This contains over 400 images, and will require some time to load. It is also is under more or less permanent construcion, I will finish sorting them all by dynasty eventually.
These are the faces of ancient Egyptians from smaller tomb portraits, not usually including the larger monumental statues, as these have weathered a lot and the facial features are generally indistinct and damaged. These are meant to represent the Egyptian people, in a reasonably accurate and life-like fashion. The older dynastic images are nearer the top. If anyone needs to know the identity of the larger statues for reference, I can supply the names, dates and site found for most, upon request (leave a request in the comments). Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for the mummy boards and masks.
As some of the more observant readers have pointed out, some images of various portraits either contradict each each (Tutankhamen is a prime offender), or look nothing like their mummy.
Tutankamun’s many faces. The middle image is somewhat redder than it looks here, and is a thought to be a tailors dummy. The mummy of Tutankhamun is seriously damaged by poor storage, hence the ‘decomp-black’ skin colour (he was described as being a ‘whitish grey’ when first unwrapped).
Tiye. Either the ‘elder woman’ mummy isn’t Tiye (it has a tentative DNA ID on it from hairs in Tut’s tomb) or the busts aren’t very accurate portrayals. Tiyes parents Tuya and Yuya are in the mummy section. It’s not obvious from the balck and white shot, but Tiye has auburn hair and a light skin tone. There’s a great view of her here.
If you really want a better idea of what they all looked like in the flesh, the mummy section at the bottom of the page is pretty comprehensive.
Old Kingdom statues and busts
Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom statues and busts
Unsorted (as yet).
Nubian
Ptolemaic
Mummy cases and masks (except Greco-Roman)
Greco-Roman era Mummy boards and masks.
If anyone spots a duplication let me know, as they all start to look the same after the first hundred.
Smaller servant statues and shabti
The Fayum mummy portraits (Greco-Roman era)
These are from around the era of Cleopatra and onwards (Greco-Roman). As you can see by the style of dress these are Hellenised and Romanised Egyptians. They don’t appear to be physically different from the earlier population, and DNA studies on modern Egyptians have shown only low amounts of European haplotypes in the Northern part of Egypt (about 15% male, so about 7% total).
Studies of the Fayum mummies indicate the only a minority of them were Greeks. They appear to have been the burials of the Greek soldiers/officials, their local wives and Egyptian children and grandchildren. A study on the teeth by JD Irish showed that they didn’t seem to be particularly different from the rest of the population at the time, so the amount of Greek ancestry in them seems to be pretty low.
There are also mummy reconstructions here.
Here is a montage of modern Egyptians, their descendants.
Mathilda's Anthropology Blog. 
http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1955235
http://www.photographersdirect.com/buyers/stockphoto.asp?imageid=1066753
How about these fulanis (around 40 millions in West, Central, and Est Africa)? are they caucasians?
Fulani/Fulbe are only a little bit Caucasian, 8% maternal, about 19% paternal, so about 13.5% total. Similar to Somalis (15%). There’s a page on them here somewhere. Their own myths describe them as coming from Egypt, so it’s not a real surprise they have some West Asian ancestry.
Apparently they vary quite a bit from place to place though; so what’s true of the info I’m using may be different in other groups that weren’t studied.
Rant all you like on Egyptsearch. If you aren’t getting outraged hate mail from afrocentrist racists, you aren’t studying anthrolpology in Africa or ancient Egypt properly.
Hey mathilda, if you’re so confident in the superiority of your arguments to those of the Egyptsearch crowd, why don’t you come over to Egyptsearch and challenge the posters (especially rasol, Ausarian, Djehuti, and Sundjata) to a debate?
P.S. Refusing betrays cowardice.
So Brandon, just how do you debate with an afrocentrist who claims all your artifacts are faked and that all the anthropologists are wrong?
All arguments with Afrocentrists are totally pointless as all the evidence that shows them to be talking total balls gets waved off as a fake or a conspiracy.
It’s like trying to reason with a religious fanatic.
Is there a reason why you never address white Egyptians? Everytime I read I can never find anything on their differentiations. You posted a montage of mondern Egyptians which were mixed race, then a montage of what you think are black Egyptians then the mummies but you never posted the white Egyptians… why is this? Are you trying to say There were only black Egyptians, mixed Egyptians, other Asiatic and Middle Eastern stocks along with North Africans and no White Egyptians? Because I’m pretty sure Greeks were white that conquered Egypt as well as Libyans so you could at least post them and not excluse white Egyptians…
To the first poster, well this is where Mathilda is confusing me, she lumped the Greeks in with the other Egyptians so they don’t have a seperate category like “black” Egyptians, so are the Greeks considered Egyptian? I actually heard they are considered Egyptian in Egyptology while Nubians are considered non Egyptian, but I thought since we know and have recorded evidence it would make sense not to lump Nubians in with the Egyptians so I was glad when she didn’t but then I saw Greeks in there, so it didn’t make any sense. Shouldn’t the “Whites” be represented in their own category too?
Fascinating blog. Thanks very much for the hard work you have obviously put into this. It will provide me with some wonderful reading and stimulatuon for some time to come.
Mathilda, thank god for your sensibility and research. I’ve long been mystified why Afrocentrists ask us to beleieve that of all the advanced peoples in world history, only the Egyptians were unable to realistically portray themselves in their art. Egyptian portayals of Nubians leave no doubt as to the Nubian’s race.Even very crude black African wood carvings have visibly negroid features, but the Egyptians weren’t able to achieve even that much? I think not. You have hit the issue right on the mark, and the afrocentrists can spew hatred and venom all they want. They are so desperately searching for a link to something noble and high-cultured in their racial past, and Egypt’s place on the African continent has made it a convenient target. I viewed one of those sites where they (afrocentrists) “reconstruct” famous Egyptian immages, and “negrify” them. The atrocity they commited on Nefertiti was apalling, and looked nothing like the many portraits of her, and doubly nothing like the superb bust portrait in the Berlin museum. I fully believe that she looked EXACTLY like the Berlin portrait, excepting that she had both eyes intact, of course. I can’t tell you the number of places on the net and in print, where Nefertiti is cited as one of the “great black queens of African history”. The afrocentrists are used to NOT being challenged on their views of the Egyptians, especially by non-blacks, so when a fresh breeze like you comes along, they want to attack on all fronts. I applaud you, cheer you on, and thank you for just telling the truth.
Mark Fowlkes, Atlanta
That makes a pleasant change Mark, I tell you.
Being English, I don’t faint in terror when an angry black Americans squeaks ‘racist’ at me because I commit the sin of posting a very wide collection of mummies/tomb portraits (these are just about all I could find in a several day search)so people can see for themselves what they looked like.
It always amazes me when I seen Nefertiti called black.
What an OUTSTANDING work of art you have created on this page! It is absolutely AMAZING! I am actually working on a site of my own and was looking for more images to use against Afrocentrics – you did what I was going to do! You beat me to it! I have books with images that you can not find on the net that I will be placing on my site. My site is not up yet, but you may be interested in visiting this forum…
http://www.siftingsands.org
Fantastic job!
Feel free to swipe any of the images you want. It’s not as if I own the copyright to them!
why did you erase my entries?
Karim…
Because they were abusive. Duh. Read the comments policy.
BTW, all anthropological studies on dynastic Egytpians have concluded they were mostly the same as they are today. You can whine all you like about other Africans looking like Caucasians…Not in the fine detail of the skull they don’t, or in the teeth or hair.
That the ‘Elongated African’ skulls are easily mistaken for Caucasian is crap Afrocentrists make up to try to dismiss the craniofacial studies that show them to be talking a steaming heap.
If you manage to find some proper scientific research instead of screeching ‘racist’ at me for showing images and studies that pretty much bury the idea of a black Egypt, I’ll post it.
Until then, the mummies very clearly show Caucasian skulls, teeth and hair for the most part. Try checking the Brace study of their skulls, and other studies of ancient Egyptians, that places them as mostl like Mediterranean Caucasians (scattered all through this blog).
Loved this!!!! I really am getting tired of these Afrocentrics(they try to tell my my sioux ancestors are imposters)! It’s nice to see them put in their place! please do some more like this,or do you already have some more? Cuz I would love to see them!
There’s a few Afrocentrist annoying items scattered through this blog. you’ll have to type in thing like ‘Moors/North Africans’ or check the ancient Egypt category to find them.
They try to steal credit for everyone elses culture; it’s bloody insulting to just about every non-black person on the planet really. I’ve even seen an Afrocentrist site claiming the first Japanese were black… not kidding.
I don’t really see much difference between your examples in the “black” category and the rest… sigh, Egyptian art is so highly stylized we’ll probably only get accurate depictions from mummy reconstructions. Even the busts of Nefertiti from Amarna don’t all look the same. And skin color is highly dependant on lighting…
Nevertheless, the traditional style of egyptian statues looks to me like an ideal blend between “negroid” and “caucasian” features, with a touch of Asia around the eyes. Eternally enigmatic! 😉
Keep up the good work!
Considering the fact that ALL humans are the same gentically, there is NO CAUCASION RACE.
http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html
Geneticist Steven Rose said,
Biologists define “race” as a group or population differing in gene frequency from that of others in the same species. Such differences usually occur as a result of some type of geographic barrier limiting interbreeding, so that the two otherwise similar genetic populations begin to drift apart. Thus there are distinct “races” of fruit flies – separated perhaps by mountainous or desert conditions. However, with very limited exceptions there are no such separated groups within the human population, and those that do occur do not map on to what are in conventional speech regarded as separate “races.” The consensus view among population geneticists and biological anthropologists is that the concept of “race” to indicate analytically distinct subgroups of the human race is biologically meaningless. [From a public lecture given at Gresham College, London, reported in The Independent, 28 January 2002]
“Race is a social construct, not a scientific classification,” Robert S. Schwartz, M.D. wrote (in “Race Is a Poor Measure,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 344, No. 18, May 3, 2001). “Any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations is both arbitrary and subjective.” The Human Genome Project determined that 99.9% of the human genetic complement is the same in everyone, regardless of race. This means that the DNA of any two people will differ in one out of every thousand nucleotides, the building blocks of individual genes. With more than 3 billion nucleotides in the human genome, about 3 million nucleotides will differ among individuals. While statistically small, this does allow for some variation. “Admittedly,” wrote Dr. Sally Satel, “race is a rough marker. A black American may have dark skin – but his or her genes may well be a complex mix of ancestors from west Africa, Europe and Asia. No serious scientist, in fact, believes that genetically pure populations exist. Yet an imprecise clue is better than no clue at all.” (“A question of colour” in The Guardian, 9 May 2002) But these differences between people are relatively insignificant: skin pigment, eye shape, and hair texture. The physical “stereotypes” of race, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza wrote in The History and Geography of Human Genes, “reflect superficial differences.”
And other world renowned geneticists and physical anthropoligists are behind race as a valid descriptive term. It’s about a 50-50 split. Look up Niell Risch.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:8YUaBabaYWIJ:genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007+neil+risch+race+skin+deep&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=uk
The pro-race ones aren’t as noisy though, as people like you automatically have a hissy if someone observes one of the many racial non-cosmetic differences between human poopulations. Such as…
Pregnancy duration.
http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/03/black-and-asian-babies-at-increased.html
Age of menopause
Height
Lung capacity
Life span
Muscle and bone density
To name but a few. If you don’t believe me, have a root through this blog. Pygmies hit the menopause at 24, I’d hardly call that ‘no difference’. They are geriatric in their fifties. They seem to age nearly twice as fast as average humans.
http://www.physorg.com/news117456722.html
We are 99% the same as each other (revised by Venter recently). Not the 99.9% the same you see touted about so often.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-09-03-dna-differences_N.htm
This is a fair amount of differences, as we are 98.4% the same as a chimp, so a small amount of DNA can make a lot of difference. Contrary to what is commonly reported in thn Media, we are not ‘unusually closely related’ to each other compared to other mammals. We are fairly average.
BTW, the 4% variation in human only DNA that defines us as races… in other species the same amount can easily define a new species, let alone a sub species. Read up on Chichlid fishes.
Dear Matilda
The mummy of Ramses II “The Great”,was genetically tested in Paris A few years ago at the request of the Egyptian authorities. Who asked the french to help preserve his mummy. The mummy underwent several tests; proving that he was a red haired white man of Berber origin, in particular of the Kabyle type; who are the descendants of the so-called Lybico-Berbers. So there`s no way he could of been a black man as has beeb suggested by the Afro-centrists.
Also his father seti I had red hair; he also was a Berber.
Regards Uraeus a Kabyle Berber/Amazigh
The Egyptians were largely a Middle Eastern non white Caucasian group.
Yes there were many (black) African influences racially but this is because many of them mixed with Sub Saharan Africa. Historically it also adds up as the entire Eastern and Northern plane of Africa has always been a mix of black Africans and Middle Easern non whites.
Contrary to popular belief it would of been much easier for non white Middle Eastern groups to enter into Northern and Eastern Africa and move South, than for Mediterranean whites to enter into Northern Africa from Europe assuming the ethnic groups that inhabited these areas were close or the same as what they are today.
Since Egypt began at the lower point of the continent it is common sense to assume the people were much darker than those of the upper (Lower Egypt) since regardless of mixing the inhabitants of this area would have naturally had more melanin in the skin.
Lower Egypt was probably mostly comprised of mixes of Mediterranean whites and Middle Eastern non white types, and Southern Egypt (Early Egypt) of Middle Eastern non white types and black Africans.
To deny there were black Egyptians would be foolish and to deny there were whites in Egypt at a very early stage prior to Lower Egypt’s formation would be equally as foolish.
However over all the Eurocentric and Afrocentric claim of a so called mythical white Egypt and black Egypt is ridiculous, it is clear the Egyptians were a Middle Eastern, non white, non black, ETHNIC stock that were such a specific group that they were much closer to each other than either WHITE or BLACK groups, this is the number one reason they are clustered as CLOSER to or FARTHER from a group and never THE SAME AS.
@Solomon: You hit the nail on the coffin!!!
Solomon makes alot of sense in is argument. I feel that most people are generally selfish in their interpretations of the Egyptians, racially. This is why we have so many whites claiming they were prodominantly red and blonde haired North African(?)types originating from some “mythical” racially segregated Saharan (North) Africa. And at the same time we’vew got ignorant blacks whining that they were mainly “sub-saharan” Negroid types. BOTH THEORIES ARE WRONG.
Both extremist ideologies are severely flawed because none of them makes correct reference to the diversity in the artwork, the “tri-continental” predynastic trade histories or important evidence such as clothing and hair styles (strong West Asian to Nubian influence), hair samples, from straight to wavy to tight curly, indicative of North African (Libyan), West Asian (Levantine) and Black Nubian (Negroid) influence.
Let’s face it, the people were diverse, (racially mixed).
I’ve heard alot of defense in here for the concept of “race” as not being a social construct but being a fact and beneficial to the human race… Yet, when it boils down to it, we don’t want to deal with how flawed this concept is.
I have mentioned this before. “Race” is a myth and only benefits those who promote it for their selfish purposes of pride and exclusion (of other races).
In regards to those “questionable ancient Egyptians” whose appearance could be either or…
In America especially, the general concensus is that regardless of the so-called ethnic “percentage,” if a person is bi-racial (mixed black and white), the person is simply BLACK, period – not black skinned as whites love referring to in their attempt to invalidate blacks as being ancient Egyptians outside of the 25th dynasty, but black by our modern standards of racial classification. That is a huge contradiction for “race” for that part of the world.
Look, I’m not for a “more Black” or “more White” Egypt, there’s enough of that ignorance out there as it is. But if this visual rule of thumb for determining who’s caucasoid or negroid works for determining modern peoples’ race, why then does the same not apply to the scientific analysis of the ancient Egyptians?
Mathilda, I noticed that in your assembly of photos there seems to be some confusion on your part concerning one of Akhenaten and Nefertiti’s daughters (presumably Ankhesenpaaten or Meritaten). Check out the first photo, 18th row down in the “Average (or more Caucasoid) Egyptians” collage, then go to the third photo of the last row in the “Black Egytpians” collage. This is the same sculpture of the princess (just a different angle)…
To further illustrate my earlier point of flawed racial interpretation in Egyptian art, there is yet another mixup in your illustrations… You have one of Akhenaten’s busts, fourth photo over, 10th row down in the “Average Egyptians,” then another of him, first photo over – 4th row down in “Black Egyptians.”
So, in all of your anthropological knowledge and observation, I ask you respectfully, what race are they? It seems by your posts that you feel that they are both(?) depending on the angle, or you just not be aware of “who” the images are.
However, in my opinion, your examples shown could not have proven my point more of flawed racial perceptions of the ancient Egyptians. Perhaps, a more diplomatic conclusion (at least as far as the princess goes) would be to acknowledge the strongest possibility of her being a mixture of Black Nubian and fair complexioned (White) West Asian – as this was the obvious ancestry of both her father (Akhenaten) and mother (Nefertiti), respectively.
(If there would be any doubt or rebuttal made regarding Akhenaten’s ancestry, then I suggest those individuals see images of his parents, Amenhotep III and his Chief Wife “Tiye” here):
I knew about being in different sections – the portraits of him vary a lot, so I made a call on that to split him. I’m pretty well accquainted with the names of the better known busts on the page. I’ve got that Tiye bust on the page. Her mummy doesn’t look anything like it though, and both her parents are quite Caucasian looking too. It’s why I prefer the mummies, they are actual remains, not symbolic or inaccurate representations. Which once again shows the Egyptian concept of skin tone could be pretty vague
Their mummies look very different to the artwork…
Tiye (probably, DNA suggests it)
And her husband Amenhotep III
Tuya
Yuya
Your right about the repeated bust. Hard to spot when you’ve uploaded about 200 images in a row. More so when they look a totally different colour and are from a different angle. I’ll have an edit session.
I’m going to dump the ‘black Egyptians’ section. If anyone wants, they can make they own observations and do a head count.
I know that you take a ‘no such thing as race‘ stance, but it’s not the norm among physical anthropologists, who were in favour of it when it came a vote (about 60/40); it’s social anthropologists who push NSTAR. Even those that PA’s and geneticists (about an even split there on race) that take a NSTAR stance (like Brace an Cavalli Sforza) still use the racial terms as descriptive of populations.
Maltilda,
You can’t judge Tye based on her parents appearance. I know an Arab couple who gave birth to a daughter who looked 100% Asian. And, a white Peurto Rican Couple who had a daughter with thick lips, tight curly hair, and flat nose. Egyptians were diverse. You can’t limit your thinking especially when there are up to 7 different genes that determine skin color. Also, did you know that Africans can lose color when they age and ears and nose organs continues to grow through out life. Do a little more research on gene diversity. You will see that two Black people can produce a child with European features and straight hair and visa versa
Greesh.
The reason two black Americans can produce a really white looking child is that they have about 1/5 European ancestry. the reverse is not true of Europeans/Arabs without a significant amount of African ancestry in both parents
Matilda
I found this text about ancient Egyptians.
Were the Pharaohs Blond?
To those with only the most casual knowledge of ancient Egyptian civilization, the above question will no doubt appear ludicrous. But by delving deeper into questions and known facts relating to mankind’s develop ment, the answer is affirmative to a considerable extent.
In 1939 professor Carleton Coon of Harvard University wrote a book called The Races of Europe. It runs to over 700 pages and is filled with pictures, charts, maps, diagrams, and scholarly footnotes.
In this book, Prof. Coon made a startling statement: “Queen Hetep-Heres II, of the Fourth Dynasty, the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid, is shown in the colored bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a distinct blonde. Her hair is painted a bright yellow stippled with little red horizontal lines, and her skin is white. This is the earliest known evidence of blondism in the world.”[1]
Where could the Egyptian blonds have come from? There are a number of possibilities: Libyans, megalith-builders, Sumerians, and people from the Cau casus Mountain-Ukraine area.
The ancient Libyans extended from the Canary Islands across North Africa to the Delta of the Nile. The western third of the Nile Delta was occupied by Libyans during the early years of recorded civilization.[2] Is it possible that a white Caucasian people may have composed the bulk of the ruling class in ancient Egypt?
Who were the Libyans and where did they come from? Prof. Coon tells us that during the Upper Paleolithic Era (30,000-5,000 B.C.) Eur ope and North west Africa were occupied by a people called the Cro-Mag nons.[3] These were perhaps the most physically advanced and handsome race the world has ever seen. Their skulls were larger and farther evolved from the apes than those of any modern race of men. In view of the fact that the modern distribution of Cro-Magnon features is most frequent in the same areas where red hair is most common, it is probable that many Cro-Magnons had red hair.
Today Cro-Magnon features are most frequently found in Norway, Ireland, and the Rif of Morocco.[4] The last-named region is occupied by descendants of the ancient Libyans. Coon tells us that in prehistoric times a group of Cro-Mag nons called the Afalou men occupied North Africa and that the Libyans were descended from them.[5] The modern Berbers are the remnants of the ancient Libyans. Coon tells us that many ancient Cro-Magnon skulls from Den mark and Sweden are identical to skulls from Afalou bou Rummel, in Algeria.[6] Braid wood says “Cro-Magnon people were tall and big-boned, with large, long, and rugged heads. They must have been built like many present-day Scandi navians.” [7]
The Afalou men and Cro-Magnons had larger brains than modern men. Their skull volume (which scientists call “cranial capacity”) was about 1,650 cubic centimeters.[8] The modern average world brain size is 1,326 cc.[9] Farmers who lived at Tushka, on the Nile, about 11,000 B.C., had an average cranial capacity of 1,452 cc.[10] This is almost identical to the brain size of modern northern Europeans, 1,453 cc.[11] Modern Cairo natives average only 1,302 cc.[12] But even this is more than the average of modern African blacks, 1,295 cc.[13]
At the time of the Afalou men, Africa south of the Sahara was populated by Rhodesian Man, who averaged 1,225 cc.[14] Over the millennia, the influx of blacks from south of the Sahara has caused the population of Egypt to become darker, and their brains to become smaller.
Ancient Egyptian paintings of Libyans depicted them as white, with blond hair, blue eyes and Nordic facial features.[15] The ancient Greek writer Scylax described the Libyans as blond.[16] Latin writers also described the Libyans as blond.[17] Many of the red-haired rulers of medieval Moslem Spain and North Africa were Berbers. Today, the ancient Libyan race still survives in remote parts of the Rif in Morocco and among the Kabyles of Algeria. Four percent of the Kabyles have red hair, compared with three percent of the people of Iceland and five percent of those in Ireland.[18]
Coon tells us that ” . . . a Riffian Nordic could be mistaken for an Irishman or an Englishman, less easily for a Scandi navian.”[19] Recent DNA testing bears this out. Berbers are more closely related to Englishmen than to any other people in either Africa or Europe.[20]
Coon writes “In one tribe, the Beni Saïd, the bulk of the series is composed of the imgharem, or members of the tribal council which was in session on the day of measuring; the heads of this august group have the remarkable dimensions, for North Africa, of 197 mm. by 148 mm. by 131 mm. To equal these diameters one would need normally to go to western Norway, to Ireland, or to the United States Senate.”[21]
Professor Coon shows a photograph of “A very blond youth from the Senhajan tribe of Ktama, the most isolated spot in northern Morocco. Facially, he resembles a southern Swede . . . “[22]
Coon shows another photograph of a Riffian and under it writes “In pigment, in measurements, and morphologically, this Riffian is as perfect a Nordic as one could find in modern Europe. Nordics are as ancient in North Africa as the Egyptian monuments of the Middle Kingdom, and perhaps older. They survive today mostly in the mountains of the Rif, but others are found in the Canary Islands and the Djurdjura and Aures mountains of Algeria.”[23] He tells us that 84 percent of a tribe of Kabyles in Algeria have mixed or light eyes; only 16 percent brown.[24]
As for the Shawia, he says: “The notable fact about the Shawia is that, in a metrical sense, they are identical with northwestern European Nordics. One could substitute the mean of the Shawia sample of Randall-Maciver and Wilkin for those of a characteristic eastern Norwegian province without serious discrepancy . . . The nasal profile shows Nordic tendencies; concave-convex forms like those common in England, are as frequent as straight . . . Against the prevailing brunetness of the Shawia stands a tradition that their ancestors were formerly much blonder, and that their brunet condition is due to mixture with outside Berber and Arab groups.”[25]
Sir Flinders Petrie, known as “the father of Egyptology,” had this to say: “The physiognomy gives a decisive pronounced connection between prehistoric Egypt and ancient Libya, and thus anthropology supports the many evidences which archeology has given for a close connection between Egypt and Libya.”[26]
During the period just before the establishment of the First Dynasty 3100 B.C., Seth, King of Upper Egypt, and his brother Osiris were fighting for control of Egypt. Both were later made into gods. It is said of Seth “He was also associated with the Libyan desert and the Libyans . . . He is identified with Ash, the Libyan god. In the Old King dom he had some relation with Libya.”[27] The great Egyptian historian Maspero says Seth “was red-haired and white-skinned, of violent, gloomy, and jealous temper. Secretly he aspired to the crown . . . “[28]
Horus was the name of the Egyptian Sun god. The early pharaohs used the title “Horus,” not Pharaoh. It is interesting to note in this connection that the ancient Russians also worshipped a sun god by the name of Horus. This may indicate that followers of Horus came from Russia.
The ancient Egyptians made Seth the god of the underworld. Menes, the first pharaoh, who may have been of Libyan descent, carried on military operations against the Libyans in the western Nile Delta who were independent of the rest of Egypt.
“Plutarch tells us that these Set people were men of red hair, and that may be a reference to some Libyan factions who are known for this trait.”[29] Lepre continues: “The Set people, although primarily situated at their capital city of Shash otpe, were apparently scattered through out all of Egypt. Legends place them in the town of Sesesu in the Fayum, where the god Set was said to have been born; in the marshes of the Delta; and at a city called Avaris, also in the Delta. They also resided between Luxor and Aswan, specifically at El Kab and Esneh, and on the banks of the Nile in the Eleventh Province, but they eventually settled in great numbers at Ombos, where they erected a great temple to Set. Here can be found vast cemeteries dating to the period prior to Dynasty I.”
As the ruling class of Egypt declined, they were replaced by invaders. A monument discovered by M. Mariette says that blond Libyan invaders established themselves in Lower Egypt in the 7th Century B.C. and put Psammeticus in power as the new pharaoh. The 22nd Dynasty was founded by a Nubian family of Libyan descent. People with red hair were called “Set-people” and were used in human sacrifices. Their god Set (or Seth) was made into a devil.
“Communities of Set people seem to have been scattered throughout Egypt, but their main capital was at Ombos, a short way up the river from This. They maintained their independence through much of Egypt’s early history.”[30] During the Second Dynasty (2890-2686 B.C.) the Set people revolted and briefly ruled over all of Egypt.
John Romer, describing a Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 B.C.) papyrus, tells us “Followers of Seth, says Kenhirk hope shef’s papyrus, were readily identifiable in society by their appearance and behavior. Commonly they had red faces and red hair, and they were violent and often lonely people who drank to excess.”[31]
Further evidence of Libyan influence is the fact that the ancient Egyptian language was very similar to Libyan.
Around 2840 B.C. there was a rebellion of Set people centered around the town called Edfu. This is significant because Edfu is where some of the few megaliths found in Egypt are located. A very ancient and beautiful temple called the Osireion, which was built in the mega lithic style, is in nearby Abydos, where Pharaoh Perabsen was to actually convert to the Seth religion a few years later.
What is a megalith? A megalith is a structure built with huge stones, like Stonehenge in England. Who were the megalith builders? They were people with a unified culture who loved sailing the sea and founding new colonies of megalith builders. Megaliths are found in southern Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Brittany, Spain, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and in North Africa. In other words, they are found all along the Atlantic coasts and the Mediterranean. Von Lichtenberg found a megalith at Edfu, in Egypt. Cromlechs and dolmens (two types of megaliths) were built at Maadi, near Cairo.[32]
Scholars have long noted the similarities between the megalithic culture and that of the ancient Egypt ians. It was once thought that the megalith-builders were emigrants from Egypt.
