You can also get such hair coloring from dying. Ancinet Egyptian women and men often used henna which turned their natural hair color reddish colors. This is not only common in Egypt but across Eastern Africa and parts of the so-called Middle East.

Little do people understand there is a logical and scientific explanation to explain the hair color and apperance of mummies. When the body decomposes in solution it turns the mummy into a dehydrated state much like beef jerkey. You cannot tell a race of a mummy simply by looking at the face or any other body structure. The only way any such ethnic affinities of any mummy can be told is through X-ray analysis and by bone structure.

The only X-ray studies that have been done by any anatomist are the early ones during the early 1900's by Sir Grafton Smith and later ones done by James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks. Harris is a dentist and Weeks is both an Egyptologist and has a PHD in physical anthropology.

As far as genetic material from the mummies, this is very hard to come by,and most of the material has been from ABO blood typing. Very few genetic studies have been conducted on the mummies. Some studies by Sasvo Paabo,a Sweedish geneticist, have been published in various Scientific journals.

DNA material in mummies can only be extract through deep tissues and also through teeth.

See the following for more details about hair,apperance, and genetic studies on mummies.

From: Rogers, Spencer Lee, _Personal identification from human

remains_ 1987, "Hair often survives for a considerable time after

death and can be recognized as to color and to some extent texture. A

study in which hair was buried experimentally in the soil for a two

year period revealed that there was no appreciable change until after

one month, but it became streaked and brittle after one year. Two

years was found to be the maximum duration of Caucasian hair buried

underground." (p.8) On the same page it reads: "The color of eyes

during life cannot be determined from their appearance on a cadaver

since all eyes become a greenish brown shortly after death."

Here is a relevent study about DNA from mummies:

DNA decay rate in papyri and human remains from
Egyptian archaeological sites.

Marota I, Basile C, Ubaldi M, Rollo F.

The writing sheets made with strips from the stem
(caulis) of papyri (Cyperus papyrus) are one of the
most ingenious products of ancient technology.

We
extracted DNA from samples of modern papyri varying in
age from 0-100 years BP and from ancient specimens from
Egypt, with an age-span from 1,300-3,200 years BP.

The
copy number of the plant chloroplast DNA in the sheets
was determined using a competitive PCR system designed
on the basis of a short (90 bp) tract of the
chloroplast's ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large
subunit (rbcL) gene sequence.

The results allowed us to
establish that the DNA half-life in papyri is about 19-
24 years.

This means that the last DNA fragments will
vanish within no more than 532-672 years from the
sheets being manufactured. In a parallel investigation,
we checked the archaeological specimens for the
presence of residual DNA and determined the extent of
racemization of aspartic (Asp) acid in both modern and
ancient specimens, as a previous report (Poinar et al.
[1996], Science 272:864-866) showed that racemization
of aspartic acid and DNA decay are linked.

The results
confirmed the complete loss of authentic DNA, even in
the less ancient (8th century AD) papyri. On the other
hand, when the regression for Asp racemization rates in
papyri was compared with that for human and animal
remains from Egyptian archaeological sites, it proved,
quite surprisingly, that the regressions are virtually
identical. Our study provides an indirect argument
against the reliability of claims about the recovery of
authentic DNA from Egyptian mummies and bone remains.
Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Many Eurocentrics have used the Yuya mummy to often prove that caucasians were predominant in Ancient Kmt. We find this to a claim that is never supported by concrete data. Yuya,an offical in Waset, seems to have had a Eur-Asian origin. The wife of Yuya Thuya,which would later to become the mother of Queen Tiy is of Egyptian stock. Her mummy is morphoogicaly different than that of Yuya's.

Sir Grafton Smith found out when he examined the mummies that Yuya fits the profiles of foreginers than he does of Egyptians.

Here's what anatomist Grafton Elliot Smith wrote about this mummy,
after examining it in 1905:

"The form of the face (and especially the nose) is such as we find more
commonly in Europe than in Egypt."

Indeed, the distinctly foreign (i.e. "Semitic") characteristics of Yuya's
mummy were sufficiently pronounced as to move Egyptian writer Ahmed Osman to
speculate, in his book "Stranger in the Valley of the Kings" (Harper * Row,
1987) that Yuya might have been the Hebrew patriarch Joseph

About Thuya which was Yuya's wife:

Like the mummy of her husband the wrappings of the mummy of Thuya had
been severly damaged by robbers.

The bandages have been covered with
black resin,which still bear the impression of stolen jewerly.

The mummy presents some unusual features for the Period.

The
emablimng incision is almost vertical and has been sewn up with a
string. No plate covers the wound,which gapes open,exposing the linen
packing filling the body cavity.

The arms are fully extended with the palms of the hand flattened
against the thighs.

The mummy is of a small old lady with typical Egyptian features who
was possibly over fifty when she died.

Thuya has scantly white hair,know turned yellow by the materials
used in the embalimng \, On the top her head the hair is very thing
much like a pony tail in photographs,are in fact,the remains of the
linen wrappings around the head and back of the neck of the mummy

page 112-113

Faces of the Pharoahs

Robert Parthiage

Here is a statement about apperance of mummies:

How can we identify the pharaohs?
The pharaohs have been dead for thousands of years.

There are no descriptions of their physical appearance, and even the best preserved royal mummies bear little resemblance to living human beings in their prime.

Egyptian sculptures, however, were almost always inscribed with the names and titles of their owners.

A sufficient number of inscribed statues have survived to allow us to recognize the most important pharaohs, and in most cases it is now possible to identify bodiless heads, which have lost their inscriptions, as specific rulers.
http://www.clemusart.com/archive/pharaoh/rosetta/rosefaq.html

Vistors to museums around the world find it fasinating to see the
mummified faces of the ancient dead. But although Egyptians mummies
often very well preserved,with much of the soft tissue clinging to
the skull,the faces inside the wrapping almost certainly are
different than what the person must have looked like.

page 32

Egypt revelaed Magazine

other references is Robert Partrige

who wrote the book faces of the pharoahs

***Eurocentrics often use apperance of mummies to determine their racial origins** The following is a Eurocentric fallacy.

see also about hair color:

Microscopic study tells more about the original hair color,which may
have faded or been changed by enviromental conditions,the
mummification process,or the use of dyes.

The microscope can also
reveal details of styling techniques,such as shard blades to cut hair
as early as 3000BC.

Hair can be subjected to trade element analysis,usually by neutron
activation technique,which can reveal details of diet and
nutrictional deficienes,dieases,enviromental pollution,and even the
use of drugs or poisons-all of which remain locked in the hair long
after they have left the rest of the body.

Page 40

Egypt revelaed

Joann Fletcher

more information about hair:

On Human Hair as a Race Character, Dr Pruner-Bey Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol 6 (1877) p71-

The red hair, on the contrary, seems represented, at least by some individuals, in all known races, whether equatorial or boreal...
From what precedes, we arrive at the conclusion that the colour of the hair alone is insufficient to characterise a race... p73-4

The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963

Hair is largely made up of the fibrous protein keratin.

This substance is extremely resistant to decomposition and enzymatic digestion, mainly owing to the presence of disulphide cross linkages of the amino acid cystine. These join together the long polypeptide chains of the molecule.

If the crosslinkages are broken by reduction or oxidation, altered keratin is readily attacked by proteolytic enzymes.

This resistance of keratin explains durability of hair in ancient burials...These changes can occur on the living animal; thus atmospheric weathering of the fleece of sheep results in loss of cystine from the exposed tips of the fibres.

Permanent waving alters keratin cross linkages, and these changes have been detected using florescence microscopy.

It is probable that if the preparations employed during mummification contained reducing or oxidizing agents or alkaline substances the hair keratin would be damaged...

Normal human hair had a bluish-green florescence with acridine orange but permanently waved hair had a reddish florescence with associated fractures of the fibres...

Hair bleached with hydrogen peroxide also showed this change due to oxidation of the keratin... in some samples such as predynastic Egyptian hair the whole hair was altered in this way.

by Andrew Wilson

Archaeological Hair

The common misconception that all hair turns red over archaeological timescales has found its way into archaeological folklore. Whilst certain environments such as those producing bog bodies are known to yield hair of a red-brown color, in part because of the breakdown of organic matter and presence of humic acids which impart a brown color to recovered remains, it has commonly been assumed that this happens to all archaeological hair. This concept has been perpetuated by popular nicknames such as "Ginger"--affectionately given to the Predynastic burial with red hair on display in the mummy rooms at the British Museum.

Potential change to hair color can be explained more scientifically by examining the chemistry of melanin which is responsible for hair color in life. All hair contains a mixture in varying concentration of both black-brown eumelanin and red-yellow phaeomelanin pigments, which are susceptible to differential chemical change under certain extreme burial conditions (for example wet reducing conditions, or dry oxidising conditions). Importantly, phaeomelanin is much more stable to environmental conditions than eumelanin, hence the reactions occurring in the burial environment favor the preservation of phaeomelanin, revealing and enhancing the red/ yellow color of hairs containing this pigment. Color changes occur slowly under dry oxidising conditions, such as in the burials in sand at Hierakonpolis. Whether the conditions within the wood and plaster coffin contributed to accelerated color change, or whether this individual naturally had more phaeomelanin pigmentation in his hair is hard to say without further analysis.

http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/field/hair.html

All: Let's not play into the usual troll tactics of trying to change the subject because you cannot address the subject.

rasol wrote:

quote:

---

Actually Joanne Fletcher often misquoted regarding [caucazoids] has stated that she doesn't like to use those term's with regards to hair.

She doesn't use those terms at all in her current book on Nefertiti - although she does describe Nefertiti as wearing her hair in a "Nubian" style.

cynotrichous, from,
cyno -> dog and
trich -> hair
cynotrichous -> dog's hair, meaning hair that is wavy to straight in texture like a dog's and contrasted with hair that is wooly in texture (lamb's hair).

The best method for associating hair texture with ethnicity is based on the thickness of the cross section of the hair shaft, and not it's degree of curl or it's color, which for reasons already attested can be misleading. AE hair was generally thick and africoid and not of the thin eurasian variety.

Ethnic Group Hair thickness index
Badarian, pre-dynastic Egyptian 50.0
San, Southern African 55.O0
Zulu, Southern African 55.O0
Sub-Saharan Africa (ave?) 60.O0
Ancient Egypt (ave?) 60.02
Tasmanian (Black) 64.70
Australian (Black) 68.00
Western European 71.20
Asian Indian 73.00
Navajo American 77.00
Chinese 82.60

worth noting:

* Ancient Egyptian hair is African and provably distinct from European hair.

* notice that some Blacks Asian groups have thin hair much like Europeans, and some Black South Indians have even thinner hair than Europeans.

* for people who like to play games with cluster groups -> notice that European hair and hair texture clusters IN-BETWEEN East Asian and African.

* in terms of texture and thickness the extremes of hair are actually found in khoisanoid and diminuative type (thick and peppercorn) hair; and straight and thin east asian hair at the other extreme.

* even African wooly (afro) hair is in between peppercorn and curly.

* europeans have highly heterogenious hair types...curly bordering on afro, wavy and straight. black, brown, red, blonde (yellow) and blonde (white); attempts to assign these diverse types to the 'caucasian' hair group is just another attempt to disguise the reality of heterogeniety among Europeans.

* the only hair type that is endemic to northern europe is predominent blondism. southern europeans cluster with tropical Africans in in terms of hair and eye color.

---

This person's opinion, seems to sum up the most likely TRUTH about Ancient Egypt's People:

quote:

---

Re: Black Egypt? Hardly!

Posted By: Fade
Date: 12, October 03, at 3:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Black Egypt? Hardly! (Tony Collier)

I have done extensible research on every side of the so-called "Afrocentric" debate concerning the Ancient Egyptians, and I must say that I find flaws in both the Eurocentric notion of an all-Mediterranean ("Hamitic") Egypt, and the racist idea that Egypt was an exclusively black African civilization that influenced the ENTIRE course of history as we know it, and the absurd notions that it harbors (black Egyptians crossing the Alantic ocean and colonizing the Mayans and Aztecs, for example).

To begin with, the Egyptians were a mixed race of people FROM THE BEGINNING. That means that from dynasty 0 (started by King Scorpion and Narmer), all the way to the arrival of Alexander the Great and the Ptolemies, there have been black Africans, Mediterranean caucasoids and even fair haired European types present in the Egyptian empire. This explains the existence of red-haired mummies dating back to the beginning of Egyptian civilization, and also accounts for the fact that many predynastic populations in Egypt are distincly African. There was a blending of cultures from the very beginning, as well as a gradual absorption of light-skinned Libyans and black Nubians over a period of time.

Is it so hard for historians and scholars to accept that Ancient Egypt was a melting pot from the first dynasty on up? Most will tell you that the presence of Africans in Ancient Egypt is a result of Nubian campaigns during later dynasties (such as the 18th and 19th), or perhaps "infiltrations" that occurred as a consequence of the expansion of the Egyptian empire; indeed all of this true, but there WERE African types even BEFORE these events!

