|
Post by tigers32 on Oct 22, 2005 17:28:27 GMT -5
S.O.Y. Keita is uniquely qualified to answer queries about the ethnic origins of the ancient Egyptians, as he has a doctorate from Oxford in Biological Anthropology and an MD.
His work over the years has displayed a very unbiased view with respect to the social construction notions of "race" and the ancient Egyptians. He has posited in numerous scholarly publications that the ancient Egyptians were biologically African, which does not conflict with current findings in DNA research, specifically with respect to mtDNA and Y chromosome findings.
As an anthropologists with training in biology, history and linguistics, Keita offers lay persons and scholars alike, a unique view into antiquity-without the racialist notions which has colored publications since the 18h century.
Although some scholars still hold dearly to the social constructions of so-called "Negroids," "Caucasians," and "Mongoloids" these long held views are failing to "hold up" as modern genetic, linguistic and anthropological studies has offered a different view that does not racially categorize members of homo sapiens sapiens.
After all, these purported notions are specious, especially when we consider that DNA tracking has unequivocally demonstrated that the earliest known biologically modern humans hail from Africa, specifically East Africa. Furthermore, there is more genetic diversity within a particular ethnic group than between different geographic and ethnic groups.
With respect to phenotype,including hair texture-every combination that exist amongst the human species can be found in African communities within Africa. Thus, the notion of "Black Africans" does not hold up under the genetic microscope. Africans of all hues, phenotypes and genotypes exist all over the African continent.
This was also true in antiquity, thus no one has proven who the so-called true "Caucasian" or true "Negro" was or is today. These non-scientific and products of social biology need to be laid to rest.
The archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence is clear that the oldest modern humans and oldest civilization in antiquity originated in Africa.
Keita's scholarly bibliographies in his works should be a starting point for those who are uncomfortable with his research findings-as they are current and offer the reader an opportunity to become familiar with cutting edge research in molecular human genetics, anthropological genetics, biological anthropology, Egyptology, linguistics, archaeology, paleoanthropology, and ancient history.
Scholarship that offers a clear nexus across displines is not biased, but is welcome and helps to build sound hypotheses in our undertsanding of ancient, as well as modern human biology. Keita has been blessed with the critical skills, as he able to weave together data from many disciplines and has offered sound scientific arguments.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 22, 2005 19:33:31 GMT -5
tigers23: Keita sounds like an amazing human being, really. But nothing you've posted is new to anyone and a good portion is not taken seriously. By the way, are you Keita or his PR man?
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Oct 23, 2005 11:59:16 GMT -5
ive posted about ancient egyptians before so here goes:
1.can anodyne, crimson tide and alexandria please provide me and the others with busts and pics of white pharoahs of the first 3 dynastys,
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 23, 2005 23:31:28 GMT -5
I don't like the term "white." I'd say Caucasoid. Not all Caucasians are pale with flowing blond hair. Now, this issue is one that has been debated on this forum long before I showed up. The arguments I have read and the evidence produced lead me to believe that Ancient Egypt wasn't a Negroid civilzation. The Egyptians made distnictions between themselves and their neighbors. They gave Libyans a pale look, Semites a yellow look, and Nubians a black look that they didn't give themselves. By the way, "Race: The Reality of Human Differences" by Sarich and Miele touch on that. It's a great book. I recommend it.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Oct 24, 2005 8:46:49 GMT -5
stop stalling and do the little task ive set for you 3.
white or caucasian same thing to me.
what evidence to show me they were not negroid show me then.
theres loads of pics showing egyptians like black people anyway do the task and show me a caucasian pharoah from the first 3 dynastys i await your reply.
|
|
|
Post by Mike the Jedi on Oct 24, 2005 9:06:36 GMT -5
I looked up a list of the first Three Dynasties for Googling purposes:
EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD (3000-2625 B.C.) THE FIRST DYNASTY - 3000-2800 B.C. 1.) Aha (Menes, "Fighter") 2.) Djer ("Stockade") 3.) Wadj (Djet, "Snake") 4.) Den (Udimu) 5.) Anedjib (Anedjob) 6.) Semerkhet (Semerkat) 7.) Qaa (Qa'a)
THE SECOND DYNASTY - 2800-2675 B.C. 1.) Hotepsekhemwy (Hetepsekhemwy) 2.) Raneb (Reneb) 3.) Nynetyer (Netjeren, Ninetjer) 4.) Wadjnas 5.) Sened 6.) Peribsen (Sekhemib) 7.) Khasekhemwy (Khasekhem, Keasekhemwy)
THE THIRD DYNASTY - 2675-2625 B.C. 1.) Sanakht (Sanakhte, Nebka) 2.) Djoser (Netjerykhet, Netjerkhet) 3.) Sekhemkhet (Djoser Teti) 4.) Khaba 5.) Nebka 6.) Huni
I don't expect a whole lot of these guys to have pictures. And even for the ones that do, judging their race based on one or two crumbling, often ambiguous busts is a little stretchin' it.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 24, 2005 15:31:33 GMT -5
First of all, you don't set "tasks" for me. This isn't 6th grade and you're not Mrs. Swimmer.
"theres loads of pics showing egyptians like black people anyway do the task and show me a caucasian pharoah from the first 3 dynastys i await your reply. "
I pointed you to other discussions on the subject on this forum. It was one of the first threads that got my attention that peaked my interest. I also recommended a book to you. Now you may have a crappy library like I do but you could still do a background check on the authors. You'll see that they aren't light weights at all. They're highly respected. You see, credentials matter.
Also, haven't there been DNA tests done on Egyptians? oh, wait, there have been and what do they conclude? Maybe we should take a look together. Just don't hold my hand as we go because it'll appear like we're dating.
"white or caucasian same thing to me."
Have you ever seen the film "Run, Lola Run"? Other than being a very good film the main character's boyfriend is pretty dark. So he is not "white," actually, but he is Caucasian. So I don't see why both should mean the same to you. Not every caucasian looks like Thor.
Yes, loads of photos that you find on afro- centric websites I assume. It's not hard to take photos of negroids represented in Egyptian art and pass them off as something else. There were negroids in Egypt but they weren't the bulk of the population. And I am aware that there were a few negroid pharoahs. Those who conquered Egypt from Kush. But these weren't Egyptians. They were foreigners.
I could care less whether Egypt was a negroid civilzation or a caucasian civilization since it won't affect my life. But based on the information I see it appears to be a Caucasian civilization.
By the way, are you a fan of John Henrik Clarke?
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 24, 2005 15:35:02 GMT -5
"His work over the years has displayed a very unbiased view with respect to the social construction notions of "race" and the ancient Egyptians. He has posited in numerous scholarly publications that the ancient Egyptians were biologically African, which does not conflict with current findings in DNA research, specifically with respect to mtDNA and Y chromosome findings."
I find it interesting that someone who doesn't believe in races states that the ancient Egyptians were "biologically African." What is that suppose to mean? Berbers are Africans correct just like Nigerians but one is Caucasian and the other negroid. I hope someone can help me out here.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Oct 25, 2005 18:17:01 GMT -5
your speaking nonsense the busts and portraits available blatantly show them as what would be considered black so admit it.
where is the peer reviewed dna samples of the ancient egyptians show us please?
so you say the black pharoahs were nubian does that mean menes was a nubian the first pharoah of the egyptians.
who said i thought caucasians look all nordic not me
i could recommend books by authors as well but it all comes down to she said he said. by the way are you a fan of coon.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Oct 25, 2005 19:15:21 GMT -5
You haven't provided anything yourself.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 25, 2005 20:09:53 GMT -5
dplacid: I haven't read any of Coon's books. I just know him from references by other authors and what i've seen online.
I've said this debate has been done before on this site and you should take a look at it.
"so you say the black pharoahs were nubian does that mean menes was a nubian the first pharoah of the egyptians."
Did I say that or are you saying that for me? There were black pharoahs but these were outsiders. If you're hip to afrocenticism then i'm sure you heard of Kush and that they invaded Egypt when Egypt could already lay claim to being an old civilization.
"who said i thought caucasians look all nordic not me"
Well, you said you equal caucasian with the color white. Consider that there are many caucasians that are not pale its silly to equate white with caucasian. It's just very common that when someone says caucasian that people automatically think white as in some blond, tall Swede with pale skin. You didn't lead me to believe that you thought otherwise.
"i could recommend books by authors as well but it all comes down to she said he said. by the way are you a fan of coon."
Well, here's the the thing. Credentials matter to me. Sarich is highly respected in his field. He's a professor Emeritus of anthropology at Berkeley. That carries alot of weight. You don't become a professor Emeritus at Berkeley for not achieveing anything in your field. It's all about credentials. Coon also has respected credentials. If you can name an author that repeats what you have said and they have respect then i'm willing to at least give you an ear.
So do you like John Henrik Clarke? I saw a documnetary on him. I thought he was blind in more ways than one.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Oct 28, 2005 9:00:03 GMT -5
egypt in africa -theodore celenko
why do you like this sarich person but is sceptical of keita he has his stuff peer reviewed even mary lefkowitz rates rates him.
ive only read one henrik clarke book it was about christopher columbus and the slave trade it was interesting.
the black pharoahs are the oldest ive seen find a white one who ruled earlier. you cant
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 28, 2005 10:52:08 GMT -5
"egypt in africa -theodore celenko"
I don't know who that man is and I can't find much on him online except that his book is out of print.
"why do you like this sarich person but is sceptical of keita he has his stuff peer reviewed even mary lefkowitz rates rates him."
Mary Lefkowitz is a classical philogist... not an anthropologist. Sarich IS an anthropologist and he has left a major mark in his field (along with Wilson) with the "molecular clock. I see what you're trying to do. Because Lefkowitz wrote "Not Out of Africa" I'm supposed to respect her opinion on Keita even though she's not involved in that field. Sorry, but that doesn't work. And we have many anthropologist contradicting each other but what holds up iis that Ancient Egypt was a caucasian civilization from the outset.
Sarich has respect because of his discoveries. He's probably not even liked by most anthropologists because of his views, but unlike most of them he actually has tangible accomplishments under his belt. Credentials matter and Keita doesn't match up with the man.
Also, a man who claims that race doesn't exist but then says Egyptians were BIOLOGICALLY African makes me question. I think its important to avoid contradictions, don't you think? So what does he mean by biologically African? Someone help me out here, please.
"the black pharoahs are the oldest ive seen find a white one who ruled earlier. you cant"
Well, how about you help me out a bit. What is the oldest pharoah you've been told or seen looks negroid. The busts I've seen don't go back to the first or second dynasty. Oh, but thank goodness for DNA tests. Much of which contradicts Keita who claims there is no such thing as race. So make me eat my own words. Since you've found these bust of negroid pharoahs post them (with the link, of course). And i'll gladly eat my words.
|
|
|
Post by dplacid1 on Oct 31, 2005 11:21:43 GMT -5
keita stuff is peer reviewed by others in the field so stop talking crap.
show me the dna results why havent they been published?
if you dont trust keita you and you trust hawass there is something wrong with you are you saying the new model of king tut looks anything like all the busts of wahat the egyptians left us ?
i told you from the first dynasty look at the bust of menes there is one of khasekhemwy from the 2 0r third and of course zoser, if you think these guys are caucasian then you are deluded. on this site there is a topic called is keita biased you will find on the last pages pics of some of the oldest pharoahs , as you shall see you will eat your words.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Oct 31, 2005 18:39:18 GMT -5
You must have me confused with someone else. I don't talk crap. I deal with reality. Maybe you'd like to come on board with me. It's free of charge. "After an intensive bibliographic search, we compiled all the available data on allele frequencies for classical genetic polymorphisms referring to North African populations and synthesized the data in an attempt to reconstruct the populations' demographic history using two complementary methods: (1) principal components analysis and (2) genetic distances represented by neighbor-joining trees. In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula. The most plausible interpretation of these results is that, although demic diffusion during the Neolithic could explain the genetic similarity between northeast Africa and Europe by a parallel process of gene flow from the Near East, a Mesolithic (or older) differentiation of the populations in the northwestern regions with later limited gene flow is needed to understand the genetic picture. The most isolated groups (Mauritanians, Tuaregs, and south Algerian Berbers) were the most differentiated and, although no clear structure can be discerned among the different Arab- and Berber-speaking groups, Arab speakers as a whole are closer to Egyptians and Libyans. By contrast, the genetic contribution of sub-Saharan Africa appears to be small." www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9164042King Tut looks pretty Caucasian to me. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/10/AR2005051001522.html“Age was easy, she said. The third molars were in the process of coming in, something that happens between the ages of 18 and 20. Race, by contrast, was "the hardest call." The shape of the cranial cavity indicated an African, while the nose opening suggested narrow nostrils -- a European characteristic. The skull was a North African.” I don’t see this as being very clear at all. Negroids have a smaller cranial cavity on average than Caucasians but that doesn't mean there aren't Caucasians with a similar cranial cavity. Also, consider that most Pharoahs were inbred. That includes Tut. You'll end up with a weird looking dude. Oh, and I'm sorry that Sarich is more respected than Keita. I know that bursts your bubble but it happens. And, for the THIRD time, Keita contradicts himself. I asked twice for someone, meaning you, to explain to me how one can state that race doesn’t exist but at the same time say Ancient Egyptians’s are biologically African. What does BIOLOGICALLY African mean, exactly? Someone who claims that race doesn’t exist already has shown himself to be a fool. So no, I don’t take him seriously. I looked at that thread about Keita (by way of google, since the forum doesn't have a search engine... yeah, I'm a sharp one) and I don't see how you can claim those are representation of negroids. You're stretching it if you think those messed up busts proves your case. By the way, Charlie Bass seemed to have taken a beating in that thread. You should have just posted those pics rather than let me see a thread that just validates what I've said. You failed to feed my words to me. You're such a horrible person for letting me starve.
|
|