Question: How would you describe your reaction to the views of diop

ZH: Of course Cheikh Anta Diop was completely wrong. This is a
kind of a theory that he developed because of it doesn't mean,
look at the features of the people, the Black, in Egypt today,
their nose, their lips, is completely different
from the Negro and therefore CA theory, he did it I think
in a time to please the black Americans, who really feel their a minority, and they ought to be connected with this
place, civilization like Egypt.
After CA Diop did make his
theory, there is a conference was made by UNESCO and the
recommendation at the end of the conference that this is, can not accepted, and they said it need more work on prehistoric
time to understand more about the origin of the people."

Question: So how would you define the ancient Egyptians; they were people who came, who were indigenous to this area.

ZH: I believe that most of those people settled in the Nile valleys since the old stone age, more than 100,000 bc and they settled by the Nile those people went to the desert to hunt animals and to make their own tools and to invent fire and they really always come to the Nile then they looked at the Nile and they used this source to make this civilization, and if you look at their religious belief its unique from the pre dynastic period the found out for a king to be advanced he had to do certain things in his life there’s a tomb ahhh symbols of ( ? ) smighting the enemies of Egypt unification of the two lands, giving offerings to the gods, if you’ll do that you’ll become a god. And therefore I say al the time that pyramids of Egypt because building the tombs made the Egyptians to create their technology and astronomy and art etc

Question: So how do you react to people who are saying that Egypt is an African civilization?

ZH: I really do not believe that Egypt is an African civilization.
I believe that the Egyptians, are, Egyptian civilization were unique.
Egypt is in Africa, but the Egyptian civilization has nothing to do
with the African cultures. Because of many, many many features, If you look at the pheronic period its completely different from anything, if you look at the production or the technology that the Egyptian left its completely different from any believe from any time. If you look at the Egyptian from the anthropological point of view, they are different from the African. And that is why I
believe that paranoiac Egypt is completely unique, and they have
no connection with the Africans" Or even with the Arabs, completely independent. And this is why even today Egyptians, are Egyptians, There rely doesn’t mean that we speak Arab that we can be Arabs, we are really I feel personally, that we are related, even today to the ( can not hear this )

I have not been able to find the original text I read so I have taken the time to do my own, I think most will agree it is correct.

Obenga posted: “ZH: I really don't believe that Egypt is an African civilization.
I believe that the Egyptians, Egyptian civilization were unique.
Egypt is in Africa, but the Egyptian civilization has nothing to do
with the African cultures. If you look at the Egyptian from the anthropological point of view,
they are different from the African. And that is why I
believe that paranoiac Egypt is completely unique, and they have
no connection with the Africans"

You left out of your post,among other things this below,

ZH: ”If you look at the pheronic period its completely different from anything, if you look at the production or the technology that the Egyptian left its completely different from any believe from any time.”

This should have preceded the anthropological statement. He states “production and technology”. As I said Anthropology is not restricted to biological research, and I think this indicates he is talking about more than just biological Anthropolgy if not all disciplines.

They are again, Evolutionary Perspective, Cultural Anthropology, Linguistic Anthropology, Archaeology and Biological Anthropology.

I think excluding this section is misleading.

As for him lying in his stament of UNESCO's findings, the only thing in this part of his statement that I can see that may be considered a little bias is were he uses the words “can not accepted”. But even this stament could be argued successfully as Diops Theories although not unaccepted were not accepted as a whole. My understanding of the final stament was that,

It is more probable that Ancient Egyptians were of the African strain, black or light. But at this stage in our knowledge it is impossible to say more.

Now considering Cheikh Anta Diop argues that: when humankind began in East Africa people were likely to be black skinned. And before the start of the Egyptian dynasties the Nile river basin was taken over by these negroid peoples. Diop believes as many here do, that ancient Egyptians were Black Negroes.

Now although the UNESCO does agree its more probable that Ancient Egyptians were of the African strain, they do not make judgment on “Black or Light”. So one could easily argue that on this point, which is a major point of Diops theories and argument, that it was not accepted, but then again it was not denounced.

But to say ZH is lying is I think, an unfair assessment.

In light of the UNESCOs closing stament it is interesting that ZH and Diop agree on at least one point, the point of origin of the Egyptians being Africa itself.

There was much more you asked me to comment on but I can not remember of the top of my head, I will re- read the posts and try to give my opinion, Or you can post the questions again.

that is not what UNESCO concluded: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/3chapter5.shtml

"the overall results…will be very differently assessed by the various participants."

The closing statement also pointed out that not all participants had prepared for the conference as painstakingly as Professor Diop or his academic ally Theophile Obenga of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian, but in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say more."

I know Diop debated well, and he was by far the most prepared.

"the overall results…will be very differently assessed by the various participants."

The closing statement also pointed out that not all participants had prepared for the conference as painstakingly as Professor Diop or his academic ally Theophile Obenga of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

"I believe the views he and others who have made similar comments hold are based on the cultural, and technological differences of Egypt and other African civilisations."

With regard to your first quote I responded by saying "neither has anything to do with being biologically african." There is no need to change my stance on that. Technology and culture have nothing to do with Biology, Zahi knows this, as do we all

Ancient greece was culturally and technologically much more advanced than the British isles and the rest of Europe. Does this mean Greeks were not european and that there was no relationship between greeks and other europeans because of Greek Cultural and Technological advancement?

Here is the second quote from u

"If you can direct me to comments made by Zahi that refers to the biological aspect I will gladly read it"

So I gave u the biological aspect as u requested, Ozzy. Here it is again.

"ZH: Of course Cheikh Anta Diop was completely wrong. This was
kind of a theory that he developed because of it doesn't mean,
look at the features of the people, the Black, in Egypt today,
their nose, their lips, is completely different
from the Negro and therefore CA serie, he did it I think
in a time to please the African Americans, who really feal that
they are a minority, and they want to be connected with this
place, this civilization like Egypt."

I could say Hawass shows his lack of knowledge of the diversity present in Africa here, but I think he is just unwilling to admit the truth IMO.

Ozzy u go on to state that I left this statement out

"If you look at the pheronic period its completely different from anything, if you look at the production or the technology that the Egyptian left its completely different from any believe from any time.”

Ozzy, I left it out because it has nothing to do with being African. Which is of course the point I was making. So there was nothing misleading there.

Perhaps u might want to explain why u left something out of this statement about the conclusion arrived at by Unesco

" It is more probable that Ancient Egyptians were of the African strain, black or light. But at this stage in our knowledge it is impossible to say more"

Here are the parts u left out ,as pointed out by Kem-Au, They said "More Than" not simply "More" and also they added "is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian", which is cut from your statement of their conclusions. Some significant parts with regard to the feeling of Unesco's conclusion don't u think?

As to the point I made of Zahi lying, I am sticking by that. What Zahi said and what Unesco concluded are two different things, Zahi knew this.

For starters, these are my own words! mine!from memory! of the quote, not! the actual quote, otherwise I would have quoted It. And I preceded my statement clearly with "My understanding of the final stament was that". Indicating that these were my! words.

So I didnt leave out anything as I did not quote anyone, get you facts right.

Here is a Thesuarus defenition of the word preponderant.

Entry: better
Function: adjective
Definition: larger
Synonyms: best, bigger, greater, largest, longer, more, preponderant, weightier
Antonyms: littler, smaller, tinier
Concept: quantity (more)

Read my statement again!, I did not in any way mis-represent the original meaning of the quote.

I am not even going to respond to anything else you had to say, even though I would have liked to. In fear of mis-interprating again what you have said and why you have said it. It is clear from your tone and your ill prepared responce you dont want to debate the subject you want to debate me!!

You may wish to check again what Invincible Ignorance means.

You asked the questions and pushed for an answer, You got your answer, if you can not debate it dont ask it.

So I didnt leave out anything as I did not quote anyone, get you facts right."

I never said it was an actual quote.

However

The words were conviently left out Ozzy as any one can see they change the meaning of what Unesco is saying. It is no coincidence that I was not the only one to notice it.

The correct statement is on the BBC link and also on one of my earlier posts yet the statement was tweaked just enough to support your point. However I will accept your claim of having remembered it this way if u wish.

Ozzy says -"get you facts right."

Obenga responds - It is Ironic that u are telling me to get my facts right when u make a statement getting the facts wrong.

Ozzy say - "Here is a Thesuarus defenition of the word preponderant."

I think all the members of the board understand the definition of the word "Preponderant". It was left out of your statement not mine so I have no idea why u are now defining it for us or me?

Ozzy says - "Read my statement again!, I did not in any way mis-represent the original meaning of the quote."

Obenga responds - here are both statements, theirs and then yours IMO there is a difference that is significant.

"It is more than probable that the African strain, black or light, is preponderant in the Ancient Egyptian, but in the present state of our knowledge it is impossible to say more."

"It is more probable that Ancient Egyptians were of the African strain, black or light. But at this stage in our knowledge it is impossible to say more"

If this is just the result of remembering it poorly, again I will accept that explanation.

Ozzy says - "I am not even going to respond to anything else you had to say, even though I would have liked to."

Obenga responds - This is the choice of any who post here.

Ozzy says - "It is clear from your tone and your ill prepared responce you have a problem with me."

You are making a fool of yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Could you please explain what these two have to do with his statement, and which make his statement False?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Im past trying to show you due respect, man what a load , Your mistake was that you thought it was the quote, it was not. Shall I cut and past all your Para phrases, do you know how many you have made? You left out part of a full statement, and quoted it, I made no claim to be quoting and made it clear it was my words. How about US law, do you know anything about that, you would be laughed out of court, for you comparisons of my paraphrase and sued for slader for misrepresenting a Quote.

You are making a fool of yourself.

---

I'm sorry u are taking a discussion on a msg board personlly.

Why u are emotional about this is something I have no idea about. Regardless of your attempts to draw me into something personal I'm not interested in doing so it's pointless, tiresome and does not belong on the board

U pointed out things I left out and I did not take it personally I simply stated why I did so. As I did with this responce

"Ozzy, I left it out because it has nothing to do with being African. Which is of course the point I was making. So there was nothing misleading there."

I have no idea why u were unable to do the same without introducing emotion into this when I indicate that u have done the same thing u are accusing me of.

As for US Law, not sure where this comes into play on a thread about the comments of Hawass. I'm not american and neither are u, also neither one of us live in the US.

Don't post if u are not prepared to have the post critiqued

You do realise that your paraphrasing of Zahi's statement breaks the Obenga rule of word replacement. RE: recommendation and your replacement with Conclusion. Obserd is it not?

I don’t even like or agree with the guy (Zahi) but I can see his argument, it’s a shame.

I am ashamed to admit it, but I spent a few hours, finding the original quotes to 10 of Obengas paraphrases, anyone like to see those?

Oh and considering I am attacking his assertion, I am not making an Ad Hominem attack.

As proof of such an attack you need to Identify the attack of charactor and his circumstances and charactor of the person had nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

Can we move on now, It would be nice to get back to the topic, so I will ask the question, can it be shown that UNESCO accepted Diops theories?

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 14 September 2003).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
this will have to be like the 4th time this has been mentioned, but here goes again. zahi said that unesco came to the conclusion that diop's theories could not be accepted, when unesco did not come to that conclusion. zahi's statement was a lie.

