OK, so then shut the fuck up!



Despite the fact that some scholars (in the studies that I've cited) do in fact equate both terms, I have not done so throughout this thread. For example in the limb proportion comparison of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians to "Africans", Europeans and Middle Easterners, the author insinuates that all African populations are tropically adapted when they are not (most Northern Africans are not). None the less the fact remains that they group with tropical populations in that respect and not those who are adapted to a sub tropical environment (the Middle East and most of North Africa).



The term "negroid" is based on external anatomical traits thought to only be found in a particular populations (which is suppose to indicate close affinities across the board) is more less a social description that for the most part has lost it's value in mainstream science. Older studies for example have consistently labeled ancient Egyptians specimens as "Super Negroid" based on their limb proportions in relation to other Africans. The problem with that however is that populations who are not "African" also fall within the same range for limb proportions, such as aboriginal Australians, Melanesians, and some other southeast Asian populations. The commonality that people who as super tropically adapted in this fashion is dark skin, which is proven based on ecological principals. Therefore the ancient Egyptians would have been an indigenous "dark skinned" African populations (how dark....?), which is what most in western society would label as black.



Once again, based on the limb proportions of early Europeans, scientist were recently able to build a reconstruction what they most likely looked like:



Ecological principal.



Many in our society (black and white) have inquired about this for centuries, is that in itself not enough relevance? Color and race issues are an integral part of our society and we (Americans) are notorious for that. Just check the link to the video of the Manchester lecture by Egyptologist Sally-Ann Ashton



Notice at around 9 minutes she runs through what is essentially hate mail by pissed off white Americans that Cleopatra was represented as half black in a reenactment on the Discovery Channel. Proving just how relevant shit like this is to our society rather you or anyone else on this wants to admit it or not.



Bye then



It's obvious by now that the white and black participants in this thread have opposing views from one another of how this thread is playing out, despite the ratio. More evidence that race plays a large part in Western (particularly American) society.

That's not really an issue, because all of the biological evidence presented in this thread proves that the inhabitants of ancient Egypt at it's origin were phenotypically overlapping with tropical African populations. The Egyptian phenotype has been described as generally "Somali like" which is elongated. It has also been found that the early inhabitants of the Upper Nile had a substantial population that broad in the fashion of most equatorial African populations, like Nilotics or West Africans. Shared genetic lineages have also been observed between early Upper Nile populations and West, Central (M2 lineage), and NOW (recent genetic analysis presented on the previous page) southern Africans.

double post

Yes!



Yes!



I've always noted that small scale migration from the Levant started after unification (during the Old Kingdom). I've maintained that it was uniformly African during Pre-Dynastic times, which is something that I've backed with authoritative sources time and time again.



Yes!



Thank you!




But they originated in Africa and spread into the Levant. That should speak more of the African affinities of Semitic people than the non African affinities of their ancestors. The later cultures found in Lower Egypt during Pre-Dynastic times (Faiyum Merimde) were descendants of Nillotic Africans from the Sahara and Central Africa, which is evident by their own culture and biological affinities. Those Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians however did exchange ideas from the Levant, which is evident in their pottery and farming.



No it's not, but as any mainstream scholar will tell you Kemet's biological and cultural foundation came from the south, though you are not disputing that fact.

That's not what the text says.


If you can't refrain from strawmanning other people's positions and then being all sanctimonious and cocky when they point out that you're simply lying about what they just said, I daresay that you've hardly earned the right to tell other people to shut up.


It would be nice to see that from someone who doesn't make the claim that all Africans are tropically adapted.


And as I pointed out, the fact that they're tropically adapted is not enough to equate the Egyptian and sub-Saharan populations, not least because of points you outline here. I really don't care much about what the common racial perception is in modern America.


That label says "35000 years ago".





And it's obvious that you're not one to talk, especially about making assumptions.

----


ALL non-African populations trace their ancestry to Africa. This point is meaningless.

A genomics company called DNATribes has recently analyzed the published genomes of King Tut's family and reported a genetic affinity with sub-Saharan Africans, especially Southern and Great Lakes Africans.



If you're curious about what exactly DNATribes does, here's their FAQ.

Admittedly DNATribes' digests are not peer-reviewed science journals, but if they can be trusted than it is almost the final nail in the coffin.

Yet you offer no alternative interpretation of the text! "A continuous population of local origin", means that no populations from outside of Northeast Africa entered the Nile during early Dynastic times. The full study has been posted several times throughout this thread,



Why? You know what is meant by that statement and the finding is consistent with the finding that early Lower Egyptians were of Nilotic origins from Saharan and Central Africa, so what would change?



With the exception of the Southern Coast of Africa all of Sub Saharan Africa and most of the Sahara fall with the tropical climatic zone. Those populations originated and remained in these tropical environments since the origins of humanity, which is why all form the cluster in terms of limb proportions:



Once again you have been presented with the consistent finding that the ancient Egyptians cluster biologically with tropical African populations (deemed black) and other dark skinned populations on other continents with the same adaption.



Yet you earlier felt compelled to argue that they wouldn't belong to a particular "racial" group based on their external anatomical traits (hence YOU CARED EARLIER), and that calling grouping them into such is misleading (referring to your discrepancies of the biological evidence). The evidence now becomes overwhelming against your argument, so now you want play the social amnesia game.



What's your point? My reference to that reconstruction, was the fact that they based things such as skin color on their tropical adaption, which again based on ecological principal would make them a dark skinned population.

You dumb fuck the time period in question is much more recent that OOA. This was also followed by another wave of tropically adapted Egyptian Africans with Sub Saharan African morphology and genetics (Mushabians) migrating through the Sinai and into the Levant mixing with the local population to become the Natufanians who are credited with spreading agriculture further north and ultimately into Europe.

This finding gives validation to the claims noted in the Godde 2009 study which list the observers of the cultural and archaeological evidence linking Pre -Dynastic and Neolithic Egyptian groups with populations in Southern Africa:



Someone posted this map in response to the finding on another forum:



Here is a mosaic I found of some royal member of the Amarna period:



In a documentary (which also details forensic experts conclusion that the Sphinx represents a "black African) postulated that the Sphinx is much older than the Egyptian civilization and that this region of the Nile was originally inhabited by populations from southern Africa. I'll post it later if you'd like.

As for what the text means, it means what it says:


Two differentiated African populations means exactly that, how do you go from there to claiming that they were homogenous?


I searched that text and came up empty handed. You need to provide links, please. And you seem insistent on equating "tropical" with "black", as if that were self-evident.


What the hell are you talking about? I've pointed out for almost two pages that you've argued against a strawman, then you see fit to post this? Incidentally, I've already said that I reject the modern American idea of "black" and "white" races, that's back on the previous page. Seems to me that this issue is something that you're intent on interpreting with modern racial perspectives, and then simply assuming that anyone who questions you holds that desire too, but from an opposing camp. Cut that shit out, already.


The point is, we're talking about Egypt, which dates back 7000 years.

Why do you think tropical Africans have dark skin in the first place if it isn't an adaptation to living in a tropical latitude that receives high UV radiation?

The significance of ancient Egyptians having tropical limb proportions is that it indicates that they came to Egypt from the tropics, and the geographically most adjacent tropical region to Egypt is the Sudan. Pretty much everyone in the Sudan is dark-skinned. If the Egyptians hadn't fully lost their tropical limb proportions after their ancestors settled in Egypt, that means they didn't have enough time to adapt to the subtropical Egyptian climate and latitude, and we can infer from this that they hadn't lost too much of their ancestors' skin pigmentation either.

You obviously have reading comprehension issues as well, as I stated that in respect to the distinction of Lower and Upper Egyptians the early population was homogenous (of those same indigenous origins) compared to later groups. Do you still not understand what I'm saying with that statement or are you simply trying to obfuscate my stance?



Ah, so once again a stint in your argument is pertaining to social racial labels, hmmm! None the less what in fuck else are tropically adapted AFRICANS generally labeled as in Western society if not black/negro? Better yet, what tropically adapted African population is not generally seen as black in Western society? By the way do you even know what the non African populations which are tropically adapted in this same fashion look like? To give you a hint, one group was commonly referred to as "Negritos" and others were originally thought to be recent migrants from Sub Saharan Africa, so what in the Hell do you think this indicates about the phenotypes of tropically adapted populations and thus the ancient Egyptians?



And I dismissed that baseless claim on your part as bullshit, so what's your point?



On one hand you claim that you don't acknowledge labels such as black and white. On the other you arguing that (based on discrepancies of the biological evidence presented) that the ancient Egyptians would not fit into the black category and that associating them with such is "misleading". In summary you like several other participants in this thread are FULL OF SHIT, when it comes to truth of this subject!



The Egyptians were also tropically adapted (Their limb proportions was once even labeled (and verified) to be "Super Negroid"). This based on ecological principal would have made these indigenous tropically adapted Africans dark skinned.

Homogenous compared to later groups... wow.





None in modern times, though we're not talking about a modern population. In any case... no links, then?


You have been arguing against a strawman, and consistently at that. Trying to reject that is meaningless.


You really don't understand why someone would reject the application of the "black" label to the Egyptians while simultaneously rejecting the relevance of the "black" label to ancient populations? It's pretty clear that it's you who are full of shit.


Then perhaps you should have posted stuff about that instead of stuff regarding people from 35000 years ago.

BTW, with regards to the earlier argument about whether northern Egyptians were ever significantly admixed with Southwest Asians:



^ If ancient Lower Egyptians had tropical, African-style limb proportions different from their Southwest Asian contemporaries, that would suggest that any Southwest Asian admixture in northern Egypt was minor. I'm not against Lower Egypt having a few Asiatic settlers even in predynastic times, but they would have been in the minority relative to the native Africans, and at any rate it was Upper Egypt that laid down what we would recognize as the foundations for classical Egyptian civilization.

I'm not sure that anyone here is claiming that there was significant influx from Southwest Asia, though.

But I missed your post from earlier:


That makes a lot more sense. Thank you.

The Pre-Dynastic and Early Dynastic Egyptians were populations of continuous local origins:



This means that according to biological evidence these populations were of exclusively Northeast African origins, which would make them homogenous compared to later groups. My own wording must have been opportunistic for a person such as yourself to obfuscate my overall stance, fucking pathetic.



In this case, if not for racial double standard then no:



For other African civilizations like Nubia it's perfectly fine. Only when the great Kemet is called black do some people such as yourself get up arms. Of course we know that biologically the ancient Egyptians were essentially the same as the "black" Nubians, so I logically brush your bullshit away and call them black as well.

I take it you don't get the difference between "homogenous compared to later groups" and "homogenous" as you falsely claimed earlier. And now with ad hominems too, I see. Seriously, GTFO.


Racial double standard, indeed.

That's been your beef all along: you're so desperate to paint this "racial double standard" picture of all who disagree with you that it's positively oozing out of your ears.

Maybe not a significant influx, but I thought some people here were saying that if southern Egyptians were admixed with upriver Nubians, it would only be fair to suppose that northern Egyptians must have had some admixture with Southwest Asian neighboring them to the northeast.



You're welcome.

I may agree with Big Triece that most ancient Egyptians were dark-skinned Africans related to people whom we call "black", but I get the impression that he (she?) insists on labeling the Egyptians "black" because he wants to feel a personal connection to Egypt. Many African Diaspora people see the Egyptians and their achievements as the ultimate proof of black people's potential and a symbolic refutation of anti-black racist claims about their inferiority. If they perceive you as somehow dissociating them from Egypt, they think you're doubting black people's capacity for civilization. Also important is a certain irony in the idea of black people influencing the development of the very Western civilization that would enslave and subjugate them.

Whether or not African Diaspora people should claim any connection to Egypt in a way similar to how many Europeans celebrate Greece and Rome as the founders of their civilization is a question I'm honestly struggling to answer.

This is the part that strikes me as odd.

No one doubts northern Europeans' capacity for civilization, even though until about a thousand years ago northern European ethnic stock was much more likely to be trying to take a given civilization apart than to be putting it back together.

Why should anyone doubt sub-Saharan Africans' capacity for civilization? And why should anyone expect me to doubt that? Sub-Saharan Africans have at least as good a set of credentials when it comes to 'ability to be civilized' as Scandinavians do, probably better.

Granted, Africa is a mess right now, but so was most of Europe at a time not all that long ago (the Thirty Years' War managed to be about as ugly as many of the ongoing conflicts in Africa, just to name one), and Africa has plenty of reasons to be messed up that have nothing to do with any presumed 'racial characteristics' of Africans.

And no one disputes that Europeans were capable of being 'civilized' in the 1600s and on, even while they were butchering each other on an ever-growing scale and depopulating whole countries with internecine religious and political disputes- and exporting this behavior to other continents to boot.

Why would anyone sane apply a different standard to Africa? It makes my brain hurt imagining someone thinking of Sudanese dervishes as 'uncivilized' while thinking of Bomber Harris's planning staff as 'civilized,' or thinking of the 'civilized' conqueror Napoleon while calling his contemporary Shaka Zulu 'uncivilized.' I have a hard time even holding that kind of double-think in my head long enough to grasp what is being thought at all.

I'm aware that a few score years ago, my ancestors were damn-fool enough to think this, and jackasses enough to oppress and brutalize people because they believed it. But I don't understand why I should have to be deferential to whatever other people dream up in an attempt to pound more nails into the coffin of that brand of collective stupidity.


Triece's attitude towards ancient Egypt reminds me disturbingly of what happens when white supremacists try to come up with quasi-mythical Aryan homelands to somehow "prove" that northern Europeans have been civilized for much longer than the conventional history admits. They don't need to do that in order to prove that their lineage is equal to that of other cultures. They only need that if they want to prove that their own lineage is somehow superior, because it is tied into some special ancient glory that no one else can match.

Well, the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Persians, Indians, and Chinese all certainly wound up doing that, to varying degrees of directness.

Unfortunately there exists this mindset that your culture or ethnicity is superior if it has left behind a lot of big stone buildings or conquered the world. The funny thing is that there are also people who don't have said mindset and nonetheless feel proud of their cultural heritage. I've never heard of Native North Americans, Polynesians, or Australian aborigines feeling they need a high-tech empire in their past to make their people look good; they seem content with their predominantly Paleolithic/Neolithic heritages. It's always white and African Diaspora people who equate their culture's worth with big buildings.

How exactly am I doing this? My contention for this entire thread, was to ask why do some people (Thanas for example) try to disconnect Kemet from it's inner African roots? I've instead had to explain why I'm letting my evidence guide my view that these ancient people were biologically of more southerly African origins (which has gone uncontested), and for that very reason I've been accused of being a "black supremacist" or an "Afrocentric". These accusations get tossed around with no refutation of my stance. Why does calling ancient Egypt black (which is was) grind some folk's gears?

Maybe it's just your attitude that sucks. And you've tossed around a fair number of accusations yourself, or at least implied them. Perhaps what goes around comes around, yes?

OK, that's possible. I honestly haven't read the entire thread in depth.


Yes, I get that impression too. Though that's not at all my intent, and knowing the people on this forum, I daresay that no-one else here was going for that either.

Bitch I've just cited a fucking study that stated that they were of continuous local Northeast African origin during early Dynastic times, therefore my stance is validated (taken into account what I stated earlier about the north and south). Stop trying to obfuscate shit!



Yeah so you obviously don't have shit else to say, so bye.

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