Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are not talking about vague notions of "African-ness" Whatever that is supposed to mean. We are talking about the fact that Afrocentists are largely derived form West Africans, and have no direct relation to Egypt. As a sub-set, we have debated the argument that the Egyptians used to be a different, "blacker" people. Science is largely in agreement that they were not.
I have entertained the notion that Egyptian culture came form the south and have tried to tell you that it came form all directions, which is historical fact. But it is largely irrelevant one way or the other. The Nubians were not the ancestors of the west Africans any more then the Egyptians.
DO ME A FAVOR...COMBINE EVERYING IN ONE POST SO THAT I CAN REFUTE YOUR NONSENSE ALL IN ONE POST AT A TIME.
Thanks.
The Biological Anthropological Evidence
"As has been shown, the ancient Egyptian culture originated from areas further south and shared many cultural traits with the rest of Africa, but there is still the question of whether the Egyptians themselves were African in appearance. If the Egyptians had to be classified according to modern American society's racial taxonomy, to which "race" would they belong? Just as archaeology and cultural anthropology show significant ties between ancient Egypt and more southerly Africa, so too has biological anthropology confirmed that most of the Egyptian people were genetically related to other Africans and would have resembled people whom Americans call "black".
"Before a discussion on the Egyptians' biological relationships can begin, however, it must be pointed out that "black" Africans actually have a broad range of physical appearances. Many Americans think they know what African (or "Negroid") facial features look like: for example, broad, flat noses and full lips. However, the physical anthropology Jean Hiernaux (1975) has observed that many Africans do not conform to this stereotype. According to his studies, some of the thinnest lips in the world can be found in Africa as can 92% of the world's variation in nose shape. African skin color is similarly heterogeneous; in fact, there is more skin tone variation in African populations than any other in the world, even after correcting for environmental factors that can influence skin color (Relethford 2000).
"Narrow noses and thin lips, both facial features stereotypically associated with Europeans rather than Africans, are particularly common in Northeast African countries not far from Egypt, such as northern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia; their abundance in this region may have something to do with its arid climate, since as noted by Molnar (1991) narrower noses are considered more adaptive in drier environments. This must be taken into account when analyzing Egyptian statues or physical remains to judge their "Negroidness"; Egyptians need not have flat noses or everted lips to be closely related to other Africans."
"If neither nose width nor lip thickness are reliable indicators of population affinity, how can the Egyptians' biological relationships with other peoples be accurately assessed?"
"One method used by biological anthropologists to determine how closely related ancient populations were to each other and to modern populations is by studying and measuring the features of their skulls (also called crania). The more similar two populations' crania are, the more closely related they are considered to be. It is important to stress that a reliable study on crania should not fixate on one feature of the skull but rather measure a large number of variables distributed all over the skull, since it is possible for two otherwise unrelated populations to convergently evolve a certain feature."
"Numerous cranial studies have found ancient Egyptian skulls to resemble those of more southerly Africans. Godde (2009) found Egyptian crania to particularly resemble those of Sudanese, as did Barnard (1935), while Crichton (1966) discovered a strong similarity between Egyptians and Kenyans. Brauer (1976) found Egyptian crania to fit snugly into a cluster with skulls from throughout tropical Africa. Relationships between Upper Egyptians and sub-Saharan populations are particularly strong (Keita 1990, 2005; Vermeersch 2002), but as found by Henneberg et al (1989) and Midant-Reynes (2000), even Lower Egyptian crania have sub-Saharan characteristics."
"To be sure, a couple of studies have shown different results, but both of these have fundamental methodological flaws. Brace (1993) claimed to have found an affinity between ancient Egyptians and Europeans, but as pointed out by Howells (1995), too many of Brace's variables involved nose shape, bringing to mind Hiernaux's point about the high variability of African nose shapes. A later study by Hanihara (2003) found that while Egyptians were more closely related to Sudanese than to anyone else, both of these populations seemed related to Europeans according to his analysis. The problem with Hanihara's methods is that they were based not on quantitative measurements of cranial features but on qualititative descriptions of "non-metric" traits (i.e. anatomical anomalies), and this type of analysis is considered useful only for comparing crania within populations rather than between them as noted by Cheverud et al (1981). When these two flawed studies are dismissed, the picture that emerges from cranial analysis is that ancient Egyptians were of sub-Saharan African affinity."
