What race do you think Ancient Egypt was?

"Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white"

Preferring the precise term "African".

"Race has no meaning" is just pseudoscientific Communist nonsense from the Boas crowd.

 

What race do you think Ancient Egypt was?


Warthogs??

 

Hrm. I am specifically talking about how people look also and I do not agree that all Africans of dark skin look the same, similar or even near enough where they would be classified crudely the same way.
I know what you think, but I don't think you know exactly how African Americans (as a group) "feel" or "think" about who they judge as black and who they do not. Again, I think you probably have a grasp on the popular culture new definition of "black" but I do not believe that is a good measure of the true situation. I think you have a very idealistic and inclusive view, and I think you believe this is the truth, but I don't think you actually know this. Of course, it is impossible to actually judge what we know compared to what we think we know in this context, but I am speaking from my experience and my previous discussions with actual people to say I do not think you are correct. I think you might be surprised by the differences in how certain subgroups think or feel about this and how this changes regionally and definitely from country to country.

I also disagree highly that these people you have included as black would all consider themselves black. In fact, I have heard numerous different labels being "claimed" by various people of African decent themselves, and even some northern Africans with dark skin consider themselves "brown" and not "black". I tend to not actually label people by color except when I am discussing their skin. I am only using the phrase "black" as I believe it is often defined in this country. You have a different version of that and I believe the reason for this is different sources and different views of what thoughts are credible and which are not. But in referring to themselves, for the sake of this argument, I have heard many claim a distinction between them being "brown" as compared to "black" and I think this difference does have meaning to many people, who you seem to be including in "black". What I would say to this is shouldn't it be up to the individual which group they perceive themselves to be a part of?

On to the genetics. Of course they are all African. I have never claimed they are not all African or do not have African heavy genes. That can't be denied, but how having African genes is turned into a social statement is a completely different story. How those with African genes are broken up ethnically, culturally and in terms of community is not as "black and white" as I believe you have made it out to be.

Now it's not that I don't want them labeled black, and honestly I could care less if you believe that makes me look "anti-black". I am anti "black" in the sense that "black" is one world community of dark skinned people. I don't believe that is a good or accurate examination of physical features. When I am talking about physical features they are surely African, but again what is "black" and then what is the difference between "black" and "brown" and who decided that and how?

I also disagree that they ONLY looked like the ethnic groups you mentioned. I also believe the diversity within those ethnic groups is far broader in physical appearance than the pictures you posted or in the way I am understanding your explanation.

If someone asked me, looking at those pictures, if I believe all those people would be considered "black" by modern social standards (regardless of what it means to me) then my answer would be absolutely NOT. This is as far as my understanding of what peoples call themselves "black" largely, but also what physical features are accepted universally in black communities, and while those features may be accepted in some black communities, I don't believe, based on experience, that they are or would be accepted as black in all black communities. Perhaps by popular media perception, but again, I think popular media perception is the least meaningful and rarely reflects the "common" perception.

I don't think they have intrinsic meaning. I think those terms have various meanings depending on whom you are speaking with. That I guess is the real issue and my real problem with using these labels in such a fashion, but for the sake of this argument, my argument is that because these terms don't have intrinsic meanings, and because they have various meanings, they don't really have value when discussing the physical appearance of these people, which was/is the main topic of conversation. So yes, while I am using them, mostly in an attempt to figure out what value they do have, I still find them to not be very meaningful.

The haplogroup study I am speaking about there was I believe Tutankhamun's DNA, from my recollection the R1b1a2 Haplgroup was discovered to be part of him. For whatever that is worth or means to you.

Also, this statement I find to be most true "But there is also colorism in the African-American community" and that is what I am talking about. There is always been colorism within the community going back over 100 years at least, where lighter skinned AfricanAmericans were ridiculed. This is why I contested your statement that the community is "inclusive". How can you be "inclusive" and at the same time express "colorism"?

And again, I know you think all these people would be considered black, but I believe you are wrong. I think this depends on whom you are talking too. I think this also depends on the individual perspective of the person being spoken about, and the best I can say is I believe (and know from experience) that many of the people from the ethnic groups are are speaking about consider themselves "brown" and not "black" and make a point to express a difference. This is why I believe your "black" is someone elses "brown" , but either way we agree its a poor way to describe peoples physical appearance. Not to mention the skin color itself obviously has little to do with the matter because darker skinned people from Asia would not be considered "black" by those standards, nor would darker skinned Italians or south Americans, who may themselves actually have darker skin than someone with indigenous roots in Africa. I believe this is why the term African American is used today (preferably instead of black) to describe the community you are talking about, because in real terms it is NOT a "black" community it is an African American community, and within that African American community I believe does exist communities that would consider themselves black and other communities that would not consider themselves black, and I believe the difference is quite important in terms of this argument, but not really in any practical sense otherwise.

The only reason I care about how people are labeled is because I think the whole system of labeling is wrong, goes against what many perceive themselves to be, and that I find inherently disrespectful towards those individuals or groups whom you are speaking about, of which many have a different opinion. I honestly don't believe there is much of a difference aside from having different haplogroups, between people who are brown, black, white, yellow or whatever color one uses to describe skin tone. Not only is there little difference, but in grouping them willy nilly I believe it diminishes their uniqueness and to some degree individual ethnicity.

If you are asking me personally? When someone asks me about appearance or when I meet someone and am taking in their physical features, I am looking for ethnic markers not "racial" markers. I describe individuals as what ethnic group they come from if you are speaking about their history, their culture and their origin, not what color they are. I think this is also why what was once called "black" culture, broke off into becoming African American culture and now "Urban" culture. Because those specific cultures are no longer just or at least the people within those cultures are not all universally considered "black". Of course this is getting much further from the Egyptian argument in which I am still not convinced about your description of their appearance and I feel as if their appearance was more diverse than you are stating.

I have not ready every study out there though and I am sure its possible you have looked in to this more than I. But I am not yet convinced about what we know about the people of that time period or what we know about the specifics of haplogroup migration yet. I do agree however that it is highly likely that the people in Ancient Egypt looked "African" but I don't believe that word has any specific meaning as towards skin color, whether black or brown.

I also then do not understand the inclusion of other haplogroups that I see being found in DNA tests done on mummies. Now considering the length of time the Egyptian culture was around and considering that things changed over time, and based on what we do know the genetic makeup of the people themselves changed.

I also don't think you can decipher the appearance of the peoples of that time based on the small sample size of genes found for certain periods in Egyptian history. Some periods have much more evidence left over where we can get a broader spectrum of the overall gene pool than other periods.

I also don't believe you can really use the statues in this sense to determine appearance as I have read in many articles about this subject. Not to mention Egyptian art was HIGHLY symbolic and I don't believe anyone actually knows the truth about what the artwork is actually depicting as far as peoples bone structure or skin color. There is also the factor of artistic liberty.

So going off the genes, I don't think there is yet enough proof to make the claims you are suggesting. Nor do I believe there is quite enough evidence to say they were did not look the way you suggest.

I absolutely don't believe the majority of Egyptians were "light" skinned. That just doesn't compute. But that isn't to say SOME were not light skinned, or lighter skinned and if their bodies were not preserved the way some bodies were, we would have no idea of their existence obviously. I think it also needs to be decided if there were differences in ethnicity between all the people living in Egypt and the Egyptian Royalty, as we seem to have more evidence of the Royal Classes and from what I have read, that gets pretty diverse as far as genetics over a long period of time.

I also think a broader library of sources must be used to determine this, and question many of the sources out there that make decisive or more extreme claims. Obviously the theory that Egyptians were milky white is bias, but I question whether the claims that Egyptians were "black" is not equally bias. And no, I don't believe the evidence shows such a clear picture of things nor is enough to determine the answers to those questions completely.

I am much more in line with the theory that none of those are true and things are far more diverse than either argument makes things appear. But it can't be argued that they were not African. However, I would also like to state that any a large portion of the Egyptian's I have encountered and been lucky enough to discuss these issues with, detest labeling themselves as "African American". To me this was always funny because they are obviously "African American" and yet that term held such negative connotations with these individuals that they would not claim that label, as true and logical as it may be. That is a slightly different argument, but at this point in time even a term like "African American" which seems clear and decisive in its meaning, has taking on secondary definitions and context. These words have become chimera's and therefore I feel defining them specifically for the context of the discussion is necessary.

 

I can only speak to my experiences but being African-American myself and speaking to many African-Americans including family, friends and acquaintances, reading what people say online, in magazines, listening to radio and internet videos I believe I have a very clear picture of what many if not most African-Americans think of Blackness and who they consider to be Black. If you feel there is a different perspective that is more mainstream feel free to share your sources and experiences.

It's really not new. European explorers designated all dark-skinned Africans to be Black even before the existence of slavery. European scholars created racist divisions among African people including the True Negro Myth and Hamitic Hypothesis but they generally regarded dark-skinned Africans as Black.

I'm well-aware that people have different opinions on race from country to country and even regions within a country.

I'm speaking to how African-Americans and Americans in general view race.

Well if we could ask them that would be convenient. I know for a fact that many dark-skinned Egyptians for example see themselves as Black as I have spoken to several of them. Here is video proof:

[video=youtube;ZvJ0F299kFQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvJ0F299kFQ[/video]

I don't doubt the possibility but can you give a reference as I have?

I would never try to dictate to people how they should label themselves. But I'm not doing that. I am just informing you of how African-Americans generally perceive other dark-skinned people of African descent.

As I've stated many times before I'm not concerned over how people are viewed socially, I am interested in this subject because I believe it is important to correct the African historical record and put these ancient people in their proper context, which is that they were an indigenous Northeast African people who happened to be primarily dark-skinned.

Well at least you admit it. This statement makes it seem as if you have an ideological axe to grind. You reject the label Black being applied to certain people thus adhering to a restrictive definition. I think such argumentation is divisive and unnecessary if we are having a discussion about the physical appearance of people.

The purpose of the pictures is to paint an illustration in the minds of readers about what I'm talking about. There is certainly more diversity in those ethnic groups than the pictures I displayed but they give people good reference material when attempting to describe the phenotypes of the Ancient Egyptians.

That of course begs the question, which modern social standards are you adhering too? Because in America MOST people not just African-Americans would regard them as Black.

I can only assure you based on my experience that most African-Americans regard dark-skinned North and East Africans as Black regardless of their physical features. I haven't been everywhere in this large country. I don't know everyone's opinion but I know the general perception is that these people are regarded as Black by African-Americans.

There has been no actual genetic study on King Tut that identified which Y-Chromosome Haplogroup he belongs to.

This is a false claim spread across the internet by Eurocentrists based on a stock footage from a TV special about King Tut and his family where some DNA company made a guess about which haplogroup he belonged to, believing the footage gave them a clue. That's not a very scientific approach, wouldn't you agree? We need to see an actual genetic study to find out this information.

Lighter-skinned African-Americans have experienced both ridicule and favoritism in the African-American community. Light skin and more Caucasian features are seen as more attractive by some Blacks. Whites have viewed light-skinned Blacks more favorably as well seeing them as less threatening and generally better than dark-skinned Blacks. When it comes to physical beauty lighter is seen as better. I know all about the ridicule however. Some of it is motivated by jealousy. My father is a light-skinned African-American. Both of his parents are biracial. (Grandfather was half-Black, half Cherokee and Grandma was half-Black, half-Jewish. My father experienced colorism as a child telling me that he and his brothers were constantly picked on and called anti-White racial slurs like "cracker."

