posted 09 October 2004 01:26 AM            

“For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; [2] the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. [3] The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they learned the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macrones, say that they learned it lately from the Colchians.These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do just as the Egyptians. [4] But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learned it from the other; for it is evidently a very ancient custom. That the others learned it through traffic with Egypt, I consider clearly proved by this: that Phoenicians who traffic with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.”

The case has been made that Herodotus’ mentioning of, it “accounts for nothing, since other peoples are, too”, proves that he was only talking in relative terms, and didn’t in any way mean that the Egyptians were of the black race. To enforce that case, further emphasis is made on the mentioning of the Colchians, who have been explained off as the least likely candidates to be of black race. Indeed Herodotus has used “dark-skin” and “woolly-hair” again, but his wording here seemed to have opened a kind of a venue for others to interpret it differently from the literal context he used that description. He described the ‘Colchians’ as having those affinities, and as such, it has been maintained by some that Herodotus cannot be taken seriously for his choice of words, when he described Egyptians and Ethiopians. One thing is for sure; in the entire quote, Herodotus makes it blunt that he is far from being one confused individual, and he knows precisely what he is talking about. Look at the all the trouble he went through, to explain his assertions!

------------------
Logic

posted 09 October 2004 05:26 AM            

quote:

---

Look at the all the trouble he went through, to explain his assertions!

---

lol. As if he knew that one day the [wst] would be infested with Eurocentric "scholarship" dedicated to obtuseness in the service of racial myth mongering. Look at all the trouble they go thru to deny what he said. Which in the end, is consistent with....

a) Ancient Egyptian and Ethiopian history and historical documentation.

b) modern bioanthropology.

posted 09 October 2004 11:03 AM            

In modern day Russia there are still black people there that claim they desend from ancient Egyptian soliders who settled there. I personally have pictures of these people that might be related to the Colchicans.

The Greek word for really dark people is melachrones,and the term for wooly is oulocharinos
. In other passages dating back much earlier is mention of a African companion in the Odyssey named Eurybates is described in such terms. Most classicists agree Eurybates is African in origin,and Greeks never reffered to people noticably darker to them such as Phonecians, Arabs, or any other people as melachrones. Certainly they describe darker people as melas but not as melchrones.

http://www.xenafan.com/xmr/twxn/twxn99.txt

posted 09 October 2004 12:54 PM            

Perhaps the most frequently cited Greek quote among Afrocentrists is that of Herodotus (Histories 2.104.2) describing Egyptians as well as Colchians of the Caucasus as "dark-skinned and woolly-haired." That the Egyptians were dark relative to Greeks is not surprising, considering that the same is true today. But Herodotus' description of Egyptian hair would, at first glance, appear to conflict with the physical evidence left by the Egyptians themselves – numerous mummies with hair still attached to the skulls showing more straight, wavy, or lightly curled hair types than "woolly." The only way to make the evidence consistent is to assume Herodotus spoke in a relative rather than absolute sense. That is, Egyptian hair was on average curlier than Greek hair, and the tightly-curled ("woolly") hair type was found more often in Egyptians than in Greeks – as is true today. There is no reason to assume on the basis of Herodotus' words that all or even most Egyptians had "woolly" hair, nor that such hair found in Egyptians was as "woolly" as that of tropical Africans. Indeed, Herodotus himself mentions only "Ethiopians" – not Egyptians – as having the "woolliest hair of all men" (Herodotus Histories 7.70.1). Moreover, Herodotus' explanation that being melanchroes or oulotriches "indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too" suggests that these adjectives did not apply exclusively to any one "race" of people. http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html

flaws in logic:

* citing mummies as physical evidence of hair texture: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html
why would Herodotus need to look at dead people when he has living Egyptians as proof?

* misapplication of concept of absolute as opposed to relative. phenotypical description (tall, short, black, white, curly, straight) are all relative. few, if any Africans have literally black skin and less than 1% have the curliest known form of hair (peppercorn hair).

similarly, only Albino's have literally white skin, and most European hair is not as straight as relatively darker peoples from East Asia and India. in fact Europeans self described "white" phenotypes vary radically in all these regards and more. it seems they are not so eager to 'pick their own nits', over their own self definitions.

in order for the author's contention to be logical, he must 1st prove that Europeans are "absolutely" white, and that there is an absolute basis for referring to them as such... only then may he argue without hypocrisy that select Africans are may not be considered black unless they are absolutely so. good luck with that task.

* he does not deal with the main point made by Herodotus, which is not to merely note the similarity in appearance of Egyptians and Ethiopians, but rather to note the multifaceted (physical, cultural, historical) basis of their ethnic affinity and common origin. as Supercar pointed out, that is precisely why he is associating Egyptians with Ethiopians and Colchois and by implication dis-associating them with Asiatics and Europeans (including Semites, and peoples of the Far East). he is saying that Egyptians, Ethiopeans and Colchoi are of a common stock, and for a variety of reasons.

in fact, the web article author must ignore the central thesis of Herodotus, because he cannot refute it.

all he does is substitute a semantical destraction, which he hopes will be a quagmire over which word for black, truly means black.

Finally from the same website, the author ends with this bit of hypocrisy:

An analogous example of a stereotype based on relative comparison comes from the medieval Arab scholar Ibn Butlan, who noted the Greeks as having "straight blond hair" and "blue eyes." Does this mean that all medieval Greeks had a Nordic appearance? Certainly not: it merely suggests that the blond-haired, blue-eyed type is more common among Greeks than Arabs and stood out more as a salient characteristic worthy of mention

The irony of his own analogy is apparently lost on the author:

it is the very presence of such pale "nordic" traits (emphasized over and again by virtually every classisist advocate of the Aryan model), that are used precisely to 'evidence' the racial affinity of Greeks to other Europeans.

So let's apply his Egyptian argument to the Greeks, shall we? After all, what's good for the goose.....

We may say that the Ancient Greeks are not white peoples. They are certainly not white in the same sense as Northern Europeans (whom Greeks regarded as barbarian), were, because the did not typically have the extreme "white" traits of Northern European barbarians. (true whites)

and yet, of course, the Greeks are considered by classicists as "white and European", whether they were;

pale skinned blonded haired and blue eyed;

olive skinned with dark eyes and curly black hair;

regardless of the presence of Africans among their earliest populations;

regardles of the admitted (by the ancient greeks) 'root' African basis of much of the culture, including their melachronous (BLACK) Gods.

indeed, if equal standards were applied, it can be argued that Ancient Egypt was far more African and black, than Ancient Greece was European and white.

and very possibly Herodotus (a logical thinker, whose brain was not crippled by the necessity of violently upholding Western racial myths at all costs) would concur.

posted 09 October 2004 01:30 PM            

Joanne Fletcher is no expert in biological or physical anthropology. She never preformed tests on hair. She claimed to have used hair from modern Upper Egyptians,and the Egyptian family she was living with at the time,but the labs in Manchester claim she never used them.

The genetic evidence cited is outdated,and does not verify where samples are taken from. Plus most of the genetic material is from modern Egyptians living in Lower Egypt where mixing with foreginers started as far back as the First Intermediate period and continued to the Greo-Roman period. It's no wonder why Sadarnia clusters either because,after all, Sardania was colonized by Arabs,and these same Arabs mixed with Lower Egyptians from the Delta to Al-Fustat.

The following errors people make with genetic tests:

1. People mix historical data with gene flow. Mtdna goes much further back in time than Y-Chromsome. What matters is the halpotypes and allele found in assorted populations,and the historical data is just interjected by the geneticist who take the samples.

2. Ancient Dna has not been perfected yet,and there is limited tests on ancient Dna save for some early tests in ABO blood typing

3. The percentages in genetic data only show how frequent the halpotype showed up in tested population. Genetic tests cannot tell you how much racial admixture a person has,but it might tell you percentage of halpotypes. Because of political reasons mixed populations like Gulf Arabs,Dominicans,Puerto Ricans,and others use supposed data to prove how much supposed admixture they have over the other people.

4. Many population have private and shared allele. In Egypt there are private and even shared allele to ascribed populations. One must interpret data very carefully and coherantly.

posted 09 October 2004 06:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Here are some examples of Eurocentric dissembling over this issue:

Perhaps the most frequently cited Greek quote among Afrocentrists is that of Herodotus (Histories 2.104.2) describing Egyptians as well as Colchians of the Caucasus as "dark-skinned and woolly-haired." That the Egyptians were dark relative to Greeks is not surprising, considering that the same is true today. But Herodotus' description of Egyptian hair would, at first glance, appear to conflict with the physical evidence left by the Egyptians themselves – numerous mummies with hair still attached to the skulls showing more straight, wavy, or lightly curled hair types than "woolly." The only way to make the evidence consistent is to assume Herodotus spoke in a relative rather than absolute sense. That is, Egyptian hair was on average curlier than Greek hair, and the tightly-curled ("woolly") hair type was found more often in Egyptians than in Greeks – as is true today. There is no reason to assume on the basis of Herodotus' words that all or even most Egyptians had "woolly" hair, nor that such hair found in Egyptians was as "woolly" as that of tropical Africans. Indeed, Herodotus himself mentions only "Ethiopians" – not Egyptians – as having the "woolliest hair of all men" (Herodotus Histories 7.70.1). Moreover, Herodotus' explanation that being melanchroes or oulotriches "indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too" suggests that these adjectives did not apply exclusively to any one "race" of people. http://www.geocities.com/enbp/quotes.html

flaws in logic:

* citing mummies as physical evidence of hair texture: http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html
why would Herodotus need to look at dead people when he has living Egyptians as proof?

* misapplication of concept of absolute as opposed to relative. phenotypical description (tall, short, black, white, curly, straight) are all relative. few, if any Africans have literally black skin and less than 1% have the curliest known form of hair (peppercorn hair).

similarly, only Albino's have literally white skin, and most European hair is not as straight as relatively darker peoples from East Asia and India. in fact Europeans self described "white" phenotypes vary radically in all these regards and more. it seems they are not so eager to 'pick their own nits', over their own self definitions.

in order for the author's contention to be logical, he must 1st prove that Europeans are "absolutely" white, and that there is an absolute basis for referring to them as such... only then may he argue without hypocrisy that select Africans are may not be considered black unless they are absolutely so. good luck with that task.

* he does not deal with the [b]main point made by Herodotus, which is not to merely note the similarity in appearance of Egyptians and Ethiopians, but rather to note the multifaceted (physical, cultural, historical) basis of their ethnic affinity and common origin. as Supercar pointed out, that is precisely why he is associating Egyptians with Ethiopians and Colchois and by implication dis-associating them with Asiatics and Europeans (including Semites, and peoples of the Far East). he is saying that Egyptians, Ethiopeans and Colchoi are of a common stock, and for a variety of reasons.

in fact, the web article author must ignore the central thesis of Herodotus, because he cannot refute it.

all he does is substitute a semantical destraction, which he hopes will be a quagmire over which word for black, truly means black.
[/B]

---

Precisely the point. Any clear-minded person, will see that Herodotus was very concise. Clearly targeting people, who might misunderstand him or willfully misinterpret his assessment, Herotodus made it clear he was not just looking at any "dark-skin" race, but one, which is of the African stock. Therefore, his need to point out the cultural specifics that tie those Colchians to Egyptians and Ethiopians. He goes on to even point out, that one shouldn't take his word for it, for 'the Phoenicians' and 'the Syrians of Palestine' openly acknowledged or admitted to learning the custom from the Egyptians, while in Herodotus own words, "Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macrones, say that they learned it lately from the Colchians." He already mentioned that the Colchians seemed to be more aware of their ties to Egypt, than the Egyptians were of the Colchians at the time of his inquiry into the matter. To add to this, Herodotus imforms his audience, that Egyptians were nonetheless aware of Egyptian presence in that region at some point in time, with reference to the "Sesostris' army". It is interesting to note that Herodotus mentions, "For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others." Again for anyone under the illusion that he got his sources from some middlemen, he imforms his audience that he did the investigative work himself, and didn't have to rely on travellers, historians or any other secondary sources. This in itself paints the character of Herodotus, as one who is highly suspicious of what he simply hears, and would rather be a direct witness of the matter at hand, or be able to at least scrutinize the issue at hand as much as possible, i.e., within his capability to do so. As if to punctuate the level of certainity with which he makes his assertions, Herodotus ends the message with, "That the others learned it *(circumcision)* through traffic with Egypt, I consider clearly proved by this: that Phoenicians who traffic with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.”

posted 10 October 2004 11:20 AM            

quote:

---

Herotodus made it clear he was not just looking at any "dark-skin" race, but one, which is of the African stock.

---

Essentially:
Melachrone = Hamite = Kemite = Black, as the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Hebrews and much more importantly the Kemetian (Ancient Egyptians) viewed it.

Eurocentrists deserve points for hypocrisy and unmitigated gaul.

They argue that we must not use "modern" ethnic concepts to refer to ancient peoples.

But classisicm is based entirely on revisionism of ancient history in the service of phony European triumphalist grandstanding.

They employ obtuse semantics and pseudo science to the effect of distorting history and denying facts universally acknowledged literally for thousands of years.

posted 10 October 2004 12:55 PM            

Undoubtedly the basic reason for this is that Herodotus, after relating his eyewitness account informing us that the Egyptians were Blacks, then demonstrated, with rare honesty, that Greece borrowed from Egypt all the elements of her civilization, even the cult of the gods, and that Egypt was the cradle of civilization. Moreover, archeological discoveries continually justify Herodotus against his detractors. Thus, Christiane Desroches-Noblecourt writes about recent excavations in Tanis* {footnote: Tanis, the Biblical Zoan, at the mouth of the eastern branch of the Nile Delts}: "Herodotus had seen the outer buildings of these sepulchers and had described them. Pierre Montet has just proved once again that 'The Father of History did not lie.'" {endnote 13: Sciences et Avenir, No. 56, October 1951.}

It could be objected that, in the fifth century B.C. when Herodotus visited Egypt, its civilization was already more than 10,000 years old and that the race which had created it was not necessarily the Negro race that Herodotus found there.

posted 10 October 2004 01:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
In modern day Russia there are still black people there that claim they desend from ancient Egyptian soliders who settled there. I personally have pictures of these people that might be related to the Colchicans.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 09 October 2004).]

---

posted 10 October 2004 03:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Essentially:
Melachrone = Hamite = Kemite = Black, as the Ancient Greeks, the Ancient Hebrews and much more importantly the Kemetian (Ancient Egyptians) viewed it...They argue that we must not use "modern" ethnic concepts to refer to ancient peoples.

But classisicm is based entirely on revisionism of ancient history in the service of phony European triumphalist grandstanding.

They employ obtuse semantics and pseudo science to the effect of distorting history and denying facts universally acknowledged literally for thousands of years.

AE never was considered anything other than African by the AE, by the Asiatic Semities, by the ancient Greeks, or by anyone else, until [wst] revisionists began propagandizing to the contrary.

---

Only two things can be done to Herodotus' records of his personal observations from the revisionist's point of view:

1. As done by the author of that 'geocite' link posted earlier, the revisionist can take just one or two sentences from the entire quote, and try to misconstrue the original context it was put into. Whatever the level of the audience's intelligence, as long as they can read, cannot miss on the straightforwardness of Herodotus. Herodotus has essentially made it known that, he knew the distinction between the black types he found in Africa and those folks, who would be described as such (black) elsewhere. No amount of spinning can hide this candidness of Herodotus.

2. The other option is to simply discredit the Author, i.e., Herodotus himself. The revisionist would have to insist that Herodotus' claims of cultural ties, are but a figment of his imagination. If not that, then the revisionist would have to quote Herodotus on some other issue, on which he/she deems Herodotus' account to be inaccurate. This scenario would provide the pretext for discrediting the author/Herodotus on some other issue, simply because he might have gotten something wrong in the past. The discrediting tool, if applied to Herodotus' description of the ancient Egyptians, (ancient) Ethiopians and Colchians, doesn't work effectively, in that he is merely describing what he saw with his own eyes, and what he heard from the mouths of the very people, whom he was describing. Should one not seriously consider what he heard from the Egyptians and Colchians themselves, Herodotus mentions Egyptian accounts of the Egyptian army of "Sesostris". Indeed, one would have to contend that the Egypto-Colchian connection never occured, in the face of evidence that points to ancient Egyptian presence in that region at some point in time.
   

posted 10 October 2004 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Yes, I have pictures of these people. Just give me your email and I shall send them to you. I can also post them on the forum if you would like that.

---

posted 10 October 2004 03:36 PM            

Here are some possible desendants of Sesotris' army in the Colchia[modern day Black Sea area in Russia]

posted 10 October 2004 10:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
The following is a Herodotus quote that 19th century-Egyptology mindset folks and spin doctors have often misconstrued, with added emphasis to the highlighted words and those in italics:

“For it is plain to see that the Colchians are Egyptians; and [b]what I say, I myself noted before I heard it from others. When it occurred to me, I inquired of both peoples; and the Colchians remembered the Egyptians better than the Egyptians remembered the Colchians; [2] the Egyptians said that they considered the Colchians part of Sesostris' army. I myself guessed it, partly because they are dark-skinned and woolly-haired; though that indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practised circumcision. [3] The Phoenicians and the Syrians of Palestine acknowledge that they learned the custom from the Egyptians, and the Syrians of the valleys of the Thermodon and the Parthenius, as well as their neighbors the Macrones, say that they learned it lately from the Colchians.These are the only nations that circumcise, and it is seen that they do just as the Egyptians. [4] But as to the Egyptians and Ethiopians themselves, I cannot say which nation learned it from the other; for it is evidently a very ancient custom. That the others learned it through traffic with Egypt, I consider clearly proved by this: that Phoenicians who traffic with Hellas cease to imitate the Egyptians in this matter and do not circumcise their children.”

The case has been made that Herodotus’ mentioning of, it “accounts for nothing, since other peoples are, too”, proves that he was only talking in relative terms, and didn’t in any way mean that the Egyptians were of the black race. To enforce that case, further emphasis is made on the mentioning of the Colchians, who have been explained off as the least likely candidates to be of black race. Indeed Herodotus has used “dark-skin” and “woolly-hair” again, but his wording here seemed to have opened a kind of a venue for others to interpret it differently from the literal context he used that description. He described the ‘Colchians’ as having those affinities, and as such, it has been maintained by some that Herodotus cannot be taken seriously for his choice of words, when he described Egyptians and Ethiopians. One thing is for sure; in the entire quote, Herodotus makes it blunt that he is far from being one confused individual, and he knows precisely what he is talking about. Look at the all the trouble he went through, to explain his assertions!

[/B]

---

Herodotus words are pretty clear and concise.

The "contraversy" of the ethnicity of the AE often involve the confusion of emotion(racism) with reason. It is important for us to develop specific techniques for keeping emotions out of evaluations of facts and logic. It is always important to detect and combat appeals to emotions.

posted 11 October 2004 07:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Sometimes no matter the words you choose...a picture says it better.

Or, as Wally might say...Melachrones fool! Understand?

---

posted 14 October 2004 02:22 PM            

Eurocentrism has endeavored to contradict this correct common-sense observation by one of two methods.

1) show that Egypt is affiliated with Europe and Asia and not with Ethiopia and so, not with, the rest of Africa.

2) show that Egypt and Ethiopia are affiliated with Europe and Asia and not with the rest of Africa.

In doing so, they must also offer a plausible excuse for why both the AE and the AG failed to recognize the contrived concepts of the modern [wst]. In essense Eurocentrism begs the questions:

* why do the Greeks not speak of a Eurasian origin of Egypt?

* why do the Greeks instead speak of Egypto-Ethiopian Affinity?

* why did the Ancient Egyptians speak of their Ethiopian paternity?

* why did the Ethiopians speak of Egypt as an offspring?

* why did Egypt/Ethiopia speak of Europeans and Asians as essentially alien - Aamu, Tamhou, Namou, Deshrutu, with virtually no conception of any affinity with Eurasian peoples even from the remotest antiquity?

If Eurocentrists want to know why the credibility of the Aryanist model of history has come under attack, even by other "caucasian" scholars, they must come up with the some serious (non ludicrous) answers to these and other questions.