posted 24 June 2004 04:10 PM            

"It's the only part they know?" Hmmph. Yet another idiotic blanket statement about AfroAmericans. Seems every dullard thinks they know the sum total of AfroAmericans. Most without personally knowing a *single* AfroAmerican.

And then they wonder why it's so important among us to "set the record straight."

Why should this discussion become a referendum on AfroAmericans' African studies anyway? The talk here is about Ancient Egypt because the *title of the forum* is *Ancient Egypt and Egyptology*, not The African Studies Forum.

Neo, what qualifies you to *stand in judgement* of *any* aspect of AfroAmerican culture? Are you that great??

I suggest you find someone else's back to mount, if you need to boost your stature so badly.

(...& no -- there's no way in HELL I'm buying that you're black, let alone African-American; I can tell not just by the arguments you make, but also by the way you make them.)

posted 24 June 2004 05:11 PM            

Originally posted by Ausur
I also think people are under the false implications that connecting yourself to civlization will help you progress. Not true. The Japanaese people had no complex civlization prior to Americans,but yet they are amung the leading people in many fields of academics in the world.

Poor example, first off Japan was NEVER colonized by any western civilization. In fact Japan went out and colonized Korea and parts of China. And we do know that China did have a great ancient civilization.

Secondly, don't believe for one second the accomplishments of most African Americans is due to their study of AE societies. Nothing could be further from reality. So don't get it twisted. My great great grandfather is founders of one of the most prominent African American churches in the south, and he started it right on a slave plantation under a Pine tree. The church has historically been the source of economic, political, and social progress for millions of African Americans. Its has been the foundation of the civil rights movement and several other revolutions in the Black Community. Almost all of the Historical Black Colleges and Universities that have trained today Black Doctors, Lawyers, Judges, Mayors, Scientists, you name it were affilliated with a Church or othe Philanthropist. And trust me when I say they didnt know a damn thing about Black Ancient Egypt, and I doubt that it would have made any significant difference. Besides being a major tourist attraction, what has Egyptians contributed lately in any significant fashion. There are many technologies that Americans have long taken for granted that have been invented by African American Inventors.

posted 24 June 2004 06:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Wally
[b]Professor Diop was NOT an 'Afrocentrist', he was an Egyptologist and historian (period)

Sorry to have to disagree with you. But C.A. Diop was very much an "Afrocentrist" scholar. And unlike many of you, he didn't shy away from the label. He embraced it. He was part of the movement of the likes of W.E.B Duboise, and Marcus Garvey, who helped revolutionize the thought. As Afrocentrist is nothing but a Noun/title derivitive of the adjective afrocentric which can be described as "Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence"

And if C.A. Diop wasn't an African-centered Scholar, then there is no label to fit him. He was not simply a historian or Egyptologist, he embraced several disciplines including, humanities(philosophy, liguistics), social science(history), physical science(anthropology,archaeology, physics, and chemistry) and also an "activist" against French Colonialism. He didn't limit his research to Egypt, he has published several works that has to do with other parts of Africa. He used Egypt/Ethiopia as the basis of African history, in the same sense the "Eurocentric" scholars would use "Greece/Rome" as the basis for their history. As Director of a Radiocarbon Laboratory, he pioneered the "melanin dosage" test used by Forensic Scientist on burned victims.

So I believe if Diop were to self-describe himself, it would be an "Afrocentric Scholar". As the study of Africa was truly the "center" of his lifes work. May his soul rest in peace.

[/B]

---

The etymologies of both Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism is ethnocentrism - "belief in the superiority of one's own ethnic group" (American Heritage Dictionary - Third Edition). However one chooses to define these terms, their basic motives are clear.

There is nothing in your preceding statement which would indicate that you are expressing a belief in the superiority of Africans. There is also nothing in the writings of Diop which expresses such an ideology.

The choice of the term 'Afrocentrism'(1966) to express these views is, in my opinion, "ill advised." You can see the ease of those, who concretely or intuitively know what the term implies, use this to attack valid evidence which they do not wish to accept. It's an easy target.

African Americans, as subjective as this may sound, have been and remain a vanguard group (to which Thabo Mbeki had to be reminded)in the struggle to restore and transform the African world.

You are certainly aware of those naive people who think that our fascination with Egypto-Nubian civilization is based upon simple and romantic notions of 'a glorious past.' They don't seem to realize that we look at Egypto-Nubian civilization in the same manner that medieval Europeans looked to their Greco-Roman heritage, and we see the results of that European Rebirth and Renaissance before our very eyes. That is precisely why we place great emphasis on our own classical heritage. We learn from history (our own and that of others).

You are certainly intelligent and erudite, if you had to use a term to express this ideology, would you have chosen "Afrocentrism?" I rather doubt it. I think Professor C.A. Diop would more correctly be identified as an Africanist - "A specialist in African affairs, cultures, or languages." (Ibid)

posted 24 June 2004 07:24 PM            

It's true that modern day Egyptians are on the bottom of the barrael reguardless of what our ancestors might have been or achieved. For better or worst I take the history of my ancestors as you should yours. Even back then you had smart Egyptians and you had dumb ones that were nothing more than mere peasent farmers.

I hope you didn't take my comments as thorwing ethnic arrogance in your face because that was not my purpose. My purpose was that people don't need a glorious past to accomplish in the future.

Yes,my people in Egypt are on the bottom. We have very much in common with African Americans being that many races have swoop down often coloinzing us in sucessive waves leaving us with next to nothing. We I say my people I mean the true indigenous Egyptians who are the rural people in Upper Egypt that have never had much of a political say,and really still don't.

I have personally studied about other areas of Africa from various sources of scholars. One particular author I enjoyed was Basil Davidson. He provided a wonderful overview in his book Pre-Colonial Western Africa. I ewould highly recommend his books.

BTW,I just found out that many African Americans have Tuareg ancestry meaning that some of my mother's people might have been taken on those slave boats also.

posted 24 June 2004 09:53 PM            

There is nothing in your preceding statement which would indicate that you are expressing a belief in the superiority of Africans. There is also nothing in the writings of Diop which expresses such an ideology.

You are correct, however I will not engage in wordplay, as I don't define Afrocentric as considering my study of history from an African standpoint to suggest "superiority".

To your last statement, I consider myself extremely "Afrocentric". My home library is filled with "Afrocentric" books. My walls are covered with "Afrocentric" art, from African American Artists, my shelves are covered with "Afrocentric" sculptures from Kenya and Ghana. I have 2 beautiful kids, with "Afrocentric" names, Nzhinga, and Menelik, named after "African" king and queen, they both can give anyone the names of several African Kings and Queens and tell you their accomplishments. I have a dog named Shaka, pillows made of Kente cloth..........and so on.. I think you get the point.

In other words I will not allow any negative stigma placed on the fact that I "embrace" my history and the culture of my far ancestors from "their" perspective, to insinuate that it makes me "racists". Nothing can be more absurd!!
((I am Afrocentric, and I am Proud!))
And that's even if my ancestors were nothing more than "farmers" or "peasants" and undoubtedly "slaves", I am who I am, a proud Black woman.

I have no interest in the history of the Kings and Queens or people of England, France, Japan, China, or India. My only historical interest is that of Black African Culture, and that alone makes me "Afrocentric" without all the wordplay

Originally posted by Ausur
My personal philsophy is not to look at history as a means of ethnic arrogance but to look at it's lesson it serves a person

Exactly!

And when I study history of Africans, I study the "accomplishments" as well as the "pitfalls". As I am fully aware that African nations engaged in wars with eachother, as well and European Nations engaging in wars with their neighbors. History is what it is, I just don't appreaciate the historical "lies".

posted 24 June 2004 10:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Wally
[b]Welcome back...
Thank you :-)

There is nothing in your preceding statement which would indicate that you are expressing a belief in the superiority of Africans. There is also nothing in the writings of Diop which expresses such an ideology.

You are correct, however I will not engage in wordplay, as I don't define Afrocentric as considering my study of history from an African standpoint to suggest "superiority".

To your last statement, I consider myself extremely "Afrocentric". My home library is filled with "Afrocentric" books. My walls are covered with "Afrocentric" art, from African American Artists, my shelves are covered with "Afrocentric" sculptures from Kenya and Ghana. I have 2 beautiful kids, with "Afrocentric" names, Nzhinga, and Menelik, named after "African" king and queen, they both can give anyone the names of several African Kings and Queens and tell you their accomplishments. I have a dog named Shaka, pillows made of Kente cloth..........and so on.. I think you get the point.

In other words I will not allow any negative stigma placed on the fact that I "embrace" my history and the culture of my far ancestors from "their" perspective, to insinuate that it makes me "racists". Nothing can be more absurd!!
((I am Afrocentric, and I am Proud!))
And that's even if my ancestors were nothing more than "farmers" or "peasants" and undoubtedly "slaves", I am who I am, a proud Black woman.

I have no interest in the history of the Kings and Queens or people of England, France, Japan, China, or India. My only historical interest is that of Black African Culture, and that alone makes me "Afrocentric" without all the wordplay

Originally posted by Ausur
My personal philsophy is not to look at history as a means of ethnic arrogance but to look at it's lesson it serves a person

Exactly!

And when I study history of Africans, I study the "accomplishments" as well as the "pitfalls". As I am fully aware that African nations engaged in wars with eachother, as well and European Nations engaging in wars with their neighbors. History is what it is, I just don't appreaciate the historical "lies".

[/B]

---

A "centrism" is a term used to mean superiority. So when the term "afrocentrism" is coined, it literally means one whom thinks anything african is superior. The same goes for "eurocentrism" which means that anything european is superior. Ethnocentrism or an ethnocentric person is one who thinks that his/her culture/ethnicity is superior to all others. Neither is positive homelyu. When it come to Eurocentrism, and its truly a centrism, they inconspicuously deem Egypt to be superior and Europe to be superior, hence Egypt must be European or white. To say you don't take it to mean its real definition is not wise and is equivelent to the word games some play today when "black" or African does not mean black or african. Lets get it right and strive for scientific and language correctness otherwise our ranting and factual information means nothing. Keep in mind that its only through word play and change in definition that AE is no longer black! No disrespect intended!

posted 25 June 2004 02:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
A "centrism" is a term used to mean superiority. So when the term "afrocentrism" is coined, it literally means one whom thinks anything african is superior. The same goes for "eurocentrism" which means that anything european is superior. Ethnocentrism or an ethnocentric person is one who thinks that his/her culture/ethnicity is superior to all others. Neither is positive homelyu. When it come to Eurocentrism, and its truly a centrism, they inconspicuously deem Egypt to be superior and Europe to be superior, hence Egypt must be European or white. To say you don't take it to mean its real definition is not wise and is equivelent to the word games some play today when "black" or African does not mean black or african. Lets get it right and strive for scientific and language correctness otherwise our ranting and factual information means nothing. Keep in mind that its only through word play and change in definition that AE is no longer black! No disrespect intended!

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 24 June 2004).]

---

I agree with Homeylu in one aspect, and Keino in another. Here is the deal: Homeylu is correct when she says that she is a proud "Afrocentric", when you look at it from her standpoint. The meaning of the word from this standpoint, is that she wants to focus on black or African related issues. I don't think most blacks think of themselves 'superior' to other races. This is where the confusion lies when it comes to the perceptions of "Eurocentrics" and "Afrocentrics". Eurocentrics tend to view themselves as "superior" to other races, while Afrocentrics tend to view themselves as victims of underrepresentation, and want to promote black related issues. I agree with Keino, in that, the "centrism" gives the impression of one's superiority over another. Hence the misconception of the term "Afrocentrism", and the tendency of some to shy away from it. But we shouldn't be confused about the standpoints of Eurocentrics and that of Afrocentrics. I think Homeylu's earlier comment about her definition of the term, makes that clear. The problem is that many tend to focus on the word itself, rather than looking deeper into the standpoint of Afrocentrics.

posted 25 June 2004 10:36 AM            

1.Afrocentic-Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence: “a string of small black-owned art galleries in Los Angeles's Afrocentric cultural
district”
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=afrocentric

2. Afrocentric-centered on or derived from Africa or the Africans
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=afrocentric&x=15&y=12

3. Afrocentric-Centered or focused on Africa or African peoples, especially in relation to historical or cultural influence
http://www.bartleby.com/61/98/A0129850.html

4. Afrocentric-centered on Africa or on African-derived cultures, as those of Brazil, Cuba, and Haiti
http://www.infoplease.com/dictionary/Afrocentric

And yes my dear there is word-play, as "ethnocentric" and "afrocentric" are too entirely different words with different meanings, and yet you're trying to connect the too.

And if you know anything about basic english, you would know adding the root "ism" only changes the adjective to a noun. It DOES NOT change its entire meaning.

posted 25 June 2004 12:31 PM            

The root word "centric" does not suggest superiority unless you "imply" it does, how about:
geocentric,anthropocentric, exocentric,patricentric, homocentric, endocentric, bicentric,matricentric....get the point?

And Afro forming the root of African along with "centric" centered, is simply "African centered" and there is nothing in the combination of these words that would suggest "superiority" its only that folks "imply" that it does. And I think we know who those "folks" are. The same "folks" that defined the words "Black-magic", "black tuesday" "blackmale", and here you are allowing them to negate "afro" when connected to "centered" and I'm sorry I will not be a part of it!!

posted 25 June 2004 12:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
And since we're playing word games, lets remove "centric" from ego , and add "tistic", then we have the "negative" words egotistic.

The root word "centric" does not suggest superiority unless you "imply" it does, how about:
geocentric,anthropocentric, exocentric,patricentric, homocentric, endocentric, bicentric,matricentric....get the point?

And Afro forming the root of African along with "centric" centered, is simply "African centered" and there is nothing in the combination of these words that would suggest "superiority" its only that folks "imply" that it does. And I think we know who those "folks" are. The same "folks" that defined the words "Black-magic", "black tuesday" "blackmale", and here you are allowing them to negate "afro" when connected to "centered" and I'm sorry I will not be a part of it!!

I'm Black, and Afrocentric, and so the hell what if anyone has a problem with it. I will not hide from my own identity.

---

posted 25 June 2004 01:58 PM            

Do you know that white supremacist refer to these "light skinned" arabs as "sand niggers". You are aware that several million "light skinned" jews were persecuted for not being "white enough". I think everyone in this thread except you in your (imaginary world) understands that Ancient and modern Egyptians would be considered "niggers" from a white supremacy standpoint, and the concept of a "black supremacy" movement surrounding "afrocentrism" is purely "imaginary" and "exaggerated", as No Blacks are plotting to "exterminate" anyone not deemed "black enough".

posted 25 June 2004 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Neo again: I tend to be more moderate rather than in your face

---

I don't want to deflate your proud assessment of your own etiquette, but being "in our face" via redundant, outrageous, repetitive and fallacious comment....is the only thing you've got going for you here.

You offer no facts, answer no questions, and spend much of your time engaging in personal attacks or personal pleading.

If that isn't IN YOUR FACE, then I don't know what is.

posted 25 June 2004 06:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
And since we're playing word games, lets remove "centric" from ego , and add "tistic", then we have the "negative" words egotistic.

The root word "centric" does not suggest superiority unless you "imply" it does, how about:
geocentric,anthropocentric, exocentric,patricentric, homocentric, endocentric, bicentric,matricentric....get the point?

And Afro forming the root of African along with "centric" centered, is simply "African centered" and there is nothing in the combination of these words that would suggest "superiority" its only that folks "imply" that it does. And I think we know who those "folks" are. The same "folks" that defined the words "Black-magic", "black tuesday" "blackmale", and here you are allowing them to negate "afro" when connected to "centered" and I'm sorry I will not be a part of it!!

I'm Black, and Afrocentric, and so the hell what if anyone has a problem with it. I will not hide from my own identity.

---

Look, what you said about the definition of Afrocentric, is the true definition. But people tend to look at words differently. If you recall my earlier comment, I mentioned that there is no comparison between "Eurocentrics" and "Afrocentrics". They have totally different agenda, and backgrounds. Frankly, I am surprised at those black folks who don't know any better when they make this comparison. Whoever does this, is really self-deluded. Like I said, often black people who shy away from calling themselves Afrocenctric, do so because they don't want their credibility questioned, by being percieved as (one person put it) 'self-centered'. Again, I agree with you that the word is wrongly viewed. As I stated earlier, people should look at Afrocentrism closely from it's standpoint, and not just react to how the terminology sounds!

In response to an earlier comment about the need for black Americans to extend the same attention to other African History as they do AE , I just want to say that I am in no way implying that black Americans don't know other African History. It's hard to place the same focus on other African History and I know reason for this. AE is the only African history that white folks have attempted to claim as their own, and as such, their will be debates resulting in more attention being placed on AE. Nevertheless, blacks shouldn't allow this to reduce their attention to other African or black history. Having said that, it doesn't mean that when we focus on AE here, we are not paying attention other black or African history. After all, the topic here is AE and Egyptology!

Ausur, I almost overlooked your earlier comment that it is improbable that AE could indeed be older than what current records show of its age. Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

posted 25 June 2004 07:24 PM            

quote:

---

AE is the only African history that white folks have attempted to claim as their own, and as such, their will be debates resulting in more attention being placed on AE. Nevertheless, blacks shouldn't allow this to reduce their attention to other African or black history.

---

Truth. Kemetian culture though unprecedented for its time, is in some ways primitive and even appalling compared to later African cultures that were more egalitarian and humane.

However.....Kemet is rightly cited by Diop as being critical to the issue of reclaiming Africa's history, since it cuts to the central issue of how and why Africa's history, and its role in history was usurped to begin with.

Perhaps someone can source a quote for me (i don't remember off hand):

"Blacks are removed from Egypt, Egypt from Africa, and Africa from World History"

(you think it doesn't occur to Eurocentrists that the great West African Islamic Empires can be reduced to the status of Arab, & hence Medit. colonies?)
Some fights you can't run away from.

posted 25 June 2004 09:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b] AE is the only African history that white folks have attempted to claim as their own, and as such, their will be debates resulting in more attention being placed on AE.

You must not have read Neo*geo's comment about the Jews and Arabs being responsible for the Kingdoms of Mali and Zimbabwe, and I've even heard it suggested, though not in this forum, that the Arabs are responsible for the civilization of Aksum. Now I dont know about you, but I and sick and tired of hearing that all these people had to come all the way to Africa to create civilizations that don't exist in their own freaking countries. When all of us should know that group A Nubian civilization "succeeds" Egyptian and Mesapotamia by at least a few centuries, and it has been proven by scientific evidence courtesy of the Oriental Insititute of Chicago. Supercar you can't imagine how angry this Wester hipocrasy gets me.[/B]

---

posted 25 June 2004 10:11 PM            

quote:

---

Ausur, I almost overlooked your earlier comment that it is improbable that AE could indeed be older than what current records show of its age. Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

---

Because current archaeologist have found no complex civlization that goes back in the sugested range of 15,000-10,000 from which people claim the sphinx was built in. Plus what communities existed were simple agritcultural coomunities around Nabta Playa and Kom Ombo. I am certainly open to the possiblity of such occurence but it does not seem proable from the current archaeological records.

Manetho's chr

onology places ancient Kemetian soceity back to over 100,000 years! Certainly this is not a logical time frame based on current records. We have texts like the Turin Papyrus and _Palermo Stone that speak of AE soceity during the pre-dyanastic era where so-called mythilogical kings ruled over Egypt. The kings might have existed but I am skeptical about the claim of Egypt being over 100,000 years according to Manetho or the Turin papyrus.

rasol said:

quote:

---

Perhaps someone can source a quote for me (i don't remember off hand):

"Blacks are removed from Egypt, Egypt from Africa, and Africa from World History"

---

I believe it was Jacob Caruthers who made this statement in Intellectual Warfare. Maulana Karenga also made similar statements.

rasol said:

quote:

---

(you think it doesn't occur to Eurocentrists that the great West African Islamic Empires can be reduced to the status of Arab, & hence Medit. colonies?)
Some fights you can't run away from

---

This is very true and not even restricted to the Islamic Kingdoms within Western Africa. Scholars used to claim that the Benin bronze sculptures in Nigeria was the product of Greeks that fled into Western Africa. Leo Frosbenius made this claim in his various books he wrote on Africa.

The other problem is that when many western African converted to Islam they tried to connected their older history to an Arab founder to legitmize themselves. This occured with the Songhai people,Kanem_Borno,and others who made these claims.

Early French scholars tried to claim Jews founded ancient Ghana but fell into trouble when most could not explain the fact ancient Ghana was martilineal like traditional Africans and not patriarhical.

Ancient Egypt has also been used as a diffuisionist tool by racist scholars. This is discussed in the book Egypt in Africa by David O'Connor.

homeylu said:

quote:

---

You must not have read Neo*geo's comment about the Jews and Arabs being responsible for the Kingdoms of Mali and Zimbabwe, and I've even heard it suggested, though not in this forum, that the Arabs are responsible for the civilization of Aksum.

---

The complexity within the Sahel did not come from Berbers or Arabs but from Djenne in Mali . In the early 80's Susan Mcintosh at Rice Univerity found the oldest western African urgabnized center,Djenne-Djemo which existed many 100 of years prior to contact with Arabs across the Sahara through the Gold trade.

Great Zimbabwee was proven to be the product of Bantu Deshona people. This conclusion was found by Randal MacIver in the early 1920's.

Homeylu said:

quote:

---

When all of us should know that group A Nubian civilization "succeeds" Egyptian and Mesapotamia by at least a few centuries, and it has been proven by scientific evidence courtesy of the Oriental Insititute of Chicago. Supercar you can't imagine how angry this Wester hipocrasy gets me.

---

Well,actually Indus Valley suceedes both Mesopotamian and Egyptian civ. We have many records where civlization started independently within different areas of the world. Agirtculture developed in many regions indepently including in the Americans and within Ethiopia. The oldest agritcultural center is still the Natufians

homeylu said:

[QUOTEI feel you Wally, you know that I have always shared your views for the most part, its just that "Afrocentrism" is only criticized with relation to AE, otherwise its viewed as an acceptable concept. It seems to suggest that we have no business trying to claim anything to do with Ancient Egyptian society, since the world knows AE was an advanced civilization that is responsible for much of todays culture,][/QUOTE]

When you say modern soceity what soceities are you speak of? No doubt that AE has given the world many influcences but let's no blow things out of proportion because many people have contributed to the development of modern soceity. Let's be careful not to play diffusionist like many people in the past have with AE being the catalyst for all culture.

AE was advanced for it's time period but let's not over romantize AE or hold it up to norms that is above cirtical analysis. Many advanced cultures have come and gone.

homeylu said:

[QUOTEIHow many hollywood movies we have to see that depict not one single Black leading cast member(unless you want to consider The Rock, a brother-lol). These are extreme measures that require extreme responses. And I'll be damned if I'm about to began "pacifying" these critics.[/QUOTE]

This is true but you can't depend upon other races to depict your heroes or history for you. People are going to produce or direct what sells. What not form your own production company to counter the misconceptions you feel are out there in the mainstream.

You know who controlls Hollywood right? I will leave that for you to guess.

.

posted 25 June 2004 11:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
supercar,the Africans made these claims before contact with Europeans. Europeans later just took them and ran with them to play diffusionist .

---

posted 26 June 2004 12:45 AM            

3800-3100 BC- Ancient A group Kingdoms
3500-2900 BC- Pre-dynastic Egypt
3200-2500 BC- Ancient Mesopotamia Kingdoms
3200-2500 BC- Indus Valley

Now with the discovery of the L-cemetary at Qustal currently makes Nubia home of the oldest Royal tombs in the world (to date).If you know of older royal tombs please direct me to the source.

posted 26 June 2004 02:43 AM            

And to date, I welcome anyone to correct me with more recent evidence, this is still the oldest Royal tomb in the world. Which clearly indicates proto-saharans developed the first known kingdoms in the world.(not counting chiefdoms). Dr. Williams(who studied the artifacts) even suggested that there were symbols on pottery that resembled hieroglyphics.

Another coincidence- on the Egyptian pottery of Naquadah I, you find more advance pottery, with pictures of animals like "ostriches" that can be found no where in Egypt, however "ostriches" are found in Nubia, and Nubian pottery also had ostriches, and they even decorated Ostrich Eggs. Also the tombs were not as advanced until this period. Some have even suggested that the Gerzeans are but an extension of the A-group people, but not many are willing to actually confirm this of course not wanting
to suggest the Nubians influenced Egyptian society.

posted 26 June 2004 02:56 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Supercar, this is not misleading information, this is factual. The A group Nubians disappeared around the same time dynastic Egypt was beginning. Coincedence? The oldest known pre-dynastic king of Egypt was called the Scorpion King, and although the King of the A-group Nubians evidence shows that he existed before the Scorpion King. It is no mere coincident that the incense burned depicted this King wearing the crown of the Falcon god Horus, who later became important in Dynastic Egypt.

And to date, I welcome anyone to correct me with more recent evidence, this is still the oldest Royal tomb in the world. Which clearly indicates proto-saharans developed the first known kingdoms in the world.(not counting chiefdoms). Dr. Williams(who studied the artifacts) even suggested that there were symbols on pottery that resembled hieroglyphics.

---

When you say "this is not misleading information, this is factual.", can you specify what is not misleading? I am assuming you are talking about Nubian civilization as succeeding that of AE. I am not sure I got this straight, but are you suggesting that perhaps this A group king of Nubia, somehow became a ruler in Egypt or found his way into Egypt to become an important figure...can you please clarify?

I would like to add that, when I said that the Egyptians borrowed the Pharaonic system from A-group Nubia, I mean it in the true sense of the word. In fact, recent archeological evidence by the Oriental Institute supports this view. Here is a link that will give you some details on that: http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_fig1.html

<A HREF="http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html"

You'll notice that this image from the first link I provided supports what you said about the A-group Nubian King, i.e, the incense burner images.

posted 26 June 2004 03:17 AM            

I would agree that Upper Egyptian and Nubian culture are hardly distinguishable from around pre-dyanstic times. Some think that Naqada II might be Nubian and the skeletal remains found within seem to have affinities more with Nuubians than with Upper Egyptians.

Southern Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia are not much different racially anway.

posted 26 June 2004 03:24 AM            

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues04/may04/iran.html

____Here are some interesting websites I found about possibly older civlization than Egypt. Recently they think they have found an older civlization than Mesopotamia in Iran.

posted 26 June 2004 03:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
According to what I have read A-group Nubia disappeared around the 4th dyansty. According to the Palermoi stone Snefru raided the early A-group Nubians taking cattle and people as captive. However,I believe that the Palermo Stone might be mistranslated.

I would agree that Upper Egyptian and Nubian culture are hardly distinguishable from around pre-dyanstic times. Some think that Naqada II might be Nubian and the skeletal remains found within seem to have affinities more with Nuubians than with Upper Egyptians.

Southern Upper Egypt and Lower Nubia are not much different racially anway.

---

posted 26 June 2004 03:33 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/neolithic/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian/issues04/may04/iran.html

____Here are some interesting websites I found about possibly older civlization than Egypt. Recently they think they have found an older civlization than Mesopotamia in Iran.

---

For me, it's not the question of whether AE is the oldest or one of the oldest civilizations, but how advanced of a civilization are these other civilizations, given the time frame of AE. Have they reached dynastic levels or a complex nation state level earlier than AE or after it had occured in Egypt? This is question!

The links you've put here, provide interesting reading. Once again, it's the matter of how advanced of a society these civilizations were. Otherwise, there were also other African cultures that may well predate AE based on agriculture, advanced burial practices, pottery, metals and so forth. This discovery in Iran is in its infant stage, only time will tell how advanced of a society it was. Until then, it safe to say that AE was more sophisticated than the Mesopotamian civilization!

posted 26 June 2004 05:11 AM            

Predynastic Lower Egyptians were a little different than Upper Egyptians in ethnicity, culture, etc. That's a given.
But I'm sure that the "great ethnic divides" must have become somewhat blurred throughout the (aprox.) 3,000 years - and here's my reasons...
1. When one looks at the nomes at the beginning and the nomes later, there was alot of growth. And most of that seemed to have been initiated in the Old Kingdom, when vast tracts of land were given to people, through the need to feed temples, ensure the reversion of offerings, etc. etc. So there had to have been some migration to the newly opened areas, and some mixing between upper and lower living and working in the newly opened land. Sure, some uppers would have stayed untouched in the deep south, and some lowers would have stayed untouched in the deep north, but then there is this massive grey area. This follows the pattern of any increasing population, doesn't it?
2. With the amount of trade up and down the Nile (from "dot"), and with the amount of overland trade from far off places, intermixing is just going to happen - even if it isn't well documented. Traders would have taken their pleasure on route, and traders would have sometimes left people behind, too, for a variety of reasons.
3. 3,000 years of invasion and incursions with Nubians, Libyans, Bedoein, Hyskos, the "Sea People", the many sets of hired mercenaries, etc. etc., will have a subtle effect.
4. I would point out too that in later times when Egypt ruled Mesopotamia, princesses very commonly were brought for the king's harem. A tidy bit of tribute. You don't think for a minute that the princesses didn't have their own personal entourage who would have subsequently married into the palace elite?
But without very expensive gene research, it's all speculation.

See, even if the blonde Egyptians (who I point out are numerous enough to be considered a group unto themselves) are but another anomoly from another short lived incursion ... if you give it time and if the blonde Egyptians breed back into non-blonde Egyptian stock, their genes will quickly become recessive, and in a very few generations, blonde Egyptians will again be as rare as white tigers.

posted 26 June 2004 07:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassia:
I'm almost afraid to jump in here, and I'm not going to quote books at you ...

Predynastic Lower Egyptians were a little different than Upper Egyptians in ethnicity, culture, etc. That's a given.
But I'm sure that the "great ethnic divides" must have become somewhat blurred throughout the (aprox.) 3,000 years - and here's my reasons...
1. When one looks at the nomes at the beginning and the nomes later, there was alot of growth. And most of that seemed to have been initiated in the Old Kingdom, when vast tracts of land were given to people, through the need to feed temples, ensure the reversion of offerings, etc. etc. So there had to have been some migration to the newly opened areas, and some mixing between upper and lower living and working in the newly opened land. Sure, some uppers would have stayed untouched in the deep south, and some lowers would have stayed untouched in the deep north, but then there is this massive grey area. This follows the pattern of any increasing population, doesn't it?
2. With the amount of trade up and down the Nile (from "dot"), and with the amount of overland trade from far off places, intermixing is just going to happen - even if it isn't well documented. Traders would have taken their pleasure on route, and traders would have sometimes left people behind, too, for a variety of reasons.
3. 3,000 years of invasion and incursions with Nubians, Libyans, Bedoein, Hyskos, the "Sea People", the many sets of hired mercenaries, etc. etc., will have a subtle effect.
4. I would point out too that in later times when Egypt ruled Mesopotamia, princesses very commonly were brought for the king's harem. A tidy bit of tribute. You don't think for a minute that the princesses didn't have their own personal entourage who would have subsequently married into the palace elite?
But without very expensive gene research, it's all speculation.

See, even if the blonde Egyptians (who I point out are numerous enough to be considered a group unto themselves) are but another anomoly from another short lived incursion ... if you give it time and if the blonde Egyptians breed back into non-blonde Egyptian stock, their genes will quickly become recessive, and in a very few generations, blonde Egyptians will again be as rare as white tigers.

Masalam

---

Cassia, I can see why you were nervous to jump in here, and without references. First of all, it is because this is the wrong topic for this thread (try the Egyptian Litmus Test2 thread), and second of all, much of what you said has been proven wrong, unless you can back it up with solid evidence. Having said that, let me disect your analysis of AE.

Were the lower Egyptians ethnically different from those in the South? Yes. But you have to understand there were still some black (though not many) Egyptians in lower Egypt, alongside the non-black ones (usually referred to as the Mediterranean type).

Did the Upper and lower Egyptians intermingle in the region in between them?
Yes. But you seem to imply that there was some open land between them, until land began to be distributed. This would not be true. There were populations already along the Delta, part of small kingdoms or communities in that region. Both the upper and lower Egyptians traded with these people in between. Most of the original people in between were dark skin people (Nilotic), more than likely with hair ranging from curly to woolly. Through this trade, as you correctly stated, intermingling became unaviodable. As result, you have a mixed population in the region between. Upper Egypt, unlike other parts of Egypt, hasn't changed much in terms of ethnicity.

Your third point would be reasonably correct.

Your fourth point, I guess it is reasonably possible, but you must bear in mind, that most Egyptian royalties at that time had a tradition of marrying family members. Sometimes, Pharaohs married their sibling and started their own families. Weird? But true. And even later, foreign rulers adopted the same tradition. So I doubt foreign princesses would have had much of an impact on the population, unless they were married to their sibling (a foreign Pharaoh).

Your last point about Egyptian blonds would be incorrect. There aren't that many Egyptian blonds. The rare ones in Egypt today are decendants of Europeans, perhaps French settlers. They make up a very tiny part of the population.

If you want to refute my analysis, feel free to do so. But next time, please do so with references on your sources.

Actually, I take back what I said earlier about your comment being in the wrong thread. The reason is that some of your comments are myths, that would qualify them for discussion under this thread!

posted 26 June 2004 08:02 AM            

Another quote from the site
"Excavation of a pit that once belonged to a long structure at Pont-sur-Seine. The ditch was "possibly" used as a tomb, though no skeletons were recovered.
Again "imaginary", as I can see how in the hell you can imagine something as a tomb without one single skeleton in it. Don't think for one second, Archaeologists can't be questioned.

Originally posted by Supercar
It seems that your view of when the A-group ended conflicts with that of Homeylu. You said that the A-group Nubia disappeared around the 4th dynasty, whereas Homeylu states that it was about the beginning of pre-dynastic Egypt.
I hope either of you have some sort of references to support your views!

My references come directly from the source of Nubia's excavations- The Oriental Institute of Chicago-headed by Dr. Williams, I dont know if Ausur got his references from a less reliable third party source.

According to my source, the A-group existed between 3800-3100 B.C. and completely disappeared. The C-group didnt appear until 2300 BC. during the 6th dynasty, so there is no way it could be a continuation of the A-group with a 1200 year gap!

Quoted directly from Dr. Williams of the Oriental Institute
"Most surprising, evidence that early pharaohs ruled in A-Group Nubia was discovered by the Oriental Institute at Qustul, almost at the modern Sudanese border. A cemetery of large tombs contained evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories. Other representations and monuments could then be identified, and in the process, a lost kingdom, called Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was discovered. In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty" And he goes on to say that only a few inhabitants were left in Nubia after 3100BC. Where did the A-group go? Egypt!

So clearly he feels there is enough evidence to suggest that the A-group Nubians could be the founders of Egypt's first dynasty. And he also states that Nubia was unquestionably a Black culture.
http://oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/NUB/NUBX/NUBX_brochure.html

This explains why the stone head found near Narmer's tomb was unquestionably "negro" yet earlier archaeologist were hesitant to exclaim that it was "unquestionably Namer", go figure. I mean come on who else was of enough importance to have a collosal head near a Pharoah's tomb. And people naively believe that no conspiracy ever existed to rob Blacks of AE. Give me a break. Anta Diop had already written that it was Nubia where the plants and animals found in the hieroglyphics- that were NOT found in Egypt, and he also explained why the Pharoahs always face south to their origins. Which is also why on Wally's site the bas-relief shows the Egyptian identifying himself racially with the nubians (other Africans).

Photograph suggested as Menes/Narmer

posted 26 June 2004 08:28 AM            

According to my source, the A-group existed between 3800-3100 B.C. and completely disappeared. The C-group didnt appear until 2300 BC. during the 6th dynasty, so there is no way it could be a continuation of the A-group with a 1200 year gap!

Posted by Homeylu:
Quoted directly from Dr. Williams of the Oriental Institute
"Most surprising, evidence that early pharaohs ruled in A-Group Nubia was discovered by the Oriental Institute at Qustul, almost at the modern Sudanese border. A cemetery of large tombs contained evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories. Other representations and monuments could then be identified, and in the process, a lost kingdom, called Ta-Seti or Land of the Bow, was discovered. In fact, the cemetery at Qustul leads directly to the first great royal monuments of Egypt in a progression. Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty" And he goes on to say that only a few inhabitants were left in Nubia after 3100BC. Where did the A-group go? Egypt!

So clearly he feels there is enough evidence to suggest that the A-group Nubians could be the founders of Egypt's first dynasty. And he also states that Nubia was unquestionably a Black culture.

Your reference happens to be the same link I provided earlier, right after our exchange. But I know you had this reference before I posted it, because you mentioned the incense burner with the image of the A-Group Nubian Pharaoh! You anticipated by question, when you answered where the A-Group had gone. I was going to ask how it became possible for the A-Group to completely disappear! Sound's like a pretty credible reference to me.

However, you still haven't answered my previous question to you. This was: when said, " this is not misleading information, it is factual", what were you referring to? Are you referring to Nubian civilization as having "succeeded" the AE?

The "suggested" photo of Namer, do you have any idea what formed the basis of that? We already know that he is more than likely black because he came from Southern Egypt.

posted 26 June 2004 10:29 AM            

cassia said:

quote:

---

See, even if the blonde Egyptians (who I point out are numerous enough to be considered a group unto themselves) are but another anomoly from another short lived incursion ... if you give it time and if the blonde Egyptians breed back into non-blonde Egyptian stock, their genes will quickly become recessive, and in a very few generations, blonde Egyptians will again be as rare as white tigers.

---

Errr... you are talking about small pockets in areas like Mansoura Egypt which was historically known to be raped by French soliders. No blondes exist outsides of Alexzandria. What you described is called Mendelian selection meaning that the blonde gene can reappear in

later generations,but you will be hell bent to show me how blonde hair can evovle naturally anywhere the temparture in historical times was past 67 degrees.

Also many French soliders raped some women in Upper Egypt in Marris,Luxor which is why the typical person there is lighter than the dark brown Luxor Egyptian.

Most Fellahin in the Delta are not fair skinned but many have light complexions with course hair texture. I know a girl personally from Zagazig who has this. She is a fallaha.

Your point about inscurions is valid and these probabaly had a big effect on the eastern Delta where many Libyan[Berber] mercenaries settled. In this same place today you can see this effect. Ramese II was probabaly one of these people.

During the Middle Kingdom there was a text that said can a papyrus cling to a rock meaning can a delta man feel comfortable in Aswan. The Tales of Sinuhe point out that the ethnic demographics of the area of Lower Egypt was already changing around the Middle Kingdom . Also the language from north to southern Egypt was very distinct and almost non-understanable for a person in Lower Egypt .

posted 26 June 2004 10:35 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
bas-relief shows the Egyptian identifying himself racially with the nubians

---

...and which is why the rhetorical question asked by someone earlier about that bas-relief as to why Kemetians never refered to "Nubians" as Kememu is tautological...such a "Nubian" IS effectively a Kemetian. Otherwise how would you know? The writing associated with the pic. is the only basis for distinguishing between the two to begin with. Also following from this is the tactic of claiming that the picture is really two "nubians", and so on....

Biased Egyptologists play a game of "paper, rock, scissors" on this point, and the intellectual dishonesty is simply astounding.

If it reaches a point where it is no longer even remotely possible to deny that Narmer was Black African.....they will simply suggest that he is "Nubian" and therefore 'not'Egyptian.

For the most biased of them, there is an unwritten, semi-unconscious rule -> Egypt must never be Black African, evidence be damned.

posted 26 June 2004 11:37 AM            

quote:

---

My references come directly from the source of Nubia's excavations- The Oriental Institute of Chicago-headed by Dr. Williams, I dont know if Ausur got his references from a less reliable third party source.

---

What you don't know is Willams is a third part source as is most scholars. Willams got his excavation knowleadge from Keith C. Steele who excavated the area around the 1970's finding the incense burner.

My personal belief is that so-called Nubians and Lower Nubia was always apart of Egypt. The only foregin area was past Lower Nubia going into Upper Nubia around the area called Kush first during the time of Senworset.

Anyway, my information comes from the Egyptian history book the Palermo Stone which documents a raid into the vacinity of Lower Nubia carrying off captives and cattle. Ossama Alsaadawi,a fellow Egyptian, pointed out that the western Egyptologist have wrongly translated the raid as some war upon Nubians by Egyptians. What we see is the product of 19th century scholars trying to take a pusedo-white Egyptians in racial wars with the black Nubians. Look in the previous archives for the information.

Surely you know what the Palermo Stone is? Right?

posted 26 June 2004 12:03 PM            

Actually that should have read "preceeded", thanks for pointing out the error, because thats clearly what I meant, by dating the Kingdom 3800-3100 BC, "pryor" to the first Egyptian dynasty of 3100 B.C.

Also the incense burner leads us to conclude that the Nubian A. group and the Upper Egyptians are undoubtedly the same people. And this pharoah wearing the Horus crown is none other than Narmer himself.

C.A. Diop even interprets the Narmer tablets differently than what was generally accepted in the scientific community, years before Dr. Williams announced this theory.

Diop in "African origin of civilization" p.78-79 writesL:
"Current opinion anonymously recognizes that the prisoners portrayed on the tablet are the conquered Asians of upper Egypt. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the persons walking ahead of the Pharoah are "Nubians" wearing nubian insignia, such as the symbol of the Jackal and Sparrow-hawk, nubian totems. And Archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis of a white race originating in the heart of Africa.(upper egypt)"

Herodotus even writes in "The Histories" that Egypt was clearly a colonized country..colonized by the Ethiopians.(what the Greeks called the Nubians).

Hence the First Dynasty of Egypt is clearly Nubian orginated, and the Nubians and Upper Egyptians are obviously one and the same.

Originally posted by Rasol
If it reaches a point where it is no longer even remotely possible to deny that Narmer was Black African.....they will simply suggest that he is "Nubian" and therefore 'not'Egyptian.
I thin we have "reached" that point, yet I fail to see any history books reflect the new changes. And even if they simply call him Nubian, two facts they can't avoid:
1. He is undoubtedly Black
2. He undoubtedly founded Egypt's first Dynasty.

So either way its a losing battle for these critics, don't you think?

posted 26 June 2004 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Supercar
[b]However, you still haven't answered my previous question to you. This was: when said, " this is not misleading information, it is factual", what were you referring to? Are you referring to Nubian civilization as having "succeeded" the AE?

Actually that should have read "preceeded", thanks for pointing out the error, because thats clearly what I meant, by dating the Kingdom 3800-3100 BC, "pryor" to the first Egyptian dynasty of 3100 B.C.

Also the incense burner leads us to conclude that the Nubian A. group and the Upper Egyptians are undoubtedly the same people. And this pharoah wearing the Horus crown is none other than Narmer himself.

C.A. Diop even interprets the Narmer tablets differently than what was generally accepted in the scientific community, years before Dr. Williams announced this theory.

Diop in "African origin of civilization" p.78-79 writesL:
"Current opinion anonymously recognizes that the prisoners portrayed on the tablet are the conquered Asians of upper Egypt. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the persons walking ahead of the Pharoah are "Nubians" wearing nubian insignia, such as the symbol of the Jackal and Sparrow-hawk, nubian totems. And Archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis of a white race originating in the heart of Africa.(upper egypt)"

Herodotus even writes in "The Histories" that Egypt was clearly a colonized country..colonized by the Ethiopians.(what the Greeks called the Nubians).

Hence the First Dynasty of Egypt is clearly Nubian orginated, and the Nubians and Upper Egyptians are obviously one and the same.

Originally posted by Rasol
If it reaches a point where it is no longer even remotely possible to deny that Narmer was Black African.....they will simply suggest that he is "Nubian" and therefore 'not'Egyptian.
I thin we have "reached" that point, yet I fail to see any history books reflect the new changes. And even if they simply call him Nubian, two facts they can't avoid:
1. He is undoubtedly Black
2. He undoubtedly founded Egypt's first Dynasty.

So either way its a losing battle for these critics, don't you think?

[/B]

---

Thanks for pointing out where the confusion lies. It seems that you and Ausur are finally on the same page. I think in his own way, he is stating that you were correct.
As for History books being rewritten as facts come out, this was precisely what Dr. C.A. Diop was aiming for! We can see how without even refuting claims that Lower Egyptians were non-black, that this doesn't change the fact that blacks have had something to do with AE. These new discoveries of the Oriental Institute has created a more clear picture of what went on with AE. More discoveries will make it even clearer, and harder for the nay sayers to continue withholding facts. Blacks and Africans should press further for this, until it becomes unbearable to withhold the truth from textbooks.

posted 26 June 2004 01:14 PM            

If the lower Nubians went back to cheifdoms, it certainly didn't last long. There is evidence, from extensive Pyramids to other artifacts, that shows lower Nubia still had Pharaohs. In fact, it is usually claimed that when Egypt took control of Nubia, the lower Nubians began to adopt more practices from Egypt. So basically it was like this:
The A-group Nubians went further north into Egypt, and introduced their practices, such as the Pharaonic system. This left Nubia with the absence of the innovative A-Group for some period, resulting in Nubians adopting the chiefdom system. Later on, when Egypt became a unified and strong dynasty, it made incursions into Nubia and influencing change over there. So Nubia re-adopted the Pharaonic system, and built Pyramids accordingly. But there were brief periods when united Egypt was threatened to disunify. The Nubians once again came to rescue Egyptians from that fate, by making incursions into Egypt and helped in displacing the hostile forces. So the relationship became a somewhat reciprocal one. One cannot deny the ingenuity of either one of these people.

posted 26 June 2004 01:30 PM            

When you opened the topic, your very first post read "... the race issue repeatedly presents itself ... when you apply 'phenotype' to this culture, the question of what constitutes being 'black' becomes a drawn out discussion. Some will say that it is simply about 'skin color', and others will say that it is about 'features'. It is well known, even in Africa, that black people come with various facial features, and not simply the stereotypical features. So to even suggest that the someone with a so-called Caucasoid bone structure or facial feature automatically renders him/her 'white' is not only absurd but non-scientific. Equally absurd is the idea that because someone is dark in skin color makes him/her a 'Negro/black' by default ... ."

So the premise for the discussion was ... "what is to be done to stop this degradation and whitewash of a great 'African' civilization."

Regardless, over 50% of the subsequent posts continued to be discussions about AE genetic roots.

Rebuttal, Point 1
You write that "usually (Lower Egyptians are) referred to as the Mediterranean type. I've NEVER read this, EVER, so I should demand your source! Couldn't be from university texts; good to ignore the crap posted on the internet. I won't copy out texts, because that is infringes international copywrite. Regardless, all my studies speak of "Amratian/Gerzean periods", etc. As distinct from Mediterranean.

You write that "(I) seem to imply that there was some open land between them, until land began to be distributed. This would not be true. There were populations already along the Delta, part of small kingdoms or communities in that region.
Sweetie-pie dearie, land masses shift and change in the fullness of time. (My major was in physical geography.) There could not have been an Alexandria in 2600 B.C.E. because there was no land mass upon which to build it. And where are the rivers passing Bubastis today???
The Delta was the main area "breaking ground". The Delta was slowly built up through the interplay of the sea, the deposition of the Nile's silt, and increasing adeptness at canal construction. You can find maps showing this progress in John Baines/Jaromir Malek's Atlas of Ancient Egypt, p 12 - 22., University of Oxford Press. That's fairly basic, common knowledge. I could find other sources if you really need it; these books are closest to hand.

Further, "much of the north east Delta did not form part of the Egyptian provincial system even during the Old Kingdom, probably because it was not thought to be economicallly viable."
5th Dynasty: "In terms of increase of land ownership, "the king usually endowed his cult temple with land in the form of estates which then supplied it directly. ... most of the estates were situated in distant areas. Many of them were new foundations on territory previously unexploited, particularly in the Delta where free land was still available. To cultivate these estates peasants were re-settled from crown land elsewhere ..." Jaromir Malek's In The Shadow Of The Pyramids, University of Oklahoma Press.

If you wanted to study this progression further, the best site I've found at a glance is: http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/cairo/images/cairo_sml.pdf
It's a bit of a downloading wait though, because discussion of the Delta begins on p. 62.

posted 26 June 2004 01:35 PM            

This is where I hope, as many of you do, that some Black Scientists will get the funds and overcome political obstacles to explore these ignored areas of Nubia. I find it interesting that Europeans can gain the funds to dive to the bottom of the ocean to obtain artifacts from the Titanic, but we can't get anyone to go to the bottom of a man-made lake in hopes of bringing some new light to Nubian culture.

That aside, there are remains of pre-kerma settlements in upper-egypt that have been carbon-dated to 4800 B.C. and is essentially remained ignored. There could still be evidence of a Pharonic period yet to be uncovered in this area.