It is not widely known that there are structures like the pyramids in England and France. Silbury Hill, near Stone henge, looks at first glance like a natural hill. But on closer inspection one notices the perfect shape, somewhat like a pyramid. Excavations have yielded more surprises.[33] Blocks of chalk were used to build a seven-tiered ziggurat; then rubble was added to smooth the walls. Later vegetation grew on it. A ziggurat is a step pyramid, like the first pyramids of Egypt. The famous pyramid of Djoser was built as a ziggurat.
One recent popular theory involved an Egyptian scientific expedition going to England and setting up an astronomical observatory at Stonehenge. When the leader died, a pyramid was supposedly built for him at Silbury Hill, twenty miles away.[34]
Actually, it was built around 2750 B.C., long before any ziggurats or pyramids were built in Egypt or the Middle East.[35]
Silbury Hill contains 250,000 cubic meters of chalk. It has been calculated that it took 18 million man-hours to build. It is the largest man-made mound in Europe.
As recently as 1974 a very popular book calledThe Sphinx and the Megaliths was published expounding a similar point of view. This book points out that the megaliths and the pyramids were deliberately aligned to make complicated astronomical observations. It would have taken a knowledge of university-level mathematics to build either Stonehenge or the Great Pyramid at Giza. Furthermore, the systems of measurement had to have the same origin, since one megalithic yard was precisely equal to the square root of five Egyptian “remens.” The square root of 5 (2.23607) was a very important number in Egyptian engineering.[36] The diagonal of a two-by-one remen rectangle is precisely one megalithic yard.
It is also interesting that one of the most spectacular megalithic sites is at Carnac, in Brittany, and that spectacular Egyptian temples were built at Karnak, in Egypt. In England, earthen structures were made similar to Middle Eastern pyramids. “Silbury Hill was a complex of engineering involving advanced methods of construction similar to those used in the Egyptian pyramids . . . with such accuracy that the center of the topmost layer is within two-and-a-half inches of a vertical line drawn through the center of the base.”[37]
Let us hear what other authors have said about the Megaliths. “The Passage chamber tomb which is the primary and original ‘megalithic’ type in the West was characteristic in all the early centers of higher civilization. The rock-cut tomb of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the excavated dromos tombs of Early and Middle Minoan Crete are obviously parallel in plan and function and the fact that many of the finest Iberian tombs were excavated in the ground is of great importance.”[38]
“Sophus Mueller has claimed that all the techniques and decorative elements employed in the finer wares of the Western megalithic cultures were developed at the eastern end of the Mediter ranean. In the Egyptian and Nubian wares of the Old Kingdom comb im prints, encrusted bands, triangles and diamonds, and the fine burnishing of black wares were fully developed and continued in use for long periods.”[39] Mélida has also shown remarkable similarities between the rich ornament of the southwest Iberian beakers and that of Old Kingdom painted and encrusted wares in Egypt.”[40]
The following items found with megaliths resemble similar objects found in Egypt: twin-lobed stone pendants, flat schist plaques, trapezoidal flint arrow-heads and rare flint halberds, ivory sandals, bone and ivory combs, pottery in Spanish megaliths similar to Badarian pottery in Egypt and low carinated bowls which resemble the beautiful stone bowls of Late Predynastic Egypt and Early Minoan Crete. Carinated bowls were a leading tomb ware in Brittany.[41]
As for Spanish megaliths, Mackie said “Nilotic prototypes have also been suggested for the schist plaques and croziers of the southwest. The tanged daggers and flat copper celts of Almeria and Algarve are of the same forms that were being made in Egypt, Troy and Cyprus in the early part of the 3rd millennium.”[42]
Wheeler remarked that the analogy between the chambered tombs of Wales and the Mastabas (ziggurats) of Egypt was “too close to be altogether accidental.”[43]
However, the theory that the megalith builders were Egyptians was shattered once and for all in the late 1960s. The new system of carbon dating reveals that the megaliths began before civilization had even started in Egypt. The first megaliths were built in Brittany (the northwestern tip of France) in the 5th millennium B.C.[44] From their home in Brittany, the megalith-builders sailed in all directions and founded colonies. Stonehenge I and Silbury Hill were built earlier than the Great Pyramid at Giza, which although the best pyramid, was also one of the first.
The great pyramids were all built in a span of 100 years, around 2600 B.C. The pyramids built after this were smaller and of inferior design, and sometimes fell apart. Objects found in the megalithic tombs of Western Europe are now dated as older than corresponding objects found in Egypt and the Near East. This can only mean one thing-the megalith-builders sailed to Egypt and brought with them the technology that built the pyramids. Perhaps the mysterious Imhotep, the universal genius who designed the pyramids and brought many other technological improvements to Egypt, was of the megalith-builders.
Khufu, or Cheops, the builder of the Great Pyramid, had a wife,[45] a daughter,[46] and a daughter-in-law[47] with reddish-blond hair. We know this because color portraits were painted in their tombs. The Pharaoh Chephren, who built a pyramid next to the Great Pyramid, had a wife with reddish-blond hair and blue eyes.[48] The tomb of the wife of Zoser, the builder of the first pyramid in Egypt, has a painting of her showing her with reddish-blond hair.[49] Could some of the pyramid-building pharaohs have married Megalithic women?
We must not forget that many of the ancient Libyans were megalith builders. An interesting article on this subject was written by Faidherbe called “Megalithic Tombs and the Blonds of Libya.”[50] Another article, by A.H. Sayce,[51] is very interesting, although his dates are wrong, according to more recent research.
The following is a quotation from Sayce’s article in the Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland: “On Egyptian monuments, which date back to the sixteenth century before our era, the Libyan tribes of this district are depicted as white. Their descendants are still to be found in the mountainous parts of the coast, those of Algeria being commonly known under the name of Kabyles. I saw a good deal of them last winter, and must confess to being greatly struck by their appearance.
“I had known, of course, that they belonged to the white race and were characterized by blue eyes and light hair, but I was not prepared to find that their complexion was of that transparent whiteness which freckles readily and is supposed to mark the so-called red Kelt. They are dolichocephalic [long-headed], and as their skulls agree with those discovered in the pre-historic cromlechs of Rocknia [in Algeria] and other places it is plain that their distinctive features are not due, as was formerly supposed, to inter-mixture with the Vandals.” Here we see modern redheads in North Africa living near ancient megaliths.
“The cromlechs in which they buried their dead are quite as remarkable as their physical characteristics. Cromlechs of a similar shape are found extending through Spain and Western France from the northern part of the British Isles. Since dolichocephalic skulls occur in connection with them, while the physical characteristics of the modern Kabyle resemble so strikingly those of a particular portion of the modern Irish population, we seem driven to infer that the Kabyle and the ‘red Kelt’ are alike fragments of a race that once spread from Scotland and Ireland to the northern coast of Africa and interred its dead in chambers formed of five large blocks of stone.” Again, it is just such a chamber that was found at Edfu, a leading settlement of the red-haired Set-people in Egypt.
Professor Coon tells us that the megalithic people, in whatever country they might be found, were always characterized by a distinctive racial type which he calls the Megalithic Race. This race appears to be a hybrid between Nordic and Cro-Magnoid.[52]
The people who built the pyramids were definitely seafarers. A huge boat was buried next to the Great Pyramid at Giza. The Norwegian anthropologist and explorer Thor Heyerdahl built an exact copy of it. He called it the Ra after the Egyptian sun god. It was so well built that he and his crew were able to sail across the Atlantic Ocean in it.
Drawings of boats with cabins and square sails have been found on megaliths in Brittany, where the first megaliths were built around 4800 B.C. Similar drawings have been found on megaliths in Malta, an island in the middle of the Mediterranean which is closer to Egypt than it is to Brittany. Drawings of the same kind of boat have been found in Egypt that have been dated to the Predynastic period, before 3100 B.C.[53]
Who ruled Egypt? What were the racial types of the ruling class of Ancient Egypt and their slaves? Even anti-Nordic physical anthropologists have admitted that blond hair was not uncommon in Ancient Egypt. For example, Edouard Naville said, “The views of the numerous experts who have studied Egyptian skulls are definitely conflicting. However, they are unanimous at one point. They all agree that the Egyptians were not Negroes, that they had long hair, generally black, but sometimes fair, and that prognathism [projected jaw] sometimes appeared.”[54]
Frédéric Falkenburger compiled and analyzed all known skull measurements from Ancient Egypt and calculated that 10 percent of them were purely Cro-Magnoid and 15 percent partly Cro-Magnoid. Fifteen percent were largely of the Megalithic race. Most of the rest were racially Mediterranean. There were also Negroids.[55]
Professor Raymond A. Dart, famous for his discoveries of primate fossils in Africa, once did a mathematical analysis of the measurements of 2,861 Egyptian skulls.[56] He found 280, or 10 percent, were Nordic; 128, or five percent, were Armenoid. This is the “Jewish,” “Leba nese” or “Near Eastern” type. He points out that many Egyptian skulls must be Nordic because they are ellipsoidal (oval), dolichocephalic (long-headed), hypsicephalic (high-headed) and macrocephalic (large-headed).
The only race with all these traits is the Nordic. The bulk of the population was of the brown Mediterranean race, which differs from the Nordic in being orthocephalic (of moderate skull height) instead of high-headed, medium-headed instead of long-headed, and pentagonoid (shaped a bit like a pentagon when seen from above) instead of ellipsoidal.
Dart traces four major Nordic invasions of Egypt, the first being the Bada rian of pre-dynastic times. Grad ually, the Nordics arrived less frequently, until a new invasion replenished them.
Dart tells us that the Nordic race is “the Egyptian Pharaonic type.” He describes the head of Rameses II, which he calls “pelagic ellipsoidal or Nordic” and says, “It is found in earlier times in Pepi I and other kings of Egypt.” He doesn’t mention it, but the mummy of Rameses II has yellow hair too.[57] Under a microscope his hair form is Nordic too. This pharaoh was once thought to be the contemporary of Moses.
In 1993 a group of anthropologists did an exhaustive study of the racial make-up of the ancient Egyptians. Their article was entitled “Clines and Clusters vs ‘Race’: A Test in Ancient Egypt and the Case of a Death on the Nile,” and appeared in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. Anthropologic measurements of 25 different groups of skeletons from around the world, from ancient to modern times, were statistically analyzed to see which groups were most similar to ancient Egyptians. In their own words, this is what the researchers concluded. “As a whole, they show ties with the European Neolithic, North Africa, modern Europe, and, more remotely, India, but not at all with sub-Saharan Africa, eastern Asia, Oceania or the New World.” The group of skeletons which most closely resembled the ancient Egyptians was that from the French Neolithic.
A British Museum publication has this to say about its collection of little statues and figurines: “The oldest representatives of ruling Egyptians . . . show remarkably a definitely central or even north European type . . . Bone carvings of women, made right before the beginning of civilization, show blue eyes. A funerary mask with attributes of the goddess Isis shows a vivid blue-green color of eyes.”[58]
We even have considerable direct evidence in the form of blond and red hair, which has been preserved for thousands of years. Before we examine these in detail, let us first answer a question which is often asked: “Couldn’t some chemical action of the soil cause hair to turn blond?” If the desert soil turned hair blond, then how do we account for the blond and red-haired mummies buried in tombs and pyramids which have never touched the soil? And why do we find bodies with black hair, brown hair, blond hair and white hair lying side by side who are buried under the same conditions in the same soil?
How do we explain the fact that much of the hair has a fine texture and under a microscope has the same appear ance as Nordic hair? How do we explain the fact that many species of animals, including the Egyptian species of cats and bulls, which the Egyptians mummified and buried, have retained their natural hair colors? How do we explain the fact that pigtails of red and black hair wrapped around each other retained their natural hair colors after thousands of years in the Peruvian desert?
Thor Heyerdahl once asked these questions of W.R. Dawson, the world’s foremost expert on mummies, who had spent a lifetime studying tens of thousands of mummies from many parts of the world and had written many books and articles about them. This was his answer: “From the examination of a large number of mummies from both Egypt and other countries including South America, my opinion is that hair does not undergo any marked change post-mortem. The hair of a wavy or curly individual remains curly or wavy, and that of a straight-haired person remains straight.
“In mummies and desiccated bodies the hair has a tendency to be crisp and brittle, but this is the natural result of a drying-up of the sebaceous glands, which during life, feed fatty matter into the hair follicles which keeps the hair supple and flexible. It seems unlikely to me that any change in color would take place in a body which had never been exposed to light. To sum up then, all the evidence I have indicates that the nature of hair does not alter after death except in becoming dry and brittle.”[59]
Sir Wallis Budge, whose translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead can still be seen in many bookstores, wrote, “The predynastic Egyptians; that is to say, that stratum of them which was indigenous to North Africa, belonged to a white or light-skinned race with fair hair, who in many particulars resembled the Libyans . . . “[60] Budge had seen many of their unmummified, but well-preserved, bodies which were buried in the bone-dry Egyptian desert, which is remarkable for its preservative qualities.
The mummy of the wife of King Tutankhamen has auburn hair.[61] A mummy with red hair, red mustache and red beard was found by the pyramids at Saqqara.[62] Red-haired mummies were found in the crocodile-caverns of Aboufaida.[63] The book History of Egypt ian Mummies mentions a mum my with reddish-brown hair.[64] The mummies of Rameses II[65] and Prince Yuaa[66] have fine silky yellow hair. The mummy of another pharaoh, Thothmes II, has light chestnut-colored hair.[67]
An article in a leading British anthropological journal states that many mummies have dark reddish-brown hair.[68] Professor Vacher De Lapouge described a blond mummy found at Al Amrah, which he says has the face and skull measurements of a typical Gaul or Saxon.[69] A blond mummy was found at Kawamil along with many chestnut-colored ones.[70] Chestnut-haired mummies have been found at Silsileh.[71] The mummy of Queen Tiy has “wavy brown hair.”[72] Unfortunately, only the mummies of a very few pharaohs have survived to the 20th century, but a large proportion of these are blond.
The Egyptians have left us many paintings and statues of blondes and redheads. Amenhotep III’s tomb painting shows him as having light red hair.[73] Also, his features are quite Euro pean. A farm scene from around 2000 B.C. in the tomb of the nobleman Mek etre shows redheads.[74] An Egyptian scribe named Kay at Sakkarah around 2500 B.C. has blue eyes.[75] The tomb of Menna (18th Dynasty) at West Thebes shows blond girls.[76] The god Horus is usually depicted as white. He is very white in the Papyrus Book of the Dead of Lady Cheritwebeshet (21st Dyna sty), found in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. [77]
A very striking painting of a yellow-haired man hunting from a chariot can be found in the tomb of Userhet, Royal Scribe of Amenophis II.[78] The yellow-haired man is Userhet. The same tomb has paintings of blond soldiers. The tomb of Menna also has a wall painting showing a blond man supervising two dark-haired workers scooping grain.[79]
The Funerary stele (inscribed stone slab) of Priest Remi clearly shows him as having red hair,[80] although he couldn’t have been a priest of Set at such late date. A common good luck charm was the eye of Horus, the so-called Wedjat Eye.[81] The eye is always blue, and the word “wedjat” means “blue” in Egyptian. A very attractive painting is found on the wall of a private tomb in West Thebes from the 18th Dynasty. The two deceased parents are white people with black hair. Mourning them are two pretty fair-skinned girls with light blond hair and their red-haired older brother.[82]
Queen Thi is painted as having a rosy complexion, blue eyes and blond hair.[83] She was co-ruler with her husband Amenhotep III and it has been said of their rule, “The reign of Amenhotep III was the culminating point in Egyptian history, for never again, in spite of the exalted efforts of the Ramessides, did Egypt occupy so exalted a place among the nations of the world as she had in his time.”[84]
Paintings of people with red hair and blue eyes were found at the tomb of Bagt in Beni Hassan.[85] Many other tombs at Beni Hassan have paintings of individuals with blond and red hair, as well as blue eyes.[86] Paintings of blonds and redheads have been found among the Tombs at Thebes.[87] Blond hair and blue eyes were painted at the tomb of Pharaoh Menphtah in the Valley of the Kings.[88] Paintings from the Third Dynasty show native Egyptians with red hair and blue eyes.[89] They are shepherds, workers and bricklayers.
A blond woman was painted at the tomb of Djeser-ka-re-seneb in Thebes.[90] A model of a ship from about 2500 B.C. is manned by five blond sailors.[91] The god Nuit was painted as white and blond.[92] A painting at the tomb of Meresankh III at Giza, from about 2485 B.C., shows white skin and red hair.[93] Two statues from about 2570 B.C., found in the tombs at Medum, show Prince Rahotep and his wife Nofret. He has light green stones for eyes. She has violet-blue stones.[94] A painting from Iteti’s tomb at Saqqara shows a very Nordic-looking man with blond hair.[95] Grafton Smith mentions the distinctly red hair of the 18th Dynasty mummy Henutmehet.[96]
Coon tells us that “many of the officials, courtiers, and priests, representing the upper class of Egyptian society but not the royalty, looked strikingly like modern Europeans, especially long-headed ones.” (Note: Nordics are long-headed.)[97]
Time-Life books recently put out a volume called Rameses II The Great. It has a good picture of the blond mummy of Rameses II. Another picture can be found in the book X-Raying the Pharaohs, especially the picture on the jacket cover. It shows his yellow hair.
A book called Chronicle of the Pharaohs was recently published showing paintings, sculptures and mummies of 189 pharaohs and leading personalities of Ancient Egypt. Of these,102 appear European, 13 look black and the rest are hard to classify. All nine mummies look European.
The very first pharaoh, Narmer, also known as Menes, looks very European. The same can be said for Khufu’s cousin Hemon, who designed the Great Pyramid of Giza. A computer-generated reconstruction of the face of the Sphinx shows a European-looking face.[98] It was once painted sunburned red.[99] The Egyptians often painted upper class men as red and upper class women as white; this because the men became surnburned or tanned while outside under the burning Egyptian sun. The women, however, usually stayed inside.
Hopefully, the interested reader will find value in the evidence gathered in this article. The anthropologists and scientific investigators cited here obtained their evidence in a spirit of dedicated professionalism, and without any socio-political motivation one way or another. Their revelations answer, to a very considerable extent, many of the questions and mysteries surrounding mankind’s development. v
——————————————————————————–
FOOTNOTES
[1] Coon, Carleton Stevens. The Races of Europe. New York City, Macmillan. 1939, p.98.
[2] Kink, K.A., Yegipet Do Faraonov. Moscow, Nauka, 1964, p. 27.
[3] Coon, op. cit., p. 41
[4] Ibid, p. 294.
[5] Ibid, pp. 40-44, 467.
[6] Ibid, p. 124.
[7] Braidwood, Robert J., Prehistoric Men. Glen view, Illinois, Scott Foresman & Co., 1964, p. 26.
[8] Phillipson, David W., African Archaeology, N.Y., N.Y., Cambridge University Press, 1985, p. 92.
[9] Rushton, J. Philippe, Race, Evolution, and Behav ior. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers, 1995, p. 131.
[10] Hoffman, Michael, Egypt Before the Pharaohs. N.Y., N.Y., Barnes & Noble Books, 1993, p. 93.
[11] Rushton, op. cit., p. 124.
[12] Ibid, p. 119.
[13] Id, p. 119.
[14] Birdsell, Joseph Benjamin, Human Evolution: An Introduction to the New Physical Anthro pol ogy. Chicago, Rand McNally College pub. Co., 1975, p. 334
[15]a. Pietrement, “Note sur la valeur des renseignements que les anciennes peintures egyptiennes peuvent fournir aux naturalistes aux ethnographes et aux historiens,” Bulletin de la Societe d’ Anthropologie de Paris, 1883, p. 862.
b. Precis de l’Histoire d’Egypte Vol. 1. Cairo, L’Imprimerie de l’Institut Francais d’Archiologie Orientale du Caire, 1932. p. 68.
[16]De Lapouge, G. Vacher, L’Aryen, Sa Vie Sociale. Paris, Pichat, 1899, p. 862.
[17] Ibid, p. 185.
[18] Coon, op. cit., p. 478
[19] Id, p. 482.
[20] Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca; Menozzi, Paolo; and Piazza, Alberto; The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 75,76.
[21] Coon, op. cit., p. 481.
[22] Id, Plate 10 caption.
[23] Id, Plate 30 caption.
[24] Id, p. 478.
[25] Id, p. 477.
[26] Petrie, W.M. Flinders, “The Races of Egypt”, Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. XXXI, 1901, p. 252.
[27] Sperber, Daniel, “The Discovery of a Temple of Meremptah at On,” Antiquity, volume 53, 1973, p. 19.
[28] Maspero, G., History of Egypt. London, The Grolier Society, 1903.
[29] Lepre, J.P., The Egyptian Pyramids, A Comprehensive, Illustrated Reference. Jefferson, North Carolina, McFarland & Co., 1990.
[30] Silverberg, Robert, Before the Sphinx; Early Egypt. N.Y., N.Y., T. Nelson, 1971, p. 71.
[31] Romer, John, Ancient Lives, Daily Life in Egypt of the Pharaohs. N.Y., N.Y., Henery Holt & Co., 1984, p. 66.
[32] Von Lichtenberg, R., “Die arische Buchstabenschreibenentwicklung und ihre fernere Ausdehnung”, Mannus, vol. 4, 1912, p. 300.
[33] Castleden, Rodney, The Stonehenge People, An Exploration of Life In Neolithic
Britain 4700-2000 BC. N.Y., N.Y., Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987, p. 237.
[34] Burenhult, Goran, general editor, People of the Stone Age. San Francisco, CA, Harper, 1993, p. 129.
[35] Id., p. 129 (same page)
[36] Ivimy, John, The Sphinx and the Megaliths. London, Turnston, 1974, p. 132.
[37] Ibid, pp. 84-85.
[38]
Forde, Daryll, “Early Cultures of Atlantic Eur ope.” American Anthropologist Vol. 32, 1950, p.53.
[39] Ibid, p. 56.
[40] Id, p. 53.
[41] Id, p. 56.
[42] Mackie, Euan, The Megalith Builders. N.Y., N.Y., Dutton, 1977, pp.191-192. p. 41.
[43] Wheeler, R.E.M., Prehistoric and Roman Wales. London, Oxford University Press, 1925.
[44]a. Mohen, Jean-Pierre, The World of Megaliths. N.Y., N.Y., Facts on File, 1990, pp. 70-79.
b. Joussaume, Rober, Dolmens for the Dead. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University Press, 1988, p. 129.
[45] Propylaean Weltgeschichte, 1961.
[46] Tompkins, Peter, Secrets of the Great Pyramid. N.Y., Harper and Row, 1971, p. 143.
[47] Coon, op. cit., p. 98.
[48] Heyerdahl, Thor, The Ra Expeditions. Garden City, Doubleday, 1971, p. 249.
[49] Id, same page.
[50] Faidherbe, “Sur les Tombeaux Megalithiques et sur les Blonds de la Libye.” Bulletin de la Societe d’ Anthropologie de Paris, ca. 1869, p. 532.
[51] Sayce, A.H., “Anthropological Miscellenia,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVII, 1888, p.175.
[52] Coon, op. cit., p. 85.
[53] a. Hoffman, op. cit., pp. 243-245.
b. Wernick,Robert, The Monument Builders. N.Y.,Time-Life Books, 1973,pp.69-70.
c. Joussaume, op. cit. p. 118.
[54] Naville, Edouard, “The Origin of Egyptian Civilization,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XXXVII, 1907, p. 205.
[55] Falkenburger, Frederic, “La Composition Raciale de l’ Ancienne Egypt,” Anthropologie vol. 51, 1947, p. 242.
[56] Dart, Raymond A., “Population Fluctuations over 7,000 years in Egypt,” Transactions of the Roy al Society of South Africa vol. XXVVII, 1940, p. 95.
[57]a. Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, Time-Life books, Alexandria, VA., 1992, p. 8.
b. Smith, G. Elliot and Dawson, Warren R., Egyptian Mummies. London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1924, p. 99.
[58] A General Introduction to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum. London, Har rison and Sons, 1930, p. 24. See also 1975 edition.
[59] Heyerdahl, Thor, American Indians in the Pacific. London, George Allen and Unwin, 1952, p. 323. This book also has colored plates of red-haired mummies from Peru.
[60] Budge, Vol. I, op. cit., p. 49.
[61] Carter, Michael, Tutankhamun, The Golden Monarch. N.Y., 1972, p. 68.
[62] Smith and Dawson, op. cit., pp. 80-81.
[63] Tomkins, Henry George, Remarks on Mr. Flinders Petrie’s Collection of Ethnographic Types from the Monuments of Egypt,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XVIIII, 1889, p. 216.
[64] Pettigrew, Thomas Joseph, History of Egyptian Mummies. London, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, 1834, P. xvi.
[65] Smith and Dawson, op. cit., p. 99.
[66] Id, p.97.
[67] Budge, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 216.
[68] Macalister, A., “Notes on Egyptian Mummies,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Vol. XXIII, 1894, p. 120.
[69] De Lapouge, op. cit., p. 207.
[70] Ibid, p. 208.
[71] Id, same page.
[72] National Geographic Society, Ancient Egypt, Discovering its Splendors, 1978, p. 24.
[73] Ibid, p. 103.
[74] Claiborne, Robert, The Birth of Writing, N.Y., Time-Life Books, 1974, pp. 98-99.
[75] Strouhal, Eugen, Life of the Ancient Egyptians, Norman, Oklahoma, University of Oklahoma Press, 1992, p. p. 53.
[76] Ibid, p. 26.
[77] Id, p. 107.
[78] Id, p. 120.
[79] Id, p. 216.
[80] Id, p. 247.
[81] Id, p. 251.
[82] Id, p. 259.
[83] Hamy, E.T., “Races Humaines de la Vallée du Nil,” Bulletin de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1886, p.739.
[84] Budge, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 183.
[85] Hamy, E.T., “La Figure Humaine dans l’Ancienne Égypte” Bulletin et Memoires de la Societe d’Anthropologie de Paris 1907, p. 29.
[86] Id, same page.
[87] Groenewegen, H. and Ashmole, Frankfort, Art of the Ancient World. N.Y., Harry N. Abrams, Inc., no date. See color plates.
[88] Hamy 1907, op. cit., p.33
[89] Pijoan, Jose, Historia del Arte Vol. III, Madrid, Espasa-Calpe, 1932, plate XI.
[90] Pietrment, op. cit., p. 862.
[91] Groenewegen, op. cit., Colorplate 2.
[92] Champollion, H., Le Nil et la Societe Egyptienne. Marseille, Musée Boreby, 1973, p. 94
[93] Vandersleyen, Claude, Das Alte Aegypten, Berlin, Propylaean Verlag, 1975, plate XIX.
[94] Westendorf, Wolfhart, Painting, Sculpture and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, New York, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1968, pp. 34, 35.
[95] Ibid, p. 65.
[96] Strouhal, op. cit. p. 88.
[97] Coon, op. cit., p. 96.
[98] Egypt: Land of the Pharaohs, op. cit., p. 67
[99] Silverberg, op. cit., p. 168.
——————————————————————————–
Source: The Barnes Review, 1(14) 1995 , pp. 3-10.
You’ve said: “I’ve got that Tiye bust on the page. Her mummy doesn’t look anything like it though, and both her parents are quite Caucasian looking too. It’s why I prefer the mummies, they are actual remains, not symbolic or inaccurate representations. Which once again shows the Egyptian concept of skin tone could be pretty vague.”
Symbolic? Innacurate representations? What constitutes that in your mind? Because they don’t look Caucasian enough for you? That, to me, is just plain rude. So, I guess according to you, all the well-preserved non-Caucasian-looking artwork (with inscribed names, mind you) should be ruled as irrelevant, when compared to more Caucasoid looking mummies whose identities have yet to be defined with any certainty? Regarding these mummies, what should be questioned (imo) is why so many similar artistic representations don’t match that of the mummies assigned to them (not the other way around).
