posted 28 March 2004 09:24 AM            

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
S.O.Y. Keita, Department of Biological Anthropology, Oxford University

A.J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population Biology
Oxford University

Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko

posted 28 March 2004 11:40 AM            

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East......

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret(now deceased, my emphasis)
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko

posted 28 March 2004 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Are you related to any of the people with the last name Bass that run the anitquity of Man website?

---

No, I am not, just an avid reader of history, particularly African history. The African foundation of Egyptian civilization is virtually ignored by most Egyptologists. They work often under the premise that Ancient Egypt was separate from the rest of the African continent. Ancient Egyptians were biologically, linguistically, and culturally more related to other African populations, so how can most Egyptologists ignore this fact?

posted 28 March 2004 03:04 PM            

Ozzy

posted 21 April 2004 12:12 AM            

IT SEEMS THAT OTHERS FEAR THE BLACK RACE..

PERHAPS THERE EXIST A TRUTH SO POWERFUL - THAT IF IT BECOMES EXPOSED - THE OTHERS WOULD LOSE FACE IN STATUS AMOUNGST MANY THINGS TO COME.

SO MANY OTHERS HAVE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO HIDE- LIE AND DISCREDIT OTHER ESPECIALLY BLACKS.

THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO LIGHT EVEN IF IT TAKES A THOUSAND YEARS TO DO SO

quote:

---

Originally posted by Charlie_Bass:
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family(also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food(Ehret 1995; Ehret forthcoming).....

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The socities involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan(Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et tal. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East......

Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret(now deceased, my emphasis)
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Taken from Egypt in Africa, by Theodore Celenko

[This message has been edited by Charlie_Bass (edited 28 March 2004).]

---

posted 21 April 2004 03:53 AM            

sorry for spelling mistakes

quote:

---

Originally posted by ARMANIINC:
I WONDER WHY SO MANY NON-BLACKS AND OTHERS DISCREDIT THE BLACK RACE?

IT SEEMS THAT OTHERS FEAR THE BLACK RACE..

PERHAPS THERE EXIST A TRUTH SO POWERFUL - THAT IF IT BECOMES EXPOSED - THE OTHERS WOULD LOSE FACE IN STATUS AMOUNGST MANY THINGS TO COME.

SO MANY OTHERS HAVE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO HIDE- LIE AND DISCREDIT OTHER ESPECIALLY BLACKS.

THE TRUTH WILL EVENTUALLY COME TO LIGHT EVEN IF IT TAKES A THOUSAND YEARS TO DO SO

---

posted 21 April 2004 09:37 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
Ancient Egyptian never refered to them selfs as blacks.

---

If we leave race alone, and just deal with data we can make progress. The statement you made is actually incorrect. Ancient Egyptians called themselves Kemmau. The prefix Kem means black. So Kemmau basically means blackfolks. This is rarely mentioned for obvious reasons.

posted 22 April 2004 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
If we leave race alone, and just deal with data we can make progress. The statement you made is actually incorrect. Ancient Egyptians called themselves Kemmau. The prefix Kem means black. So Kemmau basically means blackfolks. This is rarely mentioned for obvious reasons.

What's funny is that a king whose name I believe was Pepi the Black, is quite known. They literally called him Pepi Kem. No one debated this, however many will simply not be able to accept that Egyptians called themselves black (Kemmau), even though it they wrote it down.

---

Kem, I have no problem as you know with AEs calling themselves black but, I have always wondered and had a problem with the fact that they used terms to define themselves that no other dark skinned people of the world did. RE: No other ancinent culture that had a name defining tem by color of the skin, untill later times when either other cultures defined each other by color as a comparisment, and not usualy used as derogitive term. If as has been discussed most words in AEs are pre-dynistic and little contact outside the continent of Africa existed at this time, why would a people define themselves by color when there was nothing or very little to compare to?. And Even if they were, the minority which would have been the newcomers, would more likely, as in all other cultures of the world be the ones to be given a description based on thier difference in color.

If it is in fact based on a defining word for the people of AE and Africa as a distinction from other Cultures or people I would wonder how far back interaction with other cultures or people it would infer. It would however had to have been interaction on a scale not yet suggested by Archeological data to impress a people to base their self identity on the differences between them and others,(Skin color).

A great number of cultures languages had based their word for themselves on thier root word for Man, or (Human). With a connection to the area they live if there are other cultures. I would wonder if there is a connection there?

The only reasonable explanation for a self description in their name for themselves I can accept is that their was from a very AE times a presence of a distinctly different group of people, wich may have been Lower Egypt, and may explain the two crowns, as two distinct kingdoms. But I still find it unusual for a people to define themselves as no other cultures have by the color of skin.

Regarding Kings names, I dont think that the word black included in the name is consistant with the color of the kings. There are many examples of kings from every period around the world who have called themselves "The Black" most were not black, the word was used for other reasons.

Ive seen a hundred word assosiations to connect the words to the meaning, (many differ.) And I find word assosiation a bit of a game rather than a science, I am more interested in the cultural reasoning which would bring a people to produce a word of self identity based as it is on color, with no seemingly reason to do so.

Any thoughts would be welcome,

Ozzy

posted 22 April 2004 06:31 PM            

I agree that it would seem odd for Kemmau, if to call themselves Kem if there were no non-Kem people to contrast themselves with. However, there likely were non-Kem people in the North African region. But there are a few issues to deal with.

1. We do not know if there were no other groups that used skin color to describe themselves. There may well have been other groups that didn't, but we haven't deciphered their language yet.

Part of the problem is that Kemet is rarely contrasted against other African cultures that existed at the time. For example, how many times have you read that Kemmau women had far more rights than other women in the ancient world? If by the "ancient world" you mean Europe and parts of Asia, then Kemmau women might well have had more rights than those women. But African women tended to be highly valued. Kemmau women were no different. Until we learn more about Kemet's African neighbors, we simply can't say what words the people used to describe themselves.

I do know that there are African groups today that use skin color to describe themselves and their neighbors. We would simply call them all black, but they may or may not.

2. There most likely were people not native to Africa in the delta region even in pre dynastic times, or maybe not living in Africa for very many generations. Kemmau made no secret that they came from the south. Perhaps upon arriving in the delta region they came across non-Kem people. I'm speculating now, but perhaps after defeating these people the Kemmau proclaimed the land theirs by calling it Kemet. Though I haven't seen it, I've read that the glyph symbol for Kemet was a burnt stick, signifying the the blackness came from burning, i.e. the sun burning the skin.

There are a number of unknowns here, so I can't be completely sure until I get more answers. But the word Kem, Kam, Khem, Ham, etc. is used to often, and to describe too many things, to be a coincidence. Even the Bible lists Misriam as one on Ham's descendants.

Again, there's alot of unanswered questions, so this is by no means nothing more than an opinion. But right now this black land stuff just doesn't add up.

posted 23 April 2004 08:15 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

p.s. I feel proud of scoring 95% in surgery and 97% in OBGYN....I'm such a dork!

---

posted 23 April 2004 10:49 AM            

http://www.egyptsme.org/REDECSohag/_images/WebAlbum/html/index001.html
http://www.egyptsme.org/REDECQena/_images/WebAlbum/html/index001.html
http://community.webshots.com/album/25268633zuxBDlwZhw
http://www.egyptiancastle.com/main/culture/people/people02.htm
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/friends

posted 23 April 2004 01:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

What's funny is that a king whose name I believe was Pepi the Black, is quite known. They literally called him Pepi Kem. No one debated this, however many will simply not be able to accept that Egyptians called themselves black (Kemmau), even though it they wrote it down.

---

I thought Egyptians caled themselves "Gypti."

If Egyptians were predominantly black as you claim then why would Pepi call himself "Pepi the black?"

posted 23 April 2004 06:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I thought Egyptians caled themselves "Gypti."

---

From E.A. Wallis Budge:

kam, kami - "to be black"
kam-t - "a black thing, strong black"
Kammau - "Egyptians"

posted 23 April 2004 07:00 PM            

That is because Pepi Km probabaly had lighter relatives that came from Lower Egypt. Pepi came from Upper Egypt were the predominate population was ''black'' and still is to a point.

He got the quote about Pepi Km from Frank Joseph Yurco who wrote that Pepi Km was a nomarch during the 6th dyansty at Assuit.

posted 23 April 2004 08:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
''If Egyptians were predominantly black as you claim then why would Pepi call himself "Pepi the black?
''

That is because Pepi Km probabaly had lighter relatives that came from Lower Egypt. Pepi came from Upper Egypt were the predominate population was ''black'' and still is to a point.

He got the quote about Pepi Km from Frank Joseph Yurco who wrote that Pepi Km was a nomarch during the 6th dyansty at Assuit.

---

posted 23 April 2004 10:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
If Pepi came from Upper Egypt, his family probably did too. Are you sure they came from the Lower Egypt? The Kem in his name didn't not necessarily have to do with his complexion in relation to others, though maybe he was just very dark.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 23 April 2004 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
This whole race is stupid after all you can't answer the fundamental question of What is race? are all what we refer to as blacks belong to a single race or multiple races? how many races are there in the human specie? the concept of race issue is new and I don't think that AE had and racial loyalty. People used to be loyal to a country, King, and Gods but not to a race. If you look at King Tut's furniture you see him depicted as a sphenix few times attacking white Asserian and BLACK Africans. There was no racial identity. this whole racial garbage is coming from the USA needed to be taken out. Some Egyptian in the south were black, some in the north where white. Leave what ever racial garbage there is in the USA.

could explain in plain english what are you set to achieve by injecting racial issues in Egyptian History? are you trying to prove that Black folks have contributed to Human civilization. Of course they did. This whole racial discussion is nothing but inferiority complex in action

---

Thought Writes:

posted 23 April 2004 11:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Kem,Yurco claims that IV,VI,and VII dyansty types were mostly Northern Egyptian. He justifys this claim by stating he had relatives that were described as desher.

---

posted 23 April 2004 11:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

Where is the evidence that the lower Egyptians from this time period were lighter in skin than the upper Egyptians?

---

I never said that lower Egyptians were lighter than Upper ones, however I do agree with Ausar that there was always diversity, though I can't say to what degree. My guess would be that the farther away you get away from the equator, the fairer the skin tones, but again that's just a guess.

posted 24 April 2004 12:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

The "Blackness" of the Ancient Egyptians has little to do with ones belief in the concept of race and more to do with the fact that the Egyptians migrated down the Nile from tropical (Black) Africa. The Egyptians were tropically adapted. Tropically adapted people are Black. Race or the question of race is a totally different issue.

---

posted 24 April 2004 01:03 AM            

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Osiris II:
[B]

posted 24 April 2004 01:20 AM            

Race is very un-scientific. it is a result of human obssession with classification and discrmination. If you were a german who migrated to the USA than you would have been classiefied as Caucassian but if you were a german who migrated to Argentina and than moved to USA you race label would be Hispanic

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

Tropically adapted people are Black. Race or the question of race is a totally different issue.

---

posted 24 April 2004 02:08 AM            

In Western and Central Africa also there were complex soceities that developed urbanization,some democratic soceities,complex legal systems, and complex metalurgy,so it should be rightfully pointed out that Egypt is not the only gem within the crown of Africa. Diasporian Africans in American should also reserch African cultural survials in America that can link themselves back to their African ancestral homeland.

Many new archaeological findings are know being made in many parts of Africa that get very little press outside archaeology magazines.

posted 24 April 2004 11:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
I do know for a fact though that there were fairer skinned people in Kemet because they are sometimes represented in the artwork. I once posted an image, though I don't know what region they were from.

---

Thought Writes:

There probably were people that lived in Ancient Egypt that had LIGHTER skin than others. But again, there is NO evidence from PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY that Lower Egyptians were lighter than Upper Egyptians before the Hyksos migration/invasion. Artwork is very subjective and should be utilized as supporting evidence not primary evidence in issues related to biological anthropolgy.

posted 24 April 2004 11:43 AM            

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 11:49 AM            

In Western and Central Africa also there were complex soceities that developed urbanization,some democratic soceities,complex legal systems, and complex metalurgy,so it should be rightfully pointed out that Egypt is not the only gem within the crown of Africa. Diasporian Africans in American should also reserch African cultural survials in America that can link themselves back to their African ancestral homeland.

Thought Writes;

posted 24 April 2004 01:16 PM            

When I said "Ancient world" I was including what I know about ancient Africa as well. I am not aware of any African Culture that preceding the arrival of the white man, that used a self descriptive word for themselves based on color. This is consistent with every other culture I have studied around the world.

This would make Egypt the only one to do so. If I have missed some data you are aware of, as you say you "know of African groups today that use skin color to describe themselves". Could you expand on this please?

Although the use of this description today would have to have some historical connection otherwise it would be irrelevant in the discussion.

Talking to a friend of mine (Cultural Anthropologist) about the subject, my thoughts about the cultural meaning of a culture defining themselves by color or any other physical trait is indeed almost unheard of. As most Societies have and still do perceive themselves as the norm or indeed perfection,(Us, we, Them) (Which can be seen, by many writings both Egyptian and Greek, Egyptians considered themselves as perfectly between other peoples, in form and color), and they see others as abnormal if they posses traits different from their own. Names are often given to these others based on physical appearance, cultural habits etc. But non I have ever encountered, have ever used this on them selves.

To do so, from a psychological point of view would suggest a significantly different perception by the AEs about the world and their place in it. This alternative perception is not easy to accept as a possibility as it has not and does not exist in any other people’s cultures (including Africa). And does not fit into the many other religious and cultural aspects of Egyptian life.

The problem I have come up with regarding the possibility of the word, if indeed the people of the Nile did define themselves by color after meeting migrating people, is not only the abnormality of the psychological reasoning, but the Archeological evidence that such a contact existed before the language.

The suggested connection to the word to Africa and its ancient origins is not constant with the current migration evidence. For it to be consistent one would have to admit a presents of a very different people who not only occupied the Lower Egypt Delta but visited, Upper Egypt! I personally believe there was a migration back to Africa, about 20,000 years ago but I do not believe they migrated to the upper Nile nor interacted with Nile cultures like the Neolithic Nabta Playa.

Consider the importance of defining one self by a Physical Appearance to separate your self from others. If it were a few here and a few there, the normal human reaction is to describe "them" and their differences. To encourage a “self” perception change on this scale if it did happen would suggest a considerable impact on the Nile inhabitants by these newcomers. RE: lots of them and a considerabel influence or/and consistent contact. This unfortunately can not be support. And I dare say not many would even like to even suggest it.

This leaves me with very few answers on the subject. It leaves me with two possibilities that I am not happy with, The first is that the word entered the language in later Dynasties, when contact was commen, and two, that AEs had a racial perception much like today’s societies.

This again is not consistent with what I know about AE. As I feel it is clear the AEs did not have a racial perception such as the world today and the woeds can be traced back at least to the pre-dynistic times.

On racial perception (Despite what many others claim) I feel this is made very clear in the depictions of the "Mural of races" or "League of Nations" as others call it. “The ba-souls of the blessed dead”. What most do not mention when using these images is that these blessed dead (Mural of Races) represented by multiples of four, of four individual figures, are “assured” existence in the afterlife. They are placed in the care of Horus and Sakhmet. If these "others" are permitted existence in the Egyptian Afterlife, I find it difficult to believe the depictions and names given to be based on racial discrimination. The book of gates has an older historical connection to the book of the dead, so must represent if not only the views and perceptions of Egyptians self, but their perception of others, not only in the 20th dynasty but back to pre-dynastic times.

Bottom line is, I can not see any cultural, historical reason for the AEs to self define them selves by physical appearance.

I have looked at the word associations as well and did not find it convincing.

If you have something for me to consider Kem, I would be happy to hear it.

PS congrats on your results Kieno. We look forward to your return in June. I wish my time restrictions here were due to study.

posted 24 April 2004 01:42 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
To think Egyptians identified themselves by physical appearance is wrong. They didn't see race as we do today. To think otherwise is to play into Eurocentric myths.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 02:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought:
Thought Writes:

I agree that the Ancient Egyptians did not utilize the concept of race as we use it today. But I believe as the Egyptian empire expanded into Eurasia during the New Kingdom they definitly became more cognizant of the physical differences between Africans and Eurasians. They also noted in their later iconography the physical and cultural differences within Africa itself. Egypt was a African melting pot with Africans moving into the lower Nile Valley from various parts of Africa, including Sinai, the Sahara, the Red Sea Hills and Nubia. Nubians in turn recieved population feeds from the white and blue nile regions as well as Wadi Howar. The Wadi Howar region recieved population feeds from the southern central sahara, Darfur and the lake Chad region.

---

That may be so and Obenga and Diop will no doubt agree with you, but it by no means answers the questions regarding the origins, cultural significance nor reasoning for the self description of Egyptinas, The word will and does pre-date any expansion into Asia Miner, and therefore has no relationship with that expansion.

"Quote"Thought

"They also noted in their later iconography the physical and cultural differences within Africa itself".

This again does not answer the questions regarding the word and its association. And I am not aware of that the AEs suggested self description as in a distinction to other African cultures. This is also pre-dated by the word also, however and again has no reltion to the subject.

Ozzy

posted 24 April 2004 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Hi Kem,

I am not aware of any African Culture that preceding the arrival of the white man, that used a self descriptive word for themselves based on color.

This would make Egypt the only one to do so. If I have missed some data you are aware of, as you say you "know of African groups today that use skin color to describe themselves". Could you expand on this please?

Ozzy

---

I'm not sure what white man arrivals you're reffering to, but I do not wish to discuss racial topics like the mural of races and such.

To answer your question about African groups that use skin color to describe themselves and their neighbors, the Senegalese, who we'd all call black, consider Mauritanians black, but not themselves, though I can't say that they would consider themselves white. Just not black.

As far as other African groups that used skin color to describe themselves before the arrival of foreigners, this is not at all consistent with anything I've said. I doubt that AE's would use a word to distinguish themselves from another group if there was no other group to distinguish themselves from. The non-Kem people were probably there before unification and possibly preceeded the use of the word Kemet and Kemmau. I don't know this for sure.

And what other 3rd or 4th millineum African languages have even been deciphered. How do we know that AE's were the only ones to use a word like Kemmau to desccribe themselves?

posted 24 April 2004 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
They called themselves Kemmau and the prefix Kem means black. To prove otherwise would mean that you have to find a new meaning for the word.

---

posted 24 April 2004 04:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DubaiDoctor:
I worked in the USA for 8 years . It is one of the best places to live. People will always discrminate against each other based on variety of reasons. USA did not invent discrimination against blacks, However the racial discrmination was on a very large scale.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Osiris II:
[B]

is the USA the ONLY country that has racial discrimination? Sad but true, it seems to be a common feeling for one race to feel superior to another, and in no way can this fault be seen in the USA alone.

---

posted 24 April 2004 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
PS: The back migration is by no means shaky, its as supported as any mainstream Genetic reaserch.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 07:03 PM            

I am not an African American so I have no right nor knowleadge to make the judgement. I am assert that certain cultural leftovers from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade called Africanism exist from certain portions of southern cusine to the Gullah people that still live in the Georgia Sea Islamds. African cultural survials are more rampant in the New World than you think amungst Disaporian African. The same is true for Disaporian Africans who were brought to Arabia by various Arab slave traders. More indepth reserch should be direct to these groups of people.

To Ozzy: Modern Western African people have a quite different concept of color perception than people aknowleadge. Even the lighter skinned people amungst themselves are defined with certain terms. The Igbo tribe is a prime example of this color conscioness that existed in pre-colonial Africa. Other lighter skinned groups in Western Africa,but equally black people like the Tuareg and Fulani are often called ''red skins'' due to their lighter complexion than most Western Africans. Of course, both the Tuareg and Fulani would be considered black in America. One must observe it from the way Western Africans feel. Just because one observes certain patters of intricate differences does not manke one a ''racist''. The Greco-Romans did this all the time yet still intermingled with darker races of people without much objection.

Let me also point out that the suppose ''Mural of Races'' was a tribute scene from various parts of the empire that Egyptians retained. Egyptians were a diverse population from the lighter people in the Delta to the regions of Upper Egypt were people were black. Some Egyptians looked no different from the supposed Nubian in the picture,and some Egyptians in the north looked no different from the suppose Asiatic person,but Egyptians chose one basic reddish-brown representation when identifying themselves in comparison with foreginers. This is what I have redad according to Egyptologist-Art specialist Guy Robbins.

During later periods around the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom people were presently presented in a new light. Everything had to conform with Ma'at in the art. People from different parts of Egypt began to be presented in their natural light. People from Luxor as apperaing in the Nebamun,Ipuy,Sennefer,and Ramose chapels were presented in black and dark-brown shades that can still be seen amungst the people who live in this region. Remeber also according to the tomb of Huy Nubians were also presented in different shades from dark-brown to black in apperence.

See the following from Gay Robbins:

[......The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The
Egyptian man,rather than a more realistic range of shades ,should
also considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the
representations of foreginers. The foreigne men to the north and west
of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that odf traditional
Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin.
Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed
little from that of Egypt's neighboors,in the Egyptian worldview
foreigners had to be distinguished . Thus Egyptian men had to be
marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-
Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with
some foreign men scarcely mattered,since the Egyptian male is primary
and formed the reference point in these two color scemes---
contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with
Egyptian females. Within the scheme of Egyptian/non-Egyptian skin
color,black was not desirable for ordinary humans ,because it marked
out figures as foreign ,as enemies of Egypt,and ultimatley as
represenatives of chaos;black thereby contrasted with its positive
meaning elsewhere. This example helps demostrate the importance of
context for reading color symbolism.........]

[......Thus,the gender distinctionencoded for human figures was
transferred at times to the divie world. The symbolisminherant in the
skin colors used for some deities and royal figures sugest that the
colors given to human skin---although initiallyseeming to be
naturalistic -----might also be symbolic. Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview............]

The Ancient God Speak by Donald Redford

A Guide to Egyptian Religion

Page 57-61 Color Symbolism

Gay Robins

posted 24 April 2004 07:17 PM            

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 07:20 PM            

Egyptians were a diverse population from the lighter people in the Delta to the regions of Upper Egypt were people were black.

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 07:33 PM            

...were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners]

Thought Writes:

posted 24 April 2004 08:04 PM            

''Do you believe that this dichotamy existed from the early dynastic period? If so what evidence do you utilize?''

I would assume so by the depiction of artwork on the Narmer Palette. Even Keita admits that early crania in Egypt has some influces from the Levant region. Keita also says that the crania was intermediate types found in the Magreb probabaly related to modern day costal type Northern Africans. The fact that Keita found differences between Southern crania and Northern crania implies me that slight phenotypic variance had to exist since pre-dyanstic times. I have seen very little study on Lower Egyptian crania from pre-dyanstic times,but some around Giza has been studied that produced various results that I don't necessairly agree with[i.e. Brace and others]. I know that some theorize that Lower Egyptians probabaly were Khoisan types that evolved for a more Med condition than the Southern types. Not to mention that early icongraphic and similairites with Sumerian cultures at Buto abound. The Palermo Stone tells us that two seperate kingdoms co-existed at one time in both Upper and Lower Egypt.

Thought,the reference material was complied by Guy Robbins. Neither Redford nor Guy Robbins are specialist in the fields of physical anthropology or biological anthropology,so most of their reserch probabaly comes from various artwork in Egypt from various time periods throughout the dyanstic times. Another contributing fact is probabaly also due to the observation of modern Egyptians from the more Northernly Delta to the Southern means at Aswan[known in antiquity as Elephantine or in Egyptian Sene]

Do you know of any peer-reviwed anthropology journals that deals with Lower Egypt during the pre-dyanstic epoch?

posted 24 April 2004 08:22 PM            

I would assume so by the depiction of artwork on the Narmer Palette. Even Keita admits that early crania in Egypt has some influces from the Levant region. Keita also says that the crania was intermediate types found in the Magreb probabaly related to modern day costal type Northern Africans.

Thought Writes:

What study are you referincing that Keita relates ancient maghreb populations to MODERN coastal North Africans?

Ausar Writes:

The fact that Keita found differences between Southern crania and Northern crania implies me that slight phenotypic variance had to exist since pre-dyanstic times.

Thought Writes:

I stated that Egypt was an African melting pot, so diversity is to be expected. Tropical Africans are still diverse.

Ausar Writes:

I have seen very little study on Lower Egyptian crania from pre-dyanstic times,but some around Giza has been studied that produced various results that I don't necessairly agree with[i.e. Brace and others].

Thought Writes:

But how do these studies address skin color, which was the original point?

Ausar Writes:

I know that some theorize that Lower Egyptians probabaly were Khoisan types that evolved for a more Med condition than the Southern types.

Thought Writes:

Perhaps, but I doubt humans had lived in Lower Egypt long enough to develop a unique phenotype by predynastic times. I find very little evidence that indicates migration from the maghreb to lower Egypt during the neolithic period.

Ausar Writes:

Not to mention that early icongraphic and similairites with Sumerian cultures at Buto abound. The Palermo Stone tells us that two seperate kingdoms co-existed at one time in both Upper and Lower Egypt.

Thought Writes:

Possibly, but in terms of the original question of skin color and tropical adaptation the Sumerians themselves indicate affinites with tropical Asian/Australoid types such as those found at Al Ubaid, Elam and Mohenjo Darro.

Ausar Writes:

Another contributing fact is probabaly also due to the observation of modern Egyptians from the more Northernly Delta to the Southern means at Aswan[known in antiquity as Elephantine or in Egyptian Sene]

Thought Writes:

Most likely.

Ausar Writes:

Do you know of any peer-reviwed anthropology journals that deals with Lower Egypt during the pre-dyanstic epoch?

posted 25 April 2004 05:11 AM            

I would like to appologize if any one was offended by my post, and also sorry for bad spelling and grammer

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Thought:
[B] Thought Writes:

Egypt was a African melting pot with Africans moving

posted 25 April 2004 06:05 AM            

Kem, my point is that It is simply not accurate to say that ancient Egyptians did definately call themselves black based on word association when it is not supported by many other aspects of AE of which I have pointed out, non of which has been challenged.

I also understand that your comment regarding no other Ancient African languages being available to compare this culturaly abnormal self reference, but since the word assosiation and meaning is based on current connections to current African languages, then I do not see how one can have it both ways.

RE: Its acceptable to base the meaning and "defined" the meaning by its conncections to simular words in other current African languages.

But when a compariment in relation to the actual use of the same word in the same self defining way can not be found to connect to current populations Culture and language, its not apropriate, and we need to decipher before we speculate.

I think if the later can not be accepted then the former is on shaky ground also, unless as I said comparitve African relationships can be shown.

posted 25 April 2004 06:25 AM            

The reason is that I feel as we have found in Australia were the oldest DNA has been extraced from 60,000 year old remains a DNA that has no current representations in the world. We will find many more, maybe they will have afinities with the Mungo man in Australia, maybe not. The point is that these other lines have died out or have been bread out. And all current populations have a relationship with a common ancestor,(Including Egypt) which either bread out or displaced the preceding groups. Studies on current populations will indead provided us with a clear picture of migrations of our line. The study of paleolithic remains will hopfully explain the displacement or indead the imput they had with current populations.

The paper on Mungo ma is interesting if ayone would like to read it.

Ozzy