Was Cleopatra VII "black" or part "black?" (events, Russian)

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

You read Keegan's latest book, on the American Civil War? What a mess; he's gotten either lazy or senile. Or maybe both.

I call it the Uris Principle, based on the Peter Principle: authors tend to write one book too many, when they should retire and call it a successful career.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Who is this junior guy? A condescending attitude does not help you, it adds an element of hysterics to your responses, emotional outbursts. At least you got rid of the emoticons.

HaaHaha!! Junior the only one getting their undies in a bunch is you. I'm just here to stop the spread of lies and other fallacies.

Originally Posted by Dd714

Well, anyways, this debate has turned into one, not of the issues, but one of your ability to debate the issues.

Or to be more accurate your less than stellar ability, Junior.

Originally Posted by Dd714

You seem stuck on specifics, misdirection, and irrelevance, while I continue to stress general points that you seem to, purposely or due to ignorance, miss. Or, maybe it is a quality of posting in the Politics Forum. It's a bad habit to break, you should break it.

Junior, from the get go all of the positions I have taken throughout this whole debate have been supported by the work and research of Egyptologists, archaeologists, linguists and other academic professionals.

All you have offered is your "conjectures" based on fuzzy logic and New Age theories about space aliens.

Originally Posted by Dd714

There is no evidence Russians invaded egypt obviously, and I never stated they did. What I did state was that the invaders, migrants, etc to Egypt in ancient times included peoples from the steppes/northern arabia, which includes lands that are now in Russia and Turkey. It's not hard to imagine that they also mixed with people from what is now Palestine and elsewhere to the south, perhaps settled in that area, and then they became what is commonly refered to as the Hyksos.

Once again Junior, there is no Santa Claus. All the evidence points to the Hyksos originating from Palestine. Its time to face facts and reality. In the real world, conjectures just don't cut it when it comes to facts and empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by Dd714

Aliens? I am still puzzled on your strange preoccupation with that topic (misdirection?).

Oh so I guess your more into Atlantis afterall.

Originally Posted by Dd714

Now, again about your ability to debate.

Taking notes. Can't say I blame you.

Originally Posted by Dd714

The method here isn't to suddently look for internet links that supports ones position, but to come up with your own conclusions. The problem here is that: 1.) Most of what one finds on the internet is rubbish, and 2.) One takes something out of context, or can not interpret it correctly (see the last thread from the LouisvilleSlugger guy for a perfect example). I am not saying your links are wrong, I don;'t even necessarily disagree, but I would prefer a responder to have read a book, know the subject, and interpret the writers conclusions himself. WHich is why I had referenced books that I have read.

Junior all those links are the works of academics and professionals from the likes of Cambridge, Oxford and other established academic institutions.

I have been studying the Nile Valley civilizations for over 10 years. I'm constantly on the lookout for new books and docs on the history channel. I often find that when I reread books from years ago, I pick up on something that I missed, especially when a new discovery supports, discredits or further extends an earlier conclusion.

Originally Posted by Dd714

Now, on the subject of Chariots and the Hyksos. I am going to do what I just advised against above, and post some quotes and links:

The point is twofold - 1.) We can post internet links that support our relative positions until the end of days, and 2.) More clearly - there is obviously no consensus among Egyptologists! There is just not enough evidence out there to conclude where the Hyksos came from, or for that matter the origination of the chariot in Egypt. And in regards to your comments "their is no evidence...". I like this quote from one of my links above:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. "

1. Did you ever have to do research papers or a thesis? Posting supporting information from credible sources is exactly what you have to do. Conjectures won't cut it, at least not in an institution based on academic principles and integrity.

2. Mind posting some Egyptologists that has evidence that the Hyksos came from the steppes of Russia that are stronger than the evidence for Palestine.

Junior, lets use logic for a second.

I already ready posted that in terms of artifacts like pottery, architecture, burial customs the Hyksos ruled territories are most similar to those of Palestine.

In terms of physical anthropology, the human remains from the Hyksos ruled territories are most similar to those of Palestine.

The words for names of rulers and others in Hyksos ruled territory were all west Semitic, a language spoken by the people of palestine.

The Egyptian word to refer to the Hyksos, Aamu was also the name Egyptians used to refer to the west Semitic peoples of the Sinai, Negev and Canaan.
You would have known this if you actually bothered to read and research Redford's text.

Now I know you're disappointed no Russians and space aliens are involved but all the evidence points to the Hyksos originating from southwest Asian and specifically Palestine.

And I mean evidence and not conjecture.

Originally Posted by Dd714

The horse? No doubt the horse existed in Egypt before the Hyksos. But horses evolved. Before the Hyksos and other migration from the north the common egyptian horse was small, suitable for simple farm work but certainly not adequate for the requirements of a chariot and the stress of warfare. Horses from the steppes, culled and grown purposely big and strong thanks to the supeior grazing land and horse cultures that lived in those areas, eventually came south as a result of trade, migration, and, yes, the Hyksos. Again, this comes from a book that I *gasp!!!* read, not from internet links - Keegan's renowned "History of Warfare".

Once again, your source is either outdated or just flat out wrong. The horses were always somewhat small but they were used for chariots of war and the hunt. Check out p. 77. I think your source is confusing donkeys with horses. (By the way did you know donkeys were domesticated in northeastern africa. Since they spread from there to southwest Asia, using your usual line of reasoning isn't that evidence of an invasion/migration from northeastern African into Asia.) Donkeys were used in chariots as well as oxen (see p. 80).

Originally Posted by Dd714

Yeah, time to close this topic down. It's run it's course.

Absolutely not the thread should stay open. The best way to destroy and debunk myths, fallacies, oh excuse me "conjectures" is to confront them out in the open and challenge them head on. Just because some are not up to the challenge doesn't mean, the debate should be stopped.

The new discoveries should be made public knowledge as that is how society is able to progress.

And getting back to the OP, I asked this question earlier but the poster refused to answer.

As far as I am aware of Cleo was of Greek speaking Macedonian descent.

But since the original question was if she was black, maybe the OP should have given a definition or description of what it is to be "black or part black".

[Dd714]

Originally Posted by kovert

I have been studying the Nile Valley civilizations for over 10 years. I'm constantly on the lookout for new books and docs on the history channel...
the thread should stay open. The best way to destroy and debunk myths, fallacies, oh excuse me "conjectures" is to confront them out in the open and challenge them head on.

From the hysterical quality of your text, I just imagine some vein in your head throbbing as you type. OK Mr. Politics Forum guy, lets keep this thread open. I'm kinda onto the Paul Revere and The Radiers topic now, but don't matter. Don't let that throbbing vein pop into some mental breakdown. Oh I see the emoticons are back, glad that works for you.

But you let something into your last post that explains alot. Ahh the History Channel. So you the big expert on Egyptology, watchin' The History Channel for 10 years. Oh that TeeVee got alot of good information between selling toothpaste and Toyotas. That's good learnin'. So tell me, expert on Egyptology, how much did you learn about Egypt from "Ice Road Truckers"?

For the record, my book quotes, particularly from "Temples, Tombs, & Hiergoglyphs" is indeed from someone who has a PhD in Egyptology - Barbara Mertz. She does something that you may consider shocking - she considers alternative theories and evidence and acknowledges lack of consensus and definitive evidence when there is such. SHOCKING I know. How dare someone admit that they don't know for sure something that happened 5,000 years ago. Oh only you know that, that's right, because you got that learning from The History Channel, and internet links.

Tell you what, you keep on watching that there TeeVee and tell us more about Egypt. The rest of us will discuss other topics.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by Dd714

From the hysterical quality of your text, I just imagine some vein in your head throbbing as you type. OK Mr. Politics Forum guy, lets keep this thread open.

Only to you would a fact based and well thought out reply be hysterical and threatening. This is why the thread must stay open so that pseudo-experts are exposed for what they are.

Originally Posted by Dd714

I'm kinda onto the Paul Revere and The Radiers topic now, but don't matter.

And look how long it took you to figure that one out.
No wonder you have problems keeping up with me.

Originally Posted by Dd714

But you let something into your last post that explains alot. Ahh the History Channel. So you the big expert on Egyptology, watchin' The History Channel for 10 years. Oh that TeeVee got alot of good information between selling toothpaste and Toyotas. That's good learnin'. So tell me, expert on Egyptology, how much did you learn about Egypt from "Ice Road Truckers"?

For the record, my book quotes, particularly from "Temples, Tombs, & Hiergoglyphs" is indeed from someone who has a PhD in Egyptology - Barbara Mertz. She does something that you may consider shocking - she considers alternative theories and evidence and acknowledges lack of consensus and definitive evidence when there is such. SHOCKING I know. How dare someone admit that they don't know for sure something that happened 5,000 years ago. Oh only you know that, that's right, because you got that learning from The History Channel, and internet links.

Tell you what, you keep on watching that there TeeVee and tell us more about Egypt. The rest of us will discuss other topics.

Its bad enough to pretend to be an expert on a topic one knows nothing about, but its even worse to do so in more than one topic.

Junior those links I posted to were not random internet links. If you'd actually bother to read about non-New Age space aliens and Russians, you'd know those are from google books.

See kiddo, google books are almost like on online library. You can read books from the likes of Oxford and Cambridge from the comfort of your very own browser.

The same academics from Cambridge and Oxford likewise are commentators on various History/Discovery Channels.

Its somewhat understandable to be hazy on things that happened in the past but its just plain ridiculous to not be aware of what's going on around you in the here and now.

Kiddo, you've got a lot of work to do.

[eloy]

A series: History: a science or fiction?
The country: Russia
Genre: Documentary, alternative history
Duration: 54:01
Year of release: 2010
The director: Alexander Ljutenkov
Participants / In roles: Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovsky
The text reads: Sergey Chonishvili
The size: 698 Mb
The description: the World of pyramids, Pharaohs and sphinxes. The world of secret which withdraws us in an unknown distance of times. To touch this secret, to Egypt tourists from all over the world last. Visiting the Egyptian tombs and temples, they consider magnificent drawings and bas-reliefs which have remained up to now. These drawings - Zodiacs , which scientists and builders of Ancient Egypt have left to the descendants. It is considered that these signs are not solved till now. However the Russian scientists-mathematicians managed to decipher them. It has appeared that in these signs the important dates of history of Egypt are ciphered.
Deposit Files

[kovert]

Originally Posted by Paquito Chocolatero

The description of many Emirs of Al Andalusia correspond to Gothic people.

Arab aristocracy did not have any quarrels against marrying christians, in fact it was part of their policy, so in a couple of generations Arabs in Al andalus were totally diferent from their counterparts in the Arab World, and they even fought alongside Christians against Almohads and Almoravids, fanatic Muslims waves from North Africa.

Interestingly enough, blonde women were in vogue (note in page 125 where it can be inferred that the great "Arab" historian Ibn Khaldun had ancestry from the converted Iberian population) with the Arab aristocracy of Andalusia.

But Glick notes that there was still discrimination by the Arab aristrocracy toward even the converted Muslim population of local Iberians and blondness could be used against them.

Here is (p.215)where Glick shows how the Andalusian Arabs and Berbers could rationalize their superiority over their maternally related Iberian kin, Islamic or otherwise, as well as their paternal kin that remained in North Africa and southwest Asia.

This is why I always say race is more sociological than biological and people come up with the weirdest theories to justify oppression and inequality.

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by Dd714

What is with you and the other politics forum guy? I don't think you can even agree with yourself? Be consistent! I think you put so much scientific babble talk in your response,

Well Hell at least we are actually referencing scientific findings from reputed scientist and scholars to confirms the fact that the Ancient Egyptians came from the South of Egypt.

you don't even know yourself what you are talking about. You are faking it, you really have no idea what you are saying do you? Just arguing thouglessly for the sake of argument. Your response has so many inconsistancies I don't even know where to begin. Do us a favor, don't fake it, it shows. It shows badly.

SMH This post was a waste of time on your behalf. The only thing that you've managed to show is how frustrated you are at the fact that I've presented irrefutable scientific and scholarly evidence which confirm that the Ancient Egyptians were indeed black Africans from the South.

I mean dude seriously how did you expect to debate this topic if you yourself didn't have a shred of evidence to confirm the BS that you were posting earlier? Like I stated earlier you seem to be indenial about the fact that the original Ancient Egyptians came from the South, and you instead seem to want to spout off about other disproven migrations into the Nile Valley. My whole point is post your sources to back your stance and or if you don't have any sources backing your stance then accept my peer reviewed studies.

First paragraph "Explain how if both ancinent and modern Egyptians were "the same" (as far as biological affinities go)"

Second paragraph: "studies confirm that modern Egyptians have retained a signifigant amount of their ancestoral East African ancestry (via haplogroup E)"

Yes they RETAINED a signifigant amount Haplogroup E, their ancestoral Egyptian (African in general) marker showing that they are the descendants of their core indigenous Egyptians ancestors. They also absorbed signifigant amounts of Haplogroup's of Eurasian origin (in Urban areas particularly in the Lower Egypt) and are not a good representative of those core indigneous E carrying Egyptian ancestors.

Third paragraph: "Northern Egypt has been the recipiant of the most migration from Eurasia since ancient times (though the first in that region were proven to be biologically closer to Tropical Africans) and this migration has been the cause of a major population shift in Egypt ."

Fourth paragraph : "These Egyptians are still black and are the victims of colorism by the lighter Lower Egyptians."

Where is the contradiction? Modern Lower Egyptians received the most Eurasian geneflow and are not a good representative of the original ancient Egyptians. Modern Upper Egyptians are still 'black' in the social sense of the word despite some Eurasian gene flow.

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

Here let this modern Southern Egyptian explain the situation much better:

I am out of this discussion,

Good bye then! You offered not a shred of scientific or scholarly evidence to confirm your assertions or refute mines.

Here let this quote sink in:

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, Ku****es, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."
(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

You see you were WRONG! The early ancient Egyptians were indeed the same as the black Africans to the South of them. It's fact get over it.

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by Neuling

Well, genetically speaking modern Egyptians are largely (in one of those source on the previous pages it said 90%) the same as ancient ones, and go to Cairo today and look around you, by and large people there don't look like people from Somalia or Ethiopia etc.

THAT'S THE POINT!

"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, Ku****es, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans."(S. O. Y and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33)

As you can see the early Ancient Egypt's resembled those black Africans from the Horn and the ancient Sahara.

Modern Northern Egyptians like those in Cairo and Alexandria have received so much geneflow from invading populations of Europe and Asia that they no longer resemble their core indigenous ancestors who resembled those further South (Like Somalis and Ethiopians).

"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times".- Keita (2005), pp. 564

But this is merely about history and science, not about racism as some suggest.

At this point in this debate I beg to differ. The evidence in this debate is completely one sided overwhelming supporting the stance that the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the South. It seems to be the same individuals from the previous threads about this subject who REFUSE to accept the evidence confirming this stance and instead drum off some wild theory of Russian migration into the Nile Valley or Aliens landing in the middle of the dessert. Anything but black Africans is clearly the message being relayed by posters in these threads despite evidence proving them to be the founders of the Ancient African civilization. SMH even in 2010!

[j_k_k]

Originally Posted by Louisvilleslugger

At this point in this debate I beg to differ. The evidence in this debate is completely one sided overwhelming supporting the stance that the Ancient Egyptians were black Africans from the South. It seems to be the same individuals from the previous threads about this subject who REFUSE to accept the evidence confirming this stance and instead drum off some wild theory of Russian migration into the Nile Valley or Aliens landing in the middle of the dessert. Anything but black Africans is clearly the message being relayed by posters in these threads despite evidence proving them to be the founders of the Ancient African civilization. SMH even in 2010!

As always, your viewpoint is so completely racially motivated that one is not inclined to trust your references, nor to feel it is worth while to check them. You might actually be right (personally that wouldn't bother me in and of itself), but your saying so actually detracts from the credibility of the position you espouse, because it's obvious that you approached this with one desired answer and were bound and determined to get it, thus prone to present only the evidence supporting that answer.

[Louisvilleslugger]

Originally Posted by j_k_k

As always, your viewpoint is so completely racially motivated that one is not inclined to trust your references, nor to feel it is worth while to check them. You might actually be right (personally that wouldn't bother me in and of itself), but your saying so actually detracts from the credibility of the position you espouse, because it's obvious that you approached this with one desired answer and were bound and determined to get it, thus prone to present only the evidence supporting that answer.

Lol You're full of it and you know it. The reason behind you refusing to accept overwhelming peer reviewed sources is due to your own damn biased in this debate. I find it amazing how it is the SAME individuals who's claims have been flatlined by my sources and argument in previous threads are the SAME ones still indenial about what is now proven as fact. Regardless of what you believe my motivations to be in this debate the fact remains that you nor any other poster opposed to my argument could not even begin to refute it, mainly because you don't have any credible sources backing you alls stance.