Print Page | Close Window

Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872
Printed Date: 01-Dec-2022 at 07:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)
Posted By: MKGlouisville
Subject: Egyptian origins (race/ethnicity)
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2010 at 20:58
Something that I noticed when I joined this forum was the incorrect grouping of ancient Egypt as a Near Eastern civilization, as opposed to it being put in it's proper African context. So here are two articles by respected scientist confirming their inner African origins.
 
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, Ku****es, 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, Ku****es 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
 
 
And
 
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





Replies:
Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 16:49
So, just why was "Dynastic Egypt" mostly ruled by foreign rulers? Please find me any periods of 500 years that the local "Afroasiatics" actually ruled? Or just find me a total of over 600 years in the "Dynastic" periods where "Afroasiatics" ruled the area?

Please note under the current scheme of Egyptian Dynasties, we are looking at a period consisting of thousands of years!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 16:57
The old kingdom of egypt definatly had east african rulers or atleast their ancestors were from east africa (land of punt) but as time passed, a lot of other non african people took control of egypt.


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2010 at 17:25
But, balochii, just exactly where do the boundaries of Eastern Egypt end?

Just whom do you believe?

Israel could be either the seperation line, or included within the boundaries of Egypt?

Do you see where I am going?

And, at one time, modern Turkey was considered as "Asia", as well the "orient" was the, "Levant!", etc.!

Time is everything, sometimes!

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2010 at 00:06
Originally posted by opuslola

So, just why was "Dynastic Egypt" mostly ruled by foreign rulers?
 
What does this question have to do with Egypt's Biocultural origins?
 
Menes however was Egypt's first "Dynastic ruler";
 
 
Please find me any periods of 500 years that the local "Afroasiatics" actually ruled?
 
I'm not too sure where you're getting at with this. The point of posting those two articles was to relay the fact that Egypt's origins do not lie in the Near East, but in Southerly Africa.
 


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2010 at 00:12
Originally posted by balochii

The old kingdom of egypt definatly had east african rulers or atleast their ancestors were from east africa (land of punt) but as time passed, a lot of other non african people took control of egypt.
 
Thank you this was the message that I was trying to relay. Egypt's origins and people were Northeast African. The kingdom was comprised predominantly of Northeast Africans for it's first 1,100 years of existence;
 
Zakrzewski (2007) provided a comprehensive summary of previous Egyptian craniometric studies and examined Egyptian crania from six time periods. She found that the earlier samples were relatively more homogeneous in comparison to the later groups. However, overall results indicated genetic continuity over the Egyptian Predynastic and Early Dynastic periods, albeit with a high level of genetic diversity within the population, suggesting an indigenous process of state formation. She also concluded that while the biological patterning of the Egyptian population varied across time, no consistent temporal or spatial trends are apparent. Thus, the stature estimation formulae developed here may be broadly applicable to all ancient Egyptian populations.."
("Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature." Michelle H. Raxter, Christopher B. Ruff, Ayman Azab, Moushira Erfan, Muhammad Soliman, Aly El-Sawaf, (Am J Phys Anthropol. 2008, Jun;136(2):147-55


Posted By: opuslola
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2010 at 00:41
No MKGlouisville, the argument was the rule of Afro-asiatics from N. East Africa!

I merely proposed just who, derived what is considered as N. E. Africa?

Just why could not that area be considered as the Levant?

It is not a difficult question, but it may well require a difficult answer?

Regards,

-------------
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/history/


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2010 at 01:17
Originally posted by opuslola

No MKGlouisville, the argument was the rule of Afro-asiatics from N. East Africa!
 
???  I'm still not understanding where you are coming from!

I merely proposed just who, derived what is considered as N. E. Africa?
 
I think Geographers designated the continents and sub continents a couple of centuries ago Wink 

Just why could not that area be considered as the Levant?
 
Probably because Egypt lies on the continent designated as Africa, and all available research confirms that the originators of this civilization came from inner Africa (Northestern Africa) and not the Levant.



Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2010 at 00:19

i am not sure why scientists often lie about ancient egyptians, just few years ago when King Tut's dna was discovered to be R1b haplogroup, almost every person of european desent jumped to conclusion that he was european, i even saw many archaeologists describe how he was caucasian blah blah... what they failed to mention is that in africa there is even an older R1b haplogroup found in north and central africa, even going as far south as cameroon. read this regarding R1b in africa

  http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/blog/2/entry-32-r1b-in-africa/ - http://dna-forums.com/index.php?/blog/2/entry-32-r1b-in-africa/
 
^ look even some is found in western egypt, 
 
while  i dont agree with a lot of things with what  afro-centric people say, i must say that there is huge lie regarding egypt coming from mostly western  archaeologists, they totally undermine the african link of egypt, they almost want to make egypt a European civilization, perhaps the last periods of the egyptian civilization were indeed closely tied to european history, however i still maintain the begining of the civilization definatly lie in africa, (east africa) to be specific. Egypt had a long history of 3000 years, dont forget that.
 


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2010 at 03:00
There were lot of pharaons.I beleive from different parts of ancient world.Royal families always married among themselfs..During time of royalties,we have kings/quins,that were not always from the country they have ruled....Lot of mixed DNA..but population you can not change over the night...Egypt Upper is place where were living one of the most native population.This one lives, all around mediterranean area...Mostly costal area and big rivers... But looking from long time distance,Egypt was place were civilizations meet each other,dominate and rules..


Posted By: Felakuti
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2011 at 18:16
Culled:

"They (the Ethiopians) say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians http://wysinger.homestead.com/osiris.html - Osiris  ["King of Kings and God of Gods] having been the leader of the colony . . . they add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws." Diodorus's declared intention to trace the origins of the cult of Osiris, alias the Greek Dionysus also commonly known by his Roman name Bacchus. The Homeric Hymn "To Dionysus" locates the birth of Dionysus in a mysterious city of Nysa "near the streams of Aegyptus" (Hesiod 287). Diodorus cites this reference as well as the ancient belief that Dionysus was the son of Ammon, king of Libya (3.68.1), and much of Book 3 of the Bibliotheka Historica is devoted to the intertwined histories of Dionysus andthe god-favored Ethiopians whom he believed to be the originators of Egyptian civilization.  [emphasis added]
(1st century B.C., Diodorus Siculus of Sicily, Greek historian and contemporary of Caesar Augustus, Universal History Book III. 2. 4-3. 3)

Dionysus is Orisis reinvented. The mysteries were neither of Cretan origin nor a part of the original Greek religion is well established by the fact that the initiatory rites as practiced among these islanders were open to everyone, in contrast to the secret rituals of Byblus, Cyprus, Thrace, Samothrace, and Eleusis (Diodorus, Book V, 77). The mystery, which originated in Egypt, was imported into Greece long after Zeus and his family had migrated from Mt. Ida to Mt. Olympus.

Diodorus devoted an entire chapter of his world history, the Bibliotheke Historica, or Library of History (Book 3), to the Kushites ["Aithiopians"] of Meroe. Here he repeats the story of their great piety, their high favor with the gods, and adds the fascinating legend that they were the first of all men created by the gods and were the founders of Egyptian civilization, invented writing, and given the Egyptians their religion and culture. (3.3.2).

"Now they relate that of all people the Aithiopians [Ethiopians] were the earliest, and say that the proofs of this are clear. That they did not arrive as immigrants but are the natives of the country and therefore rightly are called authochthonous is almost universally accepted. That those who live in the South are likely to be the first engendered by the earth is obvious to all. For as it was the heat of the sun that dried up the earth while it was still moist, at the time when everything came into being, and caused life, they say it is probable that it was the region closest to the sun that first bore animate beings".
[ http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/06/11_oldest-humans.shtml - 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans .]

Diodorus continues:

"They further write that it was among them that people were first taught to honor the gods and offer sacrifices and arrange processions and festivals and perform other things by which people honor the divine. For this reason their piety is famous among all men, and the sacrifices among the Aithiopians are believed to be particularly pleasing to the divinity," 

"The Aithiopians [Ethiopians] say that the Egyptians are settlers from among themselves and that Osiris was the leader of the settlement.The customs of the Egyptians, they say, are for the most part Aithiopian, the settlers having preserved their old traditions. For to consider the kings gods, to pay great attention to funeral rites, and many other things, are Aithiopian practices, and also the style of their statues and the form of their writing are Aithiopian. Also the way the priestly colleges are organized is said to be the same in both nations. For all who have to do with the cult of the gods, they maintain, are [ritually] pure: the priests are shaved in the same way, they have the same robes and the type of scepter shaped like a plough, which also the kings have, who use tall pointed felt hats ending in a knob, with the snakes that they call the asp ( http://wysinger.homestead.com/cobra.html - aspis ) coiled round them."

"There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes [i.e. besides those centered at  http://wysinger.homestead.com/nubians10.html - Meroe ]; some live along both sides of the river Nile and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia [i.e. to the east], others again have settled in the interior of Libya [i.e. to the west]. The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have black skin, snub-nosed faces, and curly hair". 
(Diodous Siculus, Bibliotheke, 3. Translated by Tomas Hagg, in Fontes Historiae Nubiorum, vol. II: From the Mid-Fifth to the First Century BC (Bergen, Norway, 1996))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, scientist, and tutor to Alexander the Great. 
Aristotle is said to have written 150 philosophical treatises.

"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
(Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)

Aristotle makes reference to the hair form of Egyptians and Ethiopians: "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."
(Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317) 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evidence of Lucian (Greek writer, 125 B.C.) is as explicit as that of the previous writers. He introduces two Greeks, Lycinus and Timolaus, who start a conversation:

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

Timolaus: "But that is a sign of really distinguished birth in Egypt, Lycinus, All freeborn children plait their hair until they reach manhood. It is the exact opposite of the custom of our ancestors who thought it seemly for old men to secure their hair with a gold brooch to keep it in place."
(Lucian, Navigations, paras 2-3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Herodotus (490-425 B.C.E.) The first Greek historian. Called the Father of History.
He reports faithfully what the Egyptian priests communicated to him as the history of their country, when he visited Egypt about 460 to 450 BC.

"I went as far as Elephantine [ http://wysinger.homestead.com/nubians10.html - Aswan ] to see what I could with my own eyes, but for the country still further south I had to be content with what I was told in answer to my questions. South of Elephantine the country is inhabited by Ethiopians. . . Beyond the island is a great lake, and round its shores live nomadic tribes of Ethiopians. After crossing the lake one comes again to the stream of the Nile, which flows into it . . . After forty days journey on land along the river, one takes another boat and in twelve days reaches a big city named Meroë, said to be the capital city of the Ethiopians. The inhabitants worship Zeus and Dionysus alone of the Gods, holding them in great honor". 

"The Ethiopians to whom this embassy was sent are said to be the tallest and handsomest men in the whole world. In their customs they differ greatly from the rest of mankind, and particularly in the way they choose their kings; for they find out the man who is the tallest of all the citizens, and of strength equal to his height, and appoint him to rule over them . . . The spies were told that most of them lived to be a hundred and twenty years old, while some even went beyond that age --- they ate boiled flesh, and had for their drink nothing but milk. Among these Ethiopians copper is of all metals the most scarce and valuable. Also, last of all, they were allowed to behold the coffins of the Ethiopians, which are made (according to report) of crystal, after the following fashion: When the dead body has been dried, either in the Egyptian, or in some other manner, they cover the whole with gypsum, and adorn it with painting until it is as like the living man as possible. Then they place the body in a crystal pillar which has been hollowed out to receive it, crystal being dug up in great abundance in their country, and of a kind very easy to work. You may see the corpse through the pillar within which it lies; and it neither gives out any unpleasant odor, nor is it in any respect unseemly; yet there is no part that is not as plainly visible as if the body were bare. The next of kin keep the crystal pillar in their houses for a full year from the time of the death, and give it the first fruits continually, and honor it with sacrifice. After the year is out they bear the pillar forth, and set it up near the town. . ."

"Where the south declines towards the setting sun lies the country called Ethiopia, the last inhabited land in that direction. There gold is obtained in great plenty, huge elephants abound, with wild trees of all sorts, and ebony; and the men are taller, handsomer, and longer lived than anywhere else. The Ethiopians were clothed in the skins of leopards and lions, and had long bows made of the stem of the palm-leaf, not less than four cubits in length. On these they laid short arrows made of reed, and armed at the tip, not with iron, but with a piece of stone, sharpened to a point, of the kind used in engraving seals. They carried likewise spears, the head of which was the sharpened horn of an antelope; and in addition they had knotted clubs. When they went into battle they painted their bodies, half with chalk, and half with vermilion. . ."
(Herodotus:  http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/herodotus/h4/ - The Histories , c 430 BCE, Book II); Herodotus, The History, trans. George Rawlinson (New York: Dutton & Co., 1862)   



Posted By: Felakuti
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2011 at 18:21
Herodotus also asserted that "the names of nearly all the gods came to Greece from Egypt . . . for the names of all the gods have been known in Egypt from the beginning of time . . . It was the Egyptians too who originated, and taught the Greeks . . . ceremonial meeting, processions and liturgies . . . The Egyptians were also the first to assign each month and each day to a particular deity, and to foretell the date of a man's birth, his character, his fortunes, and the day of his death . . . The Egyptians, too have made more use of omens and prognostics than any other nation. . ."
(Herodotus, The Histories, 149-150; 152; 159).

There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race. Before I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself. After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair, which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations are so too. But further and more especially, on the circumstance that the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations who have practised circumcision from the earliest times. The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine themselves confess that they learned the custom of the Egyptians. And the Syrians who dwell about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macronians, say that they have recently adopted it from the Colchians. Now these are the only nations who use circumcision, and it is plain that they all imitate herein the Egyptians. With respect to the Ethiopians, indeed, I cannot decide whether they learned the practice of the Egyptians, or the Egyptians of them (it is undoubtedly of very ancient date in Ethiopia). But that the others derived their knowledge of it from Egypt is clear to me, from the fact that the Phoenicians, when they come to have commerce with the Greeks, cease to follow the Egyptians in this custom, and allow their children to remain uncircumcised. (Herodotus, The Histories, Book  http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/herodotus/h4/book2.html - 2:104 )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Greek writer Herodotus repeatedly referred to the Egyptians as being dark-skinned people with woolly hair. "They," he says, "have the same tint of skin which approaches that of the Ethiopians." The opinion of the ancient writers on the Egyptians is more or less summed up by French Egyptologist Gaston Maspero The Dawn of Civilization (1894), when he says, "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they [the Egyptians] belong to an African race which first settled in Ethiopia on the Middle Nile: following the course of the river they gradually reached the sea." The German scholar, Eugen Georg, in his book The Adventure of Mankind (1931) p. 121, tells us about the ". . . world-wide dominance of Ethiopian representatives of the black race. They were supreme in Africa and Asia. In upper Egypt and India they erected mighty religious centers and mastered a perfect technique in the molding of bronze --- and they even infiltrated through Southern Europe for a thousand years."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephanus of Byzantium, who is said to represent the opinions of the most ancient Greeks, says:
"Ethiopia was the first established country on the earth, and the Ethiopians were the first who introduced the worship of the Gods and who established laws."
Quoted by John D. Baldwin, Prehistoric Nations, p. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to Professor Emeritus Frank M. Snowden Jr., (AB, AM, Ph.D.) Howard University Classicist Department  --- reading of the sources, the Ethiopians "pioneered" religion, and were key to the origin and propagation of many of the customs which existed in Egypt. The Egyptians, it was argued, were descendants of the Ethiopians. Snowden states that the term Kushites, Nubians, or Ethiopians is to used in much the same way as the modern term "colored", "black, or Negro". "The experiences of those Africans who reached the alien shores of Greece and Italy constituted an important chapter in the history of classical antiquity," he writes. "Using evidence from terra cotta figures, paintings, and classical sources like Herodotus and Pliny the Elder, Snowden proves, contrary to our modern assumptions, that Greco-Romans did not view Africans with racial contempt. Many Africans worked in the Roman Empire as musicians, artisans, scholars, and generals as well as slaves, and they were noted as much for their virtue as for their appearance of having a "burnt face" (from which came the Greek name Ethiopian)." 
(Snowden Jr., Frank M.  http://wysinger.homestead.com/beforecolorprejudice.html - Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.,1970;  http://wysinger.homestead.com/beforecolorprejudice.html - Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks  (1983).) 

Side Note: President Bush announced one of the 2003 Humanities medal to Frank M. Snowden Jr. (Washington, D.C.), one of the foremost scholars on blacks in ancient Egypt, Greece, and Italy, is Professor Emeritus of Classics at Howard University in Washington, D.C. A graduate of Harvard, Snowden has served as a member of the U.S. delegation to UNESCO in Paris and as a cultural attaché to the American Embassy in Rome. As a U.S. specialist lecturer for the Department of State, Snowden delivered lectures in Africa, Egypt, Italy, Austria, Greece, India, and Brazil. His many books on blacks in the ancient Mediterranean world include Blacks in Antiquity (1970),  http://wysinger.homestead.com/beforecolorprejudice.html - The Image of the Black in Western Art I http://wysinger.homestead.com/beforecolorprejudice.html - :  http://wysinger.homestead.com/beforecolorprejudice.html - From the Pharaohs to the Fall of the Roman Empire , which he co-authored (1976), and Before Color Prejudice: The Ancient View of Blacks (1983). Snowden’s nominator writes, “Howard students will remember him for his dramatic classroom recitations in ancient Greek and Latin from memory and his plea for the beauty and universality of great literature.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Basil Davidson, born on November 9, 1914 in Bristol, England, well-known English scholar of African history. Combining archeological evidence and scholarly research Davidson traces the exciting development of the rich kingdoms of the lost cities of Africa, fifteen hundred years before European ships first came to African shores. "East Africa has developed from a completely primitive country, . . . more backward than the Stone Age . . ." Yet the Stone Age blacks of Khartoum (in Sudan) manufactured pots before the inhabitants of Jericho, the world's earliest known city. The Khartoum Mesolithic culture is dated about 7000 B.C. Prehistoric Egyptian artifacts dated a thousand years later would reflect a Khartoum influence. Between 5th century B.C. and 3rd century A.D., Meroe in Sudan was an iron-smelting center. 12th century Arab writer Edrisi reported numerous iron mines in Malindi and Sofala. Edrisi rated Sofala iron better than India iron. At that time, southeastern Africa exported smelted iron to India. (Malindi and Sofala are in modern Kenya and Mozambique respectively.) 
(Davidson, Basil,  http://wysinger.homestead.com/ptahhotep.html - The Lost Cities of Africa , Back Bay Books; Revised edition (1959)). Davidson has written more than 30 books on Africa since 1952.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Senegalese Physicist and African Egyptologist Cheikh Anta Diop (1923-1986) tells us in his book  http://wysinger.homestead.com/ptahhotep.html - The African Origin of Civilization http://wysinger.homestead.com/ptahhotep.html -   http://wysinger.homestead.com/ptahhotep.html - Myth or Reality  (1974) that the Greek writer, Herodotus, may be mistaken, when he reports the customs of a people. "But one must grant that he was at least capable of recognizing the skin color of the inhabitants of countries he visited." His descriptions of the Egyptians were the descriptions of a Black people. At this point the reader needs to be reminded of the fact that at the time of Herodotus's visit to Egypt and other parts of Africa (between 480 and 425 B.C.) Egypt's Golden Age was over. Egypt had suffered from several invasions, mainly the Kushite invasions, coming from within Africa, and starting in 751 B.C., and the Assyrians' invasions from Western Asia (called the Middle East), starting in 671 B.C. If Egypt, after years of invasions by other people and nations was a distinct Black African nation at the time of Herodotus, shouldn't we at least assume that it was more so before these invasions occurred?

Until the publication of James G. Spady's article, "Negritude, Pan-Benegritude and the Diopian Philsophy of African History," in A Current Bibliography on African Affairs, volume 5, number 1, January, 1972, and an interview by Harun Kofi Wangara, published in Black World magazine, February, 1974, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop was known to only a small group of Black writers and teachers in the United States. His major works includes The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality,Lawrence Hill & Co; (1983) (The book presents the historical, archaeological and anthropological evidence that supports the theory that the civilization of ancient Egypt, the first that history records, was actually Negroid in origin); The Peopling of Ancient Egypt & the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script, Karnak House, (1997) (A concise report of the 1974 Cairo conference and contains the arguments concerning the ethnic, linguistic and cultural composition of the ancient Egyptians as well as the deciphering of the merotic script). All of his books were originally published by Presence Africaine, the Paris-based publication arm of the International Society of African Culture. 

The Legacy of a Genius: Cheikh Anta Diop (New York Amsterdam News; 10/8/2003; by Boyd, Herb) [Excerpts]:

"Two words - "union" and "intellectual" - were integral to Professor Diop and his dream to create a united Africa, as well as a singular pursuit of knowledge that made him one of the most versatile thinkers the world has ever seen. During an interview with Dr. Charles Finch, Diop recounted some of the early motivations that influenced his quest for knowledge and identity. "My desire to know my history, my culture, my personal problem - that is, my desire to become fulfilled as a person - led me to history." My efforts were geared towards the restoration of the linguistic and historical personality of Black Africans," Diop declared. In 1966, the first World Black Festival of Arts and Culture, held in Dakar, Senegal, honored Dr. Diop and Dr. W.E.B. DuBois as the scholars who exerted the greatest influence on African thought in the 20th century. For many aspiring Black thinkers, they represented the twin towers of African achievement."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Western Dilemma:

If Egypt is a dilemma in Western historiography, it is a created dilemma. The Western historians, in most cases, have rested the foundation of what is called "Western Civilization" on the false assumptions, or claim, that the ancient Egyptians were white people. To do this they had to ignore great masterpieces on Egyptian history written by other white historians who did not support this point of view, such as Gerald Massey's great classic, Ancient Egypt, The Light of the World, (1907) and his other works, A Book of the Beginnings and The Natural Genesis. Other neglected works by white writers are Politics, Intercourse, and Trade of the Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Egyptians, by A.H.L. Heeren (1833), and Ruins of Empires, by Count Volney (1787).

In the first chapter of his book, Dr. Diop refers to the Southern African origins of the people later known as Egyptians. Here he is on sound ground with a lot of support coming from another group of neglected white writers. In his book Egypt, British scholar Sir E.A. Wallis Budge says: "The prehistoric native of Egypt, both in the old and in the new Stone Ages, was African and there is every reason for saying that the earliest settlers came from the South." He further states: "There are many things in the manners and customs and religions of the historic Egyptians that suggests that the original home of their prehistoric ancestors was in a country in the neighborhood of Uganda and Punt." (Some historians believe that the biblical land of Punt was in the area known on modern maps as Somalia.)

European interest in "Ethiopia and the Origin of Civilization" dates from the early part of the nineteenth century and is best reflected in a little known, though important, paper in German Egyptologist Karl Richard LepsiusIncomparable Survey of the Monumental Ruins in the Ethiopian Nile Valley in 1842-1844. The records found by Lepsius tend to show how Ethiopia was once able to sustain an ancient population that was numerous and powerful enough not only to challenge but, on a number of occasions, to conquer completely the populous land of Egypt. Further, these records show that the antiquity of Ethiopian civilization had a direct link with civilization of ancient Egypt.

Many of the leading antiquarians of the time, based largely on the strength of what the classical authors, particularly Greek historian Diodorus Siculus (1st century B.C.) and Stephanus of Byzantium, had to say on the matter, were exponents of the view that the ancient Ethiopians, or at any rate, the Black people of remote antiquity were the earliest of all civilized peoples and that the first civilized inhabitants of ancient Egypt were members of what is referred to as the Black race who entered the country as emigrants from Ethiopia. A number of Europe's leading writers on the civilizations of remote antiquity have written brilliant defenses of this point of view. Some of these writers are Brice, Count Volney, Fabre, d'Oliver, and Heeren. In spite of the fact that these writers defended this thesis with all the learning at their command and documented their defense, most of the present-day writers of African history continue to ignore their findings. 

In 1825, German backwardness in this respect came definitely to an end. In that year, Arnold Hermann Heeren (1760-1842), Professor of History and Politics in the University of Gottengen and one of the ablest of the early exponents of the economic interpretation of history, published, in the fourth and revised edition of his great work Ideen Uber Die Politik, Den Verkehr Und Den Handel Der Vornehmsten Volker Der Alten Weld, a lengthy essay on the history, culture, and commerce of the ancient Ethiopians, which had profound influence on contemporary writers in the conclusion that it was among these ancient Black people of Africa and Asia that international trade was first developed. He thinks that as a by-product of these international contacts there was an exchange of ideas and cultural practices that laid the foundations of the earliest civilizations of the ancient world. Heeren in his researches says: "From the remotest times to the present, the Ethiopians have been one of the most celebrated, and yet the most mysterious of nations. In the earliest traditions of nearly all the more civilized nations of antiquity, the name of this distant people is found. The annals of the Egyptian priests are full of them, and the nations of inner Asia, on the Euphrates and Tigris, have interwoven the fictions of the Ethiopians with their traditions of the wars and conquests of their heroes; and, at a period equally remote, they glimmer in Greek mythology. When the Greeks scarcely knew Italy and Sicily by name, the Ethiopians were celebrated in the verses of their poets, and when the faint gleam of tradition and fable gives way to the clear light of history, the lustre of the Ethiopians is not diminished."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The French writer Constantin-François Volney (1757-1820), in his important work, The Ruins of Empires, extends this point of view by saying that the Egyptians were the first people to "attain the physical and moral sciences necessary to civilized life." In referring to the basis of this achievement he states further that, "It was, then, on the borders of the Upper Nile, among a Black race of men, that was organized the complicated system of worship of the stars, considered in relation to the productions of the earth and the labors of agriculture; and this first worship, characterized by their adoration under their own forms and national attributes, was a simple proceeding of the human mind."
Volney's Ruins; or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires, Boston, J. Mendum, 1869.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

English traveller Thomas Legh, member of the British Parliament, visited Egypt & Nubia in 1812-1814, was one of the first Europeans to visit the archaeological sites above the First Cataract and to publish plates of ruins that no longer exist today. Legh writes: "There has been considerable dispute about the colour of the ancient Egyptians, some authors asserting that they were Negroes, while others maintain that the present Copts are their descendants, and attempt to prove their supposition by the appearance of mummies, which exhibit complexions of dusky brown, lips occasionally thick, but the nose frequently aquiline. The opinion that the former inhabitants of the country were Negroes is founded chiefly on the expressions used by Herodotus, who calls them 'dark-coloured and woolly haired', and on the character of the head of the Sphinx, which has the Negro features, and may be justly supposed to offer a correct representation of the countenance of the Egyptians. On the other hand, with respect to the present Copts, it cannot be denied, that the dark hue of their hair and eyes, the former of which is frequently not more curled than is occasionally seen among Europeans, their dusky brown complexions and aquiline noses, all correspond pretty exactly with the paintings to be found in the tombs of Thebes. It is remarkable, however, that the inhabitants of the island of Elephantine (i.e. at the border of Nubia) are nearly black. But notwithstanding their colour, the females of Elephantine are conspicuous for their elegant shapes, and are, upon the whole, the finest women we saw in Upper Egypt." 
(Thomas Legh, Narrative of a Journey in Egypt and the Country beyond the Cataracts, Second Edition London, John Murray, 1817).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Over a generation ago African American historians such as Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. Du Bois, Drusilla Dunjee Houston, Willis N. Huggins, J. A. Rogers, and Charles C. Seifort read the works of these radical writer historians and began to expand on their findings. This tradition continued and is reflected in the works of present day Black historians such as John G. Jackson's Introduction to African Civilizations (1970), Yosef ben-Jochannan's Black Man of the Nile (1972),Chancellor Williams's The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great Issues of a Race From 4500 B.C. to 2000 A.D. (1971), and Ivan Van SertimaEgypt Revisited. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick (USA) & London (U.K.), 1999. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egyptology developed in concurrence with the development of the slave trade and the colonial system. It was during this period that Egypt was literally taken out of Africa, academically. Historian Basil Davidson also states that throughout history "the land of Ancient Egypt appears to have detached itself from the delta of the Nile, some five and a half thousand years ago, and sailed off into the Mediterranean on a course veering broadly towards the coasts of Syria". (Basil Davidson,The Ancient World and Africa: Whose Roots? Race & Class (Vol. 29, no. 2, 1987). 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Races of Africa, according to Edith Sanders, went through several editions and was reprinted until 1966 virtually unchanged. Much of the more vulgar scholarship on the 'racial' ancestry of the ancient Nile valley Africans can be traced to the intensity of racism in Europe from the mid-nineteenth century onwards. Its decline after the second world war.  
(Edith R. Sanders, 'The Hamitic hypothesis: its origin and functions in time perspective', Journal of African History
(Vol. 10, no. 4, 1969), pp. 521-32).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flora Shaw's (alias Lady Flora Lugard) book is an extraordinary look at the history of Africa, which she gathered from countless sources, and one would imagine a great deal of it came from the British Library and from the archives of The Times of London, for whom she had for many years been the Foreign Political Correspondent. She had always been known to be an intensive researcher into her subject matter, and one wonders at the months and probably years she put into this undertaking, which became the reference work for so many future books on Africa. This book was first publish 100 years ago showing the detail and descriptive power, and the greatness that Africa once was. Lady Lugard argues that: 

"When the history of Negroland comes to be written in detail, it may be found that the kingdoms lying towards the eastern end of Sudan (classical home of Ancient Ethiopians) were the home of races who inspired, rather than of races who received, the tradition of civilization associated for us with the name of ancient Egypt. For they cover on either side of the Upper Nile between the latitudes of ten degrees and seventeen degrees, territories in which are found monuments more ancient than the oldest Egyptian monuments. If this should prove to be the case and civilized world be forced to recognize in a black people the fount of its original enlightenment, it may happen that we shall have to revise entirely our view of the black races, and regard those who now exist as the decadent representatives of an almost forgotten era, rather than as the embryonic possibility of an era yet to come."

