Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWerer the Egyptians white or black?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>
Poll Question: well?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
24 [43.64%]
31 [56.36%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Werer the Egyptians white or black?
    Posted: 16-Mar-2013 at 23:46
One last point. Recent DNA findings have also shown that while the Modern population has received migrations from areas outside of Africa, particularly in the north. Genetically speaking, they are still the descendants of the ancients. And a casual observation of faces seen on the streets of Cairo shows that the same faces found on the monuments and statues can still be seen in real life today.
Back to Top
Patryk View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2010
Location: Hong Kong
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 97
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2013 at 00:05
Thanks Raka. 
 
I should have found an Afro-Asiatic Language Family chart before I made my post.  Arabic is the largest extant member of a family that once had many more languages throughout southwest Asia.  It's historical heartland is probably in what is now the highlands of Ethiopia where many Afro-Asiatic languages are still spoken today.  I think it is reasonable to suspect that one branch of that family crossed into what is today's Yemen (eventually becoming Arabs) while another branch migrated north along the Nile. 
 
Just as Indo-Europeans split into two different directions (one going to Europe and one going to India), why is it not plausible that Afro-Asiatics could have split as well.
 
But the terms "black" and "white" are basically 19th century constructions and I think they have little usefulness in discussing ancient civilisations.   
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2013 at 10:47
Originally posted by Patryk

Thanks Raka. 
 
I should have found an Afro-Asiatic Language Family chart before I made my post.  Arabic is the largest extant member of a family that once had many more languages throughout southwest Asia.  It's historical heartland is probably in what is now the highlands of Ethiopia where many Afro-Asiatic languages are still spoken today.  I think it is reasonable to suspect that one branch of that family crossed into what is today's Yemen (eventually becoming Arabs) while another branch migrated north along the Nile. 
 
Just as Indo-Europeans split into two different directions (one going to Europe and one going to India), why is it not plausible that Afro-Asiatics could have split as well.
 
But the terms "black" and "white" are basically 19th century constructions and I think they have little usefulness in discussing ancient civilisations.   

I think you're right. looking at the distribution of this language family I think that it not only split twice but possibly multiple times. There are languages in this family spoken as far west as Nigeria and as far east as Afghanistan. I think one branch definately crossed into Arabia from the Horn of Africa and one branch probably went up to the Nile, but there were other braches that that had gone across into the Sahara. 

Archeology shows that when the Sahara was green there was a culture that spread from the Red Sea to the Atlantic. But when it started to dry up people migrated into all directions. Some remaned in the Sahara, adapting to the changing conditions, some moving farther south into Africa, some along the northern coast and some settling in the Nile Valley. 

I've always felt that the origins of pre dynastic Egypt must be found in the Sahara and then I stumbled across the findings in Nabta Playa and other sites near by proved it. 

I think that this is why today one can still find aspects of culture that existed in Ancient Egypt in areas of East Africa and the Sahara as far west as Muritania and Mali. One of the things that first caught my attention were the musical instruments, like the harp and a proto ancestor of the guitar called the halam. I was in the Metropolitan museum and say an old harp, then went on the other side of the building and saw the exact same kind of harp in the African section. They all share a common ancestor. 

I think that to identify a people we have to take into consideration many sources of information. DNA, linguistics, cultural practices all must be taken together as a whole. But where linguistics is concerned, it really is facinating to see how peoples who you would never think had anything in common can be linked. Even more facinating is the process of how languages change and are aquired. Still can't figure out why American English especially southern,is do different from British when the Australian dialect is still so close to the mother.
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 11:23
Ramses III DNA results were recently published...Im surprised no one mentioned this. His Hablogroup is E1b1a which is almost exclusively a West African/Sub-Saharan African haplogroup.
 
Incidence of E1b1a
Population group frequency References
Bamileke 96%-100% [9][10]
Ewe 97% [7]
Ga 97% [7]
Yoruba 93.1% [11]
Tutsi 85% [9]
Fante 84% [7]
Mandinka 79%-87% [1][7]
Ovambo 82% [7]
Senegalese 81% [12]
Ganda 77% [7]
Bijagós 76% [1]
Balanta 73% [1]
Fula 73% [1]
Herero 71% [7]
Nalú 71% [1]
Back to Top
Fula View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 16-Dec-2011
Location: Maryland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 170
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 11:35

DNA Tribes® Digest February 1, 2013

"DNA Tribes® Digest identified African related ancestry for King Tut and other royal mummies from the Amarna Period.1 In this issue, results indicate that the later pharaoh Ramesses III also inherited alleles that are most frequent in present day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This provides additional, independent evidence of Sub-Saharan African ancestry (possibly among several ancestral components) for pharaonic families of ancient Egypt."
 
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2013 at 15:40
I didn't mention this study specifically, but I did mention that Egyptians belong primarily to the E haplotype which is specifically African. Actually even to this day, despite all the years of mixture this is still the dominant haplogroup in Egypt.

Originally posted by Fula

Ramses III DNA results were recently published...Im surprised no one mentioned this. His Hablogroup is E1b1a which is almost exclusively a West African/Sub-Saharan African haplogroup.
 