Colorism is definitely an issue in the Black community. African-Americans are inclusive in the sense that generally they accept anyone who is part Black as Black, adhering to the One-Drop rule but colorism definitely exists. Those that are very dark are also discriminated against. There are two TV specials one called "Dark Girls" the other "Light Girls" which address the colorism issue.

How diverse? What do you think they looked like and based on what evidence?

Yes, Africans are very diverse and include light-skinned Africans such as most Berbers. I spoke to Keita at length about this via email and he made it clear to me that his work is not about the skin color of the Ancient Egyptians but about their bio-cultural origins, meaning where did they and their culture come from. His position isn't debated among most Egyptologists who do believe now that Ancient Egyptian civilization was a local Nile Valley development (as opposed to a culture coming from elsewhere as the Dynastic Race Theory proposed). There was indeed physical diversity in appearance. According to Keita we can not ascertain their appearance empirically as they did not leave behind proper portraits and no photographs existed at the time. We can only imagine their appearance based on the biological evidence and consider how it might have changed over time as migrations and invasions left their imprint on the country's gene pool.

But Keita does believe these 5 facts:

1. Ancient Egyptian civilization was an indigenous development.

2. The Ancient Egyptian people shared more biological affinity with other Africans than with Europeans or Southwest Asians.

3. Migrations and invasions did effect the physical appearance of the Ancient Egyptians.

4. There is a history of racist ideas in academia that tried to deny Ancient Egypt's Africanity.

5. The range of physical diversity included dark skin which was present if not predominate among the Ancient Egyptian citizenry and ruling class.

I believe that the ancient Egyptian statues were meant to depict the real facial features of the people which is common in art from all other regions. The Ancient Egyptians did practice symbolism in art but also realism. Some art is easy to interpret while others are more difficult. For instance women being painted yellow is obviously symbolic and no mystery need be made of it especially when in the Amarna period the women are depicted as brown like the men. But what of the different skin colors in art such as black, white, gold and even blue and green skintones? The reasons for this are less obvious.

The genetic evidence is less reliable than the anthropometric evidence. If we could take the autosomal DNA of ancient Egyptian remains and compare it to the DNA of diverse populations we could accurately assess their genetic affinity but this has not been done and the Egyptian government is very selective on who they allow to conduct such studies.

 

All the generations of people who lived in Egypt during what we call "ancient times" died long before any Europeans or West Africans migrated to the New World, so we practically have no idea whatsoever how they would classify themselves if presented with modern America's (largely pre-scientific) racial taxonomy. They may have called their native homeland "Kemet", which translates to "black country", but we don't know if this refers to their own skin color, the dark silty floodplains along the Nile River, or something else entirely (Egyptologists conventionally endorse the second option). We do have certain ancient Greek and Roman writers noting Egyptians' dark skin, using words like "melanchroes" (black-colored), but it's not clear whether this necessarily corresponds to the modern American constructs. Perhaps the most revealing quote to me comes from a pseudo-Aristolean text, Physiognomonics, which describes Egyptians and "Aethiopians" (Nubians) together as dark-skinned and therefore cowardly, which suggests to me that the Greeks perceived some degree physical similarity between those two peoples. But again, this isn't quite the same as saying either ancient Egyptians or Nubians would have declared themselves black in the precise same vein as, say, Martin Luther King or Malcolm X.

At any rate, while ancient people would have inevitably noticed physical differences between themselves and those from faraway parts of the world, I believe they tied their own identities with specific nationalities, cultures, or even clans rather than larger racial or geopolitical blocs. I don't think either the Egyptians or Nubians would have usually seen each other as brethren by virtue of their genetic and cultural resemblances any more than the Japanese felt kinship with Koreans, or the Lakota with Cheyenne.

Though on the other hand, no one in the US today seems to have trouble "racially" associating Japanese with Koreans, or Lakota with Cheyenne. You don't even see anyone questioning a "racial" link between Lakota and, say, the Maya or Inca, even though all those peoples lived geographically far apart from one another and had visibly very different cultures. It's only when people suggest any level of affinity between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa, or even Nubia, that we all "realize" the problem of applying racial taxonomy to different cultures.

I would say helluva more right now, but I have somewhere to go soon.

 

Ok. As far as I know the information here has been confirmed. If I am mistaken then that is fine, but Ive looked at a few sources now. This seems to be what has been decided true. In these references I do not expect everything on say wikipedia to be true, but the aspects about these haplogroups seem to indeed be true by the best of what I have researched. If you would like to explain each further with academic references only that will take me more time but could be done, unless you yourself have access to it.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25163-Y-DNA-haplogroups-of-ancient-civilizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt

Now to the individual haplogroups.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_E1b1b_Y-DNA.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_G2a_Y-DNA.shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml

I could not confirm the others listed aside from the ones we spoke about, but how do you explain these findings? Again they are true as far as I can tell, and not only that but I did not find any info on this information being false. These haplogroups would give a very different look to what we are describing here than simply similar to other North Africans. Also, I don't think anthropometric evidence is nearly enough to make the claims you are making and the DNA evidence, all be it not abundant, actually begins to tell a bit of a different story. The fact is that the culture itself could have very well been local in origin and North African in origin but that does not mean at all that all the people that were there for the origin were necessarily only from that area, nor does it mean that they were even from Africa ALONE, but obviously made up majorly from Africa. The DNA seems to point towards the people that were there at that time had traveled from numerous different places. How they came to be there at that time is relatively unknown as far as I can tell but it certainly does not seem as though those people originated there right? Why is that assumed because the civilization happened to start there? I am not at all saying that a group of Europeans or Asians just one day picked up and moved there to start a civilization, I am saying in thousands and thousands of years of human movement, migration and breeding, isn't it at all possible the people that were there at that time had been other places prior and over a long period of time ended up there, and then over a longer period of time became the people of that area and eventually those who would originate this civilization? There is plenty of evidence of human movement prior to this, long prior. If many humans left Africa, why is it so hard to believe that some of them returned and then remixed with local population that became these people? That is actually what the small sample size of DNA would suggest. In fact, unless the human species originated in Egypt, they had to have migrated there. And since human beings had left Africa long before the period we are discussing, it only makes sense about their genes being diverse. Further, just because the civilization itself wasn't imported does not mean some of the people weren't.

I also do not completely trust the Egyptian Government, who happens to be a rather oppressive regime, and has a bias to protect in this area. While I am not saying they are making things up, I am saying that the picture they paint is Egyptcentric. Similarly, and I don't mean this as any offense, I believe your view to be very ethnocentric. I am not even saying you may be doing this consciously but the picture you are trying to paint is largely based on assumptions based on incomplete and inexact research. I would thing if you were truly looking at it objectively you would not be making some of the claims you are making. That is my perspective. I don't believe I have any bias in this matter nor do I have any direct connection to these claims or a previous hypothesis. I really am coming at this completely from an outsider with no previous idea of what I am looking at.

A big reason I feel this bias coming from your argument is the very general claims about African Americans and American society. I am sorry, but if you were actually being objective in no way would you make such broad and general claims. Those things can not be known, you can not actually determine that part of the discussion without polling a large enough sample size. As we are both coming at this from our individual perspectives, I feel much safer claiming diversity than I do generalizing as you are. While you may be correct, my personal experience has led me to believe things are not as general as you are making them out to be, which I think you do admit later on in your statement. "That of course begs the question, which modern social standards are you adhering too? Because in America MOST people not just African-Americans would regard them as Black." You can NOT possibly know this. I understand this is what you think, but a lot of factors may alter such perception.

Unfortunately, I have never recorded any of the conversations I have had with the people I am speaking about. I just know what I have heard first hand, which I obviously can not back up with hard evidence. However you obviously no what I am saying is true as you do admit these things, but you make them out to be the obvious minority in thought, which again you also have no way of proving. So neither of us can prove this because neither of us actually have proof. A video of one mans take on the subject again does not express the broad and variable view that individuals and groups are bound to have on this subject.

I am curious, I can tell you I associate with a very broad spectrum of people, I travel a lot, and I tend to have these types of discussions most everywhere I go. That is why I feel confident in my theory here on the cultural subject and the identity of black and what it means to different people. I encounter so many ethnicities on a daily basis living where I live on top of my associations and travels that I could probably take a fairly accurate poll in my situation. This is where I am coming from.

I am not asking for your associations or history, all I would like to know is if they are broad enough and diverse enough where you express the opinion of experience based on EXTREME diversity or do you mostly associate with a similar and non diverse group of people? And yes I think this question matters immensely in what we are discussing.

Also, I do not think my statement about "black" means I have an ideological "axe" to grind. I see this as a discussion of context and meaning. Again, I am not using the word "black": as you say I am discussing the word "black" and discussing it's meaning. "You reject the label Black being applied to certain people thus adhering to a restrictive definition" I reject the label of "Black" being applied to ANY group of people. Black is a color, not even, its a shade not a people, the fact is that no one is actually black, all are different shades of brown (dont even white people have pigment?). What I am doing is referring to the common definition of "black" in regards to how it is used for people and saying when you say "black" people I do not know that you are referring to skin color, how could you be? Especially when skin color has a direct correlation to UV radiation. Give me a week in the sun and I too am Brown and I have African haplogroups in my DNA, does that make me "black" ? If we are talking about skin color of these ancient Egyptians why is the statement "They had an array of skin tone ranging from light brown to dark brown" not good enough for the sake of this picture you are trying to paint and this discussion? I feel as if I have suggested that numerous times.

My last question. I know you told me, but I will pretend I don't know, you could be a light skinned Egyptian and I feel the same question would apply:

Do you as a human being take pride in the fact that you feel you can describe these people as "black"? Is there any part of you that gets a sense of self worth out of this? I am not judging you based on this question at all, as a human being. But I do question anyone taking part in what should be a scientific endeavor or conversation, that feels pride in the specifics of their findings (and not just the fact that they discovered something, or pride over a job well done), but I mean someone who feels pride in and senses a deeper meaning about the specifics of their findings as related to their identity and ego.

I hope you understand this last question are not offended by it, that's not my intention. You might be a very objective researcher for all I know.

 

I do not feel that anyone should take pride in or derive self-worth from the accomplishments of cultures that they had nothing to do with even if they are directly descended from those cultures. I believe in respecting historical achievements and celebrating your heritage but not doing it in a disrespectful way like claiming you are better than someone else because of your heritage the way racists do. I believe it is important to correct the African historical record putting Ancient Egypt and its people in proper historical context and that means doing objective research on the subject and accepting the facts of the situation whatever that may be.

As far as your sources are concerned I see nothing in particular to dispute. On ancient DNA the Wikipedia link acknowledges that research on this data is scarce and sites a study which finds multiple lines of descent for Ancient Egyptian haplogroups including those from Sub-Saharan Africa. What they don't report is that the other haplogroups are unknown and may also come from Africa.

I don't want to spend much time on the Black issue any more. Instead I'm going to post an article, ask you to read it and ask what you agree with and disagree with so we can further discussion on where we stand on this issue or finally reach a conclusion.

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians

Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Ku(*)(*)(*)(*)es, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.

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. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates 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.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Ku(*)(*)(*)(*)es and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.


References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annuals of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984

 

Black is a metaphor for Sub Saharan ancestral cluster. The cluster is not defined by skin color.

 

Hey, I intend to respond to this article. Been caught up in a few things. I respect your response a great deal and am comforted in your objectivity. I am sorry I had to ask though, as on the internet you really don't know whom you are speaking with or their background. You didn't have to respond in such, but I very much appreciate that you did and feel we both now may have a better idea where each is coming from and the perspective we are bringing to this argument.

As far as the article is concerned, I read it over and I am getting the feeling we both believe the article to be true, but are perceiving the "meaning" of the article slightly differently. I wish I still had access to my campus library, I miss academic articles, but unfortunately I do not. And I want to respond to this article with some thought so it will take me a little bit to get that response to you.

Again, thank you for your honesty and understanding. That's the only way any of these issues will ever be understood. On a forum with so many dishonest people, fake people, narrow minded people and people with ulterior political or social purposes, it is very nice to find someone I could have a completely honest discussion with without it resorting to "racist" attacks or the need to be fake and one of my biggest pet peeves, politically correct. I would much rather be honest and scientific than to withhold thoughts and ideas because they may offend someone.

Will get back to you soon.

Take care

 

white is a metaphor for scandanavian ancestral cluster.

 

No it's a metaphor for the Europoid cluster. Nord is a term for the Central North cluster.

 

lol @europoid

 

We don't know about King Tut yet. As of now, the only Pharaoh whose Y-chromosomal haplogroup we have obtained is Ramses III, and the reported result sure as hell doesn't resemble anything widespread in Western Europeans.

And this is the current distribution of Y-chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a:

Mind you, two individuals' Y-chromosomal haplogroups aren't enough to determine a population affinity (neither are their mtDNA counterparts for that matter). Nonetheless it is tragically ironic that white supremacists keep belching about Tut's mythical R1b all over the Internet even though the one genuine haplogroup obtained from a Pharaoh's mummy is more stereotypically associated with their least favorite race.

 

It's cool you can write that but if I wrote "lol@Jews" JohnnyMo would ban me.

 

nothing wrong with that, youre jumping to conclusions

 

Whatever may be said of J0NAH and his beliefs, you're comparing apples and oranges here. J0NAH is laughing at your obviously fictitious and pseudo-scientific taxon "Europoid", which isn't the same as your history of espousing anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.

I mean, really, "Europoid" sounds like some pretentious, pseudo-scientific sounding word you'd expect to hear on a cheesy science-fiction show.

 

Arent East African groups like Somalis and Ethiopians (people from the horn of africa) predominately mixed with Arabs? Certain genetic studies show they have large amounts of Caucasiod genes. https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/caucasian-africans/

 

Ancient Egyptians were probably like the Copts of Egypt today...a semitic people.

 

Copts arent ethnically different from most egyptians-its just cultural and religious.

 

I thought I'd go ahead and post this in case you guys were still interested in this subject. They just unearthed two tombs and here is the link to the murals found in it (Pretty Cool Stuff!). You guys seem knowledgeable on how to determine what race the Egyptians are better than I could guess, but if I had to guess would just say that they were Africans which is Black. Africans/Blacks come in different amounts of melanin and phenotypes.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...dorned-vivid-paintings-unearthed-egypt-002772

 

Haplogroup J has been found at 18% in Ethiopians, while Haplogroup E makes up 71% in their genetic makeup. Ethiopians are around 20% Arab and 70% African due to an ancient back migration from the Middle East, which is not surprising due to the geographical proximity to the Arabian Peninsula.

It may be hard to find a pure ethnic group especially in a region where different ethnic groups historically interacted and Egyptians and Ethiopians are clearly mixed-race people, who are mostly Africans tinged with an Arab genetic heritage.

 

So Ethiopians technically arent black but are rather middle eastern? or are they a mixed race ethnic group?

 

middle east isnt an ethnicity, its a geographical location, likely political as it can shift in definitions. for example saudi arabia and sudan can be considered middle eatern and have large populations of what you would call black ppl. its like you stating that the ancient greeks were like americans. which americans? the asian ones, african ones? european ones?

 

I'm not sure that's true. Can you elaborate?

 

Most Saudis aren't black...