The consistency of Egyptian art depicting royals (named cartouches, busts, tomb paintings, etc.) will always out-weigh the speculations and disputed claims of un-denfined mummified remains. However, when a mummy is correctly identified (i.e. Ramses II), then there is CLARITY not CONJECTURE. Ramses’ artwork shows him as having very Middle Eastern charactersitics (i.e., large hooked nose, black hair, deep tan etc.) just like so much of his artwork from youth to adult. (red hair on all these mummies is argued over as well but, that’s another debate).
I see your point in mentioning “actual mummies” but, it’s not as if that mummy is definitively “Tiye.” That has not been confirmed outside of sheer speculation based on a lock of hair found in Tut’s tomb with one test that gave the impression the hair type matched the mummy’s. So, it very well may not be Tiye at all. We’re not sure. No more so than the tooth curiously “matching” the mummy “speculated” to be Hatshepsut, defines it as being her.
I believe you may be so caught up in arguing the Caucasian presence in ancient Egypt, that you undermine other native peoples common to that area. You’ve proudly displayed the pro-Caucasoid articles you support and that’s to be expected of all White anthropologists (duh). But, what bothers me about your “no change” stance for Egypt, Mathilda, is that your redundant argument of Caucasian predominancy seems to contradict any respect for diversity you claimed to have for that era in history.
I might sound pro-black to you but, I personally could care less what racial minority or majority resided in Eygpt in pharaonic times or before… What I believe should be celebrated ultimately is what we do see in all the ethnicities (or races) that played a part in the developement of Egypt culturally, technologically and spiritually. The term which presently describes the ancient Egyptian people (past and present) is “Afroasiatic.” A respectable term in my opinion, given its linguistic and historical significance for North and East Africans.
Acknowledging this SHOULD cause us to show more respect with regards to the brown, tan, black and white people of that “diverse” language family. And you bet, if I had your anthropological background and knowledge, I’d only promote the glory of the PEOPLES (that’s plural) of Egypt, in all their variations without reserved prejudices, beit visual, scientific or otherwise.
I’ve always loved the Fayum mummy portraits for their detail and realism. Mathilda, I have a question… Regarding Tiye, you’ve stated: “Either the mummy isn’t of Tiye (but it has a DNA ID on it) or the busts aren’t very accurate portrayals.”
Would you apply the same logic and reasoning to the Fayum Mummies if say, the mummies ended up looking “nothing like” the portraits. Would you still say “they aren’t very accurate portrayals” of the deceased?
I would suggest you all stop the bickering and see what the Greeks and Romans say about who the Egyptians were, surely you would consider their view as unbiased. If you are unable to find the numerous references I guess I could point you to several indisputable sources as to whether the ancient Egyptians were black Africans or not, that is if you are willing to accept truth. The Arabs in Egypt right now are no more indicative of ancient Egypt than the Europeans are of the ancient USA. I suspect you might not take my challenge, but here it is.
Sasa
So, why do why all the hair, teeth and skulls match up as the same as modern Egyptians then? that’s not a challenge Sasa, that’s BS based on an ignorance of the genetics and history of the area.
Also…DNA studies of Egypt show the same kinds of DNA as modern North Africans like Berbers, not like Arabs.
See this link for the Y chromosome break down. These kids are ‘non Arab’, they are all Egyptian.
Most of the ancestry in Egypt isn’t ‘Arab’. The Egyptians show the same ancient Egyptian E3b1 Y chromsomes and M1 Mt DNA that appeared there about 25k to 30k ago: not a lot of Arab ancestry in them. The Arabs converted the Egyptians, they didn’t massacre them.. They’ll always prefer conversion over murder.
Hakat, both of Tiye’s parents have very flat faces, and that dark wood statue is very prognathic. There’s some evidence the mummy is Tiye, and she’s within the range of what you’d expect from her Asiatic father and Egyptian mother. A lot of portriats on this page just don’t match up to each other or the mummy very well.
The Fayum portraits match up for age and sex (they were scanned), and the teeth mostly come into the normal range for North Africa. Other than that, I can’t comment. I don’t have any unwrapped ones to hand for comparison.
Thank you, for presenting solid anthropological evidence against these impulsive and irate Afro-centrists. They are sadly and eternally desperate to link themselves to high culture. The Afro-centrists should be happy enough that there was a certain number of mulatto Egyptians at the time. But that’s it.
Well, some were black you know. You should take a look at the mummy reconstructions.
Caeruleus, I take issue with you ass-uming that I am an Afrocentrist. If you could deny your own ignorance long enough to browse through other sections of this blog, you’d see that I despise the term and anyone who is “centric” (i.e. biased) with regards to anthropology and archaeology. Your statement above shows your postion quite well.
I suspect you’re an advocate of Stormfront and similar wishful thinkers’ websites when it comes to ancient “High Cultures” that don’t directly involve your beloved “superior blonde haired, blue eyed race.” Egypt is for ALL of us in the world to be proud of, you moron, as every race of men have defended her and contributed to the developement of its society (from darkest to lightest, Black African to White Mediterranean) in the ancient world. The more I study this fascinating culture, the more thankful I am that the ancients never exhibited such racially motivated belligerence as I have seen from the likes of you.
Mathilda, to be honest with you, looking at the many different sculptures of Tiye, I’ve noticed that they vary somewhat and show a range of what one might consider Nubian to West Asian. Taking my best guess, I’d say she probably had mixed ancestry but, all those unfinished busts showing prognathism and thick lips can’t ALL be wrong.
Just as you’ve somewhat admitted to the French team’s ‘over-Europeanization’ of Tut’s reconstruction, we must consider the source of the reconstructions and the ethnicities of those reconstructing them. A more unbiased approach to the entire anthropological society is SO needed in order for us to ever get a true glimpse at who these people (ancient Egyptians) really were. But, we especially in the states are a sick people when it comes to race and cannot restrain our insatiable need to exhalt and glorify our own kind to the detriment of others.
In terms of Egypt, I believe the worse thing that we could ever do is ascribe ONE RACE to these people. That would only show the true extent of our incompetence within the scope of these disciplines collectively called “The Humanities.”
I found it amazing how they darkened OJ Simpson’s Pictures and you have lightened statues and pictures that I have seen in Egypt, Brooklyn Museum and the MET Museum of Modern Art. I could go into Harlem and take pictures and lead the ignorant to believe that there are no caucasions in the USA. The point is before the mixing of Greeks and Romans, Egyptians were Black Africans in Africa, especially according to the Caucasion’s ONE DROP of Black blood rule. You can’t have it both ways, like even though they killed every Indian they saw today everyone is now an Indian (99% Cherokee). Let us stop the lies. IF there were white people in Egypt why were the Europeans still barbarians and didn’t build anything except a few rocks at Stonehedge a few thousand years later? I know you are not interested in the truth or un-retouched photos but if so this site is great. http://wysinger.homestead.com/ancientafrica.html
Yes… the website that desn’t post images of the mummies or any ‘inconveniently’ Caucasian looking statues, which is why it only has a few dozen images, while I have about 400.
BTW, all these images are lifted straight from museum sites (including the Met) or tourist photos. I have neither the time nor technical ability to alter them. They are all easily tracked down on the internet.
If you feel like challenging me, pick an image you’ve claimed I’ve lightened and I’ll paste a link to another source for it. But for now here are some of the better known.
Nofret and Rahotep
Assorted seated scribes
Ka’aper the lectern priest–
An assortment of limestone statues.
Meritaten (Louvre)
Enkheftykai
Limestone head, Met museum
If you repeat that anywhere else I WILL take legal action against you for libel. And I will win, as it is very demonstrably not true and was specifically designed to damage my reputation. Bear in mind libel laws apply to material you post on the internet, even to morons like you.
I have posted just about every decent image of Egyptians you’l find on line here. That you are pissy with them for showing themselves to look a lot like the modern population is your own issue. No alteration to the images was needed, as they all look like this with no help from me. The same can’t be said for the numerous Afrocentrist sites I’ve spotted for blacking up images – Meritaten a prime example. See here the Afrocentrist version from that page you linked and how she really looks…
BTW, 85% of the Y chromsomes in upper Egypt are native to North Africa, so unless you are suggesting the invading armies from Europe and the near East were entirely composed of women.. you are talking BS. There’s only a max of 15% European DNA at the North, and a max of 15% Arab in both lower and upper Egypt. So… MOSTLY NATIVE TO AFRICA THEN.
egyptsearch is filled with trolls who dont reason. Its been proven that Ancient Europeans have been all over southwest asia and north africa in early times. The hindu religion, the indian caste system as well as tons of other proofs have been left in the wake. Cro-mag is early european period. Cro-mag made up egytians early population and gradually lost control and ended with an exodus. Look for crossing the red sea by Ron Wyatt.
Mathilda, I applaud your reserve in not just censoring the chap as he is apparently “ill-advised” like the majority of my fellow African Americans, unfortunately. Yet, I sense some hostility in your rebuttal and you know all too well that all you’ve come back with will fall on deaf ears. Now, in my endeavors, I have studied with some of the most well known “Afrocentric scholars” and have debated with many “pro-whites” from professors to the likes of St—Fr— (sorry, I just can no longer plug them). So, I’ve seen both extremeties of thought and theory. Let me tell you, for both of them, their levels of ignorance runs SO DEEP that I have made it a point to completely disassociate myself from either sickness and the likes of those who subscribe to their train of thought.
The fact of the matter here is that we must remain composed in the midst of such rude, mis-informed individuals who in their ignorance only wish to stir up trouble online instead of offering an intelligently challenging our views. It should be pretty obvious by now that I don’t agree with alot of your views, articles and content on your blog but, I do respect you enough to disagree “respectfully.”
Hakat, my real gripe with Afrocentrists (other than lying their nuts off and trying to disinherit modern Egyptians) is that they repeatedly post abusive comments here, which is why I have to have an abuse filter on the comments section and approve all the comments personally every day.
My issue is not with people disagreeing in a polite informed manner (you have had all comments allowed). I’m not some evil dictator you won’t tolerate any dissent. I do let my irritation show though. You’d be annoyed if you got called a liar on a regular basis. You don’t see the stuff I delete-can be threatening as well as insulting. And have you seen the Youtube vid made about me? Oy.
I think the thing that annoys me most is that I was very careful to find as many black looking Egyptian statues/mummy cases as I could for this page, and you’ll find more black looking statues and mummy masks here than you will on most Afrocentrist sites. So getting accused of ‘cherrypicking’ and ‘tampering’ (when a large amount are official museum site images) is really insulting.
Hakat Re:
Your coarse and vulgar response to me, (which is no surprise as to lack of civility)at 7:20 a.m. on the 10th of November, says much about you. I imagine your first morning task is to see who offends your impatient senses on this blog. Such preoccupation at that time of the hour smacks of impractical productivity. Hence, an immature and clumsy burden you’ve placed upon yourself. That Bon Ami, is irate Afrocentric-like behaviour (sorry to say).
Caeruleus and Hakat… play nice or no comments.
Caeruleus… I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest they were Nordics.
Evidence they were pretty much like modern Egyptians, plenty.
The Ancient and Modern Egyptians were/are Arab (Semitic White). The Hamitic theory is outdated and disproven.The following link clearly shows the largest portion of genetic material of Egyptians is of Arab (Semitic White) origin, including haplo group types-SCIENCE, not hearsay:
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/history_in_…
Egypt(Arabic given name)annexed part of Nubia(remainder modern day Sudan)/people of Kemit/Blacks in 1520 B.C..The Nubians made pacts with the Arabs to be Pharoahs, thus, a period of about 100 years of Black Pharoahs.Most of the time since 5000 B.C, Arabs ruled Egypt. Small periods of a couple hundred years, the Persians/Iranians, Greeks, and Romans-Indo European Aryan Whites, occupied Egypt.The majority, then as now, has been Arab(65%),Arab/Black(mostly Nubian, some Nilotic)admixture, Black(mostly Nubian,some Nilotic)(30%), and the remainder other ethnicities.Most Arabs have an olive(golden brown) skin tone and are classified as Semitic Caucasian. Egypt is mostly Arab Semitic White as is 1/3 of Africa(North) with plenty of Black admixture.Berbers and Moors are essentially Arabs with8-15% Black ancestry.
Part of the reason for the war in Sudan is because the Black indigenous Sudanese believe the immigrant Arabs are spreading too fast and wish to annex Sudan to Egypt.
Anwar Sadat, as was king Tut, was of mixed heritage-Egyptian Arab Semitic White father-Sudanese/Black/Nubian/people of Kemet mother-denied this until shortly before his death.
Hello Mathilda:
I never stated or implied in the abstract that Egyptians were of Nordic stock. 🙂
By the way, your blog regarding the Berbers is the most comprehensive I’ve seen. Kudos.
The Fayum mummy portraits (Greco-Roman era):
The portraits of the fayum look extraordinarily like Berbers to me; as ancient lower Egypt was the land of the Temehu
Berbers/Lybico-Berber tribes, as described in the following document:
The following notes may serve as a short introduction to the Libyan Berber Temehu tribes. For further Information about the ancient Libyan Temehu (Temeh’w) and Tehenu people the reader can refer to the work of Oric Bates (The Eastern Libyans).
The Ancient Egyptians called the land and the people west of the Nile Valley the Tehenu; but since the Temehu were also referred to as “the Westerners”, it becomes difficult to separate between the two Berber groups. Hence, according to Oric Bates, the ancient Egyptians often did not always discriminate between the Temehu (Tmh’) and the Tehenu (Th’n).
Those writers who claimed that the Temehu tribes were comprised of two groups: the Tehenu in the north and the Nehesu in the south, were often confused and definitely misinformed, since according to the Egyptians themselves the Nehesu are a distinctive group, and in all probability what they meant to say was that the Libyans comprised two groups: the Tehenu in the north and the Temehu tribes in the south, and thus the Tehenu were identified with Lower Egypt, and the Temehu, who were also known to archaeologists as “the C-Group of Nubia”, with Middle-Nubia. This makes sound sense when one refers to the ancient Egyptian’s classification of humankind:
The Egyptians divided the human race into four classes, namely the Egyptians, the A’mu(Semites), the Neh’esu (Nubians) and the Temeh’u in the country Tmh’ (Libyans). The Neh’esu refers to all east and southern Africans bordering Egypt from the south, and the Temeh’u covers all north and central Africans bordering Egypt from the west. This kind of genealogy is obviously politically motivated, but nonetheless shows the Nehesu as a separate group from the Temehu, and that the Temehu designates the whole of the Libyan people west of the Nile – that is all the Berbers or Imazighen including the Tehenu, the Ribu, the Meshwash, the Nasamons, the Garamantes, etc. From the extent of the Temehu’s territories, it appears that the Temehu were comprised of various communities and tribes, occupying much of the Sudan and possibly all the way to Fezzan. Oric Bates discussed the possibility of the Tehenu and the Temehu being the distant ancestors of the Tuareg (Imushagh, who speak Tamaheqt, Tamejeght, or Temezeght) tribes of the Sahara desert. Few years after the publication of his unique book, The Times (20 March 1928) published a study drawing similarities between the Temehu and the images of prehistoric drawings found in the Air Mountain in the southern Sahara desert.
The land of the Temehu tribe in ancient Libya extends all the way to the Nile. According to Herodotus Libya began west of the Nile.
The ancient Temehu tribes were among the allied tribes of the BerberMeshwash (Meshwesh) whom later successfully managed to regain control over the conquered land: Ament’s Lower Egypt, Bast’s Bubastis, and Neith’s Sais. The fact that the allied tribes included several Berber groups, like the Ribu and the Tehenu, illustrates a common cause to liberate rather than invade one’s land. The Berber Tehenu tribe were the natives of the Egyptian Delta, long before the menace of Menes, who forcibly unified Egypt and invaded the Tehenu territories in the north and the Temehu’s and Nubian’s in the south about 3100 BC. (or 3400 BC. according to other sources).
The Palermo Stone, the oldest document in the world, preserves a long list ofpre-Dynastic Libyan kings & queens of Lower Egypt before its invasion by the pharaohs. The Delta city of Sais was the centre of the worship of the Libyan Goddess Neith and most scholars generally agree that the inhabitants of Sais were mostly of Libyan or Berber origin. Other Libyan Delta cults included those of the Libyan Cat-Goddess Bast at Bubastis, and Osiris & Isis at Buziris who went on to dominate the Egyptian and Roman pantheons and even survive to the present day in Europe as secret cults of Isis & Osiris.
From the First Dynasty onwards the Libyans continued their attempts to reclaim Lower Egypt. The conflicts during the Old Kingdom were brought to a temporary conclusion by king Khufu (Greek Cheops), the second king of 4th Dynasty (ca. 2613-2494 BC.) and the builder of the great pyramid of Giza. Apparently king Khufu married a Libyan princess in order to bring peace to the region so that he could concentrate on his monumental work. “Bringing peace to the region”, during the building of the great pyramid of Giza, is not a sign of ‘menace’, but a powerful indicator of the long conflict between the Libyans and Egyptians right from the start, long before Shishenq and Tefnakht returned to continue the ancestors’ work.
His attempts, however, were not fully successful, as we are told that during the Middle Kingdom (ca. 2200-1700 BC) the Egyptian pharaohs managed to regain the upper hand and extracted tribute from the Libyans; and as a result a large number of Berbers served in the army of the pharaohs, and some even rose to high positions in the palace; probably, eventually leading the Libyans to regain control over Egypt about (ca. 945 BC), when the Libyan Berber king Shishenqsucceeded in establishing the 22nd Dynasty. A few dynasties later, BerberTefnakht, the chieftain of Sais and the king and founder of the 24th dynasty (722 – 715 BC), attempted to gain control over the whole of Egypt; but after acquiring Memphis and proceeding southward to Heracleopolis, he was stopped by the Cushite Piankhi and eventually lost in 713–712 BC to Shabaka, the founder of the Nubian 25th dynasty.
Like several scholars had pointed out, the pharaohs were in the habit of chiseling out most of the references they did not wish to survive and thus censorship is not that new. To refer to this rich period of Berber history as “the Libyan invasion”, or “the Libyan menace” does not necessarily represent the truth, and it is strongly advised that students of Libya should always refrain from depending on established sources alone. [A good example of this is the Palermo Stone saga!]
The Delta (of Libyan Lower Egypt) was called Tameh’et , one interpretation of which is ‘the lotus land’, just as pictured by its hieroglyph of three lotus flowers rising from a circle (the sign for ‘city’). In connection with Meh’, a mention must be made of the Seven Wise Ones of the goddess Meh’-urt, who came from water at the feet of Nu or Nun, and who, in very early times, resided over the “weighing of words” in the Hall of Meh’-urt and thus rightly identified with LibyanMaat and Neith. This simple fact was known to many scholars and Egyptologists, like Sir Alan Gardiner who has noted that the name of the Libyan tribe Temeh’w means “Lower Egypt” as well as the “ Delta”, whence mh’s “the crown of Lower Egypt”. The ancient Egyptian Timhy (Tymhy) Stone of Wawat, found in one of the Egyptian lists of royal gifts, may indicate that the stones were of a particular type purveyed to the Egyptian by the Temehu. G. W. Murray (The Road to Chephren’s Quarries) relates that the Temehu Libyans were employed in the labour gangs at the quarries; while other sources affirmed that the Temehu were famous for being skilled stone workers and that the monuments built of polygonal masonry in Cyrenaica were the work of the Temehu people whom often referred to as “the Westerners” (‘those who dwell west of the Nile’). The name was also mentioned as Henet-Temehu, the princess daughter of Thenet-Hep, the wife of Ahmose I, which further illustrates the Libyan element in the Egyptian dynasties.
As one is often forced by historians and scholars to talk of ‘colour’ and ‘race’ when the whole of humankind is found to be of one type, one can only say that (some of) the Temehu people were said to be ‘fair skinned’, ‘blond haired’ and ‘blue eyed’. They wore single hair locks on each side of the head, pointed beards, and a headdress of two ostrich plumes as those of the Libyan GoddessAment. One feather symbolises ‘chieftain status’, while two feathers are generally worn by everyone else. The Temehu, like the Tehenu, adored the Goddess Neith in tattoos. The Temehu name, as mentioned above, can also serve as a generic name describing several African groups and tribes and according to some sources even tantamount to ‘Tamazight’ as in the formTamaheqt (the Berber Tuareg word for Tamazight); making the various theories put forward attributing their origin to northern Europe and Asia look like those theories relating the ancient Egyptians to Sumeria.
In historic times, only Berber children wore side-locks; with grown-up men, it indicated either royalty, or the exercise of high priestly functions, identified with the rites of the Goddess Neith. The long, lock-like beard, is very similar to the beard of Osiris, which the pharaohs also adopted as a sign of royalty. The Libyan pointed-beard and the side-lock may shed more light on the origin of several ancient cultures as those of the Cretans, Basque, the Egyptian, and even the present-day Jewish side-lock, which they could have picked up in Egypt.
The long robe, fastened at the shoulders with golden clasps, and bordered with coloured lines, was a mark of dignity and rank, and therefore more common than the kilt (skirt, kirtle). Over this garment the Temehu occasionally wore a cloak, under which they wore either a tunic, girded at the waist and stretched almost to the knee, or nothing except a belt. The cut of these robes, which sometimes were fringed, was derived from the skin-cloaks worn in classical times. They were regularly open from top to bottom, and sometimes ornamented with coloured designs and decorated with pieces sewn in the corners or at the waist. In late times, the tunic became more popular among the more civilized Libyans.
The Temehu kept small live stock, were skilled workers, and highly religious (or mythical) people. The main principal deities of the Temehu people were the Great Goddess Neith, and the Libyan God Amon or Amen. These two deities were later adopted by other cultures, like the Greek’s Zeus (Amon) and Athena (Neith) (see Plutarch, Pluto, Diodorus, Herodotus, etc.) The cemeteries discovered between the First and Second Cataracts (and dated to the Sixth Dynasty) were identified with the Libyan Temehu. The cemeteries show a distinctive Libyan culture, comprising tombs with circular stone walls, burials in contracted positions, and body tattooing, most of which, according to Egyptian inscriptions, is identified with the par excellent Libyan Triple Goddess Neith. http://www.temehu.com. Author: Nesmenser © 2008.
Brief History of The Temehu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
From : http://www.temehu.com/Temehu.htm
solomon’s comment made a lot of sense. people have to be moronic to just go along with ancient egyptians being caucasian. haven’t we all done basic research on egypt just out of our own curiosity? the people of egypt were and obviously are their own race.they do not look especially white or black. they are EGYPTIAN.
(doubtless some of them are multiracial) matilda don’t fool yourself;you are not the expert you fancy yourself to be. you seem to be a bit EUROCENTRIC.
matilda,
you say that you found as many “black looking” statues/sculptures as you could, yet you keep saying…tiye did’nt really look like that OR nefertiti should be pinker OR her lips are too thick.why are you trying so hard to prove that they were not black. you don’t really claim that the ancients were white but you try to lean that way.they were a mixture of peoples correct? they were and are EGYPTIANS.
Reply to naturescorner1.
You stated that Berbers and Moors are essentially Arabs with8-15% Black ancestry.
For our information Berbers are not Arabs and neither are Moors!
Berbers are the indigenous population of North Africa, They have their own language and culture, which is definitely not Arabic.
The Berber language is older than Arabic.
As for the Moors; which is another name for the ancient Berbers who inhabited Morocco; which was called in ancient times Mauritania. The majority of Egyptians; especially in the North of Egypt are of Berber origin as proved by their DNA Haplotype 5, the “Berber haplotype” (Lucotte et al. 2000),.
As for the word Egypt it comes from the ancient Greeks, not the Arabs, The English name “Egypt” came via the Latin word Aegyptus derived from the ancient Greek word Aígyptos (Αίγυπτος). The adjective aigýpti, aigýptios was borrowed into Coptic as gyptios, kyptios, and from there into Arabic as qubṭī, back formed into qubṭ, whence English Copt. The term is derived from Late Egyptian Hikuptah “Memphis”, a corruption of the earlier Egyptian name Hat-ka-Ptah (ḥwt-k3-ptḥ), meaning “home of the ka (soul) of Ptah”, the name of a temple to the god Ptah at Memphis.
please read the following document:
Y-chromosome DNA haplotypes in North African populations
Human Biology, Jun 2000 by Lucotte, Gerard, Aouizerate, Annie, Berriche, Sala
Abstract The frequency distribution of Y-chromosome haplotypes at DNA polymorphism p49/TaqI was studied in a sample of 505 North Africans from Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. A particulary high frequency (55.0%) of Y-haplotype 5 (A2,CO,DO,F1,11 ) was observed in these populations, with a relative predominance in those of Berber origin. Examination of the relative frequencies of other haplotypes in these populations, mainly haplotype 4 (the “African” haplotype), haplotype 15 (the “European” haplotype), and haplotypes 7 and 8 (the “Near-East” haplotypes), permit useful comparisons with neighboring peoples living in sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and the Near East.
KEY WORDS: Y-CHROMOSOME HAPLOTYPES, GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION, NORTH AFRICA, MEDITERRANEAN
Because they relate to paternal ancestry, variations in DNA sequences that are specific to the nonrecombinant part of the human Y chromosome are particularly interesting from an evolutionary point of view. The probes 49f and 49a (locus DYSI ), located at Yq.11.2 (Quack et al. 1988), are able to identify 18 genomic TaqI fragments (named alphabetically, A-R), most of them being male specific. Among these the A, B, C, D, E, and I fragments can be either present or absent in males, or show variations in size (Lucotte and Ngo 1985). In the first group studied (Ngo et al. 1986), which included 50 Caucasians, 15 Africans, and 10 Asians living in Paris, 16 combinations of these DNA polymorphisms, or haplotypes (numbered 1-16), were detected. The present study examines haplotype frequencies in populations of North Africa.
In pre-Neolithic times (about 7000-3000 BP) the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts of North Africa were populated by white, Hamite-speaking peoples, who have come to be called Berbers and Egyptians. In Pharaonic Africa (3000 years BP) the population had suffered drastic changes, with agricultural Egypt having 1 million people. Climatic changes had dried northern Africa by around 8000-4000 years BP; the forest line had retreated towards the Equator from about the 16th parallel by 3000 years BP, and the Sahara had assumed the characteristics it has today. Heavy migrations towards the North sent people to the Mediterranean coast, the Iberian peninsula, and the Canary islands.
The population of North Africa has followed the general Maghreb demographic movements. In Neolithic times, a scattering of Berber pastoralists and cultivators existed there; however, they remained at a Neolithic level of civilization, while other Mediterranean peoples were evolving through the Bronze and Iron Ages. Around 1000 years BP, the Phoenicians came upon a stone-age Neolithic culture in the Maghreb; they established Carthage (in Tunisia) only to be overthrown by the Romans in 146 BP. At this time there were 100,000 Phoenicians and 500,000 Berbers in Tunisia, plus another 2.5 million Berbers in the rest of North Africa. During the 7th century CE, Arabs invaded North Africa, imposing their religion and language on the Berbers, a process that culminated with the Bedouin reaching the Maghreb in the 11th century. Later arrivals to North Africa in colonial times included the Portuguese and Spanish in Morocco; the French in Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia; the Italians in Libya; and the Turks in Egypt.
A main problem of Mediterranean ethnography has been the lack of DNA markers from southern Mediterranean populations (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1995). Bosch et al. (1997) have recently synthetized evidence from classical genetic markers in North Africa. In the present study, p49 TaqI Y– haplotypes were studied in a sample of 7 North African populations, and haplotypic comparisons were made with other African, European, and Asiatic populations previously studied for these haplotypes. (Persichetti et al. [1992] studied a small sample of 34 unrelated Egyptian males for this haplotype.) The approach in the haplotype diversity measures adopted here extends our previous work on Y-haplotype distributions in Europe (Lucotte and Hazout 1996), using Shannon entropy (H) as a measure of heterozygosity, numbers of haplotype equivalents as expected H, and genetic distances as the difference between 2 entropies: the first being calculated after grouping the haplotype distributions of two compared samples, and the second corresponding to the weighted sums of the entropies calculated for each sample.
Subjects and Methods
Samples and Populations. All 505 samples studied (Figure 1) correspond to unrelated adult North African males, whose origin is based on the birthplace of their fathers and (at least) grandfathers. The Mauritanian sample is composed of 25 males, collected previously for anthropological studies concerning African populations (Lucotte et al. 1994). The Berber sample consisted of 74 Berbers native to Morocco and living near Marrakech. The main part of the North African sample is composed of 102 unrelated males (excluding those of Berber origins) born in Morocco, of 141 males from Algeria, and of 73 males from Tunisia, all living in Paris. Also included are 38 Libyan and 52 Egyptian males (originating from the northern part of Egypt), from whom blood samples were collected in their countries of origin.
If you read what I wrote properly, you’ll see I said it might be an accurate reconstruction of the mummy, but it’s very debatable if it’s Nefertiti.
Caucasoid doesn’t mean European.
The mummy of Tiye Looks nothing like the bust at all; Tiye isn’t even all Egyptian, her father is thought to be Asiatic. They’ve got a reasonably secure ID on her from hair, so we know the mummy and bust don’t match well.
Egyptians are mostly Caucasoid, and they’ve been in Egypt mainly since before the Neolithic (Keita). They aren’t Arabs, they are natives of the area. Anyone who thinks there’s been any kind of major popualtion change there is a moron. I always take the ‘constant population’ POV, along with everyone else sane. Why this gets translated into ‘Eurocentric’ has yet to be explained adequately. As has the offence Afrocentrists take to me posting all the available dencet images so people can see for themselves.
So, is giving people easy access to all the images and DNA info Eurocentric too?
The only reason anyone takes umbrage to this page is becaue it’s impossible to believe the Egyptians were ‘all-black Africans’ when you look at the mummies etc.
Mathilda I swear to god if you tried to pull have of the crap that you pull on this site on Egyptsearch they would wipe the floor with you.
Let’s see
“Afrocentric”- a person who claims that an Ancient AFrican population was comprised primarily of indigenous Africans, based on numerous crania and skeletal studies (Keita, Sonia Z, Brace (recent), ECT).
“Eurocentric”- a person who claims that an Ancient African was comprised primarily by non indigenous Africans, with little to no Scientific evidence for their claim, and the profound assertion that for an African to claim an African civilization as such is theft to the modern mixed population of that present country!
JUST GO TO EGYPTSEARCH!
Egyptsearch never bother to mention that Keita has expressly said that modern Egyptians are mainly the descendants of pre Neolithic Egyptians. He uses the word ‘indigenous’ to apply to modern North Africans (including Egyptians) too, something you don’t see mentioned by Afrocentrists when they quote him.
Keita, .Genetics, Egypt, and History.
Does that make Keita Eurocentric?
Brace also does not put black Africans in Egypt: in fact he expressly said they showed no relationship to sub Saharan Africans. I have the paper on this blog with these exact words on it (Clines and clusters vs race)…
What a pile of crap you’ve come out with Michael. You aren’t even that familiar with the stuff you pretend backs you up. The only African samples that ever come out relatively close to Egyptians ones are the ones that you desperately pretend have no Eurasian ancestry in them (Somali/Ethiopian) and that have skull measurements close to SE Europeans and modern N Africans. And the studies still show Egyptians closest to Southern Europeans and North Africans.
Egyptsearch? I wouldn’t wrestle with a pig, let alone a clinically insane one that foams at the mouth.
As Mary Lefkowitz has said.. Afrocentrists don’t want a scientific or academic debate, they want a streetfight.
Just to be accurate. Your quote about arguing with Afrocentrists is not by Mary Lefkowitz. It was written by Robert Carroll of skeptic.com in a review of Lefkowitz’s book.
That was a very commendable quote there, Mathilda… and one that is more accurate than many can handle. But, ya know… if you apply that quote to both sides (Afrocentric and Eurocentric) you’ll have the truth of BOTH racial perspectives when the subject of Egypt’s ancestral heritage is involved. What we see as evidence of this are the extremes from Nordic/Celtic origin to prodaminantly Negroid origin… I TRULY DISPISE BOTH THEORIES WITH A PRECISE AND FERVENT PASSION.
I took this from the comment area of the Tiye and Kiya section. Hope it makes it here:
I tend to agree with ahad on this. Why do people freak out when the steotypical traits of people aren’t exact in the mummified remains of Egyptians. They were a “gumbo soup” of races. Anyway, the mummy shown in the video may very well be Tiye AND Kiya. Sculptures of both ladies look similar to the mummies’ profiles (really), where Kiya shows more traditional Middle Eastern features. In the case of Tiye, I have managed to snapshot several key images from the video above to make one photo. Study the jaw line and general skull as compared to the plastered bust of her below it. THE LINES DO MATCH STRIKINGLY from the temple area, cheek bones, down to her chin! Hey, judging from this bust and the mummy find, TIYE WAS NO HOTTENTOT OR BANTU BUT, SHE DEFINITELY WASN’T A RACHEL WHELCH EITHER (even if her hair was naturally auburn in life).
I’ve always been confused concerning the psychology behind the modern “black/white/mulatto” offspring theory: one white person (e.g. Yuya), one dark race person (e.g. Tuya) and the child simply being just labeled “Black” ((TODAY))… Yet, when it applies to ancient Egypt, THAT VIEW IS IMMEDIATELY DISMISSED, and that son or daughter (e.g. Tiye) is considered anything but black. Why the ignorance? My mom’s hair is naturally identical in wave pattern and color to the mummy in that video (deep auburn) yet she most definitely would not be labeled prodominantly caucasoid, as Tiye has been eluded to in this blog.
Mathilda, I don’t need to go into why you dismissed all “artistic” likenesses of Tiye. You obviously don’t agree with the ancient Egyptians’ first-hand experience and evidence as shown in numerous works of art, calling it “innaccurate” any chance you get. That is simply a BIASED approach PERIOD. Her Egyptian contemporaries saw her in person as she lived (you have not). They drew and sculpted her artwork based on what she looked like (whether you like it or not). As a researcher, you should not promote your findings based on what you like or not. You should call it as you SEE IT, as any purposeful individual involved in “the humanities” would do.
Instead of trying to find common ground between what the ancients saw with their own eyes and that of the mummified remains you deem as purely caucasoid, you have drawn your conclusions based on a hair type and a skull shape that you feel is not generally associated with a person that is seen as “Black… today.” Yet mixed blacks are all over the US, Europe and North and East Africa. I know plenty of people from various parts of the globe who could utterly silence you on this upon visual inspection. I just wish educated people like you could open your mind and not show so much racial bias (I don’t). I know deep down, you are so much better than this! Think: “common ground” for a change. You’d receive so much less hate mail from various ethnicities. Don’t you think?
Even in death, looking dead on at Tiye’s face shows her famously serious expression (see first and thrd images in the collage I posted above). No wonder foreign Kings showed her so much respect, as well as her husband Amenhotep III. This woman meant business, regardless of what race we want to label her as!
You morons know that within the next 20 years we’re going to have alot of these mummies genes sequenced, right? When that happens we’ll be able to determine their skin color and other factors. Eventually this debate will be dead. I for one can’t wait. The reason there is a debate is some Egyptians look a little black, while most look…Egyptian. There are afrocentrists and there are eurocentrists and apparently, never the twain shall meet.
Hi,
Mathilda said: “Here is a montage of modern Egyptians, their descendants.”
Modern Egyptians are Arabs. The Semite Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th century and destroyed most of what remained of ancient Egypt, hence many statues currently have missing noses, limbs, heads, etc.
The Ancient Egyptians, like the present Berber, are Hamitic people and have nothing to do with the Arabs of present Egypt, except in that some of their genes were passed on to the Arabs who forcebly married Egyptian and Berber women during their invasions of North Africa. Please make the distinction clear, if you can. Kind regards.
Modern Egyptians are Arabs. The Semite Arabs invaded Egypt in the 7th century and destroyed most of what remained of ancient Egypt, hence many statues currently have missing noses, limbs, heads, etc
No.
Egyptians are NOT Arabs. There’s very little Arab ancestry in modern Egyptians.
About 15% absolute maximum, as it goes, but probably more like 5-10%.
Their Y chromsomes are 70% native African/North African. There’s a DNA breakdown of modern Egyptians here. Not a lot of ‘Arab’ Y chromosomes in Egyptians at all.
Mathilda37 said:
“No . . . Egyptians are NOT Arabs. There’s very little Arab ancestry in modern Egyptians . . . ”
Hi,
I said ancient Egyptians are not Arabs, and you said: No Egyptians are not Arabs!
I agree with what you mean there, and in fact more than 90% of North African Arabs have shown to have Berber genetic material, and that is because they arrived without women when they invaded Libya in the 7th century and embarked on marrying women by the four (or more).
What I am saying is that current Egyptian speak Arabic (with the exception of Berber at Siwa) and that many people fail to make the distinction between the current Arab population (or Arabised population) and the ancient Hamitic-Berber-related population of ancient Egypt.
In one of the documentaries made by Discovery, and even other TV giants, the ancient Egyptian is often portrayed speaking Arabic and uttering some Islamic words, when everyone knows that Egypt was invaded and thus Arabised by the Arabs only recently. It is this distinction in reality that I request from you. Deep down, at the genetic level, the entire human race descended from a jelly fish, which in turn developed its slimy substance from its surroundings.
Kind regards.
Berber.
EXCELLENT collection of pictures!
I you have my Egyptsearch post link you may be able to add some pictures to the Nubian section.
Uraeus and Naturescorner1:
You should actually read the article that Mathilda wrote on that. They are not Berber at all as you can see discussed in the comments. They are well, “Egyptian.” You cannot see Egypt as a separate “Race” in any context. But since they do have their own genetic markers/language/culture they are clearly a separate Ethnic group. They study you posted was old. Many of the newer Cruciani studies have higher resolution data so you can see exactly what “Haplogroup V” really means.
Good luck.
Great Site.
As for the photos, I am working on a short documentary Mummy video. Are the images available for use in other non-profit uses/ productions?
Justin
Hi Mathilda,
May I? Thanks ,– and thanks for your great site.
Guys, guys, tch, tch. Cool it. The children are watching. Let me tell you what really happened.
I am only joking. On a more serious note:
I have no political, religious or racial agenda. Like all of us, I am searching for the best available historical and scientific facts and not to be told, inter alia, that the stepmother or nanny of Rome’s founder was a wolf. I also believe that your readers may find the following interesting and may hopefully even vindicate my opinion through genetic or DNA profiling.
About a year ago I was given a book by somebody who, to put it mildly, is very Eurocentric. I decided to prove that the book was nothing but propaganda and false. It soon became clear to me that most mainline historians over the last century also tried, and allegedly “concluded” that the book was a hoax. A few writers, however, seemed to believe that the book was authentic.
I started researching the claims in the book. The deeper I dug into the facts and discoveries made subsequent to the book’s publication, the more I became astonished. There is just no way that anybody in the 19th century could have forged some of the facts which were only discovered in the 20th century. Yet, it seems that the historians are not going to change their minds that easily.
Unfortunately some white supremacist, neo-Nazis and members of occult movements also got hold of the book and abused it for their own selfish aims. In the process the book lost even more credibility.
I refer to “The Oera Linda Book”, a manuscript which was discovered in 1867 and translated from an ancient Frisian dialect into modern Frisian. It was then translated into Dutch in 1872 and into English in 1876. The full original manuscript as well as the Dutch and English translations can be found in Wikipedia under External Links. The book seems to be more like the chronicles of a single family or small group rather than the history of a whole nation.
If true, the book, which had a number of authors over more than 2000 years, is the oldest written record of North-Western European history, going back over 4000 years. The book relates how an advanced and prosperous, seafaring, democratic, matriarchal and monotheistic civilization which covered most of Western Europe was almost wiped out by a natural disaster in 2193 BC. Their old land or “Altland / Atland” was submerged under the sea. Through time some of the survivors migrated to Greece, Crete, Africa (Tunisia), Palestine and later India and Iran( they were already in Britain – using it for the same purposes that Britain used Australia some 4000 years later – ouch!). Please note that their “Atland” is not to be confused with “Alantis”. At this stage it would be
tantamount to saying that Austria and Australia are the same country.
Let me now give you some of the reasons why I believe the book is authentic. (Not necessarily in chronological order):
1. After a civil war in Western Europe, one of their matriarchal leaders or “Mother of the Nation” (Sometimes incorrectly translated as “Priestess”) fled with her followers by sea to Attica in Greece where she founded Athens in ca 1615 BC. Her name was Ny-Hellenia a.k.a. Hellenia and Minerva. After her death she was declared a goddess by some pagan priests for their own political aims and power. This was totally unacceptable to the Frisians who, as mentioned earlier, were monotheists.
The first time that any evidence or knowledge of such a person as Ny-Hellenia surfaced was in 1970 when a Dutch fishing boat found a statuette with her name on it in its nets in the East Schelde Estuary in Holland. Numerous artifacts of her have subsequently been dredged from the area. Today the Dutch have a museum close by, incorrectly called a “Temple”, for the “goddess” NaHellenia. The poor girl must be turning in her grave!
2. More or less the same time as the founding of Athens, an old Frisian Sea King (Admiral?) Minos, sailed from Athens to Crete where they settled. They named the island Kreta (Eng.: Cries) from the war cries of the then inhabitants.
(In my home language, Afrikaans, we still use the same word “krete” with the same meaning. Incidentally, Afrikaans, Flemish, English, Dutch and, of course Frisian all have their roots in ancient Frisian)
Minos later left Crete on his own and spent his last days in Friesland.
In 1900 the palace of Knossos was discovered on Crete and during the 20th century the term Minoan Civilization was coined. Archeologists concluded that they must have had a matriarchal system.
3. The Oera Linda Book (OLB) claims that Ulysses arrived in Friesland (Almanland) in 1188 BC with spoils from the sacked city of Troy. The book further claims that refugees from Troy established Rome, the name meaning “open” or “roomy”. (The Aeneid written by Virgil in ca 29 BC also claimed that Trojan expats founded Rome.)
Dr. Schliemann excavated the site of Troy from 1870 to 1890 and found 9 cities on top of one another. His findings were published after the OLB came into the public domain. Before this discovery, Troy was regarded as a myth. It was only in the 20th century that archeologists declared that the Troy of the legends was destroyed in ca 1183 BC! ( Not bad, boys, not bad.)
4 In 2000 BC one of the Frisian Admirals, Neef Tunis (Cousin Tunis), apparently transgressed some Frisian laws or ethical code and was banished. He sailed to Phoenicia where he founded the city of Tyre near Sidon in present day Lebanon . In time Tyre became a very prosperous city (see Bible Quote below). He allegedly also established Tunisia in Africa. Apparently Neef Tunis later became the mythological Neftunis or Neptunis.
The King James version of the Bible states in Ezekiel 26:17 that Tyre was “inhabited by seafaring men”. The Afrikaans translations (1933 & 1983) are even more explicit and states that Tyre “was inhabited from across the sea”. Please also read Ezekiel’s prophecies and description of Tyre in Chapters 27 and 28. The friendship that King Solomon had with the king of Tyre is also most interesting. These 3 Bibles were all translated from the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
As an aside, Abram left Mesopotamia for Canaan more or less the same time as Tunis established Tyre.
5 In ca 1550 BC an Egyptian Priest, Cycrops, banished the Frisians from Athens. They sailed directly from the Mediterranean to the Red sea through a natural sea strait that existed at the time, more or less where the Suez Canal is today. Their enemies tried to pursue them but the strait were closed up behind the Frisians by a massive earthquake and they sailed on to the Punjab in India. Here they stayed for almost a thousand years before returning with King Alexander (Alexander the Great). On their return they took Alexander with their fleet through the red sea and Alexander then had their ships dragged with elephants and camels overland to the Mediterranean. This overland journey took them 3 months. They claim that Alexander died not long after from excessive drinking.
It is again noteworthy that this fleeing of Athens was about the same time that Mount Thera at Santorini erupted – some say the biggest volcanic eruption in 10 000 years. This is also in the same era as the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt.
I believe that this ancient sea strait was identified from satellite images but I could not get firm evidence. Maybe somebody could help here.
6 In the late 20th century some 100 naturally mummified bodies was found in the Tarim basin in Western China’s Xinjiang Province (North of the Himalayas). They were estimated to be between 2400 and 4000 years old and unmistakingly from European origin. Scientists stated that these bodies could possibly be linked to the extinct Tocharian language which in turn had strong links to ancient Celtic and Germanic languages.
Earlier in the 20th century the bodies of a “Welsh or Irish-like” woman and a “Bohemian Burgher-like” man was found in the Chinese desert. These were declared to be not more than 2000 years old. Since then, many Caucasian cemeteries were found in the area.
The OLB book claims that the Frisians gave the Himalayas its name i.e. “they lie up to the heaven” (Heaven = Himmel in Frisian/German and Hemel in Afrikaans)
7 Some of the Frisians settled in “Kermania” in present day Iran. There is still a Province called “Kerman”.
8 Frisians claimed they had tin mines in Britain. The Welsh tin mines were mined more than 4000 years ago.
There is still a treasure trove of information re the origins of place and peoples’ names (Celts, Germans or Gertmanne, Saxons, etc), real persons that were taken up in Greek, Roman and Norse mythologies and then the claim that they invented the modern day alphabet and numerals. If my 8 points of proof above is correct, then why not the rest?
I would also like to recommend Anthony Radford’s “ From Goddess to King” – his commentary on the OLB, although I do not agree with all his interpretations. It is also available on Wikipedia.
I must warn the reader that there is about two pages of white supremist remarks at the beginning of the book, but hopefully we can look past that and evaluate the rest of the book for what it is worth. I truly believe this book can make a contribution to the anthropology debate.
Incidentally, 4000 years ago the Frisian claimed that the Egyptians were from the Yellow race.
Just in Canada ..
I’ve swiped these images from so many sources, tourist photos, museum pages… I don’t know the copyright status of any of it. The black and white mummy images are from the Cairo museums mummy catalogue. If you are doing something that you are going to legitimately publish, that would be the place to start asking permission.
If it’s for Youtube, I wouldn’t bother with the copyright (you’re more likely to be struck by lightning than sued). If it’s edcuational it would probably come under ‘fair use’, and you won’t have to worry.
Sorry Nesmenser, I’ll edit Uraeas’s comment to show the relevant info.
When I post things I always put the link/source in. Other people; not so careful. I find my stuff in other places, so I know what you mean.
Kind of funny this happening after the ‘struck by lighning’ comment about copyright.
Hi Mathilda37,
Thank you for your understanding and good luck with your fantastic blog. Regarding the copyright of images and photos, I can suggest you check Dover publications, as they are copyright free, and you can use their material in any way. Most of Wallis Budge’s work was published by Dover. I totally agree with you in that the “lightning” “Thing” was really funny and “tomby”. Kind regards. Nesmenser.
Hi Mathilda,
Can you please tell me where the bust of Snefru comes from? Which museum is it in now?
Thanks,
Janey
I have no idea where he is currently. Sorry.
Reply to Janey
I think that you`ll find the Statue/Bust of Sneferu, on display at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
Mathilda, have you seen this book, X-RAY ATLAS. OF. THE ROYAL. MUMMIES. Edited by. J. E. Harris and E. F. Wente?
Many Afro-bozo’s are using this book to claim that the Egyptians were negroid. Are these men James e. Harris and Wente even Anthropologists or qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
I’d like your opinion. Thanks.
Yes. I know it. One guy was an Egyptologist (Wente I think), one was a dentist. Neither was a specialist in anthropology.
I’ve seen one Afronut trotting of a list of descriptions from it, proudly claiming that it proves them to be ‘black africans… including a couple of mummies that have been described by qualified anthropologists as so caucasian looking that it’s thought unlikely they are even native Egyptians. Which gave me quite a chuckle. The guy (and as far as I can tell it is just one with multplie ID’s) is claiming that things like a ‘Nubian’ occipital bump, common in modern North Africans and Egyptians, proves they were black. He also like to spam with non-relevant other ‘facts’ to make himself look smarter, particularly out of context quotes.
He also claims the ancient Greeks were black too. Which should give you a clue as to how sane he is.
A two-hour program set to air Tuesday night claims to have “new discoveries that shake the foundation of biblical archaeology,” echoing claims by other contested documentaries such as “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which aired last year
Pingback: WHERE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS BLACK OR WHITE? « My Blog
Mathilda, in answer to your question, i found a duplication:
Chapter: Mummy cases and masks (except Greco-Roman); row 6, fifth picture and row 13, fourth picture are the same. Their links:
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ae251.jpg?w=72&h=96
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ae25.jpg?w=72&h=96
I hope this will be helpfull to your very nice collection.
Thanks Toos, I’ll see to it in a bit. Like I said, they all start to blur into one after a bit.
Eh…I’d say that some of the modern Egyptians look like the illustrations you posted and others don’t. There are a number of places around the world where you could find people who look like this, and depending on the culture, some might be considered “black” and others “white”, when in fact, they are neither one or the other. Depends on the standard you use. Many Afrocentrists are American, and in the US, you can have mostly European ancestry and still be considered black; in fact, most “black” people in the states have a good percentage of European and/or indigenous American ancestry. Yet not too many people go all out to prove that African Americans (and lots of Afro-Caribbeans) aren’t black.
If Afrocentrists upset you, then Eurocentrists should as well, and maybe even more, as their views have dominated the history books and popular culture (in film, the ancient Jews, Egyptians and even some Chinese and Japanese characters have been played by European actors….and they always, always have British accents). And those same views helped to advance the abuses and excesses of imperialism/colonialism, but that’s another topic altogether.
One last thought: Why is it considered acceptable to dig up people’s graves anyway? This constant excavating of tombs is really kind of disrespectful when you think about it…it’s like a modern form of grave robbing.
Matilda,
Good website and some great effort on your part. Interesting conversations you have ignited. I have been to Egypt myself, and studied the modern Egyptians closely during the time I was there. Amazing variation; right out of central casting for almost any movie you would want to make; enormous variation and facial types. Such a melting pot,since ancient times; if you look close you will see it thru much of Egypt. A very interesting and enjoyable place with amazing people. Across our lives, and in this ususual time we are fortunate enough to live in, here is so much to know, and we only know a tiny fraction of what is, and what has ever been, or might be… imagine what we might really know in the next fifty years, as long as we keep asking, exploring, and wondering. Take care.
One of the most contentious as well as avoided issues in African studies discourse is the examination of “race” and its role on the African continent. No where is this more prevalent than within the discussion of ancient Egypt and the geographical origins of its primary inhabitants. As stated in a previous post, early European researchers found solace in carefully crafted diffusion hypotheses relating to the supposed migration of Hamites into Northern Africa. Such ideas ironically were formed in contrast to the initial conclusion of Napoleon’s exhibition into Egypt, that literally jump-started the field of Egyptology. Upon scientific examination of numerous artifacts, written records, and cultural information, among other sources of data, Napoleon’s team of scientists concluded that ancient Egypt was a civilization fully established and maintained by “Negroes”. This was echoed by the French philosopher Constantine-Francois de-Chasseboeuf de Volney, who noted early Greco-Roman descriptions of the ancient Egyptians, as well as the apparent “Negro” countenance of the Sphinx. This view however, changed rapidly with the increased need to justify colonialism in Africa, as well as segregation in America. An expanded or more concentrated part of the “Hamitic race” hypothesis was the theory of the “Dynastic Race”. A main proponent of this theory was the renowned Egyptologist, sir. William Flinders Petrie. Based on the peculiarity and rapid change in pottery styles found at the Naqada center in pre-dynastic southern Egypt, it was suggested that a group of invaders, namely from Mesopotamia likely entered Egypt and established civilization just prior to the 1rst Dynasty, at the expense of any aboriginal African populations already present. This was reinforced by cranial trends observed under typological racial models, and reports that the Egyptian population tended to affiliate by cluster analysis with populations extant from Africa, and closer to Europe and Southwest Asia. One of the first vocally active opponents of such views was the Senegalese scholar, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop. Diop drew from a multi-disciplinary approach, using evidence from skin-melanin samples, cranial measurements, blood groups, limb-ratio, language, culture, eye-witness accounts, etc, in order to ascertain the ethno-geographic identity of these ancients. His work seen its apex during the 1974 UNESCO conference of Egyptologists, who gathered in a landmark discussion on the origins of the ancient Egyptian state. Diop, along with his colleague, Theophille Obenga presented painstakingly their research to a non-receptive audience of hostile scientists. At its closing, no direct consensus was arrived at, though the impression was that Diop and his colleague were well prepared and presented much information that was yet to be contradicted (much, that isn’t contradicted to this day). The years subsequent sparked several political communities within Africa and the diaspora, including an intellectual undertaking and social endeavor of taking back African history. The most widely cited example is that of “Afrocentrism”, which unfortunately has most recently become a pejorative label within academic mainstream discourse. Diop himself, while never describing himself as an “Afrocentric”, is continuously labeled as such as a sort of ad hominem approach to discredit his work. This isn’t to ignore the fact however, that Diop was not immune to making mistakes. In fact, he specifically challenged African and Africanist scholars to investigate further and advance upon the work already done in the field, while exploring further the truth that is detectable given the rigorous research and procedures required.
The debate exploded with the work of a professor from Cornell University by the name of Martin Bernal, who proposed that Greek civilization (the progenitor to western civilization) was in fact, greatly influenced and inspired by African Egyptians and Asiatic Semites, as outlined in his book, “Black Athena”. Despite the fact that Bernal was of European background, his research sparked outrage within the white academic community. On one hand, it was argued that his reliance on ancient Greek interpretations themselves were naive and that Greece developed all of its unique traits in isolation, while at the same time arguing that people such as the Egyptians, were not “Black” (and therefore authentically “African”) anyways. This covered their bases on both fronts, so just in case they were wrong about the former, they still wouldn’t have to concede any “Negroid” origin to the development of civilization in Europe, and can still claim an affiliation based on a “Caucasoid” proxy. One persistent critic was Mary Lefkowitz, who denied out of hand any Afro-Asiatic contribution to ancient Greece, and there was also the misguided early work of C Loring Brace, an anthropologist who in placing ancient Egypt’s cranial variation within the context of European metric patterns, effectively excluded other groups from Africa, such as Ethiopians, Somalis, and Nubians. Ironically, Lefkowitz herself, after reviewing much of the raw data and comparisons indeed came to the conclusion that the ancient Egyptian’s origins lay some where south of the Sahara, while Brace’ later corrections generally contradict his initial works that were part of his formal contribution to the debate. A relatively young African anthropologist by the name of Shomarka Omar Keita, answering the earlier calls of Diop, made his own interjections. His 1993 paper on “The Biological Relationships of the ancient Egyptians”, exposed many gross contradictions and biases of the past. A false adherence to fixed racial terminology to describe ancient human remains, lack of comparative samples, and basic distortion of data lead to many inconsistent results. Keita found that the variability in modern as well as ancient Africa, is high, while the southern Egyptians, who were noted as the founders of Egyptian civilization, generally possessed cranio-facial patterns well within the range of tropical African diversity, while the Northern Egyptian remains were more variable, and seemingly intermediate between various Northern European and West African facial morphologies. Keita addressed directly the claims made by Brace, finding that limited comparative models and flawed terminology were the main errors in his study. Brace’s study compared a predynastic sample in southern Egypt with a late dynastic sample from Northern Egypt [Gizeh E], finding them to be similar, and when combined, associating closest with Europeans out of all other “World population groups” examined. This, according to Keita is a flawed method and generally advocates a racial approach to population biology under the guise of “world population clusters”. For example, Keita noted that in Brace’s primary cluster with the Egyptians, were groups from modern and ancient Sudan, as well as Modern Somalia. These groups have been demonstrated per genetics, to be overwhelmingly indigenous to Africa, having little in common with Europeans, lending little support to any European/ancient Egyptian genetic-based affinity. In addition, per Howell’s database on Egyptian remains compared to previous samples, the Gizeh E series used by Brace, is generally believed not to be representative of the core baseline population of ancient Egypt through out the dynastic period. The Gizeh E series has a morphometric pattern that is similar to specimens in the Aegean and may have been contaminated by foreigners, while the pre-dynastic southern Egyptian series was found to be most similar to ancient Sudanese (Kerma Nubian samples) with whom they were contiguous.
