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:
"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:
"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
I already addressed this very source with these questions....WHICH YOU NEVER ANSWERED
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.
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:
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 hereTHIS GOES TO SHOW THE LYING SACK OF SHIT THAT YOU ARE.
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):
"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.
This boy is so damn desperate! What are the genetic characteristic of your suppositely "mixed" Saharan? Obviously U6 or other European haplogrous were not present in that region of the Sahara today or Egypt. The defining genetic markers of the region were Nilotic and it is still reflecting in modern Egyptian ancestry today:
"The Copt samples displayed a most interesting Y-profile, enough (as much as that of Gaalien in Sudan) to suggest that they actually represent a living record of the peopling of Egypt. The significant frequency of B-M60 in this group might be a relic of a history of colonization of southern Egypt probably by Nilotics in the early state formation, something that conforms both to recorded history and to Egyptian mythology."Source:(Hisham Y. Hassan 1, Peter A. Underhill 2, Luca L. Cavalli-Sforza 2, Muntaser E. Ibrahim 1. (2008). Y-chromosome variation among Sudanese: Restricted gene flow, concordance with language, geography, and history. Am J Phys Anthropology, 2008.)
and linguistic evidence confirms that the Saharans in question were Nilotic Africans.
."It is possible from this overview of the data to conclude that the limited conceptual vocabulary shared by the ancestors of contemporary Chadic-speakers (therefore also contemporary Cushitic-speakers), contemporary Nilotic-speakers and Ancient Egyptian-speakers suggests that the earliest speakers of the Egyptian language could be located to the south of Upper Egypt (Diakonoff 1998) or, earlier, in the Sahara (Wendorf 2004), where Takács (1999, 47) suggests their ‘long co-existence’ can be found. In addition, it is consistent with this view to suggest that the northern border of their homeland was further than the Wadi Howar proposed by Blench (1999, 2001), which is actually its southern border. Neither Chadics nor Cushitics existed at this time, but their ancestors lived in a homeland further north than the peripheral countries that they inhabited thereafter, to the south-west, in a Niger-Congo environment, and to the south-east,[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:
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:
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.