|
Post by alexandrian on May 11, 2005 17:27:00 GMT -5
The original Badarian type was more very Negroid, even more Negroid than West Africans. That same original Badarian type is the one ancestral to both Nubians and Upper Egyptians. How can someone be more Negroid than West Africans?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 11, 2005 17:37:38 GMT -5
Wrong, the 'greater similarity' has nothing to do with Caucasoids and Negroids, thats what you seem to be misunderstanding about this. As I stated earlier, the genetic distance between a Chinese and European is closer than either is to sub-Saharan Africans. The reason for that is populations we call sub-Saharan have been considerably isolated from non-African populations and geneflow from non-Africans is weakly manifested. The second reason is that non-Africans diverged from a population[East Africans/northeast Africans] that in turn was diverged from sub-Saharans, which puts even more genetic distance between the latter and the former. This has nothing to do with Negroids and Caucasoids. As you know, there are Melanesians and people in Fiji who look 'sub-Saharan' in a number traits, yet according to genetic distances and divergence they are closer to Europeans than they are to sub-Saharan Africans, does that make them more 'Caucasoid' than sub-Saharans? I understand your opinion, yet it makes no sense. If Egyptians were Negroid they would be closer to sub-Saharans, genetically, than a Caucasian group. That is simply not the case. The fact that Egypticans were genetically closer to Europeans than sub-saharans makes them more similar to Euros than sub-Saharan. It's so simple to understand, yet because of your own racial insecurity you blind yourself to this fact. Give me a break. Wrong, that study was done by Brace, who said or implied that Somalis were 'tropical' Europeans due to some points of similarity in facial structure between Europeans and Somalis. You have to read more of his works to get a better understanding of how he comes to his conclusions, Alex. Reading the studies themselves will help you to get a better understanding, you'll see an example of that in my next response. What does his grouping of Somalis have to do with anything? He did not group Somalis with Europeans or describe them as "tropical" Europeans. He put them in the same cluster as Nubians and East Africans. Furthermore, that doesn't change the fact that Lower Egyptians were found to be in the Caucasoid sphere in between Berbers and the Neolithic Swiss, while Upper Egyptians were on the fringe of Caucasoid sphere and closer to it than Indians. See, this is where I'm going to show you why people should read the studies very carefully before making any conclusions. The 'Egyptians' used in that study are a mix of Arabs and Berbers according to that study and thus are **NOT** an accurate representative sample of Egyptians since Egyptians are **NOT** a mix of Arabs and Berbers. Don't believe me? Look at the fine print at the very bottom of this chart and read it very carefully and slowly: Heck, look at the chart, it even tells you who the 'Egyptians' are in that sample. In case its too small to read go to this link: www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v74n3/40703/40703.tb1.html HAHAHAHAH....This is the most ridiculous assertion you have ever made thus far. What he meant by saying "this population is a mix of Arabs and Berbers" is that Egyptians are a mix of Arabs and Berbers, a combination of the two groups. hahahaha...it's not like he went in and picked solely Egyptians of Arabian origin. A. There are no Berbers in Egypt B. Modern-day Egyptians almost all have ancient Egyptian roots- they're not immigrants from Arabia. The Arabian impact has been shown to have been minimal. What do you think he did? Go around and selectively choose Egyptians who were of Arab origin? How is that possible? They don't segregate themselves or wear pins that say "I'm an Arab" or "I'm a Berber". How ridiculous are you? Face the fact, the population surveyed in the sample were as Egyptian as modern-day Egyptians get. They were simply Egyptian and they were found to have grouped with Omanis. hahahaha...ur argument and misinterpretation was so ridiculous it is absolutely laughable That isn't the point Alex, the fact remains that Ancient Egyptians clearly differentiated between themselves and all foreigners and there are examples of Ancient Egyptians depicting themselves as Negroid or nearly Negroid such as these for example: Those are just the few I will show but there are more. As I said, posting pictures is highly subjective and the author of that site was biased in his selection. If he wanted to be accurate he would have displyaed a better selection of pictures. Wow. Two pictures. What does that prove? There are depictions of blond ancient Egyptians, does that make Egyptians blond? There are many Caucasoid representations as well. Furthermore, the one on top doesn't have Negroid features, it's just sculpted in black stone. If we use stone color to determine race- are the Greeks who built statues with black stone black? Of course not. This is really getting ridiculous. Face it Charlie, you have absolutely no connection to ancient Egypt. The ancient Egyptians are similar to the modern-day Egyptians of today. Neither group was or is black by any stretch of the imagination. Just get over it. I provided actual studies that you attempted to discredit but failed miserably.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 11, 2005 17:53:58 GMT -5
Furthermore, the new reconstruction of King Tut shows clearly Caucasian features. The Americans thankfully operated blindly without figuring out who they were reconstructing, that way no politically correct biases could find their way in.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 12, 2005 14:56:33 GMT -5
How can someone be more Negroid than West Africans? Let me ask you this; how many studies on sub-Saharan populations have you actually read and analysed? How long will you continue to parrot other people in forums? Rolling your eyes and being devoid of extensive knowledge about sub-Saharan populations doesn't make me look bad, its quite the other way around. What proof do you have that West Africans are the most 'Negroid' of all Africans? Parroting nonsense from Dienekes and racialreality's website just doesn't do.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 12, 2005 15:18:53 GMT -5
I understand your opinion, yet it makes no sense. If Egyptians were Negroid they would be closer to sub-Saharans, genetically, than a Caucasian group. That is simply not the case. The fact that Egypticans were genetically closer to Europeans than sub-saharans makes them more similar to Euros than sub-Saharan. It's so simple to understand, yet because of your own racial insecurity you blind yourself to this fact. Give me a break. Let me explain this one last time, since your brain is biased and doesn't comprehend anything. Populations characterised as 'sub-Saharans' have been reasonably isolated from geneflow from non-Africans whereas Egyptians due to the fact that they are: 1) Northeast Africans, a population that diverged from 'sub-Saharans' genetically through fissioning over 100,000 years ago. All non-Africans descend from a small population that migrated out of East/Northeast Africa around 70,000 years ago. 2) A population who has not been isolated from geneflow from foreign influences. That makes them closer to Sardinians than to sub-Saharans genetically, this has nothing to do with Caucasoids and Negroids. Now digest it and understand. If you still don't pick up a book and read about genetics. Its amazing how people obfuscate genetic studies for their own personal agenda and not in the interest of the truth. Have you read Brace's studies? I doubt it because you're talking way over your head. Egyptians are mixes of Arabs and Berbers??? Now I know you're talking over your head. If that was so alex, the researchers in that study would not have went out of their to make such a notation. Second, history contradicts the view that Egyptians and Berbers are the same, they were always different, you're no real Egyptian because no real Egyptian would ever say Egyptians are mixes of Arabs and Berbers. You made a fool out of yourself here alex. Arab Berber mixes are **NOT** typical Egyptians and few, if any Egyptians identify as such. If that is so, why did you make the contradictory statement above about egyptians being mixes of Arabs and Berbers? Since Arabian impact has been minimal, are you saying the original Egyptians were Berbers? Like I said, you're talking over your head and you've exposed yourself for what you really are, a biased person who'll take any distorted view to support your agenda against 'Afrocentrists'.
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 12, 2005 16:24:35 GMT -5
The Caucasoid nature of the Egyptians had to have come from somewhere. If not from the Arabian conquerers, then from whom? The Greeks? No, they couldn't have settled Egypt in that large of a number. The Sea Peoples? Unlikely. The Berbers? Possibly, but they're still quite aways away. The only thing I can think of is that Caucasoid Egyptians were/are as native to northeast Africa as the Badarians were.
Oooo: how about Neolithic agriculturalists? I love process of elimination.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 12, 2005 17:05:04 GMT -5
Egyptians are mixes of Arabs and Berbers??? Now I know you're talking over your head. If that was so alex, the researchers in that study would not have went out of their to make such a notation. Second, history contradicts the view that Egyptians and Berbers are the same, they were always different, you're no real Egyptian because no real Egyptian would ever say Egyptians are mixes of Arabs and Berbers. You made a fool out of yourself here alex. Arab Berber mixes are **NOT** typical Egyptians and few, if any Egyptians identify as such. If that is so, why did you make the contradictory statement above about egyptians being mixes of Arabs and Berbers? Since Arabian impact has been minimal, are you saying the original Egyptians were Berbers? Like I said, you're talking over your head and you've exposed yourself for what you really are, a biased person who'll take any distorted view to support your agenda against 'Afrocentrists'. YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING. I am not saying Egyptians are ARab/Berber mixes, though those are the two ethnic groups they have the most in common with. The study referred to them as Arab/Berber mixes, since Egyptians do have both Berber and Semitic influences. The people surveyed in the study WERE actual Egyptians whether your blind mind chooses to believe it or not. What do you think they did? ONly selected Arabs and Berbers in Egypt? That's impossible. Absolutely impossible and implausible. The surveyers sureveyed actual Egyptians and found them to cluster closest with Omanis. Just face the facts. If you were to go to Egypt, you would definitely not fit in. Get over it. I'm not gonna argue with you. I provide evidence whether it be Brace, Di Rienzo or Cavalli-Sforza or the Omani/Egyptian study. You try to discredit them yet it doesn't work. Just forget it. You can stay in your narrow-minded dreamworld of black Egyptians. Anyone with half a brain doesn't take you seriously. I AM an Egyptian. You, my friend, are NOT.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 13, 2005 15:48:55 GMT -5
Furthermore, the new reconstruction of King Tut shows clearly Caucasian features. The Americans thankfully operated blindly without figuring out who they were reconstructing, that way no politically correct biases could find their way in. There are more than just that one reconstruction of Tut, what makes you think this one is the right one, because someone called it 'North African Caucasian?' Thats a very jaded term loosely applied to people who aren't even 'Caucasian'. I'll post something later on that. The skin coloring on that reconstruction is inaccurate because every depiction of Tut's skin color that I've saw showed him as darker than the skin coloring on that reconstruction. As for 'North African Caucasian', read this: Picture released in unsolved 1994 homicide Last updated Jan 25 2005 11:59 AM EST CBC News
VAUGHAN, ONT. – York Regional Police have released drawings of an unidentified woman whose badly burned body was found in an industrial park more than 10 years ago.
A police officer made the gruesome discovery on Sept. 1, 1994, after noticing a fire behind a building on Bradwick Drive near Highway 7 in Vaughan.
When the fire was put out, the body of a young woman was found in the remains of a suitcase. Gasoline and tires had been used to fuel the fire.
On Tuesday, investigators released drawings of a clay reconstruction of the victim's face, along with previously unpublished information that they hope may help someone identify her.
Forensic testing indicates that the victim was likely a dark-skinned Caucasian from a North African country such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia or Egypt. Her estimated age was 17 to 18.
She stood five feet, four inches, and had a very slim build, weighing between 85 and 100 pounds. She had dark curly hair, which may have been dyed a reddish colour, and protruding front teeth, which were in good condition.
Police say the victim had suffered broken bones in her back and lower limbs that had been left to heal untreated. As a result, they say she was likely immobile and in constant pain. toronto.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=to-coldcase20050125When did Sudanese, Somalis, and Ethiopians become 'dark skinned Caucasians?' North African Caucasian to some means something completely different than what you think it is.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 13, 2005 15:58:18 GMT -5
Well that is a stupid news report. But that has nothing to do with what King Tut was, just because one local news source got it wrong means nothing- it doesn't have the same access to knowledge as National Geographic. Here is what National Geographic said: "Led by Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, a National Geographic Society team commissioned French experts to create the lifelike bust. Using the CT scans (see "King Tut Mummy Scanned"), French forensic anthropologist Jean-Noël Vignal determined the basic measurements and features of Tutankhamun's face. Vignal deduced that Tutankhamun had a narrow nose, buck teeth, a receding chin, and Caucasian features. Such features are typical of European, North African, Middle Eastern, and Indian peoples. news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_051005_tutsface.htmlParis-based forensic sculptor Elisabeth Daynès then created the bust shown above. She used Vignal's estimates of skin thickness and other data, plus wooden sculptures of Tut made in his youth. Soft-tissue features, such as the nose and ears, had to be guessed at, though within a scientifically determined range. Daynès based the skin tone on an average shade of Egyptians today and added the eyeliner that the king would have worn in life. " They clearly mean the Caucasian me and you think of. Besides in the true sense of the word, Ethiopians and Somalians are not North African, they are East African. When King Tut is referred to as a North African Caucasian by the Egyptian SCA and various news sources, I think it is the North Africa of the southern Mediterranean sea. That is obvious. They are clearly not referring to East Africa, or else they would have said East AFrican. Since when are polioce departments superior to National Geographic when it comes to ethnicity. YOu know full well that by North African Caucasian they are referring to the people of North Africa, not East Africa, since most people know most East AFricans aren't Caucasians. Besides, King Tut definitely had Caucasian features in all three reconustrctions and the Americans worked blindly (no PC biases could weave their way in). Of course it is the most accurate because it is the only reconstruction of King Tut to involve the actual mummy, since this marked the first time the mummy was removed. Furthermore, it was the only reconstruction to be supervised by Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquties and this reconstruction involved thousands of CT scans and phots and was validated by each grouip (Egyptian, American, and French). Don't deny this is by far the most realistic reconstruction, you are much more intelligent than that.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 13, 2005 16:18:12 GMT -5
Well that is a stupid news report. But that has nothing to do with what King Tut was, just because one local news source got it wrong means nothing- it doesn't have the same access to knowledge as National Geographic. Here is what National Geographic said: National Geographic is a magazine, not a body of reasearchers. They just report findings by other people. You missed the point of my post so now you're tapdancing. That article I posted called people from East Africa North African and Caucasian, so not everyone shares your logic. Why didn't they refer to Somalis, Ethiopians, and Sudanese as East African instead of North African Caucasian? You missed the point again alex and national Geographic did not conduct that study they merely reported it. As for police departments, they use forensic anthropologists to reconstruct faces of unidentified people, so yes they are far more credible than a magazine that merely reports findings and conducts no studies. Like this one?: LinkSure, Tut looks very 'Caucasian' in that reconstruction and it was done based on his X-rays. I guess this one is inaccurate alex, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 13, 2005 16:27:27 GMT -5
Why didn't they refer to Somalis, Ethiopians, and Sudanese as East African instead of North African Caucasian? I have no idea. That's simply a lack of judgment on their part. Though I doubt when the Egyptian SCA or National Geographic says "North African" it really means "East African" Like this one?: LinkSure, Tut looks ver 'caucasian' in that reconstruction and it was done based on his X-rays. I guess this one is inaccurate alex, isn't it? That's not one of the three reconstructions. By the three reconstructions I meant the team from France, the team from USA, and the team from Egypt, all of whom came up with separate examples that were all similar and all had Caucasian features. That one reconstruction you show is extremely inaccurate. It wasn't even validated by Egypt's SCA. Furthermore, it didn't even use the actual skull of King Tut or the mummy, since the mummy was safely inside the tomb until it was taken out for the latest CTscan. They used the results of Xrays from the 1960s (very accurate) to determine the skull shape and the nose shape, lip thickness, and skin tone (which is far darker than any Egyptian I've met) were simply of the artist's choosing. Does that sound accurate to you? On the other hand, the latest reconstruction involved taking the actual mummy out, creating a plaster replica of his actual skull, giving him a CT Scan and taking thousands of CT pictures and then giving these findings to three different prestigious teams from three different countries (the Americans not knowing who they were working on so they couldn't let their little politically correct biases that you see on Discovery interfere with the truth). All three teams came up with similar results, all three showing Caucasian features, again using the actual skull and CT Scans. Furthermore, all this was done with the consent and (for the Egyptian team) supervision of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. If you think that the other museum artist's rendering based on what Tut might have looked like from outdater X-rays is more accurate than three different reconstructions from three teams in three different countries based on the actual skull, CT Scan, and thousands of CT pictures, then quite frankly, you are living in utter denial. By the way, the color used for King Tut was determined as the average skin tone of modern Egyptians, it's not much lighter than how King Tut was depicted in various statues. Furterhmore, do keep in mind that Egyptian men were working under the hot desert sun for hours and hours a day half-naked so all the color depicted wasn't naturally there- there was a presence of some sort of sun-induced tan.
|
|
|
Post by topdog on May 13, 2005 16:46:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 13, 2005 16:56:13 GMT -5
Those are all the color of the building material. It's not like they painted him that color. Besides the top two do bear a resemblance to the most recent constructions. And you can't get by how very Egyptian the reconstructed Tutankhamen looks. Besides, this statue was specifically pointed out by Zahi Hawass to have a resemblance to the reconstrutions:
|
|
|
Post by mike2 on May 13, 2005 17:05:21 GMT -5
Assuming that he was really as dark as the Egyptian busts, if King Tut were alive today, I think they would invent a new word for him. Because the actual Egyptian busts of him don't look North African Caucasian, Middle Eastern, or East African Negroid. It's like he's something else entirely. I mean, show me one Egyptian, Berber, or Aethiopid alive today that has the same striking ambiguous look as the boy king.
Of course, you could argue it's simply exaggerrated Amarna stylization, but I somehow don't believe that.
|
|
|
Post by alexandrian on May 13, 2005 17:13:55 GMT -5
Assuming that he was really as dark as the Egyptian busts, if King Tut were alive today, I think they would invent a new word for him. Because the actual Egyptian busts of him don't look North African Caucasian, Middle Eastern, or East African Negroid. It's like he's something else entirely. I mean, show me one Egyptian, Berber, or Aethiopid alive today that has the same striking ambiguous look as the boy king. Of course, you could argue it's simply exaggerrated Amarna stylization, but I somehow don't believe that. We know how he looks based on the reconstructions. He looks very Egyptian. Different AE depictions of Tut look different, the recent Franco-American-Egyptian reconstructions are much more consistent.
|
|