Negus (Perra/Pharaohs) of Ancient Kemet

[asante]

Mar 20, 2014 2:22:54 GMT -5 anansi said:

"Sigh" No! they were not Tutsi they may share features with them cultural and genetic but they were different nationalities separated by time and space Ok

I find it kinda funny how you don't dispute this claim in the thread where it's meant to be disputed. Why didn't you push that silly "separated by time and space" argument there? Why make this a side track argument in this thread? If you insist however I'm more than willing to discuss your discrepancies in that thread.

take a look at the 12 dynasty those kings repelled their close relations to the south of them because they fell on different side of the boarder ie different political entities,much like the Windsors had bloody wars with their German relatives WWI and WWII.

Yeah the Nubian pharaohs of the 12 Dynasty is common knowledge on ES, so what is your point?

[zarahan]

Asante said:
Ramses II and Ramses III (though not father and son) were Tutsi.

No they were not as Anansi said. They shared certain physical features but they
are not the same tribe or ethnicity & there are large time gaps with that
comparison. Africans both? yes of course with a range of DNA. But if you are
going to make such sweeping claims you might as well say Ramses 3 was Zulu.
Here again, such sweeping statements play into the hands of the enemies
of a more balanced African bio-history.

You are better off saying that Ramses 3 and the Tutsi, like some other Africans,
share certain common DNA markers. Again, more carefully qualify your statements.
But still that doesn't make Ramses 3 Tutsi. African shared markers? Sure.
Same tribe or language? No. Too far separated by time and space to
talk up a bold claim that they were Tutsi? Yes. Anansi is right on that score.


E1b1a -the old E3a.

[asante]

Mar 20, 2014 1:37:04 GMT -5 zarahan said:

Fair enough but you have shifted from your opening definition of"almost all" having broad noses and thick lips, and even in the pic gallery you show, several do not have those stereotypical features.

No I didn't shift anything. It still stands to show in the opening post that with the exception of maybe 5 pharaohs, that the stereotypical broad featured African comprises the overwhelming majority of the pharaohs.

Also the map you show has folks with a wide range of diversity- including millions of people with narrow noses and thin
lips.

True that and I made a thread addressing this recently.

OK with me, I only objected to sweeping statements that seemed to set up easy scores for the enemies of African bio-history, based on their bogus "true negro" stereotype.

I understand your caution, but the fact is that this fear (based on assumption) can now be laid to rest. At this point our evidence (The ES "database") has reached a new era, and the reason for this is DNAtribes and DNAconsultant. The fact is that this collection of statuary which is clearly showing that they belong to our (AA's) ancestral African group, no longer has to be clouted in "speculation" in regards to who they actually relate to and represented. Eurocentric scholars will not put these pieces of the puzzle together for us, and it's silly to believe that these Western scientist have our true interest at heart. Hell Dnatribes in their Ramses edition did not even acknowledge the fact that West Africa (where most AA's ancestors are) has been a consistent match with the pharaohs just like Southern Africa and the Great Lakes. The common lineage for all of these pharaohs is undoubtedly M2 (which peaks in West Africa) and Nilotic admixture in some cases (hence the Great Lakes matches). To me this tells that there is in fact a concentrated effort by the establishment to obscure the fact that our West African ancestors (as they all claim) came from ancient Egypt-Nubia. The Fitzwilliam museum for example makes the effort to connect ancient Egypt to certain East African populations while comparably neglecting that the same practices (and many more) are also characteristic of West African populations.

What I dont understand though is how the dispersal of West African groups FROM the Nile Valley towards the West, would lead to an increase of pople looking more like Arabs, Greeks, Assyrians etc.

It's seems like you answered your own question here.

Chancellor Williams posited that invading Asiatic/Europeanized elements DISPLACED or forced out original "Negro stocks" towards the West.

The problem with this perspective of ancient "Europeans" or "Asiatic" is that it's totally based on assumptions derived entirely from contemporary populations which are frequently shown in the media. The fact is that the original populations of these non African regions were black Africans and descend from the original black farming culture of the Natufians. Around 2,000 B.C. white people came into the regions from their first migration out of the Caucus (the Indo-Aryan migration). After this period you have "mixed race" populations throughout Europe and the Middle East (Ricaut 2008). Put that event into historical context.

I disagree with the notion of any vast migration towrds the West because of incoming Asiatics.

Those "Asiatics" at this period in history (after the Indo-Aryan migration) were at least partially descend from the original Pleistocene Nubians migration into the Levant:

“..one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307

This event HAS to be put into historical context! This would explain why Essarhaddon (and the Persian pharaohs) has those thick lips and flat wide nostrils.


or


^^ This isn't "Afrocentrism" it is reality and not too many want to address it. 

The "negro stocks" were already well in place, in a broad arc stretching from Kemet all the way to the coast of Guinea.

Guinea? During what time period? I made a post explaining the settling of West Africa here.

I don't seen any vast migration of contemporary groups. What Equitorial Groups for example? 

There are many many many books where the migrations of these African tribes from ancient Egypt are explained. Western scholars have tried their damnedest to deny that such an event took place. It's funny however because the one intra African migration that is never explained by Western scholars however is how the M2 lineages (just like the Niger-Congo languages) originated in East Africa along the Nile,  but wound up in West Africa. This logically means that our ancestral groups did not originate in West Africa. No one explains this. Christopher Ehret made a brief statement about the supposite migration that our ancestors took from East Africa around 12,000 years ago.:

The initial warming of climate in the Bølling-Allerød interstadial, 12,700-10,900 BCE, brought increased rainfall and warmer conditions in many African regions. Three sets of peoples, speaking languages of the three language families that predominate across the continent today, probably began their early expansions in this period. Nilo-Saharan peoples spread out in the areas around and east of the middle Nile River in what is today the country of Sudan. Peoples of a second family, Niger-Kordofanian (EDIT: to which Niger-Congo and Bantu are offshoots) , spread across an emerging east-west belt of savanna vegetation from the eastern Sudan to the western Atlantic coast of Africa. In the same era, communities speaking languages of the Erythraic branch of the Afrasian (Afroasiatic) family expanded beyond their origin areas in the Horn of Africa, northward to modern-day Egypt. - Excerpt from : Africa in History by Christopher Ehret

Nobody questioned this! No evidence is given in support of this migration into West Africa....None! It has just been taken at face value by this Western scholar this whole time. There is no evidence of people inhabiting tropical West Africa until the Nok civilization (which ironically only comes into existence during the Egyptian Late Period), and as a matter of fact wasn't West Africa uninhabitable swamp land a mere 3,000 years ago? Now ironically he says that this migration occurred at the same time that Ethiopic Africans from Punt (Ethiopia/Eritrea) migrated northward into Egypt. What do African scholars have to say about these events?