"The fame of the ancient Ethiopians (ancient Kushites) was widespread in ancient history. Herodotus described them as the tallest, most beautiful and long-lived of the human races, and before Herodotus, Homer, in even more flattering language, described them as the most just of men, the favorites of the gods. The annals of all the great early nations of Asia Minor full of them. The Mosaic records allude to them frequently; but while they are described as the most powerful, the most just, and the most beautiful of the human race, they are constantly spoken of as Black, and there seems to be no other conclusion to be drawn than that remote period of history, the leading race of the Western World was a Black race."
Lady Lugard/Flora Shaw Lugard, Asa G. Hilliard, III, A Tropical Dependency: An Outline of the Ancient History of the Western Sudan With an Account of the Modern Settlement of Northern Nigeria, Black Classic Press (1996)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A Shift in the Perception of Ancient Egypt:

Further archaeological discoveries continue to legitimize the southern origin of Egyptian civilization. Archaeologist Bruce Williams's discovery of the 
http://wysinger.homestead.com/qustul.html - Qustul incense burner  and of a city at Kerma dating back to 4,500 BCE. (Bruce Williams, 'The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia', in Ivan van Sertima (ed.), Egypt Revisited(New Brunswick, NJ, Transaction, 1993). Williams also claims that there were southern predecessors of the ancient Egyptian pharaohs, one of the latest results of archaeological explorations in the northern Sahara should be noted: 

"The Sahara west of the Nile in southern Egypt was hyperarid and unoccupied during most of the late Pleistocene epoch. About 11,000 years ago the summer monsoons of central Africa moved into Egypt, and temporary lakes or playas were formed. The Nabta Playa depression, which is one of the largest in southern Egypt, is a kidney shaped basin of roughly 10km by 7km in area. We report the discovery of megalithic alignments and stone circles next to locations of Middle and Late Neolithic communities at Nabta, which suggest the early development of a complex society. The southward shift of the monsoons in the Late Neolithic age rendered the area once again hyperarid and uninhabitable some 4,800 radiocarbon years before the present (years BP). This well-determined date establishes that the ceremonial complex of Nabta, which has alignments to cardinal and solstitial directions, was a very early megalithic expression of ideology and astronomy. Five megalithic alignments within the playa deposits radiate outwards from megalithic structures, which may have been funerary structures. The organization of the megaliths suggests a symbolic geometry that integrated death, water, and the Sun. An exodus from the Nubian Desert at 4,800 years BP may have stimulated social differentiation and cultural complexity in pre-dynastic Upper Egypt. 
(J. McKim Malville, Fred Wendorf, Ali A Mazar and Romauld Schild, Megaliths and Neolithic Astronomy in Southern Egypt, Nature (Vol. 392, no. 2, April 1998).) 

The Mystery of the Black Mummy

This programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa.
Professor Fabrizio Mori discovered the black mummy at the Uan Muhuggiag rockshelter.
http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm -
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html - Evidence of the Badarians into Prehistoric Egypt (4500-3800 BC)
http://wysinger.homestead.com/badarians.html -
Conclusion:

In many ways Egypt is the key to ancient African history. African history is out of kilter until ancient Egypt is looked upon as a distinct African nation. The Nile River played a major role in the relationship to Egypt to the nations in Southeast Africa. During the early history of Africa, the Nile was a great cultural highway on which elements of civilization came into and out of inner Africa.

John D. Baldwin's Pre-History Nations or Inquiries Concerning Some of the Great Peoples and Civilizations of Antiquity and Their Probable Relation to a Still Older Civilization of the Ethiopians or Cushites of Arabia (1869). Baldwin, commenting on the greatness of the Cushite people, says that early in the period of its colonizing enterprise, commercial greatness, and extensive empire, it established colonies in the valleys of the Nile and the Euphrates, which in later ages became Barbary, Egypt, and Chaldea. The ancient Cushite nation occupied Arabia and other extensive regions of Africa, India, and Western Asia to the Mediterranean. He concludes that "The old notion that Africa is chiefly a land of black savages arose from ignorance of the country, which could not be removed, but, on the contrary, was heightened by slave-trading communication . . . They could not describe truthfully what came under their observation, but they sought to excuse their own frightful savagery by describing Africa as a land of Negroes in the darkest and most hopeless condition of debasement. When this had been repeated many times, they ventured to represent their kidnapping villains as missionary agencies, intent on transferring savages to Christian countries for their own good." 

American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race" (May 17, 1998):

"How people have been accepted and treated within the context of a given society or culture has a direct impact on how they perform in that society. The "racial" worldview was invented to assign some groups to perpetual low status, while others were permitted access to privilege, power, and wealth. The tragedy in the United States has been that the policies and practices stemming from this worldview succeeded all too well in constructing unequal populations among Europeans, Native Americans, and peoples of African descent. Given what we know about the capacity of normal humans to achieve and function within any culture, we conclude that present-day inequalities between so-called "racial" groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, educational, and political circumstances."
(To read the complete statement go to  http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm - AAA Statement on "Race" ).

Turning to the major falsification of the history of mankind, as he puts it, Cheikh Anta Diop underlines that the time has come to bring justice to the Negro race, to give black people their due credit for leading the march, and blazing a trail for humanity to follow. 


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2011 at 19:00
I'd have thought it was obvious the Egyptians were black. Although seafaring Semites did colonise Carthage and Berbers lived in Libya, Arabs didn't dominate Egypt until the time of Islam. Northern Egypt may have had a light-skinned majority, but these were conquered and absorbed by the king of Upper Egypt: a civilization to the south bordering Ethiopia and Somalia

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Baal Melqart
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2011 at 20:38


Originally posted by Nick1986

I'd have thought it was obvious the Egyptians were black. Although seafaring Semites did colonise Carthage and Berbers lived in Libya, Arabs didn't dominate Egypt until the time of Islam. Northern Egypt may have had a light-skinned majority, but these were conquered and absorbed by the king of Upper Egypt: a civilization to the south bordering Ethiopia and Somalia


The problem is in defining this 'black' which you refer to. How dark a complexion must one have to be considered 'black' and not anything else? I would firstly like to state my opinion that there is without a shadow of a doubt that Egyptians were genetically African (Negroid to be more scientific) and of African origins. I simply think that from what I see in the papyrus drawings and bas-reliefs it seems that Egyptians were not as black as the choice of the word might imply. I believe it was a more reddish brown tan darker than that of Semites and less than that of Nubians or Kushites.

 I also agree that there must have been a significant variation in genetic composition hence a variation in the phenotype of this ancient people. The question is when did humans mutate into having white skin, is it as soon as they entered Asia Minor? Can we prove such a claim although we have no illustrated drawings of these early emmigrants? This said, I think that ancient Egyptians had a decent variation in terms of genes and skin complexion and regardless of our bias towards what constitutes modern Caucasian or Negroid complexion, we cannot simply reject this variation as being foreign to Africa (excluding of course the migrations that occured in the past 4000 years or so).



Notice the complexion of Hu Nefer in this papyrus taken from the Book of the Dead. He seems to have the complexion of someone of mixed race (white/black) or a Somalian or a Touareg. Also notice the skin colour of Anubis and Thoth, much lighter than Hu Nefer's.



Touareg



Somalian






-------------
Timidi mater non flet


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2011 at 21:40
^ i think east african black


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 01:38
Originally posted by Baal Melqart

The problem is in defining this 'black' which you refer to. How dark a complexion must one have to be considered 'black' and not anything else?


The historical definition of "black" is an indigenous African population having brown to black skin:




I believe it was a more reddish brown tan darker than that of Semites and less than that of Nubians or Kushites.


In my subjective opinion the skin tone of the original ancient Egyptians would have been within the range of Modern Horn African populations:


"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)



King Tut


Ethiopians


Egyptian dancers


Somali

The question is when did humans mutate into having white skin, is it as soon as they entered Asia Minor?


Here is a recent article on this subject.





Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 03:15
99% of ancient people's works,in ancient times,were outside exposed on sunlight.Color black is protective mechanism from sun rays not to destruct skin structure!More expose to sun more black you look.You all know this cause you use solarium and know that.MK  my  conclusions  are based  on  language  i am working  within.Scientists  say  this was  people's  language  of Egyptians.There  is correlation  between  hieroglyphic scripts and this language!Regards.


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 04:27
I'm not quite understanding where you're going with this, can you please further elaborate? 


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 05:23
Middle text on Rosetta stone use syllables that are common today with so called Slavic languages also lot of Western roman languages.If Egypt had ruled 3000-5000 years they developed precise language also.If we are using them today and we are "white" than conclusion could be that white pharaohs ruled the Egypt once.Language I am working with is demotic.Till now that's it.But as proof about it will ask again:if they were black(brick color people) would have been not painted!Their color was not physical but religious :their religion was Goddess of Earth so they colored her color on pictures but not in real i believe!In ritual
devoted to Goddess:who did know it?Maybe and maybe not.



Posted By: Ancient Dravidian
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 08:46
The Egyptians looked like the Dravidians of India today. Dravidians are classified as Saharan-Mediterranian Black peoples. 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. The European (or Indo-European/Aryan) white people have nothing to do with the origin of these civilizations. It's just ridiculous to say something like Egyptians came from Ireland. Having said that, let me go into the details of the proposed Nilo-Dravidian set of entities.

"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. By the pictorial hieroglyphic inscription found on the walls of the temple of the Queen Haslitop at Der-el-babri, we see that this Punt can be no other than India. For many ages the Egyptians traded with their old homes, and the reference here made by them to the names of the Princes of Punt and its fauna and flora", especially the nonmenclature of various precious woods to be found but in India, leave us scarcely room for the smallest doubt that the old civilization of Egypt is the direct outcome of that the older India."

Racial comparison. When we look at an average appearance of someone from Ancient Egypt, we see they were a Dravidian type of Black people. Some examples:


As you see, the white Muslim lady is not Dravidian. The rest represent Ancient Dravidians. The hair is curly to straight and the facial shapes are well rounded with typical noses and large eyes. As most Egyptian paintings portray young people, pictures of only young Dravidians:



These poor Dravidian girls belong to Kerala in South India.



An actress with beautiful Dravidian features, curly hair, well rounded Nilo-Dravidian shapes and big eyes. This is a classic Dravidian.

Classical Dravidian males performing in traditional attire:

Some Keralite Volleyball team:


In my next posting I will show you, what science has to say about the Egyptians and the Dravidians.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 09:00
The Nile Valley was the oldest and one of the most used migration corridors so I would expect mixed population. 

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


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 09:09
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 09:20
Originally posted by medenaywe

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.


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


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 09:24
But main migration stream was from African continent out!Why do not accept we come from it?


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 09:48
Originally posted by medenaywe

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.


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


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 10:22
Originally posted by Ancient Dravidian

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'."


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history/baboon-mummy-analysis-reveals-eritrea-and-ethiopia-as-location-of-land-of-punt-1954547.html

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:






Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 10:34
Originally posted by Don Quixote

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.


Posted By: Ancient Dravidian
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 10:59
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

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.


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 13:16
Originally posted by Ancient Dravidian

 
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 14:28
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_people - Sumerians and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam - Elamites .... http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml - 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.



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


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 14:42
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 15:07
Originally posted by medenaywe

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.

This is interesting, I came upon this article http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/skyground-correlation-and-the-tower-of-babel/ - http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/skyground-correlation-and-the-tower-of-babel/
that proposes that the Tower of Babel was the Giza pyramids. It dips in several mythologies, etc and it's worth reading, IMHO, even if one is not buying the conclusion.


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


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 15:25
With gold plated tops they have had orion belt stars all the time in front of them,hadn't they?


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 22:36
Originally posted by Don Quixote

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


Ricaut 2008


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam - Elamites .... http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml - http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

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.



Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 23:08
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

The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc...." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603/abstract - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330360603/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)

http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4026/hanihara2003.png">
THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED. CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL-SIZE VERSION:
Posted Image

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104081817/abstract - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/104081817/abstract





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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 19-Nov-2011 at 23:10
Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with Afghans and North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of Europeans and West Asians.

http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/8886/hanihara5bi.jpg">
THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED. CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL-SIZE VERSION:
Posted Image

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110471697/ABSTRACT - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110471697/ABSTRACT

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.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4949/haniharaprognathismsq5.jpg">
THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN COMPRESSED. CLICK TO VIEW THE FULL-SIZE VERSION:
Posted Image

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/68503808/abstract - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/68503808/abstract


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 01:53
Ancient Egyptian language shows the closest relationship  to Semitic, Berber and Beja:
"...According to Loprieno http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html#ftn4 - 4 , 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 - http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html

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


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 07:20
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

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


Ricaut 2008


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elam - Elamites .... http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml - http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

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.


Posted By: Ancient Dravidian
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 07:32
Europeans again (Scandinavians! LOL ).. very funny study indeed.. could you cite a serious study, too


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 08:01
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?




Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 08:08
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Ancient Egyptian language shows the closest relationship  to Semitic, Berber and Beja:
"...According to Loprieno http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html#ftn4 - 4 , 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 - http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html


Do you even know where Afro-Asiatic originated and where it spread to? On the very first page of this thread leading linguistic and African historian Christopher Ehret, thouroughly demonstrates through numerous lines of lingustic and archarological evidence that the origins of ancient Egypt lay with the Nilotic Saharan populations and Afro-Asiatic Sub Saharan East Africans. It is these populations whom the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled both biologically and culturally. Below from the OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANCIENT EGYPT, in regards to the cultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).

Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised andwhite-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...

Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.. "

Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28



Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 08:33
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

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,


The reason why southern Egypt tends to be the focal point of most studies focusing on early Egyptian state formation or society is because it was southern Egypt where the vast majority of the Egyptian populace resided and is also where Dynastic Egyptian culture originated. Lower Egypt and the Delta in particular did not begin to become heavily populated until the after the Late period when numerous foreign invasions have been noted.

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.


Just about every Egyptologist denounces the usage of ancient Egyptian artwork to make biological inferences about the ancient population. That's not to say that one couldn't use certain examples to illustrate a point, but when some people attempt to rely solely on this type of evidence is when it becomes a problem. Biological evidence on the other hand consistently finds that the ancient Egyptians as a whole have closest biologically to ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans and modern Horn African populations. This is why I found my comparison of Egyptian artwork with modern day Horn African populations to be appropriate.

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?


I posted a peer reviewed article on page one or two, which states that by the Late Dynastic period there was a biological distinction between them and Pre-Early Dynastic Egyptians, and that this was due to significant migration and mixing with Mediterranean populations. One recent study actually states that Late Dynastic samples were so biologically distinct from earlier samples that they cannot be considered representative of the typical Egyptian from earlier periods:

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

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

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 08:53
Your data are obsolete cause of DNA compared data with DNA inside ancient graveyards:population inside the empire was discussed here,pharaohs had changed till civilization existence.Did those data compare with
DNA of people in Med sea area MK?
P.S.
Barak Husein Obama is "pharaoh" with part of Somalian blood  that does  not means  USA  people are  all
Somalians.Big smile 


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 14:49
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

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,


The reason why southern Egypt tends to be the focal point of most studies focusing on early Egyptian state formation or society is because it was southern Egypt where the vast majority of the Egyptian populace resided and is also where Dynastic Egyptian culture originated. Lower Egypt and the Delta in particular did not begin to become heavily populated until the after the Late period when numerous foreign invasions have been noted.

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.


Just about every Egyptologist denounces the usage of ancient Egyptian artwork to make biological inferences about the ancient population. That's not to say that one couldn't use certain examples to illustrate a point, but when some people attempt to rely solely on this type of evidence is when it becomes a problem. Biological evidence on the other hand consistently finds that the ancient Egyptians as a whole have closest biologically to ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans and modern Horn African populations. This is why I found my comparison of Egyptian artwork with modern day Horn African populations to be appropriate.

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?


I posted a peer reviewed article on page one or two, which states that by the Late Dynastic period there was a biological distinction between them and Pre-Early Dynastic Egyptians, and that this was due to significant migration and mixing with Mediterranean populations. One recent study actually states that Late Dynastic samples were so biologically distinct from earlier samples that they cannot be considered representative of the typical Egyptian from earlier periods:

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

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

The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample cannot be considered to be a typical Egyptian series. –Zakrewski (2004) “Intra-population and temporal variation in ancient Egyptian crania.”

There you go, MKGlouisville, the second you admit it is focused on a smaller area than the whole with other areas missed you are unable to prove the people weren't mixed.Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.

Denouncing the artwork is one thing, explaining then why a black population might paint themselves as white is another.Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.

If you are showing a clear distinction between people of time periods, then it would help to also show their contributions too. Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 14:51
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

Ancient Egyptian language shows the closest relationship  to Semitic, Berber and Beja:
"...According to Loprieno http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html#ftn4 - 4 , 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 - http://ema.revues.org/index1025.html


Do you even know where Afro-Asiatic originated and where it spread to? On the very first page of this thread leading linguistic and African historian Christopher Ehret, thouroughly demonstrates through numerous lines of lingustic and archarological evidence that the origins of ancient Egypt lay with the Nilotic Saharan populations and Afro-Asiatic Sub Saharan East Africans. It is these populations whom the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled both biologically and culturally. Below from the OXFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ANCIENT EGYPT, in regards to the cultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).

Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised andwhite-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...

Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.. "

Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt,Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28


Where Afro-Asiatic originated is still an controversial question /which I had argued to death and back before and know all the arguments in both directions, so don't bother to post more blind quotes/, and anyway has nothing to do with anything - Ancient Egyptian is closest to Berber, not to the Nilo-Saharan languages, which means it developed in closer relationship to Berber than to Nilo-Saharan. The point of origin of Afroasiatic doesn't matter for the needs of this thread.
Of course there is African sunstratum in the foundations of the Egyptian civilization, I talk about mixed ethncity, which includes the African substratum.


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:02
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

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?



I'm absolutely not interested who beat who when - I'm after studies and their results, and get them from where I can find them - those that I post can be followed, unlike the blind ones that I see posted here and cannot be followed at all. I'm not interested in copy-pasted pages that I cannot follow, so don't bother, I had seen plenty of those in certain sites with certain orientation. I'm not promoting any "Arian claims' so lay those insinuations off. The studies I posted don't promote "Arian claims" they state facts, so it's not fair enough to counter them with "debunking Arian claims" - such claims had not been made by me or the studies I posted.

There is data that shows the affinity of the ancient Egyptians with sub-Saharans, as well with other populations, Indian and European included /though the Middle East/ and the only way to reconcile all the available data is to suppose mixed origin. There is no single ethnicity in a melting pot, no matter if we talk about Egypt, the Balkans, or say the US. Anyone who is rooting for a single ethnic character of the population of most ancient migration corridor is wrong in principle.




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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:06
Originally posted by Ancient Dravidian

Europeans again (Scandinavians! LOL ).. very funny study indeed.. could you cite a serious study, too

Studies don't lie, Dravidian. Besides, if it's OK the Egyptians to had have affinities with Indians, why not with Scandinavians? People move all the time in all possible directions, and we all all one big mix.


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:14
Originally posted by medenaywe

Your data are obsolete cause of DNA compared data with DNA inside ancient graveyards:population inside the empire was discussed here,pharaohs had changed till civilization existence.Did those data compare with
DNA of people in Med sea area MK?
P.S.
Barak Husein Obama is "pharaoh" with part of Somalian blood  that does  not means  USA  people are  all
Somalians.Big smile 

Good parallel, IMHO, the US is a modern melting pot while Egypt the most ancient one.
Btw, congrats on becoming a modSmile.


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


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:23
We are doing well people just avoid quotes and use the name of your speaking companion cause other way
trolling we are!MK try not to use this!
P.S.Thanks Don,here I am for you people!Me and my Cheshire Cat smileBig smile.Wink


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:46
Originally posted by medenaywe

Your data are obsolete cause of DNA compared data with DNA inside ancient graveyards:population inside the empire was discussed here,pharaohs had changed till civilization existence.Did those data compare with
DNA of people in Med sea area MK?
P.S.
Barak Husein Obama is "pharaoh" with part of Somalian blood  that does  not means  USA  people are  all
Somalians.Big smile 


Before you hurl insults at other people, please master the English language first. I've reframed from addressing many of your post, due your completely butchered sentence structure and the fact that your thought process is jumping from corner to corner. I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 15:52
How rude! This is an international forum, with members from all kinds of countries! Not everyone was raised with English and it's matter of common decency not to make such remarks. Any of the second-language English speakers here knows at least one more language, some more than one, and this is a plus, not a minus by any standard. Anyone who put in the effort to use any foreign language is to be respected, nay, admired for that!

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


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:01
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

There you go, MKGlouisville, the second you admit it is focused on a smaller area than the whole with other areas missed you are unable to prove the people weren't mixed.


No not necessarily! I've explained to you some of the reasons why studies tend to focus of early southern Egyptians than those of the north in my previous post. One reason that I left out is the sheer lack of archaeological material and physical remains in northern Egypt which date back to the Pre-Dynastic and Early periods. That is not to say however that no research has been conducted on the limited sample size already available. Below are the results of limb proportion ratios of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians and it's comparison to other populations:

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


As you can see the biological affinities of early Lower Egyptians are also with more southerly tropical African populations and not with Near Eastern or Europeans, which the author suggest is due to a lack of common ancestry between indigenous northern Egyptians and the latter mentioned populations.

Denouncing the artwork is one thing, explaining then why a black population might paint themselves as white is another.


Excuse me?







While I don't doubt that populations whom would generally be referred to 'Caucasian' would become present in Late Dynastic Egypt (due to invasions and migration), to say that the ancient Egyptian depicted themselves as "white" is simply not true. 


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:05
MK, please don't resort to insults. Such behavior is not acceptable here


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:05
I miss one You above...Will be more careful next time.Let us talk about topic not about us.Forum is place where people have exchanged ideas and concepts not a religious scripts psalm after all of us will have to say:Aleluya!Give us arguments contra my broken English words here!But no trolling please!Other way will post you on wall.


 


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:14
MKGlouisville, when you restrict a survey to a smaller grouping you can hardly class it as a representative of any more than that smaller group. Where is your survey on the whole population showing the same results as you have?

Repeating what you have found on a section of the population won't make it any more realist than when you put it forward previously. It still lacks the credibility of a survey on the whole.

Oh please, surely cherry picking pictures which can be followed so easily by those of Egyptians of other colours is pushing it a little too far.


-------------
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.


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:19
Originally posted by Don Quixote

Where Afro-Asiatic originated is still an controversial question


No it's not controversial as it's almost unanimously agreed upon by almost every linguist that it's origins were somewhere in eastern Africa. I'm willing to bet that you cannot cite a single linguist within the last decade who attributes it's origins from outside of Africa. On the other hand here is a map from a recent 2009 study on it's origins and migration:



Neolithic in Northern Africa. Approximately 14 kya, climatic changes associated with the end of the Last Glacial Maximum resulted in regions around the world becoming more favorable to human exploitation. Northern Africa is one such region, and ~13 kya, novel technologies (“Natufian”) thought to be the immediate precursor to agricultural technologies emerged and were associated with semisedentary subsistence and population expansions in northeastern Africa (35). Moreover, before the emergence of the Natufian styled artifacts, the archaeological record includes two artifact styles, the “Geometric Kebaran” and the “Mushabian” associated with Middle Eastern and Northern African populations, respectively (35). The archaeological evidence suggests the peoples using these assemblages interacted for well over 1,000 years, and linguistic evidence suggests that the peoples using these assemblages may have spoken some form of proto-Afroasiatic (35, 36). Although the origins of the Afroasiatic language family remain contentious, linguistic data generally support a model in which the Afroasiatic language family arose in Northern Africa >10 kya (36). Moreover, analyses of the Cushitic branch of the Afroasiatic language family suggest that proto-Cushitic arose and diversified at least 7 kya, and this likely took place in Ethiopia (37). Intriguingly, the origin and diversification of proto-Afroasiatic is consistent with the spread of intensive plant collection in the archaeological record, and some interpret this pattern to represent a model in which proto-Afroasiatic speakers developed the novel subsistence technology resulting in the expansion and spread of their Afroasiatic descendants in the region (37). Some examples of the relevant linguistic data include reconstructed Chadic root words for “porridge” and “sorghum” and the Cushitic root words for “grain” and “wheat” (37). Because these and other root words are present in many of the Chadic and Cushitic languages, it is assumed that they were present in the proto-Chadic and proto-Cushitic languages and therefore must be as old as those proto-languages (37). The genetic data appear to be consistent with the archaeological and linguistic data indicative of extensive population interactions between North African and Middle Eastern populations. A recent NRY study explores the distribution of haplogroups in a sample of African, Middle Eastern, and European males (38). Whereas a subclade of haplogroup E (M35) appears to have arisen in eastern Africa over 20 kya and subsequently spread to the Middle East and Europe, haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38). A recent study of genomewide autosomal microsatellite markers reports that Middle Eastern and African samples share the highest number of alleles that are also absent in other non-African samples, consistent with bidirectional gene flow (1). In addition, a recent study of domestic goat mtDNA and NRY variation reports similar findings as well as evidence of trade along the Strait of Gibraltar (39).


http://www.pnas.org/content/107/suppl.2/8931.full

Ancient Egyptian is closest to Berber, not to the Nilo-Saharan languages, which means it developed in closer relationship to Berber than to Nilo-Saharan.


Your claims are baseless and goes against mainstream research. Aside from the common sense fact that both languages are Afro-Asiatic the reason why Berber languages are close to ancient Egyptian is due to the fact that both Berber and Semitic languages came into existence afterward from the same migrating Northeast African population.


Full article on page one

Biologically however Nubians (Nilo Saharan speakers) and ancient Egyptians are of the same origin, as has been demonstrated by their overlapping biological and cultural affinities stretching back to Pre-Dynastic times.

Of course there is African sunstratum in the foundations of the Egyptian civilization, I talk about mixed ethncity, which includes the African substratum.


What biological evidence concludes that the ancient Egyptians have been "mixed" since Pre-Dynastic times? I have presented numerous lines of evidence confirming that the original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Sub Saharan East African and Nilotic Africans from the ancient Sahara, which would make them black originally. 


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:29
Originally posted by Don Quixote

those that I post can be followed, unlike the blind ones that I see posted here and cannot be followed at all.


The peer reviewed articles that I have posted for the most part have been posted in full and cited to the page number of the journal, therefore there is nothing being withheld from you or others.
 
I'm not interested in copy-pasted pages that I cannot follow, so don't bother


Well what would have been more honest on your behalf was to give a link to the thread on Anthroscape in which you copy and pasted another individuals entire argument.

I'm not promoting any "Arian claims' so lay those insinuations off. The studies I posted don't promote "Arian claims" they state facts,


While their finding aren't necessarily untrue, the methods in which they used to demonstrate population relatedness are superficial. Who seriously asserts that both ancient Egyptians AND Nubians (who group closest to one another) had closer biological affinities to French , English and German Europeans? Seriously!

On the dental study referenced in that thread Racial Reality's main opponent provided a study which confirmed that due to dietary changes population on the Nile Valley began to display reduced tooth sizes, which is evidence that those earlier studies could not include in with their findings.  


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:33
Originally posted by Don Quixote

How rude! This is an international forum, with members from all kinds of countries!


No referring to the OP as a "troll" is RUDE!

Not everyone was raised with English


Likewise, I'm just reminding him of that fact. Don't stand in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. If you're going to blatantly insult me,  then don't expect for me to reply back kindly to you.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:36
MKGlouisville, I have found something you might find to be interesting on diversity in ancient Egypt. This wasn't the only one, but I guess one is enough in this case.  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750752/posts - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750752/posts

-------------
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.


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:46
I like this one:"They all identified themselves as Egyptians," Elias said. "These are people. You can't slice them up like they're chocolate cake or vanilla cake."Therefore we share similarities inside our languages.
We had lived once together as it was shown on pictures.Why does it scares you?!?



Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 16:55
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

How rude! This is an international forum, with members from all kinds of countries!


No referring to the OP as a "troll" is RUDE!

Not everyone was raised with English


Likewise, I'm just reminding him of that fact. Don't stand in the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. If you're going to blatantly insult me,  then don't expect for me to reply back kindly to you.

MK, i've already warned you once. Next time you insult someone or go off-topic you'll be suspended. Stick to the original subject-matter of the topic: the origins of the Egyptian civilisation.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30661 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=30661


-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Ancient Dravidian
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 17:04
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

There you go, MKGlouisville, the second you admit it is focused on a smaller area than the whole with other areas missed you are unable to prove the people weren't mixed.