"Some bio-anthropologists have attempted to determine population relations using the shape and size of teeth, but this can be risky. Irish and Turner (1990) noticed that the teeth of prehistoric Nile Valley dwellers had a more sub-Saharan African appearance than the supposedly more European/Near Eastern-like teeth of farming populations in the same region, with sub-Saharan teeth being larger and morphologically more complex than that of other populations, but an earlier study by Brace and Mahler (1971) found that a population's average tooth size and shape can change in response to dietary changes without any gene flow being necessary. Since the adoption of agriculture is correlated with a reduction in tooth mass and morphological complexity all around the world, and since agriculture developed earlier in the Nile Valley than in other parts of Africa, it should not be surprising to find agricultural Nile Valley populations evolving smaller, simpler teeth over time without significant mixing with Europeans or Near Easterners. This is why dental morphology by itself is not enough to determine population relationships; other lines of data should be considered."
"Moving away from the cranium to other parts of the skeleton, another type of analysis that can determine population origins is measuring limb proportions. As a general rule, sub-Saharan Africans have proportionately longer limbs than people from other parts of the world, since long appendages dissipate heat in tropical climates more easily. Measurements of ancient Egyptian limbs find them to be similar to those of sub-Saharan Africans, and in fact some report Egyptian limb proportions to be "super-Negroid"---that is, proportionately even longer than those of most Africans (Robins and Shute 1986, Zakrzewski 2003)! By contrast, Middle Easterners from subtropical desert climates comparable to Egypt's do not have the Egyptians' African-like limb proportions (Holliday 2000, Smith 2002). This means that the ancient Egyptians' ancestors must have migrated from a tropical region further south, such as Sudan, which is consistent with the archaeological data cited earlier in this paper."
Skeletal morphology is not the only data that must be considered when assessing the Egyptians' biological affinities and physical appearance, for soft tissues, for instance hair form and skin color, must also be taken in account. The first soft tissue that will be considered here is hair form.
"One might think that simply looking at the hair on Egyptian mummies is enough to determine its original texture, but this fails to take into account the possibility that the hair might have undergone damage over time. Brothwell and Spearman (1963) analyzed many Egyptian mummy hairs and found that the keratin forming the hair follicles had experienced significant oxidation (damage), which they attributed to chemicals used in the mummification process; oxidation of keratin can cause both texture changes and discoloration."
"A more reliable method for determining hair's original texture is by measuring the hair follicles' cross-sections using an instrument called a trichometer, dividing the minimum diameter in micrometers by the maximum, and then multiplying the result by 100, producing an index. Martin (1928) reports that curly hair like that of Africans produces indices less than 75, whereas indices above 75 are typical of the wavy to straight hair of other populations. As Strouhal (1971) found, ancient Egyptian hair samples produced indices between 35 and 65, well within the range of curly African-type hair. In other words, ancient Egyptians' natural hair texture was curly like that of other Africans."
"On a related note, Chapel et al (1981) report finding a tightly curled hair shaft forming within one Egyptian mummy's skin, suggesting that hair protected from oxidising forces can retain its original texture."
"Finally there is the question of the ancient Egyptians' skin color. One might expect tomb paintings to answer that question, but this is complicated by the tendency for Egyptian paintings to be stylized and symbolic rather than realistic. An example is offered by Poe (1997): during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods of Egyptian history, men were painted brown and women yellow, but both sexes were painted brown during the New Kingdom. While the New Kingdom convention is arguably more realistic than the older one, whether the Egyptian artists really were aiming for greater realism is not presently known."
