quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Please qualify this? The similarities between AE's and West/Central Africans are too numerous to list. I'm learning of new ones everyday. There are linguistic and cultural similarites. West/Central Africans are a diverse group, but like AE's many of them practise ancestor worship. Like AE's many of them are matrilineal. Many of them worship a similar pantheon of deities. Many of them have ritual celebrations, and similar styles of music and possibly rites of passage.

We could go on all day.

---

As Africans some overlapping linguistic or cultural traditions are to be expected but you can't compare ancient Egypt to later civilizations in west Africa or Central Africa apples to apples as you can do with Nubia...

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
As Africans some overlapping linguistic or cultural traditions are to be expected but you can't compare ancient Egypt to later civilizations in west Africa or Central Africa apples to apples as you can do with Nubia...

---

I will agree that an ancient Kush is probably closer to ancient Egypt than any culture today, but that doesn't not mean we can not compare them.

Your original statement

"Beyond their physical appearance, there is little that ancient Egyptians had in common with West African or central African people."

is highly debateble. The similarities are so simliar my belief is one of two possibilities are likely true.

1. West and Central Africa was indeed heavily populated by migrations of AE's (and possibly other East Africans) after foreign invasions from the north east.

Sopdet responds: We have no proof that Rahotep was related to Snefru. We also know that the first dyansties came from the extreme south were people are sthttp://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htmill negriod today. Most of the royaline was mixed between Upper and Lower Egypt.

The 12th dyansty and 18th dyansty had both Upper Egyptian and Nubian origin.

See the following debunks your claim of caucasoin types predominating in royalty:

In the Cairo Museum, there is just such a statue of wood of a man called Ny-ankh-Pepy-kem, or Ny-ankh-Pepy the black. He shows all the characteristics of the darker southern Upper Egyptian type. However, other members of this family were called desher, "red" because they came closer in appearance to the average male Egyptian. So, when southern Upper Egypt does become represented, voila, there are the darker Egyptians, yes, even among the elites.
Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago -- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

So, in conclusion, I think the absence of darker type individuals in the Memphite class of bureaucrats of Dynasty IV-V reflects the fact that these are mostly court members from the Memphis area. For as soon as the provincials start appearing in Dynasty V-VI, you start seeing darker types among them, who are from southern Upper Egypt. That is why I stated earlier in the previous post, that yes, had we good depictions of the First-Second Dynasty rulers, who originated from Nekhen, way south in Upper Egypt, they should be dark brown in complexion as the people in those areas were in all subsequent periods down to the present day. So again, if there were such individuals in the north, they well might be descendants of these royals from Nekhen. Such may be the case with Djoser, the first king of whom we have portrait quality statues and reliefs, and yes, known to be a son of Khasekhemwy, the last ruler of Dynasty 2, he does appear like a southern Egyptian in type. Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago -- Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

Reserve Head of a Man. Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551?2528 B.C.E.). Limestone; H. 11 7/8 in. (30 cm). Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Harvard University?Museum of Fine Arts Expedition (14.719).

Although each reserve head has characteristics that make it unique, this example stands out from the group. It is one of the largest and is the most perfectly preserved, exhibiting none of the intentional damage found on others. Excavated in a shaft with another head, this one was originally identified as the Nubian wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population.
http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/new_pyramid/PYRAMIDS/HTML/el_pyramid_head2.htm

Dynasty 12, as the Prophecy of Neferti records, originated from a Nubian
family settled in Egypt, as the mother of Amenemhat I is said to come from
Ta Seti, the Egyptians name for Nubia, and the 1st Upper Egyptian Nome,
at Aswan. His father from Henet hen nefer, stated to be part of Nubia in
Kamose's Second Stela. So, Dynasty 12 was Nubian in origin.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First Wally ,I don't think Europeans and Americas are ignorant. The modern world was created by them and doubtless there must be some brain activity at work. Secondly, I don't think western civilization was started by Europeans and I don't think we teach that. We do teach that the threads of western civilization reach back into the near eastern powers around the med just prior to the Greeks. I don't see how you could possibly separate those societies from the development of western civilization. Greece and Rome did not just spring up like a weed. I think your objections (if you are honest) stem more from modern politics than it does the way we see history.

---

Where is your proof? You state opinions as if they are fact! I can list you many, many points where this is not true. This might be true for certain academic aspects but definitely not when it comes to African culture and history!
1) It is a scientific fact that Negroes were the first race that roamed all the earth so there should be evidence of skulls that show their presence. This is accepted when it comes to the origins of our species and "evolution". Almost hinting with underlying connotations that evolution = superior when in fact evolution is can result in a positive characteristic/trait or a negative trait and ignoring that Africans have also evolved in their natural environment. However, then it comes to civilization, the science is out of the window and we no longer have Negroes but Eurafrican, Negroid, Negritoes, and other euphemism to replace NEGRO or Black so to speak. If one is objective it would be evident that these are just normal and natural variations with in the Negro group and there is no need to create other categories. On the other side of the page it would be noted that Africans “black” are the most genetically and physically diverse people while still remaining NEGRO.

2) Diop states, “They gradually recognized it as the most ancient civilization that engendered. But imperialism begin what it is, it became increasingly “inadmissible” to continue to accept the theory -evident until then-of a Negro Egypt. The birth of Egyptology was thus marked by the need to destroy the memory of a Negro Egypt at any cost in all minds.

Here is what a white modern historian (Maspero) had to day about the previously accepted theory of a Negro Egypt.: “First, the 17th and 18th century travelers mislead appearance of certain mongrelized Copts, certified that their predecessors in the Pharonic age had a puffed up face, bug eyes, flat nose, fleshy lips. And that they represented certain characteristic features of the Negro race. This error, common at the start of the century, vanished once and for all as soon as French Commission had publish its great work.

My summation and interpretation: If that area was originally white, “mongrelization” would have only cause whitening of that area and not Negrification? And that slave theory is rubbish because “black” slaves would not have been sufficient enough to turn that area/Copts black. His (Mespero‘s) theory is either illogical or a blatant lie!

Maspero continues: “On examining innumerable reproductions of the statues and the bas-reliefs, we recognized that the people represented on the monuments, instead of presenting peculiarities and the general appearance of Negro, really resembled the fine white races of Europe and Western Asia. At first glance, we feel that the artist has sought to reproduce an exact likeness, in the accurate portrayal of the head an limbs. Then brushing aside the nuances proper to each individual, we easily detect the general character and principle types of the race. One of them, thick-set and heavy, corresponds quite well to one of the prevalent types amongst the modern fellahs. Another depicting members of the upper class, shows us a man tall and slender with broad muscular shoulders, well developed chests, sinewy arms, small hands , slim hips, thin legs................His brow is square, perhaps somewhat low; his nose short and fleshy; his eyes large; and opened wide; his cheeks round; his lips thick but not exerted; his mouth stretched a bit too far, retains a resigned and almost painful smile. These features, common to most of the statues of the Old and Middle Empire, persists through all the epochs.

Keino responds: This is the description of a Nergo, Nergoid, whatever you want to call it. These words are some of the basis that modern Egyptologist used to prove that Egypt white! Read the above statement and tell me that this is logical. Isn’t that ironic? Either he is illogical or is telling a blatant lie.

Here’s the research of another modern Egyptologist (Champollion the Younger), the so called “Father of Egyptology”. He states: “The opinion that Ancient Egypt belonged to the Negro African race is an error long accepted as the truth. Since the Renaissance, travelers in the east, barely capable of fully appreciating the ideas provided by Egyptian monuments in the important question, have help to spread the false notion and geographers have not failed to reproduce it, even on our day. A serious authority declared himself in favor of this view and popularized the error. Such was the effect of what the celebrated Volney published on the various races of men he had observed in Egypt. In his voyage, which is in all libraries, he reports that the Copts are descended from he Ancient Egyptians; that the Copts have a bloated face, puffed up eyes, thick lip, flat nose, like a mulatto, that they resembled the sphinx of the pyramids, a distinctly Negro head. He concluded that Ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same species as all indigenous Africans. To support his opinion, Volnely Invoked that Heroditus, who apropos, recalls that the Egyptians had black skin and woolly-hair. Yet these two physical qualities does not surface to qualify the Negro race and Volney’s conclusion as to the Negro Origin of Egyptian civilization is evidently forced and inadmissible.

Diop’s Response: After indirectly expressing regret that Volney’s book is found in all libraries, Champollion-Figeac advances, as a decisive argument to refute the thesis of that scholar and all his predecessors, that black skin and woolly hair to not suffice to characterize the Negro race. It is at the price of such alteration and basic definition that it has been possible to whiten the Egyptian race. Lo and Behold, it is no longer to be black from head to toe and have wooly hair to be Negro! One would imagine oneself in a world where physical laws have been turned upside-down. In any case one is certainly far removed fromt eh analytical Cartesian mind. These, however, were the definition and alteration of the initial data that were to become cornerstone on which “Egytplogical science” would be built.

HOROMHEB IF YOU CAN RATIONALIZE THIS ILLOGICAL THINKING THAT ARE OUTRIGHT LIES WHICH BECAME CORNERSTONES ARGUMENT THAT ANCIENT EGYPTIANS WERE NOT BLACK, THEN YOU CAN PROVE TO ME THAT THE ANCIENT THEMSELF WERE NOT BLACK OR WHITE!

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The 18th dynasty was decidely cacuasian.

---

Who decided this? Care to quote from a scholoarly source for once? The 18th dynasty was started by a family from Thebes in Upper Egypt so it was unlikely that they would have been caucasion. I'm not pushing an agenda, it's just obvious that this was not a caucasion dynasty. If you were talking about one of the more ambiguous or inconclusive dynasties, you might get by, but dynasties 1-3, 12, and 18 were not caucasion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

No relief of Thutmose III or Hatchepsut could possibly be called negroid.

---

Hatshepsut

Don't have any images of Thutmose III but it is documented that his mother was a Nubian. Coming from a Theban family and having a Nubian mother, it's very unlikely that Thutmose III looked caucasion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

In 'Chronicles of the Pharoahs' Peter has a bar of pictures of all the 18th and 19th dynasty kings. They are all decidely cacuasian in apperance.

---

I don't know why you are mixing the 18th and 19th dynasties. These were different families from opposite regions of Egypt.

Tell me these people from the 18th dynasty look caucasion:

Queen Tiye

King Tut

Amenhotep III

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Keep in mind also that foreign brides were continously being introduced to the royal harem.

---

Except in the cases of Nubian women, foriegn born women rarely had a shot at Egyptian royalty. While there existed the occasional adoption of foriegn brides for political reasons, the family relationships of the 18th dynasty are well documented and the portraits of these people are very telling. Despite being the children of Yuya, Tiye and Aye both have very negroid looking portraiture.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

The 19th dynasty was clearly not negroid and one must assume that it was closely related to the 18th even though it may not have been a direct relationship.

---

There is no logic in that assumption. Technically, King Tut was the last of the Pharoahs from the Theban family that started the 18th dynasty. Aye had no heirs to the throne so Horemheb, a general with no known direct family ties to the 18th dynasty, took the throne.

Ramses I, a military man, founded the 19th dynasty. The 19th dynasty originated from the Nile Delta and was in no way directly related to the 18th dynasty. Being a noble family from near Avaris, it's possible that the Ramessides could have been related to the Hyksos. With Rameses I coming from the semitic influenced Nile Delta, I have no disagreement with the possibility that the 19th dynasty being physically caucasion.

Horemheb, do you disagree that there were negroid dynasties in Egypt before the 7th century BC? With all evidence pointing to the contrary, what scholarly sources can you find to strengthen your argument?

Sopdet: The anthropology studies show that from pre-dyanstic times Upper Egypt has always been predominatley negriod with some absorbtion of Mediterranean elements around parts of Middle Egypt. The Upper Egyptian population has been fairly isolated over the years compared the the urban areas in Lower Egypt[Northern Egypt] which has absorbed foreginer admixture various times including from the 8th dyansty going into the Ptolomeic period to the Arabic invasion. The rural peasents in the countryside in Upper Egypt have retained their phenotype more than any other Egyptians.

See the following references:

The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.

page 310

J. Lawrence Angel

Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution

Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969

Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*

Plus you acessment that the modern Egyptian population in the south or north is not supported by biology. Modern Upper Egyptians are relatively the same people with the same phenotype as their ancient ancestors.

See the following:

*The Distribution of Human Blood Groups* by A.E. Mourant and A.C. Kopec
(1976), p.85 showed that the Copts had no significant differences from the
Muslim Egyptians in blood group frequencies which confirms my belief that the
majority of Muslim Egyptians are converted Copts.In other words,they did not
mix with the invading Arabs. Boyd and later Batawi showed that there were no
significant physiological differences between the modern and ancient
Egyptians in skin colour and skull remains.

We all know that we ought to have a card in our wallets noting our
blood groups,so that in an emergency a blood transfusion of the
correct blood can be given without delay. Of course the method of
classifying was only discovered comparatively recently,in
1900infact,so it is hardly suprising that the labels attached to
mummies' necks which we have mentioned make no reference to their
blood group. Nonetheless it is possible to deduce it from a muscle or
bone which has been dissolved into dust through a special process.
This requires relatively large fragments,weighing about a gram,and so
a different technique was invented by Connoly,who used an enlarging
method to analyse tiny amounts of dust from human tissue,and so type
the blood.
At first sight it is difficulat to see what interest such a study
could have,but two examples will soon show us that it has a pratical
applications. When Boyd studied serveral series of mummies,he found
that the blood groups A,B,and O recurred with very much the same
fequency in ancient Egypt as they do there today. Above all he was
able to confirm the pressence of group B blood in pre dyanstic
mummies,going back more than three thousand years before
Christ,wheras it had been thought group B was only a mutation of
group o which first apperaed durikng the christain era.
page 19-20
The Egyptian Way of Death
Ange Pierre Leaca

Horemheb said:''n her diplomacy, trade, cultural exchanges, much of her religious interaction and much of her military activity AE faced north, not south.''

Sopdet responds: This is just not the case as you state. The ancient Kemetian[Egyptian] religious tradition during the first three dyansties was firmly based around the south at Abydos,but after the 4th dyansty the cult center changed from Abydos to Annu[Heliopolis] and Men-Nefer,but after this it was based firmly around the south at Waset in Upper Egypt.

Egypt during dyanstic times had a road from Luxor to Farshut that traded with the Nubians of Yam for precious goods including leopard skins that were exclusively worn by the preisthood. This trade goes back deeper into pre-dyanstic times during the A-group Nubia which to was a coridor for exotic goods. This corridor was extremely important to the Egyptians. Egyptians also since the 5th dyansty sent various trade to the land of Punt which they called Ta-Ankhu[land of the ancestors] Obviously,punt had a close connection to Egypt that probabaly streched back into deeper antiquity.

Egyptians called Elephantine[Modern Aswan] as the first of the first nome of Egypt signifying that Egypt did look south for it's origins.