Incidence of E1b1a
Population group frequency References
Bamileke 96%-100% [9][10]
Ewe 97% [7]
Ga 97% [7]
Yoruba 93.1% [11]
Tutsi 85% [9]
Fante 84% [7]
Mandinka 79%-87% [1][7]
Ovambo 82% [7]
Senegalese 81% [12]
Ganda 77% [7]
Bijagós 76% [1]
Balanta 73% [1]
Fula 73% [1]
Herero 71% [7]
Nalú 71% [1]
Back to Top
HuCipher View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 01:30
There is over whelming evidence that the founders of ancient Egypt where sub Saharan Africans. The genetic evidence is slowly coming in(The Ramses dna results are fantastic White supremacist always point to the mummies red hair as proof of his Whitness) but the an eye witness Herodotus described Egyptians as dark skinned and wooly haired and stated further he felt the where realted to the Ethiopians because of this and the fact they practiced circumcision which other mediterannean and most middle eastern peoples did not practice.

Fula I read your post about the Black Samurai(Myth or Real?) and wanted to post that I don't know where the Okimido guy got the information about Yasuke(the Black slave who became a Samurai)being put in a cage but the only information ive found about Yasuke was the fact that he was risen to the class of Samurai and regarded as handsome by his Japanese retainer. I don't think that's the kinda thing you do to some one who you regard as an animal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke

sorry for posting about another topic here but I had to get that off my chest lolhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke

Edited by HuCipher - 07-Apr-2013 at 18:20
Back to Top
TheAlaniDragonRising View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Spam Fighter

Joined: 09-May-2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6078
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 09:17
Originally posted by HuCipher

There is over whelming evidence that the founders of ancient Egypt where sub Saharan Africans. The genetic evidence is slowly coming in(The Ramses dna results are fantastic White supremacist always point to the mummies red hair as proof of his Whitness) but the an eye witness Herodotus described Egyptians as dark skinned and wooly haired and stated furher he felt the where realted to the Ethiopians because of this and the fact they practiced circumcision which other mediterannean and most middle eastern peoples did not practice.

Fula I read your post about the Black Samurai(Myth or Real?) and wanted to post that I don't know where the Okimido guy got the information about Yasuke(the Black slave who became a Samurai)being put in a cage but the only information ive found about Yasuke was the fact that he was risen to the class of Samurai and regarded as handsome by his Japanese retainer. I don't think that's the kinda thing you do to some one who you regard as an animal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke

sorry for posting about another topic hear but I had to get that off my chest lol

One of the things I do know about Herodotus is his unreliable descriptions from second hand material, as many of the things he's describing he didn't witness. He is something I found today:
Herodotus actually tells us that he did not travel personally to either Egypt or Israel and relied upon second hand accounts of others. He was aware of the Jews, though, since he says that the inhabitants of "Palaistinê" were circumcised. This can only refer to the Jews. He also discusses how God destroyed Sennacherib's army confirming the text of 2 Kings 19:35-36. Although he wrote his six books in 450 BC, the earliest actual manuscripts of Herodotus are dated 900 AD. That means there is a span of 1350 years between when the book was written and the earliest actual hard copies that are extant. There are 8 different manuscripts of Herodotus, the oldest being dated from 900 AD. We need to remember that the manuscripts of Herodotus' history likely contain changes as do other ancient works.
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-ancient-geographers-maps-sinai-egypt-midian-arabia-kadesh-barnea-shur-herodotus-484bc.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.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 10:26
Usually one should stay away from such threads, but I have some time. Can somebody explain me the difference between white and black people? Who is white, who is black? How dark has a skin to be to be called dark, how bright to be called white?Smile

Edited by beorna - 07-Apr-2013 at 11:43
Back to Top
HuCipher View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 17:42
HERODOTUS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE "BIG" QUESTIONS
Were Egyptians Africans? Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)." [Herodotus, Histories, 167.] They also practised circumcision, unlike Mediterranean peoples of the time.
How much did Egyptians know about Africa?: The Assyrian King Necos (609-594BC) sent out an expedition from the Persian Gulf that circumnavigated Africa in three years, returning to Egypt through the Straits of Gibraltar. Herodotus did not believe it because the Phoenician navigators reported that as they traveled west below southern Africa, they saw the noon sun on their right side. (JJ: This is in fact true, because the southern tip of Africa is in the southern hemisphere. Note also that Herodotus is accurate when he described King Necos' canal.) [Selincourt, World, 226-227; Herodotus, Histories, 283-284. Note that Herodotus also says the Carthaginians circumnavigated Africa.]


Edited by HuCipher - 07-Apr-2013 at 17:46
Back to Top
HuCipher View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 17:43
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


Originally posted by HuCipher

There is over whelming evidence that the founders of ancient Egypt where sub Saharan Africans. The genetic evidence is slowly coming in(The Ramses dna results are fantastic White supremacist always point to the mummies red hair as proof of his Whitness) but the an eye witness Herodotus described Egyptians as dark skinned and wooly haired and stated furher he felt the where realted to the Ethiopians because of this and the fact they practiced circumcision which other mediterannean and most middle eastern peoples did not practice.

