posted 09 September 2004 07:32 PM            

*Newsflash* The guy is an Egyptologist, and doesn't know jack **** about Bio-Anthropology hahaha..

Still, I can't think of any western mainstream Egyptologist who doesn't atleast acknowledge Egypt's relationship with Africa.

posted 09 September 2004 08:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carfax:
I don't even understand why anyone listens to ANY Egyptologist (ie Zahi Hawass) when he spouts off about the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians.

Newsflash* The guy is an Egyptologist, and doesn't know jack **** about Bio-Anthropology hahaha..

---

Because it is as mentally pleasing as the way religious people tend to view their religion. Notice how very religious folks tend to disregard any scientific development or finding that seems to run contrary to their beliefs, and how they look at other folks outside that belief system with contempt.
In this case, an analogy can be made that the religious idea is the remnants of unsubstantiated 19th century Egyptology, and the recent bio-anthropological findings such as those of Keita, Kittles, Diop, Hassan and others, are the scientific developments that run contrary to the forementioned idea. The people who see deeper African connections of Kemet, are looked upon with contempt.

Religious folks see their opponents as "sinners", while people who cling onto 19th century Egyptology see their opponents as "Afrocentrics"!

posted 09 September 2004 09:01 PM            

quote:

---

In this case, an analogy can be made that the religious idea is the remnants of unsubstantiated 19th century Egyptology, and the recent bio-anthropological findings such as those of Keita, Kittles, Diop, Hassan and others, are the scientific developments that run contrary to the forementioned idea.

---

Where can I find information on the work of Kittles and Hassan? The first thing that Eurocentric arguers point out when you bring them evidence, is the fact that Keita is a black man and is thus biased and untrustworthy..

Ofcourse, such logic is moronic and you can easily spin it around on them, and say that Brace and Sforza are white, and are also biased and untrustworthy.

Anyway, still I'd like to know where I can find information on Kittles and Hassan thanks

posted 09 September 2004 09:09 PM            

You can acess Hassan articles in Egyptian in Africa by Theodore Celenko or in the Journal of World Pre-History. Richard Kittles articles are in Current Anthropology and Journal of Physical Anthropology.

posted 09 September 2004 09:22 PM            

quote:

---

Ofcourse, such logic is moronic and you can easily spin it around on them, and say that Brace and Sforza are white, and are also biased and untrustworthy

---

posted 09 September 2004 10:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You can acess Hassan articles in Egyptian in Africa by Theodore Celenko or in the Journal of World Pre-History. Richard Kittles articles are in Current Anthropology and Journal of Physical Anthropology.

---

posted 10 September 2004 12:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carfax:
Where can I find information on the work of Kittles and Hassan? The first thing that Eurocentric arguers point out when you bring them evidence, is the fact that Keita is a black man and is thus biased and untrustworthy..

---

posted 10 September 2004 07:08 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carfax:
Ausar, what I really meant is "online" access, so I can link it to his articles..

---

posted 10 September 2004 07:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
"Opinion" by laypersons isn’t as critical; but Egyptologists as officials of reconstructing Egypt’s ancient past closer to reality as much as possible, should know better than treating the field as though it were a playground for politics or negotiation. A historical fact cannot be opinionated as otherwise; it is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking can change the past. This lack of discipline amongst Egyptologists has trickled down to laypersons, who have now treated the subject as if it were some religion where casual opinions are seen as natural. This is nothing but a total disgrace to this field. When under the spotlight, it would be wise for Egyptologists to refrain from trifling and unfounded "opinions" that can only lead to their further ridicule!

---

Do you want some cheese with all that whine?

Here are three things to keep in mind:

1. Race and ethnicity is NOT the only hotly debated issue in Egyptology.

2. ALL history is political. Egyptology is no exception.

3. Nothing in Egyptology is written in stone. Our understanding of ancient Egypt is always evolving but like any other science, theories must be tested, and peer reviewed before they can be treated as fact.

posted 10 September 2004 07:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Do you want some cheese with all that whine?

Here are three things to keep in mind:

1. Race and ethnicity is NOT the only hotly debated issue in Egyptology.

2. ALL history is political. Egyptology is no exception.

3. Nothing in Egyptology is written in stone. Our understanding of ancient Egypt is always evolving but like any other science, theories must be tested, and peer reviewed before they can be treated as fact.

I know Egyptology isn't perfect but it's much more liberal and open to revised historical understanding than most other disciplines of history.

---

Remember...we are dealing with Egyptology on this board, and not other history. Here is a hint : just because I don't say "other history are political" doesn't mean I am not aware of it.

Now putting your cynical jokes aside, here is the deal: Just because most history are political, doesn't mean it is justified! But that being the reality, it is the duty of Africans to continue their fight against the politics that cloud their history and are aimed at undermining Africans, even if it means they have to tolerate pseudo-labels of academia like "Afrocentric"!

posted 10 September 2004 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Remember...we are dealing with Egyptology on this board, and not other history.

---

Is Egyptology not a discipline of history? It is completely relevant to the discussion to point out similarities with other historical disciplines...

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Now putting your cynical jokes aside, here is the deal: Just because most history are political, doesn't mean it is justified!

---

Life's not fair. Just because we'd like to live in a world of peace and justice doesn't mean that it can be achieved. History is directly tied to politics in many cases. It may not be right but it's difficult to seperate one from the other. Does that mean we should accept it when obvious political bias is present? No. We can't change human nature but we can read opinions from a variety of sources and come to our own conclusions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

But that being the reality, it is the duty of Africans to continue their fight against the politics that cloud their history and are aimed at undermining Africans, even if it means they have to tolerate pseudo-labels of academia like "Afrocentric"!

---

posted 10 September 2004 08:46 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Is Egyptology not a discipline of history? It is completely relevant to the discussion to point out similarities with other historical disciplines…

---

Just to show you how ridiculous this comment is, I will give you the answer it deserves: Egyptology isn’t history! Does that now make you feel brighter?
Where were you, when in previous discussions we talked about how other African histories have similarly been clouded with European myths? Do I have to literally spell it out for you all the time, so that you know I am aware of the politics behind all these distortions?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Life's not fair. Just because we'd like to live in a world of peace and justice doesn't mean that it can be achieved.

---

…therefore we should just sit back and relax somewhere in the sunshine, knowing in the back of our minds, that life simply isn’t fair and we can’t do enough to bring about any justice or make a difference!

Your philosophy is fantastic!

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
History is directly tied to politics in many cases. It may not be right but it's difficult to seperate one from the other.

---

…which is something that you just discovered, and therefore feel this unrestrained need for pointing it out to others!

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Does that mean we should accept it when obvious political bias is present? No.

---

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
We can't change human nature but we can read opinions from a variety of sources and come to our own conclusions.

---

Maybe your idea of history is simply casual opinions, whether or not they have basis. But for many others, who continue to make it their duty to put history into its true context, the only opinion that counts is FACT.

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Even your comment above is based on politics. Why must "Africans" be responsible for seeking academic objectivity? Why not the entire world academic community?

---

You are right, my politics is to remove the myths aimed at undermining African accomplishments. As for the following question, how about because I am concerned with Egyptology here at this moment , and I am not concerned about the “entire world” academic community, which is irrelevant to the topic of this thread?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Singling out Africans exposes the fact that you have your own politically motivated agenda. And you wonder why you are called an afrocentric?

---

How about because we are dealing with African history, and not European or Asian history? Egyptology is treated like religion to some folks, like you, while Egyptology is meant to deal with historical facts for others, like me. That is the difference. So again, in the same sense as other religious folks see people outside their faith as “sinners”, you naturally also have an urge to see anyone who wants to put AE in its proper African context, as Afrocentric!

posted 10 September 2004 10:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Maybe your idea of history is simply casual opinions, whether or not they have basis. But for many others, who continue to make it their duty to put history into its true context, the only opinion that counts is FACT.

---

The fact is that with enough evidence, ANY historical fact can be disputed. For example, most Egyptologists have accepted Mantheo's timeline and King's list, however, it has been challenged over the years in light of lost Pharoahs being discovered and other archaeological findings. I'm certain that one day we'll be dealing with a more revised and more accurate timeline for dynastic Egypt. Should people accept the things that are FACTS without challenging them if they think otherwise? Egyptology is a living and evolving thing. Alternative theories are healthy and DO serve to keep academics more objective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

How about because we are dealing with African history, and not European or Asian history?

---

The problem I have with your above statement is the abscense of the word "Egyptian." Who has ownership and an obligation to advance Egptology? The Egyptian people.

Outside the US, people do not see socio-political issues through race or geography. I've repeated time and time again that people outside the US are more nationalistic than Americans. "European" and "African" are geographic terms. A Frenchman is first and foremost French. An Ethiopian is first and foremost Ethiopian. You'll rarely find people from Europe who identify themselves by anything other than their national origin. The same goes for African people although I'll admit that it varies from one region to another depending on the ethnic group they belong to or other circumstances.

Egyptians see themselves and their history as Egyptian. They are the rightful owners of their history, not Africans, Europeans, or Americans. This is why I respect Hawass and am pleased that he, an Egyptian, is in charge of the antiquities in Egypt.

We all have the right to study ancient Egypt and identify or admire the people but lets put politics aside and respect the Egyptian people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Egyptology is treated like religion to some folks, like you, while Egyptology is meant to deal with historical facts for others, like me. That is the difference. So again, in the same sense as other religious folks see people outside their faith as “sinners”, you naturally also have an urge to see anyone who wants to put AE in its proper African context, as Afrocentric!

---

You are not a sinner, just a little misguided...

posted 11 September 2004 12:41 AM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
The fact is that with enough evidence, ANY historical fact can be disputed. For example, most Egyptologists have accepted Mantheo's timeline and King's list, however, it has been challenged over the years in light of lost Pharoahs being discovered and other archaeological findings. I'm certain that one day we'll be dealing with a more revised and more accurate timeline for dynastic Egypt. Should people accept the things that are FACTS without challenging them if they think otherwise? Egyptology is a living and evolving thing. Alternative theories are healthy and DO serve to keep academics more objective.

---

These silly statements reflect only one thing: your lack of understanding of what is being said! Even the title of the thread "Egyptology is no Religion" exposes this fact.You act as though what you are trying to say here, hasn’t already been mentioned. Let me refresh your memory :

Quote from introductory notes:
"Methodology of folks of these disciplines are constantly scrutinized by other folks involved in those disciplines. Old bio-anthropological methods are phased out by new ones. There are peer reviewed science journals to reflect these updates."

Now, having pointed out the fantastic capacity of your vision, let me add that, my approach to Egyptology, is recognizing that once something is outdated it has to go out of the window, but we have to stick to material that has been effectively corroborated by the disciplines I have mentioned. Add this to stuff that can visually be seen as fact: like Egyptians being African, and the abundant amount of material Egyptians left behind, like artwork. These visual proofs and theoretical evidence corroborated from the most up-to-date proven methods, should be enough for folks to make sound judgment in dissecting material pertaining to the reconstruction of history. In case of Egyptology, material that dissociates it from Africa must be highly suspect. But now, you have people forming unsound comments, that are not only absurd from a visual point of view, but also from a technical or theoretical point of view.

This Manthoe’s timeline you mentioned, what went into it to determine the timeline…? Before you criticize something, you also have to know what went into it. For instance, Hawass disregards Diops bio-anthropological findings, notwithstanding that he had no clue about what entailed the methodology! If he didn't disregard them, he would have noticed that some material from precise methods that C.A. Diop put to use, which are still used to this day, backup his position about Egypto-African ties. Hawass'comment put himself in a position where he has criticized Diop's tests in areas, where not even other bioanthropologists or forensics have discredited. There is a difference between fact finding, and blurting out a bunch of hogwash as factual info. That is the ridiculous level Egyptology has been reduced to.

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
The problem I have with your above statement is the abscense of the word "Egyptian." Who has ownership and an obligation to advance Egptology? The Egyptian people.

---

Why? Because then it doesn’t have to visually remind you that it is African. Egyptians are Africans. Egyptian civilization didn’t spontaneously come up in Egypt. It grew from the African interior.
You approach Egyptology as just some story telling for entertainment, where it doesn’t make any difference that unfounded “opinion” spewed out as factual info. Many folks tend to take history more seriously; it has more meaning to them than just entertainment. I approach Egyptology as a science that is supposed to only deal will material that reflect reality, or else are corroborated by up-to-date scientific findings, while omitting anything that does otherwise. You look at anyone who wants to take the sincere route, markedly different from your playful attitude, with contempt. Religious folks call people that don’t share their faith "sinners", and you express contempt for anyone who happens to see broader reality of African ties to AE and expresses pride in it. Needless to say, you call your opponents "Afrocentric"; not much different from folks who cling onto 19th century material Egyptology!

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Egyptians see themselves and their history as Egyptian. They are the rightful owners of their history, not Africans, Europeans, or Americans.

---

Egyptians aren’t Africans? This is precisely the kind of hogwash I was talking about, that are casually advanced as "opinion". Of course, you respect Hawass, because his thinking is just as warped as yours.

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
We all have the right to study ancient Egypt and identify or admire the people but lets put politics aside and respect the Egyptian people.

---

Irrelevancy seems to be your trademark: I don’t recall anyone saying that somebody doesn’t have the right to study or admire AE. But calling Egyptians what they rightfully are, Africans, is meant to be disrespectful?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
You are not a sinner, just a little misguided…

---

Who is misguided: one who separates the word Africa from Egypt (neo*geo) or one who acknowledges Egyptians are Africans (supercar) and that it isn‘t anything that should be considered an insult?
Neo*geo , in light of what I just pointed out, I would say you are misguided if you were illiterate, and didn’t know any better. It is safe to say that you either have something under your sleeve or else it has to be mental retardation!

posted 11 September 2004 08:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Who is misguided: one who separates the word Africa from Egypt (neo*geo) or one who acknowledges Egyptians are Africans (supercar) and that it isn‘t anything that should be considered an insult?

---

It's not an insult but it's insensitive to nationalistic differences. What more is the word "African" than a geographic term? What bond should someone from Egypt have with someone from Cameroon other than geography? I'm not saying that Egyptians are not Africans, I'm just pointing out the flaws in using the title "African" interchangably with "European" or "American." Each title has a unique definition.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Neo*geo , in light of what I just pointed out, I would say you are misguided if you were illiterate, and didn’t know any better. It is safe to say that you either have something under your sleeve or else it has to be mental retardation!

---

I wasn't insulting you by calling you misguided. It should have been taken as a joke. Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way must be metally retarded, uninformed, or racist. It's a technique of fascists to assassinate the character of one's opponent. Is your last name Hitler?

posted 11 September 2004 09:39 AM            

quote:

---

It's not an insult but it's insensitive to nationalistic differences. What more is the word "African" than a geographic term? What bond should someone from Egypt have with someone from Cameroon other than geography? I'm not saying that Egyptians are not Africans, I'm just pointing out the flaws in using the title "African" interchangably with "European" or "American." Each title has a unique definition.

[/B]

---

Neo*geo honestly this statement makes no sense. I think you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Maybe you have an interest in playing devil's advocate or something, but it amazes me when the point is very clear and you try to muddy it up by being tangential at best circumstantial. Of course Egyptians are Egyptians first but a close second they are african not only by geography, but culturaly and biologically as well. Trying diffusing Italy or Greece from Europe even though "Europe" is not even a disticnt continent.

posted 11 September 2004 10:16 AM            

However,I feel people on this board might be taking Egyptologist opinions too seriously,for the only thing that matters is their work. Certainly people like James Henery Breasted,Gaston Maspero,and Adolf Erman were all racist[as where most people during this period],but you can't throw out their work because of their racist attitude. I feel a scholar in Egyptology should be judged by their work,and Hawass has done some excellent work on the pyramid and Egyptology. Whatever the man thinks or feels is a non-sequnitir.

Honestly,most Egyptology is theoretical,for we have no idea about certain dates,pharoahs,and even historical events. What we judge ancient Kmt[Egypt] off of is tomb inscriptions,papyri remains,archaeological findings,and the assorted kings lists. In Egyptology there are people who feel the language has not been properly deciphered. Certain uncertainly arises from the sounds of the AE language which most linguist will say we have no idea what it sounded like directly.

Egyptology is a soft science that also requires field reserch from other areas like bio-anthropology,archaeology,Forensic anthropology,and even Cultural anthropology. Egyptology is a young discipline that grows and matures as we progress. The suggestion I have to challange the norm is to propose new metholody and theories and present them. Hawass cannot stop other Egyptologist from publishing papers,nor will his opinions matters.

Hawass's job is to simply watch over the pyramids and to grant acess to Egyptian monuments by scholars. Nothing more and nothing less.

posted 11 September 2004 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Hawass's job is to simply watch over the pyramids and to grant acess to Egyptian monuments by scholars. Nothing more and nothing less.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 11 September 2004 02:17 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
It's not an insult but it's insensitive to nationalistic differences. What more is the word "African" than a geographic term? What bond should someone from Egypt have with someone from Cameroon other than geography? I'm not saying that Egyptians are not Africans, I'm just pointing out the flaws in using the title "African" interchangably with "European" or "American." Each title has a unique definition.

---

A bunch of hogwash: using “African” as a mere geographic term, as means to come to a compromise . What more is the word the “West” or “European“ than a geographic term? What bond should anyone in Germany or Sweden have with Greece? You keep forgetting or should I say “disregarding” that the original Egyptians came from the African interior, and took many of those cultures of the African interior to the North, where they were to develop them into a more complex culture. You keep disregarding the important relationship Egypt had with the Nubians and Punt, whose trade with the Upper Egyptians also gave those Egyptians the technological initiative over their Northernmost counterparts. Needless to say, that you also fail to see the importance of that development in creating the Nation. You keep disregarding that Africans were not always in their current geopolitical locations; there was what was once called the Proto-Sahara. Most of all, you keep disregarding that “biological” traits unique to the continent, are also present in Egyptians!

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
I wasn't insulting you by calling you misguided. It should have been taken as a joke. Of course, anyone who doesn't see things your way must be metally retarded, uninformed, or racist. It's a technique of fascists to assassinate the character of one's opponent. Is your last name Hitler?

---

posted 11 September 2004 02:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Neo*geo honestly this statement makes no sense. I think you are just arguing for the sake of argument. Maybe you have an interest in playing devil's advocate or something, but it amazes me when the point is very clear and you try to muddy it up by being tangential at best circumstantial.

---

It's clear to us as Americans but non-Americans don't often have the same world view. My statement makes perfect sense if you take the time to think about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

Of course Egyptians are Egyptians first but a close second they are african not only by geography, but culturaly and biologically as well. Trying diffusing Italy or Greece from Europe even though "Europe" is not even a disticnt continent.

---

posted 11 September 2004 03:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Geographically, Egypt is exclusively African of course. It's understandable that people would debate the cultural and biological aspect because there is no clear definition of African culture and both modern and ancient Egypt had a lot of ethnic-diversity.

---

Well, the mere fact that Egypt is exclusively African in geographic terms, should put the case to rest. This reality should make one understand that naturally there would also be biological and cultural ties to the continent.

posted 11 September 2004 03:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Well, the mere fact that Egypt is exclusively African in geographic terms, should put the case to rest. This reality should make one understand that naturally there would also be biological and cultural ties to the continent.

It is funny how Africa is often looked at in a special case; we now have to point out that there ought to be a clear definition of African culture, and that there ought to be homogenous societies. I have yet to see any continent that is looked at in the same manner, particularly by folks in the "West"!

---

posted 11 September 2004 03:28 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
A bunch of hogwash: using “African” as a mere geographic term, as means to come to a compromise .

---

"Compromise"? You need to chill brotha. We are not at war, we're seeking objectivity, remember? Africa is nothing more or less than a geographic term.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

What bond should anyone in Germany or Sweden have with Greece?

---

None on the surface. I have already stated that Europeans tend to be highly nationalistic. They fought and enslaved each other for centuries and there is still some bad blood from WWII.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

You keep disregarding that Africans were not always in their current geopolitical locations; there was what was once called the Proto-Sahara.

---

posted 11 September 2004 03:36 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Well, the mere fact that Egypt is exclusively African in geographic terms, should put the case to rest.

---

posted 11 September 2004 03:55 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
"Compromise"? You need to chill brotha. We are not at war, we're seeking objectivity, remember? Africa is nothing more or less than a geographic term.

---

So you only have to physically be at war, in order to reach a “compromise”? So "Africa" has no people, who don't have an identity?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
None on the surface. I have already stated that Europeans tend to be highly nationalistic. They fought and enslaved each other for centuries and there is still some bad blood from WWII.

---

Doesn’t prevent them from taking credit for development in the other’s nation. There are Americans who take credit for individuals who invented stuff in Europe. In the same token, you have folks in Europe who take credit for things invented in America. You also have various European descendants take credit for Greece developments. And so your point is?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
This is the most relevant comment you've made so far. No need to explain why I disregarded the rest. Ok. The modern day term and borders for Africa did not exist in ancient times so its obvious that no one saw themselves as "African" in those times. Of course Egypt has always had a close relationship with other Nile Valley peoples. I never disputed that. But you have yet to define how "African" means anything more than a broad geographic origin.

---

You claim that you are seeking objectivity, but it looks like you haven’t been doing well in that department, if you have failed to see the points that have been made so far. They might not know the term “Africa”, but they were aware of the landmass. Most importantly, we at the present know where they were. Same can be argued for the earliest European civilizations. What did I say in my earlier comment? Here it is AGAIN, and it should answer your statement:

“Well, the mere fact that Egypt is exclusively African in geographic terms, should put the case to rest. This reality should make one understand that naturally there would also be biological and cultural ties to the continent.”

posted 11 September 2004 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Originally posted by supercar:
Well, the mere fact that Egypt is exclusively African in geographic terms, should put the case to rest

My original point was that Egypt belongs to Egyptians, not that they have no ties to the interior of Africa.

---

And so what's the problem? Egypt belongs to Egyptians, who are not only Africans themselves, but also share cultures with other Africans!

The point you seemed to have missed, is that Egyptology isn't religion, where hogwash, examples of which you have presented here, is acceptable. Everything has to be scrutinized as much as possible, both visually and scientifically!

posted 11 September 2004 04:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Doesn’t prevent them from taking credit for development in the other’s nation. There are Americans who take credit for individuals who invented stuff in Europe. In the same token, you have folks in Europe who take credit for things invented in America. You also have various European descendants take credit for Greece developments. And so your point is?

---

posted 11 September 2004 04:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
So what? There are people who say the ancient Hebrews were black. There are people who think the ancient Egyptians had flying vehicles. Should we make generalizations about people based on every single wild theory out there? I have never met an Irish person who has claimed his ancestors built ancient Greece or Rome and even if I did come across such an individual, I wouldn't take him seriously. Your problem is that you are too concerned about irrelevant opinions. As Ausar pointed out, we only need be concerned with the objectivity of what is printed in academic textbooks and journals.

---

What do you mean by so what? That answer was to show the hogwash nature of your question, it wasn't meant to have objectivity! In case, you missed it the first time, I'll repeat my comment:

"The point you seemed to have missed, is that Egyptology isn't religion, where hogwash, examples of which you have presented here, is acceptable. Everything has to be scrutinized as much as possible, both visually and scientifically! "

posted 11 September 2004 04:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
They might not know the term “Africa”, but they were aware of the landmass. Most importantly, we at the present know where they were.

---

posted 11 September 2004 04:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
What do you mean by so what?

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 11 September 2004).]

---

posted 11 September 2004 04:27 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
have never met an Irish person who has claimed his ancestors built ancient Greece or Rome and even if I did come across such an individual, I wouldn't take him seriously.

---

As I said, irrelevancy is your trademark. What has this do with Egyptians being African?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Weak argument since they had explored and interacted with people as far east as India. People in ancient times defined nations not continents…

---

What has exploration overseas have to do with their knowledge of the landmass around them. Never mind what terminology they might have used, could you prove that they were unaware of that landmass around them?

posted 11 September 2004 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
More evidence that you lack reading comprehension and written communication skills...

---

That question was followed by answer, and now you are accusing me of lacking reading comprehension and written communication skills? My bad; I should write more often in hogwash to get through to you!

posted 11 September 2004 04:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
[quote]neo*geo writes:
have never met an Irish person who has claimed his ancestors built ancient Greece or Rome and even if I did come across such an individual, I wouldn't take him seriously.

---

As I said, irrelevancy is your trademark. What has this do with Egyptians being African?[/QUOTE]

LMAO! You're killing me. You're the one who brought up Europeans and Americans taking credit for ancient Greece and Rome! I'm trying my best not to respond to your irrelevant remarks but it's hard. Forgive me for following you off topic... lol

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

[quote]
neo*geo writes:
Weak argument since they had explored and interacted with people as far east as India. People in ancient times defined nations not continents…

---

What has exploration overseas have to do with their knowledge of the landmass around them. Never mind what terminology they might have used, could you prove that they were unaware of that landmass around them?[/QUOTE]

No, nor am I out to prove that they weren't aware of the interior of Africa. You totally fail to comprehend my posts. My point is that they were aware of a lot of areas and people around them and not just their neighbors to the south.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

You still want more evidence that Ancient Egypt was in Africa, and that they had both cultural and biological ties to other Africans? Or Do you want continuously emphasize the need for objectivity in Egyptology, and not treat it like religion?

---

posted 11 September 2004 05:01 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
LMAO! You're killing me.

---

You are doing a damn of job of that yourself. I am merely trying to rescue you from disorganized thinking!

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
You're the one who brought up Europeans and Americans taking credit for ancient Greece and Rome! I'm trying my best not to respond to your irrelevant remarks but it's hard. Forgive me for following you off topic... Lol

---

…notwithstanding that, that answer was to your irrelevant question. What has Egyptians being nationalistic have to do with their being African, or their cultural ties to the continent? You claim to be following my lead, while the visual fact of the entire thread proves otherwise…and you then accuse me of being misguided?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
No, nor am I out to prove that they weren't aware of the interior of Africa. You totally fail to comprehend my posts. My point is that they were aware of a lot of areas and people around them and not just their neighbors to the south.

---

That Egyptians were aware of the people around them, who here doesn’t know that? What is the significance of that trifling point? Your meaningless point has been that the Egyptians were “nationalistic” , but what has to do with the fact that they are African?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
All I ask is for you to define what is "African" besides a title for people from a broad geogrpahic region?

---

How about African, meaning the people belonging to that continent, who have ties with one another, biologically, politically, historically, and culturally!

posted 11 September 2004 05:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
How about African, meaning the people belonging to that continent, who have ties with one another, biologically, politically, historically, and culturally!

---

That being said, the strongest bond is geography since biological, historical, and cultural ties know no boundaries. Egypt itself is very diverse but mainly African and Asian geographically(Sinai is in Asia), culturally, and historically...

posted 11 September 2004 05:45 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
That being said, the strongest bond is geography since biological, historical, and cultural ties know no boundaries. Egypt itself is very diverse but mainly African and Asian geographically(Sinai is in Asia), culturally, and historically...

---

The geographic term is strongest bond no doubt, but so is the fact that the culture originated there, by Black Africans, and no amount of foreign influx or foreign cultural influence, is going to change this. This has been the whole issue with tying "Africa" or precisely "Black Africans" to Egypt, which you have clearly demonstrated in this thread!

By the way Egypt is "exclusively" in Africa, by pointing to Sinai, doesn't advance your stance. To top that, this isn't the region from which the civilization originated!

Conclusion: Egyptologists should refrain from uncorroborated comments or "opinions", that can only make them look silly. The last thing Egypt needs, is to have someone take charge of Egyptology institution, going around and spewing out silly stuff. But like someone pointed out earlier: his job seems to be that of taking care of pyramids and artifacts, and nothing else!

posted 12 September 2004 11:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
That being said, the strongest bond is geography since biological, historical, and cultural ties know no boundaries. Egypt itself is very diverse but mainly African and Asian geographically(Sinai is in Asia), culturally, and historically...

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 11 September 2004).]

---

The points we are arguing here is irrelevant. The AE themsleves were very aware that they had thier own identity as Egyptians. They were also aware of their neighbours to the north and south. They also told us that they came from south and related culturally and biologically and obviously geographically with interior Africans. These points are ratified my an abundance of evidence whom some Egyptologist and lay people would do interllectual acrobatics to avoid and down play this reality. Bottom line is that AE are culturally, biologically and geographically African in the same sense that Greece is culturally, biologically and geographically european. Both anceint culture Greece and Anceint egypt had some sense that they were part and parcel to a geographic area just as were are today even thought the geography may be a little different, this relative comparison still hold true. Because of the location of Egypt and the fact that they considered the south their origins gives them credence that they had a good understanding that they were first egyptians and secondly they belonged to a larger geographical area.

posted 12 September 2004 12:30 PM            

quote:

---

They also told us that they came from south and related culturally and biologically and obviously geographically with interior Africans.

---

* The Medew Netcher has been misunderstood. The Egyptians do not actually say they come from the south.

* The Egyptians are confused, and have forgotten their true, Eurasian roots.

* Maybe some come from Ta Seti and some come from Eurasia, but the Eurasian Kemetians forgot to make their identity/ancestry a matter of public record, so we are free to speculate.

Mostly, the actual tactic seems to be to surpress the knowledge that the Kemetu ever left us any historical record of their origins, at all.

posted 12 September 2004 07:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
The points we are arguing here is irrelevant. The AE themsleves were very aware that they had thier own identity as Egyptians. They were also aware of their neighbours to the north and south. They also told us that they came from south and related culturally and biologically and obviously geographically with interior Africans.

---

This is what I disagree with. That they related to lower Nubians and some remote African interior people culturally is a given but as much as I know about ancient Egypt, I've never heard of the Kemetians "telling us" that they have a strong cultural or biological bond with many peoples outside of Nubia and the Sinai peninsula.

From our wealth of knowledge available to us today we can conclude one way or the other whether the Egyptians had a bond with interior Africans secondary to their own nationalism but lets not put words into their mouths.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

Bottom line is that AE are culturally, biologically and geographically African in the same sense that Greece is culturally, biologically and geographically european.

---

The flaw in this thinking is that it leaves open for debate the question of geography and culture. You're arguing that due to geography Egypt is African but the argument that Egypt is geographically Mediterranean still holds true as well. Due to it's proximity to other continents, Egypt can be geographically and culturally several things. No one would question just how African the ancient Egyptians were if Egypt was located in central Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:

Both anceint culture Greece and Anceint egypt had some sense that they were part and parcel to a geographic area just as were are today even thought the geography may be a little different, this relative comparison still hold true.

---

Both civilizations were highly nationalistic and Greeks viewed the uncivilized people from the interior of Europe as barbaric just as Egyptians viewed uncivilized African and Asiatic people as barbaric. Of course they were aware of the different people around them but they obviously viewed their nation as superior to all others.

posted 12 September 2004 07:36 PM            

quote:

---

This is what I disagree with. That they related to lower Nubians and some remote African interior people culturally is a given but as much as I know about ancient Egypt, I've never heard of the Kemetians "telling us" that they have a strong cultural or biological bond with many peoples outside of Nubia

---

Like whom? The Nile Valley was the earliest center of African agriculture and therefore of African population. African populations expanded to a significant degree outward from the Nile Valley. Most West African Nations/ethnic groups did not exist in remote antiquity. This contrasts with Africa today where West Africa is the most heavily populated region. Africa 2000 bc is not Africa 2000 ad. It makes little sense to ask for proof of Kemetian ties to say, the Hausa city states with emerge in the early centuries of the 1st millenium, and which is...as with so many African states (and not always coincidentally) after the fall of Kemet to the Eurasians

posted 12 September 2004 07:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sunstorm2004:
[b]No one would question just how African the ancient Egyptians were if Egypt was located in central Africa.

I think they would.[/B]

---

posted 12 September 2004 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
It makes little sense to ask for proof of Kemetian ties to say, the Hausa city states with emerge in the early centuries of the 1st millenium, and which is...

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 12 September 2004).]

---

There were people inhabiting West and Central Africa during dynastic times. The ancient Egyptians depicted Central Africans in some of their wall paintings...

posted 12 September 2004 08:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Agreed. Otherwise we'd question how European Greece and Rome are and how Asiatic Mesopotamia is given their proximity to Africa.

---

posted 12 September 2004 08:12 PM            

quote:

---

There were people inhabiting West and Central Africa during dynastic times. The ancient Egyptians depicted Central Africans in some of their wall paintings..

---

This is not actually true. Archaeology tells us that the Bantu migration that populated Southern Cameroon to Southern Africa from around 800 B.C. down to 4th century AD. What population existed within Central Africa was mainly a twa[pgmy] type people that were often depicted in ancient Kemetian art work as the neter Bes.

The supposed Central Africans in the tomb paintings in the tomb of Horemheb are actually Southern Sudanese. You can identify them by tribal markings which are much like the modern Nuer people in Southern Sudan.

Western Africa was not fully populated untill about the 1500 B.C. period which the apperance of the Kitampo culture at Ghana. Of course there were Khoisan and even pgmy type people who were pushed further south by the Western Africans who came from the Sahara region.

posted 12 September 2004 08:52 PM            

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
Both civilizations were highly nationalistic and Greeks viewed the uncivilized people from the interior of Europe as barbaric just as Egyptians viewed uncivilized African and Asiatic people as barbaric. Of course they were aware of the different people around them but they obviously viewed their nation as superior to all others.

---

Which Africans did the Egyptians consider barbaric?

quote:

---

neo*geo writes:
The flaw in this thinking is that it leaves open for debate the question of geography and culture. You're arguing that due to geography Egypt is African but the argument that Egypt is geographically Mediterranean still holds true as well. Due to it's proximity to other continents, Egypt can be geographically and culturally several things. No one would question just how African the ancient Egyptians were if Egypt was located in central Africa.

---

“Mediterranean” is the name for a sea. People live in the sea? I know about no land called Mediterranean. I have created a new thread called “Kemetian cultural parallels to Asian and other foreign cultures” specifically to discuss the logic of such “cultural” labels! Kemetian culture is exclusively African, not only because it was created geographically in Africa, but because it was created by “biological” Africans. If you are simply going to take the question of geography out of history, then there is no need to identify people. Then even your talk of “nationalism” is pointless, because it is yet a name defined by geography, with which those people relate to one another. I doubt Kemetians called Greeks “Kemetians”, simply because they adopted Kemetian values. Similarly, I doubt Kemetians would have conquered other people in far away lands, and then call them Kemetians, because those conquered people then decided to adopt the Kemetian culture. If we are going to approach your logic of geography, then we might as well just divide cultures into black or white, or brown, or yellow civilizations based on the biology of the initiators, in which case Kemetian culture would be a black civilization. In that case, even European civilizations, might as well be Asian civilizations and vice versa, because there is no clear cut demarcation between those two continents. Let’s face it, Ancient Egyptian civilization is exclusive to Africa, and to say otherwise is nothing but a delusion!

posted 12 September 2004 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

This is what I disagree with. That they related to lower Nubians and some remote African interior people culturally is a given but as much as I know about ancient Egypt, I've never heard of the Kemetians "telling us" that they have a strong cultural or biological bond with many peoples outside of Nubia and the Sinai peninsula.

---

Actually,there is some texts where Kemetians do tell us where they originated. Since the Kemetians never recorded history in the fashion other did then we have to piece toghter their origins from archaeology and anthropology. The remains in the pre-dyanstic cemetaries tend to point to at least Upper Egyptians coming from the interior of Africa and the Sahara region.

quote:

---

From our wealth of knowledge available to us today we can conclude one way or the other whether the Egyptians had a bond with interior Africans secondary to their own nationalism but lets not put words into their mouths.

---

Recent archaeological findings in Nabta Playa and older findings in Badari seem to indicate that at least Upper Egyptians might have had a strong relationship with both the Sahara and the interior of Africa.

I am sure you are familar with an object called the Ishango Bone found in Zaire around the Neolithic period. A defined connection might exist between this culture and early Egypt.

quote:

---

The flaw in this thinking is that it leaves open for debate the question of geography and culture. You're arguing that due to geography Egypt is African but the argument that Egypt is geographically Mediterranean still holds true as well. Due to it's proximity to other continents, Egypt can be geographically and culturally several things. No one would question just how African the ancient Egyptians were if Egypt was located in central Africa.

---

Yes,the northern portion of the land of Kmt[Egypt] touches the Mediterranean coast line. However,we find that in many areas Egypt is distinct from it's northern neighboors mainly by cultura. traits which are found in other regions of Africa. The following are:

1. divine kingship and the concept of the rain maker king. Even early Egyptologist like Henri Frankfort pointed this out. No such traits exist within Mesopotamia and Mediterranean cultures.

2. The reliance upon ancestor whorship[although this is found amungst others] is most common in traditional African soceities

3. The Shendyt kilt worn by the pharoah seems to signfy that early Egyptians had a pastorial element. We find traces of cattle culture important to other Africans in Nabta Playa and the Sahara

4. The notion of the city state is alien to Egypt,but not to other parts of Mesopotamia. Egypt has often been called the civlization without cities.

5. The eqal status of women is absent in Mediterranean soceities and later Semetic cultures.

6. The Afro-Asiatic language which Egypt is a member of shares few affinities with the Mediterranean languages. The Afro-Asiatic languages postulated by Chirstopher Ehret originated in modern day Ethiopia. Not to mention some linguist have found affinitiesin Chadic spoken amungst the Hausa of northern Nigeria.

7. customs like scarification,circumcision rites,naming ceremonies are still praticed amungst rural Egyptians and are found in ancient Egypt.

quote:

---

Both civilizations were highly nationalistic and Greeks viewed the uncivilized people from the interior of Europe as barbaric just as Egyptians viewed uncivilized African and Asiatic people as barbaric. Of course they were aware of the different people around them but they obviously viewed their nation as superior to all others.

---

But even these groups were accepted into Kemetian soceity when they assimilated.

posted 12 September 2004 09:21 PM            

I will also disagree with your assertion that Kemetians would not consider assimilated foreginers Kemetians. People who assimilated into Kemetian culture were considered Kemetians[Egyptians] reguardless of their foregin origins. Of course the Kemetians saw unassimilated people in Asiatic countries as essentially non-Egyptian. Over periods of time many foreginers did come into Kmt[Egypt] especially in the eastern Delta often settling amungst the autochronous population. I believe I have pointed on this board before that the Tales of Sinuhe points to the Delta culture and Southern Upper Egypt being distinct parts of Egypt.

posted 12 September 2004 10:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
If you are simply going to take the question of geography out of history, then there is no need to identify people. Then even your talk of “nationalism” is pointless, because it is yet a name defined by geography, with which those people relate to one another.

---

Nationalism has little to do with geography. Nationalism is a political term. Nations are determined by politics and to a lesser extent, ethnicity and geography. Groups of people in the same geographic area can have completely different politics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

I doubt Kemetians called Greeks “Kemetians”, simply because they adopted Kemetian values. Similarly, I doubt Kemetians would have conquered other people in far away lands, and then call them Kemetians, because those conquered people then decided to adopt the Kemetian culture.

---

Your above comments make no logical sense. Empires do as they please with indigenous populations. The Romans had no problem calling the Hellenized people from places they conquered, Roman. The Egyptians made attempts to Egyptianize parts of Nubia.