Egyptian civilisation and ancient Egyptians

[Ramses II]

2.b

The study is plotting the populations according to their limb proportions. The ancient Egyptians being the tropically adapted dark skinned African populations that they were, grouped with other tropically adapted dark skinned populations (including African Americans):

I don't see the word "ancient Egyptian" on that chart, that is an invention of your imagination. I see "limb proportions of modern humans..." Melanesians, Arizona Indians and Pygmies plot closest, and despite ancient/modern Egyptians not belonging to those populations, you're willing to misrepresent data and tell us ancient/modern Egyptians originate among Melanesians, Arizona Indians and Pygmies all based only on environmentally adaptable trait. (From your post #8: "What color do Pygmies and Melanesians have? These are who this study groups the ancient Egyptians with." And not only that, that particular chart depicts (modern) Egyptians having much higher limb ratios, hence "significantly different" than modern West Africans who live closest to the equatorial belt. And for lack of a better word, coin this trait "super negroid" even though they specifically told you it "does not mean the ancient Egyptians were negroes".

"Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age peoples display elongated brachial and crural indices reminiscent of terminal Pleistocene and "tropically adapted" recent humans. These marked morphological changes likely reflect exogenous immigration during the terminal Fourth millennium cal BC. Population continuity, demic diffusion and Neolithic origins in central-southern Germany: the evidence from body proportions." (Gallagher; 2009)

So negroids don't have a monopoly on "tropically adapted" limb lengths, which could also be mistaken or attributed to difference in altitude:

"Overall body size and limb lengths relative to body size vary along an altitudinal gradient, with larger individuals from coastal environments and smaller individuals with relatively longer limbs for their size from higher elevations." (Weinstein; 2005)

AND:

"Living human populations from high altitudes in the Andes exhibit relatively short limbs compared with neighboring groups from lower elevations as adaptations to cold climates characteristic of high-altitude environments." (Weinstein; 2005)

AND:

"The variation of the topography of the Southern Levant has made the people's responses to environmental changes different from the responses of the people in Egypt. The topography of the Southern Levant adds a new demension to the environmental differences between the Southern Levant and Egypt." (Mahmout; 2009)

IN ADDITION TO:

"The argument from morphology depends on the presupposition that body proportions are to a large degree genetically controlled. The fact that contemporary African Americans do not have tropical limb proportions but have in a few hundred years changed to more European body proportions (through adaptation to new climate plus intermixture with Europeans and First Nations Peoples) puts this claim into perspective (Pat Shipman, adjunct professor of biological anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, personal communication, 14 May 2004)."

The change in limb ratios need not take thousands of years, only a couple hundred as seen amongst blacks while living in North America, fully explaining why Badarian and EPD Egyptians originally did not posses this trait yet having been found amongst their descendents in NK remains; it's indicative of adaptation to a geographic location, rather than gene flow or origins and since Egypt and Nubia have similar terrain and climate, an overlapping of the two territories would require similar adaptations to environment - therefore common adaptation cannot be discounted, nevermind the fact Egyptians were stated to be significantly different than U.S. blacks. There is also another simple explanation - of course, having nothing to do with origins:

"Hierakonpolis is a site in Upper Egypt that represents the transitional from Predynastic to the Dynastic periods (5000-3100 BC). This drastic social change to the formation of the Dynastic state was associated with the intensification of agriculture. These changes in the subsistence strategy should be reflected in the skeletons of the people. Stature is a measure not only of human health, but also of subsistence strategy and economy. In this study, the stature of 86 adult individuals (39 males and 47 females) from the HK43 Predynastic cemetery at Hierakonpolis was calculated and compared with the calculated stature from earlier El-Badari (6 males and 4 females) and with Abydos and Al-Amrah (11 males and 11 females) later sites. All these bones were measured using the same methods, and stature was computed using the same equations derived by Robins and Shute (1986) specificly for Egyptian samples. [b]The results show an increase of human stature from the Badarian period and slightly stable stature during the later periods. This can be explained as by health status being decreased during the intensification of agriculture resulting in the short stature of the Badarians and increasing during the later periods, including the societal transition to Pharonic society, with the development in agriculture.The increased availability of food during these later periods resulted in the relative stability of stature.'A.M. Khwaileh. Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas. 2005

"caution must be exercised when using postcranial elements to determine ancestry." (Tallman; 2005)

Now let brace explain what ecological principal indicates based on this fact: "In this regard it is interesting to note that limb proportions of Predynastic Naqada people in Upper Egypt are reported to be "Super-Negroid," meaning that the distal segments are elongated in the fashion of tropical Africans.....skin color intensification and distal limb elongation are apparent wherever people have been long-term residents of the tropics." (-- C.L. Brace, 1993. Clines and clusters..") Sorry about your luck.

"are reported to be" -- By Robins and Schute-- Brace doesn't condone such terminology and his study from whence you grabbed the above quote, utterly demolished any so-called "black" Egypt origins.

"Evidently, traits that are distributed in conjunction with the graded intensity of their controlling selective forces will be poor indicators of population relationships. (Darwin, 1859) ...The use of a characterization of a single trait that is under selective force control to generalize about any particular human population can only create confusion. - - - Brace emphasizes:

"It is obvious that both the Predynastic and the Late Dynastic Egyptians are more closely related to the European cluster than they are to any of the other major regional clusters in the world. ...The prehistoric sample from Naqada is also closely related to the more recent Egyptians as the first systematic study of their crania demonstrated (Fawcett and Lee) and this tie remains when we break the various groups down into their constituents and test the possibilities of finer local relationships....The groups from which membership was least likely to be excluded were the lumped Europeans and the Predynastic population from Upper Egypt, with P values of 0.837 and 0.110 respectively. When the Predynastic group was tested against the other 12, the probability that it could be excluded from modern Europeans was 0.390, and from the Late Dynastic sample it was 0.218, neither of which is significant....The indications of exclusion, however, are much easier to interpret. For example, the likelihood that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small-0.000 and 0.001. Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their cranio-facial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data, then, provide no support for the claim that there was a “strong negroid element” in Predynastic Egypt." (Asante, 1990; Morant, 1937; Randall-Mac Iver and Woolley, 1909; Strouhal, 1971)." (Brace; 1993)

As I've explained the sampling of highly variable African Americans is at issue with these comparisons. Some group right next to tropical Africans and some group a little distantly. In the analysis below they used the "Negro" equation to describe the ancient Egyptian limb proportions. "It can be seen that all the pharonic values, including those of 'Smakhare', lie much closer to the negro curve than to the white curve.Since stature equations only work satisfactorily in the individuals to whom they have applied have similar proportions to the population group from which they are derived, this provides justification for using negro equations for estimating stature from single bones of the New Kingdom pharoahs, renforcing the previous findings of Robins (1983). Furthermore, the Troller and Gleser white equations for the femur, tibia and humerus yield stature values that have a much wider spread than those from negro equations with mean values that are unacceptably large."--Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465 or "Estimates of living stature, based on X-ray measurements applied to the Trotter & Gleser (1958) negro equations for the femur, tibia and humerus, have been made for ancient Egyptian kings belonging to the 18th and 19th dynasties. The corresponding equations for whites give values for stature that are unsatisfactorily high. The view that Thutmose III was excessively short is proved to be a myth. It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."--Robins and Schute. The Physical Proportions and Stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs," Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465

The term "super-negroid" has nothing to do with race since the authors who coined the term said so:

“This does not mean that the ancient Egyptians were negroes; indeed, in their art they clearly distinguished between their own facial features and skin colour and those of people from further south.” (“Predynastic Egyptian Stature And Physical Proportions” Robins G, Shute CCD. 1986)

And the fact remains, as clearly stated aforesaid: "Badarians and Early Dynastic Egyptians did not possess "tropical limbs" they had short tibia (1) as per Zakrzewski (2003)" -- "Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length." What adaptively trivial traits ancient Egyptians' descendents acquired after the EPD and between NK to today is irrelevant, since modern Egyptians possess this characteristic as well.

"Changes to stature and/or body mass within a population over time as reflected in skeletal samples, can be interpreted as indicating a response to environmental stressors (e.g., resource availability, population density, disease, etc.) (Zakrzewski, 2003, 2007; Pfeiffer and Sealy, 2006; Stynder et al., 2007; Giannecchini and Moggi-Cecchi, 2008; Ginter, 2008)."--H.K. Kurki (2010)

And:

"Ancient Egyptians as a whole generally exhibit intermediate body breadths relative to higher and lower latitude populations, with Lower Egyptians possessing wider body breadths, as well as lower brachial and crural indices, compared to Upper Egyptians and Upper Nubians. This may suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments These results may also reflect the greater plasticity of limb length compared to body breadth. ...It can be seen that previous stature estimation methods tend to overestimate Egyptian stature for both sexes. The present studys stature estimates (bolded) are about 1-3 cm less than that of other studies for the same time periods, with an average 1.5 cm difference. New Kingdom pharaoh males may have been taller because of their higher status, however Robins and Shute (1983) used Trotter and Glesers (1958) equations for American Blacks to estimate their statures is the mean using regression formulae for the femur). Raxter et al. (2008) showed that although ancient Egyptians proportions are closer to American Blacks than they are to American Whites, they are not identical. Stature regression equations derived from American Black populations may therefore not be appropriate to estimate the statures of ancient Egyptians. ...The fact that limb proportions in ancient Egyptians are somewhat more “tropical” may reflect the greater lability of limb length compared to body breadth. The results may also suggest that Egyptians are closely related to circum-Mediterranean and/or Near Eastern groups and have retained those body breadths acquired earlier in time, but quickly developed limb length proportions more suited to their present very hot environments. The present results for bi-iliac breadth are also consistent with various genetic studies that have found modern Egyptians to have close affinities to Middle and Near Easterners (Manni et al., 2002; Arredi et al., 2004; Shepard and Herrera, 2006; Rowold et al., 2007) and Southern Europeans/Mediterranean groups (Capelli et al., 2006). Some of these authors suggested their results may have been associated with a diffusion from the Near East during the expansion of early food-producing societies (Arredi et al., 2004; Rowold et al., 2007)....MK, NK, and Roman-Byzantine Nubian males exhibit greater stature variation than their Egyptian counterparts from the same periods, with Nubian males possessing more variation compared to Nubian females. The greater variation in Nubian males may be indicative of greater in-migration of and intermarriage with foreign males. (Raxter; 2011)

The unscientific defunct "super-negroid" term is officially trashed. Ancestry and/or biological affinity is not determined by adaptable traits, but is established accurately only from the skull. Hence:

"The skull is considered to be the most useful part of the skeleton to utilize in the assessment of ancestry." (Howells 1973; Rhine 1993)

"Troller"? Afrocentrics give away their "location" all the time with this one, by copying garbage from Egyptsearch's own "Zarahan".

Another not job insisting on saying that a parent population really has the affinities of it's descendants (rather than visa versa....logically):
"What would account for this range of resemblances- infraspecific convergence, parallelism, admixture, chance or all of these? It is perhaps best to consider these findings as reflective primarily of an indigenous northeast African biological evolutionary history and diversity. Hiernaux (1975) reports that the range of values in selected metric units from populations in the northeast quadrant of Africa collectively largely overlaps the range found in the world. Given that this region may be the place from which modern humans left Africa, its people may have retained an overall more generalized craniometric pattern whose individual variants for selected variables may resemble a range of centroid values for non-African population values." -- S.O.Y. Keita, "On Meriotic Nubian Crania Fordisc 2.0, and Human Biological History." Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 3, June 2007

Take notice of the highlighted portions, your source (above) refutes your "position" de facto, in addition, back-migrations of Caucasoids into NE Africa from the Levant before and during the Neolithic contributed to Egypt's early state formation. Sub Saharans are not the same as North East Africans and Hiernaux's main contention is that Egyptians have always been a Mediterranean people:

"The relative anthropological stability of the farming population of Egypt has been traced back for at least five millennia. No major discontinuity appears in the osteological record between predynastic and dynastic skeletons, and between these and recent series."

Offspring/parents do resemble each other since craniofacial traits undeniably exhibit high heritability, in that we all tend to resemble our parents. (Sparks and Jantz 2002) "Taharqa" is willing to admit ancient Egyptians show similarity with Eurasian and European populations yet not with Sub Saharan populations, while claiming Egyptians descend from Sub Saharans. Such a "position" doesn't even make sense! This is why you avoided Zakrzewski 2003's statement of which the EPD Gebelein sample shows no biological relation to the later intrusive MK Nubian sample.

"The oldest known remains of Homo sapiens sapiens from North Africa are not early either: they are dated at 10,000 B.C. and are associated with a blade and microlith culture called the Ibero-Maurusian (or Mouillian). They have been found at a number of sites in north-west Africa, of which the two most important are Taforalt in Morocco and Afalou-Bou-Rhummel in Algeria. More than a hundred individuals are represented and they are usually described as Mechta or Mechta-Afalou group." (pg 41)

"This group, which is generally believed to have come from Spain or the Near East (although it could have evolved locally), resembles the Cro-Magnon population of Europe. They were tall and robust people, with a very large skull displaying heavy brow ridges, and a short and broad face. The main difference between them and their European counterparts lies in their wider nose." (pg 41) - your source Hiernaux.

Nubians hold an intermediary position between Egyptians and Somalis due to admixture -

"The Somali population was found to be genetically distinct from the other northeast African populations. Individuals from northern Sudan clustered together with those from Egypt, and individuals from southern Sudan clustered with those from the Karamoja population. The similarity of the Nubian and Egyptian populations suggest that migration, potentially bidirectional, occurred along the Nile river Valley, which is consistent with the historical evidence for long-term interactions between Egypt and Nubia. (Babiker; 2011)

or even Brace "An earlier generation of anthropologists tried to explain face form in the Horn of Africa as the result of admixture from hypothetical “wandering Caucasoids,” (Adams, 1967, 1979; MacGaffey, 1966; Seligman, 1913, 1915, 1934), but that explanation founders on the paradox of why that supposedly potent “Caucasoid” people contributed a dominant quantity of genes for nose and face form but none for skin color or limb proportions. It makes far better sense to regard the adaptively significant features seen in the Horn of Africa as solely an in situ response on the part of separate adaptive traits to the selective forces present in the hot dry tropics of eastern Africa. From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation in pigment by latitude in the New World and that 50,000 years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings of a gradation in Australia (Brace, 1993a), one would have to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of thousands of years. NOW HERE IS THE PART "TAHARQA" DELIBERATELY OMITTED:----"ON THE OTHER HAND, the residual similarity of craniofacial configurations between the Somalis and people farther north suggests that genetic exchange has been more continuous along that axis than with peoples farther west in Sub-Saharan Africa."

Again, another example of dishonesty, omitting/excluding information that doesn't run parallel to your ideology, obviously based on deep-seated animosity towards Europeans/Eurasians. There is no other reason.

"There is the very real possibility, for example, that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing of a population that come from somewhere else...As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of samples marginally including South Asia and running all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa....The measurements were principally of adaptively trivial traits that display patterns of regional similarities based solely on genetic relationships. The Predynastic of Upper Egypt and the Late Dynastic of Lower Egypt are more closely related to each other than to any other population. As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania, or the New World. Adjacent people in the Nile valley show similarities in trivial traits in an unbroken series from the delta in the north southward through Nubia and all the way to Somalia at the equator. At the same time, the gradient in skin color and body proportions suggests long-term adaptive response to selective forces appropriate to the latitude where they occur. An assessment of “race” is as useless as it is impossible. Neither clines nor clusters alone suffice to deal with the biological nature of a widely distributed population. Both must be used. We conclude that the Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well." (Brace; 1993)

"More recent is the fact, already suspected at Soleb by G. Billy and M.C. Chamla, that in Nubia, the nasal index, originally identical to European values, then increases considerably to attain the figures observed in Central Africa. This phenomenon of nasal enlargement is not, in Nubia, related to the humidification of the climate since on the contrary it has gotten more arid, and thus highlights genetic exchanges, in the sense of a greater contribution from Black Africa; leave it to archaeology to correlate this change with cultural developments." (Froment; 1994)

There's a reason you chose to deliberately exclude the information when it doesn't suit you, and when you fail to include it, you are either taking information out of context, manipulating it, or making off the cuff remarks that your sources do not agree with or support.

"Around 39,000–52,000 years ago, the western Asian branch spread radially, bringing Caucasians to North Africa and Europe..." (Maca-Meyer et al; 2001)

"Attested presence of Caucasian people in northern Africa goes up to Paleolithic times...("Maca-Meyer et al; 2003)

"The expansion of Caucasians in Africa has been correlated with the spread and diversification of Afroasiatic languages" (Maca-Meyer et al; 2003)

"The Nile River delta population is mainly Caucasian in origin" (Herrera et al; 2004)

"North African populations are distinct from sub-Saharan Africans based on cultural, linguistic, and phenotypic attributes." (Henn et al; 2012)

"the M1 and U6 haplogroups, originated simultaneously in western Asia... and spread together with modern humans into northern Africa... These early populations may represent the root-stock of the early settlers/inhabitants of the Eastern Sahara who were subsequently to people the Nile Valley, and build one of the first organized civilized states – the Egyptian pharaonic Empire. (Aubry et al; 2008)

“We examined radiographs of 12 Egyptian royal mummies obtained by two of the authors (W.R. and J.E.H.) and never before published.... These people were Caucasian." (Braunstein et al; 1988)

All studies are in agreement, it's Afrocentrics that show a complete lack in basic comprehension and reading - or an intent to deceive and mislead by deliberately and intentionally omitting and editing out the crux of information being relayed in scientific papers.

[Ramses II]

Rhinoplasty, skin bleaching, fake hair can work wonders, it did for Iman Mohamed Abdulmajid



"The Somali population was found to be genetically distinct from the other northeast African populations." (Babiker; 2011)

[Ramses II]

Random skim

from post #42

I've never understood why some people continue to suggest that because the corpse of Ramses II and a couple of other mummies have extremely out of place hair colors (bleach blond to auburn) that they were somehow a displaced " --------END NONSENSE.

After that long garbled rant about hair, why don't you entertain us with a pic of a pure/umixed indegenous tropical negroid with long straight natural hair. I doubt you will. Nor would you be willing to explain why Maiherpri the Nubian has typical negroid hair (wig or not) as expected from someone of "tropical" origin, as opposed to Ramses II who does not. Their hair and phenotypes set them apart.

And then, you cite a study that deals specifically with, not an Egyptian mummy, but a female Greek mummy from Thessaloniki dated to 1700BP in yet another blatant attempt to mislead:

Journal of Archaeological Science doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.07.003 Indications of embalming in Roman Greece by physical, chemical and histological analysis "The current colour of the hair is brown with reddish highlights, a common observation on many mummies, and probably originated through post-mortem alteration (Aufderheide, 2003; Wilson et al., 2001). Sun-exposure, bacterial reaction, and embalming methods are some of the factors that may affect the original hair colour. As a result, hair that was originally black or brown exhibits reddish, orange or even blond colour due to post mortem alterations. All human hair, however, does not turn red over archaeological time-scales (Wilson, 2001). Based on the histological analysis of the unstained hair samples, the limited fungal influence, and the macroscopic view, it can be assumed that the original hair colour was brown. Similar cases of hair preservation have been reported in studies of both mummified and non-mummified human remains (Aufderheide, 2003; Brothwell and Dobney, 1986; Lubec et al., 1987; White, 1993; Wilson et al., 2002, 2007b)."

All human hair, however, does not turn red over archaeological time-scales (Wilson, 2001)" Your own source, again, refutes your position. Even you are well familiar with the fact Ramses II hair was not the result of embalming material, but that it was dyed red in old age to retain his youthful appearance. Nor does your source explain away or take into account why the royals had straight/wavy hair as opposed to nappy/coiled hair -- as expected of a "tropical"/"black" population you continue to erroneously insist. Many naturally mummified bodies are discovered with genuine blonde or brown hair. But I suppose you're going to next concoct a story insisting that unmixed pure "tropical" negroids can have naturally straight/wavy hair, in addition to it being red, blonde or brown - - along with Caucasoid facial features to boot. I haven't found a negroid tribe yet that exhibits such characteristics. Good luck in your futile attempt.

[QUOTE["Modern scientific analysis of his [Ramses II] hair-roots has confirmed that in his youth the king was indeed a natural red-head." (Tyldesley; 2001)

“In 1975 a 105 member team of scientists led by Lionel Baloud “restored” the mummy of Rameses II (c. 12790-1213 B.C.) and concluded, among many other points, that his hair was of the “European” type. Some Egyptologists even maintain that Rameses II’s hair was also red, rather than dyed red.” (Najovits; 2004)

“Ramses II mummy’s hair is confined to a temporo-occipital zone which corresponds to an advanced stage of baldness. Hairs are slightly crimped and show an oval cross-section, the great axis of which lies between 60 and 70 urn: they are specific of a cymotrich leucoderm.” (“Scientifique à l'égyptologique” Lionel, Balout; Roubert, C., Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, 1985)

"Joann Fletcher, a consultant to the Bioanthropology Foundation in the UK, in what she calls an "absolute, thorough study of all ancient Egyptian hair samples" — relied on various techniques, such as electron microscopy and chromatography to analyze hair samples. She discovered that most of the natural hair types and those used for hairpieces were made of what she calls "Caucasian-type" hair, including even instances of blonde and red hair. Fletcher surmises that some of the lighter hair types may have been influenced by the presence of ancient Libyans and Greeks in ancient Egypt. However, this type of hair was also found to be present in much earlier times." (Parks, Lisa. May 29, 2000. Ancient Egyptians Wore Wigs. Egypt Revealed Magazine)

"Following the latest season at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43, the anticipation felt while writing the article “Hair: Unraveling the Secrets of the Locks!” has proven to be fully justified. The work itself has involved analysis of the numerous hair samples taken during the 1997 season and new material as it was uncovered on site on an almost daily basis in 1998, with results even more significant than we could have hoped for. Work in the lab next to the courtyard began with material discovered last season; the assorted packages and containers each carefully unwrapped to reveal a whole range of fascinating hair samples. These were examined microscopically and latest discoveries under the microscope would be discussed with those made in the field, followed up by animated, if often rather unsavory, lunch-time conversations on everything from head lice to armpit hair. The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. Samples ranged from a single hair to a complete headful, with the largest number originating from the disturbed Burial no. 16, the Mudira (the directress), a female of around 35+ years of age, discovered at the end of last season." (Nekhen News 9, page 4; 1998)

“Hair was predominately used to construct the wigs and false braids which served as items of daily and funerary attire throughout the Pharaonic period (Fletcher 1995). The hair employed for this purpose was specifically human hair, and in almost every case can be identified as cynotrichous (Caucasian) rather than heliotrichous (Negroid) (Hrdy 1978; Titlbachova and Titlbach 1977; Brunton 1937; el-Tatrawi 1935).” (“Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology Paul Nicholson, Ian Shaw 2000)

"We are able to form a very precise idea of the structure of the body of the Proto-Egyptian (First Egyptians) … it presented no resemblance whatever to the so-called ‘woolly’ appearance and peppercorn-like arrangement of the Negro’s hair.” (The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence Upon European Civilization, 1911, G. Eliott Smith, Professor of Anatomy in the University of Manchester, England.)[/QUOTE]

Embalmed or not. Natural or dyed. The racial composition and color of the hair can still be determined no matter what state it's in, your own source says so!



#42

"From a scientific perspective the concept of "race" is invalid,"

The hypocrisy and idiocy contained in your exchange is laughable. Are you so inept as a thinker and debater that you believe the existence of race debate has no bearing on a debate in which racial classification is the underlining issue?

You've repeatedly told us Egypt was "black" "black" "black" however, you now claim "black" is an invalid classification. You attached a label that you now deem arbitrary. Since "negroes" or "blacks" do not exist, according to your own admission, ancient Egyptians could not have been "negroes" or "blacks". So this is fraud on your part since *you* claim negroid/black does not exist.

If true science does not validate "race" why are you arguing in favor of ancient Egyptians resembling a non-existent pseudo-scientific "social construct?" Your hypocrisy, double-standards and outright lies - all exposed in previous posts - is an affront to the scholarly debate you demand of your opponents. There is no logic in refuting a position that is inherently invalid by your own admission.

The south is also where the Egyptian civilization originated and where the vast majority of ancient Egypt's populations resided prior to the New Kingdom.

I've seen nothing from you yet which comes to that conclusion. "The south" is a vague remark, and you offer no evidence in support of it. The oldest habitation was in the north (discussed already). And Keita, who you quoted earlier is in complete disagreement with you.

"Lower Nubia had a much smaller population than Egypt, which is important to consider in writing of the historical biology of the population" (Keita; 2005)

Comments like this generated laughter in this seminar of Kemet at Manchester (UK), who have recently accepted and embrace the fact that ancient Egypt (or Kemet) was a black African civilization.

Sally-Ann Ashton (nor her photographer lackey) couldn't even support nor was willing to defend her laughable position in a basic email exchange. Notably, in the 14:53 waste you posted, Ashton failed to reference a single source in support of her claims.

And the "comments" you fallaciously attribute the "laughter" - of a black audience she is appealing to, (in addition to a black prison population according to the website) have nothing to do with a "black" Egypt but Astons' erroneous conclusion, in fantasizing Cleopatra as some sort of mulatto.

Black Cleopatra Debunked:




Refuting 'Black to Kemet' Fitzwilliam Museum expo:




Egyptians: Which Side of the Vase?:

[Ramses II]

Originally Posted by Belisarius
5) The royal mummies have caucasoid features

You are incorrect once again:

We see who is "incorrect" once the deliberately edited portion is inserted right back in its rightful and proper context:

"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results (Keita, 1990). This pattern is seen in both group and unknown analyses... - THE PART "TAHARQA" DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED ---->However, lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity. The Maghrebian affinities may be difficult to interpret, given that this series contains a range of variation from tropical African to European metric phenotypes (Keita, 1990). It is not possible to say, because of the complex geometry of the multivariate method (Blakith and Reyment, 1971), what more specific affinities individual crania may have. The Maghreb series does have a modal pattern most similar to late lower dynastic Egyptians (Keita, 1990). The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value [/U]on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern.It is clear however from the unknown analyses that the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series. Badari crania analyzed in this fashion revealed few or none which classified into the northern-Egyptian groups (Keita, 1990). This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes. As noted earlier, Howells’ work (1973) also demonstrates this, and Howells notes the difference with the Nakada predynastic group. The Abydos crania as a series do have continuity with the southern pattern, but change occurs. The notable increase in northern pattern crania in the south, from Badari times, might have a selection explanation, but the essentially bimodal nature of the presence of the contrasting trends suggests the presence of “real” northerners. Conditions in southern Upper Egypt between Badari and First Dynasty periods would not seem to have favored genetic drift; exogamy is postulated during Nakada times (Hassan, 19881, and this would tend to oppose the effects of drift, especially when coupled with an increasing population.. The effects of admixture and/or heterosis on classification are unknown. (North-south hybrids may classify as northerners.)

Archaeology and history seem to provide the most parsimonious explanation for the variation in the royal tombs at Abydos.. Tomb design suggests the presence of northerners in the south in late Nakada times (Hoffman, 1988) when the unification probably took place. Delta names are attached to some of the tombs at Abydos (Gardiner, 1961; Yurco, 1990, personal communication), thus perhaps supporting Petrie's (1939) and Gardiner's contention that north-south marriages were undertaken to legitimize the hegemony of the south. The courtiers of northern elites would have accompanied them.

Given all of the above, it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time. Southern elites and/or their descendants eventually came to be buried in the north (Hoffman, 1988). Hence early Second Dynasty kings and Djoser (Dynasty 111) (Hayes, 1953) and his descendants are not buried in Abydos. Petrie (1939) states that the Third Dynasty, buried in the north, was of Sudanese origin, but southern Egypt is equally likely. This perhaps explains Harris and Weeks' (1973) suggested findings of southern morphologies in some Old Kingdom Giza remains, also verified in portraiture (Drake, 1987). Further study would be required to ascertain trends in the general population of both regions. The strong Sudanese affinity noted in the unknown analyses may reflect the Nubian interactions with upper Egypt in predynastic times prior to Egyptian unification (Williams, 1980,1986)..." (S. Keita (1992) Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254)

Belisarius is clearly discussing the royal mummies from KV that we're all familiar with and have seen pictures of, - not the Abydos tombs, which aren't, according to your source, Keita, representative of Egyptians. The bulk of Keita's papers have been refuted and debunked by many geneticists and anthropologists alike, but what you fail to comprehend is that Keita, above, at least according to the properly cited full and unedited version, differentiates between "southern" :"Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant)"... and Egyptian: "lower Egyptian, Maghrebian, and European patterns are observed also, thus making for great diversity." your first mistake in this is failing to catch on when Keita stated: "it is probably not possible to view the Abydos royal tomb sample as representative of the general southern Upper Egyptian population of the time.". And Keita's "southern tropical's" have a "greater number" exhibiting non "southern" i.e.: "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns: hence: [i] "the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series." So your very own source Keita employs the term European when discussing ancient Egyptian crania, and you both got caught lumping these European and other "non tropical" crania in with "tropical variants". You've made a desperate attempt in trying to equate Egyptians as "black" yet your own source liberally uses the term "European"!

Again, you have deliberately and intentionally misled the readers/observers of this thread by editing out and omitting key factors, in a blatant attempt to distort the information. Did you think no one would notice?!

In one breath, Keita remarks:"predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern'" but in the next, "the Abydos centroid value is explained primarily by the relatively greater number of crania with northern-Egyptian-Maghreb and European patterns in the series."

Petrie bases his conclusions for "Sudanese origin" on a single statue, not human remains: "Petrie's (1939) interpretation of the Third Dynasty as having come from the Sudan is based on portraiture." (International Journay of Anthropology; 1995)

"Petrie (1939), discoverer of the type site (Petrie and Quibell,1896), believed the Naqada were non-Egyptians from the west." (Irish; 2006)

Again, this is another example demonstrating and exposing the nasty little charade "Taharqa" is guilty of. The constant omissions and deletions of pertinent information is a routine pattern with this user who so obviously has an agenda to push here and that agenda is to paint a distorted picture in agreement with a racist black supremacist ideology, not one based on facts or reality as obviously revealed here.

[Ramses II]

Random skim

I'd say that this must have either been the result of a very ancient back migration or there is indeed a possibility that R originated in Africa. I think that one way to test the latter out would be to test these African populations with these high frequencies of R for Neanderthal ancestry which according to recent studies all non Africans or people with non African ancestry have. If these results were to come back negative then geneticist would most definitely have to reconsider their proposal for the origins of R. Just my opinion though.

What's this^? A desperate attempt to hijack an European/Eurasian haplogroup?

The cooler climate and over-exploitation of resources led to the failure of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic in the Levant. Some Near Eastern farmers crossed Sinai into North Africa around 6,000 BC, taking sheep, goats, wheat and barley with them. That agro-pastoralist dispersal has been linked to subclades of the Y haplogroups E1b and R1b. It seems that these early farmers spread one branch of the Afroasiatic language family - African North Afrasian - which includes Ancient Egyptian, the Berber languages of North Africa and the Chadic languages of West Central Africa. There is a strong correlation between the Chadic languages and a subclade of R1b1 discovered by Fulvio Cruciani and colleagues, defined by marker V88. Its distribution suggests that it migrated south across the Sahara as the region gradually turned drier, leaving a pocket of V88 in what is now the Siwa oasis near the western border of Egypt.B.Arredi et al, Apredominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variationin North Africa,American Journal of Human Genetics, vol. 75, no.2(2004), pp.338-45; F. Cruciani et al., Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages, European Journal of Human Genetics (2010)

"lineages belonging to Eurasian haplogroup R have been found in northern Cameroon and have been claimed to result from back migrations from Eurasia into Africa" (Cruciani et al. 2002).

"A remarkable finding of our study is the substantial number of individuals belonging to haplogroup R1b1* (5.2%). Surprisingly, it has been previously observed in northern Cameroon (40%) at high frequencies (Cruciani et al. 2002) and at lower frequencies in southern Cameroon (1.12%) (Cruciani et al. 2002), Oman (1%), Egypt (2%), and Hutu from Rwanda (1%) (Luis et al. 2004). The presence of this lineage in Africa has been claimed to be a genetic signature of a possible backflow migration from west Asia into Africa (Cruciani et al. 2002). Here we observe R1b1* in 12 Bantu-agriculturalist populations (ranging from 2% to 20%) and in two Pygmy individuals. A network of R1b1* haplotypes performed using STR data (fig. 2) shows two main clusters, without any population structure. Interestingly, the estimated expansion time for these haplotypes—7,000 years (SD 8,100)—precedes the time at which the Bantu expansion occurred. ... the common paternal lineages found in west Central African samples are essentially recent. Only traces of haplogroup A and basal E-M96 are found in both groups, but these haplogroups only account for 5% and 10%, respectively, in Pygmies and 0.5% and 1% in Bantu agriculturalists. This lack of ancient paternal lineages among west Central Africans suggests that the Bantu expansion erased most of the ancient diversity present in the region before the massive demic expansion. In addition, these results clearly indicate that the consequences of the Bantu expansion are more visible from the paternal side than from the maternal side, suggesting that the demic movements associated with the Bantu expansion involved more males than females. ...The presence of this haplogroup in the region is especially puzzling given that, according to the known Y-chromosome phylogeny (Underhill et al. 2000), the geographic origin of the R1b lineage is situated Eurasia and not in Africa. Its sporadic presence, although at low frequencies, in some African populations has been proposed to result from back migrations from Eurasia into Africa during ancient times." (Berniell-Lee; 2009)

"Although human Y chromosomes belonging to haplogroup R1b are quite rare in Africa, being found mainly in Asia and Europe, a group of chromosomes within the paragroup R-P25* are found concentrated in the central-western part of the African continent, where they can be detected at frequencies as high as 95%. Phylogenetic evidence and coalescence time estimates suggest that R-P25* chromosomes (or their phylogenetic ancestor) may have been carried to Africa by an Asia-to-Africa back migration in prehistoric times. Here, we describe six new mutations that define the relationships among the African R-P25* Y chromosomes and between these African chromosomes and earlier reported R-P25 Eurasian sub-lineages. The incorporation of these new mutations into a phylogeny of the R1b haplogroup led to the identification of a new clade (R1b1a or R-V88) encompassing all the African R-P25* and about half of the few European/west Asian R-P25* chromosomes. A worldwide phylogeographic analysis of the R1b haplogroup provided strong support to the Asia-to-Africa back-migration hypothesis. The analysis of the distribution of the R-V88 haplogroup in >1800 males from 69 African populations revealed a striking genetic contiguity between the Chadic-speaking peoples from the central Sahel and several other Afroasiatic-speaking groups from North Africa. The R-V88 coalescence time was estimated at 9200–5600?kya, in the early mid Holocene. We suggest that R-V88 is a paternal genetic record of the proposed mid-Holocene migration of proto-Chadic Afroasiatic speakers through the Central Sahara into the Lake Chad Basin, and geomorphological evidence is consistent with this view. ("Human Y chromosome haplogroup R-V88: a paternal genetic record of early mid Holocene trans-Saharan connections and the spread of Chadic languages Fulvio Cruciani 2010)

