Sudanese Arabs

[Taseti]

It is well documented that during the roman period, Fayum portraits were reserved to those members of the hierarchy who were definitely not Egyptians, as can be seen. The subjects of the paintings were generally exclusively greco-roman as this was a greco-Roman tradition with materials and woods transported directly from Europe. iN OTHER WORDS, these aren't even mixed Egyptians, they are greeks and Romans, period.

[Taseti]

well taseti Hate to say it but semites are whites:

That's another lie.


But apparently you are incognizant of the fact that Afro-asiatic originated in Africa, and that most Afro-asiatic languages are located in Africa.

Semitic is a language pylum not a race, in fact the vast majority of semitic languages originated in Ethiopia or Eastern Sudan.

After all, the early Semites were just a few Africans who migrated into the Levant to find [non semitic] peoples already living there - Christopher Ehret.

Thats a quote from a linguist. It is an axiomatic fact that Semitic languages originated in Ethiopia.

Once, the Arabian Peninsula was thought to have been the "cradle" of proto-Semitic, but nowadays many scholars advocate the view that it originated somewhere in East Africa, probably in the area of Somalia/Ethiopia. Interestingly, both these areas are now dominated lingustically by the two youngest members of the Semitic language family: Arabic and Amharic, both of which emerged in the mid-fourth century C.E.

Proto-Semitic:

Proto-Semitic is the hypothetical proto-language of the Semitic languages. Proto-Semitic probably originated in Ethiopia or Central Sahara and was one of the first languages to branch off the Afro-Asiatic phylum.

In the hey days of racist scholarship when it was considered erudite to routinely erase the role of Africa in the development of world history, it used to be considered with arrogant irrationality that the most probable Proto-Semitic language was Urheimat, which probably developed in the Arabian peninsula. This hypothesis was based on fact that the Canaanite, Aramaic, and Arab nomadic tribes are recorded to have emerged from Arabia.

However this thesis is not supported by a plausible theory of geographical dispersion of Afro-Asiatic languages. It must be stressed that Semitic is but a sub group of the African language group Afro-Asiatic.

The distribution of the related Afro-Asiatic languages such as Berber, Hausa, Omotic, and especially the Egyptian branch which is most closely related to Semitic, suggest an Ethiopian language as the original Proto-Semitic language. It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubts that there were several waves of immigration of the Proto-Semites from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian Peninsula.

Current Authorities:

Alan Gardiner in his book Egyptian Grammar, (1950, p.2) argued that ancient Egyptian had structural similarity to Canaanite and various African languages like Galla, Somali and Berber. Moustapha Gadalla in his book The Essence of Hispania denoted the very close linkages between ancient Egyptian and classical Arabic.

In linguistic terms, Ehret has presented a phylogenetic history for Afro-asiatic languages, based on shared phonological innovations. His scheme makes a primary division between the Omotic languages of Ethiopia and an Erythraean (Red Sea) subgroup that includes all other Afro-Asiatic languages (including Semitic and Ancient Egyptian). His thesis, thus, suggests an African origin for the Semitic language family. See, C. Ehret, Reconstructing Proto-Afro-Asiatic (University of California Press, Berkeley, C.A.,1995).

According to Christopher Ehert, world renowned linguist, “the early Semites were just a few Africans arriving to find … other people already in the area.”

Christopher Edens and T.J. Wilikinson in a 1998 article published in the Journal of World Prehistory (South west Arabia During the Holocene: Recent Archaeological Developments), by the Bronze Age, there was a well-attested cultural ferment in Southwest Arabia exemplified by village and town settlements occupied by sedentary farmers.

Edens and Wilikinson argue that a continuous archaeological record can now describe parts of Yemen. Evidence of literate culture goes back to between 3600 and 2800 B.C. and perhaps earlier. These societies relied on food production from large scale irrigation systems dependent upon the Wadi floods. They concluded that those Bronze Age settlements showed very strong linkages to the Horn of Africa.

Darfur-Kordorfan-Saharan:

Nicolas Faraclas, in his book They Came Before the Egyptians: Linguistic Evidence for the African Roots of Semitic Languages suggests that the roots of Semitic languages, which are classified as part of the Afro-Asiatic language family, lie in the Darfur-Kordofan region on the eastern edge of the Chad-Sudan border. He uses linguistic, archaeological, and climatic evidence to trace the routes by which Afro-Asiatic languages seem to have spread. The Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan, and Afro-Asiatic languages all seem to have diverged in a migration that commenced with the Last Major Wet Spell of the Sahara, which ran from 10,000 B.C. to 5,000 B.C.

Joseph H.Greenberg, one of the earliest European linguists to work in Africa was the first to identified five different branches of the Hamito-Semitic (now called Afro-Asiatic) group of the African languages: Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, Chadic and Semitic. Given that those languages were so obviously interrelated it was assumed by colonial scholars of Europe that the relationship of these languages stemmed from Caucasian invaders into Africa from the Middle East. Greenberg’s research contradicted this assumption.

Greenberg realized that the Cushitic branch languages were far more differentiated from each other than were those of any other branch. Such sharp differences indicated that the sub-branches of Cushitic had differentiated from each other at a very early date and had been evolving independently for much longer than any of the other branches.

The implication being that the Hamito-Semitic (Afro-Asiatic) language had evolved in Kush (Ethiopia) longer than anywhere else.

Consequently, Ethiopia (Africa) should be the original homeland of all Hamito-Semitic languages. Clearly the original Semites were Africans.

A developing consensus among scholars suggest that perhaps as early as 12,000-10,000BC, African proto-Cushitic speakers migrated from Ethiopia/Central Africa spreading out into the rest of Africa and the Near East. This proto-Cushitic tongue evolved not only into Cushitic, Egyptian, Berber, and Chadic tongues, but into the Semitic branch as well. This included Hebrew, Phoenician, Arabic and Assyrian.

Although some Semitic speakers, including the Hebrews speakers migrated from Africa to the Middle East, others like the Gurage group of language, Amharic language, Tigrinya language and a host of others continued to develop in Africa. Greenberg renamed this Cushitic derived family group of language and called it Afro-Asiatic. (Time Life World Maps, Black Spark, White Fire by Richard Poe, Languages of Africa by Joseph Greenberg)

[Taseti]

[Taseti]

just before the kushite who is clearly a negro...but modern nubian's ihabitant were caucasoid and egyptian and the egyptian monarch aknowledged

I don't think so. Can you please cite just a few examples of "all" this anthropological work?? LOL Where is the gentic evidence of a ''caucasoid'' element in ''Nubians''most lineages are predominately African lineages.

All your "information" is wrong as usual.

There are no "Nubians" in dynastic Kemetic history.

Nubian is a post dynastic Greco-Roman concept derivied from mdw-ntr word nub which means "gold"

The oldest reference known to Nubia as geography is to Nub.t, a city within Km.t.


'Nubians' were not one group of people but consisted of various groups, some looked like southern Sudanese while others looked like many Egyptians as well as Africans in the Horn. The Egyptians specified the various groups with names like Kush, Setjau, Wawat, Medjay, Irem, Kaau, etc. Some Nubian groups were enemies while others like the Medjay were close allies and even intermarried with Egyptians.

So where did you get the idea that kushites were not ''Nubian''? How in the world did you create the dichotomy between Kushites and ''Nubians''?

Nubia was *always* a part of Egypt.

The earliest NATIVE AND ACCURATE reference to Nubia actually refers to a city *in* upper Egypt, in what is improperly called Naqada.

Naqada is and Arab word.

Nubia is a Kemetian [ancient egyptian] word.

It properly refers to a part of 'ancient egypt', it was never used to refer to another country.

Nor was the word nubia used by kushites to refer to their country.


The crown of Upper Egypt originates in Qustal [Ta Seti] in what is now Northern Sudan.

Nubia geographically references southernmost egypt and northernmost sudan, and so is a part of Egypt and a part of Sudan....even to this day.

Ancient Egypt consisted of part or all of Nubia for almost it's entire history.

Ancient Egypts language, culture and peoples are of southern origin in the region now geographically denoted as 'nubia'.

This is why "Nubia" [geography] is refered in the mdw ntr as Ta Khent - the 1st.

This is why Osirus is referred to as Osirus of Ta Khent.

There is no separate nation of 'nubia' or people called 'nubians' in the history of dynastic km.t.

This notion of nubia juxtoposing egypt is a fallacy, invented by Europeans.


Of course none of your statements make any sense, so I don't generally bother asking you to explain them. But, feel free to do so anyway.

[bjbmusa]

Originally Posted by zagel

This is scientific fact white colour appearded 6000 yrs ago...I mean caucasian pale white skin with non melanin..and to correct you about this egyptian were people of color and lighter from pale ones in alexandria to brown ones in north of khartoum.

nubian elite women



an egyptian man from a funerary(northern sudan)

Zagel,

Ancient Egypt was established before 6,000 B.C. The first so-called Pharoah Menes, RE-United the two halves of Kemit. To Re-Unit, means it was already there. So, if white people are only 6,000 years ago, and Ancient Egypt was established before then, then Whites have no part in the founding of Egypt.

If you read Dr. Ben Johcannan and other authors, they will tell you that the list of Egyptian Kings traces way back some 10,000 years. But, Europeans ignored much of ancient Egyptian chronology to make it fit into the Biblical Narrative.

Now, I hope you are intelligent enough to know that the "skin color" of the reproduced national geographic pharoah is just same made up BS. What gave then an idea about skin color? What actual artifact from Ancient Egypt displays ANYONE in leadership looking like that Pharoah? Of course, I am not referring to Egypt after Persian and Roman take over.

Cheik Anta Diop wanted to dispel all these rumors by taking tissue samples from royal mummies and doing carbon 14 dating test to determine skin color by melanin content. I trust you know the did not allow him to do it.

[bjbmusa]

Originally Posted by Amr

Tassedti, bijumsa

You should ask yourself

why there is a so much need to say this civilization, ancient Egypt was made by black, if in fact we are all suppesedly black including Bush. There was no white "Adam", the father of all humans was probably black.
So when have we become of different colours?

No one really knows, but it was not 10 or 20 thousand years ago only.

Before there was Egypt, people moved in and out of Africa. There were already people of different colours and the different groupings of the one specis of humanity started to be divided into racial and tribal categories.

Than the term mixed became relevant or OK to be used in the context of those different groups, within the one human family, children of one man.
---------------------------------------------------

I was interested in this post of Olive

Because he stated Hosni Mubarak has nothing to do with the phoroahs
He probably think Silva Kiir a descendant of the phoroahs.
He can not do any allegations without DNA test to Mubarak and Garang, to say such a statement.

Because if you are black or even light brown today does not acertain no one that you are direct descendant of the phoroahs. Neither a white colour make you certainly have nothing to do with the phorahs.

Because
The ancient Egyptians defintely have mixed with the greeks and romans extensively, with some arabs later on also, and present Egyptian are the descendants of this mixing.

Garang probably being in South Sudan and not Egypt, probably related to the phoroahs but not a desendants of the ancient Egyptian or even Nubians.


-----------------------

Bijumsa

I know ancient Egypt was not white, but this is not my issue here.

I say it was not black either.

For me black+white is not black, it is brown.

Amr,

I hear you. So you basically believe that Egypt was not built at the time when Black people were off in Europe turning White.

The only thing I can say at this point is that your theory has not been supported with much eye witness testimony.

All I can say again is that, according to Egyptologist, Kmt was a colony of people known to the Greeks as "Ethiopians".

[Taseti]

All of Amr's responses seem to be designed to make him look like a complete idiot.

So either he is a complete idiot, or an attention seeking self hating fool who *needs* to humiliate himself in public to confirm his low esteem.

Most peoples labeled 'black' in Africa are technically really brown! LOL Also, skin color in Africa varies to degrees from population to population, there IS NO division of Africans into 'races' based on skin color.

The natural coloring of many Africans does not come from mixing with Western Asians. You think you are telling the truth but you really are reinforcing outdated myths like the ''Hamitic Hypothesis'' that claimed African diversity was because of some mythical invasion from Western Asia.

[Amr]

Originally Posted by bjbmusa

Zagel,

Ancient Egypt was established before 6,000 B.C. The first so-called Pharoah Menes, RE-United the two halves of Kemit. To Re-Unit, means it was already there. So, if white people are only 6,000 years ago, and Ancient Egypt was established before then, then Whites have no part in the founding of Egypt.

If you read Dr. Ben Johcannan and other authors, they will tell you that the list of Egyptian Kings traces way back some 10,000 years. But, Europeans ignored much of ancient Egyptian chronology to make it fit into the Biblical Narrative.

Now, I hope you are intelligent enough to know that the "skin color" of the reproduced national geographic pharoah is just same made up BS. What gave then an idea about skin color? What actual artifact from Ancient Egypt displays ANYONE in leadership looking like that Pharoah? Of course, I am not referring to Egypt after Persian and Roman take over.

Cheik Anta Diop wanted to dispel all these rumors by taking tissue samples from royal mummies and doing carbon 14 dating test to determine skin color by melanin content. I trust you know the did not allow him to do it.

King Menes first dynasty was 3000 B.C.. Pre dynastic Egypt started 2000 years earlier.

[*Olive]

Originally Posted by zagel

This is another image shows clearly that how egyptians were perceived by roamns but not as wishful hoaxed illusioned trolls..

Zagel this is beyond a joke....i'm sorry but you have just put yourself in the Amr category

[*Olive]

the main problem with Amr and to a lesser degree Zagel...is that it is difficult to understand what point they are trying to make and there writing technique is not clear...they both contradict each other from post to post...ie one minute Zagel posted that the ancient Egyptians looked like the poeple from Nubia down onto Khartoum and says that 'archaelogical' evidence proves this ...and then next he posts a hand drawn picture of someone who looks like he serves kebabs in my local chip shop!!!...but then claims that this is how the ancient Egyptians looked!!!...........this thread/debate (? ) is interesting but evidently one sided and exposes just how fraudulent the anti-black mentality is not just from whites but those claiming African descent also...tut tut tut.....Diop went to a conferance in Egypt in 1974....he gave his presentation for the Black African origin of the Nile Valley civilistions and not one single so called Egyptologist present opposed him...the conferance was full of Historians, Archaelogist and those calling themselves Egyptologist from all over the world....including the present day pale Egyptian.....there they had the opportunity to refute and publicly bury what they now deceitfully refer to as 'afro-centric myths' but they all just sat there in awe and did nothing.....why?.....because they could not

[Amr]

Originally Posted by *Olive

the main problem with Amr and to a lesser degree Zagel...is that it is difficult to understand what point they are trying to make and there writing technique is not clear...they both contradict each other from post to post...ie one minute Zagel posted that the ancient Egyptians looked like the poeple from Nubia down onto Khartoum and says that 'archaelogical' evidence proves this ...and then next he posts a hand drawn picture of someone who looks like he serves kebabs in my local chip shop!!!...but then claims that this is how the ancient Egyptians looked!!!...........this thread/debate (? ) is interesting but evidently one sided and exposes just how fraudulent the anti-black mentality is not just from whites but those claiming African descent also...tut tut tut.....Diop went to a conferance in Egypt in 1974....he gave his presentation for the Black African origin of the Nile Valley civilistions and not one single so called Egyptologist present opposed him...the conferance was full of Historians, Archaelogist and those calling themselves Egyptologist from all over the world....including the present day pale Egyptian.....there they had the opportunity to refute and publicly bury what they now deceitfully refer to as 'afro-centric myths' but they all just sat there in awe and did nothing.....why?.....because they could not

What we know now is more what Diop knew or the Euro centrics claimed a hundred years earlier of the white phoroahs. That is why no one refuted him.

We know now that Ancient Egypt were in the cross road of human migration and never was either white or black.

In thirty years we will laugh at all the theories of teh Afro centrics like we have laughed on the theories of the Euro Centics thirty years ago.

The pictures that Zagel posted were of Egyptians who had been mixing with Greeks for 500 years.

Like I said present days Egyptians, Copts or Muslims are the result of ancient Egyptians mixed with Greeks, Romans, Persians and libyans.

please refrain on personal attack and focus on the issue we ar debating on. You look worst than you think you are.

[Taseti]

"Most archeologist now agree that the Pharaonic civilization.....is entirely indigenous".

Indigenous = African.

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issu...e.pharaohs.htm

"The Naqada [Upper Egypt] and Kerma ["Nubian"] series are so similar that they are barely distinguishable in the the territorial maps; they subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos" - Keita (1990)

Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa, S.O.Y. Keita, American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1990)

the men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look

Source: Ammianus Marcellinus, Book XXII, para 16 (23)

X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).

Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:

In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.


The people who bear the greatest resemblence to the ancient Egyptians, at present, are the Nubians ; and next are the Abyssinians;
page 530

http://wysinger.homestead.com/africa...june_2005_.pdf

the [Eurocentric] view, is based not on scholarly evidence but on an established worldview muscular enough to hammer inconvenient evidence into silence.

The logic behind it is inductive. Africa being a 'land o negative value', anything of value found here - does not belong here. -Ayi Kwei Armah

A comparison with neighboring Nile Valley skeletal samples suggests that the high status cemetery represents an endogamous ruling or elite segment of the local population at Naqada, which is more closely related to populations in northern Nubia than to neighboring populations in southern Egypt.

- American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 101, Issue 2, October 1996, Pages: 237-246

Cranial features:
The human phenotypic trait that holds the greatest diversity is cranial morphology. Because of this fact, cranial features can at times be misleading if not taken into proper context. For example, for a long time features like long narrow faces and narrow noses have been associated with “caucasian” or “caucasoid” people even though such features are present in populations throughout the globe from Africa to the Americas. The same can be said about so-called “negroid” features such as broad faces and noses which are also not just confined to Africans but various peoples in Asia, the Pacific etc.

Which is why we have studies like this:

J. Edwards, A. Leathers, et al.
...based on Howell’s sampling Fordisc 2.0 authors state that "there are no races, only populations," yet it is clear that Howell was intent on providing known groups that would be distributed among the continental "racial" groups.
We tested the accuracy and effectiveness of Fordisc 2.0 using twelve cranial measurements from a homogeneous population from the X-Group period of Sudanese Nubia (350CE-550CE). When the Fordisc program classified the adult X-Group crania, only 51 (57.3%) of 89 individuals were classified within groups from Africa. Others were placed in such diverse groups as Polynesian (11.24%), European (7.86%), Japanese (4.49%), Native American (3.37%), Peruvian (3.36%), Australian (1.12), Tasmanian (1.12%), and Melanesian (1.12%). The implications of these findings suggest that classifying populations, whether by geography or by "race", is not morphologically or biologically accurate because of the wide variation even in homogeneous populations.

And...

Forensic Misclassification of
Ancient Nubian Crania:
Implications for Assumptions
about Human Variation -April 2005, Current Anthropology:

It is well known that human biological variation is principally clinal (i.e., structured as gradients) and not racial (i.e., structured as a small number of fairly discrete
groups). We have shown that for a temporally and geographically homogeneous East African population, the most widely used “racial”
program fails to identify the skeletal material accurately. The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting
skeletal material of largely West African ancestry
from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry), it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity.

These exact same mistakes were made in classifying Egyptian skulls and is also the reason you hear these old studies speak of a percentage of “Caucasoid” and even a percentage of “mongoloid” skulls!

Jean Hiernaux
The People of Africa(Peoples of the World Series) 1975
The oldest remains of Homo sapiens sapiens found in East Africa were associated with an industry having similarities with the Capsian. It has been called Upper Kenyan Capsian, although its derivation from the North African Capsian is far from certain. At Gamble's Cave in Kenya, five human skeletons were associated with a late phase of the industry, Upper Kenya Capsian C, which contains pottery. A similar associationis presumed for a skeleton found at Olduvai, which resembles those from Gamble's Cave. The date of Upper Kenya Capsian C is not precisely known (an earlier phase from Prospect Farm on Eburru Mountain close to Gamble's Cave has been dated to about 8000 BC); but the presence of pottery indicates a rather later date, perhaps around 400 BC. The skeletons are of very tall people. They had long, narrow heads, and relatively long, narrow faces. The nose was of medium width; and prognathism, when present, was restricted to the alveolar, or tooth-bearing, region......all their features can be found in several living populations of East Africa, like the Tutsi of Rwanda and Burundi, who are very dark skinned and differ greatly from Europeans in a number of body proportions.............
From the foregoing, it is tempting to locate the area of differentiation of these people in the interior of East Africa. There is every reason to believe that they are ancestral to the living 'Elongated East Africans'. Neither of these populations, fossil and modern, should be considered to be closely related to the populations of Europe and western Asia.

claims that Caucasoid peoples once lived in eastern Africa have been
shown to be wrong, - JO Vogel, Precolonial Africa.

So features like narrow faces and noses do NOT indicate foreign ancestry or ‘admixture’.

what Tut looked like:





His grandmother queen Tiye:





Kem Osirus -> Black Osirus
Kem Wer - The Great Black.
Km.t.rm.t - Les Noires, the Blacks

I think [wst] Egyptology took this and ran with it once the mdw ntr was deciphered because of their need to revise the black/red dialectics that run throughout Kemetic culture. Black and red were polar opposites in Kemetic culture just as Black and White are in wst culture. So there were certainly plenty of examples to play with.

That's why I have quoted Champollion/Younger's remark about being shocked at the lowly regarded Tamhou. (whites)

Wst Egyptology went from shock, to a combination of denial and damage control.

Ironically the word Herodotus uses in the Histories for black (land,water,people, whatever) is Melas. He refers to the Egyptians and Ethiopians (Sudanese) as Melachrones, or Black ones, equivalent to Kemou or Kemut in mdw ntr.

As always, those who disagree are encouraged to provide alternative translations...as opposed to spam.

Lies spread faster, but truth last longer
Encyclopedia: Upper and Lower Egypt

This part of the country was also divided into nomes; however, as the place was mostly undeveloped scrubland, the organisation of the nomes underwent several changes. Ultimately there were twenty nomes and the first of these was at Memphis. Taken together, the Two Kingdoms formed Kemet ('Black'). It is claimed that Kemet means 'Black soil', but the term Kmt is a noun, which does not include 'soil', and in this respect Kmt means 'Black Nation'. Deshret ("Red"), on the other hand, was used to describe a type of place, which the Kemetians/Egyptian dispised. It is usually seen as a 'Afro-centric' argument, but the meaning of Kmt was stated by Champollion the Younger's (who deciphered the Rossetta stone) document, 'Expressions et Termes Particuliers' (Expression of Particular Terms). Link to the document is provided at the bottom of this page. The Kmt = 'Black Soil' fallacy was picked up from Herodotus when he says, “Egypt is a land of black soil...We know that Libya is a redder earth.” (Herodotus, The History, Book 2:12), but in the same book he also states that, "the Colchians are Egyptians...on the fact that they are black-skinned and have wooly hair." (Herodotus, The History, Book 2:104).

[Taseti]

More from Champollian the Younger, who 'deciphered' the Rossetta Stone:

The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar.

The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras [Beja], present inhabitants of Nubia.

In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt.

It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race.

[Taseti]

[quote=zagel;51094]well taseti Hate to say it but semites are whites:

Incorrect as usual

Ehret: The early Semites were just a few Africans arriving in the Levantine to find other people already in the area

WHC: How does a small group of Semites coming in from Africa transform the language of a region in which they are a minority?

Ehret: One of the archaeological possibilities is a group called the Mushabaeans.

This group moves in on another group that's Middle Eastern.

Out of this, you get the Natufian people.

Now, we can see in the archaeology that people were using wild grains the Middle East very early, back into the late glacial age, about 18,000 years ago.

But they were just using these seeds as they were. At the same time, in this northeastern corner of Africa, another people ­the Mushabaeans are using grindstones along the Nile, grinding the tubers of sedges.

Somewhere along the way, they began to grind grain as well.

Now, it's in the Mushabian period that grindstones come into the Middle East.

Conceivably, with a fuller utilization of grains, they're making bread.

We can reconstruct a word for "flatbread," like Ethiopian injira. This is before proto-Afro-Asiatic divided into Ethiopian and ancient Egyptian languages.

[AfricanAmerican]

Festus Mogae: Africa's Good Leader
By Alex Perry / Cape Town

Anyone who has watched Robert Mugabe this year, as the 84-year-old dictator of almost three decades railed against colonial phantoms while stealing an election, ruining the economy and starving his people, might be tempted to take Zimbabwe as the story of Africa. But if Mugabe is the most famous living example of an African tyrant, evidence of a very different Africa has never been far away. Botswana, which shares a border with Zimbabwe, has for decades been mainland Africa's brightest star, a country that has gone from dustbowl poverty to middle income status in a generation, where elections are peaceful, politicians retire voluntarily, civil society is vibrant and where natural resources (in Bostwana's case, diamonds) are not a curse or a spur to corruption and violent theft, but a blessing shared by all.

On Monday, that achievement was recognized when the Mo Ibrahim Foundation awarded its annual good governance prize to Festus Mogae, who retired this year after two five-year terms as president. The prize achieved instant recognition when it was inaugurated last year because of its hefty cash incentive: $5 million over 10 years, $200,000 a year after that and an additional $200,000 a year for good causes espoused by the winner.

This year the award panel, which includes former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, former Irish President Mary Robinson, and Nobel peace laureates Mohamed ElBaradei and Martti Ahtisaari, praised Mogae's "outstanding leadership." Mogae had "ensured Botswana's continued stability and prosperity in the face of an HIV/AIDS pandemic which threatened the future of his country and people" but which is now declining thanks to "one of Africa's most progressive and comprehensive programs for dealing with the disease."

His economic management, they said, produced "remarkable growth," stymied inflation, attracted investment and allowed him to pursue diversification away from diamonds, while simultaneously using tax revenue to fund investment infrastructure, health and education. All this, while maintaining a "tough stance against corruption."

The contrast to Mugabe's murderous and inept kleptocracy could not be starker. But in conversation on Monday, Ibrahim insisted Mugabe, not Mogae, was increasingly the exception in Africa. Ibrahim is a Sudanese telecoms billionaire who decided to put his money where his mouth was after concluding that poor governance was the bane of the continent. "African leadership was a failure, and its own failure," he says. "You can't sit here and blame colonialism forever."

Since launching his foundation, however, Ibrahim says he had been surprised to discover that his impressions were increasingly historic. "Ten or 20 years ago, the African archetype was an autocratic country, with one state television station, one state newspaper and one state radio broadcaster," says Ibrahim. "That's no longer the case. Suddenly civil society is active. There are thousands of young Africans who are educated and getting on with it. Everybody speaks to everybody now. People's lives are no longer a monopoly of the government."

The problem is, that the world has been slow to recognize the change. "I am sure I am going to hear people say, 'Who is Mogae? Like last year, people said: 'Who is Chissano?', says Ibrahim, referring to inaugural winner, former Mozambique President Joaquim Chissano, another of Mugabe's neighbors who stepped down peacefully and voluntarily. "But everybody knows Mugabe."

Ibrahim is optimistic, even for Africa's trouble spots. This year's violence in Kenya and Zimbabwe, for instance, conforms to the old stereotype of Africa. But "what also happened in Kenya and Zimbabwe was that millions and millions of Africans lined the streets to vote," says Ibrahim. "It showed Africans cared about democracy, want to exercise their rights and they made it very clear that they would not allow anyone to steal their elections." That, says Ibrahim, is also a "great story."

(Click here for photographs of Botswana's diamond industry.)

(Click here for photographs of political tension in Zimbabwe.)

Brother Ibrahim has to be commended. We need our Sudanese Arab brothers on board like this brother. We cannot continue to trip over identity. The reality is white people will see you either as a sand nigga or a jungle nigga. Arabs and Africans will always be niggas because they are too closely related to separate.

We cannot allow the divide and conquer get us because we need each other.

Salaam

[zagel]

here we go again physical evidence presented and refuted as joke..well present to me another clue than the occupation of moors to Spain



your authority to classify me and amr as problematic

was honoured by me and repaet me when I decorated your thread with our
contribution.
Amr is the only guy who makes sense here

read my posts again..egyptians get DARKER SOUTHWARDS

I also beleive that the post was originally for sudanese arabs...when i started posting was told it has to be only a MOORe

[zagel]

Originally Posted by bjbmusa

Zagel,

Ancient Egypt was established before 6,000 B.C. The first so-called Pharoah Menes, RE-United the two halves of Kemit. To Re-Unit, means it was already there. So, if white people are only 6,000 years ago, and Ancient Egypt was established before then, then Whites have no part in the founding of Egypt.

If you read Dr. Ben Johcannan and other authors, they will tell you that the list of Egyptian Kings traces way back some 10,000 years. But, Europeans ignored much of ancient Egyptian chronoian logy to make it fit into the Biblical Narrative.

Now, I hope you are intelligent enough to know that the "skin color" of the reproduced national geographic pharoah is just same made up BS. What gave then an idea about skin color? What actual artifact from Ancient Egypt displays ANYONE in leadership looking like that Pharoah? Of course, I am not referring to Egypt after Persian and Roman take over.

Cheik Anta Diop wanted to dispel all these rumors by taking tissue samples from royal mummies and doing carbon 14 dating test to determine skin color by melanin content. I trust you know the did not allow him to do it.

Cheickh anta diop is an afrocentist and his input was due to the 25th dynasty napatan correlations is eccentric and biased..


black colour was a sacred in ancient egypt...black pharahoas were not but egyptoid race...please read my anti-nazi declaration of anon-caucasian egypt again..the sun in nubia will burn any whiteman to aN EGYPTIAN.
Wake up and see egypt as it was...

[bjbmusa]

Originally Posted by zagel

Cheickh anta diop is an afrocentist and his input was due to the 25th dynasty napatan correlations is eccentric and biased..


black colour was a sacred in ancient egypt...black pharahoas were not but egyptoid race...please read my anti-nazi declaration of anon-caucasian egypt again..the sun in nubia will burn any whiteman to aN EGYPTIAN.
Wake up and see egypt as it was...

Zagel,

Now, you truly fail there. Amr's point about Diop is also equally invalid. As I said, Diop begged to be allowed to take tissue samples from the Egyptian mummies, the royal mummies, and was prepared to prove the racial identity by doing Carbon 14 Data on the melanin content. That is science, not biased. Although he did not get permission, he did run the test I believe on other samples.

C'mon Zagel and Amr. Zaytoon and Taseti have included reference after reference, links after links, in their posts. Not addressing science of racial genetics, but as they pertained specifically to the identity of the people known as Ancient Egyptians.

Zagel, Amr says Menes Dynasty started 3000 BC. He says Pre-Dynastic Egypt was 2000 years before that. So that is 5,000 BC. according to Amr. We now are 2,000 years AD. So, going back 6,000 years, that puts us at 4,000 BC. Even according to Amr, Pre-Dynastic Egypt would have been 1,000years old.

And Amr, the point I think you are missing is this, it is said the Menes RE-UNITED the two Egypts!! That means, there was a United Egypt BEFORE the Pre-Dynastic Period which you put at 5000 BC. In other words Amir, Egypt was old BEFORE the Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic periods.

Now, I read something in the works of Al-Masudi that impacted upon me. He wrote that in 10,000-8,000 BC, there was no Upper Egypt or there was no Delta. The Delta, I believe, is your cross roads area. Why was there no Delta you might ask? Well, the Delta area was under water! Sediments from the Nile built up what is now the Delta. The historians recall the time period where the Delta was not there because the sediment build up had not even developed there.

Where are the evidences from the historians of the times, even the Greeks, that speak of Egypt as being anything other than a Black civilization, that is Blue Black or Brown. Do we have any eye witness testimony from anyone.

[Taseti]

The easiest and most common way to reject the notion of a Black Race of Ancient Egypt is by exploiting the nebulous and nefarious nature of race classification, and then placing the burden of proof on those who claim Black Race Ancient Egypt to prove it.

Many African scholars get suckered in by this classic 'chess/ploy' which is a shame, because there is no way for them to win such and argument, which requires them to prove....

1) there exists 'race',

2) in which 'black' is a classification of 'race', and

3) in which ancient egyptians belonged to such a race.

Mainstream science reject the 1st two assumptions...which moots the 3rd [conclusion] assumption.

There is a better approach to the biological origin and social classification of the ancient Egyptians.

This approach roots its biological/scientific base firmly and properly in modern physical and genetic anthropology.

As a distinct issue, it's social basis is founded 1st and foremost and again properly in primary textual evidence [ie - what did the Kemetians [AE] themselves have to say on the subject], and 2ndly in contemporary/peer accounts from Hebrews, Greeks, etc..

Such and approach leads to very powerful arguments [as typified by African scholar SOY Keita in terms of biology] and by our ES discussant Wally with regards to primary textual evidence.

This approach has yet to be refuted, or even seriously challenged.

The problem is only that many African scholars have not digested the most powerful arguments in their favor.

Here is and example of how effective this tactic can be, if you accept the hypocrtical terms of discussion of Eurocentrism, and in so doing fall right into their trap:

Ann Macy Roth, 1st builds her strawman argument....

Race, then, is essentially a social concept, native to the society in which one lives. It is anachronistic to argue that the ancient Egyptians belonged to one race or another based on our own contemporary social categories, and it is equally unjustifiable to apply the social categories of modern Egypt or of ancient Greece or any other society, although all of these questions are interesting and worthy of study on their own. The results tell us nothing about Egyptian society, culture and history, which is after all, what we are interested in.

Then she proceed to attack the strawman:

This is not, however, what the Afrocentrist Egyptologists are interested in. They want to show that according to modern Western categories, the ancient Egyptians would have been regarded as black.

Carefully notice what Roth is attacking here: Not African Egypt, not Black Egyptians, not even Afrocentrism -> she is actually disputing modern Western categories.

Having defined her afrocentric opponents as defenders of Western race catagories - all she has to do is stand back and watch the foolish Afrocentrist comply.

This is what Dr. Winters does in his various threads defending the pseudoscientific western race concept.

In order to defeat Roth's gambit, you must see thru to its core contradiction - > The concept of race is *precisely what is used to deny that AE is African and Black to begin with.*

Thus Roth offers no basis for disputing that AE were African, or that AE were Black. She has actually renounced the very basis [race] for disputing this fact in the 1st place.

However Roth relies on 'afrocentrists' to make the mistake of defending Black as a modern racial construct.

Never defend the core assumptions of your opponent!

Instead, allow Roth to show us that AE were not a dark skinned people, native to Africa and who referred to themselves as Blacks.

She never refutes any of the above, because she can't.

Because she does not address *OUR POSITION* but rather her straw-man of it, her discourse can be dismissed as off point, and not chased after, in the a fashion of a bull fanning at red cape.

Finally, Roth is to be permitted to show us that her unwillingness to acknowledge Km.t [black] African Egypt is a product of something other than her own imposition of modern Western racist discourse, against longstanding historical facts, which simply happen to confound white supremacy.

[Taseti]

That Kemet is and indigenous African nation is acknowledged in virtually all current history texts.

Who is denying this other than you?

What Were the Egyptians?

In contemporary descriptions of the ancient Egyptians, this question is never raised. Eyewitnesses of that period formally affirm that the Egyptians were Blacks. On several occasions Herodotus insists on the Negro character of the Egyptians and even uses this for indirect demonstrations. For example, to prove that the flooding of the Nile cannot be caused by melting snow, he cites, among other reasons he deems valid, the following observation: "It is certain that the natives of the country are black with the heat. ..." {endnote 1: The History of Herododus, translated by George Rawlinson. New York. Tudor, 1928, p. 88.}

To demonstrate that the Greek oracle is of Egyptian origin, Herodotus advances another argument: "Lastly, by calling the dove black, they [the Dodonaeans] indicated that the woman was Egyptian. ..." {endnote 2: Ibid., p. 101.} The doves in question symbolize two Egyptian women allegedly kidnapped from Thebes to found the oracles of Dodona and Libya.

To show that the inhabitants of Colchis were of Egyptian origin and had to be considered a part of Sesostris' army who had settled in that region, Herodotus says: "The Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair. ..." {endnote 3: Ibid., p. 115.} Finally, concerning the population of India, Herodotus distinguishes between the Padaeans and other Indians, describing them as follows: "They all also have the same tint of skin, which approaches that of the Ethiopians." {endnote 4: Ibid., p. 184.}

Diodorus of Sicily writes:

{quote} The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians are one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by Osiris. They even allege that this country was originally under water, but that the Nile, dragging much mud as it flowed from Ethiopia, had finally filled it in and made it a part of the continent. ... They add that from them, as from their authors and ancestors, the Egyptians get most of their laws. It is from them that the Egyptians have learned to honor

{p. 2} kings as gods and bury them with such pomp; sculpture and writing were invented by the Ethiopians. The Ethiopians cite evidence that they are more ancient than the Egyptians, but it is useless to report that here. {endquote} {endnote 5: Histoire universelle, translated by Abbe Terrasson. Paris, 1758, Bk. 3 p. 341.}

If the Egyptians and Ethiopians were not of the same race, Diodorus would have emphasized the impossibility of considering the former as a colony (i.e., a fraction) of the latter and the impossibility of viewing them as forebears of the Egyptians.

In his Geography, Strabo mentioned the importance of migrations in history and, believing that this particular migration had proceeded from Egypt to Ethiopia, remarks: "Egyptians settled Ethiopia and Colchis." {endnote 6: Bk. 1, Chap. 3, par. 10.} Once again, it is a Greek, despite his chauvinism, who informs us that the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Colchians belong to the same race, thereby confirming what Herodotus had said about the Colchians. {endnote 7: The Colchians formed a cluster of Negroes among white populations near the Black Sea ... }

The opinion of all the ancient writers on the Egyptian race is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846-1916): "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they belonged to an African race [read: Negro] which first settled in Ethiopia, on the Middle Nile; following the course of the river, they gradually reached the sea. ... Moreover, the Bible states that Mesraim, son of Ham, brother of Chus (Kush) the Ethiopian, and of Canaan, came from Mesopotamia to settle with his children on the banks of the Nile." {endnote 8: Gaston Maspero, Histoire ancienne des peuples de l'Orient. Paris: Hachette, 1917, p. 15, 12th ed. (Translated as: The Dawn of Civilization. London, 1894; reprinted, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1968.)} ...

{p. 3} Besides, Herodotus was not a credulous historian who recorded everything without checking; he knew how to weigh things. When he relates an opinion that he does not share, he always takes care to note his disagreement. Thus, referring to the mores of the Scythians and Neurians, he writes apropos the latter: "It seems that these people are conjurers; for both the Scythi- ans and the Greeks who dwell in Scythia say that every Neurian once a year becomes a wolf for a few days, at the end of which time he is restored to his proper shape. Not that I believe this, but they constantly affirm it to be true, and are even ready to back up their assertion with an oath." {endnote 10: Herodotus, p. 236.}

He always distinguishes carefully between what he has seen and what he has been told. After his visit to the Labyrinth, he writes:

{quote} There are two different sorts of chambers throughout Ñ half under ground, half above ground, the latter built upon the former; the whole number of these chambers is three thousand, fifteen hundred of each kind. The upper chambers I myself passed through and saw, and what I say concerning them is from my own observation; of the underground chambers I can only speak from report, for the keepers of the building could not be got to show them, since they contained, as they said, the sepulchers of the kings who built the Labyrinth, and also those of the sacred crocodiles. Thus it is from hearsay only that I can speak of the lower chambers. The upper chambers, however, I saw with my own eyes and found them to excel all other human productions. {endquote} {endnote 11: Ibid., pp. 133-134.}

Was Herodotus a historian deprived of logic, unable to penetrate complex phenomena? On the contrary, his explanation of the inundations of the Nile reveals a rational mind seeking scientific reasons for natural phenomena:

{quote} Perhaps, after censuring all the opinions that have been put forward on this obscure subject, one ought to propose some theory of one's own. I will therefore proceed to explain what I think to be the reason of the Nile's swelling in the summertime. During the winter, the sun is driven out of his usual course by the storms, and removes to the upper parts of Libya. This is the whole secret in the fewest possible words; for it stands to reason that the coun-

{p. 4} try to which the Sun-god approaches the nearest, and which he passes most directly over, will be scantest of water, and that here streams which feed the rivers will shrink the most. To explain, however, more at length, the case is this. The sun, in his passage across the upper parts of Libya, affects them in the following way. As the air in these regions is constantly clear, and the country warm through the absence of cold winds, the sun in his passage across them acts upon them exactly as he is wont to act elsewhere in summer, when his path is in the middle of heaven Ñ that is, he attracts the water. After attracting it, he again repels it into the upper regions, where the winds lay hold of it, scatter it, and reduce it into a vapor, whence it naturally enough comes to pass that the winds which blow from this quarter Ñ the south and southwest Ñ are of all winds the most rainy. And my own opinion is that the sun does not get rid of all the water which he draws year by year from the Nile, but retains some about him. {endquote} {endnote 12. Ibid., pp. 88-89.}

These three examples reveal that Herodotus was not a passive reporter of incredible tales and rubbish, "a liar." On the contrary, he was quite scrupulous, objective, scientific for his time. Why should one seek to discredit such a historian, to make him seem naive? Why "refabricate" history despite his explicit evidence?

Undoubtedly the basic reason for this is that Herodotus, after relating his eyewitness account informing us that the Egyptians were Blacks, then demonstrated, with rare honesty (for a Greek), that Greece borrowed from Egypt all the elements of her civilization, even the cult of the gods, and that Egypt was the cradle of civilization. Moreover, archeological discoveries continually justify Herodotus against his detractors. Thus, Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt writes about recent excavations in Tanis* {footnote: Tanis, the Biblical Zoan, at the mouth of the eastern branch of the Nile Delts}: "Herodotus had seen the outer buildings of these sepulchers and had described them. [This was the Labyrinth discussed above.] Pierre Montet has just proved once again that 'The Father of History did not lie.'" {endnote 13: Sciences et Avenir, No. 56, October 1951.} It could be objected that, in the fifth century B.C. when Herodotus visited Egypt, its civilization was already more than 10,000 years old and that the race which had created it was not necessarily the Negro race that Herodotus found there.

But the whole history of Egypt, as we shall see, shows that the

{p. 5} mixture of the early population with white nomadic elements, conquerors or merchants, became increasingly important as the end of Egyptian history approached. According to Cornelius de Pauw, in the low epoch Egypt was almost saturated with foreign white colonies: Arabs in Coptos, Libyans on the future site of Alexandria, Jews around the city of Hercules (Avaris?), Babylonians (or Persians) below Memphis, "fugitive Trojans" in the area of the great stone quarries east of the Nile, Carians and Ionians over by the Pelusiac branch. Psammetichus (end of seventh century) capped this peaceful invasion by entrusting the defense of Egypt to Greek mercenaries. "An enormous mistake of Pharaoh Psammetichus was to commit the defense of Egypt to foreign troops and to introduce various colonies made up of the dregs of the nations." {endnote 14: Cornelius de Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois. Berlin, 1773, II, 337.} Under the last Saite dynasty, the Greeks were officially established at Naucratis, the only port where foreigners were authorized to engage in trading.

After the conquest of Egypt by Alexander, under the Ptolemies, crossbreeding between white Greeks and black Egyptians flourished, thanks to a policy of assimilation: "Nowhere was Dionysus more favored, nowhere was he worshiped more adoringly and more elaborately than by the Ptolemies, who recognized his cult as an especially effective means of promoting the assimilation of the conquering Greeks and their fusion with the native Egyptians." {endnote 15: J. J. Bachofen, Pages choisies par Adrien Turel, "Du Regne de la mere au patriarcat." Paris: F. Alcan, 1938, p. 89.}

These facts prove that if the Egyptian people had originally been white, it might well have remained so. If Herodotus found it still black after so much crossbreeding, it must have been basic black at the start.

[Taseti]

It's amazing to witness the human mind in the process of confusing itself over something simple, via self inflicted misdirection, convolution and rationalisation.

The Ancient Egyptians made perfect sense.

It's those who are apparently unable to grasp their clear and coherent writings who never make any sense.

The Egyptians did not think in 'racial' terms as YOU do today. Kem or black was a sacred color that the Egyptians applied to themselves as well as their country regardless of actual complexion.

Just read the text and tell us what it says ->

Km.t [rm.t].

Translate it.

The facts written in the mdw ntr are so utterly devastating that the best they can do to counter them is -

lie thru their teeth, stall, or in the case of Amr, sit their like the 'dog watching the opera' and pretend to be too dumb to comprehend anything.

Time to start a new thread Amr.

Keep running.

Here is the correct answer:

Kem, kame, kmi, kmem, kmom = to be black

Kememu = Black people (Ancient Egyptians) in both Ancient and modern Egyptian (Kmemou).

Kem [khet][wood] = extremely black, jet-black

Kemet = any black thing. Note: "t" is silent - pronounced Kemé

Kemet [nu][community, settlement, nation] = Black nation = Ancient Egypt.

Kemet [Romé][people] = Black people. Ancient Egyptians.

Kemit [Shoit][books] = Black books, Ancient Egyptian literature

It literally denotes the color black, to every linguist. Your claims to the contrary are empty noise, desparate and unsubstantiated, and dismissed accordingly. Please present a linguist who denies that the word for black in mdw ntr is Kem.

As ever, I patiently wait.

The word Kemet does not mean black Soil this is the most fabricated **** i have ever heard this comes from White European Scholars

This notion has no basis in history, it is entirely invented by 19th century Europeans.

The closest thing they have to a source for this rationalisation is Herodotus, which is both instructive and ironic.

Herodotus stated that the Nile valley had black soils. He never claimed that the country was named after black soil. In fact, it isn't clear that Herodotus knew *any* native term for Km.t or Kush. He only refers ever to the Greek - Egypt and Ethiopia.

The irony is - Herodotus made the famous comment about the Egyptians having black skin and wooly hair using the same greek term for black 'melos' as was used for the 'soil' reference and every other reference to the color black.


Essentially Eurocentrism misquotes Herodotus in order to justify the km.t as black soil lie, and then turns around and denies his actual quote - regarding Egyptians as black people, which is the crux of the whole debate to begin with!

It's amazing that they ever got away with such a transparent farce of a fib.


Kemet pronounced keme'

The et, representing the vocalisation of the ".t" is simply grammer device, differentiating the adjective km [kem] from the noun km.t [kemet].

By analogy

black adjective.

Blacks proper noun.

Capitalising the B and adding and s does not change the word.

It changes the grammatic context to Blacks allowing it to be the formal name of a person place or thing - which defines 'proper noun'.

kem adjective black, kemet noun Black(s).

What determines what and adjective references is what follows or in the case of most mdw ntr words...precedes.

Example: Kem Isis - Black Isis; Kemsit - Black lady.

What determines what a noun references is the context of a sentense, and or, in the case of mdw ntr, determinatives.

Km.t [rm.t] Blacks, Black people.
Km.t [nu.t] Black, Black nation.

As with any language, once you know what is said - you still must determine what is 'meant'.

Why are Osirus and Isis and Heru -> Black Osirus, Black Isis and Black Heru?

What exactly is referenced as Black?

The answer can be referenced in many ways, including linguisticly - Kem Ho [Black face], and iconographically in black skinned images.

If you simply ask the question - where is *the black* that is referenced. You have the answer, provided you don't run away from it.

It is primarily and literally the skin, *not clothing*, or the crown of Km.t or jewels, or soil, or anything else - that is depicted as Black, [and this is why the analogy with Nigerian references to people of the white cloth is somewhat off-point, if understanable].

The KM.t classified not only their Gods as Black, but themselves as well as Km.t [rome] - - Blacks.

The significance of this is best understood when we remember that in Kemetic religion the God(s) are the ancestors.

That is why the Worterbuch Egyptian dictionary translate Osirus title as:

Kem Wer la grande negre', the Great Black.... ancester of the race.

It tells you what the AE wrote, what they meant, and why.

It's always fun when fools try to refute the worterbuch, because they are completely overmatched intellectually, and inevitably reveal the sheer desparation of racism as it's most loony:

* kem means ka
* black soil
* the figure labled rm.t is really 'nubian', or a 'slave' of the 'egyptians'.

^ all 3, utterly daft arguments, tantamount to confessions of miserable defeat.

[Taseti]

[Taseti]

To Amr and Zagel:

Please tell us more about how Nile Valley civilization including that of the 'Nubians' was born by mixing with peoples from Western Asia.

As you know AMR thinks, Africans can only create civilization or do anything great when they are mixed! LOL

[Taseti]

well taseti Hate to say it but semites are whites:

Linguists, including Christopher Ehret are virtually unanimous on the African origins of this language phylum. You have been challenged to site a linguist to asserts otherwise and obviously can't. Hence, your usual vitrolic and insubstantive response.
next.....

I will incessantly prove you incognizant.

[Taseti]

Egypt is a Greek word.
Nubia is an African word, but the concept of "Nubia" as a distinct geographical/ethnical region is originally Roman.
Nile Valley civilisation is based upon the culture of indigenous Africans who concentrated into the Nile from the Western Sahara, the Southern Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Thus, the oldest examples of mummification come from the southwestern sahara; the oldest example of pharaonic kingship come from TaSeti; the oldest examples of heiroglyphic writing from TaSeti and TaShemu (Upper Egypt) and are based on the rock art from the once wet sahara dating back to before the Nile Valley was populated.

The most meaningful basis of the political boundary of dynastic Kemet is the cataracts of the Nile, which make for a practical administrative boundary, and moreover reflects the practical reality of the greater fertility beneath the first cataract where the nile valley speads out and becomes more fertile. Kemet is where it is because that's where the best agricultural land is.

All of these facts are obscured by the current historical dialectic of Egyptology vs. Nubianology.

A system which is in some ways, the intellectual/historic discourse equivelant of apartheid. Nubia is the contrived Bantustan of Nile Valley history.

[Wst] Egyptology attempts to say to Africans: "You go play here, and don't cross the line."; a line of their own creation and serving their agenda, and not an African one.

Hopefully African scholars will ultimately reject this chimera.

[bjbmusa]

Taseti,

You summed up my argument with the documentation.

Egypt was a colony of Ethiopia. And, Lower Egypt (Northern Egypt), was once under water until the Nile filled up the land with sediment. None of this bodes well for the cross roads/mixed race theories of the origin of Ancient Egypt.

All eye witnesses report the ancient Egytpians as Black.

I would only take exception to one of the sources you quoted claiming the Arabs to be a "White Colony".

The Black racial classification of the Cushite Arab people is what the Author of this post set out to document which we somehow got off course.

But, I appreciate how you explain the "trap" of the race game used by propagandist when the issue can be settled by the Egyptian themselves and eye witnesses such as the Hebrew and Greeks.

[Taseti]

It is clear that the Ancient Greek name Ethiopia was used to describe the state, the country and the people immediately in the South of Egypt. This has nothing to do with Abyssinia; it refers absolutely and exclusively to Sudan, the state and the country Kush that the Egyptians. Either we go as back as Herodotus and the last days of the Kushitic kingdom of Napata, or we refer to later Ancient Greek historians and authors, Ethiopia is limited to the northern – northeastern part of today’s Sudan. The reason is simple: at those days the state known as ‘Ethiopia’ throughout the Greek sources and identified by modern archeologists with antiquities unearthed at the area of present day Sudan did not expand beyond the confines of the northern – northeastern part of that country.

Sudan was referred to as Aethiopia, it is exclusively in reference to Sudan.

[Amr]

Originally Posted by bjbmusa

Taseti,

You summed up my argument with the documentation.

Egypt was a colony of Ethiopia. And, Lower Egypt (Northern Egypt), was once under water until the Nile filled up the land with sediment. None of this bodes well for the cross roads/mixed race theories of the origin of Ancient Egypt.

All eye witnesses report the ancient Egytpians as Black.

I would only take exception to one of the sources you quoted claiming the Arabs to be a "White Colony".

The Black racial classification of the Cushite Arab people is what the Author of this post set out to document which we somehow got off course.

But, I appreciate how you explain the "trap" of the race game used by propagandist when the issue can be settled by the Egyptian themselves and eye witnesses such as the Hebrew and Greeks.

You made two theories and build on it your consclusions.

One that the Delta was under water, in fact the Delta was bigger than it is today. It is actually being reduced evety year by the mideteranean for thousands of years long before the phoroahs.

Two, when did man started to develop different colours. Man left Africa 60 thousand years ago. Did it take him 54000 thousand years to change his colour? Your assumption of just 6 thousand years ago is probably wrong. Because caves in mesoptamia of 8000 years and turkey show very light skin people already there.


Than be aware that every one could bring you pictures of white phoroahs and black phoroahs as far as the 4th dynasty because they both lived in Egypt.


Showing pictures of Sadat and his mother's family does not mean that Egypt was black during his time, right?

[Amr]

FYI
Melanin and genes
Main article: Melanin
Melanin comes in two types: pheomelanin (red) and eumelanin (very dark brown). Both amount and type are determined by four to six genes which operate under incomplete dominance. One copy of each of those genes is inherited from each parent. Each gene comes in several alleles, resulting in a great variety of different skin tones.


.The evolution of the different skin tones is thought to have occurred as follows:[who?] the haired primate ancestors of humans, like modern great apes, had light skin under their hair. When Hominids evolved relative hairlessness (the most likely function of which was to facilitate perspiration), they evolved dark skin, needed to prevent low folate levels since they lived in sun-rich Africa. (The skin cancer connection is probably of secondary importance, since skin cancer usually kills only after the reproductive age and therefore does not exert much evolutionary selection pressure.) When humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem and light skin color re-emerged. Sexual selection and diet may have played a part in the evolution of skin tone diversity, as well.[citation needed]

The Inuit and Yupik are special cases: even though they live in an extremely sun-poor environment, they have retained their relatively dark skin. This can be explained by the fact that their traditional fish-based diet provides plenty of vitamin D.[citation needed]

[Amr]

Jablonski and Chaplin proposed an explanation for the observed variation of untanned human skin with annual UV exposure. By Jablonski and Chaplin's explanation, there are two competing forces affecting human skin tone:

1-the melanin that produces the darker tones of human skin serves as a light filter to protect against too much UV light getting under the human skin where too much UV causes sunburn and disrupts the synthesis of precursors necessary to make human DNA; versus
2-humans need at least a minimum threshold of UV light to penetrate the epidermis to produce vitamin D, which is essential for building and maintaining the bones of the human skeleton.



Jablonski and Chaplin note that when human indigenous peoples have migrated, they have carried with them a sufficient gene pool so that within a thousand years,

the skin of their descendants living today has turned dark or turned light to adapt to fit the formula given above—with the notable exception of dark-skinned peoples moving north, such as to populate the seacoast of Greenland, to live where they have a year-round supply of food rich in vitamin D, such as fish, so that there was no necessity for their skin to lighten to let enough UV under their skin to synthesize the vitamin D that humans need for healthy bones.

[Taseti]

History of Skin Color
The human MC1R gene consists of a string of 954 nucleotides, where each nucleotide is one of the four bases Adenosine (A), Guanine (G), Thymine (T), or Cytosine (C).

But 261 of the nucleotides in the MC1R gene can change with no effect on the amino acid sequence in the receptor protein produced from the gene. For example, the nucleotide triplets GGT, GGC, GGA, and GGG are all synonymous and all produce the amino acid Glycine, ( See DNA Codon Table ) so a mutation in the third position in the triplet GGT is a "silent mutation" and has no effect on the amino acid produced from the triplet.


Harding et al (2000:1355) analyzed the amino acid sequences in the receptor proteins from 106 individuals from Africa and 524 individuals from outside Africa to find why the color of all the Africans' skin was black.


Harding found that there were zero differences among the Africans for the amino acid sequences in their receptor proteins, so the skin of each individual from Africa was black.


In contrast, among the non-African individuals, there were 18 different amino acid sites in which the receptor proteins differed, and each amino acid that differed from the African receptor protein resulted in skin lighter than the skin of the African individuals.

Nonetheless, the variations in the 261 silent sites in the MC1R were similar between the Africans and non-Africans, so the basic mutation rates among the Africans and non-Africans were the same.

Why were there zero differences and no divergences in the amino acid sequences of the receptor protein among the Africans while there were 18 differences among the populations in Ireland, England, and Sweden?

Harding (2000:1359-1360) concluded that the intense sun in Africa created an evolutionary constraint that reduced severely the survival of progeny with any difference in the 693 sites of the MC1R gene that resulted in even one small change in the amino acid sequence of the receptor protein--because any variation from the African receptor protein produced significantly whiter skin that gave less protection from the intense African sun.

In contrast, in Sweden, for example, the sun was so weak that no mutation in the receptor protein reduced the survival probability of progeny. Indeed, for the individuals from Ireland, England, and Sweden, the mutation variations among the 693 gene sites that caused changes in amino acid sequence was the same as the mutation variations in the 261 gene sites at which silent mutations still produced the same amino acid sequence.

Thus, Harding concluded that the intense sun in Africa selectively killed off the progeny of individuals who had a mutation in the MC1R gene that made the skin whiter.

However, the mutation rate toward whiter skin in the progeny of those African individuals who had moved North to areas with weaker sun was comparable to the MC1R mutation rate of the white folks whose ancient ancestors grew up in Sweden.

Hence, Harding concluded that the whiteness of human skin was a direct result of random mutations in the MC1R gene that were non-lethal at the latitudes of Ireland, England, and Sweden.

Even the mutations that produce red hair with little ability to tan were non-lethal in the northern latitudes.

Over 1.2 million years ago, judging from the numbers and spread of variation in MC1R nucleotide sequences, human ancestors in Africa began to lose their hair and they came under increasing evolutionary pressures that killed off the progeny of individuals that retained the inherited whiteness of their skin.


By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was black, and the intense sun killed off the progeny with any whiter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein.

However, the progeny of those humans who migrated North away from the intense African sun were not under the evolutionary constraint that keeps human skin black generation after generation in Africa.

Tracking back the statistical patterns in variations in DNA among all known people sampled who are alive on the earth today, Rogers concluded the following:


1) from 1.2 million years ago for a million years, the ancestors of all people alive today were as black as today's Africans,

2) for that period of a million years, human ancestors lived naked without clothing, and

3) the descendants of any people who migrate North from Africa will mutate to become white over time because the evolutionary constraint that keeps Africans' skin black generation after generation decreases generally the further North a people migrates (Rogers 2004).

There are are variety of related fallacies which circulate with stubborn persistance.


* the notion that skin color can be equated to race.

* the notion that phenotype and genotype are essentially the same.

* the notion that the history of skin color in humans cannot be descerned via means of genetics or skeletal anthropology.

I will show in this thread [again ], that -

Skin color is not "racial."

Genotype and phenotype are distinct.

That Black Africans have always been Black.

That that the original out of Africa migrant population was Black.


And that the predominence of white skin [depigmentation] in some Northern Eurasians is a recent adpation to dearth of sun light in Ice Age Northern Eurasia.

[Taseti]

Two, when did man started to develop different colours. Man left Africa 60 thousand years ago. Did it take him 54000 thousand years to change his colour?

When European skin became white
Modern humans did not begin to lighten in skin color immediately after entering Europe some 35,000 years ago. In fact, these ancestral Europeans remained brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years. This is the conclusion now emerging from studies of skin color loci.

In 2005, a team of Japanese researchers found that the depigmentation of European skin was partly due to a relatively recent allele at the SLC45A2 (AIM1) gene. They dated the allele to c. 11,000 BP and concluded that it had rapidly supplanted the original allele through positive selection (Soejima et al., 2005).

Then last year, at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, a molecular anthropologist at the University of Arizona, Heather Norton, presented evidence that Europeans have a similarly recent allele at another skin color gene, SLC24A5. The new allele is dated to 12,000 – 3,000 BP. As she stated during her talk: "The [evolution of] light skin occurred long after the arrival of modern humans in Europe." (Norton & Hammer, 2007).

The challenge now will be to narrow the time window. Did the change happen during the last ice age? This would be before 10,000 years ago. Or did it happen later, after hunting and gathering gave way to agriculture? This would be 7,400 to 5,900 years ago on the North European plain, where European skin is whitest (Bogucki, 1989).

Both datings are consistent with the data currently available. The corresponding explanations, however, differ greatly. If European skin whitened 7,400 to 5,900 years ago, the cause may have been a diet less rich in vitamin D and, hence, selection for lighter skin to facilitate vitamin D synthesis. This is the explanation favored by a write-up in Science:

Either way, the implication is that our European ancestors were brown-skinned for tens of thousands of years--a suggestion made 30 years ago by Stanford University geneticist L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He argued that the early immigrants to Europe, who were hunter-gatherers, herders, and fishers, survived on ready-made sources of vitamin D in their diet. But when farming spread in the past 6000 years, he argued, Europeans had fewer sources of vitamin D in their food and needed to absorb more sunlight to produce the vitamin in their skin. Cultural factors such as heavier clothing might also have favored increased absorption of sunlight on the few exposed areas of skin, such as hands and faces, says paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of PSU in State College. (Gibbons, 2007)

This explanation falls apart, however, if European skin whitened earlier, such as during the last ice age. The cause may then have been sexual selection, i.e., stronger female-female competition for male mates because of limited polygyny and high male mortality (Frost, 2006, see earlier posts here and here). Preference for lighter-skinned women is attested in a wide range of traditional, premodern societies (van den Berghe & Frost, 1986). Under conditions of intense sexual selection of women, the selective advantage of lighter-skinned women would have entailed a relative depigmentation of the entire population, both women and men.

References

Bogucki, P. (1989). The Neolithic Mosaic on the North European Plain. Updated paper originally delivered at the Society for American Archaeology meeting in Atlanta, Georgia.
http://www.princeton.edu/~bogucki/mosaic.html

Frost, P. (2006). European hair and eye color - A case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 85-103.

Gibbons, A. (2007). American Association Of Physical Anthropologists Meeting: European Skin Turned Pale Only Recently, Gene Suggests. Science 20 April 2007:Vol. 316. no. 5823, p. 364 DOI: 10.1126/science.316.5823.364a
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../316/5823/364a

Norton, H.L. and Hammer, M.F. (2007). Sequence variation in the pigmentation candidate gene SLC24A5 and evidence for independent evolution of light skin in European and East Asian populations. Program of the 77th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, p. 179. http://www.physanth.org/annmeet/aapa...8abstracts.pdf

Soejima, M., Tachida, H., Ishida, T., Sano, A., and Koda, Y. (2005). Evidence for recent positive selection at the human AIM1 locus in a European population. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23, 179-188.

van den Berghe, P.L., and Frost, P. (1986). Skin color preference, sexual dimorphism and sexual selection: A case of gene-culture co-evolution? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 9, 87-113.

THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SKIN AND SKIN COLOR

Nina G. Jablonski­



Humans skin is the most visible aspect of the human phenotype.

It is distinguished mainly by its naked appearance, greatly enhanced abilities to dissipate body heat through sweating, and the great range of genetically determined skin colors present within a single species.

Many aspects of the evolution of human skin and skin color can be reconstructed using comparative anatomy, physiology, and genomics.


Dark skin evolved pari passu with the loss of body hair and was the original state for the genus Homo.

Melanin pigmentation is adaptive and has been maintained by natural selection. Because of its evolutionary lability, skin color phenotype is useless as a unique marker of genetic identity..


Than be aware that every one could bring you pictures of white phoroahs and black phoroahs as far as the 4th dynasty because they both lived in Egypt.

Which white pharaoh from the 4th dynasty?

[*Olive]

'Sudan was referred to as Aethiopia, it is exclusively in reference to Sudan.'

Interesting point.....some years ago a Sudanese Professor Abdallah eltayeb suggested the same in reference to the historical Islamic narrative of the first Muslim Hijra.....The Prophet Muhammad sent 70 of his followers to seek asylum in 'Ethiopia' as they were being persecuted by the Mushriq Arabs...the late Adallah el Taybeb gave a lecture on Sudan TV where he provided evidence that the Ethiopia referred to was infact Christiann Nubia in North Sudan and that King Najashi was infact Sudanese...........

Zagel.....i know you might not like to hear this but the people originally known as the Moors were a mixture of Kushite Arabs and Blacks from North Africa....there were other ethnic groups amongst them later on with pale/fairer skin but the vast majority of them were Negros...and again this is from eye witness reports which i have provided but you chose to ignore perhaps because there is no J1 or J2 lol .....the Moors, the ancient Egyptians, the kushite arabs, the Nubians, the Kushites, The Sabeans, the Babylonians, the Hebrews, the people of Suma or Elam these were all Black people of various hues, facial features, culture and language...but all of them were originally Negro

[Taseti]

physical anthropology:
There is just too much in this department, and I don't have my database with me right now. So for the sake of argument I will refer to the article that Giza posted and show which parts are accurate and which are inaccurate.

THEORIES about the Negro origin of the Ancient Egyptians have been with Egyptology ever since its beginnings.1 Also, certain Negroid features can be found in the morphological appearance of the contemporary Egyptian population, more obviously in Upper Egypt than in Lower Egypt.2 Modern genetically orientated studies, e.g. of the blood groups, show the penetration of the Egyptian population by Negro genes.3 The question remains, however, whether the Negroid admixture is connected with the origin of the settled population in Egypt or whether it took place in later, that is to say, in prehistoric, historic or modern times.

In Nubia, according to the results of the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing in from the south.4 Negroes and Negroids penetrated to Egypt only sporadically, and their frequency, uneven according to time, place and the diagnostical knowledge of the investigator, has been estimated as 1 to 5 per cent. An increase of the number of Negroes was observed only during the New Kingdom, in connexion with the expansion of Egyptian domination to the south.5 From that time onwards, they were pictured as symbols of the south. The perfect portrayal of their morphological features shows that Egyptian artists knew them very well.

The problem is what the experts consider "negro" and what they consider "caucasoid".

Usually "negro" is referred to physical features such as broad face, broad nose, etc. While "caucasoid" is referred to as narrow face, narrow nose etc.

The problem with these definitions is that they fail to assess the true diversity and range of physical features found in African populations. As we can plainly see from the Somalis on this board (especially the idiots) there are Africans with narrow faces and narrow noses.

Also is the fact that the so-called "caucasoid" features are noted but certain African traits like prognathism are either neglected or downplayed.

Just to further dissect this even more. What about "mongoloid" features? Exactly what features do these experts call "mongoloid"?

These opinions about the heterogeneity of the Badarians had to be checked by the individual analysis of the material. This was attempted for the second Badarian series by A. Wiercinski,19 applying his own and Michalski's typological method. He found the Europoid (Caucasoid) element in 76 percent, the Mongoloid element in 19.4 percent and the Negroid element in 4.6 percent. The assumed high share of the Mongoloid element, which is not easy to distinguish from the Negroid one in the skeletal material, is rather strange, and I could not find it during my own re-examination of the same material. Neither geographical nor historical circumstances suggest the presence of a strong Mongoloid admixture in the oldest settled population of Egypt and Middle East. Wierciniski's analysis, nevertheless, shows that about one quarter of the Badarian series was found to be of non-Europoid character....

As we all know there were no East Asians present in the Egyptian populace.

Besides, earlier remains show people with broad features and the Tasians of Lower Egypt are most likely connected to Natufians, whom Larry Angel described as having low vaulted noses and prognathism.

Perhaps an indication of ancestry more accurate than craniofacial measurement is skeletal body measurements. And it has been established that predynastic as well as dynastic Egyptians had elongated tropical builds. Gay Robins and others have often called Egyptian body plans "supra-negroid," compared to West African who have simply "negroid" bodies.

As far as genes, the study used blood-groupings which no doubt revealed similarities with other Sub-Saharans. However more modern DNA testing shows the presence of both E3a and E3b, both of which are sub-Saharan African in origin.

More Bio-anthropological evidence:

http://wysinger.homestead.com/africa...june_2005_.pdf

culture:

Divine Kingship: The pharaoh was seen as both king and god and is believed to have divine powers. This belief is widespread in Africa. Whereas many peoples in Sudan and East Africa have a "rain-maker" king, the Egyptian king is believed to make the Nile flood.

the significant role of women: women in Egyptian society were not suppressed like those of the Near-East and had active roles in public life. They had freedom and independence and could run their own businesses and own their own properties. Again this is prevalent in African societies.

Circumcision Rites: The Egyptians practiced circumcision as a rite of passage for boys into adulthood, as do many African peoples.

sacred colors & numbers: The Egyptians, like many Africans held sacred beliefs for certain numbers like 1 for the beginning of all, 2 for duality, and the color black for life and regeneration and the color red for chaos and destruction. Many Africans also share these beliefs. Many groups in East Africa worship a supremed deity that is concieved of as black whereas destructive deities are red.

Totemism & their taboos: The Egyptians held certain animals and plants to be sacred because they are living symbols of their gods. Another belief prevalent in black Africa.

Ancestor veneration: The Egyptians believed in honoring their departed and deceased. They would hold feasts and make images of their dead etc. These beliefs are also common to Africa

Zar possession rituals: Even today in rural parts of Egypt, they continue to practice the possession ritual of Zar that is practiced by Africans from East to West. It is even a special ritual among West African voodoo! And speaking of voodoo...

The Practice of Magic (Voodoo): The Egyptians believed in the power of magic and used them in many rituals. There were execration rituals in which images of enemies were made and destroyed. Or images of enemies made on the Pharaohs sandals so he may symbolically step on them. The key to Egyptian (and essentially all African) beliefs in magic is the symbolism. The power of magic is to make the symbolic real. Like voodoo dolls etc.

[*Olive]

Arabia the Daughter of Kush


The classical Greek and Roman writers commonly accepted the division of Arabia into Deserta (desert), Felix (happy), and Petraea (stony). Not much is known today about the exact configuration of those divisions.

Later day Islamic Arabic geographers know nothing of this division, and this is not surprising since many of those later day Arabs are actually immigrants that later acculturated and assimilated into the culture of the original Black Arabs.

Arab geographers of the Islamic period divided Arabia generally into five provinces: The first is Yemen, embracing the whole south of the peninsula and including Hadramaut, Mahra, Oman, Shehr, and Nejran. The second is Hijaz, on the west coast and including Mecca and Medina, the two famous centres of Islam.

The third is Tehama, along the same coast between Yemen and Hijaz. The fourth is Nejd, which includes most of the central table-land, and the fifth is Yamama, extending all the wide way between Yemen and Nejd. This division is also inadequate, for it omits the greater part of North and East Arabia.

A more recent division of Arabia, according to politico-geographical principles, is into seven provinces: Hijaz, Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, Hasa, Irak, and Nejd. It has always been the assertion of experts that certain tribes that lived on the coast of Yemen and on the coast of Ethiopia and Eriteria were almost identical.

The linkages between Ethiopia Kush and Arabia must be considered in the context of any discourse on Arab people, or more precisely stated the Black Africans of Arabia.


Ethiopia-Kush

As stated in the preceding paragraph, the key to understanding the origin and culture of the Arabs is through African Kushitic Ethiopia.
Contacts between eastern Africa and Arabia have existed since the time immemorial. Archeological evidence has demonstrated that Africans of the Caspian culture probably moved across the Strait of Bab El Mandel and implanted the same Caspian culture in Arabia on the other side of the strait. See Leaky, L.S.B., Stone Age Africa pp 38-78.






The Strait of Bab-El-Mandel, which separates Africa from Arabia, is quite narrow at some points averaging a couple of days journey on a sea raft or small canoe. Communication and travel have consequently been possible since pre-historic times.

It will thus not be a surprising claim to the well informed that East African people (being the first aboriginals of the earth) have long settled in Arabia as the original inhabitants. For instance, besides the Caspian culture, African people also founded the so-called Afro-Arabian Tihama cultural complex in the mid-2nd millennium.

In addition to the coastal site of Adulis in Eritrea and sites farther inland in Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Sudan, vestiges of the Tihama cultural complex are represented on the Saudi coastal plains and the western and southern coasts of Yemen. (Fattovich 1997).

Moreover, African settlements were further stimulated by the growth of the Egyptian state from the 4th millennium onward, with more extensive migration of African population in Arabia around the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C.

Semitic speaking settlers from Ethiopia-Kush settled in Arabia built complex cultures and civilizations of which the later Assyrians, Greeks, Romans and Jews would document for coming generations. See Josephus Book 1.





Who are the Arabs ?:

In today’s world, one is seducively led by the racist western media to believe that the Arabs of Arabia and Africa represent a peculiar phenotype with all other non-conforming types being somewhat alien to that concept.

In this way they impose a certain central Asian phenotype as the “racial Arab” and the almost ubiquitous Black Arabs of the modern times as either descendants of slaves or immigrants.

In this way, they attempt to disconnect the linkage between the ancient Kushitic Black Arabs globally celebrated in antiquity (now reclassified as some “caucasoid” “semitics”) and their Kushitic African roots.

This article is therefore another blow against the citadel of falsehood erected by the western intelligensia used to discourage, dis-empower dissipate and diffuse the energy of the Black nation. Again one notes and deplores the unrelenting effort by non-continental peoples to appropriate the history and the achievements of brilliant Black African luminaries as their own.


Much confusion attends the word “Arabs”, because it has not always been used with rigourous consistency. Moreover, in the wake of the global dominance of the Arab culture and Islamic political power in the between 7AD and 14 AD, the number of Arabs increased exponentially by the addition of many non Arab Arabized people, because acculturation and assimilation were delibrately fostered by state policy.


Today, the word Arabs does not strictly imply or designate any known racial category of people. It is an ethnic identification that has several aspect including liguistics, politics and genealogy. Its meaning is nuanced depending on the particular context.


As an ethnic identity, an Arab is someone who considers himself to be an Arab regardless of racial or ethnic origin. This definition encompasses many Africans, Indians, Indonesians and Chinese who describe themselves as Arabs.
Usually the first language of persons who claim to be Arab is Arabic.

There are over 200 million people worldwide whose first language is Arabic. Again these peoples spread over a large portion of the globe spanning from central Africa to central Asia. More than 70% of the so-called Arabs in the world live physically in Africa.


Given that the Arabic language is a Semitic language, which forms part of the Afro-Asia language family, which originated in Africa, one can rightly view Arabic as an African language. Of the official languages of the African Union that include English, French, Spanish, Portugese, and Arabic, Arabic language is the only Afro-Asiatic language spoken.

The rest are Euro-Aryan English, French, Spanish and Portugese. See Uwechia Jide; Hamito-Semitic Africa: http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/...-of-africa-ii/. See also Peter T. Daniels, Origin of Semitic: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/011842.html.


Viewed from a political perspective, someone who is a resident or citizen of a country where Arabic is an official or national language, or is a member of the Arab League or is part of the wider Arab world is an Arab.

This definition would cover more than 300 million people. Under this definition, there are more Arabs in Africa than anywhere else in the universe. Most of those Arabs that live in Africa are Black Africans, from Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, Eriteria, Kenya Tanzannia, Egypt, Algeria and Morocco. Many of them trace their ancestry to Yemen.


On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an “Arab” as: “… a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.” The Arab League’s definition of an Arab leaves no room for any racialist twist on the meaning of Arab and Arabic. These words simply denote ethnicity.

Yet again, based upon this definition, there are more Black Africans who have a legitimate claim to the Arabic ethnicity than anywhere else in the world.


According to Habib Hassan Touma (1996, p.xviii), “An ‘Arab’, in the modern sense of the word, is one who is a national of an Arab state, has command of the Arabic language, and possesses a fundamental knowledge of Arabian tradition, that is, of the manners, customs, and political and social systems of the culture.”

Here again, one finds that there more Black African Arabs based on this definiton than any other regional phenotype that lays claim to that heritage.


A hadith related by Ibn Asakir in Tarak Dimashq and attributed to Islam’s prophet Muhammad states that :”Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever learns Arabic is an Arab.” <http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=266&main_cat_id=11>.


Genealogically, an Arab is someone who can trace his or her ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. Different groups estimate the relative importance of these factors differently. Most people who consider themselves Arabs do so on the basis of the overlap of the political and linguistic definitions.


Since there are so many different phenotypes all considered as Arabs, the query posed and answered by this paper then is: who are the original Arabs? Were they Black or White or Black and White?

It is posited here that the original Arabs were Black African Kushites from the Nile valley who had settled in southwest Asia in the Arabian Peninsula in ancient times.


They were Kushitic-Ethiopians, speakers of an African prototypical Semitic language who had left from an area falling between the regions bordered by modern day Dafur in Sudan and Asmara in Eriteria.

They took their African genes, their African intelligence, their African culture, their African language and their African love and built the ancient and the modern civilization known as Arabic civilization. In the paragraphs that follow, one is gradually introduced to the original Black Kushitic Arabs. See Uwechia Jide; Hamito-Semitic Africa: http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/...-of-africa-ii/. See also Peter T. Daniels, Origin of Semitic: https://listhost.uchicago.edu/piperm...ry/011842.html.


Black Arabs and Classical Literature


Up to a century and a half ago our information concerning Arabia was based mainly on Greek and Latin writers, such as Herodotus (Histories), Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica), Strabo (Geography, Book XVI), Pliny, Ptolemy, and others. All those writers reported without any equivocation that Arabia was part of the ancient Kingdom of Ethiopia Kush, extending from Africa into Solomon Islands.

Later Arabic writers and geographers, such as Hamadani’s “Arabian Peninsula,” Bekri and Yaqut’s geographical and historical dictionaries, and similar works also provide extremely valuable.

However, those works are to be treated with caution because they contain fabulous and legendary traditions, partly based on native popular legends and partly on Jewish and rabbinical fancies.

From the available literature and authorities, historians have broadly divided Arabs into three classes according to their different great ancestors. They are:

The original Black Arabs who were supposedly punished by destruction and deluge because, as legend has it in the book of Qurân, they disobeyed their Prophets and flouted God’s instructions; they were: Ad, Thamud, Tasam, Jadeis, Imru.

The classical Black Arabs, who are believed to have descended from Yaârub ibn Yashjub ibn Ghatan and thus called Ghataniyun. They had lived in the Yemen; they included a number of tribes and sub-tribes, two of which became historically prominent – viz., Himyar and Kahlan (al’arab al’ariba).
The Arabized Arabs:

These tribes immigrated into Arabia from different sections of central Asia. Many of them intermarried with the desert dwelling nomadic blemmyes - the Bejas (original Bedouin Arabs) and the Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian tribes of Africa. Their mix -blood children who adopted a mingled form of their parents cultures are known as the Arabized Arabs (al ‘arab al musta ‘riba).


Today, upon the dictates of the western intelligensia, this banch is the so-called prototypical Arabs. They are the picture boys of the “white-semitic” theories which seek to claim that some white or at the very least some off-white people were and remain the original and only Arabians.

By employing vague and non-categorical semantics with words like “Semites,” ‘Hamites,” Ishmaelites,” “caucasiods,” the western negro-phobic intelligensia and educational establishment seek to erase every trace of black Africa from Arabia.


Nonetheless, if one understood Arab culture it is immediately apparent that Blackness is highly cherished conceptually and in reality. In Arab culture the best camel is the black one the best fig is the blackest, the best eyes are black, the best olives are black, the most beautiful rock is the Black Kaaba.

Any Bedouin Arab that is asked his color, would undoubtedly respond Asmar or Aswad which means Black/Brown. No Arab ever describes himself as Bidan which means White because they all understand instinctively if not consciously that Africa is their root.

The Black Arabs as described in “Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews”:
Josephus was a soldier, priest and scholar who was born in 37 AD.

His written works are seminal in western history and for many centuries were some of the most widely read and influential books of the western civilization.

In the paragraphs that immediately follow, excerpts of Josephus’ commentary on the Arabs and near easterners who were contemporary to his period are reproduced. See The Catholich Encyclopadia <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm>
According to Josephus:


“The children of Ham (note: Ham is the archetypal ancestor Black people according to Hebrew, Arabic and Jewish legends) possessed the land from Syria and Amanus (modern Jordan), and the mountains of Libanus (modern Lebanon); seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own.


Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans.


Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos.

We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also.


Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan.

The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans (Editor’s note: the Black Arabs, the Yemenites,); Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens (Editors note: the Black Hadramutians, Sabatha was the ancient capital of Hadramut), they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens (note: the Black Southern Arabians also called Omanites); and Ragmus the Ragmeans (note: a Black Arab section of south western Arabia mentioned frequently in Sabean inscriptions); and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: but Nimrod, the son of Chus (the Black ancient Iraqi Arabs), staid and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you.


Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon.”


November 26, 2006


To Be Continued in Part 2.

[Taseti]

Comprehension of E3b is vital to understanding the biological origin and history of Km.t.

Y-chromosome haplotypes in Egypt

We *filtered*yzed Y-chromosome haplotypes in the Nile River Valley in Egypt in 274 unrelated males, using the p49a,f TaqI polymorphism. These individuals were born in three regions along the river: in Alexandria (the Delta and Lower Egypt), in Upper Egypt, and in Lower Nubia. Fifteen different p49a,f TaqI haplotypes are present in Egypt, the three most common being haplotype V, haplotype XI, and haplotype IV.
Haplotype XI shows a preponderance in the south (in C - Nubia, 30.4%; B - Upper Egypt, 28.8%)
- G. Lucott, G. Mercier
International Institute of Anthropology, Paris, France

Haplotype XI [in this paper] is E3b1, and originates among the East Africans - Borana, Somali, Oromo, etc.. E3b1 is derived from southern African E3b.

E3b answers the question of the origins of the ancient Egyptians.

E3b is the DEATH BLOW to dynastic race theories or West Asian origins for ancient Egypt.

E3b forces Eurocentrists like Mary Lefkowitz to make meally mouthed admissions: Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not invaders from the North.

Dry and technical as it may seem, the Pn2 clade is what matters in biology. It directly proves the primary and common origins and relationships between Ancient Egyptians and other Africans.

Haplotype IV {E3A} is almost absent in A , {the delta} (1.2%), and
preponderant in B {Upper Egypt} (27.3%) and C {lower Nubia} (39.1%)
- - G. Lucott, G. Mercier


The distribution of [E3A] in Africa has usually been explained by the "Bantu migrations", but their presence in the Nile Valley in non-Bantu speakers cannot be explained in this way.
Their existence is better explained by their being present in populations of the early Holocene Sahara, who in part went on to people the Nile Valley in the mid-Holocene (!!!), according to H*filtered*an (198; this occured long before the "Bantu migrations", which also do not exlain the high frequency of M2 in Senegal, since there are no Bantu speakers there either

- SOY Keita.

[*Olive]

[Amr]

Zagel

Afro Centrics also don't talk about the effect of the sun on soldeirs and farmers of ancient Egypt on their skin tone.

I know many almost white Egyptians workers when placed under the sun in a farm for a month, they turn black. You will not think they are white at all.

May you comment on this

[Amr]

Taseti

We are all the children of one man, than became from one race to many races, depending on where we live..

Do you think blacks who would live in Europe for the next 10 thousand years, will stay black.

According to Scientist man changes skin tone according to the place he stays.

By the way who we all descend from, is an African, his brothers had no descendants, but he had a father and a mother. But keep in mind no one knows for sure whether his ancestors came from another place.

May be Asia

May be his ancestors where white or yellow.

No one knows.

what matters we are one specis that changes skin tone depending on where we live. Unlike some animals who can do it in a short period. It takes us thousands of years.


Regards,

Amr

[Nugaal]

Olive, on page 1 you spoke about Arab tribes living North of Mecca, yet you posted the photo of an Afar man, the photo below.

http://www.selamta.net/Afar%20man.jpg


The clothing he is wearing is also donned by Beja, Oromo, and Somali people. What he is wearing is very similar to the clothes of Southern Arabian nomadic tribes and they also look like people in the Horn, so I don't blame anyone for confusing the two people. But the question is - whose culture is it? Is it the Arabs who introduced it to the Horn people or did the Arabs migrate from the Horn? The only Horn people who sailed to Arabia to come back were the Abyssinians and the Abyssinians don't share the culture of the man in the picture.

[*Olive]

Originally Posted by Nugaal

Olive, on page 1 you spoke about Arab tribes living North of Mecca, yet you posted the photo of an Afar man, the photo below.

http://www.selamta.net/Afar%20man.jpg


The clothing he is wearing is also donned by Beja, Oromo, and Somali people. What he is wearing is very similar to the clothes of Southern Arabian nomadic tribes and they also look like people in the Horn, so I don't blame anyone for confusing the two people. But the question is - whose culture is it? Is it the Arabs who introduced it to the Horn people or did the Arabs migrate from the Horn? The only Horn people who sailed to Arabia to come back were the Abyssinians and the Abyssinians don't share the culture of the man in the picture.

Nugaal

The image posted is for illustration purposers only...it is to give the reader an indication of what those ancient Arabian nomads looked and dressed like
.....the Afar like the Beja of Sudan were one of the original occupants of the Arabian peninsula.....go back and read the post entitled The Arab According To The Romans....Nomadic tribes from the horn of Africa were the ones who laid down the foundation for the Arab culture to evolve....and by the way the izar worn nby those tribes was also worn in Ancient Egypt thousands of years before the term 'arab' existed

[Taseti]

Taseti


By the way who we all descend from, is an African, his brothers had no descendants, but he had a father and a mother. But keep in mind no one knows for sure whether his ancestors came from another place.

Homo sapiens - our ancestors - originated in Africa 150 thousand years ago.

At this time, there are no homo sapiens anywhere else on earth.

All non Africans are descendant from Africans who migrated out of Africa beginning about 70 thousand years ago.

If you disagree with this, then GRAB A SHOVEL and get to digging.

When you find a skeleton of homo-sapiens somewhere other than Africa as old as the oldest African homo-sapiens...you'll be famous.

Shouldn't be too hard.



May be Asia

May be his ancestors where white or yellow.

No one knows.

There are no homo sapiens outside of Africa from 120,000 years ago. There are no homo sapiens in Europe - until 40 thousand years ago, which is in turn a time of a completely different climate, which then moots the whole point of your discourse.

what matters we are one specis that changes skin tone depending on where we live. Unlike some animals who can do it in a short period. It takes us thousands of years.




We Are All Africans:

Nice hypothesis, you may say, but is it true? The heart of the scientific method lies in that skeptic's simple question.

A merely plausible explanation of what we observe will not suffice, nor will a hypothesis bolstered only by some expert's endorsement.

Modern science is wonderfully egalitarian, and it demands proof that all cann access: measurements, objects or evidence of some kind.

Scientific hypotheses must be both well-defined and firmly supported, preferably by several different types of data


In the study of human evolution, dueling hypotheses are commonplace because of long-standing, frequently erupting feuds about the interpretation of the fossil record.

The field is so argumentative, in part, because the theories reflect directly on the nature and origin of humans. There is immense room for giving and taking offense when the subject is oneself.

Opposable Theories

For decades, paleoanthropologists have argued over two competing theories about the origin of our kind. The older notion, which owes its crude beginnings to Charles Darwin, is the Out of Africa hypothesis.

This theory maintains that modern humans evolved in Africa and then spread around the world. Boiled down to its essence, the hypothesis states that modern humans are both relatively recent (100,000 to 200,000 years old) and African in origin.

A major prediction of this hypothesis is that the earliest remains of modern humans will be found in Africa, dated to an appropriate time period.

Multiregionalism and "Race":

The rival Multiregional hypothesis argues that modern humans evolved in many locations around the world from a precursor species, Homo erectus, approximately one to two million years ago. According to this school of thought, these regional populations evolved along parallel paths and reached modernity at roughly the same time.

Because the populations were largely isolated from one another, they developed distinctive regional features, which people recognize today as "racial" differences.

The Multiregional hypothesis predicts that the fossilized remains of the earliest modern humans will be found all over the Old World and that these scattered fossils will all date from about the same time.

Furthermore, the theory requires these early populations to show anatomical and genetic continuity with the current inhabitants of the same region.

For example, Multiregionalists believe that Neandertals, an archaic human form, are most closely related to modern indigenous Europeans.


Unfortunately for adherents of the Multiregional hypothesis, recent results are weighing heavily against them.

Three very different strains of evidence have converged to offer convincing support for the rival theory.

Evidence for "Eve"


In April of this year, Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Maryland and a team of coworkers reported genetic analyses of more than 600 living Tanzanians from 14 different tribes and four linguistic groups.

They analyzed mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)—the tool of choice for tracing ancestry because it is inherited only through the mother as part of the ovum.

The number of mutations that have accumulated in mtDNA is a rough measure of the time that has passed since that lineage first appeared. The owner of the first modern human mtDNA (by definition, a woman) is often referred to as "Eve," although many women of that time are likely to have shared similar mtDNA.

Genetic diversity

Tishkoff and her colleagues chose to investigate East African peoples for specific reasons. The number of linguistic and cultural differences is unusually high in the region, as is the variation in physical appearance—East Africans are tall or short, darker-skinned or lighter-skinned, round-faced or narrow-faced, and so on.

This observation suggested that the genetic composition of the population is highly diverse, and as expected, the team found substantial variation in the mtDNA. In fact, members of five of the lineages showed an exceptionally high number of mutations compared with other populations, indicating that these East African lineages are of great antiquity.

Identified by tribal affiliation, these are: the Sandawe, who speak a "click" language related to that of the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert; the Burunge and Gorowaa, who migrated to Tanzania from Ethiopia within the last five thousand years; and the Maasai and the Datog, who probably originated in the Sudan.

The efforts of the University of Maryland group reflect a substantially larger database and more certain geographic origins for its subjects than earlier mtDNA studies. Further, the work by Tishkoff's team reveals that these five East African populations have even older origins than the !Kung San of southern Africa, who previously had the oldest known mtDNA.


