 
it dosent really matter, what does matter though is history should be accurate backed up by peer reviwed sources which experts, amateurs and laymen alike can deconstruc the evidence of the studies in question.
 
why do you doubt they could of been black


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 19:14
Originally posted by viola76

,,, 
 
why do you doubt they could of been black
 
Here comes again, we are going in around and around.
 
What do you mean by "Black"?
 
Define what is "Black" and what is not "Black" so we can tell you if we think Egyptians were Black or not, for heavens sake LOL
 
Pinguin


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 19:29
Me utterly confused as well. Wow, did I offended the Black people or something? So much hate...

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: AfrikaJamaika
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 21:20
ITS A DAMN SHAME PEOPLE STILL ARGUING ABOUT THIS BUT NOT ONE PERSON HAS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE VIDEOS THAT I POSTED....BUT STILL GO ON ABOUT THIS AFRO-CENTRIC BULL....I AM NOT SURPRISED THEY DONT WANT TO HEAR THE TRUTH....



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com