posted 09 May 2004 12:58 AM            

Like you said, we grow up learning a certain version of history, and then when we start taking in new information from black scholars who have challenged the established historical view of Egypt but are dismissed out-of-hand, no matter how learned they are.

I'm wondering if all these black scholars are wrong and if there are any other white scholars who have also challened the traditional historical accounts as they have?

posted 09 May 2004 11:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by bunni:
Thank you so much for welcoming me here and thanks for your reply Kem. It's very difficult when you have such a limited knowledge of a subject to sift through what is true and what is not.

---

My knowledge of Egypt is very limited as well. That's the main reason I frequent this forum. However it's frustrating that such imbalances exist. The info you seek is out there. It's not like there are no scholars that present views of the Ancient Egyptian that are different from what you see on television. But you have dig up their work yourself to find what they're saying. And then you find that people who disagree with them attack their character, not their points.

posted 09 May 2004 08:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Kem-au,I believe that many possibly occured. Right know we must prove there is material culture for such movements from Kmt to parts of ''Inner' Africa. Unfortunatley,little reserch has ever seriously went into this top. One possibility is that some might have taken the route from the Oasis areas into Lake Chad,or the Dar al Arebiyin 'Road of the Forty Days'.

Said Mohammed,thanks for the information concerning the formation of prehistoric Northern Africa. I wonder if this gene flow from Somali into Maghreb explains the Tuareg people. Many Tuaregs according to Sfoza have close genetic ties to the Cushic Beja people in Sudan. Could this explain such link? Anybody thought of testing the Fulani to see if this halpotype is found amungst them? How about the rate fo Yap + in Magrebian Berbers?

Thought Writes:

We should also be cognizant of the Wadi Howar:

BLENCH Roger: The westward wanderings of Cushitic pastoralists: Explorations in the Prehistory of Central Africa

---

posted 10 May 2004 12:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Could you explain this reference more for me,Thought? Please explain how this applies to the certain halpotypes found in Somali populations.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 07:40 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I think there is a big inferiority complex playing in the some African American psychy. Yes AE have a significan African roots, this is a fact but that is not enough to justify all the noise that african american are making. Another fact that Black Americans have lost all the past heritage and now they want to attach them selfs to any thing black as a heritage. people from Sweden are not decendant nor ralted to the Greeks or Italians. I never heard any one make such an argument. I only hear some African Americans pathatic cry for that AE some how are related to them. Move on AE have an Offspring that are still living today in Egypt. African Americans are not even remotly related.

---

I agree that African Americans have void in our ethnic history and look to all things African to fill it. However, I see nothing wrong with this. AA are not trying to steal Egypt's history and even if we were it would never be taken seriously. I disagree that AA in general feel directly related to Ancient Egyptians.

Of course there are the oddballs who might claim to be descended from the AE's but they'll also just as easily claim to be descended from the Israelites and the Moors. These people are few and not representative of the general feelings of AA's.

As far as our relationship to AE goes, it is a spiritual relationship, not a genetic one. I think many African Americans find AE's interesting because we can relate to their culture and lifestyles. The fact that many AE's looked black African also helps us identify with them. But personally, I wouldn't call AE's generally black. For the most part they seem to blend into the middle ground between negroid and caucasion.

posted 10 May 2004 10:52 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I agree that African Americans have void in our ethnic history and look to all things African to fill it. However, I see nothing wrong with this. AA are not trying to steal Egypt's history and even if we were it would never be taken seriously. I disagree that AA in general feel directly related to Ancient Egyptians.

Of course there are the oddballs who might claim to be descended from the AE's but they'll also just as easily claim to be descended from the Israelites and the Moors. These people are few and not representative of the general feelings of AA's.

As far as our relationship to AE goes, it is a spiritual relationship, not a genetic one. I think many African Americans find AE's interesting because we can relate to their culture and lifestyles. The fact that many AE's looked black African also helps us identify with them. But personally, I wouldn't call AE's generally black. For the most part they seem to blend into the middle ground between negroid and caucasion.

---

posted 10 May 2004 10:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by only1nubianking:
PEOPLE OF THE BOARD. PLAIN AND SIMPLE,THE PEOPLE OF ANCIENT EPYPT, HINT THE WORD ANCIENT WERE NONETHELESS NUBIANS(BLACK AFRICANS) FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF THE EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION. ITS NORMAL FOR EUROPEANS TO CLAIM SOMETHING THATS NOT THERES. LOOK AT AMERICA AND SOUTH AFRICA.THEIR FAVORITE EXPLAINATION OF MODERN DAY EGYPT BEING THE WAY ITS IS " IF THE PEOPLE OF EGYPT ARE WHITE (LOOKING, THE EGYPTIANS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN AFRICANS" COME ON PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE OF THE ANCIENT AMERICAS WASNT WHITE, BUT THE WHITE CONQUERS CAME OVER AND SEIZED THE LAND, JUST LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN DOING OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS CLAIMING ALREADY CIVILIZED LANDS. OF COURSE MODERN DAY EGYPT WILL LOOK THE WAY IT DO WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING COUNTRIES LIKE EUROPEAN AND SOME ARAB AND ASIAN COUNTRIES, DIPPING THIER HANDS IN THE AFRICAN COOKIE JAR. I GUESS SOMEBODY WILL SAY THEY SOUTH AFRICA WAS ORIGINALLY WHITE. EUROPEANS DIDNT WANT TO STAY IN THE COLD GLOOMY EUROPEAN COUNTRIES FOREVER, SO THEY HAD TO STEAL WHAT WASNT THEIRS.THE POINT WE AS PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ORIGIN(BLACKS IN AMERICA AND ABROAD) HAVE TO USE COMMON SENSE AND NOT LET THESE PEOPLE TRY TO TAKE OUR HERITAGE AND CULTURE AND TAKE CREDIT OF OUR CONTRIBUTES TO THE HUMAN RACE. JUST DO YOUR OWN STUDY AND YOU'LL SEE BRIGHT AS THE FREAKING SUN THAT THOSE MILLION OFPAINTINGS ON THE TOMBS IN EGYPT WERE ALL AFRICAN

---

posted 10 May 2004 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I take an issue with people who try and classify people as black, white and Asian. I see this as childesh, unscientific and too simplestic. This waste basket classifcation stems from our lask of understanding of the issue and is a result of the American socity. I know we humans are obssessed by classification but I think it way too early and way too difficult for us to be able to classify people racially, genetically or ethnically. By the way I don't cosider my self as white, black nor Asian.

---

Ironically, the Afrocentrics who believe in grouping themselves with other Africans based on racial identity are applying the same mentality that white supremacists have. In the old world and still in most parts of the new world, race is not one's physical features, race is a person's ethnic or national identity.

There have been race wars throughout history. Today we call it tribal warfare. Tribes that look almost identical kill each other from central Africa to the Balkans. Racial classifications based on a person's ethnic or national identity make much more sense than identifying with people who have little to no relationship with you simply because of skin color.

posted 10 May 2004 07:57 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
.... people from Sweden are not decendant nor ralted to the Greeks or Italians.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I only hear some African Americans pathatic cry for that AE some how are related to them.

---

Thought Quotes:

Mapping Human History
By Steve Olson
Page 114
"The forces of genetic mixing are so powerful that everyone in the world has Jewish ancestors, though the amount of DNA from those ancestors in a given individual may be small. In fact, everyone on earth is by now a descendant of Abraham, Moses, and Aaron - if indeed they existed."

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
Move on AE have an Offspring that are still living today in Egypt.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I take an issue with people who try and classify people as black, white and Asian. I see this as childesh, unscientific and too simplestic. This waste basket classifcation stems from our lask of understanding of the issue and is a result of the American socity. I know we humans are obssessed by classification but I think it way too early and way too difficult for us to be able to classify people racially, genetically or ethnically. By the way I don't cosider my self as white, black nor Asian.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
In the old world and still in most parts of the new world, race is not one's physical features, race is a person's ethnic or national identity. [This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 10 May 2004).]

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 08:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The problem with the afrocentrics is that they are 'political' and not interested in history.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 10 May 2004 11:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I take an issue with people who try and classify people as black, white and Asian. I see this as childesh, unscientific and too simplestic. This waste basket classifcation stems from our lask of understanding of the issue and is a result of the American socity. I know we humans are obssessed by classification but I think it way too early and way too difficult for us to be able to classify people racially, genetically or ethnically. By the way I don't cosider my self as white, black nor Asian.

---

I find it a little bias that you can sit there and say that you have an issue with people whom classify as black, white or asian. Where was this issue when you say white europeans playing egyptians, where is your issue when Jesus is played by a pale skinned, blond haired blue eyed european? Where is your issue when the CIA world book classifies Egypt as WHITE? I sense a little bias here. I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out that we all have been conditioned to accept white as good and accpetable and black as bad and unacceptable. The only reason today why many mulatto nations are not considered black is because that same association with black and white. Most of the world's population have alot of what we term negro traits because that is the basis of human evolution and genetics. If we go by the same standards for Ancient Greece and Rome then we would be saying the same thing about them. So would you feel comfortable saying that they were not white, but a mixture somewhere inbetween althought more towards white? See how well you can get that to fly in todays racially, politically and economically influenced educational/academic system.

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley

posted 11 May 2004 12:03 AM            

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley

posted 11 May 2004 04:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Said Mohammed,thanks for the information concerning the formation of prehistoric Northern Africa. I wonder if this gene flow from Somali into Maghreb explains the Tuareg people. Many Tuaregs according to Sfoza have close genetic ties to the Cushic Beja people in Sudan. Could this explain such link? Anybody thought of testing the Fulani to see if this halpotype is found amungst them? How about the rate fo Yap + in Magrebian Berbers?

---

I would be very, very careful with information from Cavalli-Sforza. Tuaregs are a Berber people with cultural ties with other Berbers although it may well be true that there is some connection with the Beja.

I think the point I'm making is that no one can break down Africa into cleanly, differentiated parts by race, ie, North("White" or non-Negroid Africa)Africa, Sub-Saharan(or Black Africa) Africa, and East(supposedly half Arab) Africa. They are all connected pretty much in some way, it was just Eurocentric scholarship that separated them.

posted 11 May 2004 08:44 AM            

Yhis is typical Africano centric attitide of trying to Rob modern egyptian from their heritage and achievments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

There have been NO comprehensive studies (unless we work with Ausars 1979, pre-genetic study) comparing AE with modern Egyptians.

---

posted 11 May 2004 08:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
I find it a little bias that you can sit there and say that you have an issue with people whom classify as black, white or asian. Where was this issue when you say white europeans playing egyptians, where is your issue when Jesus is played by a pale skinned, blond haired blue eyed european? Where is your issue when the CIA world book classifies Egypt as WHITE? I sense a little bias here. I'm not attacking you, I'm just pointing out that we all have been conditioned to accept white as good and accpetable and black as bad and unacceptable. The only reason today why many mulatto nations are not considered black is because that same association with black and white. Most of the world's population have alot of what we term negro traits because that is the basis of human evolution and genetics. If we go by the same standards for Ancient Greece and Rome then we would be saying the same thing about them. So would you feel comfortable saying that they were not white, but a mixture somewhere inbetween althought more towards white? See how well you can get that to fly in todays racially, politically and economically influenced educational/academic system.

---

posted 11 May 2004 11:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Keino, I went into a K-Mart store and saw a black Santa a couple of years ago. Was Santa black?

---

posted 11 May 2004 04:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
First of all I never said any of that and these issues were never raised on this thread as far as I know. second I do happen to agree with most of what your points. when I first joined this thread I was agianst injecting race in the entire debate because our (actually american) racial classifiacation had nothing to do with AE. I stated some where that I don't refer to my self as white black or asian.

---

posted 11 May 2004 10:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
why do you need comperhensive study liniking AE to modern egyption and yet you want us to take you assumed link of Modern African American to AE as a gospel.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 11 May 2004 10:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:

Yhis is typical Africano centric attitide of trying to Rob modern egyptian from their heritage and achievments.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 11 May 2004 11:40 PM            

I agree that the racial issue should be taken out of the AE discussion

posted 12 May 2004 04:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
These Afrocentrics have perverted histoy to make a political point. They are not the least bit interested in scholarship and use history and other areas of study as well to advance a racist aganda. As you may know they are coming under increasing academic fire in the United states as thier positions become more and more bizarre.

---

Which 'Afrocentrics' are you refering to? I here people bashing Afrocentrists, usually unnamed Afrocentrists. If you have a specific point or view of a particular person you wish to refute, please that person. The views(True Negro theory, Hamitic Hypothesis, "Dark-Whites"(?)) of Eurocentrists were/are even more bizarre than Afrocentrists and the bad part about them is that they are still quietly influential among historians and anthropologists alike, just under different names(Clines and Clusters by C. Loring Brace comes to mind here). There are only a few Afrocentrists with bizarre views(Winters, Rashidi); people like Diop were based in science, though not always accurate.

Eurocentrism has had a far more damaging effect than Afrocentrism; its what has allowed whites or should I say Europeans, some of them at least, to usurp the top posistion in all of history. It has partially fed and birthed white supremacy, thats why Ancient Egypt is so important. The fact than non white non Europeans built such a marvelous civilization before and much more advanced than anything in Europe troubles Eurocentrists. They'll go out of their way to prove blacks had little or nothing to do with ancient Egypt, not for the sake of telling the truth but for politics and psychological reasons. Thats why i made my post about all of Africa being connected in some way. in the cultural, genetic, and anthropological sense. Thats not saying all Africans all the same or that all Africans are "Negroes", it simply means one cannot separate or divide Africa.

posted 12 May 2004 05:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Charles,why did you erase your forum?

---

posted 12 May 2004 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Man oh man. This idea that white Europeans have conspired to rob black people of their history is the 'victimization' philosophy at its best and pure nonsense. The truth is, S. Mohammad, that the mainline historians and anthropologists will prevail because their positions are based on sound scholarship.[b][quote]

Are you trying to tell me that nonsense like the hamitic Hypothesis, the "Dark-White" Theory(so-called "Caucasoids" with black skin), and the true "Negro" theory are based on sound scholarship? All of those theories have been abandoned and debunked. If you're going to address me specifically, please point out which exact points, don't dabble in the hypothetical sense.

[quote[b]There is no DISTORTION of history, only a deep 'inferority' complex expressed by those who feel somehow that the advance of western civilization has left them behind.[quote]

There was a disortion of history, otherwise those long abandoned, debunked theories would still be accepted. If you're referring to me having an "inferiority" complex, think again. Civilization in Africa existed long before any thing called Western Civilization. Western civilization even has some, not all of its roots in civilizations and cultures from Africa and the Near East like Sumer, Egypt and the Phoenicians, but Eurocentrists rarely if ever acknowledge this proven fact and when they do they normally downplay it.

[quote]All of Africa is not connected. There are two Africas in a broad sense, one north of the desert, and one south of the desert.[quote]

Do you have any proof for this? I've already posted evidence that there are no two Africas in any sense and that neither developed out of context from the other.

[quotethat an American black decendant of some west African tribe can claim a connection to Ancient Egypt is pure fantasy.

---

That Europeans could take Egypt out of Africa and make it Europe is truly absurd.

posted 12 May 2004 11:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
You did not post evidence, but rather propaganda.

---

Do you call this propaganda?

There was obviously some migration into north Africa from eastern Africa. Here's one such source to confirm it.

The haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) was found in 77.2 % of the male Somali population, in 6.3 % of Iraqi males and in 1.7 % of male Turks whereas E3b1* was not found in Sub-Saharan Western African males. The frequency of haplogroup E3b1*(xE3b1b) in Somali males is
the highest observed in any populations to date, and we suggest that the Somali male population is the origin of this haplogroup.
Furthermore, the results are in agreement with a gene flow from Eastern to Northern Africa from a homeland in Somalia

Y-Chromosome analysis of the Somali population suggests the origin of the haplogroup E3b1

Now some people, most notably Dienekes Pontikos, will say that this allele isn't Negroid because it is lacking in a sample of west African sub-Saharan males, thereby wrongfully implying that the allele isn't "sub-Saharan." There are other genes(H35, H36, and even U6 which can be either of sub-Saharan or Near Eastern origin). The point is that North Africans are not some genetic isolates that branch cleanly and completely off from sub-Saharans. You brought up an interesting point about Berber culture partly deriving from the Sudan area. This could be correct since it is believed that the Aterian cultural complex had its origins in sub-Saharan Africa in the Sudanese region. Read this:

Ph. Van Peer, "A review of the Late Middle Pleistocene and Early Upper Pleistocene cultural developments in the Middle and Lower Nile Valley" -

He said that the best evidence for the Middle to Upper Pleistocene transition comes from Sai island in the Sudan with Sangoan to Acheulian levels. Around 300,000 years ago the transition started in Eastern Africa. Farther north (ie. Sudan) the transition occurred around 200,000 years ago. He found many Sangoan grinding stones (sandstone) which were used for grinding pigments, lumps of which were also found in situ. They found as well grinding stones with indication that they had been used for processing plant material. Then the Sangoan large tools were replaced by blade tools. Afterwards, these were in their turn replaced by Nubian levallois tools. Then the foliates disappeared and were replaced by the Nubian Aterian complex. Then the Aterian emerged, probably in the area of southern Egypt, northern Sudan and southern Libya from where it spread to the west into the Sahara and to northern Africa. Then about 70,000 years ago a blade tool technology appeared, involving a very specialized division of work and a complex social organization. The time covered by this study goes between about 225,000 to 25,000 years ago. http://www.geocities.com/juanjosecastillos/english.html

Ph. Van Peer, "Survey of Paleolithic sites on Sai Island (Northern Sudan)" -

He found many sites of quartz lithic implements, many of them stratified. He confined himself to one special site of those found, an area of 30,000 square metres with three layers, one of middle paleolithic mixed to some extent with neolithic tools and two other later layers. Over the underlying Nubian sandstone he found a layer with stone boulders associated to Acheulian tools. They tried, sometimes successfully, to reassemble the original nucleus by re-grouping the tools but with quartz it is a difficult task. They found then a break represented by a layer with boulders associated to re-worked Acheulian tools and over this, another with stones which he called grinding stones and which have one of their sides smooth (polished). On top of that there was a layer of black silt and then a layer of Middle Paleolithic occupation. The raw material (quartz) was brought to the site as nuclei that were processed in situ. They seem to have been normal habitational sites like those found in later Nubian phases. On top of this there was a layer which he called "Aterian" but that was very deteriorated. Many boulders over this top layer may have helped prevent further erosion of this site. He pointed out that in his opinion the origin of the Aterian should be found in Sub-Saharan Africa. http://www.geocities.com/henslater/index3.html

Basically what I'm saying is that since the Aterian had its origins in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is no wonder that many of the Afalou found by Colin Groves were sub-Saharan influenced. This coupled with the genetic, linguistic, and cultural data make a good case for migration of sub-Saharans into North Africa at the very earliest of times. Thus no one can say that North Africans and sub-Saharans(usless term)are totally unrelated in any way.

Those are cold scientific facts, not propaganda.

quote:

---

UN stats show that Africa is 75% negroid and that the vast majority of them live south of the desert.

---

I'm not talking about MODERN AFRICA, I'm talking Africa in its historical context, ie, history! Semitic peoples didn't even enter North Africa in significant numbers until well AFTER Egyptian and Nubian civilization. During the Mesolithic and early Neolithic, there was no Sahara Desert to speak, therefore you cannot ever speak of two distinct Africas lying on opposite sides of the Sahara. The UN also says that the US is mostly populated by whites, does that say anything about the US BEFORE whites entered? And Semitic isn't a race, it refers to language; there is no Semitic race.

quote:

---

[/b]The semetic populations north of the desert have little to do with populations south of the desert.[/b]

---

I think you have that twisted badly, the Semitic populations of modern north Africa had nothing to do with civilization in early Africa PROPER period, except for Carthage. So called "Semitic" peoples brought nothing superior, they're mostly recent arrivals. Did you look at the information I posted or should I say reposted? Why don't YOU try to refute that instead of just blowing smoke.

quote:

---

AE is never going to be accepted as a black civilization because it is not.

---

AE was an AFRICAN civilization plain and simple. The start of this thread wasn't about whether Egypt civilization was "black", it was about it being African.

The rest of your reply is just strawman, ad-homimen nonsense not even worth a reply to, especially since you of all people are trying to tell so called "Afrocentrists" about what they cannot claim in Egypt, but you know so much about blacks that you can analyze "OUR" problem? Who are you? You're not black so don't speak nonsense about western civilization, inferiority complexes and blah blah. Speaking of scientific data, it is you who has posted none.

quote:

---

You can talk all you want but nobody is listening. In the end you have to fall back on scholarship.
There is a deeper problem and that is that many blacks do not consider themselves part of the advance of western civilization. There are many reasons for it but the teaching of 'victimization' or 'hate the white man' has a good deal to do with it.
Lets be realistic, in modern times western euro-american culture is dominant and has created the modern world as we know it.
If I were black I would be running from my past like an olympic sprinter. Glorifying those cultures (which produced nothing in modern terms) are never going to creat an alternative to modern western culture. They are interesting from an historical standpoint but cannot be construed to be competitive with what we have created in the last 2000 years. You can also NOT gain equality by hijacking Ancient Egypt and trying to twist it into some west African derivitive. Only by JOINING western civilization can blacks and third world populations find fullfillment. Western Civ may have been created by white people but it needs everyone to continue to create a better world. my point is this, the main line scholars chuckle at these Africanists. Their motives are so clear as to be almost comical and worst of all, they are wasting their own lives trying to fabricate a world that can never exist.

---

posted 12 May 2004 12:37 PM            

Said Mohammed,are you aware of a black Saharan population called the Haratin? Many live in Oasis areas in Libya,Algeria,and Morocco. These people are not desendants of slaves but are 100 % indigenous population .

The people are discussed in a book entitled Living Races of the Sahara by LC Cabbot Briggs. You also have populations in Libya in the Siwa Oasis that are phenotypically black.

The point is that Egyptians are hetrogenous people with an African cultural base. The religion,culture,and understandings is more similar to African people than it is to Near-Eastern people. The basis for the formation of Kemetian soceity is the pre-dyanstic cultures of Badari,Naquada,Merimede,Fayium,and Nabta Playa . Some new possible evidence is arising from the Kharga Oasis.

posted 12 May 2004 03:25 PM            

quote:

---

1. If AE was tied to black Africa we would not have half the people on this board complaing about Dr. Hawass and mainline scholars

---

No such thing as ''black'' Africa. Most mainstream scholars like Frank Yurco draw cultural parrallels with other African cultures. His scholarship is excepted by most and not contested except by you. Cultural ties donot denote racial ties.

2.

quote:

---

You know that AE is taught as a near eastern culture by all except some radical black Africanists.

---

Not really considering that most people tend to include Egypt in Africa studies. Columbia Unversity teaches that Egypt is part of Africa . Each Unversity has their own ways of doing things.

quote:

---

3. Research on the AE graves overwhelmingly shows a strong tie to southern Europe.

---

What research? Cite your sources. Reserch also shows that early pre-dyanstic Egypt had strong ties with Saharan and Inner Africans. Especially the Badarian grave sites and Naquada. You seem unfamilar with pre-dyanstic Egypt.

quote:

---

4. Even blacks that now live in southern Egypt, while black in skin color, are not neccessarily negroid.

---

Not true. These ''black'' Upper Egyptians have negriod cranial features like prtursive jaws and even kinky hair textures that set them apart from just ''caucasoid'' types that you might see in Southern India. Negriod crania has been found in pre-dyanstic graves by early anthropologist by Eugene Strouhaul.

Pigmentation is not the sole classification I use for Southern Egyptians.

"While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are
not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor."

(Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of
the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs
(ed.), _Forensic Osteology_, 1986. )

Egyptians depicted themselves in various skintones that were mostly symbolic. Reddish brown and yellowish for women was symbolic and did not represented the phenotypical distribution of Egyptian people. After the Middle Kingdom the conventions of artwork became more compliance with Maat thus we have more relaistic paintings as opposed to the Old Kingdom.

Egyptians depicted themselves different from the Mediterranean Minoan population who are shown with slender waists and long black hair. In the tombs of Ipuy,Sennefer,and other Wasetern[Theban] necropolis Egyptians are painted in the dark brown complexion much like the modern Egyptians who live there.

posted 12 May 2004 10:27 PM            

Chemical peeling in ethnic/dark skin.

Roberts WE.

Loma Linda University Medical School, Rancho Mirage, CA.

posted 12 May 2004 11:55 PM            

With study of Cushitic and broad Chadic livestock terminology has shown there are numbers of somewhat unexpected links between the two. This may result from has migration of pastoralist Cushitic announcers westward. The example of the FulBe pastoralists who cuts expanded from Senegambia to the borders of Sudan in the last millennium shows that such has migration edge occur. The animals accompanying this migration would cuts been three species of ruminant: cattle, goats and sheep. More controversially, donkeys, dogs and guinea-fowl may cut been associated with this movement, although perhaps not kept have pastoral species. The inter-Saharan corridor is today and presumably in the past inhabited by Nilo-Saharan announcers. Yew such has migration took place, then one confirmatory part of evidence should Be the scattered presence of loaned livestock terms in Nilo-Saharan languages all the way between the Nile and Lake Chad. Have the dated sheets show, these loan-words extend to the other families of Nilo-Saharan. It is proposed that the westward movement of Cushitic pastoralists correspond to the Leiterband pottery tradition identified in the Eastern the Sahara, most specifically in the Wadi Howar, now has dry to rivet system that stretches over 1 000 km between Eastern Chad and the Nile Valley. Leiterband traditions cuts yet to Be convincingly dated directly, goal yew the chronological sequence linking it with the Khartoum Neolithic is correct, then it would begin to develop approximately 4,000 B.P.

posted 13 May 2004 12:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

3. Research on the AE graves overwhelmingly shows a strong tie to southern Europe.
4. Even blacks that now live in southern Egypt, while black in skin color, are not neccessarily negroid.

---

Really? Try this:

The physical types found in pre-dynastic and early dynastic burials are remarkably consistent, and show that the ancient Egyptian cultivators were of a short and rather lightly built race indistinguishable from the modern Beja of the Red Sea hills or from the Danakil and Somali of the Horn of Africa

A Short History of Africa
Roland Oliver and J.D. Fage
pg 13

Now compare with this:

FROMENT, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98. (fig., tables).

The origin of the Ancient Egyptians has long been a subject of interest for physical anthropologists. Aside from some fanciful theories, a general consensus used to present them as Mediterranean, or "leucoderm Africans with a Hamitic background". However, some African nationalists, like Diop, whose theories now have a large scholarly audience, challenged this opinion. Using linguistic and cultural criteria, studies of paintings and carvings, and texts from Antiquity, he tried to demonstrate that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. Besides this typological, or raciological view, a more biologically acceptable, non-racial approach considers human variation as a clinal, environmental adaptation. Numerical computations are possible from cranial, or cephalic measurements, which enable populations to be compared by discriminant analysis. Such an analysis was carried out on a set of 384 skull samples from Egypt, Nubia, India, Maghreb, Europe and Subsaharan Africa. Two very discriminant measurements showed a strong correlation with the axes: nose breadth and bizygomatic breadth. This representation of population distribution maps very closely onto their geographic location: on average, the Ancient Egyptian people is morphologically equidistant from Europe and Africa. Nile Valley inhabitants display a wide range of variation, as a consequence of a long process of mixing. Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations. Abridged author’s summary

Now please cite your studies!