posted
I've been reading essays by Mr. Assante, Bernal, Grisso as well as those arguments presented by Lefkowitz, Mary Ann Ross etc...
I do have a few questions for each side, but I will begin by posing a couple to the Afrocentrics:
1) How do you respond to the fact that Ancient Egyptians refered to themselves as "Just right". Being not as light as Asiatics, and not as dark as Nubians.
2) In your argument about the Ancient Egyptian being "Black", how do you explain the Classical Coptic art, which clearly represents skin tone (Due to some figures being shown as darker or lighter than others), as the much argued Reddish-Brown/Tan. Considering, this was before the influx of the "Arabs" - the Afrocentric basis for the lighter skin of current day Egyptians.
2-b) I take it you then dispute Medieval Scholars who firmly state that while Arabs did pour into Egypt, the vast majority of the populace was and still remains "Egyptian". Islam was not thrust upon Egypt by the influx of a massive amount of Arabs but rather, the majority of the population had converted within 200 years.
posted
Nersesi, If you hang around here long enough you will notice that most of these guys are not interested in ancient Egyptian history. they are flaming black radicals that want to use your history to make modern political points. Some of the things they do are obvious, one of their favorites is ...if it could be true then it is true. the other is that anything that doesn't prove their point must be a fake. They are fond of talking about the evil european stealing their heritage which is just another cop out. Most of them are very ill informed in history but very well informed in black politics. Good luck.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
km;kmem;kmom - black kemu - black (m) keme.t - black (f) > hime.t keme.t - "black woman" > himu.t keme.t - "black women"
Km used as a noun keme.t - any black person, place, or thing A determinative is used in order to be more specific keme.t (woman) - "the Black woman"; ie, 'divine woman' keme.t (cow) - "a Black cow" - ie, a 'sacred cow' kem - a black one (m) keme.t - a black one (f) kemu - black ones (m) kemu.t - black ones (f) kemeti - two black ones
Used as Nationality (literally): Sa Kemet - a man of Black (an Egyptian male) Sa.t Kemet - a woman of Black (an Egyptian female) Rome.t Kemet - the people of Black (Egyptians) Kemetou - Blacks (ie, 'citizens') Kememou - Black people of Black
Bright, Light, and pretty much White deshr.t - any red(white) person, place, or thing A determinative is used in order to be more specific deshr.t (woman) - "the Red(white) woman"; ie, 'evil woman' deshr.t (cow) - "a Red cow" - ie, the 'devil's cow' deshr - a red one (m) deshr.t - a red one (f) deshru - red ones (m) deshru.t - red ones (f) -- White or light-skinned people; devils deshreti - two red ones ....
I have more from the Kememu themselves, if you need it.
quote:1) How do you respond to the fact that Ancient Egyptians refered to themselves as "Just right". Being not as light as Asiatics, and not as dark as Nubians.
Can you give textual data to support this conclusion? Egyptian art work through the Old Kingdom untill the Middle and New Kingdom was not meant to convey realism. In reality the individual tomb paintings show people from light to dark brown. Most likely the population of Egypt varied from light to dark brown with reguards to geographic distribution.
You will also find tomb depictions of Nubians shown in the same reddish brown tone and also in varying tones.
quote:2) In your argument about the Ancient Egyptian being "Black", how do you explain the Classical Coptic art, which clearly represents skin tone (Due to some figures being shown as darker or lighter than others), as the much argued Reddish-Brown/Tan. Considering, this was before the influx of the "Arabs" - the Afrocentric basis for the lighter skin of current day Egyptians.
Classical Coptic icons is very hard to use as realistic due to Byzantine influence of art canons. Various Coptic monestaries across parts of Egypt have been remodled from their various periods. During the Islamic period many were destoyed from their original foundations.
Foreign influx exist in Egypt well before the arrival of the Arabs starting with various Asiatic captives in the Old Kingdom to migrants of Bedouins around the 8th dyansty. These population movements within Egypt are recorded in the Instructions of Me-ri-ka-re and Tales of Sinuhe around the First Intermediate period and later.
During the Islamic era various migrants of Syrian Christians,Armenians,Circassian,bedouin Arabs,Greeks,and even Nubians came to live in parts of Cairo. Definately the city dwellers in Cairo were effected by these migrations of people.
The less mixed Egyptians are the Sai'idi and Fellahin living in parts of Middle and Upper Egypt,and most of these people are light brown to dark brown with varying hair textures.
Before this period Greek intermarriage between Egyptians in various parts of Egypt was quite common. This is well documented by papyri contracts between Egyptian and Greeks. Read the book Egypt After the Pharaohs by Alan K. Bowman He documents this. Only two areas where Greeks could not intermarry and that was Naucratis because Greeks from here went to mainland Greece.
quote:2-b) I take it you then dispute Medieval Scholars who firmly state that while Arabs did pour into Egypt, the vast majority of the populace was and still remains "Egyptian
Which Medieval scholars stated this? Al-Jahiz,an Arab writer from Basra, grouped the Egyptians into the same category as Zanj and other black Africans. Writers like al-Maqrizi stated the diversity of the Egyptian population. Read the following:
"Maqrizi and 'Abd Al-Latif' had already noted this in the fourteenth century, and any traveler who gets as far south as Aswan can see it for himself.
"The Saidi or Upper Egyptian, who lives in a drier and hotter climate, is taller, more bronzed, vigorous and muscular than the fellah of the Delta.
''It is rare that one encounters persons with a light complexion or ruddy complexion, the children are in general spare, deformed, and lack the freshness of complexion. Most of the men begin to improve in looks after the age of twenty. The inhabitants of the Said have a slenderer body, a drier temperature and a darker complexion; wrote 'Abd' al-Latif in his account of Egypt."
page 67
The Egyptian Peasant Henery Ayrout Habib Becon Press
quote:Islam was not thrust upon Egypt by the influx of a massive amount of Arabs but rather, the majority of the population had converted within 200 years.
Nobody is aruging this. The transition from Christianity or traditional religions was a slow gradual process. The inhabitants of urban areas converted faster than rural areas in Upper Egypt. Even Christianity did not win full support in Upper Egypt. Enclaves of people praticing traditional religion continued to exist untill well into the Islamic era. Even today vestiages of folk traditions continues with the rural Sa3eadi people in Upper Egypt.
posted
Quote: ------ Can you give textual data to support this conclusion? Egyptian art work through the Old Kingdom untill the Middle and New Kingdom was not meant to convey realism. In reality the individual tomb paintings show people from light to dark brown. Most likely the population of Egypt varied from light to dark brown with reguards to geographic distribution. -------
Snipet from Ann Macy Roth, Associate Professor, Egyptology, Howard University:
["The contention that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. Like most of us, it had never occurred to me that the ancient Egyptians were any color in particular. Neither black nor white seemed an appropriate category- -they were simply Egyptian. This view, in fact, is probably the one held by most Egyptians themselves, both ancient and modern. As we know from their observant depictions of foreigners, the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as darker than Asiatics and Libyans, and lighter than the Nubians, and with different facial features and body types than any of these groups."]
I apologise for lacking actual links to translated stele/papyrii/what-not that would possess examples of the Ancient Egyptian differentiating himself from the Nubian and Asiatic, but I trust such examples must be numerous.
-------
quote: ----- Classical Coptic icons is very hard to use as realistic due to Byzantine influence of art canons. Various Coptic monestaries across parts of Egypt have been remodled from their various periods. During the Islamic period many were destoyed from their original foundations. -----
Various Coptic monastaries across parts of Egypt however have remained the same during the Islamic rule that they predated. At least one is still in use today, St. Anthony's. (Which, by the way, is in Upper Egypt)
My question however still remains, assuming there is infact, Byzantium influence on Coptic art (and not Vice Versa, as we know that the Cross, and certain pictures that very common today such as Mary holding Jesus, are adaptations of the Ankh and Isis holding Horus), what would be reasoning of drawing of differentiation by rendering someone darker if they really weren't? http://www.snc.edu/norbertines/mosesblack.html
quote: ----- Please read the article carefully because it says that Mediterranean lineages in modern Egypt could be due to mixing with Greeks. ----
I did sir. As you can note, the smallest percentage mixture is that of the Greeks, and only really relevant to the Northern Delta.
I will now endeavour to relocate the article about the Greek Historian who visited Egyptian and classified the population. (A fantastic article where he classifies the Population of the Lower Egypt as consisting of Egyptians (most numerous), Mercenaries, and "Alexandrites" - The Macedonian/Greek admixture).
My main reason for linking the article however was to note the conclusions drawn that the Northern Egyptian did vary significantly from the Southern Egyptian. Both did vary, by differing amounts, From their Neighbors. Asiatics and Nubians.
Again, my purpose is not to argue that Egyptians were white, or arabs or any such grouping. But that it is rather obvious they were "whiter" in the North and "darker" in South, the mix since the conquest of the North by the South, would have made it impossible to classify the Egyptian as white, or for that matter, black.
The matter is interesting to me considering my father, is originally from the Sa3ed (Bani-Swef) and hence has some what is referred to "Black" features. (Broader nose, fuller lips, etc...) - Whilst my mother, is from Delta Area (Family from Alexandria, and before that Fayum if I'm not mistaken) - is very very very "White".
Interestingly enough.. I turned out some sort of middle bronze -
posted
btw: The "just right" comment comes from Ann Macy Roth. She is not quoting an Egyptian text nor interpreting one, beyound the somewhat trite observation which could be made of any people(s)...ie they see themselves as just right. I found Roth's article whiny and banal, as has been discussed many times before, now. She represents an old garde that sees itself as under assualt and is trying to find a way to compromise and ward off...well, intellectual extinction. Same goes for Lefkowitz. m2c
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 21 January 2005).]
posted
ok, i found it: "They considered themselves, to quote Goldilocks, "just right."
That certainly settles that.
* note, the idea of symbolic color is quite clear to ws.t egyptology when the images are pitch black. [tut's actual mummy was also claimed to have had its actual skin blackened by the embalming process]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: btw: The "just right" comment comes from Ann Macy Roth. She is not quoting an Egyptian text nor interpreting one, beyound the somewhat trite observation which could be made of any people(s)...ie they see themselves as just right.
Nerhesi, I think the above statement is the key behind this so called "debate". Roth's are her own opinion, at least until she produces evidence that Egyptains viewed their skintones to be perfectly between Asiatics and Nubians.
Just check some of the recent topics on this forum. There's no shortage of discussions on this topic. Look closely and you'll find some trends. Some people support their arguments using (for example):
The Egyptian language Genetic studies Egyptian and other ancient texts, etc
Others simply spout off their opinions (over and over again), for example, "everybody knows" or "that's ridiculous ..." or "these people don't look like..."
We get nowhere with these kinds of discussions. I for one can appreciate that you did post your sources, but we've seen them before. The next step would be to show us how Egyptians saw themselves a mid point between two groups. You've stated it and shown a source. Now demonstrate how it's true.
quote:Snipet from Ann Macy Roth, Associate Professor, Egyptology, Howard University:
["The contention that the Ancient Egyptians were Black. Like most of us, it had never occurred to me that the ancient Egyptians were any color in particular. Neither black nor white seemed an appropriate category- -they were simply Egyptian. This view, in fact, is probably the one held by most Egyptians themselves, both ancient and modern. As we know from their observant depictions of foreigners, the ancient Egyptians saw themselves as darker than Asiatics and Libyans, and lighter than the Nubians, and with different facial features and body types than any of these groups."]
Did you read Ann Mary Roth's other comments about how the opinion of the modern Egyptian population should not be used in reserch to the origin of the ancient Egyptians?
Another problem I have with singular classification of Nubians is that Egyptian reliefs also show Nubians in various colors. In some tomb scenes Nubians and Egyptians are depicted in the same reddish brown shading. The Medijay are shown lighter than the average Nubian. When saying Nubians I think you should be more specific. Ethnically southern Upper Egyptians were not much different than the people south of the first cataract.
Nerhesi said:
quote:Classical Coptic icons is very hard to use as realistic due to Byzantine influence of art canons. Various Coptic monestaries across parts of Egypt have been remodled from their various periods. During the Islamic period many were destoyed from their original foundations. -----
Various Coptic monastaries across parts of Egypt however have remained the same during the Islamic rule that they predated. At least one is still in use today, St. Anthony's. (Which, by the way, is in Upper Egypt)
My question however still remains, assuming there is infact, Byzantium influence on Coptic art (and not Vice Versa, as we know that the Cross, and certain pictures that very common today such as Mary holding Jesus, are adaptations of the Ankh and Isis holding Horus), what would be reasoning of drawing of differentiation by rendering someone darker if they really weren't? http://www.snc.edu/norbertines/mosesblack.html[quote]
Because by the Coptic period in various parts of Middle Egypt had Greek and Syrian admixture. Greeks settled cities like Karanis and did intermarry with Egyptians.
Plus some black populations like Ethiopians refer to Bantus and inner Africans as nug[an Amharic word meaning ''black''],but this does not mean members are not black. Even tropical Africans have assortment of colors.
Moses the Black most likely was a Southern Sudanese slave and would have been extremely dark brown like the modern Dinka populations in Southern Sudan. Southern Sudanese are even darker on average than Central Africans.
[quote]Various Coptic monastaries across parts of Egypt however have remained the same during the Islamic rule that they predated. At least one is still in use today, St. Anthony's. (Which, by the way, is in Upper Egypt)
St. Anthony is located around the Red Sea area. Many of the hermits and monks came from urbanized areas like Alexzandria and other areas during the Islamic period. The first recorded hermit in the Coptic line was St. Paul who did originate in Alexandria. St. Anthony was actually refurnished during the 14th century.
The Oasis areas were refuges for fleeing Christians during the persecution.
Many fellahin fleed from the Delta into Upper Egypt and Sudan during the Roman era to escape taxation.
Nerhesi said:
quote:quote: ----- Please read the article carefully because it says that Mediterranean lineages in modern Egypt could be due to mixing with Greeks. ----
I did sir. As you can note, the smallest percentage mixture is that of the Greeks, and only really relevant to the Northern Delta.
I will now endeavour to relocate the article about the Greek Historian who visited Egyptian and classified the population. (A fantastic article where he classifies the Population of the Lower Egypt as consisting of Egyptians (most numerous), Mercenaries, and "Alexandrites" - The Macedonian/Greek admixture).
My main reason for linking the article however was to note the conclusions drawn that the Northern Egyptian did vary significantly from the Southern Egyptian. Both did vary, by differing amounts, From their Neighbors. Asiatics and Nubians.
Again, my purpose is not to argue that Egyptians were white, or arabs or any such grouping. But that it is rather obvious they were "whiter" in the North and "darker" in South, the mix since the conquest of the North by the South, would have made it impossible to classify the Egyptian as white, or for that matter, black.
The matter is interesting to me considering my father, is originally from the Sa3ed (Bani-Swef) and hence has some what is referred to "Black" features. (Broader nose, fuller lips, etc...) - Whilst my mother, is from Delta Area (Family from Alexandria, and before that Fayum if I'm not mistaken) - is very very very "White".
Interestingly enough.. I turned out some sort of middle bronze -
Even before the Greco-Roman invasion of Egypt trickles of Asiatics,Libyans,and others came to the Delta. This effect was noticable in the Tales of Sinuhe stating that ''Like a Delta man sees himself in Swene[Aswan]'' Meaning that the two populations were already different around the Middle Kingdom.
During the Islamic period there were migrations of Bedouins into the Eastern Delta area and this is still noticeable today by Arab sur names in these areas. Most of the Christians in the Delta around the time of Amr Ibn Alas were brought inside the city gates around Al-Fustat. Although it's true that the Pact of Umar forbade the Caliphate to build houses in this area or establish settlement. After this period people did settle in the cities,and many were Christians such as Armenians,Syrians,and others. The Christians within the cities did intermarry with Armenians,Syrians and others.
During the pre-dyanstic going into the Late Period most of the population of Egypt was concentrated in Southern Upper Egypt. Areas like Luxor to Aswan where the population today is still very dark brown and many are ''black''.
Transportation was not like it was in the modern era so mixing between these two nations was not very common as it is today. During the 1950's various Sa3eadi migrated from parts of Middle and Upper Egypt into the cities. At the same time many Bahary migrated into the cities from the Delta. The modern Bahary population is larger in number due to increased birth rates as opposed to the impoverished south.
Know it's not hard to find a sa3eadi from Upper Egypt married to a Bahary from the Delta.
Plus let me point out that there is a pusedo caste system in Sa3eed with Ashraf,bedouin Arabs,craftsmen[usually a metal worker], and Fellahin[farmers usually both Coptic and Muslim] Around Aswan you have the Gi'afra[they claim desent from Arabs],Abada[Beja nomads],and Fellahin[village farmers].
Also according to Greco-Roman writer Achilles Tatius in his novel Leucippe and Clitophon in the 2nd century CE he describes the herders in the Delta to be half-caste Aethiopies.
BTW, my family is from sa3eed also. Around the Aswan area. Are you Christian or Muslim if I may ask?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
for rasshole to critize Dr Roth and lefkowitz is just plain stupid and his analysis of their position is just simply ignorant.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nerhesi: [B]1) How do you respond to the fact that Ancient Egyptians refered to themselves as "Just right". Being not as light as Asiatics, and not as dark as Nubians.
It has been repeated so many times but the proof available are:
3) Physical Evidence: - Facial reconstructions of King Tut (Discovery Channel), Nefertiti (Ditto), Natsef-Amun, Peten-Amun, etc. - St. Maurice (Upper Egyptian) statue in Germany. [If you doubt the validity of the status then I dare you to say that in Germany]
Culture: - Matriarchal Society (Just like others socities through Black Africa. Such societies throughout the Med are never mainly white) - Circumcision [Done throughout Africa] - Afro-Asiatic Language (originated in East Africa) - Kinship [Similar to other parts of Africa] - Totemism! [Is there even one white (as in the pale skin people originating from the Caucasus) that practices Totemism? ]
There is a ALOT more evidence that the Ancient Egyptians were Black or Brown (2nd Darkest Pencil Crayon in the 8 Pack/Mars Chocolate Bar).
quote:2) In your argument about the Ancient Egyptian being "Black", how do you explain the Classical Coptic art, which clearly represents skin tone (Due to some figures being shown as darker or lighter than others), as the much argued Reddish-Brown/Tan. Considering, this was before the influx of the "Arabs" - the Afrocentric basis for the lighter skin of current day Egyptians.
Explained numerous times. You should read the previous posts rather than doing only independent 'research'. Your arguments are the same as many, and they have become quite weak.
Also do note that many East Africans are Red in Skin colour. So what's your point? The only Africans in that region that are almost Black are the Sudanese.
quote:2-b) I take it you then dispute Medieval Scholars who firmly state that while Arabs did pour into Egypt, the vast majority of the populace was and still remains "Egyptian". Islam was not thrust upon Egypt by the influx of a massive amount of Arabs but rather, the majority of the population had converted within 200 years.
That would be rediculous, even today the people of Egypt differ significant from area to area. There is no way in hell a scholar would say that the Ancient Egyptians look like the modern 'Egyptians', which has been conquered several times. That's like saying the people of Pre-Colombus America are the same as modern America. BTW, who are these scholars?
Latin historian, Ammianus Marcellinus said that Egyptians were mainly Black (Sudanese) and Brown (East African/Khoisan). Brown does not mean olive coloured, or even light brown, which is a tint of brown.
Greek Philosopher, Apollodorus points out that the 'Aegyptso' are populated by the Black footed. Any sensible person would know that if one is Black footed then they are Black skinned everywhere else.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 21 January 2005).]
What it is, a lot of people who don't want to believe Egypt was a black civilization will pretend they don't understand the language, when it isn't a hard language to understand anyway. Or they will say that there are many different interpretations to a language.
There's a site that breaks down the word KMT and shows how it means 'the black land' or something like that, but I don't have the link. It has a quote from an old Egyptologist at the end...kinda showing the racists roots of the "science." Something along the lines of "we can't let these n*ggers into Egyptology." Something like that.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion: Oh, he says blacks, not the 'n' word. Nerhesi...you said something about asking questions to both sides right?
[This message has been edited by King_Scorpion (edited 21 January 2005).]
Yes,
So Nerhesi.......What questions do you have for the Eurocentrics???
Posts: 115 | From: South Bend, Indiana, US | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiousity does anyone have evidence of whether the civilisations of Mesopotamia(Sumer)--now Iraq--or India or Greece were ever dissected in terms of the varying phenotypes(facial traits and skin colour) of their inhabitants? If not, then why so?
Another question: I note that in the earliest texts in Egyptology the discussion often included terms such as "negroid" "negroid but not negro", "caucasoid", "Hamitic", "Semitic","mixed", "dynastic race" "African but not negro" but I don't get the impression that Mesopotamia, Harrapa/Indus valley, China were ever subjected to such close "racial" dissection. Any ideas on this?
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Just out of curiousity does anyone have evidence of whether the civilisations of Mesopotamia(Sumer)--now Iraq--or India or Greece were ever dissected in terms of the varying phenotypes(facial traits and skin colour) of their inhabitants? If not, then why so?
Another question: I note that in the earliest texts in Egyptology the discussion often included terms such as "negroid" "negroid but not negro", "caucasoid", "Hamitic", "Semitic","mixed", "dynastic race" "African but not negro" but I don't get the impression that Mesopotamia, Harrapa/Indus valley, China were ever subjected to such close "racial" dissection. Any ideas on this?
It's not like the 19th century guys didn't attempt to extend these name calling tactics to the far east. The early racial European categories are testament to this. These other folks just refused to allow their heritage to be highjacked, and this is why they insist their school textbooks be taught from local perspectives. The situation is changing in Africa, but I am not sure that some countries still don't put enough weight on teaching from local texts and perspectives, rather than imported material. For instance in Egypt, ancient Egypt study isn't emphasized as much as it should be, as I understand it.
quote:Just out of curiousity does anyone have evidence of whether the civilisations of Mesopotamia(Sumer)--now Iraq--or India or Greece were ever dissected in terms of the varying phenotypes(facial traits and skin colour) of their inhabitants? If not, then why so?
This is because these three civilizations are pretty diverse which would disprove that the three are pure 'Caucasoids'.
Also it would be rather easy to prove that the Dravidians and Sumerians weren't Caucasoid but rather more related to the Africans. This is because many Indians, such as K.P. Aravanan (Vice Chancellor of a university in Tamil Nadu) are actually stating that the Dravidians are related to Africans.
We know that some anthropologists tried to identify the Dravidians with what is known as “the Mediterranean race’. Such a general label which conceals gaps in our knowledge of anthropology is indeed confusing -- I had said dangerous, since it could suggest an interpretation of the concept of race in terms of geographical demarcation, whereas the notions of race, when stripped of certainly accessory details boils down essentially to skin colour. This is the sense in which we speak of ‘black race’, ‘ white race’ or ‘yellow race’.
Consequently, it might have been less ambiguous, as some experts have done, to call that Mediterranean race the “Negroid race” , since its characteristics are precisely those of the blacks in general: an elongated skull, dark or brown skin, these two adjectives being quite often euphemisms for ‘black’ . I refer you to Alexander Moret’s description of the ancient Mediterraneans. This is the place to mention once again the fact that the ancient Greeks did not label as white the former inhabitants of North-West Africa, that is to say, of the present Magreb_Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia -- since they called the inhabitants Mauroi or ‘moors’, meaning men with ‘ a dark skin’. And Herodotus tells us that the Colchidians, a Middle East people, were as ‘Black as Egyptians”
( Notes(Loga). In Tamil there is a term ‘maRavar, maaRan’ etc a name of a group of Tamils especially in Pandiya country. It is interesting that the root ‘maRu’ also means black )
In any case, as I stated in a lecture I gave at Cairo University in February 1967, on the Foundations of Africanity or Negritude and Arabism, my professor at the Ethnological Institute in Paris, Dr. Paul Rivet, used to say: ‘ there is a ratio of 4 to 18 per cent black blood around the Mediterranean sea’. He thus referred to the Negroids of the early Paleolithic and Mesolithic - Grimaldi Man and Caspian Man -- an important group of the Mediterranean populations until the Neolithic.
African nations tend to be dissected because the population are not believing in the Eurocentric filth. Hence, the Europeans divide various ethnic groups in Africa with their 'evidence', to ensure that the Africans don't focus on destroying Eurocentrism.
[This message has been edited by Roy_2k5 (edited 21 January 2005).]
The link quoted" In any case, it was Negroid people who first occupied the valleys of Egypt, Mesopotamia and North-West India where they founded the first agrarian civilizations in the Neolithic; ‘ These first settlers of eastern valleys, wrote Alexander Moret, were Negroid peoples who came from regions in India and Africa, driven north when the forests were transformed into savannahs and later into steppe-lands.’
Horemheb and others won't like him saying that. How dare that afrocentric say that?
posted
Great links rasol. The link that showed the Berber woman really amazed me because I didn't know that their were any berbers that looked like that. Where did you get a hold of all these sources?
Posts: 30 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I hate it when people say sub-saharan african...like black people don't exist in North Africa.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Berber, somewhat like Arab is a linguistic group, and a group of people with a related culture and history.
One of the most revolutionary and controversial findings in recent anthropology is that Berber - the language, and the 1st people to speak it - originate in East Africa, and Not in NorthWest Africa.
This finding is logical and answers many longstanding questions about the Berbers such as...
* why are Berber language found only in Africa, and related to other African languages [such as Hausa and Kemetian]?
* why is NorthWest Africa the base of a language group [Berber], which appears to be completely unrelated to the Languages of SouthWest Europe [Latin]?
* why do some Berber speaking peoples physically resemble Europeans, while others are identical in appearance to Black Africans?
These people are Berbers: Siwa
Tourege
Haratin
courtesy NeoGeo.
There is every reason to believe that these peoples physically resemble the earliest Berber speaking groups.
posted
That's why I hate it when people say sub-saharan african...like black people don't exist in North Africa.
Kem-ophobic (anti black) persons rely on ignoring modern data from linguists, archeologists, and anthropologists, in order to sustain cherished biases regarding human origins.
SOY Keita: From a general evolutionary perspective, the PN2 clade trenchantly demonstrates the point that individuals/populations having a tremendous range of physical traits, the focus of traditional approaches, can have fairly recent common ancestry in terms of lineage"
There is no basis for any concept of a 'color-race' divisions in the native African population other than the observation than in concordenance with Glogger's rule, Africa's people tend towards super-tropical [blue-black] skintone in sunny equatorial regions and sub-tropical [yellowish] near both coasts. PN2 clade Africans, as well as 'pygme' and San types are the original populations of Africa. PN2 clade Africans form the base population of the Nile Valley for civilisations such as Kemet and Kush, and languages such as Afrasan and Nilo Saharan.
Europeans, like the indigenous people of China or Australia migrated out of Africa long before the origins of PN2 clade.
Therefore European people [some of whom choose to call themselves caucasians - whatever that means], are NOT idigenous to Africa.
This is what the current data tells us, and this is why some cannot accept it.
quote:Originally posted by Nerhesi: I've been reading essays by Mr. Assante, Bernal, Grisso as well as those arguments presented by Lefkowitz, Mary Ann Ross etc...
I do have a few questions for each side, but I will begin by posing a couple to the Afrocentrics:
1) How do you respond to the fact that Ancient Egyptians refered to themselves as "Just right". Being not as light as Asiatics, and not as dark as Nubians.
2) In your argument about the Ancient Egyptian being "Black", how do you explain the Classical Coptic art, which clearly represents skin tone (Due to some figures being shown as darker or lighter than others), as the much argued Reddish-Brown/Tan. Considering, this was before the influx of the "Arabs" - the Afrocentric basis for the lighter skin of current day Egyptians.
2-b) I take it you then dispute Medieval Scholars who firmly state that while Arabs did pour into Egypt, the vast majority of the populace was and still remains "Egyptian". Islam was not thrust upon Egypt by the influx of a massive amount of Arabs but rather, the majority of the population had converted within 200 years.
The sub-heading - Hapolyte-Y in Egyptians (DNA testing).
Sam W.
[This message has been edited by Nerhesi (edited 21 January 2005).]
Ask yourself Nerhesi what is black?? I think there is enough proof out there to clearly make the argument for a black Kemet. You talk about medieval scholars...well...what about ancient and classical scholar's view. Surely there is no confusion on the blackness of the Kemetian when you read the likes of Herodotus, Strabo, Diodorus, Manetho...etc..etc..not to mention the Ancient Kemetians themselves. Of course the incursions upon the ancient kemetians have changed them…especially in the north. This is not just to speak of the arab incursion but of the many that preceded this as well. Sure, you have to take this into account.. That’s like saying that although in today’s brazil the people range in a variety of complexions, however, the ancient and modern brazilian were essentially the same..
Also you must realize that the term nubian, as discussed many times before in this forum, was not used in dynastic Kemet. These nubians (southern kemetians) were actually part of kemet, while other ancient southern africans beyond kemetians borders—now, also described as nubians—are being used merely to try to show that the Kemetians were some how racially different from the so-called black Nubian .
But ask yourself Nehersi....what is black?? Do you believe that the nubian is black? That is the first and most important question..because if you believe this then you can truly begin to start putting it all together.
If the answer is no, then it would follow, by the same logic, that the Kemetians were not as well.
If the answer is yes then it follows that they were black as well when you consider that the old kingdom was founded by these southern kemetians (aka nubians, which is seldom explained as such, and I'm sure you know why). Also, most of the royal wives during the dynastic periods (the Queens), were Nubians as well..
Please free your mind and think logically. Even though the Kemetians had different hues of blackness does not mean that each hue is its own racial creation or group. It has been discussed many times before in this forum that within the so-called black african that there is a large diversity amongst them which have nothing to do with admixture (i.e. mixing w/Europeans etc.)
Just like the Meaoamerican Indians, the East Indians, the Hindus, the East Asians, Pacific Islanders, and yes even within the Europeans themselves, there is a diversity of looks within skin hues, hair textures, eye colors &shape, facial features etc...that could be dissected into all these categories that ancient african lineage is subjected to. Do you think that the Swedes, Sicilians, the Turks and the Irish, have the exact same basic look??
So again, it all boils down to how you define what is black. Also, you might find it interesting to ask yourself what is white??..and how and what makes this definition work for you.. Put one definition (methodology) against the other and see what answers you find..
Please feel free to share you methodology and answers with the group and I’m sure it would make for pretty interesting discussion..
My2c
Posts: 142 | From: University Height, NJ, USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Berber, somewhat like Arab is a linguistic group, and a group of people with a related culture and history.
One of the most revolutionary and controversial findings in recent anthropology is that Berber - the language, and the 1st people to speak it - originate in East Africa, and Not in NorthWest Africa.
This finding is logical and answers many longstanding questions about the Berbers such as...
* why are Berber language found only in Africa, and related to other African languages [such as Hausa and Kemetian]?
* why is NorthWest Africa the base of a language group [Berber], which appears to be completely unrelated to the Languages of SouthWest Europe [Latin]?
* why do some Berber speaking peoples physically resemble Europeans, while others are identical in appearance to Black Africans?
These people are Berbers: Siwa
Tourege
Haratin
courtesy NeoGeo.
There is every reason to believe that these peoples physically resemble the earliest Berber speaking groups.
Now you understand the controversy.
I never thought that people would go into such great lengths to depict all the Berbers as arab looking. That would never have crossed my mind.
[This message has been edited by efe_adodo (edited 22 January 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by efe_adodo: I never thought that people would go into such great lengths to depict all the Berbers as arab looking. That would never have crossed my mind.
efe_adodo, although the original Arab speaking people where largely Asiatics, "Arabs" are a group of people connected primarily by language. This is a popular misnomer. There are people in the Arabian peninsula, not to mention Africa, who are essentially black/tropically adapted Africans. Arabs are racially diverse, as Berbers are.
quote:Originally posted by supercar: efe_adodo, although the original Arab speaking people where largely Asiatics, "Arabs" are a group of people connected primarily by language. This is a popular misnomer. There are people in the Arabian peninsula, not to mention Africa, who are essentially black/tropically adapted Africans. Arabs are racially diverse, as Berbers are.
Plus many that have either worked in Saudi Arabia or are Syrian, Lebanese, or Iranian have told me that the Arabs in the Arabian Peninsula are mainly dark/black in skin colour. Complexion would be similar to a Dravidian or Somali.
Arabs are either 'Brown' or Black, with a few Whites/Caucasoids.
posted
People seem to have misunderstood. Particularly Roy_2K. I do not bring forth arguments by which to attack your view but merely to question for my own knowledge - to which you so vehemently responded with a very eager and defensive attitude as if you were personally afronted.
I do not possess an Background in Egyptology. In fact the closest I ever got to such was three weeks of a course at University figuring, maybe, just maybe my background would be of some help.
I quickly dropped the course after scoring the lowest mark of my life - that should teach me not to assume the History of The Ancient Near East does not revolve around Egypt and starts with some pottery and sites called Naqada and Uruk.
I do however possess a degree in CompSci and if I may be so bold as to state, I am logical to a fault. My upbringing and education allows me to do such "personal research" as you have stated to avoid any biased research results. (As you have pointed out that about some of the sources I have used).
Reading over your replies Gentleman (Excluding most of Roy_2Ks) I do have a few questions and answers.
a) You state that a lot of Egyptians escaped to Upper Egypt to avoid Roman Taxation. Hence the reasoning for "mixes". Now what reasoning do you have to assert that Lower Egypt had become "whiter" by that point? I am curious.. surely you don't mean Greek-Egyptian coupling was so common as to influence the Lower Egyptian by such a degree?
b) To answer an earlier question, I'm Coptic. I did live in Cairo for my first 10 years, currently living in Canada.
c) As to my questions to Eurocentrics.. You have posed many of them. Mummies for example, the depiction of what be called "Black" features today. Granted, they may come back with things such as the Mummy of Ramses II and other counter questions.
c-ii) I also have many questions from them as to derivation of what Greece did, or did not take from Egypt
In conclusion, I have a question.. as I always do.
How can we confirm that Lower Egypt started out as "black" as you say? I have no doubt the Upper Egyptian was much much darker than the Lower Egyptian.. but how can you place emphasis on the Civilization being "black" (Which I have no problems with, tell me what you want, they're still my ancestors, even if they were green) - but how can this emphasis be placed?
Do we know their skin was as dark as what would be considered black today? I hope this is not misunderstood. As I have stated, my view was that Egyptians were not as clear cut to any one side. An example would be the bone structure and facial features of mummies, that people will look at and say, "Hey, that is obviously Black."
Those are present today.. very common all over Egypt. So common infact, that half those facial features can be found on people that are not, what you would call today, Black.
Sa3di being a prime example. You have facial features that are common in black people, but their skin tone, or other features would probably leave 90% of the viewers saying "No.. not really black. Hrm.. I don't know what.."
I mean, obviously not white either. Hell, my father is a prime example. Broader nose, full lips.. Skin that is very dark brown. Yet.. he wouldn't be called East Indian, or Black.
I'm putting myself in a loop here. Isn't it possible, that these "black features" can exist on people who today would not be called "Black".
We all came out of Africa for god's sake! I don't think anyone is arguing that!
Sam W. PS Give me an hour or two to recover from the Afrocentric Barrage so that I may formulate my questions to the Eurocentrics
[This message has been edited by Nerhesi (edited 24 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Nerhesi (edited 24 January 2005).]
[This message has been edited by Nerhesi (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:Reading over your replies Gentleman (Excluding most of Roy_2Ks) I do have a few questions and answers.
a) You state that a lot of Egyptians escaped to Upper Egypt to avoid Roman Taxation. Hence the reasoning for "mixes". Now what reasoning do you have to assert that Lower Egypt had become "whiter" by that point? I am curious.. surely you don't mean Greek-Egyptian coupling was so common as to influence the Lower Egyptian by such a degree?
Because ancient Egyptian text from the 8th dyansty onwards states that foreign influxes from people living in Palestine began to immigrat into the Delta.
In the Tales of Sinuhe it mentions that a Delta man in Elephantine[modern Aswan]did not recognize the population in Aswan. The Delta was the furthest north of the Egyptian border and Aswan the furthest south of the Egyptian border.
Also many years of Libyan mercenaries settling in the Delta had to have an effect on the population in certain portions of the Delta. By the time the Greco-Romans got there the population was alreay very hetrogenous.
In my earlier post I quote a Greco-Roman historian in the Late Antique that called the herders of the Delta half-caste Ethiopians.
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 24 January 2005).]
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:People seem to have misunderstood. Particularly Roy_2K. I do not bring forth arguments by which to attack your view but merely to question for my own knowledge
That's fine, but just so you know, your questions contain one sided and obviously biased root assumptions. What you're doing is really more like Eurocentric reconnaissance. That doesn't mean we won't engage your questions to the best of our abilities. But we've seen feign objectivity before. It starts out polite and grows more frustrated when Eurocentric and 'Asiatic' anti-Kemetic biases are exploded.
Example: I notice you already characterised the answers to your questions as a 'barrage'. That's not a good sign. If the past is any indication, this thread will go on for 300 replies and you will end up complaining about obsession with 'race', oblivious to the fact that your started the thread to discuss precisely that. Just remember, "you asked". So don't get angry with us for answering.
[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 24 January 2005).]
posted
I don't get angry, and most of you answered. A few, I think actually only one, resorted to barking.
As I have stated, you can think of my "objectivity" as you wish. I really matters not to me, those of you choosing to be selectively obtuse or simply uncivilized I will ignore. I'm statisfying my curiousity. It really poses no benefit nor threat to me as to which agenda is satisfied
quote:I don't get angry, and most of you answered.
You're welcome.
quote:How can we confirm that Lower Egypt started out as "black" as you say?
"...late paleolithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and 20,000 years BP... These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called `Negroid,' are shared with later Nile valley and more southerly groups... Epipaleolithic `mesolithic' Nile valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key craniofacial characteristics."
(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships", History in Africa 20 (1993), page 135).
Most Egyptologists who gravitate to Martin Bernal's revised Ancient Model believe (pre-dilluvian lower Egyptians) to be negros. Gregory M. Gordon, History Professor College of Lake County, Grayslake, Illinois, U.S.A.
posted
Well then what in the hell are the Eurocentrics up in arms about if such concrete evidence is present?
Sam W. PS Different Angle for you. As you have stated above, that by the 8th Dynasty, the Lower Egyptian was noticeably "different" than the Upper Eqyptian - does that make them any less Egyptian? I mean, successes and accomplishments of the later centuries obviously were the result of Upper and Lower Egyptian involvement. But this, newer, Lower Egyptian is different? Is he any less Egyptian once we hit the Golden Age of the New Kingdom?
Curious as to your question of my Religious background. (Granted I'm not the most upstanding example of Coptic, at all). Is it indicitive of my line of questioning however? Noticeable similarities between people of a certain background asking similar questions?
quote:Well then what in the hell are the Eurocentrics up in arms about if such concrete evidence is present?
Mary LefKowitz, Not Out of Africa:
On the Origins of the Egyptians Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North. See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.
It's interesting that Mary Lefkowitz continues to be quoted by Eurocentrics, advocating a West Asian, European or 'Caucasian' Egypt, when in fact, she has conceded that point.
It's too interesting that Lefkowitz focuses on strawman issues [was Cleopatra Black?], rather than engaging the core issue of the African Origin of Kemet.
Curious as to your question of my Religious background. (Granted I'm not the most upstanding example of Coptic, at all). Is it indicitive of my line of questioning however? Noticeable similarities between people of a certain background asking similar questions? <http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/smile.gif>
I asked you this question because many Coptic expats in north America insist that the Muslim Egyptians are Arab invaders. I hope you are not of this belief.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nerhesi: I appologize if my post offended you. I thought you belonged to the same stock as Abaza, etc. I am one that does not want to see the usual discussions that appear on this forum, but rather have some new info. The question you presented were rather unfair, and is why I assumed you to belong to that stock. I shall admit that it is my fault for my post being rough, however, much of my facts that I presented are credible. I suggest you to refer to it a second time, because there are various members in this forum whom will reject my information, if it was false.
Facts that I presented: The facial reconstruction, historical, and cultural evidence to prove that the Ancient Egyptians were Negroid are actually fact. I do not have any political motives, since I am not really Black. However, this race debate has been going on for long, dispite the hard evidence presented by those that believe that Egypt is Black. All the evidence provided is not Afro-centric in nature, but actually Western.
My Reply:
quote:Do we know their skin was as dark as what would be considered black today? I hope this is not misunderstood. As I have stated, my view was that Egyptians were not as clear cut to any one side. An example would be the bone structure and facial features of mummies, that people will look at and say, "Hey, that is obviously Black."
First, Herodotus stated that the Egyptians were Black, and had woolly hair. If the Ancient Egyptian looked Greek (like many Egyptians from the North) then he would never make such a distinction. The Hebrews would have never have said that the Egyptians are the descendent of Ham, if they were not Black in complexion. The Hebrews were in Lower Egypt, hence they were specifically talking about the Ancient Egyptians in that region.
Second, the 'mural of the races' found in the tomb of Rameses III, presented the Egyptian as Black, just like the other Africans.
quote:Sam W. PS Different Angle for you. As you have stated above, that by the 8th Dynasty, the Lower Egyptian was noticeably "different" than the Upper Eqyptian - does that make them any less Egyptian? I mean, successes and accomplishments of the later centuries obviously were the result of Upper and Lower Egyptian involvement. But this, newer, Lower Egyptian is different? Is he any less Egyptian once we hit the Golden Age of the New Kingdom?
During the end of the Old Kingdom Egypt became once more a divided land. Upper and Lower Egypt was divided into various nomes[sepats] that each governed themselves and had distinct religious and cultural affiliations. The power of each nomarch even sometimes overode the power of the per-aa[pharaoh]. Anyway, after the demise of the Old Kingdom this left many people fighting for control of Egypt. You had a very power nomarch from around Middle Egypt[modern day Beni Suef] that assumed the role of the pharaoh and thus formed the 9th and 10th dyansties.
Around the same time you had nomarchs around modern day Luxor[Waset] fighting the Middle Egyptian nomarchs untill finally the Southern Upper Egyptian nomes united Upper and Lower Egypt again.
The golden age of ancient Egypt began around the 12th dyansty which most scholars speculate originate from an Aswani Egyptian father and a Nubian mother. This is supported by an Egyptian text called the Phopecies of Neferti.
Understand that the pharaohs in Egypt originated in various parts of Egypt. Most of the early pharaohs came from Upper Egypt.
See the following:
7 The First Intermediate Period,an interval of approximatley 140 years,was a time of state
decentralization as the nomarchs of Herakleopolis[Dyansties 9-10] vied for control of the
country with the remnants of the Old Kingdom rulers at Men-Nefer[Dyansties 7-8],who were
supported by ''kings'' at Geb-ti. The contrasts of this era to the Old Kingdom was recognized
by the ancient Egyptians themselves who,in later times,reffered to it as a time of distress. The
''Lamentations of Ipuwer'',a text which has been dated to the First Intermediate Period,relates : ''The land is full of gangs and a man goes to plow with his sheild.....All is in ruin,a man smites his
brother,plague is throughout the land,blood is everywhere.......The land is diminished,its rulers
are multiplied.....''[Lichtheim 1973:150-151]. The main sources for modern scholars are literary
texts like that quoted above,brief autobiographical inscriptions,the Rameseside king lists,and
Manetho,the latter two sources being far removed frok the time of the actual events. Although
reasons for this breakdown of central authority and social order are not completely
understood,the decentralization of the country was due to the rising independence of the
nomarchs,escpially those at Beni hassan,Coptos,and Herakleopolis. The Akhtoy,or
Khety,lineage of Herakleopolis was recognized by Manetho as Dyansties 9-10. In spite of the
political fragmentation,there was little interests in changing the social of ritual makeup of the
country,for the ephemeral kings of Herakleopolis sought legitimacy by being buried near the t
ombs of the kings of Dyansty 6 at Saqqara. By about 2100 B.C. the Akhtoys of Dyansty 10
controlled the northern part of Egypt while the south was held by the Inyotef and Mentuhotep
families of Thebes[Dyansty 11],who were aided by a system of shifting alliances with other
nomarchs.Although there were areas of peace and stability [e.g.,Hatnub and Sheikh
Said],fierece battles raged between the Thebans and the Herakleopolitans throughout much of
Egypt,as reported in the ''Teachings of Merikare'':
Troops will fight troops;
As the ancestors foretold; Egypot fought in the graveyard, Destoying tombs in vengeful
destruction............ I attacked This[a city north of Thebes] to its southern border......
I engulfed it like a flood..... I breached their strongholds, I captured their
inhabitants, I seized t
heir cattle.........[Lichtheim 1973:102,104]
Battles raged through Middle Egypt ,while autonomous nomarchs like
Ankhtyfy of Moalla
bragged of capturing Edufu behind the lines of the Thebans. The
destruction of the necropolis at
Abutu by the troops of Akhtoy III was an evil act that was believed to
have brought the
retribution of the gods against Herakleopolis. By the accesion of the
Theban Mentuhotep II,the
battles were won,and he installed his own officals in Herakleopolis,thereby
reunifying the land
and ushering in the Middle Kingdom Period.
page 36-37
Egypt and the Egyptians Douglas J. Brewer and Emily Teeter Cambridge University Press
[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 24 January 2005).]
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Roy_2k5: Second, the 'mural of the races' found in the tomb of Rameses III, presented the Egyptian as Black, just like the other Africans.
Mural of Races:
This is not a mural of races because it leaves out the northern peoples plus the makers of the piece had no concept of race.
It is a vignette from a book about the underworld that appears on the tomb walls of 19th and 20th dynasty pharaohs, and a text only version is on some of their sarcophagi.
As far as I know, only this version from KV11 Ramses III tomb portrays RT RMT and NHHSW as identical. The others distinguish the two, so no need to give a preponderant weight to this solo example.
Now what all renditions of the text of this vignette have in common is the ranking of RT RMT and NHHSW in the same community, KM.t.nwt. That is, both the RT RMT aka Man of Men and the NHHSW aka Southerners are members of KM.t.nwt aka Black Community and have the same creator and protector, Heru.
The DSHR.t.nwt aka Red Community composed of the AAMW aka Easterners and TMHHW aka Westerners have a different creator and protector, Sekhet.
This is a religious text about resurrection, judgement, and reward in the DWA.t aka the world after death. The HWA NBW aka white Northerners are not included and this is why it cant be a mural of so called races.
Here in one of the most sacred writings of the AE they classify themselves as black and from the same creator as the rest of the Afrcan people only marking themselves out as the perfected example of humanity and at that period in time theirs was the 1st world country, the height of advancement in comparison to all their known neighbors and competitors. Other nationalities wanted to settle in KM.t but the Kmtyw didnt want to leave KM.t for permanent residence anywhere else on earth.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though indeed many exist, we dont need paintings of jet black Kmtyw to establish them as a black people since the majority of black people are not jet black in colour.
Lets be clear about something. When RT RMT are painted as above, they are no less black than when painted as below. The text remains the same. RT RMT & NHHSW are hailed as the KM.t.nwt by Heru their creator and protector in the text of which the painting is just an illustration.
Africa is full of blacks with complexions as relatively light or dark as any of the skin tones in the painting. An African need not be jet black to be a black. The vast majority of Africans who are labeled black are of brown wood tones.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This is not a mural of races because it leaves out the northern peoples plus the makers of the piece had no concept of race.
It is a vignette from a book about the underworld that appears on the tomb walls of 19th and 20th dynasty pharaohs, and a text only version is on some of their sarcophagi.
As far as I know, only this version from KV11 Ramses III tomb portrays RT RMT and NHHSW as identical. The others distinguish the two, so no need to give a preponderant weight to this solo example.
Now what all renditions of the text of this vignette have in common is the ranking of RT RMT and NHHSW in the same community, KM.t.nwt. That is, both the RT RMT aka Man of Men and the NHHSW aka Southerners are members of KM.t.nwt aka Black Community and have the same creator and protector, Heru.
The DSHR.t.nwt aka Red Community composed of the AAMW aka Easterners and TMHHW aka Westerners have a different creator and protector, Sekhet.
This is a religious text about resurrection, judgement, and reward in the DWA.t aka the world after death. The HWA NBW aka white Northerners are not included and this is why it cant be a mural of so called races.
Here in one of the most sacred writings of the AE they classify themselves as black and from the same creator as the rest of the Afrcan people only marking themselves out as the perfected example of humanity and at that period in time theirs was the 1st world country, the height of advancement in comparison to all their known neighbors and competitors. Other nationalities wanted to settle in KM.t but the Kmtyw didnt want to leave KM.t for permanent residence anywhere else on earth.
I agree with you on all, except one point. With due respect, it is definitely and obviously a mural that depicts and labels distinct racial groups, even Amelianeau agrees with this. It is not a mural of all the races of course. It also leaves out, as does the replication in Genesis, the Sino-Asian peoples as well. The labeling of the groups, other than that of "The Men" for the Kememu, are ethnic terms. For the love of me, I still can't see how this is ever questioned, it's so obvious...
"the makers of the piece had no concept of race." Aside from the obvious contradiction of this statement by the very existence of these murals, even the most primitive of peoples (of whom the Kememu were at the opposite end, being one of the most sophisticated of peoples)are aware of racial and ethnic differences.
I think that you have, like many, confused race with "racism" - and that's a horse of a different color (joke!)
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I agree with you on all, except one point. With due respect, it is definitely and obviously a mural that depicts and labels distinct racial groups, even Amelianeau agrees with this. It is [b]not a mural of all the races of course. It also leaves out, as does the replication in Genesis, the Sino-Asian peoples as well. The labeling of the groups, other than that of "The Men" for the Kememu, are ethnic terms. For the love of me, I still can't see how this is ever questioned, it's so obvious...
"the makers of the piece had no concept of race." Aside from the obvious contradiction of this statement by the very existence of these murals, even the most primitive of peoples (of whom the Kememu were at the opposite end, being one of the most sophisticated of peoples)are aware of racial and ethnic differences.
I think that you have, like many, confused race with "racism" - and that's a horse of a different color (joke!)
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 24 January 2005).][/B]
As you know I dont mind disagreement. There may be something to TMHHW denoting an ethnicity but not so either AAMW or NHHSW and absolutely nothing remotely resembling race.
The NHHSW comprise a plethora of ethnic groups each and all distinguished by separate precise ethnonyms. The same for the AAMW whose skin colours range from darker than the Kmtw standard to as light as the lightest colouring of TMHHW.
It also seems that TMHHW only became generic after their attempted takeover of KM.t in conjunction with Libyans further to their their west, the remnants of the THHNW, and their HWA NBW aka Sea People allies. All of these have many internal ethnonyms.
Since the painting is meant to clarify situations in the afterlife and is part of a book detaling the suns journey after it sets in the west, what we see is 1. the Kmtyw as perfect humanity 2. the Aamu east of them at sunrise 3. Nile Valley folk south of them at high noon 4. the Temehhu west of them at sunset and this is why the order RT RMT AAMW NHHSW TMHHW never varies just as the order of the suns journey never varies.
The vignette is a small part of a religious text detailing the suns journey in the afterworld aka Amenti aka DWA.t. It is not an anthropological treatise though it faithfully depicts those people under the sun eligible for Osirian resurrection. The Kmtyw very well knew of the peoples they themselves labeled HWA NBW yet neglected to include them in either the text or its accompanying illustration.
I likewise respect you and your opinions though here as in other places we disagree and thats OK. In the academic world scholars disagree all the time as is proper when science is involved instead of dogma. Our disagreement is healthy as longas it doesnt devolve to immature name calling and other ad hominem attacks.
Respectful disagreement between colleagues sparks greater analysis and more research yeilding an increase in knowledge to the benefits of all.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]The Kmtyw very well knew of the peoples they themselves labeled HWA NBW
Who would be?
[/QUOTE]
OH! I though I wrote that they were the peoples north of KM.t who for the most part were whites and that the various Sea Peoples fit in this generic reference. Sorry if that wasnt clear, I thought your question was rhetorical but now I see it was a real query.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: As you know I dont mind disagreement. There may be something to TMHHW denoting an ethnicity but not so either AAMW or NHHSW and absolutely nothing remotely resembling race.
The NHHSW comprise a plethora of ethnic groups each and all distinguished by separate precise ethnonyms. The same for the AAMW whose skin colours range from darker than the Kmtw standard to as light as the lightest colouring of TMHHW.
It also seems that TMHHW only became generic after their attempted takeover of KM.t in conjunction with Libyans further to their their west, the remnants of the THHNW, and their HWA NBW aka Sea People allies. All of these have many internal ethnonyms.
Since the painting is meant to clarify situations in the afterlife and is part of a book detaling the suns journey after it sets in the west, what we see is 1. the Kmtyw as perfect humanity 2. the Aamu east of them at sunrise 3. Nile Valley folk south of them at high noon 4. the Temehhu west of them at sunset and this is why the order RT RMT AAMW NHHSW TMHHW never varies just as the order of the suns journey never varies.
The vignette is a small part of a religious text detailing the suns journey in the afterworld aka Amenti aka DWA.t. It is not an anthropological treatise though it faithfully depicts those people under the sun eligible for Osirian resurrection. The Kmtyw very well knew of the peoples they themselves labeled HWA NBW yet neglected to include them in either the text or its accompanying illustration.
I likewise respect you and your opinions though here as in other places we disagree and thats OK. In the academic world scholars disagree all the time as is proper when science is involved instead of dogma. Our disagreement is healthy as longas it doesnt devolve to immature name calling and other ad hominem attacks.
Respectful disagreement between colleagues sparks greater analysis and more research yeilding an increase in knowledge to the benefits of all.
This particular type of 'debate' should be a requirement, really. We don't disagree in principle, and our disagreement here is not really one at all.
The mural is as you describe it, and is not a treatise on race. I simply maintain that its style is based upon those documents found by Amelianeau, which are as he states, ethnological documents, with a racial ranking that lists Rmt;Nhsw;Nmhw;and Tmhw in that order always. The exception you pointed out when representing another idea, they were ranked in terms as you point out (as seen in the mural), however the visual presentation and labeling is derived from those ethnographic documents discovered by Amelianeau... I'm sure you've read his analysis.
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 24 January 2005).]
quote:Originally posted by Wally: [QUOTE]Originally posted by alTakruri: [b] As you know I dont mind disagreement. There may be something to TMHHW denoting an ethnicity but not so either AAMW or NHHSW and absolutely nothing remotely resembling race.
The NHHSW comprise a plethora of ethnic groups each and all distinguished by separate precise ethnonyms. The same for the AAMW whose skin colours range from darker than the Kmtw standard to as light as the lightest colouring of TMHHW.
It also seems that TMHHW only became generic after their attempted takeover of KM.t in conjunction with Libyans further to their their west, the remnants of the THHNW, and their HWA NBW aka Sea People allies. All of these have many internal ethnonyms.
Since the painting is meant to clarify situations in the afterlife and is part of a book detaling the suns journey after it sets in the west, what we see is 1. the Kmtyw as perfect humanity 2. the Aamu east of them at sunrise 3. Nile Valley folk south of them at high noon 4. the Temehhu west of them at sunset and this is why the order RT RMT AAMW NHHSW TMHHW never varies just as the order of the suns journey never varies.
The vignette is a small part of a religious text detailing the suns journey in the afterworld aka Amenti aka DWA.t. It is not an anthropological treatise though it faithfully depicts those people under the sun eligible for Osirian resurrection. The Kmtyw very well knew of the peoples they themselves labeled HWA NBW yet neglected to include them in either the text or its accompanying illustration.
I likewise respect you and your opinions though here as in other places we disagree and thats OK. In the academic world scholars disagree all the time as is proper when science is involved instead of dogma. Our disagreement is healthy as longas it doesnt devolve to immature name calling and other ad hominem attacks.
Respectful disagreement between colleagues sparks greater analysis and more research yeilding an increase in knowledge to the benefits of all.
This particular type of 'debate' should be a requirement, really. We don't disagree in principle, and our disagreement here is not really one at all.
The mural is as you describe it, and is not a treatise on race. I simply maintain that its style is based upon those documents found by Amelianeau, which are as he states, ethnological documents, with a racial ranking that lists Rmt;Nhsw;Nmhw;and Tmhw in that order always. The exception you pointed out when representing another idea, they were ranked in terms as you point out (as seen in the mural), however the visual presentation and labeling is derived from those ethnographic documents discovered by Amelianeau... I'm sure you've read his analysis.
[This message has been edited by Wally (edited 24 January 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]
This is the kind of debate I visit this forum for. With each new post we get a little deeper (though I'm struggling to see a real disagreement here). In the end, we all learn more. I hope more people will take this approach. Keep it up.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic