quote:

---

Originally posted by relaxx:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion:
[b]

It is my understanding that the artifacts in question with the missing noses, etc, were defaced for political and religious reasons. Which means that Walk is actually more correct in that he/she asserts that it was intentional damage.

As for King Tut's facial features. Only one feature is focused on and that is the nose: European Nose. From this we deduce that the person is Caucasian? Clearly Negroid cranial chape with prognathism but with a narrow nose index. But this is rather silly. We already knew what King Tut looked like and that he had a European like nose. I don't see that anything has changed.

Besides - Gregory Hines has a European nose but no one would call this person Caucasian (but maybe they would if they dug up his skull and did a phoney baloney reconstruction of him ignoring his racial traits):

---

[IMG]http://www.gap.org.uk/uimages/suppstraw150.jpg
[/IMG]

Strangely enough, he looks more like an elongated eastern african but not like an European, even the shape of his nose is more Eastern African: all these people below are about the same age:

Relaxx

[This message has been edited by relaxx (edited 19 August 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

You mean certain types eastern african,because most east africans outside of the horn of africa like kenya,sudan etc. have broad noses, even in the horn of african states some still do,but your other points are right on point.

just making a correction

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:

You are correct in terms of the political undercurrent that makes Egypt an obsession of many Blacks. You are also correct that Blacks in general harbor a great deal of bitterness towards white (unduly so).

But lets address a few of your statements.

Hor - Blacks are good at stealing and they are trying to steal someone else's heritage.

Fact: By enlarge in America, white collar crime results in more theft/stealing than the type of crimes blacks are involved in by a 1000 to 1. The term white collar crime is rather interestingly appropriate considering that is almost exclusively a White man's crime.

Enron, Worldcom, S&L scandals, etc.

Hor - Anyone of you can walk through any white neighborhood at three in the morning with out a problem.

Fact: If a Black man was seen walking through my neighborhood at 3am in the morning I might call the police. I would certainly be very suspicious. Recently a Black man was shot in a neighborhood not far from me for parking on the side of the road at 2 am in the morning in a predominantly White neighborhood.

Hor - what are the chances of me making it through the ghetto in one piece.

Fact: White people go into the ghetto for drugs and prostitutes all the time. The question would really be how you were dressed and how you acted. If a Black man were to dress in yupie clothing and go walking through the ghetto at night he would be risking his life.

In general its a scientific fact that both Blacks and Whites harbor racist sentiments. Interracial marriages have greatly reduced this issue.

As for Egyptologist and their classification of Egyptians. The classification itself is political and therefore so is any discussion about it.

Example:

Two people with identicle features are often classified in separate races:

Answar Sadat & Iman (both East Africans)

Answar Sadat claims to be White.
Iman claims to be Black.

Choices are political and so are the labels used.

As I have already told you. In the case of Ancient Egyptians, calling them Caucasian is like calling Native Americans, Indians. It is a misrepresentation of their origins. The modern day North Africans, however, are indeed predominantly Caucasian but we are not talking about such admixture in this forum. This forum is about Ancient Egypt.

One could argue that because the Egyptians had intermarried with Eurasian women on a large scale that calling them Caucasian is appropriate. I think we are just splitting hairs. The term Caucasian somewhat misrepresents who these people were. They don't fit neatly into our political constructs of race and they were quite diverse.

[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 22 August 2005).]

---

Most north africans today would be mixed raced,but there is a large white population there but a number of them would be barly white like a number of whites in the southern part of southern europe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
I agree,but percentage wise libya's black population today is almost half the state,but egypt in terms of raw numbers will be larger,and as we all know in ancient times and even early medievel times egypt's black population was the largest and most folks there lived in upper egypt where most blacks live in ancient times,medieval and modern times.

---

The important thing to remember about the Nile Valley, is that during the Neolithic and later, it was the most populous part of the world.

The population flowed primarily from Africa out into the Levant....and not vice versa.

The population flowed primarily from East Africa to NorthWest Africa, and not vice versa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
The important thing to remember about the Nile Valley, is that during the Neolithic and later, it was the most populous part of the world.

The population flowed primarily from Africa out into the Levant....and not vice versa.

The population flowed primarily from East Africa to NorthWest Africa, and not vice versa.

This fact has now been overwhelmingly documented by 5 independant lines of evidence: archeological, anthropological, linguistic, genetic, and written historical record.

---

TRUE,nubia at first HAD the largest black population, than egypt, than nubia later on in later ancient times.
IN terms of overall population in ancient times egypt was most likely the largest if you add all the different races, than nubia ,than axum.

ONE PERSON ON the radio awhile ago who studied modern sudan and modern nubia said LATER nubia in medieval times and even up to early modern times most likely had a very large population for those times-about 15 to 20 million,but if you add others groups in these kingdoms of medieval nubia, the nubian kingdoms were even larger,and the late ancient nubian empire was larger than egypt empire population if you add the different groups living in them.

Egypt- about 4 million something IN MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN TIMES,in late ancient times it was around 7-8 million but drop down to 4 million in later ancient times.

As empires-mali empire,45 million folks
songhay-around 55 to 60 million folks
but the songhay were not as large as a group like the nubians and mande.
as we know the 45 million in the mali empire were not just mande,but others too AND THE MALI STATE WAS NOT 45 MILLION but the empire was,and in songhay empire the songhay state was not 55 to 60 million but the empire and other groups were in these empires.

IT is amazing to see how populations grew and decline because of war and other factors and grew later again.
IN THE CASE OF EGYPT,RACIAL groups that were not as large in ancient times grew very large by modern times and became the major group today in egypt.
we call this group the mixed race population in modern egypt.

quote:

---

IT is amazing to see how populations grew and decline because of war and other factors and grew later again.
IN THE CASE OF EGYPT,RACIAL groups that were not as large in ancient times grew very large by modern times and became the major group today in egypt.

---

This is exactly correct. During some late kingdom periods of foreign domination, Egypt's population actually 'declined'.

In recent centuries it has exploded and based upon some completely different demographics.

The new forum has a much better signal to noise ratio, and your knowledge would be appreciated, I'm sure.

Hey we have posters there translating articles on Nubia from French to English.

Don't want to miss out.