Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Lord Zentei]

Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.

You dumb fuck they were not described as "black Africans" or "Negro" in a biological sense of the term, because the very populations whom they grouped with biologically were incorrectly described as something other than black Africans themselves.
<SNIP>
These Africans were described as "Mediterranean Caucasoids" because their physical features were thought to have originated from a supposite race of wandering "Caucasoids" who mixed with the indigenous "Negroid" populations already in place:
<SNIP>
Of course we know better now:

that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."

<SNIP>

Hey, what position are you arguing against, exactly? It's like you're posting this stuff in response to an imaginary poster who you want to have an argument with, not in response to anything I actually posted. Hell, I even acknowledged the possibility before now that the similarities between the Near East and Egypt might be due to migration from Egypt instead of in the opposite direction, but you threw a tantrum at that too.

This was pointed out to you on the FIST PAGE of this thread. If you don't want to talk about that, or if you find that uninteresting, then GTFO since there's nothing to discuss.

Shut your dumbass up!

So, in other words, you're simply ignoring what I'm saying so you can preach from your soapbox.

It seems like you missed the "like all humankind" part of that quote.

The fact that she stated that they were not "invaders from the North" means that she was referring to a period after OOA and more specifically the Pre-Dynastic period, which is what that section of her book was pertaining to, you dumb fuck!

You still don't get it. I am not claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were invaders from the north. But you're still charging against those windmills.

The idea that the Egyptians were always associated with more southerly Africans is false:

Actually aside from the ancient Egyptians themselves numerous ancient Greek historians avidly supported that view noted this:
<SNIP>
hopefully now you can finally shut the fuck up.

Do you understand the words "the idea that the Egyptians were always associated with more southerly Africans is false" mean? They don't mean "no-one ever though that they were associated with more southerly Africans in the past". But of course, you insist on strawmanning even now.

it has not always been the prevailing view and the very quote from Kathyry Bard you posted above attests to that.

The biological affinities have always showed the ancient Egyptians to group with more southerly African populations, the issue that you are trying to start is the semantics of what constitutes calling a population black.

It's not quite that simple (linka):

ABSTRACT The article presents anthropological characteristics (morphological features, paleodemography and paleopathology) of the population inhabiting Nubia from the end of the Upper Palaeolithic till the 16th century BC. The material basis for this work consisted of the collections ofbones coming from the archaeological researches carried out in Nubia.

<SNIP>

The Nubians were hardly a homogeneous population. Neither the climate nor the specific geographic conditions in the region they inhabited were conducive of such homogeneity. The population of Nubia was shaped by several migration waves coming from Northwest Africa and from Asia through Sinai and Yemen. All those population movements gained on intensity in the Neolithic, but they did not prevent repeated contacts of the people of Nubia with Southern Africa."

and (linka):

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

And more here:

Abstract

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. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

So: once again, in the probably vain hope that you will refrain from straw-manning and soap-boxing yet another time...

1) No one here is denying that ancient Egyptians were African.
2) I am not claiming that the Egyptians are northern invaders, though they probably were highly mixed with non-sub-Saharan Africans.
3) WRT the above, the issue is only whether the Egyptians were "black", whether due to gene flow from the near east and north Africa, or due to local evolution and subsequent dispersal from Egypt and the Horn region to the rest of the world.
4) I don't recognize that the matter is resolved.
5) I'm entirely open to the possibility that you're right, should I get the impression that the consensus has been settled.

[Big Triece]

Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.

Here is the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt which gives the definition of the historical context of what populations were generally regarded as black African and or "Negroid", and where according to the biological evidence the ancient Egyptians would fall under:

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. (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)

and from the same section:

"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)

Here is a link to the encyclopedia. AS YOU CAN READ THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED BLACK.

It's not quite that simple (linka):

You quoted a study that has nothing to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians, but rather the Nubians. In which it is baselessly asserting that a group of wandering "Caucasoids" entered Nubia during the late Neolithic period via the Arabian peninsula, because of a change in cranial skull from the Mesolithic period. Not only has that claim been debunked by more recent research:

"It is our view that post- Mesolithic changes in ancient Nubian crania are best explained by in situ evolution, fueled by dietary changes." -- Goodman, et al (1986) Post-Mesolithic Craniofacial and Dental Evolution in Sudanese Nubia. Science in Egyptology, R. David, ed. Pp. 201-212. Manches Univ Press, 2001

But also the complete lack of genetic markers and archaeological evidence suggesting a non African input into the Nile during these times. To this day the most prevalent non African haplogroup in Sudan and Northern Africa is haplogroup J, which geneticist attribute to the Arab conquest of 700 A.D. Try not to rely too heavily on the distortions of Mathilda's blog.

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.

This study's methodology is rather dated as it does not recognize L3 as an African haplogroup (as recent studies now do). The much more recent study below (most most recent studies) recognizes L3 as African, and as such the African component makes up over 3/4th's of Sudanese Mtdna.

The haplogroup distribution in Sudan (Fig. 1) was: 22.5% of Eurasian ancestry; 4.9% of the East African M1 lineage; 72.5%
of sub-Saharan affiliation. In the sub-Saharan pool, a proportion of 44.6% is represented by the haplogroup L3, the ancestor of the worldwide mtDNA diversity outside Africa.

link

Recent skeletal analysis also negates these assertions:

However, the archaeological evidence actually showed slow change in form over time (Adams, 1977) and the biological evidence demonstrated a similar trend in the skeletal data (e.g. Godde, in press; Van Gerven et al., 1977). These conclusions negate the possibility of invasion or migration causing the shifts in time periods. The results in this study are consistent with prior work; the Meroites and X-Group cluster with the remaining Nubian population and are not differentiated. -- 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 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. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Good ole Brace 93



Here are the results of Brace's 2005 study:



Don't rely too much on Racial Reality's or Mathilda's blog for debate help, as they absolutely refuse to defend their views outside of their own domains (where they can censor or block those who refute their claims).

2) I am not claiming that the Egyptians are northern invaders, though they probably were highly mixed with non-sub-Saharan Africans.

Through what evidence?

4) I don't recognize that the matter is resolved.

Stubborn dumbass!

