Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 166

Thread: Black Egyptians

  1. #91

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    I have to say that I have found this thread rather....puzzling. There has been an inordinate amount of hostility, and a deal of what can best be described as double-talk.

    It seems that we ought not use the term 'black' as it is a modern referential, but yet one can talk about actual 'black' civilisations..... that seems contradictory to me.

    It seems that one can definitively and categorically ascribe what is not 'black', but one cannot say what is. Again, that seems a contradiction.

    It appears that when Egyptian culture identifies itself in art as 'black' that it is a stretch to equate that with them being 'black', but any iconography that depicts them as in some way not 'black' requires careful argumentation as to why that is...

    Am I missing something here?

    Member thankful for this post:



  2. #92
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironduke View Post
    Cairo and all the major populace hubs are entirely Arab.

    On your other point, I too see more light skinned Eygptians on their art work. I didn't notice the black tones until it was pointed out to me, but looking back at the same pictures of murial drawings that I've seen before, the darker skin bodies are fewer in number.
    Egyptians are of (relatively) light skin, this is true, but we should not assume that light skin tone is a result of them coming from a particular population, it is entirely possible for a population to be relatively internally homogeneous whilst still having a mixed ancestry, the people of the Caribbean, for example, are a mix of African and European, with a tilt towards the African, but Caribbeans are still recognizably distinct from, say, South African Zulus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus View Post
    I have to say that I have found this thread rather....puzzling. There has been an inordinate amount of hostility, and a deal of what can best be described as double-talk.

    It seems that we ought not use the term 'black' as it is a modern referential, but yet one can talk about actual 'black' civilisations..... that seems contradictory to me.

    It seems that one can definitively and categorically ascribe what is not 'black', but one cannot say what is. Again, that seems a contradiction.

    It appears that when Egyptian culture identifies itself in art as 'black' that it is a stretch to equate that with them being 'black', but any iconography that depicts them as in some way not 'black' requires careful argumentation as to why that is...

    Am I missing something here?
    To your first point - we ought not to talk of "black" peoples or Civilizations - "black" is a word used by Europeans to denote pretty much anyone they conquered whom they did not consider European. The idea that there were "Black" Civilisations is therefore anachronistic. That does not mean that we cannot say that a people looked like modern Sub-Saharan Africans, or that modern populations of sub-Saharans are not descended from them.

    To your second point - you have it backwards. The issue is that someone in this thread is trying to make a positive identification, specifically to equate a culture with a modern ethnic group. One can look at certain Egyptian statues and say that they depict what appear to be Sub-Saharan Africans with a reasonable degree of confidence, but it does not follow that Egyptian Civilisation was therefore simply "Black" or Sub-Saharan. The problem is that there are a large number of depictions of Egyptians that do not show people who are clearly Sub-Saharans. these people are clearly Egyptians, and they are differentiated from those Egyptians who are depicted in a Sub-Saharan manner.

    What you are missing is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim - not the person rejecting it. If the Unbreakable wishes anyone to accept his narrative of a primarily Sub-Saharan race who created and populated the Egyptian Civilisation he MUST explain why these supposedly Sub-Saharan people sometimes depicted themselves as Sub-Saharan and sometimes as not.

    Otherwise, he is ignoring a portion of the evidence simply because it is inconvenient for his argument. So his argument can in turn be ignored.

    To clarify, I have no problem with a Sub-saharan element in the Egyptian culture and population, but I require explanation of the non-Sub-Saharan depictions of Egyptians before I accept it was the primary element in the Egyptian population.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  3. #93

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    To your first point - we ought not to talk of "black" peoples or Civilizations - "black" is a word used by Europeans to denote pretty much anyone they conquered whom they did not consider European. The idea that there were "Black" Civilisations is therefore anachronistic. That does not mean that we cannot say that a people looked like modern Sub-Saharan Africans, or that modern populations of sub-Saharans are not descended from them.
    This is where I get confused by what language is appropriate, where I see a contradiction, because earlier in this thread you said;

    There's a professor over here (in the UK), I forget the name, but he presented a series on BBC 4 about the actual black civilisations at the edge of North Africa and Sub-Sahara - making the point that if black people want something to be proud of they don't have to appropriate Egyptians or Romans like Septimus Severus.
    ...you seem to be happy to use the term 'black' here, and seem to differentiate what can be viewed as an "actual black civilisation" and differentiate this with Egypt specifically.

    So, though your more recent argument is that the term 'black' is inappropriate, in your earlier argument you appeared happy to use the term, but to simply refute that Egypt (most specifically here) is among them. (indeed you used the term "they don't have to appropriate Egyptians")

    To your second point - you have it backwards. The issue is that someone in this thread is trying to make a positive identification, specifically to equate a culture with a modern ethnic group. One can look at certain Egyptian statues and say that they depict what appear to be Sub-Saharan Africans with a reasonable degree of confidence, but it does not follow that Egyptian Civilisation was therefore simply "Black" or Sub-Saharan.
    But here you have simplified the holistic approach that was put forward. You make this seem as if this is based upon 'black' depictions alone, but it is not. That is just one aspect within a series of other arguments.

    The problem is that there are a large number of depictions of Egyptians that do not show people who are clearly Sub-Saharans. these people are clearly Egyptians, and they are differentiated from those Egyptians who are depicted in a Sub-Saharan manner.
    But this is, again, contradictory. When evidence was originally shown of 'black' iconography within Egyptian art-work then it was dismissed as either stylistic, or of being over-emphasised. Yet any artwork that questions the 'blackness' of Egyptians is seen as clearly differentiating them from their Sub-Saharan neighbours.... no question of stylistic emphasis, and that these instances ought to be emphasised as important and requiring explanation.

    What you are missing is that the burden of proof lies with the person making the positive claim - not the person rejecting it. If the Unbreakable wishes anyone to accept his narrative of a primarily Sub-Saharan race who created and populated the Egyptian Civilisation he MUST explain why these supposedly Sub-Saharan people sometimes depicted themselves as Sub-Saharan and sometimes as not.
    I think, perhaps, that you might be missing a vital element of this. You say where the burden of proof lies, but the 'positive claim' is actually a refutation of a long-standing presumption. That presumption of a non-black African kingdom is based upon the work of the original scholars of Egyptian civilisation who were racially motivated. Any 'perceived wisdom' that is being challenged is on decidedely shakey ground.

    To sum up. The arguments made against The Unbreakable's proposition have been; to deride it by association (with the furtherance of Black Athena, for example, which went beyond the claims made), to attack by piecemeal (in other words, almost to pretend that the argument stood or fell upon one aspect of the whole), multiple - and contradictory - acceptable definitions, attempts to undermine the viability of the sources, and contradictory attitudes to evidential factors.

    I have to say that I have been far more persuaded by The Unbreakable's generally positive forwarding of evidence and positive argument than I have by the opposition to it.

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  4. #94
    Member Member odia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Nigeria
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by moonburn View Post
    ok i will stop posting here it surpassed the realm of rationality all i gotta say is that a few euro/american decided to rob off egypt of their own history for their own personal insecurities itīs like english claiming for themselfs the greek civilization even tough they are a crapload of miles away from where it happened and they arenīt basically the same people

    you can look at todayīs egyptians and see that they are the descendents of the people that built egypt

    Really? And this is how an individual who wants his stance to be taken seriously argues? Your last post IMO summaries your entire arguments on this thread : http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...post2053465222

    where you said you think that an authority(Keita) 'is wrong'(when he demonstrated that the early Egyptians had greater bio-cultural affinities to some African groups to its south than to nonAfrican groups and that as time went by there was a gradual shift towards the later cos of their various migrations to Egypt ) cos according to you ' (you) doubt he had said it this way separating Lybians from Egyptian' and that the only reason you believed Nubians were different from the Egyptians is cos 'when the Sahara dried up everyone went for the the places with water and Egypt got its population boom(critical mass) to jumpstart its civilization'(which is odd cos that the Early Egyptians came essentially from the tropical Sahara is one of the strongest reasons for arguing the indigenous African origin and nature of Early Egyptians, apart from the fact Nubia itself was also populated to a large extent from same drying Sahara); you go on to curiously admit that you are saying this 'from(your) head from a CHAOTIC remembrance on how things went' and that 'NO' you are not willing to 'loose your time studying what 1000 people already studied'(in other words, you are not willing to engage the sources presented but in stead 'doubt them', 'think they are wrong', based on info you barely remember offhand '..from a CHAOTIC remembrance of how things went...').
    It is very odd in deed how arguments can be made this way;I suppose every scholar would not need to peruse sources, cheek them against claims made, rigorously compare and contrast them with other dissenting sources and do all this with a sound, predictable methodology and LOGIC. I suppose we could all learn from your line of thinking in arriving at FACTS : which is certainly easier, even if less engaging .
    By the way,from this rather bizarre way of 'demonstrating facts' of yours, you concluded with the assertion: 'at the very least both the lybians and canaanites have as much influence on egypt as nubians do'(again without telling us how you actually arrived at this about the ancient Egyptians) except to whine about '..all those pesky people trying to steal the fruits of their(Egyptian) labour'. Way to go.