No not necessarily! I've explained to you some of the reasons why studies tend to focus of early southern Egyptians than those of the north in my previous post. One reason that I left out is the sheer lack of archaeological material and physical remains in northern Egypt which date back to the Pre-Dynastic and Early periods. That is not to say however that no research has been conducted on the limited sample size already available. Below are the results of limb proportion ratios of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians and it's comparison to other populations:

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


As you can see the biological affinities of early Lower Egyptians are also with more southerly tropical African populations and not with Near Eastern or Europeans, which the author suggest is due to a lack of common ancestry between indigenous northern Egyptians and the latter mentioned populations.

Denouncing the artwork is one thing, explaining then why a black population might paint themselves as white is another.


Excuse me?







While I don't doubt that populations whom would generally be referred to 'Caucasian' would become present in Late Dynastic Egypt (due to invasions and migration), to say that the ancient Egyptian depicted themselves as "white" is simply not true. 

I think these pictures look very authentic. It's a clear testimony for the Egyptian appearance. No doubt they were a very homogenic black people. In those times mass migration like in modern times was not possible. This is just another final fantasy of Ariosophists. I commend your dedication in this thread.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 17:14
Originally posted by Ancient Dravidian

I think these pictures look very authentic. It's a clear testimony for the Egyptian appearance. No doubt they were a very homogenic black people. In those times mass migration like in modern times was not possible. This is just another final fantasy of Ariosophists. I commend your dedication in this thread.
I would agree with the authenticity of the pictures, though as these links show they are only a representative of a section of the population.
http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/pic_wall_paintings_1.htm - http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/pic_wall_paintings_1.htm  
http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/rf-k-egyptian-wall-painting-1.htm - http://historylink101.net/egypt_1/rf-k-egyptian-wall-painting-1.htm


-------------
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.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 17:28
This might also add to this discussion. Don Quixote posted this information on the archaeology thread a little time ago, and suggests a pattern of migration showing movement in and out of Africa in ancient times, including Egypt.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057546/Early-humans-Africa-route-Arabia-Egypt.html#ixzz1cp4Ri61B - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2057546/Early-humans-Africa-route-Arabia-Egypt.html#ixzz1cp4Ri61B

-------------
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 18:25
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote



http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&KW=&PID=658279#658279 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&KW=&PID=658279#658279



 

If doesn't matter  for the needs of this thread that Afro-Asiatic may have originated or not in East Africa, the thread is not about where it originated from, so I;m not going to artue and give you names of linguists who root for Middle-Eastern origin.  The map you posted shows migrations from the Arabian penninsula to Africa in 4000-3000 BC  - so there was migration, which means ethnic mixing. I sited a source that Ancient Egyptian is closer to Berber, not to Nilo-Saharan, if you don't like it this is not my problem.

The Berbers have Afro-Asiatic genesis, Middle-Eastern, not Nilo-Saharan, that is genetically supported, so they didn't develop out of migrating Nilo-Saharans:
"...Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin

http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Sean+Myles - Sean Myles , http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Nourdine+Bouzekri - Nourdine Bouzekri , http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Eden+Haverfield - Eden Haverfield , http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Mohamed+Cherkaoui - Mohamed Cherkaoui , http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Jean-Michel+Dugoujon - Jean-Michel Dugoujon and http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Ryk+Ward - Ryk Ward

The process by which pastoralism and agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent over the past 10,000 years has been the subject of intense investigation by geneticists, linguists and archaeologists. However, no consensus has been reached as to whether this Neolithic transition is best characterized by a demic diffusion (with a significant genetic input from migrating farmers) or a cultural diffusion (without substantial migration of farmers). Milk consumption and thus lactose tolerance are assumed to have spread with pastoralism and we propose that by looking at the relevant mutations in and around the lactase gene in human populations, we can gain insight into the origin(s) and spread of dairying. We genotyped the putatively causal allele for lactose tolerance (–13910T) and constructed haplotypes from several polymorphisms in and around the lactase gene (LCT) in three North African Berber populations and compared our results with previously published data. We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans...." http://www.springerlink.com/content/x428750458w4080r/ - http://www.springerlink.com/content/x428750458w4080r/

So, with the Berbers being middle-Eastern and Egyptian being close/related to Berber I'll suppose at least cultural overlapping, which would mean mixing of population through marriage, since this is what people do when they meet - they interbreed. /I didn't mean to bold this line, it just came out like that and i can't fix it/

The Ancient Egyptians and the Nubians were close, there is no doubt in that, as two ethnicities that live close get biologically closed because they intermarry; this doesn't make them the same. Ancient Egyptians had another affinities too, unless you refuse to look upon any research that proves that; I posted such research. There is always cultural and biological overlapping when 2 ethnicities live close together, this don't prove the same origin.

"...mtDNA analysis of Nile River Valley populations: A genetic corridor or a barrier to migration?
M Krings, A E Salem, K Bauer, H Geisert, A K Malek, L Chaix, C Simon, D Welsby, A Di Rienzo, G Utermann, A Sajantila, S Pääbo, and M Stoneking
To assess the extent to which the Nile River Valley has been a corridor for human migrations between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, we analyzed mtDNA variation in 224 individuals from various locations along the river. Sequences of the first hypervariable segment (HV1) of the mtDNA control region and a polymorphic HpaI site at position 3592 allowed us to designate each mtDNA as being of "northern" or "southern" affiliation. Proportions of northern and southern mtDNA differed significantly between Egypt, Nubia, and the southern Sudan. At slowly evolving sites within HV1, northern-mtDNA diversity was highest in Egypt and lowest in the southern Sudan, and southern-mtDNA diversity was highest in the southern Sudan and lowest in Egypt, indicating that migrations had occurred bidirectionally along the Nile River Valley. Egypt and Nubia have low and similar amounts of divergence for both mtDNA types, which is consistent with historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. Spatial autocorrelation analysis demonstrates a smooth gradient of decreasing genetic similarity of mtDNA types as geographic distance between sampling localities increases, strongly suggesting gene flow along the Nile, with no evident barriers. We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north...." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377841/ - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377841/ - /pmc/articles/PMC1377841/


So, there was gene flow between Nubia and Egypt, but also significant differences - Egypt was far more diverse than Nubia. All of the genetic  and cultural similarities between Egypt and Nubia testify to the normal overlap that happens when people live close together, nothing else; people migrate and mix all the time. The studies I posted include the pre-Dynastic period.
Mainstream research - of course, Ehret,  Boyce and Keita - what about other research? The studies I posted here are real ones too, not dirt on the road, no matter what you think about them. Anyway, when I am presented with studies that cover wide compass and show several different affinities I'm going to trust all of those studies and come up with supposition that fits the facts, not the other way around.


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 19:00
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

There you go, MKGlouisville, the second you admit it is focused on a smaller area than the whole with other areas missed you are unable to prove the people weren't mixed.


While I don't doubt that populations whom would generally be referred to 'Caucasian' would become present in Late Dynastic Egypt (due to invasions and migration), to say that the ancient Egyptian depicted themselves as "white" is simply not true. 

peoples
From the Tomb of Seti I - Syrian, Nubian, Lybian and Egyptian - the Egyptian and the Nubian are obviously don't share the same representation - so the Egyptians didn't see themselves as black either. This seems as mixed to me as mixed can be; and such mixing doesn't happen overnight.



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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Nov-2011 at 19:09
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

those that I post can be followed, unlike the blind ones that I see posted here and cannot be followed at all.


The peer reviewed articles that I have posted for the most part have been posted in full and cited to the page number of the journal, therefore there is nothing being withheld from you or others.
 
I'm not interested in copy-pasted pages that I cannot follow, so don't bother


Well what would have been more honest on your behalf was to give a link to the thread on Anthroscape in which you copy and pasted another individuals entire argument.

I'm not promoting any "Arian claims' so lay those insinuations off. The studies I posted don't promote "Arian claims" they state facts,


While their finding aren't necessarily untrue, the methods in which they used to demonstrate population relatedness are superficial. Who seriously asserts that both ancient Egyptians AND Nubians (who group closest to one another) had closer biological affinities to French , English and German Europeans? Seriously!

On the dental study referenced in that thread Racial Reality's main opponent provided a study which confirmed that due to dietary changes population on the Nile Valley began to display reduced tooth sizes, which is evidence that those earlier studies could not include in with their findings.  

The peer review you posted cannot be followed online on a link that you didn't provide - as far as I'm concerned this is a blind quote /I cannot follow it online on a link/. As far as I can remember you didn't post even one study that I can follow online, not on those 2-3 last pages here. I don't know what you call those references, I call them "blind quotes".

I quoted the studies, not the arguments on the guy - I'm interested in studies, not in arguments. I was unaware that if I site a study that has been used by another persons I have to site all that have been using that study.
If you see yourself as competent to disqualify academic studies, go ahead, I don't feel myself so. I take the studies as being honest and presenting real finds; then I try to make sense out of what is found to be a fact.

I know about the dental metric study, I read the part of the study quoted but I couldn't follow it, because it's not linked. But if you want I can link the guy who argued against the dental-change-due-to-diet here it is:
"...Caucasoids have simple mass-reduced teeth, and Negroids have complex mass-additive teeth. Prehistoric peoples also have the latter, and the evidence you posted has actually been used to argue against Negroid affinities in early Nubians:..." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/ - http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/
And the studies this guy used are here: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html - http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html
The studies linked there are worth reading, easily accessible on the net for everyone to use, only a click away.
I hope you are satisfied.





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


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 11:30
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by medenaywe

Your data are obsolete cause of DNA compared data with DNA inside ancient graveyards:population inside the empire was discussed here,pharaohs had changed till civilization existence.Did those data compare with
DNA of people in Med sea area MK?
P.S.
Barak Husein Obama is "pharaoh" with part of Somalian blood  that does  not means  USA  people are  all
Somalians.Big smile 


Before you hurl insults at other people, please master the English language first. I've reframed from addressing many of your post, due your completely butchered sentence structure and the fact that your thought process is jumping from corner to corner. I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!
 
 
Your not doing so hot yourself bub. It's refrained, not reframed and take should be plural.  And you should take your own advice about hurling insults.


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 14:56
Originally posted by red clay

Your not doing so hot yourself bub. It's refrained, not reframed and take should be plural.  And you should take your own advice about hurling insults.
In your opinion, red clay, do you believe it is better grammar to say, "I generally don't insult a person's grammar, but your post take the cake!", instead of, "I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!"?Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.


-------------
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.


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 15:47
Originally posted by Don Quixote

If doesn't matter  for the needs of this thread that Afro-Asiatic may have originated or not in East Africa, the thread is not about where it originated from,


The origins of the language spoken by the ancient Egyptians is an integral aspect of this debate, and has been explained in detail by Christopher Ehret (linguistic authority) in the article posted in the OP. I suspect that you reason you wish to discard this aspect is because it's painfully obvious that Afro-Asiatic originated in modern day Ethiopia and not the Middle East as you have postulated (ounsourced might I add).

The map you posted shows migrations from the Arabian penninsula to Africa in 4000-3000 BC  - so there was migration, which means ethnic mixing.


The part of the map that you are talking about is referring to the introduction of Arabic, due to the Arab invasion of 700 A.D. (centuries after the last Dynasty of ancient Egypt). That is why the arrow pointing westward is colored black and not of any of the colors indicating thousands of years in between. Therefore your point is moot.

I sited a source that Ancient Egyptian is closer to Berber, not to Nilo-Saharan, if you don't like it this is not my problem.


Do you understand how silly that is. OF COURSE the ancient Egyptian language would be closer to other Afro-Asiatic languages then a non Afro-Asiatic language (Nilo Saharan).

The Berbers have Afro-Asiatic genesis, Middle-Eastern, not Nilo-Saharan, that is genetically supported, so they didn't develop out of migrating Nilo-Saharans:
"...Genetic evidence in support of a shared Eurasian-North African dairying origin


A more recent 2010 study (Frigi) has taken all of this into consideration and has concluded that the population base of North African Berbers are of Sub Saharan East African origins:

"Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."

-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations
Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)


So, with the Berbers being middle-Eastern and Egyptian being close/related to Berber I'll suppose at least cultural overlapping


Your entire theory is nothing more than speculation, which is based on one faulty study (which undermines indigenous African genetic diversity). One other fact that you are obviously unaware of is that North Africans have a gradient of genetic affinities from East to West. Egyptian Berbers being in the East overlap genetically with more southerly Northeast African populations (Ethiopians) and Northwest Berbers group closely with Iberian populations:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214


The Ancient Egyptians and the Nubians were close, there is no doubt in that, as two ethnicities that live close get biologically closed because they intermarry; this doesn't make them the same. Ancient Egyptians had another affinities too, unless you refuse to look upon any research that proves that; I posted such research. There is always cultural and biological overlapping when 2 ethnicities live close together, this don't prove the same origin.


lol As I've stated earlier you should really be careful when you copy and paste another individuals arguments word for word. Racial Reality KNEW that it was futile to attempt to differentiate the ancient Egyptians and Nubians from one another biologically (simply because the evidence is overwhelming that they were the same) which is why the title of the thread from which you copied your argument is called "The Caucasoid affinities of the ancient Egyptians AND Nubians". Notice every single chart that you posted shows that the closest population to the ancient Egyptians were the Nubians (The Kerma sample, if you didn't already know). Do you see? In order for the ancient Egyptians to not have been black Africans then logically you will have to also argue that the Nubians were not black Africans either, because study after study after study confirms that those populations were essentially the same. In fact a 2009 study was conducted solely on the biological relationship of the both Northeast African populations and have AGAIN found what study after study after study has concluded about them:

"The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix... In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian). These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2).

The clustering of the Nubian and Egyptian samples together supports this paper's hypothesis and demonstrates that there may be a close relationship between the two populations. This relationship is consistent with Berry and Berry (1972), among others, who noted a similarity between Nubians and Egyptians.

Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.

On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.

The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia.

However, the archaeological evidence actually showed slow change in form over time (Adams, 1977) and the biological evidence demonstrated a similar trend in the skeletal data (e.g. Godde, in press; Van Gerven et al., 1977). These conclusions negate the possibility of invasion or migration causing the shifts in time periods. The results in this study are consistent with prior work; the Meroites and X-Group cluster with the remaining Nubian population and are not differentiated.

Gene flow may account for the homogeneity across these Nubian and Egyptian groups and is consistent with the biological diffusion precept. Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes.The similarities uncovered by this study may be explained by another force, adaptation.. resemblance may be indicative of a common adaptation to a similar geographic location, rather than gene flow Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate. Because of the similarity between and the overlapping of the two territories that would require similar adaptations to the environment, common adaptation cannot be discounted.

Gene flow appears likely between the Egyptians and Nubians, although common adaptations to a similar environment may have also been a factor in their cranial similarities. This study does not rule out the possibility that in situ biological evolution occurred at other times not represented by the samples in this analysis. "

-- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


As you can see such an argument is futile.


