• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Ancient Egyptians - Cultural Origin, genetics, etc.

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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).
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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:

dendrogram2.jpg


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

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.
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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.

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? ;)
 

goldseeker

New Member
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
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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
 
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

Banned
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.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Maester
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.
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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.
 
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.
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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

Istar
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

Felis amatus
Moderator
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.
 
S

Sir Shawn

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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

Istar
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.
 
Top