Dear Paul ,
You may be interested to know that the name for the "black smiths" or
"harpooners" the msnu (mesenu) is spelled with a hieroglyph that is a
representation of a reed float. This reed float was used by the
hippopotamus hunters to float out into the water so that they could
harpoon the hippo. ( See Gardiner sign V 32).

Of interest as well is the name of the first nome of Upper Egypt "Ta
Seti" land of the bow or the Nubians. This is always listed in order as
the first nome. For instance on the walls of the Temple of Horus at Edfu
the personified nomes are portrayed in procession in the guise of river
deities ( They all look like Hapi the Nile God). The king faces south
and the nomes march to the north. The first nome greeting the king and
the head of the procession is Ta Seti the land of the Nubians. Also on
the Famine Stela , Elephantine at Aswan is called the first of the first
in the first nome. So traditionally Egypt looked to the south from
whence the Nile came and therefore civilization.
--

_
_____

Greg Reeder
On the WWW
at Reeder's Egypt Page
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
reeder@sirius.com

traditionally,all Egyptians would make a pilgrimage to the southern cities like Abutu much like Muslims go to makkah today.

Horeheb said ''Throughout it's history the immigration impulse came from the northeast, sometimes in large numbers. That is one thing that I think may be hanging some up on this board.
''

Ausar responds:'' Does not matter how many people came into the north over assort period of times. The majority of the Egyptian population was always consentrated around Luxor to Aswan.

Horemheb said:'' While AE is in northeast Africa it is really, and always has been, a middle eastern country.

No,Egypt was fundamentally an African nation that absorbed various so-called Asiatic populations in the Delta. Most of the immigrants were unwelcome to the people in Lower Egypt and had bitter wars with them. Do you actually believe the Hykos were welcomed in Egypt? Plus,there is no such geography term as the middle east prior to the 1800's. This term is a creation of British Oreintalist ,and does not reflect reality of the location.

Horemheb said:''The 18th dynasty was decidely cacuasian. No relief of Thutmose III or Hatchepsut could possibly be called negroid.

In 'Chronicles of the Pharoahs' Peter has a bar of pictures of all the 18th and 19th dynasty kings. They are all decidely cacuasian in apperance. That is not to say they mirrored the populatiopn of upper Egypt which may have been much more Nubian.

Ausar responds: different sculptor shops across Egypt made different models for different nomes. Sometimes the sculpture represented the population where it was sculpted than the actual likeness of the pharoah. The fact remains that Maatkare,Thutmoses III both came from the family lines of Sequenenre Tao,and Ahomose who were originally from Waset.

The cranial anlysis of the bone structure on the mummies from the 17th dyansty to 18th dyansty does not support your observation from the art work.

See the following:

The same has also
been found of the late 17th dynasty, which was found to have distinctive
maxillary or alveolar prognathisms, prognathisms, dolichochocephaly, short
faces, and other Negroid ¡Øsouthern¡× affinities. And especially of Seqenenre
Tao, last pharaoh of the 17th dynasty, and the father of Queen
Amhose-Nefertari, first queen of the 18th dynasty, this was found. His
pronounced and distinctive southern affinities have been noted by numerous
experts. Professors Harris and Weeks, in their work "X-Raying the Pharaohs"
stated this of Seqenenre Tao:

"His entire facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs (it is
closest in fact to his son Ahmose) that he could be fitted more easily into the
series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian
kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian- that is,
non-Egyptian-origin for Sequenre and his family, and his facial features
suggest that this might indeed be true."

Please keep in mind through his son Amhose and his daughter Amhose-Nefertari,
18th dynasty kings and queens Amenhotep I, Queen Meryatamon, Queen Hatshepsut,
Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton,
Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, can all trace their bloodlines back to
Seqenenre Tao. The 18th dynasty was virtually a continuation of the 17th one.
And upon the 18th dynasty royals, to demonstrate this even further, let's
examine the works of Professors Harris and Wente on this. In 1980 Professors
James Harris and Edward Wente wrote a book called "X-Ray Atlas of the Royal
Mummies." In this book they examined and x-rayed various royal mummies stored
at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The Dynasties in question were 17, 18, 19, 20,
and 21. The purpose of this study, was by determining the shapes of the crania,
the teeth, and length and width of the face, to deterimine how traits were
passed down through the various royal members of each dynasty, and to
deterimine blood relations based on those traits.

What Harris and Wente found, was that the kings and queens of the late 17th and
the 18th dynasties were mostly prognathous, with maxillary prognathisms,
doliochocephaly, and other traits. This is also true of the 20th and 21st
dynasties. we shall be dealing with the 18th dynasty. Harris and Wente, by the
way, were white Americans and not black Afrocentrics. Their interest was in
familial relations through traits, not racial characteristics! And they did
their studies on actual mummies. The 18th Dynasty was the very Egyptian dynasty
which extended Egypt's borders into Asia and the Sudan, creating a vast empire.
They also are well known for their great monument and public works buildings.
Pharaoh Amenhotep III, who's children Akhenaton and Nefertiti show strong
Negroid admixture in their features, built a lake for his wife Neferiti.They
also built vast stretches of land, and were the first dynasty to utilize the
horse, and make use of carriages. This was the strongest Egyptian dynasty ever.
Even stronger than the 19th one, and greater builders. Yet this dynasty was
undeniably black, as shall be irrifutably demonstrated Before we start, let's
look at Negroid and Caucasoid traits. WM Krogman (The Human Skeleton in
Forensic Medicine) listed traits and features associated distinctly with the
Negroid and Caucasion races. I shall list them below!

Africoid: Rounded, projecting glabella; sagittal plateau; rounded forehead,
prognathism; rounded occiput.

Caucasoid: Depressed glabella; rounded or arched sagittal contour; steep
forehead; orthognathism; variable occiput. And according to, S Rhine
("Non-metric skull racing"):

Africoid: Slight depression of nasion; vertical zygomatic arches; prognathism;
receding, vertical chin; straight mandibular edge.

Caucasoid: Depression of nasion; retreating zygomatic arches; orthognathism;
prominent, bilobate chin; wavy mandibular edge.

Also, RA Drummond ("A determination of cephalometric norms for the Negro
race"); TL Alexander and HP Hitchcock ("Cephalometric standards for American
Negro children"); RJ Fonseca, WD Klein ("A cephalometric evaluation of American
Negro women"); CJ Kowalski, CE Nasjlet and GF Walker (Differential diagnosis of
adult make black and white populations); and A Jacobson ("The craniofacial
skeletal pattern of the South African Negro"). Persons of African descent are
distinguished by steep mandibular plane; sharp, vertical chin; protrusion of
the incisors; prognathism; greater lower facial height but with less mid-facial
height; upper mouth is more projecting than lower mouth (higher ANB angle).
Y'edyank and Iscan ("Craniofacial Growth and Evolution"). Mesolithic Nubians
had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium
with high vault. The prominence of the orbital region was reduced by the
Christian era and the occipital bun much less prominent. Flattening of the
lambdoid and sagittal regions also became less pronounced. (Forensic analysis
of the skull : craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification.
[editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.:
Wiley-Liss, 1993)

Keep all of the above in mind when we examine and look at the 18th dynasty
royals. Now let's look at some Caucasoid and Negroid crania. The first picture,
is a Nordic Caucasion crania.

Mediterrenic skull

The third, is an Alpine Caucasion crania. Alpine skull

And the final, is a compter-generated x-ray scan of 19th Dynasty Pharaoh, Seti
I. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Seti I

Note the Nordic is dolichocephalic with a very and narrow and long face face.
The Mediterranean crania, though dolichocephalic, is of a medium-long lenth.
And for your pleasure, I added a computer-generated x-ray scan of Seti I's
crania. Note he is dolichocephalic, orthognathous, with a long and narrow face.
He is of the Nordic type. And the Alpine is brachycephalic with a medium long
and broad face. All four are orgnathous (non-protruding chin) as opposed to
prognathous (protruding chin).

Next are two Negroid crania. The first is the skull of Mesolithic Sudanese man.
Note it is prognathous (chin protruding, has a receding chin, is
dolichocephalic, with a short face). Next is a, x-ray of a Mesolithic Sudanese
woman. Note she is slightly dolichocephalic, has a short face, and slight
prognathisms. Skull of a Sudanese Mesolithic man.

A Mesolithic Sudanese man

X-ray of a Sudanese Mesolithic woman.

A Mesolithic Sudanese woman

Now that you have seen Caucasoid and Negroid crania, and have all the traits
found in Caucasions and Africans, now time to look at the 18th Dynasty royalty.
First is Amhose-Nefertari. Note in her x-ray scan, she has pronounced
prognathisms, strong maxillary prognathisms, dolichocephaly, a broad and short
face, strongly proclined incisors, rounded forehead, sagittal flattening,
rounded occiput, steep mandible with squat ramus, receding chin, and somewhat
forward zygomatic arches. All features found distinctly in Africans! According
to Professor Leo Hansberry, who noted the features found in her mummy, she had
healthy teeth, a broad nose, wide mouth, full-lips, and maxillary prognathisms.
[Africa's Glorious Past, p. 37] And according to Harris and Weeks in their
"X-Raying the Pharaohs", her hair was platted, like that of many modern Nubian
populations. She was distinctly Negroid. Please note, Amenhotep I, Queen
Meryatamon, Thutmose II, Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, Thutmose
IV, Amenhotep III, Akhenaton, Queen Nefertiti, and Tutankhamen, all trace their
bloodlines back to her! Thus, they undeniably have black ancestry! No
pseudo-evidence you present can erase the black blood in their veins from
Amhose-Nefertari. Their ancestry is NOT up for debates. This is an established
FACT! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Queen Amhose-Nefertari

A computer-generated x-ray scan of Pharaoh Amenhotep I. His mother was
Amhose-Nefertari. Note his prognathisms, rounded occiput and forehead, sagittal
plateau, slightly forward zygomatic arch, moderately inclined mandible, and
maxillary prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies,
1980]

Pharaoh Amenhotep I

This is a computer x-ray scan of Queen Meryetamon. She was the sister and wife,
of Amenhotep I. Note her prognathisms, maxillary prognathisms, slightly forward
zygomatic arches, moderately inclined mandible, and sitting ramus. [Harris and
Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980]

Queen Meryatamon A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thutmose I. He is the
father of both Queen Hatshepsut and Pharaoh Thutmose II, and grandfather of
Thutmose III. Note his globalar skull with high vault, pronounced prognathisms,
maxillary prognathisms, vertically zigomatic arches, angled mandible, and
squating ramus. His mummy shows him as having a broad nose, wide nostrils,
full-lips, and prognathisms. [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal
Mummies, 1980] Pharaoh Thutmose I

An x-ray of Pharaoh Thutmose II. Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and
a descendant of Queen Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high
vault with sagittal plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches,
globular cranium shape (common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly
angular mandible, prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Compare to the
x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The Pharaoh has more pronounced
prognathisms than her! [Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies,
1980]

Pharaoh Thutmose II

Also compare his X-ray to the x-ray of the Mesolithic Sudanese woman above. The
Pharaoh has more pronounced prognathisms than her!

And lastly, A computer-generated x-ray scan of Thuya, the mother of Queen Tiye.
Not her Thutmose II is the father of Thutmose III, and a descendant of Queen
Amhose-Nefertari. Note rounded glabella and forhead, high vault with sagittal
plateau, rounded occiput, vertical zygomatic arches, globular cranium shape
(common amongst modern Nubians), vertical chin, highly angular mandible,
prognathisms, and maxillary prognathisms. Although she has reddish wavy hair,
her crania shows clear signs of black admixture. Peoples of mixed African
descent cometimes have red hair. This can be especially noted amongst many some
African-Americans, like Malcom X for instance. Thuya had a wide mouth, which is
a trait distinctive of Africans. Egyptologists have noted Queen Tiye's mummy
shows strong resemblences to Thuya. Tiye's bust shows Negroid features, which
explains her strong resemblence to her mother. Many specialists have noted how
Tiye's father Yuya, who looks completely Caucasion, is atypical of Egyptians.
[Harris and Wente. X-Ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies, 1980] Lady Thuya

See also the study by Gay Robins and Shute that point out the living proportions of the Pharoahs in the 18th dyansty.

See the following:

The physical proportions and living stature of New Kingdom Pharaohs Journal of Human Evolution 12 (1983), 455-465 (with C.C.D. Shute).

http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture1.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture2.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture3.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture4.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture5.jpg

http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture6.jpg

http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture7.jpg

http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture8.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture9.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture10.jpg
http://highculture.8m.com/slide_show.html?show=Living_Statue_of_New_Kingdom_Per-a&picture=picture11.jpg

Horemheb said:''The 19th dynasty was clearly not negroid and one must assume that it was closely related to the 18th even though it may not have been a direct relationship.''

Ausar responds: The founder of the 19th dyansty was Rameses I and his father Seti was a non-royal solider that came from the Eastern Delta. In this area for years foregin Libyan mercenaries There is no connection between the 19th or the 18th dyansty. Not even through intermarriage. Rameses I was a personal friend of Horemheb who tjay[vizer]

When Horemhab uses the term "Negroid," he means those Ancient Egyptians who most closely resembled Bantu Africans in Ancient Egyptian art. And when he uses the term "Caucasian," he means those Ancient Egyptians who most closely resembled the Ethiopians and Somali.

This game is both old and tired.

And has anyone, who wants to show illustrations, thought of comparing Egyptian art to Ethiopian or Somali art, for example, and really throw this guy for a loop?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally....I have submitted a donezen studies over time from the top people in the business. Easch time it is dismissed as a 'bad sample.' This is a political board, not a historical board. One poster even refers to himself as 'blackman.' Would i sound if I referred to myself as 'whiteman?' To say the least not very scholarly.
Many of you complain about the field of Egyptology and how biased it is. This implies that many do NOT agree with you as well. Western academians are the best in the world. If they have reached a conclusion it will be correct based on the information we have at the time. New information may , and often does, change those views and if so the scholars will change as well. We have some of the most dedicated men and women in the world seeking the truth. You can bank on what they tell you.

---

If its one thing they teach in the field of science is to be logical! Most of the modern works that Egyptology was based on to prove that the AEs were not black are illogical at best, at worst blatant lies! Check with primary sources and they are very logical with factual proof and circumstancial evidence, however the "modern" secondary and thirtiary sources are often illogical and frequently contradictory to the very point it tried to establish! If you think the basis of which modern egyptologist "established" that AEs were non-black is logical then you need to make me understand your logic. I am not insulting you because thats not my intention or my nature. These "modern" egyptologists' summation and interpretation were basically; they look black, with kinky hair, flat nose, thick lips, but somehow (with imagination)they resemble the fine white features of Europe and western Asia. Even the wording of his statement, "it is no longer hard to imagine" give us a big hint as to the degree of suspending disbelief that was and still is needed to prove his point. And to hold true to this view many Scientist started to divided the negro race into categories and call them black-whites, changing the definition of Negro. This foundation of Egyptology is bias, but as for the recent modern Egyptologist and scientist, I think they are for the most part conducting true science on the origins and ethnicity of AE, but it is done from a basis that is false and otherwise redundant! Of course if you call someone with black skin, woolly hair, but a narrower nasal index and a slightly less prognosthic jaw white then based on that assumption these people would be white by that DEFINITION. Euphemisms, euphemisms, euphemisms based on on one ultimate desire- to discredit the African origins of Ancient Egypt! If we go by they same principles and characteristics to divide Europe, one can safely and confidently say that Ancient Greece and Rome were non white civilizations! Where's the logic and controls with research?

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley

Most of the pharoahs came from Upper Egypt exluding the VI,VII,VII. the IX and X dyansties orignated in modern Beni Suef[Middle Egypt].

I posted studies of Mummies by Kent Weeks,James Harris,and even Gay Robins and Shute that prove my point. 18th dyanasty remains were negriod in bone structure.

Show me direct quotes from Brier or anybody that backs up your claims.

See the following:

The movement or diffusion of people out of and into Egypt during
this time span from before 4000 B.C.-2000 B.C. or later evolution of
this slightly negriod paedomorphic stock into Dyansty Upper
Egyptians was probably a local development from the unknown latest
hunters of the Lower Nile,while mixture of more massive and rugged
[and also negriod ] Nubians[Anderson,1969];Armelagos,1969] produced
some of the rugged Pre-dyanstic variants . Disease and dietary
selection would have affected the population probably more than
immigration and mixture. Lower Egypt may have had a slightly
different population,less linear in the skull variant but with
longer face,like the earliest farmers in Greece ,but also with thin
noses. But I have to use a IX Dyansty series [Woo ,1930] as a base
for this statement and almost certainly this group in the late third
milliennium B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading
peoples from the Levant and Agean. Cyprus since the early Neolithic
[Angel,1953;Furst,1933] had both very lateral and some linear skulls
elements and could have been a source of change and there were
probably exchanges with Palestine[Korgman ,1949;Hrdlicka,1938] and
Mesopotamia [Angel ,1951],both with long [Angel,1951],both with long
headed populations with medium or low rather than linear faces and
some of the same lateral element as in early Anatolian[cf. the later
Hitties] and the Agean [Angel,1951]. The latter is supposed to have
increased in numbers [from what selective force?] in the Bronze Age
and perhaps to have affected Lower Egypt via the Hykos.
This is not enough evidence. But the intruders who appeared in
Greece at time of Indo-Europeans acceptance[Angel,1971] are fairly
robust Iranian[or Nordic Iranian] in form[Korgman,1940] with definite
short and low headed and also intermediate forms of skull: I think
that the Hykos wew probably a parallel blend and also may have had
little genetic effect in an area of high population density already.
page 310
J. Lawrence Angel
Divison of Physical Anthropology
Smithstonian Institution
Washington,D.C. 20560 ,U.S.A.
Received 18 April 1969
Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean
Populations during Pre-dynastic and Dyanstic
Time*

In discussing the Badari culture, for example -- Egypt's earliest predynastic
civilization (4400-4000 BC) -- Shomarka Keita writes that many researchers
have found their remains to be "fundamentally `Negroid'."
Going back even further in time, Keita states:
"...late paleolithic remains from Egypt indicate characteristics which
distinguish them clearly from their European counterparts at 30,000 and
20,000 years BP... These distinguishing characteristics, commonly called
`Negroid,' are shared with later Nile valley and more southerly groups...
Epipaleolithic `mesolithic' Nile valley remains have these characteristics
and diverge notably from their Maghreban and European counterparts in key
craniofacial characteristics."
(S.O.Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological
Relationships", History in Africa 20 (1993), page 135).

The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:
"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Keino...i do not think the 'look' black if you are speaking of the royals.

Keino responds: Have you not see portraits of african americans? ethiopians, Somolians and even some latin americans? I say this being as objective as I can be; there are many people in my family whom, according to your jugding criteria,would not look black in the exact same portrait style the AEs used. If I along with many african americans were to get a portrait done in the exact same style as the AEs did, you would say that we don't look black because we don't have the hardcore, stereotypical, pure tropical stock look. However once you see these people in person you would have NO trouble labelling them objectively as black or a slight variant of black if you will.

Horemheb said: Further, studies of their mummies show for the most part they were not black.

Keino Responds: Post one or two points at a time and lets argue them from a logical point of view using primary(just as its is done with Europe) sources where necessary and lets analyse the research done. Lets look at the sample, size, where they came from, ect.., The problem with the genetic studies is that it varies so much and one white group might have a gene common in blacks and not common another white group; another problem is that there have been alot of mixing to begin with. Lets do it anyway from a logical point of view using controls which entitles having all fair groups samples.

Horemheb said: The question that has to be asked deals whit the migration of peoples. Most of the grave yards we have examined show a decidely 'non negroid' population. I submitted some excellent studies to you on this point a month or two ago. When did these various groups arrive in upper egypt.

Keino responds: Again we are back to the base of egyptology and the definition game. Most studies said that about 36% of predynastic remains were negro, 33% mediterranean, 11% Cro-Magnoidm, and 20% belonging to none of the three categories, but either related to Cro-Magnoids or Negroids. What is the differention between non-Negroid and Negroid as Diop puts it?If we were to take skull measurements of african, caribbean and america blacks I bet these numbers would reflect very similar. Skull and skeletal measurements vary greatly throughut Africa but still these people are clearly negro to the eyes.

Horemheb said: I think when the stroty is in we will see that many arrived centuries after the fall of AE. A slow migration up river from the south would be logical and consistent with other migration patterns.

Keino Responds: The evidence points to a Negro/Negroid stock being infiltrated by white types slowly and throughtout the centuries. It would take massive amounts of "blacks" to change the racial dynamics of upper egypt had they originally been white. Where is the history and trails of these so called white founders that started AEs civilization? There is information emerging in Libya supporting a group of "blacks" who lived in the Saraha that mummified BEFORE Egyptians. Where is the trails from West Asia or Europe? Why are the oldest monuments known in Egypt distinctly Negro/negroid? Why are the earliest things so African in nature. Why were the ancient historians so aware of the dynamics of AE? Can people who actually saw these people be wrong?
Horemheb said: There are a great many migration issues we are not dealing with adequately in our discussions.

Keino responds: Diop clearly and logically established fact. The reverse theroy is based on NO evidence.

Horemheb says: I would say this, I would not use Diop in 2004 to make a scholarly point. His political bias is overwhelming. I am still working through his material but so far what I am reading is very very political and not scholarly at all.
He seems to want to see Colonialism as a racial issue which it was not.

Keino Responds: If you were interested in the truth you would research his work to prove him wrong and not just dismiss it. He makes it clear that he feels proud for his heritage and that certain issues concerning "egyptolgy" bother him. He gave his opinion. Taking his opinions out you still have the core information that is very hard to dismiss!

---

Ausar responds:
Not most,but many tombs have been robbed over the years from antiquity to modern day times. From my knowleadge,the idenitifcation of the royal mummies has been done by Kent R. Weeks,Went,and James E. Harris. These people publised two books entitled: X-raying the Pharoahs,and X-Ray Atlas of Egyptian Mummies.

During the 26th dyansty,correct me if I am wrong, the various priests relocated many of the mummies from their original location to safer locations,so many of the royal mummies were never looted.

''Keep in mind also that just because one or two people dispute something does not make it so. The 'Elder lady' is a case in point.
Brier, Clayton and most others have accepted her as Queen Tiy baring any new information.''

Ausar responds:
Could you post exact quotes were Bob Brier or Clayton have made such statements? Brier makes no mention of idenitification in his book ''Ancient Egyptian Mummies''

''1. Hair sample is a perfect match with Tut label.''

Ausar responds:
Really? What authority did an analysis on Tiye's hair and matched it two King Tut-ankh-amun. From my understnading the match is suspected because it was found in a chest in Tut-ankh-amun's tomb.

''2. Skull measurements correspond with her mother.''

Ausar responds:

Reference? Even early anatomist Grafton-Smith is not positvely sure about Elder Lady or others. Once it was postulated that Elder Lady could have been Hathshepsut,but know it is in question. Susan James in issue of Kmt Summer 2000 issue found it might be Nefertiti.

'' 3. blood grouping is a fit. ''

Ausar responds:

Who did the blood groupings? The only work I know that was conducted on such mummies was by Boyd who developed a method to test blood groupings from decomposed flesh on mummies.

''at the end of the day we know enough to know that it is probably Queen Tiy. Do we know for sure, no. That said, the probability is very high.
Give you questions regarding identification of the mummies.''

Ausar responds:

Nothing is definite. The oldest complete royal mummy found in Egypt was believed to be Pepi Menenre;however Grafton-Smith thought it might just be a 18th dyansty mummy instead.

If a person calls themselves Blackman as a screen name,or calls himself Whiteman as a screen I have no power to control this. The only thing I have the power to do is erase threads. The privilage of banning people is not given to me on this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
This is a political board, not a historical board. One poster even refers to himself as 'blackman.' Would i sound if I referred to myself as 'whiteman?' To say the least not very scholarly.

---

Horemheb,
You can call yourself whiteman if you choose, but your post clearly states that for you. I'm not pushing a black agenda or racial agenda on this forum. However, you are pushing your agenda here mostly I feel to upset people, cause conflict, and humor me.

I have yet to see you post on something about AE besides mediterrian caucasian stuff.

Your original point was correct.Many scholars
do interject their own hypothesis and theories concerning ancient Egypt but you
know what's more disturbing..I have been to
websites as you said that state the Upper
Egyptians are the direct descendants of the
ancients but they treat them like subjects.

I have never seen Upper Egyptians quoted
or interviewed about anything on their
culture..That's like talking about hip-hop
and all the writers discussing it are white.

Example:I received my "National Geographic"
magazine yesterday and it had a story about
Tetiankh-kem..The pics showed them to be
brown skinned but there is a illustration
with them as white.That is a total misrepresentation in a mainstream magazine.
The illustration looks like it came from
the movie "The Mummy".This is the reason you
have all these "Horemhebs" running around
in cyberspace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amwa:
Ausar,

This is the reason you
have all these "Horemhebs" running around
in cyberspace.

---