There are busts that exist dating back all the way to the first dynasty that display negroid features, such as the infamous "Narmer head", which has long been overlooked by scholars and Egyptologists. King Scorpion and his son Narmer were from Upper Egypt, which has long been regarded as the cradle of Egyptian civilization. This is also where the African presence was the largest, as many Theban mummies attest. Why do so many scholars and Egyptologists disregard the possibility that the first Egyptian dynasty was a black one?

With this in mind, one cannot overlook caucasoid mummies like "Ginger", with their discretely reddish hair and European features, which instantly drive a steak through the heart of the radical Afrocentric view that Egypt was an EXCLUSIVELY "black" civilization. This does not mean that there were ONLY European types present either, but rather attests a heterogenous population from the beginning!

The bust of Khufu's nephew Hemiunu shows non-negroid features, but many busts of Khufu himself are quite African in appearance. It is not unusual then that another bust found in Hemiunu's tomb, believed to be that of one of his wives, shows a prognathous face with Nubian features. This can only indicate that the fourth dynasty family was mixed, and this is further corroborated by the face of King Khafre and his descendants. The Sphinx is renowned by Afrocentrists for its African appearance; indeed, if the nose were to be reconstructed correctly, their claims would be partially accurate. Yet they ignore the fact that many members of great Khufu's family were indeed non-African, perhaps even European.

Many Egyptian wigs are made up of various hair types and textures, and they are made of REAL Egyptian hair. There are wavy blonde wigs and kinky, braided wigs made of African hair. Some are even combined from different racial types. It is a known fact that during the 18th dynasty (especially in the reign of Akhenaten and Nefertiti), Nubian-style wigs were fashionable and quite popular among royal and noble families, mixed and homogenous.

Many of the so-called "White Nationalists", who have nothing better to do that cut and paste from Arthur Kemp's erroneous "History of the White Race", have often claimed the beautiful Nefertiti as a "white" and "unmixed" queen of Egypt. That is easily disproven, as the bloodline of Nefertiti herself can be traced back to Seqenenre Taa II, a pharaoh of the 17th dynasty, which many Egyptologists believe to be of Nubian extraction. His Nubian heritage alone renders the entire 18th dynasty a mullato one, even if many of its members share distinctly caucasoid traits, such as the chestnut-colored hair of Tuthmosis IV, and Amenhotep II's wavy brown head and fair skin. This goes as long as one follows the "one-drop" rule constituted in America, where one drop of African blood renders one a "negro", no matter what.

I am not saying this to give credence to any of the radical sects of "Afrocentrism", because indeed many of these so-called "groups" are racist to the highest degree. Rather, I am being 100% TRUTH-centric in my claims, and I hold in firm belief that the population of Ancient Egypt was a mixed one from start to finish, and, contrary to what Arthur Kemp will tell you, the Egyptian empire THRIVED on the presence of different varieties throughout its existence. There was never a time when Egypt "fell" as a result of being "overrun" by black Nubians (one should note that the Nubian 25th dynasty was a very successful one, restoring decaying Egyptian temples to their original state, and it is thought that the Nubian pharaohs were often "more Egyptian" than the Egyptians themselves!).

When one thinks of race and the Ancient Egyptians, or the so-called the "Egyptian Question", one should envision Egypt as an empire comprised of many nations and peoples, including, but not limited to, Nubians, Libyans, and Semites. Ramses II, one of the greatest Egyptian pharaohs, may well have been of Libyan origin. This would explain his reddish hair and fair Caucasian features. One should think of Ancient Egypt as an example to the rest of the world, proving that interracial marriage is not as bad as many would believe. Egypt's heterogenous population and overall prestige and might attest to this in every way. There are countless black, white and Semitic-looking mummies dating back from its very beginning to its fall, and this cannot be argued against.

The Egyptians were not pure black, but neither were they "white", as Hollywood often portrays them to be. They built a great Empire through cooperation and good race relations, and mostly did not even distinguish among themselves, but rather only between foreigners and their countrymen. Nubians were often assimilated into Egyptian culture, but this does not mean there weren't blacks present from the very beginning. Indeed, there were, as well as fair Europeans (such as the Cro-Magnoid Tasians) and dark Mediterranean types.

The Greeks did not "steal" their culture from the Ancient Egyptians either. This is an absurd and very racist idea promoted by the extreme Afrocentrist camp. Though they were greatly influenced by Egypt's architechtural splendor and exalted prowess, the Greeks developed a unique civilization and culture on their own, as did the west Africans, the Chinese and Native Americans. None of these peoples "recieved" their culture from any conquering race, as extreme Eurocentrists, such as Arthur Kemp and the Nordicist variety, and radical Afrocentrists claim. Rather, "civilization" as we know it is something developed by a people's needs and desires alone.

What makes modern-day America such a wonderful place is that there are so many different types in all places throughout the country. Is it not logical to look at Ancient Egypt the same way? We must learn from the Egyptians and emulate their attitudes when it comes to racial tolerance and open-mindedness, lest we perish like so many civilizations that came before us.

I leave you with some examples of both African and non-African traits found in Egyptian statues, mummies and carvings. Final proof of the racial makeup of Ancient Egypt, neither distorted by lies nor political agendas.

---

quote:

---

Thought Writes:

has anyone read this study on the finding of the Benin Sickle Cell haplotype in pre-dynastic Egyptain remains?

---

"Use of the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) in the study of HbS in predynastic Egyptian remains. Marin A, Cerutti N, Massa ER. publié dans Boll. Soc. Ital. Biol. Sper. 1999 May-Jun ;75(5-6):27-30"

What can be made of this?

quote:

---

Again, the truth is that Ancient Egypt was a Multi-Racial society where skin color and facial features were not important. However, AE has always had a variety of people living together from the very earliest times. Even Nordic People with Blonde or Red Hair were part of Ancient Egypt from early on.

---

This is a non-sequitir. Read my post. The point was that the archaeological red/blonde hairs found in pre-dyanstic Egypt and on mummies does not always indicate they were really blonde or redhaired.

Egyptians only came into contact with blonde/redhaired populations during the Middle Kingdom to the New Kingdom.

quote:

---

By manipulating sources - consciously or inconsciously - an historian can easily achieve biased or even false results. Manipulation does not necessarily mean that the historian invents sources when there exist no sources but he may simply ignore the meaning of the source, misunderstand the original context, make anachronistic judgements, or select such sources only which seem to support the preconceived result. The danger of manipulation is evident especially when the historian is examining a subject which now evokes strong emotions, such as slavery, colonialism, racial discrimination, or even more serious violations of human rights. The historian may have a temptation to adjust the past to support the present political agenda, for better or worse.

