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 2014-11-22 08:57pm (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 24 of 34
 [ 833 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 34  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 02:18am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Spoonist wrote:
where DoemoFan quotes Zentai saying clearly that he doesn't think there was a significant influx - contrary to your inuendo...


As Matter and I have stated, Zentei's position is UNCLEAR. The guy (like you) absolutely insist that the ancient Egyptians have always been "mixed". When asked what theory does he hold to support his stance, he has insinuated every fucking thing from a back migration from over 20k years ago, Demic Diffusion from Asia into Africa, to mixture with recent migrants from Eurasia in the opposite corner of Africa (Maghreb). This has been pointed out time and time again to him, yet he refuses to clarify his position. I on the other hand, have clarified my position over a dozen fucking times throughout this thread. Ironically Democracyfanboy, Matter, Mentu, and another poster (whose opinion was deleted :roll: ) were easily able to interpret and even agree with my argument, which to me suggest that many shit heads in this thread have been trying to obfuscate my position simply because THEY DON'T LIKE IT (even if they know it's the truth).

Spoonist wrote:
Plus its the post where DemoFan clearly takes a step away from what he perceive is your view on the issue.


I don't see where he is gravitating any further from my position. It was the same issue that he noted in his original post. He finds it pointless to insert the concept of race into the discussion, and chooses to stick almost strictly to what the biological evidence concludes on the matter.

Spoonist wrote:
Then he, simon and zentai pretty much agreed with each other and after that DemoFanboy pretty much leaves the thread...See a pattern there anywhere?


Yes and I noted the pattern earlier. When other folk who support the same view that I do join into this debate, some of you either quickly comply or simply cower away from what they're saying. These people who join into the debate have stated that they support my stance in it's entirety (almost). This is an attempt to try and isolate my stance as one in which no logical person would comply with, even when it's been proven above that my stance has support from other members.
   Profile |  

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 03:48am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
None of this false inuendo. Quote them.
Rewind!
Fail.
Way to go there; a direct link to your own post instead of a quote. Redo - and do it right this time.
Also you claimed two posters - where is the other?
Plus, did you read Keita's view on that specific migration pattern and do you disagree with Keita on that?
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Given the ignorant american view on black that you use that would be obviously correct.
The "American view" on what is black is the most prominent concept of the term. This should be expected considering how highly racialized American (and Western society in general) is compared to the rest of the world (especially the non West).
Fuck that you idiot. Its not the most prominent - the world is larger than the anglosphere you know. You are no longer the colonies of an empire where the sun never sets. And do you realise how "racialized" asia is? From the russian steppes all the way to japan. That is some three billion people who disprove your worldview right there.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
However that would include geneflow from other parts in much larger %age than current research suggest so its a completely redundant observation.
Still at it I see. Aside from the small yet likely presence of people from the Levant who may have resided in Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt, what is the "larger %age" of gene flow are you talking about? What scientific basis do you have to back this statement or is just your own speculation?
Bullshit. Its called a context you idiot. In the context of your idiotic view on race given an american definition of the word THAT, as in your view not mine, would allow for a larger %age than research suggest. As in if we allow the Jim Crow view on race then most of the middle east, half of turkey, southern spain and the majority of greece would be "black". That is stupid.
Its as if you are arguing against yourself here - if we allow for the old racist american definition of black then all your posturing vs the levant geneflow into egypt is completely redundant. Since that wouldn't matter to the american defininition of black since all mixed offspring would also be black.
So you have to chose - either defend the use of american term black - or defend the view that there was a minimal levant biotrace in Kehmet. You can't have it both ways.
And yes I realise that you are too stupid to understand the contradiction - its more for the crowd than it is for you.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
If you include Rosa Parks in the black bracket, what is left outside?
Why ask such a silly ass question, as though you don't shit about this American societal construct? Rather or not you agree with it is irrelevant to the fact that it does exist and has been in existence for centuries.
Nordic race theory exisited for centuries as well - want to use that instead? It would be just as silly. Do you even remember the Jutland and Linneus commments by me to you?
What you don't realise is that that question is very relevant. If you include Rosa Parks then your whole verbal diarea vs the levant is just ignorant. Then it shouldn't matter to you if Khemet had a mixed genepool - they would still be black. Making you look like a fool yet again.
That is why we need a better definition and terms - which was what I suggested to you some 10 pages ago but you ignored with cherry picked links to definitions the dictionaries even didn't have.
Big Triece wrote:
I on the other hand, have clarified my position over a dozen fucking times throughout this thread. Ironically Democracyfanboy, Matter, Mentu, and another poster (whose opinion was deleted :roll: ) were easily able to interpret and even agree with my argument, which to me suggest that many shit heads in this thread have been trying to obfuscate my position simply because THEY DON'T LIKE IT (even if they know it's the truth).
Ignoring why DemoFanboy agreed with simon and zentai. Ignoring why matter said that the views are closer. Just like your delusion of grandeur makes you think that your position has been clear when I explicitly showed you from p2 onwards that you change it and from p16 onwards how you seemingly contradict yourself.... Sweet.
Nice WoI you got going there...
Big Triece wrote:
I don't see where he is gravitating any further from my position.
I know. That is sad... You really should seek help you know.
Big Triece wrote:
Yes and I noted the pattern earlier. When other folk who support the same view that I do join into this debate, some of you either quickly comply or simply cower away from what they're saying. These people who join into the debate have stated that they support my stance in it's entirety (almost). This is an attempt to try and isolate my stance as one in which no logical person would comply with, even when it's been proven above that my stance has support from other members.
Yes the big white supremacy conspiracy of twenty plus posters from different parts of the world who usually never agrees on anything but somehow manages to orchestrate a great cover up of trying to isolate you from the rest of the world. Because they are bigoted racists all of them - independent of their normal views in other topics than this one.
Or it could be that you missed your medication again? And that those posters really didn't have exactly the same position as you come off as having?
If such a huge conspiracy exists how can we pull it off? Do we have some sort of telepathy between the different corners of the world now? Are the secret illuminati after you on SDN?
And how come I've repeatedly defended parts of your argument while at the same time calling you a complete imbecile? Could it be that you are misrepresenting your sources over and over again when they do not?
Do you even remember the X+1 analogy I gave you to show how ignorant of reality you are?
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 01:11pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Big Triece wrote:
As Matter and I have stated, Zentei's position is UNCLEAR. The guy (like you) absolutely insist that the ancient Egyptians have always been "mixed". When asked what theory does he hold to support his stance, he has insinuated every fucking thing from a back migration from over 20k years ago, Demic Diffusion from Asia into Africa, to mixture with recent migrants from Eurasia in the opposite corner of Africa (Maghreb).

How completely hilarious. You assert that my position is unclear, and yet to manage to post what is, basically, my position (although the last part smacks of mild straw-manning, but I'm willing to let that one slide). The fact that I can cite several reasons for why I hold my position doesn't make it "unclear".

Big Triece wrote:
This has been pointed out time and time again to him, yet he refuses to clarify his position.

You are a lying sack of shit. No one claimed that my position was "unclear" until you said it right here; matter only joined the thread and asked both of us to clarify our positions, yours included. :)

Big Triece wrote:
I on the other hand, have clarified my position over a dozen fucking times throughout this thread. Ironically Democracyfanboy, Matter, Mentu, and another poster (whose opinion was deleted :roll: )

Again, you are a lying sack of shit. That poster's post was snipped and moved to the Hall of Shame, because he was demonstrably trolling. This has been explained to you before.

Big Triece wrote:
were easily able to interpret and even agree with my argument, which to me suggest that many shit heads in this thread have been trying to obfuscate my position simply because THEY DON'T LIKE IT (even if they know it's the truth).

And once again, Big Triece demonstrates his failures as a telepath. :)

Big Triece wrote:
Yes and I noted the pattern earlier. When other folk who support the same view that I do join into this debate, some of you either quickly comply or simply cower away from what they're saying. These people who join into the debate have stated that they support my stance in it's entirety (almost). This is an attempt to try and isolate my stance as one in which no logical person would comply with, even when it's been proven above that my stance has support from other members.

Oh poor persecuted Big Triece. :cry: :cry: :cry:

You totally need to get Amnesty International on this case. :x
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 01:14pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Ziggy Stardust wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
Your own sources corroborate my position, if you'd bothered to try and understand it.


This is my favorite part. A couple of the papers he just spammed don't even support his own position! He honestly doesn't understand what he is talking about. It would be cute if he weren't so stubbornly irritating.

Indeed. Personally, my favorite is this one:

Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15)."Any questions?
That is not stating that Demic Diffusion from the Middle East into Africa occurred!

You just can't top that.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 01:21pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
I must admit that I missed this post earlier:

matter wrote:
@Lord Zentei. I am sorry bu I have found it difficult to pin down what your stance is. That was why I actually ask you to do a summary of your position as this will help clarity in the discussion. I was not also clear on Big Triese stance on the likelihood of Near Eastern presence in Lower Egypt that was why I asked him and he gave a clear answer. My interest is that we went ahead with the discussion cos you guys may not realize the amount of data and help this thread have been to the many guests visiting.

So let me see if I understand you: like Thanas,Spoonist,Big T,myself and perhaps others the controversy is really on whether there was gene flow from the near east to lower Egypt during early Egypt, and importantly whether they were significant in terms of numbers i.e were they simply absorbed into the local lower Egyptian population. However, there seem to be broad agreement on the fact that the more populated Upper Egypt was mainly settled by peoples who came from a desiccating eastern Sahara during the 5th-early 4th millennium BC, carrying 'Nubian Neolithic Culture Group' traits that would be amongst the mix of cultural features that would then be synthesized by these Upper Egyptians to form the Naqada culture(which essentially would be the culture in Dynastic times); it was this culture that in the later half of the mid-4th millennium BC that replaced the Lower Egyptian culture('Maadi-Buto')-that itself interacted with Near eastern cultures. These upper Egyptians were in the main, a tropically adapted people with greatest biological affinities with some Africans to the south.
Do you have a problem with the above, please respond cos I like clarity in discussions.

I don't really have a problem with it, except insofar that first, whether the upper Egyptians were exclusively Western Saharan, and second, that the diversity of more southerly Africans (i.e. from Sudan and along the Red Sea littoral) is such that this doesn't tell us everything about their appearance.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 03:05pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Spoonist wrote:
Fail.Way to go there; a direct link to your own post instead of a quote. Redo - and do it right this time. Also you claimed two posters - where is the other?


Yep you're right here are the links to both Zentei and Thanas's post in which they insinuate these claims within the last two months.

Quote:
Plus, did you read Keita's view on that specific migration pattern and do you disagree with Keita on that?


Which is what? That small scale migration into the Nile from the Levant has been recorded since early Dynastic times? I have always advocated this fact. As far as migration is concerned during Pre-Dynastic times he has conclusively stated that there is not scientific reason to believe that the ancient Egyptians were of anything but local northeast African origins.


Big Triece wrote:
Fuck that you idiot. Its not the most prominent - the world is larger than the anglosphere you know.....And do you realise how "racialized" asia is? From the russian steppes all the way to japan...


Yes yes we all know the history those places in Russia and Japan have enslaved people based on their own unique concept of race (because every society on Earth has developed and socially adheres to their own concept of race). We know that other regions in the world have had a racial caste system in place for centuries (perhaps thousands of years) prior to the intervention of the Western world. So you are correct we must take into consideration the unique definitions of race that those other non Western societies adhere to, rather than our own. :roll:

Quote:
Bullshit. Its called a context you idiot. In the context of your idiotic view on race given an american definition of the word THAT, as in your view not mine, would allow for a larger %age than research suggest.


Yes you're right. The American/Western view of race which Americans and most Europeans typically adhere to is bullshit, compared to the Japanese concept of race, or the Indian concept of race, because we all know that they've developed their own concept. Why don't you just accept that there are no other very different concepts of race in around the world. The common thesis is white=purity.

Quote:
As in if we allow the Jim Crow view on race then most of the middle east, half of turkey, southern spain and the majority of greece would be "black". That is stupid.


You are actually incorrect. Greeks and Eastern Europeans were considered white when they first arrived off the boat and onto Ellis Island. Some Middle Easterners could and have passed for white then again some wouldn't and visa versa for black.

Quote:
if we allow for the old racist american definition of black then all your posturing vs the levant geneflow into egypt is completely redundant.


Take the sour grapes out of your fucking mouth. The "old racist american definition" of what is "black" is one that is just apart of our fucking American culture, which would explain why our bi-racial president identifies as a black man.

Now once again considering the likely scenario that there may have been some minor gene flow from the Levant into Lower Egypt (and visa versa) through trade during Pre-Dynastic times. Even with acknowledging the probability of this scenario, the facts remain that the overall biological and cultural affinities of Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt were much more in tune with the populations from to the south; the region of Lower Egypt during this time was sparsely populated in contrast to Upper Egypt were the vast majority of the early Egyptian populace resided and originated. These ancient northeast African would easily fit into the U.S. categorization of black, rather than on the peripheries as you are suggesting.

Quote:
So you have to chose - either defend the use of american term black - or defend the view that there was a minimal levant biotrace in Kehmet. You can't have it both ways.




So according to you this southern Egyptian man who likely has detectable Levantine gene flow like the rest of the modern Nile Valley (both upper

Quote:
Nordic race theory exisited for centuries as well - want to use that instead? It would be just as silly.


How in the fuck would the Nordic race theory be relevant to the non white populations in the U.S.? I don't recall every seeing a "Nordic only" sign in waffle house in any text book or civil rights documentary.

Quote:
If you include Rosa Parks then your whole verbal diarea vs the levant is just ignorant.


There very well were people in Egypt who resembled Rosa Parks in skin tone, but at what period in Egyptian history would this phenotype have been prominent? During the Pre and leading into the Early Dynastic periods we can say through the presentation of concrete biological and cultural evidence, that they were a mixture of Nilotic and Afrasian Horn Africans. Those people didn't look like Rosa Parks in skin tone, but rather Cicely Tyson and according to Keita, Irish and Starling these people almost exclusively comprised the population of ancient Egypt into the early Dynastic periods.

Quote:
Then it shouldn't matter to you if Khemet had a mixed genepool - they would still be black. Making you look like a fool yet again.


First of all what is your definition of "mixed gene flow"and AGAIN what scientific means do you have to characterize the Egyptian populace as such (or are you)? With the above being said and proven, why are you using an individual on the peripheries of what is considered black in America as a means to characterize the early inhabitants of ancient Egypt who would also fit into that category?

Quote:
Ignoring why DemoFanboy agreed with simon and zentai. Ignoring why matter said that the views are closer.


I'm not ignoring anything. I have also acknowledged the fact that I my earlier opponent Broomstick basically agreed on the principal issues. None the less, with her admittance that there was if anything isolated cases of gene flow from the Levant into early Lower Egypt the contention of "how black" still remained. Just as we are discussing now.

Quote:
Yes the big white supremacy conspiracy of twenty plus posters from different parts of the world who usually never agrees on anything but somehow manages to orchestrate a great cover up of trying to isolate you from the rest of the world.


I demonstrated clearly how some of you all licked the balls of people who outright called you out on your bullshit. They (Demofanboy) states that the ancient Egyptians would have been dark skinned like those populations in the Sudan based on limb proportions and Zentei follows it like a sheep. Ten pages later when I repeat that exact same argument Zentie retracts and denies a correlations between limb proportions and skin color. I believe that my stance is targeted because I've been more "abrasive" (as a result of unwarranted and childish attacks early in this thread) in my stance. That being said the only tactic being used by the half dozen idiots that I've debated throughout this thread, is for all of you to essentially try to gang up on me, even when it's clear that the person who I'm debating doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about (Thanas, Zentei, Ziggynut). So when some else comes in and declares their support for my stance, there is a lightening fast response to appease to that individual and vilify me and my stance. This is done because you all know that you simply won't be able to label me as a "crazy person" and deal with more than one person with a solid argument and solid sources. 8)

Last edited by Big Triece on 2012-03-13 03:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 03:10pm 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Lord Zentei wrote:
You are a lying sack of shit. No one claimed that my position was "unclear" until you said it right here; matter only joined the thread and asked both of us to clarify our positions, yours included.


Here is a link where I presented this same fucking question over two weeks ago. Here a link to your pussy ass response.

And Hell I just read your response to Matter and you STILL have yet to clarify your stance.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 03:16pm 

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:
You are a lying sack of shit. No one claimed that my position was "unclear" until you said it right here; matter only joined the thread and asked both of us to clarify our positions, yours included.
Here is a link where I presented this same fucking question over two weeks ago. Here a link to your pussy ass response.

So, what's your point? :wtf:

Big Triece wrote:
And Hell I just read your response to Matter and you STILL have yet to clarify your stance.

Ah, so you're functionally illiterate.
   Profile |  

Ziggy Stardust
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 04:42pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Posts: 1771
Location: Research Triangle, NC
Big Triece wrote:
That being said the only tactic being used by the half dozen idiots that I've debated throughout this thread, is for all of you to essentially try to gang up on me,


Oh, poor you, all the big bad internet bullies are ganging up on you. :roll:

Big Triece wrote:
even when it's clear that the person who I'm debating doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about (Thanas, Zentei, Ziggynut).


If I don't know what I'm talking about, why did you concede all your points? Remember, ignoring my arguments and responding with pithy one-liners counts as a concession, because it shows you can't actually refute anything.

Big Triece wrote:
This is done because you all know that you simply won't be able to label me as a "crazy person" and deal with more than one person with a solid argument and solid sources.


Why are these mythical solid arguments and solid sources? You have yet to present any, and neither have any of the people that you claim agree with you. In fact, matter et al didn't even post ANY sources, they merely provided one paragraph descriptions of their personal beliefs vis-a-vis the subject. Unbeknownst to you, opinion =/= fact. And, so far, all the facts presented in this thread have aligned AGAINST you (including the papers you yourself have cited). All you have done lately is either restate already refuted points, strawman other people's posts, try to pull the victim/oppression card, or throw a tantrum and call us all morons.


-------------------------

EDIT:

Quote:
Greeks and Eastern Europeans were considered white when they first arrived off the boat and onto Ellis Island. Some Middle Easterners could and have passed for white then again some wouldn't and visa versa for black.


I think this laughably simplistic view on race relations is strongly indicative of your entire stance in this thread. You are trying to shoe-horn a complex issue into a white/black fallacy, when the real world does not work that way (nor, in fact, does your model of American views on "blackness").

Quote:
First of all what is your definition of "mixed gene flow"and AGAIN what scientific means do you have to characterize the Egyptian populace as such (or are you)?


Gene pool. Mixed gene pool, he said. And the scientific means have been shown repeatedly in this thread. Just the fact that the Egyptian population was not genetically homogeneous is evidence of a mixed gene pool. Ditto the various studies clustering the Egyptians with other Mediterranean populations.

Quote:
why are you using an individual on the peripheries of what is considered black in America as a means to characterize the early inhabitants of ancient Egypt who would also fit into that category?


Why does this matter at all? Who cares about vague categorizations of blackness, as opposed to the actual genetic and biological evidence posted in this thread?
   Profile |  

matter
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 08:01pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-02-23 07:56pm
Posts: 50
Quote:
ziggy wrote:
Why are these mythical solid arguments and solid sources? You have yet to present any, and neither have any of the people that you claim agree with you. In fact, matter et al didn't even post ANY sources, they merely provided one paragraph descriptions of their personal beliefs vis-a-vis the subject. Unbeknownst to you, opinion =/= fact. And, so far, all the facts presented in this thread have aligned AGAINST you (including the papers you yourself have cited).


Am amazed you wrote this. I can only hope that your only reason for saying the above is that you have not read through the thread sufficiently. This was my 2nd post:
viewtopic.php?p=3645430#p3645430
Most of my other contributions have also made use of references though in a more limited way

You also said that ancient Egyptians group with Mediterraneans in some studies. Do you mean the Early Egyptians or the some Late Dynastic Lower Egyptians? If that is the case, please post ANY modern source that group Early Egyptians with Mediterranean populations. I thought we had already pass this in this discussion: there was NO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN-MEDITERRANEAN CONTINUUM whether biologically or culturally in early Egypt or even in most part of the Dynastic period.

I have enjoyed this discussion and have stated this variously but what I have not stated is my rejection of abusive exchanges during debates. I mean there could be excitement and passion during debates, as there usually is, but it does not have to descend to abuses. It should not be BigT vs Others.you guys are not enemies, you are debating. It should be done with a bit of respect for each other, the way I generally have for you guys.
   Profile |  

matter
PostPosted: 2012-03-13 09:42pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-02-23 07:56pm
Posts: 50
Quote:
Zentei wrote:
I am sorry bu I have found it difficult to pin down what your stance is. That was why I actually ask you to do a summary of your position as this will help clarity in the discussion. I was not also clear on Big Triese stance on the likelihood of Near Eastern presence in Lower Egypt that was why I asked him and he gave a clear answer. My interest is that we went ahead with the discussion cos you guys may not realize the amount of data and help this thread have been to the many guests visiting.

So let me see if I understand you: like Thanas,Spoonist,Big T,myself and perhaps others the controversy is really on whether there was gene flow from the near east to lower Egypt during early Egypt, and importantly whether they were significant in terms of numbers i.e were they simply absorbed into the local lower Egyptian population. However, there seem to be broad agreement on the fact that the more populated Upper Egypt was mainly settled by peoples who came from a desiccating eastern Sahara during the 5th-early 4th millennium BC, carrying 'Nubian Neolithic Culture Group' traits that would be amongst the mix of cultural features that would then be synthesized by these Upper Egyptians to form the Naqada culture(which essentially would be the culture in Dynastic times); it was this culture that in the later half of the mid-4th millennium BC that replaced the Lower Egyptian culture('Maadi-Buto')-that itself interacted with Near eastern cultures. These upper Egyptians were in the main, a tropically adapted people with greatest biological affinities with some Africans to the south.
Do you have a problem with the above, please respond cos I like clarity in discussions.
I don't really have a problem with it, except insofar that first, whether the upper Egyptians were exclusively Western Saharan, and second, that the diversity of more southerly Africans (i.e. from Sudan and along the Red Sea littoral) is such that this doesn't tell us everything about their appearance.


Great that you finally responded and that according to you we mostly agree. But further clarity from you and I may still be needed because of what I believed to be the little contradicting words you used when responding to BigT in this page.
Quickly, yes the Upper Egyptians generally and some Lower Egyptians were northeast Africans who largely peopled the Egyptian Nile from the desiccating Eastern Sahara and environs(which is actually a very large area covering the West,East,Southeast and Southwest of the Nile Valley-covering parts of modern Egypt itself,Sudan,Chad,Libya, Eritean/Sudan border). These peoples(mainly Afrasians and Nilosaharans) were as you said diverse-diverse Africans(recall Africans have one the highest indigenous diversity in the world). We know how these diverse northeast Africa would be like in terms of appearance.

In the post with BigT you implied that ancient Egyptians were 'mixed'(limited?) owing to processes like Back-to-Africa migration and Demic Diffusion of non Africans.
The studies that you posted in respect of back migration focused on the following clades: H and V(that most probably migrate from Iberian peninsula from c.15000yrs ago), U6(that migrated from Near east c.30000yrs ago) and M1(that is said to have migrated c.45000-35000yrs ago ). H,V and U6 even today are rather rare or very sparse in Egypt(as they are mostly found in coastal Northwest 'Berbers' but are even rare amongst the Egyptian Siwan 'Berbers') so should not even be really relevant here. M1(esp M1a) is quite frequent in Egypt(esp Upper Egypt). But geneticists usually treat its appearance as evidence of migration from East Africa, so those found in Egypt came about as Afrasans came to the Nile Valley from East/Horn Africa. Now most geneticists suggest that it initially back migrated to East Africa from somewhere in Yemen or southern India c.45000-35000yrs ago(its possible origin in East Africa can not be dismissed though since M1 is a basal clade that derived directly from the 'East African' L3-and we know that L3 differentiation already stated in Africa). So lets go with the majority opinion, if some group of nomadic people left Africa and went to say Yemen next door and within 15000-10000 years came back,and ever since have been absorbed in Africa(and remained there for say 40000yrs), I honestly can not understand why they cannot be fully Africans. Those people who say they do not believe in race(which suggest clearly differentiated archetypes) are the ones that mostly get encumbered with what Keita famously called 'Persistence of Racial Thinking', for I cannot understand how a people that migrated that long(to where they initially came from anyways) and had nothing to do with Europe and very little with Near East(M is generally absent to rare in both regions) whom be somehow not authentic Africans. I do not regard anybody that migrated to Africa more than 20000yrs ago (and vice versa) and was absorbed as any less Authentic Africans. THERE ARE NO PURE POPULATIONS ANYWHERE. The Egyptians were not pure, neither were the Nubians,nor the Zulus,nor the mesopotamians, nor Greeks,nor Indians, nor Romans etc-what modern anthropologist talk about is biological affinities and since the Ancient Egyptians largely originated in northeast Africa and show greatest biological affinities to other northeast Africans and some other Africans consistently in most studies(and less so with other non Africans), whether or not there was some small back migrations or even 'trekkers' long long ago on both sides,is largely irrelevant.
I had asserted previously(cos this is an area of knowledge) that there is NO EVIDENCE for demic diffusion(which is a marked movement of whole peoples from one place to other, in this case, bringing agriculture). Fayum and Merimde, which is relevant here, had a culture that was essentially an extension of Egyptian Saharan Oasis Culture Group(in places like Djara,Farafra) that were chased away from desiccating region around 5400BC just about the time Fayum and Merimde was been resettled(with similar lithics and pottery). Much more crucially, there was no change in the pattern of subsistence which should change if a demic diffusion of migrating agriculturists entered(Shirai 2010, Ehret et al 2004). This does not however still discount some isolated migration and exchanges to and fro. Please post any evidence that DEMOSTRATE(not just state) otherwise.

The other little clarification on my part is why agreeing with the very likelihood of near eastern gene flow to Lower Egypt , I still maintained that the sparsely populated Lower Egyptians were generally(to the best of present evidences) just a divergent African population(Starling and Stock 2007, Zarksweski 2007, Keita 1993, Berry Kemp 2006).
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 02:16am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
On the origins of M1, in my opinion I think that it's most probable that it was already present in the African population before they migrated into southeast Asia. That would explain why there is a complete absence (or almost) of the marker in Southern Asia:

Image

Quote:
We found 489C (Table 3) in all Indian and eastern-African haplogroup M mtDNAs analysed, but not in the non-M haplogroup controls, including 20 Africans representing all African main lineages (6 L1, 4 L2, 10 L3) and 11 Asians.

These findings, and the lack of positive evidence (given the RFLP status) that the 10400 C->T transition defining M has happened more than once, suggest that it has a single common origin, but do not resolve its geographic origin. Analysis of position 10873 (the MnlI RFLP) revealed that all the M molecules (eastern African, Asian and those sporadically found in our population surveys) were 10873C (Table 3). As for the non-M mtDNAs, the ancient L1 and the L2 African-specific lineages5, as well as most L3 African mtDNAs, also carry 10873C.

Conversely, all non-M mtDNAs of non-African origin analysed so far carry 10873T. These data indicate that the **transition 10400 C-->T, which defines haplogroup M**, arose on an African background characterized by the ancestral state 10873C, which is also present in four primate (common and pygmy chimps, gorilla and orangutan) mtDNA sequences. — Semino et al.


Great summary by the way!
   Profile |  

madd0ct0r
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 03:46am 

Sith Marauder


Joined: 2008-03-14 07:47am
Posts: 3551
[quote=\"Big Triece\"]On the origins of M1, in my opinion I think that it\'s most probable that it was already present in the African population before they migrated into southeast Asia. That would explain why there is a complete absence (or almost) of the marker in Southern Asia:
[/quote]

Don\'t you mean the the M1 turned up in the african population AFTER the group that migrated to SEA had left?
Because if it was already present before they left they\'d have taken it with them and it\'d be present in the SEA pop.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 04:50am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
^^ Good catch!
   Profile |  

Ziggy Stardust
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 02:10pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Posts: 1771
Location: Research Triangle, NC
matter wrote:
Am amazed you wrote this. I can only hope that your only reason for saying the above is that you have not read through the thread sufficiently. This was my 2nd post:
viewtopic.php?p=3645430#p3645430
Most of my other contributions have also made use of references though in a more limited way.


You can excuse me for missing the references, considering that is a solid wall of text with no attempt to differentiate references from anything else (also: the references are neither specific, nor are links provided, so I have no way of verifying if your citations are at all accurate). For someone who is getting their panties in a twist over debate etiquette, you don't seem to realize that demanding other people do your work for you is not acceptable. You can't just list a bunch of papers and say they agree with you, and challenge everyone to track down those papers and guess as to which parts you are referring.


matter wrote:
You also said that ancient Egyptians group with Mediterraneans in some studies. Do you mean the Early Egyptians or the some Late Dynastic Lower Egyptians? If that is the case, please post ANY modern source that group Early Egyptians with Mediterranean populations. I thought we had already pass this in this discussion: there was NO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN-MEDITERRANEAN CONTINUUM whether biologically or culturally in early Egypt or even in most part of the Dynastic period.


Please read the thread, kid, these points have been made a dozen times. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you. Zentei has some citations/figures in this post. He has some more here. BigT himself even provides a paper in this post that admits to ties with Near Eastern and European populations. And these are just from the past several pages, after you joined the debate.

matter wrote:
I have enjoyed this discussion and have stated this variously but what I have not stated is my rejection of abusive exchanges during debates. I mean there could be excitement and passion during debates, as there usually is, but it does not have to descend to abuses. It should not be BigT vs Others.you guys are not enemies, you are debating. It should be done with a bit of respect for each other, the way I generally have for you guys.


Read the motto at the top of the page. "and mockery of stupid people. If someone acts like an asshole, as Big Triece has, we have every right to call him an asshole.

Or do you deny that summarily ignoring other people's arguments, lying about their arguments, misrepresenting scholarly articles, and throwing temper tantrums about some imaginary racist conspiracy is enough to qualify someone as an asshole? There is nothing wrong with profanity or insults or any of that stuff ... so long as you are actually presenting a solid argument. Once you get to the point, as Triece has, where those insults have completely REPLACED substance, you have essentially conceded that the other people are right and are just acting like an ass out of spite.
   Profile |  

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 05:06pm 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Fail.Way to go there; a direct link to your own post instead of a quote. Redo - and do it right this time. Also you claimed two posters - where is the other?
Yep you're right here are the links to both Zentei and Thanas's post in which they insinuate these claims within the last two months.
Double fail.
You can't even copy paste correctly. This time you linked Zentai's 'quote' to a GIF. The preview function exists for a reason you know, try it out some time you might be amazed at the possibilities.

Then I looked at your Thanas link. WTF? You must be mistaken about what a quote is. Because that is NOT a quote of Thanas claiming or hinting at any sort of mass migration. Instead he points at exactly the same 'influx' that you have acknowledged and that matter mention above with this line "if some group of nomadic people left Africa and went to say Yemen next door and within 15000-10000 years came back". So how come you didn't include matter or yourself as insinuating such a mass migration as well.

So a TripleFail or what we all know as littledick SOP.

Now go back and redo the whole thing. I will even repeat myself for your sake since you seem so fond of it.
viewtopic.php?p=3651427#p3651427
viewtopic.php?p=3651702#p3651702
Big Triece wrote:
No where in his scholarly backed summarization of the peopling of the Nile Valley, could any of you shit heads assert some mass migration of people with a non African phenotype into the Nile Valley.
Spoonist wrote:
There isn't a poster here that have claimed any such mass migration
Big Triece wrote:
I can point to at least two posters who have made this insinuation within the last two months. You know they have, I know they have, everyone who has read this thread can clearly see that they I have.
Spoonist wrote:
None of this false inuendo. Quote them.
This time do it right.
Big Triece wrote:
So you are correct we must take into consideration the unique definitions of race that those other non Western societies adhere to, rather than our own. :roll:
This is the 5th time that I point out to you that this is in international board and that most of the people you have argued against is not americans, including me. Even the canadians and british with whom "you" share a language doesn't use the stupid version you quoted. And your red herring about other 'unique definitions' is stupid since I asked for scientific one instead. Do I even have to point out again that you look ridiculus in the context of citing studies but not using the nomenclature of those studies?
Big Triece wrote:
Why don't you just accept that there are no other very different concepts of race in around the world. The common thesis is white=purity.
That is so ignorant that it is amazing. Are you trying to tell me that you really believe in that bullshit or is this some sort of sarcasm that doesn't come across?
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
As in if we allow the Jim Crow view on race then most of the middle east, half of turkey, southern spain and the majority of greece would be "black". That is stupid.
You are actually incorrect. Greeks and Eastern Europeans were considered white when they first arrived off the boat and onto Ellis Island. Some Middle Easterners could and have passed for white then again some wouldn't and visa versa for black.
Again, context idiot, context. If you mix modern genetic studies with archaic use of language then the logical conclusion follows that the same rules that applied then applies now and we "correctly" name all with "negroid" genome as "black". This is why I have pointed out that the way you use the word is silly and counterproductive. But again I don't expect you to be consistent.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
if we allow for the old racist american definition of black then all your posturing vs the levant geneflow into egypt is completely redundant.
The "old racist american definition" of what is "black" is one that is just apart of our fucking American culture, which would explain why our bi-racial president identifies as a black man.
Again, your "fucking american culture" is not mine and is not used in the scientific community so why do you insist on its use? (Yes I know, another rhetorical question).
Let's not repeat ourselves too much and just summarize that you are an idiot that can't even source your own definition of basic words.
viewtopic.php?p=3583890#p3583890
Big Triece wrote:
These ancient northeast African would easily fit into the U.S. categorization of black, rather than on the peripheries as you are suggesting.
I suggested no such thing, I pointed out that your use of the word is redundant in the context of what YOU are arguing. Hence the examples that by such a silly definition your argument becomes all inclusive and thus redundant.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
So you have to chose - either defend the use of american term black - or defend the view that there was a minimal levant biotrace in Kehmet. You can't have it both ways.
*snip vid* So according to you this southern Egyptian man who likely has detectable Levantine gene flow like the rest of the modern Nile Valley (both upper
Nice self censorship there. You realised the argument had nothing to do with what I said and stopped short of writing the rest?
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Big Triece wrote:
Why ask such a silly ass question, as though you don't shit about this American societal construct? Rather or not you agree with it is irrelevant to the fact that it does exist and has been in existence for centuries.
Nordic race theory exisited for centuries as well - want to use that instead? It would be just as silly.
How in the fuck would the Nordic race theory be relevant to the non white populations in the U.S.?
That is you calling yourself an idiot again. You just pointed out to yourself that using irrelevant archaic language have nothing to do with the origins of Egypt and everything to do with non-whites in the US. Thank you.
Big Triece wrote:
I don't recall every seeing a "Nordic only" sign in waffle house in any text book or civil rights documentary.
Ah, you must have missed the whole thing then. You see the rest of us had this silly little thing called History classes. In those they explained stuff about, you know, history. One minor detail that those classes went through was this little skirmish called World War II. If you are interested you could probably see what that was all about on your beloved wikipedia.
Also those "civil rights documentary" that you refer to are again a limited american thingie, you might be suprised to know that the rest of the world exists outside of the US, like you know, Africa, which by the way is a continent where this nation of Egypt is considered to be on... You know, Egypt, the country we are currently supposed to be discussing? (Yes that is a dig at american politics and not just you personally).
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
If you include Rosa Parks then your whole verbal diarea vs the levant is just ignorant.
There very well were people in Egypt who resembled Rosa Parks in skin tone, but at what period in Egyptian history would this phenotype have been prominent? During the Pre and leading into the Early Dynastic periods we can say through the presentation of concrete biological and cultural evidence, that they were a mixture of Nilotic and Afrasian Horn Africans. Those people didn't look like Rosa Parks in skin tone, but rather Cicely Tyson and according to Keita, Irish and Starling these people almost exclusively comprised the population of ancient Egypt into the early Dynastic periods.
I feel precognicent in my "And yes I realise that you are too stupid to understand the contradiction - its more for the crowd than it is for you." comment.
Big Triece wrote:
...why are you using an individual on the peripheries of what is considered black in America as a means to characterize the early inhabitants of ancient Egypt who would also fit into that category?
Uhm, because you used her as an example? You even included a picture of her. I thought it was quite silly myself and said so back then, but I thought that by using your own examples it would be easier for you to grasp what I was talking about. But alas that was not to be.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Big Triece wrote:
I on the other hand, have clarified my position over a dozen fucking times throughout this thread. Ironically Democracyfanboy, Matter, Mentu, and another poster (whose opinion was deleted ) were easily able to interpret and even agree with my argument, which to me suggest that many shit heads in this thread have been trying to obfuscate my position simply because THEY DON'T LIKE IT (even if they know it's the truth).
Ignoring why DemoFanboy agreed with simon and zentai. Ignoring why matter said that the views are closer.
I'm not ignoring anything. I have also acknowledged the fact that I my earlier opponent Broomstick basically agreed on the principal issues.
I always wondered does it really feel like Bliss?
WTF? You are now refering to the person whom you wished to hurt physically and say that you basically agreed with her? Sweet. Nice personal skills there. Do you see yourself and Thanas like best pals ever as well?

You are the one creating controversy and discord where there wasn't even a disagreement from the beginning. It's on page 1-2 for fucks sake, its not like people can't go back and see for themselves.
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Yes the big white supremacy conspiracy of twenty plus posters from different parts of the world who usually never agrees on anything but somehow manages to orchestrate a great cover up of trying to isolate you from the rest of the world.
I demonstrated clearly how some of you all licked the balls of people who outright called you out on your bullshit.
So you agree with the conspiracy theory then? That is great since I have this inheritance from a nigerian prince that we can cash in on.
But, nope you didn't demonstrate any of that. See page 1-5 how you derailed the productive dialog with Pharao into the fuckfest we see now. I even said so at the time...
Big Triece wrote:
So when some else comes in and declares their support for my stance, there is a lightening fast response to appease to that individual and vilify me and my stance. This is done because you all know that you simply won't be able to label me as a "crazy person" and deal with more than one person with a solid argument and solid sources. 8)
Uhm, start here and go forward.
viewtopic.php?p=3619084#p3619084
You will see that you are totally off base as usual. Every time we tried to have a conversation with those other posters as well, but its hard in between of your verbal diarhea of hate.

Here is a suggestion for you then - shut up and let the grownups talk. As in, let matter carry the torch for a while and see how our discourse continues. You might be suprised at what will happen.
[hr]
Shit that was a loooong post, does anyone but me and limpdick read these long posts of mine? If not maybe I should just quit this for a while until Thanas tires of the charade and ban the fuck for all his violations of board rules.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 05:47pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Spoonist wrote:
Again, your "fucking american culture" is not mine and is not used in the scientific community so why do you insist on its use? (Yes I know, another rhetorical question).

LOL.

From page 15:

Lord Zentei wrote:
Big Triece wrote:
Lord Zentei wrote:
I really don't care much about what the common racial perception is in modern America.
:lol: Yet you earlier felt compelled to argue that they wouldn't belong to a particular "racial" group based on their external anatomical traits (hence YOU CARED EARLIER), and that calling grouping them into such is misleading (referring to your discrepancies of the biological evidence). The evidence now becomes overwhelming against your argument, so now you want play the social amnesia game.
What the hell are you talking about? I've pointed out for almost two pages that you've argued against a strawman, then you see fit to post this? Incidentally, I've already said that I reject the modern American idea of "black" and "white" races, that's back on the previous page. Seems to me that this issue is something that you're intent on interpreting with modern racial perspectives, and then simply assuming that anyone who questions you holds that desire too, but from an opposing camp. Cut that shit out, already.


From page 16:

Broomstick wrote:
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 |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 06:06pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
matter wrote:
So lets go with the majority opinion, if some group of nomadic people left Africa and went to say Yemen next door and within 15000-10000 years came back,and ever since have been absorbed in Africa(and remained there for say 40000yrs), I honestly can not understand why they cannot be fully Africans. Those people who say they do not believe in race(which suggest clearly differentiated archetypes) are the ones that mostly get encumbered with what Keita famously called 'Persistence of Racial Thinking', for I cannot understand how a people that migrated that long(to where they initially came from anyways) and had nothing to do with Europe and very little with Near East(M is generally absent to rare in both regions) whom be somehow not authentic Africans. I do not regard anybody that migrated to Africa more than 20000yrs ago (and vice versa) and was absorbed as any less Authentic Africans.

I'm not sure why you are posting this, as I have not claimed that ancient Egyptians were not "authentic" Africans. What I have rejected is the label "black Africans", nothing more. The blackness of an African does not determine his authenticity.

matter wrote:
THERE ARE NO PURE POPULATIONS ANYWHERE. The Egyptians were not pure, neither were the Nubians,nor the Zulus,nor the mesopotamians, nor Greeks,nor Indians, nor Romans etc-what modern anthropologist talk about is biological affinities and since the Ancient Egyptians largely originated in northeast Africa and show greatest biological affinities to other northeast Africans and some other Africans consistently in most studies(and less so with other non Africans), whether or not there was some small back migrations or even 'trekkers' long long ago on both sides,is largely irrelevant.

See previous response. My position has nothing to do with attacking or questioning Egypt being African.

matter wrote:
I had asserted previously(cos this is an area of knowledge) that there is NO EVIDENCE for demic diffusion(which is a marked movement of whole peoples from one place to other, in this case, bringing agriculture). Fayum and Merimde, which is relevant here, had a culture that was essentially an extension of Egyptian Saharan Oasis Culture Group(in places like Djara,Farafra) that were chased away from desiccating region around 5400BC just about the time Fayum and Merimde was been resettled(with similar lithics and pottery). Much more crucially, there was no change in the pattern of subsistence which should change if a demic diffusion of migrating agriculturists entered(Shirai 2010, Ehret et al 2004). This does not however still discount some isolated migration and exchanges to and fro. Please post any evidence that DEMOSTRATE(not just state) otherwise.

Very well, here's a couple - one for demic diffusion during the Neolithic link 1, and one for back-migration: link 2. Keep in mind that I still assert that the Egyptians were primarily African, just a heterogenous population.

matter wrote:
The other little clarification on my part is why agreeing with the very likelihood of near eastern gene flow to Lower Egypt , I still maintained that the sparsely populated Lower Egyptians were generally(to the best of present evidences) just a divergent African population(Starling and Stock 2007, Zarksweski 2007, Keita 1993, Berry Kemp 2006).

That may well be the case, and that would still imply that the Egyptians were heterogenous overall.
   Profile |  

Lord Zentei
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 06:17pm 

Space Elf Psyker


Joined: 2004-11-22 03:49am
Posts: 8742
Location: Ulthwé Craftworld, plotting the downfall of the Imperium.
Whoops, meant to include this link too (regarding back-migration): Link 3
   Profile |  

matter
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 09:03pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-02-23 07:56pm
Posts: 50
Quote:
You can excuse me for missing the references, considering that is a solid wall of text with no attempt to differentiate references from anything else (also: the references are neither specific, nor are links provided, so I have no way of verifying if your citations are at all accurate). For someone who is getting their panties in a twist over debate etiquette, you don't seem to realize that demanding other people do your work for you is not acceptable. You can't just list a bunch of papers and say they agree with you, and challenge everyone to track down those papers and guess as to which parts you are referring.


I know ,should have provided the direct links but didnt really know how, that was why I only selected those sources(cos I have many others saying essentially same thing) since anyone can get the FULL texts of the sources by a simple google search as I stated in my post(seem you didnt read that part).Moreover, some of these sources have already been given in this thread. As for the parts referred to in the sources, I actually gave the required pages(except for Wengrow 2006 pg50-53-which was an oversight) while I expect that the short articles be read fully. Please try to read them now and show where you think they do not agree with my summary.



Quote:
Please read the thread, kid, these points have been made a dozen times. I shouldn't have to do your homework for you. Zentei has some citations/figures in this post. He has some more here. BigT himself even provides a paper in this post that admits to ties with Near Eastern and European populations. And these are just from the past several pages, after you joined the debate.


Your 1st link took me to Zentei and BigT contestations of Brace 1993-I notice the dendrogram. 1st, did you notice that it was the Late Dynastic Lower Egyptian sample that clusters with European neolithic and Mediterraneans perhaps;the Early Egyptians had its own twig with Somali and modern Nubians(remember I asked you which?). Am amazed that people are citing Brace 1993 when arguing as that study has been variously criticized for its flawed sampling and methology by many scholars(see Keita 1993 for eg)-it essentially did not use Badarian samples,excluded most ancient Nubians and many diverse African populations including Nilotic populations,and then used just one sample which they wrongly choose as a representative of Subsaharan Africans and amazing said there was no link WHATSOEVER between subsaharan Africans and Ancient Egyptians, Europeans and Near Easterners. The same Brace in a more recent study(Brace 2006) using better sampling(including Badarians and some other Africans) clearly placed ancient Egyptians in a primary Northeast African twig(like all other researchers-with Ancient and Modern Nubians,Somali,and others), recanted on his NO LINK argument by saying not only do Ancient Egyptians have link to his still limited subsaharan Africans(which he said is faint) but that even some neolithic Near Easterners(like Natufians) have a significant SSA component. He also even made some distinctions between Neolithic Europeans and modern Europeans, and said that cro-magnons 'were not us'. Dont think you can really used this study(Brace 1993) to argue for a mediterranean- Ancient Egyptian continnum.
Your 2nd kink actually took me to Keita(Keita and Boyce 2005) which was funny.It is like you were referring to the part where he was talking about MODERN EGYPT-but nobody denies links with modern Egyptians,especially in the delta- I thought this debate was about Early Dynastic Egyptians. Keita would never argue for mediterranean-Ancient Egypt continuum, he even rejects this in his studies and stated that 'there is no evidence that the Ancient Egyptians was anything but NorthEast Africans'.

I noticed where u used 'kid'. Come on now lets debate, you know points-thats why I am here.
   Profile |  

matter
PostPosted: 2012-03-14 09:05pm 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-02-23 07:56pm
Posts: 50
@ BigT can I get the full reference of the Semino et al study you cited; could be interesting.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-15 04:07am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
Spoonist wrote:
So a TripleFail


By this point you as well as everyone else is well aware of the posts that I have been trying to link you to. He even clarifies it when he is making the same assertions in his post above to matter. He made my task easier.

Spoonist wrote:
Because that is NOT a quote of Thanas claiming or hinting at any sort of mass migration. Instead he points at exactly the same 'influx' that you have acknowledged and that matter mention above with this line "if some group of nomadic people left Africa and went to say Yemen next door and within 15000-10000 years came back". So how come you didn't include matter or yourself as insinuating such a mass migration as well.


Because the back migration that you all are asserting is one in which people with non African physical features reentered Africa. That was simply could not have been the case (weathered it's dealing with the theorized M1 back migration or haplogroup R), due to how early in history this is hypothesized to have occurred. The context that Matter was using he was referring to was the contentious origins of M1. His scenario being that over 40,000 years ago a group of Africans simply crossed the red sea into Yemen (which could have been the origins of M1) and back migrated into Eastern Africa in less than a 15,000 year time frame. With that scenario that matter makes:

Image

How much could these Africans physical appearance have changed when they remained in the virtually the exact same tropical environment in a less than a 15k year time frame before they migrated back into Africa? Then that's not even considering the fact that an East African origin for M1 is the most probable according to recent genetic analysis:

Quote:
The richest basal variation in the founder haplogroups , N and R is found among the southern stretch of Eurasia, particularly in the Indian subcontinent (Figure 1), suggesting a rapid colonization along the southern coast of Asia.. Western Eurasians, in contrast with Southern Asians, eastern Eurasians, and Australasians, have a high level of haplogroup diversity within the haplogroup N and R, but lack haplogroup M also entirely (Figure 1)... Although Haplogroup M differentiated soon after the out of Africa exit and it is widely distributed in Asia (east Asia and India) and Oceania, there is an interesting exception for one of its more than 40 sub-clades: M1.. Indeed this lineage is mainly limited to the African continent with peaks in the Horn of Africa." --Paola Spinozzi, Alessandro Zironi . (2010). Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 48-50


and

Quote:
..the M1 presence in the Arabianpeninsula signals a predominant East African influence since the Neolithic onwards.“ -- Petraglia, M and Rose, J(2010). The Evolution of Human Populations in Arabia:


So how does this fit into their module that such early proposed back migrations lead to a "racial mixture" of people in the Nile Valley?

Spoonist wrote:
Even the canadians and british with whom "you" share a language doesn't use the stupid version you quoted. And your red herring about other 'unique definitions' is stupid since I asked for scientific one instead.


There is no consistent scientific definition of race. Early scientist have tried to construct a module but to no avail. What I, Democracyfanboy, and Matter have stated is that in the American/Western social context of race, based on what has been concluded about the external anatomical traits of the ancient Egyptians they would be considered "black". If I am wrong about this then so is then so is reputed scholar Sally Ann Ashton:



Now if you want to use another societal definition of race to assess this question then do so in another thread please, but the intent of this thread was to focus of the most prominent system known here in America.

Spoonist wrote:
Again, your "fucking american culture" is not mine and is not used in the scientific community


As you would have seen earlier in the thread, Broomstick and I are well in agreement that most in the scientific community do not find the concept of race as useful to their profession. The social context of race in my "American culture" (Western culture generally) is what drives the context of this discussion, and I believe I made that point earlier in my thread. Now I'm not sure where you're from, but with the exception of Latin America the definitions of race (while not as emphasized) throughout the Western world seem to be for the most part consistent.

Spoonist wrote:
You see the rest of us had this silly little thing called History classes. In those they explained stuff about, you know, history. One minor detail that those classes went through was this little skirmish called World War II.


So how does the Nordic Race theory apply to the non white citizens of a society that advocated this? Did it change how they were socially defined as groups? From what I've read it the module simply place Nordic Europeans at the top of all white Europeans, who were subsequently on top of all other races (in a social context of course) and according to Nordic scholars were the creators of everything good on this Earth.

Spoonist wrote:
WTF? You are now refering to the person whom you wished to hurt physically and say that you basically agreed with her?


Nope, I don't recall ever wishing to hurt Broomstick.
Spoonist wrote:
Shit that was a loooong post, does anyone but me and limpdick read these long posts of mine? If not maybe I should just quit this for a while until Thanas tires of the charade and ban the fuck for all his violations of board rules.


Nope, not your longest.

Last edited by Big Triece on 2012-03-15 04:14am, edited 1 time in total.
   Profile |  

Big Triece
PostPosted: 2012-03-15 04:13am 

Padawan Learner


Joined: 2010-11-01 02:28pm
Posts: 276
matter wrote:
@ BigT can I get the full reference of the Semino et al study you cited; could be interesting.


It's his 2004 study.
   Profile |  

Spoonist
PostPosted: 2012-03-15 04:49am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2002-09-20 11:15am
Posts: 2399
@Lord Zentei

Yupp, that started back on p2-3. I called it on p3.

Check out Pharao's post vs limpdick's. This is someone who minibrain thinks agreed with his position vs "you'all".
viewtopic.php?p=3483013#p3483013
PharaohMentuhotep wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
A question; What do you think of your view in regards to current SCA/IAE research. Do you think that you hold a minority view or a majority view? Could you also elaborate on a motivation for why you think it's the minority/majority view.
The Supreme Council of Antiquities and the International Association of Egyptologists as well as Egyptologists in general rarely speak on the Biological Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians and its relevance to matters of race and history so I don't believe there is a majority view or minority view to speak of on this matter. It isn't a widely discussed issue for them.

Dr. Zahi Hawass has given statements on the matter. Given his position as Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities his comments have been taken as being the mainstream view. He is opposed to Afrocentrism generally and has gone on record to state that the Ancient Egyptians were not Black. But from listening to his spoken statements on the matter it's clear to me that his views are rather outdated.

viewtopic.php?p=3483016#p3483016
Big Triece wrote:
Spoonist wrote:
Do you think that you hold a minority view or a majority view? Could you also elaborate on a motivation for why you think it's the minority/majority view.
View point in what respect? If you are coming from a scholarly perspective, then yes my "view" (stated earlier) is the concensus in academia. What I find ironic about this question that you're posing is that most (if not all) of you seem to be in agreement or either have nothing of scholarly equivalence to dispute the fact that ancient Egypt was an indigenous product of inner African origins. What seems to be in conflict are the implications of "inner Africa" being equated with "black", thus equating early ancient Egypt as "black". Is all of Africa "black"(?), NO. The collective evidence however points to Africans from "black Africa" and being "black Africans" laying the foundations of Egypt. This obviously strikes a nerve with a lot of people, for what reason (?) especially for those who live in America or the Westenize world in general who use or hear racial terminology on a daily basis? That's the question that the OP is asking.

Note first that Pharao keep the SCA/IAE bit and understand what it refers to and adresses the question in a straightforward way. Then he truthfully acknowledge the common consensus while pointing out why he disagrees with that consensus. Respect.
While littledick snipped out the SCA/IAE bit because he clearly don't understand it. Then he directly contradicts Pharao's viewpoint and goes into a paranoid tirade about something none of us had claimed. Ending it with changing what the OP was 'asking'. Moron.

That is what prompted this post of mine on p3 where I correctly evaluate littledick's entire charade
viewtopic.php?p=3483125#p3483125

So he has been trying to play prosecuted since p2, projecting his own delusions of white supremacy conspiracy onto whatever poster told him that he didn't understand his sources, the field or academia. He has been corrected on antiquity by a historian, on language by a linguist, on genealogy by a biologist, on statues and wall paintings by an art degree. Me, Simon and others have pointed out his inconsistencies which he now switched to being typos. It goes on and on. He was even corrected by ArmorPierce at one point.
He has done so before on several boards and got kicked out of most of them. (He has also been banned from SDN once before in the vrex thread where he compared SDN to nazis or maybe fascists depending on where that picture was taken).

But you gotta give him some credit, his views aren't that bad when you strip away all the irrelevant tangents. He has also been able to project an illusion of SDN's counter view by playing martyr so strongly that several posters have stepped in and thought that we were afro-deniers when we are not. Also I'd like to give him several brownie points (pun) for his sheer persistance in copy pasting the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again thinking that this time things will be different. (What is it they say about lunatics?) Like the vid he used in his last post to me, how many times have we seen that now? I'm certain that he is doing well within the american school system with debating teams etc.
It's a pity that he is a complete tool and imbecille, otherwise he could have been something.
Big Triece wrote:
matter wrote:
@ BigT can I get the full reference of the Semino et al study you cited; could be interesting.
It's his 2004 study.
Look he can't even quote stuff when his "friends" asks him out of interest. It's like he doesn't understand how that is percieved.
   Profile |  

EgalitarianJay
PostPosted: 2012-03-15 07:05am 

Youngling


Joined: 2012-03-15 04:38am
Posts: 53
Hello.

I see that this debate is still going on. I posted in this thread some time ago as PharaohMentuhotep but I do not remember my password so I have created a new account. I have taken some time to rethink my position and participation in debates like this. Honestly I have come to the conclusion that it is a waste of time to argue over this subject. What are you all really arguing about any more? That the Ancient Egyptians were or were not of one general skin color? That African does not equal Black? That most Ancient Egyptians would be considered Black by modern societies today? That some modern Africans are descended from ancient back migrations into Africa? What is the point? Why is it important?

I want to share a little bit of my background on the topic and why I feel it is not worth the time to keep debating it obsessively.

I got involved with this topic because I used to post on message boards where racists talked about their racial beliefs.

One of the message boards was an anti-racist message board designed to argue with racists about their racist views. In one of my first discussions a racist made a thread titled Human Accomplishment and basically tried to argue that Black people were innately stupid and violent and that's why Black Africans were savages running around in the jungle when Europeans colonized the continent and sold many of them into slavery. Their lack of civilization was evidence of stupidity and modern crime rates in countries like the United States where people of African descent were are overrepresented in violent crimes was proof of their natural tendency to be criminals and therefore a menace to good Western society. Disparities in average IQ test scores were said to be the scientific proof of innate stupidity and this correlated with crime because of course criminals are generally stupid.

I found these claims to be ridiculous and offensive as did most of my fellow Egalitarian posters on the board. But some of the posters were not so supportive of my counters to the historical arguments that Blacks created no civilizations, particularly my claim that the Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. Some of the Egalitarian posters actually argued vigorously that my claim was false and that Ancient Egypt was either a Near Eastern culture or the people during the Dynastic period looked the same as they do today. I was honestly surprised by this because at the very least much of the artwork looked to me like depictions of Black people and I had read elsewhere that they were Black Africans. Since the racists were also claiming the Ancient Egyptians were not Black I felt the my side was being harmed by the quarreling over the race of the Ancient Egyptians.

So I decided to do some more research on the topic and discovered Egyptsearch where posters were not only claiming the Ancient Egyptians were Black but providing scientific studies supporting their argument. A scholar by the name of Keita was mentioned often. Egyptsearch is a diverse crowd. Most of the veterans maintain that the Ancient Egyptians were Black while there are racists claiming they were White and that Blacks are inferior. Some of the posters there are Black Supremacists every bit as racist as the White Supremacists and are also Pro Black Egypt. Some of the posters make radical claims about African history and influence on the world that even the Pro Black African Egypt people distance themselves from and call them Afrocentrists. The board attracts a lot of trolls some claiming to be Egyptians that are angry that Afrocentrists are trying to steal their heritage and curiously hold the same attitudes as White Supremacists. Some posters who don't come a cross as racists claim the Ancient Egyptians were Multiracial or looked the same as the modern Egyptians.

Everyone regardless of their position is clearly obsessed with race. I always felt that my role in this was to learn what I can in order to counter the racists arguing that Black Africans did not build advanced civilizations. I like history but for me this has been one topic of many related to race and racism. Recently I have been more focused on Race & IQ discussions than
Ancient Egypt or ancient history. I don't post on Egyptsearch much at all any more and just recently decided to quit debating racial topics altogether as the idiocy of the racists has convinced me that debating them is a serious waste of time. Plus I've gone as far as I want to do with these debates. There's no challenge for me any more. Arguing with racists is like arguing with a religious fanatic.

Even some of the posters on Egyptsearch who I agreed with are quite fanatical. You can tell when a topic is more emotionally appealing to someone than it is a subject they are merely interested in talking about when they become hostile simply because you question their views. In one of my discussion on Egyptsearch I expressed skepticism that the Ancient Egyptians were referring to their own skin color when they called their nation Khemet as Diop maintained. I asked for evidence and clarification from this matter from other posters and when it became apparent that I was not satisfied with their answer they became extremely angry and one of them accused me of not accepting the evidence because I didn't like it's implications which in my view was insane because as an African-American I want to believe the Ancient Egyptians were Black but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be objective when it comes to the actual evidence about the nature of their culture. This sort of hostility was a real turn off for me and a wake up call that many of these people were no more objective than the people they were debating.

The real eye opener came when I emailed scholars such as Keita and talked about this research directly. I shared some email exchanges earlier in this thread as PharaohMentuhotep. Keita told me himself his research has never aimed to prove that the Ancient Egyptians looked a certain way but rather to determine the geographic origins of their culture and people as well as biological and cultural connections to their neighbors. His research does have some implications for people debating their appearance such as facial confirmation from craniometric studies indicating that early Ancient Egyptians resembled Africans further South such as the Nubians, Somali and Oromo but his research only covers up to Dynasty I, it can't determine skin color empirically and in Keita's view we can only make an educated guess about what the general population during the Dynastic period before years of genetic influx from foreigners by looking at modern Southern Egyptians today. Keita said he believes the skin color of the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian is probably a good model for what most Ancient Egyptians looked like which to me suggests many if not most were dark-skinned.

If you look at one of his last email replies to me in this thread I created on Egyptsearch Keita clarifies his view on the positions of Diop and Hawass on the subject:

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultim ... 006446;p=1


Notice that Keita rejects Hawass's position as Egyptocentric and narrow-minded because he implies that Ancient Egyptians had no connections to other Africans but also regards Diop's use of Black as problematic and believes his work to be somewhat outdated. Keita's position is that Ancient Egypt arose in Africa as an indigenous development and its people had biological and cultural connections to its neighbors to the South as well as West and East which would include the Levant and the Maghreb as well as Sudan and the Horn of Africa. I respect Keita for being as objective a scholar as any I have encountered and believe that answers on this subject probably won't stretch beyond his current position.

Alot of the debate in this thread therefore strikes me as futile.

I would like to share an email exchange I had with another scholar. Since I have for some time used my knowledge on Ancient Egypt to shutdown racists arguing that Black Africans created no civilizations I once emailed a scholar named Scott MacEachern who used his expertise on African history and archeology to refute the racialist arguments of scholars like Rushton who is one of the favorite sources of racists on Race & IQ.

This is a part of our exchange and his reply.....


Quote:
EgalitarianJay:

Thank you Dr. MacEachern

This reply has been very helpful in allowing me to better understand your arguments.

If you have time I would appreciate it if you addressed one more issue on the topic.

Your article appears to be mainly about African pre-history. However you also talk about state formation. I have often made it a point in these discussions to talk about the Ancient Egyptians when discussing African cultural achievement. As I'm sure you know there is has been alot of controversy in Western academia and society concerning the race of the Ancient Egyptians. When I debate this topic and the subject of Ancient Egypt comes up I direct debaters to the research of Dr. Shomarka Keita who has looked at the available research on this subject along with his own work and come to the conclusion that the early Ancient Egyptians were indigenous, tropically adapted Northeast Africans. Is research indicates that the Ancient Egyptians had a variety of physical characteristics and during early periods looked predominately like your average Nilotic and Horn African ethnic groups. Here's a link to one of his papers if you have not read it:

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf

I have argued based on this research that because the Ancient Egyptians fit into Rushton's 3 race model under the category Black it is a distortion of the African historical record for him to say that Black Africans have low cultural achievements and that human history does not follow a consistent pattern of geographical/racial hierarchy. In your article you cite David O'Conner as one of your sources on African states. I know of O'Connor through my research on Ancient Egypt. He wrote the book "Ancient Egypt in Africa", which emphasizes the African nature of Ancient Egyptian culture.

Can you give me your perspective on how Ancient Egyptian civilization would fit into the debate on Rushton's racial theories and African history?

Also the Rushton supporter I'm debating has advanced a position on this that I feel is rather absurd. He says that he doesn't feel ancient populations are representative of modern populations so the technological and cultural advancements of Ancient Egypt have no bearing on the capabilities of modern Black African people. Here is a short quote from him showing his line of reasoning:

"Of course modern populations would not negate the existence of the original population. However, I cannot argue that any ancient population is a carbon copy of modern populations. I cannot intelligently argue that a 5,000 year old Egyptian is the exact same being as modern day black auto-worker living on 8-mile. The fact that Sub Saharan Africa has lagged behind continuously from the period prior to colonialism and slavery to the modern periods illustrates that the people of that region are not capable of building advanced civilizations that we see in Europe and Northeast Asia. This is especially true when we see that the average intelligence quotient scores match their inability to function on the levels of other higher-IQ groups."


If you could comment on that in addition to the whole Egypt/Rushton/African history issue that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your time.

Sincerely,

EgalitarianJay


Scott MacEachern:


Dear EgalitarianJay,

Two different issues here. First, I know Shomarka well, and I agree with his conclusions in this article. For me, though, I think that you're rather playing on Rushton's terrain if you accept his 3-race model in the first place: that's simply not a good way to capture human biological variability, whether expressed in somatic or genetic terms. You don't have to try and fit people into any sort of racial straitjacket to note that Egyptians have biological affinities with other African populations: their position along the Nile makes this quite expectable. You might also note that genetic research provides the same result: see for example the article that I have attached to this paper. But I think that any view of ancient Egypt that doesn't take into account both its contacts with other parts of Africa and with areas of the Near East and eastern Mediterranean do not do the culture justice. Egypt is Egypt precisely because it is both African and situated at a crossroad of continent.

Second thing, precisely because of this widely held view that Egypt is not 'part of Africa'(a view that I think stupid, but pretty general) , in that World Archaeology paper I also emphasized the originality and dynamism of African states and civilizations in other parts of the continent. No one in 2011 can say that Meroe, or Kerma, or Axum, or Djenné-jeno were not originally African, and there's lots of good work done on the precursors to those states as well, at places like Zilum and Dhar Tichitt and Qohaito… places that people generally have not heard of, but that were extremely significant archaeological sites in their own right. Egypt is not irrelevant, but it's very far from the only state that developed in Africa.

As for the Rushton supporter you're referring to… as I said last time, one simple observation is that he/she doesn't know any African history. If they did, they wouldn't make the claim that sub-Saharan Africa lagged other parts of the world – like Western Europe, for example – before colonialism and slavery. It just ain't the case, and I would recommend those texts I mentioned in my last email. As for the rest of the claim, it's trivial to some degree – of course modern populations are not exactly the same as ancient ones. That's true across the globe, but it says nothing about their intellectual capacity, nor about how historical trajectories will work. My own ancestors, from Raasay and neighbouring islands off the west coast of Scotland, would have been seen as intellectual dead-enders by your critic as well, up until about AD 1700… after that, the Scots did rather well.

You might also note that I have spent the last 30 years, more or less, working in various parts of Africa – which is about 30 years more than Rushton and his colleagues ever spent there. I last spent six weeks there in this past December- January, in the northern Mandara Mountains of Cameroon, where I've worked for a long time. The idea that Africans are less intelligent than other people is both ludicrous and revolting, an insult to both those people and (much less importantly) to me as an observer. To be perfectly frank, I find them far smarter than most of those 'racialists' (including Rushton) I used to debate on h-bd. As I said at one point in that article: "It is as if Rushton, Lynn and their colleagues were claiming that all Africans were actually only four feet tall. If such a claim is made, and one is asked to choose between doubting the evidence of one’s own eyes in Africa and doubting the calibration of the ruler used in measurement, most people will doubt the ruler."

Best

Scott


I hope this post is helpful.

I believe that it is historically accurate to say that the Ancient Egyptians of the early formative period had strong biological and cultural connections to people to the South of Egypt as many of their ancestors came to the Nile Valley from those regions. Egyptians probably had diverse physical characteristics. I don't know how diverse. They absorbed foreigners many of whom were probably lighter-skinned than the architects and first rulers of the civilization. Given its geographic proximity it is likely that there were always light and dark skinned people in the Nile Valley since before the Dynastic period. As you can see in the email exchange above MacEachern advised me that it is not a good idea to try to fit Egyptians into a racial box to counter the racialists because you're basically playing into their argument that their racial categories have scientific significance. African history is more than Ancient Egypt and it is not necessary to prove the Ancient Egyptians were all or by and large dark-skinned to refute the notion that dark-skinned Africans are less intelligent than Europeans or anyone else.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 24 of 34
 [ 833 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 ... 34  Next

It is currently 2014-11-22 08:57pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

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

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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