The African Origin of Ancient Egyptian Civilization

[Yes]

Yeah during the LATE Dynastic period. When I talk about native Ancient Egyptian civilization I'm generally speaking about the Early Dynastic - New Kingdom period. After that Ancient Egyptian civilization gradually declined and was invaded by foreigners. Egypt experienced gene flow from the Near East over the course of its history but your argument is that Lower Egypt had a strong Near Eastern affinity since the pre-dynastic period, a claim you haven't supported with a shred of evidence.

No you said Egyptians didn't have a large Semitic presence in the population since Islam, you lied? Not surprised. I have provided evidence citing both Kemp and Keita among other sources. You also do not know that the Berbers held dynasties in Egypt during the Middle Kingdoms? Lower Egypt has always been mixed, yet you refuse to acknowledge this VERY SIMPLE fact. You say I misinterpreted Kemp and Keita and my other sources are not valid thinking you know better. As if whatever I say is wrong and whatever you say is right. You're nothing more than a biased nutcase.

You have the audacity to compare me to racists when I am an Egalitarian because you are a jackass. I won't sink to your level. You can't acknowledge simple facts simply because you are extremely biased. I won't call you a racist unless you say something blatantly racist but your Multiracialist perspective blinds you from reality.

You desperately want the Lower Egyptians to be Asiatics because you want Ancient Egypt to be regarded as a Multiracial civilization. I would concede that Lower Egyptians were light-skinned during the Dynastic period if only there was PROOF. So far you have not provided it and I have cited an authority debunking such a claim.

I have the audacity to call you a racist because you are a racist. Can someone who asserts the notion of race so strongly to prove something wrong and to steal a history of a people not be racist? I don't think so. You, sir, are a racist.

1. I'll use whatever wording I think is appropriate. This is a message board not an Egypotology Symposium and I'm not an anthropologist. Keita doesn't feel the word Black is useful and that's his prerogative but he clearly links the word in his studies to Saharo-Tropical variant, preferring the latter. Forgive me for using everyday speech.

Too bad the term "black" isn't even useful and is nothing more than a recent European term to keep other world people down.

2. Ofcourse there are light-skinned Africans.

Again, another shift in your argument. I referred to some Berbers who are genetically linked and biologically African and you say he is mistaken since there would be nothing to trigger such a variant. Again, you're contradictory claims leave you looking like the fool that you're made out to be.

3. Yes, tan and of Asiatic origin. But you have provided no evidence for this.

I have, time and time again. Except all you do is say that I interpreted wrong or my sources are disingenuous. It's not even worth it since you're going to be a downright . "You haven't provided a shred of proof and I have DEBUNKED your argument" yes, and I showed you everything contrary to what you've said and you dismissed it as invalid. Some debater you are, you give no credence to the other side and instead go off on tirades providing your self-proclaimed victory.

There is no population in existence where the shade of skintone between men and women is that dramatic. Maybe the Egyptians noticed slight color differences between men and women and used symbolism for the women but the point is that when both groups were depicted as brown in later periods it is reasonable to conclude that the yellow skintone of women was symbolic and not literal.

Look at the double standard you are setting for yourself, again. Men were depicted in their literal shade and women were depicted symbolically. Shift those posts.

You're getting really desperate. Some Egyptian art has faded and sometimes they used flesh tones that were more reddish but the bottomline is that they chose brown for their skintone rather than tan like their neighbors.

Faded? The intense and dry desert heat doesn't fade anything. Some were more reddish, that is not exactly dark skinned or even dark brown. Also, tan and brown aren't very different, it is reasonable to assume that this "light reddish" could have also been "tan" There is no big dividing line. Unless, of course, you're willing to admit there was a big dividing line and the Nubians are part of that line? In that event okay, but I'm sure you'll set another double standard and shift the goal posts once more like you did with the women and men color debate.

So now in your pathetic desperation you are trying to tell me what to think. Why do you need me to accept your claims? We can just agree to disagree. The fact is that
you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims while I have. If you refuse to acknowledge this so be it.

I did provide claims, you just dismissed them. Alright, fine, you want me to accept us to agree to disagree that's fine too. But YOU CAN NOT say that I did not provide evidence to back up my claims, all you've done is show used posts contrived through photoshop. All I acknowledge is your biased account and misuse of your sources than preemptively passing the blame to me to avoid looking like a fool.

You don't have to take my word for it. It was confirmed by Paoli.

I thought you said you were a logical thinker? So of course you take a convenient fact made by some no-name because he backs up your mode of thinking and reject Keita when he makes a comment you do not support 'cause they're not Black enough. You said you were a logical thinker and thought for yourself, you didn't address my map question and isntead say, "well he said it, so it must be true." You're going to take the account of one guy over many Egyptologists and ignore geography and likely migration patterns. Good job, you truly are -truth-Afrocentric.

I wouldn't invest much in what the author of that blog has to say because she is a racialist with a biased agenda (disproving a Black African Egypt). She has been known for supporting racial differences in intelligence and has directly referenced the research of J Phillip Rushton on racial differences. She's not a credible source.

That being said what she claims is flat out wrong. The populations Keita mentioned are not any percentage Caucasian. You cannot split a genome up into racial percentages. This is a typical tactic of Eurocentrists to deny the indigenous variability of African populations. There are a few DNA studies which you'll also find cited on that blog which support such theories about Caucasian admixture in African populations but they are conceptually flawed and have been superseded by more recent research.

Of course an ad hominem attack followed by a "not credible" decry. This is the mark of an Afrocentrist. The proper mode would of been to accept this fact and argue the genetic diversity of East Africans, and still to this day, shows many Upper Egyptians and some Nubians have straight and wavy hair due to the drier air and slightly weaker sun. But you couldn't admit that, could you? Of course not.

Such notions have also been debunked on evolutionary grounds.....

Evolution does not take place within decades, quit acting like you know anything about biology.

Mathilda is also wrong that ALL anthropologists described the hair as Caucasian. Joann Fletcher, who described the Ancient Egyptian hair as cymotrichous (wavy hair), has gone on record as saying that she doesn't use terms like Caucasian and Negroid.

I'm personally skeptical of the idea that the hair straightens under burial conditions myself. It seems a bit far fetched and that webpage I linked to is biased itself. I would very much like to consult an expert on this issue, preferably one who has conducted tests on Ancient Egyptian hair in the 21st century as alot of 20th century anthropologists used racial models when assessing hair morphology.

What's wrong cupcake, they don't look like you?

 

[Mentuhotep23]

No you said Egyptians didn't have a large Semitic presence in the population since Islam, you lied? Not surprised.

No, I didn't you liar. I said (citing Keita) that the Near Eastern ancestry in Lower Egyptians derives primarily from the Islamic period. If you knew anything about Keita's research you'd know that he claims Ancient Egyptians gained Near Eastern affinity over time.....


http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1q2117768552415/

A review of studies covering the biological relationship of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time.

The Near Eastern Ancestry in the Late Dynastic Giza "E" series was substantial enough to make the remains unrepresentative of Ancient Egyptians as a whole according to Kemp and several other scholars.

I have provided evidence citing both Kemp and Keita among other sources.

You have misinterpreted Keita and cited Wikipedia's misinterpretation of Kemp. You really are striking out in this discussion.

You also do not know that the Berbers held dynasties in Egypt during the Middle Kingdoms?

No, they didn't. Libyans ruled the 22nd and 23rd dynasties during the Third Intermediate Period. The only foreign rules of Egypt before the New Kingdom period were the Asiatic Hyksos who established Dynasties during the 2nd Intermediate period.

Don't try to challenge me on Ancient Egyptian history because I will expose you every time. I own the book Chronicle of the Pharoahs which lists every Dynasty and every ruler of Dynastic Egypt. I know what time period events occurred so unless you want to show us how much YOU don't know I'd suggest you not try to challenge my knowledge.

Lower Egypt has always been mixed, yet you refuse to acknowledge this VERY SIMPLE fact.

I don't think mixed and pure are very reliable ways do define a population. Given its geographic proximity and cultural connections with the Levant I would say that yes there has been a presence of Near Eastern folk in Lower Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times. But for you to claim the major affinity of Lower Egyptians was towards Near Eastern folk is false. Kemp conclusively disproved that notion.

You say I misinterpreted Kemp and Keita and my other sources are not valid thinking you know better. As if whatever I say is wrong and whatever you say is right. You're nothing more than a biased nutcase.

Much of what you say has been false. You have misinterpreted Kemp and Keita. Correcting you doesn't make me biased it just means that I value academic accuracy.

And the only nutcase here is you getting incredibly emotional over this whole ordeal.

I have the audacity to call you a racist because you are a racist. Can someone who asserts the notion of race so strongly to prove something wrong and to steal a history of a people not be racist? I don't think so. You, sir, are a racist.

You are sounding more and more like a Eurocentrist. It's culture theft to stress the Africanity of an African Civilization? It's racist to say that the Ancient Egyptians throughout most of the country were primarily dark-skinned when the biological evidence suggests this?

I am not a racist. I am an Egalitarian. You don't know me and you have lost all credibility in this discussion with your malicious accusations. Try not to let your Multiracialist bias blind you from the facts. Calling me a racist does not refute Keita and Kemp's research. It is nothing more than a desperate libeling on your part.

Too bad the term "black" isn't even useful and is nothing more than a recent European term to keep other world people down.

Europeans are responsible for alot of racist injustices but calling people Black was simply a way to classify them by their skin color just as they called themselves White.
That in itself had no racist motivation.

You aren't the first person in this thread to get butthurt over the use of the word Black so as not to offend your sensibilities I will try to refrain from using it. The bottomline is that Saharo-tropical Africans come in different shades. If Ancient Egyptians were on average medium brown while Nubians were nearly jet black, as their artwork depicts them, both groups were equally Biologically African.

Again, another shift in your argument. I referred to some Berbers who are genetically linked and biologically African and you say he is mistaken since there would be nothing to trigger such a variant. Again, you're contradictory claims leave you looking like the fool that you're made out to be.

How disagreeing with Keita a contradiction? I agree with something someone says so I have to agree with everything they say? You are getting less and less logical with every comment.

Look at the double standard you are setting for yourself, again. Men were depicted in their literal shade and women were depicted symbolically. Shift those posts.

How is this a double standard? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe women were depicted symbolically and men literally? I honestly don't see how someone could be so biased as to be as illogical as you're being.

I did provide claims, you just dismissed them. Alright, fine, you want me to accept us to agree to disagree that's fine too. But YOU CAN NOT say that I did not provide evidence to back up my claims, all you've done is show used posts contrived through photoshop. All I acknowledge is your biased account and misuse of your sources than preemptively passing the blame to me to avoid looking like a fool.

Show me one instance where I provided an incorrect account of a source? Go ahead.

I thought you said you were a logical thinker? So of course you take a convenient fact made by some no-name because he backs up your mode of thinking and reject Keita when he makes a comment you do not support 'cause they're not Black enough.

Keita is the one who cited Paoli you idiot. And he's not a no-name. He provided scientific evidence linking the Haratin to Dynastic Egyptians.

Of course an ad hominem attack followed by a "not credible" decry. This is the mark of an Afrocentrist.

So now you are defending racialists and you call me a racist? Ha!

The proper mode would of been to accept this fact and argue the genetic diversity of East Africans, and still to this day, shows many Upper Egyptians and some Nubians have straight and wavy hair due to the drier air and slightly weaker sun. But you couldn't admit that, could you? Of course not.

The proper mode would be to expose this falsehood about East Africans not concede to it like a moron.

Evolution does not take place within decades, quit acting like you know anything about biology.

Did you even read the quote? It said that these traits developed over tens of thousands of years. My god you are a moron.

What's wrong cupcake, they don't look like you?

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Yes]

No, I didn't you liar. I said (citing Keita) that the Near Eastern ancestry in Lower Egyptians derives primarily from the Islamic period. If you knew anything about Keita's research you'd know that he claims Ancient Egyptians gained Near Eastern affinity over time.....


http://www.springerlink.com/content/c1q2117768552415/

A review of studies covering the biological relationship of the ancient Egyptians was undertaken. An overview of the data from the studies suggests that the major biological affinities of early southern Egyptians lay with tropical Africans. The range of indigenous tropical African phenotypes is great; and this range of variation must be considered in any discussion of the Nile Valley peoples. The early southern Egyptians belonged primarily to an African descent group which gained some Near Eastern affinity through gene flow with the passage of time.

The Near Eastern Ancestry in the Late Dynastic Giza "E" series was substantial enough to make the remains unrepresentative of Ancient Egyptians as a whole according to Kemp and several other scholars.

You said there was no Near Eastern presence in Lower Egypt since the Predynastic numbnut. However even you can't deny the proximity, culture and likelihood there was a large Semitic presence in Lower Egypt. At least your not full out insane. I got you to admit to something you didn't to before, I'd think I won this argument. (See I pulled a you there, I won naner naner naner!)

You have misinterpreted Keita and cited Wikipedia's misinterpretation of Kemp. You really are striking out in this discussion.

No, I merely used your own sources against you. Yet you say this is "misinterpretation" as if you hold some sort of Rosetta stone on this entire issue. You're back's against the wall and the only thing you can do now is push back by barking.

No, they didn't. Libyans ruled the 22nd and 23rd dynasties during the Third Intermediate Period. The only foreign rules of Egypt before the New Kingdom period were the Asiatic Hyksos who established Dynasties during the 2nd Intermediate period.

Don't try to challenge me on Ancient Egyptian history because I will expose you every time. I own the book Chronicle of the Pharoahs which lists every Dynasty and every ruler of Dynastic Egypt. I know what time period events occurred so unless you want to show us how much YOU don't know I'd suggest you not try to challenge my knowledge.

Libyans = Berbers. Anyone from the steppes West of Egypt were considered as such. Also are you suggesting I quake in fear of you because you own a book on the Ancient Egyptians? Wow, that's hilarious.

I don't think mixed and pure are very reliable ways do define a population. Given its geographic proximity and cultural connections with the Levant I would say that yes there has been a presence of Near Eastern folk in Lower Egypt since Pre-Dynastic times. But for you to claim the major affinity of Lower Egyptians was towards Near Eastern folk is false. Kemp conclusively disproved that notion.

You're right, they're not. But a good deal of Lower Egyptian genetics were Levantine, it's not a hidden secret.

Much of what you say has been false. You have misinterpreted Kemp and Keita. Correcting you doesn't make me biased it just means that I value academic accuracy.

And the only nutcase here is you getting incredibly emotional over this whole ordeal.

I use your sources against you and you got hung up on the word, "if" Why are halotypes VI, VII and VIII halotypes often found in Levantine populations high in Lower Egypt since the Predynastic? Of course you used the word if. Yet you don't realize that the Badarian genetic markers do not enter Lower Egypt until the Dynastic after Narmer's conquest. I corrected you and you said I misinterpreted. Again, you are only hiding your own shortcomings.

You are sounding more and more like a Eurocentrist. It's culture theft to stress the Africanity of an African Civilization? It's racist to say that the Ancient Egyptians throughout most of the country were primarily dark-skinned when the biological evidence suggests this?

I am not a racist. I am an Egalitarian. You don't know me and you have lost all credibility in this discussion with your malicious accusations. Try not to let your Multiracialist bias blind you from the facts. Calling me a racist does not refute Keita and Kemp's research. It is nothing more than a desperate libeling on your part.

You're as egalatarian as the pigs on animal farm. I guess some are more equal than others?

How is this a double standard? Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe women were depicted symbolically and men literally? I honestly don't see how someone could be so biased as to be as illogical as you're being.

It is a blatant double standard in every sense of the word. How can you claim one is depicted literally and the other symbolically? Because it doesn't fit your own racial preconceived notions? Has it ever occurred to you both were shown literally? And no more, "it makes no sense to look that different!" bs, it is possible. You only refuse to accept it because yellow means Asiatic and we just can't have that in Ancient Egypt can we? Yellow doesn't even mean Asiatic, in Ancient Egyptian society red hair and yellow skin meant sickly. I thought you'd know this, yes I just challenged your knowledge of Ancient Egypt AGAIN. But hey, you got a book!

 

[Mentuhotep23]

You said there was no Near Eastern presence in Lower Egypt since the Predynastic numbnut.

No, I didn't liar. I said that the average Lower Egyptian was not light-skinned.

However even you can't deny the proximity, culture and likelihood there was a large Semitic presence in Lower Egypt. At least your not full out insane. I got you to admit to something you didn't to before, I'd think I won this argument. (See I pulled a you there, I won naner naner naner!)

The problem is you still have no answer to Kemp who asserts that Lower Egyptians did not have affinities to the Levant, completely obliterating your argument. It is incredibly dishonest for you to ignore this.

No, I merely used your own sources against you. Yet you say this is "misinterpretation" as if you hold some sort of Rosetta stone on this entire issue. You're back's against the wall and the only thing you can do now is push back by barking.

You've been beaten. I really shouldn't waste any more time on you but it does amuse me to see how far someone will scramble to deny facts.

Libyans = Berbers. Anyone from the steppes West of Egypt were considered as such. Also are you suggesting I quake in fear of you because you own a book on the Ancient Egyptians? Wow, that's hilarious.

The point is that you are wrong. You can dance around the issue all you want but you are still wrong.

You're right, they're not. But a good deal of Lower Egyptian genetics were Levantine, it's not a hidden secret.

MODERN Egyptians. Do you not comprehend that Keita's study is on Modern Egyptians and that he is interpreting the migratory population history of Egypt?

I use your sources against you and you got hung up on the word, "if" Why are halotypes VI, VII and VIII halotypes often found in Levantine populations high in Lower Egypt since the Predynastic? Of course you used the word if. Yet you don't realize that the Badarian genetic markers do not enter Lower Egypt until the Dynastic after Narmer's conquest. I corrected you and you said I misinterpreted. Again, you are only hiding your own shortcomings.

Stop making things up. Your desperation is becoming embarrassing.

You're as egalatarian as the pigs on animal farm. I guess some are more equal than others?

I'm an Egalitarian. I have spent a fair amount of time researching racism and rebutting racist propaganda. I gained an interest in this discussion while debating racists who denied the existence of Black African civilizations. Why don't you tell me what your interest in this subject is?

It is a blatant double standard in every sense of the word.

No it isn't, dumbass. It is an opinion based on observations. You clearly don't even know the meaning of the term double standard.

How can you claim one is depicted literally and the other symbolically? Because it doesn't fit your own racial preconceived notions?

It's based on logic. And I'm not the one who came up with this. Several Egyptologists have made similar observations. Read the book Black Spark, White Fire: Did African Explorers Civilize Ancient Europe? Find the chapter titled "Black, White or Reddish-Brown?"

It goes into detail on the reasoning behind various interpretations of Ancient Egyptian artwork. The truth is we don't really know what the Ancient Egyptians meant behind some of their artistic depictions because they didn't leave behind explanations for their symbolism. All Egyptologists can do is observe and propose theories.

I think the idea that Ancient Egyptian women were symbolically painted yellow and the men literally brown is a perfectly reasonable supposition when you consider these basic facts.

1. Men were never depicted yellow refuting the idea that the population was heterogeneous in skin color (supported by biological evidence).

2. No homogeneous population has dramatic differences in skin color between men and women.

3. The convention of depicting women as yellow ended in later periods where they were depicted as brown like the men.

4. Libyans and Asiatics at the same latitude were depicted as lighter than Ancient Egyptians (refuting the idea that the reddish-brown skin was symbolic of a tan).

You have no rebuttal to this logic so you simply scream double standard. Well that doesn't refute my reasoning.

 

[MKGLouisville]

However even you can't deny the proximity, culture and likelihood there was a large Semitic presence in Lower Egypt.

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

THE ABOVE DISPROVES EARLY LOWER EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL AFFINITY WITH SEMITIC POPULATIONS, AND CONFIRMS THEIR TROPICAL AFRICAN AFFINITY

"..Middle Paleolithic and the transition to the Upper Paleolithic in the Lower Nile Valley are described... the Middle Paleolithic or, more appropriately, Middle Stone Age of this region starts with the arrival of new populations from sub-Saharan Africa, as evidenced by the nature of the Early to Middle Stone Age transition in stratified sites. Throughout the late Middle Pleistocene technological change occurs leading to the establishment of the Nubian Complex by the onset of the Upper Pleistocene." (Van Peer, Philip. Did middle stone age moderns of sub-Saharan African descent trigger an upper paleolithic revolution in the lower nile valley? Anthropologie. vol. 42, no3, pp. 215-225)

The above shows sub-Saharan affinities through cultural traits- the 'Nubian complex' of technology and production. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF NEAR EASTERN CULTURAL AFFINITY?

So now what evidence are you basing this early Lower Egyptian Eurasian affinity on?

 

[Mentuhotep23]

"YES" has been thoroughly refuted but it's good that you are putting him on the spot. Let's see how he tries to spin Kemp's data. With me so far he has simply ignored it and scrambled for support for his theory elsewhere.

 

[Yes]

Craniofacial criteria are no longer universally accepted as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity. In 1912 Franz Boas demonstrated that cranial shape is heavily influenced by environmental factors, and can change within a few generations if conditions change, and therefore cranial measurements cannot be a reliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity.[40] This conclusion was supported in 2003 in a paper by Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard.[41][42]A study by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) found that “race” and cranial variation had low correlations, and that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.[43] This view is also supported by Kemp.[44] Other studies have shown that the typical cranial shapes of the African, Arab and Berber ethnic groups are largely the same

A survey cited by Kemp (2005) of ancient Egyptian crania spanning all time periods found that the Egyptian population as a whole clusters more closely to modern Egyptians than to other groups, but that they also cluster more closely to the Asian and Mediterranean groups than they did to the earlier Sub-Saharan African groups. Kemp also noted that Egypt conquered and settled Nubia beginning in the 1st Dynasty

All it took. I'm sure you two boneheads will say this is false information despite it coming straight from the horses mouth refuting everything you wanted to be true. I await another shift of the goals posts followed by a double standard comment and another photoshopped photobucket picture. I'll save you guys the trouble though, my citation is more credible than your's.

Good to see Mentuhotep backpedalling trying to claim he won when I've already had him beat at the first punch prolonging the inevitable fall of his argument. Ancient Lower Egyptians cluster with Levantine people, shared a similar culture and share close proximity but damnit they are not related one bit! hahaha, you're so insecure. What's a matter, the Ancient Egyptians didn't look like you? Coming that realization? Oh wait, BRING IN EDDIE MURPHY!

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF NEAR EASTERN CULTURAL AFFINITY?

HERE
IT
IS
FOR
THE
UPTEENTH
TIME

Faiyum A Culture (Neolithic)

Continued desiccation forced the early ancestors of the Egyptians to settle around the Nile more permanently and forced them to adopt a more sedentary lifestyle.

The period from 9,000 to 6,000 BC has left very little in the way of archaeological evidence. Around 6,000 BC Neolithic settlements appear all over Egypt,[12] as morphological,[13] genetic,[14][15][16][17][18] and archaeological[19][20][21][22][23] studies show migrants from the Fertile Crescent returning during the Egyptian and North African Neolithic, bringing agriculture to the region. However other regions in Africa independently developed agriculture at about the same time: the Ethiopian highlands, the Sahel, and West Africa.[24]

Weaving is evidenced for the first time during the Faiyum A Period, but unlike later Egyptian settlements, their dead were buried very close to and sometimes, inside their own settlements.[25]

Although archaeological sites reveal very little about this time, an examination of the many Egyptian words for city can provide a hypothetical list of reasons why the Egyptians settled. In Upper Egypt, the words for city indicate that they functioned for trade and protection of livestock, for protection from the flood on high ground, or, as sacred sites for deities.[26]

Merimde Culture
Main article: Merimde culture

From about 5000 to 4200 BC the Merimde Culture, so far only known from a big settlement site at the edge of the Western Delta, flourished in Lower Egypt. The culture has strong connections to the Faiyum A Culture, but also links to the Levant. People lived in small huts, produced a simple undecorated pottery and had stone tools. Cattle, sheep, goats and pigs were held. Wheat, sorghum and barley were planted. The Merimde people buried the dead within the settlement and produced clay figurines. [27] The first Egyptian lifesize head made of clay comes from Merimde.[28]

THIS is called cultural affinity, jackasses. These are the same two that claim a Lower Egyptian has less connections to the Ancient Egyptians than an African American does. Are you freaking serious? What, you're going to deny this now? I wouldn't be surprised, MENTU SHIFT THOSE GOALS POSTS!

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Yes, you have lost. Your dishonesty is as blatant as your rudeness. You have no counter argument to Kemp so you run around in circles throwing a hissy fit to mask your insecurity over the weakness of your argument. I'm glad you didn't bother to address all of the points I made in the last post, shortening the exchange. That saves me some time. So I will simply address your false accusations in this response.

All it took. I'm sure you two boneheads will say this is false information despite it coming straight from the horses mouth refuting everything you wanted to be true. I await another shift of the goals posts followed by a double standard comment and another photoshopped photobucket picture. I'll save you guys the trouble though, my citation is more credible than your's.

You have no excuse for this lie. I gave you a direct link to where my photobucket image comes from. It's not photoshopped. Kemp's words are right there for everyone to read. His dendrogram is right there for everyone to see. The Ancient Egyptians cluster into a group with Nubians and tropical East Africans dubbed 'Ethiopic' by Kemp, contradicting the assertions of the anonymous Wikipedia editor about Ancient Egyptians being more related to Near Eastern and Mediterranean populations than to Sub-Saharan Africans.

Your source is not more credible than mine. Your source is text on Wikipedia which anyone can edit and which I myself will edit when I have time as that page has alot of misinformation on it. My source comes directly from Kemp. Here it is again.


Excerpt from Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization:

Good to see Mentuhotep backpedalling trying to claim he won when I've already had him beat at the first punch prolonging the inevitable fall of his argument. Ancient Lower Egyptians cluster with Levantine people, shared a similar culture and share close proximity but damnit they are not related one bit! hahaha, you're so insecure. What's a matter, the Ancient Egyptians didn't look like you? Coming that realization? Oh wait, BRING IN EDDIE MURPHY!

This is another lie. Ancient Lower Egyptians had tropical body plans which based on ecological principles means they were dark-skinned. And as has already been shown to you over and over ancient Lower Egyptians DO NOT cluster with Levantine populations. When are you going to accept this fact? Here's another photobucket image for you from the same source as the one above!

THIS is called cultural affinity, jackasses. These are the same two that claim a Lower Egyptian has less connections to the Ancient Egyptians than an African American does. Are you freaking serious? What, you're going to deny this now? I wouldn't be surprised, MENTU SHIFT THOSE GOALS POSTS!

And yet ANOTHER lie! I never claimed that Lower Egyptians have less connection to Ancient Egyptians than do African-Americans. I've simply said that the Ancient Egyptians, north and south were by and large dark-skinned, tropically adapted and Biologically African. Surely your average Lower Egyptian is more genetically related to Ancient Egyptians than are African-Americans or most African groups. But physically Ancient Egyptians resembled tropical East Africans and Neolithic Saharans.

Lower Egypt has experienced a major influx of foreigners from Europe and the Near East, primarily during the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods. This foreign influx diluted the Africanity of the Ancient Egyptians and changed the aesthetics of much of the demographic. Ancient Egypt started out as an indigenous Northeast African culture with its own religion and language. It was not a Near Eastern civilization nor a hybrid of Near Eastern and African. Today Egypt is a cosmopolitan country with a gene pool that reflects centuries of foreign migration and a language and dominant religion that is foreign to Northeast Africa. Egyptians still retain some of the cultural traditions of their ancestors but it is just as erroneous to call Ancient Egypt an Arab civilization as it is to call the Aztec Empire a Latin civilization and ignore the fact that the modern residents have multiple lines of descent due to historical interactions.

Look, I am not trying to disconnect Modern Egyptians from their heritage. Ancient Egypt is an Egyptian heritage but it was also an African civilization both culturally and biologically. I do believe that your intentions in this thread were noble in that you are trying to defend the heritage of modern Egyptians against what you perceive to be culture theft. But you went about it the wrong way. You do not win arguments with personal attacks, lies and dismissing evidence. You can't weasel your way out of a misinterpreting a source by claiming that your opposition is too biased to accept your interpretation. It doesn't take more than a 12th grade reading level to understand the conclusions of these studies.

While my views on Ancient Egypt may be consistent with some scholars that you dub Afrocentrists I do my best to view history from an objective lens, not an African lens or any other biased view point and I encourage others to do the same. I have read several books on this subject including mainstream Egyptology books to learn more about the civilization. I have talked to modern Egyptians to hear their perspective on Ancient Egypt and contacted scholars such as Keita to ask them questions about the topic.

Regarding scholarship, you have to learn to recognize credible sources and statements. Think critically about the information you come across. For instance, critics of the Afrocentric view of Ancient Egypt often cite statements by Zahi Hawass who has gone on record to say that Ancient Egypt was not a Black African Civilization and Egypt while in Africa is not an African civilization (which I take to mean in the cultural sense of having connections to other African societies). Now is this statement correct? Hawass is after all a world renowned Egyptologist making him an authority on Egyptian history and culture. But is he an authority on human biology? No. Is he an authority on any other culture outside of Ancient Egypt? No. You can't just appeal to authority, to be objective you have to look at the credibility of the source on the subject and compare the statement to what others say. Who should I believe? Hawass or Anthropologists and African Historians who have actually studied Ancient Egyptians remains and studied Egyptian culture as well as surrounding African cultures?

Likewise, who should I believe when it comes to the biological affinities of Ancient Lower Egyptians? Frank Yurco, who while a respected Egyptologist was not an authority on human biology? Or should I give credence to Shomarka Keita and Barry Kemp who have actually studied Ancient Lower Egyptian remains? You've got to put all biased aside and think objectively. That goes for everyone who has been involved in this thread. I'm not immune to bias. There are things that I'd prefer to believe but I don't let wishful thinking get in the way of correctly interpreting research.

The bottomline, Yes, is that I have shown you clear statements by Keita and Kemp contradicting your assertions that ancient Lower Egyptians had close biological affinities towards Near Eastern people. Were there some Near Eastern folk in Lower Egypt? Probably, but the MAJOR biological affinities of Lower Egyptians were not with adjacent folk in the Levant. They were craniometrically divergent from tropical Africans and had ties to the coastal Maghreb region but that does not mean they were light-skinned. They more than likely had biological connections to Neolithic Saharans like the Haratin, which is evident by their ABO blood frequencies.

We can go back and fourth in this thread constantly insulting each other or we can try to be civil. If we don't meet eye to eye on the interpretation of a source we can agree to disagree. I maintain that Keita never said that Ancient Lower Egyptians had Near Eastern haplotypes. He was posing a hypothetical scenario and I pointed out the language which indicates this. He very clearly cited Nebel (2002) contending that Lower Egyptians received and influx of migrants primarily during the Islamic rather than Neolithic period. And Kemp's research creates a a huge problem for your argument. I would call it a death blow. The language is very clear.

 

[Yes]

You've done nothing but beat the same thing over and over again. Not once have you given credence to the other side. You are as egalitarian as those found in the book Animal Farm. You have gone back on many of your claims and until now claim you've not made a comment that you've gone back on. I haven't been beaten, when one of you Afrocentrists is presented with an issue you throw noise at the situation in order to claim victory.

Let me ask you, did the Zulu know the Egyptian? Did the Egyptian know the Bantu? No. Did the Egyptian know the Nubian? Yes. Did the Egyptian know the Mesopatamian? Yes. Were the Egyptians African? It's not to be argued, note I do not quote Hawass or use him in my arguments. However does African mean a certain thing? Of course not. That is what you fail to realize. Just because they're African, does not make them more lined to every Africa on the African continent than say a Levantine or Nubian.

As for the lecture, save it. I used your sources against you and much to your dismay turned the tables and claimed to have won and dealt numerous "death blows" It does not make Kemp or Keita's comments, as quoted by myself, any less resounding no matter what level of interpretation it was subject to.

I am the Nubian. I am the Levantine. I am the Egyptian. I am the Greek. I am the Roman. I worship Amun, and I worship Ra. I drink from the Nile, and I look to the stars. Is an African living in America anymore biologically linked to the Ancient Egyptians than a white man living in Africa?

If you are ready to return to normal debate then fine, but please accept the sources and terms presented. Do not take things as symbolic/literal and as hypothetical/misinterpretation.

I appreciate that you acknolwedge that the Egyptians today, no matter how they look, are the true descendants of the Ancient Egyptians given the fact less than 15% of Egyptian genetics comes from outside the country. As for Egypt being biologically African and an African civilization, I agree with you up to an extent. Upper Egypt was without a doubt African and since it conquered Lower Egypt, Lower Egypt as well became an African civilization. However the fact that many Lower Egyptian farming techniques and Polytheistic gods that resembled Sumerian types remains something that shouldn't be in doubt either.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I appreciate that you acknolwedge that the Egyptians today, no matter how they look, are the true descendants of the Ancient Egyptians given the fact less than 15% of Egyptian genetics comes from outside the country.

What's your source for this?

As for Egypt being biologically African and an African civilization, I agree with you up to an extent. Upper Egypt was without a doubt African and since it conquered Lower Egypt, Lower Egypt as well became an African civilization. However the fact that many Lower Egyptian farming techniques and Polytheistic gods that resembled Sumerian types remains something that shouldn't be in doubt either.

I don't deny the cultural connections between Lower Egypt and the Near East. I question the biological connections citing Kemp. So far you have not provided so much as a counter source to this. You did infact misinterpret Keita and cited a misinterpretation of Kemp from Wikipedia.

Those are facts.

 

[Plotinus]

Moderator Action: I gave up giving out infractions a few posts ago. I think it's pretty clear by now that it is impossible for people to debate this topic civilly. Thread closed.

[EDIT] Thread re-opened on appeal, but if it degenerates again, I will close it permanently.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mentuhotep23]

Let's reexamine Keita's passage. Earlier Yes posted this as evidence that Keita believes there was a strong Near Eastern presence in in Lower Egypt.


There is a caveat for lower Egypt. If neolithic/predynastic northern Egyptian populations were characterized at one time by higher frequencies of VII and VIII (from Near Eastern migration), then immigration from Saharan sources could have brought more V and XI in the later northern neolithic. It should further be noted that the ancient Egyptians interpreted their unifying king, Narmer (either the last of Dynasty 0, or the first of Dynasty I), as having been upper Egyptian and moving from south to north with victorious armies (Gardiner 1961, Wilkinson 1999). However, this may only be the heraldic "fixation" of an achieved political and cultural status quo (Hassan 1988), with little or no actual troup/population movements. Nevertheless, it is upper Egyptian (predynastic) culture that comes to dominate the country and emerges as the basis of dynastic civilization. Northern graves over the latter part of the predynastic do become like those in the south (see Bard 1994); some emigration to the north may have occurred—of people as well as ideas.

I stressed the word IF because Keita is posing a hypothetical scenario. This passage is present in two articles written by Keita. This is what he goes on to say immediately after the above passage in one of those articles.

It is possible that the current VII and VIII
frequencies reflect, in the main, movements
during the Islamic period (vs. the Neolithic)
and the effects of polygamy (Salem et al.,
1996; Nebel et al., 2002), as well as some of
the impact of Near Easterners who settled in
the delta at various times in ancient Egypt
(Gardiner, 1961), and even more recently in
the colonial era due to political events.
Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely
to have a population representative of the
core indigenous population of the most
ancient times.

Source: History in the Interpretation of the Pattern of p49a,f TaqI RFLP Y-Chromosome Variation in Egypt: A Consideration
of Multiple Lines of Evidence AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY 17:559–567 (2005)

Now again he is speculating. But he is citing other sources for why he believes it is possible the the aforementioned Near Eastern haplotypes came into Egypt during the Islamic rather than Neolithic period. As you can see he goes on to say that modern Northern Egypt is less likely to represent the core indigenous populations. He has made this very clear in several articles. Here is another passage from Keita expressing the same sentiment.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Source: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians Egypt in Africa, (1996), pp. 25–27

It should be clear to anyone reading these passages that Keita believes not only that the Near Eastern ancestry of Lower Egyptians comes primarily from the Islamic period but that there has been a major genetic influence on Egypt during historical times.

 

[MKGLouisville]

Craniofacial criteria are no longer universally accepted as reliable indicators of population grouping or ethnicity. In 1912 Franz Boas demonstrated that cranial shape is heavily influenced by environmental factors, and can change within a few generations if conditions change, and therefore cranial measurements cannot be a reliable indicator of inherited influences such as ethnicity.[40] This conclusion was supported in 2003 in a paper by Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard.[41][42]A study by Beals, Smith, and Dodd (1984) found that “race” and cranial variation had low correlations, and that cranial variation was instead strongly correlated with climate variables.[43] This view is also supported by Kemp.[44] Other studies have shown that the typical cranial shapes of the African, Arab and Berber ethnic groups are largely the same

So in order to discredit the plethora of anthropological evidence presented by us confirming early Egypt's placement with more Southerly Northeast African populations, you present an article that you feel discredits this practice all together. Then directly under the article discrediting crania analysis you present a study which you feel (false interpretation) confirms Egypt's placement with Eurasian populations through CRANIA ANALYSIS.

A survey cited by Kemp (2005) of ancient Egyptian crania spanning all time periods found that the Egyptian population as a whole clusters more closely to modern Egyptians than to other groups, but that they also cluster more closely to the Asian and Mediterranean groups than they did to the earlier Sub-Saharan African groups. Kemp also noted that Egypt conquered and settled Nubia beginning in the 1st Dynasty

It's debunked please stop doing this to yourself. Also note that the closest relationship on the entire dendrogram is between Early Egyptians and Nubians.

Ancient Lower Egyptians cluster with Levantine people, shared a similar culture and share close proximity but damnit they are not related one bit! hahaha, you're so insecure

Once again your main source of information comes from Wikipedia! Not the sources that are supposed to be backing the information written in the article, but just the article it's self SMH. I've read through those, NONE of them claim anything mentioned in that article! Not one and if you think that they do then post the information that you wish to convey from the actual sources and don't rely on interpretations by anonymous wiki editors in a wiki article for conclusive evidence. As Mentu stated those articles are only as good as their sources, post passages from the sources that back your stance if you want your claim to be taken seriously.

What's a matter, the Ancient Egyptians didn't look like you? Coming that realization?

Actual their were plenty of Ancient Egyptians who have my particular Crania metric morphology. Even the ones that didn't have our particular morphological still resembled me and Mentu more than they do any non Black Africans (elongated Africans) both physically and culturally sorry.

The M2 lineage is mainly found primarily in "eastern", "sub-saharan", and sub-equatorial African groups, those with the highest frequency of the "Broad" trend physiognomy, but found also in notable frequencies in Nubia and Upper Egypt, as indicated by the RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV (see Lucotte and Mercier, 2003; Al-Zahery et al. 2003 for equivalencies of markers), which is affiliated with it. The distribution of these markers in other parts of Africa has usually been explained by the "Bantu migrations", but their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this way. Their existence is better explained by their being present in populations of the early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene, according to Hassan (1988); this occurred long before the "Bantu migrations", which also do not explain the high frequency of M2 in Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers there either.

Source: Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis American Journal of Human Biology (2004)

Oh wait, BRING IN EDDIE MURPHY!

Ironically according to actual scientific evidence Eddie Murphy does fit in much better in early Egyptian society than Zidan (check sources above and below)

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

THIS is called cultural affinity, jackasses.

No that's called a copy and paste from a Wikipedia article. This slop job of an article will be corrected soon, bet that.

Do you see the source below? Sources like these are of value in this debate (not because it confirms our point) because it gives the direct quote from the actual source along with the actual source so that the information can be fact checked.

"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)

With those Wikipedia sources do the same for your stance.

These are the same two that claim a Lower Egyptian has less connections to the Ancient Egyptians than an African American does.

Sadly you allow this blatant strawman to be your driving motive for your ranting and redundant arguments. The fact that was presented was that the broad features seen in most Sub Saharan Africans (including African Americans) was found abundantly in both early Egypt and Nubia along with the elongated African morphology (which made up most of the populace). No one claimed that African Americans have "more of a connection" to the Ancient Egyptians than modern Lower Egyptians. So please lose that strawman. What was also found was that modern Lower Egyptians (who received who received the brunt foreign invasions) are not a good representative for what their "core indigenous ancestors looked like". Note the word ancestors, confirming that most are the descendants of the early AE's, but they are also the descendants of multiple foreign populations.

 

[Yes]

I think we're on agreement on everything except the fact of when and how the early indigenous population of Lower Egypt looked. I know many argue that the Egyptians are the descendants of the ancients however the "Africanity" of the people isn't the same. Alright, but one must acknowledge the diversity in Lower Egypt since the earliest times which is something you guys right now refuse to acknowledge.

 

[MKGLouisville]

Alright, but one must acknowledge the diversity in Lower Egypt since the earliest times which is something you guys right now refuse to acknowledge.

We acknowledge that early Lower Egyptians were distinct from Upper Egyptians, but the evidence is simply not there to suggest that this early population were anything but Tropical Africans. No evidence has been presented confirming Near Eastern affinity of Lower Egyptians, especially when Kemp states that their limb proportions were "significantly different" from Near Eastern populations!

While it is very much possible that Near Easterners were present in Lower Egypt, the general population did not link with them.

 

[Zardnaar]

What about the ancient Egyptian art? They seemed to know the differentce between black, white, semitic and african features. They didn't depict themselves as black for the most part with a few exceptions for the black pharoahs. They had a reddish brown tone consistent with arabs or other levantine peoples and a slightly asiatic cast to their features.
Egyptian art also depicted blacks as slaves and had them in subservient positions. Africa providing slaves for 4000 years.

Odds are the Egyptians were African, but they weren't black by any means- at least nubian or sub saharan black.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I think we're on agreement on everything except the fact of when and how the early indigenous population of Lower Egypt looked. I know many argue that the Egyptians are the descendants of the ancients however the "Africanity" of the people isn't the same. Alright, but one must acknowledge the diversity in Lower Egypt since the earliest times which is something you guys right now refuse to acknowledge.

Like MKGLouisville said, we acknowledge that there was a craniometric distinction between Upper and Lower Egyptians. We simply disagree with you that Lower Egyptians had strong biological affinities to the Near East. That has not been established. The evidence points towards them being a divergent population of indigenous African descent.

What about the ancient Egyptian art? They seemed to know the differentce between black, white, semitic and african features. They didn't depict themselves as black for the most part with a few exceptions for the black pharoahs. They had a reddish brown tone consistent with arabs or other levantine peoples and a slightly asiatic cast to their features.
Egyptian art also depicted blacks as slaves and had them in subservient positions. Africa providing slaves for 4000 years.

Odds are the Egyptians were African, but they weren't black by any means- at least nubian or sub saharan black.

We've covered artwork in this thread many times. Ancient Egyptian art is not a reliable indicator of biological affinity because the artists used conventions and interpretations of art often rely on stereotyped thinking. For instance you speak of Black, White, Semitic and African features. This is a typological approach which is very unscientific.

Regarding the reddish-brown skintone the Ancient Egyptians used to depict themselves. It is not the same as the skin color used to depict Asiatics ("Semites"). The Ancient Egyptians chose a tan complexion for Syro-Palestinians as seen on these murals from the tomb of Seti I.

While the Nubians are depicted as uniformly jet-black above in other wall paintings they are depicted as both black and brown-skinned such as this image where the Egyptian Pharaoh has the same reddish-brown complexion as some of the Nubians.

As far as Egyptian art depicting Black slaves is concerned, the Ancient Egyptians made slaved of every people that they conquered including Europeans and Asiatics, not just other Africans. There are images of Asiatic and European people paying tribute to Egyptians and being subservient to them. Slavery and indentured servitude has existed for thousands of years and was practiced by people all over the globe.

Ancient Egyptian art should not be taken at face value in all circumstances given the evident symbolism and conventions used.

 

[Yes]

Symbolism? Wow and you kept asserting how the art was literal. Fact is if the Egyptians were at war with someone, they tried to separate themselves as much as they could from those they were conquering. For example, many Berbers and Semites settled Egypt however they were not depicted as different. Why? Because they were seen as Egyptians culturally and therefore depicted as such. Those that tried to destroy Egyptian civilization, i.e. the Hyksos were shown to be very different from the Egyptians. In fact, they were demonized just like you see the Egyptian demonizing the Nubians. The Egyptians were very ethnocentric. Even the pharaohs would say if you are with me, then you are my brother. If you stand against me, the might of Egypt shall descend upon them.

But even then, you can clearly see the facial distinctions between the Egyptian on the horse and the Nubians being trampled. The Egyptians did the same for the Semites. Also the idea that Egyptians had some sort of European concept is odd. Europeans at the time were merely living in tents and huts the Egyptians likely had zero connection with them until the rise of the Greeks several centuries after the time period we are referring to.

 

[Mentuhotep23]

I said that the skin tone of males in Ancient Egyptian art was literal. The Ancient Egyptians used symbolism and conventions in their art so we can't take everything as literal.

For instance sculptures of Pharaohs were in most instances meant to be realistic.

Many of the skintones in religious art were symbolic. There are Gods in the art with green, blue and gold skin. Egyptians painted their dead black symbolizing rebirth in the afterlife. There's all kinds of symbolism in the art.

 

[Yes]

I said that the skin tone of males in Ancient Egyptian art was literal. The Ancient Egyptians used symbolism and conventions in their art so we can't take everything as literal.

For instance sculptures of Pharaohs were in most instances meant to be realistic.

Many of the skintones in religious art were symbolic. There are Gods in the art with green, blue and gold skin. Egyptians painted their dead black symbolizing rebirth in the afterlife. There's all kinds of symbolism in the art.

Eh.. the Egyptians, Nubians, Phoenicians and Mesopotamians conceptualized the color black meaning life and white meaning death. I don't see why the dead would be Black.