---

This is something that Afrocentrism is Guilty of!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Apparently he didn't read the parent topic.

---

quote:

---

I have read the thread, but it still does not explain the obvious facts. It actually raises more questions about political motives and intentions to manipulate findings by both Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics.

---

Apparently you haven't. I posted an explanation to why certain burials in Egypt have red and blonde hair. I provided Scientific authorites that validated my statements.

It raises no questions about archaeological remains.

The point about Eurocentrism and Afrocentrism is again non-sequitir.

These sources are not from me,but are from scientific authorities. Either you take them or you don't.

There were actually, European People living in Egypt from the earliest recorded dynasty.

Your words contradict your own premise!!

*****Afrocentrist have a political agenda, and therefore all claims have to be examined within that context!!*****

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not, the Pierian spring"

quote:

---

ausar wrote:
A common Eurocentric tactic to prove that various famous civlizations were blonde or red haired is to point out that mummies have blonde or red hair. Little do most Eurocentrists know that blonde and redhair in mummies can sometimes be explained by enviromental and archaeological reasons.

---

quote:

---

I think your key word is "can sometimes", but Not Always!!

There were actually, European People living in Egypt from the earliest recorded dynasty.

Your words contradict your own premise!!

*****Afrocentrist have a political agenda, and therefore all claims have to be examined within that context!!***

---

This is what we call logical fallacy strawman.

No Europeans existed in pre-dyanstic Egypt.

You can only tell hair color from micrscopic analysis. Read the entire quotes.

quote:

---

This conspiracy theory gives the promoters of the Afrocentrist view of history license to ignore many established facts of history and to report (or invent) only data that support their paranoid account of ancient history. If someone can teach that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt, he might as well claim that Jews (rather than Christian Europeans, Arabs and Africans) were primarily responsible for the 19th century slave trade. At Wellesley, the same instructor who assigns books like the Rev. G.G.M. James's "Stolen Legacy" in a course on ancient Africa employs the anonymously authored, notoriously anti-Semitic treatise "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" in a course on modern U.S. history

---

quote:

---

s this what you mean by Nothing will change the Afrocentrist's PRESUMED FACTS

---

Please learn a little about logic. This is what we call logical fallacy non-sequitir. This has no relevance to the topic posted.

report (or invent) only data that support their paranoid account of ancient history.

Please try to read the above sentence again, thanks!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Please learn a little about logic. This is what we call logical fallacy non-sequitir. This has no relevance to the topic posted.

---

quote:

---

ausar, I don't agree with your claims, but please don't underestimate my abilities.

---

I don't think that's possible at this point.

Mary Lefkowitz may be a Eurocentrist, but she is not a complete fool.....
Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, came from somewhere SOUTH OF THE SAHARA; they were NOT invaders from the north.

The laughable garbage you cut and paste daily from racist white websites is designed to appeal to complete idiots who are lacking in the ability to think critically. Your posts only serve to highlight that - this means you.

And yet you ask us to not underestimate you.

I'd ask you to think about it...but honestly you don't seem capable.

What you should do?

Try reading a book on Ancient Egypt, I suggest Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, just for starters.

But knowing you, you will just return to your pattern of spamming the forum with the dumbest and most irrelevant racist rambling you can find on the internet. You are too lazy to actually learn anything and yet you spend all day arguing. Laziness and stupidity as always go hand in hand. What a waste!

Well, I have a nice book for you to read, so that you may be able to see things from the other side of the aile, i.e., the Traditional Historical Camp.

First, here is a review of the book, just to wet your appetite for a fresh point of view.

"Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes"
by Stephen Howe

quote:

---

Absolutely brilliant, January 20, 1999
Reviewer: A reader

This book is excellent, a really valuable and interesting demolition of so-called Afrocentrism. The way he quotes these "scholars", using their own work, is just classic and rips them apart, showing them to be pseudo-scholars with virtually no cognitive ability, playing the race card at every turn. His exposure of such people as Molefi Asante as having adopted a supposedly "African" name is just hilarious. But best of all, this book (because of its title) will be the first book most people interested in Afrocentricity will pick up. As such, Howe has done a massive service to all of us who value truth and objective scholarship and who aren't suckered by the lies and half-baked rubbish that the Afrocentrists churn out. A wonderful book - buy it!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Sorry Abobo, you need to read books before recommending them. And you are TOO LAZY to do that.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 March 2005).]

---

Rasol, what's worse is that I checked out Lefkowitz's book, Not Out of Africa from the library and I have it with me right now.

The hypocrite, Abaza, talks about Afrocentrists lying by telling only half-truths when he is the one who cites only bits and pieces of a source!

quote:

---

Horemheb
Member
Posts: 903
Registered: Jan 2004
posted 03 March 2005 05:32 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Garbage is the only word that can be used to describe Poe's work. The man has obviously has a brain operation that went bad. the good thing is that stuff like this will put the last nail in the afrocentric coffin.

---

quote:

---

A load of hooey..., February 28, 1999
Reviewer: A reader

....and pseudoscholarship dressed up as historical research. There is not a drop of real research in this book. Just a lot of selective culling from likeminded and existing sources to construct a thesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Sorry Abobo, you need to read books before recommending them. And you are TOO LAZY to do that.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 07 March 2005).]

---

Now, make sure you actually read the whole thing, before you open your big mouth again.
Prof. Lefkowitz is not an expert on ethnology, therefore she left that task to the experts, but her name is on the book.
Here is a review of her book: Black Athena Revisited!!

quote:

---

For the Afrocentrists who have seized upon Black Athena, the issue of race - more particularly, the race of the ancient Egyptians - lies at the heart of Bernal's work. Black Athena Revisited includes three papers on this subject: 'Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race' by Kathryn Bard (pp. 103- 111); 'Bernal's "Blacks" and the Afrocentrists' by Frank Snowden (pp. 112-128); and the contribution by C. Loring Brace et al., 'Clines and clusters versus "race": a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile' (pp. 129- 164). Bard assesses the representational and linguistic evidence from ancient Egypt, both of which distinguish the Egyptians from their southern sub- Saharan neighbours. Bard stresses that 'Egyptians were ... neither black nor white as races are conceived of today' (p. 104). Moreover, 'to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black - or a white - civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones' (p. 111). This aspect of Bernal's argument is picked up by many of the contributors to Black Athena Revisited, and emerges as one of the central criticisms of his work. Indeed, in the conclusion to the volume, the editors call upon Bernal 'to reject publicly, explicitly, and unambiguously any theories of history which conflate race and culture' (p. 453). Snowden accuses Bernal of misusing the ancient evidence relating to ethnic or colour terminology. He warns 'substituting fiction for fact is a disservice to blacks' (p. 127). Echoing Lefkowitz's opening remarks, he points to the important achievements of Nubia, 'a black African culture of enormous influence and power' (p. 121), ironically neglected by Afrocentrists in their emphasis on ancient Egypt. C. Loring Brace et al. present the results of a detailed scientific examination of ancient Egyptian cranial material. Comparisons between the cranial morphology of Egyptians and other populations indicate that the former have 'nothing whatsoever in common with Sub- Saharan Africans' (p. 145). Although their evidence refutes Bernal's identification of the Egyptians as black Africans, the authors deplore the very attempt to categorise the ancient Egyptians by modern concepts of race. Not only did the race concept not exist in ancient Egypt, 'it has neither biological nor social justification' (p. 162).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Abaza, I have Lefkowitz's book! I swear, if you cite that same tidbit crap one more time, I will shut you down!!