Fula I read your post about the Black Samurai(Myth or Real?) and wanted to post that I don't know where the Okimido guy got the information about Yasuke(the Black slave who became a Samurai)being put in a cage but the only information ive found about Yasuke was the fact that he was risen to the class of Samurai and regarded as handsome by his Japanese retainer. I don't think that's the kinda thing you do to some one who you regard as an animal.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasuke

sorry for posting about another topic hear but I had to get that off my chest lol

One of the things I do know about Herodotus is his unreliable descriptions from second hand material, as many of the things he's describing he didn't witness. He is something I found today:
<span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: normal;">Herodotus actually tells us that he did not travel personally to either Egypt or Israel and relied upon second hand accounts of others. He was aware of the Jews, though, since he says that the inhabitants of "Palaistinê" were circumcised. This can only refer to the Jews. He also discusses how God destroyed Sennacherib's army confirming the text of 2 Kings 19:35-36. Although he wrote his six books in 450 BC, the earliest actual manuscripts of Herodotus are dated 900 AD. That means there is a span of 1350 years between when the book was written and the earliest actual hard copies that are extant. There are 8 different manuscripts of Herodotus, the oldest being dated from 900 AD. We need to remember that the manuscripts of Herodotus' history likely contain changes as do other ancient works.
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-ancient-geographers-maps-sinai-egypt-midian-arabia-kadesh-barnea-shur-herodotus-484bc.htm</span><span style="line-height: 1.4;"> </span>


There is evidence that Herodotus went as far as the Niles 1st cataract in Egypt
Herodotus's travels began early since they were complete by the time he was forty years old. Although the extent of his travels is subject to dispute, he definitely went to Babylon, Upper Egypt , Thrace, parts of Scythia (southern Russia) as far as the Crimea, Cyrene on the north African coast, most of the Greek mainland, all of the countries of Asia minor, southern Italy, the important Aegean islands including (probably) Crete. [Selincourt, World, 30.]

Also we are talking about what a people look like not an historical event. I also don't think any changes made in Herodotus histories would be confirming a Black Egypt and if they did as late as 900ad it would go to support the Black origins of Egypt not the opposite. We know by 900 AD the Persians Greeks,Romans and Arabs had colonized Egypt changing its phenotype significantly.
Back to Top
HuCipher View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 07-Apr-2013
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2013 at 18:14
African Americans have a unique perspective on race and what's Black or White. We look at ancient Egyptians and Nubians and see Mario van Peebles and Wesley Snipes not some mysterious brown people with Stevie Wonder braids and one type of Black person. My phenotype looks more like an ancient Egyptian than many of the depictions of Nubians by Egypt. We know the Egyptians mixed with Eurasians, Mediterranean's and such. African Americans recognize ancient Egyptians as Black because we are mixed with some of the same elements. When I say the Egyptians were Black Im not saying they were West Africans but I am saying they were a Black people. Just as Greeks are White but not Northern Europeans. I claim Egypt and Nubia as part of the African legacy juts as a gut from England, Sweden or say Germany claims Greco-Roman civilization as part of the European legacy.
As to how I would define Blackness I would define it as an combination of skin color and phenotype. There are east Indians darker than some African but they have a Caucasian/Asiatic phenotype. There are some African Americans lighter than some Europeans but they have an African phenotype. Ill admit it can become convoluted especially in America

,-I like this little Obama joke with Pharaoh Akhenaton
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2013 at 02:48
Originally posted by beorna

Usually one should stay away from such threads, but I have some time. Can somebody explain me the difference between white and black people? Who is white, who is black? How dark has a skin to be to be called dark, how bright to be called white?Smile
To be perfectly honest with you there is no answer to this question because such beliefs are not based on objetive scientific critiria, but on cultural and political norms within a society. Therefore, a person who may be considered black in one country/culture may often times be considered white in another, or something else altogether. 

In the United States, the general consensus is that any person with any amount of known African ancestry is considered to be black, regardless of what their actual skin color or facial features may be. Based on this critiria therefore, it is not uncommon to find many people in the United States who identify as "Black", who are totally indistinguishable from the average person you may see in any country in Western Europe. Blackness in the U.S context has never really been strictly about skin color or purity of bloodline, but on a fear and necessity of protecting a concept of the purity of whiteness. Therefore the correct question is, what is the concept of whiteness really all about and why was it felt that there was a need to protect it and the fear of "contamination"? The answer t that question is White Supremacy.

This was a concept that grew out of the Old European class structure where it was believed that society had to be divided into different levels. The Aristocracy on top and a working clas on bottom. These divisions were ridgidly maintained. It was absolutely forbidden for the aristocracy to marry outside of their class and marriages were strictly arrainged by the family to protect the pedigree of the family line. 

When colonial Europeansmoved to the New World they brought their class and social structure with them. The order of society depended on everyone knowing their place and showing deference to their betters. Even the aristocracy was divided into different levels of importance and each person was keenly aware of where they fit in one the totem pole. In the Americas, because of necessity, the African became the servant class. To justify this the concept of race and racial superiority was created. The European being on top and the African being the most inferior and on the bottom. It is interesting to take note of the fact that before the use of Africans in the New World colonies, the English regarded the Irish in the exact same way that they would later regard Africans. In fact, everything that was said about and done to Africans by them, was first said about and done to the Irish.

However, in colonies where Africans often times greatly outnumbered Europeans, alliances had to be forged and restrictions that would have applied in the old world had to be relaxed to a cretain degree in the New. Consider also that in many cases the economic power was held in the hands not of the old aristocracy, but the lower merchant class and you can see what I mean. Now here is where you get the problem. It wasn't long before the slave owners started having relations, either consentual or forced with their African slave women giving rise to more and more mixed blooded people. And then those mixed bloods having relations with the masters giving rise to those who were mixed even more. The lines between master and slave, which were once very evident started to become blured as was the threat and fear that masters would pass on their wealth to their mixed blood children. What would happen if these children stareted to set their black relatives free? Even worse, what would happen if the blood of Africans started to find its way into the bloodlines of the ruling classes? Therefore, to protect the social and economic stability, whiteness itself had to be ridgidly defined and protected and thus the concept of blackness as being the one drop rule, or the Mulatto classifications, or the casta designations come into being. The degree of rights and privlidges a person was allowed to obtained depended on the purity of the bloodline and being able to prove it, thus giving rise to racial classifications in censuses etc that are still a part of U.S life to this day.

