|
Post by topdog on May 19, 2005 5:51:02 GMT -5
Alexandrian, you wanted some proof now I'm going to do it:
Physical anthropology:
"Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans...
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin."
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University
A.J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Biology Oxford University
Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko
Culture:
"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(Ehret 1995; Ehret forthcoming).....
One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The socities involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan(Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et tal. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.
One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East......
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 19, 2005 9:44:14 GMT -5
Finally, this whole Egyptian debate is starting to make a lot more sense to me. I feel like it's drawing to a close. There's certainly a lot of trash on the net, from both Eurocentric and Afrocentric sources that distort the truth and try to pass Egypt off as a pure white or black civilization. But the more and more we all talk about it, the closer I think we get to a mutual understanding of the truth. Frankly, I completely support the idea of Egypt as being both an African (thanks to the contributions of the Upper Egyptians) and a Near Eastern civilization (thanks to the contribution of the Lower Egyptians). These two worlds were united, both racially and culturally, under King Menes. Would you agree with that, Charlie? Because I'm assuming the Lower Egyptians originally came from the Middle East. Don't know if that's exactly true or not, though.
And do you still support the idea of the Badarians/Nubians forming their own separate Negroid type within the black African family? Is this type broad or elongated? I think it's the latter considering both Nilotics and Aethiopids are elongated but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 19, 2005 16:07:52 GMT -5
Alexandrian, you wanted some proof now I'm going to do it: Physical anthropology: "Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period(4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans...
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin." The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University A.J. Boyce University Reader in Human Population Biology Oxford University Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko Culture: " 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(Ehret 1995; Ehret forthcoming).....One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The socities involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan(Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et tal. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East. One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East......Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko Not very damning evidence at all. First off, the first study is done by the completely biased Keita. Also, his whole study is on predynastic Upper Egypt. ANcient Egyptias were dynastic. Why doesn't he want to study dynastic Upper Egyptians? That would give us a better idea of what the upper Egyptians looked like. Furthermore, he is still showing Lower Egyptians to be Caucasian. The second thing has nothing to do with race. THe man provides no findings and no evidence. Giving dates and making assumptions on the origin of something isn't a fact. It's a theory.
|
|
Berter
Junior Member
Evil Ass Kicker!
Posts: 65
|
Post by Berter on May 19, 2005 16:54:23 GMT -5
Frankly, I completely support the idea of Egypt as being both an African (thanks to the contributions of the Upper Egyptians) and a Near Eastern civilization (thanks to the contribution of the Lower Egyptians). These two worlds were united, both racially and culturally, under King Menes. I wouldnt attribute Microsoft Co. innovations to some black manual workers it might have among its personel. Similarly, I wouldnt attribute the persian civilisation to the thousands no-persian workers the sassanids may have exploited to build their magnificant persopolis, f.e!? A.Egypt civilisation is to be attributed to the dynastic egyptians, the real ancient egyptians who provided the engineers, priests, military officiers and ...Pharoas of A.E.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 19, 2005 20:59:28 GMT -5
LOL,Those studies are so heavily outdated its not funny,not to mention,its not conclussive at all!
The rest alex said already!
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on May 19, 2005 21:10:54 GMT -5
<<Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture>> Thats not to biased ! First Africa does not equal Black as your meaning to...Egypt has always been African,as in the original Roman meaning,North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 19, 2005 21:35:04 GMT -5
LOL,Those studies are so heavily outdated its not funny,not to mention,its not conclussive at all! The rest alex said already! It's hilarious, entertaining, and quite telling to think that this was the best he could do. Apparently, these two flawed studies are the sole basis of a black Egypt. It's pretty funny if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 0:44:55 GMT -5
Not very damning evidence at all. First off, the first study is done by the completely biased Keita. Also, his whole study is on predynastic Upper Egypt. ANcient Egyptias were dynastic. Why doesn't he want to study dynastic Upper Egyptians? First of all, Keita is not biased while Brace is biased, I've had this arguments countless times and when no other way to refute Keita is found people resort to calling him biased. He in fact is the most objective person on the study on ancient Egyptians, read: "The contributions by Keita are outstanding exceptions to the general lack of both demographic study and objectivity (Keita 1990; Keita 1992). DNA research is expected to transform this debate, though self-critical consciousness is not always displayed by proponents." Question of Race in Ancient Egypt for strawman arguments against Keita.Keita has also studies Dynastic Egyptians and concluded that Egyptians from the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, Dynasties were more similar to peoples of the Upper Nile Valley[sub-Saharan], though less sub-Saharan than the predynastic ones. He attributes that to migration from the north into south and that some of this mixing started occur before the dynastic period. Nevertheless, the first three dynasties were closer to sub-Saharans morphologically than to Europeans or Middle Easterners. Here is Keita's analysis of remains from a First Dynasty Royal Tomb from Abydos for example: "An analysis of First Dynasty crania from Abydos was undertaken using multiple discriminant functions. The results demonstrate greater affinity with Upper Nile Valley patterns, but also suggest change from earlier craniometric trends. Gene flow and movement of northern officials to the important southern city may explain the findings."LinkIts really dumb to call someone biased and presume they haven't studied something when haven't even read their studies or their work. Thats a strawman as well as an ad-hominem attack. He never said and quit putting words in people's mouths Christopher Ehret is a renowned linguist, you're just in denial with childish strawman arguments. If you look at that citation, he does provide people he has cited from but you're bias against Egypt being even remotely African in any way makes you too damn dumb to want to read anything correctly. If you noticed in my post I put culture right before Ehret's citation so I wasn't talking about race.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 0:47:26 GMT -5
I wouldnt attribute Microsoft Co. innovations to some black manual workers it might has among its personel. Similarly, I wouldnt attribute the persian civilisation to the thousands no-persian workers the sassanids may have exploided to build their magnificant persopolis, f.e!? A.Egypt civilisation is to be attributed to the dynastic egyptians, the real ancient egyptians who provided the engineers, priests, military officiers and ...Pharoas of A.E. Since it has been proven that predynastic Upper Egyptians were sub-Saharan in appearance that now makes them not the real Egyptians? I guess thats the new line of argument now, to run away from what cannot be refuted right?
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 0:48:42 GMT -5
LOL,Those studies are so heavily outdated its not funny,not to mention,its not conclussive at all! The rest alex said already! Studies aren't outdated and they're more up to date that that crap you posted from Coon, lame strawman arguments like yours does nothing to help your case.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 0:49:46 GMT -5
It's hilarious, entertaining, and quite telling to think that this was the best he could do. Apparently, these two flawed studies are the sole basis of a black Egypt. It's pretty funny if you ask me. Point out where those studies are flawed and with evidence, not your whinning denials.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 0:52:44 GMT -5
<<Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture>> Thats not to biased ! No, that isn't biased, Afro-Asiatic languages originated in Africa in either Sudan or Ethiopia and spread North and West, the Egyptians didn't acquire their language from Middle Easterners, so that makes Ancient Egyptian language an African language. Who said Africa equals black? Quit the strawman arguments.
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 2:29:38 GMT -5
I would take anything by Christopher Ehret, or any other American academic from an 'African Studies' or 'Black Studies' Department, with a huge grain of salt. To people outside the U.S., "Department of African Studies" might sound impressive. In reality, these departments were set up at most universities in the U.S. in the wake of the social upheavals of the 1960's and 1970's, generally as a concession to rioting black students. They rarely produce anything that could be called serious scholarship and are almost uniformly Afrocentrist, sometimes to a truly bizarre degree (eg. producing claims such as the ancient Eyptians were not only uniformly black but posessed magical powers and flew gliders). One big red flag vis a vis Ehret is that he is known to speak favorably of Martin Bernal, whom he cites as a 'reliable source'. Martin Bernal is the author of the infamous "Black Athena", widely derided for its politically motivated revisionism and shoddy scholarship. As far as Keita's work is concerned, I don't see anything particularly radical or objectionable in the citations provided by Charlie. [PS: Here's an interesting article from Frontpage that might provide some insight into the nature of 'Black Studies' Departments in the U.S., and in particular the one at UCLA, which Ehret apparently now chairs: www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5251]
|
|
|
Post by humantag on May 20, 2005 2:56:55 GMT -5
A quick nit picking point for Charlie:
You say at the outset of your initial post "...you wanted some proof now I'm going to do it". But what you have provided is evidence in support of your position, not proof.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 20, 2005 4:21:50 GMT -5
I would take anything by Christopher Ehret, or any other American academic from an 'African Studies' or 'Black Studies' Department, with a huge grain of salt. To people outside the U.S., "Department of African Studies" might sound impressive. In reality, these departments were set up at most universities in the U.S. in the wake of the social upheavals of the 1960's and 1970's, generally as a concession to rioting black students. They rarely produce anything that could be called serious scholarship and are almost uniformly Afrocentrist, sometimes to a truly bizarre degree (eg. producing claims such as the ancient Eyptians were not only uniformly black but posessed magical powers and flew gliders). One big red flag vis a vis Ehret is that he is known to speak favorably of Martin Bernal, whom he cites as a 'reliable source'. Martin Bernal is the author of the infamous "Black Athena", widely derided for its politically motivated revisionism and shoddy scholarship. As far as Keita's work is concerned, I don't see anything particularly radical or objectionable in the citations provided by Charlie. [PS: Here's an interesting article from Frontpage that might provide some insight into the nature of 'Black Studies' Departments in the U.S., and in particular the one at UCLA, which Ehret apparently now chairs: www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5251]Ad-hominem attacking Ehret with an article from racist Frontpage mag huh? Despite that Ehret is correct in stating that Afro-Asistic languages spread from Africa to Asia so it doesn't refute Ancient Egyptian being an African language.
|
|