Egyptian Army


Nubian mercenaries

flow than the migration from south to north...." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
/pmc/articles/PMC1377841/


This study was included in the 2009 Goode study and actually supports the fact that both populations were genetically identical. Again it's best not to quote studies from people with named "Racial Reality" or "Mathilda" who have clear agendas and who refuse to debate people outside of their own blogs and forums (due to the fact that they cannot ban opposing views when they debunk their lies).

Mainstream research - of course, Ehret,  Boyce and Keita - what about other research? The studies I posted here are real ones too, not dirt on the road,


You are very correct. Unfortunately you are allowing an unqualified individual with a racial agenda (hence not objective) to interpret those studies for you. Those individuals take a typological approach to interpreting selective studies, which should not be dealt with in such a manner. Do you seriously believe that the authors of those studies are insinuating that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians were more akin to French and English men than other Northeast African populations? In fact Keita has explained why such findings do occur:

"What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values."-- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History."
Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007


Doesn't this make more sense then what Racial Reality and Mathilda are dishonestly trying to assert? Remember these are the words of an individual who is regarded as an authority on African biology.

Anyway, when I am presented with studies that cover wide compass and show several different affinities I'm going to trust all of those studies and come up with supposition that fits the facts, not the other way around.


No have presented selective biological studies and the racially biased opinions of unqualified individuals. I have presented anthropological, genetic, linguistic and cultural evidence from numerous and authoritative scholars all stating that ancient Egypt's origins and closest bio-cultural affinities are with more southerly African populations. In the studies that you present from Racial Reality's website, notice that they lack quotes from the actual authors stating that the ancient Egyptians were of European origin. Just listen to absurd and colonial minded that assertion is.



Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 15:56
Originally posted by Don Quixote

While I don't doubt that populations whom would generally be referred to 'Caucasian' would become present in Late Dynastic Egypt (due to invasions and migration), to say that the ancient Egyptian depicted themselves as "white" is simply not true. 

peoples
From the Tomb of Seti I - Syrian, Nubian, Lybian and Egyptian - the Egyptian and the Nubian are obviously don't share the same representation - so the Egyptians didn't see themselves as black either. This seems as mixed to me as mixed can be; and such mixing doesn't happen overnight.[/QUOTE]

Or how about this comparison:






How difficult is it for you to see that the phenotype of the Northeast African man above is what the ancient Egyptians generally looked like. As you should already know Tropical Africa has the most indigenous physical diversity on Earth. The Nubians on the mural are the Dinka Nubians. The Dinka are the darkest people on Earth, darker than Yoruba, Zulu, Fulani, Somalis  ect.



Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 16:02
Originally posted by Don Quixote

"...Caucasoids have simple mass-reduced teeth, and Negroids have complex mass-additive teeth. Prehistoric peoples also have the latter, and the evidence you posted has actually been used to argue against Negroid affinities in early Nubians:..." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/ - http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/
And the studies this guy used are here: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html - http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html
The studies linked there are worth reading, easily accessible on the net for everyone to use, only a click away.
I hope you are satisfied.


Again dude look at the source of all of your biological evidence and arguments. As I've already stated in my last reply, "Racial Reality" has a clear agenda and is not an objective individual in his interpretations of different studies, let alone an actual scholar. As I've stated I'm not interested in what racial reality has to argue, as I am not arguing him and likely never will (because he refuses to defend his views on neutral grounds). If you on the other hand which to give your own interpretations of those studies and from their debate their meanings then I will be more than happy to do so.


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 16:04
Originally posted by Ancient Dravidian

I think these pictures look very authentic. It's a clear testimony for the Egyptian appearance. No doubt they were a very homogenic black people. In those times mass migration like in modern times was not possible. This is just another final fantasy of Ariosophists. I commend your dedication in this thread.


Thank you for compliments!


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 17:07
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

"...Caucasoids have simple mass-reduced teeth, and Negroids have complex mass-additive teeth. Prehistoric peoples also have the latter, and the evidence you posted has actually been used to argue against Negroid affinities in early Nubians:..." http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/ - http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/1/
And the studies this guy used are here: http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html - http://racialreality.blogspot.com/2010/01/mesolithic-nubians-probably-werent.html
The studies linked there are worth reading, easily accessible on the net for everyone to use, only a click away.
I hope you are satisfied.


Again dude look at the source of all of your biological evidence and arguments. As I've already stated in my last reply, "Racial Reality" has a clear agenda and is not an objective individual in his interpretations of different studies, let alone an actual scholar. As I've stated I'm not interested in what racial reality has to argue, as I am not arguing him and likely never will (because he refuses to defend his views on neutral grounds). If you on the other hand which to give your own interpretations of those studies and from their debate their meanings then I will be more than happy to do so.
I've just had a look at what Racial Reality has to say for themselves, which is as follows:
This website is a compendium of genetic studies, anthropological surveys, historical perspectives and photo series addressing various topics related to racial origins, affinities and myths. Its primary aim is to counter the proliferation of pseudo-scholarship coming from Nordicists (White Nationalists), Afrocentrists, Multi-Racialists and Race-Deniers. The accumulated materials are intended only to correct misinformation, not to denigrate any group or advance a political agenda. The author holds no special credentials in any of the fields mentioned.
http://racialreality.110mb.com/ - http://racialreality.110mb.com/  

What agenda exactly were you referring to, MKGlouisville, that you imagine is so clear, when referring to Racial Reality?Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.


-------------
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.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 17:15
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

 





Aren't these examples of the art you previously stated as discredited? 


-------------
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.


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 17:30
Originally posted by MKGlouisville



undefined


MKGlouisville, you've stated how afro-asiatic probably had its origin in Ethiopia, so can you tell us where about geographically the picture you supplied says it was? Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.


-------------
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.


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 17:39
This is a general problem, even this problem is a name of page in viki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

one of the old theory is turanic race theory
"From the colour given to the women in their paintings we learn that their skin was yellow, like that of the Mongul Tartars, who have given their name to the Mongolian variety of the human race…The single lock of hair on the young nobles reminds us also of the Tartars" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy#cite_note-53 - (same source)





-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:06
In picture that,MK has posted,we could see all colors that had lived on Egypt&Earth.People,black,yellow, white and red that i suppose were,white or with different colors,cause color was religious sign only.There is no other proof till now,but language i am working with.Hope DNA will prove my claims here.Red color people could have been also American Indians that had transported coca in Egypt from Columbia if they had passed over ocean!MK where did white people come from than!?!Were they DNA experiment of aliens or similar?


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:26
Originally posted by medenaywe

In picture that,MK has posted,we could see all colors that had lived on Egypt&Earth.People,black,yellow, white and red that i suppose were,white or with different colors,cause color was religious sign only.There is no other proof till now,but language i am working with.Hope DNA will prove my claims here.Red color people could have been also American Indians that had transported coca in Egypt from Columbia if they had passed over ocean!MK where did white people come from than!?!Are they DNA experiment of aliens or similar?
What I've seen suggests pigmentation to white skin happened a long time ago.
The evolution of dark skin is linked intrinsically to the loss of body hair in humans. By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had the same receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was dark, and the intense sun lowered the chance of survival of those with lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#cite_note-Rogers-5 - [6]  This is significantly earlier than the  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation - speciation  of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens - Homo sapiens  from  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus - Homo erectus  some 250,000 years ago.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Dark_skin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people#Dark_skin


-------------
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.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:29
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by red clay

Your not doing so hot yourself bub. It's refrained, not reframed and take should be plural.  And you should take your own advice about hurling insults.
In your opinion, red clay, do you believe it is better grammar to say, "I generally don't insult a person's grammar, but your post take the cake!", instead of, "I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!"?Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.
 
 
Proper structure is "Post takes the cake"  I also found the same error in the line above, he used post instead of Posts.
 
There are snobbie pretentious forums where improper grammar is a suspendable offense, This is for sure not one of them. Big smile  And that's a good thing, I'd be busy as hell suspending folks.
 
MKG- The Mediterranean basin was a melting pot. They did not pay much attention to skin color and neither should you.
 
 
 


-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:36
This topic shows us that we are living inside Babel Tower but can not admit this also!We deny each other
existence.LOL


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 18:38
Originally posted by red clay

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by red clay

Your not doing so hot yourself bub. It's refrained, not reframed and take should be plural.  And you should take your own advice about hurling insults.
In your opinion, red clay, do you believe it is better grammar to say, "I generally don't insult a person's grammar, but your post take the cake!", instead of, "I generally don't insult a persons grammar, but your post take the cake!"?Shift+R improves the quality of this image. Shift+A improves the quality of all images on this page.
 
 
Proper structure is "Post takes the cake"  I also found the same error in the line above, he used post instead of Posts.
 
There are snobbie pretentious forums where improper grammar is a suspendable offense, This is for sure not one of them. Big smile  And that's a good thing, I'd be busy as hell suspending folks.


Personally I don't hold with this grammar snobbishness either. However when there are those who act in this snobbish manner towards people in an insulting way I believe these people are momently fair game. 


-------------
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.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 21-Nov-2011 at 22:49
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

If doesn't matter  for the needs of this thread that Afro-Asiatic may have originated or not in East Africa, the thread is not about where it originated from,


The origins of the language spoken by the ancient Egyptians is an integral aspect of this debate, and has been explained in detail by Christopher Ehret (linguistic authority) in the article posted in the OP. I suspect that you reason you wish to discard this aspect is because it's painfully obvious that Afro-Asiatic originated in modern day Ethiopia and not the Middle East as you have postulated (ounsourced might I add).


I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that. I know very well what Ehret had to say about it, but here in this context this is a moot point - no where Afro-Asiatic originated, but to which language Ancient Egyptian was close is what can prove with which population the Ancient Egyptians were in constant contact and probably mixed.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&KW=&PID=658342#658342 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&KW=&PID=658342#658342
What I said you may consider silly if you want; but anyway it proves that the Egyptians and the Nubians spoke different languages that were not related by language group, so therefore they weren't one and the same culture to start with. Afro-Asiatic is not related to Nilotic, and the Nubians spoke a Nilotic language, not an Afro-Asiatic.

As about Frigi, and if I remember right here http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations - http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=%22Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations%22 he explains the mtDNA of the Berbers with mass weddings of Sub-Saharan males to European women, which is not a logical scenario / like all of the sudden all males lost their appetite for their own women and probably sold them and got themselves only European women. But he also says that:

"...However, from our results, the North African populations
appear more related to European than to sub-Saharan populations. The “Eurasian” component
seems to have come in over a longer period of time (Keita, 2010). A small amount of gene
flow per generation into a population/geographical region can drastically change its original
gene frequencies in only a few thousand years as noted by Cavalli Sforza (1991). This genetic
flow from Europe seems have happened since Neolithic period. Despite the fact that Neolithic
expansion had the same effect in Northern Africa as in Europe, the Straits of Gibraltar acted
as a barrier between the two continents, limiting gene flow between North-western Africa and
Western Europe through the Iberian Peninsula (Comas et al. 2000;Garcia-Obregon et al.
2006; Varela et al. 2008; Frigi et al. 2010). This justifies the fact that the majority of North
African populations appear in the MDS analysis as a separate group from European
populations...." http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations - http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1670&context=humbiol&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCYQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.wayne.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1670%2526context%253Dhumbiol%26rct%3Dj%26q%3DHuman%2520Alu%2520insertion%2520polymorphisms%2520in%2520North%2520African%2520populations%26ei%3Do0-eToXpGMLY0QGf7fmiCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFqywXWdXjb9GEwdFmqz6ZE8xFuZg%26sig2%3Dz_XNrfEe9SCEZbHQ6dFpCQ#search=%22Human%20Alu%20insertion%20polymorphisms%20North%20African%20populations%22

"...Taken together, results on Y chromosome, mtDNA and Alu Insertions in North Africa
allow to propose a scenario for this region. The ancient sub-Saharan settlement would have
been followed by admixture with Iberian populations. But, as the North African Y
chromosome remained dominant in the region, we could argue that this admixture have been
realized in one direction: North African men and Eurasian women, explaining the gene flow
from Europe and high frequency of European types of mtDNA in North Africa as compared
with Y chromosome. This situation would not be the result of drift toward Eurasian mtDNA.
Our results on Alu insertions interestingly confirm that this gene flow happened several times
probably always on the same direction. These matrimonial exchanges between North Africa
and Europe should be considered in a context of patriarchal societies with men attached to
territory and women from different regions including Europe. Hence, genetic diversity on one
hand and relationship with Europe should have been due to women...." Ibid.

This supposition in the last quote is what I find illogical - because for all ethnnicities from Neolithic times to systematically take only European women and ditch their own, for several thousand years in a row, from the Neolithic froward. The fact is that up to 90% of the Berber mtDNA /depending on the area/ is Eurasian, as well as like 80% of the Berber Y-DNA is West-African Sub-Saharan, if I remember well. I don't see though any East-African DNA to fit your map that the Berbers came from  East Africa so their language is closer to Egyptian because of that, as you claimed.

"...The Berbers are the indigenous population of north-west Africa. Although their Y-DNA is almost perfectly homogenous, belonging to haplogroup E-M81, Berber maternal lineages show a much greater diversity, as well as regional disparity. At least half (and up to 90% in some regions) of the Berbers belong to some Eurasian lineages, such as H, HV, R0, J, T, U, K, N1, N2, and X2, mostly of Middle or Near Eastern origin. 5 to 45% of the Berbers will have sub-Saharan mtDNA (L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5). There are only three native North African lineages, U6, X1 and M1, representing 0 to 35% of the people depending on the region...." http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#Berber - http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#Berber

My entire theory is only a speculation? I posted nothing but studies that can be followed, so I fail to see how it's based on nothing. Now if you don't like the studies I posted this is not my problem. I'm posting my info, and I don't have the slightest desire to argue with you in the way you are making your arguments. I see that you are going on personal attacks instead on a respectful discussion and I have no desire to participate in such.

Of course there will be affinities between Egyptians and Nubians, they lived next to each other, this is to be expected, I never said they didn't share affinities - I said that they are not the same ethnicity per se, and quoted studies for that. Now, to cite normal genetic and cultural interactions and mutual migrations that happen in any neighbouring ethnicities, as a proof that they are the same ethnicity is to push it and I don't buy that.

As for me citing Racial Reality - I did that only because you insulted me saying that I was dishonest while using the studies he linked without referring his name - so, this is what you wanted, no? But now you are using that to say that I cite people with agendas? What are you actually aiming for?
There is no racial agenda in the studies I cited as studies, so please stop insinuating about such things. What personal opinions of unqualified individual I presented? All I did was to link the blog on which Racial Reality posted the studies I wanted referenced  and this after you told me that I was supposed to cite the person I got the studies from. I posted live studies, you posted quotes that I cannot follow online.




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


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2011 at 15:51
Originally posted by Don Quixote

I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that.


I am attacking your assertion that the origins of Afro-Asiatic is controversial. I have proved to you that linguist and scholars amongst unanimously agree that the origins of this language phylum was in Eastern Africa. In doing so I am proving that the language AND people directly ancestral to ancient Egypt came from Sub Saharan East Africa. This is confirmed in both of Christopher Ehret's studies which have been presented in this thread. 

no where Afro-Asiatic originated, but to which language Ancient Egyptian was close is what can prove with which population the Ancient Egyptians were in constant contact and probably mixed.


No it does not! Case and point Chadic and Berber languages are closer to each other than they both are to ancient Egyptian. Chadian speakers are in central Africans and Berbers are north Africans, are you insinuating that those two Afro-Asiatic populations are biologically uniform with one another?

What I said you may consider silly if you want; but anyway it proves that the Egyptians and the Nubians spoke different languages that were not related by language group


You on the other hand have also been provided with a recent study which confirms that despite both populations belonging to different language families, they have been biologically the same since pre-dynastic times. Do you not understand that this consistently biological findings completely refutes what you are asserting regarding the ancient Egyptians being biologically close to Berbers? You have also been presented with recent genetic analysis which confirms that the Berber speakers across Northern Africa are not biologically uniform in the their affinities, and being so Egyptian Berbers show genetic overlapping with Sub Saharan East African populations like Ethiopians and Northwest Berbers tend to closer with either West Africans or Europeans.

so therefore they weren't one and the same culture to start with.


Wrong again. You are confirming just how little you actually know about ancient Egyptians culture and it's people:

"According to common knowledge, it has generally been held that there was a geographical, cultural and political boundary between Egypt and Nubia in the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period, and it was located between Gebel es Silsila and Aswan . Any Egyptian evidence in Nubia was seen as an import or cultural influence, while any Nubian evidence in Upper Egypt was viewed as the sporadic presence of foreign people within Egyptian territory. As a consequence, the cemeteries located from Kubbaniya southwards were assigned to the A-Group culture.

In recent years, new research on the subject shows that the interaction between the two cultures was much more complex than previously thought, affecting the time, space and nature of the interaction. As a result, the Aswan area probably never was a real borderline. The two regions, and so their cultural entities, are not antithetical to one another, but in prehistoric times are still the expression of the same cultural tradition, with strong regional variations, particularly in the last part of the 4th millennium BC.

Unique cultural features, unknown elsewhere, have been recorded in the area surrounding the First Cataract, and from there northward up to Hierakonpolis and probably even Armant, and southward down to Dehmit. The data recorded in this area always shows a preponderance of Naqadian elements, while the Nubian component, although consistent, is definitely in the minority, disproving an A-Group affiliation. These features may indicate the presence of a regional variant of the Naqada culture combining, particularly during the first half of the fourth millennium BC, both Egyptian and Nubian traditions." 

In the Predynastic period, the Egyptian and Nubian identities still shared many common traits derived from a common ancestry. The Naqada culture developed from the Badarian culture which, as the Tasian, was related to the Nubian Neolithic tradition (Gatto 2002; 2006c). Thus, the definition of what was Egyptian or Nubian at that time in the First Cataract region (and the southern part of Upper Egypt) is not so obvious: are the local cooking pots (shale-tempered ware), for example, Egyptian or Nubian?"

--GATTO M.C.(2009). Field season in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region of Egypt." Aswan-Kom Ombo. Archaeological Project. Report to: The Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt.


So according to Egyptian antiquities council and just about every other Egyptologist and African historian, Nubians and ancient Egyptians have been biologically AND culturally the same since Pre-Dynastic times.

Afro-Asiatic is not related to Nilotic, and the Nubians spoke a Nilotic language, not an Afro-Asiatic.


Yet you completely ignore the fact that the ancient Egyptian language infused integral Nilotic customs and words into their own language (despite both belonging to different language families):

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.)(Christopher Ehret, "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 25-27)


Are you going to ignore this also?

he explains the mtDNA of the Berbers with mass weddings of Sub-Saharan males to European women, which is not a logical scenario / like all of the sudden all males lost their appetite for their own women and probably sold them and got themselves only European women. But he also says that:


No one disputes the fact that some modern Berber populations have closer biological affinities towards non African populations, which is all that your quote spam is stating.  What has been proven by Frigi and postulated by many other scholars however, is that the population foundation of all Northern Africans came from Sub Saharan East Africa. Therefore your point is moot and also has nothing to do with the origins of ancient Egypt.

This supposition in the last quote is what I find illogical


Genetics don't lie. The mtdna is primarily Eurasian while the majority of the North African Y Chromosome is of East African origins.

I don't see though any East-African DNA to fit your map that the Berbers came from  East Africa so their language is closer to Egyptian because of that, as you claimed.


Every last one of your post throughout this thread, seems to be express complete ignorance of the evidence which has been laid out directly for you. Once again you can that Egyptian Berbers still retain their genetic affinity towards Sub Saharan East African populations:

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214


My entire theory is only a speculation? I posted nothing but studies that can be followed


NO, you spammed the biased and misleading conclusions of selective studies from an qualified individual which have been refuted by my later replies. To which you never replied to, because you yourself do not understand what does studies mean and was dependent on another individuals faulty and dishonest argument.

Now if you don't like the studies I posted this is not my problem.


No I refuted the copy and pasted misinterpretations of the studies that you presented, and posted numerous studies of my own spanning every scientific discipline from anthropology, genetics, linguistics to archaeology. All of which conclude that the original ancient Egyptians were a mixture of Nilotic Saharans and Sub Saharan East African populations.

There is no racial agenda in the studies I cited as studies, so please stop insinuating about such things.


First all the guys name is "RACIAL REALITY". He is a "Caucasoid-centrist" and is a stark promotor of the biological concept of race, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community rejects such a notion. This is reason why the name of the thread from which you hi-jacked your argument is called the "CAUCASOID affinities of the ancient Egyptians and Nubians". Notice that he is also claiming that the ancient Nubians were "Caucasoid" as well. Do you know why he does this? HE KNOWS THAT THE BIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE IS IRREFUTABLE THAT THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS AND NUBIANS WERE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME POPULATION SINCE PRE-DYNASTIC TIMES. Therefore he knows that logically he cannot promote one population as "Caucasoid" and the other populations as "Negroid" as you are attempting to do.


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 22-Nov-2011 at 19:39
Originally posted by MKGlouisville

Originally posted by Don Quixote

I had never postulated that Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East - stop misrepresenting me or site where I have said that.


I am attacking your assertion that the origins of Afro-Asiatic is controversial. I have proved to you that linguist and scholars amongst unanimously agree that the origins of this language phylum was in Eastern Africa. In doing so I am proving that the language AND people directly ancestral to ancient Egypt came from Sub Saharan East Africa. This is confirmed in both of Christopher Ehret's studies which have been presented in this thread. 

There is no unanimous agreement that Afro-Asiatic originated in Ethiopia, there is till the Middle-Eastern  theory about it's origin; so with other theories in existence, it's Uhermait is controversial.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&PID=658394#658394 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28872&PID=658394#658394
No, I'm not saying anything like that, stop misrepresenting me. I don't know the case of Chadic, but it's a Nilo-Saharn language and I doubt that its' closer to Berber that is Afro-Asiatic - it's like to say that Russian is closer to German that to Serbian, In any case I expect you to cite a linguist on that, like I did , I'm not going to take your personal opinion.

I never said the Egyptians were close to the Berbers, this is some contraption of yours. I said that their languages are closer that Egyptian and Nubian. Now, I cites studies that show that Egypt has more diversified population that Nubia, as well as Lower Egypt that Upper one - this is not being biologically the same. Besides, I never claimed that there weren't Nubians in Egypt - I talk about mixed population, which includes similarity and connection to Nubians, But the Egyptians weren't Nubians, and had more diversified genetic flow.

How much I know and I don't know about what is not yours to decide. I never refuted the cultural connections between the both peoples; but this is not a common ancestry - if they had such their languages would be from one and the same group, not from different ones.

Yes, Egyptian infused words from Nilotic languages, like Russia did from English - this doesn't make Russians with a common ancestry with the Brits.
The Magreb Berbers don't have East African Y-DNA, but West-African one. The Northern Africans are quite a bit intermixed with Euro-Asians, so they are mixed people, "not all coming from East Africa"; the Berbers in particular.
Now, stop claiming that I'm ignorant, again I don't need your evaluation - I know that the Egyptian Berbers are different from the Morrocan ones and closer to East-Africans - so what? This doesn't mean that the Magreb Berbers came form East Africa. besides, language-wise, there is no Egyptian-Berber language and Margebi-Berber, it's one language, AFAIK.

 I posted studies, live ones, not copy-paste, and everyone can follow them - what is copy-pasted in that? And you wanted me to cite Racial Reality, if you so remember; if you so want to call him something, go tell it to him, not to me. The studies that he posted and I followed are not racial, no matter what you call them. If you don't like my posts, don't respond to them - I don't have to waste my time to fight with your insinuations. I cannot make a normal conversation when I'm misrepresented and dragged toward positions that I don't support - this is not a discussion, but a character assassinaton.





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


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 12:34
from all the research i have done on ancient Egyptians (old kingdom) and the period before that, i can mostly certainly say they were of african origin, Egyptians themselves claimed that they came from Land of Punt which is located in east Africa today confirmed by recent findings

Also the Cushtic languages of east africa are the closes group to ancient egyptians, if you study the old kingdom in details you will defiantly find what i am saying to be true

Also even today the Upper Egyptians are african, just go search (Beja people) they are the closes people to ancient egyptians


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 17:41
Originally posted by balochii

from all the research i have done on ancient Egyptians (old kingdom) and the period before that, i can mostly certainly say they were of african origin, Egyptians themselves claimed that they came from Land of Punt which is located in east Africa today confirmed by recent findings

Also the Cushtic languages of east africa are the closes group to ancient egyptians, if you study the old kingdom in details you will defiantly find what i am saying to be true

Also even today the Upper Egyptians are african, just go search (Beja people) they are the closes people to ancient egyptians

The Egyptians were indigenous Africans, there is no doubt about this, and I never claimed otherwise; all I'm saying is that they were not homogenous population, and were mixed from several ethnicities, which is logical considering that they were living in the oldest and most used migration corridors. There was more than one stream in this mixture - one of those streams was for sure what the Egyptians called "the Land of Punt" /south of them/ - but this is not the whole story. There was significant Middle-eastern stream that brougth the agricultural revolution in Africa during the Neolithic, and there is enough genetic proof about that.
About the Cushitic languages being the  closest to Ancient Egyptian I don't know; can you post a linguistic study or two that talk about that? Thanks in advance.

The modern Egyptians AFAIK are even more mixed than the ancient ones, and clusetr mostly with South-Western Asians, less with Western Asians, and even less with North Africans - I suppose this would go for all Egyptians, but the source I got this from didn't specify between Upper and Lower Egypt. I read on several places that The Beja were closest to the Ancient Egyptians, but I wasn't able to find a study that says that, only what people claim on variety of forums and sites - so if you have such study I'd appreciate if you share it here.

Anyway it would make sense that the Beja /being the remnant of the Ancient Kushites/Nubians/are the closest to the Ancient Egyptians, since they live next to each other, interbred, etc; what I'm saying is that the Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians weren't identical, not that they weren't related. The phenotype of the said two ethnicities is too different /judging from the Egyptian art, than presents Nubians and Egyptians with a very different phenotypes/ to suppose that they are identical; after all human phenotype is genetically based. On the other hand the modern Egyptians have the same phenotype as the ancient ones from the same art; and they are closest to South-West Asians and North Africans, AFAIK - so far no one had explained to me how come they looked so different from what they are closest with and so close to what they are not supposed to be close with?

I'm going to accompany my thoughts with the abstract of a genetic study:
"...We have typed 275 men from five populations in Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt with a set of 119 binary markers and 15 microsatellites from the Y chromosome, and we have analyzed the results together with published data from Moroccan populations. North African Y-chromosomal diversity is geographically structured and fits the pattern expected under an isolation-by-distance model. Autocorrelation analyses reveal an east-west cline of genetic variation that extends into the Middle East and is compatible with a hypothesis of demic expansion. This expansion must have involved relatively small numbers of Y chromosomes to account for the reduction in gene diversity towards the West that accompanied the frequency increase of Y haplogroup E3b2, but gene flow must have been maintained to explain the observed pattern of isolation-by-distance. Since the estimates of the times to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCAs) of the most common haplogroups are quite recent, we suggest that the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic–speaking pastoralists from the Middle East." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/?tool=pmcentrez - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1216069/?tool=pmcentrez

So, North Africa and Egypt had been with mixed population since the Neolithic, after the demic dispersion of Afro-Asiatic speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. on this background I believe it's illogical to say that there was no mixing of the populations, ethnicities, etc in Egypt during the Pre-Dynastic period - the population was already mixed by this time.

I generally cannot understand why every time I suggest mixed population in Egypt my opinion is considered a result of ignorance or of  racism, or whatever; when I support myself with studies that talk about migrations and ethnic mixing; I didn't imagine that, I read it and I can quote quite a few studies about that. Is that a politically incorrect view or something?Confused Just like your opinion mine is a result of research - and in fact it doesn't contradict yours, it includes yours, since I always stated that Egyptian civilization is indigenous African one; but I cannot accept the "pure ethnicity" theory - not in the oldest melting pot in the the human history, when there is plenty of studies that show ethnic mixing.





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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:17
When it comes to genetic research many people would think that having 2 different results from 2 different studies would refute one or the other - I don't think so. Different people are tested, with different lineages, and that they live in one country doesn't mean much, especially when the population of the last is not homogenous. I'm going to post 2 abstracts to illustrate my point:

"...Abstract
The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population reflects this intermediate geographic position, ten Unique Event Polymorphisms (UEPs), mapping to the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome, have been typed in 164 Y chromosomes from three North African populations. The analysis of these binary markers, which define 11 Y-chromosome lineages, were used to determine the haplogroup frequencies in Egyptians, Moroccan Arabs, and Moroccan Berbers and thereby define the Y-chromosome background in these regions. Pairwise comparisons with a set of 15 different populations from neighboring European, North African, and Middle Eastern populations and geographic analysis showed the absence of any significant genetic barrier in the eastern part of the Mediterranean area, suggesting that genetic variation and gene flow in this area follow the "isolation-by-distance" model. These results are in sharp contrast with the observation of a strong north-south genetic barrier in the western Mediterranean basin, defined by the Gibraltar Strait. Thus, the Y-chromosome gene pool in the modern Egyptian population reflects a mixture of European, Middle Eastern, and African characteristics, highlighting the importance of ancient and recent migration waves, followed by gene flow, in the region...." http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5manni.html - http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_biology/v074/74.5manni.html


"...Summary

The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers.

This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations.

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population...." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract


So, the first study claims that the European and Middle-Eastern characteristics lead, and the second that the Ethiopian one leads; does that mean than one refutes the other? No, it doesn't - it only show that some individuals had more of e Eurasian genetic make-up, and other more West-African one; so they complete each other to give us a better picture of what the reality is. The same with the Ancient Egyptians - there is enough data to support both connection with Nubia and connection with the Middle East, since the Neolithic. This makes much more sense to me that claiming that only one side is possible.


That's why I will not refute any genetic study I come upon - genetics don't lie. Egyptians were close to Nubians - there is enough ti prove that; and there was Middle-eastern admixture since the Neolithics - there is enough research that proves that; both don't refute each other. I would like this most unpleasant /to say the least/ polarity that go for some kind of pure ethnicity from any direction, to stop in favor of a more balanced and realistic view that takes in consideration all available research, not only this that supports one side; life is far more complex and picturesque that any abstract extreme that exists mostly in the realm of human mind.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1529-8817.2003.00057.x/abstract -



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


Posted By: balochii
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:41
^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 18:45
Originally posted by balochii

^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed
I would agree with you, balochii, ancient Egyptians were probably not of one single race, but that of a number in such a significant mixing pot.Smile


-------------
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.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:05
This thread is going nowhere. While it's highly likely the original Egyptians were black, it's impossible to prove, especially with nationalists like Zahi Hawass trying to give ancient Egypt Semitic origins

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:18
Originally posted by balochii

^ how do you think original Egyptians looked though. that is the main question?

I personally think their looks varied, but the majority would look similar to other east african, like Ethiopians for example. Of course in the later kingdoms and dynasties they must have clearly absorbed other people from middle east and even Europe, so with time their overall appearance probably changed

You mean original ones like pre-Dynastic ones? I don't know, I haven't seen enough art from this period.
Since I think they were mixed population I think they looked mixed, from all varieties of Lower and Upper Egypt.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=81469&d=1305678413">Click image for larger version        Name: Secrets of Ancient Egypt Paintings.jpg    Views: 24    Size: 62.5 KB    ID: 81469
http://i46.tinypic.com/nmjccw.jpg


There are at least 4 different phenotypes here - and obviously the Egyptians saw them as significantly different ones since they portrayed them as different ones.


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 19:23
Originally posted by Nick1986

This thread is going nowhere. While it's highly likely the original Egyptians were black, it's impossible to prove, especially with nationalists like Zahi Hawass trying to give ancient Egypt Semitic origins

Well, politics ruins every real scholarship....most lamentably. I wouldn't go with a Semitic origin - this hypothesis is pretty much disproved. Semitic admixture at some point - probably, Ramses the Great was supposed to be with Levantine roots - but not Semitic origin.


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


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 23-Nov-2011 at 21:52
Let's think from another perspectiveBig smile

Did egyptian have a theory of human origin like greeks?
(according to greek myths, the first humans are phrygians)



-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2011 at 04:20
Sources about Creation in Ancient Egypt:(Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!WinkLanguage evolves every second!In front of arguments against mine,could be posted only word's fragments and grammar rules till the moment,DNA analysis become sufficient to proves it!
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/religion/deitiescreation.html - http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/religion/deitiescreation.html


Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 24-Nov-2011 at 09:02
Originally posted by medenaywe

Sources about Creation in Ancient Egypt

Thanks for source

Originally posted by medenaywe

Olios,What does "tamam" means in Turkish?Here "tm" means complete!Wink

Yes you can use it like this and also instead of OK ("tamam" comes from arabic)

Originally posted by medenaywe

Language evolves every second!In front of arguments against mine,could be posted only word's fragments and grammar rules till the moment


Yes, I agree you. however legend can help to find scientific evidences and to develop theories. For example,  German Heinrich Schliemann just used Iliad to find Troy. Only Iliad, it doesn't matter, but when you find an archeologic city, according to similar enviroment with Iliad. It means something. 

Originally posted by medenaywe


DNA analysis become sufficient to proves it!


I believe too. DNA analysis are obligation to find the truth







-------------
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2011 at 16:56
I researched around but wasn't able to find references about who the Egyptians thought were the first people, and the creation myths I found are general, not geographically oriented. Basil Davidson in his "The lost Cities of Africa" if I remember right mentions that the Egyptians considered that they came from south-west. AFAIK, they considered punt to be their old motherland; Punt is thought to be Ethiopia, but there is an opinion that it was Saudi Arabia; also that it may have been on the both sides on the Red Sea - this is what i consider to be most plausible since it covers all the clues we have as to it's location. I wrote on this on this thread [TUBE]http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=29584&PN=1[/TUBE]


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


Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 26-Nov-2011 at 17:43
I came upon this study that suggests a migration route from the Levant into Egypt during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic.
"...Paleoanthropological evidence indicates that both the Levantine corridor and the Horn of Africa served, repeatedly,
as migratory corridors between Africa and Eurasia. We have begun investigating the roles of these passageways in
bidirectional migrations of anatomically modern humans, by analyzing 45 informative biallelic markers as well as
10 microsatellite loci on the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (NRY) in 121 and 147 extant males
from Oman and northern Egypt, respectively. The present study uncovers three important points concerning these
demic movements: (1) The E3b1-M78 and E3b3-M123 lineages, as well as the R1*-M173 lineages, mark gene
flow between Egypt and the Levant during the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic. (2) In contrast, the Horn of Africa
appears to be of minor importance in the human migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia represented
by these chromosomes, an observation based on the frequency distributions of E3b*-M35 (no known downstream
mutations) and M173. (3) The areal diffusion patterns of G-M201, J-12f2, the derivative M173 haplogroups, and
M2 suggest more recent genetic associations between the Middle East and Africa, involving the Levantine corridor
and/or Arab slave routes. Affinities to African groups were also evaluated by determining the NRY haplogroup
composition in 434 samples from seven sub-Saharan African populations. Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency
distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population,
suggesting a much larger Eurasian genetic component. Finally, the overall phylogeographic profile reveals
several clinal patterns and genetic partitions that may indicate source, direction, and relative timing of different
waves of dispersals and expansions involving these nine populations...." http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf - http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p000-0130.pdf

So, according to it there was influx in East Africa from the Middle East during the Paleolithic and Mesolithic, even before the Neolithic demic expansion.


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


Posted By: MKGlouisville
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2011 at 14:26
Originally posted by Don Quixote

No, I'm not saying anything like that, stop misrepresenting me. I don't know the case of Chadic, but it's a Nilo-Saharn language


You have just confirmed that you have no idea, what you are talking about! Chadic is an Afro-Asiatic language, which is most closely related to the Berber language.

and I doubt that its' closer to Berber that is Afro-Asiatic - it's like to say that Russian is closer to German that to Serbian, In any case I expect you to cite a linguist on that, like I did , I'm not going to take your personal opinion.


You don't want my opinion that's fine. Here is a 2009 linguistic study showing the Chadic affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

Using primarily linguistic evidence, and taking into account recent archaeology at sites such as Hierakonpolis/Nekhen, as well as the symbolic meaning of objects such as sceptres and headrests in Ancient Egyptian and contemporary African cultures, this paper traces the geographical location and movements of early peoples in and around the Nile Valley. It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt or, earlier, in the Sahara. The marked grammatical and lexicographic affinities of Ancient Egyptian with Chadic are well-known, and consistent Nilotic cultural, religious and political patterns are detectable in the formation of the first Egyptian kingships. The question these data raise is the articulation between the languages and the cultural patterns of this pool of ancient African societies from which emerged Predynastic Egypt.

"It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language.crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006). From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the

The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

--Dr. Alain Anselin (University of Antilles-Guyane) Some notes about an early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egyptian civilization.
In: Egypt in its African Context. 2009. Proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ENgland. Karen Exell (ed). BAR International Series 2204 2011
Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports


This further confirms the statements by the Egyptian antiquities that Nubians and ancient Egyptians were of common origin, despite linguistic difference. It's clear that both civilizations were a combination of both Nilo Saharan and Afro- Asiatic speakers.

I said that their languages are closer that Egyptian and Nubian.


True, but none the less what does this say about the ancient Egyptians phenotype? I have presented to you a recent 2009 study which confirms that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians have been biologically the same population since pre-dynastic times. This disproves your assertion that linguistic ties are what determine this affinity.

Now, I cites studies that show that Egypt has more diversified population that Nubia, as well as Lower Egypt that Upper one - this is not being biologically the same.


No you have not. All you have done is misinterpret studies from Racial Realities blog and I've disproven them.

How much I know and I don't know about what is not yours to decide. I never refuted the cultural connections between the both peoples; but this is not a common ancestry


Once again:



Do you have any answer to the findings of this study, or are you going to continue to make baseless assertions that contradict it?

The Magreb Berbers don't have East African Y-DNA, but West-African one.


Once again your opinion is contradicting peer reviewed genetic evidence. The entire basis of North Africa's indigenous population is Sub Saharan East African genetics:

"Our objective is to highlight the age of sub-Saharan gene flows in North Africa and particularly in Tunisia. Therefore we analyzed in a broad phylogeographic context sub-Saharan mtDNA haplogroups of Tunisian Berber populations considered representative of ancient settlement. More than 2,000 sequences were collected from the literature, and networks were constructed. The results show that the most ancient haplogroup is L3*, which would have been introduced to North Africa from eastern sub-Saharan populations around 20,000 years ago. Our results also point to a less ancient western sub-Saharan gene flow to Tunisia, including haplogroups L2a and L3b. This conclusion points to an ancient African gene flow to Tunisia before 20,000 years BP. These findings parallel the more recent findings of both archaeology and linguistics on the prehistory of Africa. The present work suggests that sub-Saharan contributions to North Africa have experienced several complex population processes after the occupation of the region by anatomically modern humans. Our results reveal that Berber speakers have a foundational biogeographic root in Africa and that deep African lineages have continued to evolve in supra-Saharan Africa."

-- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)


Stop trying to stand baseless claims up against peer reviewed evidence.

I posted studies, live ones, not copy-paste, and everyone can follow them - what is copy-pasted in that?


Along with those studies you posted the misinterpretations of Racial Realty, which are also seen on his blog. None the less I am about to go through all of these studies that you've spammed during my suspension and show you just how misinterpreted they are on YOUR part. 


Posted By: Tyche
Date Posted: 30-Nov-2011 at 15:25
Originally posted by Don Quixote

The Egyptians were indigenous Africans, there is no doubt about this, and I never claimed otherwise; all I'm saying is that they were not homogenous population, and were mixed from several ethnicities,


No one disputes this fact! Those ethnicities according to mainstream peer reviewed evidence were entirely of Northeast African origins. You most also remember that when we are talking about African people from biological standpoint we cannot simply lump them into one category, due to the fact that tropical Africa has the most indigenous genetic and phenotypic diversity on Earth. The ancient Egyptians according to mainstream scholarship came from the regions of Africa further south:

"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." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)


Notice how this is consistent with all other research that I have presented. The original ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans from areas further south. Where is the Middle Easterner input?

There was significant Middle-eastern stream that brougth the agricultural revolution in Africa during the Neolithic, and there is enough genetic proof about that.


You are apparently entrenched in Racial Realities faulty arguments. The agriculture seen in Africa during the Neolithic was an indigenous system that came out of the ancient Sahara:

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

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


Also I'd like to see what genetic evidence you have to suggest refute this consensus amongst most scholars.

The modern Egyptians AFAIK are even more mixed than the ancient ones, and clusetr mostly with South-Western Asians, less with Western Asians, and even less with North Africans


Actually the it has been consistently proven that Late Dynastic Egyptians were already biologically distinguished from the early ancient Egyptians:

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


Now tell me, if the ancient Egyptians were already "mixed" as you assert then why would additional gene flow from the Mediterranean during later periods make those Late Period Egyptians biologically distinct from their earliest Egyptian ancestors? If the ancient Egyptians have always been mixed, then why does this peer reviewed study state that the ancient Egyptians group with more southerly African populations (like the Nubians) than Middle Eastern/Mediterranean populations? Why would that overlapping biological affinity occur with just one group representing the mixture than the other? Also note that the peer reviewed study states that the ancient Egyptians were of "continuous local origins" well into early Dynastic times. That means that they were entirely of local indigenous Northeast African origin during this period.

what I'm saying is that the Egyptians and the Ancient Nubians weren't identical, not that they weren't related.


Once again your statements are baseless and contradict consistent peer reviewed studies:

"However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene Sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclical climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects. The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (see above and discussion; Keita 1990).-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.


- Link to study

The phenotype of the said two ethnicities is too different /judging from the Egyptian art




Hmmm from my own subjective view point, I see the Nubians represented in two distinct skin tones. One skin tone being pitch black and the other being reddish brown. I also see Ramses represented in this same reddish brown skin tone as half of the Nubians are depicted as having. Do you not think that it's possible that the variation of skin tones displayed by the Nubians could actually represent how modern populations in Northeast Africa generally look today? Some Horn Africans and Sudanese are reddish brown and some are pitch black, but this indigenous skin tone variation has never been a distinguishing social factor within those populations.

On the other hand the modern Egyptians have the same phenotype as the ancient ones from the same art; and they are closest to South-West Asians and North Africans, AFAIK


Show me exactly which modern Egyptians you are referring to who look like this:











Notice that my pictures aren't isolated individuals, but large murals depicting typical Egyptians during typical Egyptian things. Why is daily Egyptian life represented by Egyptians whom all appear to be black in phenotype?

I'm going to accompany my thoughts with the abstract of a genetic study


What does this study on the modern genetic affinities of Northern Egyptians who have been proven to not be a good representative of the ancient Egyptians:

"However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variability (contrast Lucotte and Mercier 2003a with Manni et al. 2002), because this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results." (S.O.Y. Keita, A.J. Boyce, "Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation1," History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246 


and

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".
- Keita (2005), pp. 564


have to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians? Please stop spamming dated and debunked studies from Racial Realty's blog, which you clearly do not know what they imply.

I generally cannot understand why every time I suggest mixed population in Egypt my opinion is considered a result of ignorance or of  racism, or whatever;


If you are familiar with this subject then you would know about the infamous UNESCO conference of 1974. At this conference Senegalese scholars Cheikh Anta Diop and his assistant Obenga, literally wiped the floor with the leading Egyptologist of the time who initially entered the conference to agree upon a non African origin for ancient Egypt. After Diop proved through every piece of criteria (most of which went uncontested by the others) that the ancient Egyptians were originally black Africans, the only thing that the opposing Egyptologist could do was RETREAT from their non African origin theory and baselessly back into a mixed origins theory. That theory came from nothing more than anti-racism, no matter how you look at it.

when I support myself with studies that talk about migrations and ethnic mixing;


No once again you spam the selected studies from Racial Realities blog and his interpretations of those studies, while simultaneously ignoring the peer reviewed evidence which directly REFUTE those misinterpretations of Racial Reality and yourself.



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