# Ancient Egyptians - Cultural Origin, genetics, etc.



## Steerpike

Instead of derailing the other thread on under-represented cultures, let's continue here. I'm interested in the information people have on the subject, and also happy to share the research I know of. I started the scientific part of my career looking at just such issues - population genetics, primarily in the context of out-of-Africa versus multiregional hypetheses. Most of what I did was on _Alu_ repeats, which are transposable genetic elements found in primates.


----------



## Jabrosky

I'll start with this summary of the bio-anthropological data on ancient Egyptian remains from Theodore Celenko's _Egypt in Africa_:



> Professor S.O.Y. Keita
> Department of Biological Anthropology
> Oxford University
> 
> Professor A. J. Boyce
> University Reader in Human Population
> Oxford University
> 
> What  was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian  Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern  predynastic Egypt–which led to the dynastic culture–migrants and  colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly  African variant populations?
> 
> These questions can be addressed  using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary  interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an  origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from  skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions.  It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa,  and that there should be a great range of biological variation in  indigenous "authentic" Africans.
> 
> Scientists have been studying  remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Art objects are not generally used by biological  anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation  highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often  been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few  remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates  characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa  (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom  statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most,  individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed,  narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East  African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different  "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous  African variation.
> 
> The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek  writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is  problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population  biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups  south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of  these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb  studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and  Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
> 
> There are few  studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern  predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the  remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not  surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993).  The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin.  More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley  and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order  to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all  Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA  of African peoples.
> 
> 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).
> 
> Examples of regions that  have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily,  Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers  (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African  migrants.
> 
> This scenario is different from one in which a  different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians  were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
> 
> The genetic  data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not  been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of  Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that  modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with  Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between  those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not  surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood  groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene  frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of  early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based  on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned  DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear  how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It  is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted  as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how  "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
> 
> The various  genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical  thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think  of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion,  not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally  African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate  should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not  the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial  perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from  the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in  the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of  Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and  besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity .  . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider  evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be  African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches  extend and validate this conclusion.
> 
> In summary, various kinds of  data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley  populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early  ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily  coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and  archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily  African origin.
> 
> 
> *References Cited:*
> 
> Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
> Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986
> 
> Brauer,  G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe,  Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic  implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990
> 
> Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987
> 
> Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993
> 
> Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annuals of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987
> 
> Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
> of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993
> 
> Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984
> 
> Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984


----------



## Jabrosky

More recently, the personal genomics company DNATribes ran some published data on King Tut and his relatives' DNA through their genetic analysis software to determine his population relationships, and they reported the following results:



> Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent
> in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which
> these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these
> individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE.
> 
> Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis
> suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If
> new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new
> light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.


----------



## Steerpike

Probably better not to simply cut and paste articles, both for copyright reasons and for fact that it doesn't make for good discussions.

I'm familiar with that research. In fact, our lab worked somewhat with Dr. Paabo (referenced in that article), who also studies _Alu_ repeats, and we were able to share samples between the labs. 

It is true that there is evidence of sub-Saharan African DNA in some of the samples taken. There is also a lot of evidence of Eurasian elements, as well genetic correlations between Ancient Egyptian DNA an modern Europeans (with some markers a lot more prevalent in Europeans than in the current Egyptian population).

When you take the genetic evidence as a whole, along with other data (from cultural anthropology, for example), the best conclusion that explains it all is that the Ancient Egyptians were not sub-Saharan Africans. There is more of that particular DNA in the Upper Egypt samples, which makes sense geographically. Most likely, the culture had a good deal of Eurasian origin, though the idea that there was no African influence doesn't seem plausible (and I don't know anyone who holds to that idea).

The problem with this particular issue is that is becomes politicized. When that happens, like with any political issue people choose a side and look only at the evidence that supports it, discounting the evidence that does not. But to really get at the truth, you have to account for all of the evidence. The best genetic evidence shows varied origins, including sub-Saharan African, though not exclusively so. Again, supporting the idea that the Ancient Egyptians were something other than this, though not without a genetic legacy to those populations.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> More recently, the personal genomics company DNATribes ran some published data on King Tut and his relatives' DNA through their genetic analysis software to determine his population relationships, and they reported the following results:



Yes, and another company looking at a different genetic marker reported the European link. Once again, you have to look at all the evidence, not just cherry-pick the evidence you like from a Google search. Even the article you cut and pasted uses qualifying words. This is because of the uncertainty of the evidence, and the fact that it points toward a diverse origin, not one that is exclusively African.

The question is why some people seem so personally invested in it, and can't accept the obvious conclusion (supported by the evidence), which is that people living in a land bordering Africa and Asia had a mixed genetic heritage, both African and Eurasian.


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> Yes, and another company looking at a different genetic marker reported the European link. Once again, you have to look at all the evidence, not just cherry-pick the evidence you like from a Google search.



There is a significant difference in methodology between the DNATribes report and what iGENEA (the company claiming a European connection) did. First, iGENEA took their "data" by screencapping stock footage from a Discovery Channel show and claimed it showed King Tut's Y-chromosome data, when in fact the scientists who actually sampled Tut's DNA did not publish anything on his Y-chromosome.

King Tut Related to Half of European Men? Maybe Not

On the other hand, if you read the DNATribes report, they used autosomal genetic data from Tut which the scientists actually _did_ publish. Furthermore, while Y-chromosome data can be useful for tracing population movements, autosomal data like that analyzed by DNATribes is better for determining overall population affinities.

Of course neither DNATribes nor iGENEA are peer-reviewed publications, so they don't necessarily offer the last word on this issue, but the former's approach is far more credible than the latter.



> Even the article you cut and pasted uses qualifying words. This is because of the uncertainty of the evidence, and the fact that it points toward a diverse origin, not one that is exclusively African.



Nothing is absolutely certain in science, and few people in the world are racially "pure".


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> Nothing is absolutely certain in science, and few people in the world are racially "pure".



So what is your argument? The evidence, both genetic and non-genetic, shows a mix (African and Eurasian). Given the mix, it is no more accurate to claim they were sub-Saharan African than to say they were Europeans (which I've heard argued and which is clearly nonsense). If you agree that they were neither of these and had genetic influences from both, then I don't see the issue.

The exception being the Ptolemaic line, of course (later in history than what we're talking about), though there was probably some African DNA in that line as well, though not a lot from what I've seen.


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> So what is your argument? The evidence, both genetic and non-genetic, shows a mix (African and Eurasian). Given the mix, it is no more accurate to claim they were sub-Saharan African than to say they were Europeans (which I've heard argued and which is clearly nonsense). If you agree that they were neither of these and had genetic influences from both, then I don't see the issue.



I truthfully don't completely disagree with you there. Egypt does lies at a geographic crossroads, so of course they would incorporate many different kinds of people into their empire. I also agree that southern Egyptians would have had a significantly stronger African component than their neighbors in the northern delta (which is common sense anyway). I simply advance that the African contribution to ancient Egypt is far greater than most people acknowledge. Saying Egyptians _writ large_ were Black is probably an over-generalization, but Black Egyptians existed.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> So what is your argument? The evidence, both genetic and non-genetic, shows a mix (African and Eurasian). Given the mix, it is no more accurate to claim they were sub-Saharan African than to say they were Europeans (which I've heard argued and which is clearly nonsense). If you agree that they were neither of these and had genetic influences from both, then I don't see the issue.
> 
> The exception being the Ptolemaic line, of course (later in history than what we're talking about), though there was probably some African DNA in that line as well, though not a lot from what I've seen.





Jabrosky said:


> I truthfully don't completely disagree with you there. Egypt does lies at a geographic crossroads, so of course they would incorporate many different kinds of people into their empire. I also agree that southern Egyptians would have had a significantly stronger African component than their neighbors in the northern delta (which is common sense anyway). I simply advance that the African contribution to ancient Egypt is far greater than most people acknowledge. Saying Egyptians _writ large_ were Black is probably an over-generalization, but Black Egyptians existed.




Right, well. I'm not a research scientist and I have no credentials- _at all_. But I've looked at the evidence the two of you have presented and here's what I think from a third-party perspective.

I theorize that the Egyptians were a mixed-race society of African origin. Would that not explain all the data?

Don't mean to derail _this _thread too, but let's get to the heart of the matter and face up to it, like men. (Tongue-in-cheek, that.) The only reason this issue is so hotly debated is because (and lets be frank) there are racists out there who don't think that Black people could build a society as advanced as Egypt (even though there are other, indisputably "Black" African societies just as advanced if you care to look a bit farther south). Those who are consciously racist in there opinions are a minority , but they exist. And there are others who are _unconsciously _racist. On the other side of the argument you have people who consider these biased people to be scum of the lowest order and will work tirelessly to prove them wrong, whether out of a sense of justice or to reclaim what they see as Black people's rightful heritage. 

This is an oversimplification, but it's true. Racism is not as dead as we'd like it to be. And people will let their biases color their work, whether they know they have them or not.

So what's the truth then? The Egyptians were Africans. Both genetically, and by-definition geographically, given the location of their empire. But they weren't _only _Africans. The great empires of history: Babylon, Persia, Alexandrian Greece, Rome, and also Egypt all had one thing in common: they were cross-cultural. That's part of what made them effective. Not just war and conquest, but trade. Monetary _and _cultural trade. At the time Upper Egypt conqured Lower Egypt under Narmer (I think?) the Egyptians, at least the Upper Egyptians, were probably predominantly Black. But as time went on and Egypt traded with other nations, there was likely some cultural and genetic exchange taking place. In all likelihood the Egyptians probably displayed a broad range of skin colors from extremely dark to less so. To say the Egyptians were not Africans is absurd. But to say there was no cultural exchange between them and other nations is equally absurd.

The reason that people like Jabrosky (and myself, I admit) become so hostile to people like you Steerpike, although you likely mean no harm, is most easily summed up by this trope: But Not Too Black - TV Tropes and also the kind of attitude that caused the Hunger Games issue. Unconsciously, people like you tend to get associated with people who say things like this. (I warn you that link is to an openly racist website. Brace yourself.) Now you see the real problem here.


----------



## Shockley

First off, let me establish my own credentials in this area: Next to none. I am a history major and I read a lot, but I’ll be the first to admit that Egypt is not my area of primary study. That would be Greeks, Romans and, increasingly as of late, northern European peoples. So when I say anything on this, know that I’m not coming from an area of expertise and most of my points will be made using ancient Greek sources.

 So that said, let me start out with the part of your post I am somewhat qualified to take on:



> The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.



The Greeks did indeed use the term ‘Ethiopian’ to apply to the Egyptians from time to time. That’s a fact – that’s something I won’t even try to deny. That said, we’re using a purely modern interpretation of the word ‘Ethiopian.’

 When the Greeks use that term, they are referring to anyone living in the southern regions of the world and even go so far as to divide Ethiopia among multiple continents. Examine the works of Hesiod, especially when he mentions Memnon. He describes Memnon as being an Ethiopian (using just that term) but then goes on to tell us where Memnon is from: Memnon is from Elam, and built the city  of Susa. Susa and Elam are, of course, in what we now call ‘Khuzestan,’ a province of Iran. Pindar, writing two hundred years later, also echoes the point that Memnon was an Ethiopian from Susa and Elam.

 Hecataeus of Miletus, a Greek explorer, writes of Ethiopia in the time period between Hesiod and Pindar. Hecataeus, it should be noted, thought that the Nile connected directly to a giant world sea that surrounded Europa/Africa/Asia, so when he says ‘east of the Nile’ he means absolutely east of the Nile in the most definite sense. He describes three distinctive bodies of water. First off, he says, the Ethiopians live (as you probably surmised from the previous sentences) east of the Nile. He then describes their territory as reaching the Red Sea (consistent with modern Ethiopia as well as Egypt) and then lists a third body of water:  the Indian Ocean.

 This means that Elam remains consistent as what the Greeks would have called ‘Ethiopia’ (Elam was one of the first civilizations, and grew up on the Indian Ocean) and it points to a larger issue: At no point does Hecataeus list the Ethiopians as having an influence on the Mediterranean. Since he’s listing the bodies of water that encompass the Ethiopian region, it’s interesting that he would leave out the one that defines his peoples’ own border with them. 

 In the Greek myth of Perseus, Andromeda is described as being an Ethiopian. This is how the Greeks explained the city of Joppa (which they called Iopeia, associating that with the name Cassiopeia). Joppa is now modern day Yava, and is part of the city of Tel Aviv. Tel Aviv, obviously, is not in Ethiopia. 

 This brings us to Herodotus, who was writing about ten years after Pindar. Herodotus is interesting to historians as he had the terrible habit of making things up. If there was an area he knew nothing about he would fabricate claims, stories, etc. This has been a problem in most fields of study, but actually helps us when trying to define what the Greeks saw as ‘Ethiopia.’ What we can define as true in his account is uniquely interesting.

 Herodotus becomes the man who lays out the difference between African Ethiopia and Asiatic Ethiopia. He states that he went to African Ethiopia, and that the people there were different from the ‘Ethiopians’ elsewhere. Memnon, he says, was not an Ethiopian – he invents a new word for that part of Persia, and thus we have our differentiation.  

 Now, that’s the part where Herodotus is just pulling stuff out of thin air. What comes next is the important part:

*Continued*


----------



## Shockley

Herodotus says that, at one point, the Ethiopians ruled over Egypt. He says that, at some point in recent history, Ethiopians had invaded and taken over Egypt and that eighteen different Ethiopians had been pharaoh during that time. This is consistent with what we know of the 25th Dynasty (which I mentioned in the other thread). But here’s the point I’m taking from it: By that period, Egypt had been ruled by hundreds of Pharaohs. Hundreds of individuals had held the throne, and Herodotus takes a moment to say that eighteen of these men were Ethiopians, based on the term that he had just revised to refer explicitly to black Africans. 

 If there were hundreds of black Pharaohs, Herodotus would have taken that moment to refer to the eighteen-or-so non-Ethiopians who had ruled. Manetho, a historian from Egypt, confirms the uniqueness of the Kushite Pharaohs. 

 The final point to tie all this together is from Strabo: Writing nearly four hundred and fifty years after Herodotus makes the distinction between African and Asiatic Ethiopia, Strabo points out that older authors did not understand the distinction (probably not recognizing it as another part of Herodotus’ fiction) between these nations and says that they used to view Ethiopia as starting at Mount Amanus. Mount Amanus is in the modern-day Nur Mountains (in Turkey) – this means that for a substantial period of human history (the majority of human history, even, considering how far history goes before they start writing things down) the Greeks referred to anyone living in modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Iraq, bits of Persia, the Arabian Peninsula, etc. as Ethiopian, and probably a substantial number of Egyptians as well. 




 Now, with that out of the way, let me add some things to this discussion:

 The Egyptians were very aware of skin color variations, and had little trouble depicting that in art. That’s not to say that they had any concept of racial superiority (that seems to be missing), but they were conscious of differentiations. Allow me to provide an image from a tomb (Of Ramses III) to illustrate that: 








 Notice what we have in this image: Depictions of white individuals, just generally dark individuals, black individuals and then several instances of what would be the ‘traditional’ ancient Egyptian. 

 Here’s another image, this one of a conflict between the Egyptians and peoples to their north:







 The final point I’d like to make is that the Egyptians are, of course, African. Egypt is on the African continent, and that’s how things work. If someone wants to say ‘the Egyptians are African’ then I’ll respond with, ‘Of course they are.’ They will also, for obvious reasons, have more in common with the genetics of sub-Saharan Africans than the Greeks.

 But the evidence that there was a distinction between black Africans and ethnically-Egyptian Africans is overwhelming. That’s why you have the depictions of black Africans at Meroe – because these Ethiopian lords had rolled in and established the 25th Dynasty. 

 We should even expect a few black-looking Pharaohs – many of the wives of the Pharaohs did come from Ethiopia (members of the 24th Dynasty married the forerunners of the 25th Dynasty). But that matters little – while the British monarchs might be predominately German, the average Brit is still English, Scottish or Welsh. In that sense, the average Egyptian was of a dark, Semitic stock. 
Now, on to Mindfire’s points:



> I theorize that the Egyptians were a mixed-race society of African origin. Would that not explain all the data?



 All humans have an African origin, and Egypt is in Africa. Egypt was, as well, an important trade center. We know that the fortress of Elephantine (which is in southern Egypt) was built by a Jewish tribe allied with the Pharaohs. We know that Assyrians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Persians, etc. made up the ruling class (the standard theory is that, while being descended from Ptolemy, the majority of Cleopatra’s blood would have been of Persian extraction). 



> Don't mean to derail this thread too, but let's get to the heart of the matter and face up to it, like men. (Tongue-in-cheek, that.) The only reason this issue is so hotly debated is because (and lets be frank) there are racists out there who don't think that Black people could build a society as advanced as Egypt (even though there are other, indisputably "Black" African societies just as advanced if you care to look a bit farther south). Those who are consciously racist in there opinions are a minority , but they exist. And there are others who are unconsciously racist. On the other side of the argument you have people who consider these biased people to be scum of the lowest order and will work tirelessly to prove them wrong, whether out of a sense of justice or to reclaim what they see as Black people's rightful heritage.



 That’s not the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is that there are people – of varying races – that are trying to steal the accomplishments that rightfully belong to the Egyptians. 

 I’m reminded of the story of a peace talk that happened between Egypt and Israel a few years back. An American diplomat, trying to remind them of what they had in common, commented that the Jews built the Pyramids. The Egyptian dignitary was outraged at this, as the idea that Jewish slaves built the Pyramids is not prevalent in Egypt and, more importantly, is not supported by the historical record (Teams of paid men built the Pyramids, as best we can tell). He saw this an American/Jewish statement to try and steal Egypt’s cultural history. That’s what I see when I see anyone claim that the Egyptians were anything other than Egyptian. 

 There are a lot of variations on this idea. There are Indians that claim that Egyptians were Indians, whites that say they were white, etc. They’re all wrong, and it’s all equally unfair to the Egyptian people. 

 You’re right in saying that there are some people who would say that black Africans couldn’t build Egypt – they’re wrong. Given the time, resources, access to trade, etc. any racial group in human history could have built Egyptian society. As you rightly pointed out, there are some amazing cultures existing just south of Egypt. But the point at the end of this is that they didn’t build Egypt. They built complex cultures – and they even built a culture that at one time invaded and conquered Egypt – but Egyptian culture was a product of a Semitic people. There’s nothing insulting about saying that they didn’t build Egypt, just as there’s nothing insulting about saying that black Africans didn’t build the Nordic culture or Chinese culture. 

 Also, I do find this particularly insulting to the ancient Egyptians. Time and time again we are faced with the historical fact that this is a vibrant, metropolitan culture that interacted with a number of peoples and shows very little concept of race consciousness. While they recognized differences and sometimes commented on them, there’s not one historical piece of evidence showing that they saw a fundamental differences between white, brown or black people. To try and impose modern concepts of race on them is somewhat insulting to what they built – but if we’re going to have a debate as to what they are, we have to go with the facts.



> So what's the truth then? The Egyptians were Africans. Both genetically, and by-definition geographically, given the location of their empire. But they weren't only Africans. The great empires of history: Babylon, Persia, Alexandrian Greece, Rome, and also Egypt all had one thing in common: they were cross-cultural. That's part of what made them effective. Not just war and conquest, but trade. Monetary and cultural trade. At the time Upper Egypt conqured Lower Egypt under Narmer (I think?) the Egyptians, at least the Upper Egyptians, were probably predominantly Black. But as time went on and Egypt traded with other nations, there was likely some cultural and genetic exchange taking place. In all likelihood the Egyptians probably displayed a broad range of skin colors from extremely dark to less so. To say the Egyptians were not Africans is absurd. But to say there was no cultural exchange between them and other nations is equally absurd.



 The Egyptians were African – that’s what isn’t in dispute. Being a country on the African continent, they are African by definition. Let’s bury that little choice phrase right now and get to the debate on whether they’re black African or some other kind of African (the majority of north Africans, for example, are not black, but they’re as African as anyone else on that continent).

 There were definitely black Africans living in Egypt. That much is verified by the Ethiopian Pharaohs. But they weren’t, by any means, indicative of the skin color or genetic origin of the Egyptian people at large. 




 The last thing I’d like to say is that it’s extremely offensive to accuse Steerpike (or me by inference, since I also disagree) of having any racist thoughts, unconscious or otherwise, just because we happen to disagree with you on this.


----------



## Jabrosky

The Ancient Egyptian language is not classified as Semitic by most linguists, so whatever may be said of their average appearance, you can't really call them Semitic. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but the common confusion of linguistics with population affinities is a pet peeve of mine.

At any rate, Shockley, your argument that the Egyptians cannot be considered Black is apparently based on your interpretation of ancient portraiture, specifically its depiction of skin tones. It's true that the Egyptian characters in those murals are not quite as dark as the Nubians, but I've seen plenty of Black people who were the same medium-brown skin tone or even lighter:

















Saying that one cannot classify Egyptians as Black simply because they were lighter than Nubians is analogous to saying that Italians cannot be classified as White because they are darker than Finns.



> The last thing I’d like to say is that it’s extremely offensive to  accuse Steerpike (or me by inference, since I also disagree) of having  any racist thoughts, unconscious or otherwise, just because we happen to  disagree with you on this.



I don't recall myself or Mindfire accusing either of you of racism. I see nothing racist in your posts even if I don't agree with you, and the same goes for Steerpike.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> The last thing I’d like to say is that it’s extremely offensive to accuse Steerpike (or me by inference, since I also disagree) of having any racist thoughts, unconscious or otherwise, just because we happen to disagree with you on this.



You misunderstood me, Shockley. I am not accusing you of racism. And I'm actually the neutral party in this exchange. I was merely making the point that this whole discussion is based on a _*very *_loaded question. And that anyone who takes a certain stance on this issue, regardles of intent or integrity, will be unconsciously associated with some kind of bias one way or the other. And that's a fact. Rational people can move past this and should, but it's still there. And I think you are downplaying the part that racial bias has to play in this issue. The origins of the debate over the Egyptians' origin can be traced back to racial hierarchical psuedo-science from the 1800s. This argument had racial baggage *LONG *before we came into the picture, and we need to recognize that if we're ever going to come to consensus. THAT was my point.

Also, I think the angle Jabrosky is pushing in his last post is more phenotypical than genotypical. And in that aspect he is technically correct. Regardless of their ethnic origin, the Egyptians can be considered "Black"... if one defines Black to mean "having African origin and a fairly dark complexion." That picture of the pharaoh you posted is a dead ringer for my father in terms of skin tone.


----------



## Jabrosky

Mindfire said:


> Also, I think the angle Jabrosky is pushing in his last post is more phenotypical than genotypical. And in that aspect he is technically correct. Regardless of their ethnic origin, the Egyptians can be considered "Black"... if one defines Black to mean "having African origin and a fairly dark complexion." That picture of the pharaoh you posted is a dead ringer for my father in terms of skin tone.



Of course, this brings up the question of exactly how we define Black people. When writing about British colonialism in Burma, George Orwell would call some Indian people "black", and I've seen the word used to describe Papuans, Australian aborigines, and Southeast Asian Negritoes too. On the other side of the fence, you have people who think only the darkest Africans are Black, which sounds like the position Shockley is advancing.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> I truthfully don't completely disagree with you there. Egypt does lies at a geographic crossroads, so of course they would incorporate many different kinds of people into their empire. I also agree that southern Egyptians would have had a significantly stronger African component than their neighbors in the northern delta (which is common sense anyway). I simply advance that the African contribution to ancient Egypt is far greater than most people acknowledge. Saying Egyptians _writ large_ were Black is probably an over-generalization, but Black Egyptians existed.



I think there was more of an African component than historically has been suggested. For some reason, historically people seem to have pursued the Eurasian angle much more fervently. I think genetic studies have shown there is more African DNA in the population than people believed over the years. That said, while skin tone can vary within a given culture, race, etc., I think on the whole Ancient Egyptians we lighter-skinned than sub-Saharan Africans. I think that is borne out in their own depictions, as well as in written accounts as Shockley pointed out. It is too convenient to just dismiss it - many of the ruling Egyptians appear to have very definitely seen themselves as different from the darker-skinned people in the region.

But it certainly stands to reason that the were a mix of African and other origins. Tying that to skin color is a tenuous proposition, so the genetics are less helpful there. I don't think it matters what color their skin was, at least not to me. If they were all very dark-skinned Africans, or lighter skinned with a good deal of Eurasian genetics, or if they were a bunch of Mongolians who floated over in a raft...I don't care which it is, but out of my intellectual curiosity about ancient cultures, I'd like to know the truth to the extent we can determine it. I don't like seeing the politics come into play, though they do even in science (true story, when I worked in the population genetics lab, the data there (which correctly showed an out-of-African origin for humans) showed that for the particular marker we were looking at, North American blacks were more closely related to North American Whites than African blacks. Note that this does not mean overall, but it does mean for that particular marker. The bit of the study was removed by the administration. This was at a well respected government research lab. So I know how politics comes into this).


----------



## Shockley

> The Ancient Egyptian language is not classified as Semitic by most linguists, so whatever may be said of their average appearance, you can't really call them Semitic. Sorry if that sounds pedantic, but the common confusion of linguistics with population affinities is a pet peeve of mine.



 While you are correct that Ancient Egyptian is not one of the 'proper' Semitic tongues (Arabic, Hebrew, etc.) it is very much a part of the family. Afro-Asiatic, which is where Ancient Egyptian is classified, is sometimes referred to as Hamito-Semetic. They are related, unquestionably, and share a root tongue and a root cultural heritage. 



> At any rate, Shockley, your argument that the Egyptians cannot be considered Black is apparently based on your interpretation of ancient portraiture, specifically its depiction of skin tones.



 Actually, I'd consider the crux of my argument to be the eighteen Nubian pharoahs. The skin tone issue is merely supplemntary. I devoted less than a third of my post to that issue. 



> At any rate, Shockley, your argument that the Egyptians cannot be considered Black is apparently based on your interpretation of ancient portraiture, specifically its depiction of skin tones. It's true that the Egyptian characters in those murals are not quite as dark as the Nubians, but I've seen plenty of Black people who were the same medium-brown skin tone or even lighter:[/QUOTE
> 
> Do remember that most Nubians aren't even as black as the murals depict them and most Sumerians aren't as white as the Egyptians depicted them. This shows a divide that the Egyptians saw between their skin tone, the black skin tone and whiter skin tones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall myself or Mindfire accusing either of you of racism. I see nothing racist in your posts even if I don't agree with you, and the same goes for Steerpike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not an issue of racism, then it shouldn't be brought up in this argument. I don't have any issue with what you've posted - but I do have an issue with what Mindfire posted at the end of his thread.
> 
> Neither of the arguments that Steerpike or myself are proposing are based on any kind of racism or 19th century racial theory, and our arguments should be respected as such.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I think the angle Jabrosky is pushing in his last post is more phenotypical than genotypical. And in that aspect he is technically correct. Regardless of their ethnic origin, the Egyptians can be considered "Black"... if one defines Black to mean "having African origin and a fairly dark complexion." That picture of the pharaoh you posted is a dead ringer for my father in terms of skin tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, all humans have an African origin. I think everyone here is smart enough to recognize that black Africans and Arabs are distinct races, yet we wouldn't classify as Arabs as black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other side of the fence, you have people who think only the darkest Africans are Black, which sounds like the position Shockley is advancing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what I'm advancing. I'm merely advancing a distinction between black Africans and north African Semitic peoples.
Click to expand...


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> The reason that people like Jabrosky (and myself, I admit) become so hostile to people like you Steerpike, although you likely mean no harm, is most easily summed up by this trope: But Not Too Black - TV Tropes and also the kind of attitude that caused the Hunger Games issue. Unconsciously, people like you tend to get associated with people who say things like this. (I warn you that link is to an openly racist website. Brace yourself.) Now you see the real problem here.



Actually, I think that position is the refuge of those who have their own issues; a chip on the shoulder or something. I have no issue with dark skin, in fact I think it can be quite lovely. A former girlfriend of mine (a chemist) is black, and she's not American, but rather her parents were from sub-Saharan Africa. I haven't met many people with skin as dark as hers, or as attractive for that matter. So the implication that there exists some kind of problem with dark skin, even if unintended, is preposterous, which is hardly surprising as that is the usual result of trying to characterize people you don't know...


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> Of course, this brings up the question of exactly how we define Black people. When writing about British colonialism in Burma, George Orwell would call some Indian people "black", and I've seen the word used to describe Papuans, Australian aborigines, and Southeast Asian Negritoes too. On the other side of the fence, you have people who think only the darkest Africans are Black, which sounds like the position Shockley is advancing.



I don't want to get into what qualifies as black or not. I know there are differing views on that. I do think the Ancient Egyptians were lighter than their relatives to the south, but that makes them neither better nor worse, it just seems to me to have been the case 

(btw I haven't been offended by anything in this thread; I think it is an interesting topic)


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I think there was more of an African component than historically has been suggested. For some reason, historically people seem to have pursued the Eurasian angle much more fervently. I think genetic studies have shown there is more African DNA in the population than people believed over the years. That said, while skin tone can vary within a given culture, race, etc., I think on the whole Ancient Egyptians we lighter-skinned than sub-Saharan Africans. I think that is borne out in their own depictions, as well as in written accounts as Shockley pointed out. It is too convenient to just dismiss it - many of the ruling Egyptians appear to have very definitely seen themselves as different from the darker-skinned people in the region.
> 
> But it certainly stands to reason that the were a mix of African and other origins. Tying that to skin color is a tenuous proposition, so the genetics are less helpful there. I don't think it matters what color their skin was, at least not to me. If they were all very dark-skinned Africans, or lighter skinned with a good deal of Eurasian genetics, or if they were a bunch of Mongolians who floated over in a raft...I don't care which it is, but out of my intellectual curiosity about ancient cultures, I'd like to know the truth to the extent we can determine it. I don't like seeing the politics come into play, though they do even in science (true story, when I worked in the population genetics lab, the data there (which correctly showed an out-of-African origin for humans) showed that for the particular marker we were looking at, North American blacks were more closely related to North American Whites than African blacks. Note that this does not mean overall, but it does mean for that particular marker. The bit of the study was removed by the administration. This was at a well respected government research lab. So I know how politics comes into this).



Politics has always colored science. Probably always will. Psychologists have discovered that people naturally pay attention to evidence that supports what they believe and dismiss evidence that doesn't. And the scary part is that they're not doing it on purpose. They have no idea that they're essentially _creating _sample bias.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Politics has always colored science. Probably always will. Psychologists have discovered that people naturally pay attention to evidence that supports what they believe and dismiss evidence that doesn't. And the scary part is that they're not doing it on purpose. They have no idea that they're essentially _creating _sample bias.



Yep. To be honest, I think we're wired that way. There is evolutionary value to sticking with a proposition that has served the organism well in the past. These sorts of things, once they become established, are hard to shake.


----------



## Shockley

Another point, to add to the more scientific genetic discussion.

 They've done some fairly extensive genetic work on members of the 18th Dynasty (which would include Tutankhamun, the four Thutmosises, Hatsheptsut, Nefertiti, Akhenaten, etc.) had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians. 

 Someone with Steerpike's expertise could probably clarify exactly what this means, but it's a statistical fact.


----------



## Jabrosky

Shockley said:


> Another point, to add to the more scientific genetic discussion.
> 
> They've done some fairly extensive genetic work on members of the 18th Dynasty (which would include Tutankhamun, the four Thutmosises, Hatsheptsut, Nefertiti, Akhenaten, etc.) had an approximate 90% genetic commonality with modern Egyptians.
> 
> Someone with Steerpike's expertise could probably clarify exactly what this means, but it's a statistical fact.



Please find a link for this claim.



> Herodotus says that, at one point, the Ethiopians ruled over Egypt. He  says that, at some point in recent history, Ethiopians had invaded and  taken over Egypt and that eighteen different Ethiopians had been pharaoh  during that time. This is consistent with what we know of the 25th  Dynasty (which I mentioned in the other thread). But here’s the point  I’m taking from it: By that period, Egypt had been ruled by hundreds of  Pharaohs. Hundreds of individuals had held the throne, and Herodotus  takes a moment to say that eighteen of these men were Ethiopians, based  on the term that *he had just revised to refer explicitly to black  Africans*.
> 
> If there were hundreds of black Pharaohs, Herodotus would have taken  that moment to refer to the eighteen-or-so non-Ethiopians who had ruled.  Manetho, a historian from Egypt, confirms the uniqueness of the Kushite  Pharaohs.



What makes you think his idea of "Ethiopians" were necessarily synonymous with the modern construct of Black people?


----------



## Shockley

I found it off a blog. On searching it up, looks like they got it from wikipedia. Obviously, that's my bad. 100% my bad. 

 That said, it did inspire me to do some research on the matter and I found this article: 

King Tut and half of European men share DNA - Deborah Braconnier - medicalxpress.com - RichardDawkins.net

 It seems that the truth of the matter is the opposite of what I maintained, but for different reasons.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't know the names of the studies Shockley is referring to, but there was a scientist from Cairo University on PBS making the point that genetic studies showed ancient egyptians were genetically related to modern egyptians. The gist of the PBS story was the same. Would have to track down the studies to see the methodology however.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> I found it off a blog. On searching it up, looks like they got it from wikipedia. Obviously, that's my bad. 100% my bad.
> 
> That said, it did inspire me to do some research on the matter and I found this article:
> 
> King Tut and half of European men share DNA - Deborah Braconnier - medicalxpress.com - RichardDawkins.net
> 
> It seems that the truth of the matter is the opposite of what I maintained, but for different reasons.



The usual comeback to that study is that it is not scientific, and then to discount the study out of hand. I haven't seen much in the way of serious commentary by those who don't agree with the results.

Of course, it conflicts with the studies that link modern-day Egyptians to ancient Egyptians, and shows just how murky the whole issue is. There is evidence from all directions in the literature, which seems to me to support the claims of a mixed, diverse group.


----------



## Shockley

> What makes you think his idea of "Ethiopians" were necessarily synonymous with the modern construct of Black people?



 Herodotus was talking about black people when he made this distinction. I think I clarified it in my original post, but Herodotus actually went to what we would see as modern-day Ethiopia. This is why he established the distinction between what he called the Cissians (who would have been indistinguishable from Persians, a known ethnic group to the Greeks) and what he called the Ethiopians (setting the distinction).


----------



## Shockley

There was a reason why I wanted to avoid venturing personally into the realm of science (it's something I'm not good at) and made my points using history. I'll stick to that from here on out.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> There was a reason why I wanted to avoid venturing personally into the realm of science (it's something I'm not good at) and made my points using history. I'll stick to that from here on out.



I think historical sources are important, as are contemporary depictions, and the culture's own assessment to the extent we can find it. One problem with a lot of the scientific approach is that the researchers have blinders on, thinking their evidence should serve to the exclusion of all other evidence.


----------



## grahamguitarman

To be honest I'm suspicious of any argument that is based mostly or entirely on genetics.  But then I have a deep mistrust of scientific 'truth' anyway (no I'm not a creationist, I just mistrust scientists).

However, you don't need to be a scientist to see that the majority of Egyptian sculptures depict people with African facial features.  Look at their murals and the majority also show reddish brown skin tones, yes there are other skin tones depicted, but the majority are red-brown.  

Only an idiot would try to deny the fact that Egyptians were not white, when they explicitly depicted themselves as brown.  I'm not referring to anyone here when I talk about idiots by the way, before anyone starts to get offended!

Edit: when I say 'African facial features' I'm talking in general terms, ie. the faces are of a more African type as opposed to a European type of face.


----------



## Steerpike

grahamguitarman said:


> Only an idiot would try to deny the fact that Egyptians were not white, when they explicitly depicted themselves as brown.  I'm not referring to anyone here when I talk about idiots by the way, before anyone starts to get offended!



Yes, white seems preposterous. But, at the same time, they seem to distinguish themselves from darker peoples in those same works of art.


----------



## Shockley

Indeed. Even the European Pharaohs (the Ptolemys) stopped being white after the fifth generation.


----------



## Mindfire

grahamguitarman said:


> To be honest I'm suspicious of any argument that is based mostly or entirely on genetics.  But then I have a deep mistrust of scientific 'truth' anyway (no I'm not a creationist, I just mistrust scientists)



Loving the stigma you attach to creationism. Fantastic, that. -_- Sarcasm, btw. There are Christians on this forum too, you know. Anyway, glad we all agree on the "not white" bit. We're making progress. Might even come to a consensus if we keep it up.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Loving the stigma you attach to creationism. Fantastic, that. -_- Sarcasm, btw. There are Christians on this forum too, you know.



Oh...do we need another thread? 

*ducking*

Actually, I can sum up in two sentences:

1) it is not scientific and so should not be taught in science class;

2) it is important from a socio-religious standpoint and should be allowed to be taught in sociology, philosophy, theology classes and the like.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Oh...do we need another thread?
> 
> *ducking*
> 
> Actually, I can sum up in two sentences:
> 
> 1) it is not scientific and so should not be taught in science class;
> 
> 2) it is important from a socio-religious standpoint and should be allowed to be taught in sociology, philosophy, theology classes and the like.



Doesn't that essentially say to anyone who does believe in intelligent design that their beliefs aren't valid? It's a tacit insult. And yeah that might require another thread.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Doesn't that essentially say to anyone who does believe in intelligent design that their beliefs aren't valid? It's a tacit insult. And yeah that might require another thread.



Only if you believe scientific knowledge is the only valid source of knowledge. I don't happen to believe that, so no. I don't find the work of philosophers to be invalid simply because it isn't scientific.

If it isn't science, then by definition it doesn't belong in science class, just like it wouldn't belong in a math class.


----------



## Jabrosky

Shockley said:


> That said, it did inspire me to do some research on the matter and I found this article:
> 
> King Tut and half of European men share DNA - Deborah Braconnier - medicalxpress.com - RichardDawkins.net



Uh, this is the iGENEA issue I addressed near the beginning of this thread.



Shockley said:


> Herodotus was talking about black people when he made this distinction. I think I clarified it in my original post, but Herodotus actually went to what we would see as modern-day Ethiopia. This is why he established the distinction between what he called the Cissians (who would have been indistinguishable from Persians, a known ethnic group to the Greeks) and what he called the Ethiopians (setting the distinction).



Does he use physical descriptors to make the distinction between these groups of people though?

Wait a minute, this is the same Herodotus who explicitly described Egyptians as having "black [or dark] skin and woolly hair", isn't it? I find it ironic that you cite him of all people to prove that Egyptians were generally non-Black when he is the Greek writer most commonly cited in favor of a Black Egypt.

Again, I don't really advocate that Egyptians were ever purely Black. Like Mindfire and Steerpike, I maintain that they incorporated people of many different appearances into their civilization. However, you seem intent on generalizing Egyptians as non-Black, as if the population was homogeneously "Semitic" from Elephantine to the Delta. That is simply not true.


----------



## Shockley

> Does he use physical descriptors to make the distinction between these groups of people though?



 That depends on which group of people you're talking about. The Asiatic Ethiopians/African Ethiopians or Egyptians/African Ethiopians?



> Wait a minute, this is the same Herodotus who explicitly described Egyptians as having "black [or dark] skin and woolly hair", isn't it? I find it ironic that you cite him of all people to prove that Egyptians were generally non-Black when he is the Greek writer most commonly cited in favor of a Black Egypt.



 He only does this by reference, which I can clarify:

 When traveling near Colchis, he encounters people of that place. He describes them as having 'dark skin and woolly hair' and assumes, as a result, that the Colchians are of Egyptian extraction. He gives a little fictional history, then states that the Colchians know of Egypt but that Egyptians don't know of Colchis.

This might seem like an argument for black characteristics, except that we know quite a bit about the Colchians: They were a Caucasian people (living in the Caucasus mountains, even) and they're the forerunners of modern-day Georgians. 



> However, you seem intent on generalizing Egyptians as non-Black, as if the population was homogeneously "Semitic" from Elephantine to the Delta. That is simply not true.



 That's a straw man, first and foremost, and not what I've been advocating at all. I merely took the stand that the average Egyptian (and the majority of the Pharaohs) would have been people of Semitic extraction and appearance. I made two statements to this in previous posts:

"We should even expect a few black-looking Pharaohs — many of the wives of the Pharaohs did come from Ethiopia (members of the 24th Dynasty married the forerunners of the 25th Dynasty). But that matters little — while the British monarchs might be predominately German, the average Brit is still English, Scottish or Welsh. In that sense, the average Egyptian was of a dark, Semitic stock. "

"Egypt was, as well, an important trade center. We know that the fortress of Elephantine (which is in southern Egypt) was built by a Jewish tribe allied with the Pharaohs. We know that Assyrians, Greeks, Phoenicians, Persians, etc. made up the ruling class (the standard theory is that, while being descended from Ptolemy, the majority of Cleopatra’s blood would have been of Persian extraction). "

 I never claimed that the Egyptians were homogeneously anything - just that the majority of them would have been Semitic.


----------



## Steerpike

I think we can all agree that this point that the ancient Egyptians were most likely an alien race, come to earth to teach less advanced peoples. The wide ranging genetic and anthropological evidence was planted to obscure this fact.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I think we can all agree that this point that the ancient Egyptians were most likely an alien race, come to earth to teach less advanced peoples. The wide ranging genetic and anthropological evidence was planted to obscure this fact.



You can't be serious. 

In any case, Shockley, I don't think the Egyptians were "Semitic". From what I've seen they tended to differentiate between themselves and Semitic or Asiatic types like the Hyksos just as they differentiated between themselves and the Kushites. In fact, I think they distanced themselves even farther from Asiatics than they did from the Nubians. And the facial features depicted in Egyptian art seem quite African.


----------



## Steerpike

Look, there's even a link for it:

Egyptian Alien Gods Building Pyramids


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Look, there's even a link for it:
> 
> Egyptian Alien Gods Building Pyramids



This is rubbish and makes a mockery of both religion and science.


----------



## Rikilamaro

Mindfire said:


> This is rubbish and makes a mockery of both religion and science.



You've never seen Ancient Aliens on the History Channel?


----------



## Shockley

It's absolute rubbish, and I think it highlights what I mean when I say that the modern Egyptian peoples deal with a lot of attempts by outsiders to steal their culture for their own benefit. 

 There are also theories like this: Indian Origin of Egyptian Civilization - English pravda.ru


----------



## Mindfire

Rikilamaro said:


> You've never seen Ancient Aliens on the History Channel?



Seen it. Don't believe a word of it.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> It's absolute rubbish, and I think it highlights what I mean when I say that the modern Egyptian peoples deal with a lot of attempts by outsiders to steal their culture for their own benefit.
> 
> There are also theories like this: Indian Origin of Egyptian Civilization - English pravda.ru



Well, I don't believe the Egyptians came from India either. But I do think they were more akin to the people now living in Sudan than to the people who currently inhabit the Egyptian area, who are quite obviously of Arabic descent. And since you seem to know a lot about the motivations of people in this argument, what's your motivation?


----------



## Shockley

First off, I'd like to clarify that I don't think you or Jabrosky are trying to steal from the ancient Egyptians. I think you are mistaken on their ethnicity (just as you think I am), but ultimately we're both trying to give what we see as the proper ethnic group due credit for their accomplishments. We're on the same side, I think, and we'd come down on the same side on issues where the originating ethnicity was clear-cut. 

 As to why: I'm a history major. I've committed my adult life to the study of the history of the world (with admitted specializations). When I go to class or write a paper, I have to get to the truth of the matter. If I make anything up, if I hypothesize without facts, etc. I get slammed for it. I threaten my future, and I think I do a general disservice to the people that came before me. History is my passion - that's why I'm majoring in that despite also wanting to be a writer (where English might make more sense). 

 I have to deal with a lot of stuff that tries to take credit away from the people who managed amazing things. I think the Egyptians are one such people, but I think they take the brunt of that.

 It's like the Celtic peoples and Stonehenge, really. We know Celts built it, we're just not 100% sure of the method. Thus, people throw in the idea that aliens came down and told them how to do it. Or the Mayans, when people say that they (like Egyptians) were lorded over by Atlanteans and were not responsible for the pyramids they constructed. Or, when ancient European peoples said that giants (not Romans) built their roads and aqueducts. It does a disservice to the human race when we try to impose our own ethnic (or alien or spiritual) beliefs on history.


----------



## Shockley

Shockley said:


> First off, I'd like to clarify that I don't think you or Jabrosky are trying to steal from the ancient Egyptians. I think you are mistaken on their ethnicity (just as you think I am), but ultimately we're both trying to give what we see as the proper ethnic group due credit for their accomplishments. We're on the same side, I think, and we'd come down on the same side on issues where the originating ethnicity was clear-cut.
> 
> As to why: I'm a history major. I've committed my adult life to the study of the history of the world (with admitted specializations). When I go to class or write a paper, I have to get to the truth of the matter. If I make anything up, if I hypothesize without facts, etc. I get slammed for it. I threaten my future, and I think I do a general disservice to the people that came before me. History is my passion - that's why I'm majoring in that despite also wanting to be a writer (where English might make more sense).
> 
> I have to deal with a lot of stuff that tries to take credit away from the people who managed amazing things. I think the Egyptians are one such people, but I think they take the brunt of that.
> 
> It's like the Celtic peoples and Stonehenge, really. We know Celts built it, we're just not 100% sure of the method. Thus, people throw in the idea that aliens came down and told them how to do it. Or the Mayans, when people say that they (like Egyptians) were lorded over by Atlanteans and were not responsible for the pyramids they constructed. Or, when ancient European peoples said that giants (not Romans) built their roads and aqueducts. It does a disservice to the human race when we try to impose our own ethnic (or alien or spiritual) beliefs on history.



 I should also state now that I have Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder. What you might consider a pet peeve or mild concern I might see as a personal crusade, worthy of my full attention. So that explains at least some of this.


----------



## Steerpike

Does anyone in this thread apart from Rikilamaro have a sense of humor, and if not what is the most expeditious method of remedying that? 

Whether you are looking at the issue from the hard sciences, or from the stand point of history, anthropology, or what have you, the important issue is to get to the truth of the matter. It's not about validating personal beliefs or looking only at factors that support those beliefs while discarding all else. As noted above, however, humans tend to be wired to do just that.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Oh dear, major humour malfunction here   In case no-one gets it still, Steerpike was trying to lighten the stress levels here by injecting a bit of fun.  Oh well, at least some of us appreciated the aliens joke 

I only mentioned not being a creationist as a disclaimer - some people assume that if you distrust scientists, then you must be in the creationist camp, and I'm not.  If people choose to believe in that religious stuff then let them (though when you get websites trying to prove that men and dinosaurs existed side by side it does get a bit far fetched).

Its interesting to note that modern Egyptians don't consider themselves to be the same as the Arabs.  In fact there are a lot of working class Egyptians who are angry about being lumped in with the Arab nations.  They describe their culture as being Pharaonic  (or however you spell it) not Arabic.  

But I do wonder just how related they are to the original Egyptians (this is one area where genetics would be useful).  Certainly the visual evidence of Egyptian paintings shows a red-brown people, not the more olive skinned peoples we see today (though you do see examples of this in their art).  This could of course be the result of generations of intermixing with their semitic neighbours to produce a lighter skinned population, but I'm not qualified to say for sure.

To clarify my position, my own personal opinion is that the Egyptians were a medium skinned (ie brown not black or white) and definitely African people.  I suspect they were a separate race from the Nubians, but still related to them both culturally and genetically.


----------



## Steerpike

grahamguitarman said:


> Oh dear, major humour malfunction here   In case no-one gets it still, Steerpike was trying to lighten the stress levels here by injecting a bit of fun.  Oh well, at least some of us appreciated the aliens joke



Thank you. I was beginning to think everyone had lost their minds.


----------



## Devor

Given the way people historically have cared so much about race and skin color, I have trouble believing Egyptians were mostly black and history just missed it.  But whatever their origins, I think they very much developed their own identity in all the ways that actually matter.

That is, after they managed to destroy the last vestiges of their alien overlords living in Atlantis.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> Given the way people historically have cared so much about race and skin color, I have trouble believing Egyptians were mostly black and history just missed it.



I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but given the attitude that all manner of people, scientists included, have historically had toward Black people, I find it _very _easy to believe that evidence supporting the Egyptians being black would have been dismissed or ignored.


----------



## Devor

Mindfire said:


> I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy nut, but given the attitude that all manner of people, scientists included, have historically had toward Black people, I find it _very _easy to believe that evidence supporting the Egyptians being black would have been dismissed or ignored.



Okay, but at some point in history there wouldn't have been evidence and argument.  At some point it would just have been obvious, blatant fact.  How does that fact go unrecorded and forgotten?  That's what I don't understand.  If the Egyptians were predominantly black, wouldn't their preeminent position on the continent make them just about the first encounter Eurasians would have with the African peoples?  Wouldn't they have preempted or else-wise defined the racial prejudice?


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> Okay, but at some point in history there wouldn't have been evidence and argument.  At some point it would just have been obvious, blatant fact.  How does that fact go unrecorded and forgotten?  That's what I don't understand.  If the Egyptians were predominantly black, wouldn't their preeminent position on the continent make them just about the first encounter Eurasians would have with the African peoples?  Wouldn't they have preempted or else-wise defined the racial prejudice?



Not necessarily. Remember that there's a huge time gap, thousands of years, between their civilization and and when we re-discovered their artifacts. In the time when the Egyptians ruled the earth, racial stigma as we know it today, based on skin color, didn't really exist. So their skin tone wouldn't have really been a big deal. But the big Egyptology boom was in the 1800s to early 1900s IIRC, even though some work had probably been done before then, and coincidentally, racial stigma based on skin color was very strong during that same period. It's not at all hard to believe that the people of that time would have just assumed the Egyptians to be white. And there was absolutely no incentive for anybody to challenge this assumption because it's only very recently that Black people have been given credit for the societies that we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they did create. Think about that. 

And furthermore, it's only very recently that popular depictions of the Egyptians have been willing to concede at the very least that they were not white. Just about every popular depiction of the Egyptians before the late 90s cast them as white people with dark skinned servants. Nowadays people realize that's rubbish and opt for a politically correct "brown" but are also quite careful to avoid making the Egyptians _too _brown. I watched a documentary on the History channel that depicted Akhenaten as being several shades lighter even than anyone in modern Egypt. And what is responsible for this? This trope! But Not Too Black - Television Tropes & Idioms With all the unfortunate implications thereof.


----------



## Shockley

Well, Akhenaten might be a special case. Remember that he was severely inbred and physically deformed, so any depiction of him should vary from the norm. Not only do depictions of him make that clear, they've been registered as traits in Tutankhamun (his son) as well. That's why there are so many theories revolving around him being an alien (again, absolute rubbish). His religious beliefs and mental instability attribute to an increasingly bizarre picture of the man.

 One problem I have is that a lot of the histories (like Herodotus') were preserved in their most ancient form by accident. There were revisions to ancient texts - I'm willing to admit that, but their translations in other languages have preserved some of the pre-edited texts. We have Herodotus in several early forms (Latin, ancient Greek, Arabic, etc.) that wouldn't have been touched by the revisionists. When we translate them from these older texts to modern languages, we find plenty of revisions but nothing pointing to the Egyptians having been black.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> Well, Akhenaten might be a special case. Remember that he was severely inbred and physically deformed, so any depiction of him should vary from the norm. Not only do depictions of him make that clear, they've been registered as traits in Tutankhamun (his son) as well. That's why there are so many theories revolving around him being an alien (again, absolute rubbish). His religious beliefs and mental instability attribute to an increasingly bizarre picture of the man.
> 
> One problem I have is that a lot of the histories (like Herodotus') were preserved in their most ancient form by accident. There were revisions to ancient texts - I'm willing to admit that, but their translations in other languages have preserved some of the pre-edited texts. We have Herodotus in several early forms (Latin, ancient Greek, Arabic, etc.) that wouldn't have been touched by the revisionists. When we translate them from these older texts to modern languages, we find plenty of revisions but nothing pointing to the Egyptians having been black.



Weren't you the one who posted the images earlier? By your own admission, the Egyptians consistently depicted themselves as having dark red-brown skin. So for you to say they weren't black seems contradictory to me. But then again, I suppose we should establish exactly what definition we're using for "Black" here. I admit my own definition of the term is quite loose.


----------



## Shockley

I mean black in the Sub-Saharan African sense (since, as I mentioned, I do view the Egyptians as Africans). But there are many, many dark brown, red brown, etc. people who aren't sub-saharan Africa, even within Africa itself. Berber, Tuaregs, Maghrebi, etc. While some of them did enter the area in later eras (the Phoenician Carthaginians, for one), it seems to me that's a fairly consistent skin tone in north Africa.


----------



## Shockley

To clarify what I mean, both of these men are Berbers, of varying tribes and groups:








 This is Zinedine Zidane, who was born in France but of Berber stock.







 This is a Tuareg (Tuareg are closely related to Berbers, but speak their own language) man standing next to a Nigerian. Some are even darker than that, as this next picture points out:


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> To clarify what I mean, both of these men are Berbers, of varying tribes and groups:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Zinedine Zidane, who was born in France but of Berber stock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a Tuareg (Tuareg are closely related to Berbers, but speak their own language) man standing next to a Nigerian. Some are even darker than that, as this next picture points out:



Yeah, see all of those people look "Black" to me, except maybe the guy on the top. My own definition of the term is very loose. I essentially use it as synonymous with "African."


----------



## Shockley

If you use the term black to describe all African peoples, then yes, the average Egyptian would have been black. But that's not an accurate term.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Mindfire said:


> In the time when the Egyptians ruled the earth,


Erm, lets not get carried away here, the Egyptians were an amazing culture, but they never even got close to ruling the world.  Even at their height their political control was mostly confined to what we now think of as the Arabic countries.  

Although the Egyptians were definitely dark skinned, they were not actually black, we know this by looking at pictures where black skinned people were shown alongside the red-brown Egyptian peoples.  Their culture was closely linked with the Black skinned Nubians to the south, but they were still a separate and unique race to themselves.  They were not Semitic, they were not Black, or white, they were brown skinned Egyptians.   I think it is just as bad to try to portray the Egyptians as black skinned Africans as it is to try and make them more Eurasian or Semitic, none of those descriptions are accurate or true.  

Personally, I think we should keep race politics out of it and concentrate on admiring the Egyptians for the amazing culture they were, instead of trying to hijack them for our own cultural and political purposes.


----------



## Alex97

I'm not an expert on Eygiptian history or anything but just my two cents.

To be honest I reckon it was a mixture of both Asian and black people and later some whites who were'nt strictly Eygiptiona anyway (Greeks).  As the Eygpt's empire expanded their population would become my diverse.  People from different cultures mix, marry and have kids.  Therefore you get a mix of both.  However I have to admit since the Eygiptians were from Africa they wee most likely origanaly black skinned.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Mindfire said:


> Yeah, see all of those people look "Black" to me, except maybe the guy on the top. My own definition of the term is very loose. I essentially use it as synonymous with "African."



The problem with such a loose definition, is that most Arabs would not call themselves black (or white either), But they are still just as African. And there are many cultures around the world who specifically describe themselves as brown not black.

In western countries there has been so much interracial mixing that there are many shades of brown people, who regardless of skin colour all share a Black African cultural background.  So there is a tendency in America especially, to lump anyone with darker skin under the 'Black' umbrella whether those people want it or not.  However not everyone in the rest of the world works to the american conventions when defining what constitutes a black person.


----------



## Jabrosky

Shockley said:


> If you use the term black to describe all African peoples, then yes, the average Egyptian would have been black. But that's not an accurate term.



Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.



Skin color is not determinative, but I think the point Shockley is making is that many representations of the ancient Egyptians use a skin tone that most people would consider non-black (and yes, everyone understands no one is really "black" or "white" for that matter, but those are the terms we use). I think few would argue that sub-Saharan populations tend to be darker in skin tone than the current Egyptians, and so skin tone is merely one piece of evidence among the entirety of the evidence.


----------



## Shockley

Jabrosky said:


> Well, if you really want to get pedantic about it, no one in the world literally has black skin. "Black" was never a scientific taxon.



 I don't think I'm the one being pedantic about this. The distinction between black and white has never meant literally black skin or literally white skin.


----------



## Jabrosky

Let's drop the whole semantic argument over the definition of Blackness, because there's something about this whole discussion that really jumps out to me.



Shockley said:


> First off, let me establish my own credentials in this area: Next to none. I am a history major and I read a lot, but I’ll be the first to admit that Egypt is not my area of primary study. That would be Greeks, Romans and, increasingly as of late, northern European peoples. So when I say anything on this, know that I’m not coming from an area of expertise and most of my points will be made using ancient Greek sources.



Shockley, I notice that you are still clinging to your position even though you admit here that you cannot respond to the bulk of the arguments raised in the Keita and Boyce paper I quoted earlier. What you're doing is singling out their brief statement regarding Greco-Roman descriptions of Egyptians---which wasn't even critical to their thesis---while glossing over the meat of their paper, namely the bio-anthropological and genetic data. If you really have no answer to this data, why can't you concede defeat already?


----------



## grahamguitarman

Jabrosky said:


> why can't you concede defeat already?



Why does it have to be about someone winning and someone losing?  this is a debate not a contest.


----------



## Jabrosky

grahamguitarman said:


> Why does it have to be about someone winning and someone losing?  this is a debate not a contest.



Debates are supposed to be arguments, aren't they?

Sorry for the confrontational language, but as I understand it, the goal of a debate is to convince the opposition.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Or maybe to have an interesting conversation in which everyone gets to put their point of view, and listen to others point of views.  There doesn't need to be a winner or a loser, indeed cannot be, because none of you can be 100% sure your position is irrefutable. 

I certainly don't enter into a discussion with the intention of proving to everyone that I know everything and am always right.  I only want to have a stimulating discussion where I hope I contribute something of worth and maybe learn something of worth.  Life is too short to be worrying about who 'wins' a discussion.


----------



## Jabrosky

You raise valid points there. Honestly, I'm probably too used to the confrontational and uncivil tone of other message boards where I've debated this particular subject in the past. I apologize for my attitude.


----------



## Shockley

> Let's drop the whole semantic argument over the definition of Blackness, because there's something about this whole discussion that really jumps out to me.



 Let's not, as I think there is a lot of gold there. If mindfire maintains that Berbers are black (as he has said that he does), then that changes the very nature of the argument.



> Shockley, I notice that you are still clinging to your position even though you admit here that you cannot respond to the bulk of the arguments raised in the Keita and Boyce paper I quoted earlier.



 I'm not 'clinging' to an argument - nor am I overly concerned with Keita/Boyce. My argument comes from Egyptian and Greek sources, and I'd like to point out that the only person in this thread (on this forum, that I know of) who is qualified to really look at the Keita/Boyce paper (steerpike) was unconvinced by it. I think he was rather to the point when he said this:



> When you take the genetic evidence as a whole, along with other data (from cultural anthropology, for example), the best conclusion that explains it all is that the Ancient Egyptians were not sub-Saharan Africans. There is more of that particular DNA in the Upper Egypt samples, which makes sense geographically. Most likely, the culture had a good deal of Eurasian origin, though the idea that there was no African influence doesn't seem plausible (and I don't know anyone who holds to that idea).





> What you're doing is singling out their brief statement regarding Greco-Roman descriptions of Egyptians---which wasn't even critical to their thesis---while glossing over the meat of their paper, namely the bio-anthropological and genetic data.



 I'm not here to address their paper, I'mm here to address the topic title: 'Ancient Egyptians - Cultural origins, genetics, etc.' I'm debating 'cultural origins' and 'etc.'



> If you really have no answer to this data, why can't you concede defeat already?



 I'll concede defeat when you convince me of your points, which you have failed to do so far. In fact, most of your arguments against me have been against straw men which you have constructed against my position.


----------



## Jabrosky

Shockley said:


> I'm not 'clinging' to an argument - nor am I overly concerned with Keita/Boyce. My argument comes from Egyptian and Greek sources, and I'd like to point out that the only person in this thread (on this forum, that I know of) who is qualified to really look at the Keita/Boyce paper (steerpike) was unconvinced by it.



And all he had to offer was some bullshit spouted by the chimpanzees at iGENEA which I have already refuted earlier in this thread. Other than that, he offered only baseless assertions.



> I'll concede defeat when you convince me of your points, which you have failed to do so far. In fact, most of your arguments against me have been against straw men which you have constructed against my position.



Sorry, but you claimed in the beginning that "ancient Egyptians were not black". Then you revise your claim to "there were some black Egyptians but they were a minority". Which is it?


----------



## Jabrosky

Sorry, double post; please ignore or delete


----------



## Shockley

I mean, I came into this debate conceding a number of points: There were black pharaohs, and I'm willing to concede that there were, at least, eighteen of them (which I conceded in my opening post). I am willing to concede that pharaohs even before the Nubian invasion of that country inter-married with Sub-Saharan Africans (and I have conceded that multiple times since my opening posts). I have given credit to the Nubians for building the pyramids at Meroe (multiple times) and have even gone on the record saying that there were, almost certainly, black members of Egyptian society. So when I say all that and you throw this at me: 



> Again, I don't really advocate that Egyptians were ever purely Black. Like Mindfire and Steerpike, I maintain that they incorporated people of many different appearances into their civilization. However, you seem intent on generalizing Egyptians as non-Black, as if the population was homogeneously "Semitic" from Elephantine to the Delta. That is simply not true.



 I get a little defensive about my position.


----------



## Jabrosky

Then you've only yourself to blame for poor wording in your first statement in the other thread.


----------



## Shockley

> Sorry, but you claimed in the beginning that "ancient Egyptians were not black". Then you revise your claim to "there were some black Egyptians but they were a minority". Which is it,?



From the second part of my first post in this thread:



> Herodotus says that, at one point, the Ethiopians ruled over Egypt. He says that, at some point in recent history, Ethiopians had invaded and taken over Egypt and that eighteen different Ethiopians had been pharaoh during that time. This is consistent with what we know of the 25th Dynasty (which I mentioned in the other thread). But here’s the point I’m taking from it: By that period, Egypt had been ruled by hundreds of Pharaohs. Hundreds of individuals had held the throne, and Herodotus takes a moment to say that eighteen of these men were Ethiopians, based on the term that he had just revised to refer explicitly to black Africans.





> We should even expect a few black-looking Pharaohs — many of the wives of the Pharaohs did come from Ethiopia (members of the 24th Dynasty married the forerunners of the 25th Dynasty). But that matters little — while the British monarchs might be predominately German, the average Brit is still English, Scottish or Welsh. In that sense, the average Egyptian was of a dark, Semitic stock.



 Again, you build straw men.


----------



## Shockley

> Then you've only yourself to blame for poor wording in your first statement in the other thread.



 And you only have yourself to blame for me not 'conceding defeat' when you refuse to argue what I've actually posted int his thread.


----------



## Devor

Debates are usually about convincing a third party, Jabrosky. They are actually counter-productive towards convincing the person you are addressing.


----------



## Devor

Wow that moved fast.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Jabrosky said:


> You raise valid points there. Honestly, I'm probably too used to the confrontational and uncivil tone of other message boards where I've debated this particular subject in the past. I apologize for my attitude.



No problem


----------



## Jabrosky

@ Shockley

I reread your original post in the other thread and realized that you weren't claiming _all_ Egyptians were non-Black (you had a "most" qualifier that I had missed). I apologize for the misunderstanding.



Devor said:


> Debates are usually about convincing a third party, Jabrosky. They are actually counter-productive towards convincing the person you are addressing.



I see.

I know this is going to sound like an admittance of defeat, and perhaps it is, but I am honestly losing my temper here and so don't feel fit to continue this exchange. Perhaps this thread should be locked.


----------



## Shockley

Apology accepted, and I apologize for getting a little testy there.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> Debates are supposed to be arguments, aren't they?
> 
> Sorry for the confrontational language, but as I understand it, the goal of a debate is to convince the opposition.



Let's not call it a debate then. Let's call it a "discussion" or "dialogue," because this isn't a competition, and clearly, even if it were, we'd be gridlocked for eternity and wouldn't find a "winner" anyway.


----------



## Devor

Normally, at this point I'd try and dissect the thread and make a post showing how much everyone actually seemed to agreed, but the whole thing was over my head.  I think it looked like everyone said that Egypt was a pretty mixed bag, with a plurality of red-brown skin and a unique African heritage, and were fighting about the proportions of the mix.  Is that about right?


----------



## grahamguitarman

Mindfire said:


> Let's not call it a debate then. Let's call it a "discussion" or "dialogue," because this isn't a competition, and clearly, even if it were, we'd be gridlocked for eternity and wouldn't find a "winner" anyway.


Yeah Debate was the wrong term to use - My bad!


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> I know this is going to sound like an admittance of defeat, and perhaps it is, but I am honestly losing my temper here and so don't feel fit to continue this exchange. Perhaps this thread should be locked.



Why should it be locked just because you can't discourse civilly? Others are still discussing it.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Let's not call it a debate then. Let's call it a "discussion" or "dialogue," because this isn't a competition, and clearly, even if it were, we'd be gridlocked for eternity and wouldn't find a "winner" anyway.



Yes, with issues like this there is no "proof" that can be produced at this point, and maybe there never will be. The best that can be done is that individuals can express their own opinion on the subject, as well as whatever reasoning led them to that opinion. As I noted above, I don't care what the truth of the matter is in and of itself (i.e. it makes no difference to me personally whether they were African, semitic, or something else entirely). From the standpoint of intellectual curiosity I'd like to know which it was, and so I find these discussions interesting. As can be seen from this thread, people can bring a lot to bear on the issue.


----------



## Mindfire

Devor said:


> Normally, at this point I'd try and dissect the thread and make a post showing how much everyone actually seemed to agreed, but the whole thing was over my head.  I think it looked like everyone said that Egypt was a pretty mixed bag, with a plurality of red-brown skin and a unique African heritage, and were fighting about the proportions of the mix.  Is that about right?



That sounds accurate.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> Debates are usually about convincing a third party, Jabrosky. They are actually counter-productive towards convincing the person you are addressing.



I agree to a degree. At least, they're not solely for that purpose. They're actually a very good tool for learning, as well as following the logic of one's own view. A goal might be to convince another person, but of course to be effective in that regard you have to maintain your composure.


----------



## Shockley

Devor said:


> Normally, at this point I'd try and dissect the thread and make a post showing how much everyone actually seemed to agreed, but the whole thing was over my head.  I think it looked like everyone said that Egypt was a pretty mixed bag, with a plurality of red-brown skin and a unique African heritage, and were fighting about the proportions of the mix.  Is that about right?



 That cuts to the heart of it exactly.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> That sounds accurate.



Yeah. I'm just not clear on why people are fighting over it (in other words, why people are personally invested in the answer). The answer is what it is. Becoming overwrought about the subject doesn't change what is true and what is not true. Likewise, whether someone else agrees with you or with me doesn't change what is true or what is not true. And so the topic should be susceptible to discussion without rancor, and if an opposing party fails to be convinced....well, c'est la vie.


----------



## Jabrosky

Devor said:


> Normally, at this point I'd try and dissect the thread and make a post showing how much everyone actually seemed to agreed, but the whole thing was over my head.  I think it looked like everyone said that Egypt was a pretty mixed bag, with a plurality of red-brown skin and a unique African heritage, and were fighting about the proportions of the mix.  Is that about right?



Essentially yes. I think what Shockley's asserting is that Black Egyptians, while definitely present, were in the minority relative to the "Semites". For my part, I don't think we know yet which percentage of Egyptians could be called Black vs which couldn't over the general course of Pharaonic history. I do think a larger plurality of people in Upper Egypt during the Predynastic were closer to Africans, but whether predynastic Upper Egypt was representative of the entire country for most of ancient Egyptian history is another matter entirely.


----------



## Shockley

I'd agree that upper Egypt would trend more towards African peoples than lower Egypt - it was extremely close to those regions of the world. That makes sense to me on a lot of levels, since my own state has a huge Mexican influence and population because of its proximity to Mexico. This probably would have become more pronounced during even later time periods, such as the 25th dynasty.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> I agree to a degree. At least, they're not solely for that purpose. They're actually a very good tool for learning, as well as following the logic of one's own view. A goal might be to convince another person, but of course to be effective in that regard you have to maintain your composure.



I was referring to a stricter, more confrontational sense of the word, where those involved are focused openly on refuting the other side, with the result that it presses the other person into reinforcing their own position.  I would never mean to make a sweeping generalization about disagreements and conversations generally.


----------



## Sir Shawn

The ancient Egyptians were originally a mixture of Afrasian speaking communities from the Horn of Africa and the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara, which means that they were black:



> Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
> 
> Christopher Ehret
> Professor of History, African Studies Chair
> University of California at Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. *The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.*
> 
> *The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.* The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). *The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east.*....



*Note from Black Dragon:*

Sir Shawn originally posted the entire article in the quote box above.  Please don't do that.  Instead, only offer a brief excerpt and then link to the original article.  See our instructions on avoiding duplicate content here:

Forum Guidlines

Thank you

Here is the snippet about ancient Egypt in the famous documentary by renown African historian the late Basil Davidson:


----------



## Steerpike

The above hardly seems dispositive, given all of the controversy in the area even in the scientific literature. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Steerpike said:


> The above hardly seems dispositive, given all of the controversy in the area even in the scientific literature. Another piece of the puzzle perhaps.



There is no "puzzle" as to who the original ancient Egyptians looked like. Some people may try to obfuscate the issue simply because they are "uncomfortable" with what consistent mainstream biological and cultural evidence indicates about these ancient Africans. Here is a passage from a peer reviewed 2007 study which perfectly sums up the findings of numerous scholars from multiple scientific disciplines about the population history of ancient Egypt:



> "The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. *Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization* (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. *More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification* (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that *the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous* (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). *Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations* (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). *In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.*
> 
> *Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990).* Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, *we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."*
> 
> -- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. *AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY* 134:520—528



Here is a snippet from the summarization presented on the first page about ancient Egypt's origins, which shows exactly which Africans the ancient Egyptians most closely resembled:



> "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)



In summary the original ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the south with closest biological affinities towards Nubians and other more southerly African populations. They were a mixture of different tropical African (black) ethnic groups ranging from broad featured Nilotics to elongated East Africans. This affinity with other black Africans was heavily forested (though never completely wiped out) by later migrations from the Levant, Europe and the Arabian peninsula.  

Anyone who claims that the ancient Egyptians were "Semitic" in any way shape or form knows absolutely nothing about ancient Egyptians. Hell even the bible distinguishes the ancient Egyptians (Hamites) from the Semites.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Another interesting fact to note, is that all the way up until the Late Dynasties the vast majority of Egyptians resided and originated in Upper Egypt (the south). Prior to this period Lower Egypt was sparsely populated. The assertion that early Lower Egyptians were essentially Levantine transplants is equally false:



> "*Limb length proportions in males from Maadi and Merimde group them with African rather than European populations.* Mean femur length in males from Maadi was similar to that recorded at Byblos and the early Bronze Age male from Kabri, but mean tibia length in Maadi males was 6.9cm longer than that at Byblos. *At Merimde both bones were longer than at the other sites shown, but again, the tibia was longer proportionate to femurs than at Byblos (Fig 6.2), reinforcing the impression of an African rather than Levantine affinity."*
> -- Smith, P. (2002) The palaeo-biological evidence for admixture between populations in the southern Levant and Egypt in the fourth to third millennia BCE. in E.C.M van den Brink and TE Levy, eds. Egypt and the Levant: interrelations from the 4th through the 3rd millenium, BCE. Leicester Univ Press: 2002, 118-28



They were a tropically adapted population, residing in a non tropical environment. This could mean that early Lower Egyptians (just like those in the south) were recent migrants from the more southerly regions of Africa (the tropics). 

Here is what the encyclopedia of archaeology of ancient Egypt has concluded on the matter of whether the ancient Egyptians were "black" or something else:



> "*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."* ("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)



and



> "*must be placed in the context of hypotheses informed by archaeological, linguistic, geographic and other data. In such contexts, the physical anthropological evidence indicates that 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)



In other words they were black Africans just like the populations further south.


----------



## Jabrosky

Sir Shawn said:


> Another interesting fact to note, is that all the way up until the Late Dynasties the vast majority of Egyptians resided and originated in Upper Egypt (the south). Prior to this period Lower Egypt was sparsely populated. The assertion that early Lower Egyptians were essentially Levantine transplants is equally false...
> 
> They were a tropically adapted population, residing in a non tropical environment. This could mean that early Lower Egyptians (just like those in the south) were recent migrants from the more southerly regions of Africa (the tropics).



The data you've shared with us is intriguing and would suggest that ancient Lower Egyptians had a stronger tropical African affinity than Palestinians living on the other side of the Sinai Desert did...which isn't surprising since Upper Egypt and by extension Nubia were just upriver. However, I don't think any Upper Egyptians were used in the study you cite. Lower Egyptians being more tropically adapted than Palestinians doesn't necessarily mean they were _as_ tropically adapted or as purely Black as Upper Egyptians and Nubians.

At any rate, since you don't seem particularly interested in writing fantasy fiction, exactly how did you find this forum?


----------



## Steerpike

Sir Shawn said:


> Anyone who claims that the ancient Egyptians were "Semitic" in any way shape or form knows absolutely nothing about ancient Egyptians.



Yes, people who disagree with you know nothing, etc. We get the mentality. We do seem to be rather limited on open-minded discussions, however.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> The data you've shared with us is intriguing and would suggest that ancient Lower Egyptians had a stronger tropical African affinity than Palestinians living on the other side of the Sinai Desert did...which isn't surprising since Upper Egypt and by extension Nubia were just upriver. However, I don't think any Upper Egyptians were used in the study you cite. Lower Egyptians being more tropically adapted than Palestinians doesn't necessarily mean they were _as_ tropically adapted or as purely Black as Upper Egyptians and Nubians.



So, if you subscribe to the 'out of Africa' hypothesis on the origins of modern humans, then all of these groups ultimately trace their ancestry back to Africa, with changes accumulating in populations over time. Geographic location is often a big component of that, and so it makes sense that even if the populations were derived directly from the more tropical African populations you are talking about, given sufficient time you'd expect variations that were more suited to the environment of Lower Egypt (for example).


----------



## Sir Shawn

Jabrosky said:


> I don't think any Upper Egyptians were used in the study you cite. Lower Egyptians being more tropically adapted than Palestinians doesn't necessarily mean they were _as_ tropically adapted or as purely Black as Upper Egyptians and Nubians.



Exactly the same study was interpreted by another anthropologist in a 2006 study, and he stated that this indicates that their was a lack of common ancestry between Lower Egyptians and people from the Middle East:



> "..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)



This is the dendrogram (based on cranio-metrics )that exact same study and they found the ancient Egyptians (Pre-Dynastic Upper Egyptian samples) to be essentially the same as ancient Nubians followed by Sub Saharan East African populations:








Notice that the Middle Eastern affinity does not kick in until the Late Dynastic period (the middle of the dendrogram) and the European (Greek) samples only have affinity with modern Egyptians. This pattern of an early more southerly African affinity turning into one which groups with the Mediterranean during later periods essentially the same thing stated in the Starling 2007 (and most others on the subject) posted above.

Here is another bit on their cultural origins and affinities from the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt:



> "*The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia.* *A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time)*.
> 
> *Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin.* *Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt.* Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised andwhite-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
> 
> *Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization*.. "
> 
> Source: Donald Redford (2001) *The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt*,Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 28





Jabrosky said:


> At any rate, since you don't seem particularly interested in writing fantasy fiction, exactly how did you find this forum?



To the contrary, most of what has written in this thread about ancient Egypt (i.e. that they were Semitic or closely related to them) is "fantasy fiction". But seriously I was Googling ancient Egypt and the comments on this thread were the first to pop up on the query.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Steerpike said:


> Yes, people who disagree with you know nothing, etc. We get the mentality.p



Sorry but a fact is a fact. It's not simply a matter of "disagreement". That's like saying that the early Greeks were really Celtic migrants. It's a silly statement that really shows if anything an extreme lack of knowledge about mainstream scholarship on the subject. If the moderators had not cut out my article by linguistic authority Christopher Ehret, then it could have been demonstrated to everyone how based on everything that we know about Egypt's origins, Semitic is one of the last ways to describe those ancient Africans. They were instead a mixture of Afrasian speaking Africans from the Horn of Africa and Nilotic Africans from the ancient Sahara based on everything from linguistic/cultural similarities, anthropological comparisons and genetics. 



Steerpike said:


> We do seem to be rather limited on open-minded discussions, however.



Well are you willing to remain as open minded about the African affinities of the early Greeks? I can provide plenty of biological and cultural evidence showing that their was a significant presence of black people in that part early Europe that cannot be attributed to slavery if you wanted to go there?


----------



## Sir Shawn

Jabrosky for some reason my response to you is still pending.


----------



## goldseeker

Sir Shawn said:


> The ancient Egyptians were originally a mixture of Afrasian speaking communities from the Horn of Africa and the Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara, which means that they were black:



it's a stretch to call the ancient egyptians black, they might have been black in the beginning but it seems like they quickly became multi racial

here's a interview from renown egyptologist, starting at the 6:20 part, he talks about how by the time of the middle kingdom, egypt was a mixed multi racial society

@nilevalleyking: BLACK EGYPT COVER UP CONSPIRACY - Racist Zahi Hawass exposed (Robert Bauval) - YouTube


----------



## Sir Shawn

Steerpike said:


> Geographic location is often a big component of that, and so it makes sense that even if the populations were derived directly from the more tropical African populations you are talking about,* given sufficient time you'd expect variations that were more suited to the environment of Lower Egypt* (for example).



That is true, but what the finding of limb proportions length's indicate is that those Lower Egyptians were not situated in that environment for very long at all. The fact that they were not sub-tropically adapted like their neighboring populations in the Levant proves this. These people likely came from the Nilotic populations of the Sahara, which is indicated by their agricultural system that they had put in place:



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


----------



## grahamguitarman

Just who is this 'sir shawn' anyway? 
It seems very odd to me that someone would randomly sign up to a fantasy writing site just to bombard us with articles on ancient Egypt.  Is this some friend that someone on here has recruited to back up their own posts?  Or maybe even a member signing up under a different name in order to double post their own assertions?

Whoever they are they certainly seem to be here only to wind everyone else up!


----------



## Jabrosky

I've no idea who he is either.

Actually, I do know one guy (forgive his exact username, but I think it has "Louisville" in it) who goes around the Internet arguing about this particular issue, so I wonder if Sir Shawn is him.


----------



## Steerpike

grahamguitarman said:


> Just who is this 'sir shawn' anyway?
> It seems very odd to me that someone would randomly sign up to a fantasy writing site just to bombard us with articles on ancient Egypt.  Is this some friend that someone on here has recruited to back up their own posts?  Or maybe even a member signing up under a different name in order to double post their own assertions?
> 
> Whoever they are they certainly seem to be here only to wind everyone else up!



Some people like to demonstrate their CTRL-C and CTRL-V prowess. it is more interesting, in my view, to discuss the issue and make references to studies than to simply spam the studies to the forum.

Also, there is no way to evaluate the studies without reviewing them in their entirety, which makes cut-and-pasting of select portions less than persuasive. One thing we did in grad school in one course was nothing but going through studies published in top peer-reviewed journals, looking at methodologies, misinterpretations, over-statements, and the like. Some people think that when a paper is published in a peer-reviewed publication, the conclusions stated in the paper are necessarily the right ones, and that the study must in and of itself be "right." That is hardly the case, though, which is why there is so much back and forth in the primary literature on the part of different scientists putting forward different views. At least, that's how it goes in the hard sciences. Maybe in soft sciences people adopt the conclusion of every study they read without further thought. But I kind of doubt it.


----------



## Shockley

Either way, the argument he's presenting can't be taken seriously since he has so much built up to begin with. It's one thing to say that we're not absolutely certain on the racial make-up (which I think is something that the primary debaters could all agree on), and another thing entirely to say that they came from this specific region, were comprised of this specific group and that specific group, etc. without more evidence than what is presented.


----------



## Sir Shawn

goldseeker said:


> it's a stretch to call the ancient egyptians black, they might have been black in the beginning but it seems like they quickly became multi racial
> 
> here's a interview from renown egyptologist, starting at the 6:20 part, he talks about how by the time of the middle kingdom, egypt was a mixed multi racial society
> 
> @nilevalleyking: BLACK EGYPT COVER UP CONSPIRACY - Racist Zahi Hawass exposed (Robert Bauval) - YouTube



This was actually a video that I was going to post later! I don't think that any logical person would deny that ancient Egypt "*became*" a mixed race society. The issue surrounds their origins. In light of consistent biological and cultural evidence it is clear that they were originally black Africans (as Robert Bauval states in that interview) and overtime with noted migration and invasions bringing in different people (namely Middle Eastern) became a very cosmopolitan diverse civilization.


----------



## grahamguitarman

To be honest I didn't even bother to read the articles he posted, just his own comments.  I have no interest in what people cut and paste in an argument, only in what THEY have to say.  Give me a reasoned argument from your own point of view, and I'll respect your argument, even if I disagree.  Bombard me with someone elses point of view, by cutting and pasting other people articles, and I will begin to doubt whether you have the capacity for intelligent and unique thought.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Shockley said:


> Either way, the argument he's presenting can't be taken seriously since he has so much built up to begin with.



What do you mean I can't be taken seriously? Is it because I have actually studied this subject and have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of mainstream modern research? Contrary I could say that anyone who seriously asserts that the ancient Egyptians were "Semitic" (assuming you mean Middle Eastern) can't be taken seriously, because the ancient Egyptian language was not a "Semitic" language. 



> It's one thing to say that we're not absolutely certain on the racial make-up (which I think is something that the primary debaters could all agree on),



Based on the physical remains of the early ancient Egyptians, it has most certainly been determined (as I've provided authoritative sources) that they are consistent with the morphologies of several tropical African (black) populations and distinct from that which is seen in the Middle East and certainly Europe. 



> and another thing entirely to say that they came from this specific region, were comprised of this specific group and that specific group, etc. without more evidence than what is presented.



Well I initially came into this debate posting an article by leading linguist Christopher Ehret detailing based on culture and of course linguistic precisely where the ancient Egyptians original population sources were (Nilotic Saharan and Afrasian Horn Africans), before it was horribly abstracted by a moderator. I also provided the snippet of a documentary by Basil Davidson (renown late African historian) correlating this fact precisely with a map showing the migration. By the here is another part of that documentary:






He starts off by stating that the ancient Greeks (said to be the world's first historians) strongly advocated the fact that the original ancient Egyptians were black people who had come from the south to settle the Nile, which is "ironically" the same thing that the biological evidence indicates.


----------



## Sir Shawn

grahamguitarman said:


> To be honest I didn't even bother to read the articles he posted, just his own comments.  I have no interest in what people cut and paste in an argument, only in what THEY have to say.  Give me a reasoned argument from your own point of view, and I'll respect your argument, even if I disagree.  Bombard me with someone elses point of view, by cutting and pasting other people articles, and I will begin to doubt whether you have the capacity for intelligent and unique thought.



Forgive for trying to bring credence to my mere opinion by first giving everyone the words of respected, peer reviewed scholarship. I was not aware that this would offend you. If you'd noticed in between those "cut and paste" I relayed my argument also. It just happened that it correlates perfectly with peer reviewed


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Some people like to demonstrate their CTRL-C and CTRL-V prowess. it is more interesting, in my view, to discuss the issue and make references to studies than to simply spam the studies to the forum.



This. So much this. This guy's entire 8 post history has been on this one thread. I think it's fairly safe to say that the ONLY reason he came here is to spam the forum with "studies", which are all frankly quite dubious- at BEST. I haven't seen even a single proper citation. In fact, no citations at all, just blocks of text, images, and youtube videos. The only way to see if his information is credible is scour google to find the original source, then read it all, but who has time for that? I don't. He may be "supporting" my side of the discussion (if we have sides here), but he's being an enormous dick about it. I'd rather not have his "help" to be honest.


----------



## Steerpike

grahamguitarman said:


> To be honest I didn't even bother to read the articles he posted, just his own comments.  I have no interest in what people cut and paste in an argument, only in what THEY have to say.  Give me a reasoned argument from your own point of view, and I'll respect your argument, even if I disagree.  Bombard me with someone elses point of view, by cutting and pasting other people articles, and I will begin to doubt whether you have the capacity for intelligent and unique thought.



I tend toward the same view. A lot of internet searching followed by cutting and pasting does not make for a very satisfying, or persuasive, discussion. For most topics such as this, there is debate among the experts in the field. Finding and pasting articles to support one side or another is much less desirable than actually having people articulate thoughts in their own words, discussing the matter might you might do over a beer at the nearest pub. Spamming walls of text...not so much.


----------



## Sir Shawn

I don't know why it is such a huge issue with some posters, but I have already explained how I wandered onto this site. There was a lot of misinformation being said about ancient Egypt's origin and I wanted to inject the truth into it. If it's such an issue then maybe moderation should have stricter guidelines as to who can post on these *OPEN * forums.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> This. So much this. This guy's entire 8 post history has been on this one thread. I think it's fairly safe to say that the ONLY reason he came here is to spam the forum with studies, which are all frankly quite dubious- at BEST. The only way to see if his information is credible is to go and read all the stuff he's posting, but who has time for that? I don't. He may be "supporting" my side of the discussion (if we have sides here), but he's being an enormous dick about it. I'd rather not have his "help" to be honest.



It may be time to employ the "ignore" features, though I am generally hesitant to doing so. I'll give it a little more time and see if the guy has something to contribute to the forum besides spamming text on this topic.

EDIT: In view of the above comment - then join into some of the discussions on the forum and stop spamming us with walls of text. Any person on this forum can employ Google to find pages of material to read.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> What do you mean I can't be taken seriously? Is it because I have actually studied this subject and have a pretty comprehensive knowledge of mainstream modern research?



By your logic, I could skim the writings of Steven Hawking on the internet and become a PhD physicist overnight. I'll take my Nobel Prize now, thanks.


----------



## Shockley

> Contrary I could say that anyone who seriously asserts that the ancient Egyptians were "Semitic" (assuming you mean Middle Eastern) can't be taken seriously, because the ancient Egyptian language was not a "Semitic" language.



 What do you mean 'assuming I mean' Middle Eastern? If you're trying to imply that there is a distinct difference between Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, and most people living in the Middle East and Semitic peoples, you are very mistaken. 

 As to your language point, ancient Egyptian is classified as a Hamito-Semitic language. This is sometimes rendered as Afroasiatic, depending on the time frame of the article your referencing, but the connection between the groups has always been a well understood facet of linguistics.

 Even if the Egyptians didn't speak a Semitic language, that would not mean they weren't a Semitic people. The national language of Ethiopia (Ethiopians being non-Semitic) is Amharic (which is a Semitic language).


----------



## Mindfire

Also, I'm pretty sure "goldseeker" and "Sir Shawn" are the same person. Notice that goldseeker only has one post to his name, and it's in this forum- responding to Sir Shawn. -_- Classy.


----------



## Shockley

Mindfire said:


> Also, I'm pretty sure "goldseeker" and "Sir Shawn" are the same person. Notice that goldseeker only has one post to his name, and it's in this forum- responding to Sir Shawn. -_- Classy.



Ah, good catch.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> By your logic, I could skim the writings of Steven Hawking on the internet and become a PhD physicist overnight. I'll take my Nobel Prize now, thanks.



I'm going to assume that you only have a problem with my participation in this thread, because I provide evidence which eliminates this supposite "mystery cloud" on the subject? The facts that many of you are for whatever reason over looking is that I am not just posting "random" quotes from studies. I have provided evidence refuting fallacies that have persisted throughout this thread's life (i.e the "Semitic" affinities of early Lower Egyptians). You are also ignoring the fact that I am putting these sources into "*CONTEXT*", which should have eliminated this so-called "problem" with my debating tactic.


----------



## Sir Shawn

SMH I don't know who "Goldkeeper" is or whoever. I am not a duplicate account and anyone has any doubts then tell the moderator to check the IP addresses for any of us "suspicious" posters.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Sir Shawn said:


> Forgive for trying to bring credence to my mere opinion by first giving everyone the words of respected, peer reviewed scholarship. I was not aware that this would offend you. If you'd noticed in between those "cut and paste" I relayed my argument also. It just happened that it correlates perfectly with peer reviewed



No all you have done is cut and paste other peoples words and said "look this person says this, so it must be true!"  that is simply spamming other peoples work not contributing your own point of view.

_







 Originally Posted by *Steerpike* 



Some people like to demonstrate their CTRL-C and CTRL-V prowess. it is more interesting, in my view, to discuss the issue and make references to studies than to simply spam the studies to the forum.

_

This. So much this. This guy's entire 8 post history has been on this one thread. I think it's fairly safe to say that the ONLY reason he came here is to spam the forum with "studies", which are all frankly quite dubious- at BEST. I haven't seen even a single proper citation. In fact, no citations at all, just blocks of text, images, and youtube videos. The only way to see if his information is credible is scour google to find the original source, then read it all, but who has time for that? I don't. He may be "supporting" my side of the discussion (if we have sides here), but he's being an enormous dick about it. I'd rather not have his "help" to be honest.

Absolutely, so far this has been an interesting discussion  between writers, who at the end of the day post mostly for the enjoyment of the intelligent chat.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> I'm going to assume that you only have a problem with my participation in this thread, because I provide evidence which eliminates this supposite "mystery cloud" on the subject? The facts that many of you are for whatever reason over looking is that I am not just posting "random" quotes from studies. I have provided evidence refuting fallacies that have persisted throughout this thread's life (i.e the "Semitic" affinities of early Lower Egyptians). You are also ignoring the fact that I am putting these sources into "*CONTEXT*", which should have eliminated this so-called "problem" with my debating tactic.



If you're going to post "evidence" and "studies", could you cite some of your sources in a professional manner? It could give you some credibility.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Shockley said:


> As to your language point, ancient Egyptian is classified as a Hamito-Semitic language. This is sometimes rendered as Afroasiatic,



The ancient Egyptian language *IS * related to Semitic (along with other languages in the family), but that does not make it Semitic. It is distinct!



> Even if the Egyptians didn't speak a Semitic language, that would not mean they weren't a Semitic people.



There is no modern biological or cultural evidence indicating that these people were "Semitic". Instead it has been pretty conclusive that they were a mixture of Nilotic and Afrasian Horn Africans (black people) originally. I would suggest that many of you go on youtube and watch the Manchester and Cambridge lectures of the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt by S.O.Y. Keita, so that he can break down what these major lines of evidence indicates.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> SMH I don't know who "Goldkeeper" is or whoever. I am not a duplicate account and anyone has any doubts then tell the moderator to check the IP addresses for any of us "suspicious" posters.



Someone call his bluff. PLEASE call his bluff.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> If you're going to post "evidence" and "studies", could you cite some of your sources in a professional manner? It could give you some credibility.



EXCUSE ME? Did you not notice that every single quote given was cited down to page number?


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> EXCUSE ME? Did you not notice that every single quote given was cited down to page number?



Yeah. Retroactively no doubt. But even so, it doesn't excuse your spamming.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Sir Shawn said:


> I would suggest that many of you go on youtube and watch the Manchester and Cambridge lectures of the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt by S.O.Y. Keita, so that he can break down what these major lines of evidence indicates.



Huh? are you seriously suggesting that people - some of whom who actually work in these fields, go to Youtube to do their research?  Are you for real?


----------



## Mindfire

grahamguitarman said:


> Huh? are you seriously suggesting that people - some of whom who actually work in these fields, go to Youtube to do their research?  Are you for real?



Because as we all know, The University of Youtube is at the forefront of respected academia. Right up there with Wikipedia College and Facebook Seminary!


----------



## grahamguitarman

Mindfire said:


> Because as we all know, The University of Youtube is at the forefront of respected academia. Right up there with Wikipedia College and Facebook Seminary!



Ha ha ha priceless


----------



## Sir Shawn

grahamguitarman said:


> Huh? are you seriously suggesting that people - some of whom who actually work in these fields, go to Youtube to do their research?  Are you for real?



Ok let's try this again. Here are part 1 of the lectures at the University of Cambridge:


----------



## Sir Shawn

and Manchester:






about the bio-cultural origins of ancient Egypt, based on consistent MAINSTREAM research. Start with part one and follow on through to part 6 or 7. You all's reaction to these facts are priceless, truly priceless. Nothing but obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## grahamguitarman

I have no intention of watching your videos, why should I?  If I want to research a subject I don't just go to a video and listen to an experts personal point of view.  I  study the evidence for myself and come to my own conclusions.  for every expert video you post supporting your argument I could post one saying the opposite.  Its called cherry picking, and personally I refuse to play that game.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> You all's reaction to these facts are priceless, truly priceless. Nothing but obfuscation and intellectual dishonesty.



Obfuscation? Dishonesty? Nothing of the kind! I actually _agree _with the position you're trying to assert. I just object to you being pompous and self-righteous about it. Also the spamming. The spamming needs to stop.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Oh and our objection is not to your 'facts' but to your sledgehammer tactics in trying to railroad everyone into accepting your point of view.  

Accusing us all of intellectual dishonesty will not win anyone over to your side, it will just make your invasion of our discussion more unwelcome.

Edit:  I also don't think the Egyptians were semitic or white, my personal belief is that they are mixed race of mostly African origins.  but I dislike the tactics being used by sir shawn in a community he doesn't even have any intention of being a part of


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Mindfire said:


> The spamming needs to stop.


Agreed.

~LS


----------



## Mindfire

So, where were we before we got derailed?

(Also, I'll be surprised if "goldseeker" doesn't pop up again to incite more epic derailure.)


----------



## Shockley

I believe we were all making up and finding common ground.


----------



## Steerpike

Primary sources are great, but there isn't much you can do with them without looking at the entire study, looking at their methods, conclusions, etc., as well as having a fairly good idea of what else is out there in the primary literature that deals with the same subject matter.

That's why in a discussion like this it is much more interesting to get an exchange of ideas wherein people express their own viewpoints. To bolster that, if someone says a study by so-and-so showed X, and summarizes the findings, that's great. People can take that as supporting evidence and continue the discussion. Spamming cut-and-pastes or video lectures, where we're just getting other people's words and thought, is pointless. Anyone here can use Google. That's not an effective discussion.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Steerpike said:


> Primary sources are great, but there isn't much you can do with them without looking at the entire study, looking at their methods, conclusions, etc., as well as having a fairly good idea of what else is out there in the primary literature that deals with the same subject matter.
> 
> That's why in a discussion like this it is much more interesting to get an exchange of ideas wherein people express their own viewpoints. To bolster that, if someone says a study by so-and-so showed X, and summarizes the findings, that's great. People can take that as supporting evidence and continue the discussion. Spamming cut-and-pastes or video lectures, where we're just getting other people's words and thought, is pointless. Anyone here can use Google. That's not an effective discussion.



Agreed 

As an aside, my very best friend in the world is black, or to be more precise her father was Jamaican, and her mother was white Irish.  I've always thought she looked just like Queen Nefertiti, its something about her long thin face and semi African features. So to me personally that is how I've always visualised the Egyptians


----------



## Ravana

Sir Shawn said:


> Well I initially came into this debate posting an article by leading linguist Christopher Ehret



Well, "historian," actually. Not that I object to cross-disciplinary work (how could I? would be rather hypocritical of me…  ), nor the possibility that non-specialists can have profound insights in fields outside their own disciplines (ditto). However, to put him forward as a "leading linguist" is, to state it mildly, a stretch. A judgment I _do_ have the qualifications to make.

If there is anything at all of value to be found in SS's meandering (which may also be a stretch…), it's something he (and everyone else?) quite overlooked: the craniometric study he cites indicates that the original [sic] inhabitants of Egypt, Sudan and the Horn of Africa are all closely related–_to each other_. 

To _each other_. _Not_ to any other population identified. 

They are, for example, only marginally more closely related to modern Sub-Saharan African populations than they are to Greek populations. Also, the table includes only a single sample of a Semitic population (Lachish)… and that sample is far more closely related to the ancient Egyptian populations than modern Sub-Saharan Africans are. I would think that anyone attempting to demonstrate a differentiation between the ancient Egyptian populations and Semitic ones would load his table with other examples. (Well, unless they proved inconvenient to his thesis. Ooh–was that petty of me to point out? So sorry.) If anything–_IF_ anything, and I'm not saying it is–the craniometric study demonstrates that the Nubian populations _weren't_ closely related to contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans, not that the Egyptians _were_.

That, of course, is just one study, and furthermore a study on just one feature that is itself of dubious value. ("Craniometrics"? Seriously? In Victorian times, the study of skull size and shape was used to drive racist and classist agendas–an association that became so loaded they had to change the name of the field.) But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the _entire_ population of Northeastern Africa–not just Egypt's–represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups, than it does to a conclusion that they were "Africans" in the sense of being identical, or nearly identical, or even close kin, to modern Sub-Saharan populations. Which does not appear to be what the author had in mind, let alone what SS did in referring to it.

So maybe they _were_ all "Ethiopians." But maybe the Ethiopians of the day differed significantly from the modern population. And why not? It's not as if human populations have remained static ever since the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty… certainly not globally. The "proof" offered here would support that conclusion at least as well as any other, if not better.

It's also a hell of a lot more flattering to the cultural uniqueness of that region than any attempt to say that these people were "really" someone else. As someone–can't remember who–pointed out earlier. That, however, is an emotional rather than a scientific appeal. Appealing though it is.

On the other hand, the data could also be rejected as a bunch of tripe. I endorse neither approach (though I do have a certain inclination toward one over the other…  ). I merely point out the problem. It's a common one… and, sadly, one not limited to internet pundits.

Anyway… just thought I'd add my two-penny nails to that particular coffin. (Yes, I know: two-penny nails are useless in securing a coffin lid. Felt like mixing a metaphor here.) Back to the discussion.


----------



## Devor

Ravana said:


> But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the _entire_ population of Northeastern Africa–not just Egypt's–represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups, than it does to a conclusion that they were "Africans" in the sense of being identical, or nearly identical, or even close kin, to modern Sub-Saharan populations.



If true, that would be kind of cool in its own right.


----------



## Sir Shawn

grahamguitarman said:


> I've always thought she looked just like Queen Nefertiti, its something about her long thin face and semi African features.



Somali super model Iman shares the same facial structure as the famous Berlin Bust of Nefertiti"


----------



## Sir Shawn

Ravana said:


> However, to put him forward as a "leading linguist" is, to state it mildly, a stretch. A judgment I _do_ have the qualifications to make.



I would consider Christopher Ehret a leading linguist as far as Africa is concerned, considering the fact that he spoke on behalf of the linguistic segment at the African Genetic international Conference last month. This was a conference in which the World's leading researchers of multidisciplinary sciences of Africa gave presentations on mainstream research.   



Ravana said:


> They are, for example, only marginally more closely related to modern Sub-Saharan African populations than they are to Greek populations. Also, the table includes only a single sample of a Semitic population (Lachish)… and that sample is far more closely related to the ancient Egyptian populations than modern Sub-Saharan Africans are



There's a problem with that statement. The restrictive term "Sub Saharan African" is quite meaningless in this respect, because the continuum of biological affinities from the Lower Nile continues smoothly into the Horn of Africa which "is" Sub Saharan Africa:







The term Sub Saharan African is misleading when it is used as some sort of arbitrary racial boundary line. The majority of people in the middle and lower Saharan are tropically adapted black Africans (i.e Chad, Sudan, Niger, Mali, Sudan, and the southern regions of Egypt and Libya). A term popularized by several biologist which is essentially describing black Africans in a more realistic way is "Saharo-tropical African". This region of Earth (even when further restricted to "Sub Saharan Africa") has the most indigenous phenotypic and genetic diversity on Earth. Horn Africans/Northeast/Sub Saharan East Africans represent a segment of this diversity just as much as Gold Coast, Central or Khoisan Africans do. Northeast Africans are also the population in which the rest of world descended from during OOA, which is why their phenotype while unique in it's own way overlaps largely with the range seen across the World. 

That being said, the primary affinity of the early ancient Egyptians lie with the range of populations seen in Northeast Africans. After a thousand years of small scale migration of Semitic populations from the Middle East into Egypt, the population began to gravitate from that which grouped with Northeast Africans (i.e Nubians, Somalis, Nilotic peoples) towards that which began to become more intermediate between both by the New Kingdom. With continued migration and invasions by the time of the Late Dynastic period the population of Egypt while maintaining degrees of continuity was generally distinct from that of earlier periods (who grouped with Africans) in term of phenotype (mostly in the north). After the fall of Dynastic Egypt more populations began to migrate and settle in the Nile with the already mixed population, adding even more to the biological distinction from the early ancient Egyptians. 



Ravana said:


> I would think that anyone attempting to demonstrate a differentiation between the ancient Egyptian populations and Semitic ones would load his table with other examples. (Well, unless they proved inconvenient to his thesis. Ooh—was that petty of me to point out? So sorry.)



Since you're asking for more evidence I surely provide with another study showing a series of tropical Africans (including West Africans) having a closer centroid value to the ancient Egyptians closer than that of the Semitic series :



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









link to study. 



Ravana said:


> If anything—_IF_ anything, and I'm not saying it is—the craniometric study demonstrates that the Nubian populations _weren't_ closely related to contemporary Sub-Saharan Africans, not that the Egyptians _were_.



If anything, and I'm not sating it is true- I'd say that your interpretation of this data shows that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to indigenous African diversity. Indigenous tropical African populations have been shown consistently to be as genetically and physically distinct from one another than a Western European population is from a Cambodian village (just an example). Certain Horn African populations, Sudanese and ancient Egyptians formed a continuum of biological and cultural affinities that was representative of their own (but not necessary exclusionary of other African populations). Horn Africans and people of the Sudanese are black Africans, so why would the ancient Egyptians who also fit perfectly into this bio-cultural continuum defy this, by somehow be something other than black African? 



Ravana said:


> That, of course, is just one study, and furthermore a study on just one feature that is itself of dubious value.



Cranio-metric while not the best at determining population relationships, do give incite into a populations phenotype. For example indigenous African populations and certain Southeast Asians/aboriginal Australians are genetically as distinct from one another as populations can get, but craniometrically they are very similar and thus have been noted to have very similar phenotypes. As with many African populations those distant populations tend to have broader facial features and tropically adapted limb ratios. This is why early anthropologist considered aboriginal Australians to be recent tropical African migrants, before they were given their own "racial grouping".

Super tropical limb proportions were also a general affinity of the ancient Egyptians, which was in the same manor as tropical African populations further south and those dark skinned tropically adapted southeast Asian and Australians. Ecological principal has stated that dark skin accompanies tropical adaptation. That being said with a cranio-metric pattern within the range of various northeast African populations and limb proportion ratios the same as the world's darkest populations, what would that logically suggest about the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians? I'd say that they were black Africans. 



Ravana said:


> But it is also an excellent example of interpreting one's data correctly… since the data presented more readily lead to a conclusion that the _entire_ population of Northeastern Africa—not just Egypt's—represented an ethnic group distinct from other African groups,



Indigenous African diversity as explained above and gone into great detail in the University of Manchester and Cambridge lectures by one of the leading biologist of Africans S.O.Y. Keita on the previous page. 



Ravana said:


> Which does not appear to be what the author had in mind, let alone what SS did in referring to it.



As stated above, I couldn't imagine why an indigenous tropically adapted Northeast African population would somehow defy ecological principal by not having dark skin. Keep in mind however that tropical Africa has the most indigenous skin color diversity of any region on Earth. While all generally considered "black" in the social sense there are tropical Africans so black that they have a purple tint (the Dinka of Sudan), there are reddish brown colored people throughout the region, and there are non mixed Africans with high yellow skin color (Igbo people of southern Nigeria). Therefore while having dark skin is a fact, the exact skin tone as stated by several anthropologist would be almost impossible to determine. 



Ravana said:


> So maybe they _were_ all "Ethiopians." But maybe the Ethiopians of the day differed significantly from the modern population. And why not?



Which Ethiopians, as there are many ethnic groups (which is why their is so much political strike). Some anthropologist (in the Cambridge lecture on the previous page) have described the typical Egyptian phenotype as being "Somali like". Others have described them as Oromo or Tigrean. Then again Nilotic has been used to described these ancient peoples. Many early anthropologist considered all of these populations (and thus the Egyptians) to be "Caucasoid" because they did not conform to the dubious "true Negroid" myth. This suggest that there was a diversity of tropical African populations in early ancient Egypt. 

Also what evidence do you have to suggest that there was change in the Ethiopian populations? I've never seen any? I conversely have presented much evidence that there has been significant change in the Nile Valley (particularly Lower Egypt) which even includes parts of northern Sudan.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Ravana said:


> It's also a hell of a lot more flattering to the cultural uniqueness of that region than any attempt to say that these people were "really" someone else.



Is modern America a good representation of the America from 600+ years ago? If not then what has happened? Did the original inhabitants migrate somewhere else? Were they largely assimilated in the American population of today? Were they wiped and killed? Could any of these explanations have been the case in ancient Egypt? If so then which one has the most support?


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> Somali super model Iman shares the same facial structure as the famous Berlin Bust of Nefertiti"



Um... so? People say I look like both Barack Obama and P. Diddy. (FYI I resemble neither.) That doesn't prove much. Plus, she's a model. She's _supposed _to resemble Nefertiti in that picture. That's what the makeup and costume are _for_. This is the most egregious example of cherry picking I have ever seen in my life!


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> *WALL O' TEXT!*



TL;DR


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> Um... so? People say I look like both Barack Obama and P. Diddy. (FYI I resemble neither.) That doesn't prove much. Plus, she's a model. She's _supposed _to resemble Nefertiti in that picture. That's what the makeup and costume are _for_. This is the most egregious example of cherry picking I have ever seen in my life!



How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race. By your logical I should accuse that user of cherry picking for using the depiction of Nefertiti with the most facial distinctions from others. For example almost every other depiction of Nefertiti show her with dark brown skin and full lips:


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race. By your logical I should accuse that user of cherry picking for using the depiction of Nefertiti with the most facial distinctions from others. For example almost every other depiction of Nefertiti show her with dark brown skin and full lips:



I agree that these depictions of Nefertiti indicate features similar to those of modern Africans. But while that does support your position, it's not conclusive proof, so stop treating it like it is. If you weren't so self-important and showed some restraint instead of acting on your impulse to flood the thread with MOAR PICTURES and MOAR TEXT, then maybe you could contribute to this discussion in a friendly, informative way that would promote dialogue and _not _result in you getting banned. Didn't you learn anything from getting banned the first time? Keep it up and I'll report you to the mods again.


----------



## Sir Shawn

grahamguitarman said:


> .  for every expert video you post supporting your argument I could post one saying the opposite.  Its called cherry picking, and personally I refuse to play that game.



I guarantee that you will never find any expert opinion being invited to speak at prestigious universities or being the considered an another authority by the National Geographic on the subject, disputing Keita's stance on the Bio-Cultural origins of ancient Egypt, because their is no real evidence to suggest anything else. In fact this stance has lately become so prominent that within the last three years institutes like the Fitzwilliam's museum have devoted entire exhibits to showing the intra African origins of ancient Egypt.

The notion that ancient Egypt was anything, but black African (which includes the notion that they were always mixed race) as stated by the Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt is rooted in colonial racism. This I believe was stated by a user on the first page. Some people unknowingly (and in some cases knowingly) feel that they are obligated to defending an obsolete paradigm based on pseudo scientific ideas of a racial hierarchy.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> I agree that these depictions of Nefertiti indicate features similar to those of modern Africans. But while that does support your position, it's not conclusive proof, so stop treating it like it is.



Quote me where I've stated or even insinuated that picture comparisons are conclusive proof. One person made an assertion and I made a comparison suggesting otherwise. I don't know why you're getting so worked up over my presence in this thread, but it's very juvenile and completely unnecessary. If you agree with me then say that you agree with me. If you don't agree with my stance then state what is illegitimate about the support for my stance, rather than attacking me or how I'm providing my evidence.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> Quote me where I've stated or even insinuated that picture comparisons are conclusive proof. One person made an assertion and I made a comparison suggesting otherwise. I don't know why you're getting so worked up over my presence in this thread, but it's very juvenile and completely unnecessary. If you agree with me then say that you agree with me. If you don't agree with my stance then state what is illegitimate about the support for my stance, rather than attacking me or how I'm providing my evidence.



It's your style that I take issue with more than your substance. You come across as unnecessarily aggressive bordering on hostile. And you seem to love WOT posts.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> It's your style that I take issue with more than your substance.



You have put entirely too much energy into criticizing my "style" then you have been trying to absorb the information from the legitimate mainstream sources that I've provided. 



> You come across as unnecessarily aggressive bordering on hostile. And you seem to love WOT posts.



Why would me disproving an outright fallacy (i.e the Semitic argument) equate as "aggressive"?

 According to one poster I came out appearing as though "I have all the answers" then according to another providing support for my argument is somehow "plagiarism" meaning that I don't really have my own argument. When in reality every source that I have provided has been put into *CONTEXT * by me and has relevance to point being made. After reading the dialogue of this thread, the only issue that many people have with my "style" of debating (the use of real sources) is that it leaves little to no room for unsubstantiated nonsense. It's as though some are offended that modern scholars now acknowledge that the supposite "mystery cloud" over this subject has disappeared, and are simply unhappy with what has been revealed as the truth.


----------



## Mindfire

Sir Shawn said:


> You have put entirely too much energy into criticizing my "style" then you have been trying to absorb the information from the legitimate mainstream sources that I've provided.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would me disproving an outright fallacy (i.e the Semitic argument) equate as "aggressive"? According to one poster I came out appearing as though "I have all the answers" then according to another providing support for my argument is somehow "plagiarism" meaning that I don't really have my own argument. When in reality every source that I have provided has been put into *CONTEXT * by me and has relevance to point being made. After reading the dialogue of this thread, the only issue that many people have with my "style" of debating (the use of real sources) is that it leaves little to no room for unsubstantiated nonsense. It's as though some are offended that modern scholars now acknowledge that the supposite "mystery cloud" over this subject has disappeared, and are simply unhappy with what has been revealed as the truth.


Well, see that's where you've got it wrong, mate. This isn't a debate. It's a discussion. A debate is confrontational, with explicit sides and opponents. A discussion is just a chat, really. Treat this more like a friendly conversation and less like a verbal battle.


----------



## Sir Shawn

Mindfire said:


> Well, see that's where you've got it wrong, mate. This isn't a debate. It's a discussion.



That's fine!


----------



## grahamguitarman

Sir Shawn said:


> How am I cherry picking? The user who I quoted stated that the Berlin Bust suggest that Nefertiti was mixed race.



Actually, no I didn't state that the Berlin bust suggested anything at all, in fact I didn't even mention the Berlin bust!  If anything my friend resembles some of those pictures above more than the Berlin bust.  

I was merely making a personal and conversational observation that my friend looked like Nefertiti, and that that is how I personally 'visualise' Egyptians.  As an artist posting on a site dedicated to writing stories, this is a perfectly valid thing to do.  

You seem to be so intent on forcing your point of view on everyone, that you are turning simple conversational comments into scientific arguments.  Then have the gall to accuse us of being juvenile when we object to your tactics!

You have completely missed the fact that this is a friendly discussion not a combative debate. And more to the point, this is a site dedicated to story writing, not a scientific or historical site.  We have do have geneticists, anthropologists and historians here, most of whom are probably more qualified to discuss this subject than yourself, but they are still here primarily as aspiring writers.


----------



## Steerpike

Graham:

You're talking to someone who looks to have created an account solely for the purpose of arguing this point. It is a  way of trolling, and may be an alter ego created for that purpose. Regardless, continuing to feed is not recommended.

Morphological data is not dispositive in terms of genetic relationships. It is just another piece of the puzzle. People tend to give it more or less weight depending on their own predispositions.

Finally, posting snippets from studies remains less than useful, as noted above, because you can't determine much (or anything) from such cut-and-paste posts. Anyone here can use Google. If you really want to get anything out of the studies provided, you're going to have to go do a lot of research, not just rely on someone who is cut-and-pasting portions of them. It's not really a good means of going about a discussion like this unless your purpose is simply to obfuscate by burying people in text.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Someone call his bluff. PLEASE call his bluff.



Wouldn't prove anything. I could be logged onto here with three accounts and three different IPs inside of five minutes.


----------



## Devor

Sir Shawn said:


> Why would me disproving an outright fallacy (i.e the Semitic argument) equate as "aggressive"?



I can think of a few reasons.

This is a public research forum, but it's purpose is to help people conduct research for _fantasy writing projects_.  The forum is also the home of an active writing community - everyone else who's posted on this thread has talked elsewhere on the forums, built up a level of trust and respect, a rapport which is ultimately more important to us than being right or wrong on this limited and complicated topic.  But you've shown no interest in the purpose of the forum or the community behind it, but intrude on the thread with the sole purpose of proving everyone else wrong.  That's called trolling.

But it's more than even just that.  You're presupposing the rectitude of your own sources and you ignore their fairly obvious faults and limitations.  You present blankets of text and graphs on the condescending, self-fulfilling notion that nobody else would care enough to click a link and study the material themselves.  You engage with hostile remarks, okay, but you also respond to the rational rebuttals as if they were equally hostile.  You've ignored the rules of the moderators, and you've snapped at others when they try to hold you to account.

And you repeatedly say that the things you post prove the matter to be settled - strongly implying that _nobody else's opinion - in fact, the entire discussion - matters at all_.

And by the way, the science of even the most rigorous studies need to be peer reviewed before they can hold any weight - as does the logic and presentation of your arguments, which are currently doing poorly by those peer-review standards.  But it's not too late to turn it around.  Calm down, take some accountability for your attitude, and engage with the discussion.

Lastly, this community is filled with extremely smart, qualified, hard working people who are more than capable of engaging with the complicated research involved in this topic.  You'd probably do very well to engage the discussion realizing that - even if you are right - you might still learn something about approaching and discussing this kind of material in a manner that's more accurate, calm and effective.


----------



## Sir Shawn

So.... you two don't really have any rebuttal to my overall argument, therefore you must devote post after post to personal attacks against me. Yes very mature!


----------



## Devor

Sir Shawn said:


> So.... you two don't really have any rebuttal to my overall argument, therefore you must devote post after post to personal attacks against me. Yes very mature!



Fallacy:  Argument from Silence, the conclusion that an opponent's silence on a topic implies that the opponent has no response or further, that no response exists.  This argument is not valid, especially when used to claim victory after making yourself so unlikable that nobody wants to respond to your arguments.

It's particularly telling because, as has been stated, some of the people in this discussion _agree_ with your position and have still told you that you are behaving like a douche.  Can you even tell me what my position on this topic is?


----------



## Steerpike

Devor:

Why feed? A number of points have been presented, and ignored, by the poster, including points on how to judge studies (from the primary literature and elsewhere), the point that morphological evidence is not dispositive in terms of genetic relationships, descriptions taken from contemporary sources distinguishing the ancient Egyptians from other Africans in terms of skin tone, genetic evidence, and so on. 

The guy discounts out of hand anything that doesn't support his view, and so is selective in terms of evidence used, and is clearly so emotionally tied into his argument that he can't even accept the fact that the topic is unsettled. 

I'd say it is time to continue with more reasonable persons, as opposed to those who created accounts here to troll this subject (or who may be secondary accounts of existing users who want to troll it, or whatever).


----------



## grahamguitarman

Steerpike said:


> Graham:
> 
> You're talking to someone who looks to have created an account solely for the purpose of arguing this point. It is a  way of trolling, and may be an alter ego created for that purpose. Regardless, continuing to feed is not recommended.



Yeah I know what you mean, and I was going to just ignore him. Till I saw the silly post about my supposedly using the Berlin Nefertiti as an argument, when I was merely commenting on my best friends looks.  He's actually up to 26 posts now and still doesn't get why he is so unwelcome - pretty sad when you think about it.


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> Why feed?



Only one reason, I'm curious to hear people talk more about evidence he posted, and I don't think that'll happen much unless he calms down.  I can be done - I should probably have stopped with the one post - but I thought it was worth a shot.


----------



## Steerpike

Devor said:


> Only one reason, I'm curious to hear people talk more about evidence he posted, and I don't think that'll happen much unless he calms down.



Fair enough.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Devor said:


> Only one reason, I'm curious to hear people talk more about evidence he posted, and I don't think that'll happen much unless he calms down.  I can be done - I should probably have stopped with the one post - but I thought it was worth a shot.



Trouble is there is just so much that he has posted that I can't even be bothered to read it, I would have to be really obsessed with the subject to even try!


----------



## Steerpike

grahamguitarman said:


> Trouble is there is just so much that he has posted that I can't even be bothered to read it, I would have to be really obsessed with the subject to even try!



Perhaps the moniker "Sir Shabrosky" is warranted?


----------



## grahamguitarman

Steerpike said:


> Perhaps the moniker "Sir Shabrosky" is warranted?



Ha ha ha, don't know what you mean


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> Perhaps the moniker "Sir Shabrosky" is warranted?



I am not associated with Mr. Shawn in any way, but I will say that even if he comes across as an obsessive and confrontational jackass, his terrible attitude does not change the fact that he has actually offered very cogent arguments and data in favor of his position. I'm afraid that most people's reactions in this thread really do amount to little more than attacks on his presentation rather than the substance of his claims. Sir Shawn should definitely calm down and adopt a less aggressive and arrogant tone if he wants to persuade anyone, but that does not justify the knee-jerk ad hominems we have given him.


----------



## Steerpike

Jabrosky said:


> I am not associated with Mr. Shawn in any way, but I will say that even if he comes across as an obsessive and confrontational jackass, his terrible attitude does not change the fact that he has actually offered very cogent arguments and data in favor of his position. I'm afraid that most people's reactions in this thread really do amount to little more than attacks on his presentation rather than the substance of his claims. Sir Shawn should definitely calm down and adopt a less aggressive and arrogant tone if he wants to persuade anyone, but that does not justify the knee-jerk ad hominems we have given him.



Sir Shawn is a brick wall who is only interested in his own opinion. His evidence has to be viewed in light of all the other evidence, of whatever sort, in order to try to best determine how it all fits together. His response to that has been to re-state the same sorts of evidence repeatedly and claim the matter is solved. Then, when people aren't persuaded, he uses personal insults. It's humorous, really, but you can't expect it to be taken seriously.

We're just having at you a bit about the Shabrosky thing, because you were both pasting walls of text (of the same sort of evidence, in fact), and this subject seems to upset you both. Plus he came out of the blue, and it would be hard to find this thread for just this topic without previous knowledge of it. So it was kind of a humorous jab. But putting that aside, there is no way a reasonable person can take Shawn seriously because he can't think about the issue rationally. He only appears to be able to take as final any evidence that supports his view and then insult people from there.

Given the evidence we've seen so far, from everyone, whether from you or Shockley or Graham or Mindfire or Shawn, or anyone else, it seems reasonable to conclude that the morphological data, genetic, data, contemporary historical sources, etc. are inconclusive. That, in and of itself, should be telling. But if one only takes into account evidence that supports one's own viewpoint, then it is easy to take a side and stick to it no matter what.


----------



## Devor

Jabrosky said:


> Sir Shawn should definitely calm down and adopt a less aggressive and arrogant tone if he wants to persuade anyone, but that does not justify the knee-jerk ad hominems we have given him.



I think you're right a little bit, but I've seen plenty of trolls on other forums, and sometimes they can turn around if you tell them, strongly and cogently, how they are trolling, although it takes a few days to "sink in."

Sir Shawn cares a lot about the subject and has spent a lot of time investing in it.  If he would calm down, I think he could contribute quite a bit to the conversation.  But if he won't calm down, our only options are to report him and get him banned, ignore him, or debate him.  I don't think people _want_ to debate him, and ignoring him is going to mean more ad hominem attacks in both directions.  So if he posts with the same attitude again I'm going to report him again, and given that he has no intentions of contributing to a writing community, I don't think his moniker will survive it.


----------



## grahamguitarman

Jabrosky said:


> but that does not justify the knee-jerk ad hominems we have given him.



If I was trying to discredit his academic standpoint then I could indeed be accused of using Ad Hominems.  But since I have no particular problem with his opinion or the point he is trying to make, such a claim is fallacy in itself.  

My argument is with the Trolling methods he uses to steamroller everyone into accepting his point of view, and the way he tried to ascribe arguments to me that I never even tried to make.


----------



## Mindfire

Given his fervor, I think he's really just trolling. I'm going to report him. Again.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

I agree. Again.


----------



## Steerpike

So, to get away from the trolling aspects, let me ask this question:

Apart from considerations of historical accuracy, does it matter to those here what origins or ancestry the Egyptians had? In other words, I think it matters to us all to the extent that we want to have an accurate picture of history, but going beyond that does it matter for other reasons? In other words, if the ancient Egyptians turned out to be very dark people closely related to sub-Saharan Africans does that change your perception of them? If they were semitic, hypothetically, does that change your perceptions? If their genetic heritage had influences of both African and Eurasian, does that change your view?

For me, the answer to that is 'no,' but I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Apart from being historically accurate, does the final answer make a difference?


----------



## Devor

Steerpike said:


> For me, the answer to that is 'no,' but I'm curious what everyone else thinks. Apart from being historically accurate, does the final answer make a difference?



I would've said no earlier in the conversation, and it's still mostly no.  But now I think an answer that helps people to visualize a richer ethnic diversity within Africa might serve as a vessel to help tell that history, which right now is largely muddled and obscure outside of Egypt.  Something like the proposition which Ravana mentioned, of a distinct north-African ethnicity, might help to do that if it were to be true.  But I don't think it matters in-and-of-itself who got which genes from who - at the very least, it doesn't matter to me.


----------



## grahamguitarman

I have no personal investment in regards to what Egyptians should look like.  If they were black then they were black, if they intermixed with semitic or eurasian races then so what. Its their art and culture that I love, not their racial identity.  My only concern with regards to race is seeing the right people get credit for their beautiful culture. 

I agree with Devor that the Idea of northern African ethnicity being different from the south is intriguing.  But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, at the end of the day its just an interesting academic conversation.

Just to throw a curve into the discussion I came across this photo earlier of a Himba girl covering herself in red ochre:








At the risk of undermining my own arguments, does that body paint look just like the red-brown seen in Egyptian paintings or what?  Makes you think doesn't it, could the paintings have been depicting Egyptians using body make-up? (regardless of ethnicity BTW).  

I'm not making any claims here by the way, just making an interesting observation


----------



## Shockley

@Steerpike: Not at all. My interest in Egypt is only cursory (in their dealings with Greeks and Romans), so my stake in this is purely academic.


----------



## Steerpike

Thanks, guys. I figured that was generally the case, but I was wondering nonetheless.


----------



## Ravana

I'm not certain I should bother responding to this, given that the person expressing these views is no longer with us… but I don't much care for attacks against my person (as opposed to my arguments). So I'll just try to keep it brief, instead. (Yeah, right.  No, I'm not. Y'all should know me better than that by now.)



Sir Shawn said:


> I would consider Christopher Ehret a leading linguist as far as Africa is concerned, considering the fact that he spoke on behalf of the linguistic segment at the African Genetic international Conference last month.



I might have been more convinced if you'd cited a _linguistics_ conference he'd spoken at. Ehret was indeed the only person speaking on language at this conference _about genetics_: that does not mean he spoke "on behalf of" anybody other than himself. He certainly wasn't elected by peers to represent any "linguistic segment."

To make the point a bit more firmly, though:
(1) Sir Shawn is, I think we can safely assume, not a linguist.
(2) I am. 
(3) Ehret is an emeritus member of the _History_ department at UCLA.
(4) Total number of Ehret's publications, including volumes edited, monographs, reviews of other articles, and rewrites of previous works, according to his UCLA faculty page: 90.
(5) Total number of these that mention linguistics, language, or specific languages in their titles: 53, most on reconstruction of proto-languages (you'll see why I mention this in a sec), or on reconstructions of history based on his linguistic reconstructions.
(6) Number of these that appeared in refereed linguistics journals: 0.

So he might be a "linguist," in the sense that his work has often involved language… but hardly a well-respected, let alone "leading" one. As witness:

- "Ehret has been criticized by linguists for his tenuous evidence, for his disregard for methodological rigour, for resorting to glottochronology, and for not revealing his sources of data." (W. H. G. Haacke, Department of African Languages, University of Namibia)

- "Ehret… omits almost all reference to publications that might contradict his proposals on a scale that is almost unique." [Thirteen specific examples follow.] "The pattern is unfortunately all too evident: every time a published reconstruction could challenge those used by Ehret, he systematically omits all reference to it.… Apart from the general literature on historical reconstruction, Ehret has an idiosyncratic response to material on individual languages. He cites the Ph.D. thesis of [Jakobi] on Fur rather than the published version of her grammar. He ignores the Kanuri dictionaries [published in 1990 and 1994] in favor of Lukas (1937). [Et cetera.] For an author somewhat prone to hector the historical linguistics community on its inadequacies of method, this seems somewhat inconsistent." (Roger Blench, consulting linguist, formerly University of Cambridge)

(I included the second in spite of length, because I thought it was hysterical. Well, maybe it isn't to you folks: it is to me. Ehret doesn't seem much better liked by historians or anthropologists, far as I can tell… but I'm not going to bother digging further.)

I'd also add that appealing to linguistics in this situation is counterproductive to the claim being put forth, as the Egyptian language–of any period–is held to be part of the Afroasiatic family… the distribution of which includes Northern Africa, the Sahara region, part of the Sahel (immediately south of the desert), Egypt, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East. In other words, linguistic evidence wouldn't _connect_ the Egyptians to sub-Saharan African populations: it would _separate_ them. (Along lines nearly identical to those suggested by the biometric studies cited, in fact.) Ehret _himself_ puts Egyptian in the sub-subgroup that includes Semitic and Berber… and _none_ of the other Afroasiatic languages–let alone any other African ones. 



> [quibble about my use of the term "sub-Saharan"]



Granted–that the term does not, geographically, include the Horn at least. Not sure that renders it "meaningless." I used the term in order to avoid using the terms "black" or "negroid"–as do most people discussing these fields. Including several posters prior to my contribution. 



> That being said, the primary affinity of the early ancient Egyptians lie with the range of populations seen in Northeast Africans.



Well, that's what I was pointing out, actually.…



> link to study.



Pity the chart doesn't appear in that study: it might have been legible there.



> If anything, and I'm not sating it is true- I'd say that your interpretation of this data shows that you have a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to indigenous African diversity.



Actually, I am aware of African diversity. I'm even quite familiar with the diversity of Africans from within a single country–Somalia. I've been working with refugees for a decade now. And they're far from the only Africans I've worked with. 



> Horn Africans and people of the Sudanese are black Africans, so why would the ancient Egyptians who also fit perfectly into this bio-cultural continuum defy this, by somehow be something other than black African?



The question presupposes the answer: it considers all Africans to be "black Africans," and therefore "black" (a presupposition that contradicts the preceding claim of "diversity," by the way). I honestly couldn't care less what color their skin is–nor, for that matter, what color skin ancient Egyptians had. I reiterate, however, since SS apparently _does_ care, that these populations are "black" _now_; this says nothing about what color skin these populations had 3-5k years ago. I think very few people would say that the present population of Egypt is dominated by "black" people… not the way the term is usually interpreted in my experience. Anybody using the term "black" to refer to everybody with skin tones darker than those of Northern Europeans is using it in a different fashion, so I really can't address their interpretations. 



> Cranio-metric while not the best at determining population relationships, do give incite into a populations phenotype. For example indigenous African populations and certain Southeast Asians/aboriginal Australians are genetically as distinct from one another as populations can get, but craniometrically they are very similar and thus have been noted to have very similar phenotypes.… This is why early anthropologist considered aboriginal Australians to be recent tropical African migrants, before they were given their own "racial grouping".



I'm not sure how this aids the contention about Egyptians; if anything, it shows that phenotype is irrelevant to determining ethnic origins. I'm also not sure how attaching additional weight to an increasingly discounted methodology aids the argument, either. (The same applies to limb proportions, which I'll otherwise skip.)



> …one of the leading biologist of Africans S.O.Y. Keita



Keita, while seeming to command slightly greater respect than Ehret, holds positions that diverge heavily from those of most of his peers. Nor does it help him any that he relies heavily on a small number of similarly-positioned sources–including, notably, Ehret. Which doesn't mean he's wrong (nor Ehret, for that matter), just that he isn't necessarily the best source to appeal to.



> Keep in mind however that tropical Africa has the most indigenous skin color diversity of any region on Earth. While all generally considered "black" in the social sense



"Considered"? By? I know "black"-skinned Africans who will tell you with a straight face that they are not "black"… that they are not "African," for that matter. They're from the Horn… _and they consider themselves a different ethnic group_. They aren't experts on the subject (in terms of being geneticists, anthropologists, what have you)… but it does add an interesting perspective to the matter. 



> Which Ethiopians



The ones inhabiting the region during the time in question. I thought that was clear enough… and that I was making the point that the Ethiopians of that period _may or may not_ be indicative of the modern population (just as the modern Egyptian population _may or may not_ be indicative of ancient ones).



> Many early anthropologist considered all of these populations (and thus the Egyptians) to be "Caucasoid" because they did not conform to the dubious "true Negroid" myth.



So many early anthropologists were racist, agenda-driven hypocrites. I think we all knew that already.…



> Also what evidence do you have to suggest that there was change in the Ethiopian populations?



None. Nor _did_ I suggest there was. I merely pointed out that the "evidence" that _was_ being put forth–not by me–could support this conclusion as well as it could an opposite one.



> I conversely have presented much evidence that there has been significant change in the Nile Valley (particularly Lower Egypt) which even includes parts of northern Sudan.



"Significant"? "Change"? Meaning the present population of the Lower Nile _doesn't_ reflect historical ones? I thought the argument was that it _did_.…

-

Okay, folks, for anyone who didn't catch it: I have _no opinions_ on the skin color of Egyptians at any point in history. I flat-out _don't care_. What I _do_ care about is shoddy research, spurious data, and misrepresentations. Hope y'all don't mind too much.…


----------



## Ravana

P.S. Iman looks like that out of makeup, too. Well, at least with less of it, and without the costume accessories in the picture. I doubt if anybody other than her husband has seen her out of makeup in years. 

On the other hand, I'm not sure how many people have seen _him_ out of makeup in years, though he certainly wears a lot less than he used to. Wish she'd brought him along.…


----------



## gavintonks

I think looking at dna is out of context to the when. When we look at the history of the area from Mesopotamia, Sumatra etc and then see this civilization that rises from the dessert [they were meant to have found the pillars of civilization where all human knowledge was inscribed] Then look at the enormous amount of history over the area, wars conquests slaves etc would rate a dna mix at various stages of evolution. It would be difficult to say who truly was a pure egyptian


----------



## Sia

Mmm...I don't know how strong the evidence is but I read that the Gypsy-slur came about as a shortening of "Egyptian".  That would suggest that Romani and the other traveller-race and Egyptians looked alike enough that it would be easy for a causal observer to confuse the two.


----------

