StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login   Register FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-10-24 02:02pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Science, Logic, And Morality


Quote of the Week: "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within." - Will Durant, American historian (1885-1981)

Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

Moderators: SirNitram, SCRawl, Thanas, D.Turtle, PeZook

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 16 of 34
 [ 833 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 34  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2011-12-29 06:03pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Democracy Fanboy wrote:
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.


I'm willing to bet that not one of these people at odds with my stance, will utter a fucking word if I made referred to ancient Nubia as "black". Or if I referenced the famed 25th Dynasty, those same individuals wouldn't hesitate to call that "the black Dynasty". The pattern is all to familiar, and many of them blindly follow it.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2011-12-29 06:06pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Big Triece wrote:
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!

I'm not the one doing that. But whatever.

Big Triece wrote:
Quote:
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.

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

No denial? OK.

Big Triece wrote:
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.

My heart bleeds. But in criticizing your attitude, I'm also speaking for myself. I really don't see what all of that shit was for.
   Profile |  

CaptainChewbacca
PostPosted: 2011-12-29 07:20pm 

Browncoat Wookiee


Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Posts: 15738
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.
Big T, you make a lot of veiled implications in this thread that white people can't handle/won't accept an african-derived Egypt, so you paint everyone who disagrees with you as being somehow racist.

It really damages your credibility even when you're right about your facts.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2011-12-30 04:46am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Big T, you make a lot of veiled implications in this thread that white people can't handle/won't accept an african-derived Egypt, so you paint everyone who disagrees with you as being somehow racist.


It really damages your credibility even when you're right about your facts.[/quote]

With that being said what is the reason for this persistent denial?
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2011-12-30 05:09am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Big Triece wrote:
Democracy Fanboy wrote:
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.

Quote:
Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent
in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which
these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these
individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.

Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis
suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If
new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new
light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.


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.


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:

Quote:
On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.


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

Image

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

Image

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.


No one but DFB and I commented on the recent genetic analysis finding Amarna period pharaohs to group with Africans from the Great Lakes region, does no one else have anything to say about this?
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2011-12-30 12:45pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Big Triece wrote:
With that being said what is the reason for this persistent denial?

Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that your interpretation of the data is at odds with the position of the great majority of Egyptologists, and that one doesn't simply discard long-held consensus because of a handful of studies.

That being said, it's not inconceivable that the consensus will change eventually.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2011-12-31 11:37am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that your interpretation of the data is at odds with the position of the great majority of Egyptologists,


Such as who? Post the publications of these Egyptologist who dispute my position. I don't want to see that statement by Zahi Hawass (which I know that you were aching to post), because I in response will post his numerous contradictions to that very statement. Show me publications which oppose a more southerly African origin for the ancient Egyptians, in favor of another region for as the population source. Don't reply back with statements that will lead to a semantic argument of what constitutes calling a person "black".

Quote:
and that one doesn't simply discard long-held consensus because of a handful of studies.


What consensus, provide sources disputing my claims or shut the fuck up.

Quote:
That being said, it's not inconceivable that the consensus will change eventually.


These findings aren't new dumbass. If you actually read the fucking peer reviewed articles that I post then would see, where the numerous works of scholars dating back to the early 20th and even 19th century have been cited. The radical change in views on the subject comes from the relatively recent deconstruction of the once widely accepted biological concept of race. This lead to the disposal of racial terminology and inconsistent racial definitions (i.e "elongated Africans" from the West to the Horn and thus the Egyptians were considered Caucasoid for their features).
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2011-12-31 12:52pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Well, you could start with Marissa Larsen's takedown of Afrocentrist Egyptology, Kathyry Bard and Ann Mary Roth. I love how you dismiss Zahi Hawass just like that while simultaneously demanding support from Egyptologists. BTW, I really hadn't even considered him.

Big Triece wrote:
These findings aren't new dumbass. If you actually read the fucking peer reviewed articles that I post then would see, where the numerous works of scholars dating back to the early 20th and even 19th century have been cited. The radical change in views on the subject comes from the relatively recent deconstruction of the once widely accepted biological concept of race. This lead to the disposal of racial terminology and inconsistent racial definitions (i.e "elongated Africans" from the West to the Horn and thus the Egyptians were considered Caucasoid for their features).

LOL, so not only are you reconstructing history, you're reconstructing the history of history. Never mind that Charles Gabriel Seligman who was one of the earliest proponents of the Hamitic hypotheisis did his work a hundred years ago. And you speak of the 19th century scholars as claiming that Egyptians were black? The Asiatic theory was more in vogue back then. Reginald Stuart Poole ring a bell? Or Karl Richard Lepsius?
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2011-12-31 06:29pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
Well, you could start with Marissa Larsen's takedown of Afrocentrist Egyptology, Kathyry Bard and Ann Mary Roth.


Are you talking about this same "Kathyry Bard"?:

Quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa[/b].. [b]In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)


and
Quote:
"must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection, influenced by culture and geography." ("Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. [b]Kathryn A. Bard[/b] and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999). pp 328-332)


Quote:
I love how you dismiss Zahi Hawass just like that while simultaneously demanding support from Egyptologists. BTW, I really hadn't even considered him.


:lol: Notice dumbass still has not cited an Egyptologist who dispute the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. He

LOL, so not only are you reconstructing history, you're reconstructing the history of history.

Quote:
Never mind that Charles Gabriel Seligman who was one of the earliest proponents of the Hamitic hypothesis did his work a hundred years ago.


Once again Dumbass the finding of population affinity has not changed. The ancient Egyptians have always been grouped with Northeast Africans, during those times however those Northeast Africans were just masked with the term "Caucasoid" because it was assumed that they were the product of invading "Caucasoids" into Africa. The overlapping affinities of Egyptians with more southerly Africans have been endorsed since Greek times.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2011-12-31 11:13pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Kathyry Bard claims that Egyptians were not black, but Mediterranean. See: Black Athena Revisited.

Quote:
:lol: Notice dumbass still has not cited an Egyptologist who dispute the more southerly African origins of ancient Egypt. He

What?

And you ignored the other names I mentioned.

Quote:
Once again Dumbass the finding of population affinity has not changed. The ancient Egyptians have always been grouped with Northeast Africans, during those times however those Northeast Africans were just masked with the term "Caucasoid" because it was assumed that they were the product of invading "Caucasoids" into Africa. The overlapping affinities of Egyptians with more southerly Africans have been endorsed since Greek times.

And we get more half-truths. The issue was whether Egyptians were always regarded as black as you claimed. They have not always been regarded as black. Also, you ignored the other points I raised in that post.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 07:53am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
Kathyry Bard claims that Egyptians were not black, but Mediterranean. See: Black Athena Revisited.


Hey dumbass, I asked you to cite where an Egyptologist attributes Egypt's population source to something other than a more southerly African origin, not one which revolves around semantic arguments of what constitutes calling a population black. Terms like Mediterranean were commonly used to describe Sub Saharan East African populations, the same populations whom the ancient Egyptians overlap with phenotypically. Also did you not just notice the quotation that I just posted in which Kathyrn Bard was the editor of that Encyclopedia concluding based on a "sufficient" amount of research that the ancient Egyptians examples physical characteristic which overlapped with more southerly African populations and were of an African lineage? That exact same definition was also what the encyclopedia noted as the historical definition for how black African or "Negroid" populations. Also this is what the author of black Athena revisited had to concede to:

Quote:
"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."


Based on both of those citations, it's clear that the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians lie with populations further south primarily in the ancient Sudan and the modern Horn.

Quote:
And you ignored the other names I mentioned.


You never cited a single fucking passage from them, you just merely listed names. Now I'm willing to bet that if you do decide to cite a passage then it will deal with nothing more than semantics of what constitutes calling a population black, and not disputing my stance on the biological and cultural origins or affinities of the ancient Egyptians.

Quote:
And we get more half-truths. The issue was whether Egyptians were always regarded as black as you claimed. They have not always been regarded as black. Also, you ignored the other points I raised in that post.


Are you fucking slow or something? I stated that the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians have not changed from those earlier findings. They have always been found to group with more southerly African populations, namely those from the Horn of Africa and Sudan. Those populations however were in the past labeled "Caucasoid" (commonly sub categorized as "Mediterranean") because of their gracile features, and thus the ancient Egyptians were also described as such. Today as a result of such racial terminology and theories on these Africans being debunked and ultimately rejected by most in science, the biological affinities are described by their geographic locations.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 10:10am 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Quote:
Hey dumbass, I asked you to cite where an Egyptologist attributes Egypt's population source to something other than a more southerly African origin, not one which revolves around semantic arguments of what constitutes calling a population black. Terms like Mediterranean were commonly used to describe Sub Saharan East African populations, the same populations whom the ancient Egyptians overlap with phenotypically.

Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans. This was pointed out to you on the FIST PAGE of this thread. If you don't want to talk about that, or if you find that uninteresting, then GTFO since there's nothing to discuss.

Quote:
Also did you not just notice the quotation that I just posted in which Kathyrn Bard was the editor of that Encyclopedia concluding based on a "sufficient" amount of research that the ancient Egyptians examples physical characteristic which overlapped with more southerly African populations and were of an African lineage? That exact same definition was also what the encyclopedia noted as the historical definition for how black African or "Negroid" populations. Also this is what the author of black Athena revisited had to concede to:

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

Quote:
Are you fucking slow or something? I stated that the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians have not changed from those earlier findings. They have always been found to group with more southerly African populations, namely those from the Horn of Africa and Sudan. Those populations however were in the past labeled "Caucasoid" (commonly sub categorized as "Mediterranean") because of their gracile features, and thus the ancient Egyptians were also described as such. Today as a result of such racial terminology and theories on these Africans being debunked and ultimately rejected by most in science, the biological affinities are described by their geographic locations.

The idea that the Egyptians were always associated with more southerly Africans is false: it has not always been the prevailing view and the very quote from Kathyry Bard you posted above attests to that.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 11:28am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.


You dumb fuck they were not described as "black Africans" or "Negro" in a biological sense of the term, because the very populations whom they grouped with biologically were incorrectly described as something other than black Africans themselves.

Image

Image

These Africans were described as "Mediterranean Caucasoids" because their physical features were thought to have originated from a supposite race of wandering "Caucasoids" who mixed with the indigenous "Negroid" populations already in place:

Image

Of course we know better now:
Quote:
" These studies suggest a recent and primary subdivision between African and non-African populations, high levels of divergence among African populations, and a recent shared common ancestry of non-African populations, from a population originating in Africa. The intermediate position, between African and non-African populations, that the Ethiopian Jews and Somalis occupy in the PCA plot also has been observed in other genetic studies (Ritte et al. 1993; Passarino et al. 1998) and could be due either to shared common ancestry or to recent gene flow. The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."
[Tishkoff et al. (2000) Short Tandem-Repeat Polymorphism/Alu Haplotype Variation at the PLAT Locus: Implications for Modern Human Origins. Am J Hum Genet; 67:901-925]


or

Quote:
"....inhabitants of East Africa right on the equator have appreciably longer, narrower, and higher noses than people in the Congo at the same latitude. A former generation of anthropologists used to explain this paradox by invoking an invasion by an itinerant "white" population from the Mediterranean area, although this solution raised more problems than it solved since the East Africans in question include some of the blackest people in the world with characteristically wooly hair and a body build unique among the world's populations for its extreme linearity and height.... The relatively long noses of East Africa become explicable then when one realizes that much of the area is extremely dry for parts of the year." (C. Loring Brace, "Nonracial Approach Towards Human Diversity," cited in The Concept of Race, Edited by Ashley Montagu, The Free Press, 1980, pp. 135-136, 138)


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


:lol: Shut your dumbass up!

Lord Zentei wrote:
It seems like you missed the "like all humankind" part of that quote.


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

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


Actually aside from the ancient Egyptians themselves numerous ancient Greek historians avidly supported that view noted this:

Quote:
'Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowards as we can see from the example of women, the complexion of courage is between the two. Aristotle, Physiognomy, 6.


or

Quote:
Lycinus (describing a young Egyptian): 'This boy is not merely black; he has thick lips and his legs are too thin. . . his hair worn in a plait behind shows that he is not a freeman.'Lucian, Navigations, paras 2-3.


or

Quote:
The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians `are one of their colonies,35 which was led into Egypt by Osiris. They claim that at the beginning of the world Egypt was simply a sea but that the Nile, carrying down vast quantities of loam from Ethiopia in its flood waters, finally filled it in and made it part of the continent. . . They add that the Egyptians have received from them, as from authors and their ancestors, the greater part of their laws Diodorus, Universal History, Book III. The antiquity of the Ethiopian civilization is attested by the most ancient and most venerable Greek writer, Homer, in both the Lliad and the Odessey: 'Jupiter followed today by all the gods receives the sacrifices of the Ethiopians' (Iliad, I, 422). 'Yesterday to visit holy Ethiopia Jupiter betook himself to the ocean shore' (lliad, I, 423)


and yes even a few colonial age scholars believed this:

Quote:
Volney, who travelled in Egypt between +1783 and +1785, i.e. at the peak period of negro slavery, and made the following observations on the true Egyptian race, the same which produced the Pharaohs, namely the Copts:

All of them are puffy-faced, heavy eyed and thick-lipped, in a word, real mulatto faces. I was tempted to attribute this to the climate until, on visiting the Sphinx, the look of it gave me the clue to the egnima. Beholding that head characteristically Negro in all its features, I recalled the well-known passage of Herodotus which reads: 'For my part I consider the Colchoi are a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black skinned and kinky-haired.' In other words the ancient Egyptians were true negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from that datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould. It is even possible to apply this observation very widely and posit in principle that physiognomy is a kind of record usable in many cases for disputing or elucidating the evidence of history on the origins of the peoples . . .


He stated that the Sphinx below made him change his mind about the origins of the ancient Egyptians:

Image

Now more than 200 years later his views that the ancient Egyptians were "negro" in phenotype prior to the mixing of Mediterranean populations has been confirmed by conclusive anthropological data:

Quote:
"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."

-- 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


hopefully now you can finally shut the fuck up.

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


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

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 12:38pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.

You dumb fuck they were not described as "black Africans" or "Negro" in a biological sense of the term, because the very populations whom they grouped with biologically were incorrectly described as something other than black Africans themselves.
<SNIP>
These Africans were described as "Mediterranean Caucasoids" because their physical features were thought to have originated from a supposite race of wandering "Caucasoids" who mixed with the indigenous "Negroid" populations already in place:
<SNIP>
Of course we know better now:
Quote:
that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."

<SNIP>

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


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

:lol: Shut your dumbass up!

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


Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
It seems like you missed the "like all humankind" part of that quote.

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

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


Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
The idea that the Egyptians were always associated with more southerly Africans is false:

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

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


Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
it has not always been the prevailing view and the very quote from Kathyry Bard you posted above attests to that.

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


It's not quite that simple (linka):

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

<SNIP>

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


and (linka):

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


And more here:

Quote:
Abstract

The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


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

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

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 02:15pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
Are you still strawmanning? What does it take for you to understand that no one here is denying that Egyptians came from Africa, the issue is whether they're properly described as black Africans.


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

Quote:
Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid). Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize, however that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)


and from the same section:

Quote:
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa.. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)


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

Lord Zentei wrote:
It's not quite that simple (linka):


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

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


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

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


Image

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

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


link

Recent skeletal analysis also negates these assertions:

Quote:
However, the archaeological evidence actually showed slow change in form over time (Adams, 1977) and the biological evidence demonstrated a similar trend in the skeletal data (e.g. Godde, in press; Van Gerven et al., 1977). These conclusions negate the possibility of invasion or migration causing the shifts in time periods. The results in this study are consistent with prior work; the Meroites and X-Group cluster with the remaining Nubian population and are not differentiated. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.



Lord Zentei wrote:
The biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians were tested against their neighbors and selected prehistoric groups as well as against samples representing the major geographic population clusters of the world. Two dozen craniofacial measurements were taken on each individual used. The raw measurements were converted into C scores and used to produce Euclidean distance dendrograms. The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.


:lol: Good ole Brace 93

Image

Here are the results of Brace's 2005 study:

Image

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

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


Through what evidence?

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


Stubborn dumbass!

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


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

Broomstick
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 02:52pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21473
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Lord Zentei, I think you finally figured out BT:

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


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


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

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 03:08pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Broomstick wrote:
Lord Zentei, I think you finally figured out BT:


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

Broomstick
PostPosted: 2012-01-01 04:12pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21473
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Big Triece wrote:
Didn't you already concede that you agreed with me on my stance?

Nope.

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

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

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

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 06:15am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Ahh, back after the holidays and littledick is still in la Mancha. Good. The WoI is strong with this one.
@Democracy Fanboy
Why do you feel the need to post stuff that has already posted some 6 pages ago? Also please note that there are no "afro-deniers" here, those are all in littlebrains delusions. So far eight different posters have seriously tried to have a dialog with limpdick pointing out that none here "deny" those studies. But all of those eight have strongly opposed smallthought's interpretations and "summaries" of those studies. Each of those eight have then seen their views strawmanned beyond recognition or simply lumped together with other posters, or simply ignored in a maelstrom of hate.
bT is out of his mind and he is doing "his cause" a great damage.
If you have the stomach to go through all the old pages you could perhaps see for yourself and quote any of us where you think we are in error?
Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
Maybe it's just your attitude that sucks.
The fact that you haven't read this thread is apparent. It was not MY attitude that started the bullshit, it was attitude of a particular moderator who started this thread off by saying some real unwarranted bullshit (which he ended up having to apologize for), which lead to a whole host of regulars making unwarranted snide ass comments. I was the good apple that was spoiled by the bunch.
Bullshit. I called this out on page, 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12, 13. It certainly WAS your attitude that started this bullshit, you have created this out of thin air.
If you still have a hard-on for Thanas then please adress him directly instead of trying to attribute his stuff to the rest of us.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 09:30am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Spoonist wrote:
Why do you feel the need to post stuff that has already posted some 6 pages ago? Also please note that there are no "afro-deniers" here, those are all in littlebrains delusions. So far eight different posters have seriously tried to have a dialog with limpdick pointing out that none here "deny" those studies. But all of those eight have strongly opposed smallthought's interpretations and "summaries" of those studies. Each of those eight have then seen their views strawmanned beyond recognition or simply lumped together with other posters, or simply ignored in a maelstrom of hate.


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

Last edited by Big Triece on 2012-01-02 09:40am, edited 1 time in total.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 09:34am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Broomstick wrote:
Big Triece wrote:
Didn't you already concede that you agreed with me on my stance?

Nope.

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

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

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


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

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 10:13am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Now this post is for the audience since some of you missed the glorious beginnings where the army of hay effigies started their assault on sanity and science.
So this is where I point out the intellectual dishonesty of littledick by showcasing his responses to me on page 13. Since that was where I left off before the holidays. For the context here is my post. I know that you've covered some other ground since then but reading through it nothing new has been mentioned except for two vids and a study which goes in line with what we already agree with but which littledick insistently cries out in paranoid delusion that we do not. Its extra funny since stuff I've quoted source to those...

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

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

@Lord Zentai
Littledick doesn't understand the concept of different posters, in his paranoid delusions he thinks we are a hivemind because we post in the same forum, something which I pointed out to him on page 3. (Which is fortunate because telepathy on that level between SDN members would create a suicidal monster).
So in his delusions something which Thanas said on page 1 is somehow valid as a counter offensive vs you on page 15. Its very sad, but that is how he works. Which again I pointed out later on page 3.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Big Triece wrote:
The original ancient Egyptians were an indigenous Northeast African population, as no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere.
Agreed on the indigenous, nope on the no evidence thingie, you can't be so certain. So there needs to be a bunch of extra caveats before your statement and Keita's position coincide. Namely that Keita acknowledges that there is no such 100% certainty. That there exists other views and that the discussion is alive and well.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/
With that said when did the speculated "back migration" occur into Africa; which route did it reenter (Iberia or the Sinai); Did the humans who allegedly reentered Africa even have enough time to differentiate in phenotype from their much more recent tropical African ancestors at the time in question? What evidence do we have to suggest that this back migration affected Egypt in particular?
Let’s analyze.
1) Littledick says that there is no evidence that indicates genetic input from outside of NE Africa to the “original ancient Egyptians”.
2) To prove such a bold statement to be wrong all I have to do is to point out that yes such evidence exist and that yes the debate is still ongoing. Which I do with a link of said debate.
3) Instead of acknowledging that there exist evidence and the debate continues littledick tries to question MY view on the topic. Something which is totally irrelevant since just showing scientists in the field still debating and providing supporting evidence is enough to prove any 100% categorical statement of his to be false.
This must be intentional, since you can’t read up on this topic without realizing that it is contested. Something which I already covered on p2-4 with questions whether littledick thinks his view is in a majority or minority position amongst egyptologists.
So complete intellectual dishonesty. But probably from stupidity and not from malice.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
So do you even know what the Neolithic Subpluvial period is?
http://edepot.wur.nl/25106
Do you even grasp what that does to your position?
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/ ... win-text/1
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/
I find it somewhat insulting that you would even ask that question, as I've REPEATEDLY attributed the ancient Sahara along with the Sub Saharan East African component, as the other major population source for the origins of ancient Egypt. …snip source… You obviously don't even know who the ancient Saharans in question were. Here is a clue: …snip…”note early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid” (Kieta, S. (1992)
Let’s analyze.
1) In the same context as above, ie no evidence of genes outside of NE Africa. I point out that the Sahara was green during the lead up to proto-egypt. Then I point back to the source bT uses from p1, NG, that in an article shows both northwest Africans and sub-Saharans to have inhabited the Sahara in this time period. Which to anyone but the intentionally thick is clear evidence of a genetic input into proto-egypt from outside of littledick’s definition of NE Africa.
2) Littledick snippets it up and then address each point out of its context. Which would have been fine if that context had been provided, but it wasn’t.
3) Then he tries to “nail” me with a selective quote from Keita. Problem is that the quote itself acknowledge what my links pointed at. That "early Saharan remains to be broadly Negroid" which means they had to mix with something else. Since littledick repeatedly have stated that Africans are ‘black’ then that something else must have been from outside of his definition of black African.
4) To ignore the context, and the caveats like "remain" and "broadly" and still claim that there is no genetic input from elsewhere is staggeringly dishonest.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara
You tried to question my knowledge of the subject, but you don't even understand that there was not such boundary as the "Sahara" at that time. It was a continuation of inhabitable land. The evidence suggest that there were people of different phenotypes coexisting in extreme Northern Africa (including Carthage). The people of the Eastern Sahel and the Chad Basin (population source of the ancient Nile Valley) were indigenous tropical Africans.
Let’s analyze
1) My quote is cut short but says that there were people on both sides of the Sahara.
2) Then littledick tries to implicate that I don’t know what I’m talking about since there was “not such boundary” at that time. The irony is thick here… Especially with gems like “It was a continuation of inhabitable land.” [sic] from littledick himself.
3) Let’s look at the rest of my sentence which littledick cut off. “Since people living north of the sahara and south of the sahara co-mingled in the sahara and then when desertification struck those moved into the nilo valley, there is no way that there is 0% genetic migration from that.” Quite different, don’t you think? So quote mined to fit his preconcieved notion of my view.
3a) My complete sentence again spells out the context, no way for a 0% genetic migration.
3b) My complete sentence showed them co-mingling in the sahara before desertification. To construe this as me not knowing about that habitable zone is again completely dishonest.
3c) Probably this stems from me pointing out that littledick doesn’t understand the implications of what a green sahara (in the Neolithic Subpluvial) means and what migratory patterns we see during this time. Which is ironic since his quote of Keita proves my point while at the same time showing littledicks misconception of it.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
This I agree with, but you have stepped away from that when you claim "no evidence indicates that genetic input came from elsewhere" which is false.
The population source of the ancient Egypt was Sub Saharan East Africa and the Nilotic populations of the ancient Sahara. These populations according to all available evidence were indigenous tropical Africans.
Let's analyze.
1) I point out littledick's inconcistency with the "no evidence" claim.
2) Littledick rant about the population source being sub saharan.
3) In the same post littledick quotes Keita stating the Saharan origin of some of the influx of people inte the nilo valley. To claim that the Saharan cultures located to the west and west-northwest from proto-egypt would be from sub saharan east africa must then be another intellectual dishonesty.
4) That influx from the sahara into proto-egypt which he himself quotes is the evidence he claims doesn't exist.

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

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 01:03pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Spoonist wrote:
With that clarified, here is something I don't get. Why would the skintone of the original egyptians matter?


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

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


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

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


Regardless of if your notion would refute pseudo scientific notions of racial superiority (which it really doesn't) is irrelevant, as you have no scientific backing for your assertions.
Spoonist wrote:
1) ...that the paleolithic tribes of Libya/Sahara savanna would be less african because of their lighter skintone.


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

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


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

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


The population sources of ancient Egypt ranged from the darkest people on Earth (Nilotics) to less dark people from the Horn. That being said, why can't you and others just be satisfied with calling these ancient tropically adapted Africans "dark skinned"?
Spoonist wrote:
]3) ...that trade with neighbouring regions would in any way diminish the accomplishment of any early civilization.


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

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

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


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

Quote:
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time).

Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...


Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the
use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization
.


Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28


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

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


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

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

Spoonist wrote:
So in his delusions something which Thanas said on page 1


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

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


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

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


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

Image

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Image

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

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


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

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


I believe you ran from this source earlier as well.

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


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

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 06:37pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
This is rich. :lol:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broomstick
PostPosted: 2012-01-02 10:01pm 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2004-01-02 08:04pm
Posts: 21473
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Big Triece wrote:
At this point it is undeniable that the interpretations of dialogue on this thread are (for the most part) divided along racial lines...

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

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

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

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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 16 of 34
 [ 833 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 ... 34  Next

It is currently 2014-10-24 02:02pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » Science, Logic, And Morality

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Meest and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group