Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Big Triece]

Not this again, I even showed how unclear you was on p1 in my response on p2. So let me repeat; you are not coming across as clear as you think.

Frivolous tit or tat arguments just like I stated:

See? No mention of "the undenial fact that Egypt's origins come from inner africa". So for people to misread your position would be a natural progression from your posts.
Exactly what I was hoping to avoid by having you make a clear claim. So please be clearer in the future because this is degenerating fast.

Also note that for you to argue against Serfina's post makes it implied that you do think that race matters. Which wouldn't be a good starting point here, so please clarify your view on that.

I simply do not know how to make my stance any clearer for you. In all honesty I think that you are purposely trying to over complicate what my stance is. Hell even Broomstick understood my stance and seemingly says that we are in agreement.

As for the genetic angle, I have been reading up on the subject a bit and have to say that unlike what Triece claimed, the evidence mainly points to ancient egyptians being largely the same as modern Egyptian, that is to say a mixture of various types. I'll write a huge post about it later on.

Even Keita mentions it as well.

I am going to assume that you are referencing his National Geographic interview in which he stated that the amount of diversity that is seen today was seen in ancient times.

In that statement Keita is not specifying any specific period in Egyptian history in which this diversity was seen. Neither in that statement is Keita giving percentage modules as to the prevalence of these phenotypes.

Other anthropologists have found population continuity between the Egyptian population from now to ancient times. This means that no population displacement or genocide occurred with the original Egyptian populations. This is also apparent in modern Egyptian genetic profiles in which African "E" is the most pravalent haplogroup (with others of course) What others do note is that through assimilation with European and Asiatic populations the genetic profile and phenotype of the Egyptians has been altered:

• "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
  
  Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."[/i]
  
  -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

Below is a dendrogram from Kemp 2006 which clearly shows that the only populations to overlap with the ancient Egyptians from the second intermediate period on back were Nubians and modern Sub Saharan African populations:



Modern Egyptians group with later period Egyptians for the reason noted in the study posted above. It is also shown that Broad featured Sub Saharan African samples group closer to the ancient Egyptians than some modern Egyptian samples, who group with Europeans. If you don't know the names of the samples than a simple google search will help you.

[Simon_Jester]

And, of course, since recent scholarship puts most of this language family squarely in Africa is does get the white racists pissed off - instead of their favored group marching into Africa to give civilization to the "darkies" it sure starts to look like those "darkies" gave quite a bit to the folks in the Middle East, that the flow of civilization and ideas might have gone the other way from what was asserted in the 19th Century.

Which is why "what color were the Ancient Egyptians" is such a powder keg - it's not really about the Egyptians, it's about racial prejudices. Otherwise, we'd all agree on "brown" and have polite discussions over tea and scones on the particular shades of brown concerned then move on discussing hairstyles as portrayed on tomb wall paintings.

Yep. That's about the size of it. Since everything I know about ancient Egypt I learned after 1990, that's about what I'd like to do. Except, well... I don't much care about hairstyles and would rather talk about trade or something. But that's me.

Just a point here - the "edible gourd" referred to here is the plant family Cucurbitaceae which encompasses gourds, squashes and melons. More and more, the evidence is pointing towards ALL of them originating in sub-Saharan Africa. The reason things like cucumbers, squash, and melons grow all over the world is because humans domesticated them early and carried them on their migrations. The people who first domesticated them were sub-Saharan Africans.

I'm always surprised the Afrocentrists don't bring this up more often as a very clear example of African origin for a significant contribution to agriculture and as a clear example of knowledge/items diffusing from Africa to everyone else in the world. Maybe cucumbers and zucchini aren't as sexy as tombs full of dead kings or something.

Heh. Probably a good point- cucumbers are so ignoble compared to armies of lordly charioteers and solid gold statues. Only a historian would care about things like the diffusion of useful agricultural crops, right?

Of course, only a historian who'd care about such things is really qualified to discuss the issue without letting their prejudices override their judgement.

---

I will attempt to explain, as I would to a retarded child.

More insults, with no threats of banning! I guess I'll just excercise this forum right the next time one is hurled at me, and boy can I dish them!

Since you have demonstrated childish behaviors (such as sticking your fingers in your ears and going "I'm not listening" when people say things you don't want to hear), I spoke to you as if you were a child. If you wish to convince me that you are not a child, you are welcome to try.

Why would forensic experts analyze Egyptian art such as the sphinx if it had no basis is realism?

Because Egyptologists sometimes grasp at straws, or use evidence that is less than reliable because no better evidence is available?

On the other hand, Egyptologists also review evidence, occasionally listen to things that do not support their existing opinions, and do not simply dismiss arguments they disapprove of without explaining why, using a "Bah! You are naive and stupid!" This makes them much better qualified than you to make arguments from ambiguous evidence.

He [Thanas] just stated that the proportion was somehow exaggerated by me, then goes on later to say that this is general in Egyptian art as evident by the difference he observed in the Cleopatra statues.

The really critical thing to take away from the Cleopatra statues (and the statues of Hatshepsut with a beard) is this:

Egyptian art was not always photorealistic. The way they made people look can have a lot more to do with traditions, with religious symbolism, with whatever it was fashionable for sculptors to make people look like that decade, than they do with the way those people actually looked.

Oh and by the way I just read one of the last threads and the situation is CLEARLY the OPPOSITE of how some of you all have made it out to be. I saw the OP present his case, which was INSTANTLY insulted, not refuted, but INSULTED.

What insults? Where? I'm looking over those same threads and I can't tell what the hell you're talking about. Are you sure you're not making something up again?

It's not my problem if applying common sense based on the Bio-cultural evidence to this dissucussion will reveal a conclusion that some of you simply DON'T LIKE! That's something that you all need to work out on your own. I've made my stance clear numerous times, if you have something to comment on then make sure that it something that I've actually stated and not a silly ass strawman argument!

Honestly, I don't feel much opinion on your conclusion one way or the other. I just think using Egyptian artwork as evidence for it is a bad idea, and that you've got a chip on your shoulder the size of the Great Pyramid at Giza.

See, in real science, we're often advised not to present dubious supporting evidence for a theory when we already have an ironclad case based on something else entirely. It's a bad idea to do that, because it draws attention to the flaws in the bad evidence, and distracts people from the good evidence. Which is what you've been doing for the past few pages, while loudly insisting that everyone who starts arguing with the bad evidence is a meanypants.

Your original argument on Page One was a lot better, and you created a much better impression of yourself there than you did here.

No one touched or attempted to refute this fact. They instead chose to deny that Egyptian statues and monuments that obviously depict broad featured Africans, were not a realistic portrayal of actual people. Basically denial, and this is why I called your buddy "naive".

Is it naive to conclude that Hatshepsut didn't have a beard?

If you want to argue genetics, do so. But relying on Egyptian art as evidence that a significant fraction of Egyptians look in any particular way is foolish.

Yet every piece of Bio-Cultural evidence that is has been presented in this thread shows that the ancient Egyptians looked just like the Northeast Africans populations to the south of them...

Fine. So argue bio-cultural stuff (genetics, skeletons, linguistics maybe). Not art. See, I don't really disagree with "Egyptians were rather swarthy and their Neolithic ancestors were related to the Neolithic ancestors of all the other bunches of people moving around Northeast Africa at the time." I don't even see why it would be a major point of contention.

No, it is not....

Point three:
Let us ignore point two, and assume that the Egyptians always tried to portray skin colors accurately, and did the best they could to pick a pigment that would do that. If so, and if the Egyptians were generally of the same color as Nubians, then one would expect Egyptians and Nubians to be consistently portrayed using the same color or range of colors.

We can look at the art and ask if this was the case. If it was not, it casts grave doubt on the claim that the Egyptians were the same color, or nearly the same color, as the Nubians.

EITHER ART WORK CAN BE USED TO HELP IN THIS DISSCUSSION OR IT CAN'T, MAKE UP YOUR MINDS!

You are doing the same damn thing that Broomstick did! You are dismissing both the statue representation and the skintones in Egyptian artwork as a possible representation of realism in one breath, then you are saying that art work can be used to physically distinguish the Egyptians from the Nubians in another

No. I am saying that even if we ignore the concern about whether Egyptian art is realistic (as you did, originally), we have a completely different problem with relying on Egyptian artwork. In fact, we have two different problems.

One is the limited color palette available to Egyptian artists. They were using ground up rock to make those paintings; rock does not come in every color of the rainbow. Therefore, it is likely that they only had one or two colors they could use to represent "flesh tones..." even though they lived in a region where you could find people with almost any possible skin color, because you had both pale people from the north and dark people from the south showing up in Egypt in at least small numbers, for things like trading.

In which case they might well draw everyone as reddish-brown, because that was the only color they had which closely resembled the average color of human skin- it's more realistic to draw people as reddish-brown than it is to draw them as blue.

And then there's a whole different problem, yet another one. If we accept your argument that we can use the skin tone of people in Egyptian art as evidence, and that we can assume Egyptian art was realistic, then we need to look very carefully at the percentages of people painted in different colors, without cherrypicking, if we're going to learn anything.

For example, if Egyptians always painted themselves red-brown, and painted Nubians as being half red-brown and half black, it seems unlikely that they were trying to realistically depict that they were the same color as the Nubians. Conversely, if Egyptians always painted themselves red-brown, and painted Hittites or Greeks as being half red-brown and half white, same thing.

This argument assumes that they were trying to be realistic, which is problematic- it may not be true. But even if it is true, other problems pop up.

Which is why I favor dropping the whole argument about art, and going back to genetics and skeletal studies, where you have much better grounds for your arguments.

Because what you call 'evidence' I call 'incompetently assembled tissue of nonsense' or, more generously, 'cherry-picking your evidence in an attempt to prove that which cannot be proved by the angle of attack you have chosen to prove it.'

What particular piece of evidence do you think that I've cherry picked to come to relay that fact? Did you not take the five minutes out of your day to hear the National Geographic interview with Keita that I posted on page one in which he states:

That there is no evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians were anything other than of "local origin"..."of Northeast African origin":

Did you miss the bit where I said "cannot be proved by the angle of attack you have chosen to prove it?"

I can't prove the Earth is round by reading tea leaves. That doesn't mean the Earth isn't round.

You can't prove the ancient Egyptians were related to the African groups around them by looking at their artwork. That doesn't mean they weren't related to the African groups around them.

Stick to the places where you have a strong argument, instead of insisting on your right to present bad evidence along with good evidence and then attack people who take exception to the bad evidence.

As I stated earlier some of you all have displayed how Hell bent you all are on denying the proven FACT that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population most closely related to more southerly Northeast African populations, whom they most closely resembled. You all are the ones who are running from my arguments and building up strawmans just to say that you replied back. Why else does it erk some of you so damn much to state the fact that based on ecological principal "the ancient Egyptians were simply an indigenous dark skinned African population"?

Please, Triece, language usage: principle not principal, irk not erk.

That aside, I honestly don't give a damn what color the ancient Egyptians were. I'm sure they were one hell of a lot darker than I am, in all probability considerably darker than the Mesopotamians they enjoyed so much cultural exchange with.

But when you try to use evidence from artwork that depicts female monarchs with a beard or paints people blue or green, there's a problem.

So if you can question my motives, I think I have a right to question yours.

No no no don't fake the deal! The moment that I created this thread MY motives were questioned. It was suggested that I have a "hidden agenda" which I am DYING to know what it is! I ask what your "motives" are when you conciously chose to delegitamize what the Bio-Cultural evidence clearly indicates about where the ancient Africans migrated from and what they looked like.

The mere fact that you have such a chip on your shoulder about it suggests a very strong ego investment in the question. To paraphrase, it seems like you are DYING to prove the OBVIOUS FACT that the Egyptians were DARK DARK DARK! How dark? DARK!

That's what makes me wonder. Why this isn't, for you, an argument of the same importance that arguing over the cultural practices of the ancient Celts would be to me- i.e. not a very important one worth getting upset over.

[Broomstick]

I remember when Iman first hit the modeling scene - she was frequently and mistakenly described as "biracial" in the media despite being entirely African in heritage because compared to many other Africans her group is relatively pale and has a narrow nose, though, clearly she is darker than any European group.

Are you talking about this Iman:

Her nose actually looks wider now, along with her obvious skin tone lightening.

You realize that Iman has largely been living in England for the past few decades? Many people who are brown under the African sun will lighten up a bit after a few years in England. In other words, even most "black" people are capable of tanning. That's enough to account for her change in skin tone without implying she's subjected herself to cosmetic procedures to lighten her skin.

She has changed her hair - but that's a woman's prerogative.

Although referred to as "black" clearly she is brown, and a lighter brown than many neighboring peoples, just as she is darker than many other groups.

Then notice you are completely ignoring the Somali Children and the Afar Elder who are blacker than the West African Fula woman.

And, as I noted, her group is not the only one in Somalia. There are many groups in that part of the world, which is why I specified those represented by specific individuals.

Sure the technical use of the word "paler" permits this, but who in the Hell uses the term to describe variance between populations whom are considered "black"? "Ligher skinned" is the general phrase to describe these variances, at least from another "black" individuals experiences.

So... no other culture than the one you grew up in could possibly have a different way of expressing the same concept? My god, you're not just a racial bigot but an ethnocentrist as well! You're an American, right? That sounds sooooooo much like an culturally ignorant jerk-ass American statement.

Most Ethiopians (which actually refers to as many as 80 separate ethnic groups, so they're hardly homogeneous) are darker than the Somali groups

You base this on what? What Somali group does Iman come from?

Excuse me-? You don't know the difference between "Ethiopia" and "Somalia"? They are two different nations Please try to keep up with the rest of us when the conversation moves to another point.

As for what I base it on - pictorial evidence, not to mention having met dozens of actual Somalis and Ethiopian immigrants over the years. That is also why I know that, after years at a higher latitude, their skin becomes a little lighter due to less sun exposure.

The upper north east quadrant of Africa has one of the widest ranges in skin colors in the world, claiming otherwise, or that the darker people there are somehow more legitimately African, is flying in the face of fact.

No one ever insinuated that Northeast Africans who have a lighter skin variance are somehow not African. What should be noted however are that some populations do have signifigant admixture from the Near East which can and has altered some of their appearances. It should also be noted that such populations like modern Lower Nubians who are signifigantly admixed with haplogroup J do not group as closely to the ancient Egyptians as modern Somalis whom are absence of foreign admixture.

And who are YOU to decide which populations to group together? What are YOUR credentials? You have not answered that question.

On top of which - some of those groups who lack "foreign admixture" nonetheless have features long considered "white" or "Caucasian" such a narrow noses, well within the range of those seen in European populations. You'll accept slender noses but not lighter skin? What kind of racist bullshit are you promoting here?

You know, the old brown paper bag test was a terrible instance of self-loathing bigotry and bad enough that it existed in the past, but instituting a new brown paper bag test and stating "you must be this dark to be African" is just as repugnant.

Oh, and just as a note - S.O.Y. Keita has an M.D. and the British equivalent of a Ph.D. in anthropology. He emphatically does not have academic credentials as a historian. I'll leave it to Thanas to explain the difference between and anthropologist and a historian should you require further enlightenment, as he actually is a historian. On top of that, no matter what the mans credentials he is not infallible, nor does everyone else in academia agree with him. So stop holding him up as some sort of deity. Ancient Egypt had enough of those, it doesn't need anymore.

[Simon_Jester]

At least Keita presents something recognizable as a scientific argument, possesses real specialist knowledge, and doubtless knows what a logical argument that needs to be addressed looks like when it strolls up to him and punches him in the nose.

Which no doubt raises his ability to think clearly to levels that appear godlike to Triece.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Keita is so heavily referenced in this type of discussion because he is a reputable scholar who has written extensively on the topic. His research also builds on the work of others and he uses sound models and logic to convey his arguments.

In truth only a handful of scholars have investigated this topic in great detail over the last few decades.

In my email correspondence with Keita he recommended contacting every scholar who has conducted studies on Ancient Egyptian remains. The number appears to be limited so it is refreshing when you come across a scholar who has pretty much covered the bases.

[Big Triece]

You realize that Iman has largely been living in England for the past few decades? Many people who are brown under the African sun will lighten up a bit after a few years in England.

You can't be that fucking stupid to actually suggest that such a drastic reduction in skin pigmentation occurred because she moved out of the tropical climatic zone? Iman was as black as the fucking Senegalese American Akon who has lived in America for most his fucking life and is still as black as a fucking kettle! The clear reason why the fucking MODEL has such a dramatically different look from her 20 year old self is due to skin bleaching and other cosmetic procedures.

She has changed her hair - but that's a woman's prerogative.

Just listen to how fucking in denial that you are about shit! You actually deny that a model, fucking pioneering black African model at that had plastic surgery, when you have been presented with the fucking before and after picture. I'm not denying that people with Iman's post cosmetic skin color and facial features are not present in Northeast Africa because they are, but you are denying the fucking obvious.

And, as I noted, her group is not the only one in Somalia. There are many groups in that part of the world, which is why I specified those represented by specific individuals.

Then why not use to the pre cosmetic example of Iman to relay your point? Even if in your warped mind such drastic changes to her facial structure and skin tone were due to her residence out of the tropics, why not use the example of Iman when she was still in Somalia and looked like most other Somalis to relay your point?

So... no other culture than the one you grew up in could possibly have a different way of expressing the same concept?

Not to my knowledge! AMERICAN culture along (with arguably South African culture) is heavily race based and tends to be one of the only cultures who groups people according to distinct races in the manner that we do. For that reason our social system of "race" tends to be the most frequently referenced, if used outside of our culture at all.

As an African American who was branded with the definitions and terminology associated with the social grouping "black", I'd say that my experience would hold more weight than people who are not of this culture. Just as an Irish man would generally know more a Celtic culture than I would. "I" have not come across anyone who calls lighter skin "black" people "paler" people. "Light skinned" or "ligher skin" are the phrases that I hear to describe variance. On the other hand the only time that I hear the term "pale" is to describe a very light or "lighter" variance of skin tone of people who are considered "white". But I why am I telling you this, you are in the fucking Rust belt region of the Midwest, you know damn well what I'm talking about, just as you know how deceptive you were attempting to be by referring to black African skin tone variance as "paler".

Excuse me-? You don't know the difference between "Ethiopia" and "Somalia"?

I meant to quote the part where you were referencing the specific Somali group from which Iman is apart of. You referenced her post-cosmetic look as representative of her people, now what particular group is she from?

As for what I base it on - pictorial evidence, not to mention having met dozens of actual Somalis and Ethiopian immigrants over the years. That is also why I know that, after years at a higher latitude, their skin becomes a little lighter due to less sun exposure.

I live near and work with fucking Somalis who have been in this country for decades and are still black as a fucking kettle. Better yet why the fuck does your tropical skin tone adaption theory NOT apply to a lot of people whom are considered African American? Why the fuck is Wesley Snipes and Shaq still as black as a fucking spade? Why has their skin tone not lightened, despite the both of them coming from lineages that have been in this nation for centuries? I'm not denying that some Ethiopians and Somalis have a lighter skin tone variance, but some if not most do not from what I've generally seen. With that said it is fucking ridiculous for you to deny that based on clear pictorial evidence that the MODEL Iman had cosmetic procedures and clearly bleached her fucking skin. It is not some rapid skin tone adaption as you ignorantly sugguest.

And who are YOU to decide which populations to group together? What are YOUR credentials? You have not answered that question.

I actually research this shit! Have you ever read Brace 93'? Why is it that in this study the Nubian sample is not the closest to the ancient Egyptian sample, where as modern Somalis group closer? Could it be that Brace used a later sample of fucking Nubians who are known to have been significantly affected by the Arab invasion of Northern Africa? Likewise why do adjacent modern southern Egyptians not group as closely with their ancient southern Egyptian ancestors in the dendrogram above as say modern Horn populations who are absent of foreign admixture who in turn group closest to the ancient Egyptian samples? Obviously Near Eastern admixture has altered their genetic profile and in turn their biological affinities.

On top of which - some of those groups who lack "foreign admixture" nonetheless have features long considered "white" or "Caucasian" such a narrow noses, well within the range of those seen in European populations.

Dumbass that's because early anthropologist thought that life started in Europe, likewise Northeast African descended from those populations of the Caucus which is where they were believed to get their facial features from. Obviously such bullshit has been proven to be the complete opposite.

You'll accept slender noses but not lighter skin? What kind of racist bullshit are you promoting here?

If I fucking used post cosmetic Iman ( LIGHTER SKINNED) as a fucking reference to Nefertiti to help prove my point, then how in the Hell am I not accepting lighter skinned variance in indigenous Northeast Africans? Use your fucking brain and quit talking out of your ass!

Oh, and just as a note - S.O.Y. Keita has an M.D. and the British equivalent of a Ph.D. in anthropology. He emphatically does not have academic credentials as a historian.

The man obviously has credentials in African history and culture to be invited to Cambridge University to lecture a group of students on a range of topics that require a thorough understanding of African history and culture. He is obviously well versed in Egyptian history to make such statements regarding the population history of the Nile Valley region, and what groups and events lead to the development of Dynastic culture.

On top of that, no matter what the mans credentials he is not infallible, nor does everyone else in academia agree with him.

Show me all of these other scholars and authors who disagree with or criticize Keita's work. I'll warn you though be careful if you reference Clines and Clusters!

While we're on that why don't we review what the out spoken Afrocentric critic and author of "Not out of Africa" has to say about the matter and Keita's research in particular:

• "Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."
  (Mary Lefkotitz (1997). Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. Basic Books. pg 242)

Why does this Afrocentric critic concede to the fact that the ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan Africa and reference the work of Keita to come to her conclusion?

Or how about this quote from Mary Lefkowitz:

• "not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.."
  (- Mary Lefkowitz, "Black Athena Revisted. pp. 105-106)

What did she evidence base this statement off of?

• "Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese."
  S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

Now why would an Afrocentric critic concede to these points, it they were somehow void of truth?

So stop holding him up as some sort of deity. Ancient Egypt had enough of those, it doesn't need anymore.

Well no modern anthropologist has conducted or devoted as much time and research on the subject as Keita, likewise he is the most call upon and referenced scholar to answer questions regarding this subject. This is just an example of you pouting because the research and conclusions that he has came to regarding this subject is something that you just DON'T LIKE and nothing more.

[Spoonist]

Just wanted to point out the obviuos regarding Iman.
1)If you were doing an article where you wanted to portray a before-after image would you chose the most generic or the most extreme images?
2) The car crash
3) Depending on makeup and lens filter you get a very different skintone especially with post production on top. In fashion this would be essential to what you wanted to highlight, ie exotic or not.
4) Iman has a cosmetics line for colored people. In it she has/have had both darkening and lightening products. Neither is permanent.
5) What Broomy said about tanning.

Let's do a reverse of the imagery from bigT.
Her first big photoop in 1975, do a comparison to the image bigT selected


Another the year after in 1976


This was the cover when she turned 50



@bigT
In what conceivable way would it serve your purpose to willfully defame an african beauty, one which you yourself used as evidence regarding how ancient egyptians would look like?

[Big Triece]

Honestly, I don't feel much opinion on your conclusion one way or the other. I just think using Egyptian artwork as evidence for it is a bad idea

Well that's your opinion! While Egyptian art should not be too heavily relied on to come to a conclusion regarding the general appearance of the ancient Egyptians, it's fucking stupid to suggest that their art was void of ANY realism! The only thing that is "void" in you all's argument is a scholarly source to back your claims.

It's a bad idea to do that, because it draws attention to the flaws in the bad evidence, and distracts people from the good evidence.

Are you fucking blind or something? I have presented a shit load of biological evidence confirming my point that the ancient Egyptians looked like populations to the south of them. What even started this bullshit about Egyptian art was one posters insistence that based on Egyptian art the Nubians were darker than they were. From that I proved my fucking point that based on that same fucking skin tone evidence that this poster used to distinguish some Nubians from the Egyptian, that the same their was an undeniable correlation between the skin tone of the ancient Egyptians and modern Northeast African skin tones. This was AFTER I had already proved my point via biological evidence, for which not a single damn one of you has even attempted to refute!

Fine. So argue bio-cultural stuff (genetics, skeletons, linguistics maybe). Not art.

I have already proven my stance to be valid via Bio-Cultural evidence with little to no contest. To the contrary neither you nor anyone else has provided one reputed scholar to back up your bullshit assertion that Egyptian art was void of any realism. I don’t give two fucks about the credentials that some claim to have on this message board, if your credentials cannot be proved than provide the words of another scholar to relay your point of contention.

You can't prove the ancient Egyptians were related to the African groups around them by looking at their artwork.

No, but I have proved that via biology:

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

[Big Triece]

bigT In what conceivable way would it serve your purpose to willfully defame an african beauty, one which you yourself used as evidence regarding how ancient egyptians would look like?

How in the fuck am I "defaming" her? She obviously had cosmetic procedures done, on her facial structures and even according to Broomstick has lightened up! While her explanation to explain why her skin tone has lightened is down right shitty, it makes anyone who denies that a change in skin tone has taken place look stupid as fuck also!

http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/26/supermode ... od-docs/2/

http://bossip.com/333705/lightenin-up-1 ... skin12006/

[Edi]

BigTriece, for those of us not suffering from carrying the Great Pyramid of Giza on our shoulder, the word "paler" can quite easily be used as a synonym for "lighter" when referring to skin tone variance. It's no more than that, but you've decided to make a humongous mountain range out of a very, very small molehill there. The only reason I can think of for that is that you are unable to see past your own preferences and preconceptions on how that word is used locally where you live.

As far as the art angle, you still seem to be missing the crucial point: While realistic to some degree, it is NOT PHOTOREALISTIC, which the difference between the Egyptian and Roman statues of Cleopatra VII quite readily demonstrate. Egyptian art, particularly statuary, is more realistic than, say, cubism, or many strains of present-day modern art, but that does not automatically mean that it is photorealistic, which is an assumption that your Egyptian art based arguments rest on.

And where the credentials are concerned, the question still remains open. You say that you research this kind of thing. Is that professionally? Or as a hobby while you do something else for a living?

The reason this question is relevant is because I've long ago lost count of the number of times both here and elsewhere on the internet where some bullshit artist claimed they were researching some topic or another that required specialist knowledge and it turned out that they had absolutely nil professional qualifications and were simply googling whatever happened to support what they wanted to be true.

One of the reasons your reception here has been what it has been is because even when people broadly agree with you (such as Broomstick did earlier on several points), you act confrontationally and yell at them for not agreeing 110% with you. That'd put anyone off.

[Broomstick]

You realize that Iman has largely been living in England for the past few decades? Many people who are brown under the African sun will lighten up a bit after a few years in England.

You can't be that fucking stupid to actually suggest that such a drastic reduction in skin pigmentation occurred because she moved out of the tropical climatic zone? Iman was as black as the fucking Senegalese American Akon who has lived in America for most his fucking life and is still as black as a fucking kettle! The clear reason why the fucking MODEL has such a dramatically different look from her 20 year old self is due to skin bleaching and other cosmetic procedures.

Please provide proof of Iman's alleged cosmetic procedures.

Some Africans are extremely dark regardless of sun exposure. Some are dark because of a tan over medium brown. I'm sorry if you have trouble with this concept.

You actually deny that a model, fucking pioneering black African model at that had plastic surgery, when you have been presented with the fucking before and after picture.

Is this like the accusations Michael Jackson chemically lightened his skin? Because he didn't, and I even did a thread on the topic shortly after his death. He really did have vitiligo, and because he stayed out of the sun so thoroughly his non-affected skin lightened as well.

Iman doesn't have vitiligo, but due to less sun exposure her skin has lightened. She's still a black woman, but she's not as dark as she used to be. It's also a fact that as people age their melanin production can slow down as well, resulting in a "fading" of skin color that is more noticeable in people who start off darker skinned. Iman is a 50+ woman (though, goddamn, I'd like to look that good at her age!) who has lived in London most of her adult life. Sorry, it's entirely plausible she's not going to be as dark as her 18 year old self living in Mogadishu and spending considerable time out in the intense African sun.

Sorry if it rocks your boat, but the skin of brown people can change in response to sunlight or lack of it just as that of people with European, or Asian ancestry, or ancestry from the Americas. Maybe if you put down the keyboard and got out of your mama's basement occasionally you'd even notice that in yourself.

And, as I noted, her group is not the only one in Somalia. There are many groups in that part of the world, which is why I specified those represented by specific individuals.

Then why not use to the pre cosmetic example of Iman to relay your point?

Provide proof that she has had cosmetic surgery. There are plenty of internet sites detailing the procedures done to various celebrities, but she is notably absent from them.

So... no other culture than the one you grew up in could possibly have a different way of expressing the same concept?

Not to my knowledge! AMERICAN culture along (with arguably South African culture) is heavily race based and tends to be one of the only cultures who groups people according to distinct races in the manner that we do.

Two points:
1) America actually, in fact, has more than one culture. Only ignorance or bigotry would hold otherwise.
2) You do realize that not everyone in this thread is American, correct?

Just as an Irish man would generally know more a Celtic culture than I would.

Given the amount of European ancestry in many African-Americans, no matter how dark you are I wouldn't rule out Irish heritage as well based solely on appearance. In any case, I don't see why a dark skinned man couldn't be a scholar of Celtic culture (which actually encompasses far more than just the Irish) and more knowledgeable than the average Irishman who, like most people, have only a nodding acquaintance with history. Biology is not destiny. Back when I spent a lot of time with the Chicago Irish there were several black people fully involved with the culture either because they did have Irish roots or just because they liked the culture. They ranged from the award-winning drummer in a bagpipe band to a couple of girls learning step dancing to the bartender who'd picked up Irish Gaelic from his customers.

You see, I don't look at a person and assume "Well, he's black, he can't possibly be Irish, or like Celtic things, or know anything about that culture". It's a little unusual, but it happens. Just because you aren't interested doesn't mean others aren't. YOU are not the measure of mankind.

But I why am I telling you this, you are in the fucking Rust belt region of the Midwest, you know damn well what I'm talking about, just as you know how deceptive you were attempting to be by referring to black African skin tone variance as "paler".

I live in Gary, Indiana. A city that is 85% black. Whether someone living here is black or not, that person is going to be familiar with all the variations of "black people" possible. At least in this area, when the media is providing a description of someone who is being sought (might be a missing child, a missing elderly person, or someone wanted for a crime, or someone lying in a hospital the authorities want to identify - whatever reason) hearing terms like "light skinned black man" is hardly unusual - and rational people understand that to mean someone with "African" features who is on the pale end of the "black" skin color spectrum. Likewise, if someone is described as a "dark skinned Caucasian" rational people know that person isn't as dark as a Bantu, but someone on the dark end of the Caucasian spectrum, perhaps of Greek or Italian ancestry.

Really, it takes a bigot not to see and hear this, and to get THAT fucking upset over the word P-A-L-E. Relax, man, white skin is not contagious, it's not something you can catch, like cooties.

As for what I base it on - pictorial evidence, not to mention having met dozens of actual Somalis and Ethiopian immigrants over the years. That is also why I know that, after years at a higher latitude, their skin becomes a little lighter due to less sun exposure.

I live near and work with fucking Somalis who have been in this country for decades and are still black as a fucking kettle. Better yet why the fuck does your tropical skin tone adaption theory NOT apply to a lot of people whom are considered African American? Why the fuck is Wesley Snipes and Shaq still as black as a fucking spade?

Because Snipes and Shaq and those other people you work with come from groups where even without sun exposure their skins are very dark. That is precisely why I am saying "this group" and "that group" and not saying "all Somalis" or "all Africans". Just because Snipes and Shaq are on the extreme end of skin color doesn't mean other Africans aren't closer to the middle. Really, do I have to explain to a black man that not all Africans look alike?

Because, I guess, we don't have enough pictures in this thread let me illustrate something for you. This is a member of the Wodaabe tribe:

The Wodaabe live in the Sahel - one of the regions from which Ancient Egypt drew its people according to Keita and others. This person is a nomadic cattle-herder who spends pretty much all day out in the tropical sunlight, and this is as dark as that person will ever get. Why not darker skin yet? Because the Wodaabe, while unquestionably dark skinned, are not AS dark skinned as some other African groups. It's about genetics. This person will never be as dark as Wesley Snipes. And you know what? Snipes will probably never be as light brown as this person. Why? Because his ancestors evolved the genes to churn out massive amounts of melanin, and generations later Snipes inherited a full dose of those genes. Pure luck.

Why has their skin tone not lightened, despite the both of them coming from lineages that have been in this nation for centuries?

Because genes don't "lighten up". If someone's descendants continue to inherit the genes for dark skin they will continue to express dark skin. The only way those genes are eliminated from the gene pool is if those possessing them routinely die before reproducing. Since having dark skin is not biologically selected against anymore in developed countries (where things such as vitamin D deficiencies from inadequate sunlight exposure are easily detected and corrected) those genes can be expected to persist indefinitely in subsequent generations. It's the same reason that white people whose families have lived several generations in Africa haven't "darkened up" - as clothing and sunscreen can shield against immediate damage, and folate deficiencies caused by excessive sun exposure are easily corrected, there is no longer any biological penalty for having white skin in the tropics. Thus, the genes for less melanin production can be expected to persist for generations going forward.

Of course, if you reproduce with someone of a significantly different skin color then you change things - but the genes themselves don't change, just the mix of them in an individual. It is entirely possible for two people who appear medium brown to produce children both darker than and lighter than themselves. In fact, this is a common phenomena in the US as most "black" people there are of mixed ancestry encompassing a wide range of skin color possibilities.

But let's step away from black and white for a moment and consider why Eskimos and Inuit aren't as pale as the Saami and other Europeans living near the arctic. Or even as pale as many Asians living near the arctic. And why don't they suffer vitamin D deficiencies? Pale skin (in the European sense this time) is believed to be biologically advantageous in far northern climates where the sun is weak (or even entirely absent much of the year) and people wear lots of clothing against the weather. White skin allows a maximum extraction of vitamin D from minimal sunlight over a minimal skin area. Even with that adaption northern Europeans at the extreme northern edge of their range are at risk of deficiencies for part of the year. Yet the Inuit, living in some cases even further north, are still a definite brown. Why?

It's actually pretty simple. Their diet is composed in large part of seafood, and in the dark of the year might be entirely seafood, and seafood is naturally high in vitamin D. Sure, northern Europeans eat seafood, too, but it's not as large a part of their diet as the Inuit's. The Inuit eat so much seafood they don't need white skins to extract vitamin D. In their culture dark skin is no disadvantage, so evolution never eliminated it, and thousands of years later they are still brown. Biologically speaking, skin color is irrelevant to Inuit fitness. It is relevant to European fitness (at least in the past) and to African fitness (at least in the past), but in regards to dark skin being an advantage in Africa, from a biological perspective it doesn't matter if that dark skin arises from the melanin production being genetically slammed to full "on" at all times, or if it arises from a medium brown skin that will tan deeply in response to sunlight. Either way works, so why should anyone be surprised we see both adaptions in Africa? And why would the Khoi-San, who in their hunter-gatherer lifestyle spent all day in the sun and wear little clothing NOT be as dark as their Bantu neighbors to the north? Well, as they say, it's all about location-location-location - the Khoi-San live in a hot part of the world but, in fact, they do not live on the equator, the sun is not quite as intense where they live, and they are "dark enough" to thrive in that location. Their darker neighbors came during a relatively recent migration from the north/equatorial regions and brought their equatorial adaptions with them. Does this mean the Bantu living alongside the Khoi-San are going to "lighten up" over time? Um... actually, no. As long as their very dark skins don't interfere with reproduction there will be no reason for those genes to disappear. Now, any that have children with Khoi-San will have children of an intermediate shade, but that's due to adding genes from elsewhere, and genes remain discrete entities, they don't "blend" - down the line those children of mixed ethnicity will probably produce children of their own ranging from the ancestral dark of Bantu to the ancestral medium of Khoi-San, and everything in between.

And how does this relate to Ancient Egypt? Even if most of Egypt's population came from Nubia or the Sudan it also contained a number of people from elsewhere - some of the relatively lighter brown (but still dark by European standards) peoples from the Sahel (who might have looked like the Wodaabe) and the Horn of Africa (even you admit to some relatively light skinned Africans there) and yes, a dash of people paler yet from the north of Africa, even one or two from the Levant (although give the flow of people and genes from Africa to there they might well have been pretty dark even from there). So, Egypt had a lot of different skin color genes in their gene pool. What factors might or might not eliminate certain of those genes?

Well, Egypt straddles the equator, and the sun shines pretty much all the time during the day as it's also in a desert and gets little in the way of clouds (and even less rain). So even people with the darkest skin are going to make plenty of vitamin D. Having a dark skin is not a problem in that region, it doesn't put you at a reproductive disadvantage. Now, one downside that is that too much sunlight depletes the body of folate. That's serious - folate deficiency is linked to neural tube defects, which, prior to around 1960 or so, almost always resulted in the death of the affected child within weeks of birth, if not days. That's probably the number one reason dark skin so persistently re-evolves in sunny/tropical climates, as having a white skin in those areas really can significantly impact human reproduction. However, just as the Inuit persisted in retaining dark skins in the north due to their diet supplying vitamin D, relatively pale people can persist in the tropics if their diet supplies sufficient folate to compensate for that lost to "excessive" sunlight.

What's the biggest source of natural folate in the human diet? Whole grains.

What made up a huge portion of the Egyptian diet? Whole grains. They didn't just eat them, they drank them in the form of beer. So having a lighter skin wasn't going to hurt them reproductively due to their diet. It probably didn't hurt that the Egyptians wore clothing and used heavy cosmetics to protect their skin, which would also cut down on "excessive" sunlight, but mostly they ate a lot of food that contained folate.

The result is that there was NO evolutionary pressure to eliminate ANY gene for ANY skin color in Ancient Egypt. Anything related to skin color added to the gene pool was going to persist. What that means is regardless of the average skin color in Egypt, you would always see an enormous range of skin colors - just like you do today.

With that said it is fucking ridiculous for you to deny that based on clear pictorial evidence that the MODEL Iman had cosmetic procedures and clearly bleached her fucking skin. It is not some rapid skin tone adaption as you ignorantly sugguest.

Why is it that any dark skinned person whose tan fades is immediately accused of chemically bleaching their skin?

And who are YOU to decide which populations to group together? What are YOUR credentials? You have not answered that question.

I actually research this shit!

What are your CREDENTIALS? What DEGREES do you have in this subject and issued by which university? What have you PUBLISHED in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL? Googling and Wikipedia experience are not "credentials".

On top of which - some of those groups who lack "foreign admixture" nonetheless have features long considered "white" or "Caucasian" such a narrow noses, well within the range of those seen in European populations.

Dumbass that's because early anthropologist thought that life started in Europe, likewise Northeast African descended from those populations of the Caucus which is where they were believed to get their facial features from. Obviously such bullshit has been proven to be the complete opposite.

So... you'll accept some Africans independently evolved narrow noses but you won't accept they evolved a slightly lighter skin than their neighbors? Or perhaps their neighbors darkened more than they did?

Oh, and just as a note - S.O.Y. Keita has an M.D. and the British equivalent of a Ph.D. in anthropology. He emphatically does not have academic credentials as a historian.

The man obviously has credentials in African history and culture to be invited to Cambridge University to lecture a group of students on a range of topics that require a thorough understanding of African history and culture.

Incorrect. He is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively on EGYPTIAN history, but no, he is not qualified to speak on many, many other cultures of Africa. Egypt is unquestionably African, but there's much more to Africa than Egypt.

Why does this Afrocentric critic concede to the fact that the ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan Africa and reference the work of Keita to come to her conclusion?

Just because Keita is black doesn't mean he's Afrocentric in the same sense you are, and just because he's black doesn't mean others will automatically assume he's Afrocentric or dismiss his data-back conclusions. That doesn't mean they agree with him 100%, either.

BigT - you have been asked multiple times to provide your academic credentials. I suggest you do so before the moderators lose patience.

[Broomstick]

Keita is so heavily referenced in this type of discussion because he is a reputable scholar who has written extensively on the topic. His research also builds on the work of others and he uses sound models and logic to convey his arguments.

In truth only a handful of scholars have investigated this topic in great detail over the last few decades.

In my email correspondence with Keita he recommended contacting every scholar who has conducted studies on Ancient Egyptian remains. The number appears to be limited so it is refreshing when you come across a scholar who has pretty much covered the bases.

As several of us here on SD.net do have an interest in ancient history is there anyway to make that list of scholars available to us? I'm not sure we'd want to publicly post peoples' e-mails due to the random kook factor on the internet, but having a solid list of names, perhaps, would allow those of us with interest to look up their research. In particular, I'd be interested in some of the more recent research that's been done with techniques such as DNA anaylsis that simply weren't available when I first became interested in ancient cultures several decades ago.

[Broomstick]

It is also postulated that the ancient Egypt was the birth place of Voodoo. Yes the ancient Egyptians did believe that created a figurine of an enemy and damaging it would harm or kill them. Voodoo is now seen mainly in the same general West Africa and of course in the Caribbean and New Orleans. Read the publication by Joseph J Williams.

THIS I have to put down right now. This is blatant bullshit, and discredits the people of Western Africa as creative and civilized in their own right. Now\i to mention it displays ass-backward reasoning.

Voodoo is NOT based on “Egyptian religion”, it is based on an indigenous religion of Western Africa and the area now known as Nigeria (it is not, of course, the only religion practiced in that area), and from the Yoruba people who once dominated the Kingdom of Ife. I do not want to divert this into a discussion of Yoruban religion and its descendants, but suffice to say that the deities, the practices, and the belief structure is radically different than in Ancient Egypt.

During that whole, centuries long horror that was the Atlantic Slave Trade a large number of Yorubans wound up in the New World as they lived in the region that supplied most of the slaves, and of course they brought their religion with them. Communities in the New World that practice the variations split off from that ancestral religion even still use Yoruba as a ceremonial language. (I have personally known both a mambo and a hougan who went to Nigeria to study Yoruba in order to improve their use of it ceremonially)

Now, what grew up in the New World wasn't exactly what was happening back in Africa – there were a lot of other people dumped onto the beaches along with the Yorubans, not to mention the Natives and the Europeans trying to impose Christianity on everyone.

The “purest” form of Yoruban religion in the New World is arugably Santeria – and it's not very pure. It's been heavily syncretized with Catholicism. There are other variants, such as Candomblé in Brazil. These are largely Yoruba + Spanish/Portugese Catholicism with little or no other influence.

Voodoo – that is, the religion that comes from Haiti and not the Hollywood bullshit – has a greater mix of influences. For one thing, it incorporates French Catholicism, which isn't quite the same as the Spanish variant. Second, it has a hefty dose of native Taino influences which, for example, show up in the making of veves, or ceremonial pictures of cornmeal used during rituals that are found in neither Yoruban practices nor in any other New World descendant of Yoruban religion. It also has a definite dose from other African peoples and relgions such as Benin and Ghana, not only related through oral history in Haiti but confirmed by comparison of practices and linguistic influences (such as deity names). That vast majority of voodoo practices have zero to do with pins stuck into dolls and/or making people into zombies. It's community gatherings for public worship of various dieties, accompanied by animal sacrifice that is later consumed as a communal feast. There are some divination and magical practices involved, but it's actually not the main activity. Which anyone who ever spends any time with people who actually practice the religion figures out pretty quickly (though yes, they do tear the heads off chickens as part of it).

But, attributing ALL instances of sticking pins into an enemy representation to the Egyptians is bullshit. That form of magic crops up again and again all over the world, whether it's dolls or images or someones footprint or whatever form of representing the victim is used. Maintaining it was only invented once is bullshit, just as maintaining writing was only invented once ever is bullshit. There's more credibility in saying European religion has it's roots in Ancient Egypt's religion because European occultists/magicians/pagans/superstitious people have used the “eye of Horus” for centuries as part of their magic. At least we can trace the eye of Horus from Ancient Egypt through the influence of Egyptian derived cults like that of Isis on the Greeks and Romans through to Medieval Europe and thence into the modern world. On the other hand, there is no connection established at all between Ancient Egypt and Yoruba other than statue showing a man with a shepherd's crook and a flail. You know what? Shepherd's crooks show up all across the Old World, as do flails. They're not magic totems, they're common agricultural tools and common in all cultures that practice either animal husbandry or agriculture or both. In the pre-European contact New World we also see rulers depicted with flails. Why? They're common agricultural tools, and sometimes also used in warfare.

What next? You'll claim all instances of eye cosmetics and gold jewelry date back to Egypt and Egypt alone, too?

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Keita is so heavily referenced in this type of discussion because he is a reputable scholar who has written extensively on the topic. His research also builds on the work of others and he uses sound models and logic to convey his arguments.

In truth only a handful of scholars have investigated this topic in great detail over the last few decades.

In my email correspondence with Keita he recommended contacting every scholar who has conducted studies on Ancient Egyptian remains. The number appears to be limited so it is refreshing when you come across a scholar who has pretty much covered the bases.

As several of us here on SD.net do have an interest in ancient history is there anyway to make that list of scholars available to us? I'm not sure we'd want to publicly post peoples' e-mails due to the random kook factor on the internet, but having a solid list of names, perhaps, would allow those of us with interest to look up their research. In particular, I'd be interested in some of the more recent research that's been done with techniques such as DNA anaylsis that simply weren't available when I first became interested in ancient cultures several decades ago.

There's no reliable source I know of from which to compile a balanced list other than the citations in popular articles such as those of Keita himself.

I became aware of Keita through internet discussions and then became aware of others through his articles as well as reading books.

As far as DNA is concerned I recommend reading these articles:

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita.pdf

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita6.pdf

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

That was the OP's point as I recall.

All of this extra stuff about Iman's skin tone etc. just seems like side arguments that add clutter to the discussion.

[Thanas]

^I don't disagree per se, but more with regards as to what constitutes dark-skinned and "indigenous". I'll have a huge post up today or tomorrow with regards to that and my disagreements with Keita's methodology.

[Spoonist]

bigT In what conceivable way would it serve your purpose to willfully defame an african beauty, one which you yourself used as evidence regarding how ancient egyptians would look like?

How in the fuck am I "defaming" her? She obviously had cosmetic procedures done, on her facial structures and even according to Broomstick has lightened up! While her explanation to explain why her skin tone has lightened is down right shitty, it makes anyone who denies that a change in skin tone has taken place look stupid as fuck also!
http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/26/supermode ... od-docs/2/
http://bossip.com/333705/lightenin-up-1 ... skin12006/

Actually broomy naively believed your say so instead of looking up Iman herself, seems that she has changed her mind after I provided counters to your cherry picking.

Mind you, we know that she has had reconstructive surgery which is why I mentioned the car crash. I also think that its very likely that she has had plastic surgery. However we don't know conclusively. We might speculate all we want and the tabloids might gossip. But using photos as some kind of conclusive evidence is ignorant and stupid. Especially fashion photos which we know are post productionized. So given your cherry picked before-after and my counter cherry pick of reverse before-after, we don't know. Unless we get to see Iman without makeup and post production. Did you even compare your 75 pic to mine as I asked? When did this alledged surgery take place, because you can find ethnic/exotic fashion shots of her from her entire career and in those shots she is always very dark.

Which leads us back to why you think that you should get cool points in a topic about ancient egypt for spreading gossip? What could you have conceivably thought that it would result in? Everyone going snicker snicker? It's just as stupid as the skinhead and Rosa references, which has nothing to do with ancient egypt.
Do you want to know what I think? I think that you are doing it for your audience back home at whatever forum you came from. The
ones who would be immature enough to give you cookies for such things normally.

Now what did your gossip actually accomplish? Another tangent where you show your attitude not only vs non-colored but also vs scientific evidence plus an extra dish of implied traitor for any african models. Not to mention a clear indication of not having a scholarly history education because of your celts comments.
Nice going there.

As faraoM points out, again a deviation from the topic you claim that you want to discuss.

---

RE tanning
Did you really try to counter a tanning nitpick with saying that you know people who have been 'here' for decades? That's just

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

That was the OP's point as I recall.

All of this extra stuff about Iman's skin tone etc. just seems like side arguments that add clutter to the discussion.

Hush now. I think that it will take bigT at least another 20 pages before he understands that everyone agrees. Hence the windmill comment and other like it.
Also that was not in the OP, the OP was what we thought of Keitas view on the issue.

Where there is disagreement would be to which extent the influence is southern only and to which extent there was a biotrace from levant. Both which would be a tomato tomato discussion if bigT didn't go on a personal campaign laden with prejudice.

[Simon_Jester]

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

That was the OP's point as I recall.

All of this extra stuff about Iman's skin tone etc. just seems like side arguments that add clutter to the discussion.

Yeah.

I don't disagree subject to sane definitions of "dark-skinned" and "indigenous."

If by "dark skinned" you mean "most of them were darker than all but the swarthiest Europeans, and on average they were way darker than the average European," which is what people usually mean by "dark skinned," yeah I'm sure the ancient Egyptians were dark skinned. Most people are; being dark-skinned by that definition is normal for humans. Much like black hair. Deviations from the general 'brownish skin, blackish hair' range- including even darker skin, or lighter skin and hair- are what's weird.

And they didn't develop in isolation, but their civilization is at least as 'indigenous' as, say, that of Britain, probably a lot more so given how much British civilization owes to Romans, Normans, and so forth.

^I don't disagree per se, but more with regards as to what constitutes dark-skinned and "indigenous". I'll have a huge post up today or tomorrow with regards to that and my disagreements with Keita's methodology.

So yeah, sure.

---

Not to my knowledge! AMERICAN culture along (with arguably South African culture) is heavily race based and tends to be one of the only cultures who groups people according to distinct races in the manner that we do. For that reason our social system of "race" tends to be the most frequently referenced, if used outside of our culture at all.

As an African American who was branded with the definitions and terminology associated with the social grouping "black", I'd say that my experience would hold more weight than people who are not of this culture. Just as an Irish man would generally know more a Celtic culture than I would. "I" have not come across anyone who calls lighter skin "black" people "paler" people. "Light skinned" or "ligher skin" are the phrases that I hear to describe variance. On the other hand the only time that I hear the term "pale" is to describe a very light or "lighter" variance of skin tone of people who are considered "white". But I why am I telling you this, you are in the fucking Rust belt region of the Midwest, you know damn well what I'm talking about, just as you know how deceptive you were attempting to be by referring to black African skin tone variance as "paler".

Triece, you are in the position of an Irishman who started talking about Celtic culture (like, say, Celtic culture being the origin of Greco-Roman culture because blah blah Indo-European diffusion [waves hands] skeletal similarities blah blah look at this 10th century BC Etruscan art depicting Celts!

It surprises no one that someone in that position might wind up talking about things such that they don't know what they're talking about. In your case, you are taking a very parochial* viewpoint, assuming that because you know one thing about a group of people (some Somalis who lived in the US for a long time are dark) you know everything about a group of people (therefore a Somali who lived in the UK for a long time and wound up with lighter skin must be a dirty ho who had her skin bleached). Or assuming that because you know how you talk you know how everyone talks, assuming a word like "paler" carries the same connotations to everyone else that it does to you.

This does not speak well for your objectivity in such matters. Contrast to, say, PharaohMentuhotep, who shows much better behavior and response to questions and disagreements, despite the fact that he's arguing in support for more or less the same position you are.

*Defined as "very limited or narrow in scope or outlook; provincial."

Why does this Afrocentric critic concede to the fact that the ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan Africa...

Why wouldn't they?

If you'd stuck to "ancient Egyptians came from sub-Saharan Africa in prehistoric times," instead of insisting, with steadily decaying writing skills and composure, that Egyptian statues are photorealistic and that an African woman who doesn't look dark enough for you must have bleached her skin instead of simply losing a tan... well, you'd have had a much better argument.

"Ancient Egyptians came from sub-Saharan Africa in prehistoric times" is an argument that has been researched by professionals, discussed by professionals, and analyzed using the techniques of modern society. These other things you babble about have been researched, discussed, and examined by the technique of you being a babbling fool.

If you aim to persuade, do not supplement good arguments with bad.

Well that's your opinion! While Egyptian art should not be too heavily relied on to come to a conclusion regarding the general appearance of the ancient Egyptians, it's fucking stupid to suggest that their art was void of ANY realism! The only thing that is "void" in you all's argument is a scholarly source to back your claims.

1) It's hardly my opinion. It's also the opinion of the only person in the conversation with a history degree.
2) If it were devoid of ANY realism, they would no doubt have portrayed people with eight arms and hippopotamus heads and such... well, OK, they did that sometimes. But that notwithstanding, the point is that the color-realism of ancient Egyptian art blatantly, obviously took second place to other concerns. Like establishing color contrast, like them not having an infinite number of different pigments they could use, like religious symbolism. Egyptian art is unlikely to be a reliable guide to anything about color, even if it's realistic in other ways or some random percentage of the time.
3) Why do I need a scholarly source to demonstrate that Egyptian art portrayed people as blue or green, or women as having beards? These are obvious things that we can learn from pictures of museum exhibits. Similarly, I do not need a scholarly source to demonstrate that Egyptian art (or that which has survived today) relied heavily on mineral pigments that only came in a limited color palette. This is common knowledge, even if you do not know it.

It's a bad idea to do that, because it draws attention to the flaws in the bad evidence, and distracts people from the good evidence.

Are you fucking blind or something? I have presented a shit load of biological evidence confirming my point that the ancient Egyptians looked like populations to the south of them. What even started this bullshit about Egyptian art was one posters insistence that based on Egyptian art the Nubians were darker than they were. From that I proved my fucking point that based on that same fucking skin tone evidence that this poster used to distinguish some Nubians from the Egyptian, that the same their was an undeniable correlation between the skin tone of the ancient Egyptians and modern Northeast African skin tones. This was AFTER I had already proved my point via biological evidence, for which not a single damn one of you has even attempted to refute!

Remember what I said? You've burned a lot of time and credibility arguing in defense of bad evidence- Egyptian art, the color of models you've obviously never heard of before, that sort of thing.

If your biological evidence was so good, and I'm not saying it wasn't... you'd have done well to stick to it.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Yeah.

I don't disagree subject to sane definitions of "dark-skinned" and "indigenous."

If by "dark skinned" you mean "most of them were darker than all but the swarthiest Europeans, and on average they were way darker than the average European," which is what people usually mean by "dark skinned," yeah I'm sure the ancient Egyptians were dark skinned. Most people are; being dark-skinned by that definition is normal for humans. Much like black hair. Deviations from the general 'brownish skin, blackish hair' range- including even darker skin, or lighter skin and hair- are what's weird.

And they didn't develop in isolation, but their civilization is at least as 'indigenous' as, say, that of Britain, probably a lot more so given how much British civilization owes to Romans, Normans, and so forth.

You could of course argue that Ancient China was a civilization developed by dark-skinned Asians defining "darker than" as being more so than the various ethnic groups of Europe. I think for the purpose of discussion it can elaborated that by "dark-skinned" I mean skin tones consistent with modern populations in East Africa (e.g. like the ethnic groups Keita mentioned looked like the statues ex. Nilotics, Oromos and Somalis).

"Indigenous" can be elaborated to mean the product of cultures that originated in Northeast Africa vs. other regions.

The emphasis is of course on primary influences rather than purity or exclusivity.

[Broomstick]

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

Of course not - as I said, if it weren't for the emotional issues around race we'd be having a civilized conversation (as some of us are) "over tea and scones" over just how brown they were, or the range of brown, then move on to other topics. Apparently trade is of some interest as well, I would find a discussion of how trade affected the Egyptians as well as how their trade with others spread their influence beyond Egypt.

And, of course, as Egypt is IN Africa it would be silly to say they were anything BUT an indigenous African civilization.

[Broomstick]

1) It's hardly my opinion. It's also the opinion of the only person in the conversation with a history degree.

I would just like to point out that it is ALSO the opinion of the only person here with an ART degree, including collegiate level study of art history, study of pigments and techniques, AND professional work in painting and color illustration. (We still use earth pigments even today - just much more refined and purified versions of them)

When the history person and the art person both agree on a point of art history it's much more likely to be the truth than the ravings of some internet fool.

[Spoonist]

As an African American who was branded with the definitions and terminology associated with the social grouping "black", I'd say that my experience would hold more weight than people who are not of this culture. Just as an Irish man would generally know more a Celtic culture than I would.

You do know that this is racism, right? A weak one sure, but still. (Mind, I'm not calling you a racist over this).
Not only does it equate a percieved 'race'/culture/country with a common culture, which is blatantly false. It also assumes that belonging to a percieved 'race'/culture/country gives you a unique knowledge not attainable by other percieved 'races'/culture/country. On top of that it assumes that others who have experienced racism but isn't african american could not understand what its like.
You should at least have put in some caveats.

By the way, this forum is on a canadian server and it's members are from all over the world. In this thread alone we have so far at least members from five different countries and three continents IIRC.

[Big Triece]

Please provide proof of Iman's alleged cosmetic procedures.

You are aware that most celebrities who have these procedures have their cosmetic surgeon sign a confidentiality form aren't you? How many "black" celebrities have admitted to skin bleaching? How many masculine celebrities admit to shooting steroids up their ass (50 cent)? The fact is most will not, and it is up to who in ever cares to use common fucking sense to come to the most logical fucking conclusion regarded the person in question. Either way the fucking jury is in on Iman:

"Good Genes or Good Docs"

In a land of over 85,000 voters





Iman has "good docs"

http://www.tmz.com/2008/10/26/supermode ... ood-docs/2

With that said your source less rant below regarding Iman and this alleged rapid and drastic change in skin tone of ONLY the tropically adapted Somalis and Ethiopians (which by the way you haven't specified which particular clan that she is from) and not other tropically adapted African populations (who are either darker or lighter than them) has been reduced to shit.

Though I will say this! I just showed the Somali family (who's skin tones vary from light to coal black) who own the corner store near my job your assertions that their skin tone and the skin tone of all Somali Americans changes because of their residence outside of the Tropics. I also asked them Iman and showed them your assertions (via Ipone). They told me to tell you that "he is a fucking idiot..he doesn't know what he is talking", "Everyone know Iman had surgery to change skin and face" I then told them that you were a girl and they just laughed. If I have time later on I might go back on their next shift and record my questions with them and upload them.

Is this like the accusations Michael Jackson chemically lightened his skin? Because he didn't, and I even did a thread on the topic shortly after his death. He really did have vitiligo, and because he stayed out of the sun so thoroughly his non-affected skin lightened as well.

You seriously have your fucking head up your ass regarding this don't you? According to one interview with MJ regarding this question (I believe with Oprah) he stated that BECAUSE of his vitiligo he used skin lightening crèmes to mask them. As evident by the shitload of skin lightening crèmes found in his mansion after his death:

• "LOS ANGELES — Detectives found large quantities of general anesthetic and dozens of tubes of skin-whitening creams in Michael Jackson's home after the singer's death, search warrants unsealed Friday show."
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/2 ... 15528.html

Given the amount of European ancestry in many African-Americans, no matter how dark you are I wouldn't rule out Irish heritage as well based solely on appearance. In any case, I don't see why a dark skinned man couldn't be a scholar of Celtic culture

Talk about saying shit to say you said something!

I'm not even about to give you a fucking history lesson of the effects of racism on social groupings and in turn cultural connectiveness. You have a bad habit of skipping over important words or phrases in my post. I stated that "IN GENERAL", do you understand what that means? In this case it means that it is not unknown or impossible for an African American to have extensive knowledge of Celtic culture and history, even more so than people who actually descent from Celts. In general, however that is not the fucking case, as from my experience African Americans tend to even have a lack of knowledge and interest in learning about and understand African culture and history. It would not be a stretch to say that we generally lack knowledge regarding Celts. What the fuck else needs to be said about that piece?

Well, Egypt straddles the equator

No it doesn't! Southern portions of the country lie within the Tropics.

What that means is regardless of the average skin color in Egypt, you would always see an enormous range of skin colors - just like you do today.

Your long winded and source less rant clearly shows that you have an emotional attachment towards going into specifics regarding ancient Egypt's skin tone. Why can't you just be content with the proven statement that the ancient Egyptians were an indigenous "dark skinned" African population? I for one am content with that statement regardless of the skin tone variance in indigenous tropical African populations being taken into account. YOU on the other hand appear to be trying to stay as far away from a very dark skin tone as you possibly fucking can. In the email exchange between Keita and Mentuhotep, and I believe even in the Cambridge lecture Keita specifically stated that he cannot state which skin tone that the ancient Egyptians had empirically, though in his email exchange he did state that the Upper Egyptian/Lower Nubian (Sudanese) skin tone was likely the general skin tone through the country.

What are your CREDENTIALS?

Why is that it of importance? I am not referencing my opinion or my "credentials" in this discussion, I am instead referencing the direct statements and or works of reputed scholars and anthropologist. You see that's the difference between my argument that long piece of source less shit that you just wrote! I am not making my "opinion" or views to hold any fucking weight, rather everything that I've expressed regarding this subject and regarded as fact I back with sources.

Googling and Wikipedia experience are not "credentials".

I never claimed to be a fucking scholar. Instead I admit that I began researching this subject as hobby about five years ago, after my first internet encounter with a white supremacist. Since then I have interested in reading up on this subject and as a result of my extensive research regarding this I can say confidently that I have a more thorough understanding of this subject than say...YOU!

So... you'll accept some Africans independently evolved narrow noses but you won't accept they evolved a slightly lighter skin than their neighbors?

Broomstick your strawmans are fucking PATHETIC! What did I just state in my previous reply to you:

I'm not denying that people with Iman's post cosmetic skin color and facial features are not present in Northeast Africa because they are, but you are denying the fucking obvious.

You are clearly being deceptive by misrepresenting my views in a sad attempt to gain ground in this discussion. For that reason I do not respect the opinions of people like you who resort to such childish bullshit, because they can't intelligently refute the legitimacy of my argument.

Incorrect. He is seen as someone who can speak authoritatively on EGYPTIAN history, but no, he is not qualified to speak on many, many other cultures of Africa.

Even that was true, what's the point? When have I ever referenced Keita to prove a point regarding the cultural connection of ancient Egypt and inner African culture?

Egypt is unquestionably African, but there's much more to Africa than Egypt.

True!

Just because Keita is black doesn't mean he's Afrocentric in the same sense you are,

Wow, so because I state that based on Bio-Cultural evidence that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black" I'm an "Afrocentric". Is someone who states that the Romans were "white" a "Eurocentric"? The fact is that statement irks a lot you, to the point that you're willing to keep posting in this thread just to ultimately concede that I've proved my point.

[Big Triece]

THIS I have to put down right now. This is blatant bullshit, and discredits the people of Western Africa as creative and civilized in their own right. Now\i to mention it displays ass-backward reasoning.

Hmm let's review what Big Triece stated

It is also postulated that the ancient Egypt was the birth place of Voodoo. Yes the ancient Egyptians did believe that created a figurine of an enemy and damaging it would harm or kill them. Voodoo is now seen mainly in the same general West Africa and of course in the Caribbean and New Orleans. Read the publication by Joseph J Williams.

Did see that retard? POSTULATED , NOT proven! Your rant looks like a long paraphrase of this article below:

• Is Voodoo a Religion of Egypt?
  By Juraj Sipos Juraj Sipos
  
  Voodoo is a religion brought to America by black slaves from Nigeria, a country that became a central resource of slavery boom for colonial powers, which all started with massive transport of slaves from West Africa to America in about the year 1500 with cruelest forms of humiliation. Of course, these human beings were not slaves, but only forcibly made that way.
  
  Many of them were killed and flogged to death like animals. Among the barbaric nations were Spain (which colonized countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Peru...), Portugal (Brazil), and United Kingdom (which colonized Northern America). Other countries built their economy on slavery too, but the above ones expanded the yoke hand in hand with Christianity and with the cruelest impact on other native nations like American Indians.
  
  Voodoo originated in Nigeria, which has more than 250 ethnic groups - the largest one Yoruba or Igbo with a variety of religious systems such as Olorun or Vodun. Nigeria was a cradle of prehistoric civilizations such as Nok. The Nok culture had developed many years before Christ and it is known to have had contacts with the then ancient Egypt. Various archeological excavations confirm this. The Nok people used symbols which epitomized the authoritative representations of the Egyptian culture.
  
  Dr. Kwame Nantambu (Kent State University) says that black Africans in ancient Egypt wrote the Bible (Old Testament) as scribes, which is a fact that the Catholic Church hides from the public. Even today, in Ethiopia, you can meet "black Jews" - black Ethiopians with Judaism as their faith.
  
  Maybe it will surprise some people, but the Catholic Church is an organization that resembles the Roman Empire in a certain way. It is divided all over the world to provinces in the same way as the Roman Empire; it has its Emperor and a lot of the Catholic heraldry resembles the one used in the Roman Empire. Similar analogies exist in our history and Voodoo is not an exception.
  
  Voodoo together with some other contemporary African religions is the only living religion in the world which contains some elements of the ancient Egyptian beliefs, particularly the cult of Isis, which had been still very popular up to the 4th century AD also in Europe until Christianity became the official dogma. A logical support for the above statement is that Isis was the Goddess of Magic, which is the same element of Voodoo. Of course, there are other "magical religions", but the cult of Isis and Voodoo (African Vodun) are territorially closer, and both very old.
  
  Voodoo is an offshoot of a variety of religions practiced in the then Nigeria and not only the result of the presently living Vodun in Africa, but conditioned by history in which it developed from after the year 1500 off the African continent. Presently we have a Haitian-type, but also its offshoots in other parts of Latin and Northern America.
  
  The basic concept of this religion is based on magic, spirits, and worshiping of God. Some parts of it merged with Christianity - for example, Candomble in Brazil. Louisiana Voodoo is just another offshoot, which appeared in New Orleans. Except for Haiti, the Haitian-type Voodoo can also be found in Brazil, Trinidad, or the Dominican Republic (we could certainly mention some other countries as well).
  
  Voodoo as a religion can be either described from the inside or the outside and many parts of it are secretive. Voodoo is a spiritualistic religion, which means that a practitioner may be exposed to spirits or a spiritual experience; some spirits can help (cure, give predictions), or harm (a curse used against an enemy). Voodoo believes that there is one God and its practitioners give a strong accent on behavior of nature and adjust their attitudes to it accordingly. Spirits are understood to be God's or Devil's helpers.
  
  Of all mainstream religions, only Hinduism can be comparable to Voodoo, as it is open and draws its power from aboriginal cultures too. A similar practice found both in Voodoo and Hinduism is, for example, Kolam or Rangoli - the Hindu traditional pictures drawn on the ground (auspicious signs), either on the floor or in front of the threshold. Another similarity between Hinduism and Voodoo is belief in snake people. Hindus believe in the Nagas and have Naga Gods (like Khodiyar Maa); practitioners of Voodoo have a snake god (or god closely associated with snakes) called Damballah Wedo.
  
  Voodoo as a religion became famous with its Zombies, which are mentally dead persons (made such by a Voodoo sorcerer). In association with Voodoo, we can also meet with the term Hoodoo, but the difference is like between a religion and practice (or Wicca and Witchcraft).
  
  Voodoo has spirits, gods and goddesses (like Erzulie), but its Egyptian aspect probably survived in the form of Goddess Yemaya - Yoruban Orisha or Goddess of the ocean, which was brought to America by the African Diaspora. Yemaya brings fish to the fishermen and her sign is the crescent moon, which gives us a strong association with Hindu Goddess Durga. In Brazilian Candomble, she is known by the above name, which may slightly differ (Yemanja); in the Haitian Voodoo she is worshipped as the goddess of moon.
  
  Voodoo is a religion not to play with. It must be approached with respect and not with derision, otherwise we may soon find out that its power really works. The consequences can be either good or bad.

I doubt that you actually had knowledge of this!

and from the Yoruba people who once dominated the Kingdom of Ife.

Have you ever of Oduduwa Day? It is a celebration that the Yoruba people have in honor of who they consider their origin ancestor. Do you know where the Yoruba say that their earliest ancestor is from....Egypt!

• "The origin of the Yoruba in Nigeria can not be clearly deciphered. It is believed that their primary ancestor, Oduduwa, came from Egypt. There are many variations and myths to how the Yoruba people came to be, and here is a couple of variations. Oduduwa is the legendary progenitor of the Yoruba. There are two variations of the story of how he achieved this feat."
  http://www.uga.edu/aflang/YORUBA/ODUDUWA.htm

Is there evidence of Egyptian contact with these present day West Africans besides the ancient art work that clearly fucking slows cultural and religious influence from Egypt (which was ironically found in the Nok of civilization ALSO in present day NIGERIA) and the idea that those very fucking people believe that they descent from an Egyptian lineage? I think that there is, let’s look at language for example:

• "Spoken primarily in Nigeria, the Yoruba language is complex and deeply rooted in tradition. Yoruba is the second largest language in Nigeria and is spoken by some small sects scattered loosely worldwide. The origin of the Yoruba language is quite obscure and there really is no conclusive evidence proving where exactly it did originate. The most conclusive evidence, however, does lend itself to predicting that the Yorubas adopted their unique language somewhat from the language of the Egyptians, hundreds of years ago. Evidence supporting this theory is found primarily in the way a vast number of Yoruba words seem to be very similar to their Egyptian counterparts. There really is no explanation of how the Yorubas got their language back to Nigeria, though."
  
  http://www.uga.edu/aflang/YORUBA/ODUDUWA.htm

None less as was the case of my reference to the Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt showing such cultural similarities between ancient Egypt and various inner African cultures, you will probably bitch and moan about how these qualities aren’t unique to Africa and what not….!


Now can this not lend support to the idea that some aspects of Egyptian culture helped base the West African religion of Voodoo? You obviously have your panties in a bunch over the simple postulation of cultural exchange between the ancient Egyptians and West Africans.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Does anyone disagree that the Ancient Egyptians were primarily dark-skinned people of African descent and that their civilization was an indigenous development?

Of course not - as I said, if it weren't for the emotional issues around race we'd be having a civilized conversation (as some of us are) "over tea and scones" over just how brown they were, or the range of brown, then move on to other topics. Apparently trade is of some interest as well, I would find a discussion of how trade affected the Egyptians as well as how their trade with others spread their influence beyond Egypt.

And, of course, as Egypt is IN Africa it would be silly to say they were anything BUT an indigenous African civilization.

Indigenous could be said to mean "aboriginal".

This is an important distinction given attempts to de-Africanize Ancient Egypt biologically and culturally with ideas such as the Dynastic Race theory, Hamitic Hypothesis and Nordic Desert Empire claim.

As far as exact skin color is concerned I imagine that there was a range in complexion on average from medium to very dark brown throughout the Dynastic period and the Egyptians gradually became lighter particularly in the North due to foreign admixture from settlements and later invasions.

In my email correspondence with Keita he stated that his research isn't actually about the physical appearance of the Ancient Egyptians. It is about biological affinity and that at best we can extrapolate an idea of what the Ancient Egyptians looked like based on empirical evidence and imagine how settlements during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods gradually changed the population.

I personally imagine Ancient Egypt to be similar to the ancient Aztec civilization in which the Aztecs were conquered by the Spanish and intermingled with migrants from Europe after the conquest. In Egypt's case they absorbed immigrants over many more centuries than did the Aztecs and this resulted in a substantial change in average phenotype. This foreign gene flow is reflected in modern genetic profiles.

I don't think many credible historians or the general public would question the historical fact that the invasion on the territory of the ancient Aztecs had considerable influence on the culture and biology of the people of modern Mexico and that the original Aztecs exhibited phenotypes that were common in ancient Mesoamerica. Yet there are fierce debates over the proposal that the Ancient Egyptians were influenced genetically by the various invasions on Egyptian territory. To some the Egyptians underwent significant cultural changes but no major biological changes. Now understandably there is some debate over what the aboriginal people of North Africa looked like and that is debatable however it is disappointing to see these discussions dismissed by some as the rambling of agenda-driven culture stealing Afrocentrists.

If the Ancient Egyptians looked more like modern East Africans in the Horn region instead of your average modern cosmopolitan Northern Egyptian then that is simply a fact of history and it should be understandable why such a historical fact is relevant to matter of race and history given the aggressive insistence of racists that Black Africans created no advanced civilizations and are incapable of doing so.