Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

hypocritical attempts to appear reasonable at the start of this thread. You're just desperate to paint anyone who disagrees with you as a racist so you can bask in the glory of a civilization which you've got no claim to kinship with, beyond belonging to humanity.

perhaps you'll now address my post with something more than an insipid one-liner?

Nothing in your post pertained to the biological or cultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians. Reason being is that every point that you have attempted to make in that regard has been shitted on! I'm not doing tit for tat with a silly mf like you.

[Lord Zentei]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFPcTHThNQ0

So, what... you show a bullshit conspiracy theory video from YouTube that agrees with you, is that supposed to be some sort of response?

Nothing in your post pertained to the biological or cultural affinities of the ancient Egyptians. Reason being is that every point that you have attempted to make in that regard has been shitted on! I'm not doing tit for tat with a silly mf like you.

That is a flat out lie. I pointed out that you have basically conceded two central points that have been raised against your position which essentially render this debate over, and now you're attempting to evade this crucial fact. Pony up your rebuttal.

[Big Triece]

So, what... you show a bullshit conspiracy theory video from YouTube that agrees with you, is that supposed to be some sort of response?

"Just think, that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites! " M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

That is a flat out lie. I pointed out that you have basically conceded two central points that have been raised against your position which essentially render this debate over, and now you're attempting to evade this crucial fact. Pony up your rebuttal.

[Lord Zentei]

I see. So, when I challenge the fact that you merely posted an insipid YouTube video as a response, you reply with... yet another YouTube video of the same sort. More damningly, rather than address the actual challenge in my post, you supply a lame GIF animation. I'm not sure what forums you normally frequent, but around here that doesn't fly.

But let's try this once again. You wrote the following:

Attempting to present yet another weak strawman argument to knock down! No one disputes that modern Egyptians (especially those in the south) have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

You dumb fuck, the quote is saying that modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians, WHO IN THE FUCK DISPUTES THAT FACT?

Now, while the fact that you've ignored evidence in the past still stands, I'm willing to ignore that for now, provided that you address the implications of these two concessions you made in your next post.

[Big Triece]

More damningly, rather than address the actual challenge in my post, you supply a lame GIF animation. I'm not sure what forums you normally frequent, but around here that doesn't fly.

I am not going to continuously argue the same fucking semantics with an ass wipe like yourself. I've made my stance perfectly clear in my dismantling of everyone of your dismal "points" that you have attempted to make. Your post have withered away blow by blow with each redundant cycle, leaving you to reply back with nothing but "last word" bullshit.

But let's try this once again.

No, you are a frail ass zombie, lay the fuck down!

[Lord Zentei]

I am not going to continuously argue the same fucking semantics with an ass wipe like yourself. I've made my stance perfectly clear in my dismantling of everyone of your dismal "points" that you have attempted to make. Your post have withered away blow by blow with each redundant cycle, leaving you to reply back with nothing but "last word" bullshit.

...

No, you are a frail ass zombie, lay the fuck down!

Now, this is just irony gold. According to you, I'm the one who's trying to reply back with "last word" bullshit and the one whose points have "withered away" blow by blow. Even though you're the one posting lame GIFs and comedic YouTube videos. Right.

So, given that you've already addressed all of my points, I seem to have missed your rebuttal to the issue which you now refuse to answer. You have conceded that (1) the modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians and (2) that modern Egyptians, especially in the south, have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors. Now: why don't you point to the post where you addressed the implications of this? Because I sure can't seem to find it again (which is unsurprising, seeing as you never did).

[Big Triece]

You have conceded that (1) the modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians and

Modern Egyptians are the main descendants of ancient Egyptians and not once have I disputed that fact. In fact one of the strongest pieces of biological evidence pointing to their more southerly African origin is the continued dominance of African haplotypes in their genetic profile. You being the dumb ass that you are took this as me saying that because most modern Egyptians are not the splitting image of their core indigenous ancestors that they are the not their descendants. Quite simply you either have shit for brains or you are trying to start an argument of semantics to compensate for your intellectual ass beating throughout this thread, and I can't help either!

(2) that modern Egyptians, especially in the south, have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

Here the famed Gurna study:

"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."(Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)

Now contrast the first sentence, with the statement from Keita that states that modern Northern Egyptians who received far more foreign recent influence was not a good representative for their core indigenous ancestors. In other words southern Egyptians who tend to look like this:



are less admixed with foreign influence and have a greater pull towards more southerly African populations. Common sense would say that this modern population of ancient Egyptian descent who has received far less foreign influence than their northern counter parts are a far better representative of their Egyptian ancestors, wouldn't it? Do you even have common sense?

This however does not negate the fact that the African populations in the Horn are consistently found to be the closest modern population (even amongst modern Egyptian descendants) to the early ancient Egyptians.

"Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)

What this along with every other line of relevant evidence indicates is that the ancient Egyptians derived from populations of the Horn and the Sahara. It's that fucking simple and you know it, but are simply to unwilling to admit it! So if you wish to continue to obfuscate my position then it will likely fall on death ears.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In other words southern Egyptians who tend to look like this:

For God's sakes, please stop posting these pictures. Showing pictures of random African children does NOTHING to bolster your point. I don't even understand why you could possibly think that it could. Even if phenotype = genotype and was a reliable indicator of genetic inheritance, which it often is not, the fact that we have no trace or verification as to the source or location of these images is more than enough to dismiss them. All it does is clutter up the thread. So, please, stop.

What this along with every other line of relevant evidence indicates is that the ancient Egyptians derived from populations of the Horn and the Sahara. It's that fucking simple and you know it, but are simply to unwilling to admit it! So if you wish to continue to obfuscate my position then it will likely fall on death ears.

Actually, all the evidence that you have posted shows is that there is a two-way cline in the relative proportions of mitochondrial DNA markers (in this case, Eurasian and Sub-Saharan) between northern Egypt and the southern Sudan. In fact, I am starting to doubt you understand at all the genetic concepts underlying the papers you frequently cite; either that or you are just dishonest. You have consistently provided selective quotes from papers and interpreted them in ways that the full text does not support.

In fact, from the very study you just referenced:

The Gurna population appeared statistically as close to Near Eastern as to sub-Saharan and Sudanese populations, even though these two groups were statistically different ... The presence in the Gurna gene pool of haplogroups found in Near Eastern populations but absent in sub-Saharan ones (like U4), and haplogroups found in sub-Saharan populations but only sporadically present in Near Eastern ones (like L1), reinforces this observation.

Further, there are a number of other studies that disagree with your claims, here, here, here, here, and here.

The question of Egyptian inheritance/origin is very complicated, and not at all as certain as you seem to claim. There are some types of analysis that lead to one conclusion, and other types that lead to another. That's what happens when you are examining the genetic history of a people with a very long syncretic past. And your dismissal of anyone that disagrees with you as racist, your insistent use of non-academic sources such as the YouTube videos, and your perpetual misinterpretation of scholarly works leads me to believe you are not qualified to speak about any of these topics.

[Lord Zentei]

You have conceded that (1) the modern Egyptians are the main descendants of the ancient Egyptians and

Modern Egyptians are the main descendants of ancient Egyptians and not once have I disputed that fact. In fact one of the strongest pieces of biological evidence pointing to their more southerly African origin is the continued dominance of African haplotypes in their genetic profile. You being the dumb ass that you are took this as me saying that because most modern Egyptians are not the splitting image of their core indigenous ancestors that they are the not their descendants. Quite simply you either have shit for brains or you are trying to start an argument of semantics to compensate for your intellectual ass beating throughout this thread, and I can't help either!

Well, at least you finally responded to the point I raised. Congratulations with that. Too bad you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too - namely that you acknowledge the fact that Egyptians are the descendants of the ancient population, and yet that they somehow resemble some other population for no good reason.

(2) that modern Egyptians, especially in the south, have biological resemblance to their core indigenous ancestors.

Here the famed Gurna study:

"The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) diversity of 58 individuals from Upper Egypt, more than half (34 individuals) from Gurna, whose population has an ancient cultural history, were studied by sequencing the control-region and screening diagnostic RFLP markers. This sedentary population presented similarities to the Ethiopian population by the L1 and L2 macrohaplogroup frequency (20.6%), by the West Eurasian component (defined by haplogroups H to K and T to X) and particularly by a high frequency (17.6%) of haplogroup M1. We statistically and phylogenetically analysed and compared the Gurna population with other Egyptian, Near East and sub-Saharan Africa populations; AMOVA and Minimum Spanning Network analysis showed that the Gurna population was not isolated from neighbouring populations. Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."(Stevanovitch A, Gilles A, Bouzaid E, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial DNA sequence diversity in a sedentary population from Egypt.Ann Hum Genet. 68(Pt 1):23-39.)

"Neighboring populations", such as millions of African slaves during Arab times, for example. And of course, your post doesn't actually refute the implications of what I posted, now does it.

Now contrast the first sentence, with the statement from Keita that states that modern Northern Egyptians who received far more foreign recent influence was not a good representative for their core indigenous ancestors. In other words southern Egyptians who tend to look like this:

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb17 ... /2Boys.jpg[/img]

are less admixed with foreign influence and have a greater pull towards more southerly African populations. Common sense would say that this modern population of ancient Egyptian descent who has received far less foreign influence than their northern counter parts are a far better representative of their Egyptian ancestors, wouldn't it? Do you even have common sense?

Yup.

This however does not negate the fact that the African populations in the Horn are consistently found to be the closest modern population (even amongst modern Egyptian descendants) to the early ancient Egyptians.

http://i371.photobucket.com/albums/oo16 ... ogram2.jpg

"Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)

What this along with every other line of relevant evidence indicates is that the ancient Egyptians derived from populations of the Horn and the Sahara. It's that fucking simple and you know it, but are simply to unwilling to admit it! So if you wish to continue to obfuscate my position then it will likely fall on death ears.

And yet, modern Egyptians don't look like East Africans. Therefore, there's no reason to suppose the Ancient Egyptians looked that way either. What was that you said about common sense again?

[Big Triece]

Even if phenotype = genotype and was a reliable indicator of genetic inheritance,

That's not what I'm asserting. The populations in southern Egypt and many rural communities of the north, have not been as affected by continuous foreign gene flow from outside sources as established urban centers have. Wouldn't common sense point to those descendants who have been less affected by later foreign migration be a better representative of their core indigenous ancestors then the opposite?

which it often is not, the fact that we have no trace or verification as to the source or location of these images is more than enough to dismiss them.

Why do you feel that it's necessary to try to discredit the fact that there are black people in Egypt today?

Actually, all the evidence that you have posted shows is that there is a two-way cline in the relative proportions of mitochondrial DNA markers (in this case, Eurasian and Sub-Saharan) between northern Egypt and the southern Sudan.

First of all "all the evidence that" I have posted does not pertain to genetics, so that's one false statement. You are correct however that there has for the most part always been a north-south cline in Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times, which is evident by more than just genetics. Egypt was already genetically variable, but foreigners added variability. Foreign variability is most apparent in the urban north then in other regions.

In fact, from the very study you just referenced:

The point of posting the Gurna study was what I underlined:

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."

The full quote that I've cited also stated that the population of Gurna has been affected by neighboring populations. Neighboring populations would include those from the Middle East, so what is being deliberately hidden by me? What I specifically underlined however is stating that the M1 lineage from Sub Saharan East Africa was the most ancestral population source in the Gurna sample, and that the genetic input from other neighboring populations (hint hint the Middle East) did not come until later (hence they are described as "further influence") A finding which is mirrored by anthropology.

Further, there are a number of other studies that disagree with your claims, here, here, here, here, and here.

You know, the thing about posting 5 random studies which you feel goes against the newly (relatively) established status quo of this subject, is that if an alternate theory is to be constructed (by you I guess), then all of the fucking studies should somewhat run parallel with one another, shouldn't they?

One study states that Pre-Dynastic Upper Egyptians and Late Dynastic Lower Egyptians were essentially the same population (a claim which has yet to be duplicated/refuted on numerous occasions); Egyptians were essentially the same as Neolithic Europeans/ Somalia and it's inhabitants is somehow not located south of the Sahara/ ect ect. Another study is basing it's conclusion on an Afro Asatic origin in the Middle East and subsequently a Demic Diffusion into Africa. A claim which is almost universally negated by linguist who the study Afro-Asiatic, and has been for the since the middle of the 20th century. One study is stating the obvious (modern Egyptians have been affected by neighboring populations). While one study was criticized by other geneticist for only sampling modern Northern Egyptians. What alternative and specific population source for ancient Egypt do these studies all point to? What is your theory?

The question of Egyptian inheritance/origin is very complicated,

From an archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological standpoint it most certainly is not!

There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. Skeletal analyses have figured prominently in research. When comparisons to non-Egyptians are made, depending on which samples and methods are used, the craniofacial patterns of ancient Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans. Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.

link

Some people wish to "obfuscate" the issue for social-political reasons. The 1977 sketch above by Richard Prior was obviously more of a social-political statement as opposed to a purely comical one as you tried to write it off as. As Richard was reading the clear fucking evidence to the delusional white Egyptologist that these people were black, the lead Egyptologist tried to make some bullshit excuse to try to "obfuscate" what is fucking clear and replied basically replied with stfu you lying bastard. You people are trying to "obfuscate" this simplistic fact in regards to ancient Egypt for social-political reasons. Do I myself have my own social-political views of course, but the difference between me and you is that my stance is that I am being truthful! Telling people who think like you to join into this debate to "gang up" on me, does not invalidate my evidence or my very simple points.

There are some types of analysis that lead to one conclusion, and other types that lead to another. That's what happens when you are examining the genetic history of a people with a very long syncretic past

That is true. Now which methods are proven to be the best at analyzing this question, and which results are the most consistent? Do the results from one scientific method run parallel with any other lines of evidence?

And your dismissal of anyone that disagrees with you as racist,

You don't have to be a fucking member of klan to subscribe to an idea which rooted in racism! Most people in this society have been taught through the media that the ancient Egyptians were a group of people who were Asatic in facial features and skin color, yet had kinky hair, wore wigs and had dread locks. People in this society have been taught through the media that ancient Egyptians were an Asiatic in phenotype, despite being presented with a map pointing to the population sources for their ancestry coming from the Nilo-Saharan communities where Sudan/Chad/Libya meet and Sub Saharan East Africa. Don't get upset at black people (including those exposed to it in Africa) who knew better than to believe that bullshit! Not long ago white Egyptologist were saying that no black people were in Egypt and if they were their then they were either slaves of foreigners:

"Nutter (1958), using the Penrose statistic, demonstrated that Nagada I and Badari crania, both regarded as Negroid, were almost identical and that these were most similar to the Negroid Nubian series from Kerma studied by Collett (1933). [Collett, not accepting variability, excluded "clear negro" crania found in the Kerma series from her analysis, as did Morant (1925), implying that they were foreign..." (S. Keita (1990) Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48)

Now that this shit has been shoved up their asses, they want to compromise now! "Ok Ok, Egypt was built by both black and "Caucasoid" people". Despite not having a lick of evidence supporting a mass wave of Asiatic or European people settling the Nile Valley during Pre or early Dynastic times. When this gets exposed for the bullshit that it is, then you have some who are just begging for fucking crumbs, "there is a possibility that a small group of non Africans may have wandered into the Nile. It's like why the fuck can't y'all just accept the truth? Kemet could be called a black African civilization in it's beginning and it became a very cosmopolitan civilization as time went on.

your insistent use of non-academic sources such as the YouTube videos,

"Insistence"? I did not start posting that shit until four fucking days ago, bringing my total post with such videos up to what..three, out of how many? What about my all of my other videos? Do Basil Davidson and S.O.Y. Keita ring any bells? Did you read the entire fucking thread, before jumping on the "bad guy"? Tell me though is this academic enough for you?

[Lord Zentei]

Big Triece, you don't get to ignore posts to answer only those people you want to answer.

Why do you feel that it's necessary to try to discredit the fact that there are black people in Egypt today?

I find it implausible that you could be so stupid as not to get the point Ziggy Stardust is raising here. Therefore, I have to conclude that you are, once again, trolling and appealing to imaginary motives in order to dismiss the conclusions of other people in this thread.

First of all "all the evidence that" I have posted does not pertain to genetics, so that's one false statement. You are correct however that there has for the most part always been a north-south cline in Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times, which is evident by more than just genetics. Egypt was already genetically variable, but foreigners added variability. Foreign variability is most apparent in the urban north then in other regions.

Amazingly, you admit this now after 19 pages of claiming relative homogenity in ancient Egypt in order to dismiss data that does not support the idea that ancient Egypt was "black" in the sense "negroid". No doubt you'll deny that this undermines your overall claims.

The point of posting the Gurna study was what I underlined:

Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population."

The full quote that I've cited also stated that the population of Gurna has been affected by neighboring populations. Neighboring populations would include those from the Middle East, so what is being deliberately hidden by me? What I specifically underlined however is stating that the M1 lineage from Sub Saharan East Africa was the most ancestral population source in the Gurna sample, and that the genetic input from other neighboring populations (hint hint the Middle East) did not come until later (hence they are described as "further influence") A finding which is mirrored by anthropology.

Neighboring populations would also include people from further south, a point I raised earlier and which you ignored. Incidentally, you're using your selective comprehension skills again, even with the limited post you're quoting here. Hint: they're not saying that the ancient Egyptians resembled East Africans. Moreover, the article you quotes states that Egypt was a corridor for human dispersion across the Near East and Maghreb. As has been pointed out to you before, this implies that the people of the Near East originated from populations dispersed from Egypt, undermining your simplistic racial analysis of these populations.

From an archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological standpoint it most certainly is not!

There has been scholarly interest in the biological variation and genealogical relationship of the ancient Egyptians to other populations outside of the Egyptian Nile Valley. There is no scientific reason to believe that the primary ancestors of the Egyptian population emerged and evolved outside of northeast Africa. Skeletal analyses have figured prominently in research. When comparisons to non-Egyptians are made, depending on which samples and methods are used, the craniofacial patterns of ancient Egyptian show a range of similarities to other African populations, Near Easterners, and Europeans. Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation. Dental affinity studies generally agree with the craniofacial results, though they differ in the details. The body proportions of ancient Egyptians generally are similar to those of tropical (more southern) Africans.

You goddamned tool, no one here is disputing that the Egyptians originated in Northeast Africa. This has been pointed out to you countless times, yet you keep harping on like a broken record. That is not the issue here. The issue is whether the overall population of Egypt could be characterized as "black" in the sub-Saharan sense, as opposed to being heterogenous, and with resemblances with Near East and Maghreb populations as well as other populations, seeing as Egypt was the fucking corridor for the original settlement of those populations into their native lands.

Some people wish to "obfuscate" the issue for social-political reasons. The 1977 sketch above by Richard Prior was obviously more of a social-political statement as opposed to a purely comical one as you tried to write it off as. As Richard was reading the clear fucking evidence to the delusional white Egyptologist that these people were black, the lead Egyptologist tried to make some bullshit excuse to try to "obfuscate" what is fucking clear and replied basically replied with stfu you lying bastard. You people are trying to "obfuscate" this simplistic fact in regards to ancient Egypt for social-political reasons. Do I myself have my own social-political views of course, but the difference between me and you is that my stance is that I am being truthful! Telling people who think like you to join into this debate to "gang up" on me, does not invalidate my evidence or my very simple points.

Indeed there are people who wish to obfuscate the issue for social-political reasons. People such as yourself, for one.

You don't have to be a fucking member of klan to subscribe to an idea which rooted in racism! <SNIP SNIP>
Now that this shit has been shoved up their asses, they want to compromise now! "Ok Ok, Egypt was built by both black and "Caucasoid" people". Despite not having a lick of evidence supporting a mass wave of Asiatic or European people settling the Nile Valley during Pre or early Dynastic times. When this gets exposed for the bullshit that it is, then you have some who are just begging for fucking crumbs, "there is a possibility that a small group of non Africans may have wandered into the Nile. It's like why the fuck can't y'all just accept the truth? Kemet could be called a black African civilization in it's beginning and it became a very cosmopolitan civilization as time went on.

Added emphasis because WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU THAT YOU KEEP POSTING THIS FUCKING STRAW-MAN? And why the hell are you always using "Kemet" instead of "Egypt"? Cut it the fuck out, you're like those obnoxious tryhard weeaboos who insist on saying "Nihon" instead of "Japan" even when they're ostensibly speaking English.

[Big Triece]

Big Triece, you don't get to ignore posts to answer only those people you want to answer.

[Lord Zentei]

So, now you are back to refusing to address things people say around here and instead displaying wise-ass macros. I'm still holding out for an answer, though. Not much, but there might be some hope. Why don't you try that again.

[Big Triece]

So to make matters even worse, moderators are removing comments made in this thread in defense of my stance? The forum regular who does this is considered suspected of being a troll, seriously? Sneaky, dishonest and quite tacky debating tactics.

[Thanas]

So to make matters even worse, moderators are removing comments made in this thread in defense of my stance? The forum regular who does this is considered suspected of being a troll, seriously? Sneaky, dishonest and quite tacky debating tactics.

The guy in question flat out admitted on another board he was planning to troll this thread. Lol and behold a few minutes later his post appears here, ignoring pretty much all that was written before. Don't try to act as if we are trying to suppress you here, because you have a lot of pages in this thread with your opinions in them.

19 pages of them, in fact.

[Lord Zentei]

So to make matters even worse, moderators are removing comments made in this thread in defense of my stance? The forum regular who does this is considered suspected of being a troll, seriously? Sneaky, dishonest and quite tacky debating tactics.

That was flushed not because of you, but because of Bakustra. Your comment got flushed along with it because you were replying to him. If it's important to this thread, why not just post it again back here?

EDIT: You can respond to my post while you're at it too.


PS: Incidentally, Bakustra, I'm almost touched by your interest.

[Thanas]

Zentei, don't push it either. Vendetta-baiting Bakustra or however you may want to call it is not accepted here either. So stop with those small comments, alright?

[Lord Zentei]

Zentei, don't push it either. Vendetta-baiting Bakustra or however you may want to call it is not accepted here either. So stop with those small comments, alright?

Sorry, it was not meant as baiting. Merely jest.

[Big Triece]

In response to Thanas's bs assertions in regard to the cultural relationship between West and Central Africans and Nile Valley civilizations:

The last time that I've checked the African ancestry of African Americans, while being largely Niger-Kordofanian was not exclusive to it, and spanned the entire continent. Even in the case of Niger-Korfanian populations, you have ethnic groups in Western Africa with hundreds of words coming from ancient Egypt. You have West African religions with the same practices of the ancient Egyptians. You even have genetic proof that original population of ancient Egypt shared a third of it's Y-DNA with West and Central African populations. Therefore I must ask what is you basis for you to say that the ancient Egyptians shared no commonality with West and Central African populations? Furthermore what would that bare on their on the fact that they primary ancestry with other Sub Saharan Africans who are not West African, but who are also black Africans? Are you only equating West Africa as black, to avoid conceding to the fact the ancient Egyptians were primarily comprised on other types of indigenous black Africans?

[Lord Zentei]

Big Triece, would you characterize the peoples of the Near East as "black"? If you would, then you might have a point. But it seems that you're attempting to create a classification that includes both Niger-Congo groups as well as North East Africans but somehow does not include people of the Near East, which makes no biological sense, since Near East populations are descended from North East Africans from a time after the emergence of diversity among Africans in general.

[Big Triece]

So Thanas, it's basically safe to say that your assertion is baseless?

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's not what I'm asserting. The populations in southern Egypt and many rural communities of the north, have not been as affected by continuous foreign gene flow from outside sources as established urban centers have. Wouldn't common sense point to those descendants who have been less affected by later foreign migration be a better representative of their core indigenous ancestors then the opposite?

You are completely missing my point. Just posting unsourced photos of black people, that we can't even prove are FROM Egypt because you provide no verification of who those people are, where they are from, or anything, makes absolutely NO statement about Egyptian population genetics, one way or the other. Where do you get the idea that this is acceptable? Have you noticed how none of the scientific journals you quote are just made up of a bunch of unlabelled pictures?

Why do you feel that it's necessary to try to discredit the fact that there are black people in Egypt today?

Where did I make this statement? This is exactly what I am talking about, with the veiled accusations of racism in lieu of actual arguments. I can post a random picture of a white person here, do you think that would prove that Egyptians are white? No, it wouldn't. So why would it work the same with random pictures of black people? Heck, a few posts ago you had a picture of an American rapper next to the Sphinx, as if that somehow constituted evidence.

First of all "all the evidence that" I have posted does not pertain to genetics, so that's one false statement.

Semantics.

The full quote that I've cited also stated that the population of Gurna has been affected by neighboring populations. Neighboring populations would include those from the Middle East, so what is being deliberately hidden by me? What I specifically underlined however is stating that the M1 lineage from Sub Saharan East Africa was the most ancestral population source in the Gurna sample, and that the genetic input from other neighboring populations (hint hint the Middle East) did not come until later (hence they are described as "further influence")

The study made no claims as to what was the "most ancestral." It speculated about WHY the M1 occurred in the frequencies that it does, but there was no proof that it was the "most ancestral."

You know, the thing about posting 5 random studies which you feel goes against the newly (relatively) established status quo of this subject, is that if an alternate theory is to be constructed (by you I guess), then all of the fucking studies should somewhat run parallel with one another, shouldn't they?

Here it is again; you are assuming I am proposing an alternate theory, instead of simply pointing out the flaws in your logic/conclusions. Where did I make this theory? What is my theory?

I DELIBERATELY chose studies that do not necessarily agree with each others findings. Because I am demonstrating that the ones you have cherry-picked to help your argument are not representative of all of the research out there. Furthermore, several of the studies I posted were MORE recent than ones you posted earlier, and your idea that your position is the "status quo" is inaccurate, as a simple Google search will show.

Once again, you are simply claiming bad intent on the part of the people you are arguing with instead of making any effort to intellectually challenge them.

What alternative and specific population source for ancient Egypt do these studies all point to? What is your theory?

Are you really this dense?

From an archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and biological standpoint it most certainly is not!

Well, this shows that you are extremely out of touch with reality. You know, there's a reason that there isn't strict consensus, especially in the genetic findings. There is also a reason that the further back you go, the more question marks there are.

Some people wish to "obfuscate" the issue for social-political reasons. The 1977 sketch above by Richard Prior was obviously more of a social-political statement as opposed to a purely comical one as you tried to write it off as.

It is irrelevant how poignant the statement was, dipshit. My point is that it isn't SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Can you really not understand this incredibly basic concept? YouTube videos and random stock photos of Africans are NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. How many times does this have to be pointed out to you?

You people are trying to "obfuscate" this simplistic fact in regards to ancient Egypt for social-political reasons.

Once again, accusations instead of evidence.

Do I myself have my own social-political views of course, but the difference between me and you is that my stance is that I am being truthful!

The 19 pages of this thread are rife with your dishonesty. Like all the accusations of racism.

Telling people who think like you to join into this debate to "gang up" on me, does not invalidate my evidence or my very simple points.

Are you this paranoid delusional? Do you really think there is a group of us in our white hoods in a chat room trying to gang up on you? If you really think this is the case, you should get some psychiatric help. I posted simply because I was personally irritated by the incredible intellectual dishonesty exhibited in your posts, here. Once again, all you seem capable of doing is using the race or victim card, instead of actually backing up any arguments you have made.

That is true. Now which methods are proven to be the best at analyzing this question, and which results are the most consistent? Do the results from one scientific method run parallel with any other lines of evidence?

You are the one making the claim, you back it up. I am not doing your homework for you. I demonstrated in my last post that not all of the literature agrees with your (cherry-picked) analysis of certain (cherry-picked) papers. You have to show why the papers you chose to cite should be trusted over any of the dozens of studies that disagree. This is not that difficult.

You don't have to be a fucking member of klan to subscribe to an idea which rooted in racism!

You also don't HAVE to be racist to disagree with you. You do realize this, right?

Don't get upset at black people (including those exposed to it in Africa) who knew better than to believe that bullshit!

Where have I gotten upset with black people? Where has ANYONE IN THIS THREAD SAID OR DONE ANYTHING RACIST? Disagreeing with you doesn't count.

Despite not having a lick of evidence supporting a mass wave of Asiatic or European people settling the Nile Valley during Pre or early Dynastic times.

What about the genetic evidence that does suggest this back-migration into Egypt? What makes you confident that you can dismiss this?

When this gets exposed for the bullshit that it is, then you have some who are just begging for fucking crumbs, "there is a possibility that a small group of non Africans may have wandered into the Nile. It's like why the fuck can't y'all just accept the truth? Kemet could be called a black African civilization in it's beginning and it became a very cosmopolitan civilization as time went on.

Stating it to be so does not make it so. I am NOT opposed to an African origin for Egyptian civilization. However, I am opposed to your intellectual dishonesty. Either post the evidence, or STOP CALLING EVERYONE RACIST.

"Insistence"? I did not start posting that shit until four fucking days ago, bringing my total post with such videos up to what..three, out of how many?

Since you posted all of these in lieu of actual arguments, why does it matter if you did it 3 times or 10? You are still avoiding addressing anybody's arguments.

Did you read the entire fucking thread, before jumping on the "bad guy"?

Again, you pull the victim card.

Tell me though is this academic enough for you?

That's all well and good. Now, why does this 20 year old documentary, geared towards middle and high school students, refute the scholarly articles that have come out in the past five years, and have been linked to previously in this thread?

[Big Triece]

Where did I make this statement?

You went ballistic when I posted that picture of those two Upper Egyptian boys, and questioned the validity of their "Egyptian" status. I'm willing to bet that if I had posted pictures of children from Cairo and claimed them as such their validity would not be questioned, and that's just my own opinion (as everyone has one). Either way here is a video by an Upper Egyptian historians whose "Egyptianess" is proven (via their tour guide website).

Heck, a few posts ago you had a picture of an American rapper next to the Sphinx, as if that somehow constituted evidence.

I don't recall comparing an American rapper to the Sphinx. I did however make two comparisons of African Americans and two statues from ancient Egypt, in response to some dipshit stating that the ancient Egyptians could not have resembled African Americans.

The study made no claims as to what was the "most ancestral." It speculated about WHY the M1 occurred in the frequencies that it does, but there was no proof that it was the "most ancestral."

The study specifically labeled the East African component "ancestral" and stated that the genetic input from other neighboring populations was "further influence".

Here it is again; you are assuming I am proposing an alternate theory, instead of simply pointing out the flaws in your logic/conclusions.

How in the fuck does posting random ass studies all pointing in different directions, undermine the modern consensus that the ancient Egyptians were of Northeast African origin? As I've just pointed out to you, several of the studies that you posted a flawed and those flaws have been noted by other scholars, leading to criticism.

I DELIBERATELY chose studies that do not necessarily agree with each others findings. Because I am demonstrating that the ones you have cherry-picked to help your argument are not representative of all of the research out there.

That makes absolutely no sense! To discredit a theory which is supported by consistent, mainstream biological and cultural analysis of multiple disciplines, you provide a fucking mosaic of stand alone studies? Stand alone studies don't lead to theories which will eventually be called a consensus. Now why in the fuck you would refer to me presenting the evidence which helped establish the scholarly consensus on this subject as "cherry picking"

Furthermore, several of the studies I posted were MORE recent than ones you posted earlier

The point that you were trying to make with those studies have been debunked time and time again. Demic Diffusion/Afro-Asiatic from the Middle East are you fucking kidding me? This theory has become fringe even amongst the oldest fossils.

and your idea that your position is the "status quo" is inaccurate, as a simple Google search will show.

Yeah never mind the lectures at Cambridge and Manchester in which the consensus of this topic is being taught. Ignore the reference of this opinion even amongst the National Geographic, we are just going to hold our breath for you to post the status quo that you were able to google up.

Well, this shows that you are extremely out of touch with reality.

Yeah just ignore that authoritative reference that I gave for that statement. Ignore it because you baselessly believe that me referencing the newly established status quo is indicative of me being out of touch with reality.

The 19 pages of this thread are rife with your dishonesty. Like all the accusations of racism.

Of those 19 pages, you would have noticed that I am not the only one to notice the "arrogant" behavior of forum regulars as they comment in this thread. In fact a pretty good summarization of the bullshit surrounding this debate was given two days ago (but deleted by the mods) acknowledging that it has it's root in racism, which is something even acknowledged by scholars.

You also don't HAVE to be racist to disagree with you. You do realize this, right?

If you read my statement clearly then you would have noted that I said that the notion of a non black African ancient Egypt has it's roots in nothing more than racism. This was explained pretty good in this post.

What about the genetic evidence that does suggest this back-migration into Egypt? What makes you confident that you can dismiss this?

According to the genetic evidence signaling a back migration into Africa, these Central Africans:



With close to 100% frequencies of haplogroup R epitomize such an event, not Egyptians or other North Africans who have neglectable amounts of this haplogroup.

You are still avoiding addressing anybody's arguments.

Dude you don't have shit to say! Your entire post consisted of nothing more than stop calling dumb ass people who refuse to accept that they subscribe to a theory which is rooted in racism, racist. I don't know if those people are or aren't racist due exclusively to that fact. I do however begin to question peoples motives for not accepting clear and conclusive fucking evidence to the contrary, and sometimes it's just that fucking clear that they have anti black sentiments. You want to talk about "out of touch with reality" this fucking America that we live in not Utopia, we all know the history and the negative attitudes that still profoundly linger. It's DISHONEST of people like you deny this fact and the very likely possibility that it may plays a major factor in this discussion.

That's all well and good. Now, why does this 20 year old documentary, geared towards middle and high school students, refute the scholarly articles that have come out in the past five years, and have been linked to previously in this thread?

Nope sorry, those findings have only been validated by more authoritative sources as you would have seen throughout this thread.

[Big Triece]

Just posting unsourced photos of black people, that we can't even prove are FROM Egypt because you provide no verification of who those people are, where they are from, or anything

Here are pictures of inhabitants from one of the few large southern Egyptian cities Aswan:



link







Link

, makes absolutely NO statement about Egyptian population genetics, one way or the other.

I'm was more so getting at their overall biological affinity, which has always and continues to tie people of that region to more southerly regions of northeast Africa. Even Carleton S Coon in his race obsessed publications of the 1970's stated that their was a biological continuum of peoples from modern day Upper Egypt to the Ethiopian highlands, which has been validated more recently:

"..collected by Petrie in 1907 from a cemetery on a desert ridge to the south of Giza and dating from the 26th to the 30th Dynasties.. If, on the other hand, CRANID had used one of the Elephantine populations of the same period, the geographic association would be much more with the African groups to the south. (Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Routledge: 2005, p. 55)

Genetic analysis also tends to tie people of this region of Egypt more towards modern northern Sudanese, Horn African and even Central African populations:



Rosa et al. 2007

[Ziggy Stardust]

You went ballistic when I posted that picture of those two Upper Egyptian boys, and questioned the validity of their "Egyptian" status. I'm willing to bet that if I had posted pictures of children from Cairo and claimed them as such their validity would not be questioned, and that's just my own opinion (as everyone has one). Either way here is a video by an Upper Egyptian historians whose "Egyptianess" is proven (via their tour guide website).

Jesus Christ, you are amazingly stupid. I am not angry that you claim they are Egyptian, I am irritated that you honestly think that posting random pictures constitutes real evidence of your claims.

Once again, why do scholarly journals not consist of lists of unsourced pictures, since apparently (according to you) they are irrefutable evidence?

I did however make two comparisons of African Americans and two statues from ancient Egypt, in response to some dipshit stating that the ancient Egyptians could not have resembled African Americans.

Stop arguing semantics, asshole. You are deliberately dancing around the point, here.

How in the fuck does posting random ass studies all pointing in different directions, undermine the modern consensus that the ancient Egyptians were of Northeast African origin?

My studies were proof that there is no "modern consensus." All of those studies were recent, and disputed your claim.

As I've just pointed out to you, several of the studies that you posted a flawed and those flaws have been noted by other scholars, leading to criticism.

Why were they flawed? You have yet to demonstrate this.

To discredit a theory which is supported by consistent, mainstream biological and cultural analysis of multiple disciplines, you provide a fucking mosaic of stand alone studies? Stand alone studies don't lead to theories which will eventually be called a consensus. Now why in the fuck you would refer to me presenting the evidence which helped establish the scholarly consensus on this subject as "cherry picking"

You have yet to prove this scholarly consensus. You have selectively quoted from certain studies that agree with your point, while casually dismissing every other scholarly study as "stand-alone." Which doesn't even make sense, by definition a scholarly study is NOT stand-alone. Did you see all those citations in the papers I linked to? Did you notice some even cited studies you have posted earlier in this thread?

Yeah just ignore that authoritative reference that I gave for that statement. Ignore it because you baselessly believe that me referencing the newly established status quo is indicative of me being out of touch with reality.

Prove this status quo, asshole. You have yet to do so, despite NUMEROUS people in this thread posting NUMEROUS references to the fact that not every scholar agrees with your analysis. The burden of proof is still on you.

In fact a pretty good summarization of the bullshit surrounding this debate was given two days ago (but deleted by the mods) acknowledging that it has it's root in racism, which is something even acknowledged by scholars.

That post was blatant trolling. The author of the post admitted as much. Do you think random internet trolls and random internet photos constitute real evidence?

If you read my statement clearly then you would have noted that I said that the notion of a non black African ancient Egypt has it's roots in nothing more than racism.

Once again: stop arguing semantics and address the points, asshole. Instead of dismissing everyone that disagrees with you as racist, why don't you ADDRESS THE CLAIMS PRESENTED?

Your entire post consisted of nothing more than stop calling dumb ass people who refuse to accept that they subscribe to a theory which is rooted in racism, racist. I don't know if those people are or aren't racist due exclusively to that fact. I do however begin to question peoples motives for not accepting clear and conclusive fucking evidence to the contrary, and sometimes it's just that fucking clear that they have anti black sentiments. You want to talk about "out of touch with reality" this fucking America that we live in not Utopia, we all know the history and the negative attitudes that still profoundly linger. It's DISHONEST of people like you deny this fact and the very likely possibility that it may plays a major factor in this discussion.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You just rant and rave about racism instead of actually refuting my points. If you really want to prove your argument, why don't you actually back it up? Several people in this thread have posted links to scholarly articles that show evidence contrary to your beliefs. All you have done is rant and rave about how we are all racist for even SUGGESTING such a thing, instead of making any effort to qualify why those studies are inaccurate.

I am left to believe that you are deliberately trolling. You have no interest in honest debate or discourse on this topic. All you want to do is scream about how everyone is racist.