The most successful of these were speakers of Proto-Afro-Asiatic language from the African rift valley. Going through the savannah, the Chadic speakers reached Lake Chad while the Berbers, the Maghreb and the Proto-Egyptians arrived in Upper Egypt. However Martin Bernal did not consider speakers of Proto-Bantu in his analysis. It is the author’s contention, from the linguistic contents, that speakers of Proto-Bantu played an active part at the time of the expansion of Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers in the Rift Valley of East Africa. These Proto-Bantu speakers going through the savannah formed part of the migration to Egypt. The Bantu languages together with other indigenous languages fused together and became embedded to form the Proto-Egyptian language. It is for this reason that the Ancient Egyptian language contains a substantial amount of Proto-Bantu or Bantu roots.



However Guthrie speculated that before the Proto-Bantu expansion from Zaire, there had been several pre-Bantu stages, at which time the Bantu ancestors lived far to the north around Lake Chad. One group from this area made its way to Zaire and became the Proto-Bantu. The Proto-Bantu speakers and Proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers lived along side each other. They traded together, shared and exchanged common vocabularies of words.

and speaking on those Bantu roots in ancient Egypt here is a link which refutes the implication that ancient Egypt was not a Niger-Congo language. You must ask why does Christopher Ehret (a white western scholar) not acknowledge these of facts? Why does all of this literature that comes from himself (and Keita) only support East African (specifically "Ethiopic") connections with ancient Egypt? If ancient Egypt was over 1/3 "Negroid" (our ancestor) then why does Keita in his Cambridge lecture describe them as "Somali like"? Did you read his National Geographic write up? Clearly to me Keita is in a position where he has to appease to Western BS, and people like Christopher Ehret are clever snakes for their deceptions! The ish that they have been leading us to believe ain't adding up when you do your own independent research. 

Is the dispersal you talk about due to Kemet being absorbed or overrun to end the Dynastic era, or are you just talking general, generic, routine dispersals of Africans throughout the millennia based on climate or pastoralism, etc?

It's Dynastic Egypt. The thing about this "time and space" argument to explain these overlapping between ancient Egypt and our ancestors is ridiculous, when the elders of our ancestral groups have always maintained (to non Africans) that they came from ancient Egypt. This is not an African American feel good claim, but instead a fact! Assert this fact to the "enemy" and present the right evidence, they will run for cover. 

There are some who seem to think they are so precious or special because of such noses.

Yes and I don't know why. 

Actually it wont shut them up because they will find pics of pharaohs with narrow noses and thin lips to contradict your example.

No they won't! If they could then they would have. The fact is we have been mislead by Keita (the only person that I have seen sited telling people don't refer to artwork to make your argument) to believe that narrow noses and thin lips characterized ancient Egypt art (and specifically statuary). That is not true. Even if they could maybe find a mural painting showing Thutmose III with "red skin" skin, they still have to answer to this:



It's ridiculous in my opinion to fear that the statue above is really meant to represent a person who looked like this.:



As opposed to people in our own distinctly broad featured African group. That is an illogical fear. 

You would
actually be playing into their hands- focused on pictures not hard data.

Clearly you know that I've been arguing with the "hard data" for some time now (quite good at it). From my experience you get the most BS (from everybody) when you only present words and text. Then the whole spectrum of the whole debate for them in many cases is not really focusing on the "Africanity" of ancient Egypt, but really just trying to prove that our "West-Central African ancestors had nothing to do with ancient Egypt". That being said a lot of the quotes are over glorifying East African relationships with ancient Egypt (Keita, Ehret) and not mentioning anything at all about our relationship with it. I now see that spectrum as self defeating. Essentially all that we're doing is noting the connections with East Africans (Ethiopic populations and Nilotes occasionally), and subliminally associating ourselves with that relationship through these ideas of "We are all Africans" and what not. That's boarder line disingenuous in my opinion. We are the descendants of the ancient Egyptians, and we cannot scared to assert it. The ridicule of the "enemy" becomes silent with this assertion, because it legitimately thrust OURSELVES (NOT OTHER AFRICANS) into a position of respect in our mind (of African Americans/New World blacks) without their permission which is the very thing that they have been trying to take away from us.

But the notion of "mulatto appearance" is the old race model format circa 1700s and still falls into the trap of needing a "race mix" with someone  to look different.

But that is what happened! The Greco-Roman period brought white European/mulatto affinities into the ancient Egyptian population (specifically the urban north). As I've stated earlier the ancient population of the Middle East which eventually crept into Europe via Greece were black farmers. The coming of the Dorians or the Nomadic populations of the Indo-European/"Aryan" migration eventually made the Middle East and Europe mulatto regions. These pictures and sculptures of ancient Greeks and Middle Easterners are NOT fake, and are the result of an ancient migratory event that is never put into historical context. 

The better model is that the tropical Africans in place in Kemet did not need any race mix to look as they did. Cooler temperate
climes such as near the MEdit or in a green Saharan era can over time  make for lighter skin.

Does this map make it clear that white skin is NOT an "adaption" to climate? 

It did, and while valuable for its time, is based on 1970s racial models. "Broad Featured" is not the only thing that defines indigenous tropical Africans. Narrow features are just as African. The "one-third" is actually understated once a fuller picture of African diversity

is considered. And "negroid" is an obsolete term.

The point was to specify our group not to collectively refer to all black Africans with different features. I'm talking about us specifically. 

The Goode study you quote though shows no such sudden disappearance. Broad "negroid" Badarians co-existed with narrow nosed types- they are all African, all native.

The citation that I provided stated that the earliest ancient Egyptian groups (Naqada and Badarians) were linked together through their "Negroid" affinities. The Badarian group was even suggested to have cultural (not just biological) ties to Bantu populations in southern Africa. Keita also authored a study which compared the Badarians to an array of "Negroid" Africans (including Khoisan) vs Europeans, and they all group with the traditionally labeled "Negroid" Africans. This Negroid affinity according to text in the study persisted even into the 18-19th Dynasty. The Late Dynastic Egyptians however were distinct from the earlier "Negroid" Egyptians. Even until to this day Egypt is not characterized by "negroid" populations that characterized the earliest Egyptians. What happened to the "Negroid" affinity of ancient Egypt and why did it cease to characterize the population during the Greco-Roman period? Who were the Greeks and Romans what did they look like? 

The Badarians may have receded due to any number of reasons, none of which require any incoming "Eurasians". Climate change that drove OTHER types of AFRICANS into the Nile Valley is a fair reason.

That explanation doesn't make sense considering that the ancestors of the Badarians were the Africans who inhabited the Western Desert until the coming of Nilotic communities from the central Saharan region (around lake Chad):

Original homeland of the Bantu up to 1500 A.D

Dark shading: Possible ultimate origin of the Bantu

Cross shading: Area of Bantu expansion into Egypt




Take note of the fact that the black and white map is not just referring to the Nile Valley proper, but is also including the fertile Sahara regions that are shown in the map above. These were the "Anu" (which means "Bantu"/"people") people who migrated into Egypt from Sudan over 12,000 years ago with the Afro-Asiatic speakers. 

Some make it sound like Charleston Heston in the 10 Commandments leading out a horde of "negroes"- shuffling south once the 25th Dynasty was defeated. Foreign influence no doubt displaced SOME Egyptians and added mixes, but "black Egypt" is a modern reality still seen in the Baladi or the rural Fellahim/peasants of today.

As I've stated we have entered in a new era in regards to this subject with the help of DNA. The blacks that remain in ancient Egypt are mostly the descendants of the Afro-Asiatic migration. Some people like Beyoku have shown that the Afro-Asiatic speakers really didn't contribute much to ancient Egypt besides a few element of the language they (Ethiopic populations) primarily stayed along the Red Sea. 

link

Now this scenario that he proposed makes sense with the results of DNAconsultant:

The Egyptian Gene. Although not carried in the royal mummies whose DNA has been studied so far, this autosomal ancestry marker is also clearly African in origin and enjoys its greatest spread in Egyptians. Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians. Less than one percent of European Americans have it, while African Americans preserve it at a rate of three times that of their white neighbors. Oddly, East Coast Indians and Melungeons have it at elevated levels. It is hardly noticeable in Asia, suggesting that it did not form a significant part of the Great Migration of Humanity out of Africa about 100,000 years ago but spread to Eurasian populations primarily from Egypt and the Middle East in historical times. 

link

The only African genetic markers that the "Egyptian gene" can be referring to are those downstream mutations of M-35 from the Horn which characterizes most "Afro-Asiatic" speaking populations.  



Makes sense right? So notice how this Ethiopic genetic marker was not found in the ancient Egyptian mummies, but characterizes today's Egyptians? The ancient Egyptian mummies are characterized by M2 lineages, which are no longer really found in Northeast Africa (ironically it is specifically southern Egypt-Kush area). Take into consideration that "negroid" affinities in ancient Egypt also ceased to dominate by the Late period. Keep in mind that almost all of the statues on page one show facial features which are broad (thick lips, strong cheek bones, prognathous, wide nostrils). Clearly...there was an exodus of our African ancestors from ancient Egypt-Nubia during the Late period as their oral traditions attest to. 

Do not fall into a trap of assuming that the retreat of the 25th Dynasty means
that "the blacks left Egypt." They were there before the 25th, and they were there after.

That is exactly what happened though! The fact is we have been lead astray by many of these Western scholars/snakes. 

[asante]

Mar 20, 2014 23:52:42 GMT -5 zarahan said:

They shared certain physical features but they
are not the same tribe or ethnicity & there are large time gaps with that comparison.

Well the primary reason that I chose Tutsi as opposed to a "Horner" or another gracile group of Africans is because of the Tutsi crown that so many of these gracile Egyptian statues seem to sport (Ramses II and III and Akenathan). The brilliant Cheikh Anta Diop was the first to make this famous comparison not me. For the reasons that I've sited I'm pretty damn convinced that they were in fact Tutsi.

Ramses II


Akhenaten



Ramses III


Tutsi hairstyle(amasunzu):





So these pharaohs have gracile facial features (Tutsi). These pharaohs all wear a crown that clearly resembles the Amasunzu Tutsi hairstyle ( or visa versa). Ramses III and Akhenaten DNA ties both of them primarily with the Great Lakes region which is wear Tutsis reside. It's just commonsense not a "sweeping claim" to me! Now explain this time gap please.

But if you are going to make such sweeping claims you might as well say Ramses 3 was Zulu.

That doesn't make sense when his DNA ties him to the Great Lakes (Tutsi region):

[anansi]

Asante

Contrary to the racist lies seen on the National Geographic and History Channel all of the native ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were black, and by black I mean almost all of them were thick lipped and wide nosed (don't know where the "they were mostly "Horner" looking nonsense came from).

The Great Sphinx (around 12,000 years old)

What the hell is a Horner look your whole point is to make distance between Broad featured Africans and Narrow featured Africans you proclaimed have a Horner look this is nothing but warmed over Hamitism on your part.
As far the Sphinx the body may have been carved for sometime,the face may have been carved in the 4th dynasty some corner suggested the face may have been a lion at one point,in any case the 4th dynast did work on it.
Asante

So are you implying that most people in Somalia look like the Bantu populations (the most distinct in the country) who inhabit the southern rim of the country? Are you saying that most Ethiopians don't look like these Ethiopian representatives in the Olympics,

I am implying no such thing but the guys that I posted above are not Bantus,some fit the bill as broad featured Horners.
Horners and Bantu,yes they do look like each other sometimes like this famous southern Bantu above.


Asante

While Tutsis are Bantu speakers and are overwhelming comprised of M2 lineages, their noted distinction in phenotype from their neighboring groups (most notably the Hutu) is due to Nilotic admixture. This would explain why they are seen as taller and have more "gracile" features, as those are Nilotic traits.

Really?? Nilotic traits?? fact the Nilotic folks are among the most broad featured folks I have seen up close and in person so if you are fishing in those waters to find a reason to explain why the Bantu speaking Tutsi some of whom have narrow features you are in the wrong pond.

Asante 

Ok now I know that your philosophy is that all black Africans are one with no differences and what not but that comparison that you made between Somalia's ex-president and Amhose I was utterly ridiculous and you know it. That Somali man is a misfit among over 90% of the statuary above and you know it. With that man's nose alone the closest match of those above in terms of facial features is this Greek man
.

How many of the pharonic statues above would Somalia's ex-president mirror?

Asante You posted that pic to imply Horners looked like this in contrast to the Mike Tyson type features seen in sculptures it was I who took issue with the silliness of it.

Every piece of statuary that you posted with the exception of the above are characteristic traits of these African populations. The individual above to me looks like a Nilote with "European features" (haha).

Scroll up see what a Nilotic look like..haha back to you.

Yeah the Nubian pharaohs of the 12 Dynasty is common knowledge on ES, so what is your point?

My point is where they hailed from.get it just don't throw in" Nubian" and walk away.

[zarahan]

Asante says:
I understand your caution, but the fact is that this fear (based on assumption) can now be laid to rest. At this point our evidence (The ES "database") has reached a new era, and the reason for this is DNAtribes and DNAconsultant.

DNA Tribes offers some good data but they are not peer-reviewed
so I would not rely on them 100%. They are a valid part of the datamix but
they have to be balanced by other things- jut like the peer-reviewed stuff
has to be balanced. DNA studies coming out help, but they are no panacea. In
fact I would say that DNA is being manipulated big time by certain
(not all) Euro scholars to deny African variability and diversity. DNA
is also more complicated and filled with jargon, so its easier for them to
hide and distort things. Artifactual and fossil evidence arejust as
strong players in the field as DNA, which often, is based on educated
guesses and estimates. Look at the wide margins of error in some studies-
10,000 years, 30,000 years and so on. DNA is just one type of evidence.

I would not put all my eggs in the DNA basket. Keita in one of his
videos argues for a balanced approach- a package- DNA, skeletal,
cranial, limb proportion, cultural/artifact and statuary. Its like the
ancient Kemet or Carthaginian armies of old- contingents from different
places, and combined arms- archers, infantry, chariots, cavalry scouts, etc.
With a balanced, combined arms approach you have maximum flexibility in
meeting all contenders. The combined arms should of course balance
and be consistent. If some DNA is saying "Eurasians" but the artifact/cultural
part says African, then you know something is out of whack.




The fact is that this collection of statuary which is clearly showing that they belong to our (AA's) ancestral African group, no longer has to be clouted in "speculation" in regards to who they actually relate to and represented.
Statuary has its own traps as I said before. For every board
nosed picture you pull, someone can put up a narrow-nosed, light
skinned one. Which is why endless picture comparisons are like an
empty loop where nothing definitive can be established, and enemies
get to divert things on to a "true negro looks" game track. Statuary
is a valid part of the combined arms but has to be strongly supported
by hard data in the other branches of the weapons mix.


Hell Dnatribes in their Ramses edition did not even acknowledge the fact that West Africa (where most AA's ancestors are) has been a consistent match with the pharaohs just like Southern Africa and the Great Lakes.
What you say confirms my earlier point. There can be no new era based
on DNATribes. Only a combined arms package can best protect
a balance picture of African bio-history.

The common lineage for all of these pharaohs is undoubtedly M2 (which peaks in West Africa) and Nilotic admixture in some cases (hence the Great Lakes matches). To me this tells that there is in fact a concentrated effort by the establishment to obscure the fact that our West African ancestors (as they all claim) came from ancient Egypt-Nubia.
Current data puts the origins of M2 in East Africa. It would be more accurate
to look at it that way rather than trying to draw a direct connection with Egypt.
The data allows no such direct connection to be pinpointed into Egypt.
No one knows precisely in what country the first carrier of that variant arose.
If you are trying to make a case for West African connections with the
Nile Valley, you already have such a case, through the highway of the Sahara,
a true "Pan African" entity that was once a lush greenbelt covering almost a
third of Africa and even now almost stretches from coast to coast.


The Fitzwilliam museum for example makes the effort to connect ancient Egypt to certain East African populations while comparably neglecting that the same practices (and many more) are also characteristic of West African populations.
More of the current data leans towards East Africa, which is
not unusual because East Africa is geographically closer and
there is the Nile as part of the transport mix with branches
which proceed all the way into Ethiopia. East Africa is logical
as a primary connection, but another is the pan-African Sahara
which links East with West and from which much of Egyptian
culture was influenced..

The fact is that the original populations of these non African regions were black Africans and descend from the original black farming culture of the Natufians. Around 2,000 B.C. white people came into the regions from their first migration out of the Caucus (the Indo-Aryan migration). After this period you have "mixed race" populations throughout Europe and the Middle East (Ricaut 2008). Put that event into historical context.

An Indo- Aryan migration 2000 BC into Africa or Palestine is shaky.
And the Indo-Aryan migrations were not out of the Caucasus.
Also keep in mind that the Natufians were 12000BC or so. And Asiatic types
may have been in the Middle East region well before 2000 BC.
Again here is where pictures can trip you up for plenty of pics of
narrow nosed, light skinned Middle Easterners can be produced
to contradict your Black wave theory. Then there are people without
typical or heavy African DNA signatures going way back in the Middle East
as well, long before 2000 BC. Calling a many people as possible
"black" is not gonna cover holes in your theory.

And Ricaut 2008 makes no claim about Indo-Aryan migrations into the region.
Where does he do this? Give a quote.

Those "Asiatics" at this period in history (after the Indo-Aryan migration) were at least partially descend from the original Pleistocene Nubians migration into the Levant:
“..one can identify Negroid (Ethiopic or Bushmanoid?) traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptians and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307

But the quote you produce from Angel does not support your claim.
He says nothing about Pleistocene Nubian migration into the Levant,
and who says people in say Syria after 2000BC are descendants of
Pleistocene Nubians? What credible scholar? Please furnish citation.
Neither Angel, or Ricaut seems to support your claim.

And to what extent is "partially descend"? Based on what evidence?


Guinea? During what time period?
By broad arc I mean continuous settlement- from the first arrivals down
to the Dynastic periods and beyond. The Sahara would be the highway
sustaining that arc of settlement. With drier periods people would be
pushed into other zones to make a living. in either wet or dry phases
Africans would be on the move- these alternative phases run from
9000-5000BC- (Jruper Kroelin, 2008).

he one migration that is never explained however is how the M2 lineages (just like the Niger-Congo languages) originated in East Africa, but wound up in West Africa. This means that our ancestral groups did not originate in West Africa. No one explains this. Christopher Ehret made a brief statement about the supposite migration that our ancestors took from East Africa around 12,000 years ago.:

People migrate and move round is the obvious explanation. The
climatic fluctuations of the Saharan greenbelt would stimulate movement
as is well documented. Kruper and Kroelin's Sahara article sub-title:
"Motor of Africa's evolution" is well chosen for the Sahara has been
one of those motors shaping Africa. Pastoralists with their cattle is
another reason people move. Climate conditions also cause movement.

Nobody questioned this! No evidence is given in support of this migration into West Africa....None! It has just been taken at face value by this Western scholar this whole time. There is no evidence of people inhabiting tropical West Africa until the Nok civilization (which ironically only comes into existence during the Egyptian Late Period), and as a matter of fact wasn't West Africa uninhabitable swamp land a mere 3,000 years ago?


Not so. There is plenty of evidence of human presence
in West Africa before 2000BC. In Mali for example are
Paleolithic sites of the African Middle Stone Age MSA).
Hunter-gatherers were also well in place in West
Africa prior to 2000BC. In fact scholars speak of a Sahelian
Deep Culture way back before 2000BC. Ceramics are
found in what is now Nigeria, circa 9000BC. See the Eleru
Rock Shelter of Nigeria nad other sites in Ghana and elsewhere
in book- Archaeology and Language II: Archaeological Data and
Linguistic Hypotheses ( Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs).
.
The fact is we have been mislead by Keita (the only person that I have seen sited telling people don't refer to artwork to make your argument) to believe that narrow noses and thin lips characterized ancient Egypt art (and specifically statuary).

Keita makes no such claim, in fact he says just the opposite:

"characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation."
S. O. Y. Keita and A.J. Boyce, "The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians", in in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Celenko (ed), Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 20-33


Quite rare worldwide, it is found in about 1 in 10 Copts, today’s successors to the ancient Egyptians.


I dont think the Copts are necessarily the successors of
the ancient Egyptians. Many present a propaganda CLAIM
to be, but many Copts are more like today's Arabized
Egyptian types rather than any direct successors.
SOME Copts may have African related links but most
have no special claim.

"Haplogroups A, B, and E occur mainly in Nilo-Saharan speaking groups including Nilotics, Fur, Borgu, and Masalit; whereas haplogroups F, I, J, K, and R are more frequent among Afro-Asiatic speaking groups including Arabs, Beja, Copts, and Hausa, and Niger-Congo speakers from the Fulani ethnic group.. The bulk of genetic diversity appears to be a consequence of recent migrations and demographic events mainly from Asia and Europe, evident in a higher migration rate for speakers of Afro-Asiatic as compared with the Nilo-Saharan family of languages, and a generally higher effective population size for the former... "
---Hassan et al. 2008. Y-chromosome variation.." Am J. Phy An. v137,3. 316-323

[asante]

Mar 21, 2014 2:59:21 GMT -5 anansi said:

What the hell is a Horner look

Now this is the silly stuff that I'm talking about. The exact statement that you quoted from me which contained the words "Horner looking" gave a link to examples that typify that particular phenotype. It's ridiculous that you (a ES vet) are seriously asking me what is the distinguished Horn African look that some Egyptsearch members have been raving about for the past decade.

your whole point is to make distance between Broad featured Africans and Narrow featured Africans

No my point is to illustrate the deliberately obscured relationship that our particular African ancestors had with ancient Egypt-Nubia.

you proclaimed have a Horner look this is nothing but warmed over Hamitism on your part.

Hamitism? That old Western train of thought glorified the Horn African populations in relation to other African groups. I on the other hand am saying that our African group was really the group that did what Europeans said "Hamites" did. We created civilization on the Nile (as the Anu People) and everywhere that we went. This migration went out of Africa:





The Western created Hamitic hypothesis says that a migration into Africa of "Caucasoids" created civilization and mixed in with some of the local "Negroid" populations to create "Hamites". Of course we know that this is BS and is really just their own reverse psychology for what they really know happened (The OPPOSITE):

The North American Review Volume 0139 Issue 334 (Sept 1884)
Title: Our Remote Ancestry [pp. 246-256]
Author: Winchell, Alexander, Prof.
Collection: Journals: North American Review (1815 - 1900)





Hmmm sounds very familiar doesn't it?

A late Pleistocene-early Holocene northward migration (from Africa to the Levant and to Anatolia) of these populations has been hypothesized from skeletal data (Angel 1972, 1973; Brace 2005) and from archaeological data, as indicated by the probable Nile Valley origin of the "Mesolithic" (epi-Paleolithic) Mushabi culture found in the Levant (Bar Yosef 1987). This migration finds some support in the presence in Mediterranean populations (Sicily, Greece, southern Turkey, etc.; Patrinos et al.; Schiliro et al. 1990) of the Benin sickle cell haplotype. This haplotype originated in West Africa and is probably associated with the spread of malaria to southern Europe through an eastern Mediterranean route (Salares et al. 2004) following the expansion of both human and mosquito populations brought about by the advent of the Neolithic transition (Hume et al 2003; Joy et al. 2003; Rich et al 1998). This northward migration of northeastern African populations carrying sub-Saharan biological elements is concordant with the morphological homogeneity of the Natufian populations (Bocquentin 2003), which present morphological affinity with sub-Saharan populations (Angel 1972; Brace et al. 2005). In addition, the Neolithic revolution was assumed to arise in the late Pleistocene Natufians and subsequently spread into Anatolia and Europe (Bar-Yosef 2002), and the first Anatolian farmers, Neolithic to Bronze Age Mediterraneans and to some degree other Neolithic-Bronze Age Europeans, show morphological affinities with the Natufians (and indirectly with sub-Saharan populations; Angel 1972; Brace et al 2005), in concordance with a process of demic diffusion accompanying the extension of the Neolithic revolution (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994)."

"Following the numerous interactions among eastern Mediterranean and Levantine populations and regions, caused by the introduction of agriculture from the Levant into Anatolia and southeastern Europe, there was, beginning in the Bronze Age, a period of increasing interactions in the eastern Mediterranean, mainly during the Greek, Roman, and Islamic periods. These interactions resulted in the development of trading networks, military campaigns, and settler colonization. Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations. The second option seems more likely, because even though the population from Sagalassos territory was interacting with northeastern African and Levantine populations [trade relationships with Egypt (Arndt et al. 2003), involvement of thousands of mercenaries from Pisidia (Sagalassos region) in the war around 300 B.C. between the Ptolemaic kingdom (centered in Egypt) and the Seleucid kingdom (Syria/Mesopotamia/Anatolia), etc.], the major cultural and population interactions involving the Anatolian populations since the Bronze Age occurred with the Mediterranean populations form southeastern Europe, as suggested from historical and genetic data."

"In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."

F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

It appears to vindicate not only the Western scholars own objective research on their history from the turn of the last century, but also the implication of Diop that civilization spread along this migratory route OUT OF Africa.

As far the Sphinx the body may have been carved for sometime,the face may have been carved in the 4th dynasty some corner suggested the face may have been a lion at one point,

You do know that this is a good finding right? Why are you arguing against this fact? It's self defeating.

Really?? Nilotic traits??

Yeah do you want me to link you to the DNA results again?

fact the Nilotic folks are among the most broad featured folks I have seen up close and in person so if you are fishing in those waters

This is like sooo ridiculous on your part. Why are you trying so hard to deny that there are in fact eyeball distinctions between these various African groups (save those few with noted inter African group admixture). Nilotes do have fat lips in many cases, but their skeletal variation is (most notably their foreheads) in fact distinct from our broad featured ancestral African populations. 

Scroll up see what a Nilotic look like..haha back to you.

Sure Anansi....I can't tell any difference:

Wolof


Nilote (Dinka)


I wonder who is more likely to be taller (cough..the Nilote).

[truthteacher2007]

skip forward to 2:13 until 2:22

[asante]

Mar 21, 2014 12:19:16 GMT -5 zarahan said:

DNA Tribes offers some good data but they are not peer-reviewed

So? Does it make the findings (which were validated by DNAconsultant) less credible? In situations like this you cannot rely on these random quotes to think for you. That way of thinking ("it's not peer reviewed" so its bunk just for that reason) is playing into their hands. You are giving Western scholars the authority to grant us permission to claim our history. With the exception of Keita and Boyce 99% of those quotes that are used in debates come from White Western scholars. What is the history of White Western scholarship in relation to black people? When did that history change or did it? It's ridiculous to insinuate that we need their permission to contextualize this new information (that they already knew) that's not from them. This DNA is as good as gold, and it's beyond baffling seeing some people on ES still falling for their old tricks.

Also I'm sure that you already know that the study on Ramses III was which found him to be E1b1a, and that is "peer-reviewed". Three different sources are indicating that the ancient Egyptian Pharonic lineages were characterized by M2 lineages (with Nilotic affinity in some cases). That is all that we really needed (more welcome of course).

DNA studies coming out help, but they are no panacea. In fact I would say that DNA is being manipulated big time by certain
(not all) Euro scholars to deny African variability and diversity.

The thing is though this stance is not just reliant on DNA. Anthropology validates the existence of our ancestral African population in ancient Egypt-Nubia ("Negroid" remains dominated the early period). Oral tradition from our ancestral African groups and their culture/language also maintains that they did in fact come from ancient Egypt. This theory is not clinging entirely to DNA. What the DNA results did however was prove (added with a bit of common sense) that the "negroid" remains throughout the ancient Nile Valley are in fact related to the only "negroid" populations on Earth today. The DNA results made some people (like me) reassess those claims made by all of these equatorial Africans tribes who asserted through their culture and language that they came from ancient Egypt-Nubia. The DNA certainly validated our (i.e. the Zulu) claims of origin did it not?

I would not put all my eggs in the DNA basket. Keita in one of his
videos argues for a balanced approach- a package- DNA, skeletal,
cranial, limb proportion, cultural/artifact and statuary.

lol I'm years passed all of that!

Current data puts the origins of M2 in East Africa. It would be more accurate to look at it that way rather than trying to draw a direct connection with Egypt.The data allows no such direct connection to be pinpointed into Egypt.

Dude....

Zulu (South Africa)


DNA


They say that they came from ancient Egypt...What is the problem with accepting this truth!? Some of y'all treat this explanation like blasphemy or something.

If you are trying to make a case for West African connections with the Nile Valley, you already have such a case, through the highway of the Sahara,

The ancient Sahara is not the link between ancient Egypt and West Africa and there is no evidence of this.

a true "Pan African" entity that was once a lush greenbelt covering almost a
third of Africa and even now almost stretches from coast to coast.

Yes I explained all of this in this thread.

More of the current data leans towards East Africa, which is not unusual because East Africa is geographically closer and there is the Nile as part of the transport mix with branches

That is not the reason that they chose to specifically exclude West Africans from any of these cultural analysis. It makes no sense when our West African ancestors are the only people that have maintained most of the customs seen in ancient Egypt. Why are the linguistic affinities between ancient Egyptian and Niger-Congo languages blatantly lied about by leading Western linguist? This to me is the subtle (because they are at least acknowledging it's "Africanity") continuation of that old BS. Their "research" is a clever way to obscure the true historical identity of our people. These people are not our "friends" as you can clearly see they are snakes!

An Indo- Aryan migration 2000 BC into Africa or Palestine is shaky.

I did not say into Africa.

And the Indo-Aryan migrations were not out of the Caucasus. 

How?




and this was the second migration from the Caucus which brought over the ancestors of contemporary White Western Europeans (Anglo Saxons, Germanics, ect). Look at how recent this event was.:

Also keep in mind that the Natufians were 12000BC or so. And Asiatic types may have been in the Middle East region well before 2000 BC.

Yes it is a very ancient culture in the Levant, which stemmed from the Mesolithic Egyptian (Sinai) Mushabi culture. These people according to consistent anthropological evidence (much provided by you) were in fact broad featured "Negroid" African types. The Natufians have consistently been described as such and those people with their farming culture were the first people to inhabit settle (Anatolia), Greece and all the way up into Central and southern Europe.


Sickle Cell follows this path



The only contextualization of this ancient migration is masked as the "Afro-Asiatic" expansion:




In reality the migration also included Niger-Congo speakers (our type). Even the much later "Semitic" migration southward into the Arabian Peninsula into Yemen (from Israel) and some eventually back into Africa is mischaracterized as only involving those Amharic (Ethiopic type/Semitic) Ehtiopians.



Why does Ehret's research not make mention of the fact that the "Bantu/Semitic" people in South Africa called the Lemba were also obviously apart of this migration (look at the map)?



As you can see the Lemba look no different on the surface from any of the neighboring Bantu tribes (as the narrator notes). They are ironically genetically the "most Jewish" people of all whom have been tested (their specific gene). Their migration back into Africa (from the civilization that they established in Yemen) along the path to their contemporary location also explains the construction and desertion of the Great Zimbabwe.

Again here is where pictures can trip you up for plenty of pics of narrow nosed, light skinned Middle Easterners can be produced to contradict your Black wave theory.

It's all about dating. No one is going to dispute the pictures of obviously whitish people in the Middle East, but the evidence indicates that these people did not become known to the ancient Egyptian world (Nubia-Mediterranean) until after 2,000 B.C.:

"Major changes took place during this period, which may have accentuated or diluted the sub-Saharan components of earlier Anatolian populations...""In this context it is likely that Bronze Age events may have facilitated the southward diffusion of populations carrying northern and central European biological elements and may have contributed to some degree of admixture between northern and central Europeans and Anatolians, and on a larger scale, between northeastern Mediterraneans and Anatolians. Even if we do not know which populations were involved, historical and archaeological data suggest, for instance, the 2nd millennium B.C. Minoan and later Mycenaean occupation of Anatolian coast, the arrival in Anatolia in the early 1st millennium B.C. of the Phrygians coming from Thrace, and later the arrival of settlers from Macedonia in Pisidia and in the Sagalassos territory (under Seleucid rule). The coming of the Dorians from Northern Greece and central Europe (the Dorians are claimed to be one of the main groups at the origin of the ancient Greeks) may have also brought northern and central European biological elements into southern populations. Indeed, the Dorians may have migrated southward to the Peloponnese, across the southern Aegean and Create, and later reached Asia Minor."

F. X. Ricaut, M. Waelkens. (2008). Cranial Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population Movements Human Biology - Volume 80, Number 5, October 2008, pp. 535-564

How else would you interpret this? My point is that you have to reassess your view of ancient "Asiatics" and "Europeans", which is clear from the biological data and yes the rarely seen artwork that is left in all of these areas prior to 2,000 B.C. (the painting below is from Catal Huyuk around 7,000 B.C):



Catal Huyuk was an ancient civilization which is found on this map (hint modern Turkey):



The region in the map above is the territory of the "negroid" Natufians. The hunters and gatherers shown in the map below however could likely represent an earlier split in the dual "Niger-Congo/"Afro-Asiatic" migration with the Ethiopic Africans (who already stayed closer along the red sea) proceeding the migration into Europe and parts of the Middle East.:



Which lead to black farming communities through ancient Europe, does it not?:

But the quote you produce from Angel does not support your claim. He says nothing about Pleistocene Nubian migration into the Levant, and who says people in say Syria after 2000BC are descendants of Pleistocene Nubians?

He stated that the ancestors of the Tasians and the "negroid" Badarians were the people who comprised ancient Anatolia (Turkey) and the Levant. The Pleistocene Nubians are the direct ancestors of the Pre-Dynastic Upper Egyptian Tasians and later "Badarians":

"In contrast, Irish and Turner (1990) and Irish (2000, 2005) noted that Pleistocene Nubians (in particular those of Jebel Sahaba skeletons) were as a group quite different from recent Nubians for dental discreet traits yet shared great phenetic affinity with recent West African populations." -- T.W. Holiday 2013 ("Population Affinities of the Jebel Sahaba Skeletal Sample")

Are West African cranial types not traditionally labeled as "Negroid" and this the Pleistocene Nubians had that Negroid phenotype which was ancestral to those Pre-Dynastic Egyptians and thus that early Sudanese population was also the source for the people in the Levant and on up into Turkey and Europe.

What credible scholar? Please furnish citation. Neither Angel, or Ricaut seems to support your claim.

You cannot let them do all of the thinking for us! You are giving Western scientist (not all have bad intentions) entirely too much power over this discussion. The message it's essentially giving off is, "see I'm right because this white person from this white school says that I'm right." Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with citing credible scholarship to support your position, but equating their words with that of God is certainly not the way to get our points across either. You have to reassess their (Western scholars) track record with us in regards to their treatment of our history and what their specific objectives were.

And to what extent is "partially descend"? Based on what evidence?

Partially descending from either those original black African inhabitants or descending from the Indo-European/Aryan migration after 2,000 B.C. which brought people with contemporary European affinities into the Middle East and some parts of Europe

People migrate and move round is the obvious explanation. The climatic fluctuations of the Saharan greenbelt would stimulate movementas is well documented.

Again that is not giving evidence for a migration. Like I said many people took and still take that statement at face value. I on the other hand am asking for evidence supporting not only a migration from this around 12,000 B.C. year date of the M2 lineages and Niger-Congo languages from East to West which he says went SOUTH of the actual Sahara along the belt.

Not so. There is plenty of evidence of human presence in West Africa before 2000BC. In Mali for example are Paleolithic sites of the African Middle Stone Age MSA).

That middle stone age settlement was the result of the so-called "Afro-Asiatic" migration which formed the northwestward arch into northern parts of Western Africa (look at the map above). That migration however did include M2 lineage (originally) carrying, Niger-Congo speakers as well. If I'm not mistaken Mr. Clyde Winters refers to the Niger-Congo speakers who took this route as "Mande speakers". That's why the ancient Ghana settlement in Mauritania Dhar Tichit was said to have spoken and written in a "Mande" language". Also take this fact into consideration the Berber language according to Western scholars is "Afro-Asiatic" but according to African scientist like Theophile Obenga it was it's own distinct African language:



Wouldn't this migration detailed above through the African lens explain why the Libyan Berber Pharaohs of the 21-22 Dynasty look the way that they did (broad "negroid" features)?

Hunter-gatherers were also well in place in West Africa prior to 2000BC. In fact scholars speak of a Sahelian
Deep Culture way back before 2000BC.

It's very much likely that a few wandering individuals or hunters and gatherers may have did their own thing in the region, but was this a continuous culture or people? Is there any evidence showing a link between these few isolated individuals and contemporary or later cultures or people (like the Nok empire for example)?

Keita makes no such claim, in fact he says just the opposite:

lol Why didn't you include the first few sentences of his statement in regards to artwork:

"Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation." (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)

This is the statement that so many people on ES have used to justify their rejection of the reliance of ancient Egyptian artwork to help with the discussion. Like I said for some strange reason the chain of "negroid" statuary seen on page one is never noted by scholars, and instead those who are not knowing are mislead to assume that most of the art depicts the gracile populations which characterizes the Horn of Africa.

[anansi]

Sure Anansi....I can't tell any difference:

Yeah me too..


I wish I had ma boy Alioune's permission to post his  and his brothers pic.
But in any case the narrow featured Tutsi did not acquire their features from either Nilote or Wolof 

It's not all in the nose

[asante]

Mar 21, 2014 21:13:10 GMT -5 anansi said:

Yeah me too..

Wolof (our rep. group):





Dinka (Nilote)

But in any case the narrow featured Tutsi did not acquire their features from either Nilote or Wolof 

The distinguishing physical features of Tutsis from neighboring Bantu populations is their height and their gracile features. With the exception of Nilotic admixture (15%) Tutsis are almost genetically identical to their Hutu neighbors:

Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi, like the Hutu, are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. However, the Tutsi have considerably more Nilo-Saharan paternal lineages (14.9% B) than the Hutu (4.3% B).

link

[anansi]

Mar 21, 2014 22:31:45 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 21, 2014 21:13:10 GMT -5 anansi said:

Yeah me too..

Wolof (our rep. group):





Dinka (Nilote)

But in any case the narrow featured Tutsi did not acquire their features from either Nilote or Wolof 

The distinguishing physical features of Tutsis from neighboring Bantu populations is their height and their gracile features. With the exception of Nilotic admixture (15%) Tutsis are almost genetically identical to their Hutu neighbors:

Modern-day genetic studies of the Y-chromosome suggest that the Tutsi, like the Hutu, are largely of Bantu extraction (80% E1b1a, 15% B, 4% E3). Paternal genetic influences associated with the Horn of Africa and North Africa are few (1% E1b1b), and are ascribed to much earlier inhabitants who were assimilated. However, the Tutsi have considerably more Nilo-Saharan paternal lineages (14.9% B) than the Hutu (4.3% B).

link

Yeah some Nilo Saharans are generally tall some Bantus are tall some Wolof are tress with "gracile features",look this have more to do with diet and environment than one group passing stature and features to another it's called micro evolution a language group do not have any monopoly on stature and features.

Above the Shilluk tall broad featured: language group Nilo Saharan below the Massai tall narrow featured:language group Nilo Saharan.
Yes ma people varies in looks at home and abroad.

Allow me to simplify Zarahan's point, folks who lived for extended periods in dry desert areas tend to be tall folks living in a forest zone tend to have a stocky build, some folks living in extremely densely forested areas tend to be short Ie Batwa,this combined with their economy Ie food production,Farmers Vs Cow poke vs Hunter gathers Vs mixed economy give them their height, moist or dry sandy areas also effect features folks living in a forest zone will develop broad features vs folks who live for extended period of time in other environments,these features are in no way fixed and cut across language and ethnic lines.

[asante]

Mar 22, 2014 1:20:52 GMT -5 anansi said:

Yeah some Nilo Saharans are generally tall some Bantus are tall some Wolof are tress with "gracile features"

So what are you trying so hard to argue against? It has been shown that Nilotic Africans DO in fact have distinctive phenetic traits from those Africans whom we (AA's) come from. The distinction in their phenotype from our groups was erroneously labled as a "European" or "Caucasoid" trait. That is a fact as you can read the captions from the pictures in the books below:




See there...Who are they distinguished from with the noting of their "European like" features? See how these noted distinguishing features characterize this group of jet black Africans that we call "Nilotes"?

Yes ma people varies in looks at home and abroad.

So are you implying that you descend from the Nilotic African groups (or that they were in the mix on the slave ships) shown in the orange (a few other spots in the Sahara) as opposed to those represented in the lime green along the Western and Central Coast (other than notably mixed groups like the Hausa)?

[truthteacher2007]

Hey everybody:
Just giving my 2 cents to any and all following the discussion. Just wanted to give something to consider. It was said that West Africa was uninhabited untill the late period of Egptian history when people fleeing Asiatic invasion, or some other non African invasion, migrated to west Africa.

It's been my opinion that West Africa had long been inhabited before this time. Archeology seems to back this up. I'd like you to watch this short documentary. It may seem off topic, but it's the bit towards the end that cliches everything together. The part about West Africa having the oldest known pottery in Africa, 8,000yrs old, much older than Egypt. Anyway, any information about our REAL West African history is a plus in my book. Enjoy.

[anansi]

Mar 22, 2014 12:03:03 GMT -5 asante said:

Mar 22, 2014 1:20:52 GMT -5 anansi said:

Yeah some Nilo Saharans are generally tall some Bantus are tall some Wolof are tress with "gracile features"

So what are you trying so hard to argue against? It has been shown that Nilotic Africans DO in fact have distinctive phenetic traits from those Africans whom we (AA's) come from. The distinction in their phenotype from our groups was erroneously labled as a "European" or "Caucasoid" trait. That is a fact as you can read the captions from the pictures in the books below:



That's exactly what I am arguing against,the notion that the above is generally distinct from other Africans look at the examples I gave above compare Chiek Anta Diop with the female below the Nuer male with your example.

You your self posted this pic of a broad featured Nilo Saharan compare her with the aquiline features of the Bantu lady above,thus making my point you can't go around claiming that anyone feature is unique to any group of Africans.

See there...Who are they distinguished from with the noting of their "European like" features? See how these noted distinguishing features characterize this group of jet black Africans that we call "Nilotes"?

Yes ma people varies in looks at home and abroad.

So are you implying that you descend from the Nilotic African groups (or that they were in the mix on the slave ships) shown in the orange (a few other spots in the Sahara) as opposed to those represented in the lime green along the Western and Central Coast (other than notably mixed groups like the Hausa)?

Not implying anything Iam saying it as a fact.