U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:01 AM
 
Location: Canada
4,672 posts, read 8,096,043 times
Reputation: 4818

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Actually no one knows what the ancient Nubians spoke. Many just assume that the spoke Nilo Saharan because modern peoples across northern Sudan do. Make no mistake however there is no doubt that ancient Egypt came from Nubia and that the peoples of both civilizations formed a biological continuum (meaning that they were essentially the same). There's absolutely no point in arguing against this now proven and accepted fact.
I want to believe you, but I'm unfortunately suspicious of bias when people talk about the biological origin of the ancient Egyptian population due to the claims of black/white/arab supremacists who think it has some signifigance to the modern world. But the physical anthropological evidence is a great start as far as objective evidence! What other evidence is there to prove this theory? I can't just accept that it's an accepted fact, I gotta hear why it's an accepted fact.

 
Old 09-10-2012, 11:27 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIMBAM View Post
I want to believe you, but I'm unfortunately suspicious of bias when people talk about the biological origin of the ancient Egyptian population due to the claims of black/white/arab supremacists who think it has some signifigance to the modern world. But the physical anthropological evidence is a great start as far as objective evidence! What other evidence is there to prove this theory? I can't just accept that it's an accepted fact, I gotta hear why it's an accepted fact.
I understand your caution of supremacist claims, but you also most research the history of both of those claims (as far as Egypt is concerned anyway). Here is one statement from a 18th century historian at the start of the race dilemma of ancient Egypt:

Quote:
"Just think, that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83. "
Notice that he notes the attitudes of many of the early Egyptologist and Western scholars during that era in history. This attitude persisted until about the mid to late 20th century. His analysis of the population history of ancient Egypt has also been confirmed as accurate by consistent contemporary research. Within the last two decades there has been almost no opposition to the fact that ancient Egypt was of inner African (black ) origins:

Quote:
"Two opposing theories for the origin of Dynastic Egyptians dominated scholarly debate over the last century: whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans (historically referred to as Negroid) originating biologically and culturally in Saharo-Tropical Africa, or whether they originated as a Dynastic Race in the Mediterranean or western Asian regions (people historically categorized as White, or Caucasoid)....There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas...Any interpretation of the biological affinities of the ancient Egyptians must be placed in the context of hypothesis informed by the archaeological, linguistic, geographic or other data. In this context the physical anthropological evidence indicates that the early Nile Valley populations can be identified as part of an African lineage, but exhibiting local variation. This variation represents the short and long term effects of evolutionary forces, such as gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection influenced by culture and geography. (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York: Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)"
link


Quote:
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."

"Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization........."

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."

"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28 "
Within the last two to four years institutes like Cambridge, Manchester, Yale ect have all been pushing for the recognition that ancient Egypt was a black African civilization. The Fitzwilliam museum now has a section of their website and exhibit dedicated to showing this fact. Many museums now have a combined Sudanese (Nubian) and Egypt exhibit rather than just Egyptian, as they are finally recognizing that both formed a cultural and biological continuum. A recent NYtimes article from this years talks about this new recognition amongst modern scholars.
 
Old 09-10-2012, 11:28 AM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
OK...
What are we supposed to do now?
Learn something, hopefully.
 
Old 09-10-2012, 11:35 AM
 
6,314 posts, read 8,641,450 times
Reputation: 2661
Unbreakable,


How do you respond to those who say that the modern day Egyptians mirror the ancient population?



For people who think modern egyptians don't look like ancient egyptians - YouTube
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:05 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,714,122 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Learn something, hopefully.
(First a correction - it is not Mario Gatto, but Maria C. Gatto'. She is female and worked on her post doctorate at Yale...)

Confession: I am always puzzled when such info, unrelated to anything is thrown at us out of the blue.
1) In this age of internet, we are bombarded daily with thousands of speculative theories about everything, from UFOs to Atlantis, to the ancients Pharaohs of Egypt (last month I learned that they had Hebrew roots(!)
2) It is almost impossible to reject these theories, since neither we, nor the author have solid facts to base arguments upon.
3) In the academic world, many are desperate to have their voice heard, at any cost. (If you are a researcher and people don't talk about you, you are as good as dead. In such reality, wrong or preposterous theories are far better then silence).
4) Even if the theory is correct, it is meaningless to us today, or in the future.

P.S - I am going to start a new thread about the origin of humans on planet earth. I'll base that on a couple of theories: one talks with confidence about asteroids that impacted our planet and brought human DNA (prove me that I am wrong). Another about aliens who created hybrids between intelligent lifeforms and terrestrial primates (again, can you prove me wrong?) A third, based on one deformed scull fund on a remote Indonesian island which is the definitive link between apes and homo sapiens...

Last edited by oberon_1; 09-10-2012 at 01:31 PM..
 
Old 09-10-2012, 05:16 PM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
Unbreakable,

How do you respond to those who say that the modern day Egyptians mirror the ancient population?


For people who think modern egyptians don't look like ancient egyptians - YouTube
The people who generally argue this are Egyptian nationalist (like Zahi Hawass) or people who see the lighter complexion of most peoples in Cairo and Alexandria and want to say that Egypt has always looked like that (an extension of the "Caucasoid" family as they like to call them). These people tend to ignore any and all biological evidence which has consistently finds that there are significant distinctions between early and later Egyptian populations. This peer reviewed article below summarizes what almost two decades of research about this topic has found about the population history of Egypt:

Quote:
"The question of the genetic origins of ancient Egyptians, particularly those during the Dynastic period, is relevant to the current study. Modern interpretations of Egyptian state formation propose an indigenous origin of the Dynastic civilization (Hassan, 1988). Early Egyptologists considered Upper and Lower Egyptians to be genetically distinct populations, and viewed the Dynastic period as characterized by a conquest of Upper Egypt by the Lower Egyptians. More recent interpretations contend that Egyptians from the south actually expanded into the northern regions during the Dynastic state unification (Hassan, 1988; Savage, 2001), and that the Predynastic populations of Upper and Lower Egypt are morphologically distinct from one another, but not sufficiently distinct to consider either non-indigenous (Zakrzewski, 2007). The Predynastic populations studied here, from Naqada and Badari, are both Upper Egyptian samples, while the Dynastic Egyptian sample (Tarkhan) is from Lower Egypt. The Dynastic Nubian sample is from Upper Nubia (Kerma). Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
If you read the quote that I posted earlier from the 18th century historian Count De Volney then you will see that his interpretation of Egypt's population history even all the way back then was correct. It is illogical for people to suggest that absorbing over 3,000 years of foreign migration and invasions will not drastically alter the biological affinities of a population.

The biological evidence like the above is what really matters, not subjective interpretations of Egyptian's stylized art. Picking and choosing which pictures to throw together in a collage is something that both sides do:


Black Egypt - YouTube

The only difference between what the two sides is one side is actually backed by consistent biological and cultural research, while the other only seems to want to rely on their subjective opinions.

Also what must be noted about modern day Egypt is that the populations in the country are not monolithic, meaning that they have not all endured the same population history. The peoples of the urban centers in the North tend to be lighter skinned. This is also subsequently the region that absorbed the most foreign admixture (Hyksos, Turks, Greeks, Romans, Arabs) and are less likely to be good representatives of what the original ancient Egyptians looked like. The people of south tend to be "black" as a result of them not being "as much" affected by that foreign admixture. Here is what one southern Egyptian historian has stated about the population history of Egypt.


Egyptians are African Nubian.mp4 - YouTube

Last edited by The Unbreakable; 09-10-2012 at 05:31 PM..
 
Old 09-10-2012, 05:28 PM
 
219 posts, read 693,962 times
Reputation: 153
Quote:
Originally Posted by oberon_1 View Post
(First a correction - it is not Mario Gatto, but Maria C. Gatto'. She is female and worked on her post doctorate at Yale...)-
Yeah successful googlesearch has silenced my typo

Quote:
Confession: I am always puzzled when such info, unrelated to anything is thrown at us out of the blue.
Well just look at how random the subjects are in the history. Why pick out this thread to ask what's the point? Is it a point that you would have rather not learned?

Quote:
1) In this age of internet, we are bombarded daily with thousands of speculative theories about everything, from UFOs to Atlantis, to the ancients Pharaohs of Egypt (last month I learned that they had Hebrew roots(!)
I don't think that the Oxford, Yale, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam ect would all come together just to entertain a baseless speculative theory? They all seem to be onboard wit

Quote:
2) It is almost impossible to reject these theories, since neither we, nor the author have solid facts to base arguments upon.
If you're talking about my "theory" then you must be blind as a plethora of authoritative sources have already been presented which have made conclusions of this matter based on solid facts (i.e anthropology, genetics, archaeology). If this isn't the consensus on the matter, then please provide the alternates from sources of the same merit.

Quote:
4) Even if the theory is correct, it is meaningless to us today, or in the future.
That's like saying that all of history prior to the last 500 years is irrelevant to us. If that's what you're saying then why don't you go throw every thread in the sub forum pertaining to ancient history and make jerk statements like you did in this one?
 
Old 09-10-2012, 09:07 PM
 
1,433 posts, read 2,021,364 times
Reputation: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
Unbreakable,


How do you respond to those who say that the modern day Egyptians mirror the ancient population?



For people who think modern egyptians don't look like ancient egyptians - YouTube



Not at all. Modern Egyptians are Arabs/Berbe mix who conquered and took over what is present day Egypt
 
Old 09-10-2012, 10:36 PM
 
5,532 posts, read 5,714,122 times
Reputation: 3146
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
Yeah successful googlesearch has silenced my typo

Well just look at how random the subjects are in the history. Why pick out this thread to ask what's the point? Is it a point that you would have rather not learned?
Not necessary. Some are related to events we commemorate, publishing of a new book, or following an important archaeological discovery (Howard Carter in 1922) However, I agree that some threads on the history forum are pointless and stemming from the bored minds of some individuals.
Quote:
If you're talking about my "theory" then you must be blind as a plethora of authoritative sources have already been presented which have made conclusions of this matter based on solid facts (i.e anthropology, genetics, archaeology). If this isn't the consensus on the matter, then please provide the alternates from sources of the same merit.
My reference was general, to a bunch of "revolutionary" theories that are bestowed daily upon us, some of which I mentioned in my post.
Quote:

That's like saying that all of history prior to the last 500 years is irrelevant to us. If that's what you're saying then why don't you go throw every thread in the sub forum pertaining to ancient history and make jerk statements like you did in this one?
Absolutely not. The time frame is irrelevant. Some events that happened 30 years ago may be less crucial than things which took place 5000 years back. For example, if we could get a clearer understanding of how the Egyptian pyramids were built, what was the true nature of organizing a desert society to undertake such effort, understanding why they really did it, that can be a true revelation. How such intricate religious beliefs (the ancient Egyptians held) could be born into the minds of a primitive desert society. Does the new "Nubian roots" theory answer any of these?
I am a history buff, usually trying to explain others that history is alive. It can be a valuable source if we can learn from it. We can learn how to do things better, while not repeating past mistakes. Wisely, we can even plan our future. Otherwise, history is stale and not unlike a bunch of bad magazines collecting dust on a shelf. Imagine someone finding a celebrity gossip magazine, 3000 years into the future.

Last edited by oberon_1; 09-10-2012 at 11:05 PM..
 
Old 09-10-2012, 11:23 PM
 
6,314 posts, read 8,641,450 times
Reputation: 2661
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Unbreakable View Post
The people who generally argue this are Egyptian nationalist (like Zahi Hawass) or people who see the lighter complexion of most peoples in Cairo and Alexandria and want to say that Egypt has always looked like that (an extension of the "Caucasoid" family as they like to call them). These people tend to ignore any and all biological evidence which has consistently finds that there are significant distinctions between early and later Egyptian populations.
Then what about what Shomarka Keita says at 1:10 of this video? He says that the diversity of modern day Egypt is similar to the diversity of ancient Egypt.





Shomarka Omar Keita: What Genetics Can Tell Us (EGYPT) - YouTube
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top