|
Post by Igu on Jan 10, 2005 14:56:57 GMT -5
If you want to see real berbers, here is a good adress for you : Morocco/Atlass/Khenifra City; It is not a Touareg (or kabylian : city... -WTF berter ;D? -I would have said that touaregs do not represent the proto-berber, but they are berber. -I prefer Having Negroid blood than Arab blood -To participate in the topic, The origins of the Egyptian civilisation and its people is Middle eastener, genetics proves it, Anthroplogy proves it, and reason admits it. -I can't remember where I read that, but a recent genetic study have found that southern egyptians are 30% negroid, about half is recent... Thus Southern egyptians are not black, and Old upper-egyptians were certainly not black.
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Jan 10, 2005 15:12:36 GMT -5
Yes, Igu; Its me Berter. I missed you, man. (BTW: Bonne année ! Tuaregs arent pure berbers. I asked a (southern berber) friend of mine today if they were real berbers, his answer was : they are heavily mixed with blacks. Well, most members here already know my opinion on that question, ;D. It is question of the race of the central and northern AEs; To me, they were caucasian-native- mediterraneans, different from Lybians and Southern Europeans. The nubians were blacks, no doubt; but they are not to be considered as real AEs. They certainly werent considered egyptian citizens (marginal life, if you see ).
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 10, 2005 15:31:34 GMT -5
I was showing cultural continuity between Rgypt and the rest of Africa. This wasn't a lesson in geography Proof? LOL, I've been through this nonsense too many times, AE's were NOT very close to southern Euros, especially Upper Egyptians. There is no such thing as racial genetics Well its been proven by genetics and anthropology that the Ancient Egyptians where indeed Caucasoid,and closer to Southern European racial makeup. I would like to know where you get they where black?Not only are you cleary misinformed,but your on space mountain. BTW...In the real world,theirs no such thing as "Rgypt"!
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 10, 2005 15:35:28 GMT -5
There is indeed evidence that the early pre-dynastic Upper Egyptians were 'not quite Caucasoid'. This is why Afrocentric types love focusing on the 'predynastic peoples' ( 'Egyptian civilization started in Upper Egypt', etc. ) Egyptian remains from the important Dynastic periods tend to be predominately Caucasoid, however.
|
|
Berter
New Member
Et si on fait un tour ensemble, Nouna!?
Posts: 6
|
Post by Berter on Jan 10, 2005 15:49:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:22:13 GMT -5
There is indeed evidence that the early pre-dynastic Upper Egyptians were 'not quite Caucasoid'. This is why Afrocentric types love focusing on the 'predynastic peoples' ( 'Egyptian civilization started in Upper Egypt', etc. ) Egyptian remains from the important Dynastic periods tend to be predominately Caucasoid, however. The only ones that are called 'caucasoid' by knuckleheads here are the ones from Giza. Those from dynasties 1-3, 11-12, 18, 21, and 25 were Negroid or had significant Negroid mixture, so its hearsay to say the dyanstic ones were all Caucasoid.
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:24:29 GMT -5
Well its been proven by genetics and anthropology that the Ancient Egyptians where indeed Caucasoid,and closer to Southern European racial makeup. I would like to know where you get they where black?Not only are you cleary misinformed,but your on space mountain. BTW...In the real world,theirs no such thing as "Rgypt"! It hasn't been proven that they're very close to southern Euros, even the northern remains are distinct from southern Europeans The southern remains most definitely group with sub-Saharans,ie, groups from the Horn of Africa and the southern Sahara, you're in total denial.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 10, 2005 16:24:51 GMT -5
The only ones that are called 'caucasoid' by knuckleheads here are the ones from Giza. Those from dynasties 1-3, 11-12, 18, 21, and 25 were Negroid or had significant Negroid mixture, so its hearsay to say the dyanstic ones were all Caucasoid. 4-10,13-17,19-20,22-24 Not bad.
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:26:37 GMT -5
same debunked Brace bs, that moron believes Europeans are mixed with Neanderthals and that Somalis are NOT Negroid but are tropically adpated caucasoids At any rate, studies does by Keita indicate that Upper egyptians were most closest to Somalis, thus they were NOT Caucasoids
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:30:17 GMT -5
4-10,13-17,19-20,22-24 Not bad. You're still wrong, even within those dynasties there were black and black admixed rulers and the remains of some of those dynasties haven't even been examined. Some of those dynasties have foreign rulers also(13-16 were Hyskos, Upper egyptians who formed the 17th dynasty liberate Egypt and expelled the Kyskos under the ruler Kamose, thus 17 was Upper egyptian in origin.)
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 10, 2005 16:36:54 GMT -5
You're still wrong, even within those dynasties there were black and black admixed rulers Got any details?
|
|
|
Post by Human on Jan 10, 2005 16:40:01 GMT -5
neanderthals and modern humans bred in Europe... though not genetically proved (there could be many reasons other than non breeding...), there has been some (controversial) findings on this respect (eg., the mixed boy from Portugal; some European features which existed only among Neanderthal and are non existent among other humans on this planet, etc).
To say categorically that after thousands of years of living together there was no breeding at all is wrong in my opinion...
There may have and there have may not... i incline to think the first option is more probable.
While this whole process, modern africans were in africa...
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:43:58 GMT -5
neanderthals and modern humans bred in Europe... though not genetically proved (there could be many reasons other than non breeding...), there has been some (controversial) findings on this respect (eg., the mixed boy from Portugal; some European features which existed only among Neanderthal and are non existent among other humans on this planet, etc). To say categorically that after thousands of years of living together there was no breeding at all is wrong in my opinion... There may have and there have may not... i incline to think the first option is more probable. While this whole process, modern africans were in africa... I'm sorry but genetics have debunked that notion over and over again, thus anthropologists like Brace who idiotic conclusions based on a similarity in phenotype with no other proven relationships are wrong. Culturally and historically AE is closer to the region south of her.
|
|
|
Post by Abubakari on Jan 10, 2005 16:46:33 GMT -5
do you have any details that the most important Dyastic Egyptians were caucasoids? The 12th dynasty was thought to be of Nubian extraction at first, but in reality they came from the Theban region in Upper egypt. The 12th dyansty was one of Egypt's greatest dynasties.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Jan 10, 2005 16:47:48 GMT -5
do you have any details that the most important Dyastic Egyptians were caucasoids? Forget 'most important', I'm assuming those dynasty numbers I mentioned were predominately Caucasoid until proven otherwise.
|
|