In addition to what ausar mentioned, Martin Bernal, a white man, argued that Africans (along with Asiatics) brought civilization to Europe in his book Black Athena. He also wrote that many of AE's dynasties were black. And Wallis Budge, another white man (and nearly a century ago), wrote that the AE language was an African language, not an Asian one.

We shouldn't make the mistake of prejudging a group of people. This was the mistake that led to the confusion of AE history. I'm sure there are plenty white people who believe that AE's were black. At the same time I'm sure that there are black people who believe AE's were not black. In fact, I happen to know one.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
This is NOT one who believes that AE's were black simply because at this moment I am looking at a stack of studies six inches high that do not show that. Bosch '97 is a case in point but the list is endless.

---

Now that I look at these people, think they really look more southern European than Black. I'm officially changing my position. These people were not black, they're European:

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 30 January 2004).]
 

Egypt was an diverse civlization with an African origin. The only Asiatic elements in Egyptian civlization was attested in Lower Egypt which pottery shows was eventually replaced.

The Chicago Oriental Insistute teaches that Egyptian civlization came from Upper Egypt from the Naquda culture.

March 31, 1998

OLDEST ASTRONOMICAL MEGALITH ALIGNMENT
DISCOVERED IN SOUTHERN EGYPT BY SCIENCE TEAM
An assembly of huge stone slabs found in Egypt’s Sahara Desert that date from about 6,500 years to 6,000 years ago has been confirmed by scientists to be the oldest known astronomical alignment of megaliths in the world.

Known as Nabta, the site consists of a stone circle, a series of flat, tomb-like stone structures and five lines of standing and toppled megaliths. Located west of the Nile River in southern Egypt, Nabta predates Stonehenge and similar prehistoric sites around the world by about 1,000 years, said University of Colorado at Boulder astronomy Professor J. McKim Malville.
The Nabta site was discovered several years ago by a team led by Southern Methodist University anthropology Professor Fred Wendorf. A 1997 GPS satellite survey by Malville, Wendorf, Ali A Mazar of the Egyptian Geological Survey and Romauld Schild of the Polish Academy of Sciences confirmed one of the megalith lines was oriented in an east-west direction.

A paper on the subject by the four researchers will appear April 2 in the weekly British science journal, Nature.

This is the oldest documented astronomical alignment of megaliths in the world, said Malville. A lot of effort went into the construction of a purely symbolic and ceremonial site The stone slabs, some of which are nine feet high, were dragged to the si te from a mile or more distant, he said.

The ruins lie on the shoreline of an ancient lake that began filling with water about 11,000 years ago when the African summer monsoon shifted north. It was used by nomads until about 4,800 years ago, when the monsoon moved southwest and the area again became hyperacid and uninhabitable
Five megalithic alignments at Nabta radiate outward from a central collection of megalithic structures. Beneath one structure was a sculptured rock resembling a cow standing upright, Malville said. The team also excavated several cattle burials at Nabt a, including an articulated skeleton buried in a roofed, clay-lined chamber.

Neolithic herders that began coming to Nabta about 10,000 years ago -- probably from central Africa -- used cattle in their rituals just as the African Massai do today, he said. No human remains have yet been found at Nabta.
The 12-foot-in-diameter stone circle contains four sets of upright slabs. Two sets were aligned in a north-south direction while the second pair of slabs provides a line of sight toward the summer solstice horizon.
Because of Nabtaís proximity to the Tropic of Cancer, the noon sun is at its zenith about three weeks before and three weeks after the summer solstice, preventing upright objects from casting shadows. These vertical sighting stones in the circle corresp ond to the zenith sun during the summer solstice said Malville, an archeoastronomer. For many cultures in the tropics, the zenith sun has been a major event for millennia
An east-west alignment also is present between one megalithic structure and two stone megaliths about a mile distant. There also are two other geometric lines involving about a dozen additional stone monuments that lead both northeast and southeast from the same megalith. We still don’t understand the significance of these lines Malville said.
During summer and fall, the individual stone monoliths would have been partially submerged in the lake and may have been ritual markers for the onset of the rainy season. The organization of these objects suggest a symbolic geometry that integrated deat h, water and the sun Malville said.

Although some believe the high culture of subsequent Egyptian dynasties was borrowed from Mesopotamia and Syria, Malville and others believe the complex and symbolic Nabta culture may have stimulated the growth of the society that eventually constructed the first pyramids along the Nile about 4,500 years ago.
The Nabta culture may have been a trigger for the development of social complexity in Egypt that later led to the Pharaonic dynasty he said. The Nabta project was funded primarily by the National Science Foundation.

The site also contains a wealth of cultural debris, including small, fire-blackened stones from ancient hearths built along the ancient lakeshore as well as manos, metates and carved and decorated ostrich eggshells.

Images of the project can be downloaded from the World Wide Web at <http://www.colorado.edu/PublicRelations/Egypt.html>

- 30 -

Office of Public Relations
354 Willard Administrative Center
Campus Box 9
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0009
(303) 492-6431 http://www.colorado.edu/PublicRelations/NewsReleases/1998/Oldest_Astronomical_Megalith_A.html
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally...have you ever been to Egypt??
This idea that 'white folks' have some sort of race based pre concieved idea about AE is absurd. If anything, it is the other way around. I don't know any serious student who contends that there is no African influence in AE but to compare northern Africa to sub saharan Africa simply will not work. I am not going to teach my students revisionist history designed to make a 21st century cultural point.

---

You're a teacher? Where? If that's the case, this is more serious than I thought. Please take a look at modern works of Egptologists like Frank Yurco and Kent Weeks (http://www.thebanmappingproject.com) on AE origins before preparing your lesson plans. Or at least show your students some actual images of AE's when you give them your lesson.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ausar, Nobody is arguing the point concerning the cultures you mentioned. We are talking about the cultures that evolved into those that went on to become AE. Clearly, Asiatics came through from the east is fairly large numbers and settled along the Nile.

---

Show your students a picture of the bust of king Menes when you tell them that he was AE's came from Asian wanderers. Then show them the people with the afro's conquering the straight haired people on the Narmer palette. Don't forget the part about how AE's wrote that there ancestors came from the south. Another good discussion would be Wallis Budge's ideas on the origin's of the AE language (it's in his dictionary).

Just for kicks, show them this link: http://www.touregypt.net/egyptnews.htm
Go to this part - "Nubians at Hierakonpolis"

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 26 January 2004).]
 

These were the cultures that developed into Ancient Egypt. The migrations from the Sahara were part of the African Aquatic culture not Asiatics. The only Asiatic pressence in Egypt is traceable to some Syro-Palestineans in Lower Egypt around the Delta;otherwise it was non-existant. You are confusing the back migration into Africa with the development of ancient Egyptian culture.

If so,the early Egyptians were a pastorial culture with affinities with the people of Nabta Playa. The genetics on the cattle show an African origin not a Asiatic origin.

The tomb scene you are speaking of is in Saqqura showing bound captives that you presumed to be Nubians. In reality the people in these tomb scenes are Nilotic people like the Nuer,Dinka,Shilluk,and other Nilotic types. Notice the scars that the captives pocess are indetical to modern day Nilotic people.

___by the way,please post references for your claims next time.
 

Nubia was considered the first nome of Upper Egypt. A-group Nubia and Upper Egyptian cultures like Nabta Playa were unsepertable with Upper Egypt in Pre-dyanstic times. The original Upper Egyptian inhabitants of Lower and Upper Egypt were just as negriod as Nubians. Majority of people from Asyut to Aswan in modern times are no different either.

Badarian,Naquda,Nabta Playa,and Khartoum Mesolithic as well as the negriod Saharan cultures gave rise to Egyptian civlization. I never said that all Egyptians were black nor do I contend they were,but Upper Egyptians were. This is where the civlization started.

I also aknwoleadge the roots of Western Asian cultures around the Delta regions of Egypt,but theses cultures were not the catalyst for the formation of dyanstic Egyptian soceity. I will parapharse Bob Brier again in his book Egyptians mummies:''Some Egyptians were black and some were not'' It is really that simply. The ethnic makeup of the Egyptians was not simply mono-racial as you make it appear.

Are you aware that the 12th dyansty and 18th dyansty were all of Nubian origin. The royal mummies of Sequenere Tao and Ahmose have strong Nubian affinities.

See the following:

From Petrie onwards,it was rewguarly suggested,despite the evidence
of Pre dyanstic cultures,Egyptian civlization of the 1st dyansty
appeared suddently and must therfore have been instroduced by an
invading foreign ''race''. Since the 1970's however excavations at
bautu and nekhen have clearly ,demonstrated the indigenous Upper
Egyptian roots of early civlization in egypt. While there is
certainly evidence of foreign contact in the fourth millennium
B.C.,this was not in the form of millitary invasion

page 65

Oxford History of Ancient egypt
Ian Shaw

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 26 January 2004).]
 

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 28 January 2004).]
 

#1 99% of the world doesn't care what color the ancient Egyptians were.

#2 There is no vast conspiracy in Egyptology to hide the fact that Egypt is an African civilization. Most people are aware of the "Africanness" of ancient Egypt and and see it as an African civilization with close ties to the ancient Near East.

#3 All ancient Egyptians were not "black."
 

Reading the works on Sir Flinders Petrie and Budge I noticed these two Egyptologist spent ample time comparing the civlizations of Egypt with other contemporary cultures like the Yoruba,Ashanti,and others in African. Of course,Petrie and others were using this as a diffusionist tool to try to postulate the outdated ''Dyanstic race theory'' Read the book ''Egypt in Africa'' by Theodore Clenko.

''Tell me what data they should have concluded on that it was a Black civilisation? Dont tell the images as they had no idea even how to traslate them then, and from what we have been told recently most of its wrong anyway!''

Well,Egypt was not technically totally a black civlization,but a good portion of Egyptians living in Upper Egypt are technically black by definitions used in America. I don't think that even Diop argued that Egypt was totally black,and even he aknowleadged some non-black people living in the Delta ie Lower Egypt,but a good portion of these people even had some ''black' admixture.

Most like Sir Grafton Smith said that the closest relative of the ancient Egyptians were the Beja tribe in the Sudan,but despite their dark skin they were classified as ''dark whites'' So we have a syndrone were some people draw the lines between ''blackness'' and the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. Smith on the other hand had no problem proposing that modern Egyptians were the products of racial intermixture with ''negroes'' in his exact words. So the minds of many 19th and 20th century Egyptologist were clouded with their own bias instead of scholarly reserch.

We can tell from the remain studied by various people that:

1.Badarians,Naqudans,and people of Nabta Playa have been classified as tropical African types with tropically adapted limb ration. These various cemetaries have been studied by Shomarka Keita and Larry Angel. Both have published their results in peer review anthropology journals. Dr. Keita also found that people in the Northern parts of Egypt were intermediates between Costal African type and Tropical African type. Keita calls this type Sudan-Saharo.

2. Dr. Randall MacIver,the same person who proved Great Zimbabwee was buyilt by Africans,pointed out that the earliest ceramic industry in Kharotum Sudan leads right up to the Badarian cemetaries in Middle Egypt. He admitted that more reserch into deeper into Africa would reveal the roots of Ancient Egypt.

3. The early Saharan culture often called the African Aquatic clearly has many elements that would later lead up to ancient Egyptian civlization. Once such instance is the pratice of mummifcation in 5700 B.C. by people in Fezzan Libya with an elaborate funeral rites.

4. The fact that a good portion of Upper Egyptians from Asyut to Aswan still have many African features that are desitinct. Not to mention this is where the majority of the Ancient Egyptian population was concentrated in Dyanstic times. The only other region being from Fayium to the opening of the Delta.

Here is some aknowleadgement from an early Egyptologist like Gardnier who admitted that:
The mid-twentieth Egyptologist Alan Gardiner, who was considered an
authority on the ancient civilization of Kemet, gave the following
report on the human remains of the pre-dynastic Badarians, Amratians,
and Gerzeans:

"These... were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and
below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be
observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to
describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock,
a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear
on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)

''know that many of the conclusions that these first Egytologists came to were wrong, but I find it amazing that I have heard when refering to people like Diop, and Obenga who got some things wrong beacuse of the information available at the time, that they were mearly limited by thier access to technology at the time, but the first Egyptologists were racist Eurocentrics dead on steeling the Egyptian Identity for thier own. ''

This is true so this is why I feel that each scholar's material should be weighed on their evidence. I don't necessary agree with everything Diop or Obenga wrote but much of their material was good enough to challenge many perceptions of the ancient Egyptian soceity that deserving deserved to be so. Debate can only lead to constructive means of truth. No one person holds the absolute truth and sometimes their perception can cloud this truth.
Egyptology is a fairly young science that has much growing to mature to a complete scholary status. In the future things will progress and get better.

''I aggree there was and still is a faction of whitening of history, as there is the opposite Africanist propoganda, but to not consider the data available at the time, the people that were encountered in Egypt at the time, Most African civilisations had declined or were well in declinbe when they arrived. The only thing they had to go by was the people they encountered in the most well known areas in Lower Egypt and the known civilisations of the world then!, which were not in Africa.''

Even with this said,many old scholars did look to Africa as a source of ancient Egypt. One of the Egyptologist happened to be Budge. Adolf Erman,one of James Henery Breasted's teacher's,contended there was no ''Differences between the Egyptians in Egypt and the natives of Lake Tshad'' Both these works were written well into the late 19th century.
17th century traveled like Count Voleny called the Egyptians in Lower Egypt mulattoes. He was a white Frenchman who traveled into Egypt on the rise of the Trans-Atlantic slavetrade.

''In all the reading i have done 90% of all Eurocentric propoganda comes from USA publications, by USA authors, the same goes for the Africanist. How many white Americans call themselves Europeans.''

Good point,but people like Comete Degobineau were Frenchmen. Degobineau is considered the father of most of this racialist material. I think most Africanist litterature is many times just reactionary to what scholars have put out during the 19th century.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 26 January 2004).]
 

A response:
"This debate is getting old..."
What debate? The Chinese are Mongoloid Sino-Asians. The Swedes are Nordic Europeans. Ancient Egyptians were Black Africans. Modern Egyptians are Black African ethnic majorities (mainly Upper Egyptian) and various non-Black ethnic minorities (mainly Lower Egyptians.)

Another expression of Faith:
"All ancient Egyptians were not "black."
What??? All ancient Romans were not Italians, but the majority of them were. (Now, follow me) All ancient Egyptians were not Black, but the MAJORITY of them were.
No one has to accept reality, but not accepting it, certainly doesn't change it.

We must also take note that those who are reluctant to accept reality, carefully avoid consulting the Ancient Egyptians themselves on such a salient point! They usually rush to some 'experts' opinion...

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Kem...Queen Tiye's father was an Asian, check out his mummy. Most of you are aware that the standard World History class in America teaches that the earliest Egyptian's came from the east and settled in what is now the middle of the Sahara desert. As the desert dried out one group went east to the Nile and the other went south. This explains the abundance of Asian markers in sub Saharian African populations. You can get a PHD in African history at many Universities and Egypt is hardly dealt with. AE is a Med. civilization with some African influence.

---

I think this is not sound scientific thinking....If all groups/peoples came out of africa (africans have never been one group or ethnicity/ nation of people) then we should be able to find markers of all groups still in africa...One african group can have more of "X" type marker, but little to none of "Y" while another african group can have the reverse. Some african groups have a low frequency of Hbs (sickle cell gene)while many africans and middle easterners have a high frequency of it. Obviously this shows some isolation within african group, but this does not mean they were not biodiverse. There are african groups who are alike phenotypically, but have many differences at the genetic level...A population can be very diverse yet isolated from other populations. See its seems like all scientific hypotheses are reversed when it comes to the history of the african continent and even the middle east...

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I have a great relief of Egyptians bringing back Nubian captives. It difference jumps right out at you. The artist clearly shows the difference between the two.

---

If many african american were to go to countries in west africa one will be able to tell the difference immediately as well...I can even tell the phenotypic diference between different Caribbean nations. At that time in AE history they just didn't look as "black" as the nubians they depicted. However I do believe that they were called back then and would be called today some variant of "black" and not white or asian.

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ozzie...I suggest you have a glass of wine and relax. There is no 'white' conspiracy when it comes to history. What is Eurocentric? Any seroious historian wants the truth first and formost. What we find may not be what some groups hope we will find and that presents problems.

---

Come on now.... read your history books to see the views of the ruling "white" people around that time....They clearly believed that white is superior and all other is less...Lets think about the time when Egyptology got started? I think sometime around 1800's or so....At this time many whites were taught to believe that:
1) whites were superior
2) anything else is inferior
3) Negro was the most inferior
4) One Drop of "negro/black" blood made someone black/ mulatto.

With all of this general way of thinking what makes you to think the scientific arenas were uninfected by this nonsense? In fact this is where most of the nonsense was coming from to prove white supremecy. Tell me now if they described people as negro, coloured/mulatto and white,(yes europens did at this time too)why would they clearly see a mulatto/ black and describe them as white.... They had to have had an agenda...COMMON SENSE!!!

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality. European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost. This has been the story of the human condition for as far back as we can see.
Did Europeans have stronger military power, you bet. In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions. Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture.
All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture. That culture will seem just as over powering as this one has seemed.
I know many learned people, as you all do. I know NONE who do not seek the truth. The very word university implies 'universal knowledge' and universal includes us all. I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims.

---

This might be the most ignorant post I've ever read on this board. Too many people have spent too much time supporting their claims with examples of other works, links, etc. only to read nonsense like this with no definitions, support, nothing. Just opinions. Go to your local university and take a class called Logic, Reasoning and Persuasion, or something to that effect. Then explain to me how this silliness is valid.
 

When I found this board I was sooooo thrilled to engage in conversation regarding Ancient Egypt and participate as well as learn from the many members on this site from around the world. I have to be honest with you. It is these types of threads that are starting to make me think twice about coming here everyday looking for topics of interest. I am in no way suggesting that the topics of discussions be constrained in any way or that the race issue shouldn't be discussed, but merely to let the good people of this board know that when these types of discussions start taking a turn in the way that this thread has, it starts to completely turn me off of wanting to visit and/or participate in this forum. I can only guess that I am not the only member here that feels this way.

------------------
Nesu.t-bi.t neb-taui Neb-Maa't-Re sa-Re Amen-hotep
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality. European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost. This has been the story of the human condition for as far back as we can see.
Did Europeans have stronger military power, you bet. In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions. Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture.
All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture. That culture will seem just as over powering as this one has seemed.
I know many learned people, as you all do. I know NONE who do not seek the truth. The very word university implies 'universal knowledge' and universal includes us all. I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims.

---

From you post I see you have no idea about the facts and truths that I posted. I am a man of science and sit well and honourably with the likes of research and medical doctors. You are deluded if you think I am looking to have anyone play the victum...It is what it is! There is nothing in any of these post that indicated victumization...Everyone has listed evidence as to why they believe what they believe. See you have no basis for you assult against me, but it doesn't matter because what you wrote was very ignorant and unfounded.
See you seem to have very little logic. If you did, you would know that history makes little to no sense unless we can study and understand it in the context of the social atmosphere of the people in study. My post simply set the tone for the establishment of Egyptology and why we have to evaluate all of the information, evidence and beliefs that came out of that time(historical) period. The atmosphere under which it was founded was inundated with racism and scientific agendas to prove white supremacy. This is hsitorical fact!!

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 28 January 2004).]
 

People posting on this site are trying to tie modern political dogma into the study of ancient Egyptian soceity. This leads no where but baseless political discussion that leads us to no further understanding of Egyptian soceity. Unless the politics correlates with ancient Egyptian soceity,then please refrain from putting modern political context in the terms of ancient Egyptian soceity.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Nonsense Keino, the historical aspects of my post were right on the money. No serious academic is going to alter information in order to up hold some racial view point. That is what you said and it is pure crap.
What you are really saying in so many words is, "I can win this argument by acusing those who do not agree of being racists."

---

You are right that history will not be changed, and should not be...because history is exactly that HISTORY! Its just up to us to understand the history and social atmosphere under which certain discoveries and theroies were founded. Then for present scientist with little biases to find truth and not rewrite history, but make our history of the historical happening more truthful and more accurate. Example: in the times to come history books will read, "Under the social biases of the era in which egyptology was founded historians of that time believed the the civilization came from asia. However with new technology and less biases scientist of today have concluded that that the origins of this civilization was indeed Group A nubians from the heart of africa itself. If sceince was to go by your logic, the west would still be acepting the world being flat as truth because some scientist at that point in time said so. My stance is logical but all you care for it to argue..Anyway I have said all I have to say to you....This "argument" is futile.
 

Too many just skim and dismiss. And it's obviously doesn't end with just these topics. It doesn't take long to find someone on this board who's debating works of people, when they obviously haven't read the work. But when someone points this out, we're instructed to get a life, presumably so you people with more important things to talk about don't have to be interrupted with our mindless chit chat.

This is what I'm sick of hearing. Tired of hearing people discuss ethnicity? Do I care? Just because an issue doesn't matter to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter. I'm not going to tell anyone what to post, neither should you. If you really want to see a change, advise people to read before they post. It'll save alot of time.
 

Let me first make it clear that I do not believe that race physically exists. So, as Wally has pointed out before, it is not a debatable topic. When I say that most AE's were black, what I'm essentially saying is that they are black by the Western Euro/American definiton. Or to rephrase, they are demontratably African in their features. Now on to the issue.

You posted DNA studies earlier. I did not respond to the post because we have seen those studies before, and as Ausar stated, DNA samples are only as good as where they come from. If you took DNA samples from an American ghetto, you might find that most have African ancestry. Does that mean most Americans have African ancestry? Certainly not. Again I didn't touch on that point because of how many times we'd been over it.

One point you made that I did want to touch on was that Ramses and Seti were not black. I'm aware that they are said to came from the delta, but I made a point some time ago that this does not mean that they were not black. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000272.html Support for this argument was in that post, so I will not repeat it here.

That leaves the post you made earlier:

"What you are calling 'Eurocentric' is nothing more than a historical process. I think you have bought into the whole victim mentality."

How so? Eurocentric simply means from a European perspective. There are other perspectives. And what's this whole victim mentality? Now all the effort put into the reponses people made have been narrowed down to this? Some people think the truth is important and seek to find it. None of us here have professed to know everything, but I like to think that a point is of judged on it's own merit, not just thrown into some victim mentality.

"European whites have dominated the world since at least 1500 and to a large degree still do today. None of it has anything to do with some 'mean white nman' theory. There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500."

Where did you get this? There may be many people who agree with this, but that does not make it true. It sounds like you are using the fallacy of relevance, Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum). That is not a valid argument. There were plenty of great civilizations circa 1500 in Africa (ie Mali,Ife and Benin), India (Mughal Empire), China (though like many African civilizations of the time, the Ming dynasty of the time was rocked by wars), etc. I don't know how you maintain that Euro-American whites had superior culture. I don't even know how you prove what superior culture is.

As far as "mean white theory", I don't know what that is. If you're refering to Egyptology, again Ausar has pointed out a number of early Egyptologists who have distorted AE history (Gaston Maspero,James Henery Breasted, George Resiner,Sir Grafton Smith) I would add to that list Champolion the Younger, and where ethnicity is concerned even Zahi Hawass. Again this has been debated on this forum before.

"There is no question that in many ways Euro-American whites have had a superior culture, at least since 1500. The North American Indians were swept aside because they encountered a superior culture and lost."

This was probably the most disturbing part to me. But as every story has two side, could there be another reason as to the disappearance of so many American Indians? I will not comment further because this is not the place. But please read these:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=4391 http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/History/First_Thanksgiving_LMTTM.html

"Did Europeans have stronger military power"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. http://www.aglimmerofhope.org/archive/ethiopia/history.htm

"In developing capitalism, which led to the Industrial revolution, they also had much more economic power. All of this led to great universities and solid social institutions."

I won't take anything away from any culture. I just ask that history be viewed in it's proper context. I agree that the U.S. and Eurpe have great universities, though I don't see how capitalism ties into this.

"Minorities prosper today only by buying into this Euro-American culture."

I'm not even going to comment on this.

"All this is nothing more than 'a period of history.' Like all others it will pass in time to yet another dominant culture."

Agreed.

"I do believe that many minorities have been taught, almost instinctly, that all their problems were created by the evil European/Ameroicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. The very fact that we are having this conversation in the first place proves that. Lets be historians, not victims."

Again, I appreciate debate, not having all of my work so neatly summarized. That statement was nonsense. I don't mind discussing issue, but I would appreciate some background to support your comments, not simply your opinions. And if possible, let's please keep the focus on Egypt. Hotep.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Ozzy,

The sociology post that you mentioned did not reference Egypt at all. I believe that is why ausar mentioned that it could be deleted. The white folks post is focused on AE. Just my .02.

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 25 January 2004).]

---

Kem, If I wrote a post generalising about the thoughts actions and opinions of, "black folks" ten times in a post I have a good feeling this would be challenged and called racist. And i dare say i would recieve a few rater angry responces as well.

Wally and others have invited these debates before with simular sentiments and he has even congratulated himslf on his efforts to insite the extreems of the debate. Seldom contributing to any debate unless he can attach it to the Black debate. None of this has been challenged because it is Supported Eurocentric (white)bashing.

Please tell me that you find this acceptable and would not be offended by the above suggested post.

If the answer is it is acceptable then it is obviously time for me to find a new forum.

Its a shame as there have been some great topics recently, that have not sunk to this topic.

Ozzy

Are you interested in creating a Forum, I have some web design experience.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
From, Topic: Black-skinned Egyptians thread.

Kem, If I wrote a post generalising about the thoughts actions and opinions of, "black folks" ten times in a post I have a good feeling this would be challenged and called racist. And i dare say i would recieve a few rater angry responces as well.

Wally and others have invited these debates before with simular sentiments and he has even congratulated himslf on his efforts to insite the extreems of the debate. Seldom contributing to any debate unless he can attach it to the Black debate. None of this has been challenged because it is Supported Eurocentric (white)bashing.

Please tell me that you find this acceptable and would not be offended by the above suggested post.

If the answer is it is acceptable then it is obviously time for me to find a new forum.

Its a shame as there have been some great topics recently, that have not sunk to this topic.

Ozzy

---

What is a shame is how ideas get distorted. If you are interested in my feelings, then read my posts in the contexts that I posted them. You pulled that reponse from another topic. In that topic you asked why another topic was threatened with deletion. The topic in question did no refer to Egypt one time. It was a sociology topic, an interesting one, but not an AE one.

Now this thread, whether you agree with it or not, is focused on AE. Note both ausar and I posted responses almost immediately pointing out "white folk" who do not conform to the aformentioned Egyptological views. This is important for anyone who feel that all Egyptologists can be grouped.

I understand that some people on this board do not wist to see this topic discussed. But a community discussion is community discussion and ignoring a problem helps no one. I agree with Neb about insults, however I did not insult Horemheb.
 

My response:
I have posted certain specific items simply to illustrate the point that the only people who want to 'debate'(pervert) the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians are White folks. Call this observation what you will. They can believe this nonsense of a white, non-African Ancient Egypt forever. (It must make them feel good or something...) I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject.

What is of concern, however, is that Africans, whether they live in Africa or in the Diaspora be re-connected to their Classical African heritage. Cheikh Anta Diop dedicated his entire life to this pursuit. The point of re-attaching the head (Ancient Egypt) to the body of African history IS CRUCIAL:

"Egyptian antiquity is to African culture what Graeco-Roman antiquity is to Western culture. The building up of a corpus of African humanities should be based on this fact."
C.A. Diop - General History Of Africa; vol. II; UNESCO

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally, Your post has everything to do with black racial politics and nothing to do with history. "Blacks in disporia" what kind of nonsense is that?

---

Boy, oh boy... I am not even about to atempt to elaborate to you the interconnectiveness of African/Black/Politics/History. You would absolutely refuse to grasp it, I'm sure. But here's the definition of the 'diaspora nonsense':

Merriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: di·as·po·ra
Pronunciation: dI-'as-p(&-)r&, dE-
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, dispersion, from diaspeirein to scatter, from dia- + speirein to sow
1 capitalized a : the settling of scattered colonies of Jews outside Palestine after the Babylonian exile b : the area outside Palestine settled by Jews c : the Jews living outside Palestine or modern Israel
2 a : the breaking up and scattering of a people : MIGRATION <the black diaspora to northern cities> b : people settled far from their ancestral homelands <African diaspora> c : the place where these people live


 

however I did not distort anything. I made it clear for every one I had moved it, and the response, to this tread, And I was not asking why another Topic was threatened deletion, I was making a comparisment to this tread, and I felt the response was more relevant to this thread than the other, so I responded here. Nothing distorted about it.

Wally said “My response:
I have posted certain specific items simply to illustrate the point that the only people who want to 'debate'(pervert) the ethnicity of the Ancient Egyptians are White folks. Call this observation what you will. They can believe this nonsense of a white, non-African Ancient Egypt forever. (It must make them feel good or something...) I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject”

1, It was my post Wally not Horemhab. It shows how much you actually read the posts.

2, Your comment “I am not profoundly concerned with either the sensibilities or the silliness of non-Africans on the subject” Says it all. You have no interest in any views other than those of the African Diaspora.

For some one who has no interest in the opinions of non Africans , I would have to ask then, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Read the diversity of the people who are here to discus Ancient Egypt, with African, and none-Africans.

Location off Topic. http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000249.html

You have contributed nothing to any thread not relating to the Black issue of Egyptians, unless you have been able to remotely connect one of your cut and pasts from your own web pages. You have neither contributed, debated nor discussed any topics and have started threads only relating to the ethnic topic of Egypt.

For someone who has no interest in our opinion you spend a great deal of time using Forums such as this (and others) spamming with your cut and run posts. Most Forums call that spamming.

Wally said “What is of concern, however, is that Africans, whether they live in Africa or in the Diaspora be re-connected to their Classical African heritage. Cheikh Anta Diop dedicated his entire life to this pursuit. The point of re-attaching the head (Ancient Egypt) to the body of African history IS CRUCIAL”:

At least you have finally come out and said it, but this is not a forum for the grand standing for the pan African Diaspora, agenda, it is, I thought, a forum for the discussion of Ancient Egypt.

topic headings from Ancient Egypt and Egyptology.

Biological Affinities NOT "Race

Afrocentrism: the Good , the Bad, and the Origin

Racism and the no "Race" policy

Any-centrism is probably not a good idea

Egypt has more in common with near easdtern huh ??

Frank Yurco says the Ancient Egyptians were NOT Black Africans

common sense I want to tell

Proof that Sumerians were Black Africans

Reconstruction and determining the skin color

The Discovery Channel pulled the plug on Nefertiti Resurrected

What race were the Egyptians? - A clever "controversy"

Biological similarities, Race, Whatever.I just went to the Metropolitan Museum of Art

where do Americans form their stereotypes

no race-related topics

Here is exactly what Mr. Yurco said

Black Mummy

Can the racist proprganda withstand the test?

The First Egyptians

The problem with Craniometrics

Mediterranean Caucasoids in esat Africa?

Ancient Egyptian Skull measurements

Ancient and Modern Egyptians are not Medditerean caucasoids

Race and Egyptians

To Ozzy/Horemhab,

You are not going to get off that easily. Here's an appropiate message from C.A. Diop (Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic Anthropology):
"(We elevated)...the idea of a Black Egypt to the level of an operational scientific concept. For all the writers who preceded the ludicrous and vicious falsifications of modern Egyptology, and the contemporaries of the ancient Egyptians (Herodotus, Aristotle, Diodorus, Strabo, and others), the Black identity of the Egyptian was an evident fact that stood before their eyes, so obvious that it would have been superfluous to try to demonstrate it.

Around the 1820's, just before the birth of Egyptology, the French scholar Count Constantine de Volney, a universal and objective spirit, if ever there were one, tried to refresh the memory of humanity, who, because of the recent enslavement of Blacks, had forgotten the past of this people.

Since then, the line of ill-intentioned Egyptologists, equipped with ferocious erudition, have committed their well-known crime against science, by becoming guilty of a deliberate falsification of the history of humanity. Supported by the governing powers of all the Western countries, this ideology, based on a moral and intellectual swindle...was spread with the help of considerable publicity and taught the world over, because it alone had the material and financial means for its own propagation.
Thus imperialism, like the prehistoric hunter, first killed the being spiritually and culturally, before trying to eliminate it physically. The negation of the history and intellectual accomplishments of Black Africans was cultural, mental murder, which preceded and paved the way for their genocide here and there in the world...For us, the return to Egypt in all domains is the necessary condition for reconciling African civilizations with history, in order to be able to construct a body of modern human sciences, in order to renovate African culture. Far from being a reveling in the past, a look toward the Egypt of antiquity is the best way to conceive and build our cultural future. In reconceived and renewed African culture, Egypt will play the same role that Greco-Latin antiquity plays in Western culture."

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally, Your post has everything to do with black racial politics and nothing to do with history. "Blacks in disporia" what kind of nonsense is that?

---

Horemheb, If you honestly seek the truth you have to fully examined both sides of the story....Read books on egypt prior to 1800s and see what they say...Read the works of the "afrocentric" as you put it, and compare it to "eurocentric" view....Look at what sceintific studies have been done, where they have been done, the sample they used and where the samples came from, the time period from where they came and the ruling class of AE at that particular time....Look at the variation of negroes/blacks throughout africa.... and the limited variation of europeans....Look at how what it is to be black has been squashed into a very small and narrow definition and changed while the definition of being white have spread/widened to include many even people with brown skin and kinky hair (ethiopians- whom I think the AE most likely resembles very much)....make a list for the congruency and contradictions of each side. Which side has the stronger argument. Take these issues in a court of law without or with little biases and see what you or one will come up with.

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
 

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

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Check out the 'Faces of the Pharoahs'site. This site looks at the faces as they would look with modern reconstruction techniques. None of them are negroid. What you see today in upper Egypt are Nubians who have moved up river over the centuries.
Kem...the picture you posted of the Ehyptian military is interesting. Those are actually Nubian troops. I have that same picture as well as an identical view of AE troops.

---

The 'Faces of the Pharoahs' site are hand drawn renditions. They are some modern artists view of what AE looked like, not an AE view of what an AE looked like. And the image I posted was of AE troops, not Nubian. You are correct that there is a collection of Nubian troops. They look similar to the AE troops, but the Nubians are considerably darker. I have not seen the image on the web, but I have in a book. I will post it later.

The AE soldiers in the link I posted look exactly like other depictions of AE in everyday life. Check these out for now. There are countless examples of AE depicted this way. They are all over the web, in local museums, books etc. I'll post more if you wish.

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 30 January 2004).]
 

That is incorrect because the negriod Upper Egyptians you see today have been this way since the pre-dyanstic times. I have pointed this out to you countles of times but you refuse to aknowleadge it. I also showed the earliest Upper Egyptians,the Badarian,were negriod.

I also pointed out to you that in X-raying of the Pharoahs Kent R Weeks and Edward Wente and James Harris suggest a Nubian origin of the 16th through 18th dyansties. Donald Redford even suggests that the 18th dyansty could have been Nubian.

There are only 65,000 Nubians in Upper Egypt consentrated around Aswan so there is no reason to write off dark skinned Upper Egyptians as being Nubians. To do so is to deny their existence since Pre-dyanstic times.

Nubians refuse to mix with Upper Egyptians in modern times.

Frank Yurco agrees that the ancient Egyptian population was diverse from dark brown Southern Upper Egyptians to lighter Northern Lower Egyptians.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
What some are trying to do here is make a case and then find things to back it up with.

---

Isn't this the whole priniciple behind an academic debate?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

Kem...the picture you posted of the Ehyptian military is interesting. Those are actually Nubian troops. I have that same picture as well as an identical view of AE troops.

---

I've updated the other post to included the image of the Nubian bowmen also. Note these people we now call Nubian were most likely actually Egyptians all along. For more info you can check Moustafa Gadalla's Exiled Egyptians. Dr. Alsaadawis and Ausar have also posted a great deal of info on this forum. Please read it if you get a chance.
 

But please do not get confused, I am not! having the same conversation as Heremhab, and Kem, in fact my opinon is more than 80% in favor of Kems argument, I have never argued the point that Egypt was not an “African” civilization, nor that there was an eliment of “Black” in the population, and if you had actually read my posts you would have known that. So if you wish to address me then do so and respond to what I have directed at you.

What cracks me up is again you have responded with more cut and pasts without addressing anything.

And in regards to your statement

“I guess if one were to take the Egyptians at their own words, then one would be spoiled of the fun of showing selected images to support their beliefs, or arguing over mummies and such, or the ultimate arrogant-ignorant "I-THINK that the Egyptians were...",

I will echo Kems statement,

“Isn't this the whole priniciple behind an academic debate?”

Have a look at your prime piece of evidence, The so called Murial of Races”

http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

Yours does not even correspond with one of your favorite quotables “Diop” whos naming of the figures is different than yours. Difference in opinion? Ohhh thought there was no room for difference in Opinion when it came this subject.

The depiction is not even an original, but a reproduction, which most here actually know.

“Those figures in the Lepsius Erganzungsband, pl. 48 are actually not
Lepsius' work, but a re-edition done in 1913, as I showed in my article
in Egypt in Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997).
To make matters worse, the hieroglyph texts between these figures were
garbled. The original scenes both in Sety I's tomb and in Ramesses III's
tomb showed the Egyptians and the Kushites as distinctly different.
Also, the hieroglyphs on the real walls are distributed between each
of the four figures depicting each type. You can now view the real
photographs of both the Sety I and Ramesses III walls in Hornung's volumes
on the Valley of the Kings. I have been inside both tombs myself and have
seen these scenes and their texts, and on the basis of this, the depiction
in the Erganzungsband is not a real depiction of what is on the walls but
rather a pastische, arranged from Lepsius' notes and garbled in the
process. It is unfortunate that so many people have depended on this
depiction as reality, when a look at the walls in both tombs shows that
patently it is not reality.

Most sincerely,

Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago

Cracks me up!

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 30 January 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Don't think Dr Hawass agrees with your negroid-AE theory. What some are trying to do here is make a case and then find things to back it up with. Nubians...yes, the great northeastern African culture.

---

The ancient Egyptians themselves through their artwork and fashions show that they had a close affinity with Saharan and sub-Saharan Africans culturally and physically to varying degrees.

From the work of authors like Herodotus and even the Holy Bible, we see that other cultures also percieved a close affinity between Egyptians and other African peoples, mainly their neighbors to the South, Nubians.

I've been trying to avoid these kinds of threads but I think anyone who looks at ancient Egyptian artwork objectively can see these affinties as clear as the writing on the temple walls.

I'm not sure why Hawass downplays this relationship but he definately isn't being unbiased. Conceding that ancient Egypt was an African culture doesn't mean you must concede that all ancient Egyptians were black Africans.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Kem, in fact my opinon is more than 80% in favor of Kems argument
[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 30 January 2004).]

---

Ozzy, please don't take my posts the wrong way. There is no malice intended. I am aware of your stance from your past posts. I'll be the first to admit that some disturbing posts make it to this board, but I usually just ignore them. The reason I initially responded to Horemheb's post was mainly because of American Indian comment. There are few, if any American Indians here to defend themselves, so I felt the need to make sure that if a statement is made about them, it's at least justified.

Same to you Neb. You expressed concern about insults and things and you're right to be concerned. But remember my goal is never to insult. Perhaps to get someone to re-think, but not insult. At the end of the day I think we're all just trying to get better in out understanding and we'll need dialog to get there.
 

The Ancient Egyptian 'murals of the races,' official, state sponsored documents, tells us UNEQUIVOCALLY, PRECISELY just who the Ancient Egyptians said they were as a nation. You would think that nothing else need be said on that issue. However, those who wish to believe otherwise, skirt around this reality, and continue their babble..."

The following is an excellent example of this phenomenon:

"Have a look at your prime piece of evidence, The so called Murial of Races” http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/
Yours does not even correspond with one of your favorite quotables “Diop” whose naming of the figures is different than yours. Difference in opinion? Ohhh thought there was no room for difference in Opinion when it came this subject. The depiction is not even an original, but a reproduction, which most here actually know."

My response:

The mural, whether the original, a reproduction, or merely phosphorus on a computer screen, is indeed prime evidence. It needs no more elaboration than what is presented on my website.

The Egyptians did not speak of an "element" of Blacks in their country, as though they were some allowed ethnic minority. They spoke thusly:
Egyptians called themselves Kmem.u (EHD 787b) and the word means Black people. It STILL means Black people in the modern Egyptian language (Kmemou). Now, unless you wish to debate the Egyptians on this, case closed...
 

quote:

---

Same to you Neb. You expressed concern about insults and things and you're right to be concerned. But remember my goal is never to insult. Perhaps to get someone to re-think, but not insult. At the end of the day I think we're all just trying to get better in out understanding and we'll need dialog to get there.

---

Kem,
Please understand, my post was not specifically directed at you, or anyone else in particular, but rather to the group. I completely understand why those who post some very important research and facts here regarding race do so. Your passion on the subject is apparant in your posts. However, when one fails to convince the other of that his view is truth it starts to become ugly. It is this ugliness that my original post was addressing. This is not to say that one should not continue their quest to enlighten others to what they feel to be truth, but to perhaps realize that when after 65 posts the arguing continues and each side is no closer to coming to an agreement than the very first post it might be time to extend your hands in peace and just respectfully disagree..............but who the hell am I, and what the hell do I know anyways!

------------------
Nesu.t-bi.t neb-taui Neb-Maa't-Re sa-Re Amen-hotep
 

I will simply try to make my words a little simpler so as to be understood .

To claim that the subject is not debatable, quoting experts such as Diop to support your argument, and at the same time being at odds with the very same expert regarding one of you prime evidance, makes your comment very week to say the least.

In other words if your translations of the Mural of races is different than that of Diop, is there not a difference of opinion? And does that not make the whole mural open to debate, and if the mural is open for debate the subject for certain is.

And lastly if you do not agree with Diop are you not "showing selected images to support your beliefs?"

phenomenon? LOL
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Wally, unless you can understand what is being directed at you, there is not much point debating anything with you.

I will simply try to make my words a little simpler so as to be understood .

To claim that the subject is not debatable, quoting experts such as Diop to support your argument, and at the same time being at odds with the very same expert regarding one of you prime evidance, makes your comment very week to say the least.

In other words if your translations of the Mural of races is different than that of Diop, is there not a difference of opinion? And does that not make the whole mural open to debate, and if the mural is open for debate the subject for certain is.

And lastly if you do not agree with Diop are you not "showing selected images to support your beliefs?"

phenomenon? LOL

---

Diop did not translate the text on the mural, his main emphasis was to show that the Egyptians were Black Africans. The fact that I translated the Egyptian labels next to each figure merely allowed me to distinguish the Semitic Namu from the European Tamhu. The difference is in the detail, not in the principle. The essential point is that the Egyptians described themselves as a Black people--Kmem.u
Play with that one...

I have avoided debating issues with you in the past because I didn't see a compelling reason. But as I read one of your statements, I couldn't help but think that it was directed at me. Since you seem willing to indulge people I must ask you this question. Here's what you said:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]then one would be spoiled of the fun of showing selected images to support their beliefs

---

You seem to be putting a negative spin on this, though it could just be me. But how is this any different from what you have done on your website, or what Diop has done in the Afrian Origin of Civ?

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 02 February 2004).]
 

There are some nice photos from Bahariyya and Farafra.
http://www.gabrielopenshaw.com/EgyptBahariyya.html
http://www.gabrielopenshaw.com/EgyptFarafra.html
 

http://nnilsson.free.fr/mouled3/Home2.html
 

I will repeat again !!!!!!!! Egyptians were not mono-racial people!!!!!!!! You have light complexed Egyptians in the north,and more black Egyptians in the south. Get over it !!!!!

I will repeat again !!!!!!!! Egyptians were not mono-racial people!!!!!!!! You have light complexed Egyptians in the north,and more black Egyptians in the south. Get over it !!!!!

Egypt was not a Med civlization. Egyptians were Egyptians!!! Egyptian were multi-ethic with affinities with Africa.

------------------
Time Will Tell!- Bob Marley
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Example of disinformation....every specialist knows that Queen Tiye's father was an Asian. That is clear from his mummy and agreed upon by every creditable specialist. Even so, Africanist like Wally will contend the Queen was black. At some point we have to inject reason into the debate. The 'Elder Lady' believed by me and many others to be the queen has red/blonde hair. Even if she is not the queen most would agree she is an Armarna female.
.

---

Horemheb, Yuya was possibly Persian but, as far as we know, Thuya was 100% Egyptian. Despite, their children's mixed ethnicities, Queen Tiye and Ay look phenotypically African as most Upper Egyptians do.

Here are some images of Queen Tiye: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/6954/tiye.html

Here are some images of Ay: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/6954/ay.html
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Example of disinformation....every specialist knows that Queen Tiye's father was an Asian. That is clear from his mummy and agreed upon by every creditable specialist. Even so, Africanist like Wally will contend the Queen was black. At some point we have to inject reason into the debate. The 'Elder Lady' believed by me and many others to be the queen has red/blonde hair. Even if she is not the queen most would agree she is an Armarna female.
Great work is being done in Nubia. We are finding in Nubia a great African civilization. That is where people like Wally can gain their fullfillment, not in a med civilization like AE. The more we find in Nubia the more substantial it looks.

---

I am not an "Africanist" but I am African. And nobody, not anybody can tell me which part of Africa, of my heritage, is mine and which is not. Nobody says to me in effect "I'm taking Egypt from you, so you be content with Nubia!" That kind of show closes out of town...
 

Kudos to Keino!!!
Finally, at last, someone actually gets it! The reason that I created a website in the first place and also engaged this topic was because I felt that THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS NEEDED A FORUM TO SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES! For reasons I have previously stated, everyone had been conditioned to speak for the Ancient Egyptians as if they had nothing to say on the subject. Under these conditions anyone can postulate whatever they choose about the origins and identity of the Egyptians. So keep them out of the loop and one can, like debating the existence of God, debate (obscure) this deep into infinity. Under these circumstances, one does not finesse the truth out, one must be blunt and emphatic- THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE REGARDING THEIR ORIGINS AND THEIR IDENTITY AS A PEOPLE AND AS A NATION (PERIOD)
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Wally...Just what is your heritage? I asume it is in Africa somewhere.....Egypt, Sudan, Morrocco, Kenya.? None of these would be the same heritage and just how long ago are you connected to Africa. If it is past the time of your grandparents then it is worthless and you would have little if any connection to Africa. I have German genes but I have nothing in common with any German tolday living in Europe. American blacks have zero connection to anyplace in Africa. Many of them have been here for 400 years and have nothing in common with someone in Angola. Its just emptional poppy cock.

---

Horemheb you seem to have a complex and its seems your purpose to disconnect everyone from africa. You said earlier, "african american don't even look african anymore," what kinda monsense is that? Don't even try this nonsense that you don't keep track of your heritage....ask the majority of white american and they can tell you exactly where their lineage came from.... "American blacks have zero connection with anyplace in africa." What kinda pitiful statement is that? You're a big joke, really! I guess if they test the genes of the african american populace and realize that we have more they have more in common with english europeans then that would make them non black just as you view the egyptians hey? Is it just your plan to argue and divide. To be honest it just seems like you have a deep seated hatred for african americans.

[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 02 February 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I have German genes but I have nothing in common with any German tolday living in Europe. American blacks have zero connection to anyplace in Africa. Many of them have been here for 400 years and have nothing in common with someone in Angola. Its just emptional poppy cock.

---

Come on Horemheb,
We can see thru you. You may not claim to have connection to Germany. I bet you claim Greece and Rome as ancient European people.

Wally and many others here claim AE as a black African society. AUSAR and others have point out data and links to you. You have not proven the links and data wrong.

Cut it out. Please discuss in a constuctive manner.

You may not claim your German connection by saying you are German, but you don't deny it. I bet you also claim Greece and Rome as ancient white civilizations, even though you are of German blood and the Germans had nothing to do with Rome or Greece.

I'm through with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
[QUOTE]
Diop did not translate the text on the mural, his main emphasis was to show that the Egyptians were Black Africans.

---

Exactly, and that my fiend is also your agenda, so dont tell me that there is no debate. If you have strong feelings about it then debate it, dont preach it!, If you wish for people to listen then show them dont slap them in the face.

I believe civilisation started on the Nile, I beleive that Egypt was founded by African people. I dont care what color they happend to be at the time. Although I would not try to argue that they would have had black skin.

So in essence I believe much of what you do. You however place every WHITE in the same racist box as you do every BLACK You have created for them, and that my friend is my problem with you aproach.

But I expect your reesponce is that you care not what my opinion is as a WHITE man as it has nothing to do with me.

The funny thing is, I have BLACK in my family and I have relitaves who are blacker than most Americans today. I have some distant reltions who can claim no mixed blood in history of 60,000 years, and you try to make me out as just another white man trying to steel the black mans connection to Africca and Egypt.

Groow up and teach if you have something to teach, dont preach!

Also, remember that Africa is really big, and the population diverse. The people vary greatly in appearance and many are indistinguishable from most African Americans, though African Americans vary greatly in appearance also. Take a group a African Americans to Egypt today and watch how many times they get mistaken for native Egyptians.

And btw, the author of Roots is named Haley.
 

Just out of curiosity, you said you agreed with 80% of my argument. What is the 20% that you have fault with?
 

But! Without going into detail, I have a belief that there were back migrations, from what is now called India and possibly other places when the last Ice age forced african migrations 30,000 years before back from there new homelands, some making it back to the Nile, I feel then there was a number of large groups of African populations from Ethiopia to the Upper Nile who were the early Egyptians, they were contepary with the then migrants from the back migration who settled in the lower Nile and evetuly moved accross he Noerthern coast of Africa, mixing with smaller local populations..

Thats why I feel that the two crowns were representitve from pre historic times of two kingdoms. So although I do believe Civilisation stared on the Nile and that color of the skin was and had to be Black, I differ in that I think that their was more than one origin and that Egypt as such did not totaly spring from the Upper nile.

I think the two were contempary and the Upper Nile was the stronger who eventualy under unification combined the two.

I know you feel the Upper Nile was the origin, and that over time the influence from the lower nile and from Asia minor mixed with the population. or that is what I have got from reading your posts. I feel the contact happend much earlier. Not because I wish (As people like Wally would like to believe) for another people to be involved in the creation of Egypt, but that is what my reasearch suggests, and makes scence to me.

I also believe that Nubia had a distinct cultue and indipendetly developed there civilisation as many other African cultures developed indipendantly elswere, but was influenced by Egypt being the (As discused in this post) the dominant culture of the time, for thousands of years in fact. Ending with it influence on Atica. ( Greece).

I dont have data to back all of my feelings and beliefs so I do not always express them. I more often refrain from comment unless I feel i have a total grasp and proof of my conviction. i do not have this in regards to my total view of how and were human civilisation began. But according to wally I have no right to my opinion. This is what frustrates me with these sort of views.

If you are not totaly for him (Blacks) then you are against him. With my family tree mate I dont give a **** what color anyone is, I just like history and communication.

The two extreems tyre me!

During the one year history of this board NO ONE who feels like HOREMHEB has ever had their mind changed about the people and Culture of Ancient Egypt by any opinion or evidence presented here on this board. I don't think history is going to be made here with HOREMHEB.

He is playing with you!

He is from the Breasted school of Egyptology and that is just fine, lets respect his opinion. He does not respond to the evidence posted by Ausar and Kem he just continues to say that AE were southern european and that it was a Med Civilization regardless of the evidence to the contrary, it's his view lets leave him with it.

Most people who have an interst in Egyptology DO NOT believe it was an african culture and DO NOT think they were Black, we all know this is the way it has been for a long time. Horemheb is part of the majority view.

Ever see the old Jack Hawkins movie LAND OF THE PHAROAHS!! Thats his view and thats ok, it was also MY VIEW until I was about 20 yrs old. The first time someone told me ancient egypt was an african culture and that a significant part of the ancient Pop would be considered Black was a comical scene My response? I laughed in his face, what the hell was he talking about Ancient Egyptians were arabs as far as I knew this idiot didn't know what he was talking about. Of course after seeing and reading a lot of evidence my opinion changed

As I have said before There is a common view of african people and culture in this world and that view is very rarely linked to ancient KMT. The old view Breasted and other egyptologists held is commonplace among most interested people unless they actually pursue the issue seriously with an open mind to the truth.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Horemheb,
The Greeks and the Romans were not German, Irish, French, white American and many others. So, why do white people claim ancient Greece and Rome?

Enough of this nonsense. ASUAR have already answered your post. Black Amerians are connected to Africa the same way white Americans are connected Europe.

You may not claim your German connection by saying you are German, but you don't deny it. I bet you also claim Greece and Rome as ancient white civilizations, even though you are of German blood and the Germans had nothing to do with Rome or Greece.

I'm through with you.

---

Blackman, as a white skinned person, this is a preconception i take exception to, I have absolutly no connection or wish to have a connection with Greece nor Rome on the basis that my skin is in the world judged s white, In fact most Italians do not feel a connection as such you are refering to like the Romans. Many country italians still call the ancient Romens as just that, Romans!, not Italians. The international indentity of so called white people is just not the case. Northern Europeans will and do go out of thier way to distiguish their identity from other groups of Europeans. I know of no German who would in his right mind claim a connection other than invasion and oppression under the Roman rule, the same goes for every culture that was conquered by the romans.

This is why I do not understand this total Black conection as well. I know for a fact that the majority of African cultures have and in many cases still do consider each other throughout africa as strangers and often even enemies. Recent events over the last 10 years have shown the extreems of this in the form of genoside.

It is no different in Europe, as kem has said before the black and white thing is no longer so Black and white. and in fact it has never been.

Read my family history and tell me who I am!

The "relationship" of ethnic groups should formost be established through Cultural affiliation, the were did I come from answere I feel can be answered with the aid of genetics research. The two need not conflict, unless we have a problem with a connection with BLACK AND WHITE:

The oldest question man has asked, is where did i come from.

So people will always wish to know.

 

We are in agreement that at least two distinct cultures would unify to form the two lands. When and how unification took place is beyond me, but the oldest date I've heard was 3500 BC from Van Sertima. So from this date forward is what I consider pre-dynastic. I do believe that both cultures would contribute to this new civilization. Even a subordinate culture will have influence on a dominate culture.

Where we may or may not agree is that Egypt was basically the result of the people of the south's domination over the people of the north. This idea mainly comes from the Narmer Palette and the similarities between pre-dynastic cultures in Upper Egypt and what we now call Nubia. So to put it short, I doubt early Egypt was very much different from pre-dynastic Upper Egypt and Nubia.

However I do believe that lower Egypt was more mixed from the beginning of AE history, not that it simply became mixed over time. I have always believed this, and I'd guess that many other people here do as well.

Nubia itself is another issue as I don't believe the idea of Nubia even existed at the time of unification. I'll need overwhelming proof to believe that early Egyptians and Nubians (at least lower Nubians) would have even recognized a difference between each other. I think the southern border of Egypt was considerably farther than we recognize today.

Now we know Egyptians were not the only East Africans in town. Kushites, may well have been a distinct people. I doubt it due to the ease that they were accepted as Pharaohs when the ousted the Persians. But it's possible that they were distinct peoples who adopted Egyptian culture. I can't say for sure though.
 

Dwelling on the subject and blamming long dead authors that are no longer supported make absolutly no scence to me.

If that is wha you see in the Americas then, the problem is there, not the rest of the world. As the rest of the world has moved on.

Ozzy

 

And Ozzy is correct now that a number of noted Egyptologists support an African origin of Egypt, though they may not call them "black". Don't ask me to name them all because I see some of them on TV and don't remember the names. But I do know that Kent Weeks believes AE's to be of African Origin, and that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa (for now, we'll just call him "that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa"

 

My feelings on Lower Egypt are enforced by what I have read about the Geography of the area. The possibilty of monumnets or any other artifacts surviving there over thousands of years, or even hundreds of years is less that 1% of that in Upper Egypt. Records of Greek historinas of Lower Egypt just 300BC and even 200AD, show that 0% of what was described survived. Now what would could we find totay from 3500 or indead 5000BC, in this area. Nothing! The lack of evidance has always been the proof of abcense.

For a crown to be claimed I feel a desirable civilisation had to exist. The extent of the advancement is debateable, and indead the existance, and that was the point of my argument regarding Nubia ( for want of a better word)in a prevouse thread.

If art, religion, politics, cultivation, etc,ect, can be shown then a distinct civilisation can be shown, regardless of the connection geneticaly. Re: the connection of most Europeans is much closer that that of the all Africans, but the Europeans will fight tooth and nail to show their cultural differences.

Not sure if you understand what i mean, hope you do.
 

Good point Kem, I have been spending sometime looking at some ancient cultures,(Those that still exist as they did thousands of years ago)to try and understand the concept of boundries or Land Right as the ancient would have considered it. What I have found is that the perception of boundries that we have today did not exist as we understand it. Often Cultural boundries crossed. Humans it seems were not like dogs who smelt the scent of another and knew it was not their territory, but often viewed the same territory as their own. Sometime leading to confliced, and often not. I dont think we look at the relationship of the different African cultures through the same Eyes.

Quote, If you could see what I see through the eyes that I see you would understand me!

Ive been drinking, think its time for me to go to bed LOL see you tommorow.

Ozzy

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 02 February 2004).]
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Kem, true what you say, but I have made it a point not to an opinion till I can argue the point unless pressed, re; (Hawass and Diop topic) But it may be that many here actualy agree many points but argue the minor points, not recognising the majority in common.

My feelings on Lower Egypt are enforced by what I have read about the Geography of the area. The possibilty of monumnets or any other artifacts surviving there over thousands of years, or even hundreds of years is less that 1% of that in Upper Egypt. Records of Greek historinas of Lower Egypt just 300BC and even 200AD, show that 0% of what was described survived. Now what would could we find totay from 3500 or indead 5000BC, in this area. Nothing! The lack of evidance has always been the proof of abcense.

For a crown to be claimed I feel a desirable civilisation had to exist. The extent of the advancement is debateable, and indead the existance, and that was the point of my argument regarding Nubia ( for want of a better word)in a prevouse thread.

If art, religion, politics, cultivation, etc,ect, can be shown then a distinct civilisation can be shown, regardless of the connection geneticaly. Re: the connection of most Europeans is much closer that that of the all Africans, but the Europeans will fight tooth and nail to show their cultural differences.

Not sure if you understand what i mean, hope you do.

---

Ozzy you make some very interesting points...I always wondered about the two crowns deal...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Obenga, I agree that not everyone here is worth debating certain issues. But I wouldn't abandon the topic. I think some people have recently shown an open mind.

And Ozzy is correct now that a number of noted Egyptologists support an African origin of Egypt, though they may not call them "black". Don't ask me to name them all because I see some of them on TV and don't remember the names. But I do know that Kent Weeks believes AE's to be of African Origin, and that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa (for now, we'll just call him "that guy on the Egypt Uncovered series who excavated Nabpta Playa"

---

I'm not saying to abandon the issue, if posters are going to provide and respond to evidence then fine it's a worthwhile discussion as we know it is a contoversy that is discussed among Egyptologists.

In fact I think a TV Documentry is in the works by a harvard Professor dealing with this issue, he is trying to get Hawass to attend a televised round table with others discussing this race subject.

As for what mainstream egyptologists believe about origins I often see words like "African influence" rarely "African Origin", and never "Black african origin" there is a difference. In fact u might want to ask what they mean when they say "African", interpretation varies.

Whats being debated here is whether that origin is "Black African" with some asiatic influence or Med caucasoid with some african influence. It's my view the common perception is that of the latter

Debating Horemheb is pointless, he is baiting people. I think most of see this.

His talk about the Egyptian soldiers Pic u posted being Nubian was refuted by the Nubian soldiers Pic u updated the post with, he had no response to this of course and he made no mention of his error. Ausar posted a great deal of evidence yet there has been little or no response to his posted evidence either

His genetic evidence was debunked on this board a long time ago as long time poster are aware of.

It seemed to me the discussion was losing it's civility and no progress was being made thats why I said it may be time to just move on, Horemheb is not interested in your evidence or Ausar's his mind is set, perhaps we should just respect that. His viewpoint is ok and a very common one as we all know.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
Exactly, and that my fiend is also your agenda, so dont tell me that there is no debate. If you have strong feelings about it then debate it, dont preach it!, If you wish for people to listen then show them dont slap them in the face.

I believe civilisation started on the Nile, I beleive that Egypt was founded by African people. I dont care what color they happend to be at the time. Although I would not try to argue that they would have had black skin.

So in essence I believe much of what you do. You however place every WHITE in the same racist box as you do every BLACK You have created for them, and that my friend is my problem with you aproach.

But I expect your reesponce is that you care not what my opinion is as a WHITE man as it has nothing to do with me.

The funny thing is, I have BLACK in my family and I have relitaves who are blacker than most Americans today. I have some distant reltions who can claim no mixed blood in history of 60,000 years, and you try to make me out as just another white man trying to steel the black mans connection to Africca and Egypt.

Groow up and teach if you have something to teach, dont preach!

---

THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE REGARDING THEIR ORIGINS AND THEIR IDENTITY AS A PEOPLE AND AS A NATION (PERIOD) - Some educational material is available at http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo
Thank you very much...

This discussion is real déjavu and very, very awkward.

1) Ancient Egypt was black african culture: I think no!

2) Ancient Egypt was mediterrean white culture: I think no!

FOR ALL EGYPTOMANIACS:
http://www.aegypten-fotos.de/land_e.htm
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt_Jan01/page_.htm
 

The western and Eastern Delta had influces from costal type Northern Africans and Asiatic people since the unfolding of the pre-dyanstic era. Archeological evidence collected shows it was the south that provided the stimulus in the Badarian to Naquda II culture. Instead of Egypt influcing Nubia,I believe the Nubians included the Upper Egyptians. The culture of A-group Nubia beyond the first cataract is almost indentical to the Badarian,Naquda,and other cultures that existed in Upper Egypt.

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 03 February 2004).]
 

Please don't wait for a so called race topic to break out to post images. They are fascinating.
 

I don´t know if my viewpoint is "mainline" or not. I put plainly think that the ancient Egyptians were mixed mediterrean-african people and their culture too.In any case, as far as I know, for majority of the modern Egyptians is question: "what race were the ancient Egyptians" or "what is the origin of our culture, mediterrean or african?" not important and their viewpoints are rather "mainline". In majority, they are simple and uneducated people and they don´t understand these "problems". And for me, it´s heart of the matter.

By the way, what do you think about these photos?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Its always safer to take the mainline viewpoint on any historical subject.

---

There is no mainline point-of-view on this question. Most mainstream Egyptologists ride the fence on the question not out of racism but out of respect for Egyptian people. Most Egyptians don't feel comfortable discussing race issues as Americans do, and the word "black" has some negative stigma attached to it in the Arab world.

If Anwar Sadat were born in the US or Britain he would most certinly be classified as black but even he didn't feel comfortable talking about what race he belongs to.

The same negative stigma surrounding the word "black" is found in Latin America where people who may look like Sammy Sosa don't feel comfortable describing themselves as "black." However, I doubt Sammy Sosa would deny that he has African ancestry.

It's much easier for us to discuss this in a public forum where everyone is anonymous and can voice their opinions freely.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:

I'm going to go with Dr Hawass, Brier and others as well as the numerous studies I mentioned earlier.

---

I'm not familiar with Brier but Hawass' view is driven by his opposition to Afro-centrism. I think some Afro-centric historians are a bit extreme but Hawass shows his own bias when he says things like ancient Egypt has no connection to sub-Saharan Africa. To make a statement like that you have to ignore the language of Ancient Egyptians, the fashions, artwork, and the country's geographic location. Saharan African influence is not absent from ancient Egypt either, most likely Saharan Africans are the root of the civilization.

Egypt is a very diverse country with a long history. Throughout the country's history there have been layers and layers of migrations which have added to this diversity. As a country which lies on the border of Africa and Asia(Sinai is in Asia), it is only logical that the foundation of people in the country would be Saharan and sub-Saharan African, Coastal North African, and Asiatic. All other groups who have conquered Egypt have assimilated and mixed into the populations of major cities like Alexandria and Cairo.

My conclusion is that the ancient Egyptians are best described as Afro-Asiatic. It's nearly impossible to know whether the populations of ancient Egypt were predominantly this or that and it doesn't really matter. If it makes you feel better to conclude one way or another go ahead but everyone is never going to agree on a socio-political definition of race.
 

I agree with most of what you said. I leave alot of detail out of posts because I sometimes assume that people know what I mean from some previous posts. Other times it's just because I don't always feel like writing alot.

So I'd just like to clarify a few points just so there's no confusion to my beliefs. It's no secret that I feel that most AE's were black by western standards, but I am leaving much detail out when I say that. For one, the period of time does matter.

And I'll agree that it shouldn't matter what these people looked like, but depending on where you are today, it absolutely does. As long as kings of African decent were called Pharaoh, archaeological data tells us that the majority of the population was situated in the south. Ausar has already shown evidence for this. Even up to the time that Herotodus visited AE, he had no problem stereotyping their appearance. So up until 400 BC or so, I'm putting my money on black skin wooly haired when we speak of commoners.

Now royalty is another story. I'd guess the Hyksos were phenotypically different than your typical AE. If they left mummies, this would be reflected. The Greeks and Romans also left behind many mummies, and probably Persia and Assyria when they ruled. All of these groups took on AE traditions when they invaded, and if they left behind mummies, they may not be indicative of the population at large. Gadalla has already noted that AE's tried to expel all of these groups from power by frequently revolting. The one group whose reign was accept as legitimate Pharaohs were the so-called Nubians, when they regained control of Egypt during the 18th and 25th Dynasties.

After the Arab conquest, the playing field completely changes. Gadalla also notes that many AE's were expelled or enslaved, and that the Arabs were principally concentrated in the North.

To say that AE's were Afro-Asiatic is then a bit misleading then because it depends on when as much as it does who. At certain point it could even be accurate to describe them as Afro-Euro-Asiatic when they are known to have a larger percentage of European settlers.

To describe the ancients today becomes more of a question of what was the world like when they were around. And I don't mean to stir up trouble, but this is where Wally's argument comes in. The world did not have these borders drawn on it back then. This could be why you would see dark brown/black Egyptians, Nubians or Asians. You would also find fair skinned Africans, Asians or Europeans. The AE's did have an understanding of this. This understanding was their view of race.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
It's no secret that I feel that most AE's were black by western standards, but I am leaving much detail out when I say that. For one, the period of time does matter.

---

Well, I have to resist making conclusions on things that could go either way. For one, how a civilization depicts itself in art or other forms of history isn't always representative of the civilization as a whole. Perception is everything but percptions can be wrong.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

And I'll agree that it shouldn't matter what these people looked like, but depending on where you are today, it absolutely does.

---

Judging from the number of threads debating this issue and the number of responses, I agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
v
Even up to the time that Herotodus visited AE, he had no problem stereotyping their appearance.

---

In contrast, there was another Greek historian who visited Egypt and described Egyptians in the north to be similar to northern Indians. As I wrote earlier, perceptions are everything. Who's right? No one knows. However, it does appear that Egyptians were associated more with Nubians in ancient times. In my opinion, these associations may have been more cultural than physical.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

The one group whose reign was accept as legitimate Pharaohs were the so-called Nubians, when they regained control of Egypt during the 18th and 25th Dynasties.

---

I'm not sure how true that is. I've read some books which claim that Lower Egyptians helped the Assyrians run the Kushites out of Egypt. The Kushites united Egypt after years of civil disunity but its possible that some tribal chiefs in the north were not happy with them as rulers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:

To say that AE's were Afro-Asiatic is then a bit misleading then because it depends on when as much as it does who. At certain point it could even be accurate to describe them as Afro-Euro-Asiatic when they are known to have a larger percentage of European settlers.

---

I call it like I see it. Arabs didn't just appear in Egypt in the 7th century, there is evidence that people from the Levant had been settling in Egypt as far back as several centuries prior to the country's unification. Prior to unification, the city-states of Lower Egypt showed influences from early Near Eastern civilizations. They settled mostly around the Nile Delta and there werent really any mass migrations until the Middle Kingdom.

The first wave of Asiatics came in as captives and slaves, the second wave flowed in with the Hyksos, after the second intermediate period there was always a slow but steady flow of people from Asia into Egypt. Semitic names became more prominent as high officials in Egypt from the New Kingdom onward.

Was ancient Egypt founded by Asiatics? No, but Asiatics played a prominent enough role in Egyptian history and integrated into the population enough for one to call ancient Egyptians Afro-Asiatic. This label puts Egypt in the same category as Ethiopia, and Somalia so it doesn't take away from the basic African foundation of the civilization while acknowledging its diversity. I believe ancient Egypt showed the same diversity from North to South as it does today.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Neo...like dr Hawass most American world history classes teach that AE's came from the east, settled in the area that is now desert. As the area dried out they moved south and east to the nile.

---

I attended high school in Maryland, USA and we barely touched on ancient Egypt in world history. The usual cirricullum in American world history classes starts with the civilizations in Mesopotamia and is followed with Egypt but there is little mention of how Egypt was founded.

I know it sounds weird but Hawass isn't an authority on ancient Egypt nor is he an authority on anthropology. He is so close to the President of Egypt that you wonder how much of what he says isn't driven by politics. This whole debate is political and has left the realm of intellectual discourse.
 

Unless I am mistaken, the other Greek historian you speak of is Diodoras. To my knowledge his comments were meant to suggest that like like the Northern Indian is lighter than the Southern Indian, the Northern Egyptian is lighter than the Southern Egyptian. I do not debate this. The closer you get to the equator, the darker the skin.

I've not heard what you mentioned about the Kushite rulers of Egypt. Please let me know if you come across more info.

And remember, I said Arab, not Asian. I realize that there were settlers in lower Egypt, probably Asian, tha were in Egypt since unification. Islam comes around much later.
 

Again this view was debunked long ago on this board it's a trick some use to try an indicate that there were/are no blacks living above the sahara, what a joke. A ploy to indicate blacks live far away from north africa, so funny.

The southern area's of many north african countries have always had Black african populations from ancient times to this very day. blacks live throughout all africa the idea they only live below the sahara is a joke.

I agree KMT did not have much to do with sub-saharn Blacks, but that really does not say much as blacks lived from ancient times to this very day in places like southern libya and Egypt
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Obenga:
I agree KMT did not have much to do with sub-saharn Blacks, but that really does not say much as blacks lived from ancient times to this very day in places like southern libya and Egypt

---

I agree. I've read that most West Africans originate from the people who populated the Sahara in pre-historic times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Dr Hawass is not showing bias. Why is it bias when someone disagrees with you? He reflects the view of many that AE has no connection with sub saharan Africa. I could'n agree with him more. You guys are going to find that a hard sell to mainline historians.

---

Horemheb, are you aware or do you use any material published by UNESCO? or any other International body publications, as teaching material.

I am aware in a number of countries that the traditional texts which used to be published in the USA, are no longer being purchased by certain western Countries, due to a number of reasons to complicated to go through here. But one of those reasons was a lack of consistancy with world views and outdated data.

I know this to be a fact in Phsycology, (Atkinson and Atkinson), to Art history. This was as many as 5 to 6 years ago.

The reason i have asked is that I have differed in opinion with many here, that the type of opinion you have presented is mainstreem, as I had not come accross it in my general reading and studies, Almost all material I have read acceptes Egypt as an African civiliation.

This is now the mainstreem thinking. It is certainly no the only opinion but it is the most accepted.

What publications are used in your students education on AE.

If you could name a few I would be greatfull, as I would like to see if I can come accross any in other western curiculums.

Ozzy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
And remember, I said Arab, not Asian. I realize that there were settlers in lower Egypt, probably Asian, tha were in Egypt since unification. Islam comes around much later.

---

I understand but what we know today as Northern Arabs(Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.) were the Asiatics who made up the majority of migrants into ancient Egypt. From what you said about the Islamic conquest, it sounds like you're implying that there was a large group of people but in reality that group was very small and had no major affect on the population.

I hope we can really stop using "Black African" someday, because like John Clarke mentioned, it's leftover colonial baggage that assumes there is a such thing as a non-black African. Most of us agree that the people on the Narmer Palette who are depicted with straight hair and aqueline noses did not originate from Africa (unless you go back over 80,000 yrs ago when their ancestors 1st left Africa). Africans are not black, but mostly various shades of brown and vary greatly in appearance.

What I normally read is that Egyptians originated from a specific region in Africa, but though the term black or Negro African is frequently used to describe Nubians, it is not used to describe Egyptians. Look at the Yurco article Ausar posted. He mentions that Nubians and other Africans had realistic Negroid features. He also mentions that ethnically, Nubians are the closest to the Egyptians. But this the closest he will go to attaching Egyptians to Negroes.

I don't think this has anything to do with racism, but a reluctance to attach blackness to AE's due to the Arab control of Egypt.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
From what you said about the Islamic conquest, it sounds like you're implying that there was a large group of people but in reality that group was very small and had no major affect on the population.

---

According to Gadalla, this is not true. I've already expressed my feelings on this here:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000272.html
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
According to Gadalla, this is not true. I've already expressed my feelings on this here:
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000272.html

---

I don't disagree on the political affect of the Islamic conquest, I disagree that Arabs made a major impact on the demographics of the population. For one they were a small group. Secondly, they had few settlements around Egypt outside of Cairo. Culturally, the ancient Egyptians were Afro-Asiatic since the Hyksos invaded...

____What about Sir Alan Gardnier? He was an Egyptologist that lived in the 60's that admitted that the ancient Kemetian civlization was African in origin.

Are you aware of the anthropological studies by Shomarka Keita and Laurence Angel?

Both have used burials from early Pre-dyanstic sites to prove that the early Egyptians were tropical Africans. You might want to check out their studies. Angel,however,believes that Lower Egyptians are related to the Natufians in Neolithic Palestine. Keita sees the Lower Egyptians as intermediates.

JL Angel has some interesting things to say in this regard. He considers
the Dynastic Upper Egyptians as a evolutionary development of the Badarian
people. The latter were considered a mixture of the Natufian/Tasian hunters
of the Lower Egypt with the more "rugged" African types of the south.
Both these peoples tended to have broad noses and prognathism.

Dynastic Egyptians were said to be basically the same as Upper Egyptians but
with less linear skulls, longer faces and thinner noses. However, he adds
the caveat:

"But I have to use a IX Dynasty series (Woo, 1930) as a base for this
statement and almost certainly this group in the late third millenium
B.C. shows minor effects of mixture with sea-trading peoples from
the Levant and Aegean."

[J.L. Angel, Egytpian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations, In:
_ Population biology of the ancient Egyptians, edited by D. R. Brothwell
and B. A. Chiarelli (London, New York, Academic Press, 1973)]

What about the residents in Cairo? the city of Al-fustat was settled by Yemani Arabs when they invaded in 640 AD. Do you think the various immigrants into Cairo from the Abbasaid to the Ottoman period might have had some effect? Egypt's total population going into the Arab invasion was only about 3 million. Know Egypt's population is nearly 83 million. Some of this is due to the population boom of Lower Egyptian birth rates since 1880 due to Mohammed Ali modernizing Egypt.
Islam did not wipe out all of Egyptian culture in Lower Egypt due to Egyptians synchrinizing many Kemetian ntrs in with Sufism. Many of the Mouleds today in Lower and Upper Egypt have elements from ancient Egyptian times.

Going as far back as the 8th dyansty there was already communities within the Delta region of Egypt comprised of ''Asiatics'' as the Kemetians called them. Pictures of these people are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep II in Beni Hassan. Apperantly,many came in and settled in with the population and aquired a type of citizesnhip with the Egyptians. Not only were there Asiatic immigrants,but Libyan mercenaries settled in the Eastern Delta and many aquired the lands because of their services in battle.

In various Egyptian litterature like the Tales of Sinhue there is mention of the Delta man not understnading the speak of a man that lives in Aswan. When a Delta man sees himself in Southern Egypt he is confused,and the same was true for a Southern Egyptian in the Delta. Both seemed to have a dinstict idenity going back to the 8th dyansty.

Besides what I have stated,some Asiatic people obviously lived in the Delta prior to the unfication of Upper and Lower Egypt. The people depicted on the Narmer palette look like either Costal African types or Asiatic Syrio-Palestinean types. These were also the same people shown on the Scrpion stela as the rekhty or Lapwings. Rekhyt is a type of bird that is shown with a wing stamped to the ground probally denoting dominance of the South over the North.

In the Egyptian language, the word Kem or "Black" took all sorts of variations to describe the peoples of the country. Like every language, it also expressed an ideology.

"Anok kemi" or "I am a Black man" means literally, "I am an Egyptian"
Kemi = "Black man" was also used as a euphemism for Upper (or Greater) Egypt.
Kemsa = "Black man" = an Egyptian
Kemse = "Black woman" = an Egyptian woman
The word "Black" also implied all that was good, or sacred:
KemIsi = "Black Isis" = divine Isis (also KemHor; KemAmon; etc.)
The opposite of Black(Deshret)or good was Red (Deshret; Sett) or evil; devil
(Red is Derosh in modern Egyptian)
The language described the Egyptians' racial opposites (the Asiatics and Europeans) collectively as Deshretu or Tamhu (Red peoples). In the Egyptian language, these labels were also pejoratives. To this day, Africans still refer to these non-African peoples as Red people. It is an ideological constant.
There is simply nothing in the Egyptians' self-description that is not clear on their ethnic identity. It is my belief that they intended for this to be so.
 

"Anok kemi" or "I am a Black man" means literally, "I am an Egyptian"
Kemi = "Black man" was also used as a euphemism for Upper (or Greater) Egypt.
Kemsa = "Black man" = an Egyptian
Kemse = "Black woman" = an Egyptian woman
The word "Black" also implied all that was good, or sacred:
KemIsi = "Black Isis" = divine Isis (also KemHor; KemAmon; etc.)
The opposite of Black(Kemet)or good was Red (Deshret; Sett) or evil; devil
(Red is Derosh in modern Egyptian)
The language described the Egyptians' racial opposites (the Asiatics and Europeans) collectively as Deshretu or Tamhu (Red peoples). In the Egyptian language, these labels were also pejoratives. To this day, Africans still refer to these non-African peoples as Red people. It is an ideological constant.
There is simply nothing in the Egyptians' self-description that is not clear on their ethnic identity. It is my belief that they intended for this to be so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kem-Au:
Now that I look at these people, think they really look more southern European than Black. I'm officially changing my position. These people were not black, they're European:

[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 30 January 2004).]

---

Hmm it is very interesting that you say that the egyptians look like they are southeren european. If you would look into european history you would find out that moors invaded europe intermixing changing countries such as france, portugal, spain's and italy's. they especially changes italy's and spain gentic makeup. I looked at the pictrues they look "black" they have wide noses and they actually have lips.Everyone should know that the original egyptians were of dark hue or "black" but of course with Europe write of them we can say they were intermixing.
 

RE: Even in England were the people are proud of they mix of Romans, Vikings, etc, etc, etc, we find that the genetic imput from the Romans and Vikings has been limited to the towns they held, and did not impact on the country people.

This can be mirrored in many countries were a mas migration of a people did not exist only military invasion. This is also the case in many countries of Arab invasion as ausar has pointed out. The Arab invasion of North Africa consited of only a few thousand forces, and the populations that migrated much later did not mix to any great extent with the indiginouse people.

Also you have to consider an invading force is als made up of men, and any mixing in the first instance would have been with local women, the men of the invaded country would have almost no chance of having the genetics of the Y chromosom being geneticaly changed as the forces often did not move women until much much later when colonies were established, when the collonies were established they mixed with their own as the locals were often excluded, from these new towns.

The mtDNA genetics of the women taken from the local population would have been soon included in the invading populations genetics not visa versa.

The African genetics to be found in Spain Porugal, are the result of migrations from North Africa and are more closly related to the Berber populations In North west Africa. No African markers have yet to be confirmed as existing in Italian populations.

Ozzy
 

The most common Northern African genetic marker is U-6 commonly confined to costal regions of Northern Africa like Algeria,Tunisa and Northern Morocco. Iberian peninsula is the only region who has this marker while the other areas donot pocess this marker.

Portugeese do have some African admixture in small amounts from Neolithic era but in small amounts.

Here is the reference:
Mitochondrial DNA affinities at the Atlantic fringe of Europe.

Gonzalez AM, Brehm A, Perez JA, Maca-Meyer N, Flores C, Cabrera VM.

Departamento de Genetica, Universidad de La Laguna, 38271 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. amglez@ull.es

Mitochondrial DNA analysis of Atlantic European samples has detected significant latitudinal clines for several clusters with Paleolithic (H) and Neolithic (J, U4, U5a1, and U5a1a) coalescence ages in Europe. These gradients may be explained as the result of Neolithic influence on a rather homogeneous Paleolithic background. An important gene flow from Africa was detected in the Atlantic Iberia. Specific sub-Saharan lineages appeared mainly restricted to southern Portugal, and could be attributed to historic Black slave trade in the area and to a probable Saharan Neolithic influence. In fact, U6 haplotypes of specific North African origin have only been detected in the Iberian peninsula northwards from central Portugal.

 

Even though the Moors used Berbers the markers are much older than the invading dates. They are not considered to be in relation to any invasion by the moors, this is misrepresented on many sites I have visited.

Ozzy

[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 22 February 2004).]
 

The African genetics to be found in Spain Porugal, are the result of migrations from North Africa and are more closly related to the Berber populations In North west Africa. No African markers have yet to be confirmed as existing in Italian populations.

Ozzy[/B][/QUOTE]

Author: Sandler SG
Filed: 30/09/2003, 14:06:48
Source: Acta Haematol 1978; 60 (6), pp. 350-7.

Title:
Blood group phenotypes and the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in Sicilians.
Author(s):
Sandler SG; Schilirò G; Russo A; Musumeci S; Rachmilewitz EA
Source:
Acta haematologica [Acta Haematol] 1978; 60 (6), pp. 350-7.
Journal Info:
Country of Publication: SWITZERLAND NLM ID: 0141053 ISSN: 0001-5792 Subsets: IM

As an approach to investigating the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin (hemoglobin S) in white persons of Sicilian ancestry, two groups of native Sicilians were tested for blood group evidence of African admixture. Among 100 unrelated Sicilians, the phenotypes cDe(Rho) and Fy(a-b-), and the antigens V(hrv) and Jsa, which are considered to be African genetic markers, were detected in 12 individuals. Among 64 individuals from 21 families with at least one known hemoglobin S carrier, African blood group markers were detected in 7 (11%). These findings indicate that hemoglobin S is only one of multiple African genes present in contemporary Sicilian populations. The occurrence of hemoglobin S in white persons of Sicilian ancestry is considered to be a manifestation of the continuing dissemination of the original African mutation.

Department of Pediatrics
Children's Hospital of Iowa
Peer Review Status: Internally Peer Reviewed
Creation Date: March 1993

Not that I would not be supprised to find some African gentics in the population, but to this date no African markers have been found in the Italian population.

Ozzy

 

Mitochondrial DNA sequence analysis in Sicily

G. Vona, M.E. Ghiani, C.M. Calò, L. Vacca, M. Memmì, L. Varesi

Department of Experimental Biology, Section of Anthropological Sciences, University of Cagliari, Monserrato, Italy.

In work carried out with restriction enzymes on mtDNA in a sample of Sicilians, Semino et al. (1989) indicated the presence (4.4%) of the African complex HpaI-3/AvaII-3 (40% in Senegal and in the Bantu of South Africa). The authors hypothesized a migration of genes from Africa to Sicily, estimated at about 10%, which was introduced into the Sicilian gene pool by Black slaves brought by the Phoenicians and the Romans and/or by Arab migrations. Results at the mtDNA sequencing level, however, show no Black African influence in the Sicilian population.
Author: Semino O
Filed: 03/04/2002, 14:54:36
Source: Pub-med
Readers' Comments: (0)
Ann Hum Genet 1989 May;53 ( Pt 2):193-202

Mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms in Italy. III. Population data from Sicily: a possible quantitation of maternal African ancestry.

Semino O, Torroni A, Scozzari R, Brega A, De Benedictis G, Santachiara Benerecetti AS.

Dipartimento di Genetica e Microbiologia 'A. Buzzati-Traverso', Universita di Pavia, Italy.

mtDNA polymorphisms were studied in a sample of 90 individuals of the Sicilian population using six restriction enzymes: HpaI, BamHI, HaeII, MspI, AvaII and HincII. (1) Three new patterns, for MspI, AvaII and HincII, have been detected. (2) At least two different mutations were found to account for both the AvaII morph 3 and the AvaII morph 9 as in many other Caucasian groups so far examined. (3) Seventeen types were found; of these six are new. The frequency (54.5%) of type 1-2 (2.1.1.1.1.2) is lower than in the rest of Italy whereas those of type 6-2 (2.1.2.1.1.2) (10.0%) and type 18-2 (2.3.1.4.9*.2) (12.2%) lie at the upper level of the Italian range. The 18-derivative, type 57-2 (2.3.1.4.13*.2), which is consistently found in all Italian samples, is present also among Sicilians with an incidence of 2.2%. (4) Of particular interest is that the HpaI-3/AvaII-3 complex, which is unique to groups of African ancestry, was found in Sicily at a frequency of 4.4%. For the first time an estimate of the amount of gene flow from Blacks to the Sicilian gene pool could be obtained

Filed: 31/05/2003, 01:28:49
Source: Dienekes' Anthropology Blog
Readers' Comments: (0)
Berbers are distinguished by a particular subclade of HG21 [or E*(xE3)] which is labelled 25.2 in [1]. In contrast, Europeans and Arabs have higher levels of another clade, 25.1. Thus, while Berbers have 71.0% of 25.2, Europeans have at most 5.6% in a sample from Lombardy, while Spaniards have at most 2.2% (with the exception of an isolated population group of known mixed origins), the French have 4.1%, most Sardinians lack it, while one has it at a frequency of 2.1%, and only one of three Sicilian groups (from Sciacca) has it at a frequincy of 2.3%.

These results are a strong indication that most of HG21 and its subclades in Europe is of ancient origin and not associated with recent absorption of North African elements, which can be quantified at less than 5%. Note also that since data on the origin of HG25.2 are not available, it may be possible that part of it may be of prehistoric origin, i.e., predating the Roman and Medieval periods.

[1] Human Immunology
Volume 62, Issue 9 , September 2001, Pages 871-884

Again not in the general population of Italy and most likely a recent introduction to Sicilian genes if at all. Re: Slave trade.

Ozzy

 

Most of these genetic tests done on populations don't take history into consideration. I take most with a grain of salt,because the most accurate is nuclear DNA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Ozzy,
I know the marker is part of the DNA. So, how are you defining the difference between a marker and a gene?

---

Im not, it is considered a marker but not a defined African marker. Anything that shows inherited differences in people is a genetic marker, but hemoglobin S is found in Middle eastern populations, India, 500,000 African-Americans and is not found in All populations of Africa. In fact it is non-existant in Highland populations in Africa.

Malaria does not occur in the cooler, drier climates of the highlands in the tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Neither does the gene for sickle hemoglobin.

So its possible that the hemoglobin S has arisen as a defence independantly in these areas. In any case its not considered an "African marker" , and regardless of weather you consider Cicilian people as a fare representation of Italians, there is to this date no confirmation of African dna "markers" being present in the Italian population.

Ozzy

Fy[a-b-] is found in most Upper Egyptians.

See example:

Mahmoud LA; Ibrahim AA; Ghonem HR; Jouvenceaux A
| ADDRESS: Department of Clinical Pathology, Faculty of Medicine,
| Mansurah University, Egypt.
| TITLE: Human blood groups in Dakahlya, Egypt.
| SOURCE: Ann Hum Biol (57R), 1987 Nov-Dec; 14 (6): 487-93
| LANGUAGE: English
| COUNTRY PUB.: ENGLAND
| ANNOUNCEMENT: 8805
| PUB. TYPE: JOURNAL ARTICLE: New data on blood groups among Egyptians (Dakahlya province)
| are obtained by studying eight blood group systems: ABO,
| Rhesus, MNSs, Kell, Duffy, Kidd, P and Lewis. Comparing our
| results with the data reported in neighbouring countries, we
| found in Egypt a high frequency of B, NS, cDe and K genes, a
| moderately high frequency of P and the presence of Fy gene.
| The Egyptian population appears as a mixture of African,
| Asiatic and Arabian characteristics.

FYA

0.42 -Caucasians;
0.10 -Blacks;
0.95 -Chinese:
0.90 -Japanese
0.92-1.0 -Thai
0.97-Australian (Aborigine)

FYB

0.57 -Caucasian;
* -Blacks;
0.05 -Chinese;
0.10 -Japanese;
0-0.08 -Thai

FYBES
*-Blacks;
~ 0 (all others)"

Again, not an isolated African maker:

 

Not an isolated African marker.

 

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 23 February 2004).]
 

Here is you references. Thank you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ozzy:
"The RH haplotype CDE is relatively rare and has a maximum north of
the Black Sea. The same is true, in a slightly more western position,
for CDe, which is also more frequent in other parts of the world. This
haplotype is the most frequent in Europe. Cde has a P1 pattern. cDE,
also numerically important, has a minimum north of the Black Sea and a
maximum in northwestern Iran, with a lesser one in the Leningrad region.
An allele very frequent among Africans, cDe, has a rough P1 pattern, but
also shows a relative maximum in Poland and minima not only in the
Basque region, but also in southern Scandinavia and Iceland. The fully
RH-negative haplotype, cde, has the well-known maximum among Basques,
with minima not only in the Middle EAst (a P2 pattern), but also among
the Lapps and in northwestern Africa.”

Not an isolated African marker.

---

I don't expect many genetic marker to be solely an "African marker" because many of these African markers will be found in many countries all over Europe and Asia because of migration patterns. What I have noticed is that people with brown to black skin(modern and Ancient Egyptians included)have many of the same genetic blood diseases/markers (thalasemia, sickle cell and other anemia). These diseases are very selective for places where the parasite plasmodia pallidum (blood borne parasite found in mosquito saliva that causes malaria) is predominant. This is absolutely by chance that this genetic mutation has a protective function that selected for malaria resistance. However, what cannot be ignored is that these are genetic markers/diseases tie all of these groups to a not so distant common heritage or some sort of genetic exchange. The exchange obviously coming out of Africa itself with different African groups having higher frequencies of certain markers than others. Many of these same blood markers are very prominent in the Egyptian population as well. Many scientist do not consider these blood diseases/markers to be African, but I think that they clearly indicate that all of the groups that they are seen in high to higher frequencies have a very real and substantial common genetic heritage. These markers are no different in identifying genetic commonality than the ones we chose to call "African markers or non-African markers"(Yap Hap ect). The difference is that these anemia markers are genetic markers for diseases while the other they used to prove that Egyptians are related to this group or to that group do not cause disease. Mutations are pointless and can haphazardly code for a protective function, but before that lucky protection came about it was purely a genetic mutation. The same thing goes for Huntington’s Disease, but it has no protective function. This was seen in mostly people of northern European descent(except Finland) but can also be found in southern and western Europe in much lower frequencies, but very rare in Africa and countries in the middle east. .In America Huntington crosses all ethnic lines due to race mixing, but are still in a higher frequency in Caucasian Americans indicating a Caucasian origin. Huntington’s is less common in populations in Japan, China, Finland and African blacks than in those of western European descent. It affects 1 in 20,000 Caucasians, 1 in 100,000 black Americans, 1 in 1,000,000 Africans, and 1 in 300,000 Asians. The fact that it is more common in American blacks, but extremely rare in African blacks tells that America blacks have a recent genetic exchange with Europeans (particularly northern). All of this is to show that The blood diseases commonly seen in brown to black people around the world CAN be used as a marker if wanted!

 

“If you would look into European history you would find out that moors invaded Europe intermixing changing countries such as France, Portugal, Spain’s and Italy’s. they especially changes Italy’s and Spain genetic makeup”

My response was “The moors, are responsible for very little genetic make up in Italy and Spain”

You came in with a response supporting the Italian Moor (African) connection with “Blood group phenotypes and the origin of sickle cell hemoglobin in Sicilians”. I assume you have done so with the intent of Sicilians as representatives of the Italian population. If not I have no idea as to the reason for the post.

I have already said, “Anything that shows inherited differences in people is a genetic marker” So I agree with most of your last post. However to conclude that any population has genetic input by another, an isolated, or rare marker needs to be identified in each of the populations to conclude a recent relationship, this is how ancient migrations are calculated. If the marker could have been inherited by any number of other influences then it can not be attributed to one. In particular when claiming a recent connection like the Moors.

But again although these are markers they do not show a recent African connection like the Moors and are not supported by mtDNA nor Y Chromosome RE: “Results at the mtDNA sequencing level, however, show no Black African influence in the Sicilian population”.

So back to my original response, neither in Spain nor Italy proper. Is their evidence of a genetic contribution by the Moors.

Ausar, the first link is one of my references, the second I have never seen before, but thank you for posting it.