So what does this have to do with the topic of this thread? Well, it's simple. In order to justify keeping people of African and mixed heritage in second and third class positions in society the concept that non whites, whether full blooded African or mixed blooded, as being mentally inferior and therefore incapable of intelligence and therefore underserving of equality is born. So how then could you admit that one of the most, if not the most vibrant civilizations of antiquity was in fact founded not by White people, biut by native Africans who resembled graetly the very same blacks and mulattoes whom one claims is mentally deficiant? And thus all the mental gymnastics to craet dake skinned caucasians and an origin of Egyptian civilization in a "white" near east. This is why to this day the whole of North Africa is considered to have been colonized by "caucasian" originating either in Iberia or Western Asia. 

For this reason I have always maintained that the title of this thread is wrongly named. It should have asked whether or not Ancient Egyptians were a native African people or not. However, one must also acknowledge the fact that contrary to popular belief, there is not any one skin color, hair type or set of facial features that represents all native Africans. Although there has been non African migration into areas of Africa, the continent has always from the very begining exibited a variety of skin tones from yellowish light brown to deep ebony, hair forms from the tightest kinks to the lossest and straightest locks and facial structures from the thickest and broadest, to the narrowest and finest. All are African and all could be found amongst the populations of Ancient Egypt as a whole, skin colors tending to be darkest in the tropical zone of the south and lightest in the non tropical zone of the north and everything in between in the middle. They were all African and modern anthropology genetics as well as cultural anthropology shows that the Egyptians and their culture was overwhelmingly native to the continent.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Apr-2013 at 04:28
Oh, yes i heard about these "one-drop-theory". But of course that is not at all near to any science.
If we accept such a one-drop-theory, then I agree, that Egyptians are black. But then probably we are all.

The question of mine had the cause to get an information, how we should classify people. The modern research has shown, that all humans are so very similar according to their genetical material, that a seperation into different races is obsolete. Indeed is the variancy inside types of people greater than the difference between different types of people.

Genetic research has shown, that non-africans are closer related to each other than to Africans. That means, that humans migrated not in many waves out of Africa, but in one, somewhere 100-70,ooo years ago. What scientists have as well discovered is, that such non-african populations migrated as well back to Africa later.

Now we have to ask, where these first non-africans white or caucasians? Where they black? Well, of course they were definitely not white and not caucasian. It is difficult to say whether they were black, cos people in eastern Africa are not black but brown. But of course people who are considered to be black, which means sub-saharan tropical Africans, don't have a single skin colour, but probably even more different skin colourse than people who are considered white. Of course depends this as well on the definition of white.

If we look to these non-africans, then we have a lot of different people today among them. To remain at "black" or brown people, we have today Aboriginies from Australia, Papua, melanesians, Negritos, Andamans and weddide people as such black non-africans.



I suppose you know these map. it shows the distribution of skin colours (before the european expansion and colonisation).
You can see even in SW Africa, that skin colors of people who are considered as subsaharan africans can be quite "bright". If you look to Arabia, you can see, that people who are considered as white or caucasians, can be as well quite dark. Yes, even Indians, who are as well included among Caucasians are sometimes as black as subsaharan africans or, if we look at the Khoisan, even darker.

So to come back to my question what is white and what black. Does skin colour is helpful for a classification if subsaharan africans can be brighter than caucasians and caucasians darker than subsaharan africans? I think the answer is clear. No, it is not.

Let us now look at the genes and here especially to the Y-DNA. I wrote above, that the human migration out of africa began around 100,000 years BP. There a a lot of findings e.g. in the arabian region which indicates this. The splitting of human populations into an african branch and an non-african branch happened probably 70,000 years BP. Here we have a sudden decline of temperature and an aridisation of Northern Africa. Except y-DNA A there is only y-DNA BT, which has an age older than those splitting. The descendents of BT are B and CT. While CT can be found in and outside of Africa, B is only limited to Africa. What does this mean?

well, it can only mean, that it was already BT, which migrated from east Africa to Asia before 70,000 BP. When the glacial period around 70,000 led to a split, the non-african BT evolved into CT, while in Africa B developed.

Well, that leads us to y-dna CT, which includes DE and CF, of which DE is the a bit older one. D is well known from the outskirts of the old world, form the Andamans and Japan. It was later replaced in east asia by C. that leads us now to the question, where did E evolve, cos in opposite to D, E is not limited to a single continent, it is common in Asia and europe, too? there is of course no evidence, neither for the one nor for the other theory, but i think it is obvious, that E originated in South-West Asia and then migrated to NE Africa and later to the west.

This questions the claim, that egyptian populations with haplotype E are necessarily black. And if we look, that typical subsaharan haplotypes are A and B, then it becomes even more questionable.
Indeed is the population of the Nile valley typically north/north-east african, with influences from both direction, from Nubia and from western Asia.

The Egyptians and the egyptian culture are African, but they are neither black nor white, and they are related with neighbouring people and cultures. But focused on their skin colours, they are closer related to their north african neighbours in the west and to their neighbours in Arabia. Only in the south of egypt, there is as well influence from the south. But here as well we should keep in mind, that tropical black africans, like the bantu, migrated quite late in history. So allthough we have black and brown populations in east africa, we shouldn't automatically conclude, that they were identically with western and central african populations. It seems even more, that these populations were closer related with khoisanoide populations.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 02:28
Originally posted by beorna

Oh, yes i heard about these "one-drop-theory". But of course that is not at all near to any science.
If we accept such a one-drop-theory, then I agree, that Egyptians are black. But then probably we are all.

The question of mine had the cause to get an information, how we should classify people. The modern research has shown, that all humans are so very similar according to their genetical material, that a seperation into different races is obsolete. Indeed is the variancy inside types of people greater than the difference between different types of people.

Genetic research has shown, that non-africans are closer related to each other than to Africans. That means, that humans migrated not in many waves out of Africa, but in one, somewhere 100-70,ooo years ago. What scientists have as well discovered is, that such non-african populations migrated as well back to Africa later.

Now we have to ask, where these first non-africans white or caucasians? Where they black? Well, of course they were definitely not white and not caucasian. It is difficult to say whether they were black, cos people in eastern Africa are not black but brown. But of course people who are considered to be black, which means sub-saharan tropical Africans, don't have a single skin colour, but probably even more different skin colourse than people who are considered white. Of course depends this as well on the definition of white.

If we look to these non-africans, then we have a lot of different people today among them. To remain at "black" or brown people, we have today Aboriginies from Australia, Papua, melanesians, Negritos, Andamans and weddide people as such black non-africans.



I suppose you know these map. it shows the distribution of skin colours (before the european expansion and colonisation).
You can see even in SW Africa, that skin colors of people who are considered as subsaharan africans can be quite "bright". If you look to Arabia, you can see, that people who are considered as white or caucasians, can be as well quite dark. Yes, even Indians, who are as well included among Caucasians are sometimes as black as subsaharan africans or, if we look at the Khoisan, even darker.

So to come back to my question what is white and what black. Does skin colour is helpful for a classification if subsaharan africans can be brighter than caucasians and caucasians darker than subsaharan africans? I think the answer is clear. No, it is not.

Let us now look at the genes and here especially to the Y-DNA. I wrote above, that the human migration out of africa began around 100,000 years BP. There a a lot of findings e.g. in the arabian region which indicates this. The splitting of human populations into an african branch and an non-african branch happened probably 70,000 years BP. Here we have a sudden decline of temperature and an aridisation of Northern Africa. Except y-DNA A there is only y-DNA BT, which has an age older than those splitting. The descendents of BT are B and CT. While CT can be found in and outside of Africa, B is only limited to Africa. What does this mean?

well, it can only mean, that it was already BT, which migrated from east Africa to Asia before 70,000 BP. When the glacial period around 70,000 led to a split, the non-african BT evolved into CT, while in Africa B developed.

Well, that leads us to y-dna CT, which includes DE and CF, of which DE is the a bit older one. D is well known from the outskirts of the old world, form the Andamans and Japan. It was later replaced in east asia by C. that leads us now to the question, where did E evolve, cos in opposite to D, E is not limited to a single continent, it is common in Asia and europe, too? there is of course no evidence, neither for the one nor for the other theory, but i think it is obvious, that E originated in South-West Asia and then migrated to NE Africa and later to the west.

This questions the claim, that egyptian populations with haplotype E are necessarily black. And if we look, that typical subsaharan haplotypes are A and B, then it becomes even more questionable.
Indeed is the population of the Nile valley typically north/north-east african, with influences from both direction, from Nubia and from western Asia.

The Egyptians and the egyptian culture are African, but they are neither black nor white, and they are related with neighbouring people and cultures. But focused on their skin colours, they are closer related to their north african neighbours in the west and to their neighbours in Arabia. Only in the south of egypt, there is as well influence from the south. But here as well we should keep in mind, that tropical black africans, like the bantu, migrated quite late in history. So allthough we have black and brown populations in east africa, we shouldn't automatically conclude, that they were identically with western and central african populations. It seems even more, that these populations were closer related with khoisanoide populations.

As stated before, the question of whether or not Egyptians were black or white is flawed. Why? Because there is no agreement as to what black or white really means. These are cultural definitions that are not based on scientific evidence. The real question should have been "Were Ancient Egyptians Native Africans or non African Migrants"? The answer to that question is yes. The original inhabitants of Egypt were Native Africans. Skin color does not really factor into it for several reason;#1 Africans come in a variety of skin tones from very dark to very light. With respect to Egypt, skin colors vary from very dark brown in the South to light brown in the North. #2. Skin color can't be told by looking at a person's Y or M haplotype. The fact of the matter is that dark skinned Southern Egyptians and lighter skinned Northern Egyptians share the same genetic patterns. From a genetic stand point Egyptians are most like each other than anyone else. However, the next closest genetic relatives of Egyptians are Nubians. Furthermore, if w look at the Y chromosome, all North Africans share the same common male ancestor as over 70% of all African males. This means that on the male line, the dark brown Dinka and the white skinned blue eyed Berber in Algeria are part of the same family. Skin color alone can not tell who is a part of a family line. #3, as stated before, this question is one that comes out of the experience of how people of African descent were treated in the Americas by the colonian European powers. Wether dark brown, medium brown or light brown, all Africans were considered inferior to white Europeans and therefore incapable of creating a civilization. #4, Significant numbers of African Americans, (including the U.S, Latin America and the Caribbean), such as myself, are either light brown or even as white skinned as the average European, (as in the case of my father). This was not considered sufficient to protect them from discrimination. The only way they could escape inferior treatment and descrimination was to move somewhere where they were not known so they could be assumed to be white and this was only possible for those with enough European blood to look European. #5 The overwhelming majority of Egyptians both Ancient and Modern are no different in appearance from the mixed blooded Africans living in the Americas. What does this mean? It means that if they were to have gone to say South Africa as recent as 25years ago, they would have been classified as "colored", people and denied the rights and priviledges of white Europeans. In other words, they would have been considered mentally, emotionally and intelectually inferior. If they had visited the Southern States of the U.S, say 3 years before I was born, they would have been considered, black, colored, negro etc by the U.S. government. They would not have been able to use the same bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants, hotels, beaches, pools, schools as white Americans. If they rode the buses, trains or any other public transportation, they would have had to sit in the back. #6
Although according to the map you provided East Africans are "brown", the fact of the matter is that the majority of Southern Egyptians, Northern Sudanese, Ethiopians and Somalis are no different in skin color than the average Afro American, or Afro Latino/caribbean person. In fact, quite often you can't tell one from the other. As stated before, the heart of the question of this thread hasnothing to do with science, but with a historical social political reality in which Europeans justified denying Africans and the darker skinned peoples of the world the same rights as themselves and created a concept of genetic inferiority to justify it. When the British ruled Egypt, they did not treat them as equals but as inferiors, no different than the way they treated any of their other African colonial subjects.

The fact that Egyptian civilization was created by dark skinned Native Africans dispels the theory that human intelligence is linked with skin color. Or to put it another way, the idea that dark skin is a sign of intelectual inferiority is shown to be false, not based in scientific or historical fact, but politics. 

With regards to the Egytpians, they are undoubtedly Native to Africa as the oldest genetic markers, as well as the overwhelming majority of their markers are specific to Africa. The E haplotype is not Asian in origin but African. The parent of E is DE. Buit DE has two brances, one is African and one is Asian. DE originated in Africa but branched off in two directions. One remained in Africa and one migrated into Asia. E is derived from the branch that remained in Africa and that is why the overwhelming majority of the E subclades are found in Africa, with a much smaller percentage being found in Western Asia and Southern Europe. The E group most prevelent in Egypt is E1b1b. The countries where this can be found in percentages greater than 45% are all found in Africa, except one South Eastern European country where it is found at 47%. 
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 02:41
I grabbed this information from wikipedia. As you can see CT is in orange which represents in Africa origin, but has a branch P143 that migrated out of Africa giving birth to non African CF. The other branch gave birth to YAP M145 - M203, which gave birth to DE. DE has 2 branches on African and one that migrated out of Africa, Asian DE and Asian D. E branched off of the African DE. So you could say DE had 2 kids DE1 and DE2. DE 1 stayed in Africa and had 2 sons DE1 junior and E. DE2 found a job with an international company and moved to India. He also had 2 sons DE2 Junior and D.
Haplogroup B-M42

Y-DNA tree.GIF

Possible time of origin70,000-80,000 years BP
Possible place of originAfrica
AncestorA2-T
DescendantsB-M60CT
Defining mutationsPage65.1/SRY1532.1/SRY10831.1, M42, M91, M94, M139, M299, P97, V21, V29, V31, V59, V64, V102, V187, V202, V216, V235

Contemporary studies

In 2000 a number of scientists had started to reassess the hypothesis of an Asian origin of the YAP insertion. Underhill et al. 2000 identified the D-M174 mutation that defines haplogroup D. The M174 allele is found in the ancestral state in all African lineages including haplogroup E. The discovery of M174 mutation meant that haplogroup E could not be a subclade of haplogroup D. These findings effectively neutralized the argument of an Asian origin of the YAP+ based on the character state of the M40 and M96 mutations that define haplogroup E. According to Underhill et al. 2000, the M174 data alone would support an African origin of the YAP insertion.[14]

Further arguments were made supporting and African origin of the YAP in Underhill et al. 2001. The arguments for an African origin include.[3]

Africa has the highest frequency of YAP(>80%). Whereas the YAP+ in Asia has a fairly restricted geographic distribution, mainly at low to moderate frequencies (average 9.6%) in East Asia.[8]

It was claimed that there was no archaeological evidence of a back-migration to Africa, and at the time of writing that there was no unequivocal Y DNA, mitochondrial DNA or autosomal DNA evidence of a back migration to Africa.[3]

Although Haplogroup C seems to have originated in Asia at a similar time to Haplogroup DE's origin, Haplogroup C shows no sign of back migration to Africa.

The African origin of the YAP+ is also supported by studies concerning haplogroup E. In Altheide and Hammer 1997, the authors argue that haplogroup E arose in Asia on an ancestral YAP+ allele before migrating back to Africa.[12] However some studies, such as Semino et al., indicate that the highest frequency and diversity of haplogroup E is in Africa, and Africa is the most likely place of origin of the haplogroup.[8][15]

The models supporting an African origin or an Asian origin of the YAP+ insertion both required the extinction of the ancestral YAP chromosome to explain the current distribution of the YAP+ polymorphism. Paragroup DE* possesses neither the mutations that define haplogroup D or haplogroup E. If paragroup DE* was found in one location but not the other, it would boost one theory of the other.[16] Haplogroup DE* has recently been found in Nigeria,[6] Guinea-Bissau[7] and also in Tibet.[8] The phylogenetic relationship of three DE* sequences has yet to be determined, but it is known that the Guinea Bissau sequences differ from the Nigerian sequences by at least one mutation.[7] Weale et al. state that the discovery of DE* among Nigerians pushes back the date for the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of African YAP chromosomes. This, in his view, has the effect of reducing the time window through which a possible back migration from Asia to Africa could occur.[6]

Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 08:10
well, if you quote from wiki, you should quote all and not stop!
"Chandrasekhar et al. 2007, have argued for the Asian origin of the YAP+. They state,

The presence of the YAP insertion in Northeast Indian tribes and Andaman Islanders with haplogroup D suggests that some of the M168 chromosomes gave rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in South Asia

They also argue that YAP+ migrated back to Africa with other Eurasian haplogroups. These include Haplogroup R1b1* (18-23kya), which has been observed with especially high frequency among the members of some peoples in northern Cameroon, and Haplogroup T (25-30kya), which has been observed in low frequencies in Africa. Haplogroup E at 50kya is considerably older than these haplogroups and has been observed at frequencies of 80-92% in Africa.

In a press release concerning a study by Karafet et al. (2008), Michael Hammer, revised the dates for the origin Haplogroup DE from 55,000 years ago to 65,000 years ago. For haplogroup E, Hammer revised the dates from 31,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago. Hammer is also quoted as saying “The age of haplogroup DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” in which he implies that haplogroup DE left Africa along with Haplogroup CF.[17]

Peter Underhill states that there will always be uncertainty regarding the precise origins of DNA sequence variants such as YAP because of a lack of knowledge concerning prehistoric demographics and population movements. However Underhill contends that with all the available information, the African origin of the YAP+ polymorphism is more parsimonious and more plausible than the Asian origin hypothesis.[9] Other authors who have published or co-published works in support of an African origin of the YAP+ include Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza,[14] Toomas Kivisild,[9] Spencer Wells,[16] Linda Stone and Paul F. Lurquin.[18]"


I agree, that it is difficult to give an exact origin. my arguments are based on paleontology. As you can see is hammer revising the dates of origin for DE from 55ky to 65ky and for E from 31ky to 50ky. But both is after the supposed migration from Africa and even findings of modern humans outside africa, like in east Asia and australia don't correlate with such young estimations. So if DE is not older than 65ky, then it can hardly have originated in Africa.

Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 14:01
Originally posted by beorna

well, if you quote from wiki, you should quote all and not stop!
"Chandrasekhar et al. 2007, have argued for the Asian origin of the YAP+. They state,

The presence of the YAP insertion in Northeast Indian tribes and Andaman Islanders with haplogroup D suggests that some of the M168 chromosomes gave rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in South Asia

They also argue that YAP+ migrated back to Africa with other Eurasian haplogroups. These include Haplogroup R1b1* (18-23kya), which has been observed with especially high frequency among the members of some peoples in northern Cameroon, and Haplogroup T (25-30kya), which has been observed in low frequencies in Africa. Haplogroup E at 50kya is considerably older than these haplogroups and has been observed at frequencies of 80-92% in Africa.

In a press release concerning a study by Karafet et al. (2008), Michael Hammer, revised the dates for the origin Haplogroup DE from 55,000 years ago to 65,000 years ago. For haplogroup E, Hammer revised the dates from 31,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago. Hammer is also quoted as saying “The age of haplogroup DE is about 65,000 years, just a bit younger than the other major lineage to leave Africa, which is assumed to be about 70,000 years old,” in which he implies that haplogroup DE left Africa along with Haplogroup CF.[17]

Peter Underhill states that there will always be uncertainty regarding the precise origins of DNA sequence variants such as YAP because of a lack of knowledge concerning prehistoric demographics and population movements. However Underhill contends that with all the available information, the African origin of the YAP+ polymorphism is more parsimonious and more plausible than the Asian origin hypothesis.[9] Other authors who have published or co-published works in support of an African origin of the YAP+ include Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza,[14] Toomas Kivisild,[9] Spencer Wells,[16] Linda Stone and Paul F. Lurquin.[18]"


I agree, that it is difficult to give an exact origin. my arguments are based on paleontology. As you can see is hammer revising the dates of origin for DE from 55ky to 65ky and for E from 31ky to 50ky. But both is after the supposed migration from Africa and even findings of modern humans outside africa, like in east Asia and australia don't correlate with such young estimations. So if DE is not older than 65ky, then it can hardly have originated in Africa.


That's not what is being said in the quote you've presented. What he is saying is that DE is one of the haplotypes that migrated out of Africa. He didn't say it wa the only one that left Africa. There were 2migrations. The 1st migration happened 70,000 years ago. The 2nd migration was the DE migration.  "....in which he implies that haplogroup DE left Africa along with Haplogroup CF.[17]"  
So right in this sentences what he is saying is that DE is African in origin. 

"However Underhill contends that with all the available information, the African origin of the YAP+ polymorphism is more parsimonious and more plausible than the Asian origin hypothesis.[9] " 

What Underhill is saying is that an African origin for haplotype E makes more sense than an Asian origin for Haplotype E.  Therefore the first diagram would make sense. DE originated in Africa, but split of in 2 directions. One went into Asia one stayed in Africa. The DE that stayed in Africa is the branch that gave birth to E. So to put in an everyday scenario again, you have the DE Family. They live in Africa. One side of the DE family moved to Asia one stayed in Africa. E is the child of the DE family that stayed in Africa.
Back to Top
Rakasnumberone View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun

Suspended

Joined: 14-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 14:08
Regarding the anthropolgical materials for evidence of the 70,000 year old migration. This is based on the age of the tools that they have found, not on any skeletal remains, so they have no way of knowing what haplotype the people in that migration belonged to. 
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 925
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Apr-2013 at 17:02
Originally posted by Rakasnumberone


As stated before, the question of whether or not Egyptians were black or white is flawed. Why? Because there is no agreement as to what black or white really means. These are cultural definitions that are not based on scientific evidence. The real question should have been "Were Ancient Egyptians Native Africans or non African Migrants"? The answer to that question is yes. The original inhabitants of Egypt were Native Africans. Skin color does not really factor into it for several reason;

Well, as far as I can see it, is the question of black and white for some very important. If you agree with me, that these question is nonsense, then ok. I agree with you, that the ancient egyptian culture is an african culture, of course with influences from abroad. But I can't see, that this was ever denied.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#1 Africans come in a variety of skin tones from very dark to very light. With respect to Egypt, skin colors vary from very dark brown in the South to light brown in the North.

Yes, skin colours are simply a result of solar radiation. That is correct.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#2. Skin color can't be told by looking at a person's Y or M haplotype. The fact of the matter is that dark skinned Southern Egyptians and lighter skinned Northern Egyptians share the same genetic patterns. From a genetic stand point Egyptians are most like each other than anyone else. However, the next closest genetic relatives of Egyptians are Nubians. Furthermore, if w look at the Y chromosome, all North Africans share the same common male ancestor as over 70% of all African males. This means that on the male line, the dark brown Dinka and the white skinned blue eyed Berber in Algeria are part of the same family. Skin color alone can not tell who is a part of a family line.


Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers.-
Bosch
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/9708245325/population-history-north-africa-evidence-from-classical-genetic-markers
After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small.


The emerging tree of West Eurasian mtDNAs: a synthesis of control-region sequences and RFLPs.
Am. J. Hum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1377722/
We show that the main indigenous North African cluster is a sister group to the most ancient cluster of European mtDNAs, from which it diverged approximately 50,000 years ago.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

  #3, as stated before, this question is one that comes out of the experience of how people of African descent were treated in the Americas by the colonian European powers. Wether dark brown, medium brown or light brown, all Africans were considered inferior to white Europeans and therefore incapable of creating a civilization.


yes, i know

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

#5 The overwhelming majority of Egyptians both Ancient and Modern are no different in appearance from the mixed blooded Africans living in the Americas. What does this mean? It means that if they were to have gone to say South Africa as recent as 25years ago, they would have been classified as "colored", people and denied the rights and priviledges of white Europeans. In other words, they would have been considered mentally, emotionally and intelectually inferior. If they had visited the Southern States of the U.S, say 3 years before I was born, they would have been considered, black, colored, negro etc by the U.S. government. They would not have been able to use the same bathrooms, water fountains, restaurants, hotels, beaches, pools, schools as white Americans. If they rode the buses, trains or any other public transportation, they would have had to sit in the back.


I don't know if you ever where to Egypt? there are of course a lot of people with a subsaharan habitus.But the most are very close to their arabian or north african neighbours and different to subsaharan people.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

  #6Although according to the map you provided East Africans are "brown", the fact of the matter is that the majority of Southern Egyptians, Northern Sudanese, Ethiopians and Somalis are no different in skin color than the average Afro American, or Afro Latino/caribbean person. In fact, quite often you can't tell one from the other. As stated before, the heart of the question of this thread hasnothing to do with science, but with a historical social political reality in which Europeans justified denying Africans and the darker skinned peoples of the world the same rights as themselves and created a concept of genetic inferiority to justify it. When the British ruled Egypt, they did not treat them as equals but as inferiors, no different than the way they treated any of their other African colonial subjects.


yes,a again, I can imagine, why there is such a strong afrocentrism, especially in the USA, but nevertheless should politics not be involved. At all, these race discussion is completely senseless, cos a lot of scientists like e.g. Pääbö have shown, that people within a population can be more different than two different populations. So races do not exist. We are all members of one big race, with simply some variancies.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

The fact that Egyptian civilization was created by dark skinned Native Africans dispels the theory that human intelligence is linked with skin color. Or to put it another way, the idea that dark skin is a sign of intelectual inferiority is shown to be false, not based in scientific or historical fact, but politics.

I don't think, that dark skinned is a good term. but I can agree with the rest, human intelligence is not linked with skin colour.

Originally posted by Rakasnumberone

With regards to the Egytpians, they are undoubtedly Native to Africa as the oldest genetic markers, as well as the overwhelming majority of their markers are specific to Africa. The E haplotype is not Asian in origin but African. The parent of E is DE. Buit DE has two brances, one is African and one is Asian. DE originated in Africa but branched off in two directions. One remained in Africa and one migrated into Asia. E is derived from the branch that remained in Africa and that is why the overwhelming majority of the E subclades are found in Africa, with a much smaller percentage being found in Western Asia and Southern Europe. The E group most prevelent in Egypt is E1b1b. The countries where this can be found in percentages greater than 45% are all found in Africa, except one South Eastern European country where it is found at 47%. 

That's of course what I refute. Sure Egypt is an African culture, but they are clearly different especially to western and central africans, where the most of Afro-Americans are related with.
Humans left Africa before 65-70ky BP. Only BT is old enough to be a candidate for this migration, at least as long new research doesn't show, that E is much older than 70ky.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1819202122>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.107 seconds.