(DE Replying to me)

>> And with the same token Those not raised with a Black identity
>>would not see themselves as Black. I.eE. Ancient Egyptians. In
>>fact Egyptians saw yjemselves as different to populations such as
>>what is in what we call Ethiopia. The concept of Blackness just
>>wasn't there. Or whiteness.

They saw themselves different from their southern neighbors in the same manner that today’s Jamaicans would see themselves as different from Senegalese – even though many of those Jamaicans fore parents may have originated there.

Egyptians knew, as we do today, that they originated in the south, as Greek historians of the time noted, i.e. Diodorus of Sicily who wrote around 50 BC, “As historians relate, the Black peoples (note the use of “Black”) were the first of all men; and the proofs of this statement are manifest.”

Diodorus and other Greek historians of those times accepted what the Egyptians had told them: That “the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians (not Ethipoia as we know it today, but Africa in general south of Egypt) because what is now Egypt was not land but sea.” Over centuries, the Nile carried silt to the Delta and the land mass was built up. What Diodorus wrote is essentially what scientific research has now confirmed.

>>All they can determine is ancestral similarity with certain
>>populations. Then they go by the stereotypesof what each group was
>>and claim race. And genetic claims have ..overriden forensic bone
>>claims a few times.

Genetics and bone structure both support the dominant black African makeup of ancient Egyptians. Also, genetic analysis is a lot more precise than you state, and can clearly delineate individuals of one “racial” group from another, particularly when reconstructing the human family tree.

The most detailed human family tree so far available is one constructed over many years by Dr. Douglas C. Wallace and his colleagues at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. It is based on mitochondrial DNA, tiny rings of genetic material that are passed on only by the egg cell and thus through the maternal line.

Wallace discovered that almost all American Indians have mitochondria that belong to lineages he named A, B, C and D. Europeans belong to a different set of lineages, which he designated H through K and T through X.

In Asia there is an ancestral lineage known as M, with descendant branches E, F and G as well as the A through D lineages also found in the Americas.

In Africa there is a single main lineage, known as L, which is divided into three branches. L3, the youngest branch, is common in East Africa and is believed to be the source of both the Asian and European lineages. (Thus, Ethiopians and other related east Africans do not have “white" features; instead, whites have Ethiopian features.)

>> King Tut looked Mulatto, which would make sense considering the
>>admixture of the >>population. Nefertiti was highly entertaining
>>considering further studies showed the mummy was male.

”Tut looked mulatto.” Listen to yourself. On Nefertiti you are missing (or ignoring) the point. It is not relevant whether the reconstruction looks male or female, but whether it looks black.

For those who don’t know the details: York University archaeologist Joann Fletcher disvovered the mummy and stands by her original assessment of the remains, claiming the pelvic bones and evidence of collapsed breasts from the skeleton showed the remains to be those of a woman. In addition, x-rays revealed skeletal features similar to Nefertiti's famous bust. The left ear lobe revealed two piercings seen rarely or only in portraits of Nefertiti. A missing right arm of the younger woman's mummy was discovered nearby, bent in a position reserved for pharaohs. However:

Her main detractor, Zahi Hawass, Egypt's leading egyptologist conducted an autopsy and x-ray scans with American egyptologist, Kent Weeks which indicated that the mummy was instead a 16-25 year old girl. Later, after an uncorroborated DNA test, he claimed the mummy was a man. (There appears to be be some personal and political stuff going on between them, but that is not our concern.)

You wrote:
>>And genetic claims have overriden forensic bone claims a few times.

Then subsequently followed with:
>>Sorry, but that is not what the bones of the workers of Giza show.

You have a predisposition for contradition. In your subsequent post you cited this:

>>So It's fairly clear that the cultural roots of ancient Egypt lie
>>in Africa and not in Asia.
>>Skulls are more similar to those found in the Northern Sudan and
>>less similar to those found in West Africa, Palestine, and Turkey.
>>It seems that there has been some genetic continuity from predynastic time through the Middle Kingdom, after which there was
>>a considerable infiltration into the Nile Valley from outside
>>populations.
>>That the Egyptians by and large were dark is certain, and many must have been what we today call "black."

We have: Cultural roots in Africa, Sudanese skulls (south Egypt & Kush), (black African) genetic continuity for thousands of years.

So what’s your issue? That they were black but did not have a black consciousness as we know it? Fine. But that does not change what they were.

I assume you are also considering the fact that the “infiltration into the Nile Valley from outside populations" after the middle kingdom included the most substantial non-black elements. Also, the Arabs who are so represented today did not begin to arrive en masse until around 639 AD – more than 1,000 years after black rule ended (in 525 BC after Assyria invaded).