Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 191

Thread: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

  1. #41

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Dude. I am not interested in debating ancient Egypt with you.
    Like I said, there is no science saying what you claim it does, which is why you reply talking about the ancient Egyptians being brown.
    I'm not making claims, I'm asking you to provide evidence.


    This is supposed to then lead into a whole debate on what "black" means and why brown isn't black and it is a whole bunch of B.S.
    No, this is supposed to lead to evidence for your claims.


    So come on man leave me out of this nonsense.
    So you have nothing except sophistry. Despite being asked to repeatedly, you couldn't produce a single historian by name who supports what you say, no primary source, no archaeological evidence, nothing. Just claims that science isn't science, and that Europeans are "racist".

    Well I suppose it serves as an example to show everybody why Afrocentrism is unscientific BS.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Like I said, there is no science saying what you claim it does, which is why you reply talking about the ancient Egyptians being brown.
    Nonsense, according to genetics ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the following modern populations: Saudis, Cypriots, Armenians, South Italians, Druze, Greeks, Georgians, Tuscans, Sardinians, and North Italians. These are listed in order of genetic affinity, however ancient Egyptians were only slightly closer to modern Saudis than to North Italians. Since ancient times, Egyptians have actually had additional influence from sub-Saharan Africa so that modern Egyptians are more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians were (Hellenthal et al 2014). This is all on a population level. Of course we know that some prominent ancient Egyptians were of Nubian origin. Also four thousand years ago, the ancestors of these modern populations related to Egyptians were also darker complected than today since there has been positive selection for lighter skin since then, particularly on the north side of the Mediterranean (Wilde et al 2014).
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    I'm not making claims, I'm asking you to provide evidence.


    No, this is supposed to lead to evidence for your claims.



    So you have nothing except sophistry. Despite being asked to repeatedly, you couldn't produce a single historian by name who supports what you say, no primary source, no archaeological evidence, nothing. Just claims that science isn't science, and that Europeans are "racist".

    Well I suppose it serves as an example to show everybody why Afrocentrism is unscientific BS.
    No I said leave me out of this so-called debate. It is nonsense because the same tired arguments have been given from so-called science since Samuel Morton. Again, this is not new stuff and white racists have been 'making up' literally all sorts of pseudo science to cover their racism since they found Egypt. They went into the tombs and pillaged them with the assistance of the Turkish overlords of Egypt who couldn't care less about the ancient culture and started creating all sorts of racist claims about the ancient people. Then after plundering the tombs and taking the loot to Europe they started to actually study it and pretend to promote 'science'. And then they want to 'debate' about who is stealing history and lying about facts and seriously claim that Africans are stealing history from Africa from some position of being so 'honorable and righteous and scientific'.

    Come on dude you aren't making absolutely any sense.

    Every argument you are going to make which you claim is so truly scientific is 100% the same as the bad old racists. That is my point. That is why it is controversial and no it isn't because "new science" has said like I mentioned earlier that the Ancient Egyptians were a 'white race'.....

    Complexion, On this point our evidence is, perhaps, less conclusive than on most others connected with Egyptian ethnoffraphy. Yet, meagre as it may seem, we cannot pass by without a few remarks.

    Herodotus, in the passage already cited, (p. 115,) speaks of the colour of the Egyptians as if it were black; yet this is evidently a relative, and not an absolute term. This re- mark applies, also, to the hackneyed fable of the two black doves, who are said, in my- thological language, to have flown from Egypt, and established (at least one of them) the oracle of Delphi. Here, again, Herodotus supposes that because the doves were black, they must have represented Egyptian personages. But the Greeks, observes Maurice, called every thing black that related to Egypt, not excepting the river, the soil, and even the country itself; whence the name Khem the black country of Hermes.

    Again, in reference to the statement of Herodotus, on which I have already, perhaps, too largely commented, it may be well to give the evidence of another eye-witness, that of Ptolemy the geographer, who is believed to have been born in Egypt. He wrote in the second century of our era, and his observations must consequently have been made something more than five hundred years later than those of Herodotus. His words are as follow : " In corresponding situations on our side of the equator, that is to say, under the tropic of Cancer, men have not the colour of Ethiopians, nor are there elephants and rhinoceroses. But a little south of this, the northern tropic, the people are moderately dark as those, for example, who inhabit the thirty Schffini, (as far as Wady Haifa, in Nubia,) above Syene. But in the country around Meroe they are already sufficiently black, and there we first meet with pure Negroes.*^*

    Here is ample evidence to prove that the natural geographical position of the Negroes was the same seventeen centuries since as it is now; and for ages antecedent to Herodo- tus, the monuments are perfectly conclusive on the same subject. I could, therefore, much more readily believe that the historian had never been in Egypt at all,t than admit the literal and unqualified interpretation of his words which has been insisted on by some, and which would class the Egyptians with the Negro race.


    28 OBSERVATIONS ON EGYPTIAN ETHNOGRAPHY,

    On the monuments the Egyptians represent the men of their nation red, the women yellow; which leads to the reasonable inference that the common complexion was darkf in the same sense in which that term is applicable to the Arabs and other southern Cau- casian nations, and varying, as among the modern Hindoos, from comparatively fair to a dark and swarthy hue. "Two facts," says Heeren, "are historically demonstrated; one, that among the Egyptians themselves there was a difference of colour; for individuals are expressly distinguished from each other by being of a darker or lighter complexion: the other, that the higher castes of warriors and priests, wherever they are represented in colours, pertain to the fairer class."

    That the Ethiopians proper, or Meroites, were of a dark, and perhaps very dark com- plexion, is more than probable; and among other facts in support of this view, we find that the mother of Amenhotep III., and wife of Thotmosis IV., who was a Meroite princess, is painted black on the monuments. Thus the different complexion of the great divi- sions of the Egyptian nation must sometimes have been blended, like their physiognomi- cal traits, even in the members of the royal family.

    It is not, however, to he supposed that the Egyptians were really red men, as they are represented on the monuments. This colour, with a symbolic signification, was conven- tionally adopted for the whole nation, (with very rare exceptions,) from Meroe to Mem- phis. Thus, also, the kings of the Greek and Roman dynasties are painted of the same complexion.*

    Professor Rosellini supposes the Egyptians to have been of a brown, or reddish-broWn colour, (rosso-fosco,) like the present'inhabitants of Nubia; but, with all deference to that illustrious archseologist, I conceive that his remark is only applicable to the Austral Egyptians as a group, and not to the inhabitants of Egypt proper, except as a partial result of that mixture of nations to which I have already adverted, and which will be more fully inquired into hereafter.
    https://archive.org/stream/craniaaeg...tgoog_djvu.txt

    From Crania Aegyptiaca: Or, Observations On Egyptian Ethnography, Derived from Anatomy, History and the Monuments [Samuel George Morton] . 1844.

    The same nonsense arguments being made then being made now and there were no "Afrocentrics" then.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Nonsense, according to genetics ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the following modern populations: Saudis, Cypriots, Armenians, South Italians, Druze, Greeks, Georgians, Tuscans, Sardinians, and North Italians. These are listed in order of genetic affinity, however ancient Egyptians were only slightly closer to modern Saudis than to North Italians. Since ancient times, Egyptians have actually had additional influence from sub-Saharan Africa so that modern Egyptians are more closely related to sub-Saharan Africans than ancient Egyptians were (Hellenthal et al 2014). This is all on a population level. Of course we know that some prominent ancient Egyptians were of Nubian origin. Also four thousand years ago, the ancestors of these modern populations related to Egyptians were also darker complected than today since there has been positive selection for lighter skin since then, particularly on the north side of the Mediterranean (Wilde et al 2014).
    Where in either article does it say that the "Ancient egyptians were closer to MODERN European ethnics" than modern Southern Egyptians, Northern Sudanese, Northern Egyptians and Saharan Africans? Please show me that. Because all logic would say those people I mentioned would be the closest of all people to the ancient population. I think you are paraphrasing and trying to twist something into saying what it doesn't say.
    Last edited by Aikanár; May 16, 2015 at 05:20 AM. Reason: consecutive postings; please use the "edit post" button.

  4. #44

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    No I said leave me out of this so-called debate. It is nonsense because the same tired arguments have been given from so-called science since Samuel Morton. Again, this is not new stuff and white racists have been 'making up' literally all sorts of pseudo science to cover their racism since they found Egypt. They went into the tombs and pillaged them with the assistance of the Turkish overlords of Egypt who couldn't care less about the ancient culture and started creating all sorts of racist claims about the ancient people. Then after plundering the tombs and taking the loot to Europe they started to actually study it and pretend to promote 'science'. And then they want to 'debate' about who is stealing history and lying about facts and seriously claim that Africans are stealing history from Africa from some position of being so 'honorable and righteous and scientific'.

    Come on dude you aren't making absolutely any sense.
    Are you trolling?

  5. #45

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Where in either article does it say that the "Ancient egyptians were closer to MODERN European ethnics" than modern Southern Egyptians, Northern Sudanese, Northern Egyptians and Saharan Africans? Please show me that. Because all logic would say those people I mentioned would be the closest of all people to the ancient population. I think you are paraphrasing and trying to twist something into saying what it doesn't say.
    Supplementary materials. See here:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Side 2 is clearly the ancestral population not only because it constitutes a greater proportion of the modern genome but because we know the sub-Saharan African element was primarily via the female sex slave trade (Richards et al 2003). Ancient Egyptians were generally a part of the ancient Near-Eastern Neolithic farming population that expanded across the Mediterranean, more on that here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tics-of-Europe
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  6. #46

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    379
    As I recall, that wasn't all desert at some point in time, so migration would present fewer barriers in any particular direction.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  7. #47

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Supplementary materials. See here:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Side 2 is clearly the ancestral population not only because it constitutes a greater proportion of the modern genome but because we know the sub-Saharan African element was primarily via the female sex slave trade (Richards et al 2003). Ancient Egyptians were generally a part of the ancient Near-Eastern Neolithic farming population that expanded across the Mediterranean, more on that here: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...tics-of-Europe
    That slide does not say that black folks got to Egypt because of the Arab slave trade.
    It does not go all the way back to 4000BC and there is no representation of populations in Sudan or the Sahara.
    The closest African populations are in Ethiopia and then you get far off South Africa and West africa.
    It does not represent any sort of 'smoking gun' on anything.


    And the paper does not say that Arab slavery introduced 'black genes' into Egypt.

    None of this represents any substantial facts on the ground in Egypt as opposed to round about conjecture and inferences that mean nothing.

    The closest people to the ancient Egyptians are ..... the Egyptians, followed by Sudanese then Saharans and others.
    Any suggestion otherwise is nonsense.

    To hear you tell it those European ethnics are closer to ancient Egyptians than the Egyptians are.

    But like I said, there is no 'smoking gun' paper that is beyond refute proving what some people say it does.
    Which means the debate and the reasons behind it are going to be around for quite a while.
    Last edited by ArmoredCore; May 15, 2015 at 08:10 PM.

  8. #48
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,249

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    8029
    On the other side of the world, everything is derived from the Middle Kingdom.
    Not even the Chinese take that claim seriously anymore, seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Condottiere 40K View Post
    Rastafarianism seems to be based on a similar premise. But you could excuse that on what they're smoking.
    4512
    LOL. Their worship of the Ethiopian monarchy is truly legendary...and definitely influenced by the green stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Crazy stuff. That was my last brush with Afrocentrism. Was he the guy that argued because some southern Egyptians had some sub-Saharan African-looking DNA, therefore all Egyptians were sub-Saharan Africans (and by logical progression their civilisation was the work of sub-Saharan Africans)? I like the melting pot view myself.
    To be honest, the only thing I remember about him was his pink whale avatar. Aside from that, I forget his forum name and just about everything else. The dude was good for a laugh, though, in that conversation about ancient Minoans at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    All this boils down to the blowback from the Academic upheaval of the 70s when African scholars began challenging the 'establishment' in European Universities over some key aspects of European histriography. And the most contentious aspect of that upheaval was 1) ancient Egypt was a black civilization and 2) Ancient Greece got its start from Egypt.
    As for argument #1, I think enough fake internet ink has been spilled on that topic in this thread thus far, although I will chip in to say that I agree with Cyclops, that Egypt was at least somewhat multiracial due to its proximity to Nubia, the Kingdom of Kush, along with the Levant and Libya. As for Egyptians being brown like modern-day Egyptians, I think that is largely true, as Athanaric has pointed out.

    As for argument #2, I think this simply confuses some cultural influence with actual foundation. It's pretty clear the ancient Mycenaean Greeks received most of their influence from the Minoans of Crete and the Hittites of Anatolia. The Archaic and Classical era Greeks received most of their cultural, technological, and intellectual influence at the start from the Phoenicians, who lived in what is now modern-day Lebanon (and whose colony of Carthage came to dominate the Western Mediterranean before being toppled by the Roman Republic). It's clear that by the 6th century BC the Greeks became a bit indebted to the ancient Egyptians for astronomical and mathematical treatises, along with some ideas about structural design in architecture, but I would say they were no more influenced by the Egyptians than the Babylonians in these regards. This is all to say that the Greeks did nothing by themselves. The vast majority of Greek achievements after the 5th century BC were of their own making and ingenuity, not because they borrowed from others wholesale or relied on them like baby calves on their mother's teet.

    Once the internet became the dominant form of communication that same debate moved online with the same arguments that have been going on for the last few hundred years. Again, modern anthropology got its start in the 1800s when Europeans set out to prove the ancient Egyptians were white by excavating and measuring the skulls of ancient Egyptian remains.......
    Phrenology is a silly science, a pseudoscience of the 19th century that existed into the early 20th, although from there onwards it was rightfully ridiculed and pushed out of serious academic debate. I don't see how this has any bearing on present-day anthropology, even if the latter is rooted in centuries-old silliness.

    As far as primitive goes most populations on the planet lived relatively primitive lives up until the late 1700s even in Europe. . For the traditional architecture of Britain for example was the Thatched hut. And most of the most advanced cities in America weren't even built until the late 19th century. But of course all of that gets lost in all of this nonsense.
    I think you're mistaking general poverty of the masses with primitiveness. Even in the High Middle Ages, royalty and nobility didn't live in the same thatched hut houses as the poor, although the Early Middle Ages was backwards enough for kings to still live in similar timber halls. Case in point, the Anglo-Saxon kings of Britain during the Early Middle Ages didn't live in very impressive structures, even if stone churches modeled on pre-Romanesque architecture were popping up. However, after the Norman conquest, grand stone edifices for housing the royal court like the palaces of Windsor Castle and the Tower of London were constructed in the High Middle Ages (modified here and there in the following eras, but essentially the same structures). Once we move into the 16th and 17th centuries, the resources for building projects back home become far greater with Europe's colonial expansion overseas. It is in this period where you see the grand palaces of Europe being built. For instance, the grand palace at Versailles was made the official residence of the French royal court as far back as 1682.

    Ceramic tiling for rooftops actually came back into vogue in the 15th century, in Renaissance Italy. I think you're also forgetting the fact that previously the ancient Romans universally built stone and brick apartment buildings and villas with ceramic-tiled roofs throughout their empire, as far afield as provinces of Britannia following their conquest of the isle in the 1st century AD. Mind you, stone houses for commoners in medieval Britain was usually limited to wealthy money-lending Jews (before their forced expulsion in 1290), but the idea was still applied, even if on a rare basis. I also don't believe architecture like this to be the only worthy marker of civilization and the overall level of science and technology available in a particular given era.

    For instance, although the Chinese used ceramic tiled rooftops as far back as the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC, most Chinese architecture before the Tang and Song dynasties was constructed of timber and rammed earth, minus stone pillar gates during the Han Dynasty and the rise of stone (and brick) Buddhist pagodas during the Northern and Southern dynasties period preceding the Sui Dynasty. Despite this, the Chinese were generally ahead of everyone else in regards to various technologies and scientific ideas, rivaled only by the Byzantines, Persians and Arabs between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the dawning of the Italian Renaissance. I generally lump the Koreans in with the Chinese on this assessment (Confucian brothers, after all), even though Korea contributed far less. In any case, by at least the start of the Ming Dynasty in the 14th century, stone and brick architecture became the standard for imperial architecture in China.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    To hear you tell it those European ethnics are closer to ancient Egyptians than the Egyptians are.
    I'm addressing your post somewhat out of order, because clearly you didn't understand the Hellental et al 2014 paper, and that's partly because of my lack of explanation. Lacking any significant ancient autosomal samples at this point, the assumption is that modern Egyptians are the closest population to ancient Egyptians, but it is the IBD (Identical By Descent) segments which they share with modern Saudis, Cypriots, Armenians, South Italians, Druze, Greeks, Georgians, Tuscans, Sardinians, and North Italians that appear to originate from the ancient population due to the pattern of the admixture event.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    That slide does not say that black folks got to Egypt because of the Arab slave trade.
    What is says is that the modern Egyptian population was shaped by two detectable major admixture events, one centered at about 914 CE and another centered at 1586 CE. Both these events introduced IBD segments in common with distant sub-Saharan African populations.

    From the text of the paper:

    Seventeen populations from the Mediterranean, the Near East, and countries bordering the Arabian Sea (Fig. 2D, blue box 3) show signals of admixture from sub-Saharan Africa, with most recent dates in the range 890 to 1754 CE (Fig. 2, B and D). We interpret these signals, consistent with overlapping results of previous studies (4, 20), as resulting from the Arab expansion and slave trade, which originated around the seventh century CE (35). Our event dates are highly consistent with this but also imply earlier sub-Saharan African gene flow into, for example, the Moroccans. The highest-contributing sub-Saharan donor is West African for all 12 Mediterranean populations and an East or South African Bantu-speaking group for all five Arabian Sea populations (Fig. 2D), confirming genetically different sources for these slave trades (35).
    As you can see in the slide, the IBD segments not from the (chronologically) first sub-Saharan African admixture event are those in common with the Middle-eastern and Southern European populations I mentioned. This is supported by Richards et al 2003 (which I already referenced), Moorjani et al 2011, Henn et al 2012, and Haber et al 2013. Sub-Saharan African admixture in modern Middle-Eastern and North African populations is mostly within the Arab speaking Muslim population.

    From Richards et al:

    In summary, these results are consistent with mainly female migration from eastern Africa into Arab communities within the last few thousand years. There have been many opportunities for such migrations between eastern Africa and southern Arabia during this period. However, the most likely explanation for the presence of predominantly female lineages of African origin in other parts of the Arab world is that these may trace back to women brought from Africa as part of the Arab slave trade, assimilated into the Arabian population as a result of miscegenation and manumission. Indeed, unlike the situation in the Americas, there are no substantial communities of African descent in the Near East today. This is thought to be because relatively few men—mainly employed in manual labor and military service or castrated and employed as eunuchs—left descendants. Women, by contrast, were imported specifically for the sexual gratification of élite males and for their reproductive potential. The practice of manumission meant that their offspring were born free. Female slaves were, therefore, readily integrated into Islamic society (Lewis 1992; Segal 2001).
    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    It does not go all the way back to 4000BC and there is no representation of populations in Sudan or the Sahara.
    The lack of Sudanese sample is a weakness I think, and there would almost certainly be some IDB sharing. For this to really be an issue though, you have to assume that the Sudanese population shares nothing in common with both Ethiopia and Egypt (highly unlikely). You'd have to explain why Egyptians from two thousand years ago would have so much in common with North Italians than while having nothing in common with Ethiopians. Yes it doesn't go back that far because it's based on IBD, but which is the more likely scenario?

    1) That Egyptians in late antiquity were largely descended from ancient Egyptians

    or

    2) That by late antiquity, Hellenistic and Roman settlement in Egypt had completely displaced the indigenous population while retaining the indigenous language.

    I am going with option 1, especially since Mediterranean European populations are largely descended from Neolithic farmers of Near Eastern origin.

    If we want to look back further, the indigenous substrate of North Africa is Berber-like and characterized by back-migration from the Middle-East:

    Abstract: North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes; however, the time and the extent of genetic divergence between populations north and south of the Sahara remain poorly understood. Here, we interrogate the multilayered history of North Africa by characterizing the effect of hypothesized migrations from the Near East, Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa on current genetic diversity. We present dense, genome-wide SNP genotyping array data (730,000 sites) from seven North African populations, spanning from Egypt to Morocco, and one Spanish population. We identify a gradient of likely autochthonous Maghrebi ancestry that increases from east to west across northern Africa; this ancestry is likely derived from “back-to-Africa” gene flow more than 12,000 years ago (ya), prior to the Holocene. The indigenous North African ancestry is more frequent in populations with historical Berber ethnicity. In most North African populations we also see substantial shared ancestry with the Near East, and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. To estimate the time of migration from sub-Saharan populations into North Africa, we implement a maximum likelihood dating method based on the distribution of migrant tracts. In order to first identify migrant tracts, we assign local ancestry to haplotypes using a novel, principal component-based analysis of three ancestral populations. We estimate that a migration of western African origin into Morocco began about 40 generations ago (approximately 1,200 ya); a migration of individuals with Nilotic ancestry into Egypt occurred about 25 generations ago (approximately 750 ya). Our genomic data reveal an extraordinarily complex history of migrations, involving at least five ancestral populations, into North Africa.
    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.1002397

    EDIT: Here are the admixture affinities of modern North African populations:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Tunisian Berber sample stands out from the rest at K=8 because they have the most indigenous Berber ancestry of all the groups, if anything, ancient Egyptians may have been more similar to them than modern Egyptian are based on the migration patterns supported by the genetic evidence.

    On a related (but less scientific) note, am I the only one who thinks this Tunisian Berber woman looks very similar to the way idealized women were depicted in ancient Egyptian art?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by sumskilz; May 16, 2015 at 02:30 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #50

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I'm addressing your post somewhat out of order, because clearly you didn't understand the Hellental et al 2014 paper, and that's partly because of my lack of explanation. Lacking any significant ancient autosomal samples at this point, the assumption is that modern Egyptians are the closest population to ancient Egyptians, but it is the IBD (Identical By Descent) segments which they share with modern Saudis, Cypriots, Armenians, South Italians, Druze, Greeks, Georgians, Tuscans, Sardinians, and North Italians that appear to originate from the ancient population due to the pattern of the admixture event.

    What is says is that the modern Egyptian population was shaped by two detectable major admixture events, one centered at about 914 CE and another centered at 1586 CE. Both these events introduced IBD segments in common with distant sub-Saharan African populations.

    From the text of the paper:

    As you can see in the slide, the IBD segments not from the (chronologically) first sub-Saharan African admixture event are those in common with the Middle-eastern and Southern European populations I mentioned. This is supported by Richards et al 2003 (which I already referenced), Moorjani et al 2011, Henn et al 2012, and Haber et al 2013. Sub-Saharan African admixture in modern Middle-Eastern and North African populations is mostly within the Arab speaking Muslim population.

    From Richards et al:



    The lack of Sudanese sample is a weakness I think, and there would almost certainly be some IDB sharing. For this to really be an issue though, you have to assume that the Sudanese population shares nothing in common with both Ethiopia and Egypt (highly unlikely). You'd have to explain why Egyptians from two thousand years ago would have so much in common with North Italians than while having nothing in common with Ethiopians. Yes it doesn't go back that far because it's based on IBD, but which is the more likely scenario?

    1) That Egyptians in late antiquity were largely descended from ancient Egyptians

    or

    2) That by late antiquity, Hellenistic and Roman settlement in Egypt had completely displaced the indigenous population while retaining the indigenous language.

    I am going with option 1, especially since Mediterranean European populations are largely descended from Neolithic farmers of Near Eastern origin.

    If we want to look back further, the indigenous substrate of North Africa is Berber-like and characterized by back-migration from the Middle-East:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.1002397

    EDIT: Here are the admixture affinities of modern North African populations:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Tunisian Berber sample stands out from the rest at K=8 because they have the most indigenous Berber ancestry of all the groups, if anything, ancient Egyptians may have been more similar to them than modern Egyptian are based on the migration patterns supported by the genetic evidence.

    On a related (but less scientific) note, am I the only one who thinks this Tunisian Berber woman looks very similar to the way idealized women were depicted in ancient Egyptian art?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Hands on, best argument I've seen about this.
    10/10
    Cattle die, kindred die,
    Every man is mortal:
    But the good name never dies
    Of one who has done well

    Havamal 76

  11. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Not even the Chinese take that claim seriously anymore, seriously.



    LOL. Their worship of the Ethiopian monarchy is truly legendary...and definitely influenced by the green stuff.



    To be honest, the only thing I remember about him was his pink whale avatar. Aside from that, I forget his forum name and just about everything else. The dude was good for a laugh, though, in that conversation about ancient Minoans at least.



    As for argument #1, I think enough fake internet ink has been spilled on that topic in this thread thus far, although I will chip in to say that I agree with Cyclops, that Egypt was at least somewhat multiracial due to its proximity to Nubia, the Kingdom of Kush, along with the Levant and Libya. As for Egyptians being brown like modern-day Egyptians, I think that is largely true, as Athanaric has pointed out.

    As for argument #2, I think this simply confuses some cultural influence with actual foundation. It's pretty clear the ancient Mycenaean Greeks received most of their influence from the Minoans of Crete and the Hittites of Anatolia. The Archaic and Classical era Greeks received most of their cultural, technological, and intellectual influence at the start from the Phoenicians, who lived in what is now modern-day Lebanon (and whose colony of Carthage came to dominate the Western Mediterranean before being toppled by the Roman Republic). It's clear that by the 6th century BC the Greeks became a bit indebted to the ancient Egyptians for astronomical and mathematical treatises, along with some ideas about structural design in architecture, but I would say they were no more influenced by the Egyptians than the Babylonians in these regards. This is all to say that the Greeks did nothing by themselves. The vast majority of Greek achievements after the 5th century BC were of their own making and ingenuity, not because they borrowed from others wholesale or relied on them like baby calves on their mother's teet.



    Phrenology is a silly science, a pseudoscience of the 19th century that existed into the early 20th, although from there onwards it was rightfully ridiculed and pushed out of serious academic debate. I don't see how this has any bearing on present-day anthropology, even if the latter is rooted in centuries-old silliness.



    I think you're mistaking general poverty of the masses with primitiveness. Even in the High Middle Ages, royalty and nobility didn't live in the same thatched hut houses as the poor, although the Early Middle Ages was backwards enough for kings to still live in similar timber halls. Case in point, the Anglo-Saxon kings of Britain during the Early Middle Ages didn't live in very impressive structures, even if stone churches modeled on pre-Romanesque architecture were popping up. However, after the Norman conquest, grand stone edifices for housing the royal court like the palaces of Windsor Castle and the Tower of London were constructed in the High Middle Ages (modified here and there in the following eras, but essentially the same structures). Once we move into the 16th and 17th centuries, the resources for building projects back home become far greater with Europe's colonial expansion overseas. It is in this period where you see the grand palaces of Europe being built. For instance, the grand palace at Versailles was made the official residence of the French royal court as far back as 1682.

    Ceramic tiling for rooftops actually came back into vogue in the 15th century, in Renaissance Italy. I think you're also forgetting the fact that previously the ancient Romans universally built stone and brick apartment buildings and villas with ceramic-tiled roofs throughout their empire, as far afield as provinces of Britannia following their conquest of the isle in the 1st century AD. Mind you, stone houses for commoners in medieval Britain was usually limited to wealthy money-lending Jews (before their forced expulsion in 1290), but the idea was still applied, even if on a rare basis. I also don't believe architecture like this to be the only worthy marker of civilization and the overall level of science and technology available in a particular given era.

    For instance, although the Chinese used ceramic tiled rooftops as far back as the Shang Dynasty in the 2nd millennium BC, most Chinese architecture before the Tang and Song dynasties was constructed of timber and rammed earth, minus stone pillar gates during the Han Dynasty and the rise of stone (and brick) Buddhist pagodas during the Northern and Southern dynasties period preceding the Sui Dynasty. Despite this, the Chinese were generally ahead of everyone else in regards to various technologies and scientific ideas, rivaled only by the Byzantines, Persians and Arabs between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the dawning of the Italian Renaissance. I generally lump the Koreans in with the Chinese on this assessment (Confucian brothers, after all), even though Korea contributed far less. In any case, by at least the start of the Ming Dynasty in the 14th century, stone and brick architecture became the standard for imperial architecture in China.
    I am aware of everything you said about stone building but that wasn't my point. Most humans all over the planet even in so-called 'advanced' civilizations lived relatively primitive up until the 1800s. Even in America which was mostly a rural population up to that time. Urbanization and industrialization made it possible for the living standards of the majority of a population to rise not simply the elite. Prior to that mostly what you had was a civilized core of cities and estates surrounded by a sea of rural peasantry who supported the core.

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    I'm addressing your post somewhat out of order, because clearly you didn't understand the Hellental et al 2014 paper, and that's partly because of my lack of explanation. Lacking any significant ancient autosomal samples at this point, the assumption is that modern Egyptians are the closest population to ancient Egyptians, but it is the IBD (Identical By Descent) segments which they share with modern Saudis, Cypriots, Armenians, South Italians, Druze, Greeks, Georgians, Tuscans, Sardinians, and North Italians that appear to originate from the ancient population due to the pattern of the admixture event.

    What is says is that the modern Egyptian population was shaped by two detectable major admixture events, one centered at about 914 CE and another centered at 1586 CE. Both these events introduced IBD segments in common with distant sub-Saharan African populations.

    From the text of the paper:

    As you can see in the slide, the IBD segments not from the (chronologically) first sub-Saharan African admixture event are those in common with the Middle-eastern and Southern European populations I mentioned. This is supported by Richards et al 2003 (which I already referenced), Moorjani et al 2011, Henn et al 2012, and Haber et al 2013. Sub-Saharan African admixture in modern Middle-Eastern and North African populations is mostly within the Arab speaking Muslim population.

    From Richards et al:



    The lack of Sudanese sample is a weakness I think, and there would almost certainly be some IDB sharing. For this to really be an issue though, you have to assume that the Sudanese population shares nothing in common with both Ethiopia and Egypt (highly unlikely). You'd have to explain why Egyptians from two thousand years ago would have so much in common with North Italians than while having nothing in common with Ethiopians. Yes it doesn't go back that far because it's based on IBD, but which is the more likely scenario?

    1) That Egyptians in late antiquity were largely descended from ancient Egyptians

    or

    2) That by late antiquity, Hellenistic and Roman settlement in Egypt had completely displaced the indigenous population while retaining the indigenous language.

    I am going with option 1, especially since Mediterranean European populations are largely descended from Neolithic farmers of Near Eastern origin.

    If we want to look back further, the indigenous substrate of North Africa is Berber-like and characterized by back-migration from the Middle-East:

    http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetic...l.pgen.1002397

    EDIT: Here are the admixture affinities of modern North African populations:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    The Tunisian Berber sample stands out from the rest at K=8 because they have the most indigenous Berber ancestry of all the groups, if anything, ancient Egyptians may have been more similar to them than modern Egyptian are based on the migration patterns supported by the genetic evidence.

    On a related (but less scientific) note, am I the only one who thinks this Tunisian Berber woman looks very similar to the way idealized women were depicted in ancient Egyptian art?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Again, without getting into a back and forth with you, the reason this debate goes on is things like this. There is absolutely no science that says black upper Egyptians only recently got to Egypt because of slavery. None. Just as there is no science that says mulattoes or whites got to North Africa and the Sahara before indigenous black Africans. Yes there was an Arab slave trade which would have brought Africans to places outside Africa. But there was also a European/Turkish slave trade that brought Europeans to North Africa (recall the Mamelukes? Recall Muhammad Ali the Albanian?). That is what those facts you are presented are saying. And none of that has anything to do with ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt started in the South of Egypt and that fundamental fact has been written by almost every Egyptologist that has ever written on the subject. But nobody that I know of has ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people were transplants from outside Egypt, no matter how hard they have tried. So the science isn't there because facts don't support it. And the people on the ground in Egypt, especially Upper Egypt, Northern Sudan and the Sahara are those who are the rightful heirs to ancient Egypt.

    These factoids about human mixture 'events' do not prove anything about ancient Egypt except that the modern population is mixed as you yourself has stated. So again, there is no 'smoking gun' sort of paper that somehow provides such ovewhelming evidence to cause any naysayers to be quiet. And more importantly, if you are going to talk about ancient populations in Egypt the only place you should be looking at is Egypt. I find it funny how folks try and bring in populations from all over the world but omit looking at the people IN EGYPT as the basis for their study. And this is how you get the absurd situation of Europeans going to Egypt pretending that THEY are more connected to the ancient cultures than the black folks all around them. And thus, the same arguments about this are going to continue because fundamentally nothing has changed from 200 years ago when European explorers were 'making up' facts to suit their agenda.

    Keep in mind that Petrie was making the same arguments in his works..... where he tried to support the dynastic or 'mixed race' theory of Egypt, where the Upper Egyptian population was basically a mixture between local populations and EUROPEAN types from the North African coast. In other books he said that invaders came in from the Red Sea and introduced a new population into Upper Egypt from which arose the ancient culture. Either way both of those theories were supposedly discredited and Petrie himself gave up on the Dynastic race theory but here we are 150 years later with people claiming the exact same things.
    It seems then that, as far as data so widely separated in time and place can be compared, there was a mixed race in North Africa and Egypt in the early prehistoric age ; and that this, fused together, has persisted in Algeria with some slight improvement in general size, and especially the width of the skull from increase of brain. To get behind this mixed race is quite beyond our present data.

    That there was somewhat of the old palaeolithic Bushman stock is very probable ; and that there may have been another low type such as the Socratic Sinai Bedawy seems likely from its position.

    These results are, however, for the Abydos region ; and on going fifty miles further up the country to the Naqada region we find that the lower of the Abydos types seems to predominate.

    To settle how far either of these results may be representative is impossible until some other large series of prehistoric skulls may be obtained in different parts of the country. So far, it might well be that the Naqada type had been mixed with a more European type at Abydos, and also lower down in the Nile valley and along the African coast.

