posted 26 June 2004 01:45 PM            

quote:

---

Archaeological evidence had already showed that the A-group kingdom showed a Sharp decline, and lower Nubia went back to chiefdoms. Therefore that hypothesis can not be validated as nothing more than "imaginitive"

---

What about Yam or Kerma? The C-group Cheiftains you mention were strong enough to unite into one single confederation much like Pre-dyanstic Upper Egyptians did to form one. This alarmed the ''oversser of the south'' Pepy-nakht who had the C-group cheiftains pay tribute to Pepi I who was reiging in Egypt during this time. If the C-group were able to mobilize then I see no reason to conclude that C-group is not a continuation of A-group.

Anthropological evidence does not show a distinction from A-group or C-group.

Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~nlovell/nubia.htm

posted 26 June 2004 01:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassia:
So, I'm not saying that the Delta (and Saquara, for that matter) was devoid of population ... or that *most* of the nomes didn't exist from the nanosecond of unification ... don't put words in my mouth.
All I am trying to point out is that huge areas were entirely wild; these tracts were not settled prior to the Old Kingdom, and that there was a great deal of human migration when they were settled.

And I'm not suggesting that they were settled by blondes, perish the thought!

---

Please re-read my reply to your comment. I never suggested that, you said that those regions were settled by blondes. I said that your assessment of the size of the Egyptian blonde population was exaggerated.

posted 26 June 2004 01:59 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I 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, and none of these critics want to credit any of that to the Black race. Now why couldnt Imhotep the true "Father of Medicine" (as opposed to Hippocrates 2,000 years later)and world's first known genius have been a brother? How 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.

---

posted 26 June 2004 02:06 PM            

Intermarriage between the Lower Egypt and Upper Egyptian royalty occurs very early around Abutu where the royal names from the delta are attached to burials in Abutu which was the sea of the first rulers of Egypt.

The early cultures of Lower Egypt are the following: Merimede,Maadi,Faiyum,and Omari I,II ...etc

The early cultures of Upper Egypt are Badarian,Maqada I,II,III. You also have A-group Nubians who share a similar culture to the Upper Egyptian people who I believe ultimatley were not distinct from the people but were often at odds with each other.

posted 26 June 2004 02:14 PM            

Originally posted by Cassia
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!
Where have you been??? The "Mediterranean type" has been applied to the Egyptians by so many sources, you can practically pull a name out of a hat, and take you pick.

posted 26 June 2004 02:26 PM            

The Delta has always been permantely settled since early Neolithic times. A seperate kingdom in Lower Egypt is mentioned on the Palermo Stone.

The blondes she is mentinong are from Mansoura where French people raped Fellahin there. Ask any Egyptian about Mansoura and most will tell you this is where the current blonde population comes from. She is not implying there were blondes in AE.

posted 26 June 2004 02:33 PM            

Re-read my comment, see how I retracted from my earlier comment!

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.

Regarding the mediterranean type lower Egyptians, I think you should read comments here made on this forum, regarding their description. Do some research on mediterranean type of race, and you'll see why the light color skin Northern Coastal Egyptians were described as such. Do I agree to that terminology? No. In fact, in other threads, we have argued this so many times. Feel free the check out those threads. Most people describe semites from the East, as the mediterranean 'whites' or type. Whether this is correct or not, has nothing to do with me.

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.

Has it occured to you that people can acquire land mass by forcing others out. How do you think Alexander the Great got control of Egypt, enough to have a city named after him?
As far as the Nile is concerned, throwing maps at people doesn't prove your point.

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.

Nekhet Kemet!

This last point doesn't make sense in terms of explaining how the region between Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt came to have a mixed population. The population mix in that region occurred well ahead of the dynastic period.

posted 26 June 2004 02:35 PM            

Data from cranial and dental non-metric traits from Sites 277 and 179 were used to assess biological differentiation between the A-Group and C-Group. Results indicate biological continuity, consistent with in situ evolution (although the problem of small samples requires that these results be accepted with caution). Although the diffusion of ideas of material culture into the area through military and trade contacts is likely, any archaeologically visible cultural differences are more consistent with local cultural evolution than with the importation of a new cultural system through the migration of a foreign population into the area

Ausur, first of all no one, and definitely not myself have indicated any "biological" differences in the A-group and C-group populations so I don't see the relevance of this source. Especially since it only confirms what I said about the "material culture is more consistent with local origin than importation"

posted 26 June 2004 02:55 PM            

Well forgive me for mis-reading her statement and I quote

Originally posted by Cassia
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.

And I was sure she was referring to the Delta when she wrote
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.
and then she added
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.

So I took this to mean she was insinuating some type of Delta origin of AE civilization, and I ran with it.

posted 26 June 2004 04:02 PM            

In Homeylu's defence, although Cassia doesn't give any particular time frame, one can get an impression that she was also talking about blonds in AE, especially when you consider the last few sentences of the above comment: " ...in a very few generations will again be as rare as white tigers." The fact that Cassia claims that blondes are "numerous enough", one gets the impression that she doesn't quite know the origins of these so-called blondes. Who knows what she is really talking about? Could she be referring to Libyans in anyway, could she be referring to European conquests of dynastic Egypt or after that, or could she be thinking that these people were another ethnic group of AE? I get the impression of one which implies that they were European settlers (through conquest) from the later dynastic times. We know for sure, she wasn't implying that the blondes were there in pre-dynastic times, as can be seen from her later quote given below. But she is basically saying that this is an ethinic group from the past (which past? is open to interpretation), and that in time, if they were to mix with other groups, they would be diluted in the mix population. Hence, her further explanation for the mixed population in middle Egypt. As opposed to being a very tiny portion of the population, Cassia is also claiming that at present the Egyptian blondes are a sizeable portion of the Egyptian population, who stand to lose if they mix further with other Egyptian populations. This is what I refuted earlier, her exaggeration of this group size. So I think both you, Homeylu and Ausur, have correctly seen two different points she made regarding the blonds.

quote by Cassia:
So, I'm not saying that the Delta (and Saquara, for that matter) was devoid of population ... or that *most* of the nomes didn't exist from the nanosecond of unification ... don't put words in my mouth.
All I am trying to point out is that huge areas were entirely wild; these tracts were not settled prior to the Old Kingdom, and that there was a great deal of human migration when they were settled.

And I'm not suggesting that they were settled by blondes, perish the thought!

posted 26 June 2004 07:12 PM            

Rebuttal 2:
Part of peace pacts and tributes were indeed the intermarrying of princesses between Royal families. Egyptians never sent their daughters abroad, but the number of immigrant princesses with their large retinues was consistent, expected, and is documented.

Starting from the most documented, which happens to be in the middle ...
Tuthmosis IV marries the Mianni daughter of King Artatama I.
When both kings die, the link is severed, and so Amenhotep III marries Gilukhepa, who (as is commemorated on a scarab) shows up with a small retinue of 317 Mittani maid servants. Later, he also marries Giluhepana's niece. (We can likely assume all princesses come with retinues.)
Amenhotep III inherits the harem, and at some point has a harem of over 1,000 women. This includes 2 princesses from Mitanni, 2 princesses from Syria, 2 princesses from Babylon, and one from the Anatolian State of Arzawa.
If each of these princesses brought a retinue of only 100, that would be 707 foreign women. There is no proof that the retinues became part of the harem; many were undoubtedly married off. But even if they were kept as part of the harem, and were only visited once by the pharaoph, and only 5% of them were impregnated, that's at barest minimum35 royal half breeds, able to subsequently marry. Remember, the chronicles only cared about pharaonic lines of succession, not all the kids.

Now, remember that this is the 18th dynasty; they reopened foreign royal contacts that were begun in the 12th dynasty, with pharaophs like Ammemes II.
And here's a twist' Hyskos Pharaoph Apophis I 's daughter Henit is married into the Theban line, because this is a moment when Thebes and the Hyskos are getting along ... so she could have been one of the ancestors to dynasty 18!

Ramses II had no problem benighting mercenaries as full fledged citizens of Egypt. Documented is the fact that he incorporated "Sherden pirates" (whoever they were!) into his army before his major campaign. He also marries one Hittite princess both early in his reign, and a second one at his Heb Sed Fest.

posted 26 June 2004 07:19 PM            

My blonde quips are entirely about the French incursion, nothing ancient. And Ausar was the individual so kindly explaining to me how they came to be there. ***There weren't any blondes in AE.***
What the H*** are you all on about???
I fail to see the issue there.
I have no idea who claims otherwise.
And I have no idea why you haven't heard of Jaromir Malek or John Bains!!!

As far as all the contemporary fu fu ra about blonde Egyptians, while you all say that they are a tiny tiny number, you certainly all know about them, precisely who they are, precisely where they live, and precisely how they got there. Such an awfully big stink over apparently nothing?

Thank you Homylu for your statement, "prior to Menes, the Delta did not exist, since Memphis is at the edge of the sea. That area was unhealthy and practically uninhabitable since it was virtually covered in Mud."
You have pretty well restated what I wrote.
Didn't I write "Alexandra couldn't have been built because there was no land mass there to build it on?"
(Vectors of plague usually occur in hot wet swamps.)

So do we just enjoy attacking the new people or what?

posted 26 June 2004 07:48 PM            

"F0R YEARS, EGYPTOLOGY has been fighting a losing battle to hold onto an ancient Egypt that is Caucasian or, at worst, sun-tanned Caucasian.

At the 1974 UNESCO conference Egyptology was dealt a fatal blow. Two African scholars wiped the floor with 18 world-renowned Egyptologists. They proved in 11 different categories of evidence that the ancient Egyptians were Africans (Black). Following that beating, Egyptology has been on its knees praying to be saved by science. Their last glimmer of hope has been the hair on Egyptian mummies.

The mummies on display in the world's museums exhibit Caucasoid-looking hair, some of it brown and blonde. These mummies include Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th dynasty and the 19th dynasty's Rameses II. As one scholar put it: "The most common hair colour, then as now, was a very dark brown, almost black colour although natural auburn and even rather surprisingly blonde hair are also to be found."

In 1914, a white doctor in Detroit initiated divorce proceeding against his wife whom he suspected of being a "closet Negro". At the trial, the Columbia University anthropologist, Professor Franz Boas (1858-1942), was called upon as a race expert. Boas declared: "If this woman has any of the characteristics of the Negro race it would be easy to find them . . . one characteristic that is regarded as reliable is the hair. You can tell by microscopic examination of a cross-section of hair to what race that person belongs."

With this revelation, trichology (the scientific analysis of hair) reached the American public. But what are these differences?

The cross-section of a hair shaft is measured with an instrument called a trichometer. From this you can get measurements for the minimum and maximum diameter of a hair The minimum measurement is then divided by the maximum and then multiplied by a hundred. This produces an index. A survey of the scientific literature produces the following breakdown:

San, Southern African 55.O0

Zulu, Southern African 55.O0

Sub-Saharan Africa 60.O0

Tasmanian (Black) 64.70

Australian (Black) 68.00

Western European 71.20

Asian Indian 73.00

Navajo American 77.00

Chinese 82.60

In the early 1970s, the Czech anthropologist Eugen Strouhal examined pre-dynastic Egyptian skulls at Cambridge University. He sent some samples of the hair to the Institute of Anthropology at Charles University, Prague, to be analyzed. The hair samples were described as varying in texture from "wavy" to "curly" and in colour from "light brown" to "black". Strouhal summarized the results of the analysis:

"The outline of the cross-sections of the hairs was flattened, with indices ranging from 35 to 65. These peculiarities also show the Negroid inference among the Badarians (pre-dynastic Egyptians)."

The term "Negroid influence" suggests intermixture, but as the table suggests this hair is more "Negroid" than the San and the Zulu samples, currently the most Negroid hair in existence!

A team of Italian anthropologists published their research in the Journal of Human Evolution in 1972 and 1980. They measured two samples consisting of 26 individuals from pre-dynastic, 12th dynasty and 18th dynasty mummies. They produced a mean index of 66.50

The overall average of all four sets of ancient Egyptian hair samples was 60.02. Sounds familiar . ., just check the table!

Since microscopic analysis shows ancient Egyptian hair to be completely African, why does the hair look Caucasoid? Research has given us the answers.

We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.

Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect.

This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities. The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time. As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out. At last, Egyptology's prayers have been answered. It has been put out of its misery.

posted 26 June 2004 07:49 PM            

The Wasetan[Theban] line also had active engagements between the Nubians Kermans that were also in alliance with the Hykos from the north. Not all Nubians were disloyal to the Egyptians,for many Medijay served in the battle against the Hykos. Evidence suggest strong contact between the Wasetans and the Kerman Nubians that probabaly also was in marriage ties as well.

By the way,doyou believe that all the Hykos were kicked out?

posted 26 June 2004 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

Ramses II had no problem benighting mercenaries as full fledged citizens of Egypt. Documented is the fact that he incorporated "Sherden pirates" (whoever they were!) into his army before his major campaign. He also marries one Hittite princess both early in his reign, and a second one at his Heb Sed Fest.

---

Sherden is a word for the island of Sardania. The Sea People were finally defeated by Rameses III which left many captives that no doubt were incorporated into the Egyptian population probabaly as temple servents. This was the usual fate for a captive in Egypt.

Rameses II also had some daughters named Bin Anath which sounds very Semetic.

posted 26 June 2004 09:02 PM            

One thing Kipling praised the Beja for was defeating the British army so badly.

posted 26 June 2004 10:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by cassia:
Oh SuperCar ...

Rebuttal 2:
Part of peace pacts and tributes were indeed the intermarrying of princesses between Royal families. Egyptians never sent their daughters abroad, but the number of immigrant princesses with their large retinues was consistent, expected, and is documented.

Starting from the most documented, which happens to be in the middle ...
Tuthmosis IV marries the Mianni daughter of King Artatama I.
When both kings die, the link is severed, and so Amenhotep III marries Gilukhepa, who (as is commemorated on a scarab) shows up with a small retinue of 317 Mittani maid servants. Later, he also marries Giluhepana's niece. (We can likely assume all princesses come with retinues.)
Amenhotep III inherits the harem, and at some point has a harem of over 1,000 women. This includes 2 princesses from Mitanni, 2 princesses from Syria, 2 princesses from Babylon, and one from the Anatolian State of Arzawa.
If each of these princesses brought a retinue of only 100, that would be 707 foreign women. There is no proof that the retinues became part of the harem; many were undoubtedly married off. But even if they were kept as part of the harem, and were only visited once by the pharaoph, and only 5% of them were impregnated, that's at barest minimum35 royal half breeds, able to subsequently marry. Remember, the chronicles only cared about pharaonic lines of succession, not all the kids.

Now, remember that this is the 18th dynasty; they reopened foreign royal contacts that were begun in the 12th dynasty, with pharaophs like Ammemes II.
And here's a twist' Hyskos Pharaoph Apophis I 's daughter Henit is married into the Theban line, because this is a moment when Thebes and the Hyskos are getting along ... so she could have been one of the ancestors to dynasty 18!

Ramses II had no problem benighting mercenaries as full fledged citizens of Egypt. Documented is the fact that he incorporated "Sherden pirates" (whoever they were!) into his army before his major campaign. He also marries one Hittite princess both early in his reign, and a second one at his Heb Sed Fest.

So yeah. This info is cross checked between Joyce Tyldesley's "Nefertiti", Viking Penguin Press, and Nicolas Grimal's "A History of Ancient Egypt", Oxford U.K. Press, and Erik Hornung's "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt", translated by John Baines, Cornell University Press.

---

Cassia, I think you have a problem reading English!. What did I say, when it came to marriages among the Egyptian royalties, and yet here you are, bombarding me with all this irrelevant stuff. I never ruled out the possibility that Pharaohs sometimes married outside their family: Cleopatra VI is one example of this, when she got involved with Julius Caesar. But, even in her case, she first married her younger brother, who then died mysteriously. I realize that some Pharaoh's abandoned this 'law' in Egypt. But this was a rare practice, because most stuck to the law! Pharaoh's have more often than not married even a sibling. Now, mind you as Cleopatra VI was never really Egyptian by blood, she did this, because it was the Egyptian custom. Greeks considered marriages between siblings ridiculous, but Cleopatra's father nevertheless did this, and Cleopatra was the result of that union. Again, why? Because it was the Egyptian custom. So whether a few Pharaohs here and there married outside their family and brought foreign entourages, doesn't in any way change the racial makeup of the population. Even if the Pharaohs in general married foreign princessess, this will still not make a difference to the Egyptian population. I don't know who in their right mind, will jump into that conclusion. I think you just make rebuttals to be cute. And oh, next time before you rebuttal, please make sure you carefully read my comment!

Just to clarify one thing without pointing fingers at anyone on this board; Ramses II wasn't Caucasian, as most tend to think. He is was a half-caste. His father Ramses was more negriod than anything, but his mother was no doubt Caucasian. Hence, the mixed look of Ramses II.

posted 26 June 2004 10:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
supercar,there's no need for the abusive language towards cassia. Remeber this is a forum where each of us are trying to gain knowleadge about the ancient Egyptians and not a compettion to see who knows more than others. I find the infromation she posted to be relevent. She posted some good references to validate her infromation very well.

---

By the way, when I say her comment is irrelevant, you have to look at it from what context I was saying this. I said it was irrelevant, meaning that in her rebuttal to my comment. She was refuting something which I have already agreed with, which in this case, was marriages between Pharaohs and foreigners. Had she read my comments carefully she would have noticed this! It is from this context, that I said her comment was irrelevant!

posted 26 June 2004 11:01 PM            

I just want to talk about ancient Kmt[Egypt].

posted 27 June 2004 12:02 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Ancient Egypt was becoming increasingly diverse by the end of the Middle Kingdom. Let's end the debate there. No more insults or redundant rebuttals...

---

posted 27 June 2004 12:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Why end the debate here? If we all agreed, we probably wouldn't have comments here. While we can't always change peoples' minds, it certainly worth a try, because you never know, by providing "certain facts or references" which others may not readily have available to them, it's quite possible to turn people around. For example, Homeylu's reference regarding the hair anaylsis was a compelling one, in that even if you disagreed with her view, it would prompt you to look further into that anaylsis. In the process of doing so, you might find that it changes your perception. I encourage debates whenever possible, because it can shed new light on the subject being discussed. I agree that outright insults like name calling doesn't help debates, in terms of influencing another. Debates in nature will always be passionate and to some extent unpleasant, but there is no excuse for name calling. For me, that point is well taken.

---

As compelling as the hair information was, there is no debate over the premise that Egypt and Egyptians were not homogeneous. The points people are making are becoming redundant. I don't know how many times and how many different ways the same point can be made. This thread is going no where and I agree with ausur that people should try o contribute more to other topics...

posted 27 June 2004 12:51 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
As compelling as the hair information was, there is no debate over the premise that Egypt and Egyptians were not homogeneous. The points people are making are becoming redundant. I don't know how many times and how many different ways the same point can be made. This thread is going no where and I agree with ausur that people should try o contribute more to other topics...

---

I think you have missed my point. Debates go back and forth, and I think this should be known by now to anyone who participates in these forums. I disagree with you: this thread should go somewhere, as long as AE myths continue. If anyone wants to contribute it, I believe that is a matter of personal decision. It is not for me to tell others that because I feel the debate isn't going anywhere, that they should stop discussing it. People have different interests and views, and they will only participate in discussions that interest them. As far as your analysis of Homeylu's hair comment goes, again I think you missed the point. For me, I understand it from the perspective that she is pointing out the myth that some people attach to Egyptian mummies, when they are using it in defence of the view that Egyptians were white. This would be that some will try to prove that the Pharaoh's were white by judging from the straight-blondish hair. Well, with her hair analysis, she is trying put down that myth! You might see this as redundant, but she is contributing to the subject of the thread, which happens to do with how to stop Ancient Egyptian 'myths'.

I just want add that, Neo, if you read this thread throughtout, you'll notice 'shifts' in the posts from myths concerning Egyptian ethnicity, to the politics of people who debate these myths (Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism), to myths concerning that other parts of Africa, particularly south of Egypt, haven't influenced the advancement of Ancient Egypt (discussion of A-Group Nubian influence and that of C-group in relation to AE), back to racial composition sparked by Cassia (fuelling rebuttals on myths concerning how the delta influenced the regional population). Despite these shifts, the posts don't tend to stray too much away from the subject of the thread. Even in the cases where AE race became an issue again, new topics were introduced, such as the one involving the Delta's influence. I don't remembering seeing that in posts of other threads which ended up in AE race debates!

posted 27 June 2004 01:25 AM            

Before everyone vacates this thread, I just have one question - and it really is real, and it's actually disturbing me a little.

Who put forth the erroneous garble about AE being "Caucasion" to begin with?
I'm wondering how I missed it.
(Its why I misunderstood the meat of the topic.) It makes no logical sense whatsoever. You know, I bought several Moustafa Gadalla books, and I only read them once ... he seemed more than a little angry. I couldn't understand it, but I guess he was responding to this whole whitewashing issue?

Maybe its possible to miss it if:
a.) One always concentrates on religion - so ethnicity issues wouldn't come up?
b.) One always avoids Christian, biblical, Jewish perspectives on AE?
c.) One generally treats the Ptolemics as GrecoRoman - not Egyptian?

Who published this whitewashing stuff? Recently, I mean. What universities are particularly biased?

posted 27 June 2004 01:44 AM            

Early people like Sir Grafton Smith,James Henery Breasted,Gaston Maspero and others have damaged some people's perception of Egyptology and for a good reason.

The only person I can recently think about attempting to white wash Egypt is a unnamed Egyptologist I know of personally. I will not name their person out of cofidentiality.

The white washing know is mainly done by geneticist or physical anthropologist who have sometimes been known to take selective data. Not to say all are into white washing because Larry Angel was such a man who has always argued the Upper Egypt people were tropical Africans.

Here's some example of old Egyptologist racism:

Smith pointed to these white supermen as the catalyst that sparked the
Pyramid Age. He attributed Egypt's later decline to the gradual
mongrelization of the Dynastic Race with black blood.

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

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

You might also be unaware of Sir Flinders Petrie Dyanstic race that stated some Asiatic race came in an civlized the indigenous Upper Egyptians. Most of this hypothesis has been overturned but unfortunatley some British Egyptologist uphold it without concent upon recent archaeological findings.

posted 27 June 2004 02:19 AM            

All well and good, and I am sure we all share the apologetic mood. However, there is really no need for an apology here unless you outright called someone a foul name. This is a debate, and if someone wants to feel good all time, perhaps then you might not want to engage in it. We should be allowed to be passionate, without being foul...that should be the bottom line.

Before everyone vacates this thread, I just have one question - and it really is real, and it's actually disturbing me a little.

Who put forth the erroneous garble about AE being "Caucasion" to begin with?
I'm wondering how I missed it.
(Its why I misunderstood the meat of the topic.) It makes no logical sense whatsoever. You know, I bought several Moustafa Gadalla books, and I only read them once ... he seemed more than a little angry. I couldn't understand it, but I guess he was responding to this whole whitewashing issue?

I shall hope that the debate here doesn't end because we are afraid to offend someone with our passion. I hope someone can bring other myths to light relating to AE, which will interest others or get them involved.

As far as your question regarding who brought about the 'white AE civilizatin' myth, I would have say that it is many sources. Historians, Anthropologists (past and present), present day Egyptologists, standard national curricula (which avoids making detailed connections with AE affinities with black Africans far south), Hollywood images of only white Pharaohs, and the internet. So as you can see, this is somewhat systematic distortion of AE.

Maybe its possible to miss it if:
a.) One always concentrates on religion - so ethnicity issues wouldn't come up?
b.) One always avoids Christian, biblical, Jewish perspectives on AE?
c.) One generally treats the Ptolemics as GrecoRoman - not Egyptian?

Good point, but this isn't how most people approach AE civilization. AE, ever since "Western scientists" have discovered it, it has been used as a "diffusionist" tool. In other words, it is never connected with other African people, particularly the black Africans, because they are supposed to be incapable of such developments. Even with new findings that show how black Africans started this dynasty with no outside influence, standard school text books are hardly revised to reflect them. Thus the old perceptions of AE continue to linger. This is what has sparked AE controversy, which sadly continues, because of the above factors.

Who published this whitewashing stuff? Recently, I mean. What universities are particularly biased?

Many 18th century anthropologists-some of whose ideas continue to linger, Egyptologists who still believe that black Egyptians are 'Caucasian' with their shaky scientific evidence (like skull sizes, facial features, and so forth), classicists and authors like Mary Lefkowitz who spend their time trying to take away from AE their contributions to European (Western) civilization through science and philosophy, Western universities (excluding most black colleges) that fail to reflect new findings on AE, and fail to emphasize the affinities of AE with other Africans, particularly the black Africans. This is what C.A. Diop and others like him wanted to address.

posted 27 June 2004 04:14 AM            

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.

And since many of these excavations have been funded by University research teams, it should not be farfetched, that Howard University or Morehouse, would eventually join these ranks and encourage some excavations themselves. These are the 2 historical Black Colleges that I know for a fact receive a lot of private donations from the likes of Bill Cosby, and Spike Lee. I would love to see something like this occur.

Generally, when Euro-American Egyptologists refer to Nubia, they openly acknowledge that this is a black culture. Going to the bottom of the man-made lake for new discoveries in relation to Nubia, as you put it, could at best only add more light to an advanced 'black' Nubian societies' further contribution to advancement of AE. How could the idea of making sure that 'black' Nubia's contribution to AE becomes completely irrefutable through such discoveries, possibly serve the interests of Euro-Egyptologists, most of whom have since downplayed the connection?
For the most part, in their view, that would not be in their best interests enough to warrant their funding such a program!

posted 27 June 2004 09:59 AM            

quote:

---

As for the pre-Kerma settlements which could possibly show further Pharaonic activity, again this could potentially tie it further to the 'black' Nubians. This would explain the lack of enthusiasm from Euro-Egyptologists...because it's certainly not about funds. [/B]

---

Good points. Not to be cynical, but perhaps they are too busy searching for those ever so hard to find, lost "blondes" of Egypt.

posted 27 June 2004 10:07 AM            

See the following:

J Synchrotron Radiat. 2003 Sep 1;10(Pt 5):387-92.
Microbeam synchrotron imaging of hairs from Ancient Egyptian mummies.
Bertrand L, Doucet J, Dumas P, Simionovici A, Tsoucaris G, Walter P.
Centre de Recherche et de Restauration des Musees de France, UMR 171
du CNRS, 6 Rue des Pyramides, Paris, France.
Developments in microfocus synchrotron techniques have led to new
results regarding the long-term alteration of archaeological samples
of biological origin. Here, ancient hair samples from two Egyptian
mummies have been analyzed using a conjunction of structural and
elemental synchrotron methods. In this favored context of
conservation, structural analysis revealed a remarkable preservation
of keratin supramolecular organization at any observed length scale.
Bulk keratin structure has therefore not been modified significantly
over 2000 years. However, infrared spectroscopy indicated a partial
disorganization of keratins close to the hair surface through
polypeptide bond breakage. Elemental mapping showed a strongly
heterogeneous distribution which can be related to mummification and
cosmetic treatments.

Even the natural mummies like Ginger found in pre-dyanstic Upper Egypt could have been contaminated through the salts in the sand. Here is a another excerpt about a natural mummy in Europe called Otzi who was said to be contaminated:

Here are some interesting paragraphs (_New Scientist) from the study
of the Otzi natural mummy (emphasis is mine).

QUOTE
Reconstructions of ancient diets from hair are based on the
assumption that proportions of stable isotopes of carbon, nitrogen
and sulphur remain constant, even after thousands of years. These
proportions reflect the composition of food-stuffs, offering
pointers to what people ate.

But in analyses of hair from 13 corpses, Wilson found that

***over time cavities appear in the shafts of the hair, allowing
material to leak out and letting in foreign matters such as mineral
salts and microorganisms.***

Although the tough, outer shaft of ancient hair is robust, says
Wilson,

***there is substantial decay of the cortex, the softer material
inside.***

Examining hair with a sensitive chemical technique called Fourier
transform Raman spectroscopy, Wilson discovered that

***the strong bonds in the keratin --- the protein that makes up the
hair --- were often weakened.***

'This increased porosity raises the possibility of contamination,'
he says. The team found hair that had been invaded by threads of
fungus and in one case with iron salts from an iron coffin.
UNQUOTE

16 Oct 1999.

__________________________ This demonstrates that naturally preserved mummies like the ones found in the Sahara can be contaminated with salts and other natural materials._____________________

The explanations and reasons why hair in dyanstic Egyptian burials are red or blonde. See the following:

Archaeological Hair

The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Predynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.

Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life. All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions). Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment. Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/2004c.html

Careful brushing later in the lab revealed the reddish eye lashes and eye brows, and even remnants of a 5 o'clock shadow on the chin. This is not to say that he was a true blonde. It is known that over time hair will turn blonde or reddish, but apparently only certain conditions, as our visiting hair specialist Andrew Wilson <hair.html> of Bradford University, UK, explains
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/2004c.html

Wilson A.S., Dixon R.A., Dodson H.I., Janaway R.C., Pollard A.M., Stern B. and Tobin D.J. (2001) Yesterday?s hair - Human hair in archaeology. Biologist, 48, 213-217.

posted 27 June 2004 11:39 AM            

For example, you posted
Elemental mapping showed a strongly
heterogeneous distribution which can be related to mummification and
cosmetic treatments.
Black Africans are ethnically hetergoenous, with regards to hair texture, which is why I posted the photo of the Bishari people with "blondish hair, and dark skin"

Examining hair with a sensitive chemical technique called Fourier
transform Raman spectroscopy, Wilson discovered that

***the strong bonds in the keratin --- the protein that makes up the
hair --- were often weakened.***

'This increased porosity raises the possibility of contamination,'
he says. The team found hair that had been invaded by threads of
fungus and in one case with iron salts from an iron coffin.
UNQUOTE

These chemicals only "straigtened" the hair, ("weakening of keratin bonds"-is used in African American hair relaxers)

Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say

Hard to say? Obviously "inconclusive", so it offers no new evidence to the elimination of this "blonde Egyptian". Again, why I posted the photo of the Black Bishari with blondish hair.

Careful brushing later in the lab revealed the reddish eye lashes and eye brows, and even remnants of a 5 o'clock shadow on the chin. This is not to say that he was a true blonde. It is known that over time hair will turn blonde or reddish, but apparently only certain conditions

Under what conditions? Why has this author avoided the obvious observation that I posted earlier " Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect."

Sometimes arguments will be made to add to confusion over the color/texture of Egyptian Hair, but let there be no confusion that chemicals alter hair color/texture

And with that in mind the only way to determine the "ethnicity" of Egyptian mummy hair is through the technique I provided earlier-the science of trichology.

After all we are talking about ethnicity, and not hair color. We've all seen those blonde Aborigines.

posted 27 June 2004 11:54 AM            

Mummy from Ptolemic period

posted 27 June 2004 12:02 PM            

You need to read the article before jumping to conclusions. The abstract said the mummy hair was hetrogenous meaning spread out upon the head.

The picture you posted has no relavence to the topic since it's a picture of an aboriginal not of anybody within the Nile Valley.

The articles were done by archaeoloical hair experts.

posted 27 June 2004 12:21 PM            

I posted the photo of the aboriginal girl to show that there are black people with blonde hair, so what if she's not Egyptian or even African, the point was for people not to jump to conclusions when they see a mummy with "blondish" hair, to assume automatically that they are white.

posted 27 June 2004 12:26 PM            

You need to re-read the article I posted about trichology, because you're obviously not refuting anything.

posted 27 June 2004 12:35 PM            

Originally posted by Ausur
Nobody in the academic world support notions of old Egyptology. However,it seems the laymen public knowing that the ethnicity of the AE is a very sensitive subject circulate profaganda for their own causes. Recent archaeological findings have eliminated lots of racist underpinings of the past.

Ausur doesnt live in the USA, and I can't say that he attented former school here. As far as on the University level, keep in mind only about 20% of Americans completed secondary Education. And lets not pretend that even the most recently published History books in the former schools curriculum are still painting portraits of "Lilly white" Egyptians. While at the same time "avoiding" the racial ethnicity of the Egyptians in the textual content. So please rest from the position that "whitewashing" is no longer in effect. I'll believe that when I see some Black Pharoahs in the history books of our Youths!

posted 27 June 2004 12:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
I posted the photo of the aboriginal girl to show that there are black people with blonde hair, so what if she's not Egyptian or even African, the point was for people not to jump to conclusions when they see a mummy with "blondish" hair, to assume automatically that they are white.

---

posted 27 June 2004 12:50 PM            

No one originated in the Caucus Mountains, so this term is far past extinct.

Any way this is a copy of a book my second grader brought home from school

posted 27 June 2004 01:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Supercar, my whole point is there is no such thing as a caucasian. Once you see how broad that category is, its nothing short of absurdity!! Black, blonde,white,broad nose, pointy nose, curly hair,straight hair, wooly hair....caucasians? Gag me with a spoon, okay?

---

I am sure you know by now, that I don't actually believe that kind of stuff. I am simply pointing out that western classicists still use these redundant categories. As such, those who cling to those views, will not take your aborgine example with much weight. I hope you see my point!