---

THE DYNASTIC RACE THEORY [of the foreign origin of Egyptian civilization] AND
ITS PROBLEMS [pp. 65-67; footnotes inserted in { } braces]

Egyptological reaction to the dynastic race theory set in by the second
quarter of the present century. Analysis of Predynastic skeletal material
showed tropical African elements in the population of the earlier Badarian
culture (Morant 1935, 1937; Strouhal 1971).

Not much later, two seminal
studies of Egyptian skeletal material reported continuity from the ancient
down to the modern population (Batrawi 1945, 1946).

Certainly there was some
foreign admixture, but basically a homogeneous African population had lived
in the Nile Valley from ancient to modern times. (It simply happened that
North Nilotic African peoples showed a wide variety of skin complexions, hair
types, and craniofacial structures; see Trigger 1978; Keita 1990.)

Continuity
in Upper Egyptian cultures from Predynastic to Dynastic times was also
demonstrated (Kantor 1944).

High-quality archaeological work (by Gertrude
Caton-Thompson) that disclosed a stratified site from Badarian to Naqada II
produced the first evidence that ancient Egypt's earliest connections were
indeed to prehistoric Saharan African peoples.

The excavations revealed that
the Badarians were poorly acquainted with the Nile Valley's limestone cliffs
and rich flint deposits, for they fashioned their stone tools and weapons
from surface-collected flints.

By the time of Naqada I [archeological strata
are numbered in the order they are uncovered, i.e. reverse chronological
order], people had begun quarrying flint from the limestone cliffs.

Thus the
Badarians had most probably come from outside the Nile Valley; their hollow-
base arrow points and rippled and punched pottery decoration suggested
origins in the Sahara. {2. See Brunton and Thompson 1928, 75; Mond and Mond
1937, 267-68; Hoffman 1991, 136-44.}

The Saharan peoples were first identified through research in the deserts
west of Egypt (by members of the Egyptian royal family, using automobiles)
and also (by French scholars) in Algeria.

They discovered impressive rock
paintings and also evidence of settlements and the beginnings of cattle
pastoralism in Africa (Hoffman 1991, 33-77, 215-48, esp. 229, 239; Lhote
1959).

A systematic survey of the desert high country outside the Nile Valley
disclosed a rich prehistoric lithic cultural sequence dated back to the
Middle Paleolithic (Sandford and Arkell 1928, 1929, 1933, 1939).

Reanalysis
of the Predynastic Egyptian sequence documented its continuity by introducing
the terms "Naqada I-II" for Petrie's "Amratian" and "Gerzean," and "Naqada
III" for the transition from Terminal Predynastic to the First Dynasty
(Kaiser 1957) [so Petrie's outdated views ought not to be brought into the
debate as allegedly representing current understandings].

U.S. archaeologists
and prehistorians who resumed research in Egypt's western desert (the eastern
stretch of the Sahara) demonstrated the extreme antiquity and independent
domestication of cattle by the Saharan peoples of North Africa. {3. See
Wendorf and Schild 1976; Wendorf, Schild, and Close 1984; Close 1980 [sic].}

All this earlier research has been brilliantly summarized in Michael
Hoffman's *Egypt before the Pharaohs* (1991).

Hoffman's work on long-term
climate change revealed a fluctuating climatic situation over the Sahara. ...
Climatic cycles acted as a pump, alternately attracting African peoples onto
the Sahara, then expelling them as the aridity returned (Keita 1990).

Specialists in Predynastic archaeology have recently proposed that the last
climate-driven expulsion impelled the Saharans--with their cattle
pastoralism, wheat, barley, and flax crops, sheep and goats, and pottery and
lithic traditions--into the Nile Valley ca. 5000-4500 B.C.E., where they
intermingled with indigenous hunter-fisher-gatherer people already there
(Hassan 1989 [sic]; Wetterstrom 1993).

Such was the origin of the distinct Egyptian populace, with its mix of
agriculture/pastoralism and hunting/fishing.

The resulting Badarian people,
who developed the earliest Predynastic Egyptian culture, already exhibited
the mix of North African and Sub-Saharan physical traits that have typified
Egyptians ever since (Hassan 1985; Yurco 1989; Trigger 1978; Keita 1990;
Brace et al., this volume).

The drying climate also impelled other peoples
into the Upper Nile Valley.

In the Sudan the distinctive Khartoum Neolithic
culture had emerged by ca. 7000 B.C.E., quite different from Egypt but (even
early on) nevertheless using the distinctive Saharan-style pottery, as did
Egypt's Badarians.

These people, cattle pastoralists as well as
agriculturalists, intermingled with earlier Nilotic societies based on
aquatic and hunting resources (Haaland 1992, esp. 58-61; Wetterstrom 1993).

The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and
Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely
ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and
craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including
cattle pastoralist traditions (Trigger 1978; Bard, Snowden, this volume).

Language research indicates that this Saharan-Nilotic population became
speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages, including Cushitic and Omotic,
Egypto-Coptic, Berber, Tuareg [Tuareg is a Berber language], and several
Chadic language [sic]; latest findings suggest that they spread out from the
Sahara as the climate deteriorated (Fulco 1981; Hodge 1971; Haaland 1992, 58-
61).

Alternatively, the Afro-Asiatic languages originated in the Upper Nubian
Nile Valley (Blench 1993, 134-37 and fig. 2).

Another branch of the Afro-
Asiatic language family, Semitic, was evidently spoken by Saharans who
crossed the Red Sea into Arabia and became ancestors of the Semitic speakers
there, possibly around 7000 B.C.E. Of the Nilotic peoples, only the Nubians
of later times are distinct, speaking Nilo-Saharan (rather than Afro-Asiatic)
languages [I suppose he's saying that the speakers of all the other Nilo-
Saharan languages of East Africa aren't Nilotic peoples--Maasai, Nuer, etc.];
but those presently living in the Nuba Hills are still very close to Nilotic
peoples in their cultural traditions.

In summary we may say that Egypt was a distinct North African culture rooted
in the Nile Valley and on the Sahara. The dynastic race theory has been shown
to be an outdated myth generated by the "Aryan Model."

[from the conclusions, p. 98] Bernal's speculations have lent support to the
doubtful claim that ancient Egyptian people were like the peoples of Sub-
Saharan or West Africa [i.e. the connections are with the East African
peoples; Yurco does not lump all Africans together into a single "black"
group].

[Subsequent sections of Yurco's article discuss Bernal's use of an outdated,
no longer defensible chronological scheme; the likely historical antecedents
of Herodotus's Sesostris--he's less skeptical than Meadows; and quite a few
issues that haven't come up in this discussion.

He has no problem connecting
the Colchians to the Egyptians, but not in Bernal's terms (pp. 82-83):]

... To account for the Colchians' particular claims of affinity [with the
Egyptians], he [Herodotus] proposes that they derived from the army of
Sesostris, as recounted in the Sesostris legend. Bernal takes this to mean
that Middle Kingdom pharaohs had campaigned in the Black Sea area.

He neglects to consider that dark, Egypto-Kushite people in that region might
much likelier have arrived through some more recent operation,such as the
Assyrian deportation of Kushites and Egyptians captured during their attacks
on Egypt in 671-633 B.C.E. (Kitchen 1986, 192-93).

Esarhaddon had fought with
Taharqa in 671 and had captured a number of Kushites, including members of
the royal family (Kitchen 1986, 392; Pritchard 1969b, no. 447).

Assyrians had
a policy of deporting rebellious foes to the opposite end of their empire.
... It is also far more likely that a population deported during the first
millennium would retain vivid memories of their land of origin than one left
behind by a Middle Kingdom pharaoh some fifteen hundred years before.

Bard, Kathryn A. this volume. "Ancient Egyptians and the issue of race." BAR
pp. 103-11 [repr. from Bostonia magazine, Summer 1992].

Batrawi, A. D. El-. 1945-46. "The racial history of Egypt and Nubia." Journal
of the Royal Anthropological Society of Great Britain and Ireland 75:81-101,
76:131-56.

Blench, R. 1993. "Recent developments in African language classification and
their implications for prehistory." In The archaeology of Africa, edited by
T. Shaw et al, 126-38. Routledge.

Brace, C. Loring, et al. this volume. "Clines and clusters versus 'race': A
test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile." BAR pp. 129-64
[revised from Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 36 (1993)].

Brunton, G., and G. Thompson. 1928. Badarian civilization and Predynastic
remains near Badari. British School of Archaeology 46.

Close, A. 1990 [sic]. "Living on the edge: Neolithic herders in the eastern
Sahara." Antiquity 64:79-96.

Fulco, W. J. 1981. Review of The classification of Chadic within Afro-
Asiatic, by P. Newman. Orientalia 50:472-74.

Haaland, R. 1992. Fish, pots, and grain: Early Mid-Holocene adaptations in
the central Sudan." African Archaeological Review 10:43-64.

Hassan, F. A. 1985. "Radiocarbon chronology of Neolithic and Predynastic
Sites in Upper Egypt and the Delta." African Archaeological Review 3:95-116.

Hassan, F. A. 1988 [sic]. "The Predynastic of Egypt." Journal of World
Prehistory 2:135-85.

Hodge, C. T., ed. 1971. Afroasiatic:A survey. Mouton [6 articles reprinted
from Current Trends in Linguistics, vols. 6-7].

Hoffman, M. A. 1991. Egypt before the pharaohs, rev. ed. Univ. of Texas Pr.

Kaiser, W. 1957. "Zur inneren Chronologie der Naqada Kultur." Archaeologica
Graphica 6:69-77.

Kantor, H. J. 1944. "The final phase of Predynastic culture: Gerzean or
Semainean?" Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3:110-36.

Keita, S. O. Y. 1990. "Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa."
American Journal of Physical Anthropology 85:35-48.

Kitchen, K. 1986. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 2d ed. Aris & Phillips.

Lhote, H. 1959. The search for the Tassili frescoes. Dutton.

Mond, R., and O. H. Mond. 1937. Cemeteries of Armant. Egypt Exploration
Society.

Morant, G. M. 1935. 'A study of Pre-Dynastic Egyptian skulls from the Badari
...." Biometrika 27:293-309.

Morant, G. M. 1937. "The Predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari and their
racial affinities." In Mostagedda and the Tasian culture, edited by G.
Brunton, 63-66. Quaritch.

Pritchard, J. B., ed. 1969b. The ancient Near East in pictures relating to
the Old Testament, 3d ed. Princeton Univ. Pr.

Sandford, K. S., and W. J. Arkell. 1928. First report of the Prehistoric
Survey. Oriental Institute Report 3. Univ. of Chicago Pr.

Sandford, K. S., and W. J. Arkell. 1929, 1933, 1939. Prehistoric Survey of
Egypt and Western Asia, vols. 1-3. Oriental Institute Publications 2, 17, 46.
Univ. of Chicago Pr.

Snowden, F. M., Jr. this volume. "Bernal's 'blacks' and the Afrocentrists."
BAR pp. 112-28.

Strouhal, E. 1971. "Evidence of the early penetration of Negroes into
prehistoric Egypt." Journal of African History 12:1-9.

Trigger, B. G. 1978. "Nubian, Negro, Black, Nilotic?" In Africa in antiquity:
The arts of Nubia and the Sudan, vol. 1, edited by S. Hochfield and E.
Riefstahl, 27-35. Brooklyn Museum.

Wendorf, F., and R. Schild. 1976. Prehistory of the Nile Valley. Academic Pr.

Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. E. Close. 1984. Cattle keepers of the eastern
Sahara: The Neolithic of Bir Kiseiba. SMU Pr.

Wetterstrom, W. 1993. "Foraging and farming in Egypt ...." In The Archaeology
of Africa: Food, Metals and Towns, edited by T. Shaw et al., 165-226.
Routledge.

Yurco, F. J. 1989. "Were the ancient Egyptians black or white?" Biblical
Archaeology Review 15(5):24-29, 58.

Also Kathryn Bard and Snowden are not physical anthropologist either. Leftowitz and Yurco both cite Shomarka Keita who is an established biological anthropologist.

quote:

---

Bard assesses the representational and linguistic evidence from ancient Egypt, both of which distinguish the Egyptians from their southern sub- Saharan neighbours. Bard stresses that 'Egyptians were ... neither black nor white as races are conceived of today' (p. 104). Moreover, 'to state categorically that ancient Egypt was either a black - or a white - civilization is to promote a misconception with racist undertones'

---

Exactly what does she mean by neither black nor white? Sounds like a game of semantics. Besides, why is it that if Egypt is acknowledged as a black civilization, then all of a sudden such a notion is considered racist, yet Greek civilization has long been taken for granted as being a white one but no one is saying that's racist. Chinese civilazation is definitely founded by "mongoloid" people with no evidence at all of peoples of any other so-called race. Perhaps to acknowledge this is racist as well, and maybe we should include caucasian people LOL!!

quote:

---

C. Loring Brace et al. present the results of a detailed scientific examination of ancient Egyptian cranial material. Comparisons between the cranial morphology of Egyptians and other populations indicate that the former have 'nothing whatsoever in common with Sub- Saharan Africans' (p. 145).

---

Brace's conclusions have been refuted a long time ago! If you read his work, then you would know that his results also consider Nubians to have "nothing whatsoever in common with Sub-Saharan Africans," as well as other peoples in East Africa, and even some in West Africa! All of this was proven wrong. So!...

Lefkowitz may not be an anthropologists or ethnologist but her first book made some interesting points as to how the Greeks depicted Egyptians. I think I should show them to you.

Besides there are plenty of expert anthropologists and ethnologists who argree that the Egyptians, going by our modern definitions of race, are in fact black!! (By the way, these experts are unbiased whites!!!)

=============================================

Walker has been an American history professor at Davis for 16 years. He grew up in an integrated neighborhood in West Berkeley and graduated from Berkeley High School. He earned his Ph.D. from Cal in 1976.

He is especially interested in the history of race and racial ideas and will be teaching a class this winter on the novel as social history. He is impatient with people who don't think critically, and he doesn't care if those people are black or white.

"There is no evidence that the ancient Egyptians were black as we understand that term today," he said.

"Afrocentrism essentializes history, caricatures Africa and holds out the past to be recaptured," he said. "It's not smart and it's not practical."

=============================================

quote:

---

Besides there are plenty of expert anthropologists and ethnologists who argree that the Egyptians, going by our modern definitions of race, are in fact black!!

---

No doubt, many darker-colored Egyptians would be
called black in our modern, race-conscious terminology.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm

Clerence E. Walker has a degree in American History not physical anthropology!!!!

But the next time why don't I start a thread about Not out of Africa, where Lefkowitz tells about what the Greeks conceived of them.

There's also another book I would like to share, when I find it again

Besides, the next time I would like to discuss about certain aspects of the Egyptians religion that still mystifies many scholars...

Here is the whole paragraph from your own link:

quote:

---

Was Nefertiti "black" or "white"?

The ancient Egyptians did not think in these terms. The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian
society. The ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, were of varying complexions of color, from the light Mediterranean type (like Nefertiti), to the light brown of Middle Egypt, to the darker
brown of Upper Egypt, to the darkest shade around Aswan and the First Cataract region, where even today, the population shifts to Nubian. (4)

Ancient and modern Egyptian hair ranges from straight to wavy to woolly; in color, it varies from reddish brown to dark brown to black. Lips range from thin to full. Many Egyptians possess a protrusive jaw. Noses vary from high-bridged-straight to arched or even hooked to flat-bridged, with bulbous to broad nostrils. In short, ancient Egypt, like modern Egypt, consisted of a very heterogeneous population.

The evidence regarding these features of ancient Egyptians comes from literature, anthropology, mummies, sculptures, paintings, and inscriptions--all left by the ancient Egyptians themselves. For
example, the mummies and skeletons of ancient Egyptians indicate they were Africans of the Afro-Asiatic ethnic groupings (the term "Afro-Asiatic" has replaced the less accurate designation
"Hamitic"). This is the population of Northern Africa, the Sahara and sub-Sahara regions. Their physical features vary as described above. No doubt, many darker-colored Egyptians would be called black in our modern race-conscious terminology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Not according to Frank Joseph Yurco:

[b] No doubt, many darker-colored Egyptians would be
called black in our modern, race-conscious terminology.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/9507/c-wh1-ane-yurco.htm

Clerence E. Walker has a degree in American History not physical anthropology!!!!

[/B]

---

******* ausar, are you convinced now that Frank Yurco does not share your point of view??********

Admixture in European populations is supposed to equate to full Europeans.

Or

Admixture in Asian populations is supposed to equate full Asians...

Or

But any admixture in African populations is supposed to equate to a "hybrid" population...or flat out to non-African...with the indigenous population supposedly erased out of existence or was never there to begin with.

quote:

---

ausar, you deliberately took this part out of its context, which shows that Frank Yurco, does not actually think that the Ancient Egyptains were Black Africans, but were like the rest of the North Africans, with different shades and complexions!!

Here is the whole paragraph from your own link:

---

I realize that,and that was not my point. If you read the essay by Yurco in Black Athena Revisited he states that since pre-dyanstic times Egyptians had features of both sub-Saharan Africans and northern Africans.

Clerence E. Walker whom you quoted said there was no evidence that ancient Egyptians were ''black'' as we know them today. Well Yurco said many darker Upper Egyptians would be considered black in that definition.

The ancestors of the ancient people of the Sahara still live in parts of Southern Morocco and Mauritania. Known as the Haratin. They are negriod people,and are a vassal clan to the Tuareg people.

quote:

---

* ausar, are you convinced now that Frank Yurco does not share your point of view??********

---

He does share my point of view. He even refers to the Southern Sudanese as ultra-dark brown and not black.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
We will see...

But the next time why don't I start a thread about Not out of Africa, where Lefkowitz tells about what the Greeks conceived of them.

There's also another book I would like to share, when I find it again

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 07 March 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Well Yurco said many darker Upper Egyptians would be considered black in that definition.

---

While Yurco's words may be insightful, nobody has yet shown proof to the contrary, that upper Egyptians were that much different from their lower counterparts in pre-dynastic times, physically speaking. Where is it?

quote:

---

I don't see the relationship between the Haratin and the Ancient Egyptians at all.

---

quote:

---

I share Frank Yurco's point of view, totally.

---

quote:

---

I don't see the relationship between the Haratin and the Ancient Egyptians at all.

The people of AE were the Masters of their times and were not vassals at all, like the Haratin. Egypt is location is very different ffrom North West Africa, it was not isolated.

My point of view is still the same, that the population of AE was multi-racial from the beginning, but shared the same culture. The majority of that population was not Black African, as we think of that term, today!!

I share Frank Yurco's point of view, totally.

---

You don't understand much about pre-history of either the Sahara or Nile. Yurco is saying that pre-dyanstic populations of Upper Egypt came from the Sahara desert when it was once wet. The modern Haratin are desendants of the original people who populated the Sahara.

My emphasis was not upon the modern condition of the Haratin.

I know you won't do it,but you really should go to a University Library and study more on pre-history of the Nile Valley and other areas in Northern Africa.

Most populations around the world are settlers and migrated from other places.
If mankind started in Eithiopia and spread out to other parts of the world, then everyone else is a settler on a relative scale of time!!

If we agree with Frank Yurco's assertion, that the modern Egyptians are similar to the Ancient Egyptians, one can easily see that most of these people are Not Black Africans.

Trying to group a small portion of the people as Black and then turn around and say that all of them are therefore Black, is a non-starter, that even a small kid can tell you is a FALSE PREMISE!!

quote:

---

There may have been small-scale migrations from the near East, but not enough to have made a big impact on indigenous populations at this time...that comes about much later on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
This is part of the Afrocentrists' Fallacy, there is no such thing as indigenous populations!!

Most populations around the world are settlers and migrated from other places.
If mankind started in Eithiopia and spread out to other parts of the world, then everyone else is a settler on a relative scale of time!!

---

So then what would you call those descendants of the Ethiopians that never left?

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:

So then what would you call those descendants of the Ethiopians that never left?

---

Better yet, what would you call those descendants that never left... *the continent? (added for the challenged. )

Don't expect a decent answer to follow.

quote:

---

This is part of the Afrocentrists' Fallacy, there is no such thing as indigenous populations!!

Most populations around the world are settlers and migrated from other places.
If mankind started in Eithiopia and spread out to other parts of the world, then everyone else is a settler on a relative scale of time!!

If we agree with Frank Yurco's assertion, that the modern Egyptians are similar to the Ancient Egyptians, one can easily see that most of these people are Not Black Africans.

Trying to group a small portion of the people as Black and then turn around and say that all of them are therefore Black, is a non-starter, that even a small kid can tell you is a FALSE PREMISE!! <http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/wink.gif>

---

The problem with this is that most of the population in dyanstic times tended to be around Luxor-Aswan area. In the modern era its mostly within the Delta region.

The urban areas did experiance foreigners during all periods of Egypt's existence.

Even areas like Fayoum and parts of Middle Egypt. Fayoum barely had a large population during dyanstic times,but all during the Greco-Roman into Byzantine had populations of over 100,000 inhabitants.

On the surface, you could say that most of them look Black, but have different facial features and sometimes different hair as well, but I leave that task to the experts to classify the Ethiopians.

BTW, not all the people of East Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, and Eithiopia) call themselves Black Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
So then what would you call those descendants of the Ethiopians that never left?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:

... but I leave that task to the experts to classify...

---

Couldn't agree more, because it also underlines your inability to tell the difference between ...

quote:

---

Abaza:
...who left and who didn't...

---

Therefore, you are no position to argue with those of us, who can!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
There is no way to tell who left and who didn't, but the present population of Ethiopia is mixed and shows affinities with several racial groups.

On the surface, you could say that most of them look Black, but have different facial features and sometimes different hair as well, but I leave that task to the experts to classify the Ethiopians.

BTW, not all the people of East Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, and Eithiopia) call themselves Black Africans.

---

Ah, Abaza I am quite surprised and yet in a strange way not by your reply. First off I was surprised it didn't contain some diatribe about "Afrocentrists". Thanks! Secondly you didn't disappoint; in the usual style we have come to know, you have a blatant contradiction, on the one hand you claim there is no way of telling who is indigenous and on the other you want to leave the "experts" to do the classification. Previously you claimed "there is no such thing...". Which is it? Does the concept of an "indigenous population" exist or not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ABAZA:
BTW, not all the people of East Africa (Somalia, Eritrea, and Eithiopia) call themselves Black Africans.

---

What they are scientifically, and how they refer to themselves socially are two different things ABAZA!

You should know this already by now!

quote:

---

'Indigenous population' is an ambiguous term : it relies more on common sense than on any definition that would be accepted unanimously or that could be applied universally, i.e. in all the different political and geographical areas. In fact, it is a notion that varies and it does not have the same meaning everywhere.

As an example, here is the definition given by the Dictionnaire Robert : "indigenous (indigène) : born in the country in question".

In english, "indigenous : (of plants or animals or inhabitants) native" and "native : (of a person) belonging to a particular place by birth ; grown or produced or originating in a specific place" (Oxford Dictionary). Recently some have suggested using the term 'first people' (BURGER, 1990) to stress the importance of the relationship these people have with the land they live on and how old this relationship s.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by YuhiVII:
Ah, Abaza I am quite surprised and yet in a strange way not by your reply. First off I was surprised it didn't contain some diatribe about "Afrocentrists". Thanks! Secondly you didn't disappoint; in the usual style we have come to know, you have a blatant contradiction, on the one hand you claim there is no way of telling who is indigenous and on the other you want to leave the "experts" to do the classification. Previously you claimed "there is no such thing...". Which is it? Does the concept of an "indigenous population" exist or not?

[This message has been edited by YuhiVII (edited 08 March 2005).]

---

So, in other words, what people call themselves is equally valid a definition as what the so called scientists call them technically!

quote:

---

Originally posted by EGyPT2005:
What they are [b]scientifically, and how they refer to themselves socially are two different things ABAZA!

You should know this already by now!

[/B]

---

since you have difficulty in understanding what "indigenous" means in a scientific context:

What do you call those descendents of the "original" Africans, who *never* left the continent?

...remember, time isn't on our side.

Are you trying to say that the people of North Africa, who are not Black are not Africans? Please don't tell that to the Algerians, because they'll laugh at you!!

Now, I want you to put your thinking cap on and think for a minute or two. Gypsies who live in Europe are supposed to be from India originally, correct? The very people of North India, are supposed to be from Europe originally and the Gypsies are part of North India, now are the Gypsies Indians or Europeans??

Please try to give me a reasonable answer after a little thought, but don't burn your brains out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
Abaza, simple question for whatever's left of your brain [b]cell to burn:

since you have difficulty in understanding what "indigenous" means in a scientific context:

What do you call those descendents of the "original" Africans, who *never* left the continent?

...remember, time isn't on our side.

[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 08 March 2005).][/B]

---

Please read my thread to update your information, because you seem to think the terms indigenous and original people are set in stone, but that is not the case.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
I take it that dodging the elementary question, means that you don't know the answer?

---

Your incapability of providing an answer. It's your call!