"A better approach would be a histological analysis of Egyptian mummified skin. Mekota and Vermehren (2005), looking at the skin cells of Egyptian mummies, note that they were packed with melanin as expected for "Negroid" (i.e. sub-Saharan African) specimens, but they do not go into details. A more specific analysis of mummy skin, especially one using skin cells from various other ethnic groups for comparison, would be preferred, but Mekota et al's observation is nonetheless interesting and perhaps the most authoritative statement on ancient Egyptian skin color that is presently available."
"If so much bio-anthropological data indicates a close physical resemblance and genetic affinity between ancient Egyptians and more southerly Africans, one might wonder what to make of the lighter-skinned modern Egyptian population. The answer is that the current Egyptian population is not necessarily reflective of the original Egyptians but is instead significantly admixed with various groups, most of them from Europe and the Middle East, who have immigrated into Egypt during historic times."
"One cranial study by Berry and Berry (1967) found continuity in Egyptian skull morphology between prehistoric times and the Middle Kingdom, but this trend of continuity broke during the New Kingdom, coinciding with increased interaction between Egyptians and Near Easterners during and just prior to this period. Another skull study by Zakrzewski (2002) discovered that Egyptians postdating the New Kingdom were physically distinct from earlier Egyptians, replicating a result found by Barnard (1935). Keita (1990) reported stronger European tendencies in recent Egyptian skulls compared with more ancient ones. Furthermore, a genetic study by Nebel et al (2002) showed that a significant component of the modern North African gene pool can be traced to historically recent Arab invasions and settlement. All of this shows that the Egyptians have experienced significant genetic change within the last three millennia."
"This should not be surprising when one considers the point made by Keita and Boyce (1996) that even a small trickling of immigrants can radically change a population's gene pool within a thousand-year period, nor is it without parallel elsewhere in world history. As an analogy, Europeans have been present in Mexico for only five centuries, yet over 41% of the modern Mexican gene pool is of European origin (Silva et al 2009). Since the Egyptian Nile Valley is a geographically much smaller region than Mexico and has been subjected to invasions from Europe and the Near East for over 2,500 years, foreign immigration should be expected to have altered the Egyptians' genetic makeup to an even greater extent."
Arkell, A. J. The Prehistory of the Nile Valley. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Arkell, A. J., and Peter J. Ucko. "A Review of Predynastic Development in the Nile Valley." Current Anthropology 6, no. 2 (1965): 145-66.
Keita, SOY and A.J. Boyce. “The Geographic Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians.” In Egypt in Africa. Compiled by Theodore Celenko. 23-4. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art and Indiana University Press, 1996.
Keita, SOY. "Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83 (1990): 35-48.
Keita, SOY. "Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or 'European' Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data." Journal of Black Studies 36, no. 2 (2005): 191-208.
Strouhal, E. "Evidence of the early penetration of Negroes into prehistoric Egypt." Journal of African History 12, 1-9 (1971).
Taiwo, Olu. "The Orishas: The Influence of the Yoruba Cultural Diaspora." In Indigenous Diasporas and Dislocations, edited by Graham Harvey and Charles D. Thompson Jr., 105-20. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2005.
jkc2j, your attempt to convince us that the gene pool of Egypt was exclusively negro at one time seems a bit desperate. People are darker towards the equator. Negros have different characteristics compared to Caucasians, you see these Caucasian characteristics all across North Africa with the vast majority of citizens. History also proves that Negros, indigenous to equatorial Africa more than likely also migrated to the north. The extremely dark Sudanese and Ethiopians, many who most likely immigrated to the north as well, would have affected the native Egyptian gene pool likewise.
jkc2j, your attempt to convince us that the gene pool of Egypt was exclusively negro at one time seems a bit desperate. People are darker towards the equator. Negros have different characteristics compared to Caucasians, you see these Caucasian characteristics all across North Africa with the vast majority of citizens. History also proves that Negros, indigenous to equatorial Africa more than likely also migrated to the north. The extremely dark Sudanese and Ethiopians, many who most likely immigrated to the north as well, would have affected the native Egyptian gene pool likewise.
Bingo! the greater effect on the gene pool came form the South.
Gibberish. African American Afrocentrists are not from Nubia anymore than Egypt, which is what we are talking about.
And yet no pyramids, temples, writing or high philosophy in West Africa. Nothing that impresses people about Egypt to be found there.
No disrespect to West Africa of course. They later developed their own impressive things. they just had nothing to do with Egypt.
We aren't talking about Sudan. Sudan is as different from West Africa as Egypt. Sudan is not in West Africa. You just aren't attempting to follow, but flailing mindlessly.
And yes, there does have to be some thing impressive to claim a cultural connection.
This is childish. We evolved. the point is that we still use Greco-Roman science and learning.
Gibberish. West Africa and West Africans have nothing to do with Egypt, except maybe some of these very superficial "Africa" affinities. No Pyramids. No hieroglyphic writing. No temples. No Obelisks. No Ma'at. Etc.
You still don’t get it. The “Afrocentric” people you talk about don’t care about silly divisions like West, East, North, Central or South Africa. Africa is Africa, doesn’t matter what region it is because these people are just interested in the history and peoples of that continent. Some researchers specialize in one single tribe like the Nuer. Other people find it enjoyable to study the history of one country like China. While some people are interested in a continent like Africa. A person specializing in Indigenous American history will look at North America, Central America, the Caribbean Islands and South America because all those people share similarities despite the vast distance.
And you take arbitrary elements like pyramids and hieroglyphs to say there’s no connection between Egypt and the rest of Africa. Quit looking for what’s NOT there, and look at what IS. As we showed before Ancient Egypt shares socio-cultural, historical and linguistic ties with “black Africa”, in some ways more so than to any other region in the world. People in this thread posted pages of these links. And as I said before, yes Egyptians were unique. They too evolved from a common African origin but branched off culturally to do their own thing. Same as how modern Western people don't replicate Greco-Roman culture 100%.
Plus how ignorant of West Africa are you when you say there is no “high philosophy”? You really show how little you know about African people when you say Eurocentric and biased things like that. Talk to some real Africans in the real world for crying out loud. You really don’t know about Africa so stop pretending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
Addressed in earlier post. the bottom line is that Brace showed that ancient Egyptians clustered closest to modern Egyptians. they were never a different people.
Brace can come up with all the fanciful conclusions he wants, but since his methodology was flawed that conclusion he stated doesn't mean jack. That review of his study shows there is no evidence to support his link of Eurasians with ancient Egyptians. Let it go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cachibatches
All right, lets pretend that Brace did not release a later study in which he addressed those criticism (he did), now please refute Keita, Irish, the vast numbers of geneticist who have worked on the subject, etc?
Nope, you’re wrong again. I knew you were going to say that. I will address more of your “sources” when I have the time, but for now pay attention to Brace’s findings in his later 2005 study: http://www.pnas.org/content/103/1/242.full
Quote:
“there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.”
Funny he shows his biases saying there is only "a hint" of Sub-Saharan African in Somali.....right. It makes zero sense because Somalia IS below the Sahara so those people ARE Sub-Saharan African. And he can say "hint" all he wants but we all know what Somali ppl look like. Not to mention, in his study Brace excludes Africans of the Sahel region, which is obviously a MAJOR mistake. Taking aside his biases of “sub-Saharan Africa”, his findings show Ancient Egyptians were close to them.
Then look at this:
Quote:
“Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Eneolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were combined to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig. Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers), and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.” The Natufians and the Algerian Neolithic samples were run as separate twigs, and there were separate twigs for Basques and Canary Islanders.”
...
“The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans”
His results on a neighbor-joining dendrogram:
And a more generalized one (ancient Egyptians are in "Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa" group):
Is this a guy you really think supports your beliefs? Look at his charts: modern Egyptians (= “Egypt”) cluster with Morocco, Italy, Sicily, Algeria, Tunisia, Middle East etc....
Meanwhile, once again Brace shows the Ancient Egyptians (Naqada) form a different cluster group, closest to Nubians, people of the Horn and Israeli Fellaheen. The Israeli Fellaheen being in this group is interesting, and as Brace noted the Natufians (people of Israel who were ancestors of Neolithics) had Sub-Saharan affinities, so this also supports the evidence that haplogroup e1b1b (predominant haplogroup of Middle Easterners and North Africans) spread out of Eastern Africa. The fact that the Israeli Fellaheen cluster with these people and not other Middle Easterners supports that.
Anyways, Ancient Egyptians are not on the same twig as Modern Egyptians who are generally closer to Middle Easterners, Europeans, Mediterraneans, and the other “Caucasoids” you talk about. On the whole, modern Egyptians ARE descended from the ancient Egyptians, but there are noticeable biological differences between them.
It’s clear that you don’t understand the data you read. Your “sources” prove you wrong.
"As has been shown, the ancient Egyptian culture originated from areas further south and shared many cultural traits with the rest of Africa, but there is still the question of whether the Egyptians themselves were African in appearance. If the Egyptians had to be classified according to modern American society's racial taxonomy, to which "race" would they belong? Just as archaeology and cultural anthropology show significant ties between ancient Egypt and more southerly Africa, so too has biological anthropology confirmed that most of the Egyptian people were genetically related to other Africans and would have resembled people whom Americans call "black".
"Before a discussion on the Egyptians' biological relationships can begin, however, it must be pointed out that "black" Africans actually have a broad range of physical appearances. Many Americans think they know what African (or "Negroid") facial features look like: for example, broad, flat noses and full lips. However, the physical anthropology Jean Hiernaux (1975) has observed that many Africans do not conform to this stereotype. According to his studies, some of the thinnest lips in the world can be found in Africa as can 92% of the world's variation in nose shape. African skin color is similarly heterogeneous; in fact, there is more skin tone variation in African populations than any other in the world, even after correcting for environmental factors that can influence skin color (Relethford 2000).
"Narrow noses and thin lips, both facial features stereotypically associated with Europeans rather than Africans, are particularly common in Northeast African countries not far from Egypt, such as northern Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia; their abundance in this region may have something to do with its arid climate, since as noted by Molnar (1991) narrower noses are considered more adaptive in drier environments. This must be taken into account when analyzing Egyptian statues or physical remains to judge their "Negroidness"; Egyptians need not have flat noses or everted lips to be closely related to other Africans."
"If neither nose width nor lip thickness are reliable indicators of population affinity, how can the Egyptians' biological relationships with other peoples be accurately assessed?"
"One method used by biological anthropologists to determine how closely related ancient populations were to each other and to modern populations is by studying and measuring the features of their skulls (also called crania). The more similar two populations' crania are, the more closely related they are considered to be. It is important to stress that a reliable study on crania should not fixate on one feature of the skull but rather measure a large number of variables distributed all over the skull, since it is possible for two otherwise unrelated populations to convergently evolve a certain feature."
"Numerous cranial studies have found ancient Egyptian skulls to resemble those of more southerly Africans. Godde (2009) found Egyptian crania to particularly resemble those of Sudanese, as did Barnard (1935), while Crichton (1966) discovered a strong similarity between Egyptians and Kenyans. Brauer (1976) found Egyptian crania to fit snugly into a cluster with skulls from throughout tropical Africa. Relationships between Upper Egyptians and sub-Saharan populations are particularly strong (Keita 1990, 2005; Vermeersch 2002), but as found by Henneberg et al (1989) and Midant-Reynes (2000), even Lower Egyptian crania have sub-Saharan characteristics."
"To be sure, a couple of studies have shown different results, but both of these have fundamental methodological flaws. Brace (1993) claimed to have found an affinity between ancient Egyptians and Europeans, but as pointed out by Howells (1995), too many of Brace's variables involved nose shape, bringing to mind Hiernaux's point about the high variability of African nose shapes. A later study by Hanihara (2003) found that while Egyptians were more closely related to Sudanese than to anyone else, both of these populations seemed related to Europeans according to his analysis. The problem with Hanihara's methods is that they were based not on quantitative measurements of cranial features but on qualititative descriptions of "non-metric" traits (i.e. anatomical anomalies), and this type of analysis is considered useful only for comparing crania within populations rather than between them as noted by Cheverud et al (1981). When these two flawed studies are dismissed, the picture that emerges from cranial analysis is that ancient Egyptians were of sub-Saharan African affinity."
"Some bio-anthropologists have attempted to determine population relations using the shape and size of teeth, but this can be risky. Irish and Turner (1990) noticed that the teeth of prehistoric Nile Valley dwellers had a more sub-Saharan African appearance than the supposedly more European/Near Eastern-like teeth of farming populations in the same region, with sub-Saharan teeth being larger and morphologically more complex than that of other populations, but an earlier study by Brace and Mahler (1971) found that a population's average tooth size and shape can change in response to dietary changes without any gene flow being necessary. Since the adoption of agriculture is correlated with a reduction in tooth mass and morphological complexity all around the world, and since agriculture developed earlier in the Nile Valley than in other parts of Africa, it should not be surprising to find agricultural Nile Valley populations evolving smaller, simpler teeth over time without significant mixing with Europeans or Near Easterners. This is why dental morphology by itself is not enough to determine population relationships; other lines of data should be considered."
"Moving away from the cranium to other parts of the skeleton, another type of analysis that can determine population origins is measuring limb proportions. As a general rule, sub-Saharan Africans have proportionately longer limbs than people from other parts of the world, since long appendages dissipate heat in tropical climates more easily. Measurements of ancient Egyptian limbs find them to be similar to those of sub-Saharan Africans, and in fact some report Egyptian limb proportions to be "super-Negroid"---that is, proportionately even longer than those of most Africans (Robins and Shute 1986, Zakrzewski 2003)! By contrast, Middle Easterners from subtropical desert climates comparable to Egypt's do not have the Egyptians' African-like limb proportions (Holliday 2000, Smith 2002). This means that the ancient Egyptians' ancestors must have migrated from a tropical region further south, such as Sudan, which is consistent with the archaeological data cited earlier in this paper."
Skeletal morphology is not the only data that must be considered when assessing the Egyptians' biological affinities and physical appearance, for soft tissues, for instance hair form and skin color, must also be taken in account. The first soft tissue that will be considered here is hair form.
"One might think that simply looking at the hair on Egyptian mummies is enough to determine its original texture, but this fails to take into account the possibility that the hair might have undergone damage over time. Brothwell and Spearman (1963) analyzed many Egyptian mummy hairs and found that the keratin forming the hair follicles had experienced significant oxidation (damage), which they attributed to chemicals used in the mummification process; oxidation of keratin can cause both texture changes and discoloration."
"A more reliable method for determining hair's original texture is by measuring the hair follicles' cross-sections using an instrument called a trichometer, dividing the minimum diameter in micrometers by the maximum, and then multiplying the result by 100, producing an index. Martin (1928) reports that curly hair like that of Africans produces indices less than 75, whereas indices above 75 are typical of the wavy to straight hair of other populations. As Strouhal (1971) found, ancient Egyptian hair samples produced indices between 35 and 65, well within the range of curly African-type hair. In other words, ancient Egyptians' natural hair texture was curly like that of other Africans."
"On a related note, Chapel et al (1981) report finding a tightly curled hair shaft forming within one Egyptian mummy's skin, suggesting that hair protected from oxidising forces can retain its original texture."
"Finally there is the question of the ancient Egyptians' skin color. One might expect tomb paintings to answer that question, but this is complicated by the tendency for Egyptian paintings to be stylized and symbolic rather than realistic. An example is offered by Poe (1997): during the Old and Middle Kingdom periods of Egyptian history, men were painted brown and women yellow, but both sexes were painted brown during the New Kingdom. While the New Kingdom convention is arguably more realistic than the older one, whether the Egyptian artists really were aiming for greater realism is not presently known."
"A better approach would be a histological analysis of Egyptian mummified skin. Mekota and Vermehren (2005), looking at the skin cells of Egyptian mummies, note that they were packed with melanin as expected for "Negroid" (i.e. sub-Saharan African) specimens, but they do not go into details. A more specific analysis of mummy skin, especially one using skin cells from various other ethnic groups for comparison, would be preferred, but Mekota et al's observation is nonetheless interesting and perhaps the most authoritative statement on ancient Egyptian skin color that is presently available."
"If so much bio-anthropological data indicates a close physical resemblance and genetic affinity between ancient Egyptians and more southerly Africans, one might wonder what to make of the lighter-skinned modern Egyptian population. The answer is that the current Egyptian population is not necessarily reflective of the original Egyptians but is instead significantly admixed with various groups, most of them from Europe and the Middle East, who have immigrated into Egypt during historic times."
"One cranial study by Berry and Berry (1967) found continuity in Egyptian skull morphology between prehistoric times and the Middle Kingdom, but this trend of continuity broke during the New Kingdom, coinciding with increased interaction between Egyptians and Near Easterners during and just prior to this period. Another skull study by Zakrzewski (2002) discovered that Egyptians postdating the New Kingdom were physically distinct from earlier Egyptians, replicating a result found by Barnard (1935). Keita (1990) reported stronger European tendencies in recent Egyptian skulls compared with more ancient ones. Furthermore, a genetic study by Nebel et al (2002) showed that a significant component of the modern North African gene pool can be traced to historically recent Arab invasions and settlement. All of this shows that the Egyptians have experienced significant genetic change within the last three millennia."
"This should not be surprising when one considers the point made by Keita and Boyce (1996) that even a small trickling of immigrants can radically change a population's gene pool within a thousand-year period, nor is it without parallel elsewhere in world history. As an analogy, Europeans have been present in Mexico for only five centuries, yet over 41% of the modern Mexican gene pool is of European origin (Silva et al 2009). Since the Egyptian Nile Valley is a geographically much smaller region than Mexico and has been subjected to invasions from Europe and the Near East for over 2,500 years, foreign immigration should be expected to have altered the Egyptians' genetic makeup to an even greater extent."
Arkell, A. J. The Prehistory of the Nile Valley. Vol. 1. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
Arkell, A. J., and Peter J. Ucko. "A Review of Predynastic Development in the Nile Valley." Current Anthropology 6, no. 2 (1965): 145-66.
Keita, SOY and A.J. Boyce. “The Geographic Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians.” In Egypt in Africa. Compiled by Theodore Celenko. 23-4. Indianapolis: Indianapolis Museum of Art and Indiana University Press, 1996.
Keita, SOY. "Studies of Ancient Crania from Northern Africa." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 83 (1990): 35-48.
Keita, SOY. "Early Nile Valley Farmers, From El-Badari, Aboriginals or 'European' Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data." Journal of Black Studies 36, no. 2 (2005): 191-208.
Strouhal, E. "Evidence of the early penetration of Negroes into prehistoric Egypt." Journal of African History 12, 1-9 (1971).
Taiwo, Olu. "The Orishas: The Influence of the Yoruba Cultural Diaspora." In Indigenous Diasporas and Dislocations, edited by Graham Harvey and Charles D. Thompson Jr., 105-20. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2005.
Jesus Christ! Read through the thread. It has been demonstrated that Keita actually agrees that the Egyptians are the same people that they always were. You simply don't understand what he is saying.
A lot of this is just playing the Keita game. He re-defines attributes that were one considered Caucasian and "authentically Africa" or some such nonsense. It is pretty irrelevant...they still looked more like Middle Easterners than West Africans. Keita and his followers are just re-defining it as "African," whatever that is supposed to mean. But he admits the truth when properly confronted:
There is a reason that Mekota and Vermehren "did not go into details..." their claim is entirely bogus. All people's skin is packed with melanin. White people just have a different kind, and it does not prove that the Egyptians were "negroid."
Whoever is speaking 9you do a **** poor job or sourcing) is lying about the conclusions of Irish. Irish also says that they have largely remained the same people:
Whowere the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic throughpostdynastic peoples
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331657
JDIRISH 2006
the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqadaculture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through thedynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times.
Finally, ANCIENT EGYTPIAN SKULLS CLUSTER CLOSEST TO MDOERN EGYPTIAN SKULLS- THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.
jkc2j, your attempt to convince us that the gene pool of Egypt was exclusively negro at one time seems a bit desperate. People are darker towards the equator. Negros have different characteristics compared to Caucasians, you see these Caucasian characteristics all across North Africa with the vast majority of citizens. History also proves that Negros, indigenous to equatorial Africa more than likely also migrated to the north. The extremely dark Sudanese and Ethiopians, many who most likely immigrated to the north as well, would have affected the native Egyptian gene pool likewise.
Caucasian characteristics? lol. Dude, go back and re read my posts. No where have I stated that Ancient Egypt was "exclusively" anything. As I've stated earlier in my posts Ancient Egypt was the apex of cultures throughout the continent.
However, archeological, anthropological, and biological evidence suggests those influences came primarily from the South and spread North.
As one mainstream anthropologist puts it:
“The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics.
“No one set of characteristics is more African than another”.
Variability is also found in “sub-Saharan” Africa, to which the word “Africa” is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa.
For example: sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces. However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African.
The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in “sub-Saharan Africa,” as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and SaharanAfrica were peopled after the emergence of “Europeans” or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa.
Hence, the Ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous “scientific” approaches.” (S. Keita, “The Diversity of Indigenous Africans,” in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105.
The general Egyptology consensus is captured in the words of mainstream scholar Frank Yurco:
“Certainly there was some foreign admixture [in Egypt], but basically a homogeneous African population had lived in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times… [the] Badarian people, who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990.. et al.,)…
Jesus Christ! Read through the thread. It has been demonstrated that Keita actually agrees that the Egyptians are the same people that they always were. You simply don't understand what he is saying.
A lot of this is just playing the Keita game. He re-defines attributes that were one considered Caucasian and "authentically Africa" or some such nonsense. It is pretty irrelevant...they still looked more like Middle Easterners than West Africans. Keita and his followers are just re-defining it as "African," whatever that is supposed to mean. But he admits the truth when properly confronted:
There is a reason that Mekota and Vermehren "did not go into details..." their claim is entirely bogus. All people's skin is packed with melanin. White people just have a different kind, and it does not prove that the Egyptians were "negroid."
Whoever is speaking 9you do a **** poor job or sourcing) is lying about the conclusions of Irish. Irish also says that they have largely remained the same people:
Whowere the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic throughpostdynastic peoples
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16331657
JDIRISH 2006
the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqadaculture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through thedynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times.
Finally, ANCIENT EGYTPIAN SKULLS CLUSTER CLOSEST TO MDOERN EGYPTIAN SKULLS- THEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE.
Dude, you're going in circles. Watch the video you posted again. Read Keita's works.
Northern Europeans constructed their own governments out of civilizations that came from Greece and Rome.
More Non Sequitur logic from you. So did the Meso Americans, African Americans and most other people in the Western Hemisphere whom were conquered by Europeans. Still doesn't help your argument. The tribes of Northern Europe were different culturally and ethnically from Ancient Greek and Romans. You choose not to recognize this because it doesn't fit your argument. Again, my point still stands. ASSIMILATION is not the same as CONCEPTION.
Dude, you're going in circles. Watch the video you posted again. Read Keita's works.
We are going in circles because you simply refuse to understand what you are seeing. Keita, like Irish, like Brace, like all of the others, clearly says that the racial types represented in Egypt today are the same as the ancients.
The good news is, anyone else who watches the clip can understand it fairly easily.
The Egyptians were never a magical different, blacker people, and regardless: THEY AREN'T YOUR ANCESTORS.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
