quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Kem-au, there is some reference material based upon X-rays done by Kent R. Weeks. This book is very hard to find,but according to many comments from the X-ray Atlas they studied contemporary populations of Nubians of Wadi Halfa and found them to be similar in crania to the 17th and 18th dyansties.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Give it up Kem, if all you care about is 'black' history, which seems to be the case there many areas of study avilable. Kush, the Kingdom of Ghana, Kingdom of Mali, Kingdom of Songhai and many others. Many of these are 'underworked' and need people to devote time to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Give it up Kem, if all you care about is 'black' history, which seems to be the case there many areas of study avilable. Kush, the Kingdom of Ghana, Kingdom of Mali, Kingdom of Songhai and many others. Many of these are 'underworked' and need people to devote time to them.

---

LOL You just give it up Hor! You know that everything Kem said was true. All of those portraits were created by people who have seen Tut in the flesh and you know anything you say cannot change that!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Kem, this image,
really isn't of Tut but is female. Whether they goddess images or of a female ruler, I don't know

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 16 May 2005).]

---

Many of the images had descriptions associated with them, but this one did not. How do you know it's a female?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Many of the images had descriptions associated with them, but this one did not. How do you know it's a female?

---

Because first of all, the way it looks which is feminent. And second, I had book about King Tut and his treasures. That Ivory head is just 1 of 4 figures surrounding a box. The figures seem to be protective goddesses. Others have suggested that some of Tut's treasures weren't really his in the first place but were meant for a woman!

quote:

---

Originally posted by anacalypsis:
Does anyone have pics of Tut's guardian statues??

---

You mean the Ba statues?

Here is one...

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The reverse is also true. Just because you find people with black features doesn't mean their culture is of black origins. ).

---

weak reasoning. Its a tad bit illogical to assume that the Egyptians who depicted Asiatics with their proper skin tone, as well as other nationalities, will somehow depict religious symbolism of chocolate skin of a Pharoah that came from Upper Egypt.

This is a matter of preponderance of the evidence and not unethical skepticism as a means to leave the probability existent that Egypt was Euro in origin and that the eurocentric thesis is correct.

This is a matter of preponderance of the evidence and not unethical skepticism as a means to leave the probability existent that Egypt was Euro in origin and that the eurocentric thesis is correct.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure if I have ever heard the absurd idea that Egypt had a European origin. I have heard the claim that Egypt is Asiatic, but then I have heard that Asiatics recently migrated from Africa. But let me address your direct objection to what I said.

Just to name a few: Divine kingship; Totemism and their taboos; high status of women; circumcision rites; astrology; sacred colors; sacred numbers; spirit-compositions; deities; icons; and others...

The ba and the ka concept is definately more African than Asiatic. The ka was supposed to be the spiritual essence of a person which is reflected in modern concepts often found amungst Africans further southward. The whole royal placenta also seems to have been a very African pratice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
The gene flow into and out of Egypt is far too confusing and debatable.

---

It depends on what timeframe you are referring to. For instance, studies on remains (mostly skeletal) from predynastic through to early dynastic periods indicate limited or small scale foreign instrusion into the Nile. From the middle period, as exemplified by Hyksos arrival, we begin to see more foreign intrusion. Studies on dynastic remains show accordingly.

quote:

---

osirion:
The classification of race is certainly pseudo-science and rather arbitrary when dealing with high gene flow areas.

---

I concur. Race is pseudo-science 'anywhere'!

quote:

---

osirion:
However, what is far more difficult to debate is the Africaness of the Egyptian culture itself which is more continuous and not as subject to which racial groups have conquered whom.

---

It is only debatable to those who have no idea about Africans, and when you are not specific about the timeframe in question. When dealing with the ancient Egyptians, the "African-ness" of this culture is beyond doubt, for those who know something about Africans and their cultures.

quote:

---

osirion:
This is what I would like to hear more evidence of.

---

We touch on some of these cultural aspects occasionally, and I think Djehuti and Ausar did a good job of spelling out some of them!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
It could indicate black origins of the culture, but it doesn't. Actually, ancient cultures would have little if any knowledge of their own origins. They would have religious myths but they would have almost no real basis in fact, at least not fact that goes back ass far as that.

---

Again you are referring to genetic origins (or race). I am referring to shared cultural affinities such as language, religious practices, social structures, food preparations and various rituals.

For example, a very simple example, is that African women traditionally carry things on their heads. AE depict women doing this in significant numbers. I have not seen depictions of European women doing the same nor is it culturally identifiable trait of European women to transport products on their heads like it is practiced in Africa (yes including AE).

The discussion about race is just too arbitrary. It is difficult to get an agreed upon line drawn between the different groups since features overlap. Simple example is the reconstruction of Tut. The head shape is easily recognizable as African but the nose is not. What do you use to identify the race (the shape of the head or the shape of the nose?). Too many double standards are applied in these overlap situations. Simple example: Negritos of New Guinea and Adamans have protrusive mouths and broad noses with low nose bridges but the shape of the heads is not like Africans. So even though Negritos look black they are classified as a different race due to the shape of their heads. So why wasn't Tut classified as a different race than the caucausian based on the shape of his head? Simple, it is called racial politics. You have been complaining that there is too much racial politics in the forum but the truth is that the statements are in response arbitrary lines drawn between races that are not agreed to by a considerable number of people and there are clear double standards that create frustration when thise lines are discussed.

I think the issue of culture is easier to discuss and probably more relevant to the discussion of "so called" ethnic ownership. Note, however, I am not stating that I have the answer to the discussion. I have just noted that there are a few things about the AEs that are clearly African in origin and I am curious to find out if that means anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
It could indicate black origins of the culture, but it doesn't. Actually, ancient cultures would have little if any knowledge of their own origins. They would have religious myths but they would have almost no real basis in fact, at least not fact that goes back ass far as that.

---

Osirion, don't mind old Hore all hes got are just opinions. In fact he gives nothing that suggests Egypt was not of African origins. The problem for him is that there is just too many affinities that Egyptian culture has with other cultures in "Sub-Sahara."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:

And as far as ancient cultures not having any clues about their origins, he gives them very little credit. It has been proven that there is some basis to the origin claims of ancient cultures throughout the world. The ancient Greeks in their myths say the Achaeans(first Greeks) orginated from the northeast, and the Babylonians say they originated from the southeast, yet all of these claims have been proven to be true!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Kem, this image,
really isn't of Tut but is female. Whether they goddess images or of a female ruler, I don't know

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 16 May 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
Again you are referring to genetic origins (or race). I am referring to shared cultural affinities such as language, religious practices, social structures, food preparations and various rituals.

For example, a very simple example, is that African women traditionally carry things on their heads. AE depict women doing this in significant numbers. I have not seen depictions of European women doing the same nor is it culturally identifiable trait of European women to transport products on their heads like it is practiced in Africa (yes including AE).

The discussion about race is just too arbitrary. It is difficult to get an agreed upon line drawn between the different groups since features overlap. Simple example is the reconstruction of Tut. The head shape is easily recognizable as African but the nose is not. What do you use to identify the race (the shape of the head or the shape of the nose?). Too many double standards are applied in these overlap situations. Simple example: Negritos of New Guinea and Adamans have protrusive mouths and broad noses with low nose bridges but the shape of the heads is not like Africans. So even though Negritos look black they are classified as a different race due to the shape of their heads. So why wasn't Tut classified as a different race than the caucausian based on the shape of his head? Simple, it is called racial politics. You have been complaining that there is too much racial politics in the forum but the truth is that the statements are in response arbitrary lines drawn between races that are not agreed to by a considerable number of people and there are clear double standards that create frustration when thise lines are discussed.

I think the issue of culture is easier to discuss and probably more relevant to the discussion of "so called" ethnic ownership. Note, however, I am not stating that I have the answer to the discussion. I have just noted that there are a few things about the AEs that are clearly African in origin and I am curious to find out if that means anything.

Oh yeah, by the way, Hor, I don't think most blacks get into Afrocentrism to booster their Egos or to express anti-western feelings. The problem is that, especially in American, we have been taught that people that look like Tut (even the poor skin tone version of him) are Black because they have African genes (ie: Alicia Keys or Halle Berry - look up pictures on them). However, the same people that told us Alicia Keys is black try to say the Tut is White. These double standards are very, very frustrating especially when you get into the tecnichality of it all and you find that someone like Tut has 80% black features and only 20% White but he is still defined as White. Great for Tut but I have a nephew that looks like him and I don't think we would have welcomed hime as a White person in 1950's Alabama.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
here in Texas we have many mexican cultural adaptations that go back as far as the 18th century, that does not make us mexican. As is usually the case when people have a limited education they tend to over simplify.

---

You are mixing apples with oranges. Is the culture in the U.S. that of Mexican origin? Besides, the U.S. is so heterogenous, such that each person, who comes in, brings along with him/her, his/her own culture, while trying to fit in with the mainstream (in the U.S.).

Ancient Egyptian culture is an indigenous one, which by definition, is Egyptian and hence, African!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:
You are mixing apples with oranges. Is the culture in the U.S. that of Mexican origin? Besides, the U.S. is so heterogenous, such that each person, who comes in, brings along with him/her their culture, while trying to fit in with the mainstream (in the U.S.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
here in Texas we have many mexican cultural adaptations that go back as far as the 18th century, that does not make us mexican. As is usually the case when people have a limited education they tend to over simplify.

---

There is a clear distinction between Mexico and Texas (language, religion, life styles, currency, etc) even though they are directly adjacent and share significant gene flow. For example, the Texans are fundamentalist Baptist (bible belt) and the Mexicans are primarily Catholic. The language is clearly different and so is almost every aspect of the culture. I understand what you mean about over-simplification but again people caught up into the politics of race often try to over complicate the obvious to obfuscate things to promote their political agenda. It is really not that complicated of a topic. How African was the AE culture. I don't claim to know the answer but from what little I have seen it appears to be quite African and not like anything else outside of Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:

Texas, isn't it the place where not long ago they dragged to death the poor innocent? Now I understand your mindset...so sad to discover that...[

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
By the way Kem, this image,
really isn't of Tut but is female. Whether they goddess images or of a female ruler, I don't know

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 16 May 2005).]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

What is my mindset? You've totally lost me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Super car:

What is my mindset? You've totally lost me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
here in Texas we have many mexican cultural adaptations that go back as far as the 18th century, that does not make us mexican. As is usually the case when people have a limited education they tend to over simplify.

---

Texas, isn't it the place where not long ago they dragged to death the poor innocent? Now I understand your mindset...so sad to discover that...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
It could indicate black origins of the culture, but it doesn't. Actually, ancient cultures would have little if any knowledge of their own origins. They would have religious myths but they would have almost no real basis in fact, at least not fact that goes back ass far as that.

---

Horemeheb, please get control of your Eurocentrism and strawman arguments.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
relaxx...its interesting that you would attempt to appy a crime committed by three men to everyone in the state of Texas.
Super Car....I agree it was an african culture, a north african caucasian culture. As Texas was INFLUENCED by Mexican culture, so ancient Egypt was INFLUENCED by the Nubians and others. This is not Rocket science.

---

Can you actually give some AE cultural observations that support your claims pease. I am not biased and would be interested in actual facts rather than just blanket statements.

As for you analogy:

Keep in mind that Texas was part of Mexico originally (perhaps similar to the fact that Egypt was part of Nubia originally??). Also, the Mexican and Texan culture originates from the same group of people (Europeans). A better analogy would be the impact of Native Americans on Texas culture (since then we are at least dealing with separate origins of culture).

Hor, I don't think its actually reasonable to call you a Eurocentric, this is not at all what you are saying. However, calling Egyptians "North African Caucausians" is like saying that Americans are caucausians (which is what uneducated, simple minded, foreigners think of America 'USA'). Its clearly a known fact that Black Africans lived in the Egyptian region.

In fact it would appear that even using the pseudo science of race classifications there's clear indication that the "so called" Negro was the dominant race in Egypt. As a Christian, my understanding is that White people were slaves in Egypt. I still think the story of Abraham, even if it was a myth, does tend to confirm the analysis of races in AE (that is both observable from the art work, skeletal remains, culture, etc). The story of Abraham is very ancient and even if it was made up it tends to suggest that the African Egyptians were not at all similar to Caucausians (Cro-magnoids).

Here are the FACTS! Blacks are the dominant race in Egypt even based on what we know to be racially biased anthropologists. And that not me being prejudice it is just that during this time, racism was the norm.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
first, let me deal with the Mexican question. mexico is not a European culture, it is an Indian culture, i.e. native american. 84% of mexicans have no foreign blood. When Texas was part of Mexico the vast majority of the population was anglo american. Mexicans came here in larger numbers only after 1836.
The United States has a British culture with a vaneer of frontier expierence. It is an Anglo-European culture, as is Australia, Canada etc.

---

That is pretty much the most uneducated answer I have heard from you. Mexico is an Indian culture? That speaks Spanish and worships a White God name Jesus? Has a fixation on light skin and discriminates against Native Americans and Blacks.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck!

Mexicans dress like Europeans, talk like Europeans, and the dominant social group looks like Europeans! Maybe they are Europeans!!! Good grief. From Bull fights, to soccer, to there calendar system, language, religion, etc, etc etc. They even like to dye their hair blonde and prefer Women with blue eyes and blonde hair. Just look at their movies! They don't even have Indians represented in their entertainment except in a mocking way. No, Mexico doesn't resemble the Aztec culture very well at all. The Spainiards did a good job of stamping the Native American culture out of Mexico. If you want to see Indian culture you will only find it in the most poorest of neighborhoods, but the best place to see it is in the jungles of Guatemala or in South America. Very distinct cultural differences.

Again you are mixing up genetics with culture. I am not talking about the RACE of Mexicans, I was referring to their culture. Again, culture tells you who is the dominant RACE that originated the artifacts that we use to define a group of people. South Africa is a good example of this. Though most of the people are Black, the culture is still dominantly European except in the poor neighborhoods where the original culture is maintained.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I have taught 67 classes in Texas history and lived here all of my life. Everything you just said is wrong.

---

You actually sound like a teenager. I don't think you are a professor at all. The answer you give are really childish answers. I am sorry that I am offending you but I can't quite understand your mindset. It is just too naive and simple.

Mexico is a dominantly Eurpoean culture just like the USA. It was a colony of Spain and this is why they speak Spanish and have a many other European cultural affinities (in religion, sports, dress, dances, etc).

Besides, you said that everything I said was wrong. Do they not speak Spanish and worship a White God? Do they not enjoy Bull fights and wear (when they are trying to be traditional) European clothing. Again, this isn't about race but about culture. True, Mexican people themselves are largely Indian genetically speaking but their original culture has long been replaced with the culture of the group that concquered them.

quote:

---

relaxx...its interesting that you would attempt to appy a crime committed by three men to everyone in the state of Texas.
Super Car....I agree it was an african culture, a north african caucasian culture. As Texas was INFLUENCED by Mexican culture, so ancient Egypt was INFLUENCED by the Nubians and others. This is not Rocket science.

---

The African influence on ancient Egypt goes back to the pre-dyanstic era. It includes circumcision as a rite of pasage,divine kingship,and the concept of the rainmaker king.

What you are unfortunately trying to do is apply ''race'' to cultural chracteristics of civlization,and then criticizing people who do the same. You can't attach a racial basis to cultural traits in civlization.

What you forget is that forensic scientist also classify certain people from Sudan,Somalia,and Ethiopia as caucasians despite their skin coloring. This is done primarily on bone structure.

Plenty of remains in Upper Egypt during the pre-dyanstic have been called negriod.