posted 13 September 2003 06:00 PM            

First, as far as I'm concerned, it is still debatable that Lower Egyptians descend from Kemites. Hawass was born in Damietta, which is in the delta region about as north as you can get. I used to think (quite ignorantly) that Pharonic Egypt had simply disappeared because all the programs I watched made it seem that way. So I, probably like much of the world, thought that Egyptians today were not Egyptians from the Pharonic period. That all changed where Ausar recommended The Fellahin of Upper Egypt by Winifred S. Blackman.

What's interesting is how the book points out the similarities between the modern Fellahin of Upper Egypt and the Kemites. However, the book focuses on the people of Upper Egypt, not of Lower. Why is that?

In the first sentence of the book the author says, "The natural barriers of Egypt have inabled the inhabitants, particularly those of the upper country, to live in comparative isolation throught the whole of their history."

Later on, "Nubians, Sudan negroes, Turks, Greeks, Syrians, and Jews are also to be found in large numbers (in Egypt), the four latter peoples chiefly in Lower Egypt". The book also mentions that invaders into Egypt usually came from the north-east.

Clearly there is a distiction made here between Upper and Lower Egypt. Moustafa Gadalla, in Exiled Egyptians, also touches on this subject.

A while back, I had a discussion with Amun. He told me about the conflict between the Arabs and the Kushites after the Arabs invaded Egypt. History tells us that after a convincing victory of the Kushites over the Arabs, the Arabs came back 10 years later and advanced to Dongola, and were much more successful against the Kushites. This forced a treaty to be signed in which Kush would provide slaves to the Arabs. However according to Gadalla, this is an Arab myth. In the chapter where he talks about the Christians selling out the Egyptians to the Arabs, he mentions this conflict that Amun told me about, but he asks why Kush would sign a treaty when they were winning the war? He then mentions this treaty, called a Baqt, was an Arab save face to justify their loss and withdrawal from Kush.

I do have to wonder why if the Arabs did have the upper hand why they didn't take Kush like they did Egypt? In fact, theNubian.net mentions a number of stirkes of Dongola kings on the Arab controlled Egypt and that one of them (Cyriacus) invaded as far as Cairo.
http://www.thenubian.net/chrnology.html

The next part is what relates to this topic when Gadalla says that when the Arab Bedouins left Dongola it freed this region from Arab threat for 600 yrs, but it caused an invisible border between the indigenous Egyptians in the south and the rest of Egypt to the north, which had now become an Arab colony.

Next Gadalla mentions that as the power of Turkish generals in Egypt grew, that they were given entire provinces when there wasn't enough money to pay them. Many Egyptians had to surrender their land or worse be enslaved if they didn't leave. He mentions this just after stating that northern Egypt had become an Arab colony.

So my question is, can Hawass himself claim to be a descendant of the Per-aa's just because he lives in Egypt now? Like I mentioned before, people would look at George W. Bush funny if he said that Chief Running Water was his ancestor.

Next, in the Fellahin, Blackman mentions that the negroes in Upper Egypt are descended from slaves brought in by Arabs. I asked this question a while back and Ausar mentioned that this thinking is outdated. Well according to Gadalla, Ausar is right. Only recently have I seen images of Upper Egyptians. And contradictory to Hawass' statements, they seem to look very similar to other Africans.

posted 13 September 2003 10:30 PM            

This would be correct,because much of Upper Egypt during the Islamic rule of various Arab Caliphtes to the Mamelukes were ruled indepdently. Only when the rual people sold their produce did to the urbanites did the Fellahin ever get any notice. Duuring these time periods,the Fellahin were treated like trash by the ruling elites. Much of this stayed the same untill the 1845. Even during this period under the Albanian Mohammed Ali the fellahin was still treated like trash.

''Next Gadalla mentions that as the power of Turkish generals

''Next Gadalla mentions that as the power of Turkish generals in Egypt grew, that they were given entire provinces when there wasn't enough money to pay them. Many Egyptians had to surrender their land or worse be enslaved if they didn't leave. He mentions this just after stating that northern Egypt had become an Arab colony.''

This is correct. The Turkish regine was a brutal one for the Egyptian fellahin. The Fellahin,like previous times,were seen as sub-human and backwards by the Turks. Often ignored by mainstream historians,but the Turks forced much of the Egyptian Fellahin population into bondage or to serve into the military. This is why the importing of slaves into Upper Egypt is ridiculus. Ottomans did use some African slaves from the interiror of Africa,but most of these slaves went to the Cities of Cairo not to Rual Egyptian areas where fellahin were slaves themselves.

''Next, in the Fellahin, Blackman mentions that the negroes in Upper Egypt are descended from slaves brought in by Arabs. I asked this question a while back and Ausar mentioned that this thinking is outdated. Well according to Gadalla, Ausar is right.''

This is a racist reaction made by the author of the book. The author of the book seems to be using the typical 19th century sensibility when dealing with dark skinned Upper Egyptians. The drawings of the wall of the tombs of various Wasetan[Theban] nobels attest to this area predominatley being a dark skinned area. Negriod types were known in this area since the pre-dyanstic era.
During the Middle Ages,no slaves in Upper Egypt existed. Most slaves were shipped and imported to some provinces in Northern Sudan to work the gold mines. The slaves never produced high amounts of offspirng,so they never left high amounts of populartions. The only other slave market in Egypt was around Asyut on the Dar Al Arabi[ropad of the forty days] Most of these slaves were shipped to the Northern provinces,and most were males used as soliders,guards,and palace attendants for rich sultans. Turkish and Mameluke sultans tended to prefer Western European women,often slavic,that were sold Via Constanoplie through Jewish merchants. I am sure these slavic harem women probally left more ancestors than any slaves form the interiror of Africa.

posted 13 September 2003 10:50 PM            

IN between was Middle Egypt,a geogrpahic buffer zone with a lower
population density. It is worth bearing in mind that the total
population of egypt at the time the Giza pyramids were built is
estimated to have been 1.6 million,compared with 58 million in Ad
1995.

Page 7

Mark Lehner

THe complete Pyramids

Notice that the majority of the Kemetian population was always centralized around Upper Egypt,particulary around the Wasetan[Theban] going to Elephanatine[Aswan][called Abu by the Kemetians]

Up to 1865 most of the Kemetian population was 3 million. Later the Egyptian population balloned into a much higher figure. The increase mostly occured during the reigns of Mohammmed Ali,which bought many new Turkish,Mameluke,and other immigrants that settled into Cairo. Even today,although changing,most of Egyptians remain rual. During the 1950's many rual Egyptians moved into the city of Cairo settling into places like Bulaq Abu Ala. These people were known as Baladi[something Egyptians called themselves during the Turkish rule to denote their being indigenous] Even though many of these Egyptians moved into the city in the 1950's many reamined close to their rual heritage. In the back alleys of Cairo it is not uncommon to see donkey carts,farm animals,chieckens amung the hustle of the city. Many Baladi also called themselves by the village that they left behind.

posted 15 September 2003 05:44 PM            

"The point about these conclusions is that despite their decrepancies the degree to which they converge proves that the basis of the egyptian population was negro in the pre-dynastic epoch. Thus they are all incompatible with the theory that the negro element only infiltrated into egypt in the late stage. Far otherwise, the facts prove that it was preponderant from the beginning to the end of egyptian history, particularly when we note once more that the mediterranean' is not a synonym for 'white', Elliot-smith's 'brown or Mediterranean race' being nearer the mark. Elliot-Smith classes these proto-Egyptians as a branch of what he calls the brown race, which is the same as sergi's Mediteranean or Eurafrican race'. The term 'brown' in this context refers to the skin colour and is simply a euphemism for negro. It is thus clear that it was the whole of the Egyptian population which was negro, barring an infiltration of white nomads."

"it is clear that anthropology is far from having established the existence of a white Egyptian race and would indeed tend to suggest the opposite. Nevertheless, in current textbooks the questions is suppressed: in most cases it is simply and flatly asserted that the Egyptians were white and the honest layman is left with the impression that any such assertion must necessarily have a prior basis of solid research. But there is no such basis, as this chapter has shown. And so generation after generation has been mislead."

posted 19 September 2003 10:19 PM            

What conclusions did they really come too?

does anyone else have this book?

I don't believe the UN would take a position like that when Egyptology at present does not support that view.

posted 20 September 2003 01:33 AM            

does anyone else have this book?

I don't believe the UN would take a position like that when Egyptology at present does not support that view.''

He is talking about Pre-dyanstic Egypt.

Here is what Sir Alan Garnier said about Upper Egyptians

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)

posted 20 September 2003 06:03 AM            

"Symposium" on the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script; Cairo; 1974;
Publ: 1980; p. 58-82, illus.

Does it include all the "Symposiums" presented to the UNESCO in 1974 or is it only Diops Symposium.

I have a freind who can get the seven presented Symposiums from the 1974 meeting. As I would like to read every ones presentation not just Diops.

But if your book represents all of them then I will continue to try and get that one.

THANKS

posted 20 September 2003 02:34 PM            

Dr Miriam Lichtheim present day Egyptologist and author of many excellent books on ancient Egypt

“Thousands of sculpted and painted representations from Egypt and hundreds of well-preserved bodies from its cemeteries show that the typical physical type was neither Negroid nor Negro.”

Dr David O'Conner is another present day top Egyptologist and also has many books out there on ancient Egypt.

I would tend to have more confidence that the quotes from these two very well respected top present day Egyptologists are more valid than the words of Diop!

Just because to some degree there were negroes present in southern egypt I don't think we should allow afrocentrics to exaggerate their influence in Egyptian culture.

I would stick to what Hawass and present day Egyptologist believe and dismiss the theories of Diop

posted 20 September 2003 04:49 PM            

Southern Egypt is where the first civlization came from. From the pre-dyanstic Badarian,Naquda,and others is where we get the formation of Egyptian soceity. This has been admitted by most mainstream Egyptologist.

We also have the megaliths at Nabta Playa that date around 10,000 B.C. Sure,Lower Egyptians probally had more Asiatic or costal Northern African blood,but they did not lay the foundations of Egyptian soceity.

I know who David O Connor is and he is not an Anthropologist,and his speacilty is artwork of the Ancient Egyptians. You cannot tell certain features of people's race just by sculpture alone. Many Africans that have narrow noses would appear to look caucasoid if put in sculpture form.

Egypt was a mixed population;of course over certain periods of times you will get some people who are more caucasoid looking. This is an unscienitifc statement made by an Egyptologist. Look at the family of Khufu,for instance, he obviously has a wide nose while his son Ankhauf has a different look from him. I will also point out that much of the Egyptian artowrk is idealized. The Egyptians never presented themselves in a ideallike form.

posted 20 September 2003 04:51 PM            

Yes,but not an anthropologist. Neither Lichthelm,OConnor,or Hawass are an authority on anthropology.

posted 21 September 2003 11:07 AM            

Diops original article "Origin of The Ancient Egyptians,"

The article was first published in UNESCO, General History of Africa, vol 2, Ancient Civilizations of Africa. Edited/translated by G. Mokhtar. Copyright (c) 1980 UNESCO.

For anyone who wishes to read the entire article itself, go to this address,
http://www.melanet.com/clegg_series/diop.html#ORIGIN%20OF%20THE%20ANCIENT%20EGYPTIANS

posted 21 September 2003 12:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Thor, the quotes from Obengas post are from

Diops original article "Origin of The Ancient Egyptians,"

The article was first published in UNESCO, General History of Africa, vol 2, Ancient Civilizations of Africa. Edited/translated by G. Mokhtar. Copyright (c) 1980 UNESCO.

For anyone who wishes to read the entire article itself, go to this address,
[URL=http://www.melanet.com/clegg_series/diop.html#ORIGIN%20OF%20THE%20ANCIENT%20EGYPTIANS]http://www.melanet.com/clegg_series/diop.html#ORIGIN%20OF%20THE%20ANCIENT%20EGYPTIANS[/UR L]

Scroll down to the Atricle. They are not the words of UNESCO, they are Diops. UNESCO is unbias in their publishing of varying views on these subjects.

---

Ozzy I Know that these are Diops words (Obenga clearly said so in his post), My concern is that UNESCO even allowed such crap to be in their opening chapter.

I have also seen here that UNESCO made this statement following this conference

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian, but in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say more."

Ozzy do u have this book and can u confirm that UNESCO made such an erroneous claim?

It would be very irresponsible of UNESCO to make such a claim, I commend Hawass for his brave response to those who would lay claim to his countries history.

I guess u and I are the only ones who agree with what Hawass has said about Diop and his claims. Hawass did not lie.

Some negroes present in southern egypt does not mean they were the founding fathers who built the ancient egyptian culture, in fact most top egyptologist do not have this view. They agree that some negroid presence is fact but everything else goes against what present day egyptology believes.

O'Conner, Lichthiem, and Hawass among others represent the true views of Egyptology today.

posted 21 September 2003 02:11 PM            

I dont necassarily agree with what Hawass had to say, I just didnt think he can be considered to be Lying, for reasons I posted in the other thread. I also dont refute all that Diops has to say. I dont have the book but am reading the actaul papers from the.

Could some clarify something for me. The Quotes used in the BBC article, I had assumed were conclusions made in relation to the conference,,"the Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the Deciphering of the Meroitic Script; Cairo; 1974".

But it appears that the topic of the conference was a subtopic of a broarder topic heading of "The General history of Africa" And the Quote below was from the 1978 publication under that broader heading.

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian, but in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say more."

posted 21 September 2003 02:42 PM            

Even today,these regions from Luxor to Aswan are still predominatley negriod. The Egyptians civlization arose in Upper Egypt not the Delta. Egyptologist cannot make views on race with scienitifc merit,because it is not their job. Everything OConnor and Hawass assert is simply their opinion. There is evidence that both A-group Nubians and Upper Egyptians shared a common culture,and this also includes the Qustal Incese burner. Hawass is not defending his country because he denies darker skinned negriod Upper Egyptians exist.

Plus you cannot tell a race of a person from simply observating the mummy. The only way you can do this is through craniofacial anaylsis. OConnot does not have the expertise to do this.

The standard view of Egyptology is that Egypt was an African culture with a multi-racial background. Most Egyptologist will tell you the Acneint Egyptians were so diverse it is impossible to put them into one racial category.

posted 21 September 2003 04:44 PM            

Thats interesting....I have never heard of that idea before....please elaborate! Why do you think that?

posted 21 September 2003 07:42 PM            

Yes,in his book ''African Civlization: Myth or Reality'' he classfied the Dravidians type as being negriod. Most Anthropologist from Diop's time around the 70's considered the Dravidian to be a mixture of Australoid and Medditerean. Some other anthropologist like E Hootan also believed the Dravidians to be negriod.

posted 21 September 2003 07:56 PM            

Yes,Narmer united both Upper and Lower Egypt. If you look at the Narmer Palette,thought,you discover there was already people living there in the Delta that were phenotypically different than that of Narmer. On the Palette you see depictions of Asiatic type people. During the Pre-dyanstic area the Delta was contemporary with Syro-Palestinean culture. The city of Buto also existed in Lower Egypt during this time period.

The invasion of Narmer into Lower Egypt has been long debated either as a peaceful excursion or possibly a violent attack. People on the palette are shown with their heads cut off. We have no definite answers to this.

posted 21 September 2003 11:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evaire:
"First, as far as I'm concerned, it is still debatable that Lower Egyptians descend from Kemites"

Thats interesting....I have never heard of that idea before....please elaborate! Why do you think that?

---

basically my views are pretty much summed up in the first topic. lower egyptians today do not seem to share the pharonic traditions that upper egyptians do. lower egypt was the window thru which many invaders came into egypt, and most of them settled somewhere in lower egypt. the most devastating to kemet was the arabs, who according to gadalla completely changed the landscape of lower egypt. this is why i do not think they descend from kemites. it seems as if they share more in common with arabs than they do with upper egyptians, who according to some egyptians on this board, lower egyptians discriminate against.

The civilization originated in Upper Egypt...but didn't the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt happen with King Narmer? Wasn't he in the first couple of dynasties? And didn't the royal courts marry upper and lower Egyptians? Of course the Lower Egyptians descend from the ancient kemites....just not as early as you would like![/QUOTE]

well let me clarify. of course ancient lower kemites descend from kemites. they were kemites. what i was talking about is the modern day arabs living in lower egypt. i do not believe the theory that arabs would have wanted no contact with rural egyptians, so rural lower egyptians are the same people they've always been.

for one, american slave owners constantly spoke of how vile and ugly slaves were, yet they repeatedly raped slave women. also, they're is evidence that the arabs simply replaced the original inhabitants of lower egypt, as i stated earlier.

as far as king narmer, this is unrelated but for now, it is very debatable who actually unified kemet. the narmer palette could have been a commemorative piece.

posted 21 September 2003 11:46 PM            

i know there are plenty of egyptologists out there that say kemites were not black. in fact i wouldn't be surprised if most of them believe that. but i'd just like to know what their reasons are. from what i've seen, hawaas' reasoning has been a joke. he says egyptians today don't look negro when i've seen plenty of pictures suggesting otherwise. granted they were all upper egyptians, but many believe that they are the true pharonic descendants.

i just need to see something other than so and so say they weren't black. if many egyptologists now believe these people originated from the sub-saharan how could they not be? invaders always came from the north, liberators from the south. they worshiped animal deities found from deeper within africa. many linguists have linked their language with other african languages.

check here for more: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/8919/theory2.htm

posted 22 September 2003 12:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
''Is anyone able to supply a link or explain Diops clasification of Negroid. He places Dravidians in his catagory.''

Yes,in his book ''African Civlization: Myth or Reality'' he classfied the Dravidians type as being negriod. Most Anthropologist from Diop's time around the 70's considered the Dravidian to be a mixture of Australoid and Medditerean. Some other anthropologist like E Hootan also believed the Dravidians to be negriod.

---

ausar, Thanks I will try to find the book. I am trying to get my head around Diops views so I understand his standing and the oposition. For the moment though, do you know what he considered, Australiod, as there are a number of clasification of this, based on a number of criteria, The most accepted now is genetic links which incorporates only the Papua NewGuine, down through Austraia to Tasmainia. Some highlander Malasians and Smaller Islands are included but it is limited.

posted 22 September 2003 04:19 PM            

Obenga responds - I don't have That book by Diop I have the "Unesco General history of Africa" book. The book u asked me about is Diops book but I do not have it.

The comments I posted earlier in this thread are Diops as I stated at the time. Chapter one of the Unesco book is written from beginning to end by Dr Diop nobody else.

One must draw their own conclusions as to why they allowed him to write ch 1 and nobody else.

Any who read the book will look at Hawass's comments like this

"ZH: Of course Cheikh Anta Diop was completely wrong. "

in the least as being very odd and inconsistent with the findings of the symposium and certainly the book put out by Unesco.

The symposium is added as a annex to chapter 1 so people can read some of the arguements of the other egyptologists at the symposium.

Thor, welcome back we missed ya, this is the quote u asked about.

This quote appears in the intro and is written by an Egyptian, professor G. Mokhtar editor of the book, a specialist in archaeology, and writer of numerous books on ancient egypt, who also was a former Director of the service of antiquities in egypt

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian, but in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say more."

Draw your own conclusions again as to why it is in the Unesco book, written by an Egyptian archaelogist who edited the whole book and also was in attendence at the conference.

posted 22 September 2003 04:42 PM            

"Ozzy I Know that these are Diops words (Obenga clearly said so in his post), My concern is that UNESCO even allowed such crap to be in their opening chapter."

Obenga responds - Thor, Everyone was given the same amount of time to prepare for this conference. Diop ( and Obenga) had much more evidence to support his position than any of the other Egyptologists there. There was much disagreement at the conference but Diop was better prepared and approached the issue from the angle of Linguistics, ancient accounts by greeks and physical and cultural anthroplogy.

I assume that is why he was allowed to write chapter one by himself in the Unesco book, more evidence to support his theory despite much disagreement among the other egyptologists there.

Most in attendence did agree Ancient egypt was a mixed population disagreeing with Diop and Obenga that it was a completely negro culture until other types mixed in later.

Thor, the views of Hawass and O'Conner and others are just examples of bias and lack of knowledge about african people, they have no basis in fact!

Take a look at the work of Anthropologist Shomarka Keita for a modern view of Ancient Egyptians.

posted 22 September 2003 06:04 PM            

I think you should ask yourself why so many of them feel that way, they must have good reasons for feeling that way and they are the experts in egyptology, end of story.

Ozzy, after reading the comments from Obenga, I think Unesco should be ashamed of themselves allowing diop to write the first chapter in their book they gave him a much more prominent role on the issue than anyone else adding the symposiums as an annex does not mean much to me if you allow diop to write the ENTIRE OPENING CHAPTER.

They put him in the position of seeming to know much more than the other top egyptologists there, which is wrong.

Diops books are not even found in the egyptology section they can be found in black experience sections or african american sections.

Obenga, thank you for the welcome back.

I don't agree with your view of diop, but I must admit I have not read any of his books. His strong views don't seem to have been accepted by egyptology at all, why is that?

I think it is because they are wrong.
I took a look at a book by Ian Shaw today called "the oxford history of ancient egypt" and even though he admitted some negro among the population genetically he said they saw themselves as something between african and asian. I think his view is more the correct view, a north african caucasoid like appearence. He said nothing about blacks creating egyptian culture. This is still the view of egyptology today

posted 22 September 2003 07:27 PM            

Ian Shaw never said the Ancient Egyptians had a Northern African caucasoid apperance. You are reading more into this than what was said. Ian Shaw described Pre-Dyanstic Egypt as being a melting pot of Negriod,Medditerean,and some European types.

Egyptians Ancient and Modern have a various phenotypes,and only the ones in the Delta could turly be called caucasoid.

By the way,not all Northern Africans have the streotypical ''cacuasoid'' aperance. Unless you mean the Berebrs,and even people amung them don't look all the same.
You ever seen a Tuareg,Chuleh,or Haratin from Southern Morocco?

posted 22 September 2003 08:47 PM            

I don't understand why we spend so much time arguing over this issue. Its obvious that Egypt is an African civilization started by native African people. The same contrasts that exist in Egypt today with coastal mediterranean types in the north and east african types in the south appears to have existed since unification of lower and upper Kemet. Given the fact that there has been steady migration from the Near East into lower Egypt over the past 5000 years, it's natural that the racial dynamics of the population would skew towards the coastal phenotypes. I have seen no evidence that the ancient Kemites identified themselves as African or Asian(if there even was such an identification in their time). However, there is a special cultural connection between ancient Kemet and ancient Nubia. Nubians were much easier assimilated to ancient Egyptian society than their Libyan and Arab counterparts and they were integrated more into the royal family and priesthood.

posted 22 September 2003 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun:
I have seen no evidence that the ancient Kemites identified themselves as African or Asian(if there even was such an identification in their time).

---

i have seen evidence that kemites identified with other africans, though i'm not sure there was an african identification of any african group.

on the wall of seti I is a relief in which the 4 races (though i doubt they could be considered races back then) were shown in their order closest to the deity. the order from closest to farthest was the kemite, the nubian, the asian, then the caucasian.

kemites also worshipped animal deities found in africa, but not in kemet.

a kushite per-aa was considered a legitimate per-aa, while per-aas from asia and europe were never accepted by the natives who frequently rebelled.

posted 23 September 2003 12:59 AM            

___Here is an interesting reply from Greg Reader one of the editors of Kmt magazine.

posted 23 September 2003 07:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

on the wall of seti I is a relief in which the 4 races (though i doubt they could be considered races back then) were shown in their order closest to the deity. the order from closest to farthest was the kemite, the nubian, the asian, then the caucasian.

---

I've seen that too. Race back then was not as we know it today. The ancient Egyptians did believe they were a superior civilization(just as the Greeks, the Romans, the British Empire, and now the US). It's important to note that while the images of the different races of men were stereotypical, race was defined by nationality or ethnicity in that time period. The people depicted in Seti I's tomb are defined as the Egyptian, the Nubian, the Bedouin Arab, and the Libyan.

posted 23 September 2003 01:24 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
“The Egyptians were not Nubians, and the original Nubians were not black. Nubia gradually became black because black peoples migrated northward out of Central Africa.”

---

posted 23 September 2003 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Thor,
Where do you get your information from?
Can you provide a source or data?

---

Wherever it may be, it is outdated. It has pretty much been concluded by all of mainstream Egyptology that the ancient Nubians were an indigenous black African civilization.

posted 23 September 2003 02:19 PM            

This is one of the reasons that there is even an oposition to Diop. If there was no evidence, genetic, Anthropological, and Archelogical, of back migration then it would be imposible to argue against Diop that The ancient Egyptians were native black negro types. The theories do not consider the Delta as a menting pot until much much later, I saw 18th dynasty mentioned as a time a number of times. And it was suggested that the greater Egyptian population retained it native roots without much mixing until at least this time. So it seems most agree with Diop that Egypt was a native civilisation of Africa but not the physical apearence of the people. I have nothing besides quotes from people I know nothing about at this point, I hae emailed a couple of questions to Unesco as there have been later publications regarding the General history of Africa, and Peopleing of the nile, which I have not been able to get my hands on, these have been as late as 1999.

posted 23 September 2003 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Indigenous yes, but that is all that is agreed on.

---

Ozzy,
So, you are telling me that the indigenous people of Africa were not black in this region?

posted 23 September 2003 03:56 PM            

The theory is that there was the first out of Africa migration about 100 to 120 thousand years ago, these were anatomically human but did not show modern behaviour, RE: Arts burial etc, the next wave which is supported by Archaeological and Genetic research is around the 50 to 60 thousand years ago.

Australia is good proof of the second migration as the oldest remains so far found have been dated to about 62k, and have shown the dna from this individual from Lake mongo, is if a genetic lineage that died out. No doubt related to one of the first groups to populate the continent. On this point one thing confuses me here. The Dna of the Lake Mongo man is the most distant from African DNA, and all current indigenous Australians are similarly so.

There is a difference of opinion as to weather interbreeding with the first wave, and the second wave took place. The evidence so far shows that there were vastly different looking Humanoids around the world, some even shows similar traits to the Neanderthal, although one Dna test has shown the Neanderthal to be outside our genetic range. This is not conclusive however as it can not be confirmed until other Dna can be extracted.

Regardless of the interbreeding, DNA results have suggested the influence of the first wave interbreeding was limited, hence the almost identical DNA of every human on the Planet. Chimps have a larger degree of difference from other chimps living only kilometres away than the two extremes of Australian Aboriginal and African do.

Dna results have supported earlier suggestions of back migration through what is now Jordon to the Nile during the worst parts of the Ice age changes. The last of these would have been around 11,000 to 12,000 years ago.

posted 23 September 2003 04:49 PM            

The back migration into Africa has little to do with the formation of Ancient Egypt unless you are trying to argue the Nusratic hypothesis that assings Afro-asiatic,Dravidians,and Sumeria to one big super family that was spread out through Turkey through agritcultural farmers.

Keita's anthropological work shows that the first Upper Egyptians were tropical Africans. Keita's anthropological work is peer-reviewed and highly recieved by the Egyptology commuinity and Anthropology alike. His professor and fellow colloegue Dr. Larry Angel also supports Keita's data,but argues that stocky Tasins and Badarians from Upper Egypt formed the Dyanstic Egyptians.

We also have evidence that people from the Sahara penitrated into the Nile leaving archeological sites like Nabta Playa over 10,000 years ago and during the old Kingdom there appers relgious signifcance to cattle that was witness at Nabta Playa.

Ozzy,I wish you could go to Egypt and look for yourself at the people who live between Assyut and Aswam and you will see people that can be easily called ''Negriod''.

While I do disagree with Diop's thesis that every one of the Egyptians were ''black',I agree with him that people in Upper Egypt were negriod and founded Egyptian civlization.

Upper Egypt has the cultures of Badarian,NaqudaI,II,II,III,and this is where most of the first pharoahs come from.

posted 23 September 2003 05:12 PM            

The earliest remains in Sudan found during the Khartoum Mesolithic show a negriod people and this is attested to by AJ Arkell. However,it has long been argued by people that C-group Nubian culture was founded by some outside elements,and this also has been debunked. George Resiner was the person who made these claims,and even sugested a B-group Nubian culture that did not exist.

The claims of Mariam Licthiem can seem profession because of the high status in Egyptology they have,but they are not anthropologist so it means very little anthropologically speaking. The quote that Obega posted comes from a book by a political writter named Arthur5 Schlesinger entitled ''Disuniting America''. Schelsinger claims the following came from a letter personally written by Lichtiem.

I would recommend you read Litchiem's books,but take their views very lightly when it concerns to affairs they know little about.

posted 23 September 2003 07:24 PM            

And I am not trying to say that another culture came along and started the Egyptian civilization. I am showing you the arguments against Diop Theories. It has been shown that domestication developed indipendantly in Africa and India, and the process was not transported from one to the other, this was done via dating the gentic split of domesticated cattle, and found that the cattle had genetically split 20,000 years ago 10,000 years before evidence of domestication. So I am not trying to say one culture brought back anything other than genes to the Nile regarding back migration.
Keita's anthropological work is based on crania comparison. Even Diop has argued the dangers in the catagorisations used. Anthropologists can not even agree on classifications of prehistoric hominoids. I tend to have more faith in mtDna and Y chromosome studies. North Africa definitely had a back migration from India and Asia, some 25,000 years ago. The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of haplogroup M in Northeast Africa, and the existence of a subclade of haplogroup U that, today, is mainly confined to Northwest Africa. The rout for the back migration was the same as the exit, as the Haplogroup has been detected on a decreasing gradient South- North up the Iberian peninsular.
Other results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution. Meaning as the African marker. Hpa 1 decreases northward up the Nile the Nubians were mingling with someone other than Negroid types. These are old markers, not current populations we are talking about. 25,000 years is going to change a group of people physically, and these people returned to the Nile and North Africa. To say they had nothing to do with Ancient Egypt is like saying the Native Americans have nothing to do with current American History.

I am starting to believe the opposite of what you have said; I believe that 99% of Egyptians were Black, but not all Negroid. Because there is no evidence of any back migrations later than 10,000 years, the people of the Nile would most definitely be of a very Dark complexion if not all black. But as to what morphology had taken place over the 15,000 years or so between the back migration and the first Dynasties, I feel a distinct group of people could have emerged. And those people I do not believe can be classified in today’s classification, nor indeed Diops classification of Negroid.

This is not a subject I was really interested in until suggested by people here to pursue the subject of anti African sentiments. There is a lot of information out there and much of it is not consistant with views held in the 70s such as those expressed at the 1974 conference. I do however have to say I have found little that deputes Diops opinions regarding Linguistic and cultural relations with other African cultures. Recent research has in fact supported his Views.

posted 23 September 2003 07:50 PM            

Explain archeological sites like Nabta Playa,and the negriod mummy in the Sahara? Explain the already present population from the Sahara like the haratin that still live in the oasis of Southern Morocco and Algeria.

Do you have any references to any peer-reviwed journal? The Y Chromsome I read about modern Egyptians said they had a African,Europeans,and Middle Eastern chracteristics.
The ABO blood typing of Egyptians also shows up to be most B which is found only in large amounts amung Africans.

posted 23 September 2003 07:52 PM            

Yes,I have read most of Keita's jouranls amnd articles.

posted 23 September 2003 08:22 PM            

Where is the archeological trail? Why did they leave no traces of their migration?

''To say it did not or would not would be like you trying to argue that the more recent migrations and invasions in Egypt had no affect.''

Only in Cairo,but I doubt the affected the country side.

''I tend to have more faith in mtDna and Y chromosome studies.''

Only as reliable to the samples it was taken from and how you compare the loci to others to determine genetic distance. Y-Chromsome show the Sub-Saharan shows up in Upper Egypt up to 24%,and this was taken from one sample,while the sub-Saharan was small in Lower Egyptian population. Yap++ halpotypes occur up to 50% in modern Egyptians. Yap++ is an African martker.

''North Africa definitely had a back migration from India and Asia, some 25,000 years ago.''

Not all of Northern Africa is the same,and I don't doubt there was a migration of people to the costal regions of Northern Africa where we have the cultures of the Ibero-Maurisan,Metcha-Aflou,and others. Plus the y-chromsome of many Berbers from Algeria show their maternal ancestors came from Europe or the Near East.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10363131&dopt=Abstract

''The return from India could be detected by the presence of derivatives of haplogroup M in Northeast Africa''
Amungst which Northeastern population?

''The rout for the back migration was the same as the exit, as the Haplogroup has been detected on a decreasing gradient South- North up the Iberian peninsular.''

Mitochondrial DNA affinities at the Atlantic fringe of Europe.

Gonzalez AM, Brehm A, Perez JA, Maca-Meyer N, Flores C, Cabrera VM.

Departamento de Genetica, Universidad de La Laguna, 38271 La Laguna,
Tenerife, Spain. amglez@u...

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Atlantic European samples has detected
significant latitudinal clines for several clusters with Paleolithic
(H) and Neolithic (J, U4, U5a1, and U5a1a) coalescence ages in
Europe. These gradients may be explained as the result of Neolithic
influence on a rather homogeneous Paleolithic background. There is
also evidence that some Neolithic clusters reached this border by a
continental route (J, J1, J1a, U5a1, and U5a1a), whereas others (J2)
did so through the Mediterranean coast. An important gene flow from
Africa was detected in the Atlantic Iberia. Specific sub-Saharan
lineages appeared mainly restricted to southern Portugal, and could
be attributed to historic Black slave trade in the area and to a
probable Saharan Neolithic influence. In fact, U6 haplotypes of
specific North African origin have only been detected in the Iberian
peninsula northwards from central Portugal. Based on this peculiar
distribution and the high diversity pi value (0.014 +/- 0.001) in
this area compared to North Africa (0.006 +/- 0.001), we reject the
proposal that only historic events such as the Moslem occupation are
the main cause of this gene flow, and instead propose a pre-
Neolithic origin for it. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

''Other results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution''

I saw the study that claimed that during the Merotic period sub-saharan penitrated this up to 35%;however evebn before this period during the Khartoum Mesolithic negriod type people did live in this region. Sound like the Hamitic myth dressed up in a new format.

''Meaning as the African marker. Hpa 1 decreases northward up the Nile the Nubians were mingling with someone other than Negroid types''

Like who? Around what time period? Hap ++ is also a African marker.

''than Negroid types. These are old markers, not current populations we are talking about. 25,000 years is going to change a group of people physically, and these people returned to the Nile and North Africa''

Why couldn't this be the case of natural selection? You know the nose on a person is developed from their cline adaptation not from intermixture with other people. Define changes?

''I am starting to believe the opposite of what you have said; I believe that 99% of Egyptians were Black, but not all Negroid.''

Please elaborate

''. But as to what morphology had taken place over the 15,000 years or so between the back migration and the first Dynasties''

Morphologically the Egyptians the early Egyptians were prognathous. Many modern ones are to. What exactly chaned in their morpjhological chracter? Are you refering to their nasal indices?

''And those people I do not believe can be classified in today’s classification, nor indeed Diops classification of Negroid''

posted 23 September 2003 08:32 PM            

I would recommend you check out some of his publications in the American Journal of anthropology

Keita, S.O.Y. Further Studies of Crania from Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania from First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 87, 3 (1992): 245-255.

posted 23 September 2003 08:44 PM            

My opinion is that of mainstrem egyptology there were some negro around but mainstream egyptology says nothing about the foundations of egyptian culture being laid by Black africans.

Hawass and Lichthiem even Yurco have said the same thing. I simply believe the experts in the field.

posted 23 September 2003 11:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor:
Amun,

My opinion is that of mainstrem egyptology there were some negro around but mainstream egyptology says nothing about the foundations of egyptian culture being laid by Black africans.

Hawass and Lichthiem even Yurco have said the same thing. I simply believe the experts in the field.

I just don't think egyptology is wrong about this.

---

You are entitled to your opinion but you need to do a better job defending it. Claiming that most mainstream Egyptologists agree on one thing is not enough(especially when there aren't many things that mainstream Egyptologists collectively agree on). Few of them are qualified to have any kind of authority on anthropology.

posted 24 September 2003 01:41 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

I am starting to believe the opposite of what you have said; I believe that 99% of Egyptians were Black, but not all Negroid.

---

Ozzy & Thor,
Please explain to me the difference between negroid and other african people.