|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 29, 2010 14:16:26 GMT -5
Instead of just spamming the thread with pictures doctor, why don't you actually try and make a point? You also realize Upper Egyptians are varied as well, right? Trying to argue Lower Egyptians aren't exactly the same phenotypic features you'd find in ancient times, I understand. But you linking them to "Arabs' is nothing short of hilarity. Do you realize Arabs were dark not light? The term "Bedouin" means traveling person. Hell, you said Yemeni Arabs pretty much replaces Lower Egypt, since when? Less than 15% of Arabic genetics are withing Egypt today, and that's Lower Egypt alone. Furthermore, Yemeni Arabs are linked to Eritreans and Somalis. Most Yemeni "Arabs" are Black! Do you notice that half of the Saudi populations look "Black"? Have you seen their soccer team? This is a collage of Upper Egyptians: Do you not see the variance within the population? Lastly, in the case of Lower Egyptians, most of their genetics are still indigenous to Africa. It's also fair to point out through history Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians didn't look the same. Keita even said that the only time you find something close to a "homogeneous" population in Egypt is after the conquests of Narmer unifying Lower and Upper Egypt resulting in mixation between both populaces. It's hard to identify what a native Egyptian is. Furthermore, Ethiopians are mostly Africans but they also have a degree of "Eurasian" genetics in their gene pool. So I consider your points invalid as so do many Upper Egyptians and Lower Egyptians. It's just more of a cline pattern from north to south but it's still there. Many of the Beja/Upper Egyptian people you posted outside of skin color don't look too different from Jordanians, Arabs and Syrians. They're more alike than different. I did make a point, and I don't see the problem in posting pictures of modern Egyptians and other Africans in order to further empathize the point I was trying to make. Of couse I do, but I it's obvious that there are several significant biological differences between indigenous Upper Egypians and their urban Lower Egyptian counterparts. I did not specifically link Lower Egyptians with Arabs or any other non-African population, I made a statement and posted a link in which presents various sources which discuss non-African admixture and gene-flow into Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. From Greeks, Romans, Jews, Arabs, to Slavs and Turks. To further my point, it was Arabs who described indigenous Lower Egyptians as "Half-Caste Ethiopians", therefore it's even more likely that there was significant admixture during the Greeco-Roman era which spanned more then a century. The Fayum mummy portraits are a great example, the images depict Lower Egyptians with "documented" Greek ancestry. The people depicted possess features seen among modern Lower Egyptians, in regard to that the average Fayum mummy portrait is no different then what we see in Lower Egypt today. They possess obvious AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN features, likely due to the fact that they are of both indigenous Egyptian and Greeco descent. Arsinoe IV of Egypt comes to mind, I remember reading a quote from an article which stated that she physically resembled modern Egyptians, in that she possessed both AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN features, in this case Southwest Asian, i.e. Greek, and African, i.e. indigenous Egyptian, admixture. Basically a MULATTO population. "They usually depict a single person, showing the head, or head and upper chest, viewed frontally. In terms of artistic tradition, the images clearly derive more from Graeco-Roman traditions than Egyptian ones. The population of the Faiyum area was greatly enhanced by a wave of Greek immigrants during the Ptolemaic period, initially by veteran soldiers who settled in the area." "Under Greco-Roman rule, Egypt hosted several Greek settlements, mostly concentrated in Alexandria, but also in a few other cities, where Greek settlers lived alongside some seven to ten million native Egyptians. Faiyum's earliest Greek inhabitants were soldier-veterans and cleruchs (elite military officials) who were settled by the Ptolemaic kings on reclaimed lands. Native Egyptians also came to settle in Faiyum from all over the country, notably the Nile Delta, Upper Egypt, Oxyrhynchus and Memphis, to undertake the labor involved in the land reclamation process, as attested by personal names, local cults and recovered papyri. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the population of Faiyum was Greek during the Ptolemaic period, with the rest being native Egyptians. By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins." " "While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. However, Kemp, from an inference of cranio-facial traits and limb proportions of numerous skeletal remains, postulated much immigration into the more northern parts of Egypt, indicative of the population "tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier" upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Fayum-35.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Fayum-07.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Fayum-34.jpg/Hawara_MoS_1911.210.1.JPG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8//Hawara_MoS_1911.210.1.JPGupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Fayum-22.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Fayum-20.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Fayum-13.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Fayum-11.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Fayum-01.jpgCompare to reconstruction of Arsinoe IV of Egypt, who was of mixed Egyptian and Greek descent. www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/arsinoe.jpgNow compare to modern day mixed East African/non-African children img100.imageshack.us/i/geuss12dy.jpg/images.pp2g.com/manp9Y3geHQF-ZXh%2BdwYAHGV8eX5wHg%3D%3D.aspxwww.rialtosantambrogio.org/immagini/579/saba1.gifimg398.imageshack.us/img398/3118/rebeckaandom6gr.jpgimg21.imageshack.us/i/ahmed6oy.jpg/img212.imageshack.us/i/071504habtegabrhirezyk9.jpg/nove.aperion.cc/slir/w400-h450/nove/foto/fabio%20liverani.jpgimg86.imageshack.us/i/611718493l9frbz5.jpg/
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 29, 2010 15:26:02 GMT -5
Instead of just spamming the thread with pictures doctor, why don't you actually try and make a point? You also realize Upper Egyptians are varied as well, right? Trying to argue Lower Egyptians aren't exactly the same phenotypic features you'd find in ancient times, I understand. But you linking them to "Arabs' is nothing short of hilarity. Do you realize Arabs were dark not light? The term "Bedouin" means traveling person. Hell, you said Yemeni Arabs pretty much replaces Lower Egypt, since when? Less than 15% of Arabic genetics are withing Egypt today, and that's Lower Egypt alone. Furthermore, Yemeni Arabs are linked to Eritreans and Somalis. Most Yemeni "Arabs" are Black! Do you notice that half of the Saudi populations look "Black"? Have you seen their soccer team? This is a collage of Upper Egyptians: Do you not see the variance within the population? Lastly, in the case of Lower Egyptians, most of their genetics are still indigenous to Africa. It's also fair to point out through history Lower Egyptians and Upper Egyptians didn't look the same. Keita even said that the only time you find something close to a "homogeneous" population in Egypt is after the conquests of Narmer unifying Lower and Upper Egypt resulting in mixation between both populaces. It's hard to identify what a native Egyptian is. Furthermore, Ethiopians are mostly Africans but they also have a degree of "Eurasian" genetics in their gene pool. So I consider your points invalid as so do many Upper Egyptians and Lower Egyptians. It's just more of a cline pattern from north to south but it's still there. Many of the Beja/Upper Egyptian people you posted outside of skin color don't look too different from Jordanians, Arabs and Syrians. They're more alike than different. I did make a point, and I don't see the problem in posting pictures of modern Egyptians and other Africans in order to further empathize the point I was trying to make. Of couse I do, but I it's obvious that there are several significant biological differences between indigenous Upper Egypians and their urban Lower Egyptian counterparts. I did not specifically link Lower Egyptians with Arabs or any other non-African population, I made a statement and posted a link in which presents various sources which discuss non-African admixture and gene-flow into Egypt with the fall of Dynastic Egypt. From Greeks, Romans, Jews, Arabs, to Slavs and Turks. To further my point, it was Arabs who described indigenous Lower Egyptians as "Half-Caste Ethiopians", therefore it's even more likely that there was significant admixture during the Greeco-Roman era which spanned more then a century. The Fayum mummy portraits are a great example, the images depict Lower Egyptians with "documented" Greek ancestry. The people depicted possess features seen among modern Lower Egyptians, in regard to that the average Fayum mummy portrait is no different then what we see in Lower Egypt today. They possess obvious AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN features, likely due to the fact that they are of both indigenous Egyptian and Greeco descent. Arsinoe IV of Egypt comes to mind, I remember reading a quote from an article which stated that she physically resembled modern Egyptians, in that she possessed both AFRICAN and NON-AFRICAN features, in this case Southwest Asian, i.e. Greek, and African, i.e. indigenous Egyptian, admixture. Basically a MULATTO population. "They usually depict a single person, showing the head, or head and upper chest, viewed frontally. In terms of artistic tradition, the images clearly derive more from Graeco-Roman traditions than Egyptian ones. The population of the Faiyum area was greatly enhanced by a wave of Greek immigrants during the Ptolemaic period, initially by veteran soldiers who settled in the area." "Under Greco-Roman rule, Egypt hosted several Greek settlements, mostly concentrated in Alexandria, but also in a few other cities, where Greek settlers lived alongside some seven to ten million native Egyptians. Faiyum's earliest Greek inhabitants were soldier-veterans and cleruchs (elite military officials) who were settled by the Ptolemaic kings on reclaimed lands. Native Egyptians also came to settle in Faiyum from all over the country, notably the Nile Delta, Upper Egypt, Oxyrhynchus and Memphis, to undertake the labor involved in the land reclamation process, as attested by personal names, local cults and recovered papyri. It is estimated that as much as 30 percent of the population of Faiyum was Greek during the Ptolemaic period, with the rest being native Egyptians. By the Roman period, much of the "Greek" population of Faiyum was made-up of either Hellenized Egyptians or people of mixed Egyptian-Greek origins." " "While commonly believed to represent Greek settlers in Egypt, the Faiyum portraits instead reflect the complex synthesis of the predominant Egyptian culture and that of the elite Greek minority in the city. According to Walker, the early Ptolemaic Greek colonists married local women and adopted Egyptian religious beliefs, and by Roman times, their descendants were viewed as Egyptians by the Roman rulers, despite their own self-perception of being Greek. The dental morphology of the Roman-period Faiyum mummies was also compared with that of earlier Egyptian populations, and was found to be "much more closely akin" to that of ancient Egyptians than to Greeks or other European populations. However, Kemp, from an inference of cranio-facial traits and limb proportions of numerous skeletal remains, postulated much immigration into the more northern parts of Egypt, indicative of the population "tending towards a greater similarity with European populations than had been the case earlier" upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Fayum-35.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Fayum-07.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Fayum-34.jpg/Hawara_MoS_1911.210.1.JPG" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8//Hawara_MoS_1911.210.1.JPGupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Fayum-22.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Fayum-20.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Fayum-13.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2c/Fayum-11.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Fayum-01.jpgCompare to reconstruction of Arsinoe IV of Egypt, who was of mixed Egyptian and Greek descent. www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/arsinoe.jpgNow compare to modern day mixed East African/non-African children img100.imageshack.us/i/geuss12dy.jpg/images.pp2g.com/manp9Y3geHQF-ZXh%2BdwYAHGV8eX5wHg%3D%3D.aspxwww.rialtosantambrogio.org/immagini/579/saba1.gifimg398.imageshack.us/img398/3118/rebeckaandom6gr.jpgimg21.imageshack.us/i/ahmed6oy.jpg/img212.imageshack.us/i/071504habtegabrhirezyk9.jpg/nove.aperion.cc/slir/w400-h450/nove/foto/fabio%20liverani.jpg^ looks like your average urban Lower Egyptian. img86.imageshack.us/i/611718493l9frbz5.jpg/Okay, a few things, first, you really overdosed on the pictures in your other post. You only need a few to make a point. Next Homy wasn't saying that Egyptian would consider those Afro Americans Caucasian. She was pointing out that the same so called scientific scholars that use these term would quite often classify many AfroAmericans as caucasians if they were identified as Egyptians. That's a fact. They use these terms on paper and you would be led to believe that the people they are talking about are all of the fairest skin and smallest features until you actually go to Egypt and have a look around. Another point, your putting northern Egyptians in one basket as if all Lower Egyptians are fair skinned. They are not. There are a variety of skin tones and features. There is no such thing really as a Lower Egyptian type. The only thing we can say is that in Lower Egypt there tends to be more lighter complexions perdominating, but those light skinned people are not creamy white, they are what Europeans used to call dusky, or having a touch of the tar brush. The thing is though, while the skin tones tend to be more lighter in the north and darker to the south, you find the same variety of physical facial features from Alexandria to Aswan. The other thing to keep in mind is internal migration. Southerners have been moving north and northerners have been moving south for quite a long time. So even a fair skinned Egyptian quite often has a very close blood relative who is significantly darker. These people are still part of the same family. As for the pictures of the mixed East Africans you showed, only 2 of them resembled people you find in Lower Egypt and those people do not make up the majority. Its not political correctness, its the truth. Mixture, no mixture how much mixture is irrelevant. Just as how much mixture an African American may or may not have is irrelevant. What makes a person AfroAmerican is not how pure their bloodline is or what color they are, but having biological descent from any of the African groups brought here, being part of the community and sharing the culture. Same holds true for Egypt. There has always been mixture in Egypt. There has also probably been people in the north who were lightern not because of mixture but to regional adaptation, just like the San in asimilar climate zone tend to be a lighter reddish or yellowish shade of brown. So the variation we see is most likely a result of native variety and in other cases mixture with a population that was not that dark to begin with. We will never really know and we can't tell by tomb painting because those oly represented what was considered they physical ideal of beauty at the time. Just as we can't make assumptions about the American population based on fashion magazines. They woul have us think all Amricans are skinny and blond when in fact most are fat and BLEACHED blond. Hey....anybody know what most blonds and AfroAmericans have in common....? BLACK ROOTS! YA GET IT? BLACK ROOTS! Okay, back to point. The thing is regardless of what an Egyptian looks like, we can't make assumptions on their ancestry because outward apperances don't tell the full story. Mixed or not, what does it matter? They are Egyptians, real Egyptians, not fakes or invaders any more than you could say that an Afroamerican like Leena Horne or Adam clayton Powell were fake AfroAmericans. Or as a friend of mind, (a white lady) said, Adam Clayton Powell was a white man piutting one over on the Black folks. Would you agree with that opinion? Should we divorce Adam, Leena, W.E.B Dubois and Rosa Parks from the African family because they don't look like what we've been told an African has to look like?
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on May 29, 2010 15:59:29 GMT -5
AfroAmericans: Are these people pure blooded Africans? Are they fakeers pretending to be part of the African family? They claim their ancestors were from west Africa. Shall I spam the thread with pictures of West Africans showing how far they are from the "ideal, real Africans" to make a point? Adam Clayton Powel
Leena Horn
Web Dubois
Rosa Parks
Lower Egyptian The dancer in this video is a good friend of mine. She was born in Cairo. Her mother and grand mother were also dancers and they were black women, also born in Cairo. Nadia took after her father in color, but her sisters took after the mother and they are all black in color or about my color when I'm tanned, caramel....
Nadia's hair is not naturally straight, its very kinky. She used chemical relaxers when she was performing.
This is a perfect example of why eyeballing a person and making assumptions is wrong. All the people in these video clips are part of the larger pan African family. Regardless of looks or blood quantum they are still geneticall connected to Africa, so what is the big deal?
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 29, 2010 16:16:26 GMT -5
[/quote] Okay, a few things, first, you really overdosed on the pictures in your other post. You only need a few to make a point. Next Homy wasn't saying that Egyptian would consider those Afro Americans Caucasian. She was pointing out that the same so called scientific scholars that use these term would quite often classify many AfroAmericans as caucasians if they were identified as Egyptians. That's a fact. They use these terms on paper and you would be led to believe that the people they are talking about are all of the fairest skin and smallest features until you actually go to Egypt and have a look around. Another point, your putting northern Egyptians in one basket as if all Lower Egyptians are fair skinned. They are not. There are a variety of skin tones and features. There is no such thing really as a Lower Egyptian type. The only thing we can say is that in Lower Egypt there tends to be more lighter complexions perdominating, but those light skinned people are not creamy white, they are what Europeans used to call dusky, or having a touch of the tar brush. The thing is though, while the skin tones tend to be more lighter in the north and darker to the south, you find the same variety of physical facial features from Alexandria to Aswan. The other thing to keep in mind is internal migration. Southerners have been moving north and northerners have been moving south for quite a long time. So even a fair skinned Egyptian quite often has a very close blood relative who is significantly darker. These people are still part of the same family. As for the pictures of the mixed East Africans you showed, only 2 of them resembled people you find in Lower Egypt and those people do not make up the majority. Its not political correctness, its the truth. Mixture, no mixture how much mixture is irrelevant. Just as how much mixture an African American may or may not have is irrelevant. What makes a person AfroAmerican is not how pure their bloodline is or what color they are, but having biological descent from any of the African groups brought here, being part of the community and sharing the culture. Same holds true for Egypt. There has always been mixture in Egypt. There has also probably been people in the north who were lightern not because of mixture but to regional adaptation, just like the San in asimilar climate zone tend to be a lighter reddish or yellowish shade of brown. So the variation we see is most likely a result of native variety and in other cases mixture with a population that was not that dark to begin with. We will never really know and we can't tell by tomb painting because those oly represented what was considered they physical ideal of beauty at the time. Just as we can't make assumptions about the American population based on fashion magazines. They woul have us think all Amricans are skinny and blond when in fact most are fat and BLEACHED blond. Hey....anybody know what most blonds and AfroAmericans have in common....? BLACK ROOTS! YA GET IT? BLACK ROOTS! Okay, back to point. The thing is regardless of what an Egyptian looks like, we can't make assumptions on their ancestry because outward apperances don't tell the full story. Mixed or not, what does it matter? They are Egyptians, real Egyptians, not fakes or invaders any more than you could say that an Afroamerican like Leena Horne or Adam clayton Powell were fake AfroAmericans. Or as a friend of mind, (a white lady) said, Adam Clayton Powell was a white man piutting one over on the Black folks. Would you agree with that opinion? Should we divorce Adam, Leena, W.E.B Dubois and Rosa Parks from the African family because they don't look like what we've been told an African has to look like?[/quote] 1) I don't care, I started with one and I kept on going since I was deeply intrigued with the obvious similarities between the Beja and the Ancient Egyptian population, so I don't see any problem with that. And if she did mean it like that, I would have to agree with her... but her former statement wasn't as clear so I was led to misread her point. 2) I NEVER put Northern Egyptians into one basket, I specifcally stated that while rural Fellah Lower Egyptians cluster with other African populations both biologically and culturally, theres a obvious divergence to regard to many peoples in more urbanized areas. And thats the truth. And while it's true that we say small movements of some Upper Egyptians and even Nubians into Lower Egypt, we don't see the same thing vise-versa. And this topic has nothing to do with skin color, since skin color like I said in regard to Africa is the most varied and diversified. I was talking about significant gene-flow from non-Africans into predomiantely Lower Egypt. Thats the reason why posted information about the Roman era Fayum population, Arsinoe IV, and the quotes detailing documented gene-flow from non-African territories into Egypt. Also it's been noted that the Egyptian body-plan is mush different from the body-plan found common among ancient Egyptian population, instead of being more extreme like related populations to the south, their body-plan is more intermediate. 3)I've been to Egypt, and I've seen many Egyptians who resembled those mixed race East Africans, you trying to act like there hasn't been any admixture in Egypt is quite annoying. Admixture does matter, not only does it change the genetic and physical make-up of the people... it changes the culture. If African-Americans started marrying interracially at high numbers, not only would the African-American population and culture change significantly, if it doesn't dissappear all together, the "African" wouldn't be significant enough to be discussed about, now would it. In regard to culture, which Egyptian populations holds more cultural ties with the ancient population... you quessed it, Upper and rural Lower Egyptians. Urban and elite Egyptians are no more Egyptian or African "culturally" then any non-African population living in the vicinity of Southwest Asia. 4)Also while it quite likely that Northern Africans experienced skin lighting as with modern day Khoisan populations, it wouldn't have encompassed most skin ranges found among modern day urban Egyptians. Post-Dynastic admixture represents the biggest role, not indigenous skin developement. It's not only skin color, Modern urban Egyptians possess features among both Africans and non-Africans, quite unlike their Egyptian ancestors who possessed only those confined to Africa. Theres a reason why those mixed-race Fayum peoples resemble todays average Lower Egyptian. I can tell the difference between a light skinned Eritrean and a light skin Egyptian. Eritrean tsegay.com/gallery/albums/habesha/tigrinya_girls.jpgwww.flickr.com/photos/42419035@N08/4629719593/Urban Lower Egyptian www.flickr.com/photos/danbryan_photography/426656970/www.flickr.com/photos/raysorin/2944401127/5) Again looks are just a part of it, we know that while modern Egyptians descend in part from the ancients, theres still an obvious difference between them and the ancients, with the ancient being mush inclined to Africa then their modern descendents. Just because they live in Egypt dosen't mean that they are wholly descendents, the elite or general urban class, i.e. 40% of the ethnic Egyptian population, have no ties to Egypt or Africa culturally... nothing. You see the linkage in Fellah Upper and Lower Egyptians, Nubians, and Beja... over 60% of the population. No matter if those African-Americans you listed are mixed or not, they are culturally tied to the African-American culture, something that many Egyptians in particular elite and urban Egyptians lack. All of those individuals fall into the physical diversity seen among Africans, Lena Horne can easily walk into a Tuareg or Fulani camp and not even be noticed... no matter if she has European ancestry and they don't.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 29, 2010 16:24:06 GMT -5
AfroAmericans: Are these people pure blooded Africans? Are they fakeers pretending to be part of the African family? They claim their ancestors were from west Africa. Shall I spam the thread with pictures of West Africans showing how far they are from the "ideal, real Africans" to make a point? Adam Clayton Powel Leena Horn Web Dubois Rosa Parks Lower Egyptian The dancer in this video is a good friend of mine. She was born in Cairo. Her mother and grand mother were also dancers and they were black women, also born in Cairo. Nadia took after her father in color, but her sisters took after the mother and they are all black in color or about my color when I'm tanned, caramel.... Nadia's hair is not naturally straight, its very kinky. She used chemical relaxers when she was performing. This is a perfect example of why eyeballing a person and making assumptions is wrong. All the people in these video clips are part of the larger pan African family. Regardless of looks or blood quantum they are still geneticall connected to Africa, so what is the big deal? It's not just about looks, my problem is with some posters acting as if the Egyptian has always looked this way, when even people like Keita has pointed out that urban northern Egypt is in no ways a representative of Ancient Egypt, but instead Upper Egyptians, Nubians, and Beja peoples do Ancient Egypt more justice. Like I said those African-Americans you posted no matter the non-African admixture resemble Africans who don't have such admixture but posses those same features, i.e. mulattos fall into the African range of physical variation, then it would seem even more likely that peoples who are likely predomiantely African fall into the the same range of African diversity. Lena Horne, of African and European ancestry www.amoeba.com/dynamic-images/blog/Eric_B/LenaHorneWest African Tuareg women. Tuaregs are almost exclusively West African, physical variation partially due to environment and them being African of course. Nothing to do with backflow or racial admixture. jinfeibao8844.com/Africa%20Photos%209/25%20married%20tuareg%20women%20with%20black%20lips.jpg
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on May 29, 2010 23:57:14 GMT -5
doctor,
your linkage of Urban Lower Egyptians and Middle Easterners is much overhyped.
In cities like Memphis (modern day Cairo) the population was for the most part native Egyptian. To this day much of the culture is still there. Is it Arabized? To a very high degree but much of the nation is. The main staple diet of the Egyptians is still bread and not rice which is African and not Asian. Also, in the way they dress. The typical dress for the Urban Lower Egyptian, though not elite, is the galibaya. In Southwest Asia the dress is quite difference. And since you link them so closely to Arabs may I ask why Urban Lower Egyptians refer to Southwest Asians as "il 3araab" and "il assiene"?
I'm not saying Lower Egyptians aren't mixed. It's apparent they are and they know they are. From Greeks, Romans, French, etc. it's inevitable. However they still remain mostly African. Upper Egyptians didn't mix in so they're a more accurate representation, however you fail to realize Upper and Lower Egyptians didn't look as similar as you think. So to say that the Upper Egyptian would've been the stereotypic populace in Egypt at the time is off the mark. You yourself even said Lower Egypt had a great degree of variance within the population albeit African. Doesn't mean that African population developed like any other Traureg, Zulu or Bantu developed. It can be unique in its own way and you and Keita don't know to what degree it was.
Let's an Egyptian marries a Greek. Okay? They have children, that child is not any less Egyptian than an Egyptian born of two Egyptian parents. Is he mixed? Yes. But he still retains the Egyptian bloodline. That links him to everyone else in Egypt. They may look different but genetic diversity was apparent in Egypt since the earliest times before admixture. Your problem is you limit genetic variation on some sort of "African" scale. There is no such thing. Variation among Egyptians is different than the variations among other Africans. It could also mean skin color as well. How do you know? Why is the case of Albinism more frequent in South Africans than any other place in the world?
|
|
|
Post by homeylu on May 30, 2010 9:55:04 GMT -5
I really doubt that any of the individual African-American men you posted would be considered "Caucasian" by anybody in Egypt... I doubt most Egyptians even follow by that trend of classifying human populations into different groups. Espechially Common, theres nothing "Caucasian" about him "physically"... the other guys other then Common and one of the other men are decent examples of indigenous African diversity (West/Central African) minus outside admixture, but the other two, Smokey and Swiss, are not good examples since more likely then not they both would have significant amounts of European ancestry. Swiss is half Pueto Rican and half Jamaican, and Smokey is African-American... so likey he's predomiantely African. It's not because either Smokey or Swiss are light skin, it's because of either known ancestry, in regard to Swiss, and the known possibility of them being mixed due to national history. I've seen many African individuals who resemble Smokey... minus the grey eyes. imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/174534~Smokey-Robinson-Posters.jpgAnd while I completely agree with you on the fact that "light skin" is indigenous to the African continent, you can't just deny the fact that there has been significant amounts of "racial mixing" in Egypt after the decline of Ancient or Dynastic Egypt. Keita even admits that modern urban northern Egypt does not represent what Egypt would have had looked like several thousand years ago. Population structure changes all the time, and it's not only in Egypt... Northern Italians in no way represents indigenous Northern Italians living in that area during Roman times... mainly via admixture from Northern European groups. Arabs described Northern Egyptians as "half-caste Ethiopians". The Egyptian population jumped from little more than 2 million to around 90 million as of now, with the urban "ethnic" Egyptian population representing 40% of the modern population. During Ancient Egyptian times the mass majority of the population was located along the Nile, i.e. Upper Egypt, as of now only 15% of the population is concentrated along the Nile... some of them being Nubian, the majority of the modern Egyptian population is concentrated along areas surrounding the Delta. You don't think thats significant. The Southern population was rather neglected therefore didn't expereince the massive population growth that we saw in Northern Urban locals. Keita himself presonally pointed out modern day Upper Egyptians, Nubians and Beja populations as the best living repersentatives in regard to the Ancient Egyptian population. www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000648Arab colonization began with the conquest ,and was encouraged by the Ummayyad Caliphs,notably by Hisham[reigned 724-43],who in 727 authorized the planned migration and settlement of several thousand Arabs of the Yemenite tribe of Qays in the Nile Valley. During the eight century and ninth century large numbers of Arab tribesmen,mainly of Yemenite origin,migrate to Egypt,where many of them settled on land. page 457 Although at the end of the Dyanstic period and in Graeco-Roman times Saqarra was a bustling place throughout the year with constant pilgrimages to many shrines ,were troubled souls sought comfort from the mysteries and incubation treatments available and processions and very occasionally an Apis funeral as special entertainment,the district was also probably rather ran down suffering from the excessive usage of almost three thousand years. To some extent its bustle its bustle reflected the busy life of the city of Men-nefer,which remained the most important centre of commerce and administration untill it was supersededby Alexzandria. It was huge,amorphus,rambling place,with large ''ghettoes'' made over for foregin communities---for Greeks,for Jews,for Carians,for Phonecians.Apart from itws temples it probabaly had few imposing buildings,and was mostly made up of warren-like districts of narrow streets and three-storey houses where collapse and rebuilding went on continuously:unsanitary,smelly,dusty or muddy according to the season,but full of life and interest. Dr. S, I think you're arguing straws here. I didn't say that "Egyptians" would consider those men 'caucasian', heck, Egptians don't even consider themselves 'caucasian'. This is a strictly American term projected onto people without their consent. The people who generall consider Egptians 'caucasian' are basing it off physical appearance, NOT biological, you're missing the point. Like so many others, you think your Y Haplotype tells you what color your eyes, or nose shape will be. But it doesn't. Someone like me with less than 10% European Ancestry, has more narrow features than ones with 50% European ancestry. I used to always joke that if I died in a fire, would the label my skeleton 'caucasoid', although my DNA is mostly African. And I don't agree with the rest of your post, and I have attached Keita's study for your benefit. He specifically 'corrects' the assumption that the 'V' haplotype is Arabic, which most Modern Egyptians belong to. He clearly states that is AFRICAN, and not due to admixture with Arabs. [/size] Now he argues that these haplotypes are INDIGINEOUS to Africa, and NOT due to conquest: Lower Egypt 51% "V", and 1.2% IV, Upper Egypt 25% "V" and 27.3% IV. IV is considered a 'sub-Saharan' African haplotype, and many authors assumed because Lower Egyptians had a lower percentage of this particular haplotype, they were LESS African. But it pointed out the flaws, but evidencing the V haplotype as African as well. Note in his study; Supra-Sahara is 55% 'V', and Ethiopia is 45% 'V'. While the so-called Arab countries such as Iraq is 7% V, Lebanon is 16%, and Palestine only 15%. So he concluded: Since the MAJORITY of this haplotype is within the African population, then it is African, NOT Arab. Now compare with haplotypes VII and VIII, both 'near east' or 'Arab' markers. Egypt has only 6% and 7% respectively. Hence the MAJORITY of their Y haplotype is African. He specifically states; "The label “Arabic” for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin....Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V “Horn-supra-saharan African,” not ‘Arabic;’ it is indigenous to Africa. The first speakers of Arabic, a Semitic language, came into Africa from the Near East."So I'm sorry, you and several others are ver wrong to assume because modern Egyptians have certain 'physical features' it was inherited from Arab or other invaders, and that they are some how not representative of African ancestry. When biologically they are, and it's clearly stated here. Just because the population increased, doesn't mean it was REPLACED by outsiders. It simply means, they were having a lot of children in Egypt. Would you make the same statement about Nigeria, knowing it's population increased significantly in that past several centuries? Keita: "However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variabilitybecause this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results ".."The genetic data, specifically the M35 subclade affiliated with haplotype V in Africa, can be related to the spatial range of much of the Afroasiatic linguistic phylum, which evidence suggests most likely originated in Africa; only one member (Semitic) is found in the Near East....a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant”. ....The widespread distribution of the PN2 clade in the major language phyla of Africa, its existence in the Levantine-Iraq region and even in the Aegean, and its likely post-glacial maximum date are significant and show how numerous bioculturally diverse peoples can be connected, even at relatively shallow time depths. This should give pause to those who have trouble escaping racial thinking.
This is important with regard to how the Semetic language left Africa; "In comparison to those of V their frequencies are small in supra-Saharan Africa (Tables 2A, 2B). Again employing the Falasha and northern Africa cases as a models, and the genetic evidence, it can be postulated that selected M35 carriers, speakers (from Africa) of a stage of ancestral Semitic (pre-proto-Semitic) entered the Near East, where indigenous peoples adopted it, and via ongoing language shift and population growth eventually became numerically greater than the original speakers of the ancestor."
Keita (see attachment)Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 30, 2010 11:39:00 GMT -5
On another note:
What the h** is wrong with the wikipedia article on Caucasians?
"The term Caucasian race (or Caucasoid, sometimes also Europid, or Europoid[1]) (Not to confuse Northcaucasian race) denotes the race or phenotypes of some or all of the indigenous human populations of Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia, and South Asia."
And it's looked so I can't change it.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on May 30, 2010 11:58:18 GMT -5
I disagree. The vast majority look what they are (African). If Syrians and Jordanians look like them, then apparently Syrians and Jordanians look like Africans. Also, I'd seriously question any paper [especially from discovery channel] linking Jordanians with "East Africans" as East Africa is a huge place with many different people while Jordan is not.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 30, 2010 17:12:11 GMT -5
doctor, your linkage of Urban Lower Egyptians and Middle Easterners is much overhyped. In cities like Memphis (modern day Cairo) the population was for the most part native Egyptian. To this day much of the culture is still there. Is it Arabized? To a very high degree but much of the nation is. The main staple diet of the Egyptians is still bread and not rice which is African and not Asian. Also, in the way they dress. The typical dress for the Urban Lower Egyptian, though not elite, is the galibaya. In Southwest Asia the dress is quite difference. And since you link them so closely to Arabs may I ask why Urban Lower Egyptians refer to Southwest Asians as "il 3araab" and "il assiene"? I'm not saying Lower Egyptians aren't mixed. It's apparent they are and they know they are. From Greeks, Romans, French, etc. it's inevitable. However they still remain mostly African. Upper Egyptians didn't mix in so they're a more accurate representation, however you fail to realize Upper and Lower Egyptians didn't look as similar as you think. So to say that the Upper Egyptian would've been the stereotypic populace in Egypt at the time is off the mark. You yourself even said Lower Egypt had a great degree of variance within the population albeit African. Doesn't mean that African population developed like any other Traureg, Zulu or Bantu developed. It can be unique in its own way and you and Keita don't know to what degree it was. Let's an Egyptian marries a Greek. Okay? They have children, that child is not any less Egyptian than an Egyptian born of two Egyptian parents. Is he mixed? Yes. But he still retains the Egyptian bloodline. That links him to everyone else in Egypt. They may look different but genetic diversity was apparent in Egypt since the earliest times before admixture. Your problem is you limit genetic variation on some sort of "African" scale. There is no such thing. Variation among Egyptians is different than the variations among other Africans. It could also mean skin color as well. How do you know? Why is the case of Albinism more frequent in South Africans than any other place in the world? Egyptplanet don't get me wrong I am no ways trying to disconnect Lower Egyptians, urban or not, from the African continent. I'm fully aware that modern Egyptians no matter their phenotype retain a strong genetic link to other Africans south of Egypt. My point was not in reference to Arabs only, I simply pointed out that the urban Lower Egyptian population would have had recieved the most gene-flow from populations outside of Africa, no matter if they were Greek, Roman, Anatolian-Turkish, Slav, Arab, or what have you. It's not only in the genetics of the population, but in their general body plan, with Lower Egyptian body plans being intermediate instead of highly tropical as were the Ancient Egyptians. Like I've said previously rural Lower Egyptians retain certain physical characteristics that can be only linked to indigenous in situ African development and diversity. I mean look at these men, i.e. Lower Egyptians, their features can be only explained by their obvious African ancestry. media.photobucket.com/image/lower%20egyptians/shurikenjay/Addendum3.jpgupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/d/dc/20060930202104!Egyptian_fellah.jpg farm1.static.flickr.com/168/384863949_ddb984228d.jpg?v=0No matter if they're lighter then your average Somali or Tigrinyan. My point was that we should not ignore the non-African admixture due to post-Dynastic Egypt, and that maybe urban Lower Egyptians... no matter the cultural ties to Ancient Egypt, would not be the best representatives. Can you inform me on the other ties Egypt has with it's pre-Arab past, i.e. Ancient Egypt and Africa. Basically cultural characteristics. Also does modern Egyptian Arabic have any borrowed words from the Ancient Egyptian language?
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on May 30, 2010 18:04:41 GMT -5
I wasn't aware of any studies investigating modern Egyptian body builds. If you are referring to ancient lower Egyptians, of course Kemp found them to be similar to tropical Africans.
|
|
|
Post by doctorisscientia on May 30, 2010 18:18:20 GMT -5
I really doubt that any of the individual African-American men you posted would be considered "Caucasian" by anybody in Egypt... I doubt most Egyptians even follow by that trend of classifying human populations into different groups. Espechially Common, theres nothing "Caucasian" about him "physically"... the other guys other then Common and one of the other men are decent examples of indigenous African diversity (West/Central African) minus outside admixture, but the other two, Smokey and Swiss, are not good examples since more likely then not they both would have significant amounts of European ancestry. Swiss is half Pueto Rican and half Jamaican, and Smokey is African-American... so likey he's predomiantely African. It's not because either Smokey or Swiss are light skin, it's because of either known ancestry, in regard to Swiss, and the known possibility of them being mixed due to national history. I've seen many African individuals who resemble Smokey... minus the grey eyes. imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/MMPH/174534~Smokey-Robinson-Posters.jpgAnd while I completely agree with you on the fact that "light skin" is indigenous to the African continent, you can't just deny the fact that there has been significant amounts of "racial mixing" in Egypt after the decline of Ancient or Dynastic Egypt. Keita even admits that modern urban northern Egypt does not represent what Egypt would have had looked like several thousand years ago. Population structure changes all the time, and it's not only in Egypt... Northern Italians in no way represents indigenous Northern Italians living in that area during Roman times... mainly via admixture from Northern European groups. Arabs described Northern Egyptians as "half-caste Ethiopians". The Egyptian population jumped from little more than 2 million to around 90 million as of now, with the urban "ethnic" Egyptian population representing 40% of the modern population. During Ancient Egyptian times the mass majority of the population was located along the Nile, i.e. Upper Egypt, as of now only 15% of the population is concentrated along the Nile... some of them being Nubian, the majority of the modern Egyptian population is concentrated along areas surrounding the Delta. You don't think thats significant. The Southern population was rather neglected therefore didn't expereince the massive population growth that we saw in Northern Urban locals. Keita himself presonally pointed out modern day Upper Egyptians, Nubians and Beja populations as the best living repersentatives in regard to the Ancient Egyptian population. www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000648Arab colonization began with the conquest ,and was encouraged by the Ummayyad Caliphs,notably by Hisham[reigned 724-43],who in 727 authorized the planned migration and settlement of several thousand Arabs of the Yemenite tribe of Qays in the Nile Valley. During the eight century and ninth century large numbers of Arab tribesmen,mainly of Yemenite origin,migrate to Egypt,where many of them settled on land. page 457 Although at the end of the Dyanstic period and in Graeco-Roman times Saqarra was a bustling place throughout the year with constant pilgrimages to many shrines ,were troubled souls sought comfort from the mysteries and incubation treatments available and processions and very occasionally an Apis funeral as special entertainment,the district was also probably rather ran down suffering from the excessive usage of almost three thousand years. To some extent its bustle its bustle reflected the busy life of the city of Men-nefer,which remained the most important centre of commerce and administration untill it was supersededby Alexzandria. It was huge,amorphus,rambling place,with large ''ghettoes'' made over for foregin communities---for Greeks,for Jews,for Carians,for Phonecians.Apart from itws temples it probabaly had few imposing buildings,and was mostly made up of warren-like districts of narrow streets and three-storey houses where collapse and rebuilding went on continuously:unsanitary,smelly,dusty or muddy according to the season,but full of life and interest. Dr. S, I think you're arguing straws here. I didn't say that "Egyptians" would consider those men 'caucasian', heck, Egptians don't even consider themselves 'caucasian'. This is a strictly American term projected onto people without their consent. The people who generall consider Egptians 'caucasian' are basing it off physical appearance, NOT biological, you're missing the point. Like so many others, you think your Y Haplotype tells you what color your eyes, or nose shape will be. But it doesn't. Someone like me with less than 10% European Ancestry, has more narrow features than ones with 50% European ancestry. I used to always joke that if I died in a fire, would the label my skeleton 'caucasoid', although my DNA is mostly African. And I don't agree with the rest of your post, and I have attached Keita's study for your benefit. He specifically 'corrects' the assumption that the 'V' haplotype is Arabic, which most Modern Egyptians belong to. He clearly states that is AFRICAN, and not due to admixture with Arabs. [/size] Now he argues that these haplotypes are INDIGINEOUS to Africa, and NOT due to conquest: Lower Egypt 51% "V", and 1.2% IV, Upper Egypt 25% "V" and 27.3% IV. IV is considered a 'sub-Saharan' African haplotype, and many authors assumed because Lower Egyptians had a lower percentage of this particular haplotype, they were LESS African. But it pointed out the flaws, but evidencing the V haplotype as African as well. Note in his study; Supra-Sahara is 55% 'V', and Ethiopia is 45% 'V'. While the so-called Arab countries such as Iraq is 7% V, Lebanon is 16%, and Palestine only 15%. So he concluded: Since the MAJORITY of this haplotype is within the African population, then it is African, NOT Arab. Now compare with haplotypes VII and VIII, both 'near east' or 'Arab' markers. Egypt has only 6% and 7% respectively. Hence the MAJORITY of their Y haplotype is African. He specifically states; "The label “Arabic” for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin....Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V “Horn-supra-saharan African,” not ‘Arabic;’ it is indigenous to Africa. The first speakers of Arabic, a Semitic language, came into Africa from the Near East."So I'm sorry, you and several others are ver wrong to assume because modern Egyptians have certain 'physical features' it was inherited from Arab or other invaders, and that they are some how not representative of African ancestry. When biologically they are, and it's clearly stated here. Just because the population increased, doesn't mean it was REPLACED by outsiders. It simply means, they were having a lot of children in Egypt. Would you make the same statement about Nigeria, knowing it's population increased significantly in that past several centuries? Keita: "However, in some of the studies, only individuals from northern Egypt are sampled, and this could theoretically give a false impression of Egyptian variabilitybecause this region has received more foreign settlers (and is nearer the Near East). Possible sample bias should be integrated into the discussion of results ".."The genetic data, specifically the M35 subclade affiliated with haplotype V in Africa, can be related to the spatial range of much of the Afroasiatic linguistic phylum, which evidence suggests most likely originated in Africa; only one member (Semitic) is found in the Near East....a Mesolithic population carrying Group III lineages with M35/M215 mutation expanded northwards from sub-Saharan to north Africa and the Levant”. ....The widespread distribution of the PN2 clade in the major language phyla of Africa, its existence in the Levantine-Iraq region and even in the Aegean, and its likely post-glacial maximum date are significant and show how numerous bioculturally diverse peoples can be connected, even at relatively shallow time depths. This should give pause to those who have trouble escaping racial thinking.
This is important with regard to how the Semetic language left Africa; "In comparison to those of V their frequencies are small in supra-Saharan Africa (Tables 2A, 2B). Again employing the Falasha and northern Africa cases as a models, and the genetic evidence, it can be postulated that selected M35 carriers, speakers (from Africa) of a stage of ancestral Semitic (pre-proto-Semitic) entered the Near East, where indigenous peoples adopted it, and via ongoing language shift and population growth eventually became numerically greater than the original speakers of the ancestor."
Keita (see attachment)[/quote] 1) Yeah I kindo of realized that I had misinterpreted your point in regard to those African-American men you posted. My bad. =) 2) Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware that genotype doesn't = phenotype. I should know, a good friend of mine is from Northern spain, Basque, but instead of possessing a typical Southern or Western European haplogroup... he possesses a very typical Saharo-Tropical African varient, A3b2-M13 . That was a surprise. But he dosen't look Sudanic or African in any regard, but is phenotypically no different from many other Southern Europeans. Your second half of your post was not necessay, since I'm aware of what your saying. "V" is African, and I've never argued against that. My point was that Egypt, in particular, was effected by gene-flow from Eurasia, and it wouldn't do anybody no good if we simply ignored it. In that study you posted, African lineages represented 64.8% of the haplotypes found among Lower Egyptians, the non-African lineages representing 29.6% of the lineages... the remainder being "unreadable". The African contribution into the Upper Egyptian population was 80.3... non-African being 13.7. In Lower Nubia the number was 86.9, the non-African input being 4.4. Theres an obvious difference in freguency of haplogroups in regard to Egypt, even if Lower Egyptians remain predomiantly African. Also population growth most definitely matters, if you have a baby boom among a population with a concentration non-indigenous or mixed population, the general population would obviously be impacted. The Upper Egypt in miniscal compared to the Lower Egyptian population, being only 15% of Egypts population today. Most Ancient Egyptians would have had been Upper Egyptian by birth, Egypt untill recently had a very small Lower Egyptian population. When it comes to physical features, we are already aware of Africa's diversity. But we are also aware of the impact of non-Africans on Egypt following the fall of Egypt. For example the population of Fayum was 30% Greek... not including mixed race Greeco-Egyptians. Thats significant. Personally, I believe that Greeco-Roman admixture represented the most significant input into modern day Egypt, i.e. general population. The fact that we now know that Egypt interracial relationships were common in Egypt at that time, being even freguent among the royal class... you denying this fact dosen't really make sense. The Elite Egyptian populations is almost exclusively non-Egyptian... and it's documented and historic. For example, "A large section of the pre-revolutionary Egyptian elite could trace their ancestry to Balkan, Caucasian and Turkish roots." They didn't leave, as what occured with the decolonization of Africa in regard to European colonizers, they stayed right there. "Upper class Egyptians, often fairer than their poorer compatriots, invariably look down on lower class Egyptians who tend to be darker in complexion. There is a subtle correlation between lower income and darker complexion. The Egyptian upper classes and elites tend to be noticeably lighter in complexion than their poorer and working class compatriots. "They labour in the sun," is sometimes the cynical explanation. "
|
|
|
Post by egyptianplanet on May 30, 2010 21:08:13 GMT -5
The Coptic Church retains the ancient language infused with Greek characters. Had Coptic not been around, the Rosetta Stone wouldn't have been cracked. Perhaps it was for the worst, seeing as now all we do is bicker about this. sundiata- you also refuse to acknowledge Lower Egyptian body type is what you consider Maghrebien. It was an intermediate between tropical Africans and those from Mediterranean climes.
|
|
|
Post by sundiata on May 31, 2010 22:05:13 GMT -5
sundiata- you also refuse to acknowledge Lower Egyptian body type is what you consider Maghrebien. It was an intermediate between tropical Africans and those from Mediterranean climes. I refuse to acknowledge this because it is incorrect. As stated, Kemp (2005) found them to be similar to tropical Africans.
|
|