Black Egyptians

[The Unbreakable]

Very intersting Indeed,

however this picture strikes me as strange:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...2&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]

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]

Very intersting Indeed,

however this picture strikes me as strange:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/attac...2&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]

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]

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

Whose findings confirm a Nilotic 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:



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

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, Cambridge (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 . 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 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:





Nubia







Mali





On-Nigeria





Loango



Ancient Ghana









(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]

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..")

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]

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]

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]

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:

not just in skin colour put hair style as well.

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





Attachment 6046

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?









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



Here's her daughter also:

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]

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]

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.

This.

Dude clearly has an agenda.

[The Unbreakable]

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]

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]

^^ 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.

[Ibrahim]

^^ 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!

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).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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:

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]

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]

I PREFER CREATIVE criticism to constructive criticism anyway :\

[Vaginacles]

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/histor...#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/d.../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]

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:



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]

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/2011/0...7704OR20110801. 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:



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]

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

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

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.

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:



by African historian Basil Davidson in full.

[The Unbreakable]

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 of the same topic. I personally think that's it's brilliant and well sourced. Did he use too many sources?

[Ironduke]

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]

"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]

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]

"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]

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

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).



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]

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

Or something else? I seem to have lost my way and people seem to be debating different things. 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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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]

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 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).