    The later prehistoric people were a fusion of the earlier elements, as we
    have noticed above, with a smaller addition perhaps a third of a higher type. That there was some distinct change in culture from about 38 to 44 sequence date, 1 is evident from the considerable changes there. The older forms of pottery disappear at this time, and new forms come in. The plain red polished and the black topped pottery cease to start new forms at 43 ; the fancy forms of pottery
    cease to arise after 40 ; whereas the decorated pottery with ships and animals practically begins at 40 ; the wavy-handled pottery also begins at 40, and the late rough pottery begins at 43. In short, the old style of ware, like the Kabyle, was arrested (the white cross-lined patterns had died out before), and the new styles had nothing in common with the Kabyliau. The minority type of man with larger faces was apparently that of the people who brought about this change, as the few of this class clear of the majority range (curves 35 to 39) that can be dated are of sequence dates 42 to 65 or later, and probably were equally spread over the whole time. Such a continued separation points to their being a distinct class.

    This incoming people may be somewhat understood by the different character of objects which they brought in. The most important of these is the barrel- shaped vase of stone, unknown before S.D. 39, and in full use by 42 sequence date. This form is shown in the I Dynasty as being offered in tribute by the people with pointed nose, and hair plaited in a pigtail, who also wear a long robe of skins. They came then from a rocky region where stone was used, and from a cold region where long robes were needed ; yet not far from Egypt, as they were early subdued by the dynastic race, and employed in the conquest of lower Egypt, shown on the slate carving with captives. Moreover, a few small vases of the decorated pottery are rarely found in earlier graves of 31-40 sequence date, probably imported, but showing that this other civilisation was in existence almost as early as any graves in Egypt. The only district which agrees with these indications would be the eastern desert hills. There are still many fertile valleys in this region, as at the convents of St. Antony and St. Paul, and the porphyry quarries ; it has been shown by Floyer that the eastern desert had much more vegetation before the introduction of the devastating camel ; and Sneferu is known to have made 122 tanks for cattle, probably in these desert valleys.
    https://archive.org/details/migrations00petruoft
    Last edited by ArmoredCore; May 16, 2015 at 06:01 AM. Reason: consecutive postings; please use the "edit post" button.

  12. #52

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    There is absolutely no science that says black upper Egyptians only recently got to Egypt because of slavery. None.
    What is black in scientific terms? The people of Upper Egypt have a complexion I would call brown, but their autosomal DNA has more in common with North Africans and Middle-Easterners than with most sub-Saharan Africans. Although based on haplogroups they also have a connection to the Horn of Africa which is further back, as well as some relatively recent sub-Saharan admixture (as previously discussed). The Horn of Africa is also very much an intermediate population due to back-migration from the Middle-East.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Just as there is no science that says mulattoes or whites got to North Africa and the Sahara before indigenous black Africans.
    The indigenous people of North Africa are more like Middle-Easterners and Mediterranean people genetically speaking - calling them whites or mulattoes doesn't even make sense. At the time they first populated the region, very light complected people didn't exist yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Ancient Egypt started in the South of Egypt and that fundamental fact has been written by almost every Egyptologist that has ever written on the subject. But nobody that I know of has ever proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that these people were transplants from outside Egypt, no matter how hard they have tried. So the science isn't there because facts don't support it. And the people on the ground in Upper Egypt are those who are the rightful heirs to ancient Egypt.
    It seems like you haven't understood any of the points I made. The indigenous people of North Africa and the Horn of Africa were largely descended from Middle-Eastern back migrants, considerable genetic evidence supports this. In North Africa this was predominately the case, in the Horn Africa the population was much more intermediate presumably because the region already had a considerable sub-Saharan African population. Upper Egypt seems to have been somewhat intermediate, but that doesn't show up as much in IBD analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    These factoids about human mixture 'events' do not prove anything about ancient Egypt except that the modern population is mixed as you yourself has stated.
    I'm not talking about factoids, but the entire structure of the Egyptian population. If there is some continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians (and there is DNA evidence to support that as well) then there are only two ways to interpret the IBD data.

    Again...

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    which is the more likely scenario?

    1) That Egyptians in late antiquity were largely descended from ancient Egyptians

    or

    2) That by late antiquity, Hellenistic and Roman settlement in Egypt had completely displaced the indigenous population while retaining the indigenous language.
    If ancient Egyptians were largely sub-Saharan in origin, then the answer has to be 2, which I find implausible.

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    And more importantly, if you are going to talk about ancient populations in Egypt the only place you should be looking at is Egypt. I find it funny how folks try and bring in populations from all over the world but omit looking at the people IN EGYPT as the basis for their study. And this is how you get the absurd situation of Europeans going to Egypt pretending that THEY are more connected to the ancient cultures than the black folks all around them. And thus, the same arguments about this are going to continue because fundamentally nothing has changed from 200 years ago when European explorers were 'making up' facts to suit their agenda.
    Every bit of evidence I've offered is based on the assumption that there is some continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians. I don't know what to say if you still don't understand that. It's not that Europeans came to Africa, it's that both Europe and North Africa were populated by people who came from the Middle East. You actually seem as stuck on simplistic population definitions as Petrie was, maybe this will make the situation clearer:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    You can see that people from the Horn of Africa, who are considered black, have very little recent ancestry in common with Afrocentrists of West African origin. The distinction they're using is based on identity politics and not much else, not any different than Nordicists really.

    Since you are intent on arguing that the population of Upper Egypt are the true heirs, I think it might also be useful to look at the Y-Chromosome DNA since it can reach further back than IBD data can.

    According Arredi et al 2004, the distripution of Upper Egyptian haplogroups are as follows:

    17.2% E-M78

    This is believed to have originated in the Nile Valley, it's common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe, with it's highest frequency near Thebes.

    6.9% E-M81

    This is most common in North African Berbers, but also found in Spain, France, Italy, and Turkey.

    6.9% E-M123

    This is most common in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

    17.2% F-M89

    This is actually South Asian in origin which is very strange I think.

    10.3% K-M9

    This is Southwest Asian origin

    3.4% I-M170

    This haplogroup most likely originated in the Balkans.

    20.7% J-M267

    This one is from the Arabian Peninsula.

    3.4% J-M172

    This one is Northern Mesopotamian in origin.

    13.8% R-M343

    This is the most common group in Western Europe but is West Asian in origin.

    We do have some ancient DNA to compare:

    Rameses III was E-V38 which is most common among North African Berbers and in the Horn of Africa.

    Tutankhamun was R-M343 which is the Western European type but probably originated in the Middle East or Caucasus.

    Six mummies dating from the Third Intermediate Period to the Roman Period appear to have been mtDNA haplogroup I2 which is mostly found in Europeans, though is probably of Middle-Eastern origin and shows up in Africa among speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages (Khairat et al 2013).

    As I said, ancient Egyptians were probably more similar to North African Berbers than Egyptians today are, but that Berber-like element is still present in Modern Egyptians to some degree. In general, speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages even in sub-Saharan Africa have more genetic inheritance from the Middle-East than their neighbors.
    Last edited by sumskilz; May 16, 2015 at 11:48 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  13. #53

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    What is black in scientific terms? The people of Upper Egypt have a complexion I would call brown, but their autosomal DNA has more in common with North Africans and Middle-Easterners than with most sub-Saharan Africans. Although based on haplogroups they also have a connection to the Horn of Africa which is further back. The Horn of Africa is also very much an intermediate population due to back-migration from the Middle-East.

