Africa and Africans in Antiquity assesses recent historical research and archaeology under way in Egypt, North Africa, the Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Whereas many European and American scholars of earlier generations believed that Egyptian contacts with Africa to the south were not culturally significant, research contained in this important collection rejects such notions. At the same time, the volume takes issue with Afrocentric scholars who argue that most Egyptians were "black" and that blacks are the rightful heirs to Egypt's past grandeur. These ten thought-provoking essays demonstrate that this large region was an ethnic and cultural mosaic in antiquity, a place where Phoenicians, Berbers, Greeks, as well as Egyptians and Nubians interacted.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Edwin M. Yamauchi, professor Ph.D. (1964) Brandeis University yamauce@muohio.edu 274 Upham Hall; 513-529-5141 Office hours: T R 9:30-12; R 1:15-2
Ancient History, Biblical Archaeology, Early Church History
The field in ancient history flourishes under the direction of Edwin M. Yamauchi, who teaches courses in ancient Near Eastern (Mesopotamian and Egyptian), Greek and Roman history, and early Christianity. He has authored and edited numerous books including Greece and Babylon, Persia and the Bible, The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor, Harper's World of the New Testament, Gnostic Ethics and Mandaean Origins, and Pre-Christian Gnosticism. A co-edited work, Peoples of the Old Testament World, received a prize from the Biblical Archaeological Society. He has recently edited Africa and Africans in Antiquity. His writings have been translated into a dozen languages.
-------------------- *** The road to happiness is close at hand! *** Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Africa and Africans in Antiquity assesses recent historical research and archaeology under way in Egypt, North Africa, the Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Whereas many European and American scholars of earlier generations believed that Egyptian contacts with Africa to the south were not culturally significant, research contained in this important collection rejects such notions. At the same time, the volume takes issue with Afrocentric scholars who argue that most Egyptians were "black" and that blacks are the rightful heirs to Egypt's past grandeur. These ten thought-provoking essays demonstrate that this large region was an ethnic and cultural mosaic in antiquity, a place where Phoenicians, Berbers, Greeks, as well as Egyptians and Nubians interacted.
posted
I found Asante's review excellent and balanced. I do feel he was a tad harsh on Snowden who, despite whatever Eurocentric bias informs him, we will ever be indebted to for his books * Blacks in Antiquity * Before Color Prejudice and the pictorial essay * Iconographical Evidence on the Black Populations in Greco Roman Antiquity all written before his disgraceful debacle in allowing himself to be used by anti-independent African thought reactionary polemicists.
I'd like Asante to produce what he asks of Snowden, a work presenting Keshite views on northern Mediterraneans. Are there enough Keshite texts from antiquity to draw up any such article?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that most of the regions, that people call North Africa, Middle East, Southern Europe/Med. Region, and The Nile Valley / East Africa / Horn Region, have had personal and intimate contact before, during, and after the Golden Age of Ancient Egypt. There was very little awareness of these peoples about continents and such modern ideas that we currently consider important. The further away one travelled from Egypt, regardless of direction, the more foreign and barbarian the natives were viewed as such. A Greek who lived in Egypt was closer to an Egyptian than an African who lived in Chad or Mali. You can think of this concept as a collection of Ven Diagrams, such as concentric circles, with some that overlap each other. To me, Egypt was and still is the most Central of all these circles, with many nearby circles touching it and overlapping. The same can be said about its people and its culture and history.
[IMG]http://images6.theimagehosting.com/Venn Diagram.3e0.gif[/IMG]
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
I'd like Asante to produce what he asks of Snowden, a work presenting Keshite views on northern Mediterraneans. Are there enough Keshite texts from antiquity to draw up any such article?
This is an interesting topic. I have deciphered many Meroitic text and I have found no commentary by the Kushites regarding the Mediterraneans. Most of these documents are concerned with events in the Meroitic empire.
I would imagine that we could find out more about Kushite opinions regarding the Mediterraneans through an examination of records from the 25th Dynasty. They had more interactions with Mediterraneans than the Kushites living south of Egypt.
Again Takruri, great idea for a research topic.
Takruri
quote:
* Iconographical Evidence on the Black Populations in Greco Roman Antiquity all written before his disgraceful debacle in allowing himself to be used by anti-independent African thought reactionary polemicists.
Snowden I believe has always been used by Eurocentrist. If I remember correctly, in the World and Africa, DuBois mentions the Negro professor who was an expert on Blacks in the Greco-Roman world, who was uncooperative in sharing his researches with DuBois for his book on the Blacks in World History.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall ancient Egyptians calling any inner Africans "barbarians" or to even imply so. If there is a text to support this, I'd like to see it. The Egyptians referred to the "land of Punt" [not exactly in those terms, but something along those lines], and the region appears to have encompassed southern Sudan, central Africa, all the way to the African Horn. This region was viewed positively by the ancient Egyptians.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Asante's assesment about Afrikans never appearing as African authorities in these "anthology" type works. I think Keita had prepared one of his Nile Valley anthropology articles ten years ago. Thing is we all know a positive African inclusive identity for North and Northeast Africa in antiquity is exactly the opposite the editor and most contributors have in mind.
-------------------------------
S.O.Y. KEITA Department of Anthropology, Bioanthropology Laboratory, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland Department of Anatomy, Howard University College of Medicine, Washington, DC
1990 - Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 83:35-48
1992 - Further Studies of Crania From Ancient Northern Africa: An Analysis of Crania From First Dynasty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple Discriminant Functions, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 87:245-254
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Greek who lived in Egypt was closer to an Egyptian than an African who lived in Chad or Mali.
This is and example of a faux compromise statement that is really biased.
It follows in logic from this that if a Greek in Egypt is closer to and Egyptian than and African in Chad - then and Ethiopian in ancient Greece is 'closer' to and ancient Greek than a Briton or German.
But the statement does not acknowledge the mutuality - ie, the "vice-versa" required of true even handedness.
And this leads to the second problem - ancient Greece and dynastic Kemet are not contemporary societies.
Kemet is thousands or years older than Greece.
Therefore while you "might" be able to define the ancient Greeks by their proximity to Kemet - you cannot possibly define Kemet in terms of its relationship to Greece -> a non existant society for most of Kemetic history.
Europeans scarsely even exist in the mdw ntr before the new Kingdom.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^Another grand slam home run Rasol! That is a very insightful point. Now venn diagrams are being introduced with the hope of somehow removing Egypt from its African roots - or at least diluting that association.
Egypt is African for many reasons not the least of which is its cultural and genetic continuity with Africa.
A Non-African Ancient Egypt={}=the null set; it did not exist.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Greek who lived in Egypt was closer to an Egyptian than an African who lived in Chad or Mali.
This is and example of a faux compromise statement that is really biased.
It follows in logic from this that if a Greek in Egypt is closer to and Egyptian than and African in Chad - then and Ethiopian in ancient Greece is 'closer' to and ancient Greek than a Briton or German.
Not only that, Greeks for the most part were viewed as "foreigners", just as Kemetians persistently depict that they were not the same as "Asiatics" [interestingly today, various folks try to blur this difference]. Kemetians themselves claim their origins to lands south of them; I don't know how this puts those "southerners" in a negative light, on the account of their not being inside Kemet.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Asante's review has to be taken with a grain of salt, since he is considered the founder / leader of the afrocentric movement. He is a colorful person, that has been known to spew many wrong and political one sided information.
Egyptians did go through great trouble to show that they were not like their Southern Neighbors, so thinking that they're one and the same is rather silly and simplistic thinking.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:J Howser: Egyptians did go through great trouble to show that they were not like their Southern Neighbors, so thinking that they're one and the same is rather silly and simplistic thinking.
Does that prove that Ancient Egyptians were not Afican or not black? I suspect that's what you're beating around the bush about.
quote:Lewis Perry Curtis, Jr. is the most prominent of many historians who conclude that race was the defining element in nineteenth-century English perceptions of the Irish. The English, according to Curtis and others, looked with a self-conscious sense of Saxon superiority at what they considered to be a childlike and inferior but dangerous Celtic race. This attitude, it is assumed, shaped policy and lay at the root of Irish oppression.
quote:Originally posted by J Howzer: Asante's review has to be taken with a grain of salt, since he is considered the founder / leader of the afrocentric movement. He is a colorful person, that has been known to spew many wrong and political one sided information.
Egyptians did go through great trouble to show that they were not like their Southern Neighbors, so thinking that they're one and the same is rather silly and simplistic thinking.
But what you are insinuating in starting this thread is that they differentiated themselves from their "southern neighbors" based on race, and this in itself is wrong and very one-sided and POLITICAL. They differentiated themselves from anyone who was not Kemetian.....plain and simple. Thus your agenda here is very clear.
No matter what your views are of Asante himself, if you take the time to read his review of this book, you will find that it is largely unbiased.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Howser, You are on a board full of hopeless afrocentrics. They have bought into some points of view that they simply cannot and will not turn loose of. They want to create in Egypt all that they lack here in modern times, in my view. Ancient history is vague enough that they have room to twist and mold the facts to fit this preconcieved idea. About half of these guys are smart people who have just bought into this, the other half are frustrated American black guys who want you to think they are a decendant of Thutmose III.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Howser, You are on a board full of hopeless afrocentrics. They have bought into some points of view that they simply cannot and will not turn loose of. They want to create in Egypt all that they lack here in modern times, in my view. Ancient history is vague enough that they have room to twist and mold the facts to fit this preconcieved idea. About half of these guys are smart people who have just bought into this, the other half are frustrated American black guys who want you to think they are a decendant of Thutmose III.
And what we have here is a white man who is exsposed for what he really is, a racist nutcase who has nothing better to do but fight a losing battle in this forum to regain a sense of self which he never had.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But what you are insinuating in starting this thread is that they differentiated themselves from their "southern neighbors" based on race, and this in itself is wrong and very one-sided and POLITICAL. They differentiated themselves from anyone who was not Kemetian.....plain and simple. Thus your agenda here is very clear.
Truth. The Kemetic ideology and written ethno-history makes their southern roots, ancestry and affiliation irrefutable.
This is why the spoutings to the countrary never consists of anything substantive - but merely empty ad hominem noisemaking, telltale last resort of all defeated arguments.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Asante needs salt then surely Yamauchi needs pepper.
Yamauchi lacks the background to definitively speak on Africa. His qualifications and experience predispose him to a bias in favor of the northern and eastern Mediterranean wherein lies his expertise. It's obvious he could champion Eurocentric "Greek miracle" and "light out of Asia" conceptual material, bypassing concepts of Egypt's Africanity which are not at all new nor Afro-eccentric but were finally if not initially embraced nearly a century ago by the likes of Budge, Petrie, etc.
Fortunately Yamauchi didn't choose to present such antiquated notions. As Asante pointed out there's some good material there under Yamauchi's editorship but it doesn't negate the fact that, in part, its purpose is a negative goal (anti-Afro-eccentricism) not a purely positive aim (unbiasedly teach about Africa(ns) in the age of antiquity.
There simply was no excuse for Yamauchi not to solicit input from Keita or other Africans.
Anyway here's a short review from the publisher showing that it pushes a "foreigner" agenda at the expense of the Africans themselves, the reviewer even confuses the Berbers between Phoenicians and Greeks. Does the Berber essay in the book do the same?:
quote:Africa and Africans in Antiquity assesses recent historical research and archaeology under way in Egypt, North Africa, the Sudan, and the Horn of Africa. Whereas many European and American scholars of earlier generations believed that Egyptian contacts with Africa to the south were not culturally significant, research contained in this important collection rejects such notions. At the same time, the volume takes issue with Afrocentric scholars who argue that most Egyptians were "black" and that blacks are the rightful heirs to Egypt's past grandeur. These ten thought-provoking essays demonstrate that this large region was an ethnic and cultural mosaic in antiquity, a place where Phoenicians, Berbers, Greeks, as well as Egyptians and Nubians interacted.
Contributors:
Carleton T. Hodge, Afroasiatic
Frank J. Yurco, Egypt and Nubia: Old, Middle and New Kingdom Eras
Edna R. Russmann, Egypt and the Kushites: Dynasty XXV
Stanley M. Burstein, The Kingdom of Meroe
William Y. Adams, The Ballaña Kingdom and Culture: Twilight of Classical Nubia
Reuben G. Bullard, The Berbers of the Maghreb and Ancient Carthage
Donald White, An Archaeological Survey of the Cyrenaican and Marmarican Regions of Northeast Africa
Frank M. Snowden, Jr., Attitudes toward Blacks in the Greek and Roman World: Misinterpretations of the Evidence
Kathryn A. Bard and Rodolfo Fattovich, Some Remarks on the Processes of State
Formation in Egypt and Ethiopia
Maynard W. Swanson, Colonizing the Past: Origin Myths of the Great Zimbabwe Ruins
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, maps, photos, bibliography, index
320 pp., 6.00" x 9.00", July 2001 Paper, 0-87013-507-4, $28.95
quote:Originally posted by J Howzer: Asante's review has to be taken with a grain of salt, since he is considered the founder / leader of the afrocentric movement. He is a colorful person, that has been known to spew many wrong and political one sided information.
Egyptians did go through great trouble to show that they were not like their Southern Neighbors, so thinking that they're one and the same is rather silly and simplistic thinking.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another review (Oxbow Books) showing the editor's intent was to reduce African acheivements to multi-ethnic exercise (i.e., the Africans needed help to produce civilization, something they were incapable of on their own).
But the Greeks admitted the precedence of African civilization to their own while the Levantines and Mesopotamians seem rather oblivious to continental African goings on. The south of the Arabian Peninsula is as much African as it is extra-African as I hope Fattovich would bring out in his essay. If not, see excerpts from him in our old theNileValley forum.
quote:Sunday 26 February 2006
Africa and Africans in Antiquity edited by Edwin M Yamauchi The study of African archaeology and history, the editor argues, has been marred by the extremist attitudes of both condescending European historians and African-American Afrocentrists. These eleven papers, from a conference held in Ohio in 1991 and since revised, re-examine evidence from north-eastern Africa in order to affirm the cultural achievements of the multi-ethnic civilisations of the region, including Meroe and Zimbabwe, and to place them within their wider context. Subjects include contacts between Africa and Asia, Egypt and Nubia, the Kushites, Meroe, Carthage, Cyrenaica and Marmarica, Greco-Roman attitudes towards black Africans, state formation in Egypt and Ethiopia, and the origin myths of the Great Zimbabwe ruins. 324p, b/w illus (Michigan State UP 2001)
ISBN 0870135074. Paperback. Price GB £21.50
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It should be noted that several chapters are particularly outstanding in providing the reader with strong overviews of some lesser known discussions in African history.
* Reuben G.Bullard's "The Berbers of the Maghreb and Ancient Carthage" is one of the best portraits of the general field of Imazighen studies.
* Kathryn A. Bard and Rodolfo Fattovich's "Some Remarks on the Processes of State Formation in Egypt and Ethiopia" is a good comparative analysis of state formation in two ancient African societies.
Taken together, however, this book is handicapped by the editor's own lack of vision as stated in the introduction when he writes that the "Afrocentric scholars, in seeking to reclaim the achievements of the continent for African Americans have gone to the other extreme in claiming that they are the rightful heirs to the glories of Egypt, as though the Egyptians were black Africans. This is rather ironic in that the Egyptians were among the most ethnocentric of all peoples and generally regarded black Africans of Nubia, as well as all other non-Egyptians, with contempt" (Yamauchi, 2001, p. 1). In the end this is not just Yamauchi's opening line, it is his closing point as well; perhaps this is the point of the book. ... This is the issue that is apparently at the core of this book. It creates, inter alia, many distortions and mistakes.
posted
Egypt and Rome would have been multi ethnic in different ways and for different reasons. Egypt was multi ethnic because of its geographic location between two regions, Rome because it was the center of Empire and thus attracted many different kinds of people, much as London has.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Therein he makes this statement "The image of Christ as black appeared as early as 1700 when a Congolese girl, ..." This may very well impress the trusting but ignores Iberian and Italian Catholic as well as the Russian Orthodox who have black "Christ" iconography predating the Brazilian one by centuries if not by millenia.
Then, there are catacomb paintings of the Christian's mangod that have a decidedly African cast of countenance and colour about them. And these were made when Rome was still persecuting the nascent Nazoreans/Christians.
So, Yamauchi certainly knows better than his statement lets on as this is his field of expertise but chooses to pull the fur over his readers' eyes in order that they not see the Lamb's wool.
Curiously, Yamauchi leaves the yellow "Christ" icons out of the picture.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Takruri, What do you think he would say if you posed this contradiction to him? Would you not agree that he would be too smart to leave himself open to that extent?
I will say this, his views on Afrocentrism are widely shared in academic circles.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Egypt and Rome would have been multi ethnic in different ways and for different reasons. Egypt was multi ethnic because of its geographic location between two regions, Rome because it was the center of Empire and thus attracted many different kinds of people, much as London has.
Good information regarding the subject of Egypt and Rome. I would also add that Egypt was the shining beacon in the region and therefore it had to attract a wide spectrum of differing nationalites who wanted to settle this land of progress and tolerance. What I don't understand is how some people can't seem to view the whole picture, but instead focus on their own limited wishes and hope that things were actually the way they wished them to be.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egypt was a Multi Ethnic African civilization drawing Africans from the south and the west. Egypt was African and not anything else. I have seen nothing to change my mind about egypt being African. Egypt drew from the south whenever their was a threat. They looked to the south of egypt for strength this shows that the egyptians held the south in high regards.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
I can't for the life of me figure out this merry-go-round of debate about who the Ancient Egyptians were. They have already told us! Why waste time trying to convince recalcitrant folks. And this topic of "Africans in Antiquity" is a facile one, I think. If anyone has any understanding of Antiquity, they would know that Africans were Antiquity. Africans were hegemonic in the same fashion that Europeans and those of European descent are today; is anyone here aware of the Chinese hegemony during medieval times? And I mean hegemony not in a colonialist term but the dominance or leadership of one social group or nation over others; IE, the most advanced...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Egypt was a Multi Ethnic African civilization drawing Africans from the south and the west. Egypt was African and not anything else. I have seen nothing to change my mind about egypt being African. Egypt drew from the south whenever their was a threat. They looked to the south of egypt for strength this shows that the egyptians held the south in high regards.
Peace
King
Egypt;s very location would be enough for any smart person to conclude that it would not be an entirely African nation. And, that is exactly what everyone is trying to tell all these people who can't seem to grasp the big picture. Statements such as yours are just mere rhetoric that prove nothing and only serve to show your level of knowledge, which seems to be very shallow.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish the posters here woulf remind you that the human race begins in Africa about 200,000 BC. The non-Africans left the continent from 70 to 50,000 years ago. The core human concepts were born in Africa. The flora and fauna depicted in Kemet are African. Therefore, people are worshipping idol images of hippos, local dogs, local cats, using ostrich feathers, leopard skins, local reeds for writing etc.
The Egyptians themselves are depicted with reddish brown skin usually. This throws some people off. However, the pygmies, the oldest humans often have reddish brown skin. Throughout Africa very ancient rock art shows stick figures with brown skin. http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/tanzania/
posted
Howzer what do you make of egypt it's Location in Africa? What proof do you have that I should look at egypt as a non African Civilization. You have provided no proof of this you have just written what you think so I wrote what I think. If I am wrong to think this way then prove me wrong. Put some evidence forward so we can discuss. Failure to do this would mean that you have no evidence and no proof about what you say This would show what type of knowledge You have since you have not provided any evidence for what you say. From what I know Ancient Egyptians did not look to the east for much, If you want to know a little about Egypt and How it viewed the south I suggest you read the Prophecy of Neferti: http://members.tripod.com/~ib205/prophecy_neferti.html
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is precisely that folks like JH are incapable of making any point.
By giving them a chance to present their case, they are allowed to freely expose the fact that they don't have one. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The point is precisely that folks like JH are incapable of making any point.
By giving them a chance to present their case, they are allowed to freely expose the fact that they don't have one.
If you can read this article before it gets deleted by the political police, you'll be much more informed and maybe teach your friend King a thing or two about the whole truth for a change.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life.
All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions).
Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment.
Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.
posted
In light of what we now know about the neolithic expansion out of Africa, instead of questioning whether or not Egypt was African, a more valid question ought to be: Where in the Levant and "Asia" minor did Africa terminate? Perhaps the latter might more appropriately have been called "Africa" minor. Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Calypso: In light of what we now know about the neolithic expansion out of Africa, instead of questioning whether or not Egypt was African, a more valid question ought to be: Where in the Levant and "Asia" minor did Africa terminate? Perhaps the latter might more appropriately have been called "Africa" minor.
Calypso,
Africa is just a name, nothing more nothing less. People in ancient times did not need to get visas or passports to travel from one nation or region to another. You seem to be hung up on this idea that people restricted themselves to continents or whatever region they belong to. The fact is that people travelled back and forth in search for better environments and lives.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Calypso is right. Geologically the Levantine corridor is a part of the African rift valley. It marks a traditional 'political' boundary between the African and Eurasian landmass which is accepted, but not technically accurate.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point Calypso. Howzer if you calm yourself you could learn a thing or two. Egypt was African Howzer you need more than what you posted to convince anybody that egypt was not African. Your knowledge base seems to be pretty shallow if this is all the info you have to prove your point. I don't expect much from you since I guess this is as good as it gets with you.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In addition to Rasol's observations my post above refered to the neolithic expansion. The neolithic expansion out of Africa was of crucial importance to the Levant bringing with it people, the Afrasan language and a new way of life that lead to agriculture.
Posts: 1038 | From: Franklin Park, NJ | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Good point Calypso. Howzer if you calm yourself you could learn a thing or two. Egypt was African Howzer you need more than what you posted to convince anybody that egypt was not African. Your knowledge base seems to be pretty shallow if this is all the info you have to prove your point. I don't expect much from you since I guess this is as good as it gets with you.
Peace
King, you could learn a lot more about Egypt from the experts in the field, instead of political science students with motives for self-promotion.
This clearly demonstrates that Ramesses did not have woolly hair, and consequently, that the Turin portrait statue does not prove that Ramesses was black. In terms of evidence evaluation, the results produced from a study of Ramesses’ mortal remains, are of higher value than any amount of conclusions that have been drawn only from portraits. Therefore, Diop’s claims are completely baseless.
Posts: 32 | From: New Jersey | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:King, you could learn a lot more about Egypt from the experts in the field, instead of political science students with motives for self-promotion.
What do you mean by "political science students"?
quote:Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life.
All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions).
Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment.
Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.
Posts: 7078 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Diop sought to evaluate Rameses II's skin color directly by testing the melanin content of his skin, but was not permitted to do so by the French who were then in posession of the mummy.
To this date, no actual skin color test has been conducted on Rameses corpse.
All we know of his skin color then is from his portraits.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why in God's name are we still debating whether a king of a Black civilization was Black? Diop only wanted to confirm what was, to him, the obvious. The fact that the Arab government of Egypt (not France) denied him the request to perform the melanin dosage test (to see if this Black guy was really black) is obvious; unless, of course, one wants to violate the laws of common sense, like this new person Howzer, from Stormfront? ...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Actually Diop sought to evaluate Rameses II's skin color directly by testing the melanin content of his skin, but was not permitted to do so by the French who were then in posession of the mummy.
To this date, no actual skin color test has been conducted on Rameses corpse.
All we know of his skin color then is from his portraits.
It would be quite hypocritical and suspicious that Diop wasn't permitted to perform what he set out to do, while someone else is allowed to do so.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
because they (European chauvinists) know that Rameses (I, II, etc.) was a black man, not "reddish brown" - black. It would be remarkable if it were otherwise; it would be like a Chinese Emperor being a German! This (trying to make these classical Africans into Europeans) is all quite silly and childlike, if we think about it, but so is ethnic chauvinism...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They did not want Diop to perform the test because then they would have no excuse. They would have to admit that Egyptians were Black Africans. It is obvious to me that they did not want the truth about Ancient Egyptians coming out, their is no other reason then this. If people wanted to really end the debate about the Egyptians they would perfom a skin color test on Rameses and other Royals. But the whole thing is that we dont need a skin color test to prove that Ancient Egyptians were black African. This is already a Fact that is getting harder to dispute.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic