posted
Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472
Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa: Their Interaction
The relationship between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa has been a difficult subject for archaeology and Egyptology. Unlike the cultures of western Asia, which provide a continuous synchronic matrix of interrelated high cultures across the whole region, Egypt, for the period of its ancient greatness (about 4000 B.C. to A.D. 300), was a lonely eminence of concentrated monumentality on the African continent, with the kingdoms of Nubia and Sudan as her only other native companions in scale. In the past, attempts to explore Egypt's involvement with her own continent had to rely on vague, sometimes contradictory, and often fantastic accounts of Greeks or on comparisons with sometimes unreliable reports of current conditions, none of them filling the scholar's perceived need for a dense network of contemporary evidence. As a result, most scholars avoided the subject, and some, noting the lack of evidence, even denied that the relationship was significant. However, in recent decades, political movements gave energy to the question. Major, detailed epigraphic and archaeological exploration of the Sahara, archaeological research in central Africa, and well-documented studies of modern peoples offer new opportunities to examine the relationship between Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa with greater confidence in the results. Nevertheless, there are large gaps in the evidence of all types, and many different opinions will have to be tried and discarded before some prove durable.
Although Egypt is now separated from sub-Saharan Africa geographically by a huge expanse of desert and culturally by large areas dominated by Arabic-speaking peoples, neither condition prevailed throughout ancient times. During Egypt's formative ages, the Sahara was not truly a desert, while the Nile Valley and Red Sea Hills provided well-watered routes for trade and migration at all periods.
I have a couple of questions about the above.
I have seen Vogel quoted on several topics and would like to know whether he is a valuable resource despite the above claims, which present a false picture because it was not lack of evidence but rather racism and ethnocentrism that led whites to create a false dichotomy between "sub-Saharan/Black Africa" and "North Africa" and to attribute Egyptian and all other civilizations in the latter to the influence of "Semites" or "Asiatics," whom they perceived as whites or closer to whites. I think the dichotomy should be abandoned altogether. So I would like to know to what extent modern Egyptology, archaeology, anthropology, etc. acknowledge the Africanity of ancient Km.t. Is it explicit or implicit, with them not coming straight out and admitting it, in their writings or to the public? It just seems that oftentimes, especially with genetic studies, their data do not lead to a predetermined, expected conclusion, which they go ahead and state anyway. (Several posters have nicely deconstructed essays on genetics.)
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptology as an institution is designed to promote white supremacy. Therefore, they will never come out in a public forum where everyone can hear it and say that ancient Egypt was created by and based on the culture of black Africans. It will never happen. And by this I mean no credited, acknowledged and lettered anthropologist, geneticist, archaeologist or historian that is considered a "mainstream" scholar or expert on Egyptology will come out PUBLICLY and make such a statement ACKNOWLEDGING that the AE during the dynastic period were predominately black. In fact, Zahi Hawass, who isn't even qualified to make such statements, will not be challenged in his point of views on Egypt NOT being black by those who KNOW this not to be true. This is because GOING AGAINST Hawass, means they will NOT be able to continue doing research in Egypt. They will resort to many tactics in order to avoid this, such as making claims that "the evidence isn't clear", "they were multicultural", "modern and ancient Egypt were the same" or many other sorts of statements to avoid saying they were black Africans. In fact most will go on record to pretend that the origins of the ancient Egyptians is a "mystery". That then allows them to play all sorts of games surrounding the "ethnicity" and "race" of the ancient Egyptians, which almost NEVER has any thing to do with the OVERWHELMING amount of evidence that is clear and unequivocal on the issue. THAT is the current state of affairs in Egyptology today, which is to PUBLICLY evade the issue by throwing up numerous straw men to deceive the general public. At the same time, these people write journals and scholarly publications that provide OVERWHELMING evidence that would lead one EASILY to conclude that ancient Egypt was primarily black African, but they won't SAY IT IN PUBLIC, meaning ON TV or IN A MAGAZINE, on the web or anywhere else the majority of the "average joes" could pick it up. In fact they do this so that when the subject comes up, they can play games with the person mentioning such a thing as being racist or biased, by bringing it up (hence the whole tut controversy). Of course this silliness is exposed instantly considering that there is no question about the race or ethnicity of any other ancient group in the world, given the amount of evidence from these places, most of which is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the evidence from ONE DYNASTY of ancient Egypt. Ask them about the ethnicity or "race" of the Greeks, Romans, Chinese , Mayans, Mesopotamians or Indus Valley people. You will get a definite answer in most cases. That in itself shows that as opposed to there being a lack of evidence on the subject, there is a LACK OF EFFORT to provide the results of the analysis of such evidence to the GENERAL PUBLIC. In avoiding stating the obvious and avoiding providing the facts that are ABUNDANTLY available from Egypt which makes the issue evidently clear, Egyptology continues to be an institution of white supremacy.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
The best approach is to keep an open mind when and if you do decide study Egyptology. If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time trying to prove what you think for you, is the actual truth. People, used to believe 100% that the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong by science. When it comes to Egyptology, you're dealing with many interpretations of historical events that happened thousands of years ago and nobody can be 100% certain of how Ancient Egypt originated. Due to its location and the diversity of its neighbors, it would not surprise anyone that the original people reflected the same diversity along the Nile in Egypt.
Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
The best approach is to keep an open mind when and if you do decide study Egyptology. If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time trying to prove what you think for you, is the actual truth. People, used to believe 100% that the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong by science. When it comes to Egyptology, you're dealing with many interpretations of historical events that happened thousands of years ago and nobody can be 100% certain of how Ancient Egypt originated. Due to its location and the diversity of its neighbors, it would not surprise anyone that the original people reflected the same diversity along the Nile in Egypt.
I agree that it does take an open mind to be an archaeologist and historian in general. The way I would put it is not to walk around with a chip on your shoulder. Examine the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. Let the facts and evidence be the basis for your conclusions on any aspect of history and not dogmatic rhetoric. Avoiding dogma and going after the facts and as much first hand information as is available is always a good place to start. A lot of what some of us here object to is the dogmatic rhetoric that surrounds Egyptology, which is not based simply on facts and evidence but all sorts of stuff like politics and biases of various sorts. There is tons of information that has been collected by Egyptology over the last hundred years and just collecting all of that and understanding how it fits together is no minor feat. There is so much information that is being uncovered and analyzed that most of what we see as lay people is mostly the most spectacular finds or highlights from any specific season. But archeology is more than just highlights it is filling in as much detail to a mosaic tapestry of ancient life as possible. This part is always an ongoing process and any bit of evidence is important. Therefore, there is abundant evidence to be analyzed and studies that will provide more than enough information to base your conclusions on in any aspect of ancient life. If others don't agree with your conclusions then that is life as a scientist as no two scientists always agree. The point is that as long as you are basing your conclusions on facts, evidence and serious methodical research, you cannot go wrong.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Although I disagree with Glider's last sentence. The original Egyptians did NOT have the same diversity seen in the Nile today with all the immigrations and invasions that have taken place in the past thousand and more years.
Also to Neith-Athena, I agree that while Vogel is a reliable source (at least more reliable than typical Western sources of the past), his assessment of historiography when came to Egypt is definitely wrong, and denies the most significant problem of racism.
By the way, how is your topic "off topic" when it's title is found in the very title of the forum subject 'Ancient Egypt and Egyptology'?! LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
The best approach is to keep an open mind when and if you do decide study Egyptology. If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time trying to prove what you think for you, is the actual truth. People, used to believe 100% that the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong by science. When it comes to Egyptology, you're dealing with many interpretations of historical events that happened thousands of years ago and nobody can be 100% certain of how Ancient Egypt originated. Due to its location and the diversity of its neighbors, it would not surprise anyone that the original people reflected the same diversity along the Nile in Egypt.
Everyone seems certain that the Chinese created Chinese civilization (at least all but the most extreme white supremacists), that Native Americans created the Inca and Maya civilizations, etc. It is only when it comes to Africa that there is a question because Europeans and persons such as yourself (I do not know where you are from, by the way, but I do know by what mindset you are trapped) cannot stand the fact that Africans whom they enslaved and dehumanized for economic gain for the past 500 centuries or so actually laid down the foundation for their civilization. One can never be 100% certain of anything, and in science at least nothing is ever definitely, absolutely proven because new research can challenge and disprove any claims. There is, however, linguistic, textual, archaeological, genetic, artistic, and historical evidence that the modern population of Egypt does not represent the ancient one, and that Egypt was a native African culture, the invention of Africans solely, with perhaps some contributions of Levantine populations. But the fact is that African populations also influenced Levantine ones, probably to a greater degree than the other way around. But you and your ilk can drown in the Nile/ de-nial. Please cease making your insinuations again, as I have already gone through your baiting posts and have an idea of what a poster you are.
And by the way, not everyone thought that the world was flat or the sun revolved the earth, Europeans certainly did, due to both ignorance and religious and political motivations. And they remain willfully and blissfully either ignorant or in denial of what they do know due to the same motivations. Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Well said. I knew there was no need for me to say something about 'Glider', since I usually don't engage in the passive-aggressive folks, but that someone will eventually call him out.
By the way, I believe Glider is a modern (Arab) Egyptian.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Would you assign the same possible diversity that you assign to Egypt to its neighbours? Thus would you say that Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia and Rome were just as diverse?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
The best approach is to keep an open mind when and if you do decide study Egyptology. If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time trying to prove what you think for you, is the actual truth. People, used to believe 100% that the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong by science. When it comes to Egyptology, you're dealing with many interpretations of historical events that happened thousands of years ago and nobody can be 100% certain of how Ancient Egypt originated. Due to its location and the diversity of its neighbors, it would not surprise anyone that the original people reflected the same diversity along the Nile in Egypt.
Everyone seems certain that the Chinese created Chinese civilization (at least all but the most extreme white supremacists), that Native Americans created the Inca and Maya civilizations, etc. It is only when it comes to Africa that there is a question because Europeans and persons such as yourself (I do not know where you are from, by the way, but I do know by what mindset you are trapped) cannot stand the fact that Africans whom they enslaved and dehumanized for economic gain for the past 500 centuries or so actually laid down the foundation for their civilization. One can never be 100% certain of anything, and in science at least nothing is ever definitely, absolutely proven because new research can challenge and disprove any claims. There is, however, linguistic, textual, archaeological, genetic, artistic, and historical evidence that the modern population of Egypt does not represent the ancient one, and that Egypt was a native African culture, the invention of Africans solely, with perhaps some contributions of Levantine populations. But the fact is that African populations also influenced Levantine ones, probably to a greater degree than the other way around. But you and your ilk can drown in the Nile/ de-nial. Please cease making your insinuations again, as I have already gone through your baiting posts and have an idea of what a poster you are.
And by the way, not everyone thought that the world was flat or the sun revolved the earth, Europeans certainly did, due to both ignorance and religious and political motivations. And they remain willfully and blissfully either ignorant or in denial of what they do know due to the same motivations.
I have no idea why you responded in such child like manner, but you really do have a lot to learn. I hope that they can teach you some manners as well! But your response shows you're not ready for serious study of any high caliber.
Good Luck and hopefully you will catch your shooting star!
Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Would you assign the same possible diversity that you assign to Egypt to its neighbours? Thus would you say that Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia and Rome were just as diverse?
Lamin,
Ancient Egypt was different from most of these Ancient cultures due to its geography, wealth, culture, and natural magnetic qualities. In in the old days, our modern concepts of nation-states were not the norm and passports/visas were not invented yet. The only thing that we know is that there were very few barriers for people to migrate from place to place and gaining acceptance was not based on race or color, but more likely on merit and tribal attitudes towards strangers. Therefore, Egypt was probably very diverse, while these other nations were a little less diverse, but did have many non-natives amongst their people. The key word to remember is CONTINUUM IN NORTHEAST AFRICA AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race of ancient Egyptians From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A tomb painting of Seti I as reconstructed by Giovanni Battista Belzoni (d. 1823), depicting various peoples as the ancient Egyptians perceived them. The Egyptians are on the bottom.The Race of ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy, especially within Afrocentric circles. The debate over the racial characteristics of the ancient Egyptians usually occurs outside the field of Egyptology today.[1] Studies have shown that modern Egyptians have genetic affinities primarily with populations of North and East Africa,[2][3][4][5] and to a lesser extent Middle Eastern and European populations.[6] Studies done on ancient Egyptians' remains have shown uniformity and homogeneity among the samples, and cranial/limb ratio similarity with populations from North Africa, Tropical Africa, Somalia, Nubia, Southwest Asia and Europe.[7][8][9][10][11] Blood typing and DNA sampling on ancient Egyptian mummies is scant; however, blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to Northern Haratin populations, while DNA extraction (namely from the 12th dynasty) indicates multiple lines of descent, including sub-Saharan Africa, while the other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin as well (according to Keita, 1996).[12][13] Egyptologists generally consider the ancient Egyptians to have been a continuum from the lighter northern population of Lower Egypt to the darker Upper Egyptians.[14]
Historically there have been differing accounts of the appearance of ancient Egyptians as compared to people of other nations. The Egyptians have alternately been described as lighter than the Moors,[15] similar in appearance to northern Indians,[16] and as having brown and black skin.[17] Modern classical scholars and anthropologists dispute the reliability of ancient accounts asserting that the terms used have different meanings from modern concepts of racial characteristics.[18][19] Ancient Egyptians generally noted the difference between themselves and other peoples, however such differences frequently were based on culture or politics opposed to physical characteristics.[14]
Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Wikipedia is not reliable considering that it is free for laypeople to edit and not just experts. In just those two paragraphs alone there are flaws.
Studies done on ancient Egyptians' remains have shown uniformity and homogeneity among the samples, and cranial/limb ratio similarity with populations from North Africa, Tropical Africa, Somalia, Nubia, Southwest Asia and Europe....
First of all, the statement above is contradictory as there is nothing "homogeneous" about cranial/limb ratios from all those places listed.
And second, even the places listed are inconsistent-- North Africa is a region of the continent of Africa; "Tropical Africa" is essentially all of Africa with some of North and South Africa being in the subtropics while the rest in greater tropics; Somalia is a country; "Nubia" is a region consisting of both southern Egypt and northern Sudan; Southwest Asia is a region of Eurasia; and Europe a region or rather subcontinent of Eurasia. Again there is nothing "homogenous" about it, and all skeletal studies from Robins, to Zakrzewski, all confirm that not only did Egyptians have tropical builds like all indigenous Africans but that it was extra-tropical or in the old terms "super-negro"!! See here
Blood typing and DNA sampling on ancient Egyptian mummies is scant; however, blood typing of dynastic mummies found ABO frequencies to be most similar to Northern Haratin populations, while DNA extraction (namely from the 12th dynasty) indicates multiple lines of descent, including sub-Saharan Africa, while the other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin as well (according to Keita, 1996).
Haratin people
And of course, as it says all the lineages may well be African. Whether it is North or Sub-Sahara doesn't matter because blacks are indigenous to both regions and the entire continent.
Egyptologists generally consider the ancient Egyptians to have been a continuum from the lighter northern population of Lower Egypt to the darker Upper Egyptians.
Irrelevant. The same can be said for *all* populations around the world-- there are going to be lighter people further north and darker further south correlating with proximity to the equator.
Historically there have been differing accounts of the appearance of ancient Egyptians as compared to people of other nations. The Egyptians have alternately been described as lighter than the Moors,[15] similar in appearance to northern Indians,[16] and as having brown and black skin.[17] Modern classical scholars and anthropologists dispute the reliability of ancient accounts asserting that the terms used have different meanings from modern concepts of racial characteristics.[18][19] Ancient Egyptians generally noted the difference between themselves and other peoples, however such differences frequently were based on culture or politics opposed to physical characteristics.[14]
Useless dissembling. We have been over this numerous times, including most recently here! There is nothing "unreliable" about ancient accounts from 'Classical' scholars like Greek and Roman historians. They specifically described the Egyptians as BLACK! There is no way denying it or getting around it-- black means black. Westerners had no problem accepting this description until the 1800s when racism was rampant. All of a sudden they argue against Classical descriptions! And what about depictions from the Egyptians themselves?!
By the way, Many northern Indians were black and still are! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By the way, Many northern Indians were black and still are!
Does this mean Indians and Africans are the same? It seems you have no idea what BLACK means? Or, if you think you do, what does it mean?
Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the wikipedia page. Notice that there are so many editing disputes they had to put a lock on the page! LOL
Not surprising. It seems everytime I go there, the page is changed in some way from several sentences to entire paragraphs.
There are are so many logical inconsistencies, any (unbias) intelligent person would recognize them immediately take the information with a grain or less of salt.
Glider is right about one thing, there was indeed continuum from northeast Africa to surrounding areas which is why both skeletal remains as well as genetics show that not only were black Africans continuous from Sub-Sahara to North Africa, but some of these populations literally spilled out into Europe and Southwest Asia!
Genetics shows that African E3b lineages which originated in East Africa spread into the Nile Valley during Paleolithic times and expanded into Northwest Africa (the Maghreb) as well as into Southwest Asia (the Levant). African E lineages are found among peoples of the Levant like Palestinians today. Seehere
The genetic data supports the previous skeletal and cranial data found in Mesolithic Palestine of people with tropical/African features. See here
This is further correlated with Semitic languages spoken in Southwest Asia, since Semitic is a branch of Afrasian language phylum and the very origins of that phylum lies in Africa. Semitic is the only division of Afrasian that lies outside of Africa with the others-- Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, and Omotic-- spoken solely in the African continent. See here
So ancient Egypt is not only very much African, but one can argue that Southwest Asia and even Europe was once an extension of Africa in Mesolithic to Neolithic times!
posted
Do you really believe that people left East Africa and NEVER CAME BACK? Sorry, but early humans moved in search of food and shelter, regardless of direction or location. More like back and forth, just like Jesus and his Mother took refuge in Egypt out of all places. It was known as the LAND OF PLENTY, even during Biblical Times.
CONTINUUM means no bottle-necks between Egypt and the LEVANT. There was no Suez Canal, back in those days. And, people moved freely from area to area, even within Egypt itself, the migration never stopped.Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Does this mean Indians and Africans are the same? It seems you have no idea what BLACK means? Or, if you think you do, what does it mean?
Of course Indians and Africans are not the same. Indians are Eurasians while Africans are well.. Africans
LOL How the heck could I have no idea what black means?! Black is a reference to very dark skin color:
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
South Asian (North Indian)
Southeast Asian (Andamanese)
Pacific Islander/Oceanian (Papuan)
Australian (indigenous Australian)
African (modern non-Arab Egyptian)
Ancient (Egyptian) Africans
Thutmose III
Tut
^^ *All above are black peoples*
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Do you really believe that people left East Africa and NEVER CAME BACK? Sorry, but early humans moved in search of food and shelter, regardless of direction or location. More like back and forth, just like Jesus and his Mother took refuge in Egypt out of all places. It was known as the LAND OF PLENTY, even during Biblical Times.
LOL Of course people came back, which is why there is admixture in northeast Africa today, especially in Egypt. But the vast majority of this admixture or backmigrations into Africa took place in later times as determined from archaeology, anthropology, and genetics from the date of non-African lineages like Asiatic J European R1b etc. Not to mention historical records from the various invaders like Turks, Arabs, Perians, Romans, Greeks, etc. as well as from the native Egyptians themselves.
quote:CONTINUUM means no bottle-necks between Egypt and the LEVANT. There was no Suez Canal, back in those days. And, people moved freely from area to area, even within Egypt itself, the migration never stopped.
This is incorrect. Initial migrations out of Africa took place from the Horn of Africa to Arabia, more specifically Eritrea to Yemen. According to paleoanthropologists, North Africa at that time was too arid to leave via Egypt and Sinai into the Levant. Thus bottlenecks did occur. Which is why certain lineages are associated with Eurasians like Southwest Asian J, while others like E are associated with Africans. Once North Africa became more hospitable during the Epipaleolithic another expansion took place with Africans again migrating into Asia only this time from Egypt into the Levant. Was there migration the other way? Yes, but genetics and anthropology show that it was minimal and very significant. Thus while they exist, Asian lineages in Africa dating to that time are rare compared to higher frequencies of African lineages in Southwest Asia.
You also cannnot deny the obvious cultural contributions like Afrasian languages in the form Semitic spoken to this day in Southwest Asia. Meanwhile where is the evidence of Asian languages or any Asian cultural trait being prevalent in Egypt or anywhere in Africa in early times?? How is Egyptian culture Asiatic? Everything about Egyptian culture is African and preponderantly apparently so were the people.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
I completely understand.
What you are saying makes sense.
That is not to say what Doug has said in the past; that is, Egyptology is Eurocentric discourse.
Don't get me wrong, that's what it was born, that's what it is mired in today,
But I concur more with rasol in that Egyptology is what we make it. At it's root, it is the study of Egypt.
To imply anything more is a fallacy, specifically, the [url=]genetic fallacy[/url].
Again, Neith-Athena:
quote:Originally posted by Neith-Athena: Can going against Hawass and mainstream Egyptology's denial of Kemet's Africanity really preclude one's having access to research? That is worrisome because I am interested in going into Egyptology as a career. So much, then, for the freedom of European and American academia, liberal arts, and universities.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: The best approach is to keep an open mind when and if you do decide study Egyptology.
Double-talk.:
quote:Glyder: If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time
Oh, wait
quote:Originally posted by Glyder: Due to its location and the diversity of its neighbors, it would not surprise anyone that the original people reflected the same diversity along the Nile in Egypt.
So Glyder do you realize that when you say that some one should keep an open and un-assuming mind, as if they haven't, then say that Egypt is probably mixed that [b] are committing the same sins?
* You are assuming.
Second of all, you are referring to modern Egypt (your use of present tense).
Third, it's good to know what you're talking about.
But yeah, people should keep an open-mind.
Yup, unlike Hawass. Though Neith was asking if such an approach could jeopardize her career.
quote: If you think that you already know all the answers, it would be a waste of time trying to prove what you think for you, is the actual truth. [Europeans], used to believe 100% that the earth was flat, until they were proven wrong by science.
So...?
Why are you of all people trying to teach us open-mindedness?
Haven't you already typecasted us as a group of black american afrocentrists, as if we have all decided that for ourselves?
If not yet let me know when.
quote: When it comes to Egyptology, you're dealing with many interpretations of historical events that happened thousands of years ago and nobody can be 100% certain of how Ancient Egypt originated.
That's what science is about. Probability.
Which is why science is handy. To determin if any certainty is possible, and to what degree.
We here at Egyptsearch take to a MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH for the most part.
Lingual, Archaeological, Genetic, Morphological, and Historical approaches are taken, when and where possible.
Would you like to join us? Or continue on in your sense-less babble?
Cranial studies indicate the Dyanstic Nile Valley inhabitants were indigenous Africans, and attribute diverse crania to later non-african influence.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Does this mean Indians and Africans are the same?
One questionable post after another, huh?
To answer your question: No.
I don't know where you got that idea, other than your own noggin.
quote:It seems you have no idea what BLACK means? Or, if you think you do, what does it mean?
ubupup...it's simple really:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course Indians and Africans are not the same. Indians are Eurasians while Africans are well.. Africans
LOL How the heck could I have no idea what black means?! Black is a reference to very dark skin color:
3. (sometimes initial capital letter) a. pertaining or belonging to any of the various populations characterized by dark skin pigmentation, specifically the dark-skinned peoples of Africa, Oceania, and Australia.
[...]
^^ *All above are black peoples*
Djehuti explained everything pretty nicely.
Thankyou, Djehuti.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is the wikipedia page. Notice that there are so many editing disputes they had to put a lock on the page! LOL
Not surprising. It seems everytime I go there, the page is changed in some way from several sentences to entire paragraphs.
You can say that again.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glider: Do you really believe that people left East Africa and NEVER CAME BACK? Sorry, but early humans moved in search of food and shelter, regardless of direction or location. More like back and forth, just like Jesus and his Mother took refuge in Egypt out of all places. It was known as the LAND OF PLENTY, even during Biblical Times.
LOL Of course people came back, which is why there is admixture in northeast Africa today, especially in Egypt. But the vast majority of this admixture or backmigrations into Africa took place in later times as determined from archaeology, anthropology, and genetics from the date of non-African lineages like Asiatic J European R1b etc. Not to mention historical records from the various invaders like Turks, Arabs, Perians, Romans, Greeks, etc. as well as from the native Egyptians themselves.
quote:CONTINUUM means no bottle-necks between Egypt and the LEVANT. There was no Suez Canal, back in those days. And, people moved freely from area to area, even within Egypt itself, the migration never stopped.
This is incorrect. Initial migrations out of Africa took place from the Horn of Africa to Arabia, more specifically Eritrea to Yemen. According to paleoanthropologists, North Africa at that time was too arid to leave via Egypt and Sinai into the Levant. Thus bottlenecks did occur. Which is why certain lineages are associated with Eurasians like Southwest Asian J, while others like E are associated with Africans. Once North Africa became more hospitable during the Epipaleolithic another expansion took place with Africans again migrating into Asia only this time from Egypt into the Levant. Was there migration the other way? Yes, but genetics and anthropology show that it was minimal and very significant. Thus while they exist, Asian lineages in Africa dating to that time are rare compared to higher frequencies of African lineages in Southwest Asia.
You also cannnot deny the obvious cultural contributions like Afrasian languages in the form Semitic spoken to this day in Southwest Asia. Meanwhile where is the evidence of Asian languages or any Asian cultural trait being prevalent in Egypt or anywhere in Africa in early times?? How is Egyptian culture Asiatic? Everything about Egyptian culture is African and preponderantly apparently so were the people.
^Indeed.
Which means our friend Glyder has it bass-ackwards when it comes to the "Middle East" or South Western Asia:
quote:Originally posted by Glider:
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Glider,
Would you assign the same possible diversity that you assign to Egypt to its neighbours? Thus would you say that Mesopotamia, Greece, Persia and Rome were just as diverse?
Lamin,
Ancient Egypt was different from most of these Ancient cultures due to its geography, wealth, culture, and natural magnetic qualities. In in the old days, our modern concepts of nation-states were not the norm and passports/visas were not invented yet. The only thing that we know is that there were very few barriers for people to migrate from place to place and gaining acceptance was not based on race or color, but more likely on merit and tribal attitudes towards strangers. Therefore, Egypt was probably very diverse, while these other nations were a little less diverse, but did have many non-natives amongst their people. The key word to remember is CONTINUUM IN NORTHEAST AFRICA AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
That because there were less barriers, only possible tribal preferences dictated the populating of the areas?
* These areas being, according to you, less diverse in SW Asia and more diverse in Kemet?
Which intern, implies that, since there "were no barriers" only tribal "[i]attitudes towards strangers kept it "less diverse" in all those non-African mediterranean places?
On what basis do you state such?
Do you know that non-Africans were more prejudice towards foreigners than 'Egyptians' for a fact?
Did you know that ancient Egyptians didn't let foreigners right in? Especially during certain time periods.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
People seem to be so taken aback by my opinions on Egyptology. True Egyptology is what people make it. The people that MADE Egyptology and INVENTED IT were Europeans. It became what it is because of EUROPEAN THEFT of Egyptian artifacts, which came at its height during the British colonial period of Egypt, when Europeans could go in and pretty much TAKE what they wanted. THAT plundering of Egyptian artifacts by Western colonial and racist countries was the BASIS of most modern collections of Egyptian artifacts in the Museums of Europe and America, most of which was donated by wealthy businessmen who FINANCED such expeditions to Egypt. MUCH still remains in the PRIVATE collections. Egyptology then began as a result of these wealthy collectors wanting to KNOW MORE about what they stole, so they financed University and private researchers institutions to go out and continue the expeditions to Egypt for learning more about that culture. THAT is how Egyptology was born and THOSE people are responsible for making Egyptology what it is today: primarily an institution dedicated to feeding the INSATIABLE desire of Europeans and Americans for Egyptian history. This results in the fact that MOST journals and articles on ancient Egypt are published in EUROPEAN languages NOT ARABIC. This means MOST DOCUMENTARIES and TELEVSION movies are produced BY AND FOR European audiences. NONE of this is done PRIMARILY for the education and knowledge of NILE VALLEY peoples, especially not the rural folks of Egypt and those who are MOST CLOSELY descended from the ancients. While Egypt is beginning to establish sovereignty over Egyptian archeology, MOST Egyptians are nothing more than cheap laborers on dig sites for foreigners. MOST of their work going to be consumed and published for the education and benefit of people and their children THOUSANDS of miles away from Egypt, not for the benefit and education of THE EGYPTIANS and other NILE VALLEY PEOPLE. THAT is the point I am making.
When Egyptology becomes PRIMARILY devoted to spreading the knowledge of ancient Egypt to the PEOPLE OF EGYPT and the Nile, BY people of Egypt and along the Nile, THEN I will change my opinion.
That does not mean that Egyptology has no value at all, however, much of the REAL KNOWLEDGE and UNDERSTANDING of ancient Egypt is cluttered by the baggage that comes with the history of European domination and Eurocentric ideology. Clear away the clutter and the truth will speak for itself. Egyptology has done great work in excavating monuments and artifacts over the years. However, it has also done damage to the same. But how often does the vast amount of scholarly material and THOUSAND UPON THOUSANDS of photographs, artwork, field notes and articles produced by Egyptology make it into the hands of the lay people?
When was the last time anyone has seen the complete collection of inscriptions at Karnak? What about the complete collection of all the tombs from the dynastic period. There are TONS of documents on these monuments, but how much makes it into the hands of the public and how much of that knowledge is actually the basis of the so-called "informed" debate on ancient Egyptian culture and identity? VERY LITTLE. It is like schizophrenia, where you have TWO PEOPLE in the same body, but in this case TWO INSTITUTIONS in the same facade. One is meticulous and has mounds of documents regarding the smallest details from ancient Egypt, the other is only SUPERFICIALLY knowledgeable about Egypt and relies on rhetoric and hype to promote Egypt for tourism.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Doug, I completely know what you are talking about and I agree with you and thank you for your input. There is so much information that the public does not get access to, and there is a clandestine market for artifacts and art from other parts of Africa, which is worrisome. I simply do not want to make a mistake and be denied access to the material that is available. And I know that one has to work within the system in order to get such access.
Does anyone know if it is possible to finance research personally without the mediation of universities and institutions? I am an undergrad and already I am sick and tired of having to deal with Eurocentrism in almost all of my classes, hearing the same rubbish about how the Greeks invented everything (as if no other intelligent group of persons existed on the planet before the 5th century BCE - which, when you think about it, is pretty late when compared to other civilizations in Africa and southwest Asia), hearing the Egyptians referred to as "Asiatics" (which means what exactly?), having to put up with studying about civilizations from almost every other region of the planet except Africa (Egypt being placed in the "Near East" and the question of their ethnicity, uncomfortable to many, not even coming up), hearing my Akkadian professor mentioning that the Egyptians got their writing from the Sumerians every time the former come up in class, having to hear about the "Founding Fathers" and the "great American traditions" and "liberalism" while the government does nothing about Katrina in New Orleans. It is annoying, because you spend twelve years of primary and secondary schooling, and expect to get to college and hear something different, but it is actually even worse because the lies just get deeper and more insidious, from professors respected in their fields. And realizing that nothing is going to change is disappointing.
I am therefore thinking of not doing Egyptology, because in a way history and the social sciences are so subjective and open to interpretation, whereas one cannot really argue with genetics and science in general (well, one can distort it, as many researchers do, but the facts are more objective). It seems from what I have read on this forum that persons such as keita, Ehret, and Brace, who are not Egyptologists per se, are much more objective and truthful about Kemet than the actual Egyptologists, which I do consider a bogus discipline, like I think Doug does. Linguistics might be a good idea, but right now I am majoring in Classics (with Latin as my main language) because my university does not currently offer a program in the "Ancient Near East."
So, is it possible to circumvent all this with enough money? And when is that bastard Hawass going to die, I mean how old is he? LOL.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is much you can get access to just being a student. You can go into many University Museums and institutions that do digs in Egypt and get access to the off limits areas reserved for researchers and students. You can get a degree in anthropology, history or archaeology and then begin doing YOUR OWN research both in and outside of Egypt. The cool thing is that because MOST of the institutions that do digs are NOT in Egypt, you can go to these institutions and do research based on what they have found. In fact, most of the teams doing the research are multidisciplinary and many of these people are not egyptologists per se, but linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists and so on. Egyptology is an umbrella term in reality, which refers to all the major disciplines of anthropology, archaeology and linguistics, but with a focus on ancient Egypt. I would pick between those 3 key areas and then make a decision on whether to focus on Egypt. Either way, getting an advanced degree is just the start, the next thing is to do first hand research, which does not always mean going on digs in Egypt. Just doing research into the collections in the basements of the major college and civilian museums with Egyptian collections is a form of research. Studying the tons of photos taken by researchers over the last 100 years is research. There is tons of things that you can do that don't involve digging in Egypt, including going to the Egyptian museum itself. But, if you really want to get access to the good stuff, going to a university that does field work in Egypt is the best bet, as that pretty much guarantees you access to the detailed sort of information that is NOT part of the generic data available to the lay man. Then it is up to you what you do with it. Like I said, you can go far as long as you don't walk around with the "I am gonna prove ancient Egypt was black and all you guys are liars" chip on your shoulder. At the end of the day, all that counts is whether your research is based on facts and evidence from the field, not whether you "tow the party line" and agree with everything everyone else says. If that was the case, nobody would ever do research. Getting rid of the chip on your shoulder and allowing the facts to speak for themselves and not let your own pre ordained beliefs distort your perspective is a good approach. This will allow you to see what is there and maintain a balanced approach to history, which about uncovering things that are not always expected. If others are NOT doing this, then shame on them, you don't have to do what they do. Trying to put Egypt in it's proper place historically does not mean all black all the time, as opposed to removing the stigma against acknowledging the overwhelming contributions that black Africans made to this ancient civilization.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, warned that Afrocentrists had to avoid certain pitfalls.[53] These include:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
Egyptology will continue to flourish, despite what some of the militant, rude and often misguided African-Americans think or do. Egypt's history has had many foreign scholars, and many of them did Egyptians a great deal of service by investing their effort and time studying and recording Egypt's unique history and culture.
Your Rudeness has been fully noted, but I and many people like myself will continue with our mainstream and non-racist studies of Ancient Egypt. If Hawass decides to ban Afrocentric Scholars from doing first hand studies in Egypt, I would not blame him at all. ALL DOGMATIC, MISGUIDED INDIVIUALS SHOULD BE CHECKED AND CORRECTED WHENEVER POSSIBLE, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PRESENTERS.
[B]The Days of Black and White Racism are OVER !Posts: 315 | From: Deep Earth | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, warned that Afrocentrists had to avoid certain pitfalls.[53] These include:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
Egyptology will continue to flourish, despite what some of the militant, rude and often misguided African-Americans think or do. Egypt's history has had many foreign scholars, and many of them did Egyptians a great deal of service by investing their effort and time studying and recording Egypt's unique history and culture.
Your Rudeness has been fully noted, but I and many people like myself will continue with our mainstream and non-racist studies of Ancient Egypt. If Hawass decides to ban Afrocentric Scholars from doing first hand studies in Egypt, I would not blame at all. ALL DOGMATIC, MISGUIDED INDIVIUALS SHOULD BE CHECKED AND CORRECTED WHENEVER POSSIBLE, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PRESENTERS.
[B]The Days of Black and White Racism are OVER !
What black racists are you speaking of? What blacks conquered and colonized ANY Arab country and treated them as second class? What black ever killed, raped or murdered ANYBODY in the name of black supremacy? NONE. Your nonsense is deafening. What EGYPTIAN is a LEADING expert in any field of Egyptology and not just second fiddle to white European "experts"? WHAT BLACK took any relics from Egypt or destroyed antiquities in Egypt in order to have symbolic trophies of black supremacy? NONE.
Egypt is in Africa and ancient Egypt was an African culture. It was not Arab, Asiatic or Levantine in origin. If you think that such a belief is rude, it is because YOU have a problem with BLACKS and not because BLACKS are racists. If you are going to sit here and claim that your SUPERIOR NON RACIST point of view puts blacks and whites together as equally racist, then you deserve to be treated as the retard you are.
And I guess the fact that the substantial amount of blacks IN EGYPT who are at the LOWEST rung of the socio-economic ladder are just there because of COINCIDENCE? Of course Egyptians are not Arab minded racists who look down on blacks. Sure of course not. So before you start running around claiming that whites and blacks (god forbid) are the only racists, you need to start looking in your own back yard.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is much you can get access to just being a student. You can go into many University Museums and institutions that do digs in Egypt and get access to the off limits areas reserved for researchers and students. You can get a degree in anthropology, history or archaeology and then begin doing YOUR OWN research both in and outside of Egypt. The cool thing is that because MOST of the institutions that do digs are NOT in Egypt, you can go to these institutions and do research based on what they have found. In fact, most of the teams doing the research are multidisciplinary and many of these people are not egyptologists per se, but linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists and so on. Egyptology is an umbrella term in reality, which refers to all the major disciplines of anthropology, archaeology and linguistics, but with a focus on ancient Egypt. I would pick between those 3 key areas and then make a decision on whether to focus on Egypt. Either way, getting an advanced degree is just the start, the next thing is to do first hand research, which does not always mean going on digs in Egypt. Just doing research into the collections in the basements of the major college and civilian museums with Egyptian collections is a form of research. Studying the tons of photos taken by researchers over the last 100 years is research. There is tons of things that you can do that don't involve digging in Egypt, including going to the Egyptian museum itself. But, if you really want to get access to the good stuff, going to a university that does field work in Egypt is the best bet, as that pretty much guarantees you access to the detailed sort of information that is NOT part of the generic data available to the lay man. Then it is up to you what you do with it. Like I said, you can go far as long as you don't walk around with the "I am gonna prove ancient Egypt was black and all you guys are liars" chip on your shoulder. At the end of the day, all that counts is whether your research is based on facts and evidence from the field, not whether you "tow the party line" and agree with everything everyone else says. If that was the case, nobody would ever do research. Getting rid of the chip on your shoulder and allowing the facts to speak for themselves and not let your own pre ordained beliefs distort your perspective is a good approach. This will allow you to see what is there and maintain a balanced approach to history, which about uncovering things that are not always expected. If others are NOT doing this, then shame on them, you don't have to do what they do. Trying to put Egypt in it's proper place historically does not mean all black all the time, as opposed to removing the stigma against acknowledging the overwhelming contributions that black Africans made to this ancient civilization.
I wouldn't exactly say that I have a chip on my shoulder, and it is not so much about their not knowing the Africanity of Kemet, the fact that not only did they contribute to it but they also established it, but rather about their not admitting it. And frankly, I hate dishonesty, hypocrisy, and racism. It is about reading a translation of Diodorus Siculus on the Ethiopians in English to have the moronic translator writer a footnote that the author was not talking about Ethiopians, but about some indistinct "south." Nor do I sympathize with persons who are willing to acknowledge the truth but do not do so because they are afraid to piss off the establishment. I do not think that honesty, integrity, and open-mindedness constitute a "chip," but I understand where you are coming from, and thanks for the advice.
Posts: 140 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, warned that Afrocentrists had to avoid certain pitfalls.[53] These include:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
You are tempting me, but I still will not waste time dealing with your politics.
(I actually agree with him on that last point, but such is not limited to afrocentrism, it happens everywhere (like the space aliens who met the Egyptians and the Dogon because they couldn't have done what they did without some form of external influence.)
Any way, feel free to point out where, in your opinion, any have committed:
this,
quote:Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
this,
quote:Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.[quote]
(Funny, ^this is exactly what you have done to us.)
(All we are guilty of here is coming to the realization that Europe has only become a super-power in the last couple centuries or so, which is miniscule in a large historical scale.)
or this:
[quote]Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
Any way,
it looks like all Glider has to bring to the table are ad-hoc arguments.
On to the next poster,
Doug:
Doug, I get what you are saying about Egyptology, but if you really felt that way than why continue on as you have gotten very far, if it is a racist discipline.
I realize that now it is largely mired in anti-African racism, as Glider has just shown us, but all I was saying is that Egyptology its self - that is, the study of Egypt/ ancient Egypt especially - is not Eurocentric by nature.
Studying ancient Egypt is not Eurocentric in nature.
Liars will not prevail over the truth.
Yes, what people like Glider don't seem to understand is that it's really a matter of fact verses fiction.
quote:Originally posted by Glider: [QUOTE] Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, warned that Afrocentrists had to avoid certain pitfalls.[53] These include:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
You are tempting me, but I still will not waste time dealing with your politics.
(I actually agree with him on that last point, but such is not limited to afrocentrism, it happens everywhere (like the space aliens who met the Egyptians and the Dogon because they couldn't have done what they did without some form of external influence.)
Any way, feel free to point out where, in your opinion, any have committed:
this,
quote:Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
this,
quote:Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
quote:
(Funny, ^this is exactly what you have done to us.)
(All we are guilty of here is coming to the realization that Europe has only become a super-power in the last couple centuries or so, which is miniscule in a large historical scale.)
or this:
[quote]Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
Any way,
it looks like all Glider has to bring to the table are ad-hoc arguments.
On to the next poster,
Doug:
Doug, I get what you are saying about Egyptology, but if you really felt that way than why continue on as you have gotten very far, if it is a racist discipline.
I realize that now it is largely mired in anti-African racism, as Glider has just shown us, but all I was saying is that Egyptology its self - that is, the study of Egypt/ ancient Egypt especially - is not Eurocentric by nature.
Studying ancient Egypt is not Eurocentric in nature.
Liars will not prevail over the truth.
Yes, what people like Glider don't seem to understand is that it's really a matter of fact verses fiction.
Fact
going towards
Fiction
heading on strong to
Ultimate fantasy!:
A close up:
The part you are missing is that I agree that studying Egypt, which is implied by Egyptology, is not racist in THEORY. But we are not talking about THEORY, we are talking about the FACT of the institution as it exists. Yes, it would be NICE if it wasn't designed to promote an identity for Egypt that is NON AFRICAN, but that is what it does. Therefore, I describe it for what it IS, not what it COULD BE. I don't know how you don't understand this.
And since you posted these photos of the seated scribe showing the original dark paint, note this presentation from the Louvre about the statue as it exists today. THIS is Egyptology AS IT IS TODAY, not how it COULD BE, which is an institution DEDICATED to racist distortion of Egyptian history:
Seated scribe as it exists today and as presented by Egyptology (with dark paint removed):
The theory of Egyptology NOT being racist and anti BLACK African is nice and good. But this is reality.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: I completely understand.
What you are saying makes sense.
That is not to say what Doug has said in the past; that is, Egyptology is Eurocentric discourse.
Don't get me wrong, that's what it was born, that's what it is mired in today,
But I concur more with rasol in that Egyptology is what we make it. At it's root, it is the study of Egypt.
To imply anything more is a fallacy, specifically, the [url=genetic fallacy[/url].
This is what Doug and others like him need to understand. Egyptology is what the word means-- the study of Egypt. The same way Hellenology is the study of Greece and Sinology the study of China etc. The name nor the field itself is not the problem it is the Eurocentrism that plauges the field that is the problem!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Cain Hope Felder, a supporter of Afrocentric ideas, warned that Afrocentrists had to avoid certain pitfalls.[53] These include:
Demonizing categorically all white people, without careful differentiation between persons of goodwill and those who consciously perpetuate racism.
Adopting multiculturalism as a curricular alternative that eliminates, marginalizes, or vilifies European heritage to the point that Europe epitomizes all the evil in the world.
Gross over-generalizations and using factually or incorrect material is bad history and bad scholarship.[53]
Egyptology will continue to flourish, despite what some of the militant, rude and often misguided African-Americans think or do. Egypt's history has had many foreign scholars, and many of them did Egyptians a great deal of service by investing their effort and time studying and recording Egypt's unique history and culture.
Your Rudeness has been fully noted, but I and many people like myself will continue with our mainstream and non-racist studies of Ancient Egypt. If Hawass decides to ban Afrocentric Scholars from doing first hand studies in Egypt, I would not blame at all. ALL DOGMATIC, MISGUIDED INDIVIUALS SHOULD BE CHECKED AND CORRECTED WHENEVER POSSIBLE, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC PRESENTERS.
[B]The Days of Black and White Racism are OVER !
What black racists are you speaking of? What blacks conquered and colonized ANY Arab country and treated them as second class? What black ever killed, raped or murdered ANYBODY in the name of black supremacy? NONE. Your nonsense is deafening. What EGYPTIAN is a LEADING expert in any field of Egyptology and not just second fiddle to white European "experts"? WHAT BLACK took any relics from Egypt or destroyed antiquities in Egypt in order to have symbolic trophies of black supremacy? NONE.
Egypt is in Africa and ancient Egypt was an African culture. It was not Arab, Asiatic or Levantine in origin. If you think that such a belief is rude, it is because YOU have a problem with BLACKS and not because BLACKS are racists. If you are going to sit here and claim that your SUPERIOR NON RACIST point of view puts blacks and whites together as equally racist, then you deserve to be treated as the retard you are.
And I guess the fact that the substantial amount of blacks IN EGYPT who are at the LOWEST rung of the socio-economic ladder are just there because of COINCIDENCE? Of course Egyptians are not Arab minded racists who look down on blacks. Sure of course not. So before you start running around claiming that whites and blacks (god forbid) are the only racists, you need to start looking in your own back yard.
ROTFL @ Glider's false accusations of "black racism".
Who in here is he/she addressing?? Which blacks or Afican Americans in this forum have done or said anything racist?? I know that Glider isn't referring to me since I'm not even black or of African ancestry. I'm Asian American but even I acknowledge and accept the truth that ancient Egyptians were black African and modern Egyptians (for the most part) are mixed peoples.
This all seems to be nothing more than psychological projection from Glider. As if Egyptians aren't racist. Notice that other 'Mid-Eastern' people like Palestinians or Armenians, or even Europeans were to portray Egyptians in movies all the time. But if blacks or African Americans play them there are issues (even the Egyptians were black).
Even today in Egypt those Egyptians who are darker skinned or retain more African features like Fellahin from Upper Egypt are treated as 'foreigners' or looked down as inferior by lighter-skinned espcially northern Afrangi Egyptians. Even Ausar admitted that Fellah are stereotyped as being less intelligent and violent and even put in slums in cities (Just like blacks in the West)!!
If this isn't racist I don't know what is!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah yes, the famous seated scribe situated in the Cairo museum. A piece of artwork so popularly used as an example of ancient Egyptian asthetics and looks...
Too bad all traces of the original paint is gone...
^ Note the original dark brown (black) color of the scribe.
As far as facial features, one might argue that such features aren't African. But how true is that?
^ Note the East African man in the green shirt has the exact same features of the scribe-- thin lips, pointy nose, and all.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is the wikipedia page. Notice that there are so many editing disputes they had to put a lock on the page! LOL
Not surprising. It seems everytime I go there, the page is changed in some way from several sentences to entire paragraphs.
There are are so many logical inconsistencies, any (unbias) intelligent person would recognize them immediately take the information with a grain or less of salt.
Glider is right about one thing, there was indeed continuum from northeast Africa to surrounding areas which is why both skeletal remains as well as genetics show that not only were black Africans continuous from Sub-Sahara to North Africa, but some of these populations literally spilled out into Europe and Southwest Asia!
Genetics shows that African E3b lineages which originated in East Africa spread into the Nile Valley during Paleolithic times and expanded into Northwest Africa (the Maghreb) as well as into Southwest Asia (the Levant). African E lineages are found among peoples of the Levant like Palestinians today. Seehere
The genetic data supports the previous skeletal and cranial data found in Mesolithic Palestine of people with tropical/African features. See here
This is further correlated with Semitic languages spoken in Southwest Asia, since Semitic is a branch of Afrasian language phylum and the very origins of that phylum lies in Africa. Semitic is the only division of Afrasian that lies outside of Africa with the others-- Egyptian, Berber, Chadic, and Omotic-- spoken solely in the African continent. See here
So ancient Egypt is not only very much African, but one can argue that Southwest Asia and even Europe was once an extension of Africa in Mesolithic to Neolithic times!
quote:Originally posted by Willing Thinker {What Box}: I completely understand.
What you are saying makes sense.
That is not to say what Doug has said in the past; that is, Egyptology is Eurocentric discourse.
Don't get me wrong, that's what it was born, that's what it is mired in today,
But I concur more with rasol in that Egyptology is what we make it. At it's root, it is the study of Egypt.
To imply anything more is a fallacy, specifically, the [url=genetic fallacy[/url].
This is what Doug and others like him need to understand. Egyptology is what the word means-- the study of Egypt. The same way Hellenology is the study of Greece and Sinology the study of China etc. The name nor the field itself is not the problem it is the Eurocentrism that plauges the field that is the problem!
I do understand the word Egyptology, but you are talking about the word as defined on paper. That is different than the actual institution as it exists in practice. Eurocentrism is such a major factor in Egyptology because Egyptology was CREATED to support Eurocentrism. Sure, the Arabs practiced Egyptology before Europe, but the modern institution of Egyptology as an academic discipline came about with the beginnings of European interest in Egyptian history. It is STILL FUNDED by Europeans to support Eurocentrism and racism. The curriculum is tailored to support Eurocentrism and racism. The information is designed and packaged to support Eurocentrism and racism. The major public statements and opinions on the subject are designed to support Eurocentrism and racism. The two cannot be treated as separate entities. The damage has been done. The mold has been cast. The kool aid has been poisoned. You cannot separate the poison from the Kool Aid because it is all one substance.
Either Egyptology is an institution of Eurocentrism or it is not. It is that simple. A gun can be used for self defense or it can be used for criminal acts. What is at issue is not the theoretical potential good that can come from having a gun, but the ACTUAL FACT of how a gun has been used as a tool of destruction and hate. Those are two totally separate and distinct things.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Ah yes, the famous seated scribe situated in the Cairo museum. A piece of artwork so popularly used as an example of ancient Egyptian asthetics and looks...
Too bad all traces of the original paint is gone...
^ Note the original dark brown (black) color of the scribe.
As far as facial features, one might argue that such features aren't African. But how true is that?
^ Note the East African man in the green shirt has the exact same features of the scribe-- thin lips, pointy nose, and all.
The statue currently sits in the Louvre and the colors were restored by averaging out the paint to a even color, which is not how the statue was found originally. The deception is in the fact that this restoration is never discussed, nor is the original color that was on the statue when originally found. Therefore, the current presentation about the scribe on the Louvre website which talks about the colors as if they are as painted by the ancient Egyptians is a blatant lie. This is no accident and it isn't as if the restorers were blind. All of this is purposely done to deceive and promote Egypt to Europeans in a Eurocentric manner. THAT is Egyptology today.
And so what if all archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists or historians are not racist? Still does not change the fact that Egyptology as a institution and the current establishment status quo, including Zahi Hawass presents ancient Egypt as NOT African and NOT black. THAT is the point of view seen by MOST because it is PUBLISHED most often in books, on the web and on T.V. Those that say otherwise are in the minority and NOT as outspoken.
Name ONE outspoken scholar who is considered an EXPERT, MAINSTREAM or OFFICIAL Egyptologist that says ancient Egypt was black.....
I thought so. All those who don't tow the party line are EJECTED from the club and labelled as heretics. Therefore, that shows you the nature of the institution not the nature of some INDIVIDUALS to pursue truth in spite of AN INSTITUTION whose goal is to LIE and DISTORT the truth.
Posts: 8890 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Then we can agree that the instution per its foundations are indeed Eurocentric. However, again, I should warn you not to generalize since not all Egyptologists are Eurocentric!
By the way, I noticed Glider likes to bring up religious/Biblical references in regards to Egypt. As such, it seems that Glider has forgotten that according to Biblical myth about the populations of the world after the flood, Ham was the progenitor of black people, specifically Africans. Mizraim (Egypt) was one of the sons of Ham with the other sons being Kush (Nubia), Phut (Libya or Punt), and Canaan in the Levant! This belief is also acknowledged in the Qur'an by Muslims.
So you see, the truth is everywhere. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Once again, we have a number of opinionated Americans typing in from their self-imposed ignorance-attacking an Egyptian here on " Egypt Search". I am pained to say this but it is obvious- you are not emotionally nor intellectually mature enough for meaningful dialogue with Egyptians.
I've been attempting to have real discourse with you for months and have been registered here for years- just reading and not writing in. Now I have had more than enough. Your collective behaves like a bunch of spoiled, rude and stupid children.The amazing thing is that you are not even remotely aware of how your behavior reads to anyone that is not a westerner. You don't care.
This will be my last post on Egypt Search. Com.
And you will never have an inkling of an idea of what you have lost. You had an opportunity to actually learn about our culture. But like typical cultural imperialists you rode roughshod over natives with manners. The vast majority of you have never even visited the continent of Africa much less our tiny corner that is Egypt and yet you assert such conceit of what you know- and always the racialist fringe. NEver do you shut the **** up long enough to actually learn from anyone that dares to differ with your Afrocentric dogma.
You saw sagacious Solomon You know what came of him, To him complexities seemed plain. He cursed the hour that gave birth to him And saw that everything was vain. How great and wise was Solomon. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's wisdom that had brought him to this state. How fortunate the man with none.
You saw courageous Caesar next You know what he became. They deified him in his life Then had him murdered just the same. And as they raised the fatal knife How loud he cried: you too my son! The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's courage that had brought him to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
You heard of honest Socrates The man who never lied: They weren't so grateful as you'd think Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried And handed him the poisoned drink. How honest was the people's noble son. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's honesty that brought him to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
Here you can see respectable folk Keeping to God's own laws. So far he hasn't taken heed. You who sit safe and warm indoors Help to relieve out bitter need. How virtuously we had begun. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's fear of god that brought us to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
Posts: 152 | From: Boston MA USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Once again, we have a number of opinionated Americans typing in from their self-imposed ignorance-attacking an Egyptian here on " Egypt Search". I am pained to say this but it is obvious- you are not emotionally nor intellectually mature enough for meaningful dialogue with Egyptians.
And exactly what is so ignorant about what we Americans are saying? Is it not truth?? Are not Egyptians capable of being ignorant as well? Mind you native Egyptians like Ausar, Multisphinx, and others who've posted or still do agree with all these facts. What does that make them?
quote:I've been attempting to have real discourse with you for months and have been registered here for years- just reading and not writing in. Now I have had more than enough. Your collective behaves like a bunch of spoiled, rude and stupid children.The amazing thing is that you are not even remotely aware of how your behavior reads to anyone that is not a westerner. You don't care.
Care to elaborate more this assessment of yours? You know there are non-Westerners who upon reviewing the facts who also agree.
quote:This will be my last post on Egypt Search. Com
It's a shame to hear that. You haven't posted in here that long, and I would like to read more from you. But if you can't handle what all the statements said, then I'm sorry.
I too grow weary of all the political/racial stuff, and since school for me is almost over for the winter break I have more time to post on this board topics actually having to do with ancient Egyptian history and culture outside of the political-racial issue. Can you at least wait for that?
quote:And you will never have an inkling of an idea of what you have lost. You had an opportunity to actually learn about our culture. But like typical cultural imperialists you rode roughshod over natives with manners. The vast majority of you have never even visited the continent of Africa much less our tiny corner that is Egypt and yet you assert such conceit of what you know- and always the racialist fringe. NEver do you shut the **** up long enough to actually learn from anyone that dares to differ with your Afrocentric dogma.
I find it funny that you bring up the label 'Afrocentric', when we are dealing with after all an African country (Egypt). What I or others have said is not dogma, but truth. Unless you are able to refute any of this so-called 'dogma'. Please by all means show us how the ancient Egyptian populace is the same as modern Egyptians. Show us that Egyptians were not what we today call black but something else.
quote: You saw sagacious Solomon You know what came of him, To him complexities seemed plain. He cursed the hour that gave birth to him And saw that everything was vain. How great and wise was Solomon. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's wisdom that had brought him to this state. How fortunate the man with none.
You saw courageous Caesar next You know what he became. They deified him in his life Then had him murdered just the same. And as they raised the fatal knife How loud he cried: you too my son! The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's courage that had brought him to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
You heard of honest Socrates The man who never lied: They weren't so grateful as you'd think Instead the rulers fixed to have him tried And handed him the poisoned drink. How honest was the people's noble son. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's honesty that brought him to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
Here you can see respectable folk Keeping to God's own laws. So far he hasn't taken heed. You who sit safe and warm indoors Help to relieve out bitter need. How virtuously we had begun. The world however did not wait But soon observed what followed on. It's fear of god that brought us to that state. How fortunate the man with none.
Nice poem. But please, we ask for facts.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very weird that whenever people here display facts about ancient Egyptians being black, Maahes gets angry, can't handle it, and then starts calling everyone here Afrocentrists. And he has the nerve to say everyone here is emotionally weak! He obviously cannot handle the truth. Anyway so long Maahes. I really hope you don't come back. You probably will though. And stop with the stupid ass irrelevant poems. They have nothing to do with topic at hand.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think it a shame a native Egyptian would be emotionally weak to if not stay and argue objectively, at least try and contribute more about his culture.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't want to stay because he knows y'all are telling the truth about the ancient Egyptians being black. He has no evidence to back up his claims.
Posts: 603 | From: Mobile, Alabama | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On his way out I bid him be wary lest the doorknob hit him where the dog should've bit him.
quote:Originally posted by Ebony Allen: It's very weird that whenever people here display facts about ancient Egyptians being black, Maahes gets angry, can't handle it, and then starts calling everyone here Afrocentrists. And he has the nerve to say everyone here is emotionally weak! He obviously cannot handle the truth. Anyway so long Maahes. I really hope you don't come back. You probably will though. And stop with the stupid ass irrelevant poems. They have nothing to do with topic at hand.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug And so what if all archaeologists, linguists, anthropologists or historians are not racist? Still does not change the fact that Egyptology as a institution and the current establishment status quo, including Zahi Hawass presents ancient Egypt as NOT African and NOT black.
So called "Egyptologists" anyway.
quote:Name ONE outspoken scholar who is considered an EXPERT, MAINSTREAM or OFFICIAL Egyptologist that says ancient Egypt was black.....
Perhaps, in part, they will not be refarded as "mainstream" until we acknowledge them as such.
And please do not any more as if I don't get your point - I do.
Infact, I have contemplated that the greater proponents of truth (ie African Kemet) move toward abandoning the term "Egypt" (a Greek bastardization of Mdu Ntr) when discussing ancient Egypt all together, in favor of Kemet,
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic