[This message has been edited by Osiris II (edited 25 March 2004).]

I agree with Osiris,and I believe that the Egyptians ancient and modern were s diverse people composed of a mixture of Costal Northern African types in the North[although not without negriod admixture],and mostly negriod types in Upper Egypt. This is what I have proclaimed all along but neither sides of the extreme will listen to me. I do believe that despite Egyptians being hetrogenous people that majority of it's culture was Africa,and this is really what should matter.

While I don't go as far as many,I believe that the African elements in Egyptology has been marginalized due to the 19th century academic. Some even then like Budge,Pierre Montet,and also others admitted that Egypt was African in origin. More modern Egyptologist have admitted this like Frank Joseph Yurco and others. Bruce Trigger,archeologist and Egyptologist,had admitted that in the past Egyptologist have purposely ignored the African elements in Egyptian soceity because of agendas set up by the 19th century. I have even heard extreme claims from people like George Reisner who believe the elite in ancient Nubia were blonde haired;yet I never hear much talk about this,nor about the racism spwed by people like Sir. Grafton Smith.

The intentions of my post was not to start an endless racial debate that leads nowhere,but to point out that fakes did exist in the early days of Egyptology. Manu is definatley welcome to his views although I don't share them. I have debated Ampim on other Egyptology lists about some of his evidence,but I wouldn't call the man a crackpot as many have. People should weigh the evidence without bias or prejustice they might have about the subject. Through this process enlighted thinking emerges,and we being to grow intellectually.

It is infair to brand somebody or call them names without first listening to their side. If you disagree then present evidence on your behalf to refute them. Just callimng names is just ad hominem attacks that are groundless.

Here are some mainstream publications that deal with this issues we are discussing:

Bruce Trigger, ?Egyptology, Ancient Egypt, and the American Imagination? in The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt (1995), pp. 21-35

* Publisher: Indianapolis Museum of Art; (December 1996)

Egypt in Africa
by Theodore Celenko (Editor)

The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt
by Nancy Thomas, Bruce G. Trigger, Gerry D. Scott (Editor), Los Angeles County Museum Of Art

Anyway,let's get back on topic. Osiris,I am suprised you have yet to comment on the Saqqara link I posted.

See the following:

See the following link: http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/ANE/ANE-DIGEST/V02/v02.n077
[scroll down to the thread by Peter Piccone]

Finally, let it be said that the ancient Egyptians were not white=20 Caucasians, nor were they Indo-Aryans. They were African, primarily a brown race, although fair= =20 skinned and leptorhine in the north, black skinned and platyrhine in the south, and= =20 various shades in the middle. They manifested all the physical differences you=20 would expect in so large a continent as Africa. Trigger (see below) uses the term=20 "Nilotic" to refer to their heterogenous character. When all is said and done, though,= =20 this whole question of Egyptian racial identity says more about us today than it does= =20 about the ancient Egyptians.
http://www.cofc.edu/~piccione/main.html
[You can't call Peter Piccone an Afrocentrist or a man with an agenda because he is a white Egyptologist whi graduated from the Chicago Oreintal Insitute] This is the same place where people like Breasted were established.

PETER A. PICCIONE, PH.D.
Egyptologist
Assistant Professor of Comparative Ancient History

quote:

---

Originally posted by Osiris II:
[B]reThroughout the history of archaeology, and Egyptology in particular, forgeries have been accepted as real by many authorities, proving that the said authorities are only human, and make errors in judgement.
But I think Ampim's book goes far beyond showing us works of forgery, and instead tries to "prove" a not-so-subtle plot to wipe out any traces of Africanism, and to show that the ancient Egyptians were white. Unfortunately, this board had become a sounding-board for all the foaming-at-the-mouth individuals who want to show the rest of us--ignorant that we are--that what we believe about the ancient Egyptians is wrong--that it was a superior, black society. I really think that the answer is in between those ideas submitted by the members of this board--that the ancient Egyptians were a blend of different peoples--lighter as one gets closer to the coast, darker as one goes to the South. But really, what difference does it make? The ancient Egyptians were in a class by themselves. Whatever their racial idenity, it worked! They created a successful society, that exsisted for over 3000 years. Why don't we concentrait on that fact, and drop the racial issue?
/B]

---

Osiris, you are more than welcome to your views. I will agree that arguing the "race" of AE's is silly, though probably for different reasons than you. What we must understand, is that some people are not going to change their opinions no matter what. So there's no point in debating with them.

