|
Post by mike2 on May 6, 2005 23:02:07 GMT -5
What relevence does that have to a discussion about Egypt and the Arab world. I want to know if Egyptians look more similar to Arabs than they do to Berbers either because they came from Arabia or if it's because they simply evolved in the same sort of habitat. Furthermore, what makes you think the Egyptians came from Punt. Oh, I don't know... maybe something having to do with the hieroglyphs and the murals and THE EGYPTIANS CLEARLY DEPICTING THEMSELVES COMING FROM PUNT and whatnot. Could be something else, though. I believe that if true, it is merely saying that because that is where the NIle originated, and Egyptians based their life on the Nile. Most myths have some basis in fact. When a people say they came from somewhere, they usually know what they're talking about. Do you seriously think that Egyptians could track where they came from? If they felt such a brotherhood to Punt, why didn't they express it? Why did they regard themselves as a completely different race? Yes. Egypt was the one of the greatest civilizations in the world. I would think they would have some general knowledge of their own history not only through monuments and murals but through oral tradition, as well. I never said they felt a brotherhood with Punt, just that they thought they came into Egypt from somewhere near the Horn in the southlands on the Red Sea coast. The land called Punt, which was probably only a name to them since it was quite a ways away from Egypt proper. Why did they regard themselves as a completely different race? Hmmm... I remember the representations of the Nilotids, the Middle Easterners, and the Libyans, but I don't recall Egyptians ever depicting Aethiopids on their murals. I think the only real black people the Egyptians had any real contact with were the Nilotes of Nubia (Herodotus's Western Ethiopians). The ancestors of the actual Ethiopians of the country we call Ethiopia, the Somalis, and other Cushitic-speaking folk were not important enough or perhaps not well known enough to the Egyptians to be depicted, I suppose. If they did depict Aethiopids, I would think that in basic form, they would look slightly more similar to the brown-skinned representation of the Egyptian "Red Race" than they would to the very Negroid-looking Nilotid Nubian form, which is racially exaggerated on the murals, methinks. In other words, don't confuse the Nilotids and Aethiopids. Both types are elongated, but quite different from each other. They definitely wouldn't look the same on a mural.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 7, 2005 1:23:06 GMT -5
Show me one or two instances of the Egyptians "so clearly depicting themselves" as coming from East Africa. I doubt you could. If they ever claimed they came from there, again, it has to do with the source of the Nile. HOw could the egyptians have come from Punt if they didn't know of the existence of Punt until the Middle Kingdom! If they knew where they came from they would have been able to find their way back before the Middle Kingdom! No ancient civilization could trace the route their forefathers took. It is simply implausible and absolutely idiotic to assume. You make claims that you can't substantiate even remotely. You act like its so obvious, but it is clearly not.
And another thing, if they came up from Punt, why didn't they settle along the Upper banks of the Nile in present-day Sudan. Why did they wait until egypt to settle?
Of course Egyptians are more similar to Arabs, that goes without question. And you know what? They are far more similar to Arabs than your beloved Aethopids.
|
|
|
Post by Shenuda on May 7, 2005 3:26:50 GMT -5
Here is an Ancient Egyptian painting with inhabitants of Punt:
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 7, 2005 11:42:51 GMT -5
OH, and if Egyptians were genetically Ethiopian, then explain the following to me:
Why did the researchers who carried out the famed Gurna study find ZERO connection between Egyptians and Ethiopians in Cairo, Assiut, and Minya, and only found connections to Ethiopia in a small, fringe Upper Egyptian town called Gurna, and there, only with 1/2 the studied group?
Why did Cavalli-Sforza group both Predynastic Upper and Lower Egyptians in the Caucasoid sphere of North AFrica and Europe and NOT with the East African sphere?
Why did Di Rienzo find Egyptians clustered close with Sardinians than Somalis (Somalis even being the most caucasoid of the East African groups)?