"These samples showed really deep, old lineages with lots of genetic diversity," Tishkoff says. "They are the oldest lineages identified to date. And that fact makes it highly likely that 'Eve' was an East or Northeast African. My guess is that the region of Ethiopia or the Sudan is where modern humans originated."

By assuming that mtDNA mutates at a constant rate, Tishkoff's team estimated that the oldest lineages in their study originated 170,000 years ago, although she cautions that the method only gives an approximate date. Nonetheless, this finding is neatly congruent with new fossil evidence.
Idaltu Means "Elder"

This past June, an international team headed by Tim White and F. Clark Howell of the University of California at Berkeley, and Berhane Asfaw of the Rift Valley Research Service in Addis Ababa announced the discovery of three fossilized human skulls in the Herto Bouri area of Ethiopia. Volcanic layers immediately above and below the layer were dated to 154,000 and 160,000 years using radioisotopes, meaning that the owners of the skulls lived sometime between those dates.

The most remarkable of the three specimens is an adult male cranium: With the exception of a few missing teeth and some damage on the left side of the skull, the fossil is complete. There is also part of another male skull and an immature cranium from a six- or seven-year-old child.


Once these specimens were cleaned and pieced together, the team was able to make some telling observations. Like modern humans, the owners of these skulls had small faces tucked under capacious braincases, making the facial profile vertical.

The cranial volume of the most complete specimen, designated BOU-VP-16/1, is 1,450 cubic centimeters—large even for modern humans.

The braincase of the other adult skull may have been even bigger.

Although the African Herto skulls are longer and more robust than those of recent humans, the team considers the Herto specimens to be the earliest modern Homo sapiens yet found—direct ancestors of people living today.

In an unknowing echo of Tishkoff's genetic findings, Tim White concludes, "We are all, in this sense, Africans."

Because the discoverers of the Herto skulls were unable to find convincing links between these fossils and archaic humans from any single geographic region, they put the three specimens into a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu.

The subspecies name idaltu comes from the Afar language of Ethiopia.

It means "elder."

A close-up view of the reconstruction

Even paleoanthropologists who were not associated with the finds overwhelmingly agree that the Herto skulls are the earliest securely dated modern humans yet found, meshing with the Out of Africa hypothesis.

The Herto fossils also fit neatly into an African succession: Older skulls from the region include Homo erectus fossils from Daka, dated to about 1 million years ago, and the archaic Bodo skull, estimated to be about 500,000 years old.

These findings establish the earliest modern humans in Africa, but they do not exclude the simultaneous evolution of modern man in other parts of the world, as suggested by the Multiregional hypothesis.

The most pertinent test of Multiregionalism focuses on Neandertals, which are a uniquely European form of primitive humans. According to Multiregionalists, Neandertals (which lived between about 200,000 and 27,000 years ago) are a transitional form that connects European Homo erectus to modern Homo sapiens sapiens. Could the Herto skulls simply be the regional, African equivalent of Neandertals?


"No," says co-leader Berhane Asfaw definitively.

"The Herto skulls show that people in Africa had already developed the anatomy of modern humans while European Neandertals were still quite different."

Indeed, the Herto skulls, though robust, lack many of the diagnostic anatomical features of Neandertal skulls. Asfaw states, "We can conclusively say that Neandertals had nothing to do with modern humans based on these skulls and on the genetic evidence."


Neandertals as European Ancestors?


The genetic evidence to which he refers has accumulated over the last six years, but the most dramatic advance came in 1999, when a team led by Svante P??bo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, became the first to extract mtDNA from the original Neandertal specimen. His group's success was a spectacular tour de force of meticulous technique and solid research design. The ancient mtDNA was compared with mtDNA from more than 2,000 people living in various regions around the world and differed from each of the modern regional groups by an average of 27 mutations (out of a possible 379 that were examined). Contrary to the predictions of the Multiregional hypothesis, the mtDNA of Neandertals was not closer to that of the modern Europeans.

The work was a strong blow to the theory that humans evolved in several places simultaneously.


Multiregionalists Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and Alan Thorne, then of Australian National University in Canberra, challenged the conclusions. They urged an investigation of mtDNA from additional Neandertals, in case the single individual used by Paabo's team was particularly unusual.

They also suggested that Neandertal mtDNA might be closer to samples from the fossilized remains of early modern humans in Europe than from living Europeans.

Since these criticisms were levied, several teams have carried out additional studies of mtDNA from Neandertals and fossilized modern humans.

All have shown that Neandertal samples differ significantly from modern mtDNA, which is indistinguishable from fossilized modern human mtDNA.

Giorgio Bertorelle of the University of Ferrara in Italy led one of these teams, which published important results last May. Bertorelle's team compared mtDNA from two early modern humans (Cro-Magnons) from Italy, dated to 23,000 and 24,720 years old, with four mtDNA sequences of Neandertals from 42,000 to 29,000 years ago.

The chronological proximity of the Neandertal and modern fossils was key because it increased the likelihood that Neandertal mtDNA would strongly resemble the early modern human mtDNA—if the former evolved into the latter, as the Multiregional hypothesis states.

Bertorelle and colleagues found that the Cro-Magnon mtDNA was unlike the Neandertal samples, differing from them at 22 and 28 sites out of 360. Instead, the Cro-Magnon mtDNA sequences fell squarely within the range of variation of living humans. One of the Italian Cro-Magnons had a sequence shared by 359 (14 percent) of 2,566 modern samples in Europe and the Near East, and the other differs by only one mutation.

"The early modern humans had sequences that living individuals still have," concluded Bertorelle, "they [have] ... nothing to do with Neandertal sequences." He and Asfaw might chime in unison that Neandertals cannot represent a regional European transition from Homo erectus to modern Homo sapiens.
Compelling Congruity

The Out of Africa hypothesis has become compelling because these different studies have all yielded congruent answers.

Tishkoff's work points to East Africa in general, and Ethiopia/Sudan in particular, as the region where the oldest modern human lineages are found—and probably evolved. Bertorelle and others emphasize the genetic discrepancies between Neandertals and modern humans and demonstrate that some early anatomically modern fossils were also genetically modern—undermining the Multiregional hypothesis.

Despite the power of these genetic studies, only the fossils can tell us what our ancestors actually looked like, what they actually did and where they actually lived.

It is singularly satisfying that the White-Howell-Asfaw team has discovered fossilized human remains from the right place (Ethiopia) and time (about 160,000 years ago) that also have the right (modern human) anatomy.

The authors of the Out of Africa hypothesis are celebrating.

I don't expect that the subscribers of the Multiregional hypothesis will be waving a white flag of surrender, although they have lost the great majority of their supporters.

While it remains possible that new findings will shift the balance in favor of the Multiregional viewpoint, the consilience of such evidence creates a powerful testament. It would take many new fossils and many new genetic studies to resculpt this intellectual landscape.

[zagel]

Originally Posted by bjbmusa

Zagel,

Now, you truly fail there. Amr's point about Diop is also equally invalid. As I said, Diop begged to be allowed to take tissue samples from the Egyptian mummies, the royal mummies, and was prepared to prove the racial identity by doing Carbon 14 Data on the melanin content. That is science, not biased. Although he did not get permission, he did run the test I believe on other samples.

C'mon Zagel and Amr. Zaytoon and Taseti have included reference after reference, links after links, in their posts. Not addressing science of racial genetics, but as they pertained specifically to the identity of the people known as Ancient Egyptians.

Zagel, Amr says Menes Dynasty started 3000 BC. He says Pre-Dynastic Egypt was 2000 years before that. So that is 5,000 BC. according to Amr. We now are 2,000 years AD. So, going back 6,000 years, that puts us at 4,000 BC. Even according to Amr, Pre-Dynastic Egypt would have been 1,000years old.

And Amr, the point I think you are missing is this, it is said the Menes RE-UNITED the two Egypts!! That means, there was a United Egypt BEFORE the Pre-Dynastic Period which you put at 5000 BC. In other words Amir, Egypt was old BEFORE the Pre-Dynastic and Dynastic periods.

Now, I read something in the works of Al-Masudi that impacted upon me. He wrote that in 10,000-8,000 BC, there was no Upper Egypt or there was no Delta. The Delta, I believe, is your cross roads area. Why was there no Delta you might ask? Well, the Delta area was under water! Sediments from the Nile built up what is now the Delta. The historians recall the time period where the Delta was not there because the sediment build up had not even developed there.

Where are the evidences from the historians of the times, even the Greeks, that speak of Egypt as being anything other than a Black civilization, that is Blue Black or Brown. Do we have any eye witness testimony from anyone.

You will be surprised about local testimonies form horsemen living by algeza pyramids that the partition of the sea by Moses whenhe was fleeing from the pharaoa took place in the nile before the Delta by Cairo and not as thought to be in the red sea!!!

That will just tell you how Local testimony is accredited

another living testimony:

Di Rienzo et al. (1994) studied the relationship of three samples (taken from Egyptians, Sardinians, and sub-Saharan Africans), using mitochondrial DNA and simple sequence repeats. In terms of genetic distance, the Egyptian sample was closer to the Sardinian sample than to the sub-Saharan African sample.

[zagel]

Originally Posted by Taseti

To Amr and Zagel:

Please tell us more about how Nile Valley civilization including that of the 'Nubians' was born by mixing with peoples from Western Asia.

As you know AMR thinks, Africans can only create civilization or do anything great when they are mixed! LOL

Originally Posted by Taseti

well taseti Hate to say it but semites are whites:

Linguists, including Christopher Ehret are virtually unanimous on the African origins of this language phylum. You have been challenged to site a linguist to asserts otherwise and obviously can't. Hence, your usual vitrolic and insubstantive response.
next.....

I will incessantly prove you incognizant.

you first statement is contradictory to what amr said..
second statemtent is a unilateral pick-n-mix chioce

[zagel]

Taseti please dodnot use forgery to make your point the following painting is awell known bad lie:



here is the real wall painting and amr has provided you with a real photograph before:

[zagel]

Originally Posted by *Olive

i am glad you have shown the location of qhatantine and addanite tribes in yemen where are they now..living in sudan perhaps:

[zagel]

Originally Posted by Amr

Zagel

Afro Centrics also don't talk about the effect of the sun on soldeirs and farmers of ancient Egypt on their skin tone.

I know many almost white Egyptians workers when placed under the sun in a farm for a month, they turn black. You will not think they are white at all.

May you comment on this

It is rightly true most caucasian people would consider dark brown and brick colour of egyptians 100% black, but they have typical Caucasoid facial features.
Only skin color makes them look totally black.
You can see how egyptian labourers in Khartoum today get very tanned rapidly.

[AfricanAmerican]

Originally Posted by zagel

i am glad you have shown the location of qhatantine and addanite tribes in yemen where are they now..living in sudan perhaps:

All of these individuals are black people whether from Arabia, India, or Africa.

Nazi/Aryan theories are outdated.

Salaam

[*Olive]

Yes Zagel those images you posted is how the Kushite Arabs looked.....but they are not caucasion nor do they have 'caucasion' features....those are negro faetures.....negros come in all shades...colours...features...hairtypes and stature......it is negros who gave the other 'races' all their features and not the other way round.....you are following outdated racist theories...i don't know where you get that nonsense from....probably from psuedo Nazi propaganda going under the guise of 'Science'....do you know that the skull of some tribes in South Sudan anre the exact same as blonde haired Germans or other Nordics?.....are you then going to tell us that the Shilluk are realy caucasion ?......what ridiculousness!!!......why don't you read what has been posted here?...there is enough detail for you not to return a banal response and keep going round in circles...and this is why i say that you and AMr are a waste of time because you both have tunnel vision, tunnel reading and selective memory....i repeat again and again narrow nose, curly/wavy hair and dark skin of brown are not strictly caucasion faetures.....people in Afriuca looked like that 5000 years ago...this has been mentioned in this thread several times....why are you not acknowlegding that?...instaed you're coming up with racist Darwinian theories on race and it is nothing but a bunch of contracdicting munbo jumbo and when put under spotlight just sounds rediculous....believe it or not you and Amr are expounding outdated racist theories and maybe you don't realise how ignoirant you're making yourself look

[*Olive]

Many of the Eritrean/Ethiopian looking men of Arabia and those in East Africa inappropriately named “hamites” by European academia are often found, in areas where Temperatures soar, above 120 degrees.

They tend to be very Slender with gracile bones and attenuated limbs skin, though dark brown or black Brown, tends to have a strong reddish hue which is thought, also to be due to the ecological pressures of the environment in pentaganoid shaped faces are common.

Narrow noses and little or no Prognathism, are typical and associated with the modified aspect of their facial and cranial morphology.

These characteristics, once presumed to be a legacy of a non Negroid or Caucasoid intermixture, are now attributed, by some population biologists and geneticists, to the ancient adaptation of Africoids to certain specific, ecological factors including the change to the Neolithic diet in combination with dwelling in exceedingly hot, dry habitats.