Do you think the Egyptians were black?

Avatar image for blessedbyhorus
BlessedbyHorus

6348

Forum Posts

118

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@king_stranglehold_da_first: Good job, man. You know your shit.

Thanks! I been studying Egyptology, Anthropology and African history since I was 14. :)

When people were saying in this thread that the Ancient Egyptians were closer to "Arabs" or that modern Egyptians were the best examples I knew they were not based on actual mainstream sources. Especially Ancient Egyptians being closer to "Arabs."

Anyways the reason why many people find this "debate" so "complex" is because many people here and Hollywood DO NOT place Ancient Egypt(NOT modern Egypt) in Africa. This is why you get statements like they were closer to Arabs or even WORSE the Ancient Egyptians were aliens! Moving on... When you examine African culture around the continent but especially Northeast African culture you notice that they are very similar to Ancient Egyptian culture and you can find many copies of Ancient Egyptian culture around the continent. Why is this? Well this is because the Ancient Egyptian ancestors like almost all African ancestors inhabited the Sahara when it was green. During the green Sahara there was a large culture and mixing of different African groups. This is why we see similarities of Ancient Egyptian culture throughout the African continent.

People NEED to know this before discussing the origins of the Ancient Egyptians. Again thanks! :)

Avatar image for llehdevil
LlehDevil

7259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Ofcourse the true ancient Egyptians were black.

Avatar image for edblank
EdBlank

1480

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Is Halle Berry Black?

Do you have to be as pale as the palest European to be considered white?

When you say "Black" do you mean "African" or do you mean "as dark as the darkest person you can find"?

You can't have it both ways.

Egyptians were African and in modern American lingo African = Black. Just like white = European.

If North Africans aren't Black then all Europeans aren't white.

If an ancient Egyptian walked into a jewelry store wearing a hoodie then the clerks would keep an eye on him. A cop would be able to shoot him for no reason and the cop would not go to jail.

So they are Black.

Yall do know that Arabs are largely the current population, right? 6000 years ago you didn't have people traveling in such great numbers to other parts of the world.

Do the current people in America tell you what the people looked like 6000 years ago?

Avatar image for bucky4life
Bucky4Life

6

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

mixed race

Avatar image for tinyford
TinyFord

467

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

No they would look more like israeli people

Avatar image for just_banter
Just_Banter

12441

Forum Posts

409

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is just a hunch, but I think they might have looked like Egyptians.

Avatar image for removekebab
removekebab

3794

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157  Edited By removekebab

IIRC the only black egyptians were those from the nubian dynasty or something like that. Otherwise they were more than likely arab/west african.

Avatar image for mfundroid
Mfundroid

2916

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I would like to think that Egypt was mostly populated by both Arabs and Blacks due to many ancient Egyptian art pieces depicting them as a mixed society.

Avatar image for jb681131
jb681131

3496

Forum Posts

7398

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#159  Edited By jb681131

I would like to think that Egypt was mostly populated by both Arabs and Blacks due to many ancient Egyptian art pieces depicting them as a mixed society.

If it is to determine the skin color of the Egyptian race, than no they are not Black nor Arab. Like all Mediteranean sea and dessert people they have a naturaly tanned skin.

Then in Egypt there was lots of Black, they were one of the first cyvilisation to enslave Black people.

Then (I forgot when exactly), all northern Africa was invaded by the Arabs, that is why they speak Arab in those countries now a days.

Avatar image for cozy_da_djed_eye
Cozy_Da_Djed_Eye

11278

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for modernww2fare
modernww2fare

7584

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

IIRC the only black egyptians were those from the nubian dynasty or something like that. Otherwise they were more than likely arab/west african.

I think you mean East African

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for dession_viper
Dession_Viper

742

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

They looked like Aliens.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Y'know Egyptians are still around, right?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Y'know Egyptians are still around, right?

This is obviously referring to ancient egyptians,

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-: Yeah, and ancient Chinese looked like modern Chinese.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d2b83d5a0d79
deactivated-5d2b83d5a0d79

12104

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

They were white people and some were aliens.

True facts.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-: Yeah, and ancient Chinese looked like modern Chinese.

Do modern Americans look like ancient Americans?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

We wuz Egyptians 'n *****

You're not allowed to use the 'n' word, not even censored.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#171  Edited By echostarlord117
Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@echostarlord117:

Are you for real right now? Modern Americans are Europeans.

A little over half are Europeans, while the rest are from all over the globe. My point still stands. The current inhabitants of an area don't reflect the ancient make up. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.

What he censored was not the N-word.

My bad. People usually don't censor "shit" or use expired memes.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
cattlebattle

18048

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Literal "Kangz" posting??

I am the disappoint, Comicvine.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-:

My bad. People usually don't censor "shit" or use expired memes.

It's been revitalised with the Black Panther stuff.

There's no such thing as meme revival. Once it's dead, it's dead.

Avatar image for cattlebattle
cattlebattle

18048

Forum Posts

313

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

There's no such thing as meme revival. Once it's dead, it's dead.

It's not dead just because you don't like it.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

There's no such thing as meme revival. Once it's dead, it's dead.

It's not dead just because you don't like it.

I didn't declare it dead. Memes declare themselves dead. If I wanted a meme dead, it'd be that damn Connect Four meme.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

DNA evidence actually shows the complete opposite. DNA Tribes tested the DNA of several mummies, including Tutankhamun, and found their MLI was overwhelmingly Sub-Saharan.

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

DNA evidence actually shows the complete opposite. DNA Tribes tested the DNA of several mummies, including Tutankhamun, and found their MLI was overwhelmingly Sub-Saharan.

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Close....it suggests what you said. It certainly doesn't overwhelmingly prove any such thing. Unless I missed something in that study.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#182  Edited By echostarlord117
@revan- said:

@echostarlord117:

Are you for real right now? Modern Americans are Europeans.

A little over half are Europeans, while the rest are from all over the globe. My point still stands. The current inhabitants of an area don't reflect the ancient make up. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Right, but nothing suggests that the Egypt underwent such a demographic change. North America was effectively conquered by Europeans, and lax border laws allowed for massive amounts of immigration over time. Nothing like that ever occurred in Egypt. There's also archaeological evidence debunking the idea that ancient Egyptians looked like Sub-Saharan Africans. The way they depicted themselves is more than enough proof, at least for me, that they looked more like modern day Egyptians than black Africans.

These aren't black people.
These aren't black people.

I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that black individuals lived within ancient Egyptian society. Heck, Africans existed in medieval Japanese society, too. That doesn't mean the Japanese were once black. The whole concept is really just a bunch of ignorant quackery from African American radicals/black supremacists. The majority of folks that believe this also think that ancient Jews looked like Nigerian people and that black people pretty much laid the foundation for every major discovery so far... that is, if they didn't do the discovering themselves.

Avatar image for omega_kai
Omega_kai

3182

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This is like asking if the Europeans were white?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

DNA evidence actually shows the complete opposite. DNA Tribes tested the DNA of several mummies, including Tutankhamun, and found their MLI was overwhelmingly Sub-Saharan.

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Close....it suggests what you said. It certainly doesn't overwhelmingly prove any such thing. Unless I missed something in that study.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).

It proves exactly what I'm saying. It tests the MLI for certain areas. The places where that would support your argument would be "Sahelian, Levantine, Arabian, Aegean, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian and North African" however the MLI for those groups are extremely low compared to the sub-saharan catergories. For example, the highest MLI out of the ones I've listed in your favor are Sahelian. Which has an average MLI of 14.33. Which is less than a tenth of the African Great Lakes MLI (Modern day Tanzania) which is 323.76. Conclusion: The tested mummies are overwhelmingly more likely to be "black" than "olive".

I have no doubt that these numbers changed after the Greeks conquered them, but for the major parts of their civilization, the Egyptians were "black"

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:

@echostarlord117:

Are you for real right now? Modern Americans are Europeans.

A little over half are Europeans, while the rest are from all over the globe. My point still stands. The current inhabitants of an area don't reflect the ancient make up. Not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Right, but nothing suggests that the Egypt underwent such a demographic change. North America was effectively conquered by Europeans, and lax border laws allowed for massive amounts of immigration over time. Nothing like that ever occurred in Egypt. There's also archaeological evidence debunking the idea that ancient Egyptians looked like Sub-Saharan Africans. The way they depicted themselves is more than enough proof, at least for me, that they looked more like modern day Egyptians than black Africans.

These aren't black people.
These aren't black people.

I mean, there's no doubt in my mind that black individuals lived within ancient Egyptian society. Heck, Africans existed in medieval Japanese society, too. That doesn't mean the Japanese were once black. The whole concept is really just a bunch of ignorant quackery from African American radicals/black supremacists. The majority of folks that believe this also think that ancient Jews looked like Nigerian people and that black people pretty much laid the foundation for every major discovery so far... that is, if they didn't do the discovering themselves.

TFW when DNA studies disagree with you (Page 3)

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

DNA evidence actually shows the complete opposite. DNA Tribes tested the DNA of several mummies, including Tutankhamun, and found their MLI was overwhelmingly Sub-Saharan.

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Close....it suggests what you said. It certainly doesn't overwhelmingly prove any such thing. Unless I missed something in that study.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).

It proves exactly what I'm saying. It tests the MLI for certain areas. The places where that would support your argument would be "Sahelian, Levantine, Arabian, Aegean, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian and North African" however the MLI for those groups are extremely low compared to the sub-saharan catergories. For example, the highest MLI out of the ones I've listed in your favor are Sahelian. Which has an average MLI of 14.33. Which is less than a tenth of the African Great Lakes MLI (Modern day Tanzania) which is 323.76. Conclusion: The tested mummies are overwhelmingly more likely to be "black" than "olive".

I have no doubt that these numbers changed after the Greeks conquered them, but for the major parts of their civilization, the Egyptians were "black"

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34)

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#187  Edited By Revan-

@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@frozen said:
@blade_r said:

Most likely

They weren't.

@laflux said:

Apperently, they looked like Egyptians today.

Correct.

DNA evidence shows that the Egyptians of yesteryear looked pretty much how do they now. The Eyptians were not black. They're olive-skinned.

DNA evidence actually shows the complete opposite. DNA Tribes tested the DNA of several mummies, including Tutankhamun, and found their MLI was overwhelmingly Sub-Saharan.

http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf

Close....it suggests what you said. It certainly doesn't overwhelmingly prove any such thing. Unless I missed something in that study.

Discussion: Average MLI scores in Table 1 indicate the STR profiles of the Amarna mummies would be most frequent in present day populations of several African regions: including the Southern African (average MLI 326.94), African Great Lakes (average MLI 323.76), and Tropical West African (average MLI 83.74) regions. These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).

It proves exactly what I'm saying. It tests the MLI for certain areas. The places where that would support your argument would be "Sahelian, Levantine, Arabian, Aegean, Mediterranean, Mesopotamian and North African" however the MLI for those groups are extremely low compared to the sub-saharan catergories. For example, the highest MLI out of the ones I've listed in your favor are Sahelian. Which has an average MLI of 14.33. Which is less than a tenth of the African Great Lakes MLI (Modern day Tanzania) which is 323.76. Conclusion: The tested mummies are overwhelmingly more likely to be "black" than "olive".

I have no doubt that these numbers changed after the Greeks conquered them, but for the major parts of their civilization, the Egyptians were "black"

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and D21S11=34)

Okay . . . ? This means they weren't exclusively african. So are most African Americans. But they are still are considered "black" I don't see the point you're making. What I posted debunked the notion that they are "olive".

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#189  Edited By Revan-

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

TFW when you misrepresent your source. Here's a direct quote "all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt"

Key word: Single Site.

Another lovely quote: ". It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced"

I like how your attempt to discredit my source by saying "they arunt popular". Unless you have any conflicting evidence to suggest my source is invalid. "shoddy company hurr durr". Do better.

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#190  Edited By HeroUp2112

@revan- said:
@echostarlord117 said:

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

TFW when you misrepresent your source. Here's a direct quote "all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt"

Key word: Single Site.

Another lovely quote: ". It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced"

I like how your attempt to discredit my source by saying "they arunt popular". Unless you have any conflicting evidence to suggest my source is invalid. "shoddy company hurr durr". Do better.

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

All the DNA evidence from your source were from a single site, the Amarna caves. What's the difference?

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@echostarlord117 said:

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

TFW when you misrepresent your source. Here's a direct quote "all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt"

Key word: Single Site.

Another lovely quote: ". It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced"

I like how your attempt to discredit my source by saying "they arunt popular". Unless you have any conflicting evidence to suggest my source is invalid. "shoddy company hurr durr". Do better.

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

All the DNA evidence from your source were from a single site, the Amarna caves. What's the difference?

The Armarna caves held people of the Pharaohs family and the Pharaoh himself. The ruler's race most likely reflects on the rest of the country, wouldn't ya think? I doubt the Egyptians would worship a foreign man and his foreign family.

Avatar image for heroup2112
HeroUp2112

18401

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@revan- said:
@heroup2112 said:
@revan- said:
@echostarlord117 said:

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

TFW when you misrepresent your source. Here's a direct quote "all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt"

Key word: Single Site.

Another lovely quote: ". It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced"

I like how your attempt to discredit my source by saying "they arunt popular". Unless you have any conflicting evidence to suggest my source is invalid. "shoddy company hurr durr". Do better.

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

All the DNA evidence from your source were from a single site, the Amarna caves. What's the difference?

The Armarna caves held people of the Pharaohs family and the Pharaoh himself. The ruler's race most likely reflects on the rest of the country, wouldn't ya think? I doubt the Egyptians would worship a foreign man and his foreign family.

I'm not saying otherwise...although I can see arguments to the contrary I'm not making them. You were saying the problem echo's source was "Key word: single site" I'm just saying the Amarna Caves are also a single site.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#193  Edited By echostarlord117
@revan- said:
@echostarlord117 said:

@revan-: kek No, they don't. According to recent studies, "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant."[1]

I like how you use glorified advertisement for a shoddy, unknown genomics company as evidence, though. Keep using popular periodicals for your claims.

TFW when you misrepresent your source. Here's a direct quote "all our genetic data were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt and may not be representative for all of ancient Egypt"

Key word: Single Site.

I didn't misrepresent anything. You stated that DNA studies disagreed with me with only one link as evidence. I posted two sources that didn't disagree with me. I'm not going to dump a bunch of research on here. I provided you with enough to shoot down your claim. If you're personally unsatisfied, use Google. It might not be worth it considering your bias.

Also,

@heroup2112 said:

All the DNA evidence from your source were from a single site, the Amarna caves. What's the difference?

way to be a hypocrite.

Another lovely quote: ". It is possible that populations in the south of Egypt were more closely related to those of Nubia and had a higher sub-Saharan genetic component, in which case the argument for an influx of sub-Saharan ancestries after the Roman Period might only be partially valid and have to be nuanced"

LAWL When people refer to "ancient Egypt," they're usually talking about northeastern Egyptian society, i.e. the Pyramids of Giza and such. The mummies from Abusir-el Meleq they used cover pretty much all of northern Egypt. However, without research conducted in the southern area, there isn't even a point bringing it up. There could be a higher rate of Sub-Saharan DNA in southern Egyptian mummies, or there could not be. Either way, though, it doesn't prove your point. Middle Eastern populations today share DNA with African populations, but they're not black. All it could suggest is that ancient Egyptians occasionally interbred with black African people, which doesn't take a genius to figure out. They still weren't black in the conventional sense.

I like how your attempt to discredit my source by saying "they arunt popular". Unless you have any conflicting evidence to suggest my source is invalid. "shoddy company hurr durr". Do better.

You're taking one jab I made and acting like that was my whole argument. The link you provided doesn't even lead to a peer reviewed journal. Like I said, it was glorified advertisement. Use more credible research and perhaps post more than just that one article. That might make your argument stronger.

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

kek I do what I want.

Avatar image for dernman
Dernman

26567

Forum Posts

10082

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

#194  Edited By Dernman

@echostarlord117 said:
@revan- said:

And stop using "kek", it's 2018.

kek I do what I want.

lol at someone actually using "it's the currant year" in an argument.

Avatar image for kalil-kai
Kalil-Kai

75

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

At some point.

Avatar image for outside_85
Outside_85

23518

Forum Posts

18735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 1

I think they were Arab before Arabia was anything more than a million square miles of desert.

Avatar image for echostarlord117
echostarlord117

5619

Forum Posts

521

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@echostarlord117:

I didn't misrepresent anything. You stated that DNA studies disagreed with me with only one link as evidence. I posted two sources that didn't disagree with me.

No, you very obviously misrepresented your source. You quoted them out of context saying "ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant", in which is incorrect. A small area of mummies was tested that showed them closely related to the people from Levant. And you just proved you never looked at your sources, because they are the EXACT SAME SOURCE. One is the direct study, the other is an article about the study.

I'm not going to dump a bunch of research on here. I provided you with enough to shoot down your claim. If you're personally unsatisfied, use Google.

Ah, yes. The classic "it's not my job to give evidence" "google it" defense. Unless you can give conclusive evidence, your point is moot.

It might not be worth it considering your bias

Yes, lord echostarlord17. Anyone who disagrees with you is biased and wrong. You are always right.

LAWL

It's not 2006, please stop.

When people refer to "ancient Egypt," they're usually talking about northeastern Egyptian society, i.e. the Pyramids of Giza and such.

Except they're referring to the ancient region of Egypt, not the modern one. Which looked like this. South is not as south as we believe, and that is still considered ancient Egypt, duh. Is North Florida not considered Florida because there are less architectural structures? Of course not.

The mummies from Abusir-el Meleq they used cover pretty much all of northern Egypt.

I'm gonna need a citation for that. And there's another thing, a huge bulk of the samples they used were late in Egypt's history, extremely late. There were some from Egypt's glory days, but they were very few. The cemetery at Abusir-el Meleq is from the Hyksos period. You know, when invaders from Levant came.

. Either way, though, it doesn't prove your point. Middle Eastern populations today share DNA with African populations, but they're not black. All it could suggest is that ancient Egyptians occasionally interbred with black African people, which doesn't take a genius to figure out. They still weren't black in the conventional sense.

tfw you don't know what Sub-Saharan means.

The link you provided doesn't even lead to a peer reviewed journal.

tfw the peer reviewed source you posted came under fire, forcing them to change a lot of their information and variables.

Like I said, it was glorified advertisement. Use more credible research

Posting the results of genetic testing is now an advertisement everyone!

and perhaps post more than just that one article. That might make your argument stronger

tfw when you criticize someone for posting one source, when you just post the same source twice.

Avatar image for revan-
Revan-

7959

Forum Posts

109

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@echostarlord117:

way to be a hypocrite.

tfw you don't understand context, and can't read a response.

Avatar image for deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00
deactivated-5b2121a0a9a00

10000

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

I think they were Arab before Arabia was anything more than a million square miles of desert.

How do you figure?