5) I'm entirely open to the possibility that you're right, should I get the impression that the consensus has been settled.

You like everyone else knows that I'm right, but your ego prohibits you from just shutting the fuck up and moving on.

[Broomstick]

Lord Zentei, I think you finally figured out BT:

Hey, what position are you arguing against, exactly? It's like you're posting this stuff in response to an imaginary poster who you want to have an argument with, not in response to anything I actually posted.

So, in other words, you're simply ignoring what I'm saying so you can preach from your soapbox.

You still don't get it. I am not claiming that the Ancient Egyptians were invaders from the north. But you're still charging against those windmills.

[Big Triece]

Lord Zentei, I think you finally figured out BT:

You still have those sour grapes in your mouth? Didn't you already concede that you agreed with me on my stance? The only problem was that you wanted to proclaim with you no evidence that the ancient Egyptians had biological affinities towards non Africans (along with indigenous Africans) since Pre-Dynastic times. You couldn't back your assertion of a non African biological component in Pre-Dynastic Egypt and I in turn would not accept it. You get mad and label me a black supremacist. Summarization of my debate with you.

[Broomstick]

Didn't you already concede that you agreed with me on my stance?

Nope.

The only concession was in your own little pea-brain.

Again, you keep arguing with the poster you want to exist, rather than the people who are actually here.

You're a dumb piece of shit, basically, and deluded into thinking you're a great debater when in fact you're just borderline delusional.

[Spoonist]

Ahh, back after the holidays and littledick is still in la Mancha. Good. The WoI is strong with this one.
@Democracy Fanboy
Why do you feel the need to post stuff that has already posted some 6 pages ago? Also please note that there are no "afro-deniers" here, those are all in littlebrains delusions. So far eight different posters have seriously tried to have a dialog with limpdick pointing out that none here "deny" those studies. But all of those eight have strongly opposed smallthought's interpretations and "summaries" of those studies. Each of those eight have then seen their views strawmanned beyond recognition or simply lumped together with other posters, or simply ignored in a maelstrom of hate.
bT is out of his mind and he is doing "his cause" a great damage.
If you have the stomach to go through all the old pages you could perhaps see for yourself and quote any of us where you think we are in error?

Maybe it's just your attitude that sucks.

The fact that you haven't read this thread is apparent. It was not MY attitude that started the bullshit, it was attitude of a particular moderator who started this thread off by saying some real unwarranted bullshit (which he ended up having to apologize for), which lead to a whole host of regulars making unwarranted snide ass comments. I was the good apple that was spoiled by the bunch.

Bullshit. I called this out on page, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13. It certainly WAS your attitude that started this bullshit, you have created this out of thin air.
If you still have a hard-on for Thanas then please adress him directly instead of trying to attribute his stuff to the rest of us.

[Big Triece]

Why do you feel the need to post stuff that has already posted some 6 pages ago? Also please note that there are no "afro-deniers" here, those are all in littlebrains delusions. So far eight different posters have seriously tried to have a dialog with limpdick pointing out that none here "deny" those studies. But all of those eight have strongly opposed smallthought's interpretations and "summaries" of those studies. Each of those eight have then seen their views strawmanned beyond recognition or simply lumped together with other posters, or simply ignored in a maelstrom of hate.

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines, all three black posters agree that y'all (the majority) are full of shit when it comes to this discussion. There have also been one or two posters (who haven't disclosed their race) who have managed to properly interpret my argument and for which I've agreed with. In summary the people who have avidly opposed my stance are just a bunch of butt hurt racially biased bitches, who refuse to concede to a stance which NOT ONE of you all can refute.

[Big Triece]

Didn't you already concede that you agreed with me on my stance?

Nope.

The only concession was in your own little pea-brain.

Again, you keep arguing with the poster you want to exist, rather than the people who are actually here.

You're a dumb piece of shit, basically, and deluded into thinking you're a great debater when in fact you're just borderline delusional.

Bitch you lost this debate! If you have something that you wish to dispute then do so or shut the fuck up!

[Spoonist]

Now this post is for the audience since some of you missed the glorious beginnings where the army of hay effigies started their assault on sanity and science.
So this is where I point out the intellectual dishonesty of littledick by showcasing his responses to me on page 13. Since that was where I left off before the holidays. For the context here is my post. I know that you've covered some other ground since then but reading through it nothing new has been mentioned except for two vids and a study which goes in line with what we already agree with but which littledick insistently cries out in paranoid delusion that we do not. Its extra funny since stuff I've quoted source to those...

For latecomers who have not read up through the whole thread my stance can be found waaaay back on page 3.

@Everyone
With that clarified, here is something I don't get. Why would the skintone of the original egyptians matter? Isn't it enough to agree that the people came from africa and where a mix of skintone/tribes? That would dispute any residual colonial racism while at the same time dispute racism vs northern africans.
I find it very strange that anyone would argue:
1) ...that the paleolithic tribes of Libya/Sahara savanna would be less african because of their lighter skintone.
2) ...that the Nile was settled by only one skintone/tribe/culture when the desiccation of Sahara took place continuosly over some thousand years.
3) ...that trade with neighbouring regions would in any way diminish the accomplishment of any early civilization.
4) ...that the egyptian civilization would either be the result of purely local or purely outside advances when all the evidence is of a mix."

As you will see, that is not the stance which littledick attribute to me.

@Lord Zentai
Littledick doesn't understand the concept of different posters, in his paranoid delusions he thinks we are a hivemind because we post in the same forum, something which I pointed out to him on page 3. (Which is fortunate because telepathy on that level between SDN members would create a suicidal monster).
So in his delusions something which Thanas said on page 1 is somehow valid as a counter offensive vs you on page 15. Its very sad, but that is how he works. Which again I pointed out later on page 3.

The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.

Agreed on the indigenous, nope on the no evidence thingie, you can't be so certain. So there needs to be a bunch of extra caveats before your statement and Keita's position coincide. Namely that Keita acknowledges that there is no such 100% certainty. That there exists other views and that the discussion is alive and well.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/

With that said when did the speculated "back migration" occur into Africa; which route did it reenter (Iberia or the Sinai); Did the humans who allegedly reentered Africa even have enough time to differentiate in phenotype from their much more recent tropical African ancestors at the time in question? What evidence do we have to suggest that this back migration affected Egypt in particular?