This is puurely an opinion of mine, but I think it's time we abandon colonial leftovers that serve no purpose but to confuse. What does the word negroid tell us? Does it mean dark skin, a wide nose, kinky hair, etc? What if you have fair skin, a wide nose, kinky hair, etc? Can you still be a negro? How about dark skin, a thin nose, kinky hair, etc? This idea of negroid is a silly as the caucasiod and mongoloid.

We are taking these concepts and trying to apply them to AE's when the 3 racial types don't even work for us today. We end up taking skull measurements and the like to try to see if an individual was negro, or caucasian or whatever, though not that I have a problem with biological anthropology. But depending on the definition, this girl might not be considered negro. Notice her nose isn't that wide, her lips aren't that big:

(btw sorry about stealing your image Wally.)

Does anyone but me find this silly? Depending on who's telling the story many Africans are no longer negro, while negro and African are usually synonamous. I believe it was Ozzy who argued that Africans, like everyone else, are a very diverse group of people. He's right. And regardless of your opinion of Wally, his main argument seems to be that AE's knew exactly who they were and where they came from, and they told us. I too believe this to be true, and I'd like to see someone disprove this.

It's useless to try to squeeze AE's into a box. I've said many times that they were black, but I admit that notion is silly, although the AE's too called themselves black. All I'm saying is that in America they would most likely check African American on a census, live in a neighborhood with dark skinned people, etc. Saying you're black today just means you have demonstratable African ancestry and nothing about how you actually look. The same things holds true for a white person. They don't all look alike either. I know a guy who at first glance could pass for Spanish, but he'd fight you if you said he wasn't black.

This is puurely an opinion of mine, but I think it's time we abandon colonial leftovers that serve no purpose but to confuse. What does the word negroid tell us? Does it mean dark skin, a wide nose, kinky hair, etc? What if you have fair skin, a wide nose, kinky hair, etc? Can you still be a negro? How about dark skin, a thin nose, kinky hair, etc? This idea of negroid is a silly as the caucasiod and mongoloid.

We are taking these concepts and trying to apply them to AE's when the 3 racial types don't even work for us today. We end up taking skull measurements and the like to try to see if an individual was negro, or caucasian or whatever, though not that I have a problem with biological anthropology. But depending on the definition, this girl might not be considered negro. Notice her nose isn't that wide, her lips aren't that big:

(btw sorry about stealing your image Wally.)

If this girl's skull was found in Egypt she would NOT be labeled as Negro, but as mediterranean, and accorindng to who is doing it she might be mediterranean with little NEGROID mixture. Looking at her and calling her non-black is ridiculous just as the plan to break down the Negro race in sub-categories and then call some non-black is insane!

Christine Lilyquist

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004
400 pp. 268 b/w photographs + 157 line drawing plates
9 3/4 x 13 3/4
Cloth ISBN 0-300-10121-x $125.00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book results from a collaborative effort to reconstruct the 15th-century bc tomb of three foreign wives of Tuthmosis III, discovered and robbed by villagers near Luxor in 1916. A general account was published by Herbert Winlock in 1948 (The Treasure of Three Egyptian Princesses, New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art). The present volume differs substantially in the type and extent of documentation provided and in interpretation.

Verification is provided of tomb provenance for a number of objects, for example, while OTHER OBJECTS previously thought to have come from the tomb ARE NOW CONSIDERED FORGERIES. The text explores and documents the location of the tomb in the southwest valleys at Thebes; field work conducted by The Metropolitan Museum of Art at the site in 1988; art market finds alleged to have come from the tomb; and the names of the foreign wives and the life they might have led.

Christine Lilyquist is Lila Acheson Wallace Curator of Egyptology at The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
And the hits keep coming...
THE TOMB OF TUTHMOSIS III'S FOREIGN WIVES

Christine Lilyquist

---

Horemheb, not to get on you but forgeries with art is VERY popular and done even more when a profit is possible. From you brushing this off as nonsense make me wonder. I'm sure some forgeries were done because that is expected when ever a great civilization is discovered, but look at who was doing some of this forgeries, supposed scholars whom had very vocal and evident racism for anything Black/African. This is evident in even the tone of the "modern" egyptologist when they twisted primary sources to discredit the origins of AE. See we have to not only be physical scientist, but social scientist when dealing with this issue. Question to ask: how did the ruling class feel about africans and blacks at that time of this new discovery of the so called non-black egypt? Were they neutral in their reporting of the facts and information? What was their tone? And the socialogical question can go on and on! Not doing so is unscientific to say the least!

can someone tell me how to post pictures??

Since your are a student I think Horemheb
and his kind are actually good for you
because they give you a real world example
of people who will not budge and are wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The Egyptians ancient and modern were diverse people composed of a mixture of Costal Northern African types in the North[although not without negriod admixture],and mostly negriod types in Upper Egypt. This is what I have proclaimed all along but neither sides of the extreme will listen to me. I do believe that despite Egyptians being hetrogenous people that majority of it's culture was Africa,and this is really what should matter.

---

I agree with you AUASR,

Horemheb,
You danced around Keino's question without answering him. You still tickle me. We would like to know if she is caucasian by your definition.

(Kieno stated
HOREMHEB, WHAT RACE WOULD YOU SAY THIS GIRL BELONGS TO AND BE HONEST.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First Ausar....I would call this man a crackpot. He is obviously a racist, black nationalist from what I was able to pick up on the web and in reading his work. Many of our 'African Studies' programs are infested with these guys. Instead of doing great work unfolding African history and black history in America they use their position as a soap box to preach hate and distorted views of history. The sad aspect in all of this is that we are paying these people with tax dollars. They often make little contribution to the body of knowledge. That said, there are some who do a great job in the field and they have our support and praise 110%.
Keino....There is and has been no distortion of AE history. What there has been in a lack of knowledge. As time has moved on we have gained more knowledge and are getting more answers all the time. In 20 years we will have most of the answers. You may not like them all but whatever they are they will be correct to the BEST of our ability. We need to not see a conspiracy around every corner. I run into these things all the time in my Civil War class each year. We cannot create an outcome and then try to selectively bend history to fit what we want.
These Africanists wail aganist Colonialism. Was their a realistic alternative? Probably not. Was it unpleasant for some to be dominated by the Europeans? I'm sure it was. Did good come out of it? You bet. Are Africans better off because the Euro-Americans came or not? Interesting question, probably much better off by today but it is a mixed bag. Was it avoidable? No.
My question is this, what in the world do these people want? We need to all join the modern world and prosper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Neo is correct. Everything that happens is not a plot to hold the poor blackman down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I don't think these forgeries are made for racial propaganda. There is a lot of money in the antiquities business so forgeries are common. The biggest, most recent evidence of this was that coffin found in Israel that was said to have belonged to James, the brother of Jesus Christ. After a while it turned out to be a big hoax. Some people will do anything to make a quick dollar...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Kem, here is my point....where did you get the information that the statue's nose was replaced with the wrong nose? Did it come from mainline academics or did it come from one of these 'conspiracy' people. Why would people want the wrong nose on a statue? Pardon my doubt but there is more to this than you are telling us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amwa:
Keino,

She looks "mesopotamian" to me..She is a
holdover from the middle east migrations
that took place 5,000 years ago.I can see
it in her cheek bones and cranial measurements.The hair is clearly of semitic
origins and so is the aquiline nose..hahaha

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Kem...I would call a conspiracy theorists anyone who believes that academics has a racial componet. Nobody cares about that, they are seeking facts. Problem is , some people don't like the facts they come up with for political and racial reason.

---

If nothing else you've always been civil, but I usually reference my claims. In the past you have either not responded or dismissed things that I posted. The subject of this topic is Fakes and forgeries of the past. If you'd like to debate that an artifact was faked, then by all means go ahead. But if you're just going to continually state that everyone who disagrees with you has a political agenda then it's a waste of time.

Frank Joseph Yurco has pointed out that the 16-17 dyansties had elements of medijay soliders.

The last people to hold out from the Romans were the Beja that would raid the Byzhatine and force them to retreat from the island of Philae. The temple there was not closed down untill the 500 AD.

The Beja people,like so many others,have fallen victim to the mythical Hamitic myth.

What is even more interesting is a group in SOuthern Sudan called the Shilluk who have many customs that are interconnected to ancient Egypt. Many anthropologist tried to even put these people despite their facial pronathism, wide mouth,or other features into the pusedo category as Hamite.

Anyway,this is another topice for another thread.

All these people are mainstream scholars that have no axe to grind with conventional scholarship. Are we sugesting that monolithic scholarship produces the best results? Since when has this even been true? Scophenhauer wrote about this: First you have ridicule,second comes denial,and later comes acceptance. Thaink about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Keino, there is no 'we' or black position. There is only 'a' position. Thats the problem with the africanist viewpoint. It wants to say that it is us aganist them and that is not the case and never has been. If I am an Egyptologist it matter not if I am black, white or maroon, I am still an Egyptologist. My point is this, when these Africanists set themselves up aganist mainline academics they are going to lose.
IF your point is correct 95% of the academics will generally agree.
The 'Romans conquored the known world', thats not a racial or moral position, its just a fact. Its a fact no matter what your race.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amwa:
Horemheb,

Name ten mainline scholars who share your
position?..So we can read their articles/or
books?

---

Try "Not out of Africa",it is a response to
Martin Bernal's "Out of Africa"..Kathyrn
Bard(I think that's correct) is a person
who denies in that book that the ancient
Egyptians were primarily "mediterranean"
and not "black" read: central/or bantu african..It refutes any black origination
for Egypt.

The only Mediterranean people in Egypt was in Lower Egypt which had contact also with Western Asian people. The Upper Egyptians were predominatley negriod.

We have evidence from archeological sites like Nabta Playa in Southern Egypt.

The royals in Egyptian soceity look differently over the years because they came from different parts of Egypt. Most were attached to the royal house through family relation,and most looked no different from the majority of the Egyptian population. During the Old Kingdom you actually had nomarchs in Upper Egypt that ruled themselves in different nomes,and this later was divided after the Old Kingdom.

The first three dyansties came from Southern Upper Egypt from the area of El-Kab. These are people like Mena,Djoser, and Khasekhemwy. Frank Yurco notes that all these people come from Southern Upper Egypt and look like the population there.

See the following:

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

n 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.

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

Now I do
not doubt that the Upper Egyptian population was darker. That was
certainly so. Had we reliable depictions of Dynasty 1-2 rulers, I would
concur that they would be dark brown Upper Egyptians, for the family
stemmed from Nekhen at least, if not from Qustul in Lower Nubia.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amwa:
I meant Kathyrn Bard denies that the Egyptians were black and considered them
"mediterranean"..Black to most Egyptologist
is bantu/central african not Ethiopian when
discussing ancient Egypt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
First, my dialogue may have been a lot of things but emotional it was not. Secondly, you hgave admitted having a problem with mainstream Egyptology have you not? Mainstream Egyptology is going to be correct. you and those who take that position show reliefs of Egyptians whom you say prove your point, you omit those that do not. A tremendous number of AE sculpture cannot be interpreted as negroid, why do I never see those? You do speak up when some radical challenges western academia with wild crazy views that nobody in the mainstream accepts. Nobody has ever said there was no African influence in Egypt. If you are trying to contend that the AE royals were black it is my view that you will never win that argument simply because int is not true or supportable. If you wish to argue for a lesser level of influence, especially in more modern times, you will do much better. You will never convince people like Dr. Hawass as long as you depend on Afriacnist radicals for your support.
i note how selective you are in using ancient writers. You ignore all of the writers who describe the Egyptians as lighter skinned and distinguish them from Nubians.
This is just radical african politics pure and simple. Egypt was a national power in the near east, not an African power. It faced historically north in its diplomacy and interaction with other empires. If you wrote a book about AE foreign policy only a third or less would have to do with Nubia.
If I were wrong about this all of the mainstream Egyptologists like Hawass, Brier, Clayton, EEP, Orential Institute and others would agree with you. Those are the people who count, not these Africanist crackpots who are bitter because of Euro-American domination.

---

Once again you respond with empty emotional rhetoric. Lets have the the two opposing views present their cases as to the origins of AE and see who has the most FACTUAL proof and evidence. Yes, some anceint historians did described the AEs as lighter, but every single historian also reports that the Greeks and Romans very much darker than the nothern Europeans too so I guess they are non-white. Horemheb, the true crushed to the ground will always rise and refute lies. Lets have both sides start from the bottom up and go over all the facts, information and the interpretation of them. Lets do this in a publically open forum, televise it, make a discovery channel documentary of the great argument. Let each side present its argument fairly without any manipulation. If the mainstream is truth concerning the origins of AE then the public can decide which theory holds water.

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