Hair form is also a physical attribute that has been traditionally connected to “race”. Given the obscurity of research on the issue, many Africanist scholars have been intimidated by the prospects of confronting what many Eurocentric scholars deemed to be “Caucasian-type” hair, still attached to the skulls of mummified remains, including the infamous case of the “red-haired” Ramses II. For those familiar with the mummification process, as well as the populations index means for hair cross sections, won’t find difficulty in explaining these seeming peculiarities. It is actually quite simple to understand. Firstly, to suggest that such hair attached to any decomposed body has lasting biological inference is misleading. According to Rogers (1987), “two years years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried underground”, while as early as 1877, Dr. Pruner-Bey concluded that hair alone is insufficient in determining “race”. This is equally apparent of Egyptian mummies considering the embalming materials used in mummification. When hair is exposed over prolonged periods under unfavorable conditions, with the increased effect of chemicals used that lead to bond breakage and oxidation, hair generally becomes straightened and discolored. Brothwell and Spearman found evidence of cortex kertain oxidation within ancient Egyptian hair, attributing such effects to the mumification process. Also notable is that population means of cross-sections, indicative of ‘straight, wavy, to whoolly hair. sub-Saharan (this obviously excludes supra-Saharan populations) African populations are found to average out to around 60 µm, aboriginal Australians/Tasmanians from 64-68 µm, while Europeans had an average of 71. Strouhal, in analyzing pre-dynastic remains at El-Badari, Egypt, found an average ranging from around 35-65 µm. Strouhal also reported a predominance in hair color that generally varied from dark brown to Black for the whole of dynastic Egyptians. Other studies found similar variation that seems to consistently hover around the area of 60-66 µm. Indeed, this is well removed from the range of European hair form, while the color and indices do not exclude African and Australians/Tasmanian populations of noted tropical adaptation. Once the unlikely scenario of Australians/Tasmanian contribution to the Egyptian gene pool is ruled out, and indigenous African diversity is appreciated (Northern and Southern), the African context of ancient Egyptian hair form is apparent. Indeed, Keita directly addresses this issue, citing that early hair as was described by Strouhal, was drastically no different from that of the Fulani, Kanuri, and Somali populations of East, West, and Central Africa. Individuals have also been the point of contention concerning this particular area of inference. For example, in direct response to Diop’s assertions, it was suggested by the French Egyptologist Lionel Balout, that Ramses II was a “red headed, wavy-haired Leucoderm”, as was gathered by microscopic analysis of the hair shaft and the presence of Phaeomelanin (red color). On closer inspection however, the red color in the hair was manifestly weak, and can actually be described as auburn. This is a condition seen visibly in contemporary populations of the Sudan (including the Beja). Equally telling is the little known fact that the active MC1R gene responsible for red hair actually originates in and is widely visible though out Africa. In addition, actual studies have found evidence of similar manifestation in modern Southern Sudanese who have shown cases of Blondism, generally at an early age. All of these populations are of indigenous African derivation. One of Balout’s biggest mistakes was also publishing the results of the trichometric measurements that found Ramses II’s hair averaged at around 60-70 (a median which is 65) µm; completely within the range of indigenous African diversity, non-indicative of any European or “Leucoderm” ancestry. This, not mentioning Harris and Weeks’ X-Ray analysis of Ramses’ cranio-facial structure, again showing him as an individual to fit well within the range of African variation. Though his obscure origins are still a matter of debate, given certain peculiarities surrounding his parentage among other things, the biological data alone doesn’t seem to support Eurocentric claims that Ramses II was definitely of European or Asiatic extraction.
Dental studies are sometimes brought up in a discussion on the biological origins of the ancient Nile valley populations. Joel Irish, who has done extensive work in this field, suggested broad continuity between Egyptians groups of various locales and time periods. The affinities of Egyptian dental morphology (as well as Nubian) were described as characterizing what is generally seen through out Northern Africa and to a lesser extent, Southwest Asia [meaning they weren’t very “bucked toothed”]. Irish also asserted that the Egyptian and Nubian samples were drastically different from previous, Neolithic samples, thus theorizing on a possible demic diffusion of non-African Asians into the Nile valley. As Keita points out, such ignores heavily, previous studies finding the presence of fourth molars and fourth molar variants, which are believed to be genetically based and attributable to more southernly African populations. In addition, Irish has ignored the widely accepted post-pleistocene hypothesis of dental reduction and simplification based on dietary change and adaptive/selection strategies coinciding with increasingly novel social and climatic conditions, as proposed by Carlson and Van Gerven (1979). It is also of note that regardless of the cir***stances, Nubians still fit within the same context, as suggested as well by Greene (1972) who found extensive overlap between the two populations. One would effectively need to turn the debate away from one about the origins of Egypt to that of both Egypt AND Nubia. Not surprisingly as I’ve seen it done before, though it’s quite hypocritical to compartmentalize by on one hand, looking to differentiate between Egyptians and Nubians as the assumption has been that the latter is “undeniably” Black, though when they are inextricably connected, the goal then becomes to differentiate both from the rest of Africa. An endless game of circular reasoning that I advice most not to even entertain. The facts are clear and outlined above.
Other sources of data, which are usually disregarded or under emphasized, though shown to be genetically reinforced and highly dependent on geographical adaptation, is that of limb-ratio and stature. High limb to trunk ratio is seen as an indication of tropical adaptation and in the context of Africa, “sub-Saharan” ancestry. Diop early on noted the African character of ancient Egyptian body proportions. Robins (1983) examined various pre-dynastic remains, reporting the specimens as having a “super-Negroid” body plan, or limbs proportionate to stature that were even higher than that seen in west Africans, who in turn have ratios much higher than Europeans. A simplistic interpretation would lead one to conclude that the ancient Egyptians were even more “Negroid” than modern “Negroids” are. Which is why such goofy racial terms are inherently irresponsible, though the reality and its implications are striking. Keita (1996) confirmed these data, as did Zakrzewski (2003) who reports general continuity through out the dynastic period. As noted earlier, Keita found dynastic Northern Egyptians to possess a cranio-facial diversity that is generally intermediate between Northern European and various West African phenotypes. However, one of Keita’s shortcomings was an absence of material from pre-dynastic Northern Egypt, or of the baseline population preceding unification that was present there. Pondering on their starting orientation, many assumptions were made. Kemp (2005) however, reviewed such studies pertaining to Northern Egyptian body proportions in relation to material from neighboring Palestine and the neighboring African regions to the south. What was found was a south-north cline of variation that did not move smoothly into Palestine, excluding any relationship with Asiatics directly north of the delta region, while placing pre-dynastic Northern Egyptians within the context of more southernly Africans, with whom they shared closer affinity in terms of body proportions. Kemp hypothesized that a change in demographics, specifically in Egypt’s northern region, may be a cause of some of the contrasts seen from North to South coinciding with the do***ented migration of foreigners in the region and the passage of time. As of now, I’ve yet to have seen any Eurocentric obsfucation or rebuttal to the ancient Egyptian body plan. In fact, it is generally avoided by Eurocentrists all together.
Studies of melanin content in mummies are relatively rare. Diop’s initial attempts were scrutinized due to what was deemed to be an outdated methodology and claims made that the embalming materials rendered the epidermis of Egyptian mummies unseceptible for analysis. Diop countered that while this may be true, the boundary between the derm and epidermis, indeed showed melanin levels that were inconsistent of European and Asiatic populations of relatively lighter complexion. A more recent 2005 study of various 18th dynasty remains, conducted by the university of Munich, found similar results using more reliable methods. The mummies were described as being “packed with melanin as expected from specimens of “Negroid” origin. Skin color its self is an extremely adaptable trait that is generally independent of genetic lineage, and more dependent on geographic adaptation strategies. The skin charts courtesy of Biasutti, which correlate with geographic location predict that the populations of extreme Northeast Africa should show gradients generally identical to populations of extreme Southwest Africa, which lies at an equal distance away from the equator, while Northern Europeans are outliners in this regard. Other factors such as Vitamin D absorption and recent migrations/genetic interaction are also important when interpreting such diversity.
Another matter of contention is that of descriptive accounts from ancient travelers whom were contemporary with the ancient Nile valley populations. One angle, often used by Eurocentrists is to emphasize a seeming distinction described between “Ethiopians” and the Egyptians. Indeed, the populations in Africa south of Egypt were generically referred to as “Aethiops” by the ancient Greek authors. Such is used as evidence that the ancient Greeks did not describe the ancient Egyptians as “Black”, despite actual accounts of the Aethiopians of southern Egypt. Also despite the fact that the word Aethipos is not a working Greek translation for the English word “Black”. It meant literally, “burnt face”. The word bearing closest similarity to the term “Black” was “Melas”, which was indeed used to describe the ancient Egyptians as well as the Ethiopians, but not the Greeks themselves. Herodotus is one of the most famous and ‘disputed’ examples within the so-called “debate”. He writes rather revealingly that: “several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and kinky hair”. Such a statement caused so much panic within the hearts and minds of ra******t detractors that the best at the time they could come up with in response was via Champollion-Figeac, that Black skin and whoolly hair [in AFRICA!] doesn’t qualify membership into the “Black race”. I assume that it took a few decades later to contrive some nefarious scheme to discredit a man whom they’ve previously referred to as the “father of history”. Suddenly, because the afro-mentioned Colchidians were a distinct and mysterious group of residents in western Eurasia (outside of Africa), that somehow this means that by calling them “Black” and “curly haired”, that somehow he must have been speaking in “relative” terms, apparently relative to the Greeks (?). Curious considering that Greeks are “relatively” dark in comparison to a lot of Eurocentric writers (excluding the late Frank Snowden) who conjure up such absurdities. As if Greeks don’t contain the highest percentage of African lineages among all other European and even many Mid-Eastern populations. Who was this relative to? Ironically, a Greek poet named Pindar also described a dark-skinned population in Colchis and so did Saint Jerome, who actually called Colchis the “second Ethiopia”. Nothing however, will satisfy certain critics as there are even inquiries being made in published journals as to whether or not Herodotus even visited Colchis. An example of the bi-polar tendencies within certain schools of thought that would lead a person and/or people to describe a man as “the father of history”, while in the same breath refer to him as the “father of lies”. Ironically, they don’t address whether or not Herodotus was “lying” again when in an attempt to prove that the Nile was not flooded by snow, he contended that this was unlikely since per his own observations, the residents of Egypt were “Black from the heat”. Another important and even more revealing source is Aristotle. In his book, Physiognomics, he describes the “Aethiopians” and Egyptians within the same context, writing: “Too black (Melas) a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two.” Again, within the same book he writes about the Egyptians and “Aethiopians” within the same context, this time reiterating what Herodotus already indicated; that the Egyptians had Whoolly hair: “Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair.” The said “bandy-leggedness” may also be an allusion to the tropical body plan, described above. These, being the earliest descriptions of Egyptian morphology and skin complexion should serve accurately as a realistic description of the population’s indigenous inhabitants, though such are challenged by seeming contradictions, that are otherwise explained by those seeking explanation. Opponents often cite quotes from Strabo and Arrian who gave descriptions seemingly comparing Egyptians to Northern Indians and attributing to them a “medium” complexion. It is of relevance to make note of the fact that these kind of descriptions were not made until the Roman period. Susan Walker explains the apparent confusion of elites in identifying exactly who and who wasn’t an “Egyptian” being that many people in Egypt identified as Greeks and the present miscegenation within the populace blurred the distinction. Walker makes note of a large Greek population left behind by the armies of Alexander, many men of whom likely had taken Egyptian wives. By this period various ethic groups had effectively penetrated Northern Egypt, intermingling with the core populations. Indeed, this is the later periods covered by Kemp (2005) who is noted above, and other contemporary Greco-Roman descriptions seem to support his explanations of demographic influences from foreign sources, as Archilles Tatius of the same era describes the herdsmen of the delta as “half-castes”. However, this was evidently not true for ALL of Egypt (notably in the south), as Ammianus Marcellinus confirms in the 4th century A.D., :”the Egyptians were “mostly brown and black” with a “skinny and desiccated look”. Al Jahiz (781-869 A.D.), in his book “Superiority of the Blacks to the Whites” also counted the Copts and native [non-Arab] Egyptians among “the Blacks”.
There is also the matter of art pieces. I can’t seem to focus much attention on this area since it’s a very subjective side of the so-called “debate”, though a few claims or angles seem persistent. Many Eurocentric writers harp on the issue that Egyptians distinguished themselves physically, namely in skin complexion, from the Nubians, therefore from “Black Africans”. This is hilarious since it seems to suggest that “Nubians” were the only kind of “Black” African, as to truly play with semantics. Conveniently, these people don’t readily point out the fact that the ancients also distinguished themselves from Lybian Leucoderms, and Asiatic Semites, while NOT at all distinguishing themselves from the people of Punt, who lived in what today is modern Ethiopia. Also notable are depictions of Nubians whom are equally as indistinguishable, with the tomb of Huey being a prime example. Some additionally like to emphasize so-called “Caucasoid” features, which goes back to Hiernaux’s observations. Drake (1987), even using the stereotyped approach found what he claimed were “many Negroids’, after reviewing thousands of Egyptian art pieces and portraiture. Petrie (1939) even pondered the same for various dynasties, including some of the most important ones, like the 3rd, 12th, 18th, etc. Keita addresses this briefly as well after reviewing numerous art depictions, finding the same kind of narrow faced morphology in most figures and artworks that can also be seen in the horn of Africa, which has nothing to do with admixture with non-Africans.
Ironically, genetics is often not very definitive in determining the ethnic composition of the ancient Egyptians. Mainly due to the fact that populations aren’t static and the modern Egyptian (as well as ancient) population has seen noted contacts with foreigners from various sources. It has been suggested that a steady foreign migration of about 1% per generation can alter significantly the aboriginal gene frequencies of a population over several thousand years. As a consequence, it shouldn’t be surprising that many autosomal DNA studies find modern Egyptians to be “mixed”. Material from mummies are also deemed relatively unreliable. A 2002 study on the rate of decay of DNA in the Papyri plant, found complete deterioration, even in the most recent sample from the 8th Century A.D. It was concluded that this evidence is supportive of any arguments against claims of a reliable recovery of DNA in Egyptian mummies. This is contrary to a weird claim made by a team of “scientists” at the University of Cairo, asserting that the DNA of the Pyramid workers “matched” those of modern Egyptians. As if modern Egyptians aren’t variable. Also weird, is the utter failure to publish any of these results and comparative data or their materials and methodology, etc. Relevant as well are the more obscure studies. Paabo and Di Rienzo (1993) found “sub-Saharan” DNA in Egyptian mummies and apparently so did another 1999 study from the University of Turin. Only tentative conclusions can be made, however, the inferences to be made from living populations have still been significant. A 2004 study on the mtDNA of the Gurna population (who are relatively more isolated from the urban centers) in southern Egypt found an ancestral link to east Africa, as Kivisild did in his 2004 Ethiopian study of mtDNA. Y-Chromosome data, courtesy of Lucotte (2003) show that Modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly of PN2 derivation, which is a clade that emerged in Africa sometime proceeding the migration of humans out of Africa, but before the end of the last ice age. This is defined ultimately as E3 which diverged into various haplotypes all related through out Africa, which reveals ancient ancestral ties between Africans north to south, well before the former or the latter shares ancestry with non-Africans who lack in substantial frequencies, these African genes. A most recent 2008 Y-Chromosome study conducted in conjunction by Standford and the University of Khartoum, found relatively high frequencies of the haplogroup B-M60 in modern Copts, suggesting the population to represent a historical narrative for the peopling of Southern Egypt by Nilotic migrants from tropical Africa, during and preceding the period of state formation. These data are expected given numerous archaeological and historical findings that are overwhelmingly supportive of this scenario.
In conclusion… The Ancient Egyptians were a primarily Black [African] people, as our data reflects. Future research into the relevant fields of study are greatly anticipated and will be discussed upon retrieval.
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 first lie from Michael exposed..
current inhabitants of the Nile valley should be understood as being in the main, although not wholly, descendants of the pre-neolithic regional inhabitants
On Egyptians, by Keita.
Michael’s second lie exposed.
Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity
provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times.
Michael’s third lie (although I know you just pasted this from elsewhere) Link to image. from a Hanihara study including Egyptian teeth.
Also…
However, all 15 samples exhibit morphologically simple, mass reduced dentitions that are similar to those in populations from greater North Africa (Irish, 1993, 1998a–c, 2000) and, to a lesser extent, western Asia and Europe (Turner, 1985a; Turner and Markowitz, 1990; Roler, 1992; Lipschultz, 1996; Irish, 1998a). Similar craniofacial measurements among samples from these regions were reported as well (Brace et al., 1993).
And finally, Egyptians are mainly native African for Y chromsomes and not Arab in origin (Lucotte), this POS actually observes that, and it’s been in situ about 20k or more. So claiming that they are newcomers to the area or massively different looking is sodding ludicrous. The shared mt DNA with East Africa in Gurna was M1, shown to be Eurasian in origin now….LOL.
I can’t believe you posted this crap and were being serious.
Mathilda how can you actually take yourself or your supposite “research” seriously if you want show any sort of serious objection (Scientific) objection to it? I posted some facts on past studies about this debate in general and it for some reason has not been posted yet. lol It just goes to show that you’re scared of the truth. Which is actually to the demise of your “followers”. You are essentially setting them up for failure in doing so. Leaving them arrogant and ignorant enough to believe that there is nothing refuting this crap on your blog, Some will even venture into such forums as say Egyptsearch, and be left to fall flat on their faces.
PS. Rather than letting this post through just to try and make me look like a jackass, why not let my original post through to see who the actual jackass is.
Dear Egyptsearch member.
Since I don’t usually spend much time on the computer at the weekend, most peoples comments normally have to wait until Monday to get posted, as they all need to be passed by me due to seriously unpleasant prior spam hate mail.
Comments that take up massive amounts of space (like your others) normally have to wait a few days anyway as I like to point out just how much crap you are talking, and they can take an hour or two each to respond to personally.
Egyptsearch… land where people pretend that the studies that don’t say what they dont’ like don’t exist.
“The First Lie”
Where did I “lie”. I said that Paabo and Di Rienza found sub-Saharan DNA in Egyptian mummies. Isn’t that stated in the quote above. Keita also extrapolates the other lineages to Africa as well, so you have no point.
Part of the quote that you omit in order to enhance speculation:
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. – Keita
The fact that current inhabitants are in the main, but not wholly descendant from the ancient population is apparent. In fact, Brace’ 2006 twig shows ancient Egyptians clustering with modern Nubians before they do with modern Egyptians. Not sure how I’m “lying” by pointing this out..
“Second Lie”
Ok… What’s your point and where did I lie? Read Keita 1993 for the stated criticism of Irish and read Irish 2006 who emphatically places Egyptians within the context of the Nubians. The fact that there was continuity only reveals that there was little foreign influence per Irish’ assessments, though he retracts his own claims in a 2008 study:
In context, here’s Keita’s critique:
“Recently Irish (Joel D.) and Turner (1990) and Turner and Markowitz (1990) have suggested that the populations of Nubia and Egypt of the agricultural periods were not primarily descendents of the geographical populations of mesolithic/epipaleolithic times. Based on dental morphology, they postulate as almost total replacement of the native /African epipaleolithic and neolithic groups by populations or peoples from further north (Europe or the near east?)
They take issue with the well-known post-pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypothesis which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture). However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holocene sahara, because of the isolated communities and cyclicial climatic changes there, and their possible subsequent human effects.
The earliest southern predynastic culture, Badari, owes key elements to post-dessication Saharan and also perhaps “Nubian” immigration. Biologically these people were essentially the SAME. It is also possible that the dental traits could have been introduced from an external source, and increased in frequency primarily because of natural selection, either for the trait or for growth pattern requiring less energy.
There is no evidence for sudden or gradual mass migration of Europeans or Near Easterners into the valley, as the term ‘replacement’ would imply.
There is limb ratio and craniofacial morphological and metric CONTINUITY in Upper-Egypt-Nubia in a broad sense from the late paleolithic through dynastic periods, although change occured.” – Keita, Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships (1993)
And here is Irish flip flopping in 2008:
Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians,Michael A. Schillaci, Joel Irish,
Such “migrants” according to Zakrzewski, were from minimal trade contacts. As stated, there was no dynastic race of “white Nords” and mixture was primarily restricted to northern Egypt during the late period. Previously, Irish made it seem as if there was unbroken continuity all over the country lasting into the modern era. He clearly contradicts himself here in order to align himself with contemporary data analyzed by Kemp, Keita, Zakrzewski, and others. No lies here. Just facts.
And here is Irish flip flopping in 2008:
Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians,Michael A. Schillaci, Joel Irish,
Such “migrants” according to Zakrzewski, were from minimal trade contacts. As stated, there was no dynastic race of “white Nords” and mixture was primarily restricted to northern Egypt during the late period. Previously, Irish made it seem as if there was unbroken continuity all over the country lasting into the modern era. He clearly contradicts himself here in order to align himself with contemporary data analyzed by Kemp, Keita, Zakrzewski, and others. No lies here. Just facts.
And here is Irish flip flopping in 2008:
Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). No large-scale population replacement in the form of a foreign dynastic ‘race’ (Petrie, 1939) was indicated. Our results are generally consistent with those of Zakrzewski (2007). Using craniometric data in predynastic and early dynastic Egyptian samples, she also concluded that state formation was largely an indigenous process with some migration into the region evident. The sources of such migrants have not been identified; inclusion of additional regional and extraregional skeletal samples from various periods would be required for this purpose.
Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians,Michael A. Schillaci, Joel Irish,
Such “migrants” according to Zakrzewski, were from minimal trade contacts. As stated, there was no dynastic race of “white Nords” and mixture was primarily restricted to northern Egypt during the late period. Previously, Irish made it seem as if there was unbroken continuity all over the country lasting into the modern era. He clearly contradicts himself here in order to align himself with contemporary data analyzed by Kemp, Keita, Zakrzewski, and others. No lies here. Just facts.
“Third Lie”
This was already addressed above per Keita’s citation but I will further extend it. Similarity doesn’t indicate any relationship as there is evidence of rapid climate change in the prehistoric Nile valley accompanied by increased novelty in social and dietary practices. In addition, as Keita points out, teeth can be reduces when such a trait is introduced and selected for any particular advantage it may pose. These explanations are relevant since the people of Holocene Egypt and Nubian did not have such teeth, hence Irish initially proposed a population replacement attributable to invaders. Since limb-ratio and cranial studies contradict this, it is worth noting these evolutionary processes. Also, Greene cites overlap between Egyptians and Nubians as well as genetically-based fourth molars that are exclusively African characteristics. Reduced teeth are not exclusively non-African or genetic since it can happen through diet and/or natural selection.
Click to access keita-1993.pdf
^^Scroll down to page 14 for a confirmation of everything I just told you.
“And finally, Egyptians are mainly native African for Y chromsomes and not Arab in origin (Lucotte), this POS actually observes that, and it’s been in situ about 20k or more. So claiming that they are newcomers to the area or massively different looking is sodding ludicrous. The shared mt DNA with East Africa in Gurna was M1, shown to be Eurasian in origin now….LOL.”
Wrong… You’re a novice who doesn’t know how to cite sources. I never said modern Egyptians were newcomers. I stated that they have new genes in many instances. If you have Eurasian genes on the one hand, like VII, which is at a high frequency in Eurasians, yet you also have African lineages, the question to ask is which came first and which predominated in ancient times. The answer is obvious since it correlates with MtDNA. M1 is African, it is derived directly from African L3, there is nothing Eurasian about it. The first people to carry the lineage were from sub-Saharan Africa as the gene is around 50,000 years old. Whites/Eurasian didn’t even exist at that time. lol!!! Nice try..
From said paper:
Our results suggest that the Gurna population has conserved the trace of an ancestral genetic structure from an ancestral East African population, characterized by a high M1 haplogroup frequency. The current structure of the Egyptian population may be the result of further influence of neighbouring populations on this ancestral population.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14748828
They didn’t say they have conserved an ancestral Eurasian heritage due to high frequencies of M1, they said that they have conserved ancestral traces of their East African heritage due to their high frequencies of M1. Stop lying.
In the links below you have about a two hour lecture by Keita in Cambridge University, basically laying to rest any notion of Egypt being anything other than an indigenous Northeast African civilization. Lol wonder what you’ll have to say about this one Mathilda!
Lecture part 1
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_01/vv,-2/Itemid,26
Lecture Part 2
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/component/option,com_mediadb/task,play/idstr,CU-Fitzmuseum-Kemet-Keita_02/vv,-2/Itemid,26
Interesting data
TABLE 4. Intra-limb bone length indices
in US and Egyptian samples
Crural index | Brachial index
Males \ Females | Males \ Females
Mean – SE \ Mean – SE | Mean – SE \ Mean – SE
Terry Whites: 81.9 – 0.4 \ 82.0 – 0.4 | 74.3 – 0.4 \ 73.5 – 0.5
Terry Blacks: 83.7 – 0.4 \ 83.8 – 0.5 | 77.1 – 0.5 \ 76.5 – 0.5
Egyptians: 83.6c – 0.2 \ 82.8 – 0.3 | 77.9c – 0.5 \ 77.5c – 0.6
Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 (1958) 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 (1986) 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 (2006) 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains.
Again, in isolation:
ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20351506
^^The fact that modern Blacks and ancient Egyptians aren’t “identical” is redundant. The fact that they are more similar to each other than either are to white Americans, speaks volumes about the lack of merit in Eurocentric resentment of Black [African] attribution to ancient Egyptian civilization. It’s hilarious, especially coming from a person who names them self “Nordic guy”. It’s veered away from trying to establish that they were white, to now just keeping them away from Black people. lol… Won’t work…
Take a look at the crural index of modern Egyptians before you decide to wave those figures around ignorantly. I have it here; different study but there you go.
American white 82.6% Modern Egyptian 84.9% American Black 85.25%
It’s just shorter than a black Americans, coincidentally about the same as the ancient Egyptians. How inconvenient for you. I have that study you pasted around here somewhere too, I’ve had it it waved at me so many times by people that never thought to compare what the modern length is. You ‘conveniently’ leave out middle Easterners and modern North Africans. They have much longer limbs than Europeans: for example;
Belgium 82.5% Yugoslav 83.75% Egyptian 84.9%
As you can see it lengthens as you move South. Egyptians were Egyptians, not white Americans who mainly come from Northern Europe.
I never said once that Egyptian culture was an import, that’s just something you like to think I said. The cultural aspects come from the Badari culture in upper Egypt. However, the farming arrived from the near East. If you Keita properly you’ll spot in his dissection of Lucottes Y chromosome study that he points out that modern Egyptians are mainly the same population that’s been there since the Pleistocence-something you lot like to ignore.
In a section about Egypt..
You also like to pretend that Caucasoid people are newcomers to North Africa, when Keita himself observes the in the Mahgreb. And Keitas ‘tropical African’s are all groups with mixed Eurasian and African ancestry, and he never once makes any comment about the skin tone of his tropical Africans, and if you read his work properly it becomes clear he regards modern Egyptians as mainly indigenous Africans, and even ‘tropical’. BTW, his study of Badarian crania does not apply to lower Egyptians, he (and many others) have observed the Northern population was halfway between his tropical African (half Eurasian in ancestry) and European phenotypes. Whic would match the current population pretty closely.
As a brief exlporation of modern upper Egyptian st Y/mt DNA that you like to overlook: they are about 80% native African Y chromosomes, and maternally 47% Native African (if you are so desperate to claim M1 as African I’ll humour you here), with another 35% traceable to over 12,000 year in North Africa. So less than 20% of the upper Egyptian population is ‘non very ancient in Africa’, and most of the rest traces to the Neolithic. So exactly what genectic trace did your ‘theiving Arabs and slaves’ leave? None, because there weren’t any. Even lower Egypt is 60% native African.
EGYPTIANS ARE NATIVE AFRICANS.
That piece of text you pasted tried to claim all the mt DNA samples were sub Saharan – which is bullshit. Keita says the other lineages may be African too – he has no idea and is chucking out a guess, which is represented as a cast iron fact there. Eurasian DNA in North Africa dates back in two waves to over 30k, and over 12k, and they had to pass through Egypt.
After that long ramble about teeth:
Nubians group with other North Africans for teeth, and crania, and are technically Caucasoid, although dark skinned (but so are Indians). These are the people currently living in Southern Egypt, just up river. They have a clinal variation along the river. Brace also says that there’s no connection to sub-Saharan Africa with dynastic Egyptians or Nubians – forgot that Richard?
Click to access brace.pdf
Nubians are closely related to upper Egyptians, and hang off the North African and caucasoid twig. Egyptian teeth and Nubian teeth are typically North African, and very different to the teeth of even East Africans, who have a substantial amount of Eurasian ancestry in them (as do/did Nubians), and very different to sub Saharan Africans.
M1 is African, it is derived directly from African L3, there is nothing Eurasian about it.
Even though several published papers trace it ancestrally to Asia now. And the stage missing isn’t found in Africa. That L3a in Senegal isn’t missing a step, it’s not M as you seem to think. No publishing author puts M down as African in origin, and lines ancestral to African M1 are found in the near East. the reason you kick up a fuss about M1 is becasue it ‘contaminates’ your ancient and modern East Africans with Eurasian ancestry. This is born from your racism, and nothing else.
Egypt and East Africa share M1 beccause it passed through Egypt on its way to East Africa, along with the m78 Y chromsome. Stop lying when you claim its from East Africa, none of the papers that looked at M1 came to that conclusion.
I wasn’t writing a scientific paper, I was pointing out how much crap that article was. Want to provide total refences for all your stuff? Names and quotes from the Irish paper that are relevant then. I’d also like to see a recent published paper that says M1 is African in origin (good luck with that one) and where it says some magical mutation completely altered the phenotype of Egyptians. You also might want to look up the age of the L3 and M mutations as you seem a bit unfamiliar with them.. M about 70k last estimate, and it goes up to 87k in some papers. L3 is substantially older than 50k. Eurasian remains are found dating to 90k and older Israel. So yes, there were Eurasians 50K ago, although they wouldn’t fit any modern racial group. I’ll give you a hint about the OOA date, modern humans were in China about 70k ago, in Oz nearly 60k ago. The estimated date need to be 95kat least, and if M is about 60 to 87k, that would locate it in Asia.
So..let me get this straight. You are claiming that my observation (which is shared by most people including Keita) that modern Egyptians have been in situ for thousands of years is right.. but that they magically changed appearance after the dynastic when a few Arabs appeared in the historical era and spread some master gene that turned them from black to standard North African in a few hundred years, even though the hair, teeth and art from the dynastic prortraits and crania all match the current population very closely.
So they are genetically the same but magically swapped race?
So that’s how you get around the fact the modern Egyptians are all natives of North Africa but are inconveniently not black.
Re: “indigenous Africans”
The term wouldn’t be meaningless if pre-OOA hss comprised one panmictic population. But we now now that the population(s) in pre-OOA Africa were highly structured:
“…Analysis of population structure
using the program STRUCTURE (161), based
on 1048 individuals from the CEPH human diversity
panel genotyped for 993 genome-wide
microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers,
indicates that individuals cluster into five major
geographic regions: Africa, Europe/Middle
East, East Asia, Oceania, and the New World
(172, 173). Two recent studies of >500,000
SNPs genotyped in the CEPH diversity
panel support these initial findings (90, 109).
Several studies of nucleotide and haplotype
variation have indicated that ancestral
African populations were geographically structured
prior to the migration of modern humans
out of Africa (70, 71, 79, 157, 197, 237).
Additionally, a recent study of 800 short tandem
repeat polymorphisms (STRPs) and 400
INDELs genotyped in more than 3000 geographically
and ethnically diverse Africans indicates
the presence of at least 13 genetically
distinct ancestral populations in Africa and high
levels of population admixture in many regions
(F.A. Reed & S.A Tishkoff, unpublished data).
Population clusters are correlated with selfdescribed
ethnicity and shared cultural and/or
linguistic properties (e.g., Pygmies, Khoisanspeaking
hunter-gatherers, Bantu speakers,
Cushitic speakers). This study reveals extensive
admixture between inferred ancestral populations
in most African populations. One exception
is amongWest African Niger-Kordofanian
(i.e., Bantu) speakers who are more genetically
homogeneous compared with other African
populations, likely reflecting the recent and
rapid spread of Bantu speakers from a common
origin in Cameroon/Nigeria (although
fine-scale genetic structure can be detected
amongst these populations). Thus, the pattern
of genetic diversity in Africa indicates that
African populations have maintained a large and
subdivided population structure throughout
much of their evolutionary history (Figure 2).
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics Vol. 9 (Volume publication date September 2008) (doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258) African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping Michael C. Campbell, Sarah A. Tishkoff
IOW, Mathilda and Richard both have ancestors who were “indigenously African” , but those ancestries derive from completely different African populations.
And Egyptians? Largely derived from the same ancestral group as Mathilda’s, some of whose members went OOA long after they had diverged from other Africans.
Pingback: Have archaeologists performed tests to see if mummies are related to current egyptians? - Q&A WIKI
Nubians built pyramids 1000of years before egyptians.Maybe nubians were whites too.I think some people are so obsessed with whitening ancient egyptians that they become stupids
The oldest Pyramids are in Europe and China Kossina.
Hi Matilda, I have a question. You have probably already addressed this but here it is.
Alot of the Afro bozos are quoting some studies that show the ancient Egyptians had “tropical body plans” or longer limb to torso ratio, thus they conclude that they were negroid . Could you give me your view on this.
Thanks in advance!
Modern Egyptians also have a tropical body length- their crural index is about the same as an ancient Egyptian and a black American. Link
You’ll see a chart here.
Egyptian 84.9% 26.1
American Black 85.25% 26
Matilda one simple question if the Egyptian’s were predominately white as u say why did there hieroglyph’s portray them with dark skin
why was Egypt called the “black land”
And lastly why do most Egyptologit’s say that the first dynasty of ancient Egypt were black people
they don’t have dark skin-mean are red ochre, women are yellow, The lifelike portrait statues certainly don’t have black skin, and the mummies are typical of modern Egyptians.
the black land refers to the soil colour. The desert was called the red land, it’s a description of the land colour.
If the ancient Egyptians were so-called Caucasoids then why do all of the tomb drawings dating from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom show people with dark brown skin with afros? Explain that please.
If the ancient Egyptians were so-called Caucasoids then why do all of the tomb drawings dating from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom show people with dark brown skin with afros? Explain that please.
They don’t. Try actually taking a look at a good representation of them rather than the carefully picked images you are being fed on Afrocentrist sites. Men are painted in red brown ochre and women in yellow ochre. Also.. what Afros? They are wearing woven wigs. We know this because they were buried with them, and the hair is typical of modern Egyptians- from straight to curly, with a small minority having afro hair. Take a look at the mummies on the page- distictly ‘fro-less for the most part.
my dear mathilda,
i was wondering how you felt about all of these ancient pyramids on almost every continent, most of which require similar advanced technology and abilities and are astro-aligned. Do you believe it to be impossible that they could have common origin, which is seen through their similar mythologies/religions/astrological practices related to advanced civilization/tech as well as writing systems like hieroglyphs, megalithic structures and mummifying their dead. idk i might have asked you this q a while ago, i apologize if i did. I believe there is a scientific and tasteful way of fully understanding our ancient ancestors.
http://goddesschess.blogspot.com/2008/11/are-basque-relics-frauds.html
archeological findings that might complement your genetics info. If you search for more pictures of the pottery uncovered in Nanclares youll find some of the hieroglyphs found on the shards.
oldest megaliths are found in malta which is in the Mediterranean sea closer to lower egypt than iberia. I think they are dated to 8000bce.
here is something else interesting found about basque and native american mtdna connection.
http://www.blavatsky.net/newsletters/DNA_and_atlantis.htm
If i could maybe get an opinion about that as well i would be very happy, ty in advance.
i believe every race or group have things to be proud of, and they shouldnt be afraid of what people think or might say out of shock or shear ignorance.
CMON BILL RACE WAR
something to listen to 😀 his new “ghosts of the barbary coast” is nuts as well.
TYVM and i love your research even if you think im batshit crazy.
…it is so obvious with the egyptian hierarchy
that we are dealing with a closed elite whose
cousin-cousin, brother-sister relationships
produce elongated bodys. this happened in the riverine due to limited gene pool, e.g., japanese
scrolls depict lanky pod people fishing along
the stream of ancestral memory. was it obama’s
picture as pharoah on the cover of a national
magazine that has sparked this desire to repatriate egypt to the olduvai continent
where it is its only civilized ornament?
if egypt had truly been afrikan then tutan/
teuton ka men would not have the teuhtli
tonatiuh(N)=god sungod ka/being me/flowing/
meyaua(N) name, which links him to teutonic sunworship, most probably in name only,
but then why the closed gene pool that we
also have seen among the japanese sun people?
it goes back to something that is not afrikan.
…oera linda book/old frisian.
as a letter, even (vv), is a
well met, alewynn/atle uentl(Nauatl)=burnt
offering, atle(N)=no, probably from, atletl(N)=consume, burn up(athlete), from,
tletl(N/god), later, red/read/let/letter/leer(sp)/
leña(sp)=wood), (s)teed, hel(ger/the fiery version), cold hel is from tetl(N)=(s)te in(ger).
below old Frisian is na/nauatl/4river/4water,
e.g., way(E)weg(OE/ger/dutch)wei(OFrisian),
then, Frisian itself is part of the ue(N) string,
vries(du)/ u(r)ie(s)= wei(OFrisian), from, ue(N)=big, far(away). the weg(OE(ger/du), from,
ueca(N)=being big, then uecaitta(N)=see far,
the root of, witch(E)wicca(OE). so the frisians
are always under weigh, and ueca(N) becomes
ehecatl(day2booksouls)/hecate, wind/life/weaving goddess, venus, mother of
quetzalcoatl. Frisia is where i think the quetzal-
coat expedition set out from in 3309bc, his
mother is hecate, the nauatl he brought here
is old old Frisian, in fact, indo euro pie, with
no minoan (r). if you are familiar with the
tlaloc/rarog shift, i.e., that t/l/r, then you
realize that t/roma= toma(N)=open:
oera linda has that right. t(r)oy= toyaua(N)=
spill to all sides(later, toy, in english), which
jibes with virgil saying the trojan spill founded
rome.
more problematic is neef tunis(at 2k bc).
i have (f) coming into language with the etruscans, and neef is too early for that,
but it is undisputed that he is neptune(god)=
nepa tonatiuh(N)= nepa(N/prep.)=back and
forth(on the waves), later, neap tides/nip/
(s)nip/ne(r)pa(russ)=seal, and so forth.
tonatiuh(N)=sungod, later used by sun worship
for gods of realm. it’s a small point, but telling,
that neef’s name didn’t come down to us as
nepa/neap, suggesting that oera linda was
written backwards from a present time,
not unlike the indo euro roots which took
present word and moved backwards to
a concocted/cooked root. we don’t have
to do that any more: we have Nauatl, e.g.,
himalya(mts), from, h/th/timallo(N)=pus
(the suppurating mts). first language comes from the body outwards. another mountain
example is, alp, from, alpichia(N)= atl pitza(N)=
(s)pit water/atl from the mouth(mountains were,
and are, personages). if pus/timallo(N) seems
strong, one remembers sherbet/sorbete(sp)/
tzol petla(N)=throw/petla tzol/s(l)ush/slusk
(Norse) s(l)u(s)k= s/tzo-catl(N)=wrinkle,
fill with tzo/mud, the word, sock/socket/
even, soc(r)ates. first sherbet came from
the timallo/himalya.
ah, athens/athena/atena(sp)/atentli(N)=by
the lip/tentli/ (e)te(r)n(i)ty. minerva/
mi(tl/n)e(r)va=mineua(N)=mitl eua(N)=
the spear/missile leaves/eua(N).
here again, by using the name, minerva(roman), i sense the redactive anacronism
felt in, neef tunis/neptonatiuh; however, it
may be that the myceneans(2k bc) and their
gifts corrupted language quicker than before
thought.
as a sea age person, naui/nauh(know, in
2 syllables/naos(highest gk temple)/navy,
i believe all the historical events in oera linda
are true. what i don’t accept of course is the
aryan business, an elite is quite different than
a politically generated backward look, and
fiddling from the 19th century to forward.
the written version based on what’s left of the oral tradition is a sham by expression and
alfabet, e.g.,
modern letter, allied to the soft (b’s) in
russian and spanish, whose antecessor was
2 letters: (ua/ue). this is arguable, but the
style of the narrative dates to its historical
discovery. as the saying goes, never met
a conman i didn’t like. the liber lineus is
a good example of what one might have
expected from an intact oera linda:
the futher back one goes in time and languag
the more religious and less personable it gets.
there is an awe of the sanctity of the word
itself which doesn’t present itself as entertainment.
oh, one last, kreta/c(r)ete/ceti(N)=set, sit
(one sits to cry), ceti is the root of both,
cry and crete, unites the 2 in another 2 words,
sediment/greda(sp)/grout, and, se(n)timent.
then, guitar/sitar/ceti(N).
why do i believe the historical and not the
physical evidence? the frisians play fives, a
game that came out of the age of rowing,
as an exercise for it, not unlike ollama,
whose players, the olmeca, were the rowers
for the same sea age, c. 1.5k bc, and there was
an earlier one, 4k bc, perhaps it was one age.
hey mathilda, your sources and your explanations are very accurate. I just want to know where you got the information about the recently performed population cencus on modern egyptians from, can you send me a link or something? ( Im Egyptian by the way, i just want to prove to others, that we were the real Egyptians by race)
There’s an entry with all the Egyptian DNA I could source along with references here.
As far as I can tell Arab male input is less than 10%, and overall Arab would be way less because invading armies tend not to bring women with them. The maternal DNA studies from Dakleh show there’s been a significant amount of black female ancestry added in- probably from the Arab slavery era.
what do you mean by “black female dna”?
a significant proportion of modern egyptian dna consists of black african?
a significant proportion of modern egyptian dna consists of black african?
About 25%. But the mummy studies show a lot less, and this is from upper Egypt. Theere was a mummy DNA study at Dakleh that concluded there had been a lot of immigration from SSA women in the past few thousand years.
Whoops. Looks like my pic didn’t go through right. Here’s the link to the website that shows Amenhotep III as a black man.
http://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/pharaons/amenhotep3/e_amenhotep3.htm
Firstly- the tomb paintings are highly stylised and not a great guide. The painted statues are more lifelike.
Second- some of the mummies are black- but not most of them.
…oh, and why is cry the war cry? because,
ceti/cetia(N)=unite, from ce(N)=one.
as in set/unite upon them!
in my career as an anticuarian/antic aquarian,
the rule i always followed was: leave the piece
alone, do not restore, it’s up to the buyer to
do the willy-nilly and suffer the consequences.
in kyoto i met a couple who were restorers,
solid professionals, who worked at museum
level. however, at the antique shop level,
it’s better to take a pass on restoration,
thereby maintaining the piece’s value and
integrity for the client.
I’m sorry, but those paintings of Amenhotep III are not stylized.
Ebony- but the lighter skinned statues are I suppose?
Ebony, modern Egyptians show genetic continuity with ancient Egyptians. Any non dynastic DNA is mainly due to the Arab slave trade in black Africans. While some of the Egyptians particluarly the upper ones were ‘black’ this wouldn’t describe the majority of them.
Where did all the foreigner (greeks/romans, persians, arabs, libyan) go if they did not mix with the Egyptians?
There were never really that many of them. The DNA studies of modern Egyptians in lower Egypt only show about a 15% hostorical Y chromosome (Male) input at the most, virtually none in upper Egypt.
…galatian, excuse me, i have garlic on my breath, but would you grant this humble petitioner an audience about your elegant
and tasteful theory of the pyramids/tzaqua(NN)=comes to a point=saqqara(first pyramid/
2667bc), now that my honesty is wafting
convincingly toward you, mingling with
the honeyed breath of your courtiers?
on this link will be fine. tks, carlos.
…matilda, would you cut my, galation excuse me, post, i am talking to her on side channel
and she doesn’t deserve my getting garliky,
just trying to run her blog. tks
…let it ride. ah, ebony related to heb(r)ew/
tepeua(N)= tepetl/mountain owner/-ua(N),
as in, hebeny(wycliffe bible), ebeninos(Vulgate),
ebenus/hebenus(Lat)/ebenos(gk/of semitic
origin), and so it is, h/th/tep/be(n)=tepetl(N)=
tepehuiztli(N)=hard, spiney tree from which
playing balls are made of(doesn’t say what
game), from, tepetl uitztli/thorn. the aztecs
used to make balls of flowers also and throw
them during their festivals.
The black Egyptians mixed with the Arabs over time, which is why they have Egyptian blood.
No Ebony, there’s only about 5% Arab ancestry in modern Egyptians. There’s been more immigration from Africans than them due to the slave trade.
…caua(N)=own being=finish=acabar(sp)=
kabbala, then, (es)c(l)aua=esclava(sp)=
slave(E)=slavic(gens).
tlacotli(N)=slave, from, coua(N)=to buy,
yet a vowel away from, caua(N)=to own being.
that’s how close it gets in pie nauatl, so the
roots for slave/tlacotli(N) are first cousins,
if one doesn’t mind a snake/coatl(N)/
coa(mex)=planting stick/coua(N)
in the family. snake is the sign of the vanguard
merchant, pochteca, and a market day,
it’s number in the sample/20 being macui(N)=5,
number of tlatla tzol teotl, cave venus and
firedrill promethea. tlenamacani(N)=fire vendor= tletl na/4 maca(N)=handbe/give,
namaca=give4/sell, but laurence=
(tlat)la u(r)en(tli) ce=tlatlauentli ce=
one/ce flame/tlatla uentli/ofrenda.
out of the caua(N) string is cauilia(N)=
concede, gift something/cauilitiuh(N)=
leave something before dying/cenauatitiuh(N)=
final good-bye. we get the word, cavil(E),
out of this string, a tribute to the acrimony
last wills and testaments can provoke
among the short-tailed monkey, and his
lawyers, and may be one of the few blessings
of being poor.
…saying that egypt is afrikan is like saying
that new york, the northeast corner of
america, is amerindian and owes its prominence
to a council of indigenous tribes, ignoring
the fact that english is the language, imported
from outside, as is the case in egypt also,
and, that it’s central worship, the ponzi pyramid
of wall st., began as trading and bartering pelts
along the missisippi, when in fact it was a
product of an empire or clutch of countrys
outside the continent.
i suppose when keita is through with the wogs
at cambridge, he will have them convinced
the sun rises in the west and procedes leisurely
east where it sets in mandalay as the flying fishes play.
having someone on with science is nothing
new in the genre of fatuous precision, all one
has to do is shepherd the pertinent facts down
the shute, employ the knives of logic, and
presto: what was once a pig is now bacon
sizzling in the brain pan of academia.
Hey.
Just to make a tiny, anecdotal contribution to this on-going debate about the curious disappearance of sub-Saharan genes expressing black skin and afros in modern Egyptian populations.
I am Egyptian. My community is Coptic, and Christian. In America and England I’m usually taken for Jewish (which is, I suppose, hilarious.)
‘Coptic’, of course, simply means ‘Egyptian’. We were ‘Aiguptios’ to the Greeks and ‘Khupts’ to the Arabs and we’re still here. I’m kind of proud of my descent, and I can’t help feeling a certain ownership of Egyptian antiquities and history.
We have a kinda hard time of it as it is. I object to the idea that my inheritance, so to speak, isn’t really mine when I can go online and SEE my aunties and my uncles in the Fayum portraits.
…naf/nappa=4times/napaloa(N)=govern/
tenapaloa= t/renab/ple=renable(OE)/
re(s)nable(OFr)=reasonable.
so the copts are the epis-cop-aliens of egypt,
and the original aigyptisti(gk)=craftys?
true enough.
the fact aigypios(gk)=vulture should not
be lost on the sunworshippers of gobekli
where priests were vulture, cf., my earlier
gobekli blogs.
sun worship is the christian ceremony,
the original, that spawns the solstice bear
christ, the finnish bear/pine tree rites,
so it is no wonder the first egyptians, the
copts are christian as they were the cup/
copina(N)/co(r)pus/corps bearers for
the pharoahs, the priests. it’s not that
the copts converted to christianity,
christianity converted from them, and
long before christ, harking back to
ceremonys that came from neander
to cromag, through deer culture,
when the first gods were animal.
congratulations, naf, one knows who
one is without the whistle of umpire zebras
and the frantic handsignals of science.
let’s see, ai-(egyp/prefix)=(tl)a(ll)i(letra)=
tlalli(N)=earth, hmmm, earthcups/copts.
ok. rem en kimi/lem en kemi(egyp), note
the rem/lem (r/l)shift, en=in(N/def. art.),
the older version=le(m)=tleco(N)=
raise the burning/ke mitl/spear, yes,
or, raise the burning fields/milli(N)/
millet(grain), no. ke(egyp)can be traced back
to quauitlN)=tree/cedar/kaede(J)=maple/
keadar(Basque)=column of smoke/quedar/sp=
remain/al qaeda(arab)=HQ/camp.
there is always the question of the value of y in eqypt, when i think it’s y/i, then i remember
the first daysouls=cipactli(N)/sip/script/scribe/
gossip, the last of these it may well be, going
on to ceppuku(J)/cipapu(Hopi/toptli), yet,
idols thorpe and dorf make citys, and citys
empire.i really would like to see the chermans
find some script at gobekli, not too early for it,
especially as they are incising glyphs on stone.
i should really take another pass at the ibero-
celtic alfabet as tletl/t/l/red/t/l, t/let/l letra,
can be old as fire. as i’ve said before, vowels
are bowels of language and its jokers. tks.
…and, of course, glyph=egypt=cryptic(pun), even, sebastos(gk)=reverent, august/
s/sep/cipac/s/t(letra)=cipactli(N/day one,
booktones). rivers of ink water the plant of
empire.
must recover gobekli’s counting system.
had to be based on our digits/sample/cempoalli/
20. and they came from altai/baikal,
air burial and incineration, ravens are
fire/tlatla uentli/offering= t/l/raven/tli,
and crow makes up 50% of gobekli offerings.
doesn’t seem to come out of europe, how to find out what’s going on in asia 11k bc, perhaps
haplo would know?
I want to apologize to tzopilotl for my previous remarks. That was out of character for me. It’s just that I get so confused trying to make sense of his posts. However, that is not an excuse to call someone out of their name. Again, I do apologize. (Mathilda, if it is possible, please delete my former post)
Wow! I haven’t read through this since September. Looks like a lot has been discussed since then. You would think people would look through your whole blog before they write such stupid stuff.
The simple fact is that the population of Egypt was a blend. All the portraits, statues and modern photos shows a population made up of a variety of skin tones and phenotypes.
The language used is also misleading. What is BLACK? In none of these discussions has anyone ever been able to tell me what that is supposed to be or look like. Black like who exactly and whose standards are we using to determine who is or isn’t “Black”.
Native African peoples are being called caucasian based on cranial measurements to some somehow suggest that they are not Africans. DNA is cited to show them to not be Sub-Saharan African. ?????Well, where are we drawing the line here? Is East Africa Sub or Supra Saharan? What of the very dark skinned peoples of the Sahara ?
So we take people like the Beja, Tigre etc and what??? We call them Caucasian based on their facial structure? Okay, then answer me this, if we bring those same people to the United States or the UK, do people look at them and go, “OH, look at the caucasians”! Or do they say, “look at them Black people”, ? So what do we mean by these terms BLACK and CAucasians.
People are arguing over what race were the Ancient Egyptians, what race are modern Egyptians, and I have to ask myself, What the bloody hell does it matter?! Call them black, call them white, call them Hamites, call them Semites, call them Arabs. What does it matter? The fact is, based on the way they looked and look now, if they were in the USA before the Civil Rights laws were passed, what part of the bus would they have had to ride in? Would they have been allowed to use the white drinking fountains, live in white neighborhoods, eat in white restaurants? If they were in South Africa 15 years ago, would they have been allowed to integrate into “white society”? We all know the answer to that question. Of course not, they would have been excluded. On what grounds? On the grounds that they were not of the white race and were therefore, intellectually and psychologically inferior to the superior white race and only fit for positions of servitude to the white race.
This is the point everyone keeps missing. It doesn’t matter how you, I or anyone else wants to define these people. The point is that for the past 500 years, the world was subjected to the domination and exploitation of a group of people who believed that people who looked like this were not capable of civilization or access to their own resources and self determination. Any arguments which do not point this out and show Egypt to be proof that such ideas are folly, is nothing more than folly itself. WHO CARES WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. That’s not the point!
OK folks, here it goes-Northern Egypt is primarily Arab Semitic White(generally golden brown skin dark hair and eyes-skin darker in Egyptian climate), Berbers and Moors are essentially Arab with 8-15 % Black heritage and there is Indo European Aryan Whie influences there to.Arabs moved further south encompassing 1/3 of Spomali, Ethiopia and 50% of Sudan, intermixing has given these peoples less African and mor Caucasian looks-this is backed by the mixed traits and genetics of every single test above. What does this say-Northern(Lower) Egypt people have the Caucasian traits of the Arab Semitic Whites and small amounts of Indo European Aryan Whites(Greeks,People of India, Iranians/ Persians, Romans, Turks), and through in a few Asians(Oriental).As you move further and further south, the Black influence becomes stronge and stronger.Bottom line, past midway into Southern(Upper) Egypt, there is plenty of admixture, primarily Black(mostly Nubian, some Nilotic), small amounts of all others. As you approach the Borders, the Black influence is more pronounced(Arabs annexed part of Nubia in 1521 B.C. to make up the lower southwestern 1/4 of Egypt).If you sample Southern Egypt you get Black dominance, Northern Egypt Cauacasian(Arab Semitic and very small amounts of Indo European Aryan) dominance. King Ramasses would know to like a variety of women, the spce of life, of ALL ethnic backgrounds and fathered over 100 children through wives and consorts.Bottom line, the base stock of Egypt is primarily Arab Semitic White. Even before Egypt there is genetic evidence of Blacks and Arab Semitic tribes MIXING-the following tribes are examples- Between 5000-7,000 B.C. there were mixed Black/Arab Semitic White tribes consisting of the following tribes: Tjehenu, the Tamahu, the Libu (or Ribu), the Meshwesh, the Bejas( contain smaller tribes, such as the Ababde (or Ababda), Bisharin, Hedareb, Hadendowa (or Hadendoa), the Amarar (or Amar’ar), Beni-Amer, Shukuria, Hallenga and Hamran, some of them partly mixed with Bedouins).
Click to access keita_1990_northern_africa_1_.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badarian
Eh, they are no different now then they were, and even modern upper Egyptian are much closer to Eurasians than sub saharan africans (from an autosomal study recently).
The Y chr show there can’t be any more than 7% Eurasian male immigartion into Egypt overall historically, if anything there’s seems to have been more black female immigration than anyone elses.
I have a question for you Matilda. We find some depictions of Ancient Egyptians with midfacial prognathism. I was wondering if, in your opinion, those Eyptians (typically royalty) were shown that was because this was their ideal face at the time or, perhaps, it was to depict them as similar to some of their animal-gods. I would attach an image but I see no option for that in the comment forum.
Thanks!
Rueben.
I think it was just a matter of fashion rather than anything else. They liked to stylise things.
I’m writing this from my hotel room in Midan Talat Harb in Downtown Cairo. If you want to know what the Ancient Egyptians looked like, come to Egypt. Stand on any street corner for a few minutes and you will see the reality that was and is Egypt.
My conclusion, they were and are Africans unquestionably. I don’t know why we continually compare them with Central and Western Africans. There is no one group that is a true representation of the continent. Africa is not a country, but a continent and there is a variety of native variations not just one. The Egyptians are and were East Africans. Whether or not they had/ have some degree of Western Asian input does not change this. When you come here, and you look at these faces, you will see they only makes sense in the context of East Africa. These are a people who originated for the most part in this corner of the continent. They didn’t migrate from anywhere else to settle here. Then go to the Cairo Museum and you will see the exact same faces on the paintings and monuments.
As for which racial category you want to put them in? I tell you what, look at these people and ask yourself, in the United States 40 years ago, what part of bus would they have been made to ride in, the white section, or the colored section? You take these people I’ve been looking at all day with chocolate colored skin and ask would the average British citizen consider them black or white?
You can’t have a serious discussion o this topic without first asking the question of why do we care? And you can’t answer that question without a study of the European colonial past and white supremacist world view and how they treated non Europeans. This is what it all boils down to. In theory, call them caucasians all you like, in practice, when the British were here, these people were treated as and considered mulattos and negros, regardless of how straight their hair and noses may have been.
Truthteacher- modern Egyptians show themselves to genetically closer to Eurasians- even upper Egyptians. There’s an autosomal study on upper Egyptians that shows that very neatly which I shal be posting imminently..
These are a people who originated for the most part in this corner of the continent
Not really. There were two migrations into North Africa dating about 10k ago and 8k ago that made major contributions to Egypt, and east Africa. It certainly true that their male ancestry is mainly native to Africa though, about 70% on average.
Dear Mathilda37 thanks for your reply:
By the way, I’m also Jamaicanboi. Just wanted you to know. Okay. Your missing a few points here on the issues I raised:
mathilda37 // July 14, 2009 at 12:22 pm | Reply
Truthteacher- modern Egyptians show themselves to genetically closer to Eurasians- even upper Egyptians. There’s an autosomal study on upper Egyptians that shows that very neatly which I shal be posting imminently..
TT: This is irrelevant. Notions of racial identification are based on emotional and cultural factors. The real issue here is how would these people be perceived and treated in the USA, Great Britain and South Africa? There is a significant percentage of the Afro American and Afro Caribbean population that is anywhere from 50 to 90% Eurasian in origin. How were they treated by the Eurocentric colonialist power structure? For that matter, how were these so called Eurasian Egyptians treated by the British and French when they were there?
The issue of European Colonialism and the world view that fueled it are central to the argument here and is one that keeps being ignored.
TT: These are a people who originated for the most part in this corner of the continent
Not really. There were two migrations into North Africa dating about 10k ago and 8k ago that made major contributions to Egypt, and east Africa. It certainly true that their male ancestry is mainly native to Africa though, about 70% on average.
TT: Once again, your missing the point. This is not a case of population replacement. Has there been genetic input from out of the continent? Given its geographic location, I would say that shouldn’t be surprising, just as it should not be a surprise that most Afro Caribbean and Afro Americans show significant European genetic input. However, this is a situation of outsiders coming into the region and contributing, not a whole scale population transplant. So what we have is a native population that received some input from incomers. Regardless of this fact, these people are still recognizably Africans. You don’t see a Somali, Eritrian or and Upper Egyptian and wonder if they are from Iraq, Palestine or Syria. When you look at these faces, it is obvious that they are at home in Africa, just as when you see a person of African descent of mixed origin, they still make sense only as a people of African lineage, regardless of all the other lines of input in their genetic backgrounds.
Egyptians, past and present regardless of any degree of outside genetic input are still visibly Africans. Having said that though, I should also point out that when most people say Sub Saharan African, they tend to have a Central African physical type in mind, as if this type alone is representative of all of Africa, which it is not. The East African types are just as Africa and as i said before, are still recognizably African regardless of whatever outside input. Horn of African types, of which a significant percentage of Egyptians are and were, would look very out of place in Iran, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon or Palestine. They are African.
The real issue here is how would these people be perceived and treated in the USA, Great Britain and South Africa
No, the real issue here is who are they genetically closest relatives to.
just as when you see a person of African descent of mixed origin, they still make sense only as a people of African lineage, regardless of all the other lines of input in their genetic backgrounds.
In essence, that was a long assed rant about colonial attitudes to race that doesn’t have any relevance to a modern DNA study. The other issue is that you want to call anyone who looks like they have any noticable african ancestry black in Egypt so you can say they ‘Egyptians were black’. Not how it works. In most of Europe unless you look mainly black African you are ‘mixed race’– you are really just banging on about the one drop rule there and it doesn’t apply to genetic relationships or a lot of other cultures.
Modern Egyptians, who are at least 85% descended from the ancient Egyptians, look mainly middle Eastern with a a hefty minority of black African in upper Egypt. Believe me, they do not take kindly to being referred to as black- its an insult in Egypt and across North Africa and Arabia even though the Qu’ran forbids prejudice against skin colour.
The bulk of modern North African ancestry is ultimately from the near East east, which is why they group them even in upper Egypt. The ‘all African’ population in North Africa was wiped out about 40k ago, to be replaced with a mixed Eurasian/African Cro Magnon type people, who were mostly replaced about 10k ago by the Capsian populaiton from the near East, whcih was then topped up in the Neolithic by the incoming farmers. Modern Egyptians range from typically near eastern to near Eastern mixed with East African, calling them ‘typically African’ in nature is misleading, as most of their ancestry has not been in Africa more than 10k, Y chromosomes not withstanding. Upper Egyptians range from typically near Eastern to black, favouring the near Eastern. Maternally they show up as mainly Eurasian, and this seems to be the most reliable ‘at a glance’ indictor for ancestry in the area.
I’m assuming that that comment was about trying to claim a close relationship to modern dark skinned Egyptians from the perspective of a Bantu descandnt. You are more closely related to ancient and modern Egyptians via your European ancestry than you are from your African ancestry- West Africans don’t even have a very close relationship to east Africans genetically.
^ WOW really? You are being intellectually dishonest with people not as well versed in genetics as you:
MOST west Africans are more related to MOST OTHER Africans [Including Egyptians and East Africas] by being members of the P2 clade. [I wont even venture into the connectedness of ALL Sub Sahrans east and west via Mtdna]
Furthermore Haplogroups A, B and M33, and M2 are seen in Egypt [I just referenced M2 being found in the Nile Valley by Lucotte et al.]
This individual is speaking of the Y chomosome.
Using PRIMARY Markers:
-West Africans being primarily M2+
– Egyptians primarily M78+
-Europeans primarily Haplogroup R and I
Egyptians and “Bantu” have a common ancestor traced back to the P2 clade : 25-30kya
Europeans meanwhile connect with Egypt through a common ancestor of M168 – which is the common Ancestor of ALL Humans more than 60 thousand years ago. They have go ALL the way back.
What is closer 30kya or 60kya? And how can members of a one Haplogroup be genetically closer to a members of a a DIFFERENT Haplogroup rather than those of their own? They ARENT.
And even Maternally Egyptians have significant levels of AFRICAN ancestry usually 1/3rd to 1/2 in the studies: L0-L3 particularly East African L2a1. They show affinities with other grouops in the Nile Valley and not those in the Levant:
-Alexandra Rosa et Al 2004 [Mtdna Senegamia] Notes Africans Ancestry @ 30% NOT including L3 and M1
-A. Stevanovitch et al 2003 [Gurna Mtdna]
Listed the L0-L3 at about 30% not including M1.
They stated that other groups contributed to an ANCESTAL EAST AFRICAN population living in Egypt.
-Toomas Kivisild 2004 [Gate of Tears] – Shows the Mtdna of Egyptians to plot closest with the Tigre of Ethiopia EVEN when those of the Maghreb / Levant / Middle East were included. and the Tigreans in turn plotted closest to Oromo.
One one hand you want to say they are Primarily “African” in Ancestry and then you turn and say they are Primarily Eurasian? The Nile Valley differs siginificantly from the Maghreb.
Igbo, I’m not well enough for a long debate so…
I’d also like to point out the missing steps DE (E also has a few missing links in its history) that make it unlikey the ‘E’ parent of the PN2 clade were from Sub Saharan Africa (probably native to north Africa- the extint Aterians). Any link to West and east Africans is from North to South in Africa.
Egyptian Y chr are mainly African- I have no particular interest in Bantu lines because its not my area.
It is completely accurate and not at all dishonest to point out that Egyptian Y chr make it impossible for them to be recent invaders. It is also completley accurate to say that most of their genetic heritage is near eastern- its a reverse situation of the Chadic speakers who are mainly African in acestry but have a conspicous majority of Eurasian Y chr. Egypt has a very neat bottle neck built into the Sinai. Autosomal studies across north Africa show them to be mainly near eastern in origin for all their E y chr- this isn’t an abnormal situation for Egypt to be in.
The upper Egyptians had about 30% African mt ancestry, overall its about 25%- I’ve never seen ‘half’. What study was that? And they plot with East African populations becasue they did share an ancestral group that expanded from southern Egypt or Nubia about 24k ago- not because an east African population moved into Egypt. That Gurna study assumed the M1 was east African as I recall, so quoting that is innaccurate as it’s know understood to be Eurasian
I assume that you know M1 is Eurasian by now, so why claim its a result of a populaiton movement from east Africa Igbo?
And you don’t mention that the Dakleh oasis mt DNA actually showed a LOT less maternal African ancestry in the mummies than you see in the modern population. Now thats intellectual dishonesty Igbo.
The first image (Menes) isn’t from the Old Kingdom. There are no busts or anything from Menes except an ostracon that contains his name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menes
Edit: apparently it is sometime from Dynasty 1 to Dynasty 3, but it is not known whose head it is.
Matilda dear,
You are wrong did you not hear truth. He said many of the Egyptians would be placed on the back of the bus with the rest of us. Many of the Egyptians of today are mixed with Arab so you will not get a great depiction of the ancient egyptian stock. They are like American Blacks all mixed up.
I think that it is ironic that the Chinese has the Chinese Empire and the Indians had the Indus river valley civilization, and the Middle Easr had Summeria/Ur, and Europe had Rome, Greece etc but Egyptian was taken out of Africa and givent to others. Why aren’t Black people allowed to claim a great civilization that is on our continent and obviously has been greatly influennced by Black African.
Ever since African was carved up by the Europeans Blacks have been denied everything. I have even read where they say some of our other great civilzations of Meroe, Ghana, and others were started by non Africans. To me the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
No one can ever tell me that racism was not involved. with the whole Egypt is white deal. Egypt was multi ethnic because it was a major empire and it had people coming from everywhere. ayou cannot deny that many of the pharohs and there families had Black African Ancestory. You cannot take Egypt out of Africa. It is not in the Middle East on the continent of Asia.. Egypt is in Africa.
Rich girl,
Egyptian y chromsomes actually make it biologically impossible for Egyptians to have more than about 5% Arab ancestry in them. About 85% of their ancestry at present traces back to dynastic and earlier times.
mathilda37,
Well what about African Americans? Many people would not consider many of us closely linked to our African Kin because of the years of slavery. Does that make African Americans less black? Hey I am reminded everyday of my blackness but when I go to places like Hawaii and Puerto Rico I cam considered one of the natives. I had a pen pal from Botswana who asked me if I were colored.
I have a question according to genetics what makes a person, Black, White, or other? To me too much has been advanced in the wrong direction to whitewash history. I have heard so many professors and read books stating that Africans could never have put together any advanced civilization. Why?
I am proud of my people and what we have accomplished over the years.
mathilda37
I can show you a whole lot of African Americans who look like many of the Egyptians in the statues and art work.
Richgirl- are they painted statues?
I’ve got a page called the faces of ancinet Egypt that has ALL the mummies and painted statues- only about 1/7 look black. My main grip is that I keep seeing the half dozen that look black being posted as the average- I do include them but at a representative level on the vids.
African American are about 20% European in ancestry, BTW.
There have been balck African cultures with cites ect, but these were not in Egypt or along the North African coast. Look to Nubia and the West African kingdoms for inspiration Richgirl.
Dear Mathilda:
I think you are making a few incorrect assumptions about who I am and what my agenda is.
First of all, we can put to rest any notion that I want to somehow make a relationship to myself and Ancient Egyptians. My African Ancestry is Central and West African NOT Egyptian. Regardless of who they are, it is my belief that the direct descendants of these people are the Modern Egyptians and no other.
TT: The real issue here is how would these people be perceived and treated in the USA, Great Britain and South Africa
M: No, the real issue here is who are they genetically closest relatives to.
TT: As I said previously, I don’t understand why we are trying to compare an East African people with people from other parts of the continent. The questions that I ask in all of this are still relevant to the issue and that is WHY DO WE CARE AT ALL? Why do we feel the need to spend so much time and energy dissecting these people? This is the heart of the issue and like it or not, it does have its roots in a colonial past and world view.
TT: just as when you see a person of African descent of mixed origin, they still make sense only as a people of African lineage, regardless of all the other lines of input in their genetic backgrounds.
M: In essence, that was a long assed rant about colonial attitudes to race that doesn’t have any relevance to a modern DNA study. The other issue is that you want to call anyone who looks like they have any noticable african ancestry black in Egypt so you can say they ‘Egyptians were black’.
TT: And once again, you make another assumption. I never use such terms as BLACK because they are colloquial terms that do not have universally recognized definitions. What is BLACK? Does it mean any dark skinned person? Does it mean a person who is not North Western European? Does it mean a person of African descent regardless of their actual skin color? The answer to these questions is yes depending on the cultural context. This is why it doesn’t work and one reason why these discussions are so confusing. We are all using terminology that has slightly different meanings depending on our cultural contexts.
This is why I use the term African. Not without its challenges, but more accurate than using a term that no people in the continent ever used to describe themselves.
M: Not how it works. In most of Europe unless you look mainly black African you are ‘mixed race’
TT: I agree. Mixed race, but everyone knows that part of that mix IS some sort of African or African descended person.
M:- you are really just banging on about the one drop rule there and it doesn’t apply to genetic relationships or a lot of other cultures.
TT: I’ve never been an advocate of the one drop rule. Its not based on scientific principles at all but is a perfect example of a social/ political construct. And I think from my previous comments, we both agree that it is not universally understood or agreed upon, nor do I believe it should be.
M: Modern Egyptians, who are at least 85% descended from the ancient Egyptians, look mainly middle Eastern with a a hefty minority of black African in upper Egypt.
TT: And this assumes that there is some universal “MIDDLE EASTERN LOOK” What look would that be exactly? Turks are “middle Eastern, but on the whole, the overwhelming majority of Egyptians do NOT look like Turks. Syrians, Jordanians and Lebanese are also “Middle Eastern”, but once again, Egyptians are not identical. My Jordanian friend who was with me on this trip was keenly aware of the fact that he didn’t fit in physically, and commented that even the people noticed this as well. And this was in Alexandria. So your statement that there is a “Middle Eastern Look”, is inaccurate and not based on any scientific data at all. It is highly subjective and doesn’t reflect the reality of the physical diversity of these people, but tries to jump a very diverse group of people in one bag. Sorry, but that’s not how the people there see things.
M: Believe me, they do not take kindly to being referred to as black- its an insult in Egypt and across North Africa and Arabia even though the Qu’ran forbids prejudice against skin colour.
TT: As if all those Fair and lovely commercials and Eva B White skin whitening creams were not indication enough, (which by the way are often sold right next to the Dark and Lovely chemical relaxer hair straightening creams). The fact that these people have a color complex accounts for nothing since they are no different than many people of color, even Afro Americans. It all is just further example of brain washing due in part, but not solely to the Colonial experience.
As far as I’m concerned, they need to get over it because a significant percentage of the population does in fact have skins that are very, very dark. The same color that is often referred to as BLACK in other parts of the world, including other Middle Eastern countries.
Incidentally, all these East Africans that we care calling Caucasians, are considered and called BLACK, (or worse actually), by other “Middle Eastern peoples like Persians, Turks, Lebanese. So once again, one has to ask, BLACK in what sense? The real issue is not weather or not these people have very dark tropically adapted skins, they do. The negative reaction comes from notions of what they associate with that color and why they feel that way, but that’s a different discussion. So for any coco brown Egyptian who has a problem being called BLACK, in the words of the great Betty Davis in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane: “BUT YA ARE BLANCHE, YA ARE”!
M:The bulk of modern North African ancestry is ultimately from the near East east, which is why they group them even in upper Egypt. The ‘all African’ population in North Africa was wiped out about 40k ago, to be replaced with a mixed Eurasian/African Cro Magnon type people, who were mostly replaced about 10k ago by the Capsian populaiton from the near East, whcih was then topped up in the Neolithic by the incoming farmers. Modern Egyptians range from typically near eastern to near Eastern mixed with East African, calling them ‘typically African’ in nature is misleading, as most of their ancestry has not been in Africa more than 10k,
TT: All I have to say is no it is not. We don’t seem to have a problem doing it with mixed race people. Just about how African was Rosa Parks, or how about Lena Horn? Once again, this is a question of addition. Doesn’t matter if you’ve got 2 parts none African to 1 part African. That African is still there and was first there. The cultures they developed were and are based in the African geography and it is there that they feel connected to. Not some place in long forgotten Eurasia. Distant mixture is not a problem, nor does it make them any less African than any other Africans. Its only a problem if we think that only the Forest belt physical type is representative of “True Africans”. Once again, there is no such thing as a universally African look. People in different areas of Africa look different and they are all as African as the other.
M: Y chromosomes not withstanding. Upper Egyptians range from typically near Eastern to black,
TT: Once again, this notion of a “Typical, Universal Middle Eastern look” is a fallacy. Its not an idea shared by people of the region, who recognize that there are regional differences. The average Egyptian does NOT look like the average Lebanese, Turk or Syrian. Yes of course because of their proximity, you will find individuals who overlap, you’ll even find redheads with freckles, but overall, they are not interchangeable.
M: favouring the near Eastern. Maternally they show up as mainly Eurasian, and this seems to be the most reliable ‘at a glance’ indictor for ancestry in the area.
TT: At a glance? No, sorry, have to disagree with you there. As I said, there is overlap, and it is obvious that there is a significant amount of mixture, but looking past that to facial features, the typical Egyptian face is not anything but East African. Even when the skin tone is very fair, the shape of the eyes, the bone structure, the shape of the mouth are not interchangeable with more Eastern populations, but one can see a relationship with other East Africans. For anyone not clear on what I mean, go to any city in Egypt, Cairo or Alexandria and just stand on the street corner and look at the people walking by.
M: I’m assuming that that comment was about trying to claim a close relationship to modern dark skinned Egyptians from the perspective of a Bantu descandnt.
TT: There you go assuming again. I’ve been consistent in pointing out that we are talking about an East African people here. Does one see people with so called “Bantu features” in Egypt? Yes, but that physical type by and large is not representative of the population.
M: You are more closely related to ancient and modern Egyptians via your European ancestry than you are from your African ancestry-
TT: Once again you are making assumptions. What does any of this have to do with my personal ancestry? I am often mistaken for being Upper Egyptian by Egyptians, but that is just a consequence of genetic coincidence. I’m a mixed race person, but the closest I get to Egypt in my background is India.
As for the European ancestry thing, long stretch.
M: West Africans don’t even have a very close relationship to east Africans genetically.
TT: The issue is not weather or not East Africans and West Africans are genetically related. So what? Do all African populations south of the Sahara relate to each other? No. However, this should not be used to imply that West Africans are more African than East Africans. They are both equally African. As I tried to point out before, you drop a Somali in the Middle of Lebanon, that person is going to stand out as AN AFRICAN. Regardless of their DNA background, they are not going to blend in. Same thing hold true for a typical Egyptian. They will stand out. It will be obvious that they are people of African origin.
As I said before, I visit Egypt regularly and I just got back. I’ve been there for the past 2 weeks. Those faces I was looking at are only found in Egypt and other parts of East Africa. I’m not making a case for racial purity, nor am I trying to make a connection to West African populations and thereby an extension to myself, I don’t need it. I’m secure enough in my own history and culture. Let me say it pint blank since you seem to need it: THEY ARE NOT MY PEOPLE, ANCESTORS OR CULTURE. But they are a people of the African continent and regardless of all the mixture, its still obvious. Its only when we get bogged down with notions of what a real Africa should look like or be that we get confused.
These were and are an African people, but understand that there is a matrix in the Africa world. These people are a part of the physical spectrum found in Africa, plain and simple. They look like Africans, they share the same color as Africans, they dance just like other East Africans and when they cry for joy, they do so in the exact same way that other Africans do. These are a people firmly rooted, physically, culturally and historically to the African continent, not Asia, regardless of weather or not they may have some distant Asian ancestor anymore than my German, Irish and British ancestors make me European. No matter how much European blood I have, it does not erase my African genes. Same holds true for them.
mathilda37 // July 21, 2009 at 2:44 pm | Reply
Richgirl- are they painted statues?
I’ve got a page called the faces of ancinet Egypt that has ALL the mummies and painted statues- only about 1/7 look black. My main grip is that I keep seeing the half dozen that look black being posted as the average- I do include them but at a representative level on the vids.
TT: I think its more accurate to say they look like what we stereotypically think a black person should look like. This is why I have such a hard time with these terms. Exactly WHAT is a black person SUPPOSED to look like? For that matter, what do we mean by BLACK?
When I say Egyptians look African, what I mean is that they look like other people found on the continent, recognizing that Africans represent a spectrum of regional variations. This is why I say, they look like East Africans. Its because the people I’m talking about, do share a striking resemblance to other peoples in other parts of East Africa in terms of skin color, facial features, body shape etc. On the whole, thy do not look like Africans from the forest belt, although there are individuals who do.
I just don’t understand why we keep measuring them against other Africans who are geographically very distant from them and then when DNA, physical criteria etc shows the obvious, they aren’t that similar, we somehow conclude that they therefore, were not Africans. It makes much more sense to compare them to other African populations in the same region or near by. And when we do, surprise of surprises, they do in fact show strong similarities with their neighbors.
So what then? Are we implying that West and Central Africans are “real” Africans and somehow East Africans are “fake” Africans?
I find the whole thing to smack of imperialism. Who are these people who sit in a room somewhere making the rules about who is and who isn’t a real African and what gives them the authority to do so? Who is this governing body who makes these rules as to what is a BLACK person and what said person should look like? This is all subjective, no matter how much we may try to wrap it in science.
Here’s an experiment for all of you:
Go outside and look at “Black” people. Look at all their features and then ask yourself what is it about that person that lets you know they are “Black”? Is it skin color? Is it facial features? Is it certain cultural cues like speech, dress, or the timber of the voice? Then look at all the different features you see and ask yourself, if you took a picture of this person, but you changed the color of the skin, how many of them would then be obviously black? If you took them out of their cultural contexts, changed the cultural cues, such as dress, hair style for example, would they be recognizably Black? You will then see why these colloquial terms like black are so problematic, especially when we try to transplant them onto other cultures and other time periods where such notions did not exist.
African American are about 20% European in ancestry, BTW.
There have been balck African cultures with cites ect, but these were not in Egypt or along the North African coast. Look to Nubia and the West African kingdoms for inspiration Richgirl.
Should have erased this bit from my last reply, sorry for that.
M: African American are about 20% European in ancestry, BTW.
TT: The real figure is closer to 35% but a lot has to do with the region of the country the person is from and of course individual history. It can range between 35 to 90% European, not to mention Native American input. In the Caribbean and Latin America, depending on the Island or country, it may be higher or lower.
The question is thought, does this non African genetic input negate their African ancestry? What happens when the individual in question does not look visibly like what we expect an African to look like?
M: There have been balck African cultures with cites ect, but these were not in Egypt or along the North African coast. Look to Nubia and the West African kingdoms for inspiration Richgirl.
TT: And its comments like this, reflective of a certain ideology among people on both sides of the issue why I say before we begin the debate, we must first ask, why are we concerned in the first place? I would say to anyone trying to make connections with West Africa, that they have missed the whole point and are in fact operating on a Eurocentric paradigm. An idea that greatness is somehow linked to color or race and therefore, being associated with this group or that group somehow confers greatness. This is faulty thinking on both the parts of Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics alike. They are just two sides of the same coin.
Although I know this was an African people and culture, I know they were not related to me, nor do I need them to be. They were who they were and are who they are in their time and place and context of their culture. They did not identify themselves as BLACK or any other skin color. They identified as a people and culture in a specific geographic location. They were of many shades and colors and had input from their close neighbors in Africa and Asia.
The question of color was not of importance to them. This question is of importance to US because of the quagmire of race and the assumptions we tie to people based on their physical appearance. In other words, we assume that a person’s color can tell us important things about their level of intelligence, behavior and character. These beliefs are not scientific or based on any empirical evidence. They are emotionally based and very deep seated, irrational and subjective. They are BELIEFS. So in the end, it has NOTHING to do with Egypt, the Egyptians or their culture and history, which are the things that really made them who they were. In fact, in all these discussions, I find very little about who they actually were or any useful history or culture. This has to do with our insecurities of race and trying to protect those assumptions and perceptions. This is why of all the dozens of videos, blog, websites on this topic, not one ever dares to really address the real question we should be asking: WHY THE HELL DO WE CARE WHAT RACE OR COLOR THEY WERE IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Egyptians are Pardos.
Ponto Final
guys , please allow me to comment on the issue:-
10000-15000 years people used to live in tribes in the desert specially from egypts adjacent places like the arabian penninsula, one of the main chractaristics of a tribal desert is the continouos movement in seek of water resources, some of these tribes found the rich valley of the delta nile in which some of them settled down to establish an agriculture community in which it has evolved into the egyptian civilization and some of these tribes continued their tribal live to north africa.
through time these inhabitants has mixed with the tribal deserts(which has becomed distinct to those who settled in the nile valley), nubians, libyans and other nations of that time that has either settled down with them or fought war with the ancient egyptians (before the start of the egyptian civilization) this is in my oppinion gaved the pharoes their varied facial looks from white to black .
please remmeber that in that period of time the nubian, arabian cultures did not exist, so the tribes that settled down to arabia has evolved to the arabian civilization and like wise for the libyans and other north african civilizations, but in core THEY CAMED FROM THE SAME ORIGINS.
another issue that i want to comment on is that its pretty prejudgemental to say that ancient egyptians were pure black based only on their skin colors because if that was true then we should say that the people of india and bangladesh (which large portion of them have the same black skin tone as african) are of african origin.
“I’m assuming that that comment was about trying to claim a close relationship to modern dark skinned Egyptians from the perspective of a Bantu descandnt.”
What I find interesting is your failure to post my reply to you on this point. I have never tried to make biological links between Egyptians and West Africans. I keep saying it and people keep not listening.
“You are more closely related to ancient and modern Egyptians via your European ancestry than you are from your African ancestry- West Africans don’t even have a very close relationship to east Africans genetically.”
Once again, you are assuming that I’m trying to claim some sort of connection with Ancient Egyptians. Why should I? They are not my ancestors. I’m content being who I am, so I have no need to make up something. Regardless of who my ancestors were, its up to me to make of my life what I want it to be through my own efforts, not my bloodline.
My perspective is and always has been that Egypt is the cross roads between two continents Africa and Asia. Issues of purity are irrelevant. No matter how mixed East Africans may or may not be, they are still recognizable as being African peoples. They would not blend into a Levantine population for example. Same holds true for Modern Dark skinned Egyptians.
Am I surprised at the Eurasian content in their background, no. What else would you expect from a part of Africa connected to Asia by land? Why would any objective person be surprised? However, one can not downplay or negate the African component of their background either.
That is very foolish indeed. That would be like saying I’ve got five German grandparents but only one or two Irish, therefore we can forget the Irish part. Real life doesn’t work that way. Without even one of those Irish grandparents, the individual would not exist. Its a pointless argument. All humans are the subtotal of all their predecessors.
Much of this debate is based on trying to superimpose 19th and 20th centuries of race and identity on a time period and culture where such notions did not exist. This obsession with color, race and the need to categorize people into groups is a reflection of our cultures and historical factors. I’ve tried to point this out. We are obsessing over ideas that did not matter to Egyptians back then. Therefore, I’ve tried to look at it from the perspective of our created social constructs.
When we use terms like black and white, we are arguing from the perspective of OUR cultural construct. Therefore, I ask the question, from our construct, if these people were in Alabama 50 years ago, how would they be treated and why? Same holds true for South Africa until recently. Black, Eurasian, mixed Arab, caucasian, call them what you will. In our cultural context, how would they be perceived and treated?
Gypsies are a Caucasian people, but how are they treated in Europe? Pakistanis and Indians are also supposed to be Caucasians, but how are they treated and perceived in England?
Take now this term “black”. What do we mean by it? Gypsies are considered blacks in Europe, the Maori in New Zealand are considered black by the British and dark skinned Africans are also considered black. However, in the USA, all you need to be considered black is at least 1 “black” ancestor, regardless of your actual skin color. Therefore, in the USA a person is considered black, no matter how much non African genetic input they have. So when Afro Americans look at statues of Afro Asian Egyptians and claim they have black features, well, in the context of the culture and political ideology regarding race that they were placed under, they are right.
If we are going to have honest intelligent discussions on this issue, we must first look at ourselves and our culture, because in reality, its all about us and our culture and has jack all to do with Egypt or Egyptians. We have to recognize this and be honest. The first step in the dialogue should and has to be, WHAT DOES IT MATTER AND WHY DO WE CARE? If we can’t start by looking at ourselves, then we can’t be honest about it and we will continue to run in circles that lead nowhere as these discussions always do.
Gypsies are considered blacks in Europe
Not in living memory. We used to call their skin black from Victorian eras and prior, but we never called them blacks- its a subtle difference. It was never meant it in the way you are using the term black here.
Truth teacher, for like the zillionth time, my point is that modern Egyptians are essentially the same as the ancient. Please don’t be so naive as to think most of the people claiming Egyptians were black don’t think it means they were all unmixed black Africans- I argue with them more than you do, I hear ‘unmixed black’ a LOT.
TT: Gypsies are considered blacks in Europe
M: Not in living memory. We used to call their skin black from Victorian eras and prior, but we never called them blacks- its a subtle difference. It was never meant it in the way you are using the term black here.
TT: They were and still are considered blacks. Read Bury Me Standing. Very disturbing stuff. Can’t remember the author though, but its a very popular book so it should be easy to find.
Black originally did not mean only African, but any dark skinned people. That is why to this day in England Pakistanis are called black. That is why the term black AFRICAN. A person with black skin is …. well a black person if we are using colloquial language and black is colloquial language.
M: Truth teacher, for like the zillionth time, my point is that modern Egyptians are essentially the same as the ancient.
TT: Mathilda darling for the bazillionth time, that’s exactly the same point that I’ve been making. If you want to know what Ancient Egyptians looked like, buy a ticket and stand on any street corner in Cairo for half an hour, then go to the museum and you’ll see the exact same faces in every shade from high yellow to coco brown. They are the same people and they look just like what one would expect people who live at the junction of Africa and Asia to look like. Some fall more closer to the Asiatic, some fall closer to the East African, and most in the middle show various degrees of combinations of the two. Add in a dash here and there of your southern European and Central African and that’s Egypt.
M: Please don’t be so naive as to think most of the people claiming Egyptians were black don’t think it means they were all unmixed black Africans
TT: And haven’t I been the one telling them Egyptians aren’t Arab invaders? Afrocentrics are just the opposite of the Eurocentrics. By the way, when are you going to make a video challenging this notion that Egypt was founded by blond haired blue eyed Aryans from Europe like your friend Ako, whatever thinks. Then again, he also believes that mankind was created by a race of space aliens.
M: – I argue with them more than you do, I hear ‘unmixed black’ a LOT.
TT: Okay sweetie, how’s about I make you a deal. I won’t lump you in with the loony Eurocentric lot and you in turn will not lump me in with the loony Afrocentrics. Especially the ones who like to dress up in strange garb looking like refugees from a Cecil B. Demile sand and sword movie. When you speak to me, please don’t project these people onto me. I am my own person. I have no ax to grind, nor do I need an ego boost from a long dead people and society that has nothing to do with me personally.
A more productive conversation would be to examine what are the social and historical factors that causes people to be so obsessed abou this question to the point where they identify so personally with it, both Euro and Afrocentrics alike.
Okay sweetie, how’s about I make you a deal. I won’t lump you in with the loony Eurocentric lot and you in turn will not lump me in with the loony Afrocentrics. Especially the ones who like to dress up in strange garb looking like refugees from a Cecil B. Demile sand and sword movie. When you speak to me, please don’t project these people onto me. I am my own person. I have no ax to grind, nor do I need an ego boost from a long dead people and society that has nothing to do with me personally.
Sorry If I rant- you wouldn’t believe the hatemail that gets send to the spam bin and the ludicrous claims I get sent as fact.
But, to this day I’ve not heard a Pakistani or Gypsy get called black in England. Black is really only a term for people who are obviously mostly of black African descent here. This isn’t something I’m unfamiliar with, I’ve got mixed race family and I’ve not heard them called black once, its always ‘mixed race’. Lately because of Obama we’ve started using it the term black for mixed race a bit more, but its not exactly the norm here.
I applaud your efforts, Mathilda. This must have taken a very long time to compile. I’m looking forward to see how the portraits separate out when you begin to narrow them down to more precise periods, which will be interesting to both the anthropologists and hose interested in the development of Egyptian artistic conventions.
what is fascinating to me is the expressions on the faces — the smiles stand out. Has anyone ever done a study of the facial expressions
Look at this link and see if you see any white features on this replica of the Sphinx done by native Egyptians (Ghaddafi and company). Why does Ghaddafi side with other Africans like Nelson Mandela and not white America or UK? Why does Ghaddafi include Louis Farrakhan as one of his allies as well? Why not George Bush or Tony Blair or any of the other Europeans that you named. He does include Italians, who as we all know have a little Africa in them as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/6126569/Libyas-40th-anniversary-celebrations-would-have-made-Himmler-proud.html
mathilda37 // July 15, 2009 at 7:04 pm | Reply
“Rich girl,
Egyptian y chromsomes actually make it biologically impossible for Egyptians to have more than about 5% Arab ancestry in them. About 85% of their ancestry at present traces back to dynastic and earlier times.”
Mathilda, the last time I checked, there was no such thing as an “Arab race.” On what basis are you defining “Arab people?” Certainly not genetic, I hope. If I’m not mistaken, even though the only true “Arabs” are from Saudi Arabia, many modern people in the Near East (that are of the Islamic faith) classify themselves as Arabs. I believe you’re talking specifically about post-dynastic or more modern Egyptians, and them having no more than 5% Arab ancestry in them. Be that as it may. However, if you are in fact referring to West Asian people from say, Mecca to the Suez Peninsula… then it sounds to me like you’re contradicting what you stand for in terms of “Eurasian content” coming into Egypt from West Asia.
Are you actually suggesting that Eurasians or Caucasoids do not include those people? …the Arabs you speak of? And if so, what miraculous events or circumstances curiously prevented more than 5% of that specific portion of West Asian DNA from entering Egypt (after the dynastic) – when everyone knows the Islamic conquest of the entire Near East and North Africa came from that same huge expanse of land and the same people in West Asia?? Can you answer that in simple terms without the genetic rhetoric?
I respect some of your talk of “no change” for the Egyptian population from ancient to modern but, it seems to ignore an awful lot of history for the sake of genetic studies. And when it comes to the modern Egyptians, I think you might want to re-think what you’ve said about this so-called “5% Arab ancestry” (limitation) you place on the Egyptians. Because, it seems you’re discriminating against an awful lot of West Asian people just across the Red Sea and over the Suez (who most certainly influenced the land of Egypt and left a permanent cultural and GENETIC imprint upon the whole of North Africa). I don’t think anyone has to be well versed in genetics to “see” and understand that. So, to hear a statistic such as the above from you, a woman with such an impressive knowledge of “gene flow” and archaeology in and around North Africa, sounds absorbed in ethnic and religious bias.
Hakat, I have had a very good look at the Y chr studies of Egypt, for the most part Egyptians have African Y chromosomes and most of the Eurasian Y DNA they do have has been in Africa so long (more than 10K) that you see it in the Fulbe, Ouldeme and Somalis. Any mass migration into Egypt from the near east/europe/Aarbian peninsula is just not possible based on the Y chromosomes. Yes a lot of Arabs did migrate into Egypt, but it was already a densely populated area and overall it didn’t make a whole lot of difference percentage wise..
Lower Egypt, which has about 55% African male ancestry (average of several studies) only has about 10% J1 (typically Arabic marker) and a big chunk of the J2 it has is neolithic in date, there’s just no room in the Y chr for any kind of large Arab male input into the Egyptian DNA pool.
If any of you Afrocentrists will go to this site,you will have all the proof you need that ancient egypt was not African.
“Dakleh Oasis” was in the Roman Christian town in Kellis in the Western Desert of Egypt. The articled you are referring to specifically states it to be a burial cemetery of Roman Christians. The article goes on the indicate the frequency of sub Saharan genes actually INCREASED after prolonged TRADE with those of the Nile Valley. These were NOT native Egyptians.
Secondly I am not sure what “Gaps” exist in the phylogenetic tree of Haplogroup E and Paragroup DE*. The scenario that makes the MOST SENSE is Paragroup DE* having an origin in Africa and traveling to Asia. Paragroup DE* in African has a mutation E and Paragroup DE* in Asia has the sub mutation D* When we look at the haplotype diversity and frequency it is PRETTY CLEAR that Haplogroup E sits on an African background while D is Asian. I dont think finding Haplogroup D* in Africa with help boost the credit of an origin in Either place because the distribution of each Haplogroup on Each continent speaks for itself.
Whether it happened in North Africa really doesn’t matter but i doubt that it did. Take for instance E1 E2 and {E-M33 and E-M75} both of these CLEARLY have a CURRENT sub Saharan distribution. E3 or P2 – the clade tha tJOINS east and West Africans is found in the East (Ethiopia) and the West {Senegal} in high frequencies – Both Sub-Saharan countries. Both countries that have he highest frequencies and diversities of their regional submutations – E-m2 and E-m35.
But North African bs Sub Saharan Africa does not really matter because ALL of these clades probably had an origin in the middle of the continent at a time where their was NO SAHARA. Why try to create a division if ALL these people come from the same place.
M1 – Yes I have read many studies that speak of M1 coming from Asia. That is fine. But let me explain something to you:
L3 = African
L3a(M) AKA M Mtdna had an origin in Asia
M1 had an origin somewhere in SW Asia
M1a coalesced in Ethiopia and has an origin THERE. That is why it is called Ethiopian in CURRENT studies. That is where the regional subclades M1a disbursed from. For all intents and purposes it is used to track Ethiopians. And for the record they STILL have not found a prcursor to M1 in Asia but they HAVE found it in Africa. Mtdna studies CLEARLY show that M1a coalesced in Ethiopia and migrated FROM there to Egypt.
I have read other Atosomal data that links Egyptians clearly with Africans. Even those in Uganda and Kenya.
“Polymorphic Alu insertions and genetic diversity among African populations.”
No one is claiming that Egyptians are “Invaders” – I see you keep saying that. Have you BEEN to Egypt? I dont think you have, as “TruthTeacher” said you see the same faces all across Africa, there are people that are clearly Dark skinned because they have “Negro” ancestry. There is even West African ancestry in Egypt. How do you overlook this fact?
Dakleh Oasis” was in the Roman Christian town in Kellis in the Western Desert of Egypt. The articled you are referring to specifically states it to be a burial cemetery of Roman Christians
Actually they are Roman era Egyptian converts to Christainity Igbo, not Roman Christians. I dug up the info on the cemetery burials today. I’m not sure why you’d claim otherwise. Dakleh would be a very peculiar place for Roman christians to go.
M1a coalesced in Ethiopia and has an origin THERE.
That M1a shows a distribution from the Nubia area, not an origin in Ethiopia and back migration to Egypt, Igbo. Its age matches the population from that area too, exactly the same as the M1. On this page. I really expect that a good look at M1a will show its from the same Nubian expansion
Last time I checked E itself was placed as more likely as of near Eastern origin. DE was probably North African.
And that “Polymorphic Alu insertions and genetic diversity among African populations.” noticing a relationship to east African and Egyptian poulations is hardly surprising, bearing in mind their haplotyes are very similar just in different ratios.
Another thing, you cannot attempt to quantify “Black” Ancestry based on Y-dna or even Mtdna.
having a certain marker will NOT tell you how a person looks. Since when does a population sample of 50 or 100 people allow you to prescribe a ‘racial percentage’ to and entire country, even disregarding the ethnic groups in the country? Genetics does not work that way.
And if that WAS the case then ALL members of E-M35 with have “Black” Ancestry as E-M35 has an origin in Sub Saharan East Africa.
What you CAN do is state what is indigenous and what is not. Ultimately the true thing Mtdna and Y-Dna can do is track common ancestors and population MIGRATIONS. There was VERY little population migration into East Africa FROM Egypt 24kya ago. I am not sure what study you get that from. MOST of the migraiton into Ethiopia was done via the Bab-el-Mandeb strait {Gate of Tears} hence the name of the study. Migration of MAJOR founding lineages from Southern Egypt/Nubia INTO Ethiopia came MUCH later, bringing Y-DNA makers such as E-V32, E-V22 (both with an age of 6-8 kya) and possibly K2 which has a similar batwing expansion date in Somalia and Ethiopia @ around 6kya. {Sanchez et al}
But migration of MAJOR founding lineages from Ethiopia came even earlier. Those lineages STILL represent the majority of the lineages today. There was NEVER a total wipe out of lineages in Egypt.
I think you have a lack of understanding when looking at Y-Chromosomes of Africa. You seem to interpret things that are much different than what the data actually says. There is NO WAY you can understand that Genetics behind E-M35 if you cannot understand or wish not to read that of E-M2. And E-M2 is NOT “Bantu” The phylogenetic tree of E-M2 has just as MANY mutation if not more than E-M35, some of those lineages can be indicative of Bantu migration but some are not. Read this study :
“Y-Chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau a multiethnic perspective”
Notice who Egyptians plot closest to? Do you understand why?
There was VERY little population migration into East Africa FROM Egypt 24kya ago. I am not sure what study you get that from.
Origin of the m78 in lower Nubia, which moved into East Africa at that time.
I’m basing the % of ancestry on the autosomal studies of Somalis and Ethiopians. not mt and Y dna.
I’m sorry Igbo, but modern Egyptians (even upper), who are mainly descended from the ancient, plot on a multi loci study as closer to near eastern populations. Their MT DNA only has any semblence to east Africa by virtue of shared Eurasian lineages m1 and a few L lines. Y chr are never a great indicator- take the Ouldeme as an example- they’d plot closer to the Turks than anyone.
i’m an egyptian who come from an arab descent arabs have been in egypt for thousands of years and they were mixed with the pharoahs many times actually the father of all arabs ismael his mother was egyptian alsayeda hajar
See what I’m saying, “Fred”?
Participants of Miss Egypt 2007
If any of you Afrocentrists will go to this site,you will have all the proof you need that ancient egypt was not African.
If any of you Afrocentrists will go to this site,you will have all the proof you need that ancient egypt was not African.
http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm
You mean the site I exposed doctoring the images? LOL
…thank you, hakat re=tlaca(N)=body(lake) r/l/te, hmmm,
i know ra is the old name for the volga and
is the sungod, ra=r/l/tlatla(N)=flame, would
re/r/l/te, or, t/tletl=fire? perhaps a reference
to aten=tentli(N)=lip=the sun disk/edge?
anyway, i believe re=solar appelation, so,
hakat re=lake(body)of fire/stone=tletl/tetl(N),
fire disk/circle.
we’re all doing the best we can, given our
individual blind spots, applying nauatl pie
to myth then history is exciting, features
a new archeological technique that has been
with us this time forever, language.
i realize my posts are difficult, my conclusions
arguable, my syntax gone to hell, but they
are driven by the sound approach to language
utilizing pie for the first time for filling in the
blank pages of history/myth with (letra=tletl).
all of the material used to support the system
of letra has been drawn from published material.
I TOTALLY COMMEND YOUR WORK MATILDA WELL DONE..
REMOVE THE HATER COMMENTS JUST DETRACT FROM THIS WONDERFUL PAGE/PRESENTATION, I WONDER IF U CAN BE FOUND ON FACEBOOK OR INTEND ON A BOOK ? PLZ LET ME KNOW BYE!!! xx
Some pictures for your collection
Hi,
Some pictures for your collection
Some ancient Egyptians
(replace ** by TT)
h**p://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4950/toutankamonetreine2h.jpg
h**p://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6118/tomberamsesi02m.jpg
h**p://img171.imageshack.us/img171/3167/scribe01384x512.jpg (yes its eyes are blue)
h**p://img27.imageshack.us/img27/2094/ramsesenemies04.jpg
h**p://img85.imageshack.us/img85/954/tomberamsesiu.jpg
h**p://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2575/nefertitit.jpg
Some enemies to egyptians
h**p://img27.imageshack.us/img27/420/ramssenemies01.jpg
h**p://img502.imageshack.us/img502/3903/ramsesenemies02.jpg
h**p://img177.imageshack.us/img177/1364/toutankareposepied1a.jpg
h**p://img502.imageshack.us/img502/4254/toutankamonsandales2.jpg
h**p://img171.imageshack.us/img171/6228/toutankamoncoffre1a.jpg
h**p://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9044/toutankamoncoffre2rduit.jpg
And a very good serious (with réferences) site on the last scientist informations on Europe and “Fertile Crescent” and aDNA history.
http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/
regards
sorry, I dont why my com will be placed among the other coms?
sorry, I dont why my com will be placed among the other coms?
Sorry, been off-blog a long time. I’m clearing them now.
i have took some notes from the web and got some interesting things for class
goog
Mathilda37, NEAR EAST is an old name for MIDDLE EAST – Lower Egypt comprimising r 3/4 of Egypt, is Arab Semitic White(as in Middle Easterner), Upper Egypt(the sothwestern 1/4 of Egypt annexed from Nubia-Sudan – Kemet is Black(mostly Nubian, some Nilotic). Egypt’s population, both Ancient and Modern is 65% Arab Semitic White, 30 % Black, BlackArab Semitic White mixes – Hamites(now considered 50%/50% Black/White mixes, Berbers and Moors – essentially Arab heritage with 8-15% Black heritage, and, small, varying amounts of Indo European Aryan White heritage), and, 5% all other ethnic groups – again, Haplotype V is ONLY Arab Semitic White marker and placing itwith the Arabs in your earlier chart – actually makes Egypt, 85% Arab Semitic White, NOT BLACK.
There is no such thing as “Race!” We are all part of the HUMAN race, and that’s that. Everyone is originally of African descent anyway, so what’s the big deal? No matter how you look at it, we are all Africans. Some of us are darker than others, some of us have different hair texture, etc. As for the ancient Egyptians, they were descendants of the native human populations that have existed in and around the Nile valley for millennia, as well as African populations that fled to the Nile Valley when the “Saharan savanna” became the Sahara Desert. Of course Middle Eastern tribes entered Egypt and settled there too.
I want to send pictures from your own site with my entry. will it work here? if not, can you please send them to an email address for you to review? my comments are short. I have an identification for you.
Human Love – the point is the Ancient Egyptians were Arab Semitic White, NOT, the Black Nubian – yes, both are members of the human race,the sub classification Homo sapiens sapiens
The point to be made, is, everyone is NOT descended from Black peoples, as so many Afro centrists erroneously claim, but from a common ancestor, as the New Theory goes – i am still inclined to believe the old Theory, that the 5 sub classifications of the human race, originated at the same time in 5 different locations – the BIGGEST evidence being, Asian haplomarker, is OLDER than any thus far found in Africa.
Inclined to point out that Neanderthal interbreeding is now a genetcially proven fact.
mathilda37 we have been clearly through this before- your own expert cocneded haplotype V is NOT a Black haplomarker- I shall defend this against your error whereever I can – s0be it if you continue to refuse posting my answeres- what are you afraid of- leave to the readers to debate- your error is already out on the internet. Accept it- oh yeah, you can threaten me with libel if you want – you know you are posting erroneous, as well as misleading information. information
Black haplomarker
I never said it was black, I said it was AFRICAN. As does everyone else, it’s there in black and white.
your own expert cocneded haplotype V is NOT a Black haplomarker
My own expert said it was an AFRICAN marker, I never said black. And so far your comments have been cleared, so stop whining.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/history_in_africa/v032/32.1keita.html
This does not sound like a man saying type V in non African to me..
I’ve demonstrated quite conclusively that haplotype V is the African E clade in Egypt. It actually says as much in the Keita paper above. I am correct. That you seem to have some kind of fixation on V being Arab in origin is bizarre to say the least.
Mathilda37
Haplotype V is ONLY found in Arabs- Arabs did not originate in Africa- yes, their ancestor did, but none had the haplotype V marker it does NOT originate there, but in the Middle East- it went to Africa when the Arabs invaded North Africa, part of the Arab Middle east – your chart does NOT reflect this, but groups the haplomarker V with Blacks instead of with Arab Semitic White – this ERROR , if you corrected it, would show Egypt is 85% Arab Semitic White- you chose to keep that misleading information. I am Arab American, by birth, of Lebanese ancestry – Afro centrists keep claiming the Black Nubians, not the Arab Semitic Whites were the Ancient Egyptians – the population is still the same percentages as it was then.
Now correct your mistake.
I am not certain what your Neanderthal comment meant – yes recent findings indicate they bred with OTHER humans – the highest concentrations in the Middle east, followed ny Europe- NONE in Africa- nothing was mentioned about other continents.
Haplotype V is ONLY found in Arabs
Did you not read that paper? Haplotype V is found at high frequency in non Arabs in East Africa (Average 45.8%) Somalia (over7 7%). You really are to thick to talk bother with.
mathilda 37
Quote” Given these findings, it is more accurate to call V “Horn-supra-saharan African,” not ‘Arabic;’ it is indigenous to Africa
It is important to address the appellation of “Arabic” for haplotype V, due to names being interpreted as indicators of origins, and the inconsistencies found in the literature. This variant is found in very high frequencies [End Page 224] in supra-Saharan countries and Mauretania (collective average 55.0%), and in Ethiopia (average 45.8%) (Table 2A). In specific groups its highest prevalence is in samples from Moroccan Amazigh (Berbers) (68.9%) and Ethiopian Falasha (60.5%). Its frequency is considerably less in the Near East, and decreases from west (Lebanon, 16.7%) to east (Iraq, 7.2%) (Table 2A). The label “Arabic” for V is therefore misleading because it suggests a Near Eastern origin. In fact this variant has been called “African” ”
You realize North Africa is part of the ARAB MIDDLE EAST- stands to reason, the haplomarker V is high in those regions they are part of Arab North Africa- SUPRA Sahara/Near East.Berbers and Moors have 8-15% Black heritage and the rest Arab Semitic and Indo European Aryan White. YOUR INFORMATION WAS OUTDATED as pointed out in our debates months back – haplomarker V is NOT indigenous to Africa – its origins are in the Arabian Peninsula.
haplomarker V is NOT indigenous to Africa – its origins are in the Arabian Peninsula
NC, you are the dumbest sod ever. I’ve pasted actual proof that V is E3b, which is well known to be African in origin, along with Keita stating emphatically it is African.
Pray tell, what type do you think V is? The only match for it is African E3b, which includes m78 (Egyptian/Nubian origin) and m81 (also Egyptian in origin but common to Berbers).
You are under the illusion we are having a debate. What is actually happening is that I’ve tried my best to explain in very simple terms that V is E3b, which is an African Y chr- it’s not a’debate’, its a fact. That you have trouble grasping this suggests you are either:
A. frighteningly stupid
B. Just winding me up
C Some kind of nutjob who feels that he really is right.
Shocking as this may be to you, North Africa is still geographically located in Africa and not in the Arab near East. There are some good maps on line, I suggest you look one up. The papers all name E3b/ haplotype V as African, with an expansion from Egypt/Nubia, not the Arabian peninsula. You disagree, and I’m the only person you can reach to wrangle this out with. Well I’m done with you. I’ve posted text where it EXPLICITLY states V is African, proving I am correct and you are either stupid or some kind of nut.
And no, that info you posted months back was about a different Y chr labelled V in a different study, I was too busy to point this out at the time. And the only reason Lucotte named V ‘Arab’ in his very old studies was that it was one of the first large scale Y chr tests in Africa and he didn’t know that E3b/V was also common all across East Africa at the time.
The sad thing is you really think you are right… Arguing with you is like talking to a floor. You don’t know your ass from your elbow and become abusive when shown absolute proof of your error. What your motive is I can’t guess, possibly by making people believe (wrongly )that V is an Arabic haplotype you’ll make them think Egyptians are invading Arabs (again, genetically impossible as about 70% of their Y chr are African in origin).
Finally, don’t bother posting here again. You really are unpleasant, and are either too stupid or crazy to hold any kind of reasoned discussion with.
mathilda 37
I had already presented you proof your info was outdated and incorrect in our debate months ago- what don’t you get- the Arabs make up NORTH AFRICA, Arabs are Semitic White- Sudan is half Arab, Ethiopia, and Somalia are 1/3 Arab semitic White, hence Haplotype V exists there BECAUSE OF THE ARABS and the mixing. Again, Haplotype V DOES NOT EXIST IN UNMIXED BLACKS – fine if you want to say it is African, quantify it as Arab Semitic White, NOT, Black African.
NC, for the of your pride I deleted the post where you linked to haplotype V at Wikipedia which turned out to be for mt DNA and not the Y chr, but since you persist…
Haplotype V Y chr (E3b) is African, I’ve proved it with the text I’ve pasted and you are just ranting madly now. BYE.
I reject the notion that Afrocentrists and Eurocentrists are two sides of the same coin. Eurocentrists are supremacists, whereas Afrocentrists simply want to reclaim what they perceive as a stolen heritage. Afrocentrists don’t say that Egyptians were superior because they were black, they simply say Egyptians were black.
Mathilda,
Bear in mind that there is no typical so-called sub-Saharan phenotype or morphology. Even so-called Bantus can look like the ancient Egyptians depicted in the art work and statues. There is also a range of color from nearly white to nearly black, with no admixture. That’s why pure black West Africans, for example, can stand next to mixed African Americans and appear to be more mixed than the AA’s.
Do not get caught up in the whole sub vs. supra Sahara nonsense. Unmixed blacks below the Sahara are not only often times very light-skinned, they can also exhibit would would be considered classic “Caucasoid” features: narrow face, thin lips, pointy nose, even wavy hair, etc. So you are flat wrong when you say someone “looks black” or “looks Bantu.” A single African tribe can incorporate more variation and diversity than the entire white race. Throughout so-called sub-Saharan Africa, wide flaring nostrils and very thick lips and the entire stereotypical “negroid” look are the exception rather than the rule.
We see dark Egyptians depicted. We also see light ones. The light ones are neither products of Asiatic or Caucasian admixture or they are simply lighter skinned blacks. Again, blacks can manifest very light skin tones without admixture. The Igbo of Nigeria are just one example.
here is also a range of color from nearly white to nearly black,
Only if they are albino.
The light ones are neither products of Asiatic or Caucasian admixture or they are simply lighter skinned blacks.
I have to inform you that the mummyDNA has shown that to be incorrect, as Egyptian mummies have mainly Asiatic mt DNA, even in upper Egypt. Modern Y chr studies show modern Egyptians are not recent immigrants to the Nile but have been there in the main for at least the last 8k. The ancestry of modern and ancient Egyptians is mainly Asiatic, not black African.
Unmixed blacks below the Sahara are not only often times very light-skinned, they can also exhibit would would be considered classic “Caucasoid” features: narrow face, thin lips, pointy nose, even wavy hair,
That’s because they ARE mixed, the average east African is about 40% Asiatic in origin. You only see these features in mixed ancestry groups (Somali, Fulani etc). Even West coast Bantu have trace Eurasian ancestry dating to the Neolithic in them.