http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultim ... 8;t=006724
This is my opening post:
And one of the regulars' counter-arguments:Truthcentric/V. Rex wrote:I've just finished debating the StarDestroyer.net people, and honestly, I thought they had some valid points. Now, I am no longer certain the ancient Egyptians were black. To rebut some common claims made to argue for black Egyptians:
* People here make a big deal out of limb ratio studies purportedly showing the ancient Egyptians to have "tropical" limb ratios, but what people fail to take into account is that while Egypt is north of the Tropic of Cancer, it's still very hot for most of the year. Even winters are mild rather than truly cold. The only time Egypt truly gets cold is during the night time, when most Egyptians aren't even active.
* The melanin study cited by Evergreen which is claimed to show that Egyptians had "Negroid" melanin levels doesn't specify the exact amount of melanin beyond saying that it was within a "Negroid" range that is never clearly defined.
* Craniofacial studies (e.g. those of Keita) don't say anything about skin color, and often fail to take into account convergent evolution as a result of adapting to similar climates. Since Egyptians live in a hot climate, of course their craniofacial morphology would look more similar to that of Nubians and other Africans than to Europeans, regardless of their actual genetic relationships.
* People like to assert that the reason we have lighter-skinned Egyptians today is because of foreign invasions, but where is the genetic or other evidence that these invasions significantly affected the Egyptian population?
* Egyptian art is not meant to be realistic and therefore should not be used to back up any argument about their biological affinities one way or the other.
* And, of course, just being in Africa does not make one black.
Anyone here got any good counterarguments to these?
Sundjata wrote:It's sad that a person on ES as long as he's been can't put this argument down in his sleep. It's the stupidest argument I've ever seen. I mean, for goodness sake, it's been stated and observed repeatedly that the tropical body plan being described is not simply a regular adaptation to sub-tropical temperatures, but extreme temperatures, associated with southern zones as "their limb proportions are longer than that seen in many African populations", or as robins states, than that seen typically in West Africans. Is it hotter in West Africa than Egypt, Tyro? If yes (which it obviously is), then how the hell can this logic hold up? What is wrong with you?* People here make a big deal out of limb ratio studies purportedly showing the ancient Egyptians to have "tropical" limb ratios, but what people fail to take into account is that while Egypt is north of the Tropic of Cancer, it's still very hot for most of the year. Even winters are mild rather than truly cold. The only time Egypt truly gets cold is during the night time, when most Egyptians aren't even active.
Kemp also shows that there is no cline moving directly into Palestine, whose mediterranean climate is closer to that of most of Egypt's! Give me a break Tyro. Do modern Egyptians have this same extreme tropical body plan, if not, what changed? Who changed? What changed it? When did this change begin to take place and why?
Let me also quickly knock down your other objections.Evergreen's melanin citation is good enough to suggest high melanin concentrations among the Egyptians yet by inference this is only confirmed. If you recall, Brace identified a direct correlation between elongated limbs and increased black pigmentation as they are guided by similar environmental stresses. The tropics begets black skin and long limbs. Combination of Allen's rule and Vitamin D theory. This is common sense. What's most probable, based on your own inductive reasoning Tryo? A light skinned African population with elongated limbs or a dark skinned African population with elongated limbs? What makes more sense, really, honestly? Consider how many light skinned populations with elongated limbs that you know of, compared to the dark skinned ones.The melanin study cited by Evergreen which is claimed to show that Egyptians had "Negroid" melanin levels doesn't specify the exact amount of melanin beyond saying that it was within a "Negroid" range that is never clearly defined.
Cranio-facial similarity, I'll say this. Again, probability. In science we deal with what's most probable. Is it more probable that the similarity between Upper Egyptians (and per dendogram charts, Egyptians as a collective through out the dynastic) and contiguous Sudanese (your "Nubians") is due to covergent evolution, and not due simply to the fact they interacted and ultimately came from the same place as a people belonging to the same ethno-cultural group spanning a wide area with in the Nile valley and the Saharan periphery? Covergent evolution isn't an easy assumption to make since it is isolationist. It is usually applied to different species such as to explain similarities between Fish and Cetaceans. You'd have to make more assumptions. You'd have to assume that the Egyptians and Nubain cultural similarity has no correlation with their biological similarity. You'd have to also assume that they never intermingled to reinforce any chance similarity, effectively eliminating any explanation that involves chance resemblances. In addition, you'd have to assume, with out evidence that they were related to another people who lived farther away, didn't share a similar culture and wasn't in a position to interact to reinforce any genetic connection. Since the Nubians and Egyptians are geographically close and culturally similar, to attribute their phenotypical similarity to biological similarity doesn't involve a whole lot of assumptions to reach that conclusion, which brings us to occam's razor:* Craniofacial studies (e.g. those of Keita) don't say anything about skin color, and often fail to take into account convergent evolution as a result of adapting to similar climates. Since Egyptians live in a hot climate, of course their craniofacial morphology would look more similar to that of Nubians and other Africans than to Europeans, regardless of their actual genetic relationships.
In this case, the simplest solution is that "Nubians and Egyptians" and therefore, Egyptians and other Africans are related. What about the recent study showing that not only were they similar, but mutually exclusive? You ignore a lot of data to keep this fake controversy brewing; you seem like an agent.Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.
In the varied Y-Chromosome and MtDNA profiles of various Egyptians, the question is identifying which markers are aboriginal and when the later ones got there. Keita wrote a detailed examination of this based on historical and archaeological data and states explicitly for example, that a lot of the J lineages are attributable to post-Islamic influence and Nebel notes the same. What's left actually is a predominance of E on the paternal side. Southern Egyptians carry East African maternal lineages at similar frequencies to Ethiopians. But which are aboriginal, the east African lineages or foreign ones? When did they get there? The historical interactions that explain the foreign lineages are well documented, what evidence is there to suggest that they DIDN'T affect the population when we have physical evidence to the contrary? To argue that the lineages were anciently present is begging the question and is making more assumptions. I know for one, Brace' 2006 dendogram shows ancient Egyptians clustering with modern Sudanese before they do so with modern Egyptians. Why Tyro? Is this easy to explain? How does this tie into the older Egyptian limb proportions? What kind of distorted logic can you offer to twist these implications? What's most probably at work here?People like to assert that the reason we have lighter-skinned Egyptians today is because of foreign invasions, but where is the genetic or other evidence that these invasions significantly affected the Egyptian population?
General blanket statement with no value. Of course Egyptian art depicts real people, this is really stupid to say.* Egyptian art is not meant to be realistic and therefore should not be used to back up any argument about their biological affinities one way or the other.
What does this have to do with contributing to your doubt that they weren't black? The point you evade is that they were FROM Africa, fully adapted to the flora and fauna since the inception of their identity. Being FROM Africa, makes you AFRICAN and being a native of Africa makes you Black according to my definition. Black = dark-skinned person of African ancestry (in my social context) and that's all that matters when discussing the idea of "blackness" in a modern social context. As for their biologcal affinities, it is clear that they were most closely related to the people you'd consider black as well, which makes you a hypocrite. Your doubts are unfounded and I think that you are psychotic as you change your position every 3 months.* And, of course, just being in Africa does not make one black.