Secondly do you seriously know how incorrect, ignorant, and pretty offensive that sounds? Why in the Hell would the Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt support a fringe theory? Why do you ignorantly ignore the clear and recent scientific findings presented on page two via plot and dendrogram just to resort to sad interpretation of a PAINTING? Better yet why are you ignoring the art presented on page two as well, it is after all Egyptian!
You claim that only African Americans believe this FACT which is ignorantly false and pretty well.. racist. The late Basil Davidson seen below is a world reknown African historian who has been arguing this truth for decades:
This second video is a direct translation of the Greek testimonies of the ancient Egyptian descriptions that we were discussing earlier.
Is he also a "fringed" Afrocentric? You nor anyone else who has commented in this thread has produced not a shred of to counter what he has founded?
I was regarding another poster who inferred that the ancient Egyptians resembled North African berbers, which is false as you can see:i'm not even sure if there ever even was a significant berber population in egypt.
Somalis are the only modern population to group next to the Naqada sample.
You are obviously not aware of the fact that small scale migration from the Middle East through Egyptian history noted. This small scale migration over the course of a Millenium did in fact change the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians by the New Kingdom period from tropical African to Middle Eastern. This correlates with dendrogram on page two, which shows all Egyptians prior to the New Kingdom grouping with Nubians and more southerly African populations. The New Kingdom period is also when the Delta region began to become populated, prior to this during the Old Kingdom Upper Egypt held the vast majority of Egypt's population (which is currently the complete opposite).as for the arab influx it would of been very small.
You cannot disregard the impact of the Arab conquest based on assumptions. This event was probably the biggest contributor of Eurasian gene flow into Northern Africa (including Lower Nubia)the population of egypt at the eve of the arab conquests probably far exceeded the population of the entire arabian peninsula, which could not accomodate a large population anyways because of the geography and climate.
Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation,
History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246
Ovacaprines appear in the western desert before the Nile valley proper (Wendorf and Schild 2001). However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).. This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). (Also some of those emigrating may have been carrying Haplotype V, descendents of earlier migrants from the Nile valley, given the postulated “Mesolithic” time of the M35 lineage emigration). It is more probable that the current VII and VIII frequencies, greatest in northern Egypt, reflect in the main (but not solely) movements during the Islamic period (Nebel et al. 2002), when some deliberate settlement of Arab tribes was done in Africa, and the effects of polygamy. There must also have been some impact of Near Easterners who settled in the delta at various times in ancient Egypt (Gardiner 1961). More recent movements, in the last two centuries, must not be forgotten in this assessment.and besides, look at mubarak for your average egyptian.
Why are your referencing modern Northern Egyptians, even though it's been proven that due to signifigant non African gene flow they do not look like their early Egyptian ancestors:
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".
- Keita (2005), pp. 564
Egyptians as a whole look like mixed population! Some have more African features, some have more Eurasiactic features. Modern Egyptians have a noticeably more African look than the others in the Arab world.he doesn't even look very arab.
You have yet to explain why in the Hell discussing ancient Egypt in it's proper African context is "Afrocentric". Obviously you were not aware that what you consider a "fringe theory" (the African origins of Egypt) is really a mainstream concensus, yet you still will not consider what the thesis of this entire argument is. Are you aware that even outspoken Afrocentric critic Mary Leftkowitiz concedes to the fact that the Egyptians came from Sub Saharan/Saharan Africa:what's wrong with that picture is that it's taken from an anfrocentrist website
"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."
(Mary Lefkotitz (1997). Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. Basic Books. pg 242)
According to your logic this author of "Not out of Africa" is a raving Afrocentric who concedes to a "fringe theory"
Are you not starting to see how illogical your blatant denial is? Wouldn't an actual scholar who openly criticizes Afrocentrism, be the first to combat a "fringe theory" such as this one if it were really the case? Obviously she recognizes that this stance is backed by enough evidence to be considered a fact. If she of all people can admit this then why can't people like you?
Apparently you care, we are after all debating this subject!and supposing the ancient egyptians were black, who cares?
Strawman! Who in the Hell is arguing that Ramses or Tiye are my ancestors? Why does this ultimately become the main point of contention for Eurocentrics who are indenial about this fact? It's like it strikes the fear of God in you all to fathom the thought that little Tyrone might take pride in this black African civilization. The same way little Brad of Celtic descent might view Rome or Greece as his white European heritage. We are about as distant from the ancient Egyptians as the vast majority of white Americans are from those two European civilizations. Yet we still see British actors protraying the Greek warriors in "300" Despite Greece being on the complete opposite fringe of Europe! Don't impose a racial double standard!just because your also black dosen't mean your a descendant of ramses, nor that you have anything in common with them other then 'race'.