posted
You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Don't think that your foolish take on Hawass is going to make me stop from asking you about the mummies. Hawass's words are insignificant since alot of those other egyptian egyptologist disagree with him. Now after that deetour lets get back to the mummies:
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.
Now we Have Links to Nubians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
Now comment on these and stop trying to sidetrack the thread.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.
Zawi Hiwass is either fully aware of the African contributions to Egypt seeing as how he is literally surrounded with Reliefs, statues, busts,..ect of African people with dark skin calling themselves Egyptians, in which case he IS biased or indenial. If not Zawi Hiwass is a moron.
as far as the Nefertiti bust goes It really does'nt matter to most...she has brown skin not white and she would fit in perfect in many East African populations.....but the fact that the reliefs and other bust of Nefertiti as so much different than that one in Berlin is the cause of suspicion....
by the way why are youignoring Knowledgeinski's questions...PROFESSOR?
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You dio not know the color of her skin Jari. I good historian would never jump to a conclusion like that. Suspicion is caused because yous over and over attack every piece of art that questions your case. I an ignoring his question because there is no way to answer it. I do not question data showing Nubian influence in Egypt. What I question is some of the conclusions you guys try to attach to it. A Historians gather information and eventually arrive at a theory . You guys start with a point and then gather all of the evidence that agrees with it while rejecting everything that does not. It is more akin to ploitics, not history.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
I am not letting you off the hook the studies on the Mummies:
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults.
Now we Have Links to Nubians
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
Now comment on these and stop trying to sidetrack the thread.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
If it is good information, why do you continue to spout the "north african caucasoid" nonsense?
The truth is that Ancient Egypt had more to do with Africa then any other region:
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why king. You cannot take a piece of information and draw the conclusions you guys try to draw. Example: that there was an african marker in souther Europe thousands of years ago is clear. What does it mean? Who knows? People on this board take that fact and CREATE an entire historical narrative from a single shred of evidence with nothing to support it. The origins of Egypt might be from Africa but they are also from the east as well. Most people in Egypt look a lot more Syrian than they do african.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
What you promote is wrong, you promote outsiders came and created Egyptian civilization. Egyptian civilization was indeginous to Africa, there is no "East as well":
The people who bear the greatest resemblence to the ancient Egyptians, at present, are the Nubians; and next are the Abyssinians; page 530
Edward Lane Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King, You have just bought into the afrocentric myth. It make make you feel good but it will never be accepted to the extent you believe it. I could come back here 5 years from now and the board would still be complaining. Some of the ideas are good and some are down right silly.
I would still like to know what difference it makes.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: King, You have just bought into the afrocentric myth. It make make you feel good but it will never be accepted to the extent you believe it. I could come back here 5 years from now and the board would still be complaining. Some of the ideas are good and some are down right silly.
I would still like to know what difference it makes.
Tell me American Patriot what is hard to understand or answer about the following? As you conveniently ignore **MY** questions it's clearly evident you have no answer and realize that by answering my questions you will be forced into admitting Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted individuals. Which equates to tropical African indigenous ancestry. Or as you would call it, "black African".
No European population or Syrian, near Eastern population is extremely tropically adapted.
^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....????
Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by ****comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices**** for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid”body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).
This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicatesthat the Egyptians generallyhave tropical bodyplans.Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clusteredtogether as compared to the other populations. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question is meaningless. Today's Egyptian population makes clear the nation is tied to the east. There has never been a mass migration into Egypt except from the south in the last 2000 years. Nobody has said there was no Nubian population in Egypt. The last figures I saw put that number at about 5%, 1% in lower egypt.
Again, what is the point? What difference does it make?
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
American patriot yet again you purposely ignore the questions. Of course my post is extremely meaningful as it proves Egyptians were tropical Africans, and is why you're blatantly ignoring it. The ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted, as we can see from the study I posted, what is insignificant about this? Please explain...
Btw no study proves what you're saying about Syrians and North African Caucasians being related to ancient Egyptians, if so, then where is this study?
No European population or Syrian, near Eastern population is extremely tropically adapted.
^^^^^American patriot what's taking so long.....???? Why are you ignoring this question? If you're intelligent, this would be an easy question to answer.
Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hammer is mistaking (mislabeling) African Albinos for whites
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syrians are caucasians Knowledge. I am not ducking your questions I just will not draw these sweeping conclusions from one or two pieces of evidence. History does not work that way. xIf I asked those who disagree with you, like Dr Hawass, and others the would quote research as well. The U of Memphis eyptology folks stated that afrocentrics have bizarre views on Egypt. he commented that the name of the country refered to the soil not the people. In any event I wonder why you seem to be so obsessed with the question. It does not seem very important in the scheme of things. You can tie Greece to the modern world but ancient egypt cannot be tied to anything, especially africa.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^Poor and evasive excuses for not answering, as usual. For everyone reading this thread, they know you've lost this debate a long time ago.
Of course you're ducking and dodging, stalling etc...
Try again, I could care less what anyone's opinion is, you're just showing your obvious defeated self, by not answering.
Ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted do you understand what this means?
Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I told you your facts look good. Zahi Hawass: "We know that the common man in ancient Egypt are the same people, direct ancestors, of modern egyptians." Should I believe him or you?
Why is this issue important?
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes modern Egytians are descended from Ancient populations as genetics tell us, simply because they carry ***indigenous African haplotypes***. But modern Egyptians also carry non African lineages Ancient Egyptians never had. It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself.
Now that I've answered all of your questions as usual.
Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"We know that the common man in ancient Egypt are the same people, direct ancestors, of modern egyptians." Should I believe him or you?
Just like Europeans who are descended from upper Paleolithic Europeans who resembled tropical peoples Africans and Australians, as seen below. Europeans don't reemble their Upper Paleolithic ancestors.
Early Europeans still resembled modern tropical peoples -> some resemble modern Australian and Africans, more than modern Europeans [C. Stringer, R. McKie 1996]
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical observations..." - African Exodus Christopher Stringer and Robin McKie 1996
Until now, the lack of human fossils of appropriate antiquity from sub-Saharan Africa has meant that these competing genetic models of human evolution could not be tested by paleontological evidence.
The skull from Hofmeyr has changed that. The surprising similarity between a fossil skull (Hofmeyr) from the southernmost tip of Africa and similarly ancient skulls from Europe is in agreement with the genetics-based "Out of Africa" theory, which predicts that humans like those that inhabited Eurasia in the Upper Paleolithic should be found in sub-Saharan Africa around 36,000 years ago. The skull from South Africa provides the first fossil evidence in support of this prediction.
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus*
"The skull is large and robust. The maximum estimated length and breadth of the neurocranium, as well as most measurements of the facial skeleton,lie at or exceedtwo standard deviations (SD) of the means for modern African males,whereas they lie within these limits for Late Pleistocene crania from Eurasia and North Africa(table S3)."
"As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing has helped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania in a number of features, including a prominent glabella; moderately thick, continuous supraorbital tori; a tall, flat, and straight malar; a broad frontal process of the maxilla; and comparatively large molar crowns.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is not what Dr Hawass said. he said that the Ancient egypttians found in the Pyramid cemetaries were the direct ancestors of today's egyptians. here is the point, you do not comprehend.....conclusions cannot be reached based on individual pieces of data. I am not an Egyptian specialist. I have to depend on those that are for the latest data. If I get on the phone and call the guys at the University of Memphis something tells me I will get a different story than I am getting from you.
You never did say why all of this was so important.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're simply an elusive coward, sorry but I call it like I see it. Since this information debunks you, you'll disregard it, but sorry guy, this stands strong. Ancient Egyptians were extremely tropically adapted. You must have a hard time reading, or as it seems you just cherrypick and read what suits your own agenda. It matters because the truth is not known, obviously when he have posters such as yourself. Until you address specifically what I am asking of you, consider yourself debunked.
Can you name any near Eastern, European or pale North African Maghrebians, that you propose as "Caucasian", who are extremely tropically adapted as the Ancient Egyptians were?
Variation in Ancient Egyptian Stature and Body Proportions Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by ****comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices**** for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-negroid”body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990).
This pattern is supported by Figure 7 (a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; data from Ruff, 1994), which indicatesthat the Egyptians generallyhave tropical bodyplans.Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clusteredtogether as compared to the other populations. Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are being stiff necked knowledge. This is the M.O. you guys use. You pick out some historical detail and build a case around it. To be successful though you have to be able to suck people into an endless argument over that point. I have seen it a hundred times here. It's bogus because historians do not think that way.
You will not answer my question about why it matters because you know where that leads you. This is all about black racism and afrocentric politics. It has nothing to do with egyptian history.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: That is not what Dr Hawass said. he said that the Ancient egypttians found in the Pyramid cemetaries were the direct ancestors of today's egyptians. here is the point, you do not comprehend.....conclusions cannot be reached based on individual pieces of data. I am not an Egyptian specialist. I have to depend on those that are for the latest data. If I get on the phone and call the guys at the University of Memphis something tells me I will get a different story than I am getting from you.
You never did say why all of this was so important.
YOU ARE D.U.M.B !!
This is how I know you are not a professor of anything. You throw out dumbness and expect to be taken seriously. Do you ask your students to provide evidence to support their conclusions? So, why don't you? You say, Dr. so and so says this. How are we supposed to judge the validity of what he said if you don't provide the data to support it?
Hammer, get lost. You have the intelligence of a George Bush. None
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You just proved my point King, since Hawass does not agree with you he must be biased. If Nefertiti does not look black the bust must be a fake, there is a conspiracy of evil europeans to alter egyptian art etc.
This Nefertiti?
Relief of Queen Nefertiti, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1352–1336 B.C.
Statue of Queen Ahmose-Nefertari, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Ahmose, ca. 1550–1525 B.C. Egyptian
Sculptor's model of the head of Akhenaten, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Akhenaten, ca. 1349–1336 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Amenhotep III, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1390–1352 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Tutankhamun, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Tutankhamun, ca. 1336–1327 B.C. Egyptian
Head of Queen Tiye, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, ca. 1388–1340 B.C. Egyptian
Osirid figure of Merneptah, New Kingdom, Dynasty 19, reign of Merneptah, ca. 1213–1203 B.C. Egyptian
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
None of those people looked like that knowledge. Egypians of that time were no into realistic art.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: None of those people looked like that knowledge. Egypians of that time were no into realistic art.
O.K so none of the people looked like that...so according to you...
Is Fake..If you knew anything you would know that relief of Nefertiti that was posted was made during the Armana where the art was as realistic in Egyptian history....NICE strawman though.
<a href="http://s179.photobucket.com/albums/w286/jrpone/?action=view¤t=untitled-2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w286/jrpone/untitled-2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You ned to do cat scans on the mummies to get any ideas on what there people looked like. I notice you guys post 'NONE' of the scores of art pieces that do not look remotely negroid. Most people see through this spin. If you had a more balanced view people would take you much more seriously.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Still, you post nothing but ancient Dixiecrat emotions. LOL
Hammer how do you think all the noses got broken off those busts? By people like yourself who perfer to destroy history then acknowledge it.
Posts: 3595 | From: Moved To Mars. Waiting with shotgun | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the Tut stuff comes to mind. Much old kingdom art is very non african. The standard thutmose the III work with the syrian looking nose stands out. In fact most AE art does not look african. Some of the art you guys present as african are clearly what we would now call arabs. The Rahotep statue is exactly what old kingdom kings looked like.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
tut was not black, everyone knows that. He was a north african caucasian. the only people I have seen call him black are some of the people on this board. Hawass, the recreators, national Geo and really every responsible scholar sees him as black.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
we have his boad king. You know that arabs and black often do not look that much different in these stautes. His nose does not look negroid either in these statues or on his mummy. I understand you have convinced yourself this stuff is true but its a cruel joke.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
You just ignored my post and made a stupid comment about arabs and Jews. AE is related to people down the nile not west of Egypt this is clear to anyone that has reaserched it.
Again to you the bust of tut and his mask look caucasian?
That is sad that some is this blinded by eurocentric ideology. Patriot your views are some of the most foolish views I have seen. It is as if you have no shame.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hawass: "Tut was a north african caucasian." That pretty much sums it up.
You have still never answered my question about why all of this is so important to you??????
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Hahhahahahahhah you make me laugh, the words of Hawass trumps all the evidence you see of Tut.
hahahahahaha
You are so in deep denial, this is shameful. Patriot your evidence has got to be the worst bit of evidence I have read, I can't stop laughing. SO this is a picture of a "North African Caucasian"
Wake up professor you are living in a world of delusions. You are the first person that has seen the busts and was still stuck on Tut not being Black. Your a sad case.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
looks like a young Palestinian boy to any objective person. King you are mired in ideology, that is why you will not, indeed cannot answer my question. Hawass interacts on a daily basis with the top scholars in the world on all aspects of ancient egypt. You would have me reject his views and accept yours. Talk about delusional.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: The AE and todays arabs and jews are the sam people.
Man are you just playing around..? I mean come on ...first off Zawi Hiwass is no antorpologist, archologist...he is head of Antiqities..THATS IT. The NAtional Geographic one suppored the idea that Nubia was peopled by White Caucasians.....
Whats your excuse now professor?
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I should believe you guys over the national geographic? You guys are making a weak case. You cannot just dismiss hawass. Are you saying you know more about ancient egypt than he does?
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Delusions is what you see when a clear Black African, is said to look like a palestine boy.
Professor with every passing post you make yourself look more and more like a fool.
The most funny thing is that you can stare in the face of a black guy, and say he is caucasian.
This is almost comical, you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole you can't climb out of. So this pic:
Looks like someone from the socalled middle east?
hahahahah
Also Hawass's words on what the Egyptians looked like is not important like I said before some of his ownn collegues are against his words. He is not an expert on the ethnicity of AE.
Stay off the drugs professor they are making you see things that is not there.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
national geographic is notorious for being liars of history, for the longest while they claimed that Kush was caucasian like AE. You bring up clear biased people and you want us to take you seriously.
I can't help but laugh at your nonsense, hahahahahah
We showed you Busts and you are still stuck on your stupid "north African caucasian". Thats sad
wake up professor.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: So I should believe you guys over the national geographic? You guys are making a weak case. You cannot just dismiss hawass. Are you saying you know more about ancient egypt than he does?
Fool, did you read any of the information I provided...? Zawi Hiwass is no expert on the peopling of Egypt..he is head of Antiquities. The National Geopgraphic is a magazine that supported the notion that the Nubians were white....Where is their credibility...its obvious it is a biased source.
Anyone who studies the people and origin of Egypt and the Nile Valley concudes the Egyptians were primarily of African origin and were and African people simular to Sib Sahrans and East Africans.
Even Mary Lefkrowitz the Classist who DEBUNKED Afocentrism concluded after studing Egypt thatthe Egyptian people and Egypt as a nation was of Southern in origin and indiginous to Africa!!!!
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are liars because they do not agree with you King. I never run into anyone who agrees with you guys and I'll bet I talk to more historians than you do. Most of them see you guys as out on the fringe, you know that. when you come up with all of this wild crazy greek stuff it destroys your credibility.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic