Here is just a few from artwork, but there are tons more. I don't want to turn this into a picture spam thread!

There is just too much in this department, and I don't have my database with me right now. So for the sake of argument I will refer to the article that Giza posted and show which parts are accurate and which are inaccurate.

THEORIES about the Negro origin of the Ancient Egyptians have been with Egyptology ever since its beginnings.1 Also, certain Negroid features can be found in the morphological appearance of the contemporary Egyptian population, more obviously in Upper Egypt than in Lower Egypt.2 Modern genetically orientated studies, e.g. of the blood groups, show the penetration of the Egyptian population by Negro genes.3 The question remains, however, whether the Negroid admixture is connected with the origin of the settled population in Egypt or whether it took place in later, that is to say, in prehistoric, historic or modern times.

In Nubia, according to the results of the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing in from the south.4 Negroes and Negroids penetrated to Egypt only sporadically, and their frequency, uneven according to time, place and the diagnostical knowledge of the investigator, has been estimated as 1 to 5 per cent. An increase of the number of Negroes was observed only during the New Kingdom, in connexion with the expansion of Egyptian domination to the south.5 From that time onwards, they were pictured as symbols of the south. The perfect portrayal of their morphological features shows that Egyptian artists knew them very well.

The problem is what the experts consider "negro" and what they consider "caucasoid".

Usually "negro" is referred to physical features such as broad face, broad nose, etc. While "caucasoid" is referred to as narrow face, narrow nose etc.

The problem with these definitions is that they fail to assess the true diversity and range of physical features found in African populations. As we can plainly see from the Somalis on this board (especially the idiots) there are Africans with narrow faces and narrow noses.

Also is the fact that the so-called "caucasoid" features are noted but certain African traits like prognathism are either neglected or downplayed.

Just to further dissect this even more. What about "mongoloid" features? Exactly what features do these experts call "mongoloid"?

These opinions about the heterogeneity of the Badarians had to be checked by the individual analysis of the material. This was attempted for the second Badarian series by A. Wiercinski,19 applying his own and Michalski's typological method. He found the Europoid (Caucasoid) element in 76 percent, the Mongoloid element in 19.4 percent and the Negroid element in 4.6 percent. The assumed high share of the Mongoloid element, which is not easy to distinguish from the Negroid one in the skeletal material, is rather strange, and I could not find it during my own re-examination of the same material. Neither geographical nor historical circumstances suggest the presence of a strong Mongoloid admixture in the oldest settled population of Egypt and Middle East. Wierciniski's analysis, nevertheless, shows that about one quarter of the Badarian series was found to be of non-Europoid character....

As we all know there were no East Asians present in the Egyptian populace.

Besides, earlier remains show people with broad features and the Tasians of Lower Egypt are most likely connected to Natufians, whom Larry Angel described as having low vaulted noses and prognathism.

Perhaps an indication of ancestry more accurate than craniofacial measurement is skeletal body measurements. And it has been established that predynastic as well as dynastic Egyptians had elongated tropical builds. Gay Robins and others have often called Egyptian body plans "supra-negroid," compared to West African who have simply "negroid" bodies.

As far as genes, the study used blood-groupings which no doubt revealed similarities with other Sub-Saharans. However more modern DNA testing shows the presence of both E3a and E3b, both of which are sub-Saharan African in origin.

Actually Tiye was not Nubian. Some scholars have suggested she might have been but her father,Yuya,actually came from Akhmin. Her mother,Thuya, came from Waset[modern day Luxor]. Tiye was just a typical Upper Egyptian untill somebody can prove otherwise.

BTW, the statue is made of ebony hardwood which is a natural dark wood.

The royal 17th and 18th dyansty definately had a southern Upper Egyptian/Nubian origin. We know this from the X-ray analysis from Kent R. Weeks and James E. Harris. Both did studies on the royal mummies from this era.

Some names attached to the 17th and 18th dyansty might have Medijay/Beja origins.

Both Dyansties originated in modern day Luxor and not in the Delta like the 19th dyansties.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Giza-Rider:
[b]JUST A LITTLE INFOR TO EXPOSE THIS PICTURE SPAMMING:

TIYE
THE NUBIAN QUEEN OF KEMET (Ancient Egypt) (1415-1340 B.C.)

Black, beautiful and georgous, Queen Tiye is regarded as one of the most influential Queens ever to rule Kemet. A princess of Nubian birth, she married the Kemetan King Amenhotep III who ruled during the New Kingdom Dynasties around 1391BC. Queen Tiye held the title of "Great Royal Wife" and acted upon it following the end of her husband's reign. It was Tiye who held sway over Kemet during the reign of her three sons Amenhotep IV (Akhenaton), Smenkhare, and the famous child king Tut-ankh-amen. For nearly half of a century, Tiye governed Kemet, regulated her trade, and protected her borders. During this time, she was believed to be the standard of beauty in the ancient world.
[/B]

---

LOL Giza, you need to cite your sources. That one is definitely 'Afrocentric'--"Black, beautiful and georgous..." Unfortunately everything else is wrong! Tiye was neither Nubian nor royalty. Her family were either commoners or nobles at the most, but her family is from Egypt not Nubia!

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Actually Tiye was not Nubian. Some scholars have suggested she might have been but her father,Yuya,actually came from Akhmin. Her mother,Thuya, came from Waset[modern day Luxor]. Tiye was just a typical Upper Egyptian untill somebody can prove otherwise.

---

Same heedless approach to googling up garbage.

Same complete lack of knowledge or interest in Km.t history.

Same posting in all caps, lack of any shame in making a fool of himself, etc..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
History: The Egyptians themselves record that they have always lived in the Nile Valley, but they do have legends that originated from elsewhere (in Africa), like the land of Punt farther to the south whom the Egyptians called Land of the Divine. There are some clues that they may have come from the West, but still in Africa. Not from the Near-East and definitely not from Europe!

---

Yes we have 3 primary sources for the Km.t population based on linguistic, archeological and genetic data.

* Native to the Nile Valley since long before the dynastic era [obviously]

* the horn of Africa [the roots of the language and the main genetic lineages in upper egypt to this day come from the horn]

* the increasingly arid sahara [whose drying caused populations to congregate down the nile]

And the delta? Perhaps, but it needs to be kept in mind that the delta is transient land built up by the nile in wet times and erroded away during the dry times:

According to Butzer, between 7000 and 4000BC “the Mediterranean Sea rose from -20m to near present level, the northern third of the Delta was reduced to a vast tract of swamp and lagoon.

The 10m of alluvial accumulation mentioned by Butzer (1976, p.25) was deposited over a period of some 6000 years and inhibits the location of predynastic sites. However, Butzer suggests that even in Pharaonic times the Delta was under-populated when compared with Upper Egypt and that settlements were highly dispersed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:

this person atop is between brown and black, but neither his mouth nor nose is stereo-typic for the blacks.

---

I have no idea about the history of the races, but i will happy if anyone has a trustable theory to share it with the other members here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:

this person atop is between brown and black, but neither his mouth nor nose is stereo-typic for the blacks.

---

Based on your classification, many African-Americans aren't "Black" since many of us have the same features. I even know Native West Africans who have the same features, so I guess they are not "Black" either.

Everybody who would be considered "Black" socially isn't jet-black. "Black" people come with various facial features from so-called “Caucasoid” to so-called “Negroid”. We also come in different hues from light to jet-black.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tdogg:
BTW, where are you from and located?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:

this person atop is between brown and black, but neither his mouth nor nose is stereo-typic for the blacks.

---

What the heck do you mean by "between brown and black"?!!

Black Africans come in many complexions and features?

Better to deal with geographical location than agenda bearing subjective Eurocentrists pretnding they are impartial. Leave race out of it. The Arabs historians described Ifriquiya (Africa) as bilad es sudan. A general term represnetative of an undiscovered place! Nothing more!

So waht does Al-Jahiz say on the matter?
Since time at the beginning of the conquest, Arabs have mixed with the peoples that have conquered and Europe is no different!

Giza may try again if he wishes, but Horemheb, or any new trolls like Thought_node like to make any inferences?!

And not just about the artwork, but other significant things as well like the historical info as well as the cultural aspects that I have listed that these trolls keep ignoring! Why is that I wonder?

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Actually Tiye was not Nubian. Some scholars have suggested she might have been but her father,Yuya,actually came from Akhmin. Her mother,Thuya, came from Waset[modern day Luxor]. Tiye was just a typical Upper Egyptian untill somebody can prove otherwise.

BTW, the statue is made of ebony hardwood which is a natural dark wood.

The royal 17th and 18th dyansty definately had a southern Upper Egyptian/Nubian origin. We know this from the X-ray analysis from Kent R. Weeks and James E. Harris. Both did studies on the royal mummies from this era.

Some names attached to the 17th and 18th dyansty might have Medijay/Beja origins.

Both Dyansties originated in modern day Luxor and not in the Delta like the 19th dyansties.

---

Actually, there is NO conclusive evidence that the 19th dynasty originated in the Delta. Most evidence for this is circumstantial at best. In other words, since the 18th dynasty was said to be weak on defense and allowed the enemies to gain strength along Egypts borders, a new dynasty had to be brought up in order to reclaim land from the invaders. Therefore, a new king and dynasty had to be founded, based on a rennaissance of Egyptian glory of old. This new king, Pa'ramesse, is purported to be from the delta, but is often a very misleading relationship. Pa'ramesse was the son of Seti (link to Set worship), who was an official at an Egyptian border fortress. Now, just because you are an official at the border fortress does not mean you are from that area. That is like saying Americans in Iraq are Iraqis because they are stationed there.

In addition, many say that because this dynasty had strong ties to Set, ie naming themselves after him, that this also shows a strong affinity to the delta. However, this contradicts the fact that Set worship originated in upper Egypt.

All of this evidence about the origins of the 19th dynasty comes from the year 400 stela, which supposedly hails the orgins of Pa'ramesse and the Ramessid dynasty. However, in my opinion, the whole idea of the Ramessid dynasty originating in the Delta comes from not only a mis-interperetation of the year 400 stela, but a mis-interperetation of the whole point of the 19th dynasty itself.

Here is a link showing the commonly accepted story of the origin of the 19th dynasty: http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn19a.htm

If you actually look at the translation of the year 400 stela (of which there seems to be 2, one for Pa'ramesse and one for Seti I and it is not clear if they may actually be one and the same, thereby causing more confusion), it states unequivocally that his dynasty is tied to the south as he was a "champion of the Medjay" and one loved by Set as a "Nubti", a person from the town of Nubt in upper Egypt. What is Nubt? Nubt is the home of Set worship from predynastic times in Egypt. However,many scholars overlook this, and try to place the origin of Set worship in the ANE, in order to fabricate a relationship that doesnt exist. However, during the 19th dynasty, as Ramesses and others moved into the ANE, many of the terms reserved in tribute to Set were adopted in reverence to ANE dieties as a sign of respect for those who supported Ramesses in his campaigns. But this does not mean that Set worship in Egypt originated in the ANE.
In many ways, scholars try to imply that the 19th dynasty was somehow trying to embrace their bretheren in the ANE by rebuilding temples in the delta and moving the capital there for a short period. However, this totally ignores the fact that Egypt was at war with the peoples of the ANE for most of the dynasty. Therefore, it makes no sense for Egyptian rulers of the 19th dynasty (especially the early parts) to somehow symbolize a common heritage with the ANE.
As opposed to the 18th dynasty, the 19th dynasty was very much conquest oriented, and determined to push Egypt's history and cultural domination over others, not the other way around. It was only later, after the campaigns in the East turned out largely to be disastrous failures in many respects(see the battle of Kadesh as an example), that the 19th dynasty was forced to pay political homage to people like the Hittites.

So, enough for the blabber, here is the link to the year 400 stela translations that you can look at for yourself:
http://www.touregypt.net/400yearstele.htm

Home of Set worship in AE: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruS.html#Seth

Bottom line, the 19th dynasty was a continuation of the long tradition of dynasties that hailed from upper Egypt in and around Abydos (Nubia).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:

Actually, there is NO conclusive evidence that the 19th dynasty originated in the Delta. Most evidence for this is circumstantial at best. In other words, since the 18th dynasty was said to be weak on defense and allowed the enemies to gain strength along Egypts borders, a new dynasty had to be brought up in order to reclaim land from the invaders. Therefore, a new king and dynasty had to be founded, based on a rennaissance of Egyptian glory of old. This new king, Pa'ramesse, is purported to be from the delta, but is often a very misleading relationship. Pa'ramesse was the son of Seti (link to Set worship), who was an official at an Egyptian border fortress. Now, just because you are an official at the border fortress does not mean you are from that area. That is like saying Americans in Iraq are Iraqis because they are stationed there.

In addition, many say that because this dynasty had strong ties to Set, ie naming themselves after him, that this also shows a strong affinity to the delta. However, this contradicts the fact that Set worship originated in upper Egypt.

All of this evidence about the origins of the 19th dynasty comes from the year 400 stela, which supposedly hails the orgins of Pa'ramesse and the Ramessid dynasty. However, in my opinion, the whole idea of the Ramessid dynasty originating in the Delta comes from not only a mis-interperetation of the year 400 stela, but a mis-interperetation of the whole point of the 19th dynasty itself.

Here is a link showing the commonly accepted story of the origin of the 19th dynasty: http://www.touregypt.net/hdyn19a.htm

If you actually look at the translation of the year 400 stela (of which there seems to be 2, one for Pa'ramesse and one for Seti I and it is not clear if they may actually be one and the same, thereby causing more confusion), it states unequivocally that his dynasty is tied to the south as he was a "champion of the Medjay" and one loved by Set as a "Nubti", a person from the town of Nubt in upper Egypt. What is Nubt? Nubt is the home of Set worship from predynastic times in Egypt. However,many scholars overlook this, and try to place the origin of Set worship in the ANE, in order to fabricate a relationship that doesnt exist. However, during the 19th dynasty, as Ramesses and others moved into the ANE, many of the terms reserved in tribute to Set were adopted in reverence to ANE dieties as a sign of respect for those who supported Ramesses in his campaigns. But this does not mean that Set worship in Egypt originated in the ANE.
In many ways, scholars try to imply that the 19th dynasty was somehow trying to embrace their bretheren in the ANE by rebuilding temples in the delta and moving the capital there for a short period. However, this totally ignores the fact that Egypt was at war with the peoples of the ANE for most of the dynasty. Therefore, it makes no sense for Egyptian rulers of the 19th dynasty (especially the early parts) to somehow symbolize a common heritage with the ANE.
As opposed to the 18th dynasty, the 19th dynasty was very much conquest oriented, and determined to push Egypt's history and cultural domination over others, not the other way around. It was only later, after the campaigns in the East turned out largely to be disastrous failures in many respects(see the battle of Kadesh as an example), that the 19th dynasty was forced to pay political homage to people like the Hittites.

So, enough for the blabber, here is the link to the year 400 stela translations that you can look at for yourself:
http://www.touregypt.net/400yearstele.htm

Home of Set worship in AE: http://www.philae.nu/akhet/NetjeruS.html#Seth

Bottom line, the 19th dynasty was a continuation of the long tradition of dynasties that hailed from upper Egypt in and around Abydos (Nubia).

---

Well Doug, no one said Tiye's family came from the Delta. Ausar claims the opposite (as evidence suggests) and Tiye's family hails from Upper Egypt!

quote:

---

Originally posted by stone144:
Some of these paintings are some of the same characters talked about in the Old and New Testaments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
Well Doug, no one said Tiye's family came from the Delta. Ausar claims the opposite (as evidence suggests) and Tiye's family hails from Upper Egypt!

[This message has been edited by Djehuti (edited 30 September 2005).]

---

That wasn't my point. Besides that, Tiye was a queen of the 18th dynasty and I wasn't even really talking about that. The point I was trying to make is that many people try and pigeonhole the 18th dynasty as being somehow unique (physically and otherwise) from other dynasties. When, actually, the opposite is true. Most dynasties had many things in common with the 18th dynasty. First and foremost, most of the dynasties had important ties to upper Egypt. The role of the area around Abydos, as the home of the Gods and origin of Egypts dynastic kings cannot and should not be minimized. Many try and use all sorts of pretexts and so called evidence to try and change the fundamental central focus of Egyptian culture and tradition throughout its dynastic history. Most times this is done by using all sorts of speculation about who was married to who or who as a distant cousin of whom and wheter so and so was a concubine in so and so's harem and where they 'may' have come from. All of which are peripheral issues, unless you try and ignore the majority of the population and presence of so many with ties to Upper Egypt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
That wasn't my point. Besides that, Tiye was a queen of the 18th dynasty and I wasn't even really talking about that. The point I was trying to make is that many people try and pigeonhole the 18th dynasty as being somehow unique (physically and otherwise) from other dynasties. When, actually, the opposite is true. Most dynasties had many things in common with the 18th dynasty. First and foremost, most of the dynasties had important ties to upper Egypt. The role of the area around Abydos, as the home of the Gods and origin of Egypts dynastic kings cannot and should not be minimized. Many try and use all sorts of pretexts and so called evidence to try and change the fundamental central focus of Egyptian culture and tradition throughout its dynastic history. Most times this is done by using all sorts of speculation about who was married to who or who as a distant cousin of whom and wheter so and so was a concubine in so and so's harem and where they 'may' have come from. All of which are peripheral issues, unless you try and ignore the majority of the population and presence of so many with ties to Upper Egypt.

Kingship and divinity in Egypt has always focused on the great pantheons of Upper Egypt as the home to and origin of Egypt's line of dynastic kings and the 19th dynasty was no different. I was pointing out how many have bought into this bogus story of the 19th dynasty originating in the delta, when no such thing is true. In fact, the evidence they claim to support this idea affirms the relationship to the South, in upper Egypt.

---

Absolutely agreed!!

Who made the claim that the 19th dynasty was from the Delta anyway??

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug M:
The point I was trying to make is that many people try and pigeonhole the 18th dynasty as being somehow unique (physically and otherwise) from other dynasties

---

You are right Doug. The 18th Dynasty extends directly from the 17th Dynasty and is certainly one of the more legitimist dynasties in km.t history.

It's actually the immediately preceeding "dynasties" [Hyksos era] that are questionable at best in this regard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tdogg:
BTW, where are you from and located?

---

Big Kane,mazigh is not a elite Moroccan. He comes from the Riffian Berber people. Many are indeed white skinned with sometimes reddish hair. Although most Riffians I have personally seen either look Southern European.

As stated earlier, the Egyptians practiced circucision as a rite of passage for boys the same way as other black Africans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:

this person atop is between brown and black, but neither his mouth nor nose is
stereo-typic for the blacks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
were there along white and black races in the early times of the humans ? i
read that the white man is a descendent of the black men. but the question is:
if the first men were black, why appeared there the the white men ? if we
postulate that the first men was african, and black, is it then probable that
the brown men is a pre-phase of the white men ? the brown men is mainly found in
north africa and the arabian peninsula [as far as i know]. the first called
region is african, and the second region -the arabian peninsula- is very close
to africa. both of this people might have africa as homeland according the
languistic data. if you go farer you find whiter people. why ?

I have no idea about the history of the races, but i will happy if anyone has a
trustable theory to share it with the other members here.

[This message has been edited by Mazigh (edited 24 September 2005).]

---

Mazigh, stereotypically "Black" does not a Black person make. You seem
hold the "True Negro" viewpoint.

A Black person by your definition must have the darkest skin, the curliest hair,
the most pronounced "Negroid" traits, basically a caricature, this concept is
completely alien to millions of Black people around the world.

Black does not equal people with Jet Black skin.

And Brown does not equal Blacks with foriegn admixture, some of the purest
African populations in the world have light skin.

When we say "Black" this is what we mean:

[IMG]http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/shurikenjay/SudaneseWomanatIDPCampin
Darfur.jpg[/IMG]

This woman from Darfur in Sudan likely fits your stereotype of a Black person.
She is the type of person the Egyptians likely depcited with jet black skin.

This is Iman, a Somali super model. Her complexion and physical features have
existed in Africa for thousands of years the population of East Africa is
biologically Africa.

Kofi Annan the Secretary Geenral of the united Nations. He is of West African
descent and much lighter in complexion than the East African woman from Darfur.

Wesely Snipes an African-American Hollywood actor his skintone is about the same
as Annan's.

Tyra Banks an African-American supermodel. notice she has green eyes, both her
parents are also Black.

Alicia Keys an African-american artist. She is biracial her mother is Sicilian,
she is still considered to be Black and embraces her Black heritage while
acknowledging being biracial.

Derek Jeter, a professional baseball player. he is biracial and considered to be
Black. In
American half-black means Black.

In South Africa people like Alicia Keys would probably be considered "colored"
meaning they are of mixed race and a member of neither race.

So Black can mean different things to different people and also so can White.

The U.S. Census accepts North African Berbers as White. Most White Americans
upon learning you are a Berber will not consider you White.
Many Italians and Greeks though considered to be White socially will be mistaken
as hispanic on appearance or atleast asked their "nationality". When a White
American askes you your nationality out of the blue it usually means you do not
look like a "White" person to them.

So when you say Tut doesn't look like a stereotypical Black you are steretyping.

Some of the people in this forum who have study population genetics and
anthropology can probably show you studies that show that Ancient Egyptians were
a "Biologically African" people.

Race is a sujective term but by many standards if the original Ancient Egyptians
were to walk among us today nearly all of them would be considered to be Black.

This guy certainly did not appreciate the government stripping him of his
Blackness.

Black or white? Egyptian
immigrant fights for black classification

The majority of Africa is very Congoid Nigger-Congo

Chem started out as a black cvilization around(5000 BC.)I guess.

People from the near east started to becoming attracted to the nile valley.

Asian incursions started. Blacks were pushed southward. Blacks who stayed behind mixed with "white" asiatics creating "Egyptians" Afro-Asians.

Menes(A black man) united the two lands starting the first Dynastic period 3100 BC.

Before the first dynasty, "white" Asians had been coming to Egypt peacfully and set up villages outside of Memphis(Named after Menes). One of the largest ones was Fostat.

Through amalgamation over the Centuries Egypt(chem) which extendend from the mediterranian southward became "white".

Egypt was not always WHITE!!!!.

You would have to go back to Pre-Dynastic Egypt to find out how it really was originally.

You can't just start with a dynasty here and there as your basis for Egyptian racial demography.

Egypt was originally a black civilzation(Pre Historically speaking). Asian incursions had been happening LONG before the first dynasty was set up in 3100 BC.

"Sub-Saharan" Africa is a byproduct of foriegn dominated North Africa.

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
Bullshit

The majority of Africa is very Congoid Nigger-Congo

Only the Horn countries are not and some Saharan countries and Madagascar. The rest is all true Negroid/Congoid.

---

Leba, I don't know why you use such deragatory language I'm not very familiar with you as a poster but you show not only your ignorance but your immaturity in calling people niggers. In America the racists will call you a nigger and even kill if if they get the chance regardless of what part of Africa you are from. Try paling around with a couple of Neo-Nazis calling "True Blacks" niggesrs. They'll probably keep you around for amusement until you kiss one of their women and then they bash your head in with boots just like they did that Ethiopian and Oregon.
http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=4310

just to see how stupid/smart everyone is, this is a question:

when the Anzac troups arrived in Egypt during World War 1, what do u think they said about the Egyptian people? i will give choices.

a. "my god, we never knew the Egyptians were niggers!!"

b. "wow, Egypt is an Arab country?"

c. "my god, the Egyptians are so white looking!"

I hate when whites TOTALLY take blacks out of Egypt and say mixed people are "caucasoid" know full fucking well if those same "caucasiosn" people just so happened to have been in West Africa during the trans-Alantic slave trade theyu would have been right ont hose boats with the "negroid" "West Africans".

I love how whites dice whole groups of poeople up when it serves their purposes.

Going with the same logic used, If I was a pharoh in Egypt, my mixed ancestery would deem me a "caucasion" on the same token by white western classifications, one drop rule(in creses the slave population and keeps pure white blood from being tainted) I would be "black".

Its bullshit to calssify people as it pleases you.

The only reason "They" probably don't hardly study west African Civilzations is becuase to do so, would go against the myth of " black inferiority". West Africa has already been deemed "negorid". To study West Africa would say a "truely negroid" people are worth studying.

Since North Africa is racially ambiguous,* COUGH" CLASSIFIED AS WHITE,they can study all day long.

Its funny how white folks use the "mulatto"(mixed people) to their advantage when it suites their purposes.

In this case mixed eqauls "white"
In the case of Slave trade,Jim Crow, General American culture "one drop equals Black" no matter what.

quote:

---

Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
first of all leba y do u use such nasty language? ur mama should have washed ur mouth out w/soap. unless she was a black bashing racist like u.

just to see how stupid/smart everyone is, this is a question:

when the Anzac troups arrived in Egypt during World War 1, what do u think they said about the Egyptian people? i will give choices.

a. "my god, we never knew the Egyptians were niggers!!"

b. "wow, Egypt is an Arab country?"

c. "my god, the Egyptians are so white looking!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leba:
What the hell are you talking about? Europeans and the rest of the world don't view Egyptians/Ancient Egyptians as black.

---

quote:

---

What the hell are you talking about? Europeans and the rest of the world don't view Egyptians/Ancient Egyptians as black.

---

Don't know about modern Europeans,but during the 19th century Sir Flinders Petrie and Count Volney around the 17th century called Egyptians '' a course mullato stock''. Petrie was a Egyptologist. Volney was a French exploer

Most early Egyptologist saw the ideal type of the ancient Egyptians as either Nubian or like the beja.

As far as attention to Egypt vs. other tropical African civilizations archeologists have indeed in the past glanced over much of African history but much of that can also be explained by the fact that few African civilizations developed or inherited (like the Greeks) a sophisticated writing system to record their history.

Here is a majp charting major African Civilizations.

Also a map on language families in case anyone is interested. Afroasiatic cultures were not the only advanced cultures of Africa.

During the "Middle Ages" (A dark age for Europe but a golden age for Islam) West African kingdoms florished. Mali was the seat of power in Africa with an empire that stretch across North an central Africa, a territory as big as Europe itself. During this time Timbuktu, now a desert outpost, was a grand city and home to one of the greatest intellectual institutions in the world rivaling that of Baghdad. Scholars came all over the world to learn at Timbuktu.

Here is a link discussing the plight of the texts in Timbuktu that contain so much of West Africa's past and its knowledge.

Translating the African past: the Islamic heritage of sub-Saharan Africa

These texts have been described with grandiose terms such as "The Dead Sea Scrolls of Africa" and Arabic as "The Latin of Africa".

Certainly there were many advanced ancient civilization in Africa such as Great Zimbabwe and the empire Monomotapa that rose out of it but much of Africa takes a back seat in history class because very few written languages developed out of it or evolved from lanaguages like the languages of Europe did.