posted 27 October 2004 07:20 PM            

Unable to deny that, the new argument is that the image is one of a kind, but this is also not true, except in the sense that say... The Berlin bust of Nefertiti that Egyptology loves to parade around is one of a kind.

Lot's of images are unique in one respect or another. But there are

a) other images of Nubians and Egyptians portrayed essentially identically in terms of phenotype, which is the point...to say otherwise is to compound one fib by telling another:

b) Observations that the ethnic iconography and ideology of the Kemetians shows their affinity with other Africans are based on several historical texts, and images, such as the different Table of Races scene in Sestrosis tomb that led Champollian Younger to conclude:

We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart.;

Why you point me to a website which quotes this passage exactly as it is referenced in Diop's African Origin of Civilisation is beyound me? How does this help your argument (whatever it is)

Diop continues:
For a very good reason, I have reproduced this extract as Champollion-Figeac published it, rather than take it from the "new edition" of the Letters published in 1867 by the son of Champollion the Younger (Cheronnet-Champollion). The originals were addressed to Champollion-Figeac; therefore his edition is more authentic.

{p. 49} Champollion's conclusion is typical. After stating that these sculptures can serve as vignetles for the history of the early inhabitants of Europe, he adds, "if ever one has the courage to attempt it." Finally, after those comments, he presents his opinion on the Egyptian race:

{quote} The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race. {endquote} {endnote 4: Champollion-Figeac, ibid., p. 27.}

According to you, the above quote is unfathomable, because there are no other images that portray Kemetians and other Africans as being similar to one another.

Even the aforementioned Book of Gates expresses and ideology suggesting that that RMT and Nehasi were created by the the diety Horus, while Namou and Semite Deshrutu were the progency of Seth. This is not unlike the Hebrew ethnic mythology, which refers to Egypt and other African as the Children of Ham, and semites and whites as the children of Shem, Jepth. (and please don't jump out of your jack-in-o-box and claim that i said the book of gates was the sole authority, completely consistent, or exactly alike other historical material, i did not say that...and that is not the point)

The truth is their are many many sources of information which essentially make the same point as the Ramesis 3 tomb scene.

Here is really what we are arguing about:

The Table of nations at Rameses III is SO MENTALLY DEVASTATING to Eurocentric Egyptology that it prompted them to essentially lie via denial of it's very existence.

Thus your argument is proven false, and frankly, it is that kind of slippery thinking that keep this issue boiling.

How long must Egyptology remain in denial?

posted 27 October 2004 07:31 PM            

quote:

---

Ozzy:
Its misrepresented quotes like those you have just mentioned that weaken the African Egypt.

---

Futile error on your part, in thinking that Egypt as African can be weaken in anyway. Overwhelming evidence backs this fact. It's very existence is enough proof!

posted 27 October 2004 08:31 PM            

Yeah right. And Santa Clause really exists! You both have an agenda of dampening the vital African Negro (otherwise referred to as tropical Africans) input into generating this civilization. The stormfront guys use the tactic of calling them dark white men. Your tactic, intended to produce the same results, is to simply present Egyptians as race-less people and just going as far as calling them dark color people. You know that if you were to use dark “white” men, you will immediately be rejected as the one of the “nazis” of Stormfront. However, with all your “race is social” fanfare, you didn’t have a problem of painting Egyptians as having the (bogus) “Arab” phenotype. At the same time, you’ve rejected what all bio-anthropology studies have found; Upper Egyptians being of the same stock as Nubians and people of the Horn of Africa. You claim that the renowned bio-anthropologist Keita is racist, even when you were told that his studies reflect the latest, and has yet to be debunked by any other anthropologist. Keita is a racist on what grounds and can you provide us with what he has said or presented that justifies such a charge? You’ve admitted that you don’t know Keita, and yet you ignorantly make such a grossly unintelligent charge. As one poster pointed out earlier, if you don’t even know the basics of what is being discussed or what you are purporting to discuss, you are better of asking questions or referring to other threads that contain abundant information. The stormfront folks put the Afrocentric label on just about anyone who disagrees with them, including other white folks. You have done the same here. They even go as far as throwing foul language at their opponents, in response to facts that they simply have no way of disproving. On the other hand, they simply ignore questions asked of them, pertaining to accurate data in support of their allegations. This attitude of contempt is also applied to latest factual information presented to them for enlightenment. Once again, you’ve done the same here!

posted 27 October 2004 08:52 PM            

Champollian Younger said:

Convieniently absent from rasols post:

“I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one (The Sestrosis I tomb) in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world ...; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order.”

Rasols post:the rest of the paragraph.

“We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart.;

Totally different meaning when taken in full.

He simply points out that the representations of the Egyptians in The Sestrosis I tomb are the same as the other Egyptians in all tombs, and the representations of the Nubians are the same as the other Nubians in other tombs, he then goes on to describe the different ways the other two groups differ in different tombs. Anyone reading this can follow the links and see for themselves that if he was inferning what you claim he would be lieing about Sestrosis I tomb.

Question: So you maintain that the Egyptian and Nubian depiction in Sestrosis I tomb, and all others are the same, or alike, or akin, in color and dress or in any other way. To say yes when all can see for themselves through my posts will make you a fool, and to say no will make your interpretation of Champollian, misleading!

Answer if you will!

Im not sure if you simply do not understand what he has writen, or you are purposely trying to misrepresent his words.

The images you have posted, do you know how it reads? If so please post the significants of the images and their relationship with Egypt. If not I suggest you have it translated. It does not represent your argument at all.

Quote: Even the aforementioned Book of Gates expresses and ideology suggesting that that RMT and Nehasi were created by the the diety Horus, while Namou and Semite Deshrutu were the progency of Seth.

What!! please enlighten me on your knowledge of the book of gates. And Expand on your interpretation of the, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H), scene 30) pleaeeeeesseee! This should be good.

Again if you missed this bit, I have no problem with the origins of Egyptians and Nubia being of similar or the same stock. I do have issue with incorrectly presented data!

Ozzy

posted 27 October 2004 10:20 PM            

quote:

---

He simply points out that the representations of the Egyptians in The Sestrosis I tomb are the same as the other Egyptians in all tombs,

---

Champollion's conclusion is typical. After stating that these sculptures can serve as vignetles for the history of the early inhabitants of Europe, he adds, "if ever one has the courage to attempt it." Finally, after those comments, he presents his opinion on the Egyptian race:

{quote}The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race.

Diop did not need to interpret Champollian the Younger's conclusions, neither do I....he only needed to print them. Champollian the Younger spoke for himself. Why would we need to reinterpret him? The only one trying, and failing miserably to do that, quite simply, is you.

quote:

---

Question: So you maintain that the Egyptian and Nubian depiction in Sestrosis I tomb, and all others are the same,

---

I do? tsk tsk. There you go again with the staw argument. You misinterpret Champollian...you misinterpret me. It's like you have a mental block that prevents you from addressing what is actually being said.

Requoting my previous comment:

quote:

---

the ethnic iconography and ideology of the Kemetians shows their affinity with other Africans are based on several historical texts, and images, such as the different Table of Races scenes & Sestrosis tomb

---

quote:

---

Im not sure if you simply do not understand what he has writen, or you are purposely trying to misrepresent his words.

---

Nonsense. I am not drawing any conclusion, I am simply agreeing with Champollian the Younger's conclusion. You are the one trying to misrepresent what Champollian the Younger is saying. The absolute proof of that is that you are not dealing with his conclusion.

quote:

---

Again if you missed this bit, I have no problem with the origins of Egyptians and Nubia being of similar or the same stock.

---

posted 28 October 2004 12:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orionix:
Ok but actually you havn't proved what i said to be wrong.

Why does this issue upset you so much?

Because in terms of skin color saying that these anceint people were on their majority non-black and non-white is absolutely valid. Look at their artwork and at the people who inhabit the land nowadyas. Havn't changed much. These people show variable degrees of skin tones from light to the North to dark in the south.

3 things i do agree with you whatsoever:

1. The Nubians were dark brown or almost black in color

2. "Blacks" had a great influence on the ancient Egyptian culture.

3. Nubia had a great contact with the predynastic Egyptian civilizations to the North.

But we can't ignore the fact that the Nubians did not have the dominant impact on the Egyptian civilization. They were conquered by the 1th dynasy and the Egyptian culture was forced upon them.

[This message has been edited by Orionix (edited 26 October 2004).]

---

let me answer the last comment and the first one first like this-wrong.

ancient egypt conqured only the a-group lower nubians in the old kingdom of egypt during the 4th dynasty around 2700 b.c

posted 28 October 2004 04:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

The images you have posted, do you know how it reads? If so please post the significants of the images and their relationship with Egypt. If not I suggest you have it translated. It does not represent your argument at all.

---

Sorry to cut into this 'back and forth' between Ozzy and rasol but to me it seems that rasol's argument is that the Nubians were sometimes represented in the same colour as the AE. And he thereby proceeds to show us some images to make his point. It would appear to me that in the second image there is a procession of sorts infront of a pharaoh. It turns out to be a group of Nubians carrying tribute. If you look at the image you can see that some of the Nubians are painted the same colour as the pharaoh and the other AEs while some other Nubians are painted black. Please correct me if am wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Diop continues:
For a very good reason, I have reproduced this extract as Champollion-Figeac published it, rather than take it from the "new edition" of the Letters published in 1867 by the son of Champollion the Younger (Cheronnet-Champollion). The originals were addressed to Champollion-Figeac; therefore his edition is more authentic.

{p. 49} Champollion's conclusion is typical. After stating that these sculptures can serve as vignetles for the history of the early inhabitants of Europe, he adds, "if ever one has the courage to attempt it." Finally, after those comments, he presents his opinion on the Egyptian race:

{quote} The first tribes that inhabited Egypt, that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataract and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt, we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race. {endquote} {endnote 4: Champollion-Figeac, ibid., p. 27.}

According to you, the above quote is unfathomable, because there are no other images that portray Kemetians and other Africans as being similar to one another.

---

Who are the "Barabras"? Do they go by a new name presently? Am not familiar with these people.

posted 28 October 2004 05:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
Who are the "Barabras"? Do they go by a new name presently? Am not familiar with these people.

---

posted 28 October 2004 05:16 AM            

quote:

---

Sorry to cut into this 'back and forth' between Ozzy and rasol but to me it seems that rasol's argument is that the Nubians were sometimes represented in the same colour as the AE. And he thereby proceeds to show us some images to make his point. It would appear to me that in the second image there is a procession of sorts infront of a pharaoh. It turns out to be a group of Nubians carrying tribute. If you look at the image you can see that some of the Nubians are painted the same colour as the pharaoh and the other AEs while some other Nubians are painted black. Please correct me if am wrong.

---

posted 28 October 2004 10:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
It seems that rasol's argument is that the Nubians were sometimes represented in the same colour as the AE. And he thereby proceeds to show us some images to make his point. It would appear to me that in the second image there is a procession of sorts infront of a pharaoh. It turns out to be a group of Nubians carrying tribute. If you look at the image you can see that some of the Nubians are painted the same colour as the pharaoh and the other AEs while some other Nubians are painted black

---

Bingo!

posted 28 October 2004 12:32 PM            

My $.02: It seems like we all agree on the basic points (including Ozzy & Neo), ie:

The origins of AE were among people who would today be considered "black". AE was diverse, and became moreso over time and in different regions.

... But some of us go through whatever convolutions possible to split hairs and distance AE from "black" by whatever lengths they possibly can. Question is, *why*? (Now, *that* would make an interesting discussion, if these people really understood their motives & could be forthright about them.)

Regarding "Orionix": He came to the site quoting stormfront and pushing the outdated notion that AE was a slave society, enslaving blacks, specifically.

I think everyone knew what was up, but gave him the benefit of a doubt. Orionix, I hope you are actually taking to heart your own talk about what nonsense "race" is as a concept. ...Because if you're saying one thing and believing another (in the anonymity of cyberspace yet), you're being quite cowardly. (Not to belittle you, I'm just stating a fact.)

...And speaking of validity (or lack thereof) of the "biological reality" of "race". If anyone believes race is a "biological reality" then you have to believe there are 6.5 billion races on the planet, since we *all* have a unique look and unique potentials. Why limit it at 3, and put swarthy greeks in the same race as blondes (but not fair-skinned Japanese), and put dark "africoid" malays in the same race as chinese but not light-skinned Khoisans with epicanthal folds? If race is real, surely there are more than 3! And surely the differences extend beyond appearance...

Race is a human invention. A concept and nothing more. And "looks" change all the time, just depending on isolation vs movement, etc. You may end up with "caucasoid" or "negroid" or "mongoloid" grandkids, but that doesn't deny that you're in there... Race is nonsense.

If there were no "negroid" or "mongoloid" people, racists would divide "whites" into different races (and actually have, depending on when you're talking...) It's an invention.

Culture is real. Values are real. Even spirit is real. Race is not. Race is a "snapshot". Culture, values and spirit are like a movie. Race is like a Polaroid. Culture (& values and spirit) are *alive* -- growing, evolving, borrowing, contributing, leaving legacies, moving, melding, etc. For better or worse...

Sorry to go off topic. Just my $.02. Carry on...

posted 28 October 2004 04:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by YuhiVII:
[b] Who are the "Barabras"? Do they go by a new name presently? Am not familiar with these people.

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 October 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

posted 28 October 2004 04:30 PM            

Their main area is the red sea hills around Egypt where they have lived since antiquity.

posted 28 October 2004 05:00 PM            

quote:

---

The Beja are not limited to the Sudan. They live in Egypt also. Are you familiar with their history? It's very interesting. They were once called Bleyemmes (I think that's how it's spelled.)

---

posted 28 October 2004 08:55 PM            

Most of the time Egyptians depicted themselves as clearly distinct from foriegnors by using stereotypical caricatures but by the New Kingdom the depictions became more realistic.

The truth is that there were Egyptians who looked physically like Nubians, Libyans, and Asiatics. Egyptians were for the most part, not at all isolated from neighboring populations.

posted 28 October 2004 09:23 PM            

quote:

---

I'm gonna play devil's advocate and say that Asiatics were sometimes depicted in the same color as Egyptians as well.

---

quote:

---

Most of the time Egyptians depicted themselves as clearly distinct from foriegnors by using stereotypical caricatures but by the New Kingdom the depictions became more realistic.

---

In this respect, they were consistent with the Kushites, whose ideology was to view Kemet as ancient colony, and with their Hebrew and Ancient Greek contemporaries, who viewed Kemet as distinctly Black African.

posted 28 October 2004 11:47 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[QUOTE]Most of the time Egyptians depicted themselves as clearly distinct from foriegnors by using stereotypical caricatures but by the New Kingdom the depictions became more realistic.

---

Well words like "closer", "bigger", and "greater" are very subjective. There's no quantitative way to prove what you just stated above. It's fine if that is what you believe but it's not a fact.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

In this respect, they were consistent with the Kushites, whose ideology was to view Kemet as ancient colony, and with their Hebrew and Ancient Greek contemporaries, who viewed Kemet as distinctly Black African.

---

posted 29 October 2004 12:14 AM            

quote:

---

The ideology you speak of did not come first hand from the Kushites. It came second hand from other sources. You wont find many primary sources on Nubia prior to the Merotic period.

---

quote:

---

Well words like "closer", "bigger", and "greater" are very subjective. There's no quantitative way to prove what you just stated above.

---

If you study the Table of Nations portrayals you will learn that there is an actual hierarchy involved. Do you know what Ret na Romé means?

posted 29 October 2004 07:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]The ideology you speak of did not come first hand from the Kushites. It came second hand from other sources. You wont find many primary sources on Nubia prior to the Merotic period.

---

You're making too much of the pre-dynastic relationship between Egyptians and Nubians. Yes, in pre-dynastic periods and in late dynastic periods there was some unity between the peoples but in the 2000 or so years between they were as bitter as any enemies could be(with exception to some friendly tribes of Nubians in northern Nubia).

The first mistake everyone makes when discussing the Nubians is leaving out the fact that while Egyptians remained the same for most of the dynastic era, Nubians changed. The second is the mistake of not distinguishing lower Nubians from upper Nubians(the Kushites). Lower Nubia bordered Egypt and acted as a vassal state for most of the dynastic era. Upper Nubians were not as friendly towards Egyptians and it took centuries of bitter warfare before they developed friendly relations with Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[QUOTE]
Well words like "closer", "bigger", and "greater" are very subjective. There's no quantitative way to prove what you just stated above.

---

Actually not one of those words is necessarily subjective. What they are, by definition, is relative. Note the difference. 5 is "greater" than 4, Mars is "closer" to Earth than Jupitar. Shaquille O'Neil is "bigger" than Gary Coleman , relative yes, subjective, not necessarily.

posted 29 October 2004 08:48 AM            

quote:

---

I've never seen the Nubians referred to by the Egyptians as "the founders."

---

"Then a king will come from the South,
Ameny, the justified, by name,
Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown,
He will wear the red crown;
He will join the Two Mighty Ones,
He will please the Two Lords with what they wish,
With field-circler in his fist, oar in his grasp.
Rejoice, O people of his time,
The son of man will make his name for all eternity!
The evil-minded, the treason-plotters,
They suppress their speech in fear of him;
Asiatics will fall to his sword,
Libyans will fall to his flame,
Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might,
As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him.
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler,
To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt;
They shall beg water as supplicants,
So as to let their cattle drink.
Then Order will return to its seat,
While Chaos is driven away.
Rejoice he who may behold, he who may attend the king! And he who is
wise will libate for me,
When he sees fulfilled what I have spoken!"

In what other context could a son of a "foreign land", restore legitimate rule to the national heartland?

quote:

---

The first mistake everyone makes when discussing the Nubians is leaving out the fact that while Egyptians remained the same for most of the dynastic era, Nubians changed.

---

posted 29 October 2004 10:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
You're making too much of the pre-dynastic relationship between Egyptians and Nubians. Yes, in pre-dynastic periods and in late dynastic periods there was some unity between the peoples but in the 2000 or so years between they were as bitter as any enemies could be(with exception to some friendly tribes of Nubians in northern Nubia).

The first mistake everyone makes when discussing the Nubians is leaving out the fact that while Egyptians remained the same for most of the dynastic era, Nubians changed. The second is the mistake of not distinguishing lower Nubians from upper Nubians(the Kushites). Lower Nubia bordered Egypt and acted as a vassal state for most of the dynastic era. Upper Nubians were not as friendly towards Egyptians and it took centuries of bitter warfare before they developed friendly relations with Egyptians.

---

Neo, could you please provide references because much of this is very different than what I understand.

First, there's always the problem with the word Nubian, since the concept wold not have existed in ancient times. But to say that Egypt and Nubia were bitter enemies needs to be qualified with dates because at times Egypt an Kush were enemies, ie when the Hykos ruled part of Egypt. Other times Egypt and Kush were allies, ie when the Kushites re-unified Egypt.

posted 29 October 2004 07:17 PM            

Can I just clear up before i comment on something that you are saying that the conclusion by Champollian Younger quoted by Diop RE: (the link quoting his book) is a conclusion he has come to about the ethnic, geographic, origin of the Egyptians based on his interpretation of the The Sestrosis I tomeb and other scenes of which was quoted immediatly before his conclusion?

Your comments seem to suggest this, but I just whant to be clear.

posted 29 October 2004 07:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by YuhiVII:
[b] Who are the "Barabras"? Do they go by a new name presently? Am not familiar with these people.

---

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 28 October 2004).][/B][/QUOTE]

Please confirm your refernece for this also. I understand the translation from French as something rather different.

\Ozzy

posted 29 October 2004 09:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Please confirm your refernece for this also. I understand the translation from French as something rather different.
\Ozzy

---

the Blemmys,who, were collectively classed at that time as "Ethiopians." The Blemmys (ancestors of the present Barabras) were a stalwart and valiant race, powerful enough to treat on equal terms with the Roman rulers of Egypt. http://www.touregypt.net/amelia/chapter12.html

In the year A.D. 297 the Roman Emperor Diocletian called in a people known as the Nobate from the oases of the western Egyptian desert, to defend the southern frontier of his Empire at Aswan from the raids of the Blemmyes, who arc probably the Beja of the Red Sea Hills. http://rumkatkilise.org/nubia.htm

posted 30 October 2004 08:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[QUOTE]The first mistake everyone makes when discussing the Nubians is leaving out the fact that while Egyptians remained the same for most of the dynastic era, Nubians changed.

---

The ancient Egyptians were NOT homogeneous. Like being American or Canadian, Egyptian wasn't nor has it ever been an monoethnic nationality. With Egyptians you have one nation with people of several different core ethnicities...

posted 30 October 2004 09:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

First, there's always the problem with the word Nubian, since the concept wold not have existed in ancient times.

---

I agree and I only use it when referring to Nubians in general. There were several different main tribes of ancient Nubians and unfortunately we can't name them all. I am aware of the Medjay, the Kushites, and the Yamites. The Egyptians referred to those groups specifically at times in their writings on Nubians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

But to say that Egypt and Nubia were bitter enemies needs to be qualified with dates because at times Egypt an Kush were enemies, ie when the Hykos ruled part of Egypt. Other times Egypt and Kush were allies, ie when the Kushites re-unified Egypt.

---

You're right that I need to be more specific. For starters, lower Nubia(or Wawat), as far as a I know, had always remained friendly to Egypt. From the earliest mentions of Kushites in Egyptian records they were described as a group of Nubians hostile to Egypt. They fought the Egyptians until probably the middle of the New Kingdom when Thutmose III subdued them and imposed heavier military occupation of upper Nubia.

quote:

---

Between the end of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the Middle Kingdom (from ca. 2134-2040 BC), political turmoil in Egypt brought an end to trading expeditions like those of Harkhuf. At the same time, major political changes must also have taken place in Upper Nubia. The name "Yam" disappears in Egyptian texts and is replaced by the name "Kush," which the Egyptians regularly modified by an adjective meaning "vile" or "contemptible." The Yamites may have been friendly to Egypt; the Kushites, who replaced them, may have been much more menacing.

---

No one knows exactly when or why the Kushites became friendly with Egypt after the New Kingdom. The efforts by Egyptian Pharoahs like Ramses II to build centers of worship for Amun around Nubia may have softened the Kushites to Egyptian assimilation. The other theory is that Egyptian governors of Kush intermarried into their line of kingship giving them some legitimacy to rule over Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

Second, to my knowledge, Egypt most certainly did not remain the same throught the pharonic period, especially Lower Egypt. A constant influx of foreigners gradually changed the landscape of parts of Egypt to the point where Upper Egyptians would have trouble understanding the language of some Lower Egyptians.

---

You can check the archives yourself to see that I'm aware of that. What I meant is that culturally, Egypt had little change throughout the dynastic period while Nubia went through many changes.

posted 30 October 2004 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

The ancient Egyptians were homogeneous.

---

...you're probably trying to say heterogeneous. (?)

posted 30 October 2004 12:17 PM            

And yet it was "Nubia" that restored "Egyptian" cultural traditions in Dynasty 25. Traditions which in some cases may have been born in "Nubia" to begin with.
Complicated relationship, isn't it? (if i recall correctly, you are fond of the Oxford History of Egypt, which in spite of its enivitable Eurocentric bias addresses the irony of the Egyptian "cultural authenticism" of the 25th Dynasty relatively honestly)

posted 30 October 2004 01:22 PM            

Ozzy, there is not tomb of Sesotris with pictures on it. The Valley of the kings was not built untill the time of Thothmoses I,and in later times it was refurnished by the Ramesside line. The term Sesotris also refers to Rameses according to some sources. Not to be confused with the 12th dyansty king Sesotris I. People often make this error but this is the case.

posted 30 October 2004 04:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[quoteYou can check the archives yourself to see that I'm aware of that. What I meant is that culturally, Egypt had little change throughout the dynastic period while Nubia went through many changes.

---

And yet it was "Nubia" that restored "Egyptian" cultural traditions in Dynasty 25. [/QUOTE]

Keep in mind that this was after centuries of assimilation by Egyptian viceroys an high priests. The Kushites themselves became "Egyptian" through intermarriage and assimilation.

By the middle of the 20th dynasty Egypt was divided again. Lower Egypt was ruled by thePharoah and Upper Egypt was ruled by local governors or High Priests when they weren't at civil war themselves. What the 25th dynasty did was restore the rulershipof the Pharoah over all lower and upper Egypt as well as restoring the unity between the Pharoahs and the High Priests of Amun. So in that sense they did bring many old traditions back but its debatable whether or not those traditions originated in Nubia. We know too little about ancient Nubia to reach a conclusion one way or the other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Which is also why the Nile Valley needs to be explored more holistically, instead of segregated.

---

posted 30 October 2004 05:37 PM            

And yet it was "Nubia" that restored "Egyptian" cultural traditions in Dynasty 25. [/QUOTE]

Neo*Geo: Keep in mind that this was after centuries of assimilation by Egyptian viceroys an high priests. The Kushites themselves became "Egyptian" through intermarriage and assimilation.

Hence the image above posted by rasol. Its not a King, its a viceroy, as the image is from Nubia, with egyptian attendants, and Nubian chieftens, giving offering.

Ozzy

posted 30 October 2004 06:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[quoteYou can check the archives yourself to see that I'm aware of that. What I meant is that culturally, Egypt had little change throughout the dynastic period while Nubia went through many changes.

---

And yet it was "Nubia" that restored "Egyptian" cultural traditions in Dynasty 25. Traditions which in some cases may have been born in "Nubia" to begin with.
Complicated relationship, isn't it? (if i recall correctly, you are fond of the Oxford History of Egypt, which in spite of its enivitable Eurocentric bias addresses the irony of the Egyptian "cultural authenticism" of the 25th Dynasty relatively honestly)

Which is also why the Nile Valley needs to be explored more holistically, instead of segregated. [/QUOTE]

Its often said in not just Egyptian records that it was the Sais kings who returned Egypt to its old traditions. They were the ones who expelled the Kushites,Who is this accounted for if the original traditions came from Nubia KUsh?

Ozzy

posted 30 October 2004 06:07 PM            

Yes, but if the name is changed from that which is used in the original letters it becomes rater confusing for those reading. I could refer to it as K17, or New Kingdom, Dynasty 19, Sety I. I linked to the images in any case which has a discription.

Ozzy

posted 30 October 2004 07:16 PM            

The Sais kings were vassals. The people who restored and brought upon the Saite Reinassance were the 25th dyansty.

We have evidence of Nubian influence in Late Period Books of the Dead and half the God's Priest of Amun were Nubian. The Upper Egyptians found commonaility with the Nubians because of the origin of Amun which some believe was of Nubian origin itself. Certainly this is what Thutmoses found at Napta around the fourth cataract,and thus the similarities.

Only the Nubians were allowed in the temples and not the Asiatic Assyrians who set up the Saite kings as vassals were not.

See Robert Morkot's The Black Pharaohs and Karol Myseliv[sp] Twilight of the Egyptians.

posted 30 October 2004 07:16 PM            

The Sais kings were vassals. The people who restored and brought upon the Saite Reinassance were the 25th dyansty.

We have evidence of Nubian influence in Late Period Books of the Dead and half the God's Priest of Amun were Nubian. The Upper Egyptians found commonaility with the Nubians because of the origin of Amun which some believe was of Nubian origin itself. Certainly this is what Thutmoses found at Napta around the fourth cataract,and thus the similarities.

Only the Nubians were allowed in the temples and not the Asiatic Assyrians who set up the Saite kings as vassals were not.

See Robert Morkot's The Black Pharaohs and Karol Myseliv[sp] Twilight of the Egyptians.

posted 30 October 2004 07:51 PM            

The Sais kings were vassals. The people who restored and brought upon the Saite Reinassance were the 25th dyansty.

Please explain, as the Upper Egypt at the time of the 26th Dynasty was occupied by Kush, the 26th Dynasty saist kings are the ones who restored the two kingdomes by pushing the (Nubians) Kush out of Upper Egypt for good. Why do this if those traditions came from that source.

PS Nieth is the patron saint of the sais kingdom, any origin theories?

PPS" Rasol, are you going to respond to the Champollion question.

Ozzy

posted 31 October 2004 05:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
Please explain, as the Upper Egypt at the time of the 26th Dynasty was occupied by Kush, the 26th Dynasty saist kings are the ones who restored the two kingdomes by pushing the (Nubians) Kush out of Upper Egypt for good. Why do this if those traditions came from that source.

---

The fact that the Kushites were driven out doesn't prove one thing or another. I think you either have your dates wrong or your source of information was misleading.

The 25th dynasty ended and the 26th began when the Assyrians invaded Thebes and drove the Kushites out of Egypt. It was the Assyrians, not the Sais Kings who drove the Kushites out.

And it was the 25th dynasty, not the 26th that reunited upper and lower Egypt and restored old traditions like the divine kingship and God's Wives of Amun. It is said that there was a golden age during the 26th dynasty as well but I'm not as familiar with what made that dynasty so special.

I also think you may be unintentionally misleading by saying that the Sais kings reunited upper and lower Egypt. You may or may not realize that while the ruiling families and governors of lower Egypt had alliances with the Assyrians, the High Priests who ruled upper Egypt allied themselves with the Kushites which is why the Kushite line of Pharoahs was looked upon as legitimate by the powers that be.

Here's the 25th dynasty in a nutshell:

Upper and Lower Egypt was disunited from the 20th dynasty to the 25th. King Shabka reunited lower and upper Egypt. At this time the Kushites were at war with the Assyrians. The Assyrians managed to conquer lower Egypt first. When the Kushites tried to regain lower Egypt they got no help from Delta Egyptians and were pushed back to Thebes and eventually expelled from Egypt.

There were a few years in the begining of the 26th dynasty that Egypt was ruled by Assyrians but the Sais Kings, who were once subdued by the Kushites and forged alliances with the Assyrians, were soon granted the priviledge of restoring the rule of one Pharoah over all lower and upper Egypt.

BTW, the Kushites were of Sudense origins and the Sais kings were of Libyan origins...

posted 31 October 2004 06:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Originally posted by rasol:
[quoteYou can check the archives yourself to see that I'm aware of that. What I meant is that culturally, Egypt had little change throughout the dynastic period while Nubia went through many changes.

---

THE kushites never became egyptians,and the ones who married egyptians stayed in egypt or were in lower nubia.THE LEADERS OF kush married within their families and most kushites in nubia,and more so in upper and SOUTHERN nubia married nubians.let's not forget as well that the napatan period were a new line of kings that came from the southwest.(GET THE BOOK ANCIENT NUBIA: EGYPT'S RIVAL IN AFRICA BY DAVIAD O 'CONNER)THE NUBIAN KINGS that freed nubia from egypt were kick out by these new more aggressive nubians in 890 b.c. starting the napatan period.IN THE MEROITIC PERIOD OF NUBIA,THEY BECAME MORE NUBIANIZED AGAIN THAN THE NAPATAN AND EVEN NAPATAN UPPER AND SOUTHERN NUBIANS WERE LESS EGYPTIAN IN CULTURE THAN LOWER NUBIANS,BUT NUBIA ALWAYS REMAIN NUBIAN IN CULTURE.

posted 31 October 2004 09:33 AM            

quote:

---

Only the Nubians were allowed in the temples and not the Asiatic Assyrians who set up the Saite kings as vassals were not.

---

Kenndo writes:

quote:

---

THE kushites never became egyptians,and the ones who married egyptians stayed in egypt or were in lower nubia.THE LEADERS OF kush married within their families and most kushites in nubia,and more so in upper and SOUTHERN nubia married nubians.

---

Neo writes:

quote:

---

also think you may be unintentionally misleading by saying that the Sais kings reunited upper and lower Egypt. You may or may not realize that while the ruiling families and governors of lower Egypt had alliances with the Assyrians, the High Priests who ruled upper Egypt allied themselves with the Kushites which is why the Kushite line of Pharoahs was looked upon as legitimate by the powers that be.

---

posted 31 October 2004 10:00 AM            

I agree that by the time Kush began a campaign in Egypt,

(“The Kushite king Piye (also called Piankhi) invades Upper Egypt and claims to be king of Upper and Lower Nubia. It is actually his successor, Shabaqo, who becomes the first true pharaoh of Dynasty 25 (ca. 712–664 B.C.) and the ruler of all of Egypt and Nubia, the largest unified state in existence at this time. Kushite rule over Egypt is brought to an end when the Assyrians conquer Egypt and the last of the great Kushite pharaohs, Taharqo, is driven from Egypt back to Napata. Although Taharqo's successor, Tanutamani, reconquers Egypt for a brief time, Egypt's Kushite dynasty essentially ends with Taharqo's death.”)

the campaign was encouraged not by simple want of territory, glory etc, but an affinity they felt with Egypt (Or Upper Egypt at the very least, I believe Upper Egypt was refered to as Lower Kush by them at some points) and their wish to restore Egypt “who was in decline:, to its previouse glory.

The reason and evolution of/for this Affinity with Egypt however is what I don’t agree with. The suggestion here is that the renewal of the traditions and religion back into a badly fragmented Egypt at this time was a returning of the ancient ideology from it original source. RE: The Nubian (Kush) (Eithiopian) origins of the “nile Valley” culture and tradition which lead to both the Egyptian and Nubian civilizations in the first place.

Which means the united Egypt and Nubian would represent for the first time in many peoples eyes here as the uniting of Egypt at its best.

As I have said before I don’t totally agree with the origins of this affinity. I do not see a continuouse relationship culturally between Egypt and Nubia, which is based on a primary cultural and religiouse history that is claimed they both came from. I do see People with a similar ethnic background, which supports a origins belief by the Egyptians of originating from the same people, who developed a civilization which ultimately culturally invaded the other which eventually became in many ways culturally almost indistinquishable, in terms of Religion, Architecture (Although many distinctive examples do exist), art, and science.

So for some the point of view is that this period of rule was indeed a reuniting of Egypt, but for others it represents an invasion from a foreign power. And not until Kush was pushed out of all of Egypt was it truly reunited as Upper and Lower Egypt. This was not achived till the 26th Dynasty when Kush was pushed back and eliminated as a threat once and for all by Psammetikhos I, who was, as has been said originally a vassals for the Assyrians.

But its not as simple as has been suggested were, Quote :There were a few years in the begining of the 26th dynasty that Egypt was ruled by Assyrians but the Sais Kings, who were once subdued by the Kushites and forged alliances with the Assyrians, were soon granted the priviledge of restoring the rule of one Pharoah over all lower and upper Egypt.

Psammetikhos I and his father, Necho I of Sais were originally involved with the Kushite ruler, Taharqo against Assyria, showing they were involved in supporting their own country Egypt against Assyria at least in the beging. They were then however captured, held and indoctrinated by the Assyrians.

Necho I and his son Psammetikhos I were returned to Egypt were Necho I assumed the position of a reginal authority under the Assyrians for the Delta.

Psammetikhos was recognized by his Assyrian overlords as King of Egypt (without substance) upon the death of his father, and ruled over Memphis and Sais, but mostly the country was controlled by the old advisories of the Nubian Kings, who had been driven back to their own land.
The weekening of the Assyrians was taken advantage of by Psammetikhos I who after Aligning himself with the daughter of a great Theaban nobleman named Mentuemhet. At that time, who held the title, "Adoratice of Amun" (God's Wife of Amun) and named his daughter as her successor. Thus gaining religiouse ties and support for his presence greater Egypt. He also took as his main wife Mehtemweskhet the daughter of the High Preist at Helioplois Harsiese S,

To deal with his delta apponants he hired foreign mercenaries, revolutionary for the Egyptians particularly in regards to the Navy, but also in regards to ties with Greece in trade. These mercenaries were used by Psammetikhos I and all future saist Kings, also in his campains to northern Nubia, whom the last true Egyptian to hold the title of Pharo “Amasis” was general in the Nubian campains. The Assyrias had no control in Egypt by his 9th year of rule. And he had total control over Egypt, and was now expanding influence south.

This period saw a renaissance in art, and archictecture, and is sometimes difficult to tell whether an artifact came from this period of time, or from the Old or Middle Kingdoms. Testimonies to this period of renaissance are readily available from a variety of sources. Including Greek historians. Although little of it exists today in the principle capitals of the Delta. For obviouse reasons.

Now I know that it has been argued before that a war with Nubia means nothing in regards to racial difference which I agree with, but it does pose the question of affinity of Egyotians and Nubia. The Saist Kings of the Delta may have come from only Lybian stock although I have not been able to confirm this to be accurate, and in fact images of these Kings have been used by people on this board as good examples of the Africaness of Egytpian kings, But regardless they had a love for Egypt and its traditions as any dynasty, and in some respects much more! Hence the golden age!!

So with this in mind why go further than removing Kushite representatives in Upper Egypt and enter Nubia with the intent of pushing the Kushite kings further back south than they had ever before been, once and for all removing any threat of Kushite rule over Egypt. The Saist Kings at least saw them as a threat. But I will admit even the Delta Kings showed unusual respect in that they seemingly stopped midway in their pursute of Kush and returned home leaving them with the southern kingdome intact.

Also if the “powers that be” looked upon the Kushite line of Pharoahs as legitimate then why was it so easy for Psammetikhos I to gain support in Theabes with religiouse leaders displacing the power of Nubian advisories, still present in Upper Egypt. I understand that the Nubian presents was not there in respects to total leadership, but if the first Sais kings were viewed as simple puppets of the Assyrians, (And viewd in such contempt)why would those powers that be so swiftly give him power, which would lead to total control. There were many other so called princes of Egypt in Upper Egypt who could have gained the support of Kush and Egypt once again, but they gained no favour with the “Powers that be"

Keep in mind that the Thebian powers were related to the Kushite Kings.

None of this supports what you say.

Many of these questions would have to answered before I could totally agree.

Ozzy

posted 31 October 2004 12:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
So for some the point of view is that this period of rule was indeed a reuniting of Egypt, but for others it represents an invasion from a foreign power. And not until Kush was pushed out of all of Egypt was it truly reunited as Upper and Lower Egypt.

---

The problem with modern sources on the 25th dynasty is that very little has been known about the Kushites until the last 30 years or so. The Kushites in the 25th dynasty felt some ethnic affinity with atleast the upper Egyptians(by this time lower Egypt was being heavily settled by ruiling families with foriegn origins).

quote:

---

At this point, the kings moved to Memphis; they became fully Egyptianized and cosmopolitanized; and, as far as we know, they returned to Nubia only for burial. If they have traditionally been portrayed by historians as "foreigners" in Egypt, they surely did not see themselves as such, despite their different ethnic, cultural and linguistic origin. In their minds Egypt and Kush were northern and southern halves of an ancient original domain of Amun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

To deal with his delta apponants he hired foreign mercenaries, revolutionary for the Egyptians particularly in regards to the Navy, but also in regards to ties with Greece in trade. These mercenaries were used by Psammetikhos I and all future saist Kings, also in his campains to northern Nubia, whom the last true Egyptian to hold the title of Pharo “Amasis” was general in the Nubian campains. The Assyrias had no control in Egypt by his 9th year of rule. And he had total control over Egypt, and was now expanding influence south.

---

Ozzy, I'm not sure if you are aware of this but one major reason why the Sais kings relied so heavily on foreign mercenaries is because there were mass desertions in the Egyptian army. Many soldiers deserted to Nubia.

Herodotus on the Egyptian Army desertions in the 26th dynasty

quote:

---

On leaving this city (Meroe), and again mounting the stream, in the same space of time which it took you to reach the capital from Elephantine, you come to the Deserters, who bear the name of Asmach. This word, translated into our language, means "the men who stand on the left hand of the king."
These Deserters are Egyptians of the warrior caste, who, to the number of two hundred and forty thousand, went over to the Ethiopians in the reign of king Psammetichus.
The cause of their desertion was the following:- Three garrisons were maintained in Egypt at that time, one in the city of Elephantine against the Ethiopians, another in the Pelusiac Daphnae, against the Syrians and Arabians, and a third, against the Libyans, in Marea. (The very same posts are to this day occupied by the Persians, whose forces are in garrison both in Daphnae and in Elephantine.) Now it happened, that on one occasion the garrisons were not relieved during the space of three years; the soldiers, therefore, at the end of that time, consulted together, and having determined by common consent to revolt, marched away towards Ethiopia.
Psammetichus, informed of the movement, set out in pursuit, and coming up with them, besought them with many words not to desert the gods of their country, nor abandon their wives and children.
"Nay, but," said one of the deserters with an unseemly gesture, "wherever we go, we are sure enough of finding wives and children." [1]
Arrived in Ethiopia, they placed themselves at the disposal of the king. In return, he made them a present of a tract of land which belonged to certain Ethiopians with whom he was at feud, bidding them expel the inhabitants and take possession of their territory. From the time that this settlement was formed, their acquaintance with Egyptian manners has tended to civilise the Ethiopians.

Herodotus Histories Part Two § 30.1, translated by George Rawlinson http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/weapons/deserters.htm

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

Now I know that it has been argued before that a war with Nubia means nothing in regards to racial difference which I agree with, but it does pose the question of affinity of Egyotians and Nubia. The Saist Kings of the Delta may have come from only Lybian stock although I have not been able to confirm this to be accurate, and in fact images of these Kings have been used by people on this board as good examples of the Africaness of Egytpian kings, But regardless they had a love for Egypt and its traditions as any dynasty, and in some respects much more! Hence the golden age!!

---

There was a brief golden age it seems under the reign of King Amose II. I have no doubt that the Sais kings were culturally Egyptianized but at this time, lower Egypt was becoming much less “Egyptian.” In the New Kingdom, the Delta had been heavily settled by Asiatics. In the late period the Delta was being heavily settled by Greeks. As good as the 26th dynasty may have been, their facilitating the settlement of more foriegnors in the Delta sped up Egypt’s inevitable decline.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

The Saist Kings at least saw them as a threat. But I will admit even the Delta Kings showed unusual respect in that they seemingly stopped midway in their pursute of Kush and returned home leaving them with the southern kingdome intact.

---

Of course the Sais Kings viewed the Kushites as a threat but you can’t ignore the fact that Egypt’s most elite soldiers didn’t fight them and in some cases joined them. Perhaps the threat the Saites percieved was the fact that the Kushites worshipped Amun which gave them legitimacy in the eyes of the High Priests in Thebes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

Also if the “powers that be” looked upon the Kushite line of Pharoahs as legitimate then why was it so easy for Psammetikhos I to gain support in Theabes with religiouse leaders displacing the power of Nubian advisories, still present in Upper Egypt.

---

It was simple. Psammetikhos won the support of the High Priests by sending his daughter to be a God’s Wife of Amun. This ensured that the High Priests would not be effectd by the change of power between the Kushites and the Saite kings.

Now I am not arguing that the Kushites’ and Egyptians’ affinities were due to the belief that Egyptian culture has origins in Nubia. I haven’t concluded one way or another on that issue. However, for whatever reason, the Kushite kings that emerged in the late periods did share a great cultural affinity with Egyptians.

posted 31 October 2004 01:11 PM            

1. Rasol qotes diop: Diop continues:
{p. 49} Champollion's conclusion is typical. After stating that these sculptures can serve as vignetles for the history of the early inhabitants of Europe, he adds, "if ever one has the courage to attempt it." Finally, after those comments, he presents his opinion on the Egyptian race:

2. Rasol quote: Why you point me to a website which quotes this passage exactly as it is referenced in Diop's African Origin of Civilisation is beyound me? How does this help your argument (whatever it is)

3. Rasol quote: Lot's of images are unique in one respect or another. But there are other images of Nubians and Egyptians portrayed essentially identically in terms of phenotype, which is the point...to say otherwise is to compound one fib by telling another:

4. Rasol quote: Champollion the Younger's remarks, quoted earlier, are in regard to the Table of Races bas reliefs on Sesostris Tombs, NOT the Ramesis III scene. And yet, his conclusions regarding the ethnic affinity of Egyptians and other Africans might just as well have been reached by viewing the Rameses III image, or indeed other scenes. Different Table of Races scenes..similar conclusions as to their meaning, and reached by different observers.

5. Rasol Quote: Observations that the ethnic iconography and ideology of the Kemetians shows their affinity with other Africans are based on several historical texts, and images, such as the different Table of Races scene in Sestrosis tomb that led Champollian Younger to conclude:

6. Quote : Rasol: Diop did not need to interpret Champollian the Younger's conclusions, neither do I....he only needed to print them. Champollian the Younger spoke for himself. Why would we need to reinterpret him? The only one trying, and failing miserably to do that, quite simply, is you.

7. AND FINALY THIS: Quote Ozzy: He simply points out that the representations of the Egyptians in The Sestrosis I tomb are the same as the other Egyptians in all tombs,

Response =Quote: rasol, Uh no that is not all he is saying. Again you are in denial. You are purposely leaving out the most important part of his letter...namely his conclusions

I will start by saying I do not have a copy of Diops book from which these statements are taken but the page numbers seem to confirm they are taken in the correct order, please correct me if I am wrong.

Next with that said, it is time to point out to all those who use these frequesntly posted quotes that the so called conclusion of Jean-François Champollion, (the younger) as quoted by Diop is not in relation to the previously quoted Letter 13 (Thèbes (Biban-el-Molouk), le 26 1829 may.)

It is in fact as Diop points out, although without making it clear that it has nothing to do with the previously quoted letter, and infact making seem so, a NOTE SUMMARY ON L'HISTOIRE D'ÉGYPTE, WRITTEN IN ALEXANDRIA FOR VICEROY, AND GIVEN TO HIS HIGHNESS AT NOVEMBER 1829.) presented to Pasha of Egypt.

They were written at different times, and nowere does this conclusion appear in letter 13 or immediately follow.

And don’t say you didn’t say it was rasol as all quotes particualry number 7 deminstrates this.

Apart from the misleading connection made between the two very separate letters, it detracts from Champollion statements, which are too often convieninently left out of the letter. And also mistranslated.

Firstly the most common left out parts are,

At first I had thought, from copies of these bas-reliefs published in England, that these peoples of different races led by the god Horus holding his shepherd's staff, were indeed nations subject to the rule of the Pharaohs

Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families.
According to the legend itself, they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians and we learn at the same time the great geographical or ethnographical divisions established during that early epoch

A misquote: We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise. (This statement is made in comparing the images to other such murals of races. Re: The Egyptians in tomb Sesostris I are represented alike to other Egyptian representation in other tombs, and the Africans are represented in other tombs alike to those Africans in the Sesostris I.tomb ) Not that the Egyptians and africans are depicted alike, which is sometimes inferred by emiting the previouse paragraphs which establishes the contextion to the other tomb images when he makes this statement.

Next Diop replaces the French word nègres with black and blacks. And yes I know that Diop argues that it means the same thing, but that is another debate. The point is that he replaces the original intent of the author in that there is a distinct difference to the French word for black = noir and Negos = nègres, This change negates Champollions opinion of the ethnic relationship of the groups he is describing. You can research Chanpollions opinion of the word Negro yourself. I don’t think I have to spell out the relationship with this word change in regards to connecting other works of arts, the word black being used as apposed to negro, and the word usage of the time.

Some words are also left out. Compare the following from diop to the original.

Diop: belong to four distinct families. The first, the one closest to the god, has a dark red color, a well-proportioned body, kind face, nose slightly aquiline, long braided hair, and is dressed in white. The legends designate this species as Rot-en-ne-Rome, the race of men par excellence i.e., the Egyptians. There can be no uncertainty about the racial identity of the man who comes next: he belongs to the Black race, designated under the general term Nahasi. The third presents a very different aspect; his skin color borders on yellow or tan; he has a strongly aquiline nose, thick, black pointed beard, and wears a short garment of varied colors; these are called Namou. Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou

Chanpollions Translated from the French: But pertaining to four quite distinct families. The three first (closest to the god) are of _ dark red color _, well proportioned size, soft aspect, slightly aquiline nose, long hair twisted, clad in white, and their legend indicates them under the name of RÔT-EH-NE-RÔME, _ the race of the men _, the men par excellence, IE-with-statement to the Egyptians. The three following presents a quite different aspect: skin color of flesh drawing on the yellow, or dyed freckled, strongly aquiline nose, beard black, abundant and finished at a peak, clothing of varied colors runs; those bear the name of NAMOU. There cannot be any uncertainty on the race of three which comes afterwards, they are _ negro _; they are indicated under the general name of NAHASI. Lastly, the last three have the colour of skin which we name color of flesh, or white skin of the most delicate nuance, the right or slightly vaulted nose, the blue eyes, beard fair or russet-red, high and very-slim size, vêtus of ox skins still preserving their hair, true savages tattooed on various parts of the body; they are named TAMHOI.

Apart from Chanpollions saying there are three of each group, which is wrong, he makes a distinction of the Egyptians and the other Africans by using a word which has significant meaning in his time of racial destinction as negro. You will also notice that the combination is changed in Diops quote:

Note: In light of Diops argument that negro means black race, it may seem reasonable to change black race from Negro, but again as the words are particualy different to the authtor and his time it misrepresents the original meaning. A further search of works by Chanpollions, can esrtablish his exact meaning.

Diop: Rot-en-ne-Rome, Nahasi, Namou, Tamhou -

Original letters: Rot-en-ne-Rome, NAMOU, NAHASI, then Tamhou, just as it is with all of them.

This makes statements like this from Wally very silly. The images of the tomb confirm the original Champollion descriptions.

Wally says: According to Jean-François Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking about these 'mural of the races' he had seen in various tombs (and unlike the mural on my web site, the ones Champollion found were structured in a racial hierarchy; 1) Egyptians 2) Other Africans 3) Semites 4) Europeans. This blew Champollions mind:

It goes to show how misinformation is carried on without question. Again I don’t know if this was originally misquoted by Diop or if those sites which use his quotes are the ones that have misquoted, but the fact is it is misrepresented.

For a copy of the letters in French go here and check for yourselves. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/1/0/7/6/10764/10764-8.txt

I know what you guys think of Diop, and regardless of what you think I have respect for the man as well, but if no one ever questioned, men like him would never have started it on the right track in the first place. Every thing needs to be questioned to achieve the answers.

This misrepresentation is what I am talking about when I say it does damage. Who is going t believe anything you have to say if they know that key pieces of the affinity argument are based on fabricated information. It will fail just as the Eurocentric aregument has, because it was based on the same misinformation.

Ozzy

posted 31 October 2004 01:58 PM            

Im aware of the defection, and its not the only one in Egyptian history,

But are you trying to tell me that they saw the Nubians as their homeland, or they had more affinity with the Kushite kingdom than they did with the new ruling power comming from the delta? They had been treated well under the rule of the Kushites. They had recieved less favoirable treatment from the new rule.

Not the only time in history!

Also if this affinity was so strong why did, Kushite king Piye return to Kush after establising unity?

Quote neo*geo There was a brief golden age it seems under the reign of King Amose II. I have no doubt that the Sais kings were culturally Egyptianized but at this time, lower Egypt was becoming much less “Egyptian.” In the New Kingdom, the Delta had been heavily settled by Asiatics. In the late period the Delta was being heavily settled by Greeks. As good as the 26th dynasty may have been, their facilitating the settlement of more foriegnors in the Delta sped up Egypt’s inevitable decline.

Brief? Historians describe a renasonce as lasting most of the Dynasty. The Kushite kings lasted 100 years only and its being toted as a great age for egypt.

Im also not sure that the reason for the decline was simply the presence of foriegnors. During the 26th Dynasty the kings made advances into teritory they hade never before occupied. The foriegn troops from Greece were instrimental in some of this. And even after the revolt in Amasis time, even through the revolt was due in some ways to Greek and Cyrene foriegn troops the threat was not from those who were present in the delta. It came from as always the north east.

Amasis, controled were foriegnors settled, were they traded. It was not possible to enter Egypt to trade without going through first.

The treat was the same as it had been for hundreds of years. And the deEgyptianizing of the Delta, I doubt very much, No invasion ever DeEgyptianised the people, do you feel that the Delta were less resistant or that any of the Saist Kings moved towards a dfferent ideology?

Ho do you establish this?

Quote neo*geo.It was simple. Psammetikhos won the support of the High Priests by sending his daughter to be a God’s Wife of Amun. This ensured that the High Priests would not be effectd by the change of power between the Kushites and the Saite kings.

So power was the driving force with the High Priests who ruled upper Egypt. Not some affinity they felt with Kushite kings when they were given legitimacy as the true line of Pharoahs.

They alined themselves with whoever they felt would mantain their peower.

This is why thier acceptance of the Kkushite kings is by no means evidance of an affinity.

They moved just as quick with Psammetikhos. Giving him legitimacy.

Ozzy

posted 31 October 2004 03:25 PM            

Regarding:

quote:

---

Wally says: According to Jean-François Champollion the Younger, in his 13th letter to his brother, remarking about these 'mural of the races' he had seen in various tombs (and unlike the mural on my web site, the ones Champollion found were structured in a racial hierarchy; 1) Egyptians 2) Other Africans 3) Semites 4) Europeans. This blew Champollions mind

---

I assume this is you quoting Wally, but from where? That does not seem to be a part of this conversation.

As for Champollion the Younger's comments and conclusions and Diop's remarks about them, they are crystal clear. The only one pretending to not understand them, is you.

What you just did was waste our time with 500 words of 3rd rate attempts to "spin", and even after all that....you still completely evaded dealing with the conclusions.

quote:

---

It goes to show how misinformation is carried on....

---

If you want to gain some credibility do this: Write a one paragraph post addressing the Champollion the Younger's conclusion in his letter, period. Don't mention Diop, Wally or anyone else....just address the conclusions.

posted 31 October 2004 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
It was simple. Psammetikhos won the support of the High Priests by sending his daughter to be a God’s Wife of Amun. This ensured that the High Priests would not be effectd by the change of power between the Kushites and the Saite kings.

Now I am not arguing that the Kushites’ and Egyptians’ affinities were due to the belief that Egyptian culture has origins in Nubia. I haven’t concluded one way or another on that issue. However, for whatever reason, the Kushite kings that emerged in the late periods did share a great cultural affinity with Egyptians.

The Saite kings did ally themselves with the Assyrians against the Kushites but the also seem to have embraced Egyptian culture.

---

great points,except for one thing,herodutos
was wrong when he said the egyptians civilized the kushites just because a few went to lived in nubia.as we all know nubia was highly civilized already and culture wise begame more advanced than egypt again.

posted 31 October 2004 03:50 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B] Why did native Egyptian soldiers have such weak morale and commit the treasonous act of defecting to a “foreign” enemy?

Im aware of the defection, and its not the only one in Egyptian history,

---

Of course and several other defections happened throughout the 26th dynasty. In the case quoted by Herodotus, they were elite soldiers. The "left hand of the King." These weren't mercenaries, these soldiers are supposed to have been the most loyal and well trained of all Egypt's army.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
But are you trying to tell me that they saw the Nubians as their homeland, or they had more affinity with the Kushite kingdom than they did with the new ruling power comming from the delta?

They had been treated well under the rule of the Kushites. They had recieved less favoirable treatment from the new rule.

---

A large number of the Egyptian army at this time was made up of Egyptians of Libyan stock so I doubt they all saw Nubia as an ancestral homeland.

I really can't answer why these troops would desert in such significantly large numbers. It certainly shows that while Egypt may have been united geographically during the 26th dynasty, they were still fragmented politically.

No Egyptian wanted to die outside of Egypt so for Egyptians to willingly defect from their homeland is and settle in Nubia the Kushites had to have had strong cultural affinities. After the heavy Egyptianization of the 25th dynasty its not unlikely that Nubia during the 26th dynasty was culturally little different from Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
Also if this affinity was so strong why did, Kushite king Piye return to Kush after establising unity?

---

Unlike ethnically Nubian Pharaohs in earlier dynasties, the Kushites had their own nationalistic idenity.

Also, despite their affinties with Egyptians they truly believed they were sons of Amun and Nubia was the center of the Amun cult.

The Kings that followed Piye established capitals in Egypt and were more "Egyptianized" but they still were crowned and buried in Kush.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
Brief? Historians describe a renasonce as lasting most of the Dynasty. The Kushite kings lasted 100 years only and its being toted as a great age for egypt.

---

What does the length of the dynasty matter? In the century or so that th Kushites ruled all of Egypt they built an empire that stretched from Sudan to Syria and possibly parts of southern Europe. Taharka was a great military leader as a general but he was defeated as a Pharoah. He is mentioned in the bible because he saved the Jews from being slaughtered by the Assyrians.

Aside from the military accomplishments there was a renaissance for art and religion in Egypt during the 25th dynasty. Many traditions that were forgotten about were revived.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
Im also not sure that the reason for the decline was simply the presence of foriegnors.

---

I think it was a major reason for Egypt's gradual decline. The heart of ancient Egypt's population has always been in upper Egypt. This was the cultural and religious center of ancient Egypt. From the Middle Kingdom onward, the Delta was steadily settled by Libyans, Asiatics, and later Greeks. A lot of these foriegn settlers developed powerful ruiling families. Some foriegnors became Egyptianized, and others maintained cultural and political ties to their homelands making lower Egypt always more difficult to govern. It's no coincidence that foriegn invasions always began in the north. The foriegn invasions became more numerous in the late periods...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
During the 26th Dynasty the kings made advances into teritory they hade never before occupied.

---

The same can be said about the 25th dyanasty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
The treat was the same as it had been for hundreds of years. And the deEgyptianizing of the Delta, I doubt very much, No invasion ever DeEgyptianised the people,

---

I didn't say they were deEgyptianized through invasions. I said they were deEgyptianized through immigration. As Egypt became more fragmented its unlikely that they could assimilate foriegnors at the rate they did in earlier dynasties. And as these foriegnors gained political power do you think they always had more loyalty for Egypt?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
do you feel that the Delta were less resistant or that any of the Saist Kings moved towards a dfferent ideology?

---

I feel that foriegnors in the Delta may have been less resistant to invasions from their ancestral homelands. Probably the only major ally the Kushites had in lower Egypt against the Assyrians were the Sais ruiling families who were of Libyan origins(who eventually switched sides). I would imagine there were some Asiatic rulers in lower Egypt who were sympathetic to the Assyrians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]

So power was the driving force with the High Priests who ruled upper Egypt. Not some affinity they felt with Kushite kings when they were given legitimacy as the true line of Pharoahs.

---

Power was the reason that the High Priests helped establish an "Egyptian" line of Kushite Pharoahs. The struggle for the High Priests to maintain their power and wealth is one of the reasons for the disunification of upper and lower Egypt between dynasties 20 and 25.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
They alined themselves with whoever they felt would mantain their peower.

---

I disagree. I'm sure the Sais Kings had legtimacy. As you yourself pointed out, they went all out in embracing traditional Egyptian culture in the same fashion as the Kushites. They didn't ally themselves with the Persians, the Assyrians, or the Greeks. They had an interest in maintaining Egyptian culture and were willing to accpet Pharoahs who shared their ideology.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
[B]
This is why thier acceptance of the Kkushite kings is by no means evidance of an affinity.

They moved just as quick with Psammetikhos. Giving him legitimacy.

---

Just as quick? Psammetikhos needed the Amun Priests more than they needed him. He knew that without their support he would have little legitimacy as Pharoah over all Egypt so he gave them his daughter.

Again I'd like to emphasize the point I'm making. It's clear to me that the Kushites in the late period(not the earlier periods) had simultaneously held a strong nationalistic identity while also maintaining strong cultural ties with Thebes.

I don't know where these cultural ties began and I haven't concluded one way or another that the ancient traditions brought back by the Kushites had originated in Nubia.

I'm not exactly sure where you stand on this issue Ozzy but the Egyptian military desertions alone make a pretty strong case that Nubia in the late period had close cultural affinities with Egypt. Especially considering the fact that Egyptians didn't wish to die away from their homeland. Could you name any other place where these defectors would desert to other than Nubia?

posted 31 October 2004 03:58 PM            

quote:

---

No Egyptian wanted to die outside of Egypt so for Egyptians to willingly defect from their homeland is and settle in Nubia the Kushites had to have had strong cultural affinities.

---

posted 31 October 2004 04:15 PM            

1. There is no "conclusion" to the Jean-François Champollion the Youngers Letter 13 (Thèbes (Biban-el-Molouk), le 26 1829 may.)as aserted by you, and Diops quotes.

2. The so called conclusion inserted in the middle of letter 13 is an unrelated letter writen months later to the Pasha of Egypt. And is not a conclusion based on the letters.

It is inserted to misleaingly suggest to people that Champollion came to a conclusion other than the descriptions he gave in his letter, descrriptions which were also falsified.

3 The translation of the letter 13Thèbes (Biban-el-Molouk), le 26 1829 may.)is incorrectly translated by Diop and misleading in a number of ways.

3.1 The word Negro is replaced with the word black. Making significant difference to the Authors descriptions.

3.2 Other less significant words are replaced as well.

4.Diop replaces the original recorded possition of the races By Champollion to

1, Egyptians, 2 other Africans, 3 Semites 4 Europeans.

replacing the original formation writen by Champollion of.

1 Egyptians, 2 seemites, 3 other Africans, 4 Europeans.

Leading to even more misleading comments like the wally statement claiming they were "structured in a racial hierarchy".

You can do as you accuse others of doing, and go into denial, move in for more insults to avoid or change the subject, or you can check the information I have presented.

And may I appologise for my lack of gramatical writing skills, and I am so sorry they do not come up to your standards.

But it does give you something to atack rather than the issue. Something you pointed out to a young guy not that long ago, those who do not have an argument to present attack the person.

If anyone can show me that my translations are not correct, Ill leave and never come back.

If not debate my evidance not my writing skills.

Ozzy