She looks like she belongs in ancient Egypt

[KOohbt]

lemme guess the dinka tribes members i have pictured below aren't african either since they have slim noses?








everyone posted above is dinka just like everyone's favorite african model Alek Wek.


this is the beauty of Africa. it is from the black race that all human features come from. its how the blackest tribe in Africa (the dinka) can have folks among them with the widest of noses(as we see below in this politician from South Sudan) and noses that are as narrow as any european (as we can see in future NBA player Thon Maker).

if we went by the racist eugenecist definition of what makes someone black, then if we studied Thon Maker's skull, we would have to conclude he was CAUCASIAN cause his nose is as slim as any crakkka while someone like Alek Wek who is from his tribe would be considered NEGROID cause her nose is wide.

this is why the term negroid is a misnomer and why shyt like "typical african nose" is pure nonsense. even in south sudan among the darkest african tribe, the dinka, you can have people with noses slimmer than any european. all this shows is that slim noses predated the advent of europeans and caucasians and further supports the position that it was from Africa that all variations in human phenotype come from.

so when you see an african skull with a slim nose or lack of prognathism, don't assume that came from outside of africa. because native africans have always had those features.

Is this enough for cacs to leave African history alone. I'm tired of them claiming our ancestors. I'm second gen Moroccan and the internet CAC seems to think they can claim my ancestors for some reason. Not even claim them but, claim by proxy of sand cacs. It's disturbing and harmful to impressionable young people looking for truth.

 

[Swagnificent]

The Ancient Egyptians were a diverse looking people since they were a MIX of different African people. Some were pitch black while others were more brown skinned. Yes some looked like Lupita. Get over it already. I have already posted skeletal evidence and paintings. All of which you ignored or side-stepped. I alreayd showed you paintings showing Egyptians with pitch dark skin like this:




Ancient Egyptians were a mix of broad/narrow featured people.

you could say that for most modern east african and sudanese groups. hell look at the pictures above of the dinka. they have broad and narrow noses.

its sad that this type of statement has to be made.

 

[Raptor]

first of all who is "we". and who said anything about "negroid". that is an outdated racist term created by european eugenecists as a means of trying to separate east africans away from the rest of black africa. i never used the word "negroid" in this thread. all i said is that they were BLACK. and to me being black is having dark brown skin and curly/kinky hair. thus, BLACK includes not only all dark skin peoples native to Africa but also groups outside Africa like the Aborigines of Australia and Papau New Guniea. It does not however include dark skin but straight haired groups like Indians or Sri Lankans.

there are many BLACK people without wide noses or prognathism. Most notably for our discussion the kushytic speaking tribes in East Africa. If you've followed my posts, you'd see I'm not making a case for the Dinka or other Nilo-Saharan speaking groups as being modern analogs for the phenotype of ancient egypt. I've consistently said its the kushytic speaking tribes of east africa (the afar, the oromo, the somali, etc.) that are the best representation for the phenotype of ancient egypt. these groups uniformally have BLACK skin thus it isn't a stretch for me to say that the ancient egyptians also had black skin.

stop trying to misdirect folks with crap about "negroid" or "prognasthism" these are outdated racist terms from the 19th century created for the express purpose of trying to separate black peoples from one another.

Skin colour os is a very poor indicator of race/phenotpype. Its more to do with facial charecteristics. Prognathism is a dominant trait in congoids. Deal with it. Theres nothing negative in having prognathism. Ive already said most of thats been said on this thread is merely speculation. We wont know for sure untill there's a proper analysis of genetic material from the mummies.

 

[Swagnificent]

Skin colour os is a very poor indicator of race/phenotpype. Its more to do with facial charecteristics. Prognathism is a dominant trait in congoids. Deal with it. Theres nothing negative in having prognathism. Ive already said most of thats been said on this thread is merely speculation. We wont know for sure untill there's a proper analysis of genetic material from the mummies.

listen bro. just leave this thread. its obvious you've been influenced by european eugenecist propaganda. da hell is a "congoids"?

i guess according to you this guy is NOT black because he has a slim nose, thin lips, and no prognasthism

fukk outta here

 

[Swagnificent]

AE was simply and mostly an Afro-Asiatic civilization with Nilo-Saharan affinities, anyone who says otherwise is simply misinformed.

Nilo-Saharans and Cush*tics are the same people by the way, Cush*tics are just Nilo-Saharans with more "Caucasian" affinities. Cush*tic languages originate in Southern Egypt/North Sudan where after a while, pastoralist Cush*tic groups spread to the Horn & Eastern Africa in general. They dominated the place which was formally inhabited by hunter gatherer groups and Omotics. Later on Semitic (From Southern Arabia) came to the Horn and some former Cush*tic speakers (mostly Highland Cush*tic similar to Agew languages) switched to Semitic with not much of a genetic admixture from South Arabians (It was mostly just a language shift). By the way, the Cush*tic continuum still exists to this day beginning from where the Languages originally spread (Northern Sudan/Southern Egypt). It starts with groups like Beja in the Red sea region of Sudan and Southern Egypt all the way to Eritrea (Beja, Saho, Afar, Bilen), Ethiopia (too long to list all), Somalia (Somalis) and Northern Kenya.

I suspect that there were probably a number of other Afro-Asiatic languages like Beja spoken in the Sudan which probably disappeared with the Arabiziation of the place.

probably the most accurate and informative post in this thread

props

 

[Swagnificent]

Look up the Green Sahara. Many African cultures flourished there. And there were many interactions. And lets not forget lineages West Africans carry such as E1b1a ORIGINATED in East Africa in the first place.

co-sign. haplogroup E1b originated 30,000 years ago. meaning that before the sahara became green, east and west africans were one in the same.

 

[Swagnificent]

THOSE ARE ERITRREAN KUNAMA NILO-SAHRANS LoL and I already told you, Cusht*cs and Nilo-Sahrans are the same people anyway aside from Admixture but the irony, The Bloody IRONY for you to post Eritrean Nilotics and to TOP it all a Beja CUSH*TCS as a reference

That's a Beja Boy!
Hahahahahahahaha My God What an Ultimate FAIL

reading thru this thread for the first time is simply bizzare.

why r folks fighting over whether the egyptians were kushytic or nilo-saharan?

both groups are black and live right next to each other. no reason for nikkas to be up in such arms. i think the most likely scenario is you had elements of both living in egypt.

 

[Swagnificent]

Err....Ethiopian groups like Agews/Ethio Jews, Amharas and others carry A3b2 at close to 40% frequencies. Additionally, your Ev32 map post in itself showed that after Somalis, one of the largest percentage of Ev32 is found among Darfurian Nilo-Sahran Sudanis. Anyway Admixture autosomal looks at full ancestry which is much more accurate rather than Y-Chrocosmes which could easily be affected by Bottlenecks and represents likely less than 1% of one's genetics a lot of times, Autosomal looks at the full picture.

As I said Cushtcs are Nilo-Saharans + Omotics + Some Caucasian.

co-sign. this nikka dropping knowledge all throughout this thread.

its doesn't take much to realize that kushyties that look like this


are related to Nilo-Saharan groups just north of them.

 

[Swagnificent]

So, as I've just before as I've said a million times already, ancient Egypt was a multicultural society, there's a good chance there's ssa input . And what "journals have you supplied to the thread, there's a host of info on this thread.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4631043/1/
The mummies in the studies don't resemble full SSA, they have uncoiled flowing hair. You've provided one flimsy proof from a report that wasn't peer reviewed. And yet still most who specialise in ancient Egypt would consider your premise as merely facetious.

u mean they look like this?




just stop it you moron. the kushytic peoples of east africa are the closest modern analog to the ancient egyptians.

i bet if we dug up this girls mummy thousand of years from now, you'd be claiming she was not black either? huh?

 

[Swagnificent]

In the end I made a mistake by claiming egyptian had multiracial origin, there's no proof but poiter is deluded if he keeps claiming that ancient Egyptians are somehow Nubians when other evidence have shown that to be incorrect. There's been plenty of evidence from egyptian paintings to mummies that's shows that ancient Egyptians were distinct in their phenotype, different than their nubian neighbours. Poiter probably has self esteem problems if he keeps hanging onto the delusion that ancient Egyptians are identical to those primitive red mud tribes in Ethiopia
Recreation of king tut face

why do you keep posting just these mummies? who i'm not even sure are real or forgeries.

here are some other mummies.







if anything these kinky hair mummies jive more with what we see in the pictures that the ancient egyptians drew of themselves.







why would the egyptians represent themselves as have AFROS and DREADLOCKS/BRAIDS if they really had straight blond hair?

use simple logic. there are no pyramid reliefs or sculptures showing egyptains with straight hair. all the pictures the egyptians drew of themselves has them with either afros, braids, or dreads. all hairstyles only practiced by BLACK people in Africa with kinky hair.

 

[Swagnificent]

I don't think the ancient Egyptians were Somalis but I think all dub Saharan's have some influence in their cultures from that area

I don't think anyone is making that argument. Somalians like the oromo, afar, masai, luo, kikuyu, etc. are all ethnic groups of recent origin. None of them existed 5,000 years ago.

this thread is about which modern groups living right are the best MODERN ANALOG for what the ancient egyptians looked like. and i don't see any rational argument against the fact that kushytic speaking groups in east africa provide the best modern analog for what the ancient egyptians looked like.

they are the closest group right now in terms of phenotype, linguistics, and culture with what we know about ancient egypt.

 

[Raptor]

listen bro. just leave this thread. its obvious you've been influenced by european eugenecist propaganda. da hell is a "congoids"?

i guess according to you this guy is NOT black because he has a slim nose, thin lips, and no prognasthism

fukk outta here

we would have to take a side view of his face, tho it does look like he displays typical nilotic features such as lack of nose bridge, sloping forehead and hair, common in east africa. A specific phentoype will have many deviations. This isnt scientif racism, peoples looks are created by regional differences accentuated by millenia of isolation with other groups. Its basic anthropology fakkit, not scientific racism. Scientific racism would be referring to certain people as inferior because of their features.
Eugenics is not related to anthropology but behaviourial science. And its been disproven countless of times. Nigerians are some of the most intellgient people in the world yet according to scientific racists, this shouldnt be the case.

 

[Raptor]

why do you keep posting just these mummies? who i'm not even sure are real or forgeries.

here are some other mummies.







if anything these kinky hair mummies jive more with what we see in the pictures that the ancient egyptians drew of themselves.







why would the egyptians represent themselves as have AFROS and DREADLOCKS/BRAIDS if they really had straight blond hair?

use simple logic. there are no pyramid reliefs or sculptures showing egyptains with straight hair. all the pictures the egyptians drew of themselves has them with either afros, braids, or dreads. all hairstyles only practiced by BLACK people in Africa with kinky hair.

Are you retarded or something, i just admitted 5 times i was wrong. And again, im not even sure those pics are nubian or not. You may be right, i may be right. But again, we will have to wait for the genetic results of those mummies first. You seems to be showing your intelligence in your comments

 

[Swagnificent]

we would have to take a side view of his face, tho it does look like he displays typical nilotic features such as lack of nose bridge, sloping forehead and hair, common in east africa. A specific phentoype will have many deviations. This isnt scientif racism, peoples looks are created by regional differences accentuated by millenia of isolation with other groups. Its basic anthropology fakkit, not scientific racism. Scientific racism would be referring to certain people as inferior because of their features.
Eugenics is not related to anthropology but behaviourial science. And its been disproven countless of times. Nigerians are some of the most intellgient people in the world yet according to scientific racists, this shouldnt be the case.

listen stupid. i know what eugenics is. my point is that you are using the terminology and arguments that the same racists who brought us eugenics use when it comes to anthropology. ever heard of the hamitic hypothesis? wonder why is was created? read this article. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105306097443 since it seems like you are ignorant on thie history of the terms and arguments you are using, here is a good breakdown.

the same people who dreamt up eugenics dreamt up the hamitic hypothesis and the terms "negroid" "congloid" or any other outdated racist anthropological term you wanna use. these terms were created in the 19th century NOT because the europeans anthropologists thought they were a useful tool in studying human diversity. they were created for the express purpose of perpetuating the myth that "negroes" are inferior to caucasians. so when confronted with the reality that their own ancestors in ancient greece and rome said that the civilization of ancient egypt was started by africans with black skin and wooly hair, the eugenicists turned anthropogloists created the hamitic hypothesis and terms such as negro and congloid as a means of separating egypt or any other african civilization that contributed to world history from the rest of africa (you know the true africa with those dumb black people). its how tribes like the masai became caucasian according to 19th century european anthropologists. a suggestion that is laughable today since the masai are known around the worl as quite possibly the most quintessiantially african tribe in africa.

how would the world media take it if you tried to argue to them the masai are actually caucasian and not negroes?

so please refrain from regurgitating the terminology of white supremacists from the 19th century. you're better than this.

 

[JadeB]

I forgot about this hotep ass thread