Let’s analyze.
1) Littledick says that there is no evidence that indicates genetic input from outside of NE Africa to the “original ancient Egyptians”.
2) To prove such a bold statement to be wrong all I have to do is to point out that yes such evidence exist and that yes the debate is still ongoing. Which I do with a link of said debate.
3) Instead of acknowledging that there exist evidence and the debate continues littledick tries to question MY view on the topic. Something which is totally irrelevant since just showing scientists in the field still debating and providing supporting evidence is enough to prove any 100% categorical statement of his to be false.
This must be intentional, since you can’t read up on this topic without realizing that it is contested. Something which I already covered on p2-4 with questions whether littledick thinks his view is in a majority or minority position amongst egyptologists.
So complete intellectual dishonesty. But probably from stupidity and not from malice.

So do you even know what the Neolithic Subpluvial period is?
http://edepot.wur.nl/25106
Do you even grasp what that does to your position?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ ... win-text/1
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/

I find it somewhat insulting that you would even ask that question, as I've REPEATEDLY attributed the ancient Sahara along with the Sub Saharan East African component, as the other major population source for the origins of ancient Egypt. …snip source… You obviously don't even know who the ancient Saharans in question were. Here is a clue: …snip…”note early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid” (Kieta, S. (1992)

Let’s analyze.
1) In the same context as above, ie no evidence of genes outside of NE Africa. I point out that the Sahara was green during the lead up to proto-egypt. Then I point back to the source bT uses from p1, NG, that in an article shows both northwest Africans and sub-Saharans to have inhabited the Sahara in this time period. Which to anyone but the intentionally thick is clear evidence of a genetic input into proto-egypt from outside of littledick’s definition of NE Africa.
2) Littledick snippets it up and then address each point out of its context. Which would have been fine if that context had been provided, but it wasn’t.
3) Then he tries to “nail” me with a selective quote from Keita. Problem is that the quote itself acknowledge what my links pointed at. That "early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid" which means they had to mix with something else. Since littledick repeatedly have stated that Africans are ‘black’ then that something else must have been from outside of his definition of black African.
4) To ignore the context, and the caveats like "remain" and "broadly" and still claim that there is no genetic input from elsewhere is staggeringly dishonest.

Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara

You tried to question my knowledge of the subject, but you don't even understand that there was not such boundary as the "Sahara" at that time. It was a continuation of inhabitable land. The evidence suggest that there were people of different phenotypes coexisting in extreme Northern Africa (including Carthage). The people of the Eastern Sahel and the Chad Basin (population source of the ancient Nile Valley) were indigenous tropical Africans.

Let’s analyze
1) My quote is cut short but says that there were people on both sides of the Sahara.
2) Then littledick tries to implicate that I don’t know what I’m talking about since there was “not such boundary” at that time. The irony is thick here… Especially with gems like “It was a continuation of inhabitable land.” [sic] from littledick himself.
3) Let’s look at the rest of my sentence which littledick cut off. “Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara co-mingled in the sahara and then when desertification struck those moved into the nilo valley, there is no way that there is 0% genetic migration from that.” Quite different, don’t you think? So quote mined to fit his preconcieved notion of my view.
3a) My complete sentence again spells out the context, no way for a 0% genetic migration.
3b) My complete sentence showed them co-mingling in the sahara before desertification. To construe this as me not knowing about that habitable zone is again completely dishonest.
3c) Probably this stems from me pointing out that littledick doesn’t understand the implications of what a green sahara (in the Neolithic Subpluvial) means and what migratory patterns we see during this time. Which is ironic since his quote of Keita proves my point while at the same time showing littledicks misconception of it.

This I agree with, but you have stepped away from that when you claim "no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere" which is false.

The population source of the ancient Egypt was Sub Saharan East Africa and the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara. These populations according to all available evidence were indigenous tropical Africans.

Let's analyze.
1) I point out littledick's inconcistency with the "no evidence" claim.
2) Littledick rant about the population source being sub saharan.
3) In the same post littledick quotes Keita stating the Saharan origin of some of the influx of people inte the nilo valley. To claim that the Saharan cultures located to the west and west-northwest from proto-egypt would be from sub saharan east africa must then be another intellectual dishonesty.
4) That influx from the sahara into proto-egypt which he himself quotes is the evidence he claims doesn't exist.

Also note that none of this interchange is actually about what littledick thinks he is defending, ie that proto-egypt was an indigenous african culture. Its all about littledick's own perception of race and what he thinks that we are advocating.

[Big Triece]

With that clarified, here is something I don't get. Why would the skintone of the original egyptians matter?

That is a question that people on your side of fence need to ask themselves. It has been proven conclusively that the ancient Egyptians were generally (that means normal) tropically adapted in the same fashion as more southerly African populations. This finding could only mean that the ancient Egyptians came from more southerly regions which lie within the tropics. According to ecological principal this means that the ancient Egyptians would have been a dark skinned populations, how dark we don't know. Simply calling the ancient Egyptians an indigenous "dark skinned" population however was simply not something that people like Broomstick and yourself could NOT live with. No no this bitch had to assert with no biological evidence whatsoever, that they were somehow lighter in hue then other tropical African populations. That is why that entire tangent on Michael Jackson and Iman's natural skin tone spiraled out. What was the point of all of that? Why can't they just be described as the dark skinned African population that they have been proven to be? What is the need to try to "lighten up" their appearance from other tropically adapted African populations, WITH NO FUCKING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!

Isn't it enough to agree that the people came from africa and where a mix of skintone/tribes?

They were tropically adapted Africans. Being such they would have had dark skin. What can be agreed upon however based on the fact that the original inhabitants of Kemet were a mixture of Nilotic and Sub Saharan East African populations, that they had a mixture of skin tones within the ranges of those populations. This would probably not suffice for people on your side of fence, but guess what.....You all can't refute those facts.

That would dispute any residual colonial racism while at the same time dispute racism vs northern africans.

Regardless of if your notion would refute pseudo scientific notions of racial superiority (which it really doesn't) is irrelevant, as you have no scientific backing for your assertions.

1) ...that the paleolithic tribes of Libya/Sahara savanna would be less african because of their lighter skintone.

Number one what evidence do you have to suggest that the ancient populations of the Sahara (Chad and most of Libya) were lighter in skintone than other populations further south? Those regions are within tropical Africa. Perhaps looking at a fucking map to see which regions fall within the lines of that dreaded climatic zone will give you a better scope of these facts. The fact that this is the one of the major population sources for the Nile Valley and consequently those populations were also super tropically adapted, indicates the same about them?

2) ...that the Nile was settled by only one skintone/tribe/culture when the desiccation of Sahara took place continuosly over some thousand years.

As has been stated above the populations of tropical Africa, while all being "dark skinned" have most skin tone diversity of any other region on Earth:

"Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits."
-- Relethford JH.(2000). Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations. Hum Biol. 2000 Oct;72(5):773-80.)

The population sources of ancient Egypt ranged from the darkest people on Earth (Nilotics) to less dark people from the Horn. That being said, why can't you and others just be satisfied with calling these ancient tropically adapted Africans "dark skinned"?

]3) ...that trade with neighbouring regions would in any way diminish the accomplishment of any early civilization.

Now this is where Broomstick's "intellectual dishonesty" came into play. Never have I denied that there was cultural exchange between Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians and populations in the Levant. I do however provide evidence which refutes the claim that early Lower Egyptians can be characterized as "mixed" population between indigenous tropically adapted Africans and Levantine populations. Broomstick initially denied that her avid approach to acknowledging the cultural exchange between the two neighboring regions was the result of an influx of Middle Easterners into Lower Egypt. None the less she later attempts to characterize my stance as some "Black supremacist" notion that Pre-Dynastic Egypt was "pure African" (like it's a bad thing), because I would not accept her baseless claim that the ancient Egyptians have always had some sort of Middle Eastern admixture.

That being said I don't deny that the some ideas came from the Levant and were incorporated into Egypt's already in place systems such as certain live stock/crops or pottery techniques. Hell I don't even deny that there could have been isolated cases of people from the Levant in Lower Egypt, but obviously (from the biological evidence presented) that is not enough to characterize that entire region as a "mixed" cross between tropically adapted Africans and Middle Easterners.

4) ...that the egyptian civilization would either be the result of purely local or purely outside advances when all the evidence is of a mix."

This notion of "purity" is only coming from a somewhat biological standpoint, not a cultural one. These influences from the Middle East none the less do not deter the fact that Kemet's foundation is that of inner African cultures and political structure, as just about every reputed scholar will tell you:

"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

There should therefore be no dispute on your part (or any other dumbass) to proclaim that ancient Egypt was of an African origin, with most close similarities to ancient and modern inner African populations. While I know that you don't dispute the inner African origins, you and some others apparently like to bitch and moan at the exclusion of the Middle East in that statement. Don't bitch and moan at me, take it up with my numerous authoritative sources!

]Bigdick doesn't understand the concept of different posters, in his paranoid delusions he thinks we are a hivemind because we post in the same forum,

For the most part the participants in this thread who have opposed my stance, have all done so on the same baseless assertions, which have been debunked time and time again. Rather than accepting that your stance is obviously not supported by mainstream research, you all would rather reply back with some ideological statements about me and my ego and what not, in other words bullshit.

You mentioned earlier that I misinterpret studies. The funny thing is that aside from Broomstick's failed attempt to combat me on the interpretations of Keita's lecture, none of you all offer any alternative interpretations of those other studies. The Starling 2007 article (posted above) which gives a conclusion of the population history of ancient Egypt based on numerous studies and findings is a prime example of why your assertion is again full of shit. I cannot recall one person challenging my interpretation of that study and how in turn how it mirror my stance on the subject.

So in his delusions something which Thanas said on page 1

The fucked up thing about the entire Thanas situation, is not only that he is opposed to accepting any evidence which refutes his baseless assertions, but that he for whatever reason has been noted by several SDN members (including yourself I believe) to be regarded as almost a "scholar" on this subject. You apparently acknowledge in this statement that Thanas said some pretty outlandish things, yet his baseless opinion is (according to many SDN members) to be held up on a platform. That to me suggest that all of you all who view his blatant ignorance on this subject in such a positive light, ARE FULL OF SHIT YOURSELVES!

2) To prove such a bold statement to be wrong all I have to do is to point out that yes such evidence exist and that yes the debate is still ongoing. Which I do with a link of said debate.....Instead of acknowledging that there exist evidence and the debate continues littledick tries to question MY view on the topic. Something which is totally irrelevant since just showing scientists in the field still debating and providing supporting evidence is enough to prove any 100% categorical statement of his to be false.

I already addressed this very source with these questions....WHICH YOU NEVER ANSWERED

"With that said when did the speculated "back migration" occur into Africa; which route did it reenter (Iberia or the Sinai); Did the humans who allegedly reentered Africa even have enough time to differentiate in phenotype from their much more recent tropical African ancestors at the time in question? What evidence do we have to suggest that this back migration affected Egypt in particular?"

I also presented you with a recent study which confirms that the oldest human remains found in Egypt (long after the speculated back migration occurred) were described as having an overlapping skeletal morphology with Sub Saharan African populations, which subsequently spread into the Levant and further into Europe:



You did not posses the knowledge to reply to those questions, so you dropped your arguments pertaining to some all changing back migration into Egypt. The entire exchange IN SEQUENCE is right here

THIS GOES TO SHOW THE LYING SACK OF SHIT THAT YOU ARE.

1) In the same context as above, ie no evidence of genes outside of NE Africa. I point out that the Sahara was green during the lead up to proto-egypt. Then I point back to the source bT uses from p1, NG, that in an article shows both northwest Africans and sub-Saharans to have inhabited the Sahara in this time period.

Do you know how big the Sahara is? The populations in Northwest Africa for the most part are characterized by high frequencies of European and West African genetic markers, these frequencies are not seen in the more southern and Eastern parts of the Sahara where the population source for ancient Egypt is known to have came from (including Chad, and Egypt and southern and eastern Libya):

"The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated.. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations."-- Coudray et al. (2008). The Complex and Diversified Mitochondrial Gene Pool of Berber Populations. Annals of Human Genetics. Volume 73 Issue 2, Pages 196 - 214

Prior to the Arab conquest of 700 A.D. European haplogroups were the quintessential non African characteristic of North African populations, in which was pretty much constricted to Northwest region of Africa. As you can clearly see above this is not a characteristic of Northeast African populations.

]Which to anyone but the intentionally thick is clear evidence of a genetic input into proto-egypt from outside of littledick’s definition of NE Africa.

Your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking, backed by nothing. Notice how at the beginning your post you were attempting to put non African input into Egypt via the Sinai, now you're aiming for that input to have came from Iberia. Do you not see how fucking desperate you are to prove a point that you obviously cannot? GIVE IT UP!

3) Then he tries to “nail” me with a selective quote from Keita. Problem is that the quote itself acknowledge what my links pointed at. That "early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid" which means they had to mix with something else.

This boy is so damn desperate! What are the genetic characteristic of your suppositely "mixed" Saharan? Obviously U6 or other European haplogrous were not present in that region of the Sahara today or Egypt. The defining genetic markers of the region were Nilotic and it is still reflecting in modern Egyptian ancestry today:

"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."Source:(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)

and linguistic evidence confirms that the Saharans in question were Nilotic Africans.

."It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east, in a Nilo-Saharan environment, where they interacted and innovated in terms of language. From this perspective, the Upper Egyptian cultures were an ancient North East African ‘periphery at the crossroads’, as suggested by Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas of the Beja (Dahl and Hjort-af-Ornas 2006).

The most likely scenario could be this: some of these Saharo-Nubian populations spread southwards to Wadi Howar, Ennedi and Darfur; some stayed in the actual oases where they joined the inhabitants; and others moved towards the Nile, directed by two geographic obstacles, the western Great Sand Sea and the southern Rock Belt. Their slow perambulations led them from the area of Sprinkle Mountain (Gebel Uweinat) to the east – Bir Sahara, Nabta Playa, Gebel Ramlah, and Nekhen/Hierakonpolis (Upper Egypt), and to the north-east by way of Dakhla Oasis to Abydos (Middle Egypt)."--Anselin (2009)

--Dr. Alain Anselin (University of Antilles-Guyane) Some notes about an early African pool of cultures from which emerged Egyptian civilization.
In: Egypt in its African Context. 2009. Proceedings of the conference held at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, ENgland. Karen Exell (ed). BAR International Series 2204 2011 Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports

You seriously need to read up on African history, culture and people before you make such asinine assertions.

1) My quote is cut short but says that there were people on both sides of the Sahara.

You are reaching! One of Keita's mainline stances is that the indigenous tropical Africans come in all shape size and form, which encompasses of that which is seen across the globe. IF the phenotype originated in Africa, by indigenous Africans then one indigenous phenotype is no more African than the other. That being said, that statement in no way implies that non African genetic input made it's way into that part of Sahara.

2) Then Bigdick tries to implicate that I don’t know what I’m talking about since there was “not such boundary” at that time. The irony is thick here… Especially with gems like “It was a continuation of inhabitable land.” [sic] from littledick himself.

There has been a continuation of inhabitable land across most Sub Saharan Africa for all human history, but that did not stop the Bantu migration from spreading across southern and eastern Africa relatively late in human history. That being said there is no evidence of northwest African (specifically European) genetic input into this region of the Sahara (even to this day), and Keita even negates the claim of any scientific evidence indicating input from such far away regions.

3) Let’s look at the rest of my sentence which littledick cut off. “Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara co-mingled in the sahara and then when desertification struck those moved into the nilo valley, there is no way that there is 0% genetic migration from that.” Quite different, don’t you think? So quote mined to fit his preconcieved notion of my view.

Just look at this bullshit. Nothing more than baseless speculations and wishful thinking that he wants to be taken seriously. These points have been refuted yet he still is DESPERATE to prove that some wandering Caucasoids made there way into the population sources of ancient Egypt. The most fucked up thing about his stance is that he obviously does not even know who Nilotic African are. There fucking appearance only (the blackest fucking people on Earth) negates such baseless claims only. The genetic profile of modern Saharan Nilotic populations is just icing on the fucking cake:



The Nilo Saharan Chadic populations sampled are likely the best representative of the populations whom were pushed further south and east towards the Nile by desertification. Where are is the Eurasian component of these of Saharan Africans?

2) Bigdick rant about the population source being sub saharan.

You are so fucking indenial it's pathetic. Big Dick backs his assertions up with recent genetic analysis:

Our findings are in accordance with other studies on Y-chromosome markers that have shown that the predominant Y-chromosome lineage in Berber communities is the subhaplogroup E1b1b1b (E-M81), which emerged in Africa, is specific to North African populations, and is almost absent in Europe, except in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and Sicily. Molecular studies on the Y chromosome in North Africa are interpreted as indicating that the southern part of Africa, namely, the Horn/East Africa, was a major source of population in the Nile Valley and northwest Africa after the Last Glacial Maximum, with some migration into the Near East and southern Europe (Bosch et al. 2001; Underhill et al. 2001). -- Ancient Local Evolution of African mtDNA Haplogroups in Tunisian Berber Populations Frigi et al. Human Biology (August 2010 (82:4)

I believe you ran from this source earlier as well.

3) In the same post littledick quotes Keita stating the Saharan origin of some of the influx of people inte the nilo valley. To claim that the Saharan cultures located to the west and west-northwest from proto-egypt would be from sub saharan east africa must then be another intellectual dishonesty.

No you dumb fuck, the population source of all of Northern Africa is Sub Saharan East Africa. This basis in African genetics is what grounds modern North African populations into Africa, thus giving them an "indigenous" status. The geneflow later from the Iberia into the grounded Northwest African populations was one of the major distinguishing features Northwest Africans and other inhabitants across the region.

[Spoonist]

This is rich.

Ask yourself this: if it is like you claim that "all three black posters agree that y'all (the majority) are full of shit" then how come we don't disagree with them and just with you? How come they in their discource with us do not come across as acidic as you do? Could it be that we actually agree with the basic premise while still arguing about nitpicks and semantics, oh heaven forbid that it could have been like "y'all" have been stating since page 1?

Also if you hadn't been around I would have definately disagreed with some of Broomstick's et al's assertments. Just like I had a dialog with Akhlut when you were gone. However you spewing hatred and false conclusions is stealing the spotlight from more constructive discource because this is a forum about "mockery of stupid people" it says so right below the title you know...

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them... Why would I try to refute sources which I basically agree with? Again, could that be because I actually agree with the basic premise while still arguing about nitpicks and semantics, like "we'all" have been stating since page 1? While still all along thinking you are like a parrot chirruping up stuff while not having the faculties to tie the dots together into a bigger picture?
Nah, it must be a grand conspiracy of all "whites" being racists towards you specifically. Ever heard of Occam per chance?

Then I must object to you insistently trying to bring up century old racial theory without properly classifying it as per those theories. Again your cherrypicking of stuff like that is what leads to you constantly making a mockery of your sources. If you didn't understand what my earlier Jutland reference was it's that the stupid racists thought that "Nordics" was a race of it own.
Chose one and stick to it - don't mix them. If you want to use racial theories from Linné et al, do so consistently. If you want to use contemporary american definitions, do so consistently. Etc. Me I'd prefer some sort of scientific standard but you disagreed with that notion. Just pointing out that your mixing back and forth only leads to stupidity.

I'll do a snippet post later for specific ignorance instead of this general one.

Also could we do away with quoting the earlier studies which reference outdated stuff from the thirties through seventies? It's really annoying that you think that those are still valid while you in the other posts quote later stuff that specifically point out what was wrong with the earlier studies. Like Keita's errata of his earlier studies.

[Broomstick]

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

So... you're claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is a racist? Wow, what a massively dysfunctional ego. Nice, how you assume those who haven't disclosed their race that you consider in your camp to automatically be black - very revealing of your prejudicial bias.

Bitch you lost this debate! If you have something that you wish to dispute then do so or shut the fuck up!

Only in your own fantasies. I do have something to dispute now - your "impartiality" and the rapidly mounting evidence that you are a racist asshole. It really casts into doubt the idea that you were ever interested in an actual debate. What you really want to do is convert the heathens and beat down the white devils. You hid that well at first but you couldn't keep it up forever.

If you have a problem with my posting in this thread take to a mod. Otherwise, go fuck yourself. You don't own this forum and you don't own this thread. You also get ridiculously hysterical every time I show up. I thought you were an adult man but you act more like a little girl in junior high school.

[Spoonist]

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

So... you're claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is a racist? Wow, what a massively dysfunctional ego. Nice, how you assume those who haven't disclosed their race that you consider in your camp to automatically be black - very revealing of your prejudicial bias.

Actually that quote doesn't. It states that the "race" of the debater determines which side he/she is on. With everyone who isn't "black" according to his own definition being on the other side... Which isn't calling us racists, but again revealing some of his own.

It really casts into doubt the idea that you were ever interested in an actual debate. What you really want to do is convert the heathens and beat down the white devils. You hid that well at first but you couldn't keep it up forever.

Uhm, welcome to page 2-5. My la Mancha quote is from page 3 and already then it was obviuos that limpdick wasn't interested in any sort of discussion or dialog.

[Executor32]

I find it funny that of his 132 posts, every single one is in this thread. I suppose reading and participating in other discussions would shake his faith in the idea that we're all just a bunch of racist assholes who can't fathom how right he is because of our unshakable belief in white supremacy.

What I don't get, though, is why it matters so much to him what color skin the ancient Egyptians had. Who gives a fuck? Regardless of what skin color or ethnicity they're closest related to, they have been dead for thousands of years and have no bearing at all on their descendants' status in modern society.

[Channel72]

What I don't get, though, is why it matters so much to him what color skin the ancient Egyptians had. Who gives a fuck?

Well, it's a matter of historical interest for one thing.

For another thing, since sub-Saharan African peoples have generally been regarded as sub-human by many great Western powers for a significant portion of the last half-millennium, it's interesting and ironic to note that one of the greatest and earliest civilizations was primarily a sub-Saharan African product.

[Big Triece]

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

I'll do a snippet post later for specific ignorance instead of this general one.

OK sure!

Also could we do away with quoting the earlier studies which reference outdated stuff from the thirties through seventies?

The dates of the studies are irrelevant if the findings have been validated by later ones. That is the entire point of Keita's "Studies and comments" publication of the early 90's. He went in dept about how the biological concept of race during those early studies have distorted the conclusions that those authors came to, but how it does not change what the studies hard data finds the ancient Egyptians to group with biologically.

[Big Triece]

At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

So... you're claiming anyone who disagrees with YOU is a racist? Wow, what a massively dysfunctional ego. Nice, how you assume those who haven't disclosed their race that you consider in your camp to automatically be black - very revealing of your prejudicial bias.

Bitch you lost this debate! If you have something that you wish to dispute then do so or shut the fuck up!

Only in your own fantasies. I do have something to dispute now - your "impartiality" and the rapidly mounting evidence that you are a racist asshole. It really casts into doubt the idea that you were ever interested in an actual debate. What you really want to do is convert the heathens and beat down the white devils. You hid that well at first but you couldn't keep it up forever.

If you have a problem with my posting in this thread take to a mod. Otherwise, go fuck yourself. You don't own this forum and you don't own this thread. You also get ridiculously hysterical every time I show up. I thought you were an adult man but you act more like a little girl in junior high school.

Notice how nothing in this bitch's post is pertaining to the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians or their origins. It's nothing more than the typical ass leakage on her part.

[Spoonist]

Also could we do away with quoting the earlier studies which reference outdated stuff from the thirties through seventies?

The dates of the studies are irrelevant if the findings have been validated by later ones.

This is so ignorant I had to do a drive by on this alone. So if outdated studies concur with one's bias they are "validated" but if they don't then what?

It's like you don't grasp the order of magnitude in evidence value between pre-dna and post-dna studies.

But that would explain your insistance on tropically adapted being some sort of conclusive evidence of skintone.

[Lord Zentei]

Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.

Here is the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of ancient Egypt which gives the definition of the historical context of what populations were generally regarded as black African and or "Negroid", and where according to the biological evidence the ancient Egyptians would fall under: <SNIP>
Here is a link to the encyclopedia. AS YOU CAN READ THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED BLACK.

I love how you link to an 800+ page document and expect me to trawl through all of that. LOL.

It's not quite that simple (linka):

You quoted a study that has nothing to do with the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians, but rather the Nubians. In which it is baselessly asserting that a group of wandering "Caucasoids" entered Nubia during the late Neolithic period via the Arabian peninsula, because of a change in cranial skull from the Mesolithic period. Not only has that claim been debunked by more recent research:

LMAO, so we're talking about the Egyptians, but not the Nubians... nevermind the fact that you claim that the Egyptians are descended from the Nubians, so anything that applies to the Nubians would inevitably apply to the Egyptians too. And of course, the presence of a new study creates a new consensus just like that, right? And regardless of the fact that we're not talking about "a group of wandering Caucasoids", but gene-flow between Arabia and the Horn region... but I wonder how much it would matter if instead it were due to evolutionary changes in the Horn region BEFORE people dispersed into Arabia and Egypt... as I mentioned, no-one disputes that the Egyptians ultimately trace their lineage to southern Africa, like all humans do. But you claimed that no-one disputed your model, which is false.

But also the complete lack of genetic markers and archaeological evidence suggesting a non African input into the Nile during these times. To this day the most prevalent non African haplogroup in Sudan and Northern Africa is haplogroup J, which geneticist attribute to the Arab conquest of 700 A.D. Try not to rely too heavily on the distortions of Mathilda's blog.

Funny, coming from you when you spoke of proof using phenotypical analysis earlier. Who the hell is "Matilda", anyhow?

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... model1.jpg

Now, while I have no idea who "Matilda" is, you just linked to a site which is RATHER less than credible.

Good ole Brace 93

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... omodel.jpg

Here are the results of Brace's 2005 study:

http://africanamericanculturalcenterpal ... e2005a.jpg

Don't rely too much on Racial Reality's or Mathilda's blog for debate help, as they absolutely refuse to defend their views outside of their own domains (where they can censor or block those who refute their claims).

That is not a link to Brace's 2005 study, it's a graphic with someone interpreting it and presenting a critique of the earlier findings. How about if you link to the actual paper? And again with "Matilda", WTF?

2) I am not claiming that the Egyptians are northern invaders, though they probably were highly mixed with non-sub-Saharan Africans.

Through what evidence?

4) I don't recognize that the matter is resolved.

Stubborn dumbass!

Now, let's not get out of hand... I'll accept "stubborn asshole", though.

5) I'm entirely open to the possibility that you're right, should I get the impression that the consensus has been settled.

You like everyone else knows that I'm right, but your ego prohibits you from just shutting the fuck up and moving on.

Ah, yes. The only possible explanation. And what's your excuse?

[Lord Zentei]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

[Spoonist]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

He is over in the Democratic Maniphesto thread where he posted today.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3619868
But I don't think he'll be back in this topic anytime soon. If he wanted to post in this he would have done it all those times he visited that maniphesto topic. Then having littleBrain over there claiming that you are on "his" side wouldn't be encouragement now would it?
Nor would it be when Democracy Fanboy makes a claim it is accepted by littleBrain but when you and I make the exact same claim littleBrain say that we are the scum of the earth. Doesn't really encourage one's participation.

And Matilda has a blog which was mentioned by Thanas early on and since Thanas is limpdick's nemesis that has to be repeated vs you some 16 pages later...

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

So limpdick, I'm sorry but work cramped up today so the snippety thingie will have to wait. Instead I'll give you an appetizer.
I know that this is too hard for you to grasp but check out my contribution on page 1-4 and you will find no such thing. It was only after your repeated journeys into lala land that I switched to only pointing out your flaws and hinting at why you don't understand your sources. That is what mockery of the stupid is all about. But again I'll bait you by making it real simple.
If a source claims X and I agree with X why should I try to adress those sources instead of you making a mockery of said sources by claiming X+Y which those sources never claim? Isn't it much better to simply point out that the +Y bit can only come from complete ignorance?
Like when I show how you contradict yourself and the quotes you provide, or how I show how you willingly distort the topic to fit your projection of paranoid delusions onto others?
For instance lets have some fun, this is you when you were still on medication:

What Keita means by 'local' is Northeast African (Ethiopian, Somali, Beja, Sudanese, ect) all of these populations tend to have light to dark reddish brown to jet black skin color. Rather or not you want to consider that "black" is entirely up to you and your standards for the meaning of the term. Keita however states in his lecture that based on ecological principals the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, how dark he did not say.

This is you off medication:

Dark skinned Africans are considered "black" where I'm from, so the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black".

The first quote can lead to a productive discussion, but the second one is just mind-blowing stupid and deserves nothing but mockery. Problem for you is that you only rarely produce the first kind and the vast majority of your thoughts and posts are clearly in the second category.
Then you going completely insane and threatening other posters and wishing them bodily harm that is just contempt worthy.
Now if you had stuck to your medication we could have had a discussion about your sources. Like the 'ouch' I mentioned which you didn't even grasp the significance of. Then your defense of pre-dna studies.... *sigh* That just means you have no clue about the methodology of the field. So any discussion on sources would be futile until after you educate yourself. Which in of itself would be a miracle.

PS
Just did a search on Racial Reality, here I thought I'd find a white supremacy site and instead I find this:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/11/
That's just funny. Are you Louisvilleslugger from back over there? And don't lie - it's so incredibly easy to check.
DS
PPS
A link from that discussion was kinda extra funny in this context:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nina_j ... color.html
I'm of to see that now - bye bye...
DDS

[Lord Zentei]

Well, if he's Louisvilleslugger over there, he might be our Louisvilleslugger too: linka. The arguments look very similar indeed.

On another note, now I see how he started ranting about "Racial Reality": two of the links I provided above seem to be on that page as well. But that's a lot more material than I could have hoped to compile myself. Thanks for the headsup, Big Triece.

[Big Triece]

This is so ignorant I had to do a drive by on this alone. So if outdated studies concur with one's bias they are "validated" but if they don't then what?

The biological affinities of these populations have never changed, despite how they are labeled. Some older studies wished to label Northeast Africans as "Caucasoid", others labeled them as "Negroid". The definitions are inconsistent, but the overlapping affinity with the ancient Egyptians is. Still too complicated for your simple ass?

But that would explain your insistance on tropically adapted being some sort of conclusive evidence of skintone.

You dumb bitch "dark skin" accompanies all tropically adapted populations based on ecological principal. The skin tone of the ancient Egyptians would likely have been within the range of Nilotic and Sub Saharan East African populations, being as how these populations are who the ancient Egyptians descended from and shared overlapping biological affinities with.

[Big Triece]

I love how you link to an 800+ page document and expect me to trawl through all of that.

This coming from the same ass wipe who stated that APA citations down to the fucking page number would not suffice, and that he needed a link to the original source. Make up your fucking mind.

LMAO, so we're talking about the Egyptians, but not the Nubians... nevermind the fact that you claim that the Egyptians are descended from the Nubians, so anything that applies to the Nubians would inevitably apply to the Egyptians too.

Simple question pause....Do you honestly believe from the debunked findings of that study that the ancient Nubians were truly the product of admixture rather than an indigenous African population?

But you claimed that no-one disputed your model, which is false.

To this very fucking day people dispute OOA, despite just about every piece of conceivable evidence needed to confirm this initial migration backing it. Point there will always be hold outs of certain positions. The mainstream view and the evidence used to support it is what matters, not a unanimous conclusion. Likewise how many scholars within the last 25 years have actually proposed that the ancient populations of the Northeast quadrant of Africa is derived from a non African population source rather than indigenous? From those studies how many of those conclusions have been built upon to give further support to the latter? Do those conclusions and the evidence used to back it up form the majority opinion across the board of the issue?

Funny, coming from you when you spoke of proof using phenotypical analysis earlier. Who the hell is "Matilda", anyhow?

Mathilda, Racial Reality ect likely the same person creating blogs and forums devoted to promoting the biological concept of race, and with that deliberately misinterpreting selective studies to make all sorts of moot points about the "Caucasoidness" of populations which he/she deems desirable.

That is not a link to Brace's 2005 study, it's a graphic with someone interpreting it and presenting a critique of the earlier findings. How about if you link to the actual paper?

I would post another link, but I don't want to put you in position where you'd have to sift through "hundreds of pages" to find my point. But seriously here is the link. Here are two findings from the study which directly refute his conclusions from his 93 study (let's see if you can pinpoint what claim that is) and is even further confirmed by the later Ricaut 08:

"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)

"The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa... Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), .. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it." (Brace, 2005)

Through what evidence?

Exactly you have none.

[Big Triece]

Incidentally, is Democracy Fanboy still around, or has he descended back into the woodwork?

I was just wondering... got a couple of questions.

He is over in the Democratic Maniphesto thread where he posted today.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 8#p3619868
But I don't think he'll be back in this topic anytime soon. If he wanted to post in this he would have done it all those times he visited that maniphesto topic. Then having littleBrain over there claiming that you are on "his" side wouldn't be encouragement now would it?
Nor would it be when Democracy Fanboy makes a claim it is accepted by littleBrain but when you and I make the exact same claim littleBrain say that we are the scum of the earth. Doesn't really encourage one's participation.

And Matilda has a blog which was mentioned by Thanas early on and since Thanas is limpdick's nemesis that has to be repeated vs you some 16 pages later...

Then regarding your sources etc and why I personally don't adress them

Shock Shock Surprise! You've never seriously addressed my sources, you've only focus on the ideological aspects (in other words the irrelevant bullshit) of this debate.

So limpdick, I'm sorry but work cramped up today so the snippety thingie will have to wait. Instead I'll give you an appetizer.
I know that this is too hard for you to grasp but check out my contribution on page 1-4 and you will find no such thing. It was only after your repeated journeys into lala land that I switched to only pointing out your flaws and hinting at why you don't understand your sources. That is what mockery of the stupid is all about. But again I'll bait you by making it real simple.
If a source claims X and I agree with X why should I try to adress those sources instead of you making a mockery of said sources by claiming X+Y which those sources never claim? Isn't it much better to simply point out that the +Y bit can only come from complete ignorance?
Like when I show how you contradict yourself and the quotes you provide, or how I show how you willingly distort the topic to fit your projection of paranoid delusions onto others?
For instance lets have some fun, this is you when you were still on medication:

What Keita means by 'local' is Northeast African (Ethiopian, Somali, Beja, Sudanese, ect) all of these populations tend to have light to dark reddish brown to jet black skin color. Rather or not you want to consider that "black" is entirely up to you and your standards for the meaning of the term. Keita however states in his lecture that based on ecological principals the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned, how dark he did not say.

This is you off medication:

Dark skinned Africans are considered "black" where I'm from, so the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black".

The first quote can lead to a productive discussion, but the second one is just mind-blowing stupid and deserves nothing but mockery. Problem for you is that you only rarely produce the first kind and the vast majority of your thoughts and posts are clearly in the second category.
Then you going completely insane and threatening other posters and wishing them bodily harm that is just contempt worthy.
Now if you had stuck to your medication we could have had a discussion about your sources. Like the 'ouch' I mentioned which you didn't even grasp the significance of. Then your defense of pre-dna studies.... *sigh* That just means you have no clue about the methodology of the field. So any discussion on sources would be futile until after you educate yourself. Which in of itself would be a miracle.

PS
Just did a search on Racial Reality, here I thought I'd find a white supremacy site and instead I find this:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3973609/11/
That's just funny. Are you Louisvilleslugger from back over there? And don't lie - it's so incredibly easy to check.
DS
PPS
A link from that discussion was kinda extra funny in this context:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/nina_j ... color.html
I'm of to see that now - bye bye...
DDS

Nothing in this rant is worth responding to as it does not pertain to the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians or their biological or cultural origins, nothing more than mind numbing ass leakage (you must have sat on a toilet after Broomstick). So in summary you agree that the ancient Egyptians have overlapping biological affinities with more southerly African populations. You don't have any biological evidence concluding that Pre-Dynastic and ancient Egyptians were mixed with non African population (speculation doesn't count). Therefore we are in agreement.