---

I agree! If someone is agnostic one cannot say that they don't believe in God. From what I get from briefly reading this thread is that UNESCO concluded that "more than" likely the african phenotype was larger (in greater number) in ancient Egypt, but we cannot definitely come to this conclusion based on the information that we currently have. That is my parapharse of the whole conclusion- what yah have to say to that ozzy and obenga? There, I parapharsed, hopes no one attacks me (smile)! From this I see it as misleading that Zahi would say that UNESCO could not accept Diop's theories. Its like calling an agnostic person athiest even though they states that they really believe that there is a God based on the Diop's arguments, but they just aren't sure because they need more information to be conclusive!

Obenga I think you are being to picky about paraphrasing and Ozzy you are chosing not to see how misleading zahi's statement is concerning UNESCO conclusion! I think you two are just agruing for the sake of arguing!

Where is the love my brothers and sisters?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
I agree! If someone is agnostic one cannot say that they don't believe in God. From what I get from briefly reading this thread is that UNESCO concluded that "more than" likely the african phenotype was larger (in greater number) in ancient Egypt, but we cannot definitely come to this conclusion based on the information that we currently have. That is my parapharse of the whole conclusion- what yah have to say to that ozzy and obenga? There, I parapharsed, hopes no one attacks me (smile)! From this I see it as misleading that Zahi would say that UNESCO could not accept Diop's theories. Its like calling an agnostic person athiest even though they states that they really believe that there is a God based on the Diop's arguments, but they just aren't sure because they need more information to be conclusive!

Obenga I think you are being to picky about paraphrasing and Ozzy you are chosing not to see how misleading zahi's statement is concerning UNESCO conclusion! I think you two are just agruing for the sake of arguing!

Where is the love my brothers and sisters?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
on the subject of unesco, i think the conclusion they reached was a copout.

---

I think so too! There is always resistence to change even if that change is positive and/or correct.

Kem-Au,

Simply pasting a quote and saying read this, its obvious, makes it difficult to understand why others make the judgment they do. A clear explanation of ones thoughts and reasoning make it perfectly clear.

Hopefully I can do the same.

I don’t know about anyone else, but all I have read about the UNESCO, are from the links provided here. To me they are very vague, my understanding of the debate is that, Diop among others provided, their theorises, opinions, on the topic of the origin of the Ancient Egyptian population. I would have thought there would have been a number of thoughts being expressed there. Not just Diop and friends against the world. I understand there are a number of Origin theories which involve native African migration. These theories range from North African origin, South East origin, and some have argued the West Coast. And of cause there are those who support the back migration from the Middle East theory etc. I would have thought there would have been representatives of all these thoughts at the debate.

Now I like Kenos break down of the conclusion made by UNESO Not just because it says it well but because I didn’t say it (Laugh) which is,

“UNESCO concluded that "more than" likely the African phenotype was larger (in greater number) in ancient Egypt, but we cannot definitely come to this conclusion based on the information that we currently have”.

From my point of view I see in the statement all of these theories being represented excluding the back migration thinkers. Colour has not been defined, which is not surprising, and the only real firm conclusion made is that the Ancient Egyptians were almost definitely African. There origin RE: what part of Africa, Black or light has been left open. Leaving open the West coast, North, South East, and any other I am not aware of.

I am no expert on Diop, but my understanding here is that Diop theories would have conflicted with some of the other African origin theories and he may have even debated with them as well. (If I am wrong about this, this blows my view out of the water). An example would be the connection the West Coast thinkers make to Egypt. I would imagine Diop would have had a problem with Berbers being suggested as the first inhabitants of the Nile.

Keep in mine Hawass, does agree that the Egyptians are African in origin.

Now if I am correct in saying that none of these think tanks have been excluded from the final statement besides the Middle east!, then the statement is on one hand Supporting those in regards to the Continent of Origin, being Africa, and the Ancients being African, but at the same time “not totally accepting, one over the other as to the exact place of origin, leaving it open to debate as to weather, As Diop argues, the people were black negro, or one of the other phenotypes supported by the other migration theories.

This is why I feel one could be forgiven for using the phrase, not accepted, as none including Diop theory were totally accepted. And none besides any non African origin Theories were totally disproven either.

From the point of view of a Diop supporter I could easily see the comment being reversed and argued that the other disciplines, who debated Diop, were “not accepted”.

Well that’s the reasoning I had for suggesting I don’t think his statement could be considered lying.

One last thing, at the risk of causing affence, I feel I have a largely different background than most of you guys, not just because Im white (I know every one here is not dark) and I am Australian, far removed for most of my life from the rest of the world. That’s why I moved to this side of the world for the experience and the contact with other countries. Many have pointed out that the litriture available to me has exclude some forms of Egyptology I have not been aware of, re the anti African sentiments. Im following up one those. And will continue to read suggested material, But in particular when asked or even pushed for input into a debate. Just because what seems to be clearly to many here is placed under my nose, does not mean I going to always agree, or see what you see, just because its said so. Suggesting things like, Bias, or Im chosing not to see, etc I don’t think is objective or fair. My views may change, as some have, and some may not, and even though some may not believe it I take in everthing that is put my way.

I hope I didn’t offend as this is not a debate I wish to start rather and understanding.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
ZH: I really do not believe that Egypt is an African civilization.

---

For example, I wonder why he assumes that the neccessary morphological requirements for being "Negro"(itsself a problematic term" have to do with "lips and noses". The logical question is: how should one therefore classify those South East Asians and South Asians(India, Sri-Lanka) who don't pass ZH's morphological test?

ZH also claims that there is no connection between other traditional African cultures and that of the AE's. A number of Western anthropologists have themselves demonstrated cultural connections: Examples--Llhoti, Daniels, Breasted, et al.

ZH also claims that Diop engaged in his research on behalf of African Americans. Diop's "Nations negres et Culture" was originally a doctoral thesis presented to a Sorbonne panel before 1954--the year the dissertation was published as book. In 1954, black Americans were concerned with leagl issue pertaining to Civil Rights--not Ancient Egypt. In fact, if one does the research one will see that persons of European extraction have long been much more interested in AE than blacks in Africa or America. It is not blacks who arrange the ongoing world tours of Tut, Akhenaten, Rameses, etc. The vast majority of tourists to Egypt are from the European and Japanese world.

It was claimed in the old 2003 post that "technology and culture have nothing to do with biology". That is correct given the enormous hard evidence of such: compare the technological level of Western Europe or Japan 2KYA with what it is today despite [b]no significant genetic change in the populations since that time[b].

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amun:
I think the conclusion UNESCO reached was fair. We have to consider the fact that while Diop's conclusions haven't been disproven, they haven't all been tested. I don't see how anyone can disagree that ancient Egyptians were dark and light brown skinned people but who is willing to put in the effort to find out whether they were predominantly one phenotype or another? And why does it matter?

For the most part it wont change the way people feel about Egypt. I only hope that Egyptologists and historians will accept Egypt as an African country and accept the civilization of ancient Egypt as the beginning of African history.

---

yes,ancient egypt was a african civilization,but african history does not start with egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lamin:
What is surprising from this old interview-post of Hawass is how ill-informed he is.

For example, I wonder why he assumes that the neccessary morphological requirements for being "Negro"(itsself a problematic term" have to do with "lips and noses". The logical question is: how should one therefore classify those South East Asians and South Asians(India, Sri-Lanka) who don't pass ZH's morphological test?

ZH also claims that there is no connection between other traditional African cultures and that of the AE's. A number of Western anthropologists have themselves demonstrated cultural connections: Examples--Llhoti, Daniels, Breasted, et al.

ZH also claims that Diop engaged in his research on behalf of African Americans. Diop's "Nations negres et Culture" was originally a doctoral thesis presented to a Sorbonne panel before 1954--the year the dissertation was published as book. In 1954, black Americans were concerned with leagl issue pertaining to Civil Rights--not Ancient Egypt. In fact, if one does the research one will see that persons of European extraction have long been much more interested in AE than blacks in Africa or America. It is not blacks who arrange the ongoing world tours of Tut, Akhenaten, Rameses, etc. The vast majority of tourists to Egypt are from the European and Japanese world.

---

IT WAS said that the nubians were the first ones outside of egypt to be the first true ones to study egypt and taught the egyptians to be egyptians again,and they renewed egypt's culture again when they fully invaded egypt.they invaded egypt before but it was in upper egypt mostly.

Every culture is unique, and all cultures interact with each other. Egypt, with it's circumcision, Nubian wigs and female hairstyles, bald headed men, smooth shaven faces, mainly white colored clothing indicate a culture that is paralleled all over BLACK East Africa. How many mustached faces do you see in Ancient Egyptian sculpture?

Begs the question: This!, is the best that you've got?

quote:

---

yes,ancient egypt was a african civilization,but african history does not start with egypt.

---

quote:

---

Again, only when it comes to the origins of the AEs does this type of thinking ‘interesting proof, but we can never be sure’ pass for objective thinking. For example, one would never say that despite the fact that greeks thought that the AEs, as well as other neighboring Asiatics, help give rise to the greek civilization that the greeks were not white people in the first place. Despite evidence of Negroid strains found in ancient Greece, one would never ever say that the greeks were, in part Negroid.
Nevertheless, although it can be shown through bio-anthropology that there was a significant negro presence in pre-dynastic Egypt, as well as in the lands they lay towards the south, and southwest, so called objective thinkers can still call for even more proof. If this same type of thinking was applied to the origins of the ancient Mediterraneans, greeks, Mesoamericans, Chinese, Thailanders (Thais), etc….the debates could go ooooooooooooooooooooooon forever.
Originally posted by Ozzy:
Keep in mine Hawass, does agree that the Egyptians are African in origin.

---

I respect your opinion Ozzy, but I don’t agree with you. I think ZH is against an African origin to AE, although he says that he believes that AE developed independent of its African surroundings and indigenous peoples.

Also, what type of understanding are you trying to develop?(just curious) I agree that not ever discussion has to develop into a heated debate, but in the forum we challenge posters on their facts, which leads to debate if the poster chooses defend his/her thoughts without facts or wants to defend their facts.

Lastly, this notion of whether or not the AEs were black peoples grows tiresome. The true argument is whether or not they were Negroid. And of course this lead to the following arguments that for some….the AEs were not black enough to be considered black, and for others that they were more than black enough (if that makes sense).

But honestly, the mistake that’s being made here is a matter of semantics (especially on ZH’s part). To over exaggerate the similarities of SOME Negroid types while underplaying others is a game that whites and non blacks play to classify blackness by their standards. The problem is, these standards never hold up. To use ZH’s definition of what’s Negroid would be to whiten up about 80% of the west and sub-Sahara black populations. Moreover, almost no blacks in America would be considered Negroid as well by these standards.

Finally, I ask you to think of Europe and how there is just as much diversity there between the irish and the Spanish, and the Sicilians and the fins, and the Russians and the Hungarians, the german and Portuguese, etc. etc…. If there was one type established for us, lets say the blond hair, blue eyed, straight haired, Nordic type….then we could argue that you can not conclusively say that the greeks were for the most part white. Thank God, we don’t have that problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

I don’t know about anyone else, but all I have read about the UNESCO, are from the links provided here. To me they are very vague, my understanding of the debate is that, Diop among others provided, their theorises, opinions, on the topic of the origin of the Ancient Egyptian population. I would have thought there would have been a number of thoughts being expressed there. Not just Diop and friends against the world. I understand there are a number of Origin theories which involve native African migration. These theories range from North African origin, South East origin, and some have argued the West Coast. And of cause there are those who support the back migration from the Middle East theory etc. I would have thought there would have been representatives of all these thoughts at the debate.

---

The back migration, from the Middle East, theory on the origins of AE was a baseless argument (back then as it is now) that never had any facts to support it. This was a simple-minded conclusion based on post pharonic populations of northern Egypt (modern Egypt).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

“UNESCO concluded that "more than" likely the African phenotype was larger (in greater number) in ancient Egypt, but we cannot definitely come to this conclusion based on the information that we currently have”.
[QUOTE]

Again, only when it comes to the origins of the AEs does this type of thinking ‘interesting proof, but we can never be sure’ pass for objective thinking. For example, one would never say that despite the fact that greeks thought that the AEs, as well as other neighboring Asiatics, help give rise to the greek civilization that the greeks were not white people in the first place. Despite evidence of Negroid strains found in ancient Greece, one would never ever say that the greeks were, in part Negroid.
Nevertheless, although it can be shown through bio-anthropology that there was a significant negro presence in pre-dynastic Egypt, as well as in the lands they lay towards the south, and southwest, so called objective thinkers can still call for even more proof. If this same type of thinking was applied to the origins of the ancient Mediterraneans, greeks, Mesoamericans, Chinese, Thailanders (Thais), etc….the debates could go ooooooooooooooooooooooon forever.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ozzy:

Keep in mine Hawass, does agree that the Egyptians are African in origin.

---

The belief that AE is of African Origins, but not an African Civilization is simply an oxymoron.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:

Well that’s the reasoning I had for suggesting I don’t think his statement could be considered lying.
I hope I didn’t offend as this is not a debate I wish to start rather and understanding.

---

I respect your opinion Ozzy, but I don’t agree with you. I think ZH is against an African origin to AE, although he says that he believes that AE developed independent of its African surroundings and indigenous peoples.

Also, what type of understanding are you trying to develop?(just curious) I agree that not ever discussion has to develop into a heated debate, but in the forum we challenge posters on their facts, which leads to debate if the poster chooses defend his/her thoughts without facts or wants to defend their facts.

Lastly, this notion of whether or not the AEs were black peoples grows tiresome. The true argument is whether or not they were Negroid. And of course this lead to the following arguments that for some….the AEs were not black enough to be considered black, and for others that they were more than black enough (if that makes sense).

But honestly, the mistake that’s being made here is a matter of semantics (especially on ZH’s part). To over exaggerate the similarities of SOME Negroid types while underplaying others is a game that whites and non blacks play to classify blackness by their standards. The problem is, these standards never hold up. To use ZH’s definition of what’s Negroid would be to whiten up about 80% of the west and sub-Sahara black populations. Moreover, almost no blacks in America would be considered Negroid as well by these standards.

Finally, I ask you to think of Europe and how there is just as much diversity there between the irish and the Spanish, and the Sicilians and the fins, and the Russians and the Hungarians, the german and Portuguese, etc. etc…. If there was one type established for us, lets say the blond hair, blue eyed, straight haired, Nordic type….then we could argue that you can not conclusively say that the greeks were for the most part white. Thank God, we don’t have that problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
yes,ancient egypt was a african civilization,but african history does not start with egypt.

---

Technically, we can say it begins with Nubia but this is a hypothesis since so little is known about that point in history.

BTW,

Why are we bringing back year old topics?

and

I am the poster Amun

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Technically, we can say it begins with Nubia but this is a hypothesis since so little is known about that point in history.

---

I don't why there are still a few people out there, whom despite availability of enough archeological and written evidence of the development of Nile Valley civilization coming largely from the south, still skeptical about this reality. Even the flow of the Nile itself should be enough to incite some common sense on this.

quote:

---

neo*geo:
Why are we bringing back year old topics?

---

Would you rather have it brought back as a new thread?

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Would you rather have it brought back as a new thread?

---

It doesn't make a difference to me anymore. It's not like the regular posters here have much else to talk about...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
It doesn't make a difference to me anymore. It's not like the regular posters here have much else to talk about...

---

By which, I take it that we won't be hearing more of your routine complaints about having several threads on more or less the same topic!

Nevermind. It's come from none other than Hawass. What else would you expect?

He's not even ashamed to say all that stuff? What planet is he living on?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kembu:
Kemet (Ancient Egypt) was not an African Civilization? LOL

Nevermind. It's come from none other than Hawass. What else would you expect?

He's not even ashamed to say all that stuff? What planet is he living on?

He looks nothing like an ancient Egyptian.

---

Why is it the last sets of conquerors of geographic Egypt had
absolutely no interest in Kmt -- considering the ancient civ as a time
of ignorance, demolishing civic buildings for their stone and brick,
defacing statues and paintings, and even consuming ancient Kmtyw dead
bodies as mumia -- until Europeans began exploring and investigating?

Sure there may have been an exception or two but it seems there was no
collective concern for preservation or any sense of continuity from
African Kmt to Arab Misr on the part of the elite and ruling class, only
the lowly fellah kept Kmt alive in his day to day folkways and
syncretized religion.

When was the first book on Kmt by an Egyptian author writing in
Arabic published? What is the story of the training and developing of
homeborn Egyptian Egyptologist? Are they independent or wearers of cast
off jackets woven on the looms of western university education and its
views of the old culture of Kmt?

You asked some interesting questions on the birth of interest in ancient Egypt. Although the invading Arabs did some damage, there was also some Arabic authors that attempted to study the ancient language. Most of these people were more liberal minded sufis as opposed to orthodox clergy from al-Ahzar.

One peculiar figure stands out in my mind,and that is Dhul'l Nun al-Masry. He was either a fellahin from Akhmin or a Nubian living in Egypt. He comprised many books on the subject of ancient Egyptian writing. Some of his texts survived but others were burned and destoyed by the Arabian caliph,and he was killed and branded as a heretic.

I know of some indigenous Egyptologist such as Selim Hassan and Dr. Georgy Sahbry,and a few others whose name escapes my mind.

The following might explain more:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8825/8825.intro.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20010210224902/www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/events/conferences/enco/Visual/Haikal.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
ZH: I really do not believe that Egypt is an African civilization.[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 14 September 2003).]

---

Thought Writes:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thought2:
Thought Writes:

Hawas is a very dangerous man. He should not be in the position he has.

---

I personally could not agree with you more!

quote:

---

Originally posted by alTakruri:

Why is it the last sets of conquerors of geographic Egypt had
absolutely no interest in Kmt -- considering the ancient civ as a time
of ignorance, demolishing civic buildings for their stone and brick,
defacing statues and paintings, and even consuming ancient Kmtyw dead
bodies as mumia -- until Europeans began exploring and investigating?

[This message has been edited by alTakruri (edited 23 December 2004).]

---

Many years ago when I first started to research about the Arab presence in post pharonic Egypt it blew my mind about this discontent they had for the mummies and monuments of old. I read that the initial thoughts of the invading Arabs on the ancients were that the AEs were akin to the superstitious black Africans of the interior.

But as you mentioned, when it became profitable to gain and interest and association with the ancients of Kmt, then the story and attitude changed.

quote:

---

when it became profitable to gain and interest and association with the ancients of Kmt, then the story and attitude changed.

---

In a way though, I'm pleased with what Hawass said, because it was so blatant and therefore indefinsible.

It is the more subtle dissembling that is more harmful.

You know:

* AE was African but not necessarily Black.
* AE was Black but not necessarily Negroid.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]

* AE was African but not necessarily Black.
* AE was Black but not necessarily Negroid.

---

Thought Writes:

Or:

* AE was mixed with Eurasians (or "Coastal Types") in the North and tropical Africans in the south.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
When ZH is attacked as ignorant and ill informed, as some have done on this thread, it actually hurts the case you are trying to make.

---