posted
Sup peeps? Obviously I'm new to the site, but I've been reading the topics a lot recently and became intrigued with the forum.. Before I even discovered Egypt Search I was caught up in this Black Egypt debate. Today I ran across a site that "supposedly" debunks Afrocentric claims concerning classical historians describing Egyptians as "Black", and separates them distinctly from Aithiopians. From reading this forum It's obvious that in comparison I lack knowledge on this subject, so I just wanted to get some comments on what you guys think of this page? Looking at it objectively some good points are made imo, but I'm not working with infinite knowledge on the subject so things like this can easily distract me.
^^And I know geocities isn't a reliable source, but as I said the points seem valid to me. I'm not agreeing with this guy btw, I believe that the original Predynastic/Old Kingdom Egyptians were authentically African, just looking for insight.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first thiing to do is track down the original Greek sources and make sure that the quotes are accurate. Second, in the case of Northern Egyptians being lighter than southern Egyptians, it really does nothing to debunk anything. By the time these accounts were written by Strabo and others, Northern Egypt had long been colonized by Greeks, Romans and other invaders. It would therefore be more possible that these Northern populations were mixed with these populations and therefore more light. The argument of so-called Afrocentrics is not that there was no light skinned population in Egypt at the time of the Greeks or Romans. Of course there were. The point was that indigenous, unmixed Egyptians were predominantly of a pure African type similar to people of the horn and close to the populations in Northern Sudan. In fact, both populations originated from a similar background, with the migrants from the Upper Nile and the Sahara. All of these things have been confirmed by bioanthropology. By the late period of Roman and Greek control of Egypt, things in the North were much different and bioanthropology also shows a difference between populations in the North and the South at this period. However, the fundamental issue is the fact that the Egyptians themselves as well as archaeologists and anthropologists now confirm that Egyptian civilization started in the South, near to the border with the Sudan. The rulers of the native dynasties of the native Egypt, during the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom, all had an affinity towards the South, meaning the area from Aswan to modern Egypt's Southern border with Sudan. However, there was also conflict in the South, but this was much further south, farther South than the Sudanese border. Egyptologists, by trying to lump everyone together, are trying to distort the true relationship between Egypt and it's Southern neighbors. There was no one ethnic group or nation South of the border and the Egyptians themselves recognized different groups by name in each of these conflicts. None of these people were called Nubians.
So, yes, while those accounts may be accurate, they certainly do not disprove anything about ancient Egypt, which was ancient (by 3,000 years) even by the time those accounts were written. Likewise, I would think that they are harping on the Greek testimony that they like while trying to refute the testimony they dont like. Therefore, they readily disagree with the claims of Herodatus, even as they agree that Southern Egyptians do indeed match the descriptions of Herodatus. They should be trying to clarify the differences between such testimonies by describing exactly where and when Herodatus visited Egypt and what parts of the population he may have been describing.
You have to not let these guys pick and choose the terms of the debate. This issue does not revolve around any one claim or quote from some Greek author. NOBODY is trying to depend on the Greeks for their full understanding of Egyptian culture. The only way to really understand what is being said is to look at the whole history of Egypt and take a multidisciplinary approach. Ancient dynastic Egypt started with unification of the two lands by pharoahs who originated in the South. The region to the South of Egypt called Naquada by anthropologists, was called Nubt by the Egyptians. Nubt was the Egyptian word for gold and this area was an important gold mining and trading region in Egypt. People from this area were called Nubti by the Egyptians, including the chief diety of this region Set. The word Nubti therefore is the closest term in Egyptian that would match the modern term of Nubian. However, Nubian to the Egyptians did not denote a foreign population. It denoted native Egyptians from the South of Egypt around the city of Nubt. Gold was also the color of the gods therefore one of the most sacred colors within the Egyptian world view. The gods were golden "shining ones", coffins were made of gold and women were often depicted in yellow golden colors as being shining ones as well. All of this leads one to an understanding of Nubian that is TOTALLY different than that of modern scholars. Modern Egyptologists try and reinforce the idea that Nubian in ancient Egyptian means "black person" and that it only applied to those from outside of Egypt. Suffice to say, those things are false and can be proven easily. The modern term Nubian is a Roman term for the people to the South of Egypt, starting in Egypt proper and going all the way into the Sudan. It had nothing to do with the way the Egyptians referred to such people and is purely a foreign point of view. Even today people tend to try and separate the Nubians from Upper Egypt from Egypt itself as a separate nation or ethnicity. But in all actuality those people are as Egyptian and more native to the region than others in the North of Egypt who are heavily mixed with foreign blood. Nubian is a apartheid type term to try and separate Africans from their heritage on the Nile. Those people called Nubians today have been living in or around Aswan since prior to the dynastic period. Likewise, those people who live in and around the ancient predynastic cities of Naquada (Nubt) and Heirakonpolis are also much closer to the so-called Nubians than many people from the North. This gives you a better understanding of the point that ancient Egyptians and so-called Nubians were not that different from each other physically as they are basically from the same population. But even with many Northern Egyptians who are lighter complexioned, there are still many who are not lighter complexioned at all.
If you want a better understanding of how modern Nubians are distinguished from other Egyptians ask Ausar. He is an Egyptian and would know better than I.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't meant to mock you but just a dialectical exercise to see if what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. To whit, does the following make sense and why is it never brought up?
"I was caught up in this White Greece debate. Today I ran across a site that "supposedly" debunks Eurocentric claims concerning classical historians describing Greeks as "White", and separates them distinctly from Scythians /Hyperboreans."
quote:Originally posted by Sonofisis: Sup peeps? Obviously I'm new to the site, but I've been reading the topics a lot recently and became intrigued with the forum.. Before I even discovered Egypt Search I was caught up in this Black Egypt debate. Today I ran across a site that "supposedly" debunks Afrocentric claims concerning classical historians describing Egyptians as "Black", and separates them distinctly from Aithiopians. From reading this forum It's obvious that in comparison I lack knowledge on this subject, so I just wanted to get some comments on what you guys think of this page? Looking at it objectively some good points are made imo, but I'm not working with infinite knowledge on the subject so things like this can easily distract me.
^^And I know geocities isn't a reliable source, but as I said the points seem valid to me. I'm not agreeing with this guy btw, I believe that the original Predynastic/Old Kingdom Egyptians were authentically African, just looking for insight.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The given webpage starts off selectively quoting Manilius' Astronomica giving a false impression of its implications. Manilius divided the world into pallid peoples and coloured peoples.
Let's fill in the missing pieces on the coloureds to see Manilius was actually ranking Aethiopians, Indians, Egyptians and North Africans by decreasing colour depth, not dividing them:
quote: Aethiopes maculant orbem tenebrisque figurant perfusas hominum gentes; minus Indiatostos progenerat; tellusque natans Aegyptia Nilo lenius irriguis infuscat corpora campis iam propior mediumque facit moderata tenorem.
Phoebus harenosis Afrorum pulvere terris exsiccat populos, et Mauretania nomen oris habet titulumque suo fert ipsa colore.
This is similar to Aeschylus' centuries earlier work Suppliant Maidens where he gives us a list of peoples and locations of peoples considered "people of colour" whom the northern Mediterraneans saw as no relation to themselves but as part of what they considered the black world:
quote: "O stranger maids, I may not trust this word, That ye have share in this our Argive race. No likeness of our country do ye bear, But semblance as of Libyan womankind. Even such a stock by Nilus' banks might grow; Yea, and the Cyprian stamp, in female forms, Shows, to the life, what males impressed the same. And, furthermore, of roving Indian maids Whose camping-grounds by Aethiopia lie, And camels burdened even as mules, and bearing Riders, as horses bear, mine ears have heard; And tales of flesh-devouring mateless maids Called Amazons: to these, if bows ye bare, I most had deemed you like. Speak further yet, That of your Argive birth the truth I learn."
This appears to be the first written example of the phrase "they all look alike to me" as the Argive king tells the young ladies they look like they come from Libya, Egypt, Cyprus, India, Aethiopia, Arabia, or "Amazonia" all whose peoples he can't tell one from the other (and none of whom look anything like his Greek white people)!
posted
I dont want to sound racist but how can you have a serious conversation when you keep throwing Latin text quotes into the picture?
