posted 17 August 2003 11:24 AM            

This is the longest myth ever in existence, which is pedaled as true scholarship and truth. Yet it is an outright myth, deliberately created from 1830 onwards, to explain away Egyptian civilization. During the 1800's there was all kinds of pseudo-sciences floating around about the genetical and inherent inferiority of peoples of African descent, and also a belief blacks are to be colonized because they are uncivilized and savage by nature. This was created to justify colonialism and also denying blacks equal rights in America. In order to moralize their mistreatment of blacks, scientific racism was created. And a part of this was in denying blacks had ever had a civilization. Since Egypt was a very impressive and marvelous civilization, and much of the heritage of the western world (such as writing and the calendar) came from ancient Egypt, it became necessary to whiten Egypt.

But the truth is, the ancient Egyptians were not white. Neither were they pure black. The ancient Egyptians were a mixed-race people, especially in Upper Egypt, where Egyptian civilization began. While the earliest inhabitants, the Tasians, are believed to have been of Cro-Magnoid stock, the predynastic Badarian period which starts at 5500 B.C. in Upper Egypt, was quite Negroid. Carleton S. Coon calls the predynastic Egyptian population of Upper Egypt during the Badarian period "Mediterrenean" and denies any black admixture, on account of their thick and wavy hair. But thin and wavy hair is Caucasion hair. Wavy hair that is thick in texture is typical of peoples with African ancestry. The hair-type Coon described can be found amongst many modern-day Nubians, as well as some Northern Ethiopians, and a number of persons of mixed ancestry in Latin America, the Caribbean, and even in the United States. And besides, he described the crania of the Badarian skulls he studied as being dolichocephalic, with short faces, blurred margin (broad noses), and prognathisms. These are distinctly Negroid traits, and are undeniable evidence of black admixture. As for the hair of predynastic Upper Egyptian of the Badarian period, recent studies of their hair, show them to be semi-frizzy, like Mulattoes and many Northeast Africans. [Keita, S.O.Y. Studies and "Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History of Africa 20, p.140] Of the Badarian predynastic Egyptian population, other scholars do not hesitate to call the characteristics of the crania as Negroid and as being due to African ancestry. Dr. Childe V. Gordon, a British anthropologist, spoke of the Negroid traits in Badarian crania. Other Egyptologists and anthropologists have noted the same. Dr. Emile Massourlard, a French Egyptologist, published a work in 1949 called[ "Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt"[ in which he cites various studies on predynastic and dynastic Egyptian culture. On the Badarians, he quotes a study by Miss Stoessiger. Of her, he states:

"Badarian skulls differ very little from other less ancient predynastic skulls; they are just a bit more prognathous. Next to these, they most resemble primitive Indian skulls: Dravidians and Veddas. They also present a few affinities with Negroes, due no doubt to a very ancient admixture of Negro blood." [p. 394]

Prognathisms is a distinctly Negroid trait. What Massoulard's passage leaves out, is that Miss Stoessiger found the Badarian crania to all possess blurred margin (broad nasal index), just as Coon noted. Dr. S.O.Y. Keita, a well respected and noteable anthropologist did a cranial analysis of his own on various cranias, in his work "Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa." His samples included predynastic Badari, predynastic early Naqqada, Kerma (Bronze Age Nubia), 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, Teita East Africa, Gaboon Central-West Africa, and Romano-Britain. Through his experiments he was able to gain several observations. He found that the Badari predynastic Egyptian crania occupied, "a position closest to the Teita, Gaboon, Nubian, and Nagada series." [p. 40]

This is startling in the fact that he reports, "the Nagada and Kerma series are so similar that they were barely distinguishable in the territorial maps." [[p. 40] [ He reports that these series, Nagada and Kerma, "subsume the first dynasty series from Abydos." [p. 40] In other [words, the 1st Dynasty royal remains at Abydos, were similar to the Badarian and early Naqqadan series. A factor to be discussed later. But getting back to Badar predynastic Egyptian crania, Keita continues:

"The Badarian crania have a modal metric phenotype that is clearly 'southern'; most classify into the Kerma (Nubian), Gaboon, and Kenyan groups NO Badarian cranium in any analysis classified into the EUROPEAN SERIESs..." [p. 40]

[Emphasis mine] Especially notable is the fact absolutely none of the predynastic Badari crania were Caucasoid. Other anthropologists and Egyptologists whom have noted predynastic Badari and early Naqqada crania possessing "alveolar prognathisms" (protruding upper teeth case; a condition very common amongst African populations, but very rare amongst Europeans and Western Asians) and "blurred margin," as well as other distinctly Negroid affinities, include Morant (whom shall be discussed shortly), Anderson (1968), Stouhal (1971), and Chamla (1990).

It is during the Badari predynastic period which begins at 5000 B.C., that the Egyptians begin farming and domesticating animals, and cease hunting and gathering. This period is noted by distinctive pottery and the use of copper. Here we see, the basic elements which were to become Egyptian civilization being created by a population whom posses distinctive Negroid affinities.

But on to late Naqqada predynastic Egyptian. These crania have been found to more heterogenous in nature. But still, all posses Negroid affinities. This is noted by Dr. Emile Massoulard, whom cites a Miss Fawcett, whom studied a number of Naqqada crania, and found them all to posses a combination of Negroid and Europoid affinities. Of this Massoulard states:

"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be SUFFICIANTLY HOMOGENOUS to justify speaking of a Naqada RACE. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the ceohalic and facial indexes, this race PRESENTS AFFINITIES WITH NEGROES. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." [Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt, p. 402-403]

[Emphasis mine] We can see here that the Naqqada series all possessed Negroid affinities. Even Loring C. Brace, whom The Ancient Egyptians weren't Black Webpage <http://www.geocities.com/enbp/physanth.html> uses as their "proof" Egyptians were white, has noted that predynastic Upper Egyptian crania of the late Naqqada period to "also show tendencies towards neighbouring African groups." [Brace et al, 36:1-31] and even Brace's evaluation of late Naqqada crania is not entirely sound.

In 1966 Michael Crichton, a brilliant pre-med student, did a thesis on the late Naqqada period crania of Upper Egypt. This is the same Michael Crichton, by the way, whom would later go on to write the book Jurassic Park! He studied crania from the exact same cemetery Brace got his samples from. But unlike Brace, rather than finding them strongly Europoid with only minor Northeast African tendencies, Crichton found the crania to posses distinctly Negroid characteristics and he found them to cluster near Africans than Europeans. [Crichton, Michael. "A Multiple Discriminate Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania," Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archeology and Ethnology 57:45-67] The difference between Crichton and Brace, lay in the sameples they chose as the "standard" for Africans. Brace made all European crania equally European, while hypocritically not making all African crania equally African. He took samples from Benin, Tanzania, and Gabon (all countries where people tend to resemble the "True Negro"), and presented them as "genuine African", while assuming Northeast Africans and East Africans weren't equally African. Thus, the African sample split into two groups. True Negroes whom he labelled "Sub-Saharan" and Northeast Africans; namely Somalians, Bronze Age Nubians, and Christian Nubians. Thus his predynastic Upper Egyptian sample hovered between the Northeast African sample and the European one. Crichton on the other hand, unlike Brace, assumed Northeast Africans and East Africans to be as equally genuinely African as the True Negro. He used the Teita people of Kenya (a Nilotic peoples) as the particular cluster to compare his Naqqada crania with. He found the Naqqada sample to cluster very close to the Teita sample, and to show very strong affinities with them. Thus, Crichton found a definite strong Negroid character to the exact same Naqqada crania, Brace found very little in. Thus, we see they were definitely Negroid.

Nonetheless it is during the early part of this period (4250 B.C.) that the Egyptians begin using the 365-day Solar Calendar. The same solar calendar which is the direct ancestor of the very calendar used by us today. And during the later Naqqada period, we see Egyptian Hierogliphics in use. The Osirin religion, the Egyptian priesthood, and the institution of Pharaoh, all had their roots in predynastic Naqqada Upper Egypt. Mind you, the peoples of predynastic Lower Egypt were whites of Mediterranean and Proto-Nordic stock, having affinities with [white]Libyans to the northwest of Egypt. These were pastoralist tribes. The peoples of Upper Egypt during the predynastic period were a different stock. This is noted by G.M Morant, whom did a comprehensive study on Dynastic and Predynastic Egyptian crania. As cited by John R. Baker (whom is a very right wing anthropologist with racist leanings), in the north he [Morant] found a predominant "Mediterranean" element, in the south he discovered the same thing. Only the population sample from Upper Egypt had black admixture to varying degrees. Thus confirming that the peoples of Upper Egypt were distinctly Negroid. He also finds out that the further we get into the Dynastic period, the less distinctive the crania from Lower and Upper Egypt are, until they evidently fused together. [Baker, John R. Race, p. 519] And lastly, Sir Grafton Elliot Smith, who was a professor of Anatomy at Cairo's Egyptian Museum in the early 1900's, studied many bodies and skeletons of predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians. His findings revealed that these peoples had an "effeminate and frail build, poorly developed eyebrows, small broad noses and slight prognathism." That to anyone this sounds like typical Negroid characteristics.

As for the 1st dynasty, it is interesting to note that Dr. S.O.Y. Keita who studied their remains found a definite Sudanic cast of features among them. Of this Keita states:

"The predominant craniometric pattern in the Abydos royal tombs is 'southern' (tropical African variant), and this is consistent with what would be expected based on the literature and other results." [Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern African, p. 40]

The first dynasty was founded by Narmer-Menes, who was an Upper Egyptian king. Being that the predynastic population of Upper Egypt was distinctly Negroid in affinities, it makes sense that Narmer himself, being an Upper Egyptian, would also be Negroid. This <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/197/1971/19716/197168/Narmer-Menes-Palate.jpg> sketch of Narmer from his Palate, during his victory march, in which he wears the Crown of Lower Egypt, shows distinctive Negroid characteristics. The nose is wide and broad, and the lips are thick and everted. [Courtesy of Bellephorn Books] The sketch is an actual sketch of the reverse side of the Palate. The side we rarely get shown in books. A bust of an unidentified first dynasty king <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29405/narmerii.gif> found at Abydos also confirms the Negroid nature of the first dynasty. The features of the bust are distinctly Negroid, assuring us the kings of this dynasty were neither are Semitic, Aryan, or Mediterranean, but unquestionably of African descent. Contrary to Arthur Kemp's <http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/egypt.html> claims, the bust actually does date back to the first dynasty period. There are no inscriptions on it at all. It has been seen by many to be Narmer himself, based on the fact it was found at a first dynasty royal tomb at Abydos, and it dates back to the first dynasty period. Arthur Kemp appearantly did not do his research on this one, when he stated it comes from the 25th dynasty (Ethiopian) period. We nonetheless see the First dynasty was an African one. The same can be said about second dynasty Pharaoh Bae Neter <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29410/IIDynastyking.jpg> as well, as this image of a Pharaoh from this period, is distinctively Negroid. Also this <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29406/ZoserIII.jpg> bas-relief portriate of Pharaoh Zoser of the Third Dynasty also shows the Third Dynasty to have been Africoid. Zoser was the second king of the third dynasty, and had succeeded his older brother. And also, studies of Third Dynasty royal remains, show them too, to mostly posses Tropical African tendencies. [Keita, 1993] Thus, the Third Dynasty was African from its start!

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th, dynasties are more of a mystery. In some images, members appear Africoid, while in others more Europoid. They were probably of mixed origin, as were most of the Egyptian populace. But what is for certain, based on cranial analysis and their images, is they were Sudanic in ancestry. Keith W. Crawford, citing Drake and Bernal, states that the rulers of the Middle Kingdom [Dynasties 11 and 12] ; "Broad African features originated in Upper Egypt." [The Racial Identity of Ancient Egyptian Populations Based on the Analysis of Physical Remains, p. 65-66]

"These African traits are the ones usually ascribed to 'true Negroes.'" He goes on to cite the following quote of Robins and Schute's evaluation of Middle Kingdom Egyptians:

"Robins (1983) has recently analyzed Warren's data on predynastic bones and has measured photographs and X-rays of some dynastic skeletons from the Middle Kingdom. She has shown that, for males at least, plausible estimates of stature that are reasonably consistent when different long bones are used only result from negro equations, and that the most satisfactory equations are those of Trotter and Glesser (1958)." [p. 96]

This shows dynasties 11 and 12 were unquestionably Sudanic. The same has also been found of the late 17th dynasty, which was found to have distinctive maxillary or alveolar prognathisms, prognathisms, dolichochocephaly, short faces, and other Negroid ¡Øsouthern¡× affinities. And especially of Seqenenre Tao, last pharaoh of the 17th dynasty, and the father of Queen Amhose-Nefertari, first queen of the 18th dynasty, this was found. His pronounced and distinctive southern affinities have been noted by numerous experts. Professors Harris and Weeks, in their work "X-Raying the Pharaohs" stated this of Seqenenre Tao:

"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is, non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features suggest that this might indeed be true."

Please keep in mind through his son Amhose and his daughter Amhose-Nefertari, 18th dynasty kings and queens Amenhotep I, Queen Meryatamon, Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, can all trace their bloodlines back to Seqenenre Tao. The 18th dynasty was virtually a continuation of the 17th one. And upon the 18th dynasty royals, to demonstrate this even further, let's examine the works of Professors Harris and Wente on this. In 1980 Professors James Harris and Edward Wente wrote a book called "X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies." In this book they examined and x-rayed various royal mummies stored at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Dynasties in question were 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. The purpose of this study, was by determining the shapes of the crania, the teeth, and length and width of the face, to deterimine how traits were passed down through the various royal members of each dynasty, and to deterimine blood relations based on those traits.

What Harris and Wente found, was that the kings and queens of the late 17th and the 18th dynasties were mostly prognathous, with maxillary prognathisms, doliochocephaly, and other traits. This is also true of the 20th and 21st dynasties. we shall be dealing with the 18th dynasty. Harris and Wente, by the way, were white Americans and not black Afrocentrics. Their interest was in familial relations through traits, not racial characteristics! And they did their studies on actual mummies. The 18th Dynasty was the very Egyptian dynasty which extended Egypt's borders into Asia and the Sudan, creating a vast empire. They also are well known for their great monument and public works buildings. Pharaoh Amenhotep III, who's children Akhenaton and Nefertiti show strong Negroid admixture in their features, built a lake for his wife Neferiti.They also built vast stretches of land, and were the first dynasty to utilize the horse, and make use of carriages. This was the strongest Egyptian dynasty ever. Even stronger than the 19th one, and greater builders. Yet this dynasty was undeniably black, as shall be irrifutably demonstrated Before we start, let's look at Negroid and Caucasoid traits. WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in Forensic Medicine) listed traits and features associated distinctly with the Negroid and Caucasion races. I shall list them below!

Africoid: Rounded, projecting glabella; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead, prognathism; rounded occiput.

Caucasoid: Depressed glabella; rounded or arched sagittal contour; steep forehead; orthognathism; variable occiput. And according to, S Rhine ("Non-metric skull racing"):

Africoid: Slight depression of nasion; vertical zygomatic arches; prognathism; receding, vertical chin; straight mandibular edge.

Caucasoid: Depression of nasion; retreating zygomatic arches; orthognathism; prominent, bilobate chin; wavy mandibular edge.

Also, RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet and GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of adult make black and white populations); and A Jacobson ("The craniofacial skeletal pattern of the South African Negro"). Persons of African descent are distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle). Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution"). Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)

Keep all of the above in mind when we examine and look at the 18th dynasty royals. Now let's look at some Caucasoid and Negroid crania. The first picture, is a Nordic Caucasion crania.

Nordic skullThe second is a Mediterrenic Caucasioon crania. <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195868/Nordic.jpg?quot;>

Mediterrenic skull < 1 Mediterranean.jpg? 195870 19587 1958 195 19 i www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com http:>

The third, is an Alpine Caucasion crania. Alpine skull <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195871/Alpine.jpg>

And the final, is a compter-generated x-ray scan of 19th Dynasty Pharaoh, Seti I. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Seti I <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195872/X-Rayseti.jpg>

Note the Nordic is dolichocephalic with a very and narrow and long face face. The Mediterranean crania, though dolichocephalic, is of a medium-long lenth. And for your pleasure, I added a computer-generated x-ray scan of Seti I's crania. Note he is dolichocephalic, orthognathous, with a long and narrow face. He is of the Nordic type. And the Alpine is brachycephalic with a medium long and broad face. All four are orgnathous (non-protruding chin) as opposed to prognathous (protruding chin).

Next are two Negroid crania. The first is the skull of Mesolithic Sudanese man. Note it is prognathous (chin protruding, has a receding chin, is dolichocephalic, with a short face). Next is a, x-ray of a Mesolithic Sudanese woman. Note she is slightly dolichocephalic, has a short face, and slight prognathisms. Skull of a Sudanese Mesolithic man.

A Mesolithic Sudanese man <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195866/xrayhalfa.jpg>

X-ray of a Sudanese Mesolithic woman.

A Mesolithic Sudanese woman <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19586/195866/xrayhalfa.jpg>

Now that you have seen Caucasoid and Negroid crania, and have all the traits found in Caucasions and Africans, now time to look at the 18th Dynasty royalty. First is Amhose-Nefertari. Note in her x-ray scan, she has pronounced prognathisms, strong maxillary prognathisms, dolichocephaly, a broad and short face, strongly proclined incisors, rounded forehead, sagittal flattening, rounded occiput, steep mandible with squat ramus, receding chin, and somewhat forward zygomatic arches. All features found distinctly in Africans! According to Professor Leo Hansberry, who noted the features found in her mummy, she had healthy teeth, a broad nose, wide mouth, full-lips, and maxillary prognathisms. [Africa's Glorious Past, p. 37] And according to Harris and Weeks in their "X-Raying the Pharaohs", her hair was platted, like that of many modern Nubian populations. She was distinctly Negroid. Please note, Amenhotep I, Queen Meryatamon, Thutmose II, Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, all trace their bloodlines back to her! Thus, they undeniably have black ancestry! No pseudo-evidence you present can erase the black blood in their veins from Amhose-Nefertari. Their ancestry is NOT up for debates. This is an established FACT! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Queen Amhose-Nefertari <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195873/xraynefertari.jpg>

A computer-generated x-ray scan of Pharaoh Amenhotep I. His mother was Amhose-Nefertari. Note his prognathisms, rounded occiput and forehead, sagittal plateau, slightly forward zygomatic arch, moderately inclined mandible, and maxillary prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Pharaoh Amenhotep I <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195874/amenhotep_I.jpg>

This is a computer x-ray scan of Queen Meryetamon. She was the sister and wife, of Amenhotep I. Note her prognathisms, maxillary prognathisms, slightly forward zygomatic arches, moderately inclined mandible, and sitting ramus. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Queen Meryatamon <http://www.tarikegypthistory_site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1958/19587/195875/meryetamon.jpg> A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thutmose I. He is the father of both Queen Hatshepsut and Pharaoh Thutmose II, and grandfather of Thutmose III. Note his globalar skull with high vault, pronounced prognathisms, maxillary prognathisms, vertically zigomatic arches, angled mandible, and squating ramus. His mummy shows him as having a broad nose, wide nostrils, full-lips, and prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Thutmose I <>

An x-ray of Pharaoh Thutmose II. Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and a descendant of Queen Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high vault with sagittal plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches, globular cranium shape (common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly angular mandible, prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Compare to the x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The Pharaoh has more pronounced prognathisms than her! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Pharaoh Thutmose II <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19595/195958/xraythut2-scan.jpg>

Also compare his X-ray <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19595/195959/xraythutii.jpg> to the x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The Pharaoh has more pronounced prognathisms than her!

And lastly, A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thuya, the mother of Queen Tiye. Not her Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and a descendant of Queen Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high vault with sagittal plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches, globular cranium shape (common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly angular mandible, prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Although she has reddish wavy hair, her crania shows clear signs of black admixture. Peoples of mixed African descent cometimes have red hair. This can be especially noted amongst many some African-Americans, like Malcom X for instance. Thuya had a wide mouth, which is a trait distinctive of Africans. Egyptologists have noted Queen Tiye's mummy shows strong resemblences to Thuya. Tiye's bust shows Negroid features, which explains her strong resemblence to her mother. Many specialists have noted how Tiye's father Yuya, who looks completely Caucasion, is atypical of Egyptians. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Lady Thuya <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1959/19596/195960/tjuya.jpg>

We can clearly see from this that the 18th Dynasty was a Mulatto dynasty. It is funny that the 19th dynasty, which proceeds the 18th dynasty, is heavily relied upon by Eurocentric scholars as their "proof" for ancient Egyptians being white. The very dynasty who's features and characteristics are atypical of the Egyptian populace. The 19th dynasty (unlike the other dynasties before it) were strong devotees of Seth, an Egyptian deity-demon believed to have red hair and to be a personification of all that is evil. Seth was widely worshipped by the Libyans whom commonly had red hairs and were whites. The 19th dynasty Pharaohs were tall, red-haired, and very pale-skinned, all characteristics atypical of most dynastic Egyptians. Considering that Ramses I, the founder of that dynasty, started off his career as a common soldier in the Egyptian army, and rose to the through the ranks up to general, and later to Pharaoh; it is no doubt Ramses was probably of Libyan origin. The Egyptian army towards the end of the 18th dynasty was predominantly foreign; Nubian and Libyan; and Egyptians mostly served as officers and generals in the army. So considering the 19th dynasty's very strong devotion to Seth, their very tall Nordic appearance, and Ramses' very obscured origins, it is more than likely they were Libyans by descent.

Speaking of mummies, it is very interesting to read reports of Egyptian mummies having Caucasian hair and features. Especially considering that studies on Egyptian mummies come from very limited and hardly random, samples in museums. The majority of over all mummies held in these museums are neither opened to the public, nor made available for scientific scrutiny. The samples studied by these "scientists" which claim Egyptian hair, teeth, and features, are Caucasian, come from a very small and limited sample. The journalist reports also fail to identify the mummies as Lower Egyptian or Upper Egyptian. As countless studies on Upper Egyptians show, they had black admixture. Studies on crania from Old Kingdom Giza tombs reveal the same thing. But what is interesting to note is that Jacques Joseph Chompollion-Figaec, the elder brother of Jean Francoid Chompollion (Chompollion the Younger), the very man who deciphered the Rosetta Stone, cites a study on a very large number of Egyptian mummies. Curiously the study found the samples to more closely match Abyssinians and Bejas, both Negroid peoples, then Europeans or Western Asians. Incidentally Chompollion-Figaec does not consider Abyssinians or Bejas to be black, even though anyone looking at an Ethiopian or Beja from a mile away, can perceive them to be distinctly Africoid. Chompollion-Figaec was following Sir Grafton Elliot Smith's belief in the "Brown Mediterranean" race, who's living representatives are the Beja, Abyssinian, Galla, Somalian, Silluk, and Massai, peoples of Northeast and East Africa. But nonetheless, of the a large sample of mummies studied Chompillion-Figaec states:

"Dr. Larry investigated this problem in Egypt; he examined a large number of mummies, studied their skulls, recognized the principle characteristics, tried to identify them in the various races living in Egypt, and succeeded in doing so. The Abyssinian seemed to him to combine them all, except for the black race. The Abyssinian has large eyes, an agreeable glance.prominent cheekbones; the cheeks form a regular triangle with prominent angles of the jawbone and mouth; the lips are thick without being everted as in Blacks; the teeth are fine, just slightly protruding [maxillary prognathisms]; finally, the complexion is merely copper-colored: such are the Abyssinians observed by Dr. Larry generally known as Berbers or Barabras, present-day inhabitants of Nubia." [Egypte Ancienne, p. 27]

The peoples in question Chompollion-Figaec is speaking of are the Bejas of Upper Egypt and northern Sudan. They are referred to sometimes as "Berbers." Copper is a dark-brown complexion, which is very interesting, in light of journals cited by Eurocentric apologists, claiming Egyptians to be purely Caucasoid. And please keep in mind that Chompollion-Figaec was himself a Eurocentric and was not the slightest bit even remotely crazy about classifying ancient Egyptians as black or even in having Negroid affinities. Yet with the rare honesty characteristic of the early Egyptologist, stated that the Egyptian mummies unearthed most closely resembled Abyssinians and Bejas, than they did Western Asians or Europeans. Which makes one wonder when reading the journals cited by Eurocentrics, where did these mummies Chompollion-Figaec spoke of, all go? The answer is obvious to anyone, the modern journals are obviously leaving out a lot of details they do not want us to know about.

DNA is the next method used by Eurocentric scholars to whiten the ancient Egyptians. The harp upon DNA studies as their evidence the ancient Egyptians were white. But what they do not tell you is that DNA studies are still young and not perfect. And also, that only a small handful of mummies have ever been tested, some of which (like an annonymous 12th dynasty king) were found to have Negroid genes.

For instance, a DNA study was done on various Jews around the world, and while finding the Ashkenazens and Sephardim to be very close genetically and therefore being of the same common Hebrew stock, the exact same was not found of Ethiopian Jews, whom were shown to be descendants of Ethiopian converts to Judaism. Another study conducted by London University found the exact different results. This study found Ethiopian Jews to share a common DNA pattern with Ashkenazens and Sephardim, and to be therefore of a common Hebrew stock with them. How is it that two separate DNA studies on the same people, yield different results? What this shows is DNA studies are imperfect and can be manipulated to suite political agendas. Could not it be the same with studies of Egyptians? In light of the physical anthropological studies cited above on this page, any study which claims ancient Egyptians had no black admixture is absolutely ludicrous. Besides, according to a DNA study by G. Paoli, the ABO typing of the ancient Egyptians was most closely matched by the Harratins <http://www.tarikegypthistorysite.cityslide.com/i/2/22/227/2270/22701/227012/haratin.jpg>, a Negroid Berber people of southern Morocco, southern Algeria, and northern Mauritania. It has been claimed by some that the Haratins are the descendants of freed Sub-Saharan slaves. But this cannot be established, since the DNA patterns of the Haratins are not found in Sub-Saharans, nor are they found in any of the "white" Berber tribes Haratins are supposed to have been owned by and mixed with. The DNA pattern of the Haratins is very unique, thus establishing them firmly as a Hamitic race. Their presence has been long recorded in the region, and their origins, a mystery. The Haratins shall be discussed in a later section.

Pictures is another means through which Eurocentrics try and "prove" Egyptians were white. But Egypt's native population was mixed, and as all mixed-race populations, you get a variation in phenotypes. While the most Caucasian or racially ambiguous images are shown to prove their point, what Eurocentrics do not show you, are images of Egyptians with clear Africoid features. Such as the following ones below.

Predynastic statue of the god Osiris found at Abydos <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29412/Osirisgod.jpg>

Old Kingdom statue of the goddess Isis suckling Horus <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2941/29413/Isisgoddess.jpg>

Predynastic Egyptian youth <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/197/1971/19716/197169/NeolithicEgyptyouth.jpg>

A clear Badarian sculptour with clear Africoid features of an Egyptian woman <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/21/216/2162/21621/216216/Badarian_woman.jpg>

A bas-relief image of a predynastic Egyptian nobleman known as Lord Tera Neter[a Anu] <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29407/Teraneter.jpg>

A bas-relief image of Egyptian women making perfume <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195687/Egyptianwomen.jpg>

An Old Kingdom statue of Imhotep, the great architect, poet, astronomer, doctor, and priest, during Pharaoh Zoser's reign <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/29/294/2940/29409/Imhotep.jpg>

Pharaoh Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195682/sensowret.gif>

Pharaoh Akhenaton <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195683/Akhenatonstatue.jpg>

Pharaoh Akhenaton and his family worshipping the Aton <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195684/Akhenatonfamily.jpg>

A bas-relief of Nefertiti worshipping the Aton at her very own tomb <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/2/22/227/2271/22710/227103/nefjertiworship.jpg>

Two of Akhenaton and Nefertiti's daughters <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195685/Akhenatondaughters.gif>

And then there is how the Egyptians saw themselves to outsiders. While Egyptians perceived themselves as lighter in complexion than Nubians to the south, what Eurocentrics do not tell you, is that the Egyptians also perceived themselves as darker than white Libyans and olive-colored Semites. As can be seen in this <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1957/19576/195766/FourEgyptianraces.jpg> image. Here we see the first three figures are Libyans, whom the Egyptians called "Tamahua" which means "People Created white." Their nose is aquiline, their lips thin, their skin color very pale white, and their hair reddish-blond. They are followed by a Nubian, with classical African features, dark ebony skin, and black woolly hair. The figure after is a Semite with brown hair, an aquiline nose, and olive skin. The last figure to the far right is an Egyptian. Note the dark-brown skin, black curly braided hair, and the small semi-aquiline nose. The Egyptians were clearly not of the same race as the three Libyans and the one Semite. And likewise here <http://www.tarikegypthistory-site.cityslide.com/i/1/19/195/1956/19568/195686/egyptsemites.jpg> is a picture of a group of Semitic pastoralists with their animals, and two Egyptians. The two Egyptians are depicted in a much far darker color than the Semites. Which show Egyptians were not the same race as them. The only picture in which an Egyptian is painted the same complexion as a Semite or Libyan, is one of Ramses II slaughtering some Libyan, Semitic, and Nubian enemies. Considering the 19th Dynasty was a white dynasty, it ought to be expected Ramses II would be the same complexion as Semites and Libyans. But all pictured showing typical Egyptian natives, always have them as being a much darker hue than Libyans and Semites. And this is in keeping with the eye witness statements by Greek writers like Herodotus, Aristotle, Lucian, and others, whom described the ancient Egyptians as being black-skinned or "melanchroes" with curly hairs. The explaination given by Eurocentrics that "melanos" merely means dark, cannot be established, since the context in which it is used by Greek writers clearly means very dark, and not just merely dark. The term "melanos" and "melanchroes" <http://kinghorus.tripod.com/melanchroes.html>is never used on such dark-skinned races as Persians, Syrians, Phoenicians, and Arabs. Only on Egyptians, Ethiopians, and East Indians. This goes to show the context in which melanchroes was used menat black or very dark. Of course Egyptians were not as dark as Nubians, but were still much darker than Europeans and Western Asians. Even today amongst black peoples in Africa there is variation in blackness. The same is true of the ancient Egyptians.

posted 17 August 2003 02:21 PM            

Anthropologist no longer classify people into Sub-races. Modern and Ancient Egyptians were a mixture of many races including Medditerean in the extreme North,with Costal Northern African variants,and tropical Africans in the South. Egyptians have never been classified with Medditerean caucasoids,but many try to put them into the category for their agendas.

My father is an Egyptian from Aswan,my mother is from Algerria,and they most certainly are not Medditerean caucasoids.
Variations exists in Africans,as well as in Europeans.

Please look in the archives,and read what I posted above.

Also I pointed out in a earlier post that apperance from mummies cannot tell about their actual racial affilation or their origin. the terxture of mummy hair is also unreliable unless it is under a electron miscroscope.
The cranial studies by Cloring Brace and JD Irish are outdated,and must be measure with new Data. Teeth found at Nabta Playa group with Sub-saharan Africans.

The conclusion is that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are not unifromily black like Western Africans,nor are they white like Medditerean Europeans. However,to say that Medditerean caucasoids founded Egyptian civlization is ridiclous,because clearly the Egyptian civlization was founded by Upper Egyptians,which even today are dark brown with thick wavy to kinky hair.

Yuya's mummy was not an Egyptian,by the way,and his most prorable origin was foregin.

Also,in terms of reconstruction of mummies,no accurate facial thickness of Modern Egyptians has ever been used,and esepcially in the region of Upper Egyt. I believe in the reconstruction of Tutankhamun they used Modern Upper Egyptians,but in terms the people who live around Luxor,Quena,and Aswan are important to reocnstruction.

The racial type of the pre-dyanstic Egyptians most likley resembled the Beja of Northern Sudan.

''. Anyway, the information you got is from a site dedicated to afroccentrism, so I would doubt its objectivity''

The site you posted is from a Scilian who is trying to prove that he is pure Medditerean caucasoid,and believes that not only are the Egyptians pure caucasoids,but the Nubians started out as caucasoids,but got negriod as they mixed with others. The information presented uses mainstream sources.

Anyway,if I may ask,are you from Egypt?

posted 17 August 2003 02:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YD:
Wow, I can't believe you deleted the post. Anyway, the information you got is from a site dedicated to afroccentrism, so I would doubt its objectivity.

---

posted 17 August 2003 05:28 PM            

Lower Egypt tends to have more Medditerean type people,while the further you go down the Nile the Darker the population gets. The people in Upper Egypt are dark brown with thick wavy hair to tightly curled[kinky] The people in the North might be Medditerean,but to say all Egyptians are Medditerean is erroenous and inaccurate. Remeber not even dark caucasoid types like Indians in India have kinky hair or pronaghtism[protrusive jaw],and this trait is very rare in caucasoids and only shows up in small amounts amung the Welsh and Irish. The trait is not pronouced though;therfore it is not avelouar prognathism.

Bruce G. Trigger, in an article entitled "Nubian, Negro, Black,
Nilotic?"
(Africa in Antiquity, The Brooklyn Museum, 1978), states:
"The Nile Valley is the only region of Africa where human settlement
stretches without a break across the Sahara from the southern shores of
the Mediterranean to the center of the continent. Physical types vary in
a gentle gradient from one end of this range, the changes being
imperceptible from village to village but evident at longer intervals.
...
On an average, between the Delta in northern Egypt and the Sudd of the
Upper Nile, skin color tends to darken from light brown to what appears
to the eye as bluish black, hair changes from wavy-straight to curly or
kinky, noses become flatter and, lips become thicker and more everted,
...."

Second,your concept of Sub-Sahara is outdated,because up untill 2000 B.C. the Sahara was mostly negriod. We have evidence of a negriod mummy found in Libya dating to 5,200 B.C.
....The programme explores the enigmatic central Saharan society which once spanned the entire north African continent. We unravel their tale through the story of the discovery of the black mummy, Uan Muhuggiag. It soon becomes obvious that these people were responsible for an extraordinary array of innovations which later became famous under the Egyptians. Their presence re-writes the history of Egypt and of the entire continent of Africa.....''
http://www.fulcrumtv.com/blackmummy.htm

In the region of Fezzan there was found the body of a negriod child
mummified by Italian archeologist F.Mori

page 44
African begginings

By Olivia Vlahos

This mummy was natural a natural mummy. The child was fully embalmed with relgious rites.

posted 17 August 2003 05:36 PM            

The original Egyptians in Upper Egypt were without a doubt black. Even early Egyptoogist like Sir Alan Garndier admits this much
see references

Greenberg, what is your position on the following observations:

The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:

"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)
_____________________________________________

From Petrie onwards,it was rewguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion
page 65
Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw
_____________________________________________

Am J Phys Anthropol. 1996 Oct;101(2):237-46.
Concordance of cranial and dental morphological traits and evidence for endogamy in ancient Egypt.
Prowse TL, Lovell NC.
Department of Anthropology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
A biological affinities study based on frequencies of cranial nonmetric traits in skeletal samples from three cemeteries at predynastic Naqada, Egypt, confirms the results of a recent nonmetric dental morphological analysis. Both cranial and dental traits analyses indicate that the individuals buried in a cemetery characterized archaeologically as high status are significantly different from individuals buried in two other, apparently nonelite cemeteries and that the nonelite samples are not significantly different from each other. A comparison with neighbouring 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 neighbouring populations in southern Egypt.
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1992 Mar;87(3):245-54.
_____________________________________________

Keita SO.
Department of Surgery, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC 20060.
Historical sources and archaeological data predict significant population variability in mid-Holocene northern Africa. Multivariate analyses of crania demonstrate wide variation but also suggest an indigenous craniometric pattern common to both late dynastic northern Egypt and the coastal Maghreb region. Both tropical African and European metric phenotypes, as well intermediate patterns, are found in mid-Holocene Maghreb sites. Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities, displaying craniometric trends that differ notably from the coastal northern African pattern. The various craniofacial patterns discernible in northern Africa are attributable to the agents of microevolution and migration.
J Hum Evol. 2000 Sep;39(3):269-88.

________________________________________________________________________________

The position of the Nazlet Khater specimen among prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations.
Pinhasi R, Semal P.
Department of Biological Anthropology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3DZ, U.K. The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures. In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modern specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant. In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modern African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations. The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible. Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations. Results also demonstrate a general reduction in the degree of sexual dimorphism during the Holocene. However, this pattern of reduction pattern varies by geographic location and is not uniform across the African continent.
Mapping diveristy: craniofacial affinities in the Mid-Holocene Nile Valley considered with archaeological and linguistic data.

________________________________________________________________________________

Soy Keita and A.J. Boyce April 2002)
The appearance of agriculture occurs in the Nile Valley some 2000 years after its appearance in Europe and the Near East. The major cultigens are the same in these areas. It has been hypothesized by some reasearchers that agriculture emerges in the Nile Valley cocomitant with the arrival of speakers of the Afro-Asiatic language family, both being brought after differentiation of the Nostratic macofamily speech community. In this view agriculture and(Afro-Asiatic)come from Europe, the locale of the Nostratic cradle in this model. A phenetic craniometric analysis of early farmers fromthe Nile Valley in Upper Egypt in order to explore this hypothesis. Badarian crania were studied with European and African series from the Howells' database, using generalized differences and cluster analysis(neighboring joining and UPGMA algorithms). Greater affinity is found with the African series. The results are considered with a variety of linguistic and archaeological evidence, as well as the findings of simulation studies relevant to this study. It concluded that the earliest Nile Valley farmers in Upper Egypt for which there is record were locals, not European immigrants and therefore the development of agriculture in this region was not due to demic diffusion ultimately from Europe. The problems with phenetic affinity studies considered in isolation from other evidence will be discussed, as well as the flaws of thinking in terms of absolute identity, and not relative similarity
_____________________________________________

posted 17 August 2003 05:48 PM            

These factors of climatic influence and structural interrelationship suggest that human face form is extremely complex,numerous varible being invovled in growth and development. Conclusions should not be drawn about relationships between two populations on the basis of a similairty in structure ,because face form[like the small statue in pgymies and Negritos discussed above] develops according to local factors of natural selction. It is not ncessary to postulate migrations and intermixtures to explain similairites between populations,as once was done for the Nilotic face form found in groups like the Nuer,Shilluk,and others in Eastern Africa. At one time their long striaght noses were believed to be due to contact and interbreeding with caucasoid groups form Western Asia. subsequent genetic studies donot borne this theory out . No doubt,over a period of thousand years,contact with Western Asia populations has taken place and some interbreeding has resulted,but people with Nilotic face are the result of local selective forces acting on the population;it is not merely a matter of interbreeding between races......."""""

Page 63-64

Race,Types,and Ethnic Groups
the problem with human variation
Stephen Molnar

Also narrow noses in Africans is variations,not developed from intermixture with caucasoids

posted 18 August 2003 05:17 AM            

Human skin color diversity is highest in sub-Saharan African populations.

Relethford JH.

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, 13820, USA.

Previous studies of genetic and craniometric traits have found higher levels of within-population diversity in sub-Saharan Africa compared to other geographic regions. This study examines regional differences in within-population diversity of human skin color. Published data on skin reflectance were collected for 98 male samples from eight geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa, Europe, West Asia, Southwest Asia, South Asia, Australasia, and the New World. Regional differences in local within-population diversity were examined using two measures of variability: the sample variance and the sample coefficient of variation. For both measures, the average level of within-population diversity is higher in sub-Saharan Africa than in other geographic regions. This difference persists even after adjusting for a correlation between within-population diversity and distance from the equator. Though affected by natural selection, skin color variation shows the same pattern of higher African diversity as found with other traits.

PMID: 11126724 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11126724&dopt=Abstract
Hum Biol. 2001 Oct;73(5):629-36. Related Articles, <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=11758686> Links <javascript:PopUpMenu2_Set(Menu11758686,'','','','','');>

Global analysis of regional differences in craniometric diversity and population substructure.

Relethford JH.

Department of Anthropology, State University of New York College at Oneonta, USA.

Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations. Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies. Polynesia and the Americas both show high levels of regional diversity when regional aggregates are used, but the lowest mean local population diversity. Regional estimates of F(ST) made using quantitative genetic methods show that both Polynesia and the Americas also have the highest levels of differentiation among local populations, which inflates regional diversity. Regional differences in F(ST) are directly related to the geographic dispersion of samples within each region; higher F(ST) values occur when the local populations are geographically dispersed. These results show that geographic sampling can affect results, and suggest caution in making inferences regarding regional diversity when population substructure is ignored.

Publication Types:
Validation Studies

posted 03 December 2004 12:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.

---

posted 03 December 2004 02:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.

---

posted 03 December 2004 02:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.

---

posted 03 December 2004 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.

---

posted 03 December 2004 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Kem-Au:

i think life would be alot easier if we did away with this negro, caucasoid thing. aren't caucasians supposed to be from the caucus mountains? because if that's the case, many people who are considered caucasian today are not really caucasian.

---

This is taken from a mistaken theory that all peoples of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe (as well as those of European descent elsewhere) originated in the Caucasus Mountains.

Although physical differences obviously exist, races or exclusively distinct human types are social concept. The deviding part between humans is predominantly history, economy and culture.

posted 03 December 2004 04:04 PM            

The caucasian label comes from an German anthropologist named Blumeback. He was amungst the first to classify people into seperate categories. He also grouped many people who were not caucasian into a series of bogus classifications.

posted 05 December 2004 02:28 PM            

Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.

Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.

Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),inorder to feed your own ego.

You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........

There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....

Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??

The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.

I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

The caucasian label comes from an German anthropologist named Blumeback. He was amungst the first to classify people into seperate categories. He also grouped many people who were not caucasian into a series of bogus classifications.

---

posted 05 December 2004 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.

Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.

Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.

Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),inorder to feed your own ego.

You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........

There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....

Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??

The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.

I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.

---

posted 05 December 2004 04:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, could you please point out where I am misrepresenting the Egyptian population? Could you point out specifically where my comments are wrong without calling me names or disrespecting me.

---

posted 05 December 2004 06:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

You claim to be an informed person, yet you quote some of the most ignorant people on the Web........

---

Sir, I find this to be your most disturbing comment. Surely, you must not be aware of the sources that Ausar uses. Yes, some of the sources are available on the net, but almost all the source, including those on the net, are from Classical and Contemporary published works. With modern technology, many of theses sources can be retrieved online (i.e. University libraries online).

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

There is a current Drive in the USA to abolish this False Science of Biased Afro-Centric Teachings from the schools and universities....

---

Again, you are mistaken. Although it is true that many black colleges teach Egyptian history and Egyptology from a African prospective, the professors of these colleges use references from the ancient eyewitnesses (i.e Greeks, Romans, Asians, etc.). What you do not understand is that most of the foundations of Egyptology were based on Eurocentric and blatantly racist views of that time/period. Whites (European and later American) historians of the 18th and 19th centuries vided together to interpret and explain away findings that indicated a black African origin of Ancient Kemet—instead of taking the information for what its worth. Black colleges’ uses information from ancient sources and take them on face value (i.e. Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, etc.) as appose to fabricating and interpreting notions of a European and Euro-Asiatic (IndoEuropean) origins where none existed.

Unfortunately, many mainstream colleges were involved in the early beginnings of Egyptology and had entire programs (foundations) based on these outdated Eurocentric (racist) interpretations of Kemetian history. Many colleges, not just black, are in direct opposition to these ill conceived theories born out of early Egyptology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Ausar, What are you trying to PROVE??

---

As a neutral person, my answer would be “Truth”

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

The Ancient Egyptians worked hard for their
Achievements and it is a total rip-off to try to steal them for your own benefit and that of others, who in no shape or form...had anything to do with them.

---

Agreed, the AEs did work hard, no argument there.

Question, who had nothing to do with it?? I think Ausar was quite clear on establishing time lines for the period that he is talking about. Pre-dynastic and early dynastic Kemet was established and inhabited by indigenous black African (as the Kemetians attested themselves!). I am amazed at why this is so difficult for some people to believe, when this is the most logical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

I'm a True Egyptian (100% -- Both Parents) and I know most of my people share my sentiments......Do us all a big favor and stop spreading this False Psuedo-Science.

---

Okay, so what are you saying?? Many people who were born in a particular country and had parents born their, are the most ignorant about the history of the land they currently inhabit (i.e.. just because you ask a 100% Hawaiian, South African, Australian, Pilipino, African American, etc, about the ancient history of the land they currently inhabit, they MIGHT NOT know anything about it).

Therefore, just because you and your parents (and your great, great, grandparents for that fact) were born in Modern day Egypt, this does not make you an authority of Ancient Kemet. Moreover, it does not make you the same as the Kemetians (unless your ancestry/bloodlines dates back to Kemetian times unbroken and interrupted by the incursions of the Greeks/Romans, Persians, and lastly, the Arabs).

So, although you can most certainly claim to be 100% Egyptian by nationality, and by the simple fact that you live there now….please try understand that Ausar is referring to the ancient, and early dynastic Kemetians—prior to the many incursions and subsequent mixing of the indigenous stock of fore-fathering Kemetians.

So if you disagree with this….please state facts….

You have not stated any facts here.

Oh well, when one can not refute facts with facts then name-calling (i.e. simple saying you’re a lair! without backing it with facts) is only recourse left.

By the way, I do not know Ausar personally. Ausar, sorry for speaking out on something addressed to you.

posted 05 December 2004 07:11 PM            

quote:

---

Therefore, just because you and your parents (and your great, great, grandparents for that fact) were born in Modern day Egypt, this does not make you an authority of Ancient Kemet. Moreover, it does not make you the same as the Kemetians (unless your ancestry/bloodlines dates back to Kemetian times unbroken and interrupted by the incursions of the Greeks/Romans, Persians, and lastly, the Arabs).

So, although you can most certainly claim to be 100% Egyptian by nationality, and by the simple fact that you live there now?.please try understand that Ausar is referring to the ancient, and early dynastic Kemetians?prior to the many incursions and subsequent mixing of the indigenous stock of fore-fathering Kemetians.

So if you disagree with this?.please state facts?.

You have not stated any facts here.

Oh well, when one can not refute facts with facts then name-calling (i.e. simple saying you?re a lair! without backing it with facts) is only recourse left.

By the way, I do not know Ausar personally. Ausar, sorry for speaking out on something addressed to you.

---

The modern Egyptians are mostly desended from the ancient Egyptians but not everybody in Egypt is ethnically pure,nor can trace their ancestry back so far into deep antiquity. Over the years before even the Greco-Roman and Arabs came it appears that mass influxes of people arriving from Palestine and parts of Northern Africa began to settle the Delta. Egyptian texts such as the Adominations of Ipuwer and Instrutions of Meri-ke-Re speak of an intrusive element into the Delta which would probabaly later result into the infiltration of the Hykos into the Delta.

I have always contended,as do most modern Egyptologist and anthropologist, that ancient Egyptians were diverse from north to south. Meaning that Egyptians living in the northern part of Egypt probabaly since the pre-dynastic absorbed more foregin elements,and thus lighter than Upper Egyptians as it is today. In such texts as The Tales of Sinuhe it speaks of an Egyptian from the Delta cannot understand the language of an Egyptian living in Southern Upper Egypt,and what this means is that by the 12th dyansty when the text is written that both areas were as diverse as they are today.

Know what annoys me with some African-American scholars is the blatant denial of many modern Egyptians having ancestry from the ancient Egyptians. This is most likely from ignorance from the part of Egyptians who allow others to group themselves in with Arabs. Many people in Upper Egypt[Southern Egypt] have never mixed with Arabs,nor have Arab parents or even grandparents. The direct desendants of the ancient Egyptians within Egypt are the Sa3eadi,balady,and Fellahin who all come from the rural countryside. Most Egyptians live in the rural countryside which is either in the Delta or within parts of Saeed[Upper Egypt].

My suggestion is a dialogue between the two parties instead of political diatribe or name calling.

BTW, here is an article written by the late Frank Joseph Yurco aboout the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. See the following:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm

posted 05 December 2004 07:30 PM            

Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, “Arab” referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.

I believe it would be incorrent to seperate the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) from the Delta Egyptians because culturally and historically they share a lot in common.

posted 05 December 2004 08:18 PM            

quote:

---

Today Arab is almost completely cultural, nothing racial about this. Northern Sudanese are also called Arabs.

Before the spread of Islam and, with it, the Arabic language, ?Arab? referred to any of the largely nomadic Semitic inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula.

I believe it would be incorrent to seperate the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) from the Delta Egyptians because culturally and historically they share a lot in common.

Upper Egyptians have always been dark, i don't see what the big change is though. Aswans are the darkest Egyptians.

---

Sure the Bahary are my Egyptians brothers and sisters,but foreginers have migrated to the Delta in larger numbers than to the southern areas. Arabs migrated to the Delta in larger numbers and some mixed in with the rural Delta fellahin. Before this there were Libyans and Caanites[Palestineans] who penetraited at various times. In the Egyptian texts such as Sinuhe states that a Delta man is a stranger in Yebu[Aswan] and other texts also relate that a Delta man cannot understand and Upper Egyptian in correspondence. Today in modern Egypt Sai'idi Arabic is very distinct and cannot be understood by Bahary Egyptians.

The Fellahin in Upper Egypt has preserved the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians down to the height. Fellahin tend to be very short just like the ancient Egyptians, and have less sharp features than the Bedouin Arabs.

posted 05 December 2004 08:38 PM            

quote:

---

The ancient egyptians did not started out as as mixed raced.THE MIXING of the races started in lower egypt and than upper egypt much later.THE blacks of upper egypt remain mostly unmixed for most of ancient egypt's history and the middle ages to a certain extent.

---

During the New Kingdom there was a movement of high officals from Men-nefer to parts of Upper Egypt. Ramose for instance trace his ancestry to Men-nefer,but was a high offical around the Luxor area. Sennefer,another high offical, was located in his birth place of Waset[Thebes] and depictions of the royal officals match modern Egyptians from the area who tend to be dark brown in apperance.

We have other examples such as Sheikh El-Beled or Ka-aper who looks very similar to a Egyptian from the Saqqara era. Infact that is how he aquired the named Sheikh El-Beled from one of the Fellahin diggers. The statue looked just like the leader of their village.

posted 05 December 2004 08:38 PM            

I have talked to numerous Egyptians regarding this controversial Subject and regardless of their origin, whether from the North or the South...They do not share your point of view about this Afro-Centric historical prespective.

Honestly, all Egyptians belong to the same Ethnic Group...It is not necessary to label them as Black or White, just as Arabs do come in a variety of colors, the same goes for the Egyptians. In fact, the Modern Egyptians are a very good approximation of the Ancient Egyptians, who in turn were Unique.....such as now. Foreign gene influx has always been minimal.

The Ancient Egyptians knew this quite well, that is why they always thought that they were the best.....it was not a Racial Thing at all. Their very Greatnest came from their Diversity and not otherwise.

They were "Just Right".....just as they were
physically and intellectually.

As a matter of fact, according to the ancients, one became an Egyptian, just by living in Egypt and adopting the local customs and culture. In a way, this is similar to how the term Arab is applied to many people in the Arab world today, regardless of their racial origin. By the way, Saudi Arabia is over 15% Black, but they're still Saudis and Arabs.

What I find very offensive about this Afro-Centric argument, is that they're trying to steal our Culture away from us, i.e., The Modern Egyptians.........and give it all to others who had very little or almost nothing to do with the Great Achievements of our Ancestors.

Finally, I look forward to a dialouge and not just quotes from people with incorrect and sometimes blatant distortion of the Facts.

A question for you, how many Egyptians today consider themselves Black??

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Abaza, could you please point out where I am misrepresenting the Egyptian population? Could you point out specifically where my comments are wrong without calling me names or disrespecting me.

---

posted 05 December 2004 09:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
You know he can not, as there is nothing objectively wrong with your premise. There seems to be no shortage of these emotionally immature folks...

---

Wally,

Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....

We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.

By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.

It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.

posted 05 December 2004 09:26 PM            

I think also you need to seperate concepts such as Afrocentric from mainstream throught. Most modern Egyptologist don't disagree that ancient Egypt[Kmt] was culturally and ethnically African. The ancient Egyptians and modern Egyptians share many cultural traits with other African people that just happen to know live below the Sahara. Such customs as divine kingship,circumcision rites,and also ancestor veneration.

The sources I usually quote are from remains in pre-dyanstic burials in Upper Egypt. The remains from these burials have in many studies been called negriod and very similar to the Saharan type that once lived in the Sahara before it quickly dessificated. The remains show that many had a protrusive jaw. This chracteristic is still found in modern Sa3eadi people living in modern Upper Egypt.

Your comment about modern Egyptians having very little gene flow from foreginers is also incorrect,for many Egyptians have Syrian,Armenian,Circussian,Greek,and even Turkish ancestry from over the years. I can tell you this is definately the case with prominent Coptic families such as Doss. I knew a Doss,and he told me straight up that his family had mixed with the Greeks.

During the Greek occupation of Egypt,much intermarriage between the Greeks and Egyptians occured and is well documented. The unions of these people would take Egyptian names instead of Greek.

As far as how many modern Egyptians would be considered ''black'' is a matter of ones opinion. In modern Egypt the color definition is much different from say Western countries where I lived most my life. Most Egyptians would tell you they are qahmy[wheat colored] no matter how dark they appear,but I can tell you many Egyptians will also lie about their color. Myself being from Aswan I can tell you that I am dark brown,and by Western standards I would be considered black. You would call me Smr or Asmar if you say me.

The people with the phenotype of the ancient Egyptians in modern Egypt are the Fellahin and Sa3eadi people. Both these groups are less mixed than the city dwellers or even Bahary in the Delta region.

See the following pictures:

Egyptian from Luxor

Children from Luxor
http://highculture.8m.com/images/ModernEgypt/LuxorFeluccaPilot.jpg

Another Luxor Egyptian

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u33/weirdrob/upload/21557004.P0000776A.jpg

Children from Luxor

Here are some Fellahin from Minya

http://www.metimes.com/2K4/issue2004-17/issue_metpix/healthcare_in_upper.jpg

Notice they are lighter than the average Luxor or Aswani but still darker than many Northern Egyptians.

Some people from asyut

Once again I invite you to read the following from Egyptologist Frank Joseph Yurco in his article on the ancient Kemetians[Egyptians]:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm

Abaza, not all modern Egyptologist have the Egyptians best in mind. Many early Egyptologist believed the early Egyptians started off as white people and then intermixed with ''black'' slaves which brought on the color of modern day Egyptians.

It's not just the Afro-centrists that bare the blame,but also to European Egyptologist who try to find blonde people and Nordic people within Egypt,and believe modern Egyptians have no claim to ancient Egypt. Westerner Egyptologist have done far more damage to modern Egyptians than a few Afro-centrists. The whole Afro-Centric movement was not started untill the early 1980's with people like Molefi Assante.

Egyptology is a soft science that requires detailed study from other disciplines such as bio-anthropology and physical anthropology. An Egyptologist opinions on the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians should not be taken seriously,but their views on cultural origins and soceity of the ancient Egyptians should.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 05 December 2004).]

posted 05 December 2004 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

All I have thus heard from Abaza, is emotional opinions rather than an argument backed by concrete evidence. That Egypt has been a racially pure society since ancient times, is one of the most laughable statements I have yet heard.

---

Abaza attempts to argue by ridicule while not engaging substantive debate. When a person does that it shows that they have no confidence in their opinions.

posted 05 December 2004 10:25 PM            

quote:

---

Yurco writes:

In summary, the peoples of the Nile Valley present a continuum, from the lighter northern Egyptians to the browner Upper Egyptians to the still browner Nubians and Kushites and to the ultra-dark brown Nilotic peoples.

(16) Millennia of slow, gradual intermingling with neighboring populations of Nubians and Libyans, and from time to time with foreigners from more distant areas, created this population. In addition, there has been some mingling with Bedoum populations of the desert regions.

Some modern Afro-Americans, particularly those with mixed racial ancestry, will find that they look like some ancient (and modern) Egyptians. Should they travel to Egypt, they may find that in terms of their complexion they resemble people of a particular region of Egypt. This is no accident; there has been racial or ethnic intermingling in both instances. For the Afro-American, it has been relatively recent; in Egypt it has been a slow process lasting thousands of years, as far back into prehistory as can be gauged.

---

Abaza -- are you in disagreement with Yurco's quote above? Are you in disagreement with Ausar's premise: "Ancient and Modern Egyptians are not Mediterranean caucasoids"?

So far it seems that all you're doing is casting aspersions on arguments you don't like by placing labels on them. ("Afrocentric").

...But evidence is neither Afrocentric nor Eurocentric. I think evidence supports Yurco's statement. Keep in mind that when people speak of "black" and "white" they're talking about Western racial labels specifically. We all understand that many people who would be considered "black" in the west (and "white" for that matter) don't necessarily refer to themselves by these one-dimensional labels.

---

Also -- what do you think of the following Yurco assertion?

quote:

---

Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians. In the late predynastic period (c. 3700-3150 B.C.E.), the Nubians shared the same culture as the Egyptians and even evolved the same pharaonic political structure.

---

---

quote:

---

Abaza writes:

What I find very offensive about this Afro-Centric argument, is that they're trying to steal our Culture away from us, i.e., The Modern Egyptians.........and give it all to others who had very little or almost nothing to do with the Great Achievements of our Ancestors.

---

Here's another important question: who exactly are these "others" that the "Afro-centric" argument tries to "give" Egyptian history to?

You have to think it through before you get offended. What you call an "Afrocentric" argument pays closer attention to the testimony of the ancients themselves (as well as other evidence) than the Eurocentric argument ever has...

posted 05 December 2004 10:38 PM            

The singular lack of originality," he wrote, "and the slavish devotion to
convention, which are the outstanding features of the modern Egyptian, are
sure tokens that the former abilties of the race have been affected by fifty
centuries of negro admixture, which has more than counterbalanced the
infusion of virile northern blood that in some measure helps to explain the
greatness of Egypt's achievements in the zenith of her power and influence."

(G. Elliot Smith, "The Influence of Racial Admixture in Egypt," The Eugenics
Review, vol. 7, April 1915-January 1916, pages 177-178, 183)

Does that sound like mainstream Egyptology had the best intentions towards modern Egyptians?

You should be more insulted by these studies than by some misguided Afro-centrists.

posted 05 December 2004 11:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Wally,

Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....

We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.

By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.

It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Both the Ancient and Modern Egyptians would laugh at your senseless postings.

---

As a modern day Egyptian, I guess you could speak for yourself…although, I know many that attend and teach at my University (not a black college) that do not (laugh at Ausar’s fact laced posts). Although, many 100% Arab/Asiatic type Egyptians that I know are not too fond of the new and most currently unfolding information about ancient Kemet/Egypt, but they too find the evidence extremely hard to refute. I mean, it must be very difficult for some of the modern day Asiatic Arab Egyptians—as it is for some others groups (i.e. Hawaiians, White South Africans, Australians, ect.)—to differentiate themselves from the ancients who occupied the same lands so long long ago. Egypt and the Ancient Kemetians had to endure many incursions with invading peoples displacing the indigenous peoples while encroaching on ancients’ territories.

Now, I am not saying that a good percentage of modern day Egyptians (especially those from the south) are not related to the ancients, but a good number of the ones in lower Egypt and, particularly Cairo, are decendant from Middle eastern and IndoEuropean origins, as some one tell you (and have me), if you asked.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.

---

Totally biased? Could you give specific examples? Ausar has shown that he is extremely knowledgeable of current and ancient historical facts in reference to Ancient Kemet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Why the hell would an Egyptian try to spread false information on his own people....Wakeup man and realize that you're only helping spread lies and psuedo-History.

---

False information?? What is the false information that you are referring to exactly? At least give Ausar a chance to debate his point(s) and argument. Also, what lies have Ausar told?? Please specify.

My question to you is….What is true information??? The topic at hand was that the “Ancient Egyptians were not white (i.e. from European Stock, but instead from an African one)”. Do you disagree? If so, please state your facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

Modern Egyptians know who they are...and don't need someone like you telling them lies...(The same goes for the Ancient Egyptians),in order to feed your own ego.

---

Not fair to make such a statement, it borders on name calling.

As for Ancient Kemetians/Egyptians, they most certainly referred to themselves in the African context, which the Kemetian’s hailed “the land of the gods” (meaning they believed that most of their gods are of inner African origin—as stated by Basil Davidson British Egyptologist in his 30 plus years Studying the Egyptian and Southern African Continent).

Also, are you aware of the race chart that the Kemetians created to show the difference between themselves an the Semitics and Indo-Europeans?
This chart shows that RACIALLY, the Kemetians saw themselves as what you, and everyone else would consider black Africans. Again, look at their race chart from the tomb of Ramsese II, I believe…. It is very clear. So, please do not speak for the ancients, because you are going against their own interpretations

posted 06 December 2004 09:46 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane.

---

* The Kememu or AE referred to themselves as Black people, and of course they were indiginous Africans as well, they were not Europeans or Asians.

* The Kememu were also referred to as Blacks by the ancient Hebrews; in the Bible, and by the Ancient Greeks as well.

* No-one except Eurocentrics and some misguided Arab nationalists have ever claimed otherwise. And mostly, they, like you, make phoney propagandistic claims that they themselves do not actually believe in, as they know full well that the Arabs entered Kemet in 600 AD and the Kememu NEVER regarded themselves as Aamuu-deshrutu (Asiatic).

posted 06 December 2004 09:54 AM            

quote:

---

the backlash is well underway in all major Universities

---

posted 06 December 2004 10:40 AM            

quote:

---

The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane. Its an effort on the part of silly Afrocentrics to rewrite history for political reasons. Nobody takes them seriously and the backlash is well underway in all major Universities.

---

Actually, the view that people that had affinities to ''black'' Africans in pre-dyanstic Kmt[Egypt] is taken very seriously. The early pre-dyanstic Egyptians in Upper Egypt had affinities with Saharan and even Nilotic type Africans according to Michael Critchion,and others such as Howells found that the Giza samples were intermediates between European and sub-Saharan Africans. Larry Angel, the professor of S.O.Y. Keita, found that Babdarian crania was what you would call negriod.

The only thing debatable is who inhabited Lower Egypt around the Delta. We don't have much crania from this region preserved like in Upper Egypt.

posted 06 December 2004 11:53 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane. Its an effort on the part of silly Afrocentrics to rewrite history for political reasons. Nobody takes them seriously and the backlash is well underway in all major Universities.

---

Horemheb,

This statement is probably the most factual on this thread.....We should be debating why the Egyptian People and the Respected people of Academia are so silent on this Subject.

There needs to be a Debate about the merits of allowing some respected Institutions of Higher Learning to teach this Garbage...

If you think about it, it amounts to a politcal agenda that is tolerated for stupid reasons. There is no other science or subject
allowed to be taught in such a fashion at these very same colleges and universities.

WHY SHOULD THEY ALLOW FALSE INFORMATION TO BE FED TO THEIR STUDENTS.....WE ALL NEED TO STAND UP AND EXPRESS OUR ANGER TOWARDS THESE INSTITUTES OF HIGHER LEARNING!!!

posted 06 December 2004 12:22 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]the backlash is well underway in all major Universities

---

Rasol,

I don't support either Eurocentric or Afrocentric political points of view.

What we need is a Neutral Pathway without any outside hidden political agenda....

As a matter of fact there are Black Professors in the USA who do not support this garbage science of psuedo-history.

They know that by teaching their students False information, they're making them weaker not stronger and make all Afican-American look like stupid idiots.

This should not be tolerated........

What many people forget is that African is only a geographical Term...it doen mean Black, White, or Other racial group.

The Ancient Egyptians were African, but they were not "Black Africans".

This Fact is crucial to understanding the history of AE.

They obviously had contacts with Black Africans, but the same was true with all their other neighbors from North Africa, The Arabian Peninsula,Asia and Europe.

What the Afro-Centric Psuedo-Historians try to teach as Fact is a one faceted point of view that ignores the Truth.

Sorry, but this modern Thievery should not be tolerated to make one group feel better about themselves......Let the Egyptians have their own history and let us enjoy the Egyptian Legacy with all its Glory...

posted 06 December 2004 12:29 PM            

However saying that the Sa'idi (Upper Egyptians) were dark brown is not. The Ta-Seti are still the darkest Egyptians. Ta-Seti also meant "Land of the Bow".

Edit: Also i don't think there is no such a thing as "Negroid" skull.

posted 06 December 2004 01:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Rasol,

What many people forget is that African is only a geographical Term...it doen mean Black, White, or Other racial group.

The Ancient Egyptians were African, but they were not "Black Africans".

---

Europe is a geographical term too, isn't it?

Would you say the same about the Greeks and Romans?

That they were Europeans, but not "White Europeans" given their dark complexion compared to Germans, Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, and the like?

What do you mean by "Black African" by the way?

Is there a monolith concept of who is black African or white European?

posted 06 December 2004 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The idea the AE's are black Africans is insane.

---

Horemheb,
First, my sincere apology for confusing you as Orionix. Now, why don't you provide us with the books and authors of egyptology that are taught in your university? I've asked before but as usual you don't answer.

posted 06 December 2004 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
Wally,

Please, just because we do not agree...does not give you the right to call me names....

We all know quite well that almost all the Egyptologist do not agree with this False Psuedo-Science.

By the way, these folks are some of the Brightest minds in this field,,,and most of them have no political agenda.

It is just a Shame that such Great Institutes of Higher learning can be so blind as to not question this Psuedo Afro-Centric False science.

---

quote:

---

Ausar, with all due respect, I think you're NUTS. Your postings are totally biased and do a great deal of disservice to the Egyptian People.

---

There is no need to "debate" people who think as you do because you constantly evade the bottom line - Prove the Ancient Egyptians wrong on this matter, and if you can't then simply not address the issue. (Put up or shut up! is what I'm trying to say, I think...)

posted 06 December 2004 02:14 PM            

Most modern day Egyptians don't realize how slanderous the early Egyptologist was towards them. Did you read the articles I posted by Sir Grafton Smith that claimed the original Egyptians were white and became darkened by ''black'' slaves.

The earliest remains in Middle Egypt around Badari all were studied during the late 60's and early 70's. Nearly all physical anthropologist agreed they match Nilotic type people such as the Teita. Larry Angel later confirmed this and his student Keita also validated it.

Egypt had lots in common with other African groups including the following: circumcision rites,divine kingship,rainmaker king,and even ancestor veneration. True not all Egyptians were ''black'' but the majority in Upper Egypt were and many still there are today. Leading Egyptologist Bob Brier in his book on Egyptian Mummies agrees with his direct quote ''Some Egyptians were black and some were not''.

Fekri Hassan,who is an Egyptian, agrees that the early people from the Sahara populated parts of Upper Egypt. Most likely these pastorialists brought their culture to the ancient Egyptians.

All these people I quoited are fairly mainstream and publish in mainstream journals. You can read most of the material in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, The Journal of World Prehistory,and Journal of Human Evolution.

Here are the studies that back up my statements:

Robins, G. and Shute, C, "Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical
proportions," _Journal of Human Evolution_ 4, 1986

Strouhal, E. "Une contribution a la question du caratere de la population prehitorique de la haute-Egypte" Anthropolgie, 6, 1968.
__, "Evidence of the early penetration of negroes into prehistoric Egypt," Egyptian Journal of African History, 12: 1-9, 1971.

Hassan, F. (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory, 2, 135-185.

Gaballah, MF, El-Rakhawy MT and El-Eishi HI, " On the cranilogical study of Egyptian in various periods in various periods," Anthropologie X(2,3):29-34.

98.1016
CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World, in:
Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists, 261-272. (fig.).

The traditional contextualisation of Egypt in the 'Mediterranean' or
'Near Eastern' world has been produced by a phenomenon of western
historiography that we can classify as the 'forgotten Africa'. The
reopening of the African question in Egyptology has proceeded from the
pre- and protohistorians of the Nile Valley and of northern Africa in
general. The inclusion of late prehistoric Egypt in Africa determines
the essentially African nature of many of the central features of
Pharaonic civilisation and explains the many parallels between ancient
Egypt and both the ancient Saharan and modern black civilisations. The
author discusses examples of the iconographic-symbolic parallels
between Saharan rock art and Egyptian art, and the principal cultural
characteristics shared by ancient Egypt and modern black Africa. The
African nature of Egyptian civilisation can be seen most clearly in
the institution of Pharaonic kingship. M.W.K.

The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.

page 310

J. Lawrence Angel

Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution

Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969

Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*

There was probably a break in occupation between levels I and II at
Merimda. Level II, known as the Mittleren Merimdekultur and considered by
the by the excavator to be related to the Saharo-Sudanese cultures..."
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt
Pg 38
======================================================================
"The Fayum Neolithic should thus be viewed as a culture at the intersection
of three routes: one from the eastern Sahara, one from the Near East and one
from the Nile Valley itself."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 106
=====================================================================

Here is Midant-Reynes statement on the remains of a 40 year old
epipaleolithic woman from the Fayum Oasis in the same book:
" The body was that of a 40 year old woman with a height of 1.6 meters, who
was of a more modern racial type than the classic "Mechtoid" of the
Fakhurian culture, being generally gracile, having large teeth and thick
jaws bearing some resemblance to the modern "negroid' type."
The Prehistory of Egypt
By Beatrix Midant-Reynes
Pg. 82
======================================================================
"The prognathism observed in the skulls from Maadi south and Heliopolis may
or may not indicate the infiltration of a negroid strain into the northern
region."
Most Ancient Egypt
By William C. Hayes
======================================================================

See the following link: http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/V02/v02.n077
[scroll down to the thread by Peter Piccone]

Finally, let it be said that the ancient Egyptians were not white=20 Caucasians, nor were they Indo-Aryans. They were African, primarily a brown race, although fair= =20 skinned and leptorhine in the north, black skinned and platyrhine in the south, and= =20 various shades in the middle. They manifested all the physical differences you=20 would expect in so large a continent as Africa. Trigger (see below) uses the term=20 "Nilotic" to refer to their heterogenous character. When all is said and done, though,= =20 this whole question of Egyptian racial identity says more about us today than it does= =20 about the ancient Egyptians.