The African Origin of Ancient Egyptian Civilization

[Cynovolans]

I'll continue to agree with the leading Egyptologists.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I'll continue to agree with the leading Egyptologists.

You do that. You can have your opinions I'll have mine. Mine are supported by facts.

The leading Egyptologists are not authorities on human biology. Most are not knowledgeable about the research on the Biological Affinities of Ancient Egyptians.

 

[Lord Baal]

You do that. You can have your opinions I'll have mine. Mine are supported by facts.

The leading Egyptologists are not authorities on human biology. Most are not knowledgeable about the research on the Biological Affinities of Ancient Egyptians.

Your opinions are not supported by facts, they're supported by inane rambling. You have provided one source, Keita, who isn't even saying what you think he's saying. He's also been proven wrong about many of the things he is saying.

I hereby suggest to everyone that we boycott this thread until some sensible discussion appears. It is obvious that we will not get that from Mentuhotep23, as he even agrees with ParkCungHee that his thesis is bullplop, yet refuses to abandon his thesis. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of an irrational argument. I prefer to argue with rational people.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Your opinions are not supported by facts, they're supported by inane rambling. You have provided one source, Keita, who isn't even saying what you think he's saying. He's also been proven wrong about many of the things he is saying.

I hereby suggest to everyone that we boycott this thread until some sensible discussion appears. It is obvious that we will not get that from Mentuhotep23, as he even agrees with ParkCungHee that his thesis is bullplop, yet refuses to abandon his thesis. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of an irrational argument. I prefer to argue with rational people.

You haven't been very rational or mature in this thread at all.

Let's test your claims.

1. What is Keita saying in his literature that is inconsistent with what I have said?

2. Where has Keita been proven wrong about the things he is saying?

Failure to answer these questions regarding your claims will prove who is being irrational.

Feel free to ask me relevant questions.

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, I'm with Baal, we're done here.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

If noone is prepared to challenge my sources or ask relevant questions then I am done as well.

 

[Kahotep]

Most Westerners already don't consider them black.

That's only because most Westerners' idea of ancient Egyptians comes from movies with Yul Brynner or Arnold Vosloo. If you were to transport said Westerners back to ancient Egypt, they probably would consider the natives they saw "black".

Again, the evidence suggests that the ancient Egyptians by and large were biologically most closely related to northeast Africans such as northern Sudanese, Eritreans, Ethiopians, and Somalis. All of those other populations, rightly or wrongly, are considered "black" in the Western context. Therefore, if you consider them "black", you better be ready to call the ancient Egyptians "black" too. If you don't want to call the ancient Egyptians "black", don't use that word to describe other northeast Africans either.

 

[Dachs]

That's only because most Westerners' idea of ancient Egyptians comes from movies with Yul Brynner or Andrew Vosloo.

Arnold Vosloo.

 

[Verbose]

Anyway I don't think there's anything more for us to discuss. Noone has challenged the conclusions of Keita so everyone either agrees that they're valid or can't dispute them.

I maintain that the Ancient Egyptians were Biologically African and tropically adapted and would be considered Black by Western standards.

Yes you do, and "Black" is still an arbitrary term invented by westernerns in the first place. It might seem commendable, in a way, to try to salvage and effectuate some kind of apotheosis for it, but mostly it just seems terribly misguided.

 

[ParkCungHee]

you better be ready to call the ancient Egyptians "black" too. If you don't want to call the ancient Egyptians "black", don't use that word to describe other northeast Africans either.

What are you gonna do about it?

Moderator Action: Not a helpful contribution - everyone, please stick to the issues.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Yes you do, and "Black" is still an arbitrary term invented by westernerns in the first place. It might seem commendable, in a way, to try to salvage and effectuate some kind of apotheosis for it, but mostly it just seems terribly misguided.

There's nothing at all misguided about my statement. That the term Black is arbitrary and the people who look like Ancient Egyptians are considered to be Black today by Western standards are both factual statements.

We can logically conclude that the Ancient Egyptians would be considered Black by Westerners today.

The biological evidence on the other hand is objective. The Ancient Egyptians were biologically African and tropically adapted.

If you disagree with that contention then challenge the evidence but there's no rational reason for people to keep arguing about the term Black.

 

[Agent327]

It does hold up. Keita's research is based on the conclusion of a multitude of scholars that come to similar conclusions he did. His article is a REVIEW of the anthropological literature on the subject spanning several decades.

If this is true, then why hasn't the scientific community long accepted this Black Egypt theory? It reverts back to there being just one source: Mr Keita.

My conclusion isn't unfounded.

Prove it - instead of repeating the same things over and over.

No, I brought up the fact that Black Athena's critics accept Keita's research. You tried to change the subject to the validity of Black Athena itself. And I just demonstrated to you the fact that Bernal has contested the challenges to his theory. Again if it's a myth then you can outline the definitive proof against his theories.

(off-topic but since you want to press the issue go ahead)

The fact that Bernal - again, one person - answers his many critics doesn't prove much, now does it? The Black Athena theory hasn't been accepted as valid, but rather been disproven as false. Also, if you don't want to discuss Black Athena, you shouldn't have mentioned it. It puts Mr Keita's claim in an unfavourable light.

I never claimed they were 'racially' African so stop distorting my comments. Black and White are social terms with a racial background unless you're trying to claim that demographic groups called Black and White are actually races.
They live in the tropics and some may show tropical adaptation as evidence of a gradient in skintone. But YOU are clearly the one missing the point. I have acknowledged that Black is a subjective term. There are Melanasians, Southern Indians and Australian Aborigines who may be called or even identify as Black and are tropically adapted.

Like Poe said whether someone is Black or not is entirely up to the person using the term.

Glad we got that cleared up. Then why not now simply stop using the term Black? In this context it's confusing rather than clarifying and not doing your claim much good.

Now you resort to outright lying. I posted a picture that showed a mural of ethnic groups so why are you LYING, claiming that I am unaware that Ancient Egyptians depicted Nubians as jet-black? They also depict some Nubians and other Africans as brown like themselves.

The point is that you were in error when you said that the Ancient Egyptians were White (you were also in error for saying Ethiopian was an EGYPTIAN word for Black Africans - it is a Greek word). They depicted themselves in art as uniformly brown in contrast to black, yellow and white neighbors.

I'm sorry what am I supposed to be lying about? I never called ancient Egyptians white (which anyone can check in the post you quoted from my original OP comment). I wouldn't use those terms in this context at all as they tend to have ravial overtones.

You're not getting across to me because your line of argument is full of strawmen and non sequiturs.

I NEVER claimed the Ancient Egyptians were Black in a racial context. I said that they were Black in a social context as Black is defined in the majority of the Western world (a dark-skinned person of African descent).

There is no flaw in this argument. I never claimed Black was an objective category. Neither is White but would you be arguing with me if I said that the Ancient Greeks and Romans were White?

Do you even understand the words strawman and non sequitur? If so, please quote where I employ such. Otherwise stop tarnishing people who do not agree with your claim. (Again, that is not doing you any good.) And what is the point in calling ancient Greeks and Romans white?

Please think for a moment about what I have said before posting another reply.

Now what is this a comment on precisely?

Summing up: so far your claim hasn't made a single convert here; now why would that be, you reckon?

 

[Mentuhotep23]

If this is true, then why hasn't the scientific community long accepted this Black Egypt theory? It reverts back to there being just one source: Mr Keita.

Again, false. You are clearly not familiar with the scientific literature. Keita's review cites a multitude of studies from various scholars which conclude or support the fact that the Ancient Egyptians were Biologically African and tropically adapted. It is not the conclusions of one man.

The academic community at large accepts the notion that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous development. Race is widely regarded as a nebulous concept. The scientific community disputes their biological affinities in large part because the fields of Anthropology and Genetics have been marred by racial thinking which has lead to flawed models in the analysis of population relationships.

There hasn't to my knowledge been an attempt to even reach a scientific consensus on the subject. There have only been a handful of anthropologists and geneticists who have conducted tests on the Ancient Egyptians to assess their biological affinities and characteristics throughout the years.

Keita is regarded as a pioneer on this topic because his research is not marred by racial thinking and he has provided empirical and irrefutable evidence for his conclusions. Like I said before evidence of this can be seen in the acceptance of his research by the majority of academics at the most recent academic debate where the topic was brought up (The Black Athena Debates).

Prove it - instead of repeating the same things over and over.

I already did in previous posts.

The fact that Bernal - again, one person - answers his many critics doesn't prove much, now does it? The Black Athena theory hasn't been accepted as valid, but rather been disproven as false. Also, if you don't want to discuss Black Athena, you shouldn't have mentioned it. It puts Mr Keita's claim in an unfavourable light.

Again, your claim is false unless you can provide us with conclusive PROOF that Bernal's theories have been debunked. A challenge is not a debunking. Bernal has many supporters as well as critics in the academic community.

I mentioned the Black Athena Debates because that is the last major academic platform where the question of the Ancient Egyptian's biological affinities was brought up and Keita's research was accepted by the majority of academics on both sides of the issue. That Keita's theory was supported even by Bernal's critics shows the prominence of his position.

Glad we got that cleared up. Then why not now simply stop using the term Black? In this context it's confusing rather than clarifying and not doing your claim much good.

I highly doubt you are confused. You just don't like the use of the term Black being applied to the Ancient Egyptians. They would be considered Black by Western standards. There's nothing confusing about that it is what it is.

I'm sorry what am I supposed to be lying about? I never called ancient Egyptians white (which anyone can check in the post you quoted from my original OP comment). I wouldn't use those terms in this context at all as they tend to have ravial overtones.

Yes you did stop lying. You said that there was a racial distinction in artwork between black Nubians and "White" Egyptians.

Do you even understand the words strawman and non sequitur? If so, please quote where I employ such. Otherwise stop tarnishing people who do not agree with your claim. (Again, that is not doing you any good.) And what is the point in calling ancient Greeks and Romans white?

You know very well that you have been using strawmen and non sequiturs. I'm not going to fish through your posts to find them.

Greeks and Romans would be considered White by Western standards. The historical point of grouping them as White by Western academics was to construct a racial kinship between Western countries and those ancient civilizations. I'm sure that you already knew this.

Now what is this a comment on precisely?

Summing up: so far your claim hasn't made a single convert here; now why would that be, you reckon?

I reckon it is because the majority of you already made up your minds about the topic before posting and are indifferent to the criteria of valid evidence.

I'm not here to convert anyone. I came here to defend Keita's academic integrity and got caught up in the OP's discussion so here we are.

 

[Masada]

The academic community at large accepts the notion that Ancient Egypt was an indigenous development.

Fine, nobody here has denied that and I repeat, nobody has denied that.

Race is widely regarded as a nebulous concept.

Then why do you insist in using an even more nebulous shorthand -- black -- for that matter? Plotinus has already shown how general it is, to the point of being useless. For that matter, I'm Polynesian and thus black by most 'white people's' reckoning and I have nothing to do with Africa - my closest non-Polynesian ancestors are Melanesians and non-Han Taiwanese.

The scientific community disputes their biological affinities in large part because the fields of Anthropology and Genetics have been marred by racial thinking which has lead to flawed models in the analysis of population relationships.

And yet you perpetuate the myth by using black which is utterly meaningless term. Also, please provide citations of Anthropology and Genetics continuing to use 'racial thinking' in their results.

You know very well that you have been using strawmen and non sequiturs. I'm not going to fish through your posts to find them.

If your going to make accusations can you at least cite them. Thanks.

Greeks and Romans would be considered White by Western standards. The historical point of grouping them as White by Western academics was to construct a racial kinship between Western countries and those ancient civilizations. I'm sure that you already knew this.

Yes, but how the heck is this relevant. That a bunch of bigots in centuries past ascribed a fictive racial grouping to civilizations composed of heterogeneous populations shouldn't impact on our discussion here.

 

[Kahotep]

For that matter, I'm Polynesian and thus black by most 'white people's' reckoning and I have nothing to do with Africa - my closest non-Polynesian ancestors are Melanesians and non-Han Taiwanese.

I don't think most Westerners would consider the majority of Polynesians to be "black" (even though they may be mixed with Melanesians). Furthermore, neither I nor Mentuhotep23 have claimed that being "black" means you are African.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Then why do you insist in using an even more nebulous shorthand -- black -- for that matter? Plotinus has already shown how general it is, to the point of being useless. For that matter, I'm Polynesian and thus black by most 'white people's' reckoning and I have nothing to do with Africa - my closest non-Polynesian ancestors are Melanesians and non-Han Taiwanese.

You may not like me using the term Black but I use it as a way of communicating a point. The Ancient Egyptians would be considered Black by Western standards. Unless you are disputing this I see no reason for posters to obsess over my use of the word Black.

And yet you perpetuate the myth by using black which is utterly meaningless term.

No, I'm not perpetuating myths. I am using Black in a social context.

Also, please provide citations of Anthropology and Genetics continuing to use 'racial thinking' in their results.

You can read this paper for a detailed summary of the application of racial thinking in Anthropological and Genetic research.

abstract


The Persistence of Racial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence

The concept and schema of race continue to exert a major influence on studies of human biology. The racial paradigm informs evolutionary studies in spite of evidence indicating that categories based on external phenotype are not valid. Racial thinking is especially prevalent in studies of Africa. It persists in defiance of genetic data that deconstruct such thinking, probably as a result of the sociocultural milieu, linger research traditions, and a lack of appreciation of the implications of modem genetic studies.


PDF

I'll even give you an example. Brace et al. (1993) Clines and Clusters vs. "Race": A test in Ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile......

abstract


C. Loring Brace is a prominent Biological Anthropologist who got involved in the Black Athena debates when consulted to conduct a study on the Biological Affinities of the Ancient Egyptians to address the question of their race. He and his team of anthropologists published a paper in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. The study contained a brief review of the scientific literature on the subject along with comments from the authors and the results of their own research.

They used craniofacial measurements from diverse populations to create population clusters of the clines in order to assess population relationships. As you can see from the abstract they concluded that the Ancient Egyptians showed overall affinities to the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe rather than Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia, Oceania and the New World. The conclusions of their studies were that the Egyptians had been in place since the Pleistocene and were unaffected by migrations or invasions. Here you can see a plot of their findings:

This paper lead the critics of Black Athena in their book Black Athena Revisited to conclude that the categorization of Ancient Egyptians into a Black or White category had no historical or biological justification. It was regarded as a death blow to Afrocentrism. To this day you will see this study cited by Eurocentrists arguing for a Caucasian Egypt and Afrocentric critics use it as a rebuttal to a Black Egypt.

However careful analysis of the study reveals several holes especially in their treatment of African populations and a conceptual model that echoes the "True Negro Myth".....

One approach, although limited, with which to explore the possibility
of migration in earlier times, is through analysis of craniometric
affinities. Previous studies have not specifically addressed
the immigration of farmers from Europe into the NileValley. However,
Brace et al. (1993) find that a series of upper Egyptian/Nubian
epipalaeolithic crania affiliate by cluster analysis with groups they
designate “sub-Saharan African” or just simply “African” (from
which they incorrectly exclude the Maghreb, Sudan, and the Horn
of Africa), whereas post-Badarian southern predynastic and a late
dynastic northern series (called “E” or Gizeh) cluster together, and
secondarily with Europeans. In the primary cluster with the Egyptian
groups are also remains representing populations from the
ancient Sudan and recent Somalia. Brace et al. (1993) seemingly
interpret these results as indicating a population relationship from
Scandinavia to the Horn of Africa, although the mechanism for this
is not clearly stated; they also state that the Egyptians had no relationship
with sub-Saharan Africans, a group that they nearly treat
(incorrectly) as monolithic, although sometimes seemingly including
Somalia, which directly undermines aspects of their claims.
Sub-Saharan Africa does not define/delimit authentic Africanity. - Keita 2005


Brace et al. (1993) treats West/Central African populations as the only authentic Sub-Saharan group while excluding Somalia which in their own dendrograms and craniometric plots clusters closely with Pre-Dynastic Egypt. This is an example of classic racial thinking despite the authors own opposition to the race concept (see Does Race Exist? An antagonists perspective by C Loring Brace).

If your going to make accusations can you at least cite them. Thanks.

I'll tell you what, the next time I catch someone attacking strawmen or committing other logical fallacies I will point them out. I don't feel like fishing back through the thread for specifics.

 

[Kahotep]

No, I'm not perpetuating myths. I am using Black in a social context.

I wonder, have any of the people disputing your use of the word "black" ever used that same word to describe a non-Egyptian like Barack Obama or Gabrielle Union? It's odd that they only realize the flaws of the concept of "blackness" when it's applied to the ancient Egyptians.

People cannot have their cake and eat it too. If you're going to call Barack Obama "black", you better do the same for the ancient Egyptians. Renounce "black" and you lose the privilege of referring to anyone as "black".

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I wonder, have any of the people disputing your use of the word "black" ever used that same word to describe a non-Egyptian like Barack Obama or Gabrielle Union? It's odd that they only realize the flaws of the concept of "blackness" when it's applied to the ancient Egyptians.

People cannot have their cake and eat it too. If you're going to call Barack Obama "black", you better do the same for the ancient Egyptians. Renounce "black" and you lose the privilege of referring to anyone as "black".

I think most people here agree that socio-political terms like Black are arbitrary. It's obvious that they don't want the Ancient Egyptians to be called Black because they don't consider the modern Egyptians to be Black. They can't challenge the sources I have provided so they attack a strawman, the arbitrariness of Blackness.

All I have maintained is that by Western standards they would be considered Black.

If they don't object to the Ancient Egyptians being biologically African and tropically adapted then what in the world is there to argue about?

 

[Verbose]

If they don't object to the Ancient Egyptians being biologically African and tropically adapted then what in the world is there to argue about?

Because that statement does not equate with "Black"? The genetics you've posted doesn't either.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Because that statement does not equate with "Black"? The genetics you've posted doesn't either.

This is a straw man.

I did not equate the terms. I said that the Ancient Egyptians were Biologically African and tropically adapted AND would be considered Black by Western standards.

There is absolutely no flaw in this statement so unless you disagree with either premise I see nothing to discuss.