Regarding the initial post, if what you are searching for is a cultural history of the region you will only get a biased unfounded Mayro perspective here The problem with Greek texts is that everyone reads their translation and from what i see there must be as many different translations as their are languages. I think if Africa is to be considered the epicenter of human existance especially the upper right pocket that once would have joined with Europe, then we must also expect that White, Black and Asian all existed in the same place. If we are to asume a process of evolution took place then it is likely to have been Black-->White--->Mongolian. As for Egypts archaeology this is the type of theory and conversational debate you can have. However, the Greek texts and the Alexandrian Egyptians are the ones of whom most history writes about. In other words as a person with interest in history i like to read what was an account of the past. Others like to invent accounts of the past or fantasise a theory to explain the past and that is the root of most of this afrocentrism. The period after 700BC indicates clearly from the Alexandrians that most of Egypt especially Alexandria was a mediteranean people.
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, in fact egupt was composed of north african caucasians, that is generally accepted history supported by Dr Hawass and others. The overwheming evidence from their own art clearly shows that they were not sub saharan africans and they often stand in stark contrast to Kushites. This is clear to everyone except the dedicated afrocentrics resident on this board. So adrianne is correct that they were clearly mediteranean peoples.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ephestion: I dont want to sound racist but how can you have a serious conversation when you keep throwing Latin text quotes into the picture?
Regarding the initial post, if what you are searching for is a cultural history of the region you will only get a biased unfounded Mayro perspective here The problem with Greek texts is that everyone reads their translation and from what i see there must be as many different translations as their are languages. I think if Africa is to be considered the epicenter of human existance especially the upper right pocket that once would have joined with Europe, then we must also expect that White, Black and Asian all existed in the same place. If we are to asume a process of evolution took place then it is likely to have been Black-->White--->Mongolian. As for Egypts archaeology this is the type of theory and conversational debate you can have. However, the Greek texts and the Alexandrian Egyptians are the ones of whom most history writes about. In other words as a person with interest in history i like to read what was an account of the past. Others like to invent accounts of the past or fantasise a theory to explain the past and that is the root of most of this afrocentrism. The period after 700BC indicates clearly from the Alexandrians that most of Egypt especially Alexandria was a mediteranean people.
Stop throwing strawmen and stop clogging up the board with nonsense. The issue is not one of latin texts or any other "facts" we post. The issue is YOU and YOUR ideas about the origins of the ancient Egyptians. Until and unless you are prepared to deal with the fact that YOU are biased towards Egypt being PRIMARILY derived from Eurasian populations, you will not ever be satisfied with ANY evidence to the contrary.
That is not our problem but yours and yours alone.
The facts are that the ancient population of Egypt originated NOT in Eurasia but the Southern reaches of the nile and the Sahara desert. Last time I checked, people coming from those areas 5,000 years ago would have been predominately black African. This population was responsible for the development of Egyptian civilization, along with other populations from elsewhere. However, the predominant population derived from populations IN Africa not populations OUTSIDE Africa. Over time, however, other groups from outside Africa, including Hyksos, Persians and other groups did invade and did eventually come to dominate Egyptian civilization. By the time of the Greeks this domination was complete and ancient Egypt was no more. So, there were Eurasians in Egypt, but they were primarily invaders, like the Greeks and Romans and not the ORIGINATORS of ancient Egyptian culture. Ancient Egyptian culture originated with populations INDIGENOUS to the Nile and Africa, not from populations who came from Eurasia. This can best be seen in the fact that NO OTHER group outside of the Nile had any cultural relationship to Egypt other than those on the upper Nile, like Kush and Meroe. Those civilizations actually were responsible for a resurgence in the 25th dynasty, owing to their historical affinity. Those from Eurasia who came to Egypt most often came to conquer and coopt Egyptian culture and were not the originators of it. Greeks, Romans, Persians and Muslims all were responsible for the end of Egyptian culture and had no strong liking for it and all of them were Eurasians.
It is you who wants to tie ancient Egypt to Eurasians, but not as invaders, but as the native indigenous populations who were responsible for the great kingdoms of Egypt's history. This is the most obvious sign of a Eurocentric bias, as you do not differentiate between foreign dynasties and indigenous dynasties, as the ancient Egyptians went through great pains to identify and separate.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: well, in fact egupt was composed of north african caucasians, that is generally accepted history supported by Dr Hawass and others. The overwheming evidence from their own art clearly shows that they were not sub saharan africans and they often stand in stark contrast to Kushites. This is clear to everyone except the dedicated afrocentrics resident on this board. So adrianne is correct that they were clearly mediteranean peoples.
Once again you are speaking nonsense Arrow. Dr. Hawass is not an anthropologist, so he cannot be used as an "authority" on the anthropology of ancient Africans. Any caucasians in North Africa are derived from FOREIGNERS who arrived in North Africa after 4,000 years ago. Caucasians in this context as everyone understands it means people with white skin. Indeed there were populations who were caucasian in Africa in ancient times, and the Egyptians identified them. The ancient Egyptians identified groups such as the Libyans, Asiatics and "Sea Peoples" as being caucasian. The Egyptians never identified themselves as LIKE those people. It is you and people like you who wish to deny this simple fact. The brown of the Egyptians is not closer to caucasian. It is an indigenous feature found on Africans throughout Africa. MOST Africans are not the jet black complexion found in some Egyptian reliefs referring to the Kushites. In fact if you were to do a survey of the average complexion of "black" Africans, most would be a medium shade of brown, like the Egyptians themselves, who YOU choose to identify as caucasian. Once again Arrow, stop trying to clog up this board with your biased identity conflicts.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Doug, opinions are like ear lobes, we all have them. I do not recall asking you to agree with me, I stated my view. As for clogging up the board there is a lot of that going on.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
when did i say they were mediterreanean people arrow? i was responding to Ephestion when he said that. the ancient egyptians were black africans study the predynastic egyptians and the old kingdoms and the bust of the pharoahs from the start of there civilizations.
Posts: 164 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: Well Doug, opinions are like ear lobes, we all have them.
That's why referencing Dr. Hawass as and authority on anthropology is a logical fallacy... his opinion on the subject is worthless.
Dr. Shomarka Keita and Dr. Bruce Trigger are however anthropologists and expert on Ancient Egyptians.
This is why - your hero - anti Afrocentrist, Mary Lefkowitz - QUOTES KEITA AND TRIGGER, on AE origins.
Now, read carefully Arrow, and weep......
Ironically, prominent Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz at times finds some common ground with Afrocentrists. In her "Not Out Of Africa"[12], Lefkowitz notes that a number of earlier historical theories suggesting Caucasians initially sweeping into ancient Egypt from the north have been rendered untenable by modern research, which suggests a movement of peoples from the South, up from the Sahara into the Nilotic zone.
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 (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North.
See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982),
vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54."
Case closed Professor Arrow.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read their^ labels from left to right. (If you don't know how, just refer to the top picture for convenience sake.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to remind everybody that Horemheb aka Arrow was banned from this forum previously. Usually, I just delete the message of banned people but I will entertain this only for this thread.
Anyway I will also address a few historically inaccurate comments:
Doug M wrote:
quote:Indeed there were populations who were caucasian in Africa in ancient times, and the Egyptians identified them. The ancient Egyptians identified groups such as the Libyans, Asiatics and "Sea Peoples" as being caucasian. The Egyptians never identified themselves as LIKE those people
Before you make such a statement you should first understand the origin of caucasian being used as a anthropological construct. Ancient Egyptians did indentify the following as generally being lighter than themselves but many populations in both Western Asia and North-west Africa probably had a similar dark skin coloring as the ancient Egyptians. Remeber that Hebrews and Greeks identified Western Asians as Cush and Aethipia on the account of the dark skin coloring of some populations living within these areas.
The earliest Libyans known as the Tehennu were depicted as being dark skinned on the monuments in contrast to the later Libyans known as the Tamahou.
Doug M wrote
quote:Once again you are speaking nonsense Arrow. Dr. Hawass is not an anthropologist, so he cannot be used as an "authority" on the anthropology of ancient Africans. Any caucasians in North Africa are derived from FOREIGNERS who arrived in North Africa after 4,000 years ago. Caucasians in this context as everyone understands it means people with white skin
Arrow aka Horemheb probably thinks that the French anthropologist looking at the crania of Tut-ankh-amun means a caucasian like a European. Actually, many dark skinned populations like Somalis,Ethiopians and Indians are called caucasoid simply because of their nasal sils. One example is a forensic anthropologist report of a Somali burn victim in Canada.
The fact that majority non-white populations like northern Africans to Western Asians are called caucasoid is simply because of the legacy of Blumebach. Blumebach is the one that devised caucasoid to include non-caucous mountain populations. Most modern Western Asians and northern Africans are mostly intermediate populations that have lots of sub-Saharan and even southern European influence.
Dr. Hawass opinions on the ancient Egyptians origins have little value because he lacks the distinction of carrying a anthropology degree. Hawass never stated that the ancient Egyptians were ''north African caucasoids'' but actually repeated the findings of a French anthropologist. The criteria was simply based upon the crania examined and is only one opinion. The American anthropology team,Susan Anton, stated that Tut-ankh amun was an African and had African features such as alveolar prognathism.
Let me assure you by saying most modern Egyptians donot have white skin. Most are from light-brown to even dark brown coloring.
Ephestion wrote:
quote:I think if Africa is to be considered the epicenter of human existance especially the upper right pocket that once would have joined with Europe, then we must also expect that White, Black and Asian all existed in the same place.
The continents wee conjoined at one time but no intelligent life existed during such time period. You have the progression of Hominids into Homo Sapiens confused with Pangea. I can tell that you probably speak English as a second language because of your grammar.
Ephestion wrote:
quote:As for Egypts archaeology this is the type of theory and conversational debate you can have. However, the Greek texts and the Alexandrian Egyptians are the ones of whom most history writes about. In other words as a person with interest in history i like to read what was an account of the past
I had to chop away at the non-sequitir comments to get to your point. Greek texts speak of all Egyptians and not just the Alexandrian ones. Even before the advent of the Greeks indigenous Egyptians lived within Alexandria. Alexandria was actually co-opted by the Macedonian Ptolemies.
The African origin of the ancient Egyptians is nocontested by Egyptologist,Archaeologist nor anthropologist. Even in mainstream Egyptology material such as Robert Morkot mentions Egypt was populated by various Africans coming from the Sahara and Upper Nile.
Ephestion wrote:
quote:The period after 700BC indicates clearly from the Alexandrians that most of Egypt especially Alexandria was a mediteranean people
What do you mean by Mediterranean people? Could you define who these people were and what Mediterranean means? Also are you stating that during 700 B.C. there was a population replacement in Egypt?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are absolutely correct Ausar. However, what most people mean when they say north African caucasian, even Hawass and others, is white. It is understood to mean white even if many people called caucasian are not white. There is no such thing as an "in between" category of black and white. Black encompasses a broad range of colors and phenotypes in Africa. Just because Egypt is closer to Europe and Asia does not mean the ancient Egyptians were somehow outside of the range of black African diversity. Black Africans come in many shades and have many features across the continent of Africa and the ancient Egyptians fell within this range of features, not outside of it. Most African americans are not as dark as many Africans and are yet still called black. So, the crux of the issue is that some would like to deny any amount of blackness in ancient Egypt and therefore this whole north African caucasoid category was created, not to represent "brown" Africans, but white Africans with a slight tan. This is in all reality what they are really trying to say.
You and I know better and the situation in North Africa today is a lot different than it was 5,000 years ago.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours? Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here. It is also clear that we have posters who have admitted openly on other threads that professional 'expertise' is not important. That all that counts is how we feel about the subject.
Secondly, your afrocentric positions are in a VAST minority across the board of people who are interested in academics. Now, that in itself does not make them wrong but it does mean that sometimes it best to lighten up a bit and become a little more tolerant of other views.
Posts: 904 | From: Texana | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours? Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here. It is also clear that we have posters who have admitted openly on other threads that professional 'expertise' is not important. That all that counts is how we feel about the subject.
Secondly, your afrocentric positions are in a VAST minority across the board of people who are interested in academics. Now, that in itself does not make them wrong but it does mean that sometimes it best to lighten up a bit and become a little more tolerant of other views.
Arrow, nobody cares about your endless appeals to authority. Dr. Hawass is not a anthropologist. If we want "expert" authority on the subject of ancient Africans along the Nile Valley, there are plenty of up to date scholars who have already laid your asinine nonsense to rest. If you need them we can post them, because they have names, their publications are out there and you can read the information for yourself. Where is one of your so called vast majority of academic "experts" that believe otherwise and where are their publications? Mary Lefkowitz is not even a Egyptologist let alone an anthropologist. She is no expert on ancient human biodiversity.
I have yet to see you post one study or anything else from a qualified anthropologist claiming that the ancient Egyptians:
1) Derived from populations other than those in Africa. 2) Were closer to Eurasians and other non Africans in complexion and phenotype than other Africans 3) Were Africans who naturally developed into people who looked more Eurasian than African.
You continue to spout nonsense about this "majority" but have shown nothing to back it up.
Posts: 8898 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours? Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here. It is also clear that we have posters who have admitted openly on other threads that professional 'expertise' is not important. That all that counts is how we feel about the subject.
Secondly, your afrocentric positions are in a VAST minority across the board of people who are interested in academics. Now, that in itself does not make them wrong but it does mean that sometimes it best to lighten up a bit and become a little more tolerant of other views.
^Well, WE are still waiting for those of "other views" to present evidence to the contrary of our argument.
We, on the other hand have presented evidence, yet WE get ignored. I think YOU need to be more tolerant of other views.
Same goes for Hawass; we're not holding anyone above scrutiny. 'Specially not Hawass, who is not qualified.
No one hear said we were, but can you refute any sourced cited, or prove them to be irrelevant.
quote:ARROW99 says: rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours?
quote:Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here.
quote:Originally posted by ARROW99: rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours?
It doesn't matter what the value of my views are since Lefkowitz did not cite me.
She cited DR's Keita and Trigger.
Your job is to refute them.
Did you do so?
No.
Therefore -> Is there *any* value to your reply?
No.
But I will indulge your rant anyway....
quote: Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here.
Also irrelevant - he must be qualified in anthropology to be cited on such, otherwise citing him is and appeal to authority fallacy.
He isn't qualified so your citation is false - period.
quote:Secondly, your afrocentric positions
My position on this particular subject is identical to experts Keita and Trigger as cited by Lefkowitz.
This position is unrefuted, therefore characterising them as afrocentric is and appeal to ridicule logical fallacy, so this argument has also been falsified.
next...
quote:You are reduced to a are in a VAST minority
VAST minority is and oxymoron.
Appeal to the majority is yet another logical fallacy, so this argument is also falsified.
quote:Now, that in itself does not make them wrong but it does mean that sometimes it best to lighten up a bit and become a little more tolerant of other views.
The above is incoherent and non-sequitur and so, disregarded.
quote:Ausar writes:Before you make such a statement you should first understand the origin of caucasian being used as a anthropological construct.
Precisely Ausar.
We still fall too much into the trap of allowing Eurocentric conception to frame the debate.
The reality is - the AE never identified anyone as 'caucasian.'
Eurocentrism must completely ignore the AE on this matter for obvious reasons.
* They specifically identified themselves as Blacks. [Km.t]
* They specifically claimed to come from inner Africa [Ta Khent]
* They specifically stated that they were not Asiatic [Aamu].
The Eurocentric discourse is actually and 'ad hoc' [made up] history, that simply ignores the historical record, where that record cannot justify white supremacism.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the last time, Hawass never said that the ancient Egyptians were north African caucasians. Hawass just quoted the French anthropologist who made such a claim while examining the crania of the identified remains of Tut-ankh-amun. Please understand the difference from somebody quoting somebody and their own personal beliefs.
Doug M, Hawass stated that he believed the modern Upper Egyptians were closest to the ancient Egyptians so I don't necessarily think he pictures the ancient Egyptians being akin to Europeans. Although, I don't necessarily agree with Hawass that modern Egyptians have the same phenotype as their forbearers.
Here is an actual quote from Dr. Hawass:
NOVA: Do most Egyptians today feel an ancestral link to the ancient Egyptians?
Hawass: Of course, because we are the descendants of the pharaohs. If you look at the faces of the people of Upper Egypt, the relationship between modern and ancient Egypt is very clear. Habits in the villages, our celebrations when we finish a project, are similar to what they had in ancient Egypt. After someone dies, we make a celebration after 40 days, just like the ancient Egyptians did during the mummification process. Everything in our lives is like ancient Egypt
I doubt Hawass considers anybody from either Lower Egypt or Upper Egypt as caucasian strictly based on skin color. He couldn't make such claim because the majority of Egyptians are non-white.
From your post,however, it sounds like you are trying to use out-dated anthropological concepts to argue against out dated anthropology.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This isn't meant to mock you but just a dialectical exercise to see if what's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. To whit, does the following make sense and why is it never brought up?
"I was caught up in this White Greece debate. Today I ran across a site that "supposedly" debunks Eurocentric claims concerning classical historians describing Greeks as "White", and separates them distinctly from Scythians /Hyperboreans."
quote:Originally posted by Sonofisis: Sup peeps? Obviously I'm new to the site, but I've been reading the topics a lot recently and became intrigued with the forum.. Before I even discovered Egypt Search I was caught up in this Black Egypt debate. Today I ran across a site that "supposedly" debunks Afrocentric claims concerning classical historians describing Egyptians as "Black", and separates them distinctly from Aithiopians. From reading this forum It's obvious that in comparison I lack knowledge on this subject, so I just wanted to get some comments on what you guys think of this page? Looking at it objectively some good points are made imo, but I'm not working with infinite knowledge on the subject so things like this can easily distract me.
^^And I know geocities isn't a reliable source, but as I said the points seem valid to me. I'm not agreeing with this guy btw, I believe that the original Predynastic/Old Kingdom Egyptians were authentically African, just looking for insight.
Not exactly sure as to what you're implying but I tend to let the Greeks be and focus on my own history. I'm not aware of too many African historians who try and physically take credit for Greek civilization. Yea, I know about the Black Athena debate etc, but it isn't to that extreme. White blonds/red heads in Egypt compared to "Negroid" curly heads in Greece. So if you're evaluating on weather or not I'm playing the same game as the Eurocentrics, or even radical Afrocentrics, then no I'm not.. Was simply asking a question in order to gain more understanding on this debate, and how people could make such claims.. Thanx for the response btw, everybody else too. I'm most likely younger than most of ya'll, I'm still learning about this..
Posts: 66 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
rasol, If Dr. Hawass' views are worthless what does that make yours? Certanily he is more qualified than most of us posting here. It is also clear that we have posters who have admitted openly on other threads that professional 'expertise' is not important. That all that counts is how we feel about the subject.
Secondly, your afrocentric positions are in a VAST minority across the board of people who are interested in academics. Now, that in itself does not make them wrong but it does mean that sometimes it best to lighten up a bit and become a little more tolerant of other views.
Arrow, nobody cares about your endless appeals to authority. Dr. Hawass is not a anthropologist. If we want "expert" authority on the subject of ancient Africans along the Nile Valley, there are plenty of up to date scholars who have already laid your asinine nonsense to rest. If you need them we can post them, because they have names, their publications are out there and you can read the information for yourself. Where is one of your so called vast majority of academic "experts" that believe otherwise and where are their publications? Mary Lefkowitz is not even a Egyptologist let alone an anthropologist. She is no expert on ancient human biodiversity.
Hore is basically trying to regurgitate that topic on 'citing' classical Greek authors, where he failed to address the postings on them. If you recall in that discussion, he kept babbling about 'classicists' being "THE experts on classical Greek' and their not agreeing with the posters he was supposedly debating with, only to be dismissed time and again for failing to produce anything of substance or reason. This is the reason he decided to bring up the unfounded issue of "experts not being important", and why he is trying to flame here, by way of ranting about 'north African caucasians', presumably as his way of getting 'even'. It is the same tired old game Hore plays.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
The problem with Greek texts is that everyone reads their translation and from what i see there must be as many different translations as their are languages. I think if Africa is to be considered the epicenter of human existance especially the upper right pocket that once would have joined with Europe, then we must also expect that White, Black and Asian all existed in the same place. If we are to asume a process of evolution took place then it is likely to have been Black-->White--->Mongolian. As for Egypts archaeology this is the type of theory and conversational debate you can have. However, the Greek texts and the Alexandrian Egyptians are the ones of whom most history writes about. In other words as a person with interest in history i like to read what was an account of the past. Others like to invent accounts of the past or fantasise a theory to explain the past and that is the root of most of this afrocentrism. The period after 700BC indicates clearly from the Alexandrians that most of Egypt especially Alexandria was a mediteranean people.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(If you don't know how, just refer to the top picture for convenience sake.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
'Specially not Hawass, who is not qualified.
Printer-friendly view of this topic