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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Sundiata View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 24-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31
  Quote Sundiata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: An exploration of "Race" in ancient Egypt
    Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 21:06
Originally posted by Akolouthos

Pardon if I reply  to your most recent post in place of gcle -- I'm sure he will have a more erudite response for you when he is next on; in addition to more wisdom, he has more patience than I.
 
That said, what in Dante's icy pit of hell do your bloody bone lengths have to do with the price of bread?
 
I don't know..
 
 Granted, as part of a coherent argument, which focuses on genetics and other aspects of the scientific discipline, they might serve some purpose, on a scientific forum. On this forum, they serve no purpose
 
Then you are not an historian and know little about historical methodology. History is an interdisciplinary field that includes pre-history and when you lack written records, such things as accounting for migration patterns inferred from anthropology/archaeology, are very necessary. Keita wrote an article about this in the book "writing African history"..
 
, other than to propound the agenda which you so disingenuously claim not to be propounding.
 
Blind accusation does not constitute either rebuttal or substantive inquiry into the historical facts being discussed. It only feeds the notion that you are paranoid and/or closed minded which only speaks to your personality. You admitted a lack of patience. This probably coincides with a lack of tolerance for other people's views. It is along the same line as religious dogma and shall be disregarded since it doesn't address the logic of what I've had to say. If there is nothing wrong with the logic, then theoretically, it is likely that I am right. If I am right (which I obviously am), then I am stating facts that everyone probably doesn't know. The purpose therefore is to inform. Your ad hominem attacks on my character only serve to make you seem arrogant and/or oblivious. I don't care what you think about me and the longer I go unrebutted, the more I see the resistance as a product of ethnocentric bias. Your agenda is to defeat ethnocentrism. I couldn't care less about it. Whatever ideology conforms to these facts, good for them, it just has no bearing on the said facts that no one is able to dispute yet they just have a problem with them being publicized here.


Edited by Sundiata - 04-Feb-2009 at 00:51
Back to Top
Sundiata View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 24-Jan-2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 31
  Quote Sundiata Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 21:16
Originally posted by pinguin

Yeap, Sundiata. Instead to try to convince us of weird things we know are false, why don't you put information about ancient Africa beyond Egypt?

Explain us, for instance, what is "Sundiata" in the history of Mali. That would be a good start.

Hey pinguin. I'd never try and convince you of anything. I only respond to criticism, and if it's personal, or vauge like yours, then it only gets a short response. Nothing thoughtful about letting pre-conceived notions blind you or disable you from reading and weighing evidence, or being able to understand and scrutinize it. I've always thought the claim that there was an ancient white [non-African] "race" in the African Nile valley was extremeley weird. So what I did was pin point the source of such claims, weigh the evidence, see if it held up to Occam's razor and/or the scientific method, and make my own conclusions. My conclusions are clear. I would never try and convince you of anything weird like that pinguin. It's just indefensible. But the point is that I didn't just shun the idea because I didn't like it, I looked into it and found out on my own that it's just a bogus claim that stems from a legacy of racial bias and misconceptions about what "race" is. I can also explain clearly WHY it is bogus. Anyways, I hope you learn something pinguin. The "See no evil, hear no evil" technique won't work in this case since you'll eventually have to come out of your cave.
Back to Top
Vorian View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2007
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 566
  Quote Vorian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 21:56
I've always thought the claim that there was an ancient white [non-African] "race" in the African Nile valley was extremeley weird.


Why? Egypt is right next to Arabia, what would be easier than Semitic people migrating there?

And aren't Berbers white? Where did they come from? Aren't they an African race? Africans are not only black people.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 00:17
Originally posted by Sundiata

Then you are not a historian nor know little about historical methodology. History is an interdisciplinary field that includes pre-history and when you lack written records, such things as accounting for migration patterns inferred from anthropology/archaeology, are very necessary. Keita wrote an article about this in the book "writing African history"..
 
I'll admit I'm not quite the historian to speak with you. Wink I suppose I should at least address a couple of things that I found amusing...
 
Blind accusation does not constitute either rebuttal or substantive inquiry into the historical facts being discussed. It only feeds the notion that you are paranoid and/or closed minded which only speaks to your personality. You admitted a lack of patience. This probably coincides with a lack of tolerance for other people's views. It is along the same line as religious dogma and shall be disregarded since it doesn't address the logic of what I've had to say. If there is nothing wrong with the logic, then theoretically, it is likely that I am right. If I am right (which I obviously am), them I am stating facts that everyone probably doesn't know.
 
Wow! That's a rather long winded way of saying "I'm right!" Kind of the conversational equivalent of a "Yuh-huh!" Couldn't you have just contented yourself with the end?:
 
If I am right (which I obviously am), them I am stating facts that everyone probably doesn't know.
 
LOL
 
Your ad hominem attacks on my character only serve to make you seem arrogant and/or oblivious. I don't care what you think about me and the longer I go unrebutted, the more I see the resistance as a product of ethnocentric bias.
 
If you don't realize the justification for your entire underlying methodology has been rebutted by several people already in this thread, I don't see what I can do for you. No one is questioning that you can deal with documents and treatises; all we're asking you to do is reconcile them with the existing historical record without screaming "Conspiracy!" Granted, the topic could have been a lot better if it was actually what was implied in your title instead of rant about why this and such a people were this and such a color, but you could have even addressed this inferior topic better than you have.
 
One final note: I find it a bit amusing that you, of all people, have the audacity to accuse someone of "letting pre-conceived notions blind [him] or disable [him] from reading and weighing evidence, or being able to understand and scrutinize it." LOL
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 00:42
Sundiata. Do you want I tell the history about the book that inspired the Lion King?
 
Do it. I bet you will have a lot more audience and respect than with this thread. I am serius.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
  Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 00:57
This is a pointless discussion. 'White' and 'Black' are modern, very regional specific identifiers.

Egyptians are neither! For that matter, Nubians, Sudanese, Lybians, and Arabs aren't white or black either.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 11:28
Originally posted by Sundiata

@gcle2003

I don't feel like responding to all of that right now as most of it is tit for tat. How about we not deal with semantics,  i.e, "what is Africa", "what is Black", etc... I find it to be a hindrance to the advancement of African studies/history when there always seems to be non-Africans (mainly white Americans) who object consistently when Egypt is fit within this context. With that said, I'll jump to the point:
Then stop using the terms 'white' and 'black' as if they were somehow important. And for that matter stop using the term 'Africa' as if that had any great significance other than geographic.

TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices
in US and Egyptian samples

Crural index | Brachial index
Males \ Females | Males \ Females
Mean - SE \ Mean - SE | Mean - SE \ Mean - SE
Terry Whites: 81.9 - 0.4 \ 82.0 - 0.4 | 74.3 - 0.4 \ 73.5 - 0.5
Terry Blacks: 83.7 - 0.4 \ 83.8 - 0.5 | 77.1 - 0.5 \ 76.5 - 0.5
Egyptians: 83.6c - 0.2 \ 82.8 - 0.3 | 77.9c - 0.5 \ 77.5c - 0.6

Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.


Again, in isolation:
ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites
And note carefully
Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians.
If you use long bone formulae for US blacks to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians, it is very, very likely that you are going to find that thir staure resembled that of the blacks you estimated it from.


http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20351506

^^The fact that modern Blacks and ancient Egyptians aren't "identical" is redundant. The fact that they are more similar to each other than either are to white Americans, speaks volumes about the lack of merit in Eurocentric resentment of Black [African] attribution to ancient Egyptian civilization. It's hilarious, especially coming from a person who names them self "Nordic guy". It's veered away from trying to establish that they were white, to now just keeping them away from Black people. lol... Won't work...
 
Neither will building racial comments on spurious statistics. The generally accepted position is that the peoples of Africa are more genetically varied than the peoples outside Africa. So it seems a bit silly to lump them into one basket just because of an arbitrary classification of their skin colour as 'black'.
 
Any discussion of racial groupings that uses the terms 'black' or 'white' (as opposed to the degree of melanin prsent in various areas of the skin) is unscientific and a taxonomic joke.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 02:26

Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.

American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%

It’s just shorter than a black Americans, coincidentally about the same as the ancient Egyptians. How inconvenient for you. I have that study you pasted around here somewhere too, I’ve had it it waved at me so many times by people that never thought to compare what the modern length is. You ‘conveniently’ leave out middle Easterners and modern North Africans. They have much longer limbs than Europeans: for example;

Belgium 82.5% Yugoslav 83.75% Egyptian 84.9%

As you can see it lengthens as you move South. Egyptians were Egyptians, not white Americans who mainly come from Northern Europe.

I never said once that Egyptian culture was an import, that’s just something you like to think I said. The cultural aspects come from the Badari culture in upper Egypt. However, the farming arrived from the near East. If you Keita properly you’ll spot in his dissection of Lucottes Y chromosome study that he points out that modern Egyptians are mainly the same population that’s been there since the Pleistocence-something you lot like to ignore.

In a section about Egypt..

current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants

You also like to pretend that Caucasoid people are newcomers to North Africa, when Keita himself observes the in the Mahgreb. And Keitas ‘tropical African’s are all groups with mixed Eurasian and African ancestry, and he never once makes any comment about the skin tone of his tropical Africans, and if you read his work properly it becomes clear he regards modern Egyptians as mainly indigenous Africans, and even ‘tropical’. BTW, his study of Badarian crania does not apply to lower Egyptians, he (and many others) have observed the Northern population was halfway between his tropical African (half Eurasian in ancestry) and European phenotypes. Whic would match the current population pretty closely.

As a brief exlporation of modern upper Egyptian st Y/mt DNA that you like to overlook: they are about 80% native African Y chromosomes, and maternally 47% Native African (if you are so desperate to claim M1 as African I’ll humour you here), with another 35% traceable to over 12,000 year in North Africa. So less than 20% of the upper Egyptian population is ‘non very ancient in Africa’, and most of the rest traces to the Neolithic. So exactly what genectic trace did your ‘theiving Arabs and slaves’ leave? None, because there weren’t any. Even lower Egypt is 60% native African.

EGYPTIANS ARE NATIVE AFRICANS.

That piece of text you pasted tried to claim all the mt DNA samples were sub Saharan - which is bullshit. Keita says the other lineages may be African too - he has no idea and is chucking out a guess, which is represented as a cast iron fact there. Eurasian DNA in North Africa dates back in two waves to over 30k, and over 12k, and they had to pass through Egypt.

After that long ramble about teeth:

Nubians group with other North Africans for teeth, and crania, and are technically Caucasoid, although dark skinned (but so are Indians). These are the people currently living in Southern Egypt, just up river. They have a clinal variation along the river. Brace also says that there’s no connection to sub-Saharan Africa with dynastic Egyptians or Nubians - forgot that Sundita?

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 a t the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin
color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selec-
tive forces appropriate t o 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 inva-
sions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and
they were so in the past as well.

http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace.pdf

Nubians are closely related to upper Egyptians, and hang off the North African and caucasoid twig. Egyptian teeth and Nubian teeth are typically North African, and very different to the teeth of even East Africans, who have a substantial amount of Eurasian ancestry in them (as do/did Nubians), and very different to sub Saharan Africans.

M1 is African, it is derived directly from African L3, there is nothing Eurasian about it.

Even though several published papers trace it ancestrally to Asia now. And the stage missing isn’t found in Africa. That L3a in Senegal isn’t missing a step, it’s not M as you seem to think. No publishing author puts M down as African in origin, and lines ancestral to African M1 are found in the near East. the reason you kick up a fuss about M1 is becasue it ‘contaminates’ your ancient and modern East Africans with Eurasian ancestry. This is born from your racism, and nothing else.

Egypt and East Africa share M1 beccause it passed through Egypt on its way to East Africa, along with the m78 Y chromsome. Stop lying when you claim its from East Africa, none of the papers that looked at M1 came to that conclusion.

Wrong… You’re a novice who doesn’t know how to cite sources. I never said modern Egyptians were newcomers. I stated that they have new genes in many instances. If you have Eurasian genes on the one hand, like VII, which is at a high frequency in Eurasians, yet you also have African lineages, the question to ask is which came first and which predominated in ancient times. The answer is obvious since it correlates with MtDNA. M1 is African, it is derived directly from African L3, there is nothing Eurasian about it. The first people to carry the lineage were from sub-Saharan Africa as the gene is around 50,000 years old. Whites/Eurasian didn’t even exist at that time. lol!!! Nice try..

I wasn’t writing a scientific paper, I was pointing out how much crap that article was. Want to provide total refences for all your stuff? Names and quotes from the Irish paper that are relevant then. I’d also like to see a recent published paper that says M1 is African in origin (good luck with that one) and where it says some magical mutation completely altered the phenotype of Egyptians. You also might want to look up the age of the L3 and M mutations as you seem a bit unfamiliar with them.. M about 70k last estimate, and it goes up to 87k in some papers. L3 is substantially older than 50k. Eurasian remains are found dating to 90k and older Israel. So yes, there were Eurasians 50K ago, although they wouldn’t fit any modern racial group. I’ll give you a hint about the OOA date, modern humans were in China about 70k ago, in Oz nearly 60k ago. The estimated date need to be 95kat least, and if M is about 60 to 87k, that would locate it in Asia.

So..let me get this straight. You are claiming that my observation (which is shared by most people including Keita) that modern Egyptians have been in situ for thousands of years is right.. but that they magically changed appearance after the dynastic when a few Arabs appeared in the historical era and spread some master gene that turned them from black to standard North African in a few hundred years, even though the hair, teeth and art from the dynastic prortraits and crania all match the current population very closely.

So they are genetically the same but magically swapped race?

So that’s how you get around the fact the modern Egyptians are all natives of North Africa but are inconveniently not black.



Edited by Nordic guy - 05-Feb-2009 at 02:28
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 04:34
Originally posted by Sundiata

If I am right (which I obviously am),


Nothing is obvious as this discussion wouldn't be taking place if it were so obvious. That is rather an arrogant statement to make... How do we know that it is so obvious that you are right?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 04:40
Modern Egyptians were transported shortly after the original Egyptians were stolen by Lord Zenu and his trusty space ship.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
  Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 04:52
Originally posted by es_bih

Originally posted by Sundiata

If I am right (which I obviously am),


Nothing is obvious as this discussion wouldn't be taking place if it were so obvious. That is rather an arrogant statement to make... How do we know that it is so obvious that you are right?
 
I think the implication was that we know he's right because I am such an obvious ass. To be fair, I probably had a bit of that coming. LOL
 
Modern Egyptians were transported shortly after the original Egyptians were stolen by Lord Zenu and his trusty space ship.
 
Then how do you account for the fact that the remains of the various Kurgan tribesmen, and not the mummified remains of ancient Egyptians, have been shown to contain the greatest number of surviving metachlorians?
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 05-Feb-2009 at 04:55
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 04:55
Oh damn well guess my Lord Zenu theory just got shot down Cry
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 04:57
Well Zenu knew he couldn't transport anything not alive - so that stayed - Zenu's transporters are built on the Terminator only alive time travel theorem.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Feb-2009 at 03:10
lol must have scared that Afro-nut off, with his insane theories

Edited by Nordic guy - 10-Feb-2009 at 03:11
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

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 0.094 seconds.