The African Origin of Ancient Egyptian Civilization

[Old_Scratch]

I didn't want to get involved in this nonsense again but I figured I'd post a few pictures I scanned from my book. I have 495 pages of similar pictures but probably wasted my time just posting these. I tried to include the captions but some of them got a little blurry. Notice how people from the Middle-East and Nubia are portrayed quite differently from how the Egyptians portrayed themselves. The Egyptians look pretty Egyptian to me, but make whatever racial conclusion you want to.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[MKGlouisville]

You do realise that every single comment you just made isn't a comment to what I actually typed, but only to what you (mis)read in what I typed?

They were refutations of your blind assertions.

(you might have noticed that at no single time has anyone here ever claimed Egyptians, or anyone else in North Africa for that matter, are white (especially in the European sense)).

You're right you all just insist, with no scientific or scholarly backing that they were some fair skinned population. You all have stated that they couldn't have looked like Sub Saharan Africans because they weren't pitch black like the Dinka of the Sudan. When I routinely post evidence and imagery showing these assertions on you all's part to be untrue.

What we've taken "offence" to is you simply lumping Ancient Egypt in with every other African culture.

You take offense to that because you people don't want to accept the fact that the early ancient Egypt descended from other inner African cultures. Despite you all's disposition with this fact most scholars note this truth just like the Oxford encyclopedia quote that I provided a few post up and several pages ago:

"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)

These scholars have commited blasphemy. These are the authorities who we are getting this information from on this subject. They are considering the foundation of Egypt to be the same as inner African cultures. They are lumping ancient Egypt in with the rest of Africa!

Oh and for the last time: Genetic studies are not as conclusive as you seem to believe, comparisons of body proportions of which you seem to be such a fan of are even much less conclusive. They are at best indicators.

Sure ok.

[Manco]

They were refutations of your blind assertions.

You might want to take a class in reading comprehension then since I didn't assert what you refute.

You're right you all just insist, with no scientific or scholarly backing that they were some fair skinned population.

Bravo, you just tell me I insist the very opposite of what I just said in the very sentence you quote

You take offense to that because you people don't want to accept the fact that the early ancient Egypt descended from other inner African cultures.

Bravo, you just told me I take offence to the very opposite I have claimed all the time.

What you don't seem to get is that we aren't claiming Ancient Egypt doesn't have its origins in Eastern Afrtica, we're claiming that there's a difference between having origins in Eastern Africa and actually being Eastern African. Especially when that origin is millennia removed.
An empire that's deeply involved in Mediterranean and Mesopotamian affairs isn't simply existing in an East African cultural vacuum.

Sure ok.

Do you even know what Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups are and just what ancestry they actually show?
Do you also realize how little it says about culture, politics, history and everything else that actually matters?


Just to illustrate what your theories mean in the real world. According to how you interpret genes I should look like a typical Spaniard because my Y-DNA is Iberian in origin, yet somehow I look like a typical pasty white Northern European. You know why? Because I have literally ONE Spanish ancestor (out of a few hundred) several hundred years ago that just happened to be my patrilineal ancestor.

[MKGlouisville]

Notice how people from the Middle-East and Nubia are portrayed quite differently from how the Egyptians portrayed themselves. The Egyptians look pretty Egyptian to me, but make whatever racial conclusion you want to.

You post a picture of Nubian captives, for which in the documentary in my previous post Basil Davidson shows the curvings of the Egyptians with their Semitic captives in the south as you note.

You post a picture of Nefertari:


The same dark Reddish brown skintone that I've shown time and time again to be prodominant amoungst certain Northeast African populations, south of Egypt.

You also post of picture of the Mentuhotep II with the same dark reddish brown skintone (peeling paint apparent):



Both sculptures of Mentuhotep II

Once again however your entire premise is that since the ancient Egyptians didn't look like the Dinka Nubians, then they couldn't have been "black" or Sub Saharan. You insist on doing this even when I've shown you precisely which Sub Saharan Africans the ancient Egyptians looked like (Ethiopians, Beja, Somali, Eritrean, ect). Why keep trying to knock down strawman arguments never put forth by me? Why haven't you commented on any of the other comparisons that I've made earlier?

What you don't seem to get is that we aren't claiming Ancient Egypt doesn't have its origins in Eastern Afrtica, we're claiming that there's a difference between having origins in Eastern Africa and actually being Eastern African.

Are you seriouisly that dense? You have been shown that their remains are essentially the same as both ancient and modern Northeast African populations. You admit that they came from Northeast Africa. There is no evidence that their was intervention in the origins Dynastic Egyptian culture from any non Northeast African populations:

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

You have no answer to this! Yet you are just convinced that the early ancient Egyptians were distinct from more southernly Northeast African populations. What is the basis of your opinion, if not simply ignorance/racial biased?

Again even the damn art work generally depicts them as the same dark reddish brown skin tone and facial features as modern Northeast African and Nilotic populations.

Especially when that origin is millennia removed.

Apparently the time frame didn't affect a damn thing! They still overlap biologically with more southerly Northeast African populations as shown to you again and again and again. What is your basis for this distinguishment?

An empire that's deeply involved in Mediterranean and Mesopotamian

It's origins are in UPPER EGYPT, which was a continum of African culture stretching from Nubia to Chad to southern Africa:

"Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant."(Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472 )

affairs isn't simply existing in an East African cultural vacuum.

If you are talking about general Egyptian history throughout pharonic times then you are correct, but what we are disscussing is it's origins. For which there was no such "cultural vaccum" extending into the North, but instead into interior Africa to the south.

Do you even know what Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups are and just what ancestry they actually show?

Do you also realize how little it says about culture, politics, history and everything else that actually matters?

EVERY PIECE OF CULTURAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THIS THREAD SUPPORTS MY STANCE OF AN INNER AFRICAN ORIGIN FOR ANCIENT EGYPT!

Notice you didn't reply to any of the two sources that I provided in my previous post, you instead just want to rant and side step what the facts indicate about the early ancient Egyptians.

[Manco]

Oh look its Nefertari portrayed as significantly paler than Horus.


Maybe she's portrayed in different colours because Egyptian art is highly symbolic and not even meant to be accurate?

Are you seriouisly that dense?

I'll just assume you are, because once again you just attack a bunch of strawmen.
Seriously, you're not even attempting anything remotely resembling a debate.

Your own source even doesn't agree with you

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

I'm just going to ignore for a minute how studying crania is hardly undisputed. But I hope you notice that your own source says Southern Egyptians cluster with East Africans. Yet Northern Egyptians (both from dynastic area) don't.


Guess what? THAT FITS PERFECTLY WIT THE THE THEORY OF GENETIC CLINES! NOT YOURS!
Or are Northern Egyptians not the good kind of Egyptians?

Notice you didn't reply to any of the two sources that I provided in my previous post, you instead just want to rant and side step what the facts indicate about the early ancient Egyptians.

Nah, it's because I have a tendency not to reply to one sentence quotes copied from some quote-mining website.

EVERY PIECE OF CULTURAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THIS THREAD SUPPORTS MY STANCE OF AN INNER AFRICAN ORIGIN FOR ANCIENT EGYPT!

which no one has denied. We're just making a distinction between originating and being.
(kinda like how my culture has its origins in the Black Sea area yet that doesn't make me Caucasian native)

[Border Patrol]

Nah man, it's a photograph.

[Old_Scratch]

Like I said, I have hundreds of images of ancient Egyptian artwork and there is a major museum nearby that houses an entire wing devoted to ancient Egypt. Nothing I've ever seen comes remotely close to convincing me that the Egyptians should be described as anything but "Egyptian". Their culture and racial characteristics have influenced and were influenced by other peoples, but they remain a unique civilization.

FYI that statue of Mentuhotep is black to identify him with Orisis after death. Extreme colors, like people painted black, white, blue etc instead of the usual brown or reddish brown is for symbolic/religious reasons, it's not their actual color.

I didn't respond to your other post because I've wasted enough time with this nonsense. I only posted those pictures so anyone who sees them can make up their own mind. I think the plethora of artwork that's available to everyone speaks for itself.

[Manco]

"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)

It's funny you used this article by Thurston Shaw as a source, considering the article deals with the old idea that all African (and even world) culture actually stems from Egypt, a prevalent idea before historians had found evidence that Sumer was actually older. The article is actually critical to those writers who want to connect everything to Egypt.

The cultural parallels pointed to for some African peoples are no more than can be pointed for many others in different, and less likely,parts of the world; and there are some areas of culture where there are no parallels at all; the philosophical arguments are dismissed as entirely unsound by modern linguists; the arguments alleged from physical anthropology are equally unconvincing; and the criteria for political parallels need to be much more carefully speculated

[MKGlouisville]

Oh look its Nefertari portrayed as significantly paler than Horus.

Maybe she's portrayed in different colours because Egyptian art is highly symbolic and not even meant to be accurate?

I guess you missed what my source stated about art work interpretations that I posted earlier:

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

Despite you noting this fact about using Egyptian art it was obviously your basis for asserting that the ancient Egyptians were distinct from Sub Saharan Africans. You also state that symbolism could be the reason why she is depicted as yellow in this image. In fact most Egyptologist tend to support that prior to the new Kingdom yellow was used to depict women:

In paintings deities were not often colored to indicate gold flesh. Most male deities were represented with reddish-brown skin, and female with yellow skin. But other colors, as green and blue were indicated above for Osiris, were used. The fertility deities Min and Amun-Re-Kamutef were shown with black skin.

If you're going to assume however that all art work is unreliable because it could possibly represent sybolism, then that is your entire argument down the drain . Seeing as how you don't rely on scientific, linguistic, or cultural evidence to prove whatever you are trying to prove.

I'll just assume you are, because once again you just attack a bunch of strawmen.
Seriously, you're not even attempting anything remotely resembling a debate.

You aren't presenting a damn thing to prove whatever it is that you are trying to prove. You're are just making baseless claims that in direct contradiction with authoratative sources that I have provided.

Your own source even doesn't agree with you

I'm just going to ignore for a minute how studying crania is hardly undisputed. But I hope you notice that your own source says Southern Egyptians cluster with East Africans. Yet Northern Egyptians (both from dynastic area) don't.

Please know what the Hell you're talking about before you make silly arguments.

Northern Egyptians and Southern Egyptians did have distinct craniometric morphologies, but both were indigenous to Africa. Just like East and West Africans have distinct craniometric morphologies, but both are indigneous to Africa. Early Northern Egyptians have a Coastal North African crania morphology (as described by Keita), but also had tropical limb proportions and it's strongest cultural ties were with inner Africa to the south. There limb proportions also were found to be "signifigantly different" (Kemp 2006)from Near Eastern populations of the same time period and climate zone which sugguest that the two populations on the Meditterean had a "lack of common ancestry" (Kemp 2006). Instead they group much closer to tropical African populations in terms of limb proportions.

All of the sources for this information have been posted throughout this thread, I guess you conveniently skipped over them.

Or are Northern Egyptians not the good kind of Egyptians?

For starters the reason why most studies of ancient Egyptian crania place so much emphasis on early Upper Egyptians is due to the fact that Upper Egypt was the home of dynastic culture and is where the vast majority of the Egyptian population resided. None the less I suppose you will now argue that Northern Egyptians were somehow some foreign non African race, either way it's going to make for a very entertaining (meaning funny) disscussion.

It's funny you used this article by Thurston Shaw as a source, considering the article deals with the old idea that all African (and even world) culture actually stems from Egypt, a prevalent idea before historians had found evidence that Sumer was actually older. The article is actually critical to those writers who want to connect everything to Egypt.

So from these "damning" statements in the mid 90's that criticize Shaw's work, wouldn't we expect that scholars would actually build on this "revelation"? Obviously no one did, which is probably due to the fact that the authors use no specific examples to challenge the position of Shaw, but rather vaguely says that some Africans had no cultural connection with the ancient Egyptians. His argument is merely a rant with no supported facts or specific details much like your own. This coupled with the fact that the statements of Shaw have been further built upon by the Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt:

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

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

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

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

[Manco]

So from these "damning" statements in the mid 90's that criticize Shaw's work

Another proof you don't actually read anything. That's not some damning statement of the 90's, it's Shaw's own writing, literally on the next page from your own ing quote.

Oh god, this is hopeless.

Stop pretending we're attacking the idea that Egypt has an African origin. We're attacking the idea that Egypt belonged to some generic insular and isolated pan-African culture and the idea that having an origin automatically means you're the exact same.
Stop asking me to prove things I'm not asserting!

[MKGlouisville]

FYI that statue of Mentuhotep is black to identify him with Orisis after death.

The skin color was not the focal point of those statues. Did you not see the broad facial structure of both of those depictions of Mentuhotep (which are even seen in the one you posted).

BTW Do you mean this Osiris:

I didn't respond to your other post because I've wasted enough time with this nonsense. I only posted those pictures so anyone who sees them can make up their own mind. I think the plethora of artwork that's available to everyone speaks for itself

That is nothing new! You people attempt to put up an argument against my own, which ultimately ends up being refuted. Then you respond with how much of a waste of time it would be to argue with me.

As far as the plethora of artwork goes, we know what they look like! Dark brownish red Northeast Africans just like the examples that I typically post under their art depictions, which go unanswered. Just like I stated earlier I know just about every highly lit picture that you people tend to over use to display your moot points and for every just about every one of them that aren't already self defeating I can post two or three images of the same individual which shows them displaying the typical Northeast African look.

Another proof you don't actually read anything. That's not some damning statement of the 90's, it's Shaw's own writing, literally on the next page from your own ing quote

I was actually reading the wrong passage from a site that was interpretting Shaw's work as opposed to it being Shaw himself. I've now found the actual document through the google's virtual library, and from what I've read Shaw's accessment is actually not that far off. He states that certain regions of Sub Saharan Africa have no cultural connection to ancient Egypt which would not come as a surprise, take the Khoisan of Southwest Africa for instance. Does the fact that they might not have had a close relationship with certain populations across the African continent still, negate the fact that their cultural origin was directly influenced by Africa....Hell No!

Oh god, this is hopeless.

Hopeless you gotta be ing kidding me! Who in the Hell bypasses the most modern scientific accessments of populations just opt to base their entire opinion on the matter on their subjective viewpoints of art work. You are basically saying, that since you DON'T LIKE what the biologist have determined about their external anatomical traits you are going to challenge the legitimacy of modern scientific practices.

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Stop pretending we're attacking the idea that Egypt has an African origin. We're attacking the idea that Egypt belonged to some generic insular and isolated pan-African culture and the idea that having an origin automatically means you're the exact same.

Provide the damn quote where I insinuate that the ancient Egyptians and new World blacks were the exact same. That is pointless to even ask because you can't do so. You people are the one's putting up strawman arguments, to avoid conceding to the confirmed fact that the early ancient Egyptians were no different than the indigenous Northeast African populations to the south of them.

Just to show how indenial you are about this FACT, I'm asking you void of all social defintion will you at least admit to this scientifically confirmed fact?

[Manco]

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

Oh no, a study that doesn't agree with you! (though inside the pdf they actually do suggest links with East Africa, the "not at all" doesn't include them)

Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples[/URL]]Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times.

Oh no, a study that completely disagrees with your hypothesis that Egypt became gradually "whiter'.

Now I could keep throwing this in your face constantly, which is your tactic. Or I could just accept that there is no single accepted theory or study on Egypt's population.
The trend has gone from eurocentric to afrocentric to the modern local population-based approach.

As for Keita, who you love posting ( you've in fact posted this very same video, though with a ridiculously biased explanation)


He literally says

“it can be imagined that the modern diversity to be found in Egypt…. in terms of craniofacial features… skin colour… what have you, would likely have been very similar to that found in the past.”

He indisputably says Ancient Egyptians are pretty much the same as modern ones in his opinion. (i.e. the genetic clines going from darker Southern Egyptians to paler Northern Egyptians)

He's also known by the way for downplaying genetics since it says very little about culture and history in his opinion.

You people are the one's putting up strawman arguments, to avoid conceding to the confirmed fact that the early ancient Egyptians were no different than the indigenous Northeast African populations to the south of them.

Just to show how indenial you are about this FACT, I'm asking you void of all social defintion will you at least admit to this scientifically confirmed fact?

No, I'm saying they lived in genetic clines with those people south of them. They are not exactly the same, they are very closely related but they are just as local as the Nubians were local to Nubia. That is the actual accepted scientific hypothesis now, note that it's not an accepted fact because actual historians admit that studies on these topics are far from definite at this time.

I've told you this a dozen times already. Ancient Egyptians are Ancient Egyptians. Does this means they are African? Of course it does. Does this mean that all African groups can simply be classed under a singular term black? No, because of the simple fact (and this IS fact) that there are no properly defined borders between skin colour categories and that by and large people live in genetic clines with additional clustering (primarily due to geographical factors).

[MKGlouisville]

Oh no, a study that doesn't agree with you! (though inside the pdf they actually do suggest links with East Africa, the "not at all" doesn't include them)

You're getting in way over your head here bub!

You cite 1993 Clines and Clusters by C. Loring Brace, as evidence of "non black" Egypt. Well let's examine the studies short comings leading to numerous criticisms from different scholars for it's flawed methodology and baseless conclusion. This will explain why the findings of this study have yet to be built upon or referenced by any other study regarding the biologically affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

Clines and Clusters short comings:

• Created an "African" or "sub-Saharan" group, but excluded the Maghreb (including parts of the Sahara and Sahel), the Sudan and the Horn area (Ethiopia and Somalia) even though these latter two are BELOW the Sahara, and thus "sub-Saharan".
• Excluded the Badari, and Naqada I and II, key Egyptian groups, thus obscuring the Sudanic/Saharan character of numerous early samples, noted in several earlier analyses.
• Ignored the formative range of the Saharans on Egypt, from the megaliths and cattle cults of the Nabta Playa to early mummification practices was ignored. T
• Excluded the Nubian population of the Badari and early Naqada period, including the rich remains of the well documented Qustul culture, near the present Sudanese-Egyptian border, again obscuring the close relationship between the two peoples.
• Created a vague "Bronze Age" grouping of Nubians, and a "modern" group of medieval samples, an era long after the dynasties and when Nubia had experienced more gene flow of that and the later Arab incursions, beginning in the 700s. Sampling thus ignored the early Badari/Naqada Nubians, jumped the 25th Dynasty era, and shifted to the medieval era in the age range of the Arab conquests.
• Used Somalian samples that were modern, and thus within the range of recent gene flow (such as the Arab era), particularly on the coast.
• The result was a "comparison" finding that the ancient Egyptians had no relationship "at all" to other "sub-Saharan" peoples and were relatively distant from the Nubians and Somalians. peoples. This finding has been undermined by the subsequent research of several scholars, including limb proportion studies.

"However, Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian groups are also remains representing populations from the ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat (incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims. Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity." (S.O.Y. Keita. "Early Nile Valley Farmers from El-Badari: Aboriginals or "European" Agro-Nostratic Immigrants? Craniometric Affinities Considered With Other Data". Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 191-208 (2005)

These comment came from Keita, who has conducted more research on this subject that any other anthropologist. He also conducted several studies on the ancient Egyptians around this time period which found the polar opposite of what Brace concludes in his 93'. The fact that Keita's work during this period is still being built upon by newer studies, whereas you will not find anyone who references Brace's findings speaks volumes about who's assesment is legit:

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.

You bold this part of the conclusion from Brace 93', but are you aware that Brace 2005 completely contradicts what he wrote in the early 90's. Here he claims that there is no such relationship between the ancient Egyptians and the Sub Saharans that he incorrectly treats as monolithic, which he and other anthropologist have found to be untrue:

"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" (Brace, 2005)

This has been further concluded by Ricaut 2008:





Brace 2005 plotting chart and dendrogram


As you can clearly see by the plotting chart on the top, all of the listed populations in that quote from Clines and Clusters with the exception of prehistoric Europeans (for the reasons found in the study) cluster distantly on the other side of the chart from the ancient Egyptian sample (Naqada Bronze). Whereas the Somali population is the closest modern population to group with them. He then puts the Egyptians, Somalis, and other early populations with noted Sub Saharan African affinities into the Northeast African twig.

Oh no, a study that completely disagrees with your hypothesis that Egypt became gradually "whiter'.

Try again bub! All Joel Irishes study did was confirm that there was no mass genocide or removal of the original African Egyptian population, by finding continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians. This is also confirmed by modern Egyptian gemetic profiles, which still show strong and sometimes prodominant Sub Saharan African genetic ancestry. Irish also found this as well:

"Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah [the Western Desert- Saharan region] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari.."

the Badarians were a "good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like"

"A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples .. contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970)"

Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. "Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First–Second Dynasty Abydos.. These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ‘‘race’’"

"Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well."(Joel D. Irish (2006). Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43.)

Now who do the Badarians relate the closest to according to this 2009 study?

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

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.-- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

The early ancient Egyptians were black get over it!

[Manco]

Bravo for totally missing the point...
Once again, reading comprehension. Take a course in it.
(here's a hint: I didn't actually claim those studies were true)

Also stop twisting Keita's words. He would in no way support your fixation on race or the simplistic grouping of all Africans under the term black. The guy is an active proponent of deconstructing 'race' as a valid cocnept.


Oh look, Keita debunking practically everything you've said.

Among other things literally saying that lightskinned populations are indigenous to Egypt (as are darkskinned ones), literally agreeing that skin colour mostly correlates with latitude (the guy uses equatorial distance), literally saying that levantine migrators looked practically the same as the indigenous Northern Egyptians and that simply classifying people as black or white is ignorant.

[MKGlouisville]

Now I could keep throwing this in your face constantly, which is your tactic. Or I could just accept that there is no single accepted theory or study on Egypt's population.

You tried to throw a now ball at me and it melted in your damn hand. The concensus according to any logical and unbiased individual is that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, most closely related to other more southerly Northeast African populations. Seriously how many sources have presented confirming this fact? You presented one source that has been ridiculed by other scholars and the recanted by it's own author and you think that you have the begin to counter the plethora of much more recent studies that I've presented to you?

The trend has gone from eurocentric to afrocentric to the modern local population-based approach.

As for Keita, who you love posting ( you've in fact posted this very same video, though with a ridiculously biased explanation)

You know don't know a damn thing about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians and yet you have the audacity to accuse me of distorting something that I frequently research? What I based my explanation of Keita's four minute interivew with Nat Geo on is his hour long lecture at Cambridge University that I posted two pages ago. I base it on his very own literature and research!

He literally says He indisputably says Ancient Egyptians are pretty much the same as modern ones in his opinion.

He states that the physical diversity seen in modern Egypt was likely seen during "Ancient times". In this interview Keita is not giving a specific era in Egypt's over 4,000 years of ancient history. I have agreed with that vague description of ancient Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, when I have sourced the noted mass infiltration of Euroasiactic population entering Egypt at this time. Remember when I stated that Egypt "BECAME" a highly mixed multiracial racial society over time, but that it's earliest history indicates no such evidence of non African settlement on the Nile. Keita is also not detailing how prevalent these different phenotypes were at what given time he was referencing. In fact Keita even states in that damn interview that there is no reason to believe that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but "local origin" "Northeast African origin"

(i.e. the genetic clines going from darker Southern Egyptians to paler Northern Egyptians)

There is no such thing as a "pale" tropically adapted African population!

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

Abpve Kemp finds the early Northern Egyptians of the same climate/latitude as Middle Easterners to be signifigantly different from them in limb proportions, to their more tropical adapations further confirming that they came from tropical Africa.




Notice every tropically adapted population that these ancient Northern Egyptians group with are black skinned people. It is ecological principle that the intesification of skin color comes with longer limb proportions. The populations with the longest limb proportions are black skinned populations in or from Africa and the "negritos" (just guess why they were called this) of southeast Asia. Logically the ancient too had black skin, just like the populations whom their biologial affinities group with them with. Common sense!

He's also known by the way for downplaying genetics since it says very little about culture and history in his opinion

Source and evidence? I would not guess that he downplays genetics considering that he co-conducted a genetic study of Northeast African with Kittles in 2005.

They are not exactly the same, they are very closely related but they are just as local as the Nubians were local to Nubia

During the heyday of racial science, when white Western historians were obsessed with ancient Egypt they considered the Northern Egyptians and Southern Egyptians to be distinct races. They also proposed that the Northern Egyptians imposed dynastic culture on the "Negroid" southern Egyptians. Which both assertions have been proven false by modern scientific and archaeological works.

That is the actual accepted scientific hypothesis now, note that it's not an accepted fact because actual historians admit that studies on these topics are far from definite at this time.

The conclusion today is about as definant as you can get, when tackling these types of issues. The concensus is there like or not. The early ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans, most closely related to more southerly Northeast African populations. They became the way they are now because of admixture during the later periods of pharonic Egypt and more modern immigration from the Middle East, as tons of studies that I have presented in this thread have confirmed.

I've told you this a dozen times already. Ancient Egyptians are Ancient Egyptians.

That just something that you people say to attempt to prevent a layman interpretation of their biological affinities. We can say the Nubians were Nubians, the Greeks were Greek, the Romans were Romans, ect ect! Based on those populations biological affinities however we have concluded that they belong to certain social racial categories. Based on the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians:

"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

Does this mean that all African groups can simply be classed under a singular term black? No

Shut up with this BS dude! The source definition of black:

Negro- of, pertaining to, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, generally marked by brown to black skin pigmentation, dark eyes, and woolly or crisp hair and including especially the indigenous peoples of Africa south of the Sahara.

Stop beating around the damn bush. The early ancient Egyptians were black Africans/negroes!

[Manco]

You know don't know a damn thing about the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians and yet you have the audacity to accuse me of distorting something that I frequently research?

Considering Keita LITERALLY says paler Egyptians are just as indigenous to Egypt as darker ones, and that simply calling Egypt either black or white is ignorant... Yes I do have that audacity.

[MKGlouisville]

Among other things literally saying that lightskinned populations are indigenous to Egypt (as are darkskinned ones)

Salsassin (the guy who's talking) got his ass handed him to for trying to argue his BS on another forum. Now an interesting analogy is that he uses the San of non tropical southern Africa as an example of Northern Egyptians who also are not in tropical Africa. Now just look at the limb proportion chart above and look at how distant the light- to dark brown skinned san people are away from the ancient Northern Egyptians who group with the black skinned tropically adapted populations of the world. This completely disproves is his analogy.

literally agreeing that skin colour mostly correlates with latitude (the guy uses equatorial distance),literally saying that levantine migrators looked practically the same as the indigenous Northern Egyptians

DEBUNKED in my last post via Kemp 2006.

and that simply classifying people as black or white is ignorant.

First of all he is an African-American who identifies socially as Black. His birth name is Jon Derryl Walker. Shomarka Keita is an African name. So in his very name we can see an affinity for Africa. His wife is also from Africa (Kenya).
He is a member of the NAACP and other "pro-Black" organizations. Shomarka Keita is not a man who is "color blind."

[Manco]

Yeah, doesn't change the fact that wat Keita says in no conceivable way agrees with what you say.

First of all he is an African-American who identifies socially as Black. His birth name is Jon Derryl Walker. Shomarka Keita is an African name. So in his very name we can see an affinity for Africa. His wife is also from Africa (Kenya).
He is a member of the NAACP and other "pro-Black" organizations. Shomarka Keita is not a man who is "color blind."

And? Because he himself identifies as African American and black doesn't mean anythng beyond that. In fact he literally says he doesn't call anyone but himself black.
By the way, I'm supposed to believe some random Morpheus while there is no trace whatsoever of this claim on the internet regarding his birthname.

[MKGlouisville]

Yeah, doesn't change the fact that wat Keita says in no conceivable way agrees with what you say.

Tell me then Manco what is my stance 1)from a biological perspective: and 2) from a social perspective? If you are wrong I will simply correct you.

And? Because he himself identifies as African American and black doesn't mean anythng beyond that. In fact he literally says he doesn't call anyone but himself black.

I thought you just said that he wants to do away with the term all together? Now why would he consider himself black and also be a prominent member of a pro black organization to help other black people, if he didn't believe in such concepts....You see there you look silly!

Identify which group of African children looks the least like Tut:




King Tut

By the way no one answered my question!

[Manco]

No, you tell me, short and concise. Because from where I'm standing you sound like any generic afrocentrist in your conclusions of Egypt being simply black

As for Keita, he obviously identifies as African American socially. However in his works he doesn't use the term black as some racially defined term (opposed to for example white).
As for him being a part of NAACP, NAACP is an African American organisation supporting the African American community (which was and is in many cases indeed underprivileged). That's something entirely different than the usage of racial categories in a biological sense in scientific articles.