    It is astonishing how most of you guys opposing UnBreakable's stance have been unwilling(or is it unable) to engage the sources that he has provided except to repeatedly complain about his(UnBreakable's) interpretation of same WITHOUT presenting your own interpretation of those sources or countering with other ones. I read about 'other evidences that contradict yours' but can hardly see those evidences been presented to opposed his. The opposition to his stance has essentially been two fold:

    1. complaint about the intentions of UnBreakable and even the OP in opening the thread or arguing for a main indigenous Northeast African biocultural origin and basis for the ancient Egyptians or even why anybody is interested in the topic. How arguments against the intentions of an opponent's stance constituent refutation of same is beyond me. This is particularly odd and hypocritical in that the very reason why we are having this discussion today is the mess early Egyptologists made of the study of ancient Egypt by such concepts as the Mediterranean Race Theorem, Dynastic Race Theorem, Hamitic Theorem,True Negro Myth,'dark-skinned or even Black African people who are White', Asiatic Origin of Ancient Egyptians, Demic Diffusion Theorem, Asiatic origin of Afroasiatic languages, Lower Egyptian Origin of Egyptian Culture etc(you guys can google these concepts if you are unfamiliar with them plz) ust as they did with the history of other African peoples and civilizations-all of which emanated from a deep seated racist belief that 'Black' African peoples were NOT capable of civilizing themselves so where evidences of such was found(Great Zimbabwe,Mali,Ancient Ghana, Benin Empire, Swahili City States, Nubia, Axum, Garamantia Empire, Bugunda etc) , it must be cos of some 'wandering caucasoids' who brought civilization to them; another reason was the need to appropriate the 'intoxicating' ancient Egyptian civilization that they had discovered


    There were stark differences in the preconceptions of Ancient Egypt and of
    African societies, which explorers, missionaries and administrators took with them to
    the African continent. Ancient Egypt had long been known to Europeans, principally
    because of its appearances in the Bible and its perceived peripheral location in the
    classical and medieval worlds (Ucko and Champion 2003). Its incorporation into
    Greek, then Roman and latterly into Arab worlds had served to continually mark its
    presence. In the late 18th century, Ancient Egypt was readily perceived as African and
    as a minor polity of l ittle sig nificance. The d iscoveries a rising from Napoleon’s
    expedition to Egypt (Jeffreys 2003b) demonstrated that Ancient Egypt went beyond
    this peripheral status, and served to keep Ancient Egypt in the public consciousness
    throughout the 19th century. This implied, under prevailing perceptions, that Ancient
    Egypt was highly sophisticated and African. Not surprisingly, thought changed
    rapidly to describe Ancient Egypt as a ‘white’ civilization (Bernal Chapter 2, this
    volume). The contrast between the theoretical treatment of Ancient Egypt and that of
    the African interior was immense.
    Ancient Egypt and the Source of the Nile by Andrew Reid pg 58{in Ancient Egypt in Africa(eds)D. O'Connor and A. Reid,Institute of Archaeology, University College London 2003}
    2. A reliance on the use of ART work, a subjective line of evidence to make ones claim, with one of you guys talking of 'a vast no of art work showing tan-skinned peoples' amongst Egyptian paintings without taking the trouble to post those 'vase' examples. I mean, about the only person who have really posted Egyptian paintings here is UnBreakable and I cant see how those people portrayed in those paintings(assuming they are all actual portraits) are not within the diverse range of indigenous tropical Africans as elucidated in this post: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...post2053465259 . At least, if you guys want to mainly rely on ART WORK to pursue your arguments,then it meant be helpful if those 'vase evidences of tan-skinned Egyptians' are posted, and their context(time,region,variations) explained. It will also be helpful to your cases if paintings of groups of ancient Egyptians doing earthly duties(like soldiers, officials,farmers, boatmen,chores,villagers etc)with these supposed tan-skins are posted and less of gods or even some pharaohs shown as gods since they many times for religious reasons are portrayed in unrealistic colours like red,blue,green,yellow,white,black.
    While you guys are at it, you must tell us how this line of evidence sit in with the other Lines of Evidences that UnBreakable have marshaled to argue his stance: Biological(metic,nonmetric,skeletal,limb proportions etc), Archaeological, Cultural, Linguistics, Geographic/Climatic, Genetics, Migration flow(of People and culture).


    And less I forget @moonburn, I suppose those authorities and institutions that UnBreakable have used in his sources to argue his points(case in point the Fitzwilliam Museum http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/gallery/kemet/ -which I believe you know is an official museum of the UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE) are all 'a few(examples of) euro/americans (who have) decided to rob off egypt of their own history for their own personal insecurities', right?


    Could both parties please just concentrate on the topic and try to avoid 'frivolities' as much as possible; and BE WILLING TO ENGAGE OPPOSING POINTS/SOURCES and ACTUALLY PROVIDING COUNTER-EVIDENCES. There also should be a willingness to concede when there are insufficient counter-points.
    All the best All.
    Last edited by odia; 07-11-2012 at 02:00.

    Member thankful for this post:



  5. #95
    Member Member odia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Nigeria
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs
    The issue is that someone in this thread is trying to make a positive identification, specifically to equate a culture with a modern ethnic group. One can look at certain Egyptian statues and say that they depict what appear to be Sub-Saharan Africans with a reasonable degree of confidence, but it does not follow that Egyptian Civilisation was therefore simply "Black" or Sub-Saharan. The problem is that there are a large number of depictions of Egyptians that do not show people who are clearly Sub-Saharans. these people are clearly Egyptians, and they are differentiated from those Egyptians who are depicted in a Sub-Saharan manner.

    For clarity plz, could you post pictures of these 'large number of depictions of Egyptians that do not show people who are clearly Sub-Saharans', and plz show how they are not WITHIN the range of Variation of indigenous tropical or 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Black' Africans as elucidated in this post: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...post2053465259. Also, like a suggested in my last post you should also give
    context(time,region,variations) explained. It will also be helpful to your cases if paintings of groups of ancient Egyptians doing earthly duties(like soldiers, officials,farmers, boatmen,chores,villages etc)with these supposed tan-skins are posted and less of gods or even some pharaohs shown as gods since they many times or religious reasons are portrayed in unrealistic colours like red,blue,green,yellow,white,black.
    Also, it is curious that you rely primarily on just one Line of Evidence(ART WORK- which is generally subjective) to argue your points against a stance that uses different Lines of Evidences.

    For how to possibly describe 'Black Africans', plz see the link already provided.
    Thanks.

    Member thankful for this post:



  6. #96
    Apprentice Geologist Member Blxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    779

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
    That being said this is likely my last response to you:
    Finally. Was an interesting ride and some fun facts were brought up that were worth at least thinking about. Too bad, as PVC said, they don't really hold up to the quite weighty claims you were making. Although I like how your claims gradually became less and less adamant and you finally settled on
    My point exactly Egypt, started off black and BECAME mixed
    .
    Seems like we have all reached some middle ground here. By middle I mean you tacitly admitting that everything you have posted has been heavily skewed towards the predynastic era and when you look at more than a few select sources your theory falls down.

    Thanks for the debate. Was a great read from both sides and is why I really like the EB fora since for the most part this was entirely civil and damn informative.
    Completed Campaigns:
    Macedonia EB 0.81 / Saby'n EB 1.1
    Qart'Hadarst EB 1.2 / Hai EB 1.2
    Current Campiagns:
    Getai/Sauromatae/Baktria
    donated by Brennus for attention to detail.

  7. #97

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Thanks for the debate. Was a great read from both sides and is why I really like the EB fora since for the most part this was entirely civil and damn informative.
    My opinion on that differs. Certainly I have always felt that the EB fora were a haven of informed and polite discussion. This thread has left something of a nasty taste.

    Finally......
    this, for example, does not match up with the above sentiment, at all.

    Seems like we have all reached some middle ground here. By middle I mean you tacitly admitting that everything you have posted has been heavily skewed towards the predynastic era and when you look at more than a few select sources your theory falls down.
    Well, why not just stick your tongue out and sing 'na na na na na'? So, tell me, what were the claims that have begun to 'fall down'. Finally, is it now acceptable to describe pre-dynastic Egypt as 'black', is there now an acceptance of said term? But, only in this context, eh?

    I have seen a level of discussion here which I think is out of place, and I have seen the manners here destroy any real discussion on other fora. The sort of 'clan' mentality shown at times (the ' I have wondered what his aims are' - the us and him context) is particularly damaging.

    Thank you The Unbreakable for the vast rangeof information which you brought to this discussion. If only I could thank others for their equally well evidenced 'counter-arguments'.

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #98
    Member Member moonburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    963

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    i never claimed that egyptians werenīt african :| i just say that nigerians angolans or southafricans have no reason to be proud on what the egyptians acomplished since they acomplished them by themselfs and not because they had help from other parts those other parts include semits or other africans further south

    as for not saying that lybians and egyptians were diferent is because i believe they werenīt the cultural and enviromental aspect in wich each one of those groups developed carved the diference beteween them

    what i refute here is that black europeans and american blacks have any claim whatsoever on egypts acomplishment the same way as british can have no claim to the greek acomplishments and it seems to me that this entire debate is emptying the egyptian pride over their own achievements modern egyptians are the descendents of those who built the piramids and therefore deserve all the credits for their ancestors achivements with more or less admixture in terms of genetic material people living nowadays in egypt are still descendents of those who achieved it

    the sahara started drying up 8.000/6.000 years ago and even then there was still enough moisture to suport societies like those of the garamantines and as far as i remember the last great growth of the sahara deserte was around 400 years ago that "eaten" up large portions of northafrica agricultural land and a few civilizations to the south (thereīs even some theories that the nile used to flow to the west and when it changed itīs course and went north the sahara started to suffer itīs shift in climate)

    ofc we canīt deny these civilizations influence on our modern world but that means we must show them respect not trying to steal their descendents of their pride above sahara people are also africans so please show some respect for them this entire debate turned into an eurocentric vs subsaharancentric point of view forgetting those in beteween that do deserve their credit

    as for the way this thread went until some people showed the political motivation behinde it i had no problem with what was being said and even presented the zimbabwe example (and many times almost quoted the garamantines but thereīs better people here to do so since they actually researched it for eb2 )

    unbreakable i doubt you will find a better comunity that actually understands the way the victorians screwed up the research of egypt (mainly mauling the sensual aspect of egyptian society where depictions of erogenous organs were deliberatly destroyed to make them "presentable" )

    the trufh is that this entire debate is only important for those who consider themselfs blacks and that means people who have african ancestry and donīt live in africa thus my reference to a few europeans and americans because for people living in africa today thats irrelevant they have their history and reasons to be proud their great liberation wars from the old european colonialist powers so these americans/europeans try to appropriate anything they can the same way as you described above about the 19th century whiteman refusing to give africans and the egyptians their just credit they are still there theyīve always been there and most likely theyīll always be there thereīs no need to search anywhere for the great people that build that single and unique civilization because they are there

  9. #99
    Apprentice Geologist Member Blxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    779

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Gaius, I think you read my 'Finally' in the wrong way. But such are the joys of a written medium.
    And no need to stick my tongue out or for you to make such a reference.; I'd prefer if we didn't descend into anything personal here.

    As for his theory "fall[ing] down" as I said, I think it doesn't stand up to the weighty claims he made. And they were weighty. "Egypt is black." That was the claim. It was direct, complete and leaves no room for any alternative. The issue is, there were differences. Some as evidenced by art, which to me are the most conclusive, but others such as the evidence provided by The Unbreakable to support his claim as being a little unsteady and at times disregarding other things that he simply didn't take into account.

    If you read back through the 2 or 3 times I posted you will notice that I have not denied that their were dark-skinned peoples in africa (which is what i assume he means by black. if not then I am way off in my understanding). I however do not believe them to be the component that vastly makes up or defines the entire society in much the same way that I don't think the lighter skinned Egyptians, who are very much evidenced in artwork, are the main component of Egyptian society and culture. In fact, the whole argument seems like a moot point since we are arguing from a modern sense here where race is a very defining feature in culture or at least perceptions. To truly say that one part of Egyptian society (lighter/darker/foreign/local) is responsible for the entire culture is a little naive at best or deliberately biased at worst.

    I read his links, listened to his arguments and made up my mind that his point fails to convince of his statement that 'Egypt IS Black'.

    As for chopping up my posts into little quote size pieces and trying to find insult in them, please don't. As for attributing some sort of personal attack or childish behaviour to me, please don't. As for making up your own mind even if it differs from me, please do. That is the joy of an academic community which as I said I enjoy on the EB fora for the most part, passionate discussion or not.
    Completed Campaigns:
    Macedonia EB 0.81 / Saby'n EB 1.1
    Qart'Hadarst EB 1.2 / Hai EB 1.2
    Current Campiagns:
    Getai/Sauromatae/Baktria
    donated by Brennus for attention to detail.

  10. #100
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus View Post
    This is where I get confused by what language is appropriate, where I see a contradiction, because earlier in this thread you said;

    ...you seem to be happy to use the term 'black' here, and seem to differentiate what can be viewed as an "actual black civilisation" and differentiate this with Egypt specifically.

    So, though your more recent argument is that the term 'black' is inappropriate, in your earlier argument you appeared happy to use the term, but to simply refute that Egypt (most specifically here) is among them. (indeed you used the term "they don't have to appropriate Egyptians")
    You can blame that on a change of gears - and also the location I was thinking about. What I meant was, he was presenting on civilisations whose modern descendents are what we call "Black", i.e. Sub-Saharan Africans and who - so far as we can see, only depicted themselves that way. In common speech the term "black" is fine, but in the case of Mediteranian Civilisations it is very anachronistic - especially with the Egyptians, as there are very few "Blacks" in modern Egypt, calling the Civilisation "black" therefore has modern political and ethnic implications more far reaching than calling the early Northern European societies "Celtic" and the current populations "Germanic". The academic in question was also presenting them as "Black" for political reasons, both to demonstrate that advanced African Civilisations were subsequently brought to ruin (probably by the slave trade) and to dissuade "Black" scholarship from the desperate attempt to grag scraps of Roman or Greek history via arguments like "Black Athena".

    But here you have simplified the holistic approach that was put forward. You make this seem as if this is based upon 'black' depictions alone, but it is not. That is just one aspect within a series of other arguments.

    But this is, again, contradictory. When evidence was originally shown of 'black' iconography within Egyptian art-work then it was dismissed as either stylistic, or of being over-emphasised. Yet any artwork that questions the 'blackness' of Egyptians is seen as clearly differentiating them from their Sub-Saharan neighbours.... no question of stylistic emphasis, and that these instances ought to be emphasised as important and requiring explanation.
    No, you misunderstand the point. The Unbreakable has put forward a theory, but he has not accounted for the evidence which runs counter to his theory. I have no real problem with "Black" or "Sub-Saharan" Ancient Egyptians as a cultural and ethnic component of Ancient Egypt, but the fact is a not of the wall paintings depict something other than Sub-Saharans, and much the statutry is highly ambiguous at best. That doesn't invalidate the other evidence, but the discrepency needs to be explained.

    The Unbreakable has repeatedly refused to even acknowledge the problem with his argument. When I raised one particular example, the bust of Queen Nefertiti, he dismissed it as a modern German fake (by the Nazi's no less).

    Now, there are instances where human figures are depicted as Red, or Black for iconographic reasons - but there is no particular reason for the majority of the figures, from the pharoh to the slaves to be depicted as red-skinned when Egyptian iconography crealy had available a means to depict Sub-Saharans and it was used for both Egyptians and the Nubians.

    I think, perhaps, that you might be missing a vital element of this. You say where the burden of proof lies, but the 'positive claim' is actually a refutation of a long-standing presumption. That presumption of a non-black African kingdom is based upon the work of the original scholars of Egyptian civilisation who were racially motivated. Any 'perceived wisdom' that is being challenged is on decidedely shakey ground.
    Be that as it may, the 19th Century documented (including photographich in situ) what it found. The opinion then was that the Egyptians were "white", probably like the Greeks or Iranians (the other two poles in Western culture at the time) the more recent assumption has been that the Ancient Egyptians looked more or less like the modern ones. This is not a wholly unreasonable starting point, and there are plenty of similarities between ancient depictions and the modern people.

    What the Unbreakable has been arguing is a BLACK EGYPT hypothesis - that the Ancient Egyptians did not look like the modern ones, but instead looked like modern Nubians.

    To sum up. The arguments made against The Unbreakable's proposition have been; to deride it by association (with the furtherance of Black Athena, for example, which went beyond the claims made), to attack by piecemeal (in other words, almost to pretend that the argument stood or fell upon one aspect of the whole), multiple - and contradictory - acceptable definitions, attempts to undermine the viability of the sources, and contradictory attitudes to evidential factors.

    I have to say that I have been far more persuaded by The Unbreakable's generally positive forwarding of evidence and positive argument than I have by the opposition to it.
    The Unbreakable's method has been to present Youtube clips (irrelevent, Televeision is not a good source for information), to link to pirated documentes from JSTOR and to base his arguments on small quotes from much larger papers, of which he highlights a few words in red. He has repeatedly posted images of people of multiple hues and then refused to acknowledge the figures not rendered in black, and he has also ignored people (and not just me) when they have pointed out that many of the papers he quotes do not say what he claims they do. I even addressed this when he posted a clip of Keita lecturing, he was asked a question about the Egyptians and he refused to say either that they were an "African" population or how dark they were.

    There are multiple definitions of "Black" - the modern one is overwhelmingly political and post-colonial. As to the rest - should I not be picking it apart and trying to destroy the argument? The Unbreakable's narrative may be apealingly coherent, but that is because it is a historicisation, a narrative he has constructed to explain the past. That doesn't make it wrong, but it is incumbent on him to defend it, and if he cannot then it is not to be accepted.

    A hypothesis should be tested to destruction, if it survives then it may be accepted until someone comes up with a better one, which will then be tested to destruction etc.

    Edit: I should just also clarify that reference to the Unbreakable's political stance is also relevent, because it speaks to his own bias. In my view, if you do not dismiss "Black Athena" out of hand then you are intellectually suspect. My other point, and this is also important, is that the same people who claim Nefertiti and King Tut were black also claim Cleopatra was black - and that speaks to their credibility. If The Unbreakable cites such people his building a house of sticks on sand in the face of a Monsoon.
    Last edited by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla; 07-11-2012 at 12:58.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Member thankful for this post:

    Blxz 


  11. #101
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by odia View Post
    For clarity plz, could you post pictures of these 'large number of depictions of Egyptians that do not show people who are clearly Sub-Saharans', and plz show how they are not WITHIN the range of Variation of indigenous tropical or 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Black' Africans as elucidated in this post: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...post2053465259. Also, like a suggested in my last post you should also give.
    I have critiqued the evidence presented, on the grounds that I do not believe that it supports the Unbreakable's claim. That claim was that the Egyptians were essentially a Nubian population who immigrated to the Lower Nile and the delta from the Upper Nile. Nubian immigration is not contentious - the claim that there was no population in the Delta that they mixed with, or that the population there was also "Nubian" is the part I do not accept as being demonstrated.

    Yes, in different parts of Africa there are different ethnic groups, who have variable features and skin tones. However, as you youself explicitely acknowledged in your earlier post, these variantions are associated with different areas. The people in Tanzenia look different to those in South Africa. If you want to claim a lighter-skinned African population moved into Egypt either before or after the Nubians you need to provide some explanation of how they got from the African interior to the far side of the Sahara, and at least posit a reason for why they made the journey. Otherwise, I would say that a lighter-skinned people from the Levant, moving down the coast, would be more likely.

    Bear in mind that Europe also has broad variation in populations - from the Sami (usually blond or read haired, fair skinned but with an eye shape typically associateed with Asiatics) in the far North, through the Swedes (tall, long limed, blond, fair skin), the Gaels (red or black/dark borwn hair, often curly with freckled skin) down on through the Gallic and Germanic populations, the Sapniards and Italians. In fact, Southern Italians can be as dark as North Africans. The point is that these variations tend to cluster, and they do so in Africa as well.

    The point is - the light skinned people in Europe are MUCH closer to Egypt than the lighter skinned Africans

    Also, it is curious that you rely primarily on just one Line of Evidence(ART WORK- which is generally subjective) to argue your points against a stance that uses different Lines of Evidences.

    For how to possibly describe 'Black Africans', plz see the link already provided.
    Thanks.
    It's not really that curious, when you consider that I'm an historian and I have a background in literature and material culture. How people depict themselves is incredibly significant - you will have serious problems explaining why a darker skinned people depict themselves as lighter in their artwork. Many of the Unbreakable's only images depict Egyptians of a variety of classes with a few skin tones, generally a dark tan or black. Whether or not the bust of Queeen Nefertiti is a fake - I don't see why it should be - the prigmants are the same as the Egyptians used, and the pigmant used for her skin is the same as that used on many wall paintings. It is totably different to the red used for her headdress, or even her lips.

    At the end of the day, the Unbreakables claim of a purely African origin for Egypt which persists up through the New Kingdom simply isn't convincing enough, and he has failed to explain the contrary evidence.

    Where do those lighter-skinned figures come from and why are they there? They certainly look fairly Semitic, and the Levant is just up the coast, so that is the simplest explanation. According to Ockham's Razor the alternative explanation must therefore be more plausable.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  12. #102
    Member Member moonburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    963

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    actually calicvla even 2.000 years ago it wouldnīt be that hard to cross the sahara aslong as you had the permission of the garamantines and berbers/numidians there where still old tracks and enough "moisture" to permit a large group migration trough the sahaara aslong as they didnīt intended to remain there that is

    also even today is many parst of eastern africa thereīs still many bleaching (thats how i describe it at least) techniques to make people lighter skined itīs actually an epidemic in some urban societies like nairobi where girls screw up their skin just to try and look whiter either that can be traced further back or itīs an aftermacht of colonialization is another subject

    anyway not trying to refute your arguments just putting forth material that says that itīs possible to achieve what the unbreakable claims in the same way as it was possible that phoenicians could have reached america and in no way defends that they did reached america

    as for the unbreakable claims i refute them since accepting it would be denying the egyptians of today they heritage and his entire theory is politically motivated and thus highly biased

    i was actually buying it like i once bought the aquactic monkey theory thankfully nowadays i have a greater critic sence and am less prone to accept theories just based on their face value

  13. #103
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by moonburn View Post
    actually calicvla even 2.000 years ago it wouldnīt be that hard to cross the sahara aslong as you had the permission of the garamantines and berbers/numidians there where still old tracks and enough "moisture" to permit a large group migration trough the sahaara aslong as they didnīt intended to remain there that is

    also even today is many parst of eastern africa thereīs still many bleaching (thats how i describe it at least) techniques to make people lighter skined itīs actually an epidemic in some urban societies like nairobi where girls screw up their skin just to try and look whiter either that can be traced further back or itīs an aftermacht of colonialization is another subject

    anyway not trying to refute your arguments just putting forth material that says that itīs possible to achieve what the unbreakable claims in the same way as it was possible that phoenicians could have reached america and in no way defends that they did reached america

    as for the unbreakable claims i refute them since accepting it would be denying the egyptians of today they heritage and his entire theory is politically motivated and thus highly biased

    i was actually buying it like i once bought the aquactic monkey theory thankfully nowadays i have a greater critic sence and am less prone to accept theories just based on their face value
    Kuds on using the right part of my same, in the 5 years or so I've had it I can't remember the last time someone got that right.

    Cognomons people - they're for using.

    Now, I'm not disputing that a lighter-skinned people could have crossed the Sahara, I just can't see why they'd bother when there are other directions of less resistence.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  14. #104

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Blxz View Post
    Seems like we have all reached some middle ground here. By middle I mean you tacitly admitting that everything you have posted has been heavily skewed towards the predynastic era
    Firstly my argument has been maintained since my very first post that the early ancient Egyptians (which I specified as points prior to the late New Kingdom) had closest biological affinities towards more southerly African populations (i.e. were "black"), and that it was the result of a combination of "prolonged small scale migration" and several invasions from the regions of the Middle East and Mediterranean (particularly impacting the north) which caused a shift in biological affinities (to that which lie more intermediately between Middle Easterners/Mediterraneans and more southerly African population). Link me to my post where I've argued anything different. Furthermore the reason why so many studies deal with the Pre-Dynastic populations of Upper Egypt, is because these are the people who became Dynastic Egyptians (the originals). What would be the point of looking for the ethnicity of the "real" (or aboriginal) Egyptians, if scholars paid more attention to the times when there is noted to be significant foreign infiltration (such as the Late New Kingdom and Late Dynastic era) and the time when Dynastic Egypt began to sank? Those people were not "typical Egyptians":

    Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski. Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, UK.

    Previous studies have compared biological relationships between Egyptians and other populations, mostly using the Howells global cranial data set. In the current study, by contrast, the biological relationships within a series of temporally-successive cranial samples are assessed.

    The data consist of 55 cranio-facial variables from 418 adult Egyptian individuals, from six periods, ranging in date from c. 5000 to 1200 BC. These were compared with the 111 Late Period crania (c. 600-350 BC) from the Howells sample. Principal Component and Canonical Discriminant Function Analyses were undertaken, on both pooled and single sex samples.

    The results suggest a level of local population continuity exists within the earlier Egyptian populations, but that this was in association with some change in population structure, reflecting small-scale immigration and admixture with new groups. Most dramatically, the results also indicate that the Egyptian series from Howells global data set are morphologically distinct from the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Nile Valley samples (especially in cranial vault shape and height), and thus show that this sample CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series.
    With that being said why on Earth shouldn't the focus of the biological affinities of the original Egyptians, be of the utmost priority? Also you speak of this "middle ground" that I've come to. Prior to my introduction in this thread, the unsourced consensus amongst some who were posting, was that the only "black" Dynasty was that of the 25th (who came directly from Nubia). Also notice how prior to demonstrating that the ancient Egyptians (Upper) and Nubians were essentially biologically the same people, the term "black" and it's definition, was not problematic. There was no outrage by some over applying a modern social label to an ancient peoples

    Quote Originally Posted by Blxz View Post
    and when you look at more than a few select sources your theory falls down.
    No sir! Only one person who opposes this stance, has attempted (and I'll leave it at that) to refute by argument by going through my sources and presenting some of his own (though one didn't stand up to scrutiny). The rest of the opposition as Gaius so brilliantly accessed have tried to disregard my argument through nothing more than intellectual dishonesty, (through a string of examples that he thoroughly noted) which is sad and speaks volumes of your own "political motivations" IMO.
    Last edited by The Unbreakable; 07-11-2012 at 19:43.

  15. #105

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Blxz View Post
    As for his theory "fall[ing] down" as I said, I think it doesn't stand up to the weighty claims he made. And they were weighty. "Egypt is black."
    Well then tell me then, what else is needed to prove what these ancient Northeast African peoples looked? Biology, linguistics, archaeology, and cultural-religious components assessed by numerous mainstream sources presented throughout this thread all point to a more southerly African (black) origin of the early ancient Egyptians. None of you who are opposing this stance have provided an iota of contemporary counter evidence suggesting anything otherwise, you all have been saying "no no no it can't be, look at their art, ignore the assessments of their actual physical remains, look at their art they are all tan no no stop rewriting what we perceive as historical fact". For goodness sakes you all haven't even provided any of the "vast" numbers of artworks of "tan" Egyptians that you all are using as the back bone of your arguments. It's quite juvenile in my opinion.

    Some as evidenced by art, which to me are the most conclusive, but others such as the evidence provided by The Unbreakable to support his claim as being a little unsteady and at times disregarding other things that he simply didn't take into account.
    How many contemporary scholars can you cite who state that stylized Egyptian art is a key indicator of their biological affinities, and even if at all useful? Why would their actual physical remains not be of the best indicator of what they looked like? You know that your argument does not make any logical sense, and you know it!

  16. #106
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
    Well then tell me then, what else is needed to prove what these ancient Northeast African peoples looked? Biology, linguistics, archaeology, and cultural-religious components assessed by numerous mainstream sources presented throughout this thread all point to a more southerly African (black) origin of the early ancient Egyptians. None of you who are opposing this stance have provided an iota of contemporary counter evidence suggesting anything otherwise, you all have been saying "no no no it can't be, look at their art, ignore the assessments of their actual physical remains, look at their art they are all tan no no stop rewriting what we perceive as historical fact". For goodness sakes you all haven't even provided any of the "vast" numbers of artworks of "tan" Egyptians that you all are using as the back bone of your arguments. It's quite juvenile in my opinion.



    How many contemporary scholars can you cite who state that stylized Egyptian art is a key indicator of their biological affinities, and even if at all useful? Why would their actual physical remains not be of the best indicator of what they looked like? You know that your argument does not make any logical sense, and you know it!
    Well, you provided those "tan" depictions yourself, so we don't need to reinvent the wheel, do we?

    Again, Nefertiti's bust uses the same pigments as the Ancient Egyptians used, her skin tone is realistic, not stylistic, just like the majority of Ancient Egyptian figures - which makes sense because you need a realistic baseline to highligh stylistic details as stylistic.

    You clearly think the bust is a fake, despite there being no evidence to that effect, but the pigments are verifiably genuine. It is highly unlikely that a person with a largely homogenous lineage would look like that, she's too universally attractive - to the extent that she actually qualifies as the most mathematically beautiful woman ever.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  17. #107
    Member Member Vaginacles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    74

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
    Yeah, I believe that I'm the one who linked you all to it. The statement that you cited specifically dealt with Late Dyanstic Lower Egyptians, and their cranial commonality with Coastal Northwest Africans. None the less the study indicates, that even Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians had a cranio-metric value that was between that of tropical African populations and some European ones. But of course you wouldn't argue that Europeans settled the Lower Nile, without of a shred of archaeological, linguistic, or cultural data would you? What this finding indicates (and as Keita indicates) the Lower Egyptian crania was divergent from that which is seen in Upper Egypt and Nubia, which negates population mixing but rather indigenous African variation. More recent analysis also confirm that the early Lower Egyptian cranio-metric pattern was indigenous to Africa:
    Why are you strawmaning me? i never said that europeans colonized egypt, i have consistently stated that lower egyptians were specifically Indigenous to North Africa. Being an Intermediary between the semitic people and the Nubian peoples to the south, it would be expected to see mixed features in northern africa, especially after the Drying of the sahara beginning around the mid-holocene. The "divergence" would suggest phenotypic change from "negoid" facial features to features that resemble the semitics to the east. There is extensive evidence of Semitic influence of the Egyptian language and culture, as i linked to you before, but the genetic evidence suggests a mainly indigneous people. The divergence from "negroid features" would suggest either population mixing, or a change in features induced by the environment. If it is induced by the environment, it would also mean a change in skin tone as well, since people living in similar latitudes share similar skin tones. This would explain the tan skin tone of lower egyptians depicted in the artwork (since most Artwork surviving are from the new dynasty, not the older dynasty). Since, as you claim, it is not the former, then it is the latter. Thus, environmental change induced a change from "black features" to "white features". WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT FEATURES RIGHT?


    Something else to note, is that Coastal Northwest African populations obtained their intermediate cranio-metric population, due to admixture between tropical African and European populations. This corner of Africa has been proven to have been a true melting pot of "races" if you will for thousands of years by anthropology (as evident in that same study by Keita) and genetics:



    The genetic distinction between Northwest Africans and Lower Egyptians is confirmation that Lower Egyptians were not a mirror population of Northwest Africans. As you can see the complete lack of a European genetic component (as well as archaeological, linguistic, or cultural evidence) in these Lower Egyptian Berbers and rather more of an East African affinity confirms that there was not an early European presence in early Lower Egypt. This negates the claim that their early intermediate cranio-metric value was the result of tropical African and European admixture.

    I'm glad we agree that Egyptians were indigenous, do you read what i post? It was mentioned a few posts ago that the anthropological consensus was that egyptians were north africans

    Says who? The sparsely populated Delta and Lower Egyptian region during early Dynastic times, is a fact that won't find much (if any) opposition against:

    So wait, i posted that theres no empirical way of determining population levels, and you post an "opinion"? Do you know what probable means? It implies that the person is GUESSING based on avaliable evidence. In fact, even your article states that the Nile delta was incredibly fertile, and that any archeological data that would suggest settlement were washed away by the rising flood waters and buildup of silt (p.41 PDF page no last paragraph). P.52 titled "changes in Delta and Faiyum" continues the difficulty in gauging settlement size and number due to it's destruction by flood waters. Once again, in page 74, the authors admit that estimation of settlement patterns in the nile delta is too "fragmentary" and incomplete to make a sensible population estimation. Finally, the population numbers used to determine the population of lower vs upper egypt is SPECULATIVE (mentioned in p.82), intended to be used as a working hypothesis and not literal fact. This means that his "guess" is based on fragmentary evidence and based on the avaliable biased evidence it suggests upper egypt has more "settled population". However, your article also states that the biological carrying capacity of lower egypt is similar to that of today, and the idea that the Delta was uninhabited marshland during predynastic egypt is a myth. Meaning that the theoretical carrying capacity is much the same as it is today, which combined with the fragmentary evidence of population demographics, there is ample evidence that suggests population figures of upper and lower egypt are more equal than previous estimations. It is also good to point out that population density does not suggest a greater population, just more people per square mile I Actually spent time reading these articles, can you do the same?



    link

    Your entire premise seems to ride on your own speculative theory that Lower Egypt was of equal importance to the creation of Dynastic Egyptian civilization, and of course the baseless assertion that these Lower Egyptians were some sort of Semitic people. Of course you nor anyone else entertaining this notion has provided any biological evidence suggesting this to be the case. Even those who chose to throw away real scientific evidence and rely solely of subjective art work interpretations cannot point out any representations of Egyptian artwork showing a distinction in phenotype between Upper and Lower Egyptians, which is interesting.
    Whether they are equal or lesser or greater, it does not matter. They are EGYPTIAN, their history is as important as those of the south. Did rome not justify their eradication of Gaulish culture because of their own percieved superiority? Are you not doing the same by making Egyptian history one solely of southern origin, rather than a symbiotic relationship?
    Again, i have repeatively said that they are an INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICAN PEOPLE with heavy semitic influences. Furthermore, phenotypic evidence is implied in the article by SOY Kieta, with suggests phenotypic evolution of features that were closer to the neighbouring semites then the nubians. Remember we talked about climate role in craniofacial/body anthromorphy?



    It forced Nilotic pastoralist northward into Lower Egypt as well:

    Conceded. Bidirectional migration would imply that as well

    link

    The baseline culture of pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt is seen as a continuation of Nilotic Saharan traditions, like that of Upper Egypt. Now while it is probable that some people from the Levant may have settled in the region prior to unification, it is merely speculative and being such is confirmation that their (people from the Levant) role in the creation of Egypt was insignificant.

    The baseline culture of Lower Egypt far more complex then that. the Faiyum A culture is composed of 2 cultures, one that has semitic origins and another of eastern saharan origin. However, it is important to note that the Moerian culture disappears when The next stage of lower egyptian culture (the merimde culture) arrives, while the Faiyum A culture is believed to be the Merimde culture's parent culture. http://www.faiyum.com/html/neolithic...ml#OriginsMoer

    Kozlowski and Ginter 1989 suggest that while the Faiyum may have had its origins in the Near East, the Moerian may have originated in the Eastern Sahara. Caneva explains (Caneva 1992, p.221): “The late Neolithic Moerian of the second half of the 4th Millennium BC is thought to be ascribed to the displacement of people from the Western Desert”. In other words it is possible that as increasing aridity in the desert regions forced people to seek favourable circumstances elsewhere, a new influx of people were responsible for a new industry (the Moerian). “The chronological sequence of the cultures in the Fayum shows that the influences from the two regions reached the Fayum in separate times, first from the Levant and later from the Western Desert” (Caneva 1992, p.223). The Moerian is not, however, in any way analogous to Merimde. As usual, more data would be helpful. Kozlowski (1983 p.70-71) suggests that on the basis of shared components in the Faiyum Neolithic and the Moerian (e.g. discoidal blade cores, tool morphologies and pottery) that contacts between the two was possible.





    Who denies these facts? I'm only denying your baseless implications of what you think this points to.



    Once again your entire premise is set on the baseless conclusion that Upper Egyptians were black and Lower Egyptians were some lighter skinned Semitic people. If you believe this to be true then you need to provide the scientific evidence suggesting this to be the case, rather than expecting people to accept this at face value. On the other hand what I have presented in this discussion confirms a biological distinction between Lower Egyptians the Middle Easterners and rather a biological continuum between Lower Egyptians and African populations further to the south:

    No, but they were light skinned with features that were more similar to semitics than Sub Saharan Africans. We are talking about features, and the scientific consensus is that the environment changes craniofacial features. Now to the topic of "tropical limb features", this is not an indicator of "blackness" since it is clear that phenotypic adaptation has shown that lower egyptians had less tropical limb adaptation than those of the south, suggesting lighter features. Never had i said North Africans were semitic, merely heavily influenced by semitic people and RESEMBLE them due to environmentally induced phenotypic change

    So from here we can see that those people of early Lower Egypt had the same tropical African adaptive traits as the "black" populations further to the south, which is distinct from that of the Levant. Tropical adaptation means (based on ecological principal) that a population has "dark skin". Lower Egyptians likely had a skin color within the great range (the widest range in the world) of that seen in tropical African further to the south (from Igbo yellow to Dinka pitch black).

    In essence what you see in early Lower Egypt is a population that has a cranial morphological indigenous to Africa; tropical African adaptive traits (pointing to an origins in the tropics further to the south); a Nilotic African pastoralist basis of their pre-dynastic culture. Tell me what to you indicates that these people were Levantine or were somehow lighter skinned then those Egyptians further to the south. Provide biological evidence for your claim or please admit that your claim is baseless.

    Lower Egyptian males and females possess the lowest crural indices of the four
    subdivided groups (Table 23). Lower Egyptian males are significantly different from
    Upper Egyptians (p = .028) and Lower Nubians (p < 0.001). Lower Nubian males
    possess the highest crural index and are significantly different from all other male groups
    within the region (LE, UE and UN) (Table 23). Among females, Lower Egyptians also
    possess the smallest crural indices, which is significant from all other groups within the
    Northeast African region (Table 23). The smallest indices in both Lower Egyptian males
    and females is expected since Lower Egyptians occupied the northern most area of the
    region, closest to the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean Sea. Lower
    Egyptians were also geographically farther from Sub-Saharan Africa and thus would
    have had less opportunity for gene flow with Sub-Saharan groups. These results thus
    support the hypothesis that northern Egyptians possess less tropical body proportions
    due to their more northern geographical position
    .
    Talking about tropical limb porportion, implying that they are of lighter skin if the correlation between tropical limb proportion and skin colour holds true. Also suggests that lower egyptians had wider bodies than upper egyptians/upper Nubians, as well as different cranial structures etc. It suggests that enviromental stressors caused the body change, and implies a lightening of skin colour due to these adaptation (since skin colour can not be reliably tested for). The article also states that environment correlates with body type more than genetics or "skin colour", given the evidence presented here.


    What you are claiming that I'm fabricating, is showing your own lack of knowledge in regard to this subject. As you can see above from an authoritative source Lower Egypt was sparsely populated, and the Delta was almost uninhabited prior to the New Kingdom. Will you admit that you are wrong about this?

    Your article suggested less dense population, not population levels. Even so, they also acknowledge the problem of estimating settlement numbers because of silt accumulation and erosion, and that their figures are a working hypothesis and not fact. My other article explains that most settlements were built on floodplains,

    Throughout Ancient Egyptian history, the majority of settlements were located on the Nile floodplain while the Upper Egyptian cemeteries were often positioned slightly beyond the edge of the cultivated land, in the desert margins. As a consequence, many settlement sites (with the exception of those constructed on reasonably high ground or, in the example of Kom Ombo, on tells - the residential debris of previous sedentary communities) have either been covered by silt or simply washed away as the river changed course, thus providing an explanation for the low ratio of Upper Egyptian Predynastic living-sites in relation to their known cemeteries. Another reason is probably due in part to earlier excavators’ priorities. The Predynastic cemeteries, containing much grave goods (some of which were made from exotic materials), attracted greater interest to excavate than habitation sites either disturbed by digging for sebakh (organic remains utilised as fertiliser) or else wiped out by the more recent expanding floodplain agriculture.
    And that the lower egyptians, being a different culture, built cemetaries on flood plains, which were wiped out by harsher flooding

    Until the early 1960s, Middle Egypt (to the north of Badari and south of Memphis) was believed to have been uninhabited in Predynastic times. However, work conducted by the geologist Karl Butzer has revealed that cemeteries dating to this period in time were probably either wiped out by shifts in the channel of the Nile or are buried beneath substantial sand and alluvium deposits. Those surviving Predynastic living-sites are all positioned on embankments that are several metres above the modern alluvium level. Their survival is therefore fortuitous. Butzer further hypothesises that the low settlement density in the region between Memphis and the Upper Egyptian sites may also have been the result of the large natural Middle Egyptian flood basins that “would have required massive labour to bring under control.” By contrast, the flood basins from Abydos southwards, in Upper Egypt, were smaller and thereby more easily controllable than those from further north and the Delta.
    Why the upper egyptians conquered the lower egyptians is suggested afterwards. The smaller amount of arable land required more organization of labour caused increased competition over avaliable land. Lower Egypt, being incredibly fertile and larger in arable land, had population that did not require competition over resources to the extent of upper egypt.
    It seems at first glance an ecological paradox that Upper Egypt was the initial heartland of cultural complexity and not Lower Egypt with its wide fertile lands and richer diversity in resources due to its contact with the Mediterranean lands. Yet the Upper Egyptian flood basins were smaller in size and therefore easier to control for agricultural purposes. The early state formation model of Carneiro could well thus be relevant in this context, as he hypothesises that a sharp population rise in restricted agricultural environments leads to pressure on the available resources and military competition over land ensues.
    Lower egypt being more fertile and larger in arable land could more easily absorb the population increase, but they cannot simulate the intensity of interstate competition that allowed upper egypt to eventually mobilize large numbers of warriors, unified by an upper egyptian state


    You have got to be kidding me? That website is a joke, which makes points are not even entertained by mainstream academia (i.e Oxford, Fitzwilliam, Cambridge, Yale ect). "Semitic origins" of ancient Egypt is one of their sub sections...did they content on stopping their research of this during the 1950's? Can you name even one modern academic institute that would side with this random website? That website is trash dude, you need to come with something better than that to combat my sources (not trying to toot my horn or anything but its true).
    Sorry dude, i linked you to another website afterwards, don't read that one i caught on it's bullshit later. The second article illustrates a possible reason why Upper egypt dominated lower egypt, due to the organization ability to mobilize large numbers of people that came about from intense inter-state competition.

    Genetic evidence suggests that Egyptian's origins are varied and complex, assuming that Lower egyptians are from sub saharan africans because of shared genetic Alleles and body types is equally problematic as assuming lower egyptians originating from the middle east due to genetic alleles and body types. There is evidence of both, while the majority of genetic material suggests an indigenous north african population, and not one derived from sub saharan africa or the middle east. This has been the case since predynastic times, and not a modern phenomenon.
    Last edited by Vaginacles; 07-11-2012 at 22:00.

  18. #108
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,665

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    I think Unbreakable's weak point here is the art work, though in the rest the argument seems convincing.
    Give me an eye small enough, and I will transform guttering candles into exploding stars.
    This was the way with some men. They sealed themselves in, bricked their ears and their mouths, and spent their remaining days speaking only with their eyes—until these too became inscrutable. Many, you could wager, held chaos in their hearts, shrill and juvenile. But since ignorance is immovable, they seem immovable, imperturbable. Such is the power of silence.
    it is time we attempt to conceptualize proximate and ultimate forms of causation in terms consistent with philosophical materialism, not in terms consistent with mind-body dualism.

  19. #109
    Member Member Vilkku92's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Riistavesi, Kuopio, Finland
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla View Post
    Again, Nefertiti's bust uses the same pigments as the Ancient Egyptians used, her skin tone is realistic, not stylistic, just like the majority of Ancient Egyptian figures - which makes sense because you need a realistic baseline to highligh stylistic details as stylistic.
    Wasn't Nefertiti from the New Kingdom? You know, the period when there already had been morphological changes in the Egyptian populace due to small scale migration according to The Unbreakable. That would in my mind mean that the bust would not be the best source for how an average Egyptian looked during earlier periods which kinda have been the focus of the claims of The Unbreakable. If so, wouldn't it be better to look into the earlier artworks for depictions of tan coloured people?
    Famous last words of ancient soldiers:
    "What the hell is Pilum?"
    "We won the day! Those nomads are fleeing."
    "Those barbarians are too stupid to try flank attack."
    "Go ahead. Strike me! You're too drunk to hit a barn door with that sword."

    from Ibrahim

  20. #110
    Member Member Olek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I think Unbreakable's weak point here is the art work, though in the rest the argument seems convincing.
    I agree, but also the fact that he is not very open minded, has he examined all the facts or just the ones that support his desired outcome?
    Copying and pasting quotes from various people is not evidence, you can do this for any argument on the net, you will always find info to support your view, so I don't really take much notice of it.
    I'm of the opinion that all history is suspect, much of it being theory rather than fact, we rely on other people to provide this information, and who can be sure that the person we are quoting is not narrow minded as well?

    Were the Egyptions African?, there is no doubt, it's in Africa, were they pure African?, I doubt that, looking at their art I would also say they were a mix, sharing a border with the Middle East would give that "theory" a bit more strength.

    For the guy who wanted the fair skinned Egyptians.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	1.jpg 
Views:	31 
Size:	56.5 KB 
ID:	6245Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2357178.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	79.5 KB 
ID:	6246Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ancient%20Egypt%20-%20Wall%20Painting%20(2).jpg 
Views:	34 
Size:	106.6 KB 
ID:	6247Click image for larger version. 

Name:	AncientEgyptDailyLifeDomesticPic_large.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	719.1 KB 
ID:	6248Click image for larger version. 

Name:	banquet_scene.jpg 
Views:	29 
Size:	14.7 KB 
ID:	6249Click image for larger version. 

Name:	perfumes in ancient egypt.JPG 
Views:	37 
Size:	37.5 KB 
ID:	6250Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tomb2.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	47.3 KB 
ID:	6251

    As you can see it's as easy to cherry pick the fair skinned ones as it is to pick the dark.

  21. #111
    gourmand of carrot juices Member Lowenklee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    37

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Olek View Post

    ...looking at their art I would also say they were a mix, sharing a border with the Middle East would give that "theory" a bit more strength.

    As you can see it's as easy to cherry pick the fair skinned ones as it is to pick the dark.
    At least two of those works date to the late New Kingdom period, that biological affinities shifted in this period has already been agreed upon.

    Although, placing the artwork in chronology by locality might yield interesting insights.

  22. #112
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    11,098

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    I think Unbreakable's weak point here is the art work, though in the rest the argument seems convincing.
    Don't get too excited, what he is describing are DNA "markers", they're in the inert DNA (so they aren't subject to sexual or natural selection like other traits), but those sorts of markers just tell you who a person definately is descended from, not their entire family tree.

    For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_from_Genghis_Khan

    The largest number of Ghengis Khan's descendents are in Afghanistan.

    The DNA studies indicate African ancestry, but not exclusively so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vilkku92 View Post
    Wasn't Nefertiti from the New Kingdom? You know, the period when there already had been morphological changes in the Egyptian populace due to small scale migration according to The Unbreakable. That would in my mind mean that the bust would not be the best source for how an average Egyptian looked during earlier periods which kinda have been the focus of the claims of The Unbreakable. If so, wouldn't it be better to look into the earlier artworks for depictions of tan coloured people?

    Indead she was, but when I presented her bust as evidence for a mixed origin for New Kingdom royalty the Unbreakable declared it a fake and presented a bust of what is purported to be her daughter, and has a thicker nose.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  23. #113
    Member Member odia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Nigeria
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Since this debate has amazingly become about ART WORK, and most of you think you KNOW how 'Sub-Saharan' Africans look, I will just provide links to pics of Living 'Sub-Sahara'/'Black'/Tropical Africans so that you guys can tell me if it tally with what Hiernaux 1975 said here:
    In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
    - Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54
    as was explained in this post http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...post2053465259 that 'Sub-Saharan' ('Black')Africans have the greatest variations of somatic traits in the world-thin nose, wide nose;thick lips whether everted or not, thin lips; prognathous or orthognous profile, short , long etc; and a diverse range of dark-skinned colours that hinges on BROWN(ranging from near yellow, very light Brown, Bronzed-Brown, coppery/'Red'-Brown, Chocolate Brown, dark-Brown, very-dark Brown with some so dark they reflect purple tink etc) -but more IMPORTANTLY, that these variations are in a CLINE both WITHIN and BETWEEN ethnic groups and regions with certain groups/regions just having more frequency of some traits and very little or almost none of others.. In other words, there is not one way to be 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Black' Africans. What probably ties them apart from the fact that they live in same continent(and so may have interacted with each other) is that they ALL have dark-skin, are mostly tropically/supertropically adapted and share certain genetic traits together.
    2nd, cant MOST of the paintings of the Ancient Egyptians already presented(assuming that they are all portraits) be subsumed in terms of observed traits(skin colour, nose form, lips shape and thickness, facial profiles etc) within the range of variations observed in these 'Black' Africans.

    Please look throgh the images in thse links: http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Khisans), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Igbos), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Fulanis), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Tutsi), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Maasai), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Yorubas), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Shilluk), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pi...w=1024&bih=428 (Ethiopians).



    Quote Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
    The point is - the light skinned people in Europe are MUCH closer to Egypt than the lighter skinned Africans
    This is astonishing!!! And how did you come about this assertion of yours. Do you know that this was essentially what those early Egyptologists that have created the mess today said? While dont you just be honest and say that this is what YOU believed all along in stead of beating round the bush, so that demands can be made of you to defend it.
    I do not want to be to deeply involved in this debate, but let me quote from the entry on the PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF ANCIENT EGYPTIANS in the Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt 1999(ed) Kathryn Bard and Steven Blacke(the noted encyclopedia with articles written by the Big names in Egyptology); the particular article was written by Kathryn Lovell ,incidentally it was this same Kathryn Lovell that the noted anti-Afrocentrist and opponent of Black Athena recommended her pending work for knowledge on the biological affinities of ancient Egyptians:

    not surprisingly, the Egyptian skulls were not very distance from the Jebel Moya [a Neolithic site in the southern Sudan] skulls, but were much more distance from all others, including those from West Africa. Such a study suggests a closer genetic affinity between peoples in Egypt and the northern Sudan, which were close geographically and are known to have had considerable cultural contact throughout prehistory and pharaonic history... Clearly more analyses of the physical remains of ancient Egyptians need to be done using current techniques, such as those of Nancy Lovell at the University of Alberta is using in her work.
    Black Athena Revisited(1996) by Mary Lefkowitz
    Well, the work has be concluded and same Lovell was the scholar her peers asked to write the article on physical anthropolpgy of ancient Egyptians in the abve encyclopedia. Here are her conclusions:
    She starts with going through the history of the debate

    two opposing theries for the origins of the Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate for over a century: whether the ancient Egyptians are Black Africans(historically referrd to as Negroid), originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-tropical Africa or whether they originated as a 'Dynastic Race' in the Mediterranean or Western Asia
    regions(people historically categorized as White or Caucasiod)
    . Contemporary physical anthropologists recognize,however, that race is not a useful biological concept when applied to humans. Although people think they can distinguish 'races' on the basis of skin colour, more of the variation in human genetic makeup can be attributted to differences within these so-called races than betweenn them.
    Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt 1999(ed) Kathryn Bard and Steven Blacke(: Egyptians, physical anthropology of, by Nancy Lovell) pg 328-329
    And then presented her findings:

    ...while some of the earlist metrical studies of Egyptian biological data are significantly flawed, recent investigations have employed published standards for obtaining precise and accurate measurements and have utilized historically and geographically relevant population comparisons. Alternatively,nonmetric characteristics,particularly of the teeth and the bones of the skull, are use to examine biological affinities. There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristic that are within the range of variations for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the sahara and tropical Africa....In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the sahara and more southernly areas.
    :Nancy Lovell 1999 pg 330-331
    And finally concluded thus:

    Any interpretations of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of the hypotheses informed by archaeological,linguistic,geographic or other data. In such context,the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage,but exhibiting local variation.
    :Nancy Lovell 1999 pg

    So much for they(ancient Egyptians) been closer to light skin people in Europe than in African

    Member thankful for this post:



  24. #114
    Member Member moonburn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    963

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    can be identified as part of an African lineage,(yeah the north african one that dwelled in the sahara) but exhibiting local variation.(yeap and the local variation is egyptians and not nubians)
    :Nancy Lovell 1999 pg

    ok kids debate is over get back to sleep cause the night is dark and full of terrors (mainly internet trolls )

  25. #115
    gourmand of carrot juices Member Lowenklee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    37

    Thumbs up Re: Black Egyptians

    As I understand it, this thread began with the question of whether the ancient Egyptians were negroid...as in black African.
    How does your response address that?


    There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristic that are within the range of variations for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the sahara and tropical Africa...In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the sahara and more southernly areas.
    ...Why wouldn't that suggest the strong possibiity of a physical appearance that, by modern social standards, would be regarded as black? If you feel it doesn't then that's fine, but why not? And why not argue that?

    The condescension and patronizing isn't needed (on either side), I don't think anyone is trolling but there is something very peculiar going on here, and it isn't an Afrocentric agenda.

    Member thankful for this post:



  26. #116
    Apprentice Geologist Member Blxz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    779

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
    and speaks volumes of your own "political motivations" IMO.
    Living in Japan has given me political motivations about egypt or black/white origins? I think not.
    And as I said in my post, I don't appreciate your cutting and pasting while looking for offence in specific parts. Take the whole thing in context if you wish to say something.

    Now I read your post and the extra information that you like highlighting in red as well as the normal text. And, as I said in my previous post. I don't agree with your interpretation. Your information their mentions only predynastic and early dynastic Nile valley samples. Egypt is not fully defined by a single part in their history.

    Going back to your stance that Egypt is black. I find you have only shown evidence that some of the origins and influence is from the south. They aren't made up entirely of Nubian peoples either genetically, linguistically or biologically. There ARE a range of other sources.

    Then you go on to name-calling and mention the word 'Juvenile' in reference to me. Insults are to be the call of the day are they? Someone doesn't take your word as gold and you begin to insult people.
    Art and how people depict themselves is highly important. As an example: you, a dark skinned ruler of a mighty kingdom with your dark skinned subjects and your dark skinned advisors and your dark skinned gods hire one of your dark skinned subjects to paint a wall mural depicting your greatness. He finishes but lo and behold there are darkskinned people and light skinned people there together. Odd considering no one is light skinned. Unless of course there are actually light skinned people as part of your court, society and country. And I would hazard a guess that they would make up at least a significant amount to warrant repeated paintings (as kindly linked by someone else on page 4 as well as yourself in the opening posts). So my conclusions are, as previously stated, that there is a mixture. A cultural melting pot if you will. I hypothesised earlier in this thread that I suspected darker people in the south and lighter (on average) in the north. We KNOW there was a mixture based on the art. Why are you arguing against a mixture in society as a whole? And why are you attempting to insult people who don't agree with you?
    Last edited by Blxz; 07-12-2012 at 10:44.
    Completed Campaigns:
    Macedonia EB 0.81 / Saby'n EB 1.1
    Qart'Hadarst EB 1.2 / Hai EB 1.2
    Current Campiagns:
    Getai/Sauromatae/Baktria
    donated by Brennus for attention to detail.

  27. #117

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    Why are you strawmaning me? i never said that europeans colonized egypt, i have consistently stated that lower egyptians were specifically Indigenous to North Africa.
    I'm not strawmanning anything that you stated. You cited a passage from Keita's study in which a commonality was noted between Lower Egyptians and Coastal Northwest African populations. I merely pointed out the fact that Keita (and many other bio-anthropologist) have found that Coastal Northwest Africans are a mixture of tropical Africans (black) and neighboring Europeans, and the less than probable theory that Africans on the other end of the continent during Pre-Dynastic times obtained their phenotype from that type of admixture. But as you've noted their cranio-metric variation was indigenous to Africa.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    Being an Intermediary between the semitic people and the Nubian peoples to the south, it would be expected to see mixed features in northern africa
    You're reaching now! No where does state that their cranio-metric pattern is intermediate between Semitic and Nubian populations, he stated that it was intermediate between some Sub Saharan African populations and Northern Europeans. Why you are desperately trying to inject Semitic people into this mix is beyond me, but please do not insist that my source states things that it clearly doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    The "divergence" would suggest phenotypic change from "negoid" facial features to features that resemble the semitics to the east. There is extensive evidence of Semitic influence of the Egyptian language and culture, as i linked to you before, but the genetic evidence suggests a mainly indigneous people.
    Again you are reaching. Divergence is seen across "black African" populations. The skulls and genetics of some Sub Saharan East Africans are divergent from other Sub Saharan populations, it does not mean that they are less African or are the result of some type of admixture; it does not mean that they are no longer tropically adapted and obtained lighter skin color during this process. All if indicates is a new indigenous variation to Africa.

    Again no one denies that there was interaction between Lower Egypt and populations of the Levant, but you are equating both population with one another in some attempt to lighten the appearance of early northern Egyptians which is fallacious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    The divergence from "negroid features" would suggest either population mixing, or a change in features induced by the environment. If it is induced by the environment, it would also mean a change in skin tone as well since people living in similar latitudes share similar skin tones.
    You for what ever reason are continuing to ignore the fact that Pre-Dynastic Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted like the Africans further to the south, and distinct from the sub tropically adapted people to East in the Levant:

    "Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations. Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."-- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28
    PLEASE ADDRESS THE FINDING ABOVE, before you make anymore assertions about the physical appearance of Lower Egyptians. Once gain tropical adaption by ecological principal means that a population has dark skin (are amongst the darkest in the world). The fact that early Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted and had a Saharan Nilotic agricultural system and cultural basis, is a dead give away that these people came from the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    This would explain the tan skin tone of lower egyptians depicted in the artwork
    Dude this assertion is a JOKE! You nor anyone else has even provided artistic evidence of a physical differentiation between Upper and Lower Egyptians, yet you and some others for some reason maintain that one was "somehow" lighter skinned then the other. What you all basing this assertion on, please provide the evidence that leads some of you to believe this nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    o wait, i posted that theres no empirical way of determining population levels, and you post an "opinion"?
    You stated that there was no way to know the exact population of both regions, and I provided a scholars interpretation of the available evidence and that scholar like many others concludes that Lower Egyptians was much less populated then the south. Is it really that hard to believe? Here are other scholars who share the same opinion of the regions population density:

    Ancient Egypt was divided into two regions: Upper and Lower Egypt. Lower (northern) Egypt consisted of the Nile River's delta made by the river as it empties into the Mediterranean. Today the Delta is fifteen thousand square miles of alluvium (silt), which has been deposited over the centuries by the annual inundation of the Nile. Prior to the New Kingdom (before about 1539 B.C.), this area was only thinly settled, although it was used as a grazing area for cattle. Its high water table in modern times has made archaeological excavation for evidence of settlements difficult. Early Dynastic Egypt and Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, edited by Ian Shaw
    Once again I'm not sure why you're so hung up on proving that Lower Egypt was as populated as the south during early Egyptian history, but it's getting beyond the point of ridiculous when you disregard the consistent words of scholars just to come to your own lofty conclusions of the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vaginacles View Post
    Lower Egyptian males and females possess the lowest crural indices of the four
    subdivided groups (Table 23). Lower Egyptian males are significantly different from
    Upper Egyptians (p = .028) and Lower Nubians (p < 0.001). Lower Nubian males
    possess the highest crural index and are significantly different from all other male groups
    within the region (LE, UE and UN) (Table 23). Among females, Lower Egyptians also
    possess the smallest crural indices, which is significant from all other groups within the
    Northeast African region (Table 23). The smallest indices in both Lower Egyptian males
    and females is expected since Lower Egyptians occupied the northern most area of the
    region, closest to the more temperate climate of the Mediterranean Sea. Lower
    Egyptians were also geographically farther from Sub-Saharan Africa and thus would
    have had less opportunity for gene flow with Sub-Saharan groups. These results thus
    support the hypothesis that northern Egyptians possess less tropical body proportions
    due to their more northern geographical position.
    Remember that it's always best to cite your source. The above is an UNpeer reviewed, UNpublished, THESIS paper from Raxter. There are several flaws in her conclusions. One being the assertion that populations can rapidly obtain longer limbs by moving into a warmer climate, when it has been proven that it takes over 15k years for a population to begin to adjust to a new climatic region. By her explanation the Native Americans who settled in the tropics of America thousands of years ago should also be just as tropically adapted as most Africans who have been longer residents of the tropics, but of course they aren't! None the less even through her lofty conclusion she cannot deny this:

    Ancient Egyptians and Nubians of both sexes are consistently significantly
    different in limb length proportions from Northern and Southern Europeans, with their
    brachial and crural indices grouping with the majority of other Africans.
    One group,
    Lower Egyptian males, is only significantly different from Northern Europeans in crural
    index. However, this is expected since they are situated in the northernmost area of
    Northeast Africa, closest to the Mediterranean Sea, and thus would have had the
    greatest opportunity for gene flow with Southern Europeans.
    For brachial indices, all Northeast African groups, male and female, have
    significantly longer radii relative to their humeri compared to Northern (NE) and Southern
    Europeans (SE).
    This is expected since the resulting greater surface area related to
    longer limbs allows greater release of heat, which is advantageous in the warm, tropical
    climate of Africa. All male groups from the Northeast African region also have
    significantly smaller brachial indices compared to West African groups (WA). It can be
    noted that none of the Northeast African groups are significantly different from any other
    African groups (East African (EA), African Pygmy (AP), Khoe-San (KS)) (Table 27).
    156
    Therefore, West Africans of both sexes appear to possess the longest distal bones
    relative to the proximal for the upper limb. Ancient Egyptians and Nubians thus possess
    generally tropically adapted upper limb proportions, with their brachial indices grouping
    with the majority of other African groups.
    The bolded red says it all and comes from the same study. The ancient Egyptians and Nubians (notice how both are yet again mentioned interchangeably) are tropically adapted like other black African populations. Nothing new here.

  28. #118

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    These are pictures of TYPICAL Egyptians, doing everyday TYPICAL Egyptian duties:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	6579098049_851e1ff36d_z.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	188.8 KB 
ID:	6252

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sold.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	132.7 KB 
ID:	6253

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	miniature3.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	181.2 KB 
ID:	6254

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	miniature2.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	212.4 KB 
ID:	6255

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	nakhtiboat.jpg 
Views:	47 
Size:	18.9 KB 
ID:	6256

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	hor1.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	78.5 KB 
ID:	6257

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tw.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	64.8 KB 
ID:	6258

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	yusherhz.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	68.5 KB 
ID:	6259

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	yusherhz.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	68.5 KB 
ID:	6259

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ymastabp.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	73.9 KB 
ID:	6260

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	yusheri1.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	73.9 KB 
ID:	6261

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ytombofx.jpg 
Views:	48 
Size:	53.8 KB 
ID:	6262

    Where are all of these "Tan" Egyptians? I just see a bunch of black people. Or better yet is there a better way to assess this question than subject artwork?

  29. #119
    Senior Member Senior Member Othello Champion Montmorency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,665

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Alright, to clarify: the cases made here seem to support: an Upper Egyptian population of pastoralist nomads around 4000-3000 BC that was closely related culturally (and similar physiognomically) to the peoples living in the area called Nubia, an Upper Egyptian population that by anachronistic standards could be described as Negroid. That much seems difficult to dispute, at this point. I reserve judgement on the succeeding millenniums. It's not my concern.

    As for the artwork: dismissal as being within the range of variation, or as representing only the 'few' light-skinned immigrants from Asia, is not very satisfying.
    Give me an eye small enough, and I will transform guttering candles into exploding stars.
    This was the way with some men. They sealed themselves in, bricked their ears and their mouths, and spent their remaining days speaking only with their eyes—until these too became inscrutable. Many, you could wager, held chaos in their hearts, shrill and juvenile. But since ignorance is immovable, they seem immovable, imperturbable. Such is the power of silence.
    it is time we attempt to conceptualize proximate and ultimate forms of causation in terms consistent with philosophical materialism, not in terms consistent with mind-body dualism.

  30. #120
    Member Member Nabaati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    31

    Default Re: Black Egyptians

    Where are all of these "Tan" Egyptians? I just see a bunch of black people. Or better yet is there a better way to assess this question than subject artwork?
    Be very careful about inferring colors from images on the internet. They will vary wildly based on lighting conditions and/or image processing. As someone who has a fair amount of first-hand experience with the skin tones represented in egyptian art, I can say that the images you posted show darker coloration than is typical, and in some cases, I know the scenes quite well and can say that the colors are darker than what I have seen in other representations of the same scenes.

    Some points to consider:
    • Women are routinely portrayed as quite a bit lighter skinned than men. If this is to reflect the fact that men are in the sun more than women, then this argues against egyptians as "black" because the high melanin content in "black skin" prevents skin tanning.
    • Because of Egypt's unique geography, post desert incursion, it effectively has two points of entry: the south and the delta. If the cultures that mixed with egyptians did not have the same skin color, then you'd naturally expect differences in skin tone in the population depending on where you're looking. In fact, libyans and peoples of western asia are routinely represented as being lighter skinned than egyptians, and nubians are routinely represented as darker than egyptians. Assuming some degree of interbreeding between these peoples (as humans are want to do), you would expect darker skinned people to be more prevalent in upper egypt and lighter skinned people in lower egypt. An imperfect example of this may be ramses ii. Because of his family's associations with the god seth, they are thought to come from the delta. Bob Brier loves to mention the fact that ramses's mummy has red hair, which he does seem to have based on photos I've seen. I have never met or seen a dark-skinned, naturally red-haired person. Caveat: I have no idea whether or not this red hair is natural and haven't seen any other scholar discuss it. Also, perhaps there were such people in antiquity, who knows?
    • There are religious connotations associated with skin color. One of the images you originally posted is one of the montuhoteps (I forget which one) as osiris. This image should be discounted right off the bat because of osiris's associations with black as well as green skin.



    I am not an egyptologist, although I studied middle and late egyptian as well as coptic while at the University of Chicago. I have been to the OI museum more times than you can shake a stick at, and I still go whenever on campus and have time. I also read a fair amount of egyptological books. In light of this, take my opinion on ancient egyptian skin color however you want.

    (Jesus, why am I wading into this nonsense?)

    Members thankful for this post (2):



Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •