|
Post by Agrippa on Jan 17, 2006 12:52:26 GMT -5
You mentioned Badarian P.A., yes, Badarians are in the literature I saw mentioned under 'stronger Negroid influence' too, as well as the "Pan Grave" people which were Protoeuropid/Cromagnoid as a minority element beside Negroid too and the Kerma group. But otherwise it was said in most relevant sources that the Egyptians were Cromagnoid (Mechtoid) and Mediterranid, especially since the Neolithic times Mediterranids became more and more important and finally dominated the whole of Egypt. The difference is very clear if comparing with later time Nubia in which the Negroid admixture became stronger and the kingdom of Meroe which was more Negroid too. Ramses II.: In the art the typical impression is that of Southern Mediterranids like you can find them today in the region too and in borderline North Africa beside the more robust Cromagnoid (Berberid) variants and Negroid admixture which becomes stronger in the South because of constant, mostly later influx of slaves and immigrants: Compare with "Nubians" of Negroid area of influence, everything is different from style, hair, skin color, race, weapons etc.:www.homestead.com/wysinger/nubian.jpgComparison of Egyptians with a "Nubian":"Candace of Meroe", a rather corpulent African woman with a totally different style, in color the difference to Egyptians is even more obvious: Concerning the Afro-Asiatic or Semitic-Hamitic languages, you have still to prove that they are of Negroid origin and how they spread over Negroids from East Africa to Arabia... Especially when looking at the distribution and you can see that such clearly Europid groups speak or spoke Afro-Asiatic languages as the Guanches, Berbers-Lybians (remember the picture you posted yourself), Phoenicians, Arabs etc. The distribution of Europoid characteristics and Afro-Asiatic, Negroid characteristics and Nilo-Saharan and Niger-Congo is almost the same with an often discussed area of overlap in East Africa. If you group Bantu within Niger-Kordofan you get the basic Negrid distribution without Nilotes which are a group more distinct: ehl.santafe.edu/maps/Bantu.gifehl.santafe.edu/maps4.htmNegrids in the narrower sense are the result of specialisation out of the archaic sapiens spectrum, best represented by unreduced Khoisanids like the Boskopids. To compare genetic features before the specialisation means to ignore what race and specialisation is about. Only groups descending from Negrids after the specialisation took place can be considered as Negrids adapted to new conditions. In the case of classic Egypt we neither have strong archaic sapiens nor Negrid influence of real significance.
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Jan 17, 2006 14:11:11 GMT -5
Agrippa,the skulls among the Pre-Dynastic Eyptians were actually slightly more Europoid than Negroid. Whatever Negroid admixture , was negligible . And would have been as far away from pure Negroids as can be.
<<Evidence of the Early Penetration of Negroes into Prehistoric Egypt
Eugen Strouhal
The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 1. (1971), pp. 1-9.
"In Nubia, according to the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing from the South. Negroes and Negroids penetrated to Egypt only sporadically, and their frequency, uneven according to time, place and the diagnostical knowledge of the investigator, has been estimated as 1 to 5 per cent. An increase in the number of Negroes was observed only in the New Kingdom, in connexion with the expansion of Egyptian domination to the south. From that time onwards, they were pictured as symbols of the south. The perfect portrayal of their morphological features shows that the Egyptian artists knew them very well."
"By the individual analysis of nasal measurements and indices of the first Badarian series in comparison with the mixed Europoid-Negroid series from Wadi Qitna in Nubia (fourth-fifth century AD), with the Europoid series from Manfalout in Upper Egypt (Ptolemaic period) and with a series of recent Nilotes, I came to the conclusion that the distribution of the Badarian skulls extends from the Europoid to the Negroid range."
"Of the total 117 skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type, 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type. Eight skulls were clearly Negroid... We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side."
"In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved, thanks to good conditions in the desert sand. In the first series, according to the descriptions of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases.">>
Here's one from C. Loring Brace :
<<The likelihood of that either the Giza or Naqada configuration could occur in West Africa, the Congo, or points south is vanishingly small, around 0.000 and 0.001. Whatever else one can or cannot say about the Egyptians, it is clear that their craniofacial morphology has nothing whatsoever in common with sub-Saharan Africans. Our data then, provides no support for the claim that there was a "strong Negroid element in Predynastic Egypt>>
On top of these and the dental pattern studies just published by Brace and all the genetic research I have read through the years and the historical records.Its safe to say their was never at all a strong negroid component whether it be Dynastic or Pre-Dynastic times..nor are the Egyptians a race of Mulatto's.
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Jan 17, 2006 18:37:55 GMT -5
Ancient Egyptians had light skins like northern Indians. === There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians' appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9): The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically. Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians. Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India. Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern Indians. www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Jan 17, 2006 19:49:36 GMT -5
Ancient Egyptians had light skins like northern Indians. === There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians' appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9): The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically. Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians. Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India. Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern Indians. www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.htmlBrahmans?
|
|
|
Post by tommywong on Jan 17, 2006 20:36:41 GMT -5
Everyone's racist.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:31:11 GMT -5
Egypt's a Mediterranean country. Therefore it's a Med civilisation. And as far as I'm concerned the Ancient Egyptians were caucasoid. I mean maybe they had dark skin like the indians do but are caucasian. because frankly they were too advanced for a classicially negroid civilisation. and i dont mean this to offend anyone of any race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation or anything like that Egypt is a African country who's northern part borders on the Mediterranean Sea, besides that there is nothing "Mediterranean" about it. And i said their closest neighbors skeletally were Northeast Africans like Somalis and Nubians who are *NOT* classical Negroid[like West Africans to you], but nevertheless those two groups are still blacks.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:33:31 GMT -5
Ancient Egyptians had light skins like northern Indians. === There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians' appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9): The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically. Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians. Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India. Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern Indians. www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.htmlI can go right back to Herodotus quote about egyptians having black skin and curly hair, so whats the point?
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:38:28 GMT -5
Lol, your ignorance is to obvious Egypt existed way and I mean waaay before greece Not at all silly .Their was already older and more advanced Civilizations spread across the Mediterranean Sea from Spain to Anatolia pre-dating Egypt. The oldest Pyramid is that of Hellinikon in Greece . Greece alone has over dozen pyramids. Canary islands and Italy/Sicily have Pyramids going back well over 3,000 years. Sardinia has perhaps some of the earliest complexes,huge Colossal temple buildings that extend deep underground that date back 10,000-12,000 ago. Egypt was obviously not the oldest Civilization nor very original obviously. Summeria and Mesopotamia are other such examples.And according the Egyptian records,the Greeks where just as old if not older then they themselves. Greece and Egypt always had a close relationship,as they did with highly advanced Theraians and Minoan's ect. Egypt was indeed a Caucasoid Mediterranean Culture and Civilization end of story. Proof? And please provide examples of a "Mediterranean caucasoid Culture", because that nonsense doesn't even exist except in the dreams of medophiles, it isn't and has never been culturally defined.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:46:56 GMT -5
You mentioned Badarian P.A., yes, Badarians are in the literature I saw mentioned under 'stronger Negroid influence' too, as well as the "Pan Grave" people which were Protoeuropid/Cromagnoid as a minority element beside Negroid too and the Kerma group. Kerma and pan-Grave peoples were Negroid Nubians, not proto-Europoid Mechtoid anything and there was continuum is those populations and continuity with A-Group Nubians. Perhaps you have no understanding of the usage of mechtoid in literature in regards to Africa, Colin Groves addressed this issue in Nubians and said indeed they were Negroid overlain with robusticity. The robusticty it why they were called mechtoid because it was believed that only Cro-magnons were the only robust peoples, but that isn't true.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 1:48:50 GMT -5
Ancient Egyptians had light skins like northern Indians. === There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians' appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9): The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically. Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording: As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians. Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India. Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern Indians. www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.htmlStrabo is *LATE DYNASTIC* not predynastic or even dynastic anyways. And like i said I can refer to Herodotus quote that said they were black skinned with wooly hair.
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 2:02:58 GMT -5
Still waiting for proof of a "Medit caucasoid culture". It doesn't exist and the medophiles know it.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 18, 2006 3:18:57 GMT -5
Chill man. You have no claim to ancient Aegypt. No one does, the Aegyptians of ancient times are no more; Arabs inhabit that territory now.
Aegyptian civilization was a continuation of earlier and contemporary Mesopotamian civilization i.e. Sumer and Babylon.
At that time, all North Africans were largely Caucasoid, even if swarthier than those on the North side of the Mediterranean.
Negrid expansion was confined to the south and west at that point in time.
In all probability the ancient Aegyptians were light-med brown skinned Caucasians, somewhere between the Mediterranean and East African (both Caucasoid) anthropological types.
I wouldn't call Aegypt a Mediterranean civilization, rather it was Mesopotamian in nature, owing more to the Sumerians than anyone else. They clashed with the Nubians and Hittites, and conquered territories that the Semitic peoples had migrated to.
Aegyptians were swarthy, not Black, and were Mesopotamian, not African. Even Coon demonstrates that a wave of Caucasoid expansion engulphed North Africa and the Arabian peninsula, and drove back the Capoids, and others...and this was long before Negrids expanded.
In fact, Africa being identified as Negrid is a relatively recent phenomenon...certainly the Romans didn't think so - to them North Africa was Mediterranean.
|
|
|
Post by nordicyouth on Jan 18, 2006 3:22:49 GMT -5
[AVATAR_TRANSLATION]
Planet Africa
unintelligent displaced mulatto without a cause or heritage
ignorance and intolerance-toting christian fundamentalist
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 3:36:36 GMT -5
Chill man. You have no claim to ancient Aegypt. No one does, the Aegyptians of ancient times are no more; Arabs inhabit that territory now. Once again another damn strawman argument, who the heck is making claims and when did I claim anything? Incorrect, Egypt was indigenous African, there was nothing Sumerian nor babylonian about. There may have been some probable influences from there, but it was *NOT* a continuation of babylon or Sumer. Proof or are you just assuming like all the Medophiles do here? Negrid expansion, lol. Makes no sense what you just said. light med brown Caucasians? East Africans are caucasoid? Nonsense and stupidity, not even worth addressing the umpteenth time. Nonsense and of course Romans beieved in a Medit race? [insert rolling eyes]
|
|
|
Post by Planet Asia on Jan 18, 2006 4:31:51 GMT -5
Lest Medits and Medophiles get any other ideas spamming the "Ancient Egypt race issue website, lets look at this statement from that obviously biased site:
"Likewise, when the ancient writers described Egyptians as melas or melanchroes, they almost surely meant "dark-complected" rather than literally "black." Any ambiguity in such descriptions can be resolved by noting that other classical writers such as Manilius specifically identified the Egyptians as medium in complexion rather than "black," and that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter and finer-featured than their African neighbors to the south."
This is pure crap, since the writer cannot provide any examples of any Medits or Caucasians being referred to as "melas or melanchroes" and further more no race of people on earth is black in skin color literally, maybe a very dark deep brown or blue-black. The fallacy in this lie is that as i mentioned before the writer has provided *NO* examples of so-called "Caucasoids" being referred to "melas or melanchroes" and having olirithces[wooly hair]. He hasn't provided one example to support his claims.
|
|