"An interesting finding is the presence of the non-African haplogroup R (including haplogroups R1b and R1*) in the Bantu population of the Fang." ("Insights into the Y Chromosome variation in central-west Africa")

"Men belonging to Haplogroup R1b are direct descendants of the Cro-Magnon people who, beginning 30,000 years ago, dominated the human expansion into Europe and heralded the demise of the Neanderthal species," Wells said. SYDNEY, February 4, 2010 (AFP)

"R1b1a is found in northern Cameroon in west central Africa at a very high frequency, where it is considered to be caused by a pre-Islamic movement of people FROM EURASIA." "A back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan Africa is supported by high-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome haplotypes."
"In January 2010, we published in this journal a report1 on the frequency distribution of the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b1a (R-V88) in Africa, where it can be found at frequencies as high as about 90%. This haplogroup (or its ancestor) most likely traces its origins back to Eurasia, but is presently found very rarely outside Africa." European Journal of Human Genetics 18, 1186-1187 (November 2010) | doi:10.1038/ejhg.2010.89

"The aim of the present work was to study the origin of paternal and maternal lineages in Guinea-Bissau population, inferred by phylogeographic analyses of mtDNA and Y chromosome defined haplogroups. To determine the male lineages present in Guinea-Bissau, 33 unrelated males were typed using a PCR-SNaPshot multiplex based method including 24 Y-SNPs, which characterize the main haplogroups in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Europe. In the same samples, 17 Y-STRs (included in the YFiler kit, Applied Biosystems) were additionally typed. The most frequent lineages observed were E1b1a (xE1b1a4,7)-M2 (68%) and E1a-M33 (15%). The European haplogroup R1b1-P25 was represented with a frequency of 12%. The two hypervariable mtDNA regions were sequenced in 79 unrelated individuals from Guinea-Bissau, and haplogroups were classified based on control region motifs using mtDNA manager. A high diversity of haplogroups was determined in our sample being the most frequent haplogroups characteristic of populations from sub-Saharan Africa, namely L2a1 (15%), L3d (13%), L2c (9%), L3e4 (9%), L0a1 (8%), L1b (6%) and L1c1 (6%). None of the typical European haplogroups (H, J and T) were found in the present sample of Guinea-Bissau. From our results, it is possible to confirm that Guinea-Bissau presents a typically West African profile, marked by a high frequency of the Y chromosome haplogroup E1b1a(xE1b1a4,7)-M2 and a high proportion of mtDNA lineages belonging to the sub-Saharan specific sub-clusters L1 to L3 (89%). A small European influx has been also detected, although restricted to the male lineages." (Carvalho et al; 2010)

They only tested five people for Neanderthal DNA. Two were Sub Saharan - a San and Yoruba. These hardly constitute as representative of all Sub Saharan Africans, let alone Africans in general.

[Ramses II]

Random skim

Post #32

"With that being said, recent genetic anaylsis postulate that J1 may have originated in East Africa/Ethiopia:"

You were singing a different tune in post #11- odd you didn't have any objection to Scheinfeldt when you quoted her:

"haplogroup J (M267) appears to have arisen in the Middle East over 20 kya and subsequently spread into northern Africa (38)." Scheinfeldt 2010"

J1 is a descendent of J which originated in the ME.


Other geneticists relate the same findings:

"According to this interpretation, the first migration, probably in Neolithic times, brought J-M267 [J1] to Ethiopia" (Semino et al; 2004)

"The origin of Haplogroup J maps to the Middle East around the ‘Fertile Crescent’ an area also known as the ‘Cradle of Civilization’" (Genebase.com 2010)

"Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East. (Pereira; 2009)

J1 "a prevalant Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East... frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian poopulations" (Chironi et al; 2010)

Looks like someone didn't do their homework.

[Ramses II]

Attachment 5475Attachment 5474 Attachment 5476 Attachment 5477 Attachment 5478 Notice the broad African features of many of these of these pharaohs:

It's clear and conclusive that these ancient Africans were indeed "black". That's not to say that individuals from elsewhere (non African) were not in ancient Egypt, but what is clearly proven is that the populations base of ancient Egypt was of Afrasian and Nilotic (black African) origins.

Lovell has been debunked - as well as Keita concerning limb rations. See Raxter 2011.

But since you quoted Lovell...

“Certainly our data are not incompatible with the argument from Tishkoff et al. (1996) that an element of the contemporary Ethiopian population may be descendants of the ancestral population that spawned the migration out of Africa. We also argue, however, that in addition to this early bottleneck event, later periods of admixture have played a major role in shaping the gene pool of Ethiopia, and its populations display both Eurasian and Sub-Saharan genetic influences.” (Lovell et al)

“Ethiopia: between Sub-Saharan Africa and Western Eurasia.” (Lovell et al., Annals of Human Genetics 2005 69,275–287)

What I see, is a deliberately orchestrated attempt at replicating the same imagery, in addition, using unpainted wooden statues that darken over time as well as depending on the color of the rock employed, unpainted black basalt, as an attempt to claim Egyptians as "black" while the phenotypes say differently. Now for painted imagery:

[Ramses II]

Random skim

From post #38

I did not purposely try to mislead you or anyone else."

That's one hell of an understatement. All you've done is purposely mislead. Here are two more random examples I took the time to investigate, exposing the type games Afrocentrics such as "Taharqa" engage. They deliberately use snippets as seen below by "Taharqa" presenting a distorted view while ignoring the larger picture as it disagrees with their preconceived personal/racial views.

EXAMPLE #1: From "Taharqa's post #15

"a critical factor in the rise of social complexity and the subsequent emergence of the Egyptian state in Upper Egypt (Hoffman 1979; Hassan 1988). If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still
distinguish it from its neighbors to the east." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17, 97-123 (1998), "Nabta Playa and Its Role in Northeastern African Prehistory," Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild.

Below, continuing from the last sentence (above) which "Taharqa" deliberately excluded:



"If so, Egypt owes a major debt to those early pastoral groups in the Sahara; they may have provided Egypt with many of those features that still distinguish it from its neighbors to the east. While tempting, this hypothesis must be viewed with caution. Many features which characterize the ceremonial aspects of the regional center at Nabta are as yet unknown in the Nile Valley. These include the megalithic alignments, the megalithic structures and worked table rocks, cattle burials in chambers built in stone-covered tumuli, and calendar circles. One of the fascinating aspects of the evidence for the working of large stones is that it seems to anticipate later Egyptian developments. If the Saharan people contributed significantly to the rise of complexity in the Predynastic, the precise nature of those contribution has yet to be defined."

Simple investigation shows "Taharqa's" own sources refute his contentions. And we already know, as stated in previous posts and based on the most recent data, Pastoralism originated in the ME, along with the livestock that accompanied it. Further, it would explain, who it was that brought it there - Nabta Playa had two distinct populations - yet you won't find Afrocentrics admitting such:

"Judging from the elaborate burials at the nearby cemetery at Gebel Ramlah about 20 km from Nabta Playa, the nomads associated with the ceremonial centre were prosperous and healthy, possessing a strong aesthetic sense and interested in preserving and honouring their dead.7,6,8 Since it is a rare opportunity
to learn about people associated with such an early ceremonial centre, it seems worthwhile describing these prehistoric herdsmen in some detail. The cemetery contained 67 individuals in both primary and secondary inhumations. The most reliable carbon date is from bone collagen giving us 4360 BC + 60 years. Inspection of dental features indicates that two different populations, Mediterranean and sub-Saharan, were represented in the cemetery." (Malville et al; 2007)

EXAMPLE #2 - from "Taharqa's" post #36

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). Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246

This is not one simple direct quote, but run-on sentences for which the reader has to discern who made these actual statements... hence the lack of quote marks attribted to their references. Wendorf is mentioned several times, but what's notable, Wendorf has been refuted and debunked, yet despite this, Keita deliberately
insists on using outdated, debunked information in attempts to mislead the public. Wengrow 2003 exposes Wendorf and Schild's dirty little deed:

"For over a decade now, the fieldwork of the Combined Prehistoric Expedition in Egypt’s south-western desert has been a source of heated controversy, owing to their claim for a local domestication of African cattle in this region during the Early Holocene. The main proponents of this view, Professors Wendorf & Schild, had their fingers badly burned during the 1980s over claims for local cereal domestication in the Late Palaeolithic Nile valley, which were based upon an intrusive sample, eventually exposed through their own scrupulous application of accelerator mass spectrometry dating."(Wengrow; 2003)

"A frequently quoted theory is Fred Wendorf's idea that some domestic bovids were living at Nabta Playa in the Egyptian Oriental Desert during the 7th millennium BC (Wendorf 1987, 1994), but it has been serverly questioned (Muzzolini 1989:9-10; Smith 1992:44). Not only does the latest synthesis published by Wendorf on
this topic not answer criticism, but it does not epound any new argument (Wendorf, Schild et al. 2002), and gives the impression that the facts have been somewhat adjusted to a still unproved hypothesis becoming less and less acceptable." (Wengrow 2003) (Le Quellec; 2006)

"Most authors agree that ovicaprids were domesticated more than 8000 years ago, then introduced into Africa from the Levant (Clutton-Brock 1993; Brewer et al. 1994:90; Camps 1998:15-16, Bradley et al. 1998:85; Hassan 2000:15; Luikart et al. 2001; MacHugh and Bradley 2001; Close 2002:69; Gautier 2002:201) ... It has often been said that domestic sheep and goats would have been introduced through the north of the Sinai, as this is the only terrestrial way towards the Nile Delta. Then they would have moved towards the west along the Mediterranean coast, as they are located at the end of the Libyco-Capsian at Haua Fteah in the Jebel el-Akhdar (Cyrenaica, Libya) around 6800BP." (Le Quellec; 2006)

"The archaeo-zoological records show the absence of continuity with the Late Acacus phase. This can be seen as an evidence of the external provenance of domestic ovicaprines, which were widespread in South-Western Asia while absent in Africa during all the Pleistocene. Bones of sheep and goats have in fact often been recovered between 7,300-7,000 years B.P. in a wide area, from the Red Sea to the Acacus itself (Di Lernia and Liverani 2004). Ovicaprines were probably introduced by Pastoral groups coming from East, who were forced to move westwards because of the increasing aridity in the North-Eastern regions of Africa, driven by the search of water and pastures." (Rickards; 2008)

Further, the last sentence has nothing to do with "Keita and Boyce, Genetics, Egypt, And History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation, History in Africa 32 (2005) 221-246" so why this is attributed to him is misleading. In "Taharqa's Keita 2005 quote (above), Keita cites Williams several times as some sort of "poof" of Egypts (debunked) southern origins yet even Williams has been refuted and debunked throughout the years by leading authorities on the subject:

"The A-Group civilization and adaptation of pharaonic imagery and use of Egyptian style royal titulary and possibly hieroglyphic symbols in connection with the kingship emerged full-blown in the Classi/Terminal period. The development of pharaonic iconography and symbols, and the hieroglyphic writing system is
firmly rooted in indigenous cultural and social processes in Egypt. There is thus no evidence to support the contention that the A-Group culture was the fount of the institutions of pharaonic kingship."(Wegner; 1996)

"with numerous slate palettes, mace heads, and stone vessels in the material culture of contemporary Egypt. There is no comparable corpus of stone in the material culture of the A-Group Nubians. The archaeological evidence further suggests that the Egyptians were responsible for the destruction and eventual dissappearance of the A-Group culture. This archaeologically suggested set of circumstances becomes difficult to reconcile if the Nubians of the period were the actual progenitors of pharaonic civilization, as initial interpretaions of the Qustul incense burner suggested. It is advisable, therefore, to regard this object as a royal Egyptian gift, sent to a chieftain of Qustul, in order to cement mercantile relationships between the two courts." (Bianchi; 2004)

"The scholar who published the tomb claimed that these distinctly royal elements predated evidence from Egypt and suggested that the idea of kingship originated in Nubia and then inspired Egypt. Later research showed, however, that the Qustul tomb was the same date as the Late Predynastic royal-style tombs of Egypt.
Because there is evidence of the processes that led to state formation in Egypt and not in Nubia, it is much more probable that Egyptian events influenced Nubia rather than the other way around." (Van De Mieroop; 2011)

And here, in the same paper "Taharqa" quoted from, Keita makes another deliberate attempt in trying to avoid the obvious by claiming Eurasian haplogroups as "African":

“It might be likely that the greater percentage of haplotypes called “Eurasian” are predominantly, although not solely, of indigenous African origin… Early hunting and gathering paleolithic populations can be modeled as having roamed between northern Africa and Eurasia, leaving an asymmetrical distribution of various derivative variants over a wide region, giving the appearance of Eurasian incursion.” (“Genetics, Egypt, And history: Interpreting Geographical Patterns Of Y Chromosome Variation” Keita, Boyce; 2005)

And that's how Keita skirts around the fact that Eurasians inhabited North Africa.

[Ramses II]

Another random skim

From post #27

This study seems to suggest that West African populations (Fulani) share a common allele with European. It should be interesting to note that the Fulani T-13910 predates the allele which is seen in Europe. Now what exactly does this have to do with a Middle Eastern origin for Afro-Asiatic?

That's another lie. The T-13910 gene does NOT "predate" that of Europe, and I'd like to see "Taharqa" provide us with a study stating such!

"The process by which pastoralism and agriculture spread from the Fertile Crescent over the past 10,000 years has been the subject of intense investigation by geneticists, linguists and archaeologists. However, no consensus has been reached as to whether this Neolithic transition is best characterized by a demic diffusion (with a significant genetic input from migrating farmers) or a cultural diffusion (without substantial migration of farmers). Milk consumption and thus lactose tolerance are assumed to have spread with pastoralism and we propose that by looking at the relevant mutations in and around the lactase gene in human populations, we can gain insight into the origin(s) and spread of dairying. We genotyped the putatively causal allele for lactose tolerance (–13910T) and constructed haplotypes from several polymorphisms in and around the lactase gene (LCT) in three North African Berber populations and compared our results with previously published data. We found that the frequency of the –13910T allele predicts the frequency of lactose tolerance in several Eurasian and North African Berber populations but not in most sub-Saharan African populations. Our analyses suggest that contemporary Berber populations possess the genetic signature of a past migration of pastoralists from the Middle East and that they share a dairying origin with Europeans and Asians, but not with sub-Saharan Africans." (Myles; 2005)

"there is some evidence of shared recent ancestry (i.e., gene flow) between the Fulani and Eurasian populations based on the presence of particular mtDNA (J1b, U5, H, and V) (3) and NRY (R-M173) (4) haplogroups, and the T-13910 European-specific lactase persistence allele in the Fulani." Tishkoff et al 2011

In addition your source Scheinfeld 2010 states:

" In Europeans, the most common mutation associated with lactase persistence is thought to be a regulatory mutation located upstream of the gene that encodes LPH (a T at position -13910), within intron 13 of the neighboring MCM6 gene (56, 58). Further,this mutation is located within a large linkage disequilibrium block that is thought to have arisen ~20–2 kya, consistent with recent positive selection related to the emergence of cattle domestication and milk consumption ~10 kya in the Middle East(59, 60)."

[Taharqa]

1.You have no evidence, and your "common sense" has no standing. 1. The chart you provided places the supposed origin for Afro-Asiatic in East Africa, not Sub Sahara.

What does rather or not it's in "Sub Saharan" Africa have to do with anything? Are you insinuating that no black people live in Saharan or Northern Africa? Have you ever heard of the genocide of Darfur? Do you know where Darfur is, well it's not in "Sub Saharan" Africa. The Chadic speakers who Taranis and I are debating about not "Sub Saharan" African either. They are Saharan Africans and have been in the Sahara thousands of years prior to the conception of Egypt. Furthermore if you really want to get technical about where Ehret (the study's author) places the origins of Afro-Asiatic:

"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. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food." (Christopher Ehret (1996) "Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture." In Egypt in Africa Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press)

The lands between Somalia and Nubia are in or on the boundaries of Sub Saharan Africa.

Most negroids don't speak Afro-Asiatic, but Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan click languages which for the most part developed after Afro-Asiatic.

Just wow! So are you seriously trying to denote the concept of race along what language a person speaks? Do even know what Omotic, Oromo, of Chadic (all Afro-Asiatic) speakers look like?

In addition, *even if* Egyptians supposedly originated in the region of Nubia, it doesn't explain why Egyptians spoke Afro-Asiatc while Nubians spoke Nilo-Saharan - so that contention is refuted

Considering the fact that there are an abundance of Nilotic loan words in the ancient Egyptian language (along with conclusive biological evidence) I'd be inclined to believe the well documented fact that Nilotic populations played an instrumental creating :the ancient Egyptian civilization. Rather or Egyptians and Nubians spoke the same languages, not negate the fact that both populations essentially biologically the same people:

The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-desiccation Saharan and also perhaps "Nubian" immigration (Hassan 1988). Biologically these people were essentially the same (Keita 1990).

Link

2. In addition, the chart you provided shows Caucasoid introgression into East Africa, which is supported by substantual genetic studies.

"Caucasoid introgression"...back to square one I see! The map by Ehret, showed that the back migration into the Ethiopia occurred, which was ultimately the result of the initial migration northward from the East African Afro-Asiatic homeland. Therefore I fail to see why the introduction of Semitic into Ethiopia, would matter at all in regards to the initial population source of ancient Egypt? Further more the introduction of Semitic was done without significant gene flow from the Middle East:

"These data, together with those reported elsewhere (Ritte et al. 1993a, 1993b; Hammer et al. 2000) suggest that the Ethiopian Jews acquired their religion without substantial genetic admixture from Middle Eastern peoples and that they can be considered an ethnic group with essentially a continental African genetic composition." (Cruciani, et. al Am J Hum Genet. 2002 May; 70(5): 1197–1214. "A Back Migration from Asia to Sub-Saharan Africa Is Supported by High-Resolution Analysis of Human Y-Chromosome Haplotypes)

Your point is therefore moot.

4. Your own quote debases the foundation of your "argument", it is, however, in complete agreement and compatable with what I've been sayng, E(M35) is a "non-African" haplotype

How could you possible conclude from that passage of the flawed Henn study, that haplogroup E originated outside of Africa? Wasn't it either you are your buddy who was just recently concerning the undeniable fact that E originated in Africa, and instead debating on if it was a back-migration from Egypt which created the biological continuum between Egypt and the Horn? As dubious as that argument was on his part, he at least had the common sense to not argue against the undeniable fact of haplogroup E's origins:



That is not a serious debate about haplogroup E at all. This origin and migration is what linguistic now link to the origins and spread of Afro-Asiatic.

It's only the map, which you posted, that's based on Ehret's paper which is outdated (2009) according to your own source, Scheinfeldt 2010.

Outdated seriously? Tell me what linguistic study supercedes it? Where in the Scheinfeldt study is a non African origin for haplogroup E ever postulated? You are reaching into thin air for conclusions that simply aren't there.

Of note, If E was a negroid haplogroup, which btw NO geneticist makes such a claim,

You are CORRECT, no modern geneticist is dumb enough to attribute a haplogroup to a social construct such as race. What are the Chadic speakers who are comprised on haplogrooup R...white? You are seriously losing all credibility with your racialization of everything from linguistic to haplogroups. I highly doubt that I'll give half of your this crap the time of day.

[Taharqa]

A quick summarization of your "points" :

1) Haplogroup E is non African (Beyond absurd and self defeating)

2) Afro-Asiatic is non African (Beyond absurd)

3) Horn African are the result of a mixture of black Africans and non African "Caucasoids" (a theory which has been discounted for decades now)

4) SOY Keita, Basil Davidson, Sonia Zakrewski, Kathryn Bard, Nancy Lovell, Mary Lefkowitz, Ian Shaw ect ect are all liars in regard to how they interpret the biological and cultural data in ascribing an origin for ancient Egypt.

5) The ancient Egyptians did not come from the south. (How many scholars can you cite in the last 15 years who directly say (leaving out room for deliberate misinterpretations) who states that the ancient Egyptians were not indigenous Africans from the south?)

6) The biological affinities between the ancient Egyptians and Horn Africans are the results of a common "Caucasoid" affinity (because Horn Africans are according to you "Caucasoid")

7) You also referred to me as a "black supremacist".

Your arguments are beyond absurd, and the mere fact that you insist on them discredits you towards anyone who is not a blatant racist (as you are). If I didn't know any better I'd say that you were the notorious stormfront regular (who champions a "Caucasoid" Egypt") Kellscross". Your spam of Mathilda/Racial Realities misinterpretations are simply not worth my time!

[Taranis]

It's time to close this farce of a thread.