Why did the Bosch study find that Egypt and Libya were the two North African countries closest to Europe and Arabia and find little if any sub-Saharan influence (sub-Saharan includes both East and West Africa) in any of the five populations?
Why does dental analysis of ancient Egyptians group them with Berber North Africans and NOT with West or East Africans?
The facts speak out against an Aethopid origin for Egyptians. In fact, Mike the Briton I have given five studies that diminish the idea of Ethiopian Egyptians, now you show me one study, just ONE study, that verifies it.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 7, 2005 12:50:04 GMT -5
You really don't get it, do you, Alex? I NEVER said they were Aethiopid. I said that the Aethiopid theory was one of a couple conclusions that could be (and has been) drawn by the average person. I NEVER, EVER said it was the right one or that it was scientifically substantiated, just that it was an interesting possibility and worthy of consideration. There's nothing wrong with speculation. So get off it, you paranoid ass and grow up.
Why do you assume that if the Egyptians came from Punt that automatically means they had to be Negroid? Didn't you read the South Arabia-to-Punt-to-Egypt conclusion? Shenuda gets it. You could, too, if you would just chill out and open your mind. Anytime anybody even mentions something that runs contrary to your set-in-stone mindset, you go crazy. Nobody cares about the race of the Egyptians as much as you've programmed yourself to think. I offered a theory that would actually connect Egypt with Arabia and you shut it down because it involves East Africa. No reason to act like a conspirator.
If you don't want to consider an East African pathway for the Egyptians, you might as well use that same logic and say that the Caucasian Tocharians could have never lived in Turkestan because Mongoloids live there now. You could also say that Caucasians could never have gotten to the Pacific Coast through America because then they would have had to have been Amerinds, right?
People migrate, Alexandrian, sometimes into areas inhabited by peoples of other races. So, race and geography are not bedfellows. Just because the Egyptians might have entered Egypt from the south doesn't mean they were Negroid or that they had originally come from the south. It may have been just been another stopping place, the way to get from Southern Arabia to Egypt. Their being or absorbing Negroids is just one of many conclusions that could be drawn, even if it is the wrong one. So don't let your asshole pucker up anytime you hear Egypt connected with East Africa. Geography doesn't mean much. It's the migrations that matter.
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on May 7, 2005 13:45:19 GMT -5
In my opinion Egyptians are mainly Aethiopids. All evidence suggests this.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 7, 2005 13:52:57 GMT -5
In my opinion Egyptians are mainly Aethiopids. All evidence suggests this. It does? Since when? I would really like to see a genetic study comparing modern Egyptians (who certainly aren't Aethiopids) to their ancient counterparts.
|
|
|
Post by Curious6 on May 7, 2005 14:18:19 GMT -5
Mike the Briton, how do you know they aren't Aethiopids? Have you ever looked carefully at the pictures posted by Gamed-awy? They clearly seem to be Aethiopids, or at least, mixed with Negroids, don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 7, 2005 15:52:11 GMT -5
Mike the Briton, how do you know they aren't Aethiopids? Have you ever looked carefully at the pictures posted by Gamed-awy? They clearly seem to be Aethiopids, or at least, mixed with Negroids, don't you agree? Some of them do looked mixed, I will admit that, but none of them look like full-fledged Aethiopids to me. I think most of the Negroid admixture is Nubian. I mean, even the darker ones don't look like Ethiopians or Somalis. You could argue that they looked mixed with them, but they certainly aren't pure Negroids if you must believe they are even Negroid at all. I deliberately searched for the darkest Egyptians I could find. The rest are just Googled left-overs. This guy could be mixed. The guy above looks rather Negroid, though. But it's not the best angle to make comparisons. This guy looks 100% Caucasian to me. And he doesn't look like an Arab. So you could say that he represents the pure Caucasian element of the Egyptians. Negroid influence, perhaps, but not Aethiopid. Painting of Negroid Egyptian girl. But she doesn't look like the epitome of the elongated Aethiopid, either. Her features look more Nubian-influenced than East African. An Egyptian fellahin girl. This girl is Ausar's (of EgyptSearch fame) greatest dream. She doesn't look like a Mediterranean Caucasian in the sense a Berber does. But on the flipside is she doesn't look exactly Negroid/Aethiopid either. So you see, it's really easy to see potential Negroid or Aethiopid influence in Egyptian faces, but when you look at real Somalis and Ethiopians, your perspective changes and you realize that compared to the Aethiopids, Egyptians don't look very Negroid at all. www.alovelyworld.com/webyemen/gimage/yem59.jpgYemeni Aethiopid Girl (very pretty one at that) Ethiopian man Ras Mekonen Ethiopian kids Ethiopian girl Ethiopian man So you see, even the darkest Egyptians don't look like Aethiopids.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 7, 2005 17:14:24 GMT -5
OH, and if Egyptians were genetically Ethiopian, then explain the following to me: Why did the researchers who carried out the famed Gurna study find ZERO connection between Egyptians and Ethiopians in Cairo, Assiut, and Minya, and only found connections to Ethiopia in a small, fringe Upper Egyptian town called Gurna, and there, only with 1/2 the studied group? Wrong, you didn't properly read the Gurna study, did you? Itsaid specifically that samples from Cairo, Assuit, and Minya are likely to be biased and would not yield a true representation of Egyptians. Proof and when? Sfora never tested predynastic Upper and Lower Egyptians, all his samples were done on modern Egyptians. Please produce the study. Somalis aren't the most 'Caucasoid' of East Africans, another lie. The Di Rienzo study stated specifically that Egyptians have sub-Saharan mixture. Interestingly, Somalis are **NOT** among the sampled populations in Di Rienzo's study, so you're just blowing hot air, neither does he state that Egyptians cluster with Sardinians. The Di Rienzo study **DOES** state this which the you nor the author of that 'Ancient Egyptian Race Issue' website left out: "For example, the Egyptian population is believed to display mixture between Africans and Caucasoids lineages. For several of the loci in our study(e.g., Mfd 75), the distributions in Africans and Caucasoids are quite different but the distributions in Egyptians largely overlaps them both, supporting the hypothesis of admixture." You can read the full study here if you think I'm telling an Afrocentrist lie. I quoted verbatim from the full text, instead of parroting someone elses words.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 7, 2005 17:39:14 GMT -5
Why does dental analysis of ancient Egyptians group them with Berber North Africans and NOT with West or East Africans? The facts speak out against an Aethopid origin for Egyptians. In fact, Mike the Briton I have given five studies that diminish the idea of Ethiopian Egyptians, now you show me one study, just ONE study, that verifies it. I saw that dental study used by Ancient Egyptian Race Issue and Nubians grouped among the so-called 'Caucasoid' samples. The author of that site tries to explain away the Nubians by misrepresenting the Krings et tal study which stated that mixture went both ways, not just one way between Nubians and Egyptians. The author gives the impression geneflow went one way, which is contra to what Krings et tal stated. Krings et tal states: "We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north." Since there was more geneflow coming from the south this goes against the author of that site, so almost none of what you parroted verbatim holds any water. i encourage you to read and analyse studies from sites rather than just quoting them because they superficially support your agenda. The author of Ancient Egyptian Race Issue gives his own[biased] opinion and and distorted interpretation of those studies.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 7, 2005 18:26:57 GMT -5
Wrong, you didn't properly read the Gurna study, did you? Itsaid specifically that samples from Cairo, Assuit, and Minya are likely to be biased and would not yield a true representation of Egyptians. How would it be biased? I sure think that a sample representing an area where around 25 million Egyptians reside is a much, much better representation of the Egyptian population than a small Upper Egyptian village. Do you think otherwise? Please explain. Proof and when? Sfora never tested predynastic Upper and Lower Egyptians, all his samples were done on modern Egyptians. Please produce the study. Sorry, it was Cavalli-Sforza, it was someone else. Brace, I believe. Here is the chart. But Cavalli-Sforza reaches similar conclusions, with ancient Egyptians being closer to North Africans and West Asians than any sub-Saharan group. Oftentimes, Egyptian populations have even been found to be more similar to Europeans than to East Africans. I haven't heard of a single study claiming Egyptians were closer to East Africans than to North Africans, West Asians, or southern Europeans. I've seen far more Egyptians than you have and none of them could pass for an Ethiopian. Try sending an Egyptian to Ethiopia, they stick out easily, even the darker ones. Somalis aren't the most 'Caucasoid' of East Africans, another lie. The Di Rienzo study stated specifically that Egyptians have sub-Saharan mixture. Interestingly, Somalis are **NOT** among the sampled populations in Di Rienzo's study, so you're just blowing hot air, neither does he state that Egyptians cluster with Sardinians. The Di Rienzo study **DOES** state this which the you nor the author of that 'Ancient Egyptian Race Issue' website left out: "For example, the Egyptian population is believed to display mixture between Africans and Caucasoids lineages. For several of the loci in our study(e.g., Mfd 75), the distributions in Africans and Caucasoids are quite different but the distributions in Egyptians largely overlaps them both, supporting the hypothesis of admixture." Still, this is just one study. However, it is undeniable that he still found Egyptians to group closer to Sardinians than Somalis. Nothing you say contradicts that. And yes, Somalis are the most Caucasianized East Africans, Dienekes posted stats once that showed maternally Somalis are only 2% Negroid and paternally they are something like 65% Negroid. That isn't much.Thanks for the link to the whole study though- it was a little more interesting. However, to quote verbatim from the study: " Genetic distances based on mtDNA sequences (Table 2) along with other results from nuclear markers, suggest that the divergence between Africa and the other two populations is larger than the divergence between Sardinia and Egypt (8,10,14)"
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 7, 2005 18:35:50 GMT -5
You really don't get it, do you, Alex? I NEVER said they were Aethiopid. I said that the Aethiopid theory was one of a couple conclusions that could be (and has been) drawn by the average person. I NEVER, EVER said it was the right one or that it was scientifically substantiated, just that it was an interesting possibility and worthy of consideration. There's nothing wrong with speculation. So get off it, you paranoid ass and grow up. Why do you assume that if the Egyptians came from Punt that automatically means they had to be Negroid? Didn't you read the South Arabia-to-Punt-to-Egypt conclusion? Shenuda gets it. You could, too, if you would just chill out and open your mind. Anytime anybody even mentions something that runs contrary to your set-in-stone mindset, you go crazy. Nobody cares about the race of the Egyptians as much as you've programmed yourself to think. I offered a theory that would actually connect Egypt with Arabia and you shut it down because it involves East Africa. No reason to act like a conspirator. If you don't want to consider an East African pathway for the Egyptians, you might as well use that same logic and say that the Caucasian Tocharians could have never lived in Turkestan because Mongoloids live there now. You could also say that Caucasians could never have gotten to the Pacific Coast through America because then they would have had to have been Amerinds, right? People migrate, Alexandrian, sometimes into areas inhabited by peoples of other races. So, race and geography are not bedfellows. Just because the Egyptians might have entered Egypt from the south doesn't mean they were Negroid or that they had originally come from the south. It may have been just been another stopping place, the way to get from Southern Arabia to Egypt. Their being or absorbing Negroids is just one of many conclusions that could be drawn, even if it is the wrong one. So don't let your asshole pucker up anytime you hear Egypt connected with East Africa. Geography doesn't mean much. It's the migrations that matter. Sorry I misunderstood you, the Saudi-Punt-Egypt conclusion makes sense I suppose. Good picture posts though. I've always wanted to show that even the supposedly "negroid-admixtured" Egyptians would stand out greatly in East Africa.
|
|
|
Post by mhagneto on May 7, 2005 19:51:51 GMT -5
I saw that dental study used by Ancient Egyptian Race Issue and Nubians grouped among the so-called 'Caucasoid' samples. The author of that site tries to explain away the Nubians by misrepresenting the Krings et tal study which stated that mixture went both ways, not just one way between Nubians and Egyptians. The author gives the impression geneflow went one way, which is contra to what Krings et tal stated. Krings et tal states: "We conclude that these migrations probably occurred within the past few hundred to few thousand years and that the migration from north to south was either earlier or lesser in the extent of gene flow than the migration from south to north." Since there was more geneflow coming from the south this goes against the author of that site, so almost none of what you parroted verbatim holds any water. i encourage you to read and analyse studies from sites rather than just quoting them because they superficially support your agenda. The author of Ancient Egyptian Race Issue gives his own[biased] opinion and and distorted interpretation of those studies. I infer from what Kring' et al stated that the gene flow from S to N came more recently (could the slave trade be at least a partial explanation?) than the movement from N to S (Egyptian imperial expansion?). What statement does this Krings study nullify? And what do mean by the author of AE site "explaining away the Nubians" by misrepresenting Krings? What is he "explaining away" (sic) and how does he misrepresent Krings? How is the AE author's "opinion " "biased and distorted?" What distinct judgment does he make that you apply the terms "biased and distorted" to? You are not being explicit enough in your assertions. Therefore it's difficult to understand what you're really saying other than a generalized tone of disapproval.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 8, 2005 2:28:07 GMT -5
I infer from what Kring' et al stated that the gene flow from S to N came more recently (could the slave trade be at least a partial explanation?) than the movement from N to S (Egyptian imperial expansion?). What statement does this Krings study nullify? And what do mean by the author of AE site "explaining away the Nubians" by misrepresenting Krings? What is he "explaining away" (sic) and how does he misrepresent Krings? First of all, the author of the Ancient Egyptian Race Issue, Physical Anthropology is attempting to make the argument that Egyptians group with non-subSaharan populations in dental traits, but wait, Nubians also group among the "North African" samples as we can see here from the groups in yellow: Since Nubians are sub-Saharan and very Negroid, he tries to explain away this anomaly by saying that Nubians acquired 'North African' traits via Egypt and North Africa and uses Krings et tal's study to back his claims. Nubians don't have 'North African traits' in the sense that they were acquired via mixture with North Africans, plus according to Krings Et tal's study there was greater geneflow to the north than from the north, so the opposite would be true. Either way, the fact that Nubians group among what the author calls 'North African' traits debunks his assertion that the Egyptians have no relation to sub-Saharan Africans since Nubians are sub-Saharan Africans, even the author admits that himself He intentionally misrepresented the Di Rienzo study by saying Egyptians group closer to Sardanians than to sub-Saharan Africans[wrong, he misinterpreted it] but left out the citation I quoted verbatim from the same study that said Egyptians were mixes of sub-Saharans and Caucasoids. Sardinians do not have heavy sub-Saharan mixture so how are Egyptians closer to Sardinians? The paper said in in levels of divergence Sardinians and Egyptians are closer, but that has nothing to do with Caucasoids and Negroids, thats about OOA. Egyptians are genetically distinct from Sardinians. At any rate, the author of that site makes a false claim condcerning that study. He only took what he believed would prove his point and left out other portions of the full text. Wrong, I was explicit enough in what I was and am saying, the site is biased in a number of points. I will not go into further detail, but his section on pictures in art, he gives the impression that the only representation of blacks in Egyptian art are solely Nubians and posts pictures of very Caucasoid looking Egyptians as proof of what the 'real' Egyptians look like. That in itself is highly subjective and biased. There are namy depictions of sub-Saharan looking figures in Egyptian art that are not foreigners.
|
|