Black Egyptians [Archive]

The Unbreakable

06-30-2012, 20:28

Egyptians are and were a spectrum, genetically on the whole they are more closely related to other north african and near eastern groups but the influence of sub Saharan Africans steadily increases as you go south.

One thing that many people don't note before they make conclusions on this matter (not saying that you're one) is the fact that Egypt has been invaded by "non black" people countless within the last 3,000 years (Hyksos, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and most successfully the Arabs). These people didn't just come and go, they left their genetic and cultural imprint on the Nile Valley. The also are responsible for a population shift (from the most politically important and populace region being the south to it now being the north) in the Nile Valley. This is why the argument that modern Egyptians (those in the north) are the splitting image of their earliest Egyptian ancestors is some what silly and ideological (IMO). The affinity of the early ancient Egyptians with more southerly African populations as opposed to Middle Eastern or late Dynastic and modern Egyptian populations is pretty much one that is confirmed by contemporary research:

"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

Not only does anthropological evidence suggest that the ancient Egyptians showed closest affinities with the black populations further to the south and west, but recent genetic studies also find that closest populations to the pre-Dynastic peoples of the Nile Valley (A-group Nubians and Badarians) were Nilotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples) like the people of the Upper Nile/South Sudan:

Accordingly, through limited on number of aDNA samples, there is enough data to suggest and to tally with the historical evidence of the dominance by Nilotic elements during the early state formation in the Nile Valley, and as the states thrived there was a dominance by other elements particularly Nuba / Nubians. In Y-chromosome terms this mean in simplest terms introgression of the YAP insertion (haplogroups E and D), and Eurasian Haplogroups which are defined by F-M89 against a background of haplogroup A-M13.

source (http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312)

and

Some evidence suggests that predynastic Egyptian and early Nubian cultures had ties to the early Saharan cultures and shared a Saharo-Nilotic heritage. Perhaps the earliest predynastic culture, the Badarian-Tasian* (4400 B.C. or earlier, to 4000 B.C.), had the clearest ties to Saharan cultures in the desert west of Nubia.

source (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Ancient_Egypt)

At the very beginning of this year a commercial genetics company also did a genetic analysis of Amarna period Egyptians (18-19th Dynasty) based on the released data by the recent King Tut analysis lead by Egyptian antiquities in 2010 and the ancient Egyptians grouped closest with peoples from the Great Lakes region (central-Eastern Africa) who are Nilotics and peoples of southern Africa (who also have high frequencies of haplogroup A):

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XdY3E3uOsgw/TvzM6u5OgzI/AAAAAAAAEZ0/_pCkKg3r86M/s1600/dnatribes.jpg

Geographical analysis of the Amarna mummies was performed using their autosomal STR profiles based on 8 tested loci. 4

Results are summarized in Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 1. Maps for
individual Amarna mummies are included in Figures 2-8 in the Appendix.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions.

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).

link (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf)

This revelation of Nilotic affinities of the earliest inhabitants of the Nile has been frequently noted by historians, who have seen that the peoples of the Upper Nile have "somehow" retained the closest cultural affinities affinities with those ancient peoples:

These clips are from the famous documentary by renown African historian Basil Davidson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4nBK381bBg&feature=relmfu

and

"A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty."
"It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508).

Their is oral tradition in numerous more southerly Northeast African populations and even Egyptian folklore of a exodus from Egypt to the regions further south (around a quarter million Egyptians I believe), due to political strife.

Calling them a "black" civilisation is wrong though, just as calling them a "white" civilisation is, they were a mish mash of influences fitting their unique geographic position.

Actually according to anthropological studies the ancient Egyptians and their earlier Saharan ancestors had overlapping biological affinities with more southerly African or "Negroid" populations:

In the sum, the results obtained further strengthen the results from previous analyses. The affinities between Nazlet Khater, MSA, and Khoisan and Khoisan related groups re-emerges. In addition it is possible to detect a separation between North African and sub-saharan populations, with the Neolithic Saharan population from Hasi el Abiod and the Egyptian Badarian group being closely affiliated with modern Negroid groups. Similarly, the Epipaleolithic populations from Site 117 and Wadi Halfa are also affiliated with sub-Saharan LSA, Iron Age and modern Negroid groups rather than with contemporaneous North African populations such as Taforalt and the Ibero-maurusian.
---Pierre M. Vermeersch in Palaeolithic quarrying sites in Upper and Middle Egypt

The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt 2001 has also conceded that based on consistent biological evidence that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black":

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

Here is some artwork that is rarely to never shown on the National Geographic or History Channel:

http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/darkegyptians/yegyptjD.jpg

http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/darkegyptians/begyptiu.jpg

http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/darkegyptians/begyptiv.jpg

http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/darkegyptians/img_3995.jpg

http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/darkegyptians/08011028.jpg

Brennus

06-30-2012, 20:46

The Unbreakable, welcome! Please please share your opinion and knowledge in more threads. Fascinating!

The Unbreakable

06-30-2012, 21:02

Thank You!

Ca Putt

07-01-2012, 14:36

Rather interesting Indeed :)

TylerX5

07-01-2012, 21:28

You sir have thought me something today, and I thank you for it.

moonburn

07-02-2012, 13:28

interesting but still highly pulluted by a racial view of the world in my humble opinion or as macrille would say we can´t judge the ancient by our own distorted view of the world people mingled and the only thing it mattered to them was if the girl pleased him or not not who is father culture or even skin tone was/is

anyway the history of the saharans have more to do with the way egypt evolved then if they where what we considered negroid wich i might had is a racist remark we should look at people from a cultural point of view instead of a biological one mainly because our adaptation methods change the way we look so we can better adapt to our enviroment and brands no aura of superiority in any way to anyone (ofc that if you come from a culture that values study you are probably going to be a better student in relative terms if you come from a very structured society you´ll end up with smaller penis and such things but as i said those are adaptations or as some anthropoligists nowadays defend the self domestication of the human being ) we humans are still 99.999% similar (mainly due to the botleneck effect that took place 60.000 years ago according to geneticists and that was probably caused by the java super volcano eruption that geogolists claim blew up 80.000-60.000 years ago

but still a very good post with alot of usefull information even tough i consider it tainted

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-02-2012, 13:55

One thing that many people don't note before they make conclusions on this matter (not saying that you're one) is the fact that Egypt has been invaded by "non black" people countless within the last 3,000 years (Hyksos, Greeks, Romans, Persians, and most successfully the Arabs). These people didn't just come and go, they left their genetic and cultural imprint on the Nile Valley. The also are responsible for a population shift (from the most politically important and populace region being the south to it now being the north) in the Nile Valley. This is why the argument that modern Egyptians (those in the north) are the splitting image of their earliest Egyptian ancestors is some what silly and ideological (IMO). The affinity of the early ancient Egyptians with more southerly African populations as opposed to Middle Eastern or late Dynastic and modern Egyptian populations is pretty much one that is confirmed by contemporary research:

Not only does anthropological evidence suggest that the ancient Egyptians showed closest affinities with the black populations further to the south and west, but recent genetic studies also find that closest populations to the pre-Dynastic peoples of the Nile Valley (A-group Nubians and Badarians) were Nilotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples)like the people of the Upper Nile/South Sudan:

source (http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312)

and

source (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Ancient_Egypt)

At the very beginning of this year a commercial genetics company also did a genetic analysis of Amarna period Egyptians (18-19th Dynasty) based on the released data by the recent King Tut analysis lead by Egyptian antiquities in 2010 and the ancient Egyptians grouped closest with peoples from the Great Lakes region (central-Eastern Africa) who are Nilotics and peoples of southern Africa (who also have high frequencies of haplogroup A):

link (http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf)

This revelation of Nilotic affinities of the earliest inhabitants of the Nile has been frequently noted by historians, who have seen that the peoples of the Upper Nile have "somehow" retained the closest cultural affinities affinities with those ancient peoples:

These clips are from the famous documentary by renown African historian Basil Davidson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FciCAXYWx3s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4nBK381bBg&feature=relmfu

and

Their is oral tradition in numerous more southerly Northeast African populations and even Egyptian folklore of a exodus from Egypt to the regions further south (around a quarter million Egyptians I believe), due to political strife.

Actually according to anthropological studies the ancient Egyptians and their earlier Saharan ancestors had overlapping biological affinities with more southerly African or "Negroid" populations:

The Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt 2001 has also conceded that based on consistent biological evidence that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black":

Here is some artwork that is rarely to never shown on the National Geographic or History Channel:

Greatings.

Very interesting - and I do not dispute the fact that certain elements of Egyptian culture and genetic markers are mostly closely related or derived from what we now term "Black" populations.

HOWEVER - Black Athena was a largely discredited work even when I was an undergraduation half a decade ago, the thesis that not only Egyptian but also Greek cultures were largely the result of Black immigration to those areas which was subsequently "bred out" by later populations and the cultural memory supressed is, I think, indefensible.

Having said that, there is some currency for a "Grey Athena" theory - but the counterpoint is that, if anything, Greeks and possibly Semites, were generally lighter than today and that the more "swathy" people in the Balkans, the Lebenon and Assyria are the result of later Arab immigration. It is unfortunatle now impossible to know what sort of contact or mixing Greeks had with Black Africans. Martin Bernel's thesis was based on a shaky understanding of the Greek context as well, he failed to appreciate that the move from black on red figures on pottery to red on black was due to a change in technology and not a demographic change; the transition is far too short for one thing.

The question, though, is "how far do you want to go back?" because if you go back far enough we are all "black". The other point to make is that what is considered "Black" in America might not be in Europe, so there can be a cultural disconnect even within the "Eurocentric" view. The final caveat is that many "Afrocrentric" scholars are actually raised and educated in Europe, and are really reactionary Eurocentric.

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.

Now, with all those caveats, let's consider the issue at hand.

Were the pharohs black?

I would say no, not by the time they enter the historical record (remember, there can be no history without writing). Looking at your images, the first one clearly differenciates between the lighter skinned pharoh and darker skinned Gods, some of your other images come from the 25th Dynasty, an acknowledged anomoly: http://wysinger.homestead.com/kingtaharqa.html. Some of the other appear to demonstrate headwrapping, and other still are quite ambiguous, one of the most ambiguous is the one rendered in, is it black stone, I can't tell.

Overall, I think you are making rather more of the evidence than it warrents. For one thing, Egyptian civilisation is generally reckoned to have come into being around 3,000 BC, while those genetic studies seem to be talking about a black population in 4,000 BC.

Moros

07-02-2012, 16:00

Looking at your images, the first one clearly differenciates between the lighter skinned pharoh and darker skinned Gods
5999

I find this one hard to understand. The more pale looking fellow in the centre seems to have the weird headdress of Sobek(-re), which in some dynasties symbolizes the pharao's power. Considering that god normally has the face of a crocodile, it could very well be the representation of a Pharaoh with the symbol of it's strength. Note the green scale though.

In the extreme left hand side we see ptah. Who isn't dark, yet is a god. Also note him standing at the right side of a possible reoccurring motive of gods/pharao's facing each other and 'holding hands'.

Between ptah and the other pal fellow, we see what looks like a 'servant' of some sort and another important figure, who wear the crown of lower Egypt (the Deshret) and the symbol of Ammon. To the right we again see a figure wearing the crown of lower Egypt. This time facing Anubis, definately not a Pharaoh.

As this seems like a repeating pattern with another God at the utmost left side and a servant at the utmost right hand side, I think it is more likely that the whiter guy in the middle not to be a Pharaoh. Seeing that two times out of three we are surely dealing with a god standing at the right side. (Ptah and Anubis). While the white guy might be Sobek, a related or different god or pharao, though less likely considering he has no clear features of a pharao.

We have two black figures at the left, both wearing the Deshret, a clear symbol of pharaonic power. Though indeed it is sometimes worn by gods. I know Horus is often depicted with a/the crown(s) of Egypt, due to his background story and his importance/relation to the pharao. Also clothing looks to suggest the left figure to be the paharao, the servant,... Note the same clothing in Anubis and (possibly) Sobek and compare it with the two black figures they are facing.

If all it seems to support his argument.

Now, I'm not saying Egypt was black, or all Pharaos' were. Some dynasties certainly had more southern ethinicities, and there sometimes were multiple dynasties at the same time as well. I think Egypt was influenced by many peoples. Nubian, Arab and other Semites (not talking about the 7-8th century AD here),... and originally existed out of more than one culture and ethnicity to start with. The oldest sources of Archaeology show us this, there was a huge difference in the upper and lower Egypt.

Links with modern or 20th century racial issues are irrelevant though. They were who they were, regardless of colour. It's the culture that mainly matters. Except when it comes to unit skins of course.

Callimachus

07-02-2012, 21:18

Black Athena is pretty well discredited at this point. Linguistically Bernal's work is full of holes, and he claims all these implausible cognates between Greek/Latin and Egyptian which don't make sense or only sound similar, my personal favourite was an attempt to linguistically link the goddess Neith to Athena. Bernal also claims that something like two thirds of the Greek vocabulary are from non Indo-European sources, and uses very shaky evidence to prove this (Bernal's scholarly background is Chinese/East Asian linguistics, and he has little background in Indo-European or Afro-Asiatic languages). His archaeology/historiography is pretty awful too, he claims that Egypt was a colonizing power in the 3rd millenium BCE, something that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

I don't dispute that the Egyptians were native to Africa and probably what we would consider to be "black". Then again I believe applying modern concepts of race on ancient peoples leads to poor scholarship.

Moros

07-03-2012, 01:00

I believe applying modern concepts of race on ancient peoples leads to poor scholarship.

:yes:

The Unbreakable

07-03-2012, 08:42

HOWEVER - Black Athena was a largely discredited work even when I was an undergraduation half a decade ago, the thesis that not only Egyptian but also Greek cultures were largely the result of Black immigration to those areas which was subsequently "bred out" by later populations and the cultural memory supressed is, I think, indefensible.

The controversy of "Black Athena" was not rather or not the ancient Egyptians were black, but rather surrounding the validity of argument that ancient Greek culture was largely influenced by black Africans (the Egyptians) and Semitic populations of the Middle East. As a matter of fact Mary Lefkowitz who was the most out spoken critic of the notion, even grudgingly admitted that the original ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan Africa and not points north as earlier scholars had asserted:

"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."(Mary Lefkotitz (1997). Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History. Basic Books. pg 242)

She even acknowledges the fact that the closest populations biologically to the early ancient Egyptians were Sudanese (Nubians) populations as opposed to Middle Easterners or Europeans:

"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.."
(- Mary Lefkowitz, "Black Athena Revisted. pp. 105-106)

She cited these results from biologist S.O.Y. Keita:

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf)

While the main argument of "Black Athena" being the contribution of non Europeans to the creation of Greece is highly debated, the side argument that the ancient Egyptians were originally were Africans who migrated from regions further to the south and west (the ancient Sahara) is clearly validated by contemporary archaeological and biological research.

It is unfortunatle now impossible to know what sort of contact or mixing Greeks had with Black Africans.

Actually a 2008 study has pretty much confirmed that their was a major migration of "black" people from the regions of Northern Africa into the Middle East and further north into Anatolia and Greece:

"A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercenaries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occurred with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."

F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

While this doesn't say much about cultural influence from Africa into Europe (other than the spread of agriculture), it does give validation to the argument there was a major African and Semitic presence in the region of ancient Greece early on. The presence of the African haplogroup E in modern day Greece (with frequencies mirroring that of some North African groups) is also a dead give away of some sort of migration or extensive interaction between both regions.

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.

Well the point of discrediting the Eurocentric lie that ancient Egypt was not originally a black African civilization is not because of the false yet common misconception that there weren't plenty of other great ancient African civilizations, but simply well...to correct a lie. Here was a recent New York Times piece had to say about the issue:

More recently, our own Western prejudices — namely the idea that geographic Egypt was not a part of “black” Africa — have contributed to the dearth of knowledge about Nubia. The early-20th-century archaeologist George Reisner, for instance, identified large burial mounds at the site of Kerma as the remains of high Egyptian officials instead of those of Nubian kings. (Several of Reisner’s finds are in the show, reattributed to the Nubians.).....In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.”

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/arts/design/nubia-ancient-kingdoms-of-africa-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

So clearly modern scholars are now beginning to accept that there has indeed been a racist cover up of this fact in the past (which still largely goes on today) based on consistent biological and cultural evidence. Namely that the Egypt and Sudan (dubbed the "black" civilization of the two on the Nile) were a biological and cultural continuum with common ancestry from the retreat of Saharan populations to reliable water sources (as shown by Basil Davidson in my earlier post)

Were the pharohs black?

I would say no, not by the time they enter the historical record (remember, there can be no history without writing). Looking at your images, the first one clearly differenciates between the lighter skinned pharoh and darker skinned Gods, some of your other images come from the 25th Dynasty, an acknowledged anomoly: http://wysinger.homestead.com/kingtaharqa.html. Some of the other appear to demonstrate headwrapping, and other still are quite ambiguous, one of the most ambiguous is the one rendered in, is it black stone, I can't tell.

You mention the first Dynasties, but did you know that this is a bust of Egypt's first Dynastic King?

6016

While I'm not that interested in eye balling statuary those facial features don't exactly scream European or even Middle Eastern to me, instead they look like those one's quite commonly seen in tropical Africa. The Sphinx is no different.

6017

As matter of fact an anthropologist whose work was heavily praised by Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz had concluded that ruling class of the Pre-Dynastic population of Upper Egypt were more closer to certain Nubian populations than to upper Egyptians (perhaps indicating that they were more Nilotic as opposed to Ethiopic/or perhaps evolutionary factors as a result of agricultural development):

"A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at Predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently non-elite cemeteries and that the non-elite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt."(T. Prowse, and N. Lovell "Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt". American journal of physical anthropology. 1996, vol. 101, no2, pp. 237-246 (2 p.1/4)

What is your take on all of this evidence? Do you have any counter biological evidence that justifies your skepticism of this theory?

Overall, I think you are making rather more of the evidence than it warrents. For one thing, Egyptian civilisation is generally reckoned to have come into being around 3,000 BC, while those genetic studies seem to be talking about a black population in 4,000 BC.

The Egyptian civilization as we know it is 5,000 years old. This around the time period when both the North and the south were unified (Dynastic civilization and the vast majority of the Pre New Kingdom population originated in southern Egypt not the north). The focus on the populations directly prior to this time (Pre-Dynastic era) is of interest because it explains what populations were directly responsible for the creation of Dynastic Egyptian civilization.

Renown Egyptologist Robert Bauval is a modern leader in Pre-Dynastic histories of ancient Egypt. His book the "Black Genesis" gives insights into the much earlier cultures of the Egyptian Sahara. He also recently gave his opinion on this very issue of original Egyptian race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wLCVpBjhk

The Unbreakable

07-03-2012, 09:08

Now, I'm not saying Egypt was black, or all Pharaos' were. Some dynasties certainly had more southern ethinicities, and there sometimes were multiple dynasties at the same time as well. I think Egypt was influenced by many peoples. Nubian, Arab and other Semites (not talking about the 7-8th century AD here),... and originally existed out of more than one culture and ethnicity to start with.

As far as archaeological, linguistic and cultural evidence goes they all seem to point to a more southerly African origin for the civilization, with some minor influence (i.e. trade) from the Levant in early Lower Egypt:

"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."

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

link (http://www.4shared.com/office/RNXJUrWq/Redford_-_Oxford_Encyclopedia_.htm)

The oldest sources of Archaeology show us this, there was a huge difference in the upper and lower Egypt.

There was certainly biological distinction between the people of both regions, but (as noted in the article posted earlier) their craniometric patterns were not so different that either one (particularly Lower Egypt) was not indigenous to Africa. Limb proportions of early Lower Egyptians also show that the population of the north was tropically adapted like the African populations further to the south and distinct from the sub tropical populations of the Levant:

"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)

Limb Proportions like skin color are adaptive traits, which take around 15,000 years to change if a population moves into a different climate. Egypt for the most part (it's southern border) does not lie within the tropical climatic zone, but rather the sub tropics like most of the Middle East. The fact that it's early inhabitants had tropical limb proportions (which could only be obtained through long term residence in the tropics) could only mean that they were recent migrants from the tropical regions further south. This finding is in agreement with other biological and archaeological evidence.

Blxz

07-03-2012, 10:50

All this is interesting but fails to account for pottery depictions of nubians and egyptians with differing skin tones and features. I think this whole theory is being influenced by our modern ideas that people are white or black or arabian or asian (loosely of course).

You mention that there is no way to drawn a line between egypt and nubia as being racially different but what happens when you go to the north? Where do you draw the line there? It is most likely that there was a continuous and gradual change as you move further north. The southern egyptians being far more similar in features to nubians while the northerners being more similar to peoples north of egypt. People in the middle being similar to those both north and south of them.

This whole idea that 'egypt' was black is as preposterous as saying it was all white or all semitic. There was most likely a range and this range may have shifted in either direction depending on prevailing conditions over the several thousand years that Egypt existed. It is evidenced that there was indeed a Dynasty that was significantly darker and of nubian origin (the number eludes me right now). I fail to see how this precludes other dynasties from being significantly lighter or precludes the population from being lighter (or darker for that matter).

In short, there is a range of evidence that shows a variety of skin tone (those Gods and Pharaohs being multi-toned offers some evidence) and most likely it was somewhere in between the darker south made up of 'Africans' in the racial sense of the word and the lighter north Levant.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-03-2012, 11:32

The controversy of "Black Athena" was not rather or not the ancient Egyptians were black, but rather surrounding the validity of argument that ancient Greek culture was largely influenced by black Africans (the Egyptians) and Semitic populations of the Middle East. As a matter of fact Mary Lefkowitz who was the most out spoken critic of the notion, even grudgingly admitted that the original ancient Egyptians came from Sub Saharan Africa and not points north as earlier scholars had asserted:

She even acknowledges the fact that the closest populations biologically to the early ancient Egyptians were Sudanese (Nubians) populations as opposed to Middle Easterners or Europeans:

She cited these results from biologist S.O.Y. Keita:

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf)

While the main argument of "Black Athena" being the contribution of non Europeans to the creation of Greece is highly debated, the side argument that the ancient Egyptians were originally were Africans who migrated from regions further to the south and west (the ancient Sahara) is clearly validated by contemporary archaeological and biological research.

Actually a 2008 study has pretty much confirmed that their was a major migration of "black" people from the regions of Northern Africa into the Middle East and further north into Anatolia and Greece:

I would not describe "Black Athena" as "Highly debated" so much as "generally derided". My training is in Classical Greece and Rome, and not in Egypt - I will freely admit that. However, you are talking about a Mesolithic migration, which is very different to discussing the nature of a Bronze Age civilisation. As I said, we are all "black" if you go back far enough. You are conflating events in a HUGE time period, from the Middle-Stone Age to the "Dorian Migration" which was believed to have taken place in the late Bronze Age.

While this doesn't say much about cultural influence from Africa into Europe (other than the spread of agriculture), it does give validation to the argument there was a major African and Semitic presence in the region of ancient Greece early on. The presence of the African haplogroup E in modern day Greece (with frequencies mirroring that of some North African groups) is also a dead give away of some sort of migration or extensive interaction between both regions.

I was under the impression agriculture developed independantly in several places between 9000-7000 BC, including places in Africa. Cultural interaction is an acknowledged phenomenon in Eurasia, people come from Africa with stone tools, people settled in Mesopotamia invent Agriculture, people in Egypt build in stone, the Greeks invent logic, the Romans build an effective military, the Franks inherit Latin learning...

and so on.

Well the point of discrediting the Eurocentric lie that ancient Egypt was not originally a black African civilization is not because of the false yet common misconception that there weren't plenty of other great ancient African civilizations, but simply well...to correct a lie. Here was a recent New York Times piece had to say about the issue:

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/arts/design/nubia-ancient-kingdoms-of-africa-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

So clearly modern scholars are now beginning to accept that there has indeed been a racist cover up of this fact in the past (which still largely goes on today) based on consistent biological and cultural evidence. Namely that the Egypt and Sudan (dubbed the "black" civilization of the two on the Nile) were a biological and cultural continuum with common ancestry from the retreat of Saharan populations to reliable water sources (as shown by Basil Davidson in my earlier post)

No, the point of "discrediting the Eurocentric lie" is to make "Eurocentrics", which encompases the majority of past and present European and Anglo-phone scholarship, into liars and racists - as you so helpfully demonstrated.

If there is an African element to Egyptian history and this has been overlooked then that should be corrected. That does not, however, make Egypt a "Black" civilisation because it is quite clear that later on in at least the late Bronze and Iron Age the Pharohs were not recognisably "black", and they are not depicted as such.

What you are engaging in here is a racialised appropriation - which is a futile exercise. My ancestors were black, but as I am a Northern European my most recent black ancestors are different from the contemporary black ancestors of modern Africans. Ergo, it was not "africans" who learned how to hold and swist iron and steal together to make pattern welded blades.

The point is, even if Egypt's first pharohs were black, and they set the fundamental groundwork, structure and provided the initial religious framework for the civilisation that does not make the entire subsequent 3,000+ years a great "black" epoch, quite the reverce given that the early pharahos were later supplanted by dynastes which are clearly depicted as much fairer of skin and Semetic of face.

You mention the first Dynasties, but did you know that this is a bust of Egypt's first Dynastic King?

6016

While I'm not that interested in eye balling statuary those facial features don't exactly scream European or even Middle Eastern to me, instead they look like those one's quite commonly seen in tropical Africa. The Sphinx is no different.

6017

As matter of fact an anthropologist whose work was heavily praised by Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz had concluded that ruling class of the Pre-Dynastic population of Upper Egypt were more closer to certain Nubian populations than to upper Egyptians (perhaps indicating that they were more Nilotic as opposed to Ethiopic/or perhaps evolutionary factors as a result of agricultural development):

What is your take on all of this evidence? Do you have any counter biological evidence that justifies your skepticism of this theory?

The Egyptian civilization as we know it is 5,000 years old. This around the time period when both the North and the south were unified (Dynastic civilization and the vast majority of the Pre New Kingdom population originated in southern Egypt not the north). The focus on the populations directly prior to this time (Pre-Dynastic era) is of interest because it explains what populations were directly responsible for the creation of Dynastic Egyptian civilization.

Renown Egyptologist Robert Bauval is a modern leader in Pre-Dynastic histories of ancient Egypt. His book the "Black Genesis" gives insights into the much earlier cultures of the Egyptian Sahara. He also recently gave his opinion on this very issue of original Egyptian race:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wLCVpBjhk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy

I think the current drive to depict the Egyptians as "black" is motivated by thr same desire to depict them as "white" 150 years ago, more specifically I find the suggestion that Cleopatra was black to be bellyachingly funny given the need of the Ptolemaic rulers to demonstate their "Macedonian" lineage.

Brucaliffo

07-03-2012, 13:21

I perfectly agree with The Unbreakable.

Anyway Brennus

Egyptians were black in the origin.
Take a look at the Sphynx face: it is clearly negroid.
Then they were overcome by white people coming from north-east and a mixed society was created.
The Sphynx is a stylised depiction, just like the majority of Egyptian works of art, you can't infer racial traits from them, if you want realism you need to examine the pieces produced during the time of Akenahten. Furthermore the Egyptians are not the result of a mixing of Sub Saharan Africans and Caucasians, they are just Semitic. Their skin colour is due to the ratio of melanin (spelling?) to ultra violet radiation in that part of the world.

Brennus i never meant caucasic, but semitic!
Egyptians were black (with a farmer society) and were invaded by semitic (with a huner society).
It was never a consideration about color, but instead about culture!

And the Sphynx is not a stylised depiction absolutely.
Traits are clear and all egyptian art clearly depicts traits and colour, as you can see in The Unbreakable post.

The Unbreakable

07-03-2012, 19:13

However, you are talking about a Mesolithic migration, which is very different to discussing the nature of a Bronze Age civilisation.

Actually the evidence suggest that it was the spread of "Neolithic" culture from an African based group in the Middle East (the Natufanians) into Europe, and more specifically the Anatolian and Greek region of southeastern Europe. These African characteristics continued on into the bronze age era, which is even noted in "pre-Black Athena" aged scholarship:

"The inhabitants of the Aegean area in the Bronze Age may have been much like many people in the Mediterranean basin today, short and slight of build with dark hair and eyes and sallow complexions. Skeletons show that the population of the Aegean was already mixed by Neolithic times, and various facial types, some with delicate features and pointed noses, others pug-nosed, almost negroid, are depicted in wall paintings from the 16th century BC. But men and women are always represented with black hair, and the presence of fair-haired people is not attested in the Aegean until later Greek times. Some very tall men buried in the Mycenaean shaft graves may be descendants of invaders who entered the mainland at the end of the 3rd millennium. A few skeletons from the single graves that appear on the mainland at the very end of the Bronze Age suggest the presence of new people from the north."
--- Sinclair Hood, The Home of the Heroes: The Aegean Before the Greeks (1967) also found in Encyclopedia Britannica 1990 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 20: Greek and Roman Civilizations

One aspect of Bernal's argument (that for one reason or another many of his opponents wanted to discredit) was the use of ancient Greek scholars who clearly state that the original people of Egypt were originally black Africans from "Ethiopia" (which they used to describe all regions south of Egypt) as stated by Basil Davidson and even assert that certain people of that general region of Europe (Colchians) were settled by black peoples from Egypt (the Mushabi who later became the Natufanians): Here is the exact quote by Herodotus on the matter:

' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians because, like them, they are black with woolly hair.

Note again the continued reference of ancient Egyptians as black people by eye witness accounts. These descriptions are consistent with the results of crania morphologies noted in Egyptian populations. I'm not really into the ancient Greek arguments by Bernal, but the knee jerk reaction by some classical scholars to outright reject any evidence suggesting influence from black Africans into Europe (but conversely have no problem with the opposite happening) raises my eye brow a bit.

I was under the impression agriculture developed independantly in several places between 9000-7000 BC, including places in Africa.

Yes, but this does not dismiss the fact that Demic Diffusion models also occurred from these original independent sources of agriculture. As the study showed and pretty much built upon (from previous findings) the source of the European Neolithic came from a northward migration of the Natufanians of the Levant, who were the result of the Mesolithic Mushabi (Africans). That which originated and spread from the African Sahara was significantly later (over a thousand years) and distinct from that seen in those regions.

If there is an African element to Egyptian history and this has been overlooked then that should be corrected.

You're not really getting it. There is no longer a question of "if" an African element was present in Egypt, it is now established fact that Egypt's origins were indeed from the regions further south and west itself. So says consistent mainstream archaeology, biology, linguistic and cultural relations. If the Oxford Encyclopedia of ancient Egypt (a direct reflection of modern scholarship) did not make this fact clear, then perhaps the Fitzwilliam (http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/index.html) museums new exhibit on the matter might. They have now dedicated an entire exhibit to showcasing Kemet or ancient Egypt it's proper African context and subsequently state that it was "black". They reference three African scholars, and one (S.O.Y. Keita) is considered the authority of the matter of the biological and cultural origins of ancient Egypt. The lecture videos of the scholars from Cambridge are all available on the website.

That does not, however, make Egypt a "Black" civilisation because it is quite clear that later on in at least the late Bronze and Iron Age the Pharohs were not recognisably "black", and they are not depicted as such.

Then what on Earth would it make it? All the way up until the late New Kingdom when noted foreign invasions and migrations of non black people from the Middle East had settled on the Nile, the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the ancient Egypt shared overlapping biological affinities with black African peoples further to the south of Egypt:

"The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983).. This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations." (Zakrzewski, S.R. (2003). "Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions". American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (3): 219-229.

The continuation of these traits is seen from Pre and early Dynastic Egyptians all the way up until the famed New Kingdom 18-19th Dynasty (King Tut):

"It can be seen that all the pharonic values, including those of 'Smakhare', lie much closer to the negro curve than to the white curve. Since stature equations only work satisfactorily in the individuals to whom they have applied have similar proportions to the population group from which they are derived, this provides justification for using negro equations for estimating stature from single bones of the New Kingdom pharoahs, reenforcing the previous findings of Robins (1983). Furthermore, the Troller and Gleser white equations for the femur, tibia and humerus yield stature values that have a much wider spread than those from negro equations with mean values that are unacceptably large."

"Robins (1983) and Robins & Shute (1983) have shown that more consistent results are obtained from ancient Egyptian male skeletons if Trotter & Gleser formulae for negro are used, rather than those for whites which have always been applied in the past. .. their physical proportions were more like modern negroes than those of modern whites, with limbs that were relatively long compared with the trunk, and distal segments that were long compared with the proximal segments. If ancient Egyptian males had what may be termed negroid proportions, it seems reasonable that females did likewise." From: (Robins G, Shute CCD. 1986. Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions. Hum Evol 1:313–324. Ruff CB. 1994.)

"Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."

--Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465

The latter source is from a 1980's study, which explains the frequent reference of racial terminological (i.e "Negro" and "white"). Overall what both of these studies have found is that the continuation of more southerly African physical traits generally continued on from the pre and early Dynastic periods to the New Kingdom, despite noted prolonged small scale migration into the Nile during these periods. Cranial data finds the same the same thing. This is the exact same thing the Robert Bauval states in his interview.

What you are engaging in here is a racialised appropriation - which is a futile exercise.

Not to be rude or anything, but what exactly are you here arguing if not your own racial theory of the composition of ancient Egypt. You are in favor of the notion of ancient Egypt not being black (and rather something else), as opposed to truly taking a "non racialized" approach. Would it be more appropriate to state that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous Northeast Africans who came from regions further to the south? This is the approach taken by mainstream scholars such as S.O.Y. Keita, which is non racialized yet emphasizes the indisputable overlapping affinities that ancient Egypt had with populations of the Sudan and the Horn of Africa.

The point is, even if Egypt's first pharohs were black, and they set the fundamental groundwork, structure and provided the initial religious framework for the civilisation that does not make the entire subsequent 3,000+ years a great "black" epoch, quite the reverce given that the early pharahos were later supplanted by dynastes which are clearly depicted as much fairer of skin and Semetic of face.

You are essentially arguing in favor of the Dynastic race theory
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynastic_Race_Theory), which has been discredited since the 1950's:

"As a result of their facial prognathism, the Badarian sample has been described as forming a morphological cluster with Nubian, Tigrean, and other southern (or \Negroid") groups (Morant, 1935, 1937; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Nutter, 1958, Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972; Keita, 1990). Cranial nonmetric trait studies have found this group to be similar to other Egyptians, including much later material (Berry and Berry, 1967, 1972), but also to be significantly different from LPD material (Berry et al., 1967). Similarly, the study of dental nonmetric traits has suggested that the Badarian population is at the centroid of Egyptian dental samples (Irish, 2006), thereby suggesting similarity and hence continuity across Egyptian time periods. From the central location of the Badarian samples in Figure 2, the current study finds the Badarian to be relatively morphologically close to the centroid of all the Egyptian samples. The Badarian have been shown to exhibit
greatest morphological similarity with the temporally successive EPD (Table 5). Finally, the biological distinctiveness of the Badarian from other Egyptian samples has also been demonstrated (Tables 6 and 7).

These results suggest that the EDyn do form a distinct morphological pattern. Their overlap with other Egyptian samples (in PC space, Fig. 2) suggests that although their morphology is distinctive, the pattern does overlap with the other time periods. These results therefore do not support the Petrie concept of a "Dynastic race" (Petrie, 1939; Derry, 1956). Instead, the results suggest that the Egyptian state was not the product of mass movement of populations into the Egyptian Nile region, but rather that it was the result of primarily indigenous development combined with prolonged small-scale migration, potentially from trade, military, or other contacts.

This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with in-migration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential in-migration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.
(Sonia R. Zakrzewski. (2007). Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501-509)

As you can see there was not abrupt change that occurred in the Egyptian populace, which one would expect to accompany such a drastic migration from a foreign group of people. Instead there is continuity throughout the pre and early Dynastic period and points onward including modern Egyptians (though with significant distinctions since the time of the Late Period).

I think the current drive to depict the Egyptians as "black" is motivated by thr same desire to depict them as "white" 150 years ago, more specifically I find the suggestion that Cleopatra was black to be bellyachingly funny given the need of the Ptolemaic rulers to demonstate their "Macedonian" lineage.

I believe that a professor Asante of Temple University stated that many Eurocentric scholars including Mary Lefkowitz have attempted to discredit the legitimacy of Egypt's blackness, but overemphasizing this strawman argument revolving around Cleopatra as the face of this argument. Rarely to never do they address any of the biological evidence. I personally find the statement by comedian Steve Martin that King Tut was one of the greatest white men (though he used a racist derogatory term) in history to be amusing and catering to the common Eurocentric themes of his time:

6018

^^ As crazy as it sounds this is how many Westerners seriously believed ancient Egyptians to looked like, based on centuries of racist distortions of the facts. Today a milder approach generally shows them as more Middle Eastern in appearance, but the biological evidence completely refutes that notion and supports them looking like various black African populations....

The Unbreakable

07-03-2012, 20:23

All this is interesting but fails to account for pottery depictions of nubians and egyptians with differing skin tones and features.

The Nubians were a collection of different ethnic groups to the south of Egypt rather than a monolithic one. Some Nubians were more Nilotic in appearance while others were more "Ethiopic". Many Nubians were shown as having the same reddish brown skin as the ancient Egyptians in the exact same murals:

6020

compared to

6021

In other instances the Egyptians represented themselves just as "black" as other Africans and distinct from all others:

6022

Tomb of Ramses III (Egyptian on the far left)

You mention that there is no way to drawn a line between egypt and nubia as being racially different but what happens when you go to the north? Where do you draw the line there? It is most likely that there was a continuous and gradual change as you move further north. The southern egyptians being far more similar in features to nubians while the northerners being more similar to peoples north of egypt. People in the middle being similar to those both north and south of them.

That's an interesting assumption on your part, but what biological evidence to you have to support that this was the case during times prior to the New Kingdom? I have already presented biological evidence proving that early Lower Egyptians were in fact distinct from the peoples of the Levant (Palestinians) and much closer to peoples further to the south. The cultures of early Lower Egypt were also proven to have been a continuation of the Nilotic cultures previously practiced in the ancient Sahara rather than a transplant from the East:

Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). If modern data can be used, there is no reason to think that the peoples drawn into the Sahara in the earlier periods were likely to have been biologically or linguistically uniform. Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation,
History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita.pdf)

What proof to you have to combat these findings?

This whole idea that 'egypt' was black is as preposterous as saying it was all white or all semitic.

~:confused: How so? The biological evidence clearly finds that the original inhabitants of Kemet (or ancient Egypt as it was later named) had biological affinities consistently with more southerly African populations (black):

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."
(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

The culture and language was also that which clearly came from "black" Africa:

"Ancient Egypt belongs to a language group known as 'Afroasiatic' (formerly called Hamito-Semitic) and its closest relatives are other north-east African languages from Somalia to Chad. Egypt's cultural features, both material and ideological and particularly in the earliest phases, show clear connections with that same broad area. In sum, ancient Egypt was an African culture, developed by African peoples, who had wide ranging contacts in north Africa and western Asia." (Morkot, Robert (2005) The Egyptians: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 10)

With this evidence why on Earth would Egypt not be considered a black African civilization at least prior to the Late New Kingdom?

It is evidenced that there was indeed a Dynasty that was significantly darker and of nubian origin (the number eludes me right now).

You are referring to the 25th Dynasty. Referring to that one Dynasty as the "black" one, is quite disingenuous in my opinion given the fact that overwhelming evidence supports that Egypt's origins came from regions further to the south and west and that this was maintained throughout the Dynasties:

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

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

As stated in the NYtimes article that I posted earlier, it's pretty much futile for people to continue to assert some sort of racial difference between Egyptians and Nubians. The biological evidence is consistent that these people neighboring Nile Valley populations formed a biological continuum from the Pre-Dynastic period and even into today (southern Egyptians and northern Sudanese) irregardless of propaganda from political strife between the two. In fact this is how the Egyptians depicted their own army:

6024

and this is how they depicted the Nubians (land of the bow)

6023

Ironduke

07-03-2012, 21:05

I'm really enjoying peoples comments. So far it's been very informative, thank you all.

edit: special thank you to the unbreakable for taking the time to reference sources and images :)

wangchang

07-03-2012, 21:07

The Sphynx is a stylised depiction, just like the majority of Egyptian works of art, you can't infer racial traits from them, if you want realism you need to examine the pieces produced during the time of Akenahten. Furthermore the Egyptians are not the result of a mixing of Sub Saharan Africans and Caucasians, they are just Semitic. Their skin colour is due to the ratio of melanin (spelling?) to ultra violet radiation in that part of the world.

Egyptians are not semitic. They are clearly a different people than the arab, and they clearly made a distinction with them. The origins of the egyptian are unknown. We cannot know for sure where they came from, we just know that they came from a distant place (not space, just in case you think i believe in the alien theory. i don't :P) , according to their writings and the Greeks writings and archeological evidence. They seemed to be already extremely civilized when they settled on the nile, since they almost immediately build great pyramids and temples.
That's it : they weren't black, they weren't white, they weren't semitic, they probably weren't of mix of those three. Their skin was described as gilt (golden shades).

Ca Putt

07-04-2012, 00:14

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 01:02

Very intersting Indeed,

however this picture strikes me as strange:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=6022&d=1341341836

IF the guy on the far left is an egyptian(which can be found out by reading the inscription), why is he depicted in the EXACTLY same way as the ... Nubian? I mean I can see why he would have the same skintone and physiognomy, but surely not the same clothes and haircut.

There are slight differences in dress (for example the Egyptian is wearing an earring), but I can't really answer why they were depicted as almost culturally identical. This mural is to represent what the ancient Egyptians believed as the groups of people who were allowed in the afterlife. Perhaps it was used to attest to the common origins of both Nubians and Egyptians, just my hunch.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-04-2012, 02:19

Unbreakable, you seem to be under the assumption that we are rejecting all your evidence - we are not. The issue is your interpretation of it.

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

When I said that, "If there is an African element to Egyptian history and this has been overlooked then that should be corrected." I was not disputing an African element, I was making a point that omissions should be corrected without regard to the original source of the omission, other than to note it in the correction.

Hammering past scholars is not edifying, especially given that many of them were clever (not more right) than the current generation.

Beyond that, if proponents of a "Black" Egypt wish to be taken seriously they must address those in their camp who make absurd claims about figures like Cleopatra - because not doing so is evidence of sloppy scholarship.

I will look up the quote from Herodotus tomorrow.

Now, if you want me to engage with you on a deeper level I am going to need to look up the full bibliographical citations, that will take time.

The main point though, is that this doesn't really matter all that much, making Egyptians "Black" rather than a mixed people is in no way edifying to black people today, nor does it detract from "white" achievements.

Even if some Egyptians are depicted as "Black" you STILL have to account for all those well known examples, several of which you have posted, which depict a fairer people more in common with modern North Africans, a hard "black£ explanation simply fails to do this.

wangchang

07-04-2012, 02:47

Very intersting Indeed,

however this picture strikes me as strange:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=6022&d=1341341836

IF the guy on the far left is an egyptian(which can be found out by reading the inscription), why is he depicted in the EXACTLY same way as the ... Nubian? I mean I can see why he would have the same skintone and physiognomy, but surely not the same clothes and haircut.

And about pyramids: It's not as sudden as one may think, afterall Early pyramids clearly show a evolution from the Mastaba.

We are uncovering more and more evidence of even older pyramids, some that could have been created way before mastaba. It has also been theorised by many well-known and reliable historians that the egyptians civlization was actually more advanced in 5000 BC than in 3000 BC and that they degenerate because of political instabilities and invasion.
As for nubians : its obvious that, because of the proximity, they were often depicted in egyptian art. Like a roman could have depicted a gaul soldier.

Blxz

07-04-2012, 04:36

My argument that they are multi-toned is not taken from any DNA evidence but from the art depictions themselves. You yourself actually used some of those depictions. The gods are multi-toned and people depicted in everyday life situations have various degrees of skin colour. This doesn't even account for the 25th Dynasty, thanks for clarifying that for me; this dynasty is recognised as being foreign. If the two peoples were so incredibly closely related I find it odd to single out a single dynasty in such a way.

As for the depictions of the armies I cannot be sure, much as any historian can be sure. I suspect the reason being something along the lines that they were all depicted as the same in a military setting. I don't doubt that the Egyptians had dark skin and this shows in much of their art but I think especially further to the north they are more likely to be of a lighter skin tone similar to their neighbours.

Finally, we are looking at this period as stable. There must have been so much variation. Exactly what time period has everyone settled on as being the 'dark' period? We know there were invaders who most certainly interbred with the locals. Was this to enough of a degree to dilute the population? If so, when did this happen? And if it did, does it stop the decendants from being fundamentally still egyptian? We know that in a much later period the Ptolemy's resettled people of celtic decent into the fayuum depression enough to cause a genetic difference that persists to this day. Are they less eqyptian than their neighbours?

My point is, nobody is disputing that they originally came from the south. Your DNA evidence is pretty big support for that. But did they occupy a barren wasteland devoid of other peoples? Did they never once have any change genetically over the course of their several thousand year history? Or, if they did change then at what point have we stopped classifying these different decendants as non-egyptian?

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 04:38

Unbreakable, you seem to be under the assumption that we are rejecting all your evidence - we are not. The issue is your interpretation of it.

I'm just wondering because you appear to completely ignore every peer reviewed study that has accompanied my stance, and yet continue to make statements which are completely contrary to what they indicate. Now you are also saying that I might be misinterpreting some of these studies, but as stated you aren't even acknowledging them. I have a hard time believing that anyone can seriously obfuscate the implications of the studies findings that the skeletal remains of these ancient Africans on the African continent having "Negroid" cranial morphologies and tropical limb proportions like the Africans further to the south. What else could these findings possibly implicate if not that the general Egyptian populace was "black"?

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

I don't recall labeling anyone "racist". I cited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (an authoritative source) who acknowledges not only that based on consistent anthropological data that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black", but also that early Egyptologist outright refused to even consider that ancient Egypt was a product of black Africans. Instead they viewed ancient Egypt as the product of either Europeans or a mixture Hamites (in-migrating southwest Asians) and blacks. He (Donald Redford) stated that this view was racist (which any logical person IMO should have no problem with agreeing upon) not me.

Hammering past scholars is not edifying, especially given that many of them were clever (not more right) than the current generation.

As stated earlier by two modern scholars cited, past scholars (including the famed Frank Yurco) have been reluctant (to say the least) in acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was founded by the black Africans of the ancient Sahara. There always had to be some sort of "unknown" race of people (who weren't black) who were major contributors to the creation of ancient Egypt, according to many of them. Then again there are some scholars who will simply call them "African", yet refuse to examine the evidence which specifies what kind of "Africans" they were. It is according to them "Afrocentric" for anyone to read passages like this from reputed biologist:

Archaeological evidence suggests that the ancient Egyptian Nile Valley was peopled in large part by immigrants from the Sahara and more southern areas, who brought neolithic traits there (Hassan, 1988). Some movement from the Levant is also postulated. Possibly the earliest indigenous African full neolithic tradition (called Saharo-Sudanese or Saharan) is found in the Western (Nubian) Desert of Egypt, near the Sudanese border (Wendorf and Schild, 1980; Hassan, 1988) and is dated to the seventh millinneum BC. Common core cultural traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern influence in the north (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Hassan, 1988). Predynastic Egyptian culture is most parsimoniously explained by a fusion of Saharan and Nilotic peoples (Hassan, 1988>. The predynastic cultural sequence of southern Egypt is accepted as leading directly to the dynastic culture.

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf)

Whose findings confirm a Nilotic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples) African basis for the civilizations of the Nile and conclude that these people were black Africans. Why is that? The evidence is not shaky, but sound. As the Nytimes article that I posted had stated, "Our own Western prejudices" (no need in denying that they still exist) are the root of why some refuse to consider ancient Egypt in it's proper black African context. Basil Davidson noted this in his famed documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTr6JnKN3qo

The continuation of this early Egyptian culture is seen modern day Nilotic peoples of the Upper Nile:

6025
6026

Beyond that, if proponents of a "Black" Egypt wish to be taken seriously they must address those in their camp who make absurd claims about figures like Cleopatra - because not doing so is evidence of sloppy scholarship.

Well firstly who decides if what should be taken seriously, actual scholars or layman interpreters? Last time I checked the Manchester (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f09-bRaJYB8&feature=related), Cambridge (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3yFCoIdXc) (and all institutes associated with them including Oxford and Fitzwilliam) were as mainstream as academia gets. They all seem to be on board with the clear biological and cultural implications of the origins of ancient Egypt. The only problem seems to come layman interpreters who not wish to accept what is clearly implicated.

This statement is also quite silly, in that it implies that there is some uniform opinion amongst a broad group of people. I am not responsible for some guy in Harlem going around claiming the if Cleopatra was black or not. Rather than attribute such an irrelevant straw man such as that to my argument, why not address what I'm actually putting forward. Interestingly another scholar from Manchester actually seems to suggest that Cleopatra (like her sister) had African (Egyptians) ancestry and was mixed race. Here is her lecture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3yFCoIdXc). Also note how she (an actual scholar) laughingly dismisses the negative comments that she received (for showcasing Cleopatra as a mulatto in a discovery channel documentary) on the daily mail website as silly western rubbish.

Now, if you want me to engage with you on a deeper level I am going to need to look up the full bibliographical citations, that will take time.

That's fine, and I would like to offer this (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf) for you to read.

The main point though, is that this doesn't really matter all that much, making Egyptians "Black" rather than a mixed people is in no way edifying to black people today, nor does it detract from "white" achievements.

What do any of ancient Africa's civilizations:

6039

6040

Nubia

6032

6033

6034

Mali

6027

6028

On-Nigeria

6029

6030

Loango

6031

Ancient Ghana

6035

6036

6037

6038

(and so forth) have to do with the current state of Africans and Whites? Should they or the accomplishments of these civilizations somehow not be mentioned, because it won't change anything today? Likewise why can't we acknowledge the fact that ancient Egypt was also a black African civilization?

Even if some Egyptians are depicted as "Black" you STILL have to account for all those well known examples, several of which you have posted, which depict a fairer people more in common with modern North Africans, a hard "black£ explanation simply fails to do this.

Who ever denied the presence of non black people in Egypt? What I am stating is that the general native Egyptian populace all the way up until to the New Kingdom was black African, and I think that I have provided more than enough biological evidence and contextualization of this evidence to support my view.

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 05:18

My argument that they are multi-toned is not taken from any DNA evidence but from the art depictions themselves. You yourself actually used some of those depictions.

Skin tone is something that biologist at the moment cannot really be precise about, however we know that the general populace of ancient Egypt was tropically adapted like the black African populations further to the south. According to ecological principal tropically adapted populations across the world (including aboriginals, Dravidians, Asian pygmies ect) have dark skin:

"In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..")

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c__JhIjz9g

Above is the Q&A segment of S.O.Y. Keita's lecture at Cambridge. Feel free to watch all six segments.

This doesn't even account for the 25th Dynasty, thanks for clarifying that for me; this dynasty is recognised as being foreign. If the two peoples were so incredibly closely related I find it odd to single out a single dynasty in such a way.

Well they were considered "foreign" because they weren't Egyptian, they were Nubian. I suppose in the same way that if a naturalized Englishman were to become president in the U.S. he would be considered "foreign" despite the coming from America's mother nation and looking like most other U.S. presidents. The ancient Egyptians did not really view you in terms of your race as much as they did your assimilation into their society. Also it is interesting to note that the 25th Dynasty was praised by the Egyptian populace for restoring the way of the old Egypt. They were the only foreign rulers to be viewed as such. Now ask yourself how would foreigners be driven to doing such a deed as restoring Egypt's, if not an acknowledgment that they were of the same origins. Just my hunch. I mean it is after supported by archaeology and biology.

I don't doubt that the Egyptians had dark skin and this shows in much of their art but I think especially further to the north they are more likely to be of a lighter skin tone similar to their neighbours.

You state that you are basing your entire analysis of this subject on your interpretation of art work, so I must ask, what art work have you seen that makes clear physical distinctions between northern and southern Egyptians? Would the absence of such evidence disregard the fact that biological research confirms that there were in fact cranial variations between the inhabitants of both regions? Likewise do the distinctions shown between Egyptians and some Nubians somehow nullify the fact that the actual physical remains of Egyptians and Nubians have been found to be almost identical (especially southern Egyptians)? Which one do you think is more reliable artwork or concrete biological research?

We know there were invaders who most certainly interbred with the locals. Was this to enough of a degree to dilute the population? If so, when did this happen?

I actually provided an article on page one which specifies that as a result of the foreign invasions of the New Kingdom, by the time of the Late Dynastic period there was a significant biological difference between those later Egyptians and those Egyptians during points earlier. The people who were specified as being the "foreigners" were the Mediterraneans who settled and intermingled with the local native African population (Egyptians). The same article also stated that as a result of this biological distinction due to non African admixture, the Nubian populations of the same time period were closer to the early Egyptians than actual Egyptian descendants during the Late period. This reinforces the overlapping biological relationship between Egyptians and Nubians.

And if it did, does it stop the decendants from being fundamentally still egyptian? We know that in a much later period the Ptolemy's resettled people of celtic decent into the fayuum depression enough to cause a genetic difference that persists to this day. Are they less eqyptian than their neighbours?

They are indeed the descendants of the ancient Egyptians (just as modern Egyptians continue to be) it just means that the line of descent is diluted. This is why it is silly for some people to assert that through thousands of years of non African migration into the Nile, modern Egyptians (those of the north) are the splitting image of their original black African Egyptian ancestors.

moonburn

07-04-2012, 10:38

sorry to inform you but 15.000 years to adjust a skin tone ? lol aslong as there is intermingling it takes as litle as 200 years (give or take 8 generations and from my own analyses on a very particular case of a town that was totally black in the 16th/17th century wich is no more then 20 km´s away from where i live or used to live (i moved to paris france) i can tell you 4 generations is as litle as enough ofc they all intermingled people moved around so just to be on the safeside i will say 6 generations they are still darker today have the grosse lips and curly hair but their skin tone is olive enough to be considered mediterraneans no diferent from sicilians or greeks

also the notion that egypt is a colonising power when the egyptian religion said that anyone dieing outside the lands of the nile would never find paradise or hell and would forever be doomed to walk to earth as a spirit doomed seems the wrong aproach to people saying "lets get our asses on boars and colonise other lands)

also egyptian art represents all spectrum of society to some point and there´s no distinction beteween black and white they are all represented

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-04-2012, 12:35

I'm just wondering because you appear to completely ignore every peer reviewed study that has accompanied my stance, and yet continue to make statements which are completely contrary to what they indicate. Now you are also saying that I might be misinterpreting some of these studies, but as stated you aren't even acknowledging them. I have a hard time believing that anyone can seriously obfuscate the implications of the studies findings that the skeletal remains of these ancient Africans on the African continent having "Negroid" cranial morphologies and tropical limb proportions like the Africans further to the south. What else could these findings possibly implicate if not that the general Egyptian populace was "black"?

I don't recall labeling anyone "racist". I cited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (an authoritative source) who acknowledges not only that based on consistent anthropological data that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black", but also that early Egyptologist outright refused to even consider that ancient Egypt was a product of black Africans. Instead they viewed ancient Egypt as the product of either Europeans or a mixture Hamites (in-migrating southwest Asians) and blacks. He (Donald Redford) stated that this view was racist (which any logical person IMO should have no problem with agreeing upon) not me.

As stated earlier by two modern scholars cited, past scholars (including the famed Frank Yurco) have been reluctant (to say the least) in acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was founded by the black Africans of the ancient Sahara. There always had to be some sort of "unknown" race of people (who weren't black) who were major contributors to the creation of ancient Egypt, according to many of them. Then again there are some scholars who will simply call them "African", yet refuse to examine the evidence which specifies what kind of "Africans" they were. It is according to them "Afrocentric" for anyone to read passages like this from reputed biologist:

You reffered to a racist coverup and the "lie" of a "white" Egypt.

You may think I am dismissing the studies I have prevented, but as I am away from the library and you have only provided quotes I have not yet had the oppertunity to read them.

The fact is that genetic studies and morphological studies can prove a Sub-Saharan element or they can prove parrael adaptation (in the case of morphology). You still have to account for the conflicting evidence, those images that differentiate between Egyptians and Sub-Saharans, not just in skin colour put hair style as well.

You also have serious problems explaining the very non-Sub-Saharan facial features of some of the Middle Kingdom rulers, and you also have to acknowledge that the New Kingdom (which is the period most often represented) depicts the fewest Sub-Saharans.

When you look at someone like Nefertiti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti her facial features are considered "perfect" which is usually indicative of varied ancestry, and her ambiguous appearence is therefore a knock on objection to a "Black King Tut".

If you reject the claim that the Egyptian people were more mixed and varied than a purely Sub-Saharan population then you are arguing for a Dynastic race.

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 22:04

You reffered to a racist coverup and the "lie" of a "white" Egypt.

Well I mean this is a historical fact, and as to why you would somehow take offensive to this truth being pointed out is beyond me. Many early Western scholars had to essentially dehumanize and belittle black people in all aspects in a twisted way to justify their mistreatment, is that really a secret? As I cited the words of renown Egyptologist Donald Redford, who stated that there was in fact a racist cover up of the true racial identity of the original black ancient Egyptians. Once again:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African...Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

As you read above modern scholarship acknowledges that there was in fact a "racist" cover up to hide to true racial identity of the ancient Egyptians, which is no secret to anyone who has studied the topic. Early Egyptologist (during the beginning of the 19th century) were a product of their time. Many openly that Egypt could not have been "black" because "Negroes" were incapable of creating civilization. If you watch the segment from Basil Davidson that I just provided you in my previous reply then you would note that he also says the exact same thing in regards to wide spread thoughts of early Western scholars. The source then goes on to state that based on consistent anthropological evidence (the physical remains of the ancient Egyptians) their appearance was consistent with that which considered "black". When I initially cited this source provided a direct link enabling you to view the full encyclopedia, and it is still there if you feel that you want to see this for yourself. Even through the mist of Western prejudice, some early scholars stated the truth in regards to ancient Egypt:

"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

Once again note, that this man (who lived during colonial times) Constatine De Volney acknowledges the backwards racist ideas of the late 18th century (which persisted for over two centuries later) and through his objectivity even makes a biological inference about Egypt's population history which has been validated by modern contemporary research (just think about that for a minute). I earlier provided you with a link to a study which systematically debunked the clearly racist ideological points attempted to be made by early scholarship on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. When you read it please give us feed back on it.

You may think I am dismissing the studies I have prevented, but as I am away from the library and you have only provided quotes I have not yet had the oppertunity to read them.

The thing is though I have provided links for many if not most of the quotes that I have cited (if the full articles weren't already posted in their entirety). All you seem to be doing is completely ignoring them as though there is absolutely no way that I my interpretations of them (which are darn near impossible to misinterpret) are accurate. Just from my observations it appears as though you are the one out of everyone else on here who doesn't want to accept their implications, but I want to here how you justify your persistent skepticism after you have assessed these studies.

The fact is that genetic studies and morphological studies can prove a Sub-Saharan element or they can prove parrael adaptation (in the case of morphology).

True, very true! The problem with anthropological (bone analysis) is that it isn't the best indicator of actual intra-population relationship, but rather it is an indicator of phenotype (which shows the AE's to be consistent in phenotype with black people). Genetics is a much better indicator of population relationships, and I have provided two genetic studies in my first post showing that the Nilotic element of the Nile Valley is what dominated during the creation of these civilizations (Egypt and Nubia). This is consistent with anthropological evidence, archaeological evidence (showing that they came from Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara), linguistic evidence and of course cultural evidence which persist to this very day amongst Nilotic peoples further up the Nile. No logical person IMO can dodge the logical conclusion from all of this evidence.

You still have to account for the conflicting evidence, those images that differentiate between Egyptians and Sub-Saharans,

There is conflicting evidence to almost every theory, including the Out of Africa theory. None the less it does not negate the fact that one theory is most supported by contemporary scholarship. You say that Egyptians differentiated themselves in their artwork from other black Africans, so tell me how many direct comparisons have you seen with Egyptians and black Africans? Correct if I'm wrong, but these look like a common variation of black Africans:

6061

6062

6063

not just in skin colour put hair style as well.

Tell me then what is "the" black African hairstyle:

6065

6066

6046

6068

6069

6070

6071

6072

6073

You also have serious problems explaining the very non-Sub-Saharan facial features of some of the Middle Kingdom rulers, and you also have to acknowledge that the New Kingdom (which is the period most often represented) depicts the fewest Sub-Saharans.

No dude you have a serious problem with understand indigenous African physical variation. In case you didn't know "black Africa" has the most indigenous physical and genetic variation then any other region on Earth:

"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

Which has been validated by more recent research:

"Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations.

Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies."
(Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636)

This should be common knowledge for anyone debating this subject.

When you look at someone like Nefertiti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti her facial features are considered "perfect" which is usually indicative of varied ancestry,

You do know that aside from the bust of her that was remake by Nazi German scientist there are other depictions of her aren't you?

6055

6056

6057

6058

Notice how in everyone of her depictions above she consistently has full lips. Here's the Discovery Channel reconstruction of her:

6059

Here's her daughter also:

6060

If you reject the claim that the Egyptian people were more mixed and varied than a purely Sub-Saharan population then you are arguing for a Dynastic race.

No I don't! The Dynastic race theory was that which said that a sudden wave of non African people swept into Egypt from the north making their way south, and imposed Dynastic culture onto the local "Negroid" population (the pre-dynastic people) already in place. That fact that Egyptian civilization was later found to have originated in the south and made it's way north was the one hitter quitter for that silly theory. Dynastic culture was the product of the peoples of southern Egypt and no serious scholar would risk their reputation arguing against this proven fact:

"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt. (Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)

In the periods following after Dynastic culture was founded prolonged small scale migration did occur from the Middle East, but was rather insigificant until around the Late New Kingdom period. Also

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 22:40

sorry to inform you but 15.000 years to adjust a skin tone ? lol aslong as there is intermingling it takes as litle as 200 years (give or take 8 generations and from my own analyses on a very particular case of a town that was totally black in the 16th/17th century wich is no more then 20 km´s away from where i live or used to live (i moved to paris france)

No, you didn't understand what I was saying. In terms of strictly adaptive factors (meaning no admixture) it takes over 15,000 years for a population to adjust to the settling in a new climatic zone. That being said, the Egyptians were tropically adapted like the African populations further to the south of them. Almost all of modern day Egypt lies north of the tropics (called the sub tropics), which means that the ancient Egyptians were recent migrants from a more southerly tropical region (inner Africa). The term for elongated limbs in that fashion was once coined "Super Negroid", but the more PC terminology today is "super tropically adapted".

If you watched the full lecture that I linked you to earlier, then you would have seen Keita go over everything from archaeological, linguistic, and of course biological evidence all indicating that the ancient Egyptians were originally peopled by tropical Africans people from further to the south and West (non PC means black people).

Levito

07-04-2012, 23:14

The Unbreakable

07-04-2012, 23:37

This.

Dude clearly has an agenda.

You've got to be kidding me! An agenda would suggest that someone (me) is telling lies or half truths, and so far none of two people who are opposing this view have addressed my crucial evidence. Ask yourself who has provided peer reviewed evidence from numerous reputed contemporary scholars and institutes to support their stance and who has ignored all that evidence and it's implications, while simultaneously providing no evidence of their own? You tell me which side seems ore mlogical in their analysis, and which side appears to have a hidden "agenda".

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-05-2012, 00:51

Spamming more images and writing ten lines of text to my every one is not helpful, it makes you incredibly difficult to respond to, atomising my own posts is also not helpful.

I have already said I will respond to you in time.

If I wished to dismiss you I would have just said:

"I don't dispute a Sub-Saharan element in Egypt, but to be honest most depictions of Egyptians from the New Kingdom, and some from the Middle Kingdom, look much more lik "Coloured" people than "Black" people."

And left it at that.

Nefertiti presents as someone of mixed ancestry, which is how Discovery depicted her, she doesn't present as "black" any more than "white" or "semetic". You are, I presume, aware that the Amarna period did not depict the Royal family realistically in carvings, so a direct comparison with the bust is not possible because the bust is naturalistic. Whether it is a fake or not has never been proven, but from reading today the "Nazi fake" theory is less popular than the "Imperial fake" one. The limestone should be dated to be sure. Even so, the bust has quite full lips.

You've talked a lot about the "Lower Kingdom" being of Sub-Saharan origin, but I wonder about the Upper Kingdom and the mixing between the two.

Don't throw another article at me on this, you've already done that, they have been noted. If you want a serious considered reply to anything at this point you will need to give me the time to actually read and process the articles you have linked and get a grasp of the actors involved in the current debate.

The Unbreakable

07-05-2012, 02:20

Ibrahim

07-05-2012, 05:57

^^ Ok that's fine. Please take your time and read through all my sources (including the links where they provided) and watch all of the videos that I have posted. Post your own counter evidence if you feel the need to. After you do this then please give your opinion on what you feel is the most likely appearance of the ancient Egyptians.

ooh, goody! I can haz free practice on critiquing hypotheses! :clown:

before I begin, let me point out that what I'm about to say doesn't really address what the Egyptians looked like (and I really don't care: think what you want, I personally find it unimportant). however, I do have a few things to say on the methodology--from my perspective as a paleontology and geology student. (so kind of a layman--not totally so)

this is not a complete refutation either: i'm not about to sit down and watch a few hours worth of bad quality YT clips (the video distortions give me headaches--nothing personal).

1-being peer reviewed on its own means nothing. let me explain: there is a paper from Ruben and Quick, 2009, that is peer reviewed: well illustrated, detailed, multiple reviewers, good journal. the author Ruben--John Ruben, has even been published in Science and nature, all on Avian evolution. yet, most Paleontologists in the field of Avian evolution, and students like me, think he's a complete jag-off, and full of it. I could waste a post on why, but the point is, it's not just whether it's peer reviewed, but the actual arguments in it, and in your/everyone's case, how you interpret it(underlined part is to me the issue here).

2-where does that lead us with the papers you did cite? well, I don't know--not completely. but those parts I do know, I have to put a question mark on: one example is that paper you cite about Egyptians having genes matching sub-saharan Africans (the DNA tribes digest article). now, I will not dispute that finding--in fact I'm not really surprised. but I must ask: does the genetic test isolate the nature of the skin color genes (if any)? and was this uniform? that is, is it confined only to Pharaoh's family, or is spread among the larger population of Egypt? This is especially, as having read it, that the authors make this caveat:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

this, combined with the very table you posted here, points to the test being a generic DNA test, where affinities were arrived at using a statistical method, for a small group of people in a single family. these clearly match African populations best, but at the same time, they don't really say much more: That small European part may actually be the part responsible for looks for all I know. to further ruin your day with that particular paper, I looked into the methods of the paper (and journal), where I found this (http://www.dnatribes.com/faq.html):

Q: Do DNA Tribes results correspond to physical appearance?

A: Our analysis uses neutral genetic markers not associated with physical appearance. Neutral genetic markers
are locations within a person’s DNA not associated with phenotype (appearance) and not subject to natural
selection. Genes (alleles) that determine hair or eye color are not neutral, but neutral markers can silently convey
genetic information not visible on the surface. For instance, a person might have light hair and eye pigmentation
while still retaining some neutral genetic links to the Sub-Saharan world region passed down from an African
grandparent.

in short, the source you cite is completely and utterly irrelevant to your whole point,

then there is this: http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312 (which you cited Btw). This one I know for a fact has even less to do with "race", as it tests mtDNA, and Y-chromosome DNA: the former is the DNA of the mitochondria, which is related to metabolism of a cell, not appearance of a full person, and Y-chromosome largely causes one to grow testicles and a penis when an embryo (i.e. It's the chromosome that makes males males). And again, it doesn't really say much about what Ancient Egyptians looked like.

finally, the pictures you post really don't mean anything--not on their own. I could show you a whole bunch (more than what you have, actually) of pictures of Arabs like me who have fair skin and blond hair, and tell you "Arabs are European! see!", and it would have the same meaning: none at all. what you need to do instead, is put these into context: do a survey of randomly selected pictures the Egyptians made of themselves, and see what the norm is. preferably, ones that are painted, and not just unpainted stone/carvings, since you never know for sure otherwise.

in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

Levito

07-05-2012, 09:15

An agenda would suggest that someone (me) is telling lies or half truths, and so far none of two people who are opposing this view have addressed my crucial evidence.

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

^ I can repeat this more slowly for you if it will help.

moonburn

07-05-2012, 13:23

I PREFER CREATIVE criticism to constructive criticism anyway :\

Vaginacles

07-05-2012, 15:53

I just spent 2 hours typing a reply and then this dumbass forum auto logs me, so i'll just make this point because it is important.

Craniofacial anthropometry is not a valid tool to determine race. Facial and body features are a lot more correlated to environment rather than race. In fact, given what we know about the climate of upper egypt during the time of the old kingdom; it was significantly wetter and warmer than today:
The Sahara has not always been a wilderness of sand dunes. German climatologists Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kröpelin, analyzing the radiocarbon dates of archaeological sites, recently concluded that the region’s prevailing climate pattern changed around 8,500 B.C., with the monsoon rains that covered the tropics moving north. The desert sands sprouted rolling grasslands punctuated by verdant valleys, prompting people to begin settling the region in 7,000 B.C. Kuper and Kröpelin say this green Sahara came to an end between 3,500 B.C. and 1,500 B.C., when the monsoon belt returned to the tropics and the desert reemerged. That date range is 500 years later than prevailing theories had suggested.

Further studies led by Kröpelin revealed that the return to a desert climate was a gradual process spanning centuries. This transitional period was characterized by cycles of ever-decreasing rains and extended dry spells. Support for this theory can be found in recent research conducted by Judith Bunbury, a geologist at the University of Cambridge. After studying sediment samples in the Nile Valley, she concluded that climate change in the Giza region began early in the Old Kingdom, with desert sands arriving in force late in the era.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Uncovering-Secrets-of-the-Sphinx.html#ixzz1zlAb3GnB

Thus the reason why Ancient Egyptians have "tropical body types" is because they lived in a tropical climate at that time. Franz Boas illustrated the effect of environment on cranial size here http://nersp.nerdc.ufl.edu/~ufruss/documents/boaspaper.pdf and subsequent research suggests that diet and climate has far more of a role in determining cranial features than race.

Every piece of evidence that makes reference to "negroid features" or "tropical body types" is bullcrap if you use it as a race identifier

The Unbreakable

07-05-2012, 18:31

Craniofacial anthropometry is not a valid tool to determine race. Facial and body features are a lot more correlated to environment rather than race.

I've already acknowledged this in my previous response above. While bone measurement in general (anthropology) is not the "best" indicator of intra-populations "relationships", it is indeed best way in determining the "phenotype" (what the actually looked like) of a group of peoples. Philip made a valid point that adaption to a common region may be why Nubians and Egyptians (who lived side by side) generally had the same phenotype, but even if that was the case (though most evidence suggest that it was in fact common gene origins between the two) how does it take away from the fact that both Nubians and Egyptians based on skeletal analysis looked the same (sharing traits that were labeled "Negroid")?

A 2009 study which thoroughly analyzed the biological relationship commonly noted between Nubians and Egyptians of various time periods had this to say about this inquiry:

Both mtDNA (Krings et al., 1999) and Y-Chromosome data (Hassan et al., 2008; Keita, 2005; Lucotte and Mercier, 2003) indicate that migrations, usually bidirectional, occurred along the Nile. Thus, the osteological material used in this analysis also supports the DNA evidence.

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

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV.

The reoccurring notation of Kerma affinities with Egyptian groups is not entirely surprising. Kerma was an integral part of the trade between Egypt and Nubia.

Gene flow may account for the homogeneity across these Nubian and Egyptian groups and is consistent with the biological diffusion precept. Small geographic distances between groups allow for the exchange of genes. The similarities uncovered by this study may be explained by another force, adaptation.. resemblance may be indicative of a common adaptation to a similar geographic location, rather than gene flow Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate. Because of the similarity between and the overlapping of the two territories that would require similar adaptations to the environment, common adaptation cannot be discounted.

Gene flow appears likely between the Egyptians and Nubians, although common adaptations to a similar environment may have also been a factor in their cranial similarities. This study does not rule out the possibility that in situ biological evolution occurred at other times not represented by the samples in this analysis. " -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

You must also take note of the fact that a recent genetic study that I cited in my very first post has confirmed that during the formative period of both Nubians and Egyptian civilization there was a common ancestry from the Nilotic migrants of the ancient Sahara who were said to have been the "dominate" presence on the Nile (along with other African communities from Horn). That right there is confirmation that the overlapping between both populations was in fact due to common origin, rather than common adaption. Archaeological evidence (as shown earlier) also points to this being the case.

In fact, given what we know about the climate of upper egypt during the time of the old kingdom; it was significantly wetter and warmer than today:

This is true also of the regions of the Sahara, which is where the populations that would settle in Lower Nubia and in Egypt would have come from. What would does this common knowledge change about what has been proven about their biological affinities?

Thus the reason why Ancient Egyptians have "tropical body types" is because they lived in a tropical climate at that time.

That article stated nothing about the region that we now refer to as Egypt (especially Giza in north), previously belonging to a tropical climate. It makes reference to the common knowledge that the African Saharan region underwent a drastic desertification as a result of a tilt in the Earth's axis, and that it's affect was off and on near the Nile throughout time. Tropical adaption can only be derived from long term residence in the TROPICS, and that Egypt (for the most part) does not lie (nor has it ever) within the tropics:

6084

The fact that the early ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted could only mean that peoples, who created Egypt came from the regions of tropics further to the south and west of Egypt. Again this is supported by archaeological, cultural and other pieces of biological evidence.

Every piece of evidence that makes reference to "negroid features" or "tropical body types" is bullcrap if you use it as a race identifier

No I'm sorry, but you have misinterpreted the meaning of those studies. Rather you like it or not the ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans:

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

and had overlapping craniometric patterns with more southerly Northeast African populations:

"Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."
(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

Rather or not you want to assert that the analysis of their skeletal remains do not definitely indicate "racial relations" is one thing, but they do indicate that even if for whatever reason they weren't biologically "related" they certainly looked like the "black" Africans whom were listed above.

Vaginacles

07-06-2012, 01:21

I've already acknowledged this in my previous response above. While bone measurement in general (anthropology) is not the "best" indicator of intra-populations "relationships", it is indeed best way in determining the "phenotype" (what the actually looked like) of a group of peoples. Philip made a valid point that adaption to a common region may be why Nubians and Egyptians (who lived side by side) generally had the same phenotype, but even if that was the case (though most evidence suggest that it was in fact common gene origins between the two) how does it take away from the fact that both Nubians and Egyptians based on skeletal analysis looked the same (sharing traits that were labeled "Negroid")?

There is another study that suggests that the ancient egyptians shared craniofacial features with people around them, but not so much sub-saharan africa http://wysinger.homestead.com/brace.pdf

The Predynastic of Upper Egypt
and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other
than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European
Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not
at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World.
Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an
unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and
all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin
color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective
forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of
“race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone
suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population.
Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since
back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions
or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and
they were so in the past as well.

A 2009 study which thoroughly analyzed the biological relationship commonly noted between Nubians and Egyptians of various time periods had this to say about this inquiry:

All this suggests is that migration occurred bi-directionally. Considering at this time the saharah were more grassy, migrating nomads of pastoralist it makes sense that south egypt was genetically close to the sub saharan pastoralists. However, at this time there was NO Ancient Egypt, the badarians were a material culture of southern Egypt. Northern Egypt did not share the same amount of genetic or cultural similarity with nubians, rather they were more closely related to the Levantine/ Eurasians. This is a tale of two Egypts, one influenced by Saharan African pastoralism and the other influenced by Neolithic farmers from the near east. This does not prove that the people of EGYPt were "black" or even "sub-saharan", rather it only shows that migration patterns shift the genetic makeup of these people

You must also take note of the fact that a recent genetic study that I cited in my very first post has confirmed that during the formative period of both Nubians and Egyptian civilization there was a common ancestry from the Nilotic migrants of the ancient Sahara who were said to have been the "dominate" presence on the Nile (along with other African communities from Horn). That right there is confirmation that the overlapping between both populations was in fact due to common origin, rather than common adaption. Archaeological evidence (as shown earlier) also points to this being the case.

You posted too many studies, please link it. Nonetheless if indeed the Nilotic people are the true genetic parents of Nubians and Egyptians, why is their language not part of the Nilotic languages? Ancient egyptian has more linguistic similiarities with the semetic languages than the Nilotic. Also, using genetics to trace the "origins" of Egyptians would yield evidence of both Eurasian and African descent. King Tut for example shares a genetic marker with 50% of europeans, suggesting his paternal origins are from the Caucasus area http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/08/01/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801. This doesn't deny that king tut also had sub-saharan ancestors, but its also clear that he is the product of a genetic fusion that transcends "black" or "white"

This is true also of the regions of the Sahara, which is where the populations that would settle in Lower Nubia and in Egypt would have come from. What would does this common knowledge change about what has been proven about their biological affinities?

That environment is the cause of phenotype and not genetics? "black" Africans also live in Savannas and that once the Savannas disappeared, they moved southward with only some staying in the Nile valley.

That article stated nothing about the region that we now refer to as Egypt (especially Giza in north), previously belonging to a tropical climate. It makes reference to the common knowledge that the African Saharan region underwent a drastic desertification as a result of a tilt in the Earth's axis, and that it's affect was off and on near the Nile throughout time. Tropical adaption can only be derived from long term residence in the TROPICS, and that Egypt (for the most part) does not lie (nor has it ever) within the tropics:

6084

Actually south egypt was part of the tropic of cancer, and since your genetic evidence is mainly from the south egyptian culture of the Badari, and that during the Holocene the climate was significantly wetter and warmer, it can be reasonably assumed that tropical climates were further north and south than they currently are. Thus the tropical climate would safely envelop a sizable portion of southern egypt, and phenotypic trait transformation only needs a few thousand years to fully change the physical makeup of the inhabitants the tropic of cancer is already at the border of modern egypt, expanding that zone of tropical climate would encompass much of south egypt and also much of the badari culture as well

The fact that the early ancient Egyptians were tropically adapted could only mean that peoples, who created Egypt came from the regions of tropics further to the south and west of Egypt. Again this is supported by archaeological, cultural and other pieces of biological evidence.

Nope, evidence suggests that the Ancient Egyptians were mainly indigenous north africans, not people from sub saharan africa. See first study

No I'm sorry, but you have misinterpreted the meaning of those studies. Rather you like it or not the ancient Egyptians had tropical body plans:

Yes, thank you for agreeing with me

and had overlapping craniometric patterns with more southerly Northeast African populations:

cool, but it also says that northern egyptians were more dissimilar than south egyptians at this time, tale of two egypts. Does not suggest Origins of ALL Egyptians from south, nor does it suggest that egyptian culture originated from the south.

Rather or not you want to assert that the analysis of their skeletal remains do not definitely indicate "racial relations" is one thing, but they do indicate that even if for whatever reason they weren't biologically "related" they certainly looked like the "black" Africans whom were listed above.

We are looking at Genes here, not appearance. I don't think anyone suggests that Australian Aborigines and Paupa New Guinea came from africa within the last 10 000 years, yet people were struck by the similarities between them and African blacks. I've already suggested environment as the cause of craniofacial similarities, and that during the predynastic egypt, north and south egypt could be considered ethnically different, but still a melting pot of different Eurasian farmers and saharan pastoralists. Nothing suggests that the egyptians were "black" as we know it, the most likely comparison would be "mulatto", but with more non sub saharan genes than the 50/50 expectation. Trying to rewrite history so that people think its a "black" civilization is misleading at best, and propaganda at worst.

The Unbreakable

07-06-2012, 08:05

We are looking at Genes here, not appearance.

Going by the title of this thread, it would appear as though we are actually looking for the physical appearance of the ancient Egyptians. I can't name to many modern biologist who label something as a "black gene". The evidence supports that the ancient Egyptians were apart of a Northeast African biological continuum (with closest relations with Nubians), which would suggest that they were (gasp) black like those other Africans.

I don't think anyone suggests that Australian Aborigines and Paupa New Guinea came from africa within the last 10 000 years, yet people were struck by the similarities between them and African blacks.

This is another great point. Those Island populations while being distinct genetically from Africans, have indeed being noted by many anthropologist (and everyday people) to be physically very similar. They are all tropically adapted (and as a result have dark skin) and have similar cranial morphologies. The ancient Egyptians were also tropically adapted and had variations of cranial morphologies seen in populations in interior Africa ranging from broad to elongated. This would suggest (as Egyptologist Donald Redford had stated) that the ancient Egyptians would be considered black in physical appearance.

I've already suggested environment as the cause of craniofacial similarities, and that during the predynastic egypt, north and south egypt could be considered ethnically different, but still a melting pot of different Eurasian farmers and saharan pastoralists.

"Eurasian farmers"? The agricultural system in place in the Nile valley was "Nilotic" and basically a continuation of what was seen in the ancient Sahara. Now while it's true that in pre-dynastic Lower Egypt there were products from the Middle East (goats, wheat, barley), archaeological and linguistic evidence negates any major movement (if at all) of peoples from the Levant in to the Lower Nile:

However, it is significant that ancient Egyptian words for the major Near Eastern domesticates - Sheep, goat, barley, and wheat - are not loans from either Semitic, Sumerian, or Indo-European. This argues against a mass settler colonization (at replacement levels) of the Nile valley from the Near East at this time. This is in contrast with some words for domesticates in some early Semitic languages, which are likely Sumerian loan words (Diakonoff 1981).. This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000). Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation,
History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita.pdf)

Now while there was likely some people from the Levant present in Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt, evidence both biological and cultural suggest that the population base of that region was local (African) with Nilotic Saharan roots. No need to even bring up Upper Egypt (which was fully African).

Nothing suggests that the egyptians were "black" as we know it the most likely comparison would be "mulatto", but with more non sub saharan genes than the 50/50 expectation.

Mostly Eurasian "Mulattoes"....You've got to be kidding me?

Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)....There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas...Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this 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. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)

link (http://books.google.com/books?id=XNdgScxtirYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Encyclopedia+of+the+Archaeology+of+Ancient+Egyp t&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=Encyclopedia%20of%20the%20Archaeology%20of%20Anc ient%20Egypt&f=false)

They were clearly black, so why the denial dude?

Trying to rewrite history so that people think its a "black" civilization is misleading at best, and propaganda at worst.

:laugh4: Dude you've got to think more critically than that. All of this contemporary evidence is suggesting that the only "rewriting of history" was that of Africa from colonial aged Western scholars who had a racial agenda. According to them everything from ancient Kemet to Nubia, Zimbabwe, ancient Ghana, Songhai, Mali, Swahili, Axum, ancient Ethiopia ect ect was the product of some imaginary non black people who swept into the continent to "civilize" the "Negroes". According to them anytime a black African presence was oblivious anywhere outside of Africa, it was due to some sort of slave trade and nothing else. According to them black Africa was an impoverished wasteland full of savages until Europeans came into the "civilize" them. In reality the "civilizing" of the continent's inhabitants by Colonial powers is at the root of what lead to the current state of much of Africa. By revealing the fact that Africa's greatest ancient civilization was black is simply correcting one big colonial lie that stuck.

I would suggest that you watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po1RGmzfnNY

by African historian Basil Davidson in full.

The Unbreakable

07-06-2012, 08:11

in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

Well no hurt feeling there. Perhaps you could enlighten me on a better way to present my views on this subject, rather than backing them sources. Can you also give your opinion on this analysis (http://www.scribd.com/doc/61235317/African-Origin-of-the-Ancient-Egyptians)of the same topic. I personally think that's it's brilliant and well sourced. Did he use too many sources?

Ironduke

07-06-2012, 17:54

Originally Posted by Ibrahim
in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

I cared enough, I suppose, to start this topic. It interests me and I wanted to read peoples comments, hopefully well informed comments. I’m totally ignorant on this issue and have obtained, free of charge, the names of historians, a few video links, and book titles which I can turn to and learn from. What I never understood is why people join threads that don't interest them only to insincerely ask the question "who cares, why do you care?"

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-06-2012, 20:24

"I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here."

This seems to me a strange 'argument'. Given that the original intention of EB was to present a more historically accurate representation of the period depicted in R:TW, and by extension that historical accuracy might be something worthwhile attaining I think it is important, valid and a very interesting subject.

Whether we like to admit it or not, there is an attitude that prevails, more within some circles that within others, that Africa (and Africans) are/were somehow less culturally developed, and that can spill over into a view that Africans are/were in some way incapable of being as culturally deveoped as our own civilisations. I know this is a delicate subject and so will state that I am not, in any way, accusing anybody here of racism.

It should be noted that any accusation of racism was not necessarily directed at modern proponents, but rather that the initial prevailing attitude (during a time when slavery - in particular the enslavement of black people - was still acceptable in many parts) has somehow stuck (and let's not forget that appartheid was still in force within some of our lifetimes....). What damages the arguments put forth here by The Unbreakable is an imagined link with the madmen who would argue that, for eg, King Henry VIII was black (yes, I have seen those nutters). Any connection is mistaken, imo. The arguments that have been put against the more holistic approach put forward (by The Unbreakable) seem to be piecemeal. It isn't just morphology, or genetics, but also cultural, religious and archaeological, which all together make for a pretty compelling proposition.

I, for one, do care, and am interested, in the historical accuracy of our depictions of the ancient world.

TylerX5

07-06-2012, 21:44

There needs to be a common defining of the term "black" while were talking about the physical of a people. I understand that the term "black" carries a connotation of a myriad of social statuses in the world (whether positive or negative), I think it would be beneficial for the sake of this argument if we strip that word of all meaning beside a generalized description of African features, most importantly a significantly dark skin color. Or even better how about we just stick to the term Nilotic?

Ibrahim

07-06-2012, 22:11

"I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here."

This seems to me a strange 'argument'. Given that the original intention of EB was to present a more historically accurate representation of the period depicted in R:TW, and by extension that historical accuracy might be something worthwhile attaining I think it is important, valid and a very interesting subject.

well yeah it's strange: because it wasn't an argument: it was me getting puzzled about the way the thread was going; either way, I should have been more clear, and careful. especially since you put it that way. to be clear, I was only addressing the methods used, not the conclusion. I wasn't trying to imply anything untoward.

I cared enough, I suppose, to start this topic. It interests me and I wanted to read peoples comments, hopefully well informed comments. I’m totally ignorant on this issue and have obtained, free of charge, the names of historians, a few video links, and book titles which I can turn to and learn from. What I never understood is why people join threads that don't interest them only to insincerely ask the question "who cares, why do you care?"

strictly speaking, it wasn't really aimed at you. It was more a comment on the way some people were going about this: I was expecting a more disinterested discussion. if it came across as insincere to you accordingly, I'm sorry. I'll be more careful next time.

EDIT: for the record: I really liked the genetic stuff

@ unbreakable: read my post in full: I think you will get what I'm aiming at: it isn't so much what you're citing, or how much (and no, there's no such thing as too much), it's how you're using it. it will do you no good to use neutral traits in studying appearance, and you run into sampling problems with the artwork.

as to the analysis? it is pretty clear that this only goes as far as the middle kingdom--if you are correct. there is a break in continuity in the New Kingdom (that's according to the paper proper), caused by migration (starting I assume with the Hyksos). This would mean, at least for the mod, that Egyptians will not look like they did in say, the Old or middle kingdoms.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-06-2012, 22:55

don't be afraid to quote me: I'm not going to bite :clown:

well yeah it's strange: because it wasn't an argument: it was me getting puzzled about the way the thread was going: I find IMHO people were getting on with it; either way, I should have been more clear, and careful. especially since you put it that way.

It wasn't meant to be directed at you, your 'version' of the sentiment was simply the most recent and easily accessible. I know, also, that it was not an argument (and hence the single quotation ' ' marks).

:2thumbsup:

I know what it was that you were getting at, and that's why I mentioned the links to more.... bizarre claims, which I believe are misplaced. I think that there has also been a misunderstanding of the term racist used here. I do not believe that it was aimed at more recent study, but rather that the original instigators of study were racist and of a decidedly racist culture and that such distortion as took place then has simply continued.

Confrontation and effrontery were not my aim, I assure you.

Blxz

07-07-2012, 19:25

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-07-2012, 21:01

well yeah it's strange: because it wasn't an argument: it was me getting puzzled about the way the thread was going; either way, I should have been more clear, and careful. especially since you put it that way. to be clear, I was only addressing the methods used, not the conclusion. I wasn't trying to imply anything untoward.

strictly speaking, it wasn't really aimed at you. It was more a comment on the way some people were going about this: I was expecting a more disinterested discussion. if it came across as insincere to you accordingly, I'm sorry. I'll be more careful next time.

EDIT: for the record: I really liked the genetic stuff

@ unbreakable: read my post in full: I think you will get what I'm aiming at: it isn't so much what you're citing, or how much (and no, there's no such thing as too much), it's how you're using it. it will do you no good to use neutral traits in studying appearance, and you run into sampling problems with the artwork.

as to the analysis? it is pretty clear that this only goes as far as the middle kingdom--if you are correct. there is a break in continuity in the New Kingdom (that's according to the paper proper), caused by migration (starting I assume with the Hyksos). This would mean, at least for the mod, that Egyptians will not look like they did in say, the Old or middle kingdoms.

I'm very busy, and haven't had time to check this thread or do a lot of reading.

However, the point about the mod's accuracy is important. By 272 BS the Ptolemies, decendents of one of Alexander's Macedonian generals were the rulers of what we now call "Egypt". Central to the wars of the Sucessor Kingdoms were their claims to "Greekness" as well as "Macedonianness". Ptolemy's armies were, like his rivals, composed primarily of troops of Greek and Macedonian origin, with a healthy smattering of Thracians and Celts who acted as irregulars or other mercenary roles. The point is, Ptolemy was not remotely African and his descendants would have sought to maintain their Greekness, not dilute it, and by and large so would his soldiers.

So, while the debate about who "the Egyptians" were may be important it has little direct impact on how we depict the Macedonian units available to Egypt in EBII, if at all.

The Unbreakable

07-08-2012, 00:33

All the cross quoting and links have made me rather confused. Exactly what are we debating here?

Is it:
-The origins of Egyptian civilization were from Nubian people.
-Egypt was populated with predominately dark-skinned central eastern tropical african peoples right through the entire history
-They were originally dark skinned but changed at a later date

Basically! As for the Egyptians essentially coming from Nubia, well that appears to now be the consensus amongst mainstream academics. Here is a link (http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Its-African-Context-Proceedings/dp/1407307606) to the new publication by the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, and Yale academics who are now finally on board with acknowledging that ancient Egypt was originally black...

The Unbreakable seems to be focussing on the early period exclusively such as the transition between the pre-dynastic and the old kingdom while some of the others seem to be using the entire timeline with more focus on the New Kingdom.

When asking a question like this (the OP I mean), why would the origins not be of the utmost importance? Even with that said I have presented evidence showing that Amarna period (New Kingdom) pharaohs also shared the same biological affinities as those pharaohs of earlier time periods. Studies have been presented showing that genetically they were overwhelmingly Nilotic. Studies have also shown that Amarna period pharaohs also had skeletal morphologies consistent with Africans further to the south (both cranial and in limb proportions).

Ibrahim

07-08-2012, 03:14

I'm very busy, and haven't had time to check this thread or do a lot of reading.

However, the point about the mod's accuracy is important. By 272 BS the Ptolemies, decendents of one of Alexander's Macedonian generals were the rulers of what we now call "Egypt". Central to the wars of the Sucessor Kingdoms were their claims to "Greekness" as well as "Macedonianness". Ptolemy's armies were, like his rivals, composed primarily of troops of Greek and Macedonian origin, with a healthy smattering of Thracians and Celts who acted as irregulars or other mercenary roles. The point is, Ptolemy was not remotely African and his descendants would have sought to maintain their Greekness, not dilute it, and by and large so would his soldiers.

I'm well aware of this part: I've read about the incest among the Ptolemioi. I wasn't even talking about that.

So, while the debate about who "the Egyptians" were may be important it has little direct impact on how we depict the Macedonian units available to Egypt in EBII, if at all.

that I know: as I said to Unbreakable, his hypothesis would only apply as late as the New Kingdom.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-08-2012, 16:06

Basically! As for the Egyptians essentially coming from Nubia, well that appears to now be the consensus amongst mainstream academics. Here is a link (http://www.amazon.com/Egypt-Its-African-Context-Proceedings/dp/1407307606) to the new publication by the Fitzwilliam, Oxford, and Yale academics who are now finally on board with acknowledging that ancient Egypt was originally black...

You mean this BAR Proceedings?

This volume forms the proceedings of the conference, Egypt in its African Context, which took place at The Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, UK, on the 3-4 October 2009. The conference at Manchester had a number of aims: to address perceptions of Ancient Egypt in the West, in scholarly writing and public understanding; to present a scholarly approach to the subject of Egypt in Africa in order to counterbalance the extreme Afrocentric views within which such a debate is often contextualised; to investigate how community groups and professional Egyptologists can transfer their knowledge and points of view; and to present the work of scholars working on African-centred Egyptology to a wider audience including the traditional academic Egyptological community. Contents: Introduction: Egypt in its African Context (C. A. Folorunso and Stephen Quirke); 1) The Strategic Importance of Kemet (Kimani S. K. Nehusi); 2) The Nubian Pastoral Culture as Link between Egypt and Africa: A View from the Archaeological Record (Maria Carmelo Gatto); 3) The Predynastic Bos primigenius as a Royal Image of Territory, Boundaries and Power in an African Context (Ana I. Navajas Jimenez); 4) Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which Emerged the Egyptian Civilisation (Alain Anselin); 5) Egypt in Afrika and Afrika in Egypt: The Example of Libation (Kimani S. K. Nehusi); 6) Meroitic Worship of Isis at Philae (Solange Bumbaugh); 7) Critical Comments on Essays on Interpreting Ancient Egypt presented at the Egypt in its African Context Conference (Charles A. Grantham); 8) Contesting Egypt: Facts, Rhetoric or Sentiment? (C. A. Folorunso); 9) West African Perspectives on Ancient Egypt: African Renaissance (Jose Lingna-Nafafe); 10) Petrie's Revolutions: The Case of the Qurneh Queen (Bill Manley); 11) Public Understandings of Ancient Egypt in the Formation of Dalit and Afro-American Identities and History Curriculum (Clyde Ahmad Winters); 12) Curating Kemet, Fear of a Black Land? (Sally-Ann Ashton).

I'm reading some of the papers, what I am seeing thus far is precisely a rejection of a totalising "Black Egypt".

The Unbreakable

07-09-2012, 02:01

You mean this BAR Proceedings?

I'm reading some of the papers, what I am seeing thus far is precisely a rejection of a totalising "Black Egypt".

It states no where that academia is rejecting the notion that ancient Egypt was black, and that is apparent by the actual videos of those scholars lectures themselves. What is being done with this publication is the presentation of the fact of Egypt being black in a more scholarly acceptable way, than that that was attempted by some earlier "Afrocentric" scholars. I don't understand why you having such a hard time accepting this fact, I really don't.

Blxz

07-09-2012, 08:05

Looks to me like there are people who are very determined to prove the Afro-centric view and this report is trying to balance things out and look at the facts evenly.
I think you are only seeing what you want to see here The Unbreakable.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-09-2012, 12:06

It states no where that academia is rejecting the notion that ancient Egypt was black, and that is apparent by the actual videos of those scholars lectures themselves. What is being done with this publication is the presentation of the fact of Egypt being black in a more scholarly acceptable way, than that that was attempted by some earlier "Afrocentric" scholars. I don't understand why you having such a hard time accepting this fact, I really don't.

S.O.Y. Keita rejects that notion, from the clip you linked. He specifically said that they had tropically adapted limbs and they were "dark", but he refused to describe them as "Negro" or "African".

I, frankly, don't give one fig about the videos of them lecturing - the BAR report presents their worked-up lectures as they should be recieved. Having read a couple of the papers, the thing I was struck by was the refusal to simply equate Egypt with Nubia, or anywhere else. If you read the paper on Nubian pastoralism, one of the first things the author makes clear is that you cannot infer skin colour from cultural grouping or interaction. She also made the point that from the beggining of the dynastic period there is a fairly hard break between Egyptian and Nubian cultures, going in both directions,

Now, lety me state this again for you - because you clearly have trouble taking the point - I have no problem with a "Nubian" or "Sub-Saharan" element in Egypt, but that does not make Egypt "Black". As has already been demonstrated to you, the genetic studies you linked to indicate an African affinity, but not necessarily a skin-tone or appearence which we associate with Sub-Saharans.

Look, as far as I can see you must have registerd here pretty much just to have this argument. I am nowhere near as interested in this debate about skin colour as you, but the simply fact is that you have failed to produce anywhere like the volume or quality of evidence necessary to cause a catastrophic paradigm shift, nor have you demonstrated that one has already occured.

Quite the opposite, Egyptologists seem to have incorporated an African element in Egytian history with a minimum of fuss or angst, from what you have presented.

Vaginacles

07-09-2012, 14:12

Egypt was not uniformally black

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf

Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant
population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses
of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric
pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal
Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as
well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early
southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying
craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern
African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern
Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.

Thus "black Egypt" is a misleading term.

Also, there is not consensus that all Egyptians came from Nubia. That would be silly and contradict these findings

Moros

07-09-2012, 16:04

The Unbreakable

07-09-2012, 19:55

S.O.Y. Keita rejects that notion, from the clip you linked. He specifically said that they had tropically adapted limbs and they were "dark", but he refused to describe them as "Negro" or "African".

Keita being a modern bio-antropologist rejects the entire notion of the biological concept of race! He would reject not only calling the ancient Egyptians black but any other African peoples and likewise he would reject calling any European population "white". In that exact same video segment he states that the reason for not accepting racial terminology is not because he believes them be distinct in phenotype from other Africans who are generally deemed "black", but because the definition of a said race varies from region to region (where race is even relevant). His research on the other hand which he was lecturing states that the ancient Egyptians generally ranged from broad featured to "Somali like" in cranial variation. He also stated that based on ecological principal that the ancient Egyptians had dark skin as a result of their tropical adaption. Taking away the PC terminology what else is an indigenous dark skinned Northeast African population with "Somali like" facial features called if not black in society. His research has also been contextualized by less "PC" scholars who directly consulted with him on their implications:

Were the Ancient Egyptians black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archeological and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians by which he means the pre-dynastic people of Southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.

Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remained profoundly African to the very end.

Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to conceive of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of white people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.

Black Spark White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? - Chapter 77. Black, White or Biologically African? Pg. 471

Once again the author of this book who is not a bio-anthropologist and as such is not blocked from resorted to racial terminology, consulted with Keita and from that came to the conclusion above. The conclusion above has been echoed by a number of contemporary scholars to some even stretching all the way back to the 18th century. It has been validated by contemporary research as well (from numerous sources).

the thing I was struck by was the refusal to simply equate Egypt with Nubia, or anywhere else. If you read the paper on Nubian pastoralism, one of the first things the author makes clear is that you cannot infer skin colour from cultural grouping or interaction.

Why are you trying to make skin color inferences based on archaeological evidence? Why not

You have been presented with biological evidence ranging from genetics to anthropology stating that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians were essentially the same people; You have been presented with archaeological and cultural evidence backing these findings suggesting a common Saharan origin for this group of people who would later become to separate political entities. In other words just about all evidence is against the notion that one was black while the other was something else, because they were the same people.

She also made the point that from the beggining of the dynastic period there is a fairly hard break between Egyptian and Nubian cultures, going in both directions,

Since the beginning of the Dynastic era is when Egypt became it's own separate political entity, what is your point? The entire point of this section (http://yale.academia.edu/MariaCGatto/Papers/544327/The_Nubian_Pastoral_Culture_as_Link_between_Egypt_and_Africa_A_View_from_the_Archaeological_Record) of the publication, is to show that ancient Egypt did essentially derive from Nubian political structure. This has been accepted for years, even by the modern Egyptian antiquities counsel:

"According to common knowledge, it has generally been held that there was a geographical, cultural and political boundary between Egypt and Nubia in the Predynastic/Early Dynastic period, and it was located between Gebel es Silsila and Aswan . Any Egyptian evidence in Nubia was seen as an import or cultural influence, while any Nubian evidence in Upper Egypt was viewed as the sporadic presence of foreign people within Egyptian territory. As a consequence, the cemeteries located from Kubbaniya southwards were assigned to the A-Group culture.

In recent years, new research on the subject shows that the interaction between the two cultures was much more complex than previously thought, affecting the time, space and nature of the interaction. As a result, the Aswan area probably never was a real borderline. The two regions, and so their cultural entities, are not antithetical to one another, but in prehistoric times are still the expression of the same cultural tradition, with strong regional variations, particularly in the last part of the 4th millennium BC.

"In the Predynastic period, the Egyptian and Nubian identities still shared many common traits derived from a common ancestry. The Naqada culture developed from the Badarian culture which, as the Tasian, was related to the Nubian Neolithic tradition (Gatto 2002; 2006c). Thus, the definition of what was Egyptian or Nubian at that time in the First Cataract region (and the southern part of Upper Egypt) is not so obvious: are the local cooking pots (shale-tempered ware), for example, Egyptian or Nubian?"

--GATTO M.C.(2009). Field season in the Aswan-Kom Ombo region of Egypt." Aswan-Kom Ombo. Archaeological Project. Report to: The Supreme Council of Antiquities, Egypt.

Once again the origins of Egypt and Nubia are the same, hence they were the same people! Trying to separate Egypt from Sudan is no longer viewed as appropriate in modern academia.

Now, lety me state this again for you - because you clearly have trouble taking the point - I have no problem with a "Nubian" or "Sub-Saharan" element in Egypt, but that does not make Egypt "Black".

No YOU don't get! Your insistence that Egypt and Nubia were somehow different entities is false. Your fallacious attempts to equate Nubia as the black civilization and Egypt as something else is false, because they were the same people:

In one of his catalog essays the archaeologist Geoff Emberling, who conceived the show along with Jennifer Chi of the institute, examines some of these historical errors.

“We now recognize that populations of Nubia and Egypt form a continuum rather than clearly distinct groups,” Mr. Emberling writes, “and that it is impossible to draw a line between Egypt and Nubia that would indicate where ‘black’ begins.”

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/arts/design/nubia-ancient-kingdoms-of-africa-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

Saying that there was "Sub Saharan" element to Egypt is a severe underestimate of the fact. It is like saying that there was an Asian element to ancient China. The biological evidence as stated by Donald Redford in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows that the ancient Egyptians would be considered black:

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

Why are you fighting this clear fact so vigorously?

As has already been demonstrated to you, the genetic studies you linked to indicate an African affinity, but not necessarily a skin-tone or appearence which we associate with Sub-Saharans.

Not only does ecological principal show that the ancient Egyptians had dark skin like other tropical African populations to the south of them, but even skin analysis has confirmed that they had the same melanin content as "Negroid" populations whom the same source (like just about every other one) states that they originated from:

"During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
--(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13[[37A]]

I mean my goodness what else does it take to convince you that these ancient Africans were black?

The Unbreakable

07-09-2012, 20:03

Egypt was not uniformally black[/

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf
Thus "black Egypt" is a misleading term.

Keita notes a similarity between Coastal Maghreb populations and LATE Dynastic Egyptians. What do we already know about Late Dynastic Egyptians?

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

So in other words the Nubians were closer to early ancient Egyptians than the Late Dynastic descendants of early ancient Egyptians, because late Dynastic Egyptians mixed with populations from the Mediterranean who were obviously biological distinct from the early ancient Egyptians. Not to mention that the balance of population during early ancient Egypt was overwhelming concentrated in the south (upper Egypt). It has been stated that prior to the New Kingdom (numerous foreign invasions occurred) that Lower Egypt was sparsely populations and that the Delta was almost uninhabited (which is the complete opposite of today). The vast majority of Egyptians were of southern origins.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-09-2012, 20:28

Egypt was not uniformally black

http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf

Thus "black Egypt" is a misleading term.

Also, there is not consensus that all Egyptians came from Nubia. That would be silly and contradict these findings

I really don't think that anybody is trying to argue that all Egyptians came from Nubia. However, I think you must have misunderstood the reference that you quoted and highlighted. What you highlighted supports the point that I think is actually being made.

"Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern."

....which suggests that the Early Dynastic pharoahs, who were of Southern African descent (the early dynasty being the result of Upper Egypt defeating Lower Egypt and ruling both kingdoms), can be differentiated from the Northern African population which appears to have been more divergent.

Is it important whether 'black' Africans played a significant part in the development of ancient Egypt? Well, it kind of is, I think. There are two facets of this that need to be taken into acount. The first is that we aren't necessarily talking about the sort of people who would play EB and who are, more generally, actually interested in history. We're talking about a more widespread public perception; in much the same way as the general public perceives Rome to have been (and to always have been) a great city of marble palaces and temples peopled by guys in togas spouting philosophy and/or fighting with their lorica-segmentata armoured legions against the rest of the world (apart from the equally impressive Greeks) who lived in mud huts and spoke in mono-syllabic grunts. I may be exaggerating a little but... not as much as you might hope.

In the same way, ancient Egypt is seen as a sort of near-Eastern Kingdom that happened to have found themselves in North-West Africa, peopled by remarkably light-skinned chaps in stripy robes and daft hats.

Now, while both of these perceptions are galling to anybody interested in history, and both are ingrained by long-standing cultural references, the latter has a particularly insidious by-product (and is, in fact, borne of the very same presumption.) The notion that Africans are not capable of civilising themselves.

I will repeat what I have already said, so that there is no misunderstanding here, this is not something I accuse anyone here of. This is, though, a widely held (if mostly unspoken) perception within a larger framework. Just as it is right to try and put right perceptions of Rome's 'barbarian' enemies, so it is right to give Africa it's due with regard to African civilisation.

Moros

07-09-2012, 21:02

I mean my goodness what else does it take to convince you that these ancient Africans were black?

Where do we state we don't see them as 'black'? Which to me however is wrong to use in this context, as it is full of modern connotations, perception and perhaps even unintentional racism. Worse of course is Negroid. We think of them as largely if not mostly African natives, originating out mainly of two different African cultures, somewhat influenced by the outside world. Skin colour would have varied and those from the south would be more dark skinned than Egyptians in the North.

Your frustration also seems to suggest you somehow feel the need to convince people of this, clearly you have more reasons for debating and researching this than to discover truth, if I may be so blatant.

I think it is also clear that both EB I and EB II do not give a message that Africans or people of whatever origin are less able to produce advanced culture and civilization. On the contrary EB rather tries to show every culture in their own right. Thus I don't see why you are pushing so hard.

I think the main sentiment is that you are mostly right in away, but over simplifying things a bit mainly. That and I have to concur with Ibrahim that your methods aren't always that kosher.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-09-2012, 23:09

Keita being a modern bio-antropologist rejects the entire notion of the biological concept of race! He would reject not only calling the ancient Egyptians black but any other African peoples and likewise he would reject calling any European population "white". In that exact same video segment he states that the reason for not accepting racial terminology is not because he believes them be distinct in phenotype from other Africans who are generally deemed "black", but because the definition of a said race varies from region to region (where race is even relevant). His research on the other hand which he was lecturing states that the ancient Egyptians generally ranged from broad featured to "Somali like" in cranial variation. He also stated that based on ecological principal that the ancient Egyptians had dark skin as a result of their tropical adaption. Taking away the PC terminology what else is an indigenous dark skinned Northeast African population with "Somali like" facial features called if not black in society. His research has also been contextualized by less "PC" scholars who directly consulted with him on their implications:

Once again the author of this book who is not a bio-anthropologist and as such is not blocked from resorted to racial terminology, consulted with Keita and from that came to the conclusion above. The conclusion above has been echoed by a number of contemporary scholars to some even stretching all the way back to the 18th century. It has been validated by contemporary research as well (from numerous sources).

Why are you trying to make skin color inferences based on archaeological evidence? Why not

You have been presented with biological evidence ranging from genetics to anthropology stating that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians were essentially the same people; You have been presented with archaeological and cultural evidence backing these findings suggesting a common Saharan origin for this group of people who would later become to separate political entities. In other words just about all evidence is against the notion that one was black while the other was something else, because they were the same people.

Since the beginning of the Dynastic era is when Egypt became it's own separate political entity, what is your point? The entire point of this section (http://yale.academia.edu/MariaCGatto/Papers/544327/The_Nubian_Pastoral_Culture_as_Link_between_Egypt_and_Africa_A_View_from_the_Archaeological_Record) of the publication, is to show that ancient Egypt did essentially derive from Nubian political structure. This has been accepted for years, even by the modern Egyptian antiquities counsel:

Once again the origins of Egypt and Nubia are the same, hence they were the same people! Trying to separate Egypt from Sudan is no longer viewed as appropriate in modern academia.

No YOU don't get! Your insistence that Egypt and Nubia were somehow different entities is false. Your fallacious attempts to equate Nubia as the black civilization and Egypt as something else is false, because they were the same people:

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/arts/design/nubia-ancient-kingdoms-of-africa-review.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all)

Saying that there was "Sub Saharan" element to Egypt is a severe underestimate of the fact. It is like saying that there was an Asian element to ancient China. The biological evidence as stated by Donald Redford in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows that the ancient Egyptians would be considered black:

Why are you fighting this clear fact so vigorously?

Not only does ecological principal show that the ancient Egyptians had dark skin like other tropical African populations to the south of them, but even skin analysis has confirmed that they had the same melanin content as "Negroid" populations whom the same source (like just about every other one) states that they originated from:

I mean my goodness what else does it take to convince you that these ancient Africans were black?

Look, you cannot prove your point, so just drop it already. I watched your clip, a black student tried to get Keita to say the Egyptians were Negroid, African, or Black - he refused to say anything other than "tropically adapted" and "dark", he specifically said he could not say "how dark".

You have not demonstrated that Egyptians and Nubians were the same people, I read one of the articles in that BAR report and the impression I got was that they do not share a material culture, but have two overlapping cultures - that usually indicates two populations.

Your genetic evidence is not conclusive, it is drawn from a small socially isolated (and often inbred) sample over a long period of time, and it proves an element of Sub-Saharan ancestry, nothing more.

Why am I fighting you?

I think your methods are poor and your motivations are suspect. Specifically, I think you have a racial axe to grind because of your own heritage.

Now, I have said that there was clearly a Sub-Saharan element to Egyptian culture, but given the evidence that points away from a a Sub-Saharan population, including the variable morphological and material evidence, as well as the way the Egyptians depicted themselves, I consider any statement beyond that to be wholly unsound.

Further, I consider describing the population as "Black" to be pointless and only useful in a modern political context, mainly in the cause of depriving modern Egyptians of a part of their heritage. The word "Black", when applied racially is purely perjorative, it is not actually descriptive - this is why some of my ancestors were described as "Black Welsh" by the English. Your insistence on us admitting that the Egyptians "were black" is a transparent claim to historical ownership - and I will not have it.

It makes about as much sense as blond Germanic Jesus.

Constantius III

07-09-2012, 23:23

Your frustration also seems to suggest you somehow feel the need to convince people of this, clearly you have more reasons for debating and researching this than to discover truth, if I may be so blatant.
Butting in for a second here, but this is pretty accurate. Other accounts with a suspiciously similar posting style citing the exact same evidence over and over and over again have popped up on some other historical gaming forums, like the Total War Center (example thread (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=302894)) and the Civilization Fanatics' Forums (example thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=449986)). While the accounts do talk about other stuff from time to time - the dude isn't a troll - he does seem to have a thing for ancient Egyptian skin color in general and the work of this Dr. Keita in particular.

Ironduke

07-09-2012, 23:23

I'm trying to follow both arguments here. I’m going to use simple terminology here to help me.

The Unbreakable is saying/inferring: Egypt was most certainly a 'black' African nation. And over the 2000 year period from its founding until the time of Cleopatra, the variation in population changed do to immigration and conquest from outsiders. So by the time Cleopatra was around; Alexandria, Cairo etc... were looking more 'Mediterranean' in colour. However, the population who built the Pyramids and ruled over Egypt’s ‘golden days’ were black.

Everyone else is saying: Egypt, during its golden days, was a mix of southern black people and Semitic/other light skinned people. The coming together of these cultures is what spawned the civilization and labeling it as any race or one culture is a-historical.

Am I correct? I will be honest, when I heard the Black Athena lecture I was suprised because when I look at Egyptian murials, I usually see light brown and tan colour, but there are also, as it was brought to my attention, dark portraits as well. But I was convinced the Egyptians were a Phoenician people of swarthy complextion similar to others in the costal region, looking something like Cristiano Ronaldo in skin tone.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-09-2012, 23:44

moonburn

07-10-2012, 00:50

Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian civilization remained profoundly African to the very end.

this very notion is wrong and i doubt he had said it this way separating lybians from egyptians the only reason why i say that egyptians are diferent from nubians is because that when the sahara dried up everyone went for the places with water and egypt got it´s population boom (critical mass ) to jumpstart it´s civilization (i´m saying it from head from a chaotic remembrance on how things went and no i will not go into massive overdrive of researching to prove my point if you like it take it if not go and loose your time studying what 1000 people already studied and proved just to try and come back at me personally )

at the very least both the lybians and canaanites have as much influence on egypt as nubians do (altough i prefer to think that the egyptians have done it for themselfs in spite of all those pesky people trying to steal the fruits of their labour )

odia

07-10-2012, 02:43

I have been following this discussion almost from the start and I just want to point out certain things that will enable the debate to move forward with some measure of clarity on both sides

There needs to be a common defining of the term "black" while were talking about the physical of a people. I understand that the term "black" carries a connotation of a myriad of social statuses in the world (whether positive or negative), I think it would be beneficial for the sake of this argument if we strip that word of all meaning beside a generalized description of African features, most importantly a significantly dark skin color. Or even better how about we just stick to the term Nilotic?

My definition of a 'Black' African POPULATION is any dark skin, mostly tropical/supertropically adapted indigenous population in Africa.
It has nothing to do with the Biological Concept of Race(Negroid,Cauacasoid,Mongoloid etc-THAT DOS NOT EXIST) since biologically speaking Populations are(consist) Clusters of VARIATIONS of disparate traits which is a Cline from one population to the other ie they are NOT typological distinct units of the human species of some finely defined traits.

Now, 'Black' Africans(as a source UnBreakable had previously provided says -Hiervaux 1975) are the most diverse groups of populations on earth, in terms of most kinds of traits-genetic,somatic,metric etc-so there is not a single way to be a 'Black' or 'Sub-SAharan' African; the myth of the 'True Negro'(ie Broad type) as the only true 'Black' is xacly that, a myth. There 'Black' Africans who are prognathous(Nuer,Igbos),others who are orthognathous(eg Shilluk, SOmalis);some with thin noses(eg Maasai,Fulani), others with Broad noses(Zulus,Yoruba);some have very tightly coiled hair(Khoisan), others curly(Kanuri,Beja) etc etc -most others having variations of these traits, even in the same population. All these diverse people are genetically 'African' and dark skin(which actually hinges on 'Brown'-very light Brown like Khoisans,Brownish-Yellow like some Southern Nigerians, Bronzed-Brown like Kanuri, Reddish-Brown like Teita,Chocolate-Brown like Yorubas, Copper-colour Brown,very dark Brown like Dinka and Ashanti etc, again with variations of these skin colors WITHIN most of these populations).

So, as UnBreakabele as shown, since the arky Ancient Egyptians were basically(ie in the main) were a diverse populations of Nilo-SAharans and Afrasans Indigenous North-East Africans, and where certainly tropically/supertropically ADapted, then they can be said to be 'Black' Africans in a social sense. If there were a small number of people from the Near East(which is likely, though there seem to be no clear evidence yet presented) they would have just have added to the variability already in place(esp in the less populated Delta) and would not have made the general population 'admixed'. Importantly, it is clar that the early Egyptian culture(Naqada culture) which directly gave rise rise to the Dynastic Egyptian
culture entirely originatd in Upper(southern) Nile Valley from a set of related cultural groups(called variusly 'SAharo-Nubian' Anselin 2011,'Nile Valley Pastoral Neolithic' ,'Nubian Neolithic' GAtto 2011) that was distributed from below the 6th cataract deep in the Sudan to Middle Egypt. including the adjourning Western and Eastern Deserts. It is also important to note that the first elements of this vast Culture Group was in the south of Egypt(Nubia and adjoining Deserts ) before they came to southern Egypt.

The arguments that have been put against the more holistic approach put forward (by The Unbreakable) seem to be piecemeal. It isn't just morphology, or genetics, but also cultural, religious and archaeological, which all together make for a pretty compelling proposition.

Lets us take this statement at hearts cos raising doubts(without actually providing evidences to argue otherwise) on just a few lines to a stance, which is itself based on the marshaling on all Lines of Evidence, does not invalidate that stance. I see no real counter-evidence presented to UnBreakabel(and maybe it is out there) but doubts raised on some of the Lins of Evidence in what seem like a sound proposition from UnBreakable and the intermittent 'wailing' on WHY he is arguing the points. Lets stick to the main argument PLZ.

@ UnBreakabele. Just for clarification are you arguing that ALL Early Egyptians were 'Black'? And are you equating Nubia and Egypt? Was Nubia itself not a divers African region?

The Unbreakable

07-10-2012, 09:11

^^^ Much thanks for you sensibility and objectivity in your analysis of this discussion thus far!

To answer your question:

1) While I believe that there is a great possibility that non black people were present in Pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt, I contend that the general populace of early Egyptian society was overwhelmingly of more southerly African origins (including that of Lower Egypt) meaning that they were black.

2) I am only equating Nubia and Egypt (particularly Upper Egypt) in a political sense during the times directly before "Egypt" as we know it came to be.

3) Yes, the term Nubia was one that was the used to refer to the vast regions across the Sudan and points beyond. That being said Nubians were a diverse group of Africans with various ethnic groups.

The Unbreakable

07-10-2012, 09:31

You have not demonstrated that Egyptians and Nubians were the same people,

~:confused: Has this not already been demonstrated to you countless times throughout this thread? Better yet when are you going to actually acknowledge my numerous sources and their implications presented throughout this thread? You stated that you weren't ignoring them that you would respond to each of their implications, a couple of days ago. Why are you ignoring all of this evidence, in a sad effort to dismiss the fact that ancient Egypt was originally a black African civilization? Anyway here are the words of Keita, which is yet another source which directly refutes your claims:

"However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene Sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclical climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects. The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (see above and discussion; Keita 1990).-- S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita-1993.pdf)

Yet another ode to the common Saharan (Nilotic) origins of both Egyptians and Nubians.

Further, I consider describing the population as "Black" to be pointless and only useful in a modern political context, mainly in the cause of depriving modern Egyptians of a part of their heritage.

Oh my goodness not this sad argument! No one is "depriving" anyone of their "heritage". Modern Egyptians (especially those of the urban north) are of multiple "heritages" ranging from Dynastic Egyptians, to Turks, Arabs, Greeks, Romans ect. Most modern Egyptians are aware of and accept this fact. Most accept the fact that they are today generally a mixed race people. Pointing to the fact that the Dynastic Egyptian heritage is that which came from black Africans is not something that shocks the Hell out of them. In fact here are "modern" Egyptians who embrace the black African heritage of their original Egyptian ancestors:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJ0F299kFQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtWLry9o70c

Here's Robert Bauval (an Egyptian) who states the common knowledge amongst modern Egyptians that the original ancient Egyptians were black Africans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5wLCVpBjhk

Here's what encyclopedia Britannica says about the matter:

"In Libya, which is mostly desert and oasis, there is a visible Negroid element in the sedentary populations, and at the same is true of the Fellahin of Egypt, whether Copt or Muslim. Osteological studies have shown that the Negroid element was stronger in predynastic times than at present, reflecting an early movement northward along the banks of the Nile, which were then heavily forested." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. "Populations, Human")

Gee now how many sources have you heard this from by now? Yet still won't accept it.

Uploading and linking to JStor articles is a breach of copyright, the Jstor terms and against .Org rules. Please refrain from linking to copy right infringing material.
-Moros

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-10-2012, 10:59

~:confused: Has this not already been demonstrated to you countless times throughout this thread? Better yet when are you going to actually acknowledge my numerous sources and their implications presented throughout this thread? You stated that you weren't ignoring them that you would respond to each of their implications, a couple of days ago. Why are you ignoring all of this evidence, in a sad effort to dismiss the fact that ancient Egypt was originally a black African civilization? Anyway here are the words of Keita, which is yet another source which directly refutes your claims:

I do not accept that the evidence you have presented supports the weight of such a claim as "The egyptians were Black".

Making such a definitive statement is an extremely bold move, and the only evidence you have for it are some genetic tests which indicate African affinity and extremely variable craniometric and other morthological data. That is not sufficient to explain the other craniometric data that points to a Eurasian population, the vast number of depictions of tan-coloured Egyptians or to argue against relatively early Caananite infiltration, given the evidence that proto-Caananite writing is developed from Hieroglyphs.

Oh, and Robert Bauval is not an Egyptian - he is of Maltese and Belgian extraction, he was born in Alexandria during the British mandate and recieved a British education. He is also an enginear by trade and not an Egyptologist.

Your quote from Keita, I read the article, he finishes with, "the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical varients" Key being "predynastic" and "southern". He also estimates that 5% of unions between Egyptians and near-Easterners would produce a population closer to modern Egyptians than Sub-Saharans in about 1,500 years - or around the New Kingdom.

So, again, your evidence does not support the weight of your claim.

I could also put forward an alternative definition of "Black", such as the one used in South Africa today, which a large number of self-identifying black populations would fail to qualify for - including the vast majority of African-Americans and many Carribeans, which just goes to demonstrate how useless the term is.

Again, calling Egypt "black" is a matter of political group-ownership.

Edit: Your posting of a JSTOR article to another download site and linking it here is in breach of JSTOR's terms and conditions, and therefore Org policy - please take it down.

Vaginacles

07-10-2012, 13:35

Keita notes a similarity between Coastal Maghreb populations and LATE Dynastic Egyptians. What do we already know about Late Dynastic Egyptians?

So in other words the Nubians were closer to early ancient Egyptians than the Late Dynastic descendants of early ancient Egyptians, because late Dynastic Egyptians mixed with populations from the Mediterranean who were obviously biological distinct from the early ancient Egyptians. Not to mention that the balance of population during early ancient Egypt was overwhelming concentrated in the south (upper Egypt). It has been stated that prior to the New Kingdom (numerous foreign invasions occurred) that Lower Egypt was sparsely populations and that the Delta was almost uninhabited (which is the complete opposite of today). The vast majority of Egyptians were of southern origins.

did you read the article? It examines skulls in the PREDYNASTIC period in lower egypt and north africa. Furthermore, there is no empirical way of establishing population levels 8000 years ago. The only possible way to determine this is to do an analysis of carrying capacity of upper and lower egypt. Given the fact that lower egypt has a delta it would suggest that lower egypt would have a higher ability to produce crops due to a larger amount of arable land. When the Akkadians conquered Sumer, was it because they had more population? or was it because they were united under Sargon I while the Sumerian city states fought amongst themselves?

Egypt is composed of UPPER AND LOWER Egypt. Simply because upper egypt became more unified and conquered the north does not make egypt suddenly "black". It is well known that Lower and upper Egypt was composed of many city states with different political allegiences. It is very well possible that the drying of the sahara desert forced these pastoralists southward to Upper Egypt, exceeding the local carrying capacity of the region. When a region becomes overpopulated, they move to other territories to conquer. With the idea of Kingship (from the nubians), they unified upper egypt and crushed the independent city states of lower egypt one by one. This is seen in countless civilizations, but never has the indigenous race ever been fully supplanted by the invaders. By marginalizing the role of Lower egypt in predynastic egypt, you are essentially doing what the "whites" did when they conquer a land, change the history so that it was the conquering "race" that owned the land, and not previous inhabitants.

There is also evidence that the cultural unification of upper and lower egypt occurred prior to the first dynasties and state formation, and that lower egypt had an integral part in this new culture. The Gerzean period was quite different from the earlier Amratian culture, and it is believed to have originated in the north (since the first recorded evidence of this culture is north of upper egypt proper and later evidence of this culture was found south, halting near the borders of nubia). Once again, this suggests a complex, bidirectional influences of both lower and upper egypt, without which there could be no justification for unification into one nation.

I am not denying the role "blacks" from upper africa played in egypt. However, Egypt was NOT a black civilization anymore than North America being a white continent. Just because the victors write the history, does not make it true. Pretending that Lower Egypt played no role in the formation of the Egyptian state and culture, while also claiming that the arable land of the nile delta (long being the most productive of Egypt) was somehow sparsely populated, is painting over a large part of Egyptian history simply to satisfy the historic injustice blacks have suffered under european oppression. This is not the way to truth, this is propaganda.

Summary of evidence that indicate Lower Egypt was a thriving and populus country during the predynastic period: http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp010-1_egypt.htm.Perhaps a less biased source is also found herehttp://www.antiquityofman.com/EgyptianPredynastic.html. I would not go so far as to conclude that the semites were the origins of egyptian culture, nor would i say that lower egyptians were semitic, but rather they played a significant role in lower egyptian culture, and to a lesser extent, upper egypt. One of the reason for upper egypt's evenual superiority was because of it's lack of resources, fostering competition and quicker unification than in lower egypt where there was far more resources and less conflict due to resource scarcity (second link), not because of greater populatio numbers.

Blxz

07-10-2012, 17:08

I saw this in one of those other forums that Constantius III linked to. Whether or not the writer is the same I find the point I highlighted to be very relevant as to why The Unbreakable may be getting so adamant that we accept this.

Why Egypt’s Africanity must be recognized

Acknowledging the African roots of ancient Egypt is important for two reasons. The first reason is that it will make our reconstructions of ancient Egypt more accurate. When recreating the past we must strive to be as accurate as possible. Failure to be accurate would lead to the propagation of misconceptions that distort our view of the past.

The second reason is that denying Egypt its Africanity in spite of the facts does a disservice to people of African descent. It denies them their heritage and sends the message that people of their stock could not have accomplished a civilization as powerful or influential as Egypt. It therefore perpetuates racism against Africans and people with African ancestry.

If we are to challenge racism and come together as one species, we must admit the fact that people of all skin tones have contributed to human development throughout history. We should stop pretending that only the light-skinned peoples of Europe and Asia matter in history. To continue to do so is to perpetuate a harmful lie.

I think this point is being echoed in the writing of The Unbreakable. It is a distortion or a bias in reading the few facts we have that seems to skew his opinion.

The most important thing I think besides all the cranial data and inconclusive DNA data is the way the Egyptians depicted themselves. No matter what you think there are colour paintings that show light skinned egyptians alongside dark skinned egyptians. Now you guys can throw around all your differing hypotheses about why this came to be but straight up we have a physical evidence that they had a society comprised of multiple skin types. This has nothing to do with 'black-pride' anymore than it has to do with 'white-propaganda'. The egyptian society was comprised of all types as evidenced by their own artwork.

Ironduke

07-10-2012, 18:35

I saw this in one of those other forums that Constantius III linked to. Whether or not the writer is the same I find the point I highlighted to be very relevant as to why The Unbreakable may be getting so adamant that we accept this.

I think this point is being echoed in the writing of The Unbreakable. It is a distortion or a bias in reading the few facts we have that seems to skew his opinion.

The most important thing I think besides all the cranial data and inconclusive DNA data is the way the Egyptians depicted themselves. No matter what you think there are colour paintings that show light skinned egyptians alongside dark skinned egyptians. Now you guys can throw around all your differing hypotheses about why this came to be but straight up we have a physical evidence that they had a society comprised of multiple skin types. This has nothing to do with 'black-pride' anymore than it has to do with 'white-propaganda'. The egyptian society was comprised of all types as evidenced by their own artwork.

This is what I don't get either. During the lecture I attended, it was hard not to notice all the lighter skinned Egyptians on the murials. There was one picture where it showed Egyptian charioteers with the standard tan skin tone and long hair, and in another picture Nubian charioteers with short hair and black skin. They didn't seem like the same race.

If you look at India today, there are black indians and white indians. All of them claim to be Indian but they are clearly not of the same stock. I think ancient Egypt presembled a skin variety similar to that of modern day India.

The Unbreakable

07-10-2012, 19:07

did you read the article? It examines skulls in the PREDYNASTIC period in lower egypt and north africa.

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:

More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

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

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.

Furthermore, there is no empirical way of establishing population levels 8000 years ago.

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:

As elaborated earlier, the major part of the Predynastic Delta was by no means a marshy wasteland, inhabited only by scattered pastoral communities. Such a conclusion is compatible with the antiquity of the Delta's cult centers and the fact that the Delta was the Lower Egypt of the semimythical wars of unification in the late fourth millennium B.C.(Kaiser 1964). In fact, the ten oldest of the twenty Lower Egyptian nomes predate the 3d dynasty (Helck 1974, pp. 199 f.) and are significantly situated between the Delta distributaries (Keiser 1964). Furthermore, over thirty towns north of Cairo are verified archeologically or epigraphically by the end of the Middle Kingdom (fig. 4).

It is nonetheless probable that settlements were far more dispersed than they were in Upper Egypt, that overall population density was significantly lower, and that the northernmost one-third of the Delta was almost unpopulated in Old Kingdom times. In effect, a considerable body of information can be marshalled to show that the Delta was underdeveloped and that internal colonization continued for some three millennia, until the late Ptolemaic era.

link (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/early_hydraulic.pdf)

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.

It is very well possible that the drying of the sahara desert forced these pastoralists southward to Upper Egypt, exceeding the local carrying capacity of the region.

It forced Nilotic pastoralist northward into Lower Egypt as well:

This evidence indicates that northern Nile valley peoples apparently incorporated the Near Eastern domesticates into a Nilotic foraging subsistence tradition on their own terms (Wetterstrom 1993). There was apparently no “Neolithic revolution” brought by settler colonization, but a gradual process of neolithicization (Midant-Reynes 2000)....

Later, stimulated by mid-Holocene droughts, migration from the Sahara contributed population to the Nile Valley (Hassan 1988, Kobusiewicz 1992, Wendorf and Schild 1980, 2001); the predynastic of upper Egypt and later Neolithic in lower Egypt show clear Saharan affinities. A striking increase of pastoralists’ hearths are found in the Nile valley dating to between 5000-4000 BCE (Hassan 1988). Saharan Nilo-Saharan speakers may have been initial domesticators of African cattle found in the Sahara (see Ehret 2000, Wendorf et. Al. 1987). Hence there was a Saharan “Neolithic” with evidence for domesticated cattle before they appear in the Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 2001). Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

link (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita.pdf)

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.

Once again, this suggests a complex, bidirectional influences of both lower and upper egypt, without which there could be no justification for unification into one nation.

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

I am not denying the role "blacks" from upper africa played in egypt. However, Egypt was NOT a black civilization anymore than North America being a white continent. Just because the victors write the history, does not make it true. Pretending that Lower Egypt played no role in the formation of the Egyptian state and culture

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:

"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60)

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.

while also claiming that the arable land of the nile delta (long being the most productive of Egypt) was somehow sparsely populated,

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?

Summary of evidence that indicate Lower Egypt was a thriving and populus country during the predynastic period: http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp010-1_egypt.htm.

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).

The Unbreakable

07-10-2012, 19:21

the vast number of depictions of tan-coloured Egyptians or to argue against relatively early Caananite infiltration, given the evidence that proto-Caananite writing is developed from Hieroglyphs.

Once again, you've been refuted on every point that you've attempted to argue, and rather than accepting what they clearly indicate about the people of ancient Egypt (that they were black), you question their validity (at least the sources that you actually acknowledge). That being said this is likely my last response to you:

In regards to your insistence on ignoring consistent biological evidence, obfuscating their clear implications, and trying to dismiss their contextualization by other scholars you chose to focus on subject artwork. Well here is what Keita has to say about relying on such:

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

Oh, and Robert Bauval is not an Egyptian - he is of Maltese and Belgian extraction, he was born in Alexandria during the British mandate and recieved a British education. He is also an enginear by trade and not an Egyptologist.

Robert Bauval is a respected scholar whose opinion on the matter of Egypt's origins has been featured on everything from BBC to ABC (all relevant channels in between). Trying to discredit him because he contextualizes the research of numerous anthropologist in a way that don't want is silly. The other Egyptian professors whom I cited also give credence to the more southerly (black African) origins of Egyptian civilizations.

Your quote from Keita, I read the article, he finishes with, "the southern predynastic peoples were Saharo-tropical varients" Key being "predynastic" and "southern". [QUOTE]He also estimates that 5% of unions between Egyptians and near-Easterners would produce a population closer to modern Egyptians than Sub-Saharans in about 1,500 years - or around the New Kingdom.

My point exactly Egypt, started off black and BECAME mixed by the times of the Late New Kingdom with the combination of prolonged small scale migration and major invasions from the Middle East.

Dutchhoplite

07-10-2012, 19:55

Martin Bernal's book Black Athena can be described in 2 simple words: absolute rubbish.

It's a fine a model for those unsatisfied with history: Just rewrite it.

.

moonburn

07-10-2012, 20:52

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-10-2012, 22:20

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-10-2012, 22:34

Robert Bauval is a respected scholar whose opinion on the matter of Egypt's origins has been featured on everything from BBC to ABC (all relevant channels in between). Trying to discredit him because he contextualizes the research of numerous anthropologist in a way that don't want is silly. The other Egyptian professors whom I cited also give credence to the more southerly (black African) origins of Egyptian civilizations.

He lacks any professional qualification, most importantly a PhD, and he has no teaching position. He is not, therefore, a "scholar". He might be termed a researcher, but from his bibliography he appears to be more interested in the esoteric than hard archaeology. All manner of people's opinions are featured on television, that means nothing in particular and TV is a rubbish medium for transmitting information anyway.

Let me tell you something about what a PhD is - in order to get one you need to do two thins:

1. You need to make an original contribution to the scholarship in your field, which is examined, and it must be of worth

2. You must have a command of the entire breadth of your field.

That's how you get a PhD.

My point exactly Egypt, started off black and BECAME mixed by the times of the Late New Kingdom with the combination of prolonged small scale migration and major invasions from the Middle East.

So now we go from "was black" to "started off black".

So, what's "black".

I'll say it again, your evidence does not bear the weight of your conclusions. It is not possible to say with any confidence what you are saying. The fact that Keita rubbishes material evidence does not make that evidence worthless, it simply means he does not believe it to be of worth. How the Egyptians depict themselves is significant, if the tan-coloured pigment does not approximate the skin colour of the person depicted you must explain why because if the colour is symbolic that symbolism should be recoverable.

The fact that you have assembled a body of evidence pointing to an African origin does not, in itself, disprove the other evidence.

WHY are the Egyptians depicting themselves in that way if it is not how they actually look?

Ironduke

07-10-2012, 23:20

Today's Egyptians are of variable race - neither Black nor White, nor Semitic or Asian.

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.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-10-2012, 23:27

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?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-10-2012, 23:49

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.

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.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-11-2012, 01:17

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.

odia

07-11-2012, 01:28

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 it´s like english claiming for themselfs the greek civilization even tough they are a crapload of miles away from where it happened and they aren´t basically the same people

you can look at today´s 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 : https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053465222&viewfull=1#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: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053465259&viewfull=1#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.

odia

07-11-2012, 02:19

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: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053465259&viewfull=1#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.

Blxz

07-11-2012, 04:50

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.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-11-2012, 08:40

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'.

moonburn

07-11-2012, 11:31

i never claimed that egyptians weren´t 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 weren´t 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 (there´s even some theories that the nile used to flow to the west and when it changed it´s course and went north the sahara started to suffer it´s shift in climate)

ofc we can´t 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 there´s 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 don´t 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 they´ve always been there and most likely they´ll always be there there´s no need to search anywhere for the great people that build that single and unique civilization because they are there

Blxz

07-11-2012, 11:57

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 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 [I]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.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-11-2012, 12:52

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.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-11-2012, 15:40

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: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053465259&viewfull=1#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.

moonburn

07-11-2012, 16:25

actually calicvla even 2.000 years ago it wouldn´t 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 didn´t intended to remain there that is

also even today is many parst of eastern africa there´s still many bleaching (thats how i describe it at least) techniques to make people lighter skined it´s 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 it´s an aftermacht of colonialization is another subject

anyway not trying to refute your arguments just putting forth material that says that it´s 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

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-11-2012, 19:38

The Unbreakable

07-11-2012, 19:41

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 ~:rolleyes:

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.

The Unbreakable

07-11-2012, 19:58

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!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-11-2012, 20:20

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.

Vaginacles

07-11-2012, 21:12

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 (http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/early_hydraulic.pdf)

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 (http://wysinger.homestead.com/keita.pdf)

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_faiyum.html#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.

Montmorency

07-11-2012, 21:33

I think Unbreakable's weak point here is the art work, though in the rest the argument seems convincing.

Vilkku92

07-11-2012, 21:39

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?

Olek

07-12-2012, 00:18

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.

6245624662476248624962506251

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

Lowenklee

07-12-2012, 00:44

...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.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-12-2012, 01:02

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.

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.

odia

07-12-2012, 02:43

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 https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053465259&viewfull=1#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=pictures+of+khoisan&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hBT-T8_2DouY1AX1vv3FCg&ved=0CEkQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Khisans), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=picture+of+igbos&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=hBX-T_OdFaL80QWPgcW6Bw&ved=0CEAQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Igbos), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+fulani&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=bBb-T6eVHcPA0QWxzKCHAw&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Fulanis), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+tutsi&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=gRb-T7sUjY3TBa33tbAH&ved=0CFUQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Tutsi), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+maasai&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=mxb-T6rxA-OY0QXFneG9Bw&ved=0CEcQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Maasai), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+yorubas&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qRb-T-jHIuaR0QXSo4G6Bw&ved=0CEgQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Yorubas), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+shilluk&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=uRb-T82IB6my0AXl4eCGBw&ved=0CEQQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Shilluk), http://www.google.com.ng/search?q=pictures+of+ethiopians&hl=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=1Bb-T6PQKYSq0AXI-L2kBw&ved=0CE8QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=428 (Ethiopians).

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

moonburn

07-12-2012, 02:59

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 )

Lowenklee

07-12-2012, 05:51

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.

:book:

Blxz

07-12-2012, 10:35

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?

The Unbreakable

07-12-2012, 11:11

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Unbreakable

07-12-2012, 11:21

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

6252

6253

6254

6255

6256

6257

6258

6259

6259

6260

6261

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?

Montmorency

07-12-2012, 11:30

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.

Nabaati

07-12-2012, 16:32

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?)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-12-2012, 16:45

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:

How did I come to this conclusion?

I looked at the map. The Nile forms an easy corridor for the Nubians to access Upper Egypt, any other people would either have to come through Nubia and into Egypt or cross the Sahara. Those Africans you are talking about who have lighter skin, and particularly skin as depicted in Egyptian paintings, are located in the African interior, they are not adapted for the Sahara itself. By contrast, the people of the Levant could access the Nile Delta just by taking a coastal route through the Sinai, or even boats.

Large groups of people move in the easiest direction, the Sahara is hard to cross so the only reason a population would cross it in number is if they were being chased. If that were the case I would expect there to be some historical record of such a population fleeing into Egypt.

Then, of course, you have the simply fact that we know Egypt had contact with the Levant because proto-Caananite is developed from Egyptian script and the Egyptians at one point controlled the Levant and contested with the Hittites for that control.

This is not the same view as the early Egyptologists, because they saw the Levant as a "white" rather than a seperate "Semtitic" area.

Now, waht I personally believe to be most likely is that the Egyptians appeared as they depicted themselves in their artwork because that makes sense anthropologically. That depiction changed over time, but it is clear that Egypt was not, for much of its history, depicting itself as the same as the Nubians.

If you can't cope with that, that's your problem. If you want to accuse me of racial prejudice because I'm white, brankly I don't care, as an Anglo-Scandanavian with Welsh blood I've been on the recieving end of enough recial prejudice that I can put up with that.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-12-2012, 20:19

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-12-2012, 20:36

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.

Why do you do this? Your response here would suggest that the argument is based around this one line of evidence. This has been gone through, and as has been pointed out, this is just one aspect of the argument, which all put together, makes for a very convincing proposition.

Vaginacles

07-12-2012, 20:47

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.
You repeatively claim that i am equating lower egyptians with semitic people, rather i am stating that they share similar physical traits that could be explained by either environment, genetic mixture, or otherwise

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.

Then the study is silly, why not compare it to cranium that is geographically similar rather than distant?

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.
Actually east africans have been mixing with Arabs for some time now. Their gene pool has shown to include Eurasian genes as i noted below. What you seem to be doing is making this into a categorical yes or no question, rather it is a dimensional one. Lower egyptians had less of a tropical body than their upper egyptian cousins, but more so than the people to the east. I find it interesting how you assume that Africans= Black when it only applies to tropical Africa. Tropical body plan correlates with colour, yes or no? If not, then the colour of lower egyptians are still under question
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.
What? I'm equating the fact that they inhabit similar latitudes, which correlates much more to skin colour than body type. I am not equating semites to lower egyptians

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:

No i am not, i said they were LESS THAN UE but GREATER THAN the levant. Individual Human variation is much larger than group variation, so there will be levantine people that are tropically adapted, but less frequently than Northern egyptians

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.

First: the link http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
Second: P.5 mentioned evidence of craniofacial similarities Between the Levantine people and Lower Egyptians posited by Klug and Beck
Third: i never denied that Lower egyptians had "tropical body patterns" but that they had less of one compared to Upper Egyptians. In fact, the evidence here suggests that craniofacial patterns are more similar to levantine populations than Upper Egyptians, micro-evolution or genetic mixture.

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.

Dude, i was talking about the new dynasty, and you admitted yourself that the New Dynasty were mixed peoples. With Lower egypt becomming more powerful in the new kingdom, it stands to reason that more lower egyptians came into power

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:

Yes, but even they admit it as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS, meaning that its a starting point and not even close to fact. I said there was no EMPIRICAL way of proving it, which means settlements and housing. All of which has been destroyed or lies under metres of silt.

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.
Lower egypt at the time consisted of the Nile delta and the nile all the way to around Faiyum, not just the nile delta. We go by cultural artefacts, not arbitrary geographic lines. Its not this barren wasteland that you imagine it is, there were a significant number of people there that even scholars using a working hypothesis gave at least 1/4 of egyptian population there

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:
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, i agree her conclusion is unfounded, but the data suggests an intermediate body type of predynastic lower egyptians, that may have mixed with isolated levant migrants The majority are probably still indigenous North Africans

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.
Yes we already established that Upper egypt and nubia were closely intertwined. The problem is of course the unbalanced skeletal remains of upper egypt compared to lower egypt.

Alright it appears I'll never be able to convince you of abandoning this "Black Egypt" theory. Rather, i'll outline what is known with a fair amount of certainty.

- Upper egypt and Nubia during Predynastic Egypt were genetically and phenotypically very similar, black as you say.
- Upper egypt had greater population density than lower egypt
- Bidirectional migration occurred along the Nile, resulting in Genetic Mixing
- Lower egyptians are less similar to upper egyptians than upper egyptians are to nubians
- Upper egypt conquered Lower egypt.

All this i agree with you, however these issues are unresolved, and thus hamper the theory of a uniformally "Black Egypt":

- Who were the lower egyptians? No usable remains have been identified that dates back to the Mid-holocene, only ones that exists from the new dynasty has been used and evaluated by peers
- Population densities are assumed, however due to lack of identifiable settlements, true population numbers can never be ascertained
- Culturally, predynastic Lower Egyptians are distinct in their burial traditions and socio-political organization. It is regarded as more egalitarian compared to the intense social stratification of upper egypt. Suggesting different people
- Migration along the Levant/Egyptian border occurred frequently, the largest one being 30 000+ years ago from the levant to Egypt http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447595/ The fact that people from as far as cameroon have these genes discount the theory of recent migration of arabs into egypt as cause of genetic transmission
- Population extrapolation from your source http://oi.uchicago.edu/pdf/early_hydraulic.pdf p.99 suggests that Lower Egyptians is composed of approximately 1/4th of egypt's population at around 4000-3000 BC. This estimate is based on the fact that the Delta was viewed as a settlement destination by Egyptian Kings, however it is unclear if the impetus for settlement was due to avaliable land or to better control lower egyptians. Sparsely populated or not, it is clear that Lower Egypt had enough population to constitute as one of the states that vied for power in upper egypt. These people did not disappear, but integrated into Egyptian society. Their history is as much a part of Ancient Egypt as Upper Egypt.

All in all, i like to thank Unbreakable for this debate. I learned a lot about a period in egyptian history that i knew very little about. I still think that Egypt, and in fact every human alive, is a melting pot of different ethnic and racial combinations. Race should not come into play in the interpretation of history, unless it is used by people during that time to justify such and such, and mentioning the importance of race is vital to understanding the context of that circumstance. I don't believe that race played a role in ancient egypt, so i am inclined to believe that it is unecessary in the understanding of ancient egyptian culture.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-12-2012, 21:17

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?

Why mention that you lived in Japan? You're not from Japan, are you, so that seems an oddly....mis-directing response.

Please stop playing the injured victim. The post that I responded to earlier was, as far as I can see, disrespectful and condescending. Unless you can explain how it was meant any other way then perhaps we should leave it at that and move on.

I think that you, and others , have misunderstood what The Unbreakable's argument has been. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that he entered after a number of posters had put forward opinions regarding how non-black Egypt was. The Unbreakable did not start this discussion. What he did do was to introduce a great deal of information and evidence that the early Kingdoms of Egypt were of black African origin.

At no point did he make the claim that Egypt remained black, without any migration from the Levant or North Africa. At no point has he claimed that Egypt is balck or in some way belongs to black Africans.

As to how important this is...as I have said before, I think that the pusuit of an accurate history is important in itself. Surely none here would disagree with that. It might even be relevant to the timeframe of EB.

Let me explain that last claim. It is well known that there were a number of attempted rebellions in Upper Egypt during the reign of the Ptolemies. As has been pointed out, Lower Egypt at this time became Hellenised. With the Kingdom of Meroe gaining power in the area, isn't it possible that Upper Egypt felt, at this time, more of a cultural affinity with their Southern neighbours?

It seems, from what I have read, that Cleopatra (the one famous to us for consorting with Caesar and Marcus Antonius) made a great deal of effort to ingratiate herself with the communities in Upper Egypt. Did she, perhaps, understand that that was her power-base within Egypt (understanding, of course, that the power from outside of Egypt, in the form of Caesar and then Antonius, was just as important)?

Vaginacles

07-12-2012, 22:43

Why mention that you lived in Japan? You're not from Japan, are you, so that seems an oddly....mis-directing response.

Please stop playing the injured victim. The post that I responded to earlier was, as far as I can see, disrespectful and condescending. Unless you can explain how it was meant any other way then perhaps we should leave it at that and move on.

I think that you, and others , have misunderstood what The Unbreakable's argument has been. If you read the thread from the beginning you will see that he entered after a number of posters had put forward opinions regarding how non-black Egypt was. The Unbreakable did not start this discussion. What he did do was to introduce a great deal of information and evidence that the early Kingdoms of Egypt were of black African origin.

At no point did he make the claim that Egypt remained black, without any migration from the Levant or North Africa. At no point has he claimed that Egypt is balck or in some way belongs to black Africans.

As to how important this is...as I have said before, I think that the pusuit of an accurate history is important in itself. Surely none here would disagree with that. It might even be relevant to the timeframe of EB.

Let me explain that last claim. It is well known that there were a number of attempted rebellions in Upper Egypt during the reign of the Ptolemies. As has been pointed out, Lower Egypt at this time became Hellenised. With the Kingdom of Meroe gaining power in the area, isn't it possible that Upper Egypt felt, at this time, more of a cultural affinity with their Southern neighbours?

It seems, from what I have read, that Cleopatra (the one famous to us for consorting with Caesar and Marcus Antonius) made a great deal of effort to ingratiate herself with the communities in Upper Egypt. Did she, perhaps, understand that that was her power-base within Egypt (understanding, of course, that the power from outside of Egypt, in the form of Caesar and then Antonius, was just as important)?

If unbreakable only intended to show that The Early Egyptian Dynasties were black, then he succeeded a long time ago. However, he asserts that all of Egypt was black during the predynastic period. Thats my only source of contention, Lower Egypt being outside of the tropical zone and with close affinity with the Levant and saharan pastoralist suggests greater genetic diffusion, while living in a less tropical zone would suggest a lighter skin tone though definitely not white. One would simply look at south asians and see the discrepancy of skin colour

odia

07-12-2012, 23:55

How did I come to this conclusion?

I looked at the map. The Nile forms an easy corridor for the Nubians to access Upper Egypt, any other people would either have to come through Nubia and into Egypt or cross the Sahara. Those Africans you are talking about who have lighter skin, and particularly skin as depicted in Egyptian paintings, are located in the African interior, they are not adapted for the Sahara itself. By contrast, the people of the Levant could access the Nile Delta just by taking a coastal route through the Sinai, or even boats.

first of all, it is amazing that you did not even acknowledge the findings of Dr Nancy Lovell that I directly referenced as the main counter-point to your supposition:

...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....

And that you refused to engage actual biocultural data presented in that study but was bold however to tell me that 'you came to this conclusion'(that light-skinned Europeans are closer to the Egyptians than light-skinned Africans) cos '(you) looked at a map'!!! And from that map you found that the 'Nile forms an easy corridor for the Nubians to access Upper Egypt' and that 'those ('Black')Africans..who have lighter skin...are located in the interior of Africa,(and) they are not adapted to the Sahara'(in other words according to your understanding, those 'Black' Africans were beyond the Sahara and not adapted-two wrong presumptions i will treat fully later-and so 'from looking at the map' it is seems difficult that they would have had contact with the Egyptian Nile than the Levant); continuing, you said 'but by contrast, the people of the Levant could access the Nile Delta just by taking a coastal route through the Sinai or by boat'. Convincing Right? I mean by just 'looking at the map' this great treat of fine imagination at its simplex(Occam's Razor I guess) would do just fine? Am sure you are pretty certain that you got it down real good.

But lets get back to REAL scholarship where propositions/presumptions are tested against the evidences and where it is very dangerous to make assumptions by looking at just one line of evidence and not the fuller lines of evidence.
First, by completely disregarding physical anthropological data that ties the ancient Egyptians, IN THE MAIN, to some groups to its south and less so to those in the Levant or Europe(which is the thrust of the study above that you did not even acknowledge),a good example been Limb proportions, you have thoroughly distorted the facts by narrowing on one line of thinking. The people of the Levant(who you call 'Semitic'- and I will come to that later on) generally have intermediate limb proportions while the Ancient Egyptians have tropical(and even at times, supertropical) limb proportions, yet both live in environment that are similar(sub-tropical-except the southern tip of Egypt). It is near impossible for intermediate-proportioned populations to get to another sub-tropical environment and in a few years become tropically/supertropically adapted in that environment. First point.
The second assumption you made was in respect of the Sahara which i will be treating now

Large groups of people move in the easiest direction, the Sahara is hard to cross so the only reason a population would cross it in number is if they were being chased. If that were the case I would expect there to be some historical record of such a population fleeing into Egypt.

First, that you made this mistake shows you know nothing of the Sahara, which is the most crucial region in the peopling of the Nile Valley, and still you are arguing a process from ignorance of same(little wonder you have had to rely on very subjective stuffs like ART WORK and 'map looking'). Before and during the years of the 'prehistoric' developments of Egypt there was no desert in the Sahara- the Sahara at that time was generally like a savanna where most Africans lived at the time.
Let me try to summarize this: some thousands years before the 10th millennium BC, what we now call the Sahara was a larger desert but from that time monsoon-winds from the south returned to the desert bringing rains and vegetation and hence attracting animals and of course humans who followed them. The Sahara(including the critical Eastern Sahara) therefore contained Africans who have come from many points esp the south and even the Nile Valley, with a similar techno-complex('Saharo-Sudanese' culture-with wavy and dotted wavy pottery) dominating through out most of the Sahara from West Africa to East Africa and some points to the south and north. This of course also spread to the environs of Nubia and Egypt(Eastern Sahara). After some time,starting form the 5th millennium BC, the winds moved south again and the desert started to reappear. Most of its inhabitants had to move-most went south, some went east, some to better-watered areas in the Sahara, some to the oases(including the Longest linear oasis in the Sahara- the Nile):

(A) During the Last
Glacial Maximum and the terminal Pleistocene (20,000 to 8500 B.C.E.), the
Saharan desert was void of any settlement outside of the Nile valley and
extended about 400 km farther south than it does today. (B) With the abrupt
arrival of monsoon rains at 8500 B.C.E., the hyper-arid desert was replaced
by savannah-like environments and swiftly inhabited by prehistoric settlers.
During the early Holocene humid optimum, the southern Sahara and the
Nile valley apparently were too moist and hazardous for appreciable human
occupation. (C) After 7000 B.C.E., human settlement became well established
all over the Eastern Sahara, fostering the development of cattle pastoralism.
(D) Retreating monsoonal rains caused the onset of desiccation of
the Egyptian Sahara at 5300 B.C.E. Prehistoric populations were forced to
the Nile valley or ecological refuges and forced to exodus into the Sudanese
Sahara where rainfall and surface water were still sufficient. The return of full
desert conditions all over Egypt at about 3500 B.C.E. coincided with the
initial stages of pharaonic civilization in the Nile valley.
Climate- Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of African's Evolution by Rodoulf Kuper and Stefan Kroepelin{Science Vol313 Aug. 2006 pg 806}
http://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Kuper%2C+R.+and+Kr%C2%A8+opelin%2C+S.:+Climate-Controlled+Holocene+Occupation+in+the+Sahara%3A+Motor+of+Africa%E2%80%99s+Evolution%2C+Science%2C+31 3%2C+5788%2C+803%E2%80%93807%2C+2006.&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDUQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meteor.iastate.edu%2Fclasses%2Fge415%2Fpapers%2FKuper_Kropelin_Science06.pdf&ei=dmVmT5yROoHb0QW_3e28CA&usg=AFQjCNEI4Te3DDe7HFD4ubruMLvEiKENlA&cad=rja (link)

So some tropically adapted Africans moved to the Nile,which will include a range of dark and lighter skinned 'Black' Africans(that of course hinged on Brown) carrying elements of the so-called 'Saharo-Nubian' culture group which was widespread in the Eastern Sahara, the Nubia Nile(form 1st cataract to beyond the 6th cataract) and the Egyptian Nile(form the 1st cataract to Middle Egypt and some elements going to join influences in the north where they likely were some interactions with the Levant). The names for these culture variants on the Egyptian side are Tasian/Badarian and Naqada I- from where Dynastic Egyptian culture directly arose :

During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period....Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region....After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings[peripheral] to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture by Christopher Ehret 1999

After recalling that the formation of Egyptian civilization originated in the Naqada cultures and its expansion to the original ones of the Delta which traded with their Asiatic neighbours, the author considers links with of the Naqada cultures to its African hinterland. In deed, since the 1980s,archaeologists have excavated in the Saharo-Nubian area a web of African cultures that could provide patterns and features to the first kingships of Upper Egypt(Friedman et al 2002). These archaeological data outline a new map of the formation of ancient Egypt: Tasians and Badarian Valley sites were not the centres of a predynastic culture,but peripheral provinces of a network of earlier African cultures where Badarians,Saharans, Nubian and Nilotic peoples regularly circulated along(Darnell 2008) and Nabta playa could be one of the ceremonila high centres. From the 4th millenium BC, these polytropic popultions were pushed out of the Eastern Sahara by the esertification. Some spread southwards,some staye in the actual oases, others moved towards the Nile, directed by the Western Great Sand Sea and the Southern Rock Belt to the East and the sites of Upper Egypt.
Abstract: Some Notes about an Early African Pool of Cultures from which Emerged Egyptian Civilzation by Dr Alain Anselin{Egypt in its African Context,3-4 Oct 2009, Manchester Museum, University of Manchester}

So, you see that some of the Africans now found beyond the Sahara(including the lighter-skinned 'Black' Africans, who by the way still live close to Egypt in Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia etc, were 'closer' geographically at the time than you thought).
Plus the Sahara took a longer time become it became as dried as it is today- so recent discoveries are now showing Egyptian and Nubian- related settlements and cities in the Sahara close to the Nile as well as a lot of interaction between the Desert communities and Egypt as well http://www.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/2010_09/egypt3841.html ; also, the recent discovery of a trans-Saharan route(Abu Ballas Route) all the way to Chad possibly towards the famous kingdom of Yam, should also be pointed to you at this point http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=62457
Anyways, this is just why it is dangerous to use just one line of evidence(esp if it is suspect-stylized art work and 'map looking') to make arguments in stead of marshaling all the lines of evidences as Nancy Lovell did in the above:

...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....

archaeological(from Saharo-Sudanese to Saharo-Nubian or Nubian Neolithics), linguistics(flow of Afroasiatic and Nilosaharan, the two main language groups in the Nile form the south-I hope you know that proto-semitic as the youngest member of the Afroasiatic phyla spread from Africa to the Near East), geographic(wetting and drying of the Sahara that spurred populations towards the Nile) etc. These were used to build the model that supplemented the primarily physical anthropological evidence, that enabled her to come to her conclusions(each Line of Evidence complementing each other and substantially pointed towards a similar narrative ie the Ancient Egyptians, been IN THE MAIN, Saharo-tropical variants whose greatest biological affinities and ethnogenesis was with some other African groups to its south). This is how Scholarship is done; exactly what you guys have refuse(or is it unable) to do.

Any ways there goes your theory(imaginative though I must agree) and the assumptions that spurned it.

For those people who want to read more on the Sahara and Ancient Egypt see: http://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Holocene+Climate+Variability+and+Cultural+Changes+at+River+Nile+and+Its+Saharan+Surroundings&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsu.diva-portal.org%2Fsmash%2Fget%2Fdiva2%3A400169%2FFULLTEXT01&ei=VFVmT4ftH8ek0QWq7Y2vCA&usg=AFQjCNGP0Src0AiwQ-gbKJ3SBQjgujDRLg , and http://independent.academia.edu/NickBrooks/Papers/452060/The_climate-environment-society_nexus_in_the_Sahara_from_prehistoric_times_to_the_present_day

Then, of course, you have the simply fact that we know Egypt had contact with the Levant because proto-Caananite is developed from Egyptian script and the Egyptians at one point controlled the Levant and contested with the Hittites for that control.

And no one to my knowledge is arguing that Egypt never had any contacts with groups in the Levant. There was 'prolonged small-scale migration' of some nonAfrican groups, through trades,small scale migrations to and fro,diplomacy and exchanges, war, better opportunities, 'colonization', slavery, marriages, education etc, from the very start to first the Late Middle Kingdom/2nd Intermediate period(where significant migrations brought some Near Easterners to the Eastern Delta and the resulting the Hyksos ruled parts of Egypt), and then Late New Kingdom/3rd Intermediate Period(when the so-called 'Libyans' with the 'Seas peoples' migrated to the Delta and parts of Lower Nile Valley ) and of course the Late period/Ptolemaic period when more Mediterraneans and others migrated to the Nile Delta.
Anyways, up the to the Late Kingdom-Late Period, the evidences show that the basis of the Egyptian population were the descendants of the African peoples that constituted the main source of its founding population and culture. This does not mean that you will not find some nonAfricans or even 'mixed' peoples in significant numbers(the problem been that one cannot be sure of how significant these peoples were as they became part of the Egypt)

This is not the same view as the early Egyptologists, because they saw the Levant as a "white" rather than a seperate "Semtitic" area.

Plz you fool no one with these semantics. Your statement was 'light-skinned EUROPEANS are closer to Egyptians than light-skinned ('Black')Africans'. You, just like those early Egyptologists were saying same thing; the only difference been that while they were at least able to build something using very suspect concepts(like Mediterranean Race Theorem, Dynastic Race Theorem, Hamitic Theorem, True Negro Theorem, Asiatic Origin of Egyptians and their culture, Spread of Egyptian culture from Lower to Upper Egypt etc) that have all collapsed, you have even been unable to 'build' anything .

If you can't cope with that, that's your problem. If you want to accuse me of racial prejudice because I'm white, brankly I don't care, as an Anglo-Scandanavian with Welsh blood I've been on the recieving end of enough recial prejudice that I can put up with that

No plz I do not accuse you of any racial prejudice AT ALL- this is a surprising claim of yours. I assure you that I do not think of you as racist but I do think though that you Sir are a sloppy debater.

odia

07-13-2012, 01:40

Let me explain that last claim. It is well known that there were a number of attempted rebellions in Upper Egypt during the reign of the Ptolemies. As has been pointed out, Lower Egypt at this time became Hellenised. With the Kingdom of Meroe gaining power in the area, isn't it possible that Upper Egypt felt, at this time, more of a cultural affinity with their Southern neighbours?

Yea there was.Look at this site and see some reasons for the close cultural affinity- an oddly shaped mountain venerated 1st by theNubains, then the Egyptians of the New kingdom and finally the Nubians again for more than a thousand years. This mountain(or rather the god(s) that within it) was believed to have 'given' kingship to the New Kingdom paraohs and the suceeding Nubians http://www.jebelbarkal.org/

Dont have the time so cant really go on about how the Meroites or some powers in Lower Nubia helped some of the many rebellions by Upper Egyptians against Ptolemaic and other foreign rule, esp the case of Khabbash(who in fact mighthave even been of Nubian descent nd declared himself phara with the support of the powerful families of Upper Egypt). Then there is the case of Herodotus written about a group of Egyptian soldiers so agree at the happenings in their land(during foreign rule) that they mutinied, migrated to the Meroetic King and palced themselves in his service. According to Herootus, the soldiers and their amilies numbering about 100,000 were settled by the king in a location in Nubia. It is just Herodotus word thpough so...

Vaginacles thank you very much for providing the opportunity for me to download that Smith 1992 study on Early Lower Egyptian-Southern Levant Affinities. I have been longing for a long time to have it . Much appreciated.
PS: But, the findings sought of do not upport significant migrations from the Levant as the study says- but I will look through it again.
Thanks again, Please do you have access to the Bluk and Beck Studies on this issue or others, if you do be much appreciated if you shared.

Cyclops

07-13-2012, 02:04

Lots of great posts, a lot to learn here.

My own ignorant impression is the Nile is such a great resource that surroung peoples must've been drawn to it. I'm surprised the DNA evidence doesn't show more Ethiopian, I had always imagined that was a bigger influence but it makes complete sense that the bulk of people came from the South and West (out of the Sahara, what a nightmare the drying must've been). The big highway was surely the river itself and that runs south.

No doubt also there was an unwillingness among 19th centurey and later Europeans to aknowledge any kind of "black" element in the much admired Egyptian culture. The silliness of this position was recognised by some even in the 19th century: the rather disgraceful Sir Richard Francis Burton (himself not very politically correct) opined that the Egyptian was "but a negro whitewashed and not an Arab" IIRC, and commented on their willingness to marry people of all shades. Not scientific or even much help as evidence but it shows that people who visited Egypt could clearly see it was an African country with a hefty dose of southern populations in the mix.

Blxz

07-13-2012, 04:31

EDIT: Seems something struck a nerve of mine. I'm bowing out of this debate.

My final parting comment is exactly the same as it has been all along: The Unbreakable's hypothesis is interesting but the evidence he presents fails to convince me. His statement is too large and wide encompassing to be taken seriously. A statement that Egypt was heavily influenced by 'black' culture from the south would be an interesting discussion topic but that isn't what he has said. He is adamant that the entire population was black and there is no way that other peoples could have emigrated from the neighbouring regions DIRECTLY ADJACENT to the north-east! My counter has always been that it is likely that the south was more heavily dominated by peoples from Nubia and beyond while the north is far more likely to have had a greater population of non nubian peoples who are lighter skinned in nature. This would make egypt a cultural mix of peoples as evidence by artwork and by the DNA evidence that doesn't show a 1-to-1 correlation with nubian peoples.

Ironduke

07-13-2012, 05:38

And unfortunately my language skills are now being picked apart. As much as any Japanese person who wasn't actually born here but has only lived here the majority of my life, I won't say I AM Japanese. (born in Australia if it actually matters). I unfortunately get enough racist attention here locally by not being pure blood and don't need you coming in and driving in a stake. So no, I'm not "from Japan" as you like to put it. Join the big queue of my fellow countrymen and women in driving that point home if it makes you feel your argument is strengthened.

And keep going off the point with irrelevant statements. I'm tired of being called Juvenile or having offtopic remarks directed at me. This debate is irrelevant in the scheme of things and I am sick of some of the people in here who must be coming close to the border of ORG rules with some of their personal statements.

My final parting comment is exactly the same as it has been all along: The Unbreakable's hypothesis is interesting but the evidence he presents fails to convince me. His statement is too large and wide encompassing to be taken seriously. A statement that Egypt was heavily influenced by 'black' culture from the south would be an interesting discussion topic but that isn't what he has said. He is adamant that the entire population was black and there is no way that other peoples could have emigrated from the neighbouring regions DIRECTLY ADJACENT to the north-east! My counter has always been that it is likely that the south was more heavily dominated by peoples from Nubia and beyond while the north is far more likely to have had a greater population of non nubian peoples who are lighter skinned in nature. This would make egypt a cutural mix of peoples as evidence by artwork and by the DNA evidence that doesn't show a 1-to-1 correlation with nubian peoples.

As the one who opened up this thread, I've been reading literally every comment posted, some times more than once. I have not seen any ad hominem attacks.

Being accused of Juvenile statements is also legit, I mean, if a debate was just point-form facts and leaving it up to the reader to figure things out, then I imagine debates would be half as popular to attend. There is some flavor involved with words and I don't think that’s a bad thing, it sure as hell makes the read less exhausting. Obviously this has limits; pure rhetoric is as corrosive to the audience as is pure fact dropping.

I don't understand why you felt it important to state that this debate is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. You yourself at one point stated it was very informative, which is what I was hoping it would be for myself and I suppose other people.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-13-2012, 12:46

first of all, it is amazing that you did not even acknowledge the findings of Dr Nancy Lovell that I directly referenced as the main counter-point to your supposition.

We're talking about two separate things - you're talking about the Pre-Dynastic, I'm talking about the new Kingdom.

Where did I say "white" or "European", I believe I said "from the Levant" - the people in the Levant are and were Semitic not European.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic

Semitic peoples are Afro-Asiatic, not Indo-European. I think it's a bit rich for you to call me a "sloppy debater" when you aren't paying any attention to the specifics of what I'm writing. I said "racial prejudice", I perhaps should have said, "racial bias" - i.e. I think you are making an assumption about how I think based on my education.

That's not unreasonable, and no doubt true, but if you were educated in Africa you no doubt have your own bias.

What I'm looking at here is a material culture from at least 1,500 BC and later which is depicting a varied population in the artwork, coupled with historical evidence of strong contact with the Levant and I'm saying, these people are not what we would today call "Black", looking at the Depictions of Amarna are later Pharaohs and the later Dynasties - I think they were mixed and it is in that context and during that period that I am saying that the luighter skinned people in the Levant are closer and have an easier migratory path than the lighter skinned people in Africa.

If we're talking about a mixed population (and I think what we're arguing about now is composition of the mix) then don't you agree that you need a fairly light-skinned people mixing with the Nubian population to produce people with skin tones as light as the ones we find depicted by the time we get to the Amarna period? Also, how do you explain Ramses red hair without a significant Semitic component to his ancestry?

You also have the first two books of the Torah, which despite their dubious historicity clearly preserve a memory of migration of Semitic Jews in and out of Egypt.

The Unbreakable's claim was "Egypt was Black" - I consider that to be a crude view, which he has since nuanced under persistent pressure as "started out Black".

Gaius Scribonius Curio

07-13-2012, 13:20

I said "racial prejudice", I perhaps should have said, "racial bias" - i.e. I think you are making an assumption about how I think based on my education.

That's not unreasonable, and no doubt true, but if you were educated in Africa you no doubt have your own bias.

The point raised by Calicula has not, imo, been articulated enough. To return to the OP - if one examines the socio-cultural context in which Bernal was writing, his line of argument is not so surprising. In exploring the impact of 'Black' African culture on what were thought of as 'Mediterranean' civilisations, Bernal raised an important point regarding the inherent biases with scholarship in that area. The argument is successful in highlighting the requirement for scholars to consider their own contextual biases when approaching ancient source material - in terms of its specifics it is much less so.

Not long after Bernal, a female scholar (whose name I forget) published a paper building on his claims, arguing that Cleopatra may have been 'black'. Again, it raised an important point within scholarship at the time, but fell down on the total lack of positive evidence. One cannot totally rule out her claim - but it remains highly unlikely.

In terms of the broader argument on the extent to which Egyptian culture drew from sub-Saharan culture it is my opinion that there is enough positive evidence, in the form of artwork among other things, demonstrating disparate cultural provenance to suggest a dynamic and heterogenous population, which shows influence from a number of neighbouring regions.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-13-2012, 13:39

The point raised by Calicula has not, imo, been articulated enough. To return to the OP - if one examines the socio-cultural context in which Bernal was writing, his line of argument is not so surprising. In exploring the impact of 'Black' African culture on what were thought of as 'Mediterranean' civilisations, Bernal raised an important point regarding the inherent biases with scholarship in that area. The argument is successful in highlighting the requirement for scholars to consider their own contextual biases when approaching ancient source material - in terms of its specifics it is much less so.

Not long after Bernal, a female scholar (whose name I forget) published a paper building on his claims, arguing that Cleopatra may have been 'black'. Again, it raised an important point within scholarship at the time, but fell down on the total lack of positive evidence. One cannot totally rule out her claim - but it remains highly unlikely.

In terms of the broader argument on the extent to which Egyptian culture drew from sub-Saharan culture it is my opinion that there is enough positive evidence, in the form of artwork among other things, demonstrating disparate cultural provenance to suggest a dynamic and heterogenous population, which shows influence from a number of neighbouring regions.

With Cleopatra - I think we can pretty well assume she was not "black" because she said throughout her life "look, I'm a Macedonian" which implies she was "white", possibly paler than the contemporary Southern Greeks. If she had been notably olive skinned I rather think the Romans would have made quite a lot of it given her relationship with Caesar and her ethnic claims would have been ridiculed with traditional Roman viciousness.

I'm not aware of any such tradition.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

07-13-2012, 13:54

I agree, my point isn't that the author (Haley) is correct, or even that her argument in favour of the proposition is robust. Her point is that we cannot rule out the possibility entirely, as some have, since we do not know the ethnic origin or even social status of Cleopatra's mother. The most obvious solution to this problem, and the one that I support, is, as you've said, that Cleopatra was, to all intents and purposes, Macedonian on both sides of her family tree.

What I intended was that Haley raises the pertinent point that the majority of classical scholars in the late 80s (and beforehand) were wealthy, white males and had all the inherent values and prejudices that this entailed.

The Unbreakable

07-13-2012, 23:00

You repeatively claim that i am equating lower egyptians with semitic people, rather i am stating that they share similar physical traits that could be explained by either environment, genetic mixture, or otherwise

What biological evidence do you have of this? While I think that it's highly likely that there were pockets of people from the Levant in early Lower Egypt, the bulk of all evidence (in all forms) points towards this region being peopled primarily by the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara.

Then the study is silly, why not compare it to cranium that is geographically similar rather than distant?

Actually Keita only commented on the commonality seen between admixed Coastal Northwest African populations and early Dynastic Egyptians, he did not purposely exclude Semitic populations in the Middle East. In fact in his next study it was found that even when Egyptian cranial from different times periods and regions (including the north) pulled together they grouped closer to the tropical African series (which included Sudanese and even a West African sample) over the Near Eastern series:

"Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context) the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have 'donated' people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988)... Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese." S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54

In case you haven't noticed by now, the number of studies conducted on early Lower Egyptian population remains are minimal at best. One of the main reasons given for the lack of anthropological analysis of those people during that time is due to a simple lack of human remains, which is another nod to the fact that this region was sparsely populated during pre-early Dynastic times.

Actually east africans have been mixing with Arabs for some time now. Their gene pool has shown to include Eurasian genes as i noted below.

No, Actually Northeast African cranial variations are not the result of isolated/limited outside geneflow, but instead an product of Africa:

"The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces.

However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitude of 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches." (S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105. [10])

Genetic research also finds the same the thing:

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

Understanding that not all "black" Africans conform to a particular set of traits is key to understanding this stance. So when some people are insistence on using their own subjective interpretations of stylized Egyptian art work (while simultaneously ignoring everything else), then they must take these facts into consideration. For example are the Egyptians not "black" because they don't have the same pitch black skin tone as Dinka people? If so then that would mean that damn near 90% of Nigerians tend be a brownish-to yellow skinned color aren't black either:

6276
(Egyptians bottom left)

6277
(Beja man)

6293
(Sudanese Dinka)

6279
(Nigerian)

6281
(Kenyan)

The list goes on X(1000).

Lower egyptians had less of a tropical body than their upper egyptian cousins, but more so than the people to the east.

What evidence do you have for this? The Thesis paper by Raxter (assuming that's what you're building off of) is limited in validity, but none the less does not dispute the consistent fact that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians (who are once yet again mentioned interchangeably) had limb proportions that grouped them with the majority of other Africans (who are tropically adapted). No mention of this affinity with Middle Easterners who are not tropically adapted.

I find it interesting how you assume that Africans= Black when it only applies to tropical Africa. Tropical body plan correlates with colour, yes or no? If not, then the colour of lower egyptians are still under question

No I did do not equate all of Africa and Africans as black, instead I have always specified "tropical" African and note that this indicates that a population is "black" or has dark skin like black Africans. Both Lower and Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted like other Africans further to the south. One was not intermediate between tropical and sub tropical populations as you are insinuating, but fully tropically adapted.

First: the link http://bioanthropology.huji.ac.il/pdf/13.pdf
Second: P.5 mentioned evidence of craniofacial similarities Between the Levantine people and Lower Egyptians posited by Klug and Beck
Third: i never denied that Lower egyptians had "tropical body patterns" but that they had less of one compared to Upper Egyptians. In fact, the evidence here suggests that craniofacial patterns are more similar to levantine populations than Upper Egyptians, micro-evolution or genetic mixture.

Nothing in that study refutes what I have been arguing. NEVER have I denied that there was mutual influence between the Levant and early Lower Egypt. I have even stated several times that I believe it to be very likely that there were pockets of Levantine communities in early Lower Egypt. What I and the study that you just cited refute is the notion that Lower Egypt was initially populated by a large early movement of people from the Levant. The people of pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt were not LONG TERM residence of the Sub Tropical environment that they recently settled in, UNLIKE most people in the Levant. This is why they had limb proportion ratios which were said to have been "significantly different" from the people of the Levant and instead grouping with the majority of tropical African populations further to the south. This is consistent with archaeological evidence suggesting a migration from the southerly/tropical regions of the Sahara to Lower Egypt...hence the primary population source of that region. So why would these recent Nilotic migrants on the Lower Nile not be "black"?

Dude, i was talking about the new dynasty, and you admitted yourself that the New Dynasty were mixed peoples. With Lower egypt becomming more powerful in the new kingdom, it stands to reason that more lower egyptians came into power

No I'm asking YOU to back YOUR assertion that Egyptian artwork display a skin tone gradient from the south to the north. You have asserted time and time again (baselessly) that Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted yet "light skinned" and stated that artwork validates this claim (as nothing else appears to), so please back your assertion or admit that it is fallacious.

Yes, but even they admit it as a WORKING HYPOTHESIS, meaning that its a starting point and not even close to fact. I said there was no EMPIRICAL way of proving it, which means settlements and housing. All of which has been destroyed or lies under metres of silt.

You are in denial of what almost every Egyptologist considers to be common knowledge. ALL of it has not been destroyed by silt. It is SPECULATED that SOME sites may not have been destroyed, none the less I have yet to see any Egyptologist withhold judgement on the matter of early ancient Egypt's population centers because of this. They all conclude that it's CLEAR that the south was where most of early Egypt's population resided and conversely where Dynastic culture originated. Acknowledging this fact does not "down play" the cultures of Lower Egypt, is a statement of fact.

Yes we already established that Upper egypt and nubia were closely intertwined. The problem is of course the unbalanced skeletal remains of upper egypt compared to lower egypt.

Your entire opposition to calling ancient Egypt black, is because you wish to hold onto the SPECULATIVE notion that some sites in Lower Egypt were destroyed by silt. From that YOU (never citing an Egyptologist) comes to the conclusion that Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt may have had comparable populations (a statement which is contrary to two authoratative sources presented to you). Of course it all boils down to your unfounded belief that Lower Egyptians were some "light skinned" (yet tropically adapted) population. From all of that speculation that you've come up with YOU conclude that my position that Egypt was black, which is soundly supported by biological and cultural evidence showing closest affinities towards more southerly African populations is baseless. Interestingly enough I have authoritative scholarship unmistakably backing my assertion:

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

So who is wrong; The scholars at Oxford or You and a handful of other armchair historians?

- Migration along the Levant/Egyptian border occurred frequently, the largest one being 30 000+ years ago from the levant to Egypt http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182266/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC447595/ The fact that people from as far as cameroon have these genes discount the theory of recent migration of arabs into egypt as cause of genetic transmission

Tell me what bearing would population movement from 30k years ago have on a population that came into existence 5k years ago? Better yet what did people from the Levant even look like during early time in human history? Studies from the oldest skeletal remains in Egypt (around this time period) not surprisingly shows close affinities towards black Africans:

Indeed, the rare and incomplete Paleolithic to early Neolithic skeletal specimens found in Egypt - such as the 33,000-year-old Nazlet Khater specimen (Pinhasi and Semai 2000), the Wadi Kubbaniya skeleton from the late Paleolithic site in the upper Nile valley (Wendorf et al. 1986), the Qarunian (Faiyum) early Neolithic crania (Henneberg et al. 1989; Midant-Reynes 2000), and the Nabta specimen from the Neolithic Nabta Playa site in the western desert of Egypt (Henneberg et al. 1980) - show, with regard to the great African biological diversity, similarities with some of the sub-Saharan middle Paleolithic and modern sub-Saharan specimens. This affinity pattern between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharans has also been noticed by several other investigators..”

--Ricaut and Walekens (2008) ‘Cranial Discrete traits)

Moros

07-14-2012, 00:20

odia

07-14-2012, 01:52

First I want to thank you Nabaati for been the only person amongst those championing the use of art works to at least try to 'contextualize' it.

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.

This is your word against posted images. It could have been better if you indulge us of your expertize and actually post the images in their 'correct' colour that perhaps have not been affected by the lighting condition and/or image processing(according to you).
I say this cos I have seen in some of the images in other contexts,esp those models of boatmen and soldiers, and do not find them different from the images posted by The Unbreakable here.

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.

No, it is not a case of tanning cos there was something else going on here:
Yea, during a period of the Old Kingdom, the artistic convention used by the artist was to generally portray males in a Brownish/Reddish/Red-Brownish coloring while the females were portray in yellowish coloring. Now, the problem here is that am not aware of any human population in the world were its males are Brownish while its females are yellowish ie of two different colours. Even if we say Sexual Dimorphism-females are generally lighter relative to males, that shuld be shades variation within the same colours(not two different colours). That is the first point.
What makes it even more bizarre is that during the following Middle Kindom and even more during the New Kingdom, the artistic convention changed again. During this long period, both males and females were generally painted in shades Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red. So what changed? Was there a genocidal cleansing of all yellowish females in Egypt(which by the earlier convention means virtually all the females)? And where did Egypt import the Brownish females that replaced the yellowish one from? Certainly, assuming we still have any faith in Egyptians paintings as ACCURATE PORTRAITS then we must accept one of the conventions and reject the other. Using commeon sense, we will aceept the latercase since the first case(where the males and females were painted in 2 different colours) is quite unnatural. This choice is supposed to help our case but i suspect an artistic system which suddenly changes conventions that way except to regard it as stylarize.(To increase the confusion further by the way, the artistic convention before that later Old Kingdom era painted both males and females in shades of Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red,even in the Predynastic era in such sites as Gebelein Cloth and Painted Hierakonpolis Tomb, where humans both were painted in same Brown Colour).
To rely our Egyptian paintings or art as a form of evidence in determining the biological affinities of the ancients is a very slippery, unreliable and subjective path. Am not aware of any physical anthropologist or even Egyptologists who will dare do such.

This kind of 'confusion' is not limited to paintings alone. There are many instances where there are very different 'portraits'(sculpture) of same person in ancient Egypt. There is for instance, a sculpture representing the pharoah Kharfre with thin lips and thin nose but the sphinx which is said to be a portrait of him has some of the thickest lips and nose of any Egyptian sculpture. Which is most accurate cos they can not represent same person. Another person represented with very different sculptures is Rameses II. Even Nefertiti had many 'portraits' of hers, that do not resemble each other such as the examples given by The Unbreakable earlier. Just last month, a new sculpture of Nefertiti was discovered with a thick nose and thick lips unlike the famous Berlin Bust http://judithweingarten.blogspot.com/2012/06/rare-new-head-of-nefertiti.html . Which sculpture should we just as the 'Real' one.

Nabaati

07-14-2012, 06:44

No, it is not a case of tanning cos there was something else going on here:
Yea, during a period of the Old Kingdom, the artistic convention used by the artist was to generally portray males in a Brownish/Reddish/Red-Brownish coloring while the females were portray in yellowish coloring. Now, the problem here is that am not aware of any human population in the world were its males are Brownish while its females are yellowish ie of two different colours. Even if we say Sexual Dimorphism-females are generally lighter relative to males, that shuld be shades variation within the same colours(not two different colours). That is the first point.
What makes it even more bizarre is that during the following Middle Kindom and even more during the New Kingdom, the artistic convention changed again. During this long period, both males and females were generally painted in shades Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red. So what changed? Was there a genocidal cleansing of all yellowish females in Egypt(which by the earlier convention means virtually all the females)? And where did Egypt import the Brownish females that replaced the yellowish one from? Certainly, assuming we still have any faith in Egyptians paintings as ACCURATE PORTRAITS then we must accept one of the conventions and reject the other. Using commeon sense, we will aceept the latercase since the first case(where the males and females were painted in 2 different colours) is quite unnatural. This choice is supposed to help our case but i suspect an artistic system which suddenly changes conventions that way except to regard it as stylarize.(To increase the confusion further by the way, the artistic convention before that later Old Kingdom era painted both males and females in shades of Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red,even in the Predynastic era in such sites as Gebelein Cloth and Painted Hierakonpolis Tomb, where humans both were painted in same Brown Colour).
To rely our Egyptian paintings or art as a form of evidence in determining the biological affinities of the ancients is a very slippery, unreliable and subjective path. Am not aware of any physical anthropologist or even Egyptologists who will dare do such.

It's not just OK where women are colored lighter than men. This happens through the NK, at least. Here are two scans I made myself, the first from Nina Davies's book (which was no small feat given its size) and the second from the papyrus of ani book with the translation by faulkner. Both are NK representations of women and both represent women as lighter skinned than men (at least on my monitor, I make no claims for how you set yours up). Sometimes you don't get that (my print of the famous Nebamun marsh hunting scene has Nebamun & his wife the same color) but in my limited experience, that occurs less often than differences.
6292TT181
6291Papryus of Ani

Honestly, if one is going to completely discount how egyptians represented themselves, in my book, one better have an alternate explanation. I know of no claims that there was, say, a religious reason as to why women were portrayed with lighter skin than men, or why egyptians were painted as more red ochre-ish and nubians as black. In the absence of compelling evidence or argumentation, I interpret the scenes as representing a difference in the amount of outdoor activity engaged in between egyptian men and women and differences in skin tone between the peoples, respectively. If you don't make the same interpretation but have no argument for the pattern, well, bully for you.

At the end of the day, the skin color of ancient egyptians gets you very little, if anything. This is why I find this topic so, so, SO ridiculous.

Montmorency

07-14-2012, 07:48

At the end of the day, the skin color of ancient egyptians gets you very little, if anything. This is why I find this topic so, so, SO ridiculous.

Can we all agree that the skin tones for EB/EB2 Machimoi are acceptable? That's all that really matters here.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 11:00

The Unbreakable

07-14-2012, 11:05

Honestly, if one is going to completely discount how egyptians represented themselves, in my book, one better have an alternate explanation.

As far as an "alternate explanation" as to what they looked like.....how about their actual PHYSICAL REMAINS? Based on their skeletal morphology which populations do they resemble? Consistent biological evidence suggest that they most closely resembled Sudanese Africans:

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

Skin cell analysis don't yield any different findings:

"During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. .. Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."--(A-M Mekota and M Vermehren. (2005) Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues. Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, Vol. 80, No. 1, Pages 7-13[[37A]]

What do these findings indicate about the phenotype of ancient Egyptians if not that they were black (originally). Why are a select few of you so desperately ignoring any biological evidence which rids any doubt on their physical appearance? If I am misinterpreting these passages then please give your own.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-14-2012, 12:47

First I want to thank you @Nabaati (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=22783) for been the only person amongst those championing the use of art works to at least try to 'contextualize' it.

This is your word against posted images. It could have been better if you indulge us of your expertize and actually post the images in their 'correct' colour that perhaps have not been affected by the lighting condition and/or image processing(according to you).
I say this cos I have seen in some of the images in other contexts,esp those models of boatmen and soldiers, and do not find them different from the images posted by The Unbreakable here.

No, it is not a case of tanning cos there was something else going on here:
Yea, during a period of the Old Kingdom, the artistic convention used by the artist was to generally portray males in a Brownish/Reddish/Red-Brownish coloring while the females were portray in yellowish coloring. Now, the problem here is that am not aware of any human population in the world were its males are Brownish while its females are yellowish ie of two different colours. Even if we say Sexual Dimorphism-females are generally lighter relative to males, that shuld be shades variation within the same colours(not two different colours). That is the first point.
What makes it even more bizarre is that during the following Middle Kindom and even more during the New Kingdom, the artistic convention changed again. During this long period, both males and females were generally painted in shades Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red. So what changed? Was there a genocidal cleansing of all yellowish females in Egypt(which by the earlier convention means virtually all the females)? And where did Egypt import the Brownish females that replaced the yellowish one from? Certainly, assuming we still have any faith in Egyptians paintings as ACCURATE PORTRAITS then we must accept one of the conventions and reject the other. Using commeon sense, we will aceept the latercase since the first case(where the males and females were painted in 2 different colours) is quite unnatural. This choice is supposed to help our case but i suspect an artistic system which suddenly changes conventions that way except to regard it as stylarize.(To increase the confusion further by the way, the artistic convention before that later Old Kingdom era painted both males and females in shades of Brown/Reddish-Brown/Red,even in the Predynastic era in such sites as Gebelein Cloth and Painted Hierakonpolis Tomb, where humans both were painted in same Brown Colour).
To rely our Egyptian paintings or art as a form of evidence in determining the biological affinities of the ancients is a very slippery, unreliable and subjective path. Am not aware of any physical anthropologist or even Egyptologists who will dare do such.

This kind of 'confusion' is not limited to paintings alone. There are many instances where there are very different 'portraits'(sculpture) of same person in ancient Egypt. There is for instance, a sculpture representing the pharoah Kharfre with thin lips and thin nose but the sphinx which is said to be a portrait of him has some of the thickest lips and nose of any Egyptian sculpture. Which is most accurate cos they can not represent same person. Another person represented with very different sculptures is Rameses II. Even Nefertiti had many 'portraits' of hers, that do not resemble each other such as the examples given by The Unbreakable earlier. Just last month, a new sculpture of Nefertiti was discovered with a thick nose and thick lips unlike the famous Berlin Bust http://judithweingarten.blogspot.com/2012/06/rare-new-head-of-nefertiti.html . Which sculpture should we just as the 'Real' one.

The variation in lighter skinned people between those who stay indoors and those who go outside can be quite pronounced, to the extent that many European women with social standing still wear sun hats to prevent their faces tanning. If previously in the Pre-Dynastic period both men and women are depicted as the same shade then it is possible that what we are seeing later on is evidence of greater social stratification, such that high-class women no longer work and therefore do not tan.

There are of course other potential explanations to do with colour symbolism, but it is perfectly credible that what the artist is doing is exagerating an actual trait to emphasise the social strate the women occupy.

With regard to statutary - the most likely explanation is that one artist is depicting a "form" of someone he has never met, that one artist is incompetent, or that they depict different people. In the case of the Sphinx, we don't know who it depicts, if anyone, there have been theories but none are anywhere near compelling enough for us to draw any conclusions from its facial features. It also lacks a nise, which throws the whole argument off anyway.

I find this reliance on the artwork as an accurate depiction of how the Eyptions 'actually looked' as very compromised. How far should we go with this? We would have to accept, for example, that were races of very large (giant) people alongside races of very, very wee (small) people. As Odia has referred to, we would have to accept a level of sexual dimporhism not evidenced in any other human population, as well as the prospect that these people actually changed form between depictions. One might have to acknowledge that Egypt at this time was full of clones, perhaps, or that many twins/triplets were born within the time and place of ancient Egypt. Not to mention that they must all have walked a bit funny.

Come on, there are few forms as stylised as Egyptian formal (religio-political) art-work, and more repleat with obvious symbolism. If one wishes to demonstrate how the art-works are depicting Egyptians 'as they are' one would have to contextualise what about themselves they are saying. Context (who is being depicted, doing what, in what era, and demonstrating what aspect of their world) has to be taken into account.

Taking depictions in art-work, which are clearly heavily stylised and symbolic, and arguing that above and beyond the combined weight of evidence of genetic and skeletal archaeological data, as well as demonstrable cultural and religious affinities doesn't, imo, make much sense.

You can tell a lot from artwork, this is not just a case of, "look, the Egyptians paint themselves as brown, so they are." This is a question of looking at how the Egyptians portray other using sylistic convention, looking at how they use colour symbolically and then looking at how the vast mass of Egyptians next to those contexts are portrayed. I.e. Horus is portrayed as pitch black, but the Egyptian he is giving something to is red-brown.

You are also not ingaging with the argument that we are making - we have not said that the Unbreakable's data is false, or anomolous - we have said that it does not support the argument he is making in the face of conflicting data. Especially given that the biological date (as in the case of King Tut) can be highly ambigious and is coming from a very small sample.

It's very easy for biological data to become scewed - a single Ethiopian or Caanite concubine will scew here children's DNA wildly off the average. There was a recent story about a Scottish (white Gaelic) academic who had his genome tested and discovered his mitrocondrial DNA was of a type found only in Africa. If, in 200 years, you only had his mitrocondrial DNA to test you would conclude he was African.

As far as an "alternate explanation" as to what they looked like.....how about their actual PHYSICAL REMAINS? Based on their skeletal morphology which populations do they resemble? Consistent biological evidence suggest that they most closely resembled Sudanese Africans:

Skin cell analysis don't yield any different findings.

What do these findings indicate about the phenotype of ancient Egyptians if not that they were black (originally). Why are a select few of you so desperately ignoring any biological evidence which rids any doubt on their physical appearance? If I am misinterpreting these passages then please give your own.

Problem 1: Sample size.

Problem 2: Sample bredth (many individuals from few families).

This does not invalidate the biological evidence, but it is (like the artwork) of limited value. For really compelling biological data you would need several large graveyards of mid to low level Egyptians, the sort of thing we use in Europe to test biological affinity. You don't have that for Egypt.

Nabaati

07-14-2012, 13:08

I find this reliance on the artwork as an accurate depiction of how the Eyptions 'actually looked' as very compromised. How far should we go with this? We would have to accept, for example, that were races of very large (giant) people alongside races of very, very wee (small) people. As Odia has referred to, we would have to accept a level of sexual dimporhism not evidenced in any other human population, as well as the prospect that these people actually changed form between depictions. One might have to acknowledge that Egypt at this time was full of clones, perhaps, or that many twins/triplets were born within the time and place of ancient Egypt. Not to mention that they must all have walked a bit funny.

Come on, there are few forms as stylised as Egyptian formal (religio-political) art-work, and more repleat with obvious symbolism. If one wishes to demonstrate how the art-works are depicting Egyptians 'as they are' one would have to contextualise what about themselves they are saying. Context (who is being depicted, doing what, in what era, and demonstrating what aspect of their world) has to be taken into account.

Taking depictions in art-work, which are clearly heavily stylised and symbolic, and arguing that above and beyond the combined weight of evidence of genetic and skeletal archaeological data, as well as demonstrable cultural and religious affinities doesn't, imo, make much sense.

Because I have not seen a culture yet that habitually represents themselves, in broad strokes, in a way that is different from reality. I have what I consider a reasonable explanation for the pattern of lighter colored women in egyptian art. Discounting this explanation without suggesting another doesn't get very far with me. Perhaps I betray my physics roots, but you don't throw out hypotheses that have explanatory power in favor of others that have none.

Why are a select few of you so desperately ignoring any biological evidence which rids any doubt on their physical appearance?
Because, as far as I can tell, you are extrapolating data from a single time frame (predynastic) from a single location (upper egypt) to 3000 years of history and all of egypt. I find this an extreme case of caricature. I would be absolutely shocked to learn upper egyptians, then or now, did not look a lot like their southern neighbors. However, there is evidence in the form of their artwork that they did not view themselves as quite the same as their southern neighbors. This is what makes the issue of egyptian skin tone more complicated than "egyptians were black."

As I say, though, even if 100% of egyptians were the darkest skinned people in africa or the most fuchsia skinned people in africa or the most rainbow skinned people in africa, it explains little to nothing about their culture. This is why I always roll my eyes when this topic comes up. Some people care so much about something that is so trivial.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 14:25

The variation in lighter skinned people between those who stay indoors and those who go outside can be quite pronounced, to the extent that many European women with social standing still wear sun hats to prevent their faces tanning. If previously in the Pre-Dynastic period both men and women are depicted as the same shade then it is possible that what we are seeing later on is evidence of greater social stratification, such that high-class women no longer work and therefore do not tan.

There are of course other potential explanations to do with colour symbolism, but it is perfectly credible that what the artist is doing is exagerating an actual trait to emphasise the social strate the women occupy.

Yes, there are other potential explanations to do with colour symbolism. That is rather the point being made here. I will grant you that it is, indeed, perfectly credible that what the artist is doing is exagerating an actual trait that is part of the problem with defining skin tones on art-work as being 'realistic' depictions of 'how people really looked'. It is, at best, depicting - stylistically - a trait and exagerating it. This argument also does not address the anacronystic
aspects of the depictions (as alluded to by Odia, that such depictions are relative to temporal context and that such a simplistic understanding of the depictions would have to account for a sexual dimporphism unknown within any other human population.) Nor does it address the giants and/or midgets that appear to be inhabiting this ancient world, nor the incredible similarity displayed between individuals portrayed as stylistically similar.

I think that the only conclusion that one can honestly come to with regards to Egyptian formal art is that it is stylistic (ie symbolic) and its interpretation must rely upon its context (temporal/political/social/religious)

With regard to statutary - the most likely explanation is that one artist is depicting a "form" of someone he has never met, that one artist is incompetent, or that they depict different people. In the case of the Sphinx, we don't know who it depicts, if anyone, there have been theories but none are anywhere near compelling enough for us to draw any conclusions from its facial features. It also lacks a nise, which throws the whole argument off anyway.

Why is the "most likely explanation" that one artist is depicting a "form" of someone they have never met, or that one artist is incompetent? Given the changes/differences within depictions, within different contexts, would it not be, perhaps, more accurate to say that all of the work is depicting a "form" of someone - whether met or not. In other words, exactly what has been suggested, that all of the work is stylistic (symbolic)? But, of course, to accept that premise is to undermine art-work as 'true' depiction as null and void.

But, let us take your own, diluted, variation from that sance as valid. How do we, then, ascertain which artist(s) is/are competent or incompetent? We are left with the same conclusion. We can, given such doubt, say very little about the 'reality' of depictions within Egyptian formal art without recourse to their contexts - with the added complication of defining the competence or otherwise of the artists.

You can tell a lot from artwork, this is not just a case of, "look, the Egyptians paint themselves as brown, so they are." This is a question of looking at how the Egyptians portray other using sylistic convention, looking at how they use colour symbolically and then looking at how the vast mass of Egyptians next to those contexts are portrayed. I.e. Horus is portrayed as pitch black, but the Egyptian he is giving something to is red-brown.

The "vast mass" of Egyptians next to those contexts? What "vast mass" are you referring to. Context is context, and citing one example is begging a question (within the context of a "vast mass"). But, I agree, one must (as has been suggested) look at the context(s) of the artwork.

You are also not ingaging with the argument that we are making - we have not said that the Unbreakable's data is false, or anomolous - we have said that it does not support the argument he is making in the face of conflicting data. Especially given that the biological date (as in the case of King Tut) can be highly ambigious and is coming from a very small sample.

It's very easy for biological data to become scewed - a single Ethiopian or Caanite concubine will scew here children's DNA wildly off the average. There was a recent story about a Scottish (white Gaelic) academic who had his genome tested and discovered his mitrocondrial DNA was of a type found only in Africa. If, in 200 years, you only had his mitrocondrial DNA to test you would conclude he was African.

Problem 1: Sample size.

Problem 2: Sample bredth (many individuals from few families).

This does not invalidate the biological evidence, but it is (like the artwork) of limited value. For really compelling biological data you would need several large graveyards of mid to low level Egyptians, the sort of thing we use in Europe to test biological affinity. You don't have that for Egypt.

You say that The Unbreakable's evidence does not support his claims "in the face of conflicting data", then proceed, rather than intimating what this conflicting data is, to attempt to undermine the data he has produced as possibly anomolous. In fact the argument that you have made (such as it is) contradicts your stated position ("we have not said that the Unbreakable's data is false, or anomolous"), as that is all that you have offered; the possibilty (without evidential counter-data) that the evidence put forward could be anomolous.

Not only that, but you have narrowed the evidence down to one strand (genetic markers) without reference to the morphological data, nor the cultural and religious affinities.

You said earlier (an argument I have come across many times in debates in physics, btw, and in both contexts it is equally as misplaced) that as the proponent of a positive claim that it is The Unbreakable's responsibility to 'prove' the claim. The Unbreakable (and others) have put forward evidence - continuously. The reason I find this form of argument disingenuous is because if you are simply making a negative claim (ie, you say it is not so) then you can only be arguing from a position of ignorance. The fact is, that to hold a negative claim without simply admitting ignorance one must hold a contrary claim as positive (otherwise, on what basis do you argue). You have elucidated this contrary claim, is it not now time to provide evidence for holding such a positive stance?

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 14:40

Because I have not seen a culture yet that habitually represents themselves, in broad strokes, in a way that is different from reality. I have what I consider a reasonable explanation for the pattern of lighter colored women in egyptian art. Discounting this explanation without suggesting another doesn't get very far with me. Perhaps I betray my physics roots, but you don't throw out hypotheses that have explanatory power in favor of others that have none.

Well, surely you should throw out hypotheses that have explanatory power if it is only within certain contexts that things are explicable by those hypotheses? At the very least you should seek a deeper understanding of how those contexts interact. Given your physics backgound, should we all still believe in the explanatory power of 'perfect' circular orbits, or was Kepler right when he perceived a deeper pattern? Does a Newtonian mechanistic model adequately describe the motion of bodies, or isn't it rather that Einstein's General Relativity is a deeper understanding of the 'forces' at play?

Nabaati

07-14-2012, 14:57

Well, surely you should throw out hypotheses that have explanatory power if it is only within certain contexts that things are explicable by those hypotheses? At the very least you should seek a deeper understanding of how those contexts interact. Given your physics backgound, should we all still believe in the explanatory power of 'perfect' circular orbits, or was Kepler right when he perceived a deeper pattern? Does a Newtonian mechanistic model adequately describe the motion of bodies, or isn't it rather that Einstein's General Relativity is a deeper understanding of the 'forces' at play?

I have yet to hear a different explanation for the pattern of egyptian females generally being shown as lighter skinned than males. What I hear you saying is that we can trust absolutely nothing about egyptian representations of themselves in their art. This doesn't explain the pattern I've observed. Therefore, I'm sticking with my interpretation. If you have an alternate explanation, please, do share. If you don't believe the pattern is real, again, please, do share. I'm not an art historian; I'm just going by my own limited experience.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-14-2012, 15:02

Yes, there are other potential explanations to do with colour symbolism. That is rather the point being made here. I will grant you that it is, indeed, perfectly credible that what the artist is doing is exagerating an actual trait that is part of the problem with defining skin tones on art-work as being 'realistic' depictions of 'how people really looked'. It is, at best, depicting - stylistically - a trait and exagerating it. This argument also does not address the anacronystic
aspects of the depictions (as alluded to by Odia, that such depictions are relative to temporal context and that such a simplistic understanding of the depictions would have to account for a sexual dimporphism unknown within any other human population.) Nor does it address the giants and/or midgets that appear to be inhabiting this ancient world, nor the incredible similarity displayed between individuals portrayed as stylistically similar.

Then what Egyptians appear to be depicting is "we are normal (brown) the Nubians are dark (black) the Lybians are pale (yellow). This is particularly notable when Egyptians are depicted as Nubians alongside Egytpians, something is going on here.

The diamorphism between men and women either depicts an actual trait exagerated, or it is depicting gender via symbolic colouring, or a mixture of the two. However, before we plump down on the "stylistic genderisation" I should like to hear an actual colour theory about the representation. The size discrepency is easily understood, the bigger you are the more important you are.

Even then, as Odia has admitted, previously both genders were depicted as brown, which suggests that the male depiction may be normative as one might expect from a Patriarchal society. So you still have a "brown not black" issue to account for.

I think that the only conclusion that one can honestly come to with regards to Egyptian formal art is that it is stylistic (ie symbolic) and its interpretation must rely upon its context (temporal/political/social/religious)

There are a huge number of conclusions we can draw from Egyptian art about Egyptian society and their depictions of themselves and the "other" in the peoples they came into contact with.

Why is the "most likely explanation" that one artist is depicting a "form" of someone they have never met, or that one artist is incompetent? Given the changes/differences within depictions, within different contexts, would it not be, perhaps, more accurate to say that all of the work is depicting a "form" of someone - whether met or not. In other words, exactly what has been suggested, that all of the work is stylistic (symbolic)? But, of course, to accept that premise is to undermine art-work as 'true' depiction as null and void.

But, let us take your own, diluted, variation from that sance as valid. How do we, then, ascertain which artist(s) is/are competent or incompetent? We are left with the same conclusion. We can, given such doubt, say very little about the 'reality' of depictions within Egyptian formal art without recourse to their contexts - with the added complication of defining the competence or otherwise of the artists.

You look at the context of the sculpture, the general skill of the artist and you look at the artistic context of the period. Statues of Ramses II invariably portray his prominant pointed nose - a feature he was so pround of his mummy was embalmed in such as way as to preserve it. The point is, you see that nose and you think, "ah, Ramses II". Egypt was a scribal cluture rather than a literate one - the peasants could not be relied upon to read inscriptions, that's why you had great honking statues to begin with. It's also a point that people are inherently vain, they want to see themselves depicted, not something that looks like some generic exemplar.

The "vast mass" of Egyptians next to those contexts? What "vast mass" are you referring to. Context is context, and citing one example is begging a question (within the context of a "vast mass"). But, I agree, one must (as has been suggested) look at the context(s) of the artwork.

How about paintings from different tombs within the same of close Dynastic periods?

You say that The Unbreakable's evidence does not support his claims "in the face of conflicting data", then proceed, rather than intimating what this conflicting data is, to attempt to undermine the data he has produced as possibly anomolous. In fact the argument that you have made (such as it is) contradicts your stated position ("we have not said that the Unbreakable's data is false, or anomolous"), as that is all that you have offered; the possibilty (without evidential counter-data) that the evidence put forward could be anomolous.

I shall repeat myself, I did not say they data was anomolous - i.e. that the mummies do not reflect the general genetic make up of Egypt in their given period, I said that there is insufficient date to found a claim about the whole of Egyptian society on. We cannot know the reliability of the data with such a small sample.

Not only that, but you have narrowed the evidence down to one strand (genetic markers) without reference to the morphological data, nor the cultural and religious affinities.

The morphological data comes under all the same criticisms as the genetic data, with the added note that even in a genetically mixed population natural selection will favour features prominant to one group but not the other. Much of the morphological data, especially in the New Kingdom period is ambiguous anyway. Cultural context is of limited value, as evidenced by the "Celtic" culture group which spread comprehensively from Austria to Britannia without any significant migration, likewise the Roman culture groups - which encompasses modern Iberia, Italia and Gallica without corresponding genetic homogenity, and indeed were it not for the Islamic conquests that same culture groups would be dominant in much of modern North Africa too.

You said earlier (an argument I have come across many times in debates in physics, btw, and in both contexts it is equally as misplaced) that as the proponent of a positive claim that it is The Unbreakable's responsibility to 'prove' the claim. The Unbreakable (and others) have put forward evidence - continuously. The reason I find this form of argument disingenuous is because if you are simply making a negative claim (ie, you say it is not so) then you can only be arguing from a position of ignorance. The fact is, that to hold a negative claim without simply admitting ignorance one must hold a contrary claim as positive (otherwise, on what basis do you argue). You have elucidated this contrary claim, is it not now time to provide evidence for holding such a positive stance?

A theory may be accepted if it adaquately explains the evidence, all the evidence. If the Unbreakable wants me or anyone else with historical acumen to accept his thesis he needs to explain why the Egyptians are often depicted in a way contrary to his biological evidence from the mummies. If he cannot, he must modify his theory to accomodate that evidence, particularly in the context of contact and exchange between Egypt and the Hitties and the people in the Levant.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 15:36

Because, as far as I can tell, you are extrapolating data from a single time frame (predynastic) from a single location (upper egypt) to 3000 years of history and all of egypt. I find this an extreme case of caricature. I would be absolutely shocked to learn upper egyptians, then or now, did not look a lot like their southern neighbors. However, there is evidence in the form of their artwork that they did not view themselves as quite the same as their southern neighbors. This is what makes the issue of egyptian skin tone more complicated than "egyptians were black."

As I say, though, even if 100% of egyptians were the darkest skinned people in africa or the most fuchsia skinned people in africa or the most rainbow skinned people in africa, it explains little to nothing about their culture. This is why I always roll my eyes when this topic comes up. Some people care so much about something that is so trivial.

I think that here you show a misundrstanding of the argument made by The Unbreakable, and also of how non-trivial the subject is.

It is not about skin tone/colour per-sé, but is very much about their culture.

I will break the ice and say what nobody here wants to say. People are uncomfortable with this because they see it as politicised. Damn right it is politicised, which is why getting to the truth of it matters. It is why any perception of this debate must be well evidenced and structured. Nobody here is being or has been accused of racism, but the debate is coloured by racism. What I mean by that is that terms like Afro-centric are unhelpful in terms of a debate about the evidence. There is a suggestion within that term that there is an attempt to appropriate (and the term has been used in this discussion) Egypt for black people as a whole, which is a ludicrous idea.

The historical perception we have of Egypt has been handed down to us by original (and subsequent) generations of scholars steeped in an ethno-supremacist world-view; one that regarded Africans as incapable of being civilised, let alone of civilising themselves. Let us be clear about how deep-rooted this racism has been carried forward. It was only in 1992 that a referendum (in which only white people could vote) allowed the black population of South Africa a say in their own lives. Look at the racial antagonism within certain elements of the USA regarding who their president is.

It is not 'appropriation' to evidence an African cultural origin for Egyptian civilisation. And that is the crux of this, is that what has been put forward has been well argued via a number of strands. I see the term 'trivial' being used here but that, I think, is a reaction to the fact that it is far from trivial. In fact, I would suggest that the fear is of an appropriation that is politically (ethnically) motivated, and that such is to be avoided. I would agree with that. I don't believe that that is what has been put forward here. And I think that getting to the truth of the cultural and religious origins of ancient Egypt is no more trivial than getting to the truth of any ancient civilisation.

I say this not to stir up some controversy, but rather to address what I think has, unspoken, shadowed this discussion throughout. If I am mistaken, then by all means say so. If the origins of ancient Egypt are trivial, then all history is trivial. If we wish to see colour as trivial then we would have to pretend ignorance of the last few hundred years of more recent history. It is because we know that it is not trivial (ie, it is a political hot potato) that we, perhaps, find the subject uncomfortable.

I will re-iterate (lest there be any misunderstanding), there is no allegation of racism against any here implicit within what I have said. Oh, and I have no ethnic axe to grind. Bottom line here is that the argument put forth here (by The Unbreakable) has given me a new perspective upon ancient Egyptian history, and that I have seen little put forward that detracts from his main contentions.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 16:10

I have yet to hear a different explanation for the pattern of egyptian females generally being shown as lighter skinned than males. What I hear you saying is that we can trust absolutely nothing about egyptian representations of themselves in their art. This doesn't explain the pattern I've observed. Therefore, I'm sticking with my interpretation. If you have an alternate explanation, please, do share. If you don't believe the pattern is real, again, please, do share. I'm not an art historian; I'm just going by my own limited experience.

So, you are happy to accept a level of sexual dimorphism within Egyptian history unseen anywhere else in any human population? So, whether or not the pattern you have observed can consistently explain the representation, and despite that representation being clearly (at the very least) nuanced and (at least) temporally contextual, you will use this as evidence in opposition to the available morphological and genetic data. Here you hide your physics background particularly well. I would have thought, from a physicists perspective, empirical data would trump an opinion of what something seems to look like.

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-14-2012, 16:33

A theory may be accepted if it adaquately explains the evidence, all the evidence. If the Unbreakable wants me or anyone else with historical acumen to accept his thesis he needs to explain why the Egyptians are often depicted in a way contrary to his biological evidence from the mummies. If he cannot, he must modify his theory to accomodate that evidence, particularly in the context of contact and exchange between Egypt and the Hitties and the people in the Levant.

Hang on. Aren't you getting this the wrong way round? If you claim that the Egyptian artistic depictions are 'realistic', surely it is for you to explain why that perception does not match the physical (genetic and morphological) data. You are the one making the positive claim here, and that claim is that a clearly stylised and symbolic art form is a better representation of the 'reality' of the Egyptian phenotype than the morphological and genetic data, and you demand an explanation as to why the two don't match up? That's without the cultural and religious affinities with the southern sub-sharan populations and political entities being taken into account, an affinity that seems to still be relevant in the timeframe of EB, btw, under the rule of the Greeks and the Romans.

In terms of the differing representations of people within Egyptian art, is it not more likely that such demonstrates that form and symbolism are key to understanding it rather than the suggestion that such changes are down to technical incompetence - given that these artworks are formal works. Do you suggest that Egyptian society was sloppy with regards to its formal representation of itself? For that can surely be the only explanation for so much incompetence to have survived for us.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-14-2012, 19:05

Hang on. Aren't you getting this the wrong way round? If you claim that the Egyptian artistic depictions are 'realistic', surely it is for you to explain why that perception does not match the physical (genetic and morphological) data. You are the one making the positive claim here, and that claim is that a clearly stylised and symbolic art form is a better representation of the 'reality' of the Egyptian phenotype than the morphological and genetic data, and you demand an explanation as to why the two don't match up? That's without the cultural and religious affinities with the southern sub-sharan populations and political entities being taken into account, an affinity that seems to still be relevant in the timeframe of EB, btw, under the rule of the Greeks and the Romans.

In terms of the differing representations of people within Egyptian art, is it not more likely that such demonstrates that form and symbolism are key to understanding it rather than the suggestion that such changes are down to technical incompetence - given that these artworks are formal works. Do you suggest that Egyptian society was sloppy with regards to its formal representation of itself? For that can surely be the only explanation for so much incompetence to have survived for us.

It is for the Unbreakable to support his claims.

I have not made a claim such as "The Egyptians were white". I have readily admitted an African element in the Egyptian population, in the Unbreakable wishes me to accept more than that he must explain why there is a conflict in the evidence.

If Egyptian art is symbolic then the colouring of the people must have a significance - if it doesn't, beyond identifying them as Egyptian, then you have to account for the discrepency when they are compared with Nubians. The Nubians are clearly depicted as darker, with full lips and tighly curled hair - Egyptians are occasionally depicted in this manner, but more often they are not - even if they do not have the red-brown skin tone.

This leads me to believe that the red-brown tone is designed to identify Egyptians as themselves and in the absense of a better explanation it is reasonable to assume that when depicting themselves they do so realistically.

Think about it, WE know what WE look like, so WE identify ourselves and then WE exagerate THEM, because THEY have thicker lips and curlier hair than US. Iconographic art only works if you start with a baseline, otherwise WE might be mistaken for THEM if WE aren't depicted in a recognisable way. What you are suggesting is not symbolism, it's a form of hyper-symbolism which is a closed system only understood by people "in the know", which would mean that only educated Egyptians could read it - and that would rather defeat the point of all that monumental building and artwork, which is designed to impress foriegners and the uncouth masses.

The Unbreakable

07-14-2012, 20:07

Zahi Hawass explains why Egyptian artwork cannot be used to tell what the ancient Egyptians really looked like:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUaWazRHTLg

While I don't agree with everything that has came out of this man's mouth, his analysis on the reliability of Egyptian artwork is consistent with just about every other Egyptologist.

Moros

07-14-2012, 23:02

:on_exhausted:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

07-15-2012, 00:03

If I were the good doctor I'm not sure which I would be more offended by, the unnecessay subtitles or the Unbreakable's twisting of my words.

He talked about the use of colour as symbolism - he didn't say all colouration was invalid, indeed he talked mostly about the material used to render statues and other artefacts and nothing about the pigments used in paintings except for the one reference to black.

moonburn

07-15-2012, 00:10

actually my point of view is highly based on Zahi Hawass point of view

nobady said that egypt was not african i only defend that they are north africans and they created it on their own and crap i´m breaking my word i told myself i wasn´t going to post again but that scotish dna stuff is in accordance with what i said earlyer in the debate that the people biological hability to adapt can be as low as 8 generations or even lower

there´s an interesting case of a gana couple living in london who never had any registered (and according to dna studies ) white people in their family and their 3rd child a litle girl was born white with blond hair and blue eyes and yes she´s the daughter of that couple so the human hability to adapt to new conditions can sometimes be extreme (2 kids pop up black and the 3rd one comes out white thats pretty fast for any person point of view)

anyway people will not leave their current standpoints it became a batle of ego´s but i still consider it that egypt was created by the egyptians even tough they have probably borrowed a few ideas from the nubians such as the piramids wich is something nobady can doubt

if the politics want a black civilization to claim "superiority" then they can use the zimbabwe stone city´s it´s in the right part of the continent and as far more impressive and interesting points of view ofc it´s not that well known but thats a responsability of those wanting to go further into that road

as for my ancestors 1500 years ago they where still happylly hunting auroqs until those damm huns arrived and forçed them to invade the roman decrepit empire and learn that there was more to life then just bashing other people´s heads and drinking the freaking mead before it spoils

Vaginacles

07-15-2012, 00:23

What biological evidence do you have of this? While I think that it's highly likely that there were pockets of people from the Levant in early Lower Egypt, the bulk of all evidence (in all forms) points towards this region being peopled primarily by the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara.

Actually Keita only commented on the commonality seen between admixed Coastal Northwest African populations and early Dynastic Egyptians, he did not purposely exclude Semitic populations in the Middle East. In fact in his next study it was found that even when Egyptian cranial from different times periods and regions (including the north) pulled together they grouped closer to the tropical African series (which included Sudanese and even a West African sample) over the Near Eastern series:

In case you haven't noticed by now, the number of studies conducted on early Lower Egyptian population remains are minimal at best. One of the main reasons given for the lack of anthropological analysis of those people during that time is due to a simple lack of human remains, which is another nod to the fact that this region was sparsely populated during pre-early Dynastic times.

No, Actually Northeast African cranial variations are not the result of isolated/limited outside geneflow, but instead an product of Africa:

Genetic research also finds the same the thing:

Understanding that not all "black" Africans conform to a particular set of traits is key to understanding this stance. So when some people are insistence on using their own subjective interpretations of stylized Egyptian art work (while simultaneously ignoring everything else), then they must take these facts into consideration. For example are the Egyptians not "black" because they don't have the same pitch black skin tone as Dinka people? If so then that would mean that damn near 90% of Nigerians tend be a brownish-to yellow skinned color aren't black either:

6276
(Egyptians bottom left)

6277
(Beja man)

6293
(Sudanese Dinka)

6279
(Nigerian)

6281
(Kenyan)

The list goes on X(1000).

What evidence do you have for this? The Thesis paper by Raxter (assuming that's what you're building off of) is limited in validity, but none the less does not dispute the consistent fact that the ancient Egyptians and Nubians (who are once yet again mentioned interchangeably) had limb proportions that grouped them with the majority of other Africans (who are tropically adapted). No mention of this affinity with Middle Easterners who are not tropically adapted.

No I did do not equate all of Africa and Africans as black, instead I have always specified "tropical" African and note that this indicates that a population is "black" or has dark skin like black Africans. Both Lower and Upper Egyptians were tropically adapted like other Africans further to the south. One was not intermediate between tropical and sub tropical populations as you are insinuating, but fully tropically adapted.

Nothing in that study refutes what I have been arguing. NEVER have I denied that there was mutual influence between the Levant and early Lower Egypt. I have even stated several times that I believe it to be very likely that there were pockets of Levantine communities in early Lower Egypt. What I and the study that you just cited refute is the notion that Lower Egypt was initially populated by a large early movement of people from the Levant. The people of pre-Dynastic Lower Egypt were not LONG TERM residence of the Sub Tropical environment that they recently settled in, UNLIKE most people in the Levant. This is why they had limb proportion ratios which were said to have been "significantly different" from the people of the Levant and instead grouping with the majority of tropical African populations further to the south. This is consistent with archaeological evidence suggesting a migration from the southerly/tropical regions of the Sahara to Lower Egypt...hence the primary population source of that region. So why would these recent Nilotic migrants on the Lower Nile not be "black"?

No I'm asking YOU to back YOUR assertion that Egyptian artwork display a skin tone gradient from the south to the north. You have asserted time and time again (baselessly) that Lower Egyptians were tropically adapted yet "light skinned" and stated that artwork validates this claim (as nothing else appears to), so please back your assertion or admit that it is fallacious.

You are in denial of what almost every Egyptologist considers to be common knowledge. ALL of it has not been destroyed by silt. It is SPECULATED that SOME sites may not have been destroyed, none the less I have yet to see any Egyptologist withhold judgement on the matter of early ancient Egypt's population centers because of this. They all conclude that it's CLEAR that the south was where most of early Egypt's population resided and conversely where Dynastic culture originated. Acknowledging this fact does not "down play" the cultures of Lower Egypt, is a statement of fact.

Your entire opposition to calling ancient Egypt black, is because you wish to hold onto the SPECULATIVE notion that some sites in Lower Egypt were destroyed by silt. From that YOU (never citing an Egyptologist) comes to the conclusion that Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt may have had comparable populations (a statement which is contrary to two authoratative sources presented to you). Of course it all boils down to your unfounded belief that Lower Egyptians were some "light skinned" (yet tropically adapted) population. From all of that speculation that you've come up with YOU conclude that my position that Egypt was black, which is soundly supported by biological and cultural evidence showing closest affinities towards more southerly African populations is baseless. Interestingly enough I have authoritative scholarship unmistakably backing my assertion:

So who is wrong; The scholars at Oxford or You and a handful of other armchair historians?

Tell me what bearing would population movement from 30k years ago have on a population that came into existence 5k years ago? Better yet what did people from the Levant even look like during early time in human history? Studies from the oldest skeletal remains in Egypt (around this time period) not surprisingly shows close affinities towards black Africans:

sorry but i no longer have time to debate with you, life beckons. Your insistence on misconstruing my statements also is annoying. I have, and always had, maintained that lower egyptians were a mixed race of people from south, east, and west in terms of geography. If you equate black with African, then fine i don't care. But make no mistake, I AM NOT DENYING THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF EGYPT OR EVEN LOWER EGYPT, i question the validity of "tropical body plans" as the ultimate indicator of a people's origin. But screw it, its like arguing with a pole.

So, you are happy to accept a level of sexual dimorphism within Egyptian history unseen anywhere else in any human population? So, whether or not the pattern you have observed can consistently explain the representation, and despite that representation being clearly (at the very least) nuanced and (at least) temporally contextual, you will use this as evidence in opposition to the available morphological and genetic data. Here you hide your physics background particularly well. I would have thought, from a physicists perspective, empirical data would trump an opinion of what something seems to look like.

Size is perhaps symbolic in terms of power held in society, aka larger means more powerful. Egypt was paternalistic so this is a logical conclusion. Now if you're referring to skin colour, the ancient greeks kept women indoors so they would be horribly pale compared to the tanned men. This of course only refers to nobility, but nonetheless it was a common practice there.

Vaginacles

07-15-2012, 00:29

Vaginacles thank you very much for providing the opportunity for me to download that Smith 1992 study on Early Lower Egyptian-Southern Levant Affinities. I have been longing for a long time to have it . Much appreciated.
PS: But, the findings sought of do not upport significant migrations from the Levant as the study says- but I will look through it again.
Thanks again, Please do you have access to the Bluk and Beck Studies on this issue or others, if you do be much appreciated if you shared.

No i actually don't. I'm sure if you do some sleuthing you can find it on the internet. I just did a google search of the title and author, thats how i found it.

Nabaati

07-15-2012, 01:17

sorry but i no longer have time to debate with you, life beckons.

I AM NOT DENYING THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF EGYPT OR EVEN LOWER EGYPT.

Lest there be any confusion, these two statements apply to me as well.

The Unbreakable

07-15-2012, 02:38

nobady said that egypt was not african i only defend that they are north africans and they created it on their own[

North Africa and "black" are not mutually exclusive and anyone who has studied African history and it's people should be very aware of this fact. The Saharan region (North Africa) was originally inhabited by black Africans. The specific Africans in question were predominantly Nilo Saharan (Nilotic) and when the region began to turn into desert these people migrated to the southwest and East into the Nile Valley. Once again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3w1x8nVD4xs&feature=related

Have you ever heard of Uan Muhuggiag aka "the black mummy" of Libya/the Sahara? This is where mummification came from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThQN0dY31YU

link (http://www.history.com/videos/mummies-case-of-the-black-mummy#mummies-case-of-the-black-mummy)

if the politics want a black civilization to claim "superiority" then they can use the zimbabwe stone city´s it´s in the right part of the continent and as far more impressive and interesting points of view ofc it´s not that well known but thats a responsability of those wanting to go further into that road

:mean: My goodness! I mean seriously where in the Hell does this come from? It's not only offensive but blatantly ignorant of what has been argued by myself and others throughout this thread. Is this back thought the ROOT of all of this silly denial of the clear implications of multiple sources of evidence? How on Earth would relaying the fact that a long dead ancient civilization was created by black Africans from the south and west equate to any sort of racial "superiority"? It's utterly ridiculous of you to assert that this is what anyone is trying to prove, but none the less it (IMO) gives much incite on the motives behind the "no no no" crowd in this thread. All get I can say is please get a clue!

The Unbreakable

07-15-2012, 02:56

Your insistence on misconstruing my statements also is annoying.

I'm not misconstruing anything. I'm pointing out the baselessness of your speculations which is the single leg that you are leaning on in order to avoid conceding to what my sources have clearly stated about the ancient Egyptians.

I have, and always had, maintained that lower egyptians were a mixed race of people from south, east, and west in terms of geography.

With what evidence? I'm tired of people presenting this assertion that if we say that everyone had their hand in pot then it somehow makes it true. Every study presented (including the very study that you cited about Lower Egypt's relations the Levant) refutes any notion of the Levant being a major population source for Lower Egypt. None the less as I have maintained it is likely that there were isolated pockets of people from this region for a host of reasons.

If you equate black with African, then fine i don't care. But make no mistake, I AM NOT DENYING THE AFRICAN ORIGINS OF EGYPT OR EVEN LOWER EGYPT, i question the validity of "tropical body plans" as the ultimate indicator of a people's origin.

What limb proportion ratios of Lower Egyptians indicate is that they were tropically adapted. As we should all know by now Egypt (especially Lower Egypt) is not within the tropics. The only way to obtain tropical body plans is to be a long term residence of the tropics. This indicates that the early people of Lower Egypt were recent migrants from the tropics (which is further to the south). It also indicates based on ecological principal that these tropically adapted peoples were "dark skinned" like other tropical Africans. Limb proportion comparisons of Lower Egyptian limb proportions to the "Semitic" people of the Levant confirms that they were "significantly different" from one another as a result from a "lack of common ancestry". Indicating a significant difference in phenotype (at least skin color) between the neighboring people.

moonburn

07-16-2012, 00:55

Gaius Sempronius Gracchus

07-16-2012, 01:56

thats all very nice except that the sahara before it dryed up was not a savanah but a jungle so the people of egypt could have very well have what you claim still doesn´t mean or prove that they came from the south and thus my argument they where always there still stands

as for the levantine theory all it takes is 1 dude to reach a city and screw around a bit to make a genetic diference in less then 2/3 generations i mean people with diferent gens have more advantages since they are perceived as more atractive (whats new is always pretty some sayings go ) thus easyer acess to women who can preocupy themselfs more with finding "better" gens and less about sustenance and a good hunter

i think it as been argued pretty sucefully that due to the climatic nature of the delta it´s impossible to get reliable data from that area altough what we do know is that that area was far more fertile and thus more able to sustain larger populations without a decling into competition over resources you continuous analogy of just putting off the delta nile because of the lack of evidence (when the reason for those same lack is what allows us to infer that it had the hability to sustain more people )

it´s like you point the spotlight at what you want and turn the lights off of what you deslike it´s not the evidence i won´t be moved from my stand egypt belongs to the egyptians and nobady else as the right to claim it but it´s the way you conduct yourself that creates a wedge beteween us both and yes i´m very politically motivated to drift away from anything resembling politics for personal reasons

...sigh....

This random jumble of ideas is just that. A random jumble of ideas. Again, the 'arguments' made against The Unbreakable's impressively documented and referenced position lack any reference or form of evidential support. And why? For the reason that I have felt (and tried to elucidate in a previous post) it has been. Because of a fear of some agenda, or political motivation....

"from my stand egypt belongs to the egyptians and nobady else as the right to claim it"
Meaningless guph. Of course Egypt belongs to the Egyptians. As a Brit I identify with my country. Can I claim, with hand on heart, that I am related to the people who put up Stonehenge? No, I can't. Does it matter? No, it doesn't. What matters is that identifying with my country is about relating to the cultural uniqueness that the history of that country has developed. All aspects of that history play a part in that.

"but it´s the way you conduct yourself that creates a wedge beteween us both"
?? You mean like, putting forward evidence for a position? Why would that put a wedge between you and anybody else?

You suggest that it has been "argued pretty sucefully that due to the climatic nature of the delta it´s impossible to get reliable data from that area", but where is the peer-reviewed/accepted argument for this. Where do you reference the rejection of the position as evinced by The Unbreakable?

What is going on here? At no point has anybody credibly supported any claim they have made against the case put forward. I'll try and encapsulate the arguments as best as I can.

That promiscuous Levantine's bedded their way through the course of the Nile and their pretty children carried on the process. Backed by....no evidence. No doubt linked in some way to the revelatory suggestion that looking at a map will reveal the truth of the matter.

That the Nile Delta was as populous (at least) as more Southerly regions. Backed by.....no evidence, nor by any scholarship supporting such claim (nor refuting the position that the area was much less populous)

That Egyptian art-work can be used to define Egyptian phenotypes, and even that such an idea demands from the physical data why the two do not match up......... without any reference to back up that claim.

That the physical data could be anomolous (while declaring that the counter-argument does not suggest anomaly...), without referencing a single scholar suggesting so. And, as an aspect of that, that the physical data is unreliable because it relies upon (inferring a single stream of data) genetic markers - completely ignoring that the argument is based upon multiple strands of evidence.

If I've missed anything, please let me know.

Could somebody who is arguing against the position please reference a reliable article from within the field itself to back up the claims made? Its no good decrying that; "it´s like you point the spotlight at what you want and turn the lights off of what you deslike " when there is nothing to turn the light onto.

In short, you have summed up your position very well when you say "it´s not the evidence i won´t be moved from my stand"

odia

07-16-2012, 02:59

Even then, as Odia has admitted, previously both genders were depicted as brown, which suggests that the male depiction may be normative as one might expect from a Patriarchal society. So you still have a "brown not black" issue to account for.

This shows clearly that you have a strong attachment to the status quo, an attachment that is not driven by the espousing the truth of the matter.
For how many times have I demostrated that MOST 'Black' Africasn skin-colour hinge on BROWN and not Black literarily(any more than 'White' people are actually White literarily). The few African peoples tha approach Black(like Shilluk, Dinka, Ashanti) are actually very dark Brown,some of whom reflects a purple tink.
I have also provided links to very many randomly generated images(pictures) of some indigenous 'Black' Africans in thsi post:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?141820-Black-Egyptians&p=2053466110&viewfull=1#post2053466110
So how can you admit that a population in Africa is painted in Brown and argue that this is yur main eveidence that they are not 'Black' Africans when virtually all 'Black' Africans are shades of Brown themselves.

You seem to be making a wrong assumption here: when we consider the art evidence as been subjective in itself and seconadry to other lines of evidence, we are actually be honest in the methodology of our argumants. The art evidences when uesd as a seconadary evidence actually supports our stance, as you will be hard pressed to find Levantines or southern Europeans who are within the range of variation dispalyed in Egyptian paintings. Compare that with those links of pictures of 'Black' Africans above, and see if MOST Egyptian paintings, whom not be within their range.

The variation in lighter skinned people between those who stay indoors and those who go outside can be quite pronounced, to the extent that many European women with social standing still wear sun hats to prevent their faces tanning. If previously in the Pre-Dynastic period both men and women are depicted as the same shade then it is possible that what we are seeing later on is evidence of greater social stratification, such that high-class women no longer work and therefore do not tan.

First off, it is actually silly to argue that a tropically/supertropically adapted population can tan!!! Am not aware of such, and the ancient Egyptians were in the main tropically/supertropically adapted(that is a biological measured FACT that can not be 'interpreted' as subjective evidences like art work).
By the way, the CONVENTION of painting females many times in lighter shades of Brown than male, apart of the conundrum of the stylization of Egyptian art, might be explicable by an attempt to reflect Sexual Dimorphism(which is a physical anthroplogy phenomenon where there are slight general differences in the features of both sexes- in the case females been generally lighter than males, which is a general obervation in manybhuman populations including 'Black' Africans). There is no need to explain it in terms of tanning.
Againlet me repeat, a tropically/supertropically adapted population that mainly migrated from the sahara does not tan-if you disagree, I DARE you to provide examples.

Quickly,for your information Egyptian women were not locked indoors like their Greek counterparts. If you did Egyptology, you would know that Ancient Egyptian women enjoyed a measure of 'freedom' than women in the Middle East(a phenomenon more widespread in Africa by the way).

Once again, what actual anthropologists say about the use of art as biological data:

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation. (S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)