    The indigenous people of North Africa are more like Middle-Easterners and Mediterranean people genetically speaking - calling them whites or mulattoes doesn't even make sense. At the time they first populated the region, very light complected people didn't exist yet.

    It seems like you haven't understood any of the points I made. The indigenous people of North Africa and the Horn of Africa were descended from Middle-Eastern back migrants, considerable genetic evidence supports this. In North Africa this was predominately the case, in the Horn Africa the population was much more intermediate presumably because the region was already had a considerable sub-Saharan African population. Upper Egypt seems to have been somewhat intermediate, but that doesn't show up as much in IBD analysis.

    I'm not talking about factoids, but the entire structure of the Egyptian population. If there is some continuity between ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians (and there is DNA evidence to support that as well) then there are only two ways to interpret the IBD data.

    Again...

    If ancient Egyptians were largely sub-Saharan in origin, then the answer has to be 2, which I find implausible.

    Every bit of evidence I've offered is based on the assumption that there is some continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians. I don't know what to say if you still don't understand that. It's not that Europeans came to Africa, it's that both Europe and North Africa were populated by people who came from the Middle East. You actually seem as stuck on simplistic population definitions as Petrie was, maybe this will make the situation clearer:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Since you are intent on arguing that the population of Upper Egypt are the true heirs, I think it might also be useful to look at the Y-Chromosome DNA since it can reach further back than IBD data can.

    According Arredi et al 2004, the distripution of Upper Egyptian haplogroups are as follows:

    17.2% E-M78

    This is believed to have originated in the Nile Valley, it's common in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, and Europe, with it's highest frequency near Thebes.

    6.9% E-M81

    This is most common in North African Berbers, but also found in Spain, France, Italy, and Turkey.

    6.9% E-M123

    This is most common in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.

    17.2% F-M89

    This is actually South Asian in origin which is very strange I think.

    10.3% K-M9

    This is Southwest Asian origin

    3.4% I-M170

    This haplogroup most likely originated in the Balkans.

    20.7% J-M267

    This one is from the Arabian Peninsula.

    3.4% J-M172

    This one is Northern Mesopotamian in origin.

    13.8% R-M343

    This is the most common group in Western Europe but is West Asian in origin.

    We do have some ancient DNA to compare:

    Rameses III was E-V38 which is most common among North African Berbers and in the Horn of Africa.

    Tutankhamun was R-M343 which is the Western European type but probably originated in the Middle East or Caucasus.

    Six mummies dating from the Third Intermediate Period to the Roman Period appear to have been mtDNA haplogroup I2 which is mostly found in Europeans, though is probably of Middle-Eastern origin and shows up in Africa among speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages (Khairat et al 2013).

    As I said, ancient Egyptians were probably more similar to North African Berbers than Egyptians today are, but that Berber-like element is still present in Modern Egyptians to some degree. In general, speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages even in sub-Saharan Africa have more genetic inheritance from the Middle-East than their neighbors.
    Suffice to say you have proven my point. Your argument is that the Egyptians today aren't closer to the ancients than other folks outside of Egypt. And all the so called science focuses on populations and people OUTSIDE of Egypt with little or no analysis of people IN EGYPT, especially Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan. And you seriously claim that this is 'conclusive proof' that is beyond debate and NOBODY should be arguing with anyone about this. And then folks want to claim that these 'scholarly' and 'scientific' conclusions are being rejected by crackpot radicals as if what they are saying has any scientific merit....

    Not to mention wanting to debate what brown is and what black is. I mean seriously they claim this is 'irrefutable proof' which to me sounds like the same racist garbage of Sergi and his "brown mediterranean" race of 100 years ago.

    But folks swear that this is such 'logical science' devoid of the bad old days of racism.
    Giuseppe Sergi (March 20, 1841 – October 17, 1936) was an influential Italian anthropologist of the early twentieth century, best known for his opposition to Nordicism in his books on the racial identity of ancient Mediterranean peoples. He rejected existing racial typologies that identified Mediterranean peoples as "dark whites" because it implied a Nordicist conception of Mediterranean peoples descending from whites whom had becomed racially mixed with non-whites that he claimed was false. His concept of the Mediterranean race, identified Mediterranean peoples as being an autonomous brown race and that the Nordic race descended from the Mediterranean race whose skin depigmented to a pale complexion after moving north. This concept became important to the modelling of racial difference in the early twentieth century.
    Contents






    Life

    Born in Messina, Sicily, Sergi first studied law and then linguistics and philosophy. At the age of 19 he took part in Garibaldi's expedition to Sicily.[1] He later took courses in physics and anatomy, finally specializing in racial anthropology as a student of Cesare Lombroso.
    In 1880 he was appointed as professor of anthropology at the University of Bologna. At this time the discipline of anthropology was still associated with the Literature Faculty. In the following years, thanks to the activity of his Laboratory of Anthropology and Psychology, he helped establish the discipline on a more scientific basis. In 1884 he moved to the University of Rome where he developed a program of research into both psychology and anthropology.
    In 1893 he founded the Roman Society of Anthropology and the Journal Atti della Societŕ Romana di Antropologia, which later evolved into the Italian Anthropological Institute (Istituto Italiano di Antropologia) and the Journal of Anthropological Sciences. This grew from part of the university. He was initially assigned temporary premises in the School of Application for Engineers in San Pietro in Vincoli and from 1887 the precursor of the Institute operated from the old building of the Roman college, where Sergi also dedicated part of the space to the creation of an Anthropological museum. On 4 June 1893 the new Society was created.[2][3]
    Internationally renowned for his contributions to anthropology, he succeeded in establishing the International Conference of Psychology in Rome, 1905, under his presidency.
    He died at Rome in 1936. His son Sergio Sergi (1878–1972), also a noted anthropologist, developed his father's theories.
    Racial theories

    Sergi's initial contribution was to oppose the use of the cephalic index to model population ancestry, arguing that over all cranial morphology was more useful.[3] However, Sergi's major theoretical achievement was his model of human ancestry, fully articulated in his books Human Variation (Varietŕ umane. Principio e metodo di classificazione) and The Mediterranean Race (1901), in which he argued that the earliest European peoples arose from original populations in the Horn of Africa, and were related to Hamitic peoples. This primal "Eurafrican race" split into three main groups, the Hamites, the Mediterranean race and the north European Nordic race. Semitic people were closely related to Mediterraneans but constituted a distinct "Afroasian" group.[3] The four great branches of the Mediterranean stock were the Libyans or Berbers, the Ligurians, the Pelasgians and the Iberians. Ancient Egyptians were considered by Sergi as a branch of the Libyans.
    According to Sergi the Mediterranean race, the "greatest race in the world", was responsible for the great civilisations of ancient times, including those of Egypt, Carthage, Greece and Rome. These Mediterranean peoples were quite distinct from the peoples of northern Europe.[3]
    Sergi argued that the Mediterraneans were more creative and imaginative than other peoples, which explained their ancient cultural and intellectual achievements, but that they were by nature volatile and unstable. In his book The Decline of the Latin Nations he argued that Northern Europeans had developed stoicism, tenacity and self-discipline due to the cold climate, and so were better adapted to succeed in modern civic cultures and economies.[3]
    Anti-Nordicism

    These theories were developed in opposition to Nordicism, the claim that the Nordic race was of pure Aryan stock and naturally superior to other Europeans. Sergi ridiculed Nordicists who claimed that the leaders of ancient Greek and Roman civilization were Germanic in origin and argued that the Germanic invasions at the end of the Roman empire had produced "delinquency, vagabondage and ferocity". Sergi believed that the Aryans were originally "Eurasiatic" barbarians who migrated from the Hindu Kush into Europe. He argued that the Italians had originally spoken a Hamitic language before the Aryan (Indo-European) Italic language spread across the country. Some Aryan influence was detectable in Northern Italy, but, racially speaking, southern Italians were unaffected by Aryan migrants.[3]
    Sergi expanded on these theories in later publications. Despite his denigration of Aryans and emphasis on Mediterranean racial identity, he denied that he was motivated by national pride, asserting that his works had the "goal of establishing the veracity of the facts without racial prejudice, without diminishing the value of one human type in order to exalt another one."[3]
    His last book, The Britons (1936) sought to trace the rise of the British Empire to the Mediterranean component of the British population.[3]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Sergi

    Arguing that we need to look outside Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan or the Sahara for the origin of ancient Egypt to me is simply absurd.

    There is no science that even begins to say such things and the internet just allows people to spam whatever data and statistics they want and facts they want to reach a conclusion that no scientist actually claims....

    Because in your last few posts you have been trying to convince me that those black folks in Upper Egypt are not really related to the ancient Egyptians, but people from the Caucasus, Europe, the Middle East and wherever else are more related than those folks in Upper Egypt are. And we shouldn't look at those populations and study them because of course they are tainted with slavery.

    Right.
    Last edited by ArmoredCore; May 16, 2015 at 08:51 AM.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    Suffice to say you have proven my point. Your argument is that the Egyptians today aren't closer to the ancients than other folks outside of Egypt. And all the so called science focuses on populations and people OUTSIDE of Egypt with little or no analysis of people IN EGYPT, especially Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan. And you seriously claim that this is 'conclusive proof' that is beyond debate and NOBODY should be arguing with anyone about this. And then folks want to claim that these 'scholarly' and 'scientific' conclusions are being rejected by crackpot radicals as if what they are saying has any scientific merit....

    Not to mention wanting to debate what brown is and what black is. I mean seriously they claim this is 'irrefutable proof' which to me sounds like the same racist garbage of Sergi and his "brown mediterranean" race of 100 years ago.

    But folks swear that this is such 'logical science' devoid of the bad old days of racism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Sergi
    Nice, strawman plus ad hominem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  15. #55

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    And this is how you get the absurd situation of Europeans going to Egypt pretending that THEY are more connected to the ancient cultures than the black folks all around them.
    lol @ "black folks all around them"
    Have you ever actually met an Egyptian, let alone talked to one? If so, how do they like your theories?

  16. #56

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Nice, strawman plus ad hominem.
    But sumskilz, the true Egyptians are black, trust me. I saw a picture of what I think is a black guy on internet in Egypt, so the entire population must have been 100% black.
    Cattle die, kindred die,
    Every man is mortal:
    But the good name never dies
    Of one who has done well

    Havamal 76

  17. #57

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Nice, strawman plus ad hominem.
    I just summarized your argument, which is below:
    As I said, ancient Egyptians were probably more similar to North African Berbers than Egyptians today are, but that Berber-like element is still present in Modern Egyptians to some degree. In general, speakers of Afro-Asiatic languages even in sub-Saharan Africa have more genetic inheritance from the Middle-East than their neighbors.
    Which says point blank that a population outside of Egypt is a closer match to the ancients than the population IN Egypt.

    Sorry that is no strawman. You said that. And that was in response to me saying the people of Egypt especially of Upper Egypt are the closest population to the ancient ones. And your point in posting all that genetic material was to show that the Berbers represent the kind of "mixture" of North African people that you claim has always existed in North African and from which the ancient population came. So yes that is what you said.
    Of course Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan are also in North Africa, but I guess we have to exclude those folks because you know they are tainted.... and don't qualify to be close to the ancient population. Yeah. That is what you said.


    And yes that is exactly the same argument that has been going on since Napoleon.

    And that is my only point.


    Quote Originally Posted by athanaric View Post
    lol @ "black folks all around them"
    Have you ever actually met an Egyptian, let alone talked to one? If so, how do they like your theories?
    What does that have to do with it.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://www.doaks.org/search?sort_ord...Creator=kathys

    You know those pesky slaves....

    Last edited by ArmoredCore; May 16, 2015 at 01:59 PM.

  18. #58
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,249

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by BosnianKnight View Post
    But sumskilz, the true Egyptians are black, trust me. I saw a picture of what I think is a black guy on internet in Egypt, so the entire population must have been 100% black.
    For instance, just take a look at the famous "Seated Scribe" excavated from a tomb of the 5th Dynasty, Old Kingdom period.



    Nope. I don't see a sliver of daylight between this guy and Shaquille O'Neal. I kid, of course. The guy looks like your average eastern Mediterranean type.

    Then again, this statue of a soldier excavated from Deir el-Bahri and dated to the 11th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom looks like a straight-up black dude with an afro.



    I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there's ample artistic evidence at least for Egypt being a multiracial society. I'll leave all that fancy high-falutin DNA talk to Sumskilz.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    3367
    Art tends towards idealizations, except that one time with Akhenaten.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Why is there a huge rise of Afrocentrism in history?

    Quote Originally Posted by ArmoredCore View Post
    I just summarized your argument, which is below:


    Which says point blank that a population outside of Egypt is a closer match to the ancients than the population IN Egypt.

    Sorry that is no strawman. You said that. And that was in response to me saying the people of Egypt especially of Upper Egypt are the closest population to the ancient ones. And your point in posting all that genetic material was to show that the Berbers represent the kind of "mixture" of North African people that you claim has always existed in North African and from which the ancient population came. So yes that is what you said.
    Of course Upper Egypt and Northern Sudan are also in North Africa, but I guess we have to exclude those folks because you know they are tainted.... and don't qualify to be close to the ancient population. Yeah. That is what you said.


    And yes that is exactly the same argument that has been going on since Napoleon.

    And that is my only point.




    What does that have to do with it.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    http://www.doaks.org/search?sort_ord...Creator=kathys
    Oh look, cheap labour from Africa, a capitalists wet dream. So what you are saying is that the Egyptians living in Egypt aren't real Egyptians but the Sudanese blacks living in the southern parts are the true Egyptians?
    Cattle die, kindred die,
    Every man is mortal:
    But the good name never dies
    Of one who has done well

    Havamal 76

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •