I'm currently reading Toby Wilkinson's 2010 ‘The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt’. In the section dealing with the Kushite conquest of Egypt, he describes how Libyan ruler Bakenrenef (720-715) commissioned an ‘extraordinary’ goblet;
‘In a lower band, captive Kushites – their arms bound behind their backs or above their heads- alternated with monkeys stealing dates from palm trees. It was a cheap racial slur and a piece of propaganda in the best pharaonic tradition’ (p423)
Does anyone know the goblet and is it safe to say that Wilkinson's is an accurate interpretation?
There's more that I want to query regarding his presentation of the relationship between Egyptians and Nubians, but I'll hopefully get round to that once I've finished the book.
Thanks in advance
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
might be it, I don't have further info
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@userman
Yep, I can also read a newspaper in mainland Mandarin Chinese...
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
It was a cheap racial slur and a piece of propaganda in the best pharaonic tradition’
No, it wasn't a "cheap racial slur." That's Wilkinson's interpretation. It was a slur against an enemy, but "race" in the sense we know it today, has nothing to do with it. It was a reference to ethnicity, but ethnicity is not "race" as we know it today. Romans condemned "perfidious Punics"- referring to their Phonecian opponents in Carthage, but both peoples are in today's parlance, white.
Nubians anyway are the closest people ethnically to the ancient egyptians, contradicting attempts to spin some sort of "racial conflict" in the Nile Valley.
If we are going to start putting "Racial" interpretations on ancient Egypt, then using that approach, Egyptians also used "Racial slurs" against white people- Even, Steven. QUOTES:
Applying a consistent 'race' model that interprets war between Egyptians and Nubians as 'racial' the Egyptians also pursued 'racial' wars against whites from the Middle East.
[IMG]http://digital.library.upenn.edu/wo men/edwards/pharaohs/207.gif[/IMG] RAMESES II. SLAYING THE "whites" BEFORE RA, THE TUTELARY DEITY OF THE GREAT TEMPLE OF ABÛ-SIMBEL..
THE DISCOURSE OF AMEN-RA, LORD OF THRONES agaimst "whites".
Thou hast struck off the heads of the Asiatics, and their children cannot escape from thee. Every land illuminated by thy diadem is encircled by thy might; and in all the zone of the heavens there is not a rebel to rise up against thee. The enemy bring in their tribute on their backs, prostrating themselves before thee, their limbs trembling and their hearts burned up within them."
Campaign against "white" Mittani in parts of Lebanon:
"He is a king valiant ... Naharin which its lord had deserted out of fear ... I hacked up its towns and villages and I set fire to them ... I carried off their inhabitants ... also their herds of cattle ... I felled all their plantations and their fruit trees ...I had many vessels ... built on the mountains of God's Land in the neighborhood of the Lady of Byblos ... then on that mountain of Naharin, my Majesty erected my stela, carved out of the mountain on the western side of the Euphrates.."
Conquest against and tribute from "white" Palestine:
"Tribute of the princes of Retenu, who came to do obeisance ... to the souls of his majesty... Now every harbor at which his majesty arrived was supplied with loaves and with assorted loaves, with oil, incense, wine, f[ruit] ---- abundant were they beyond everything ...
Tribute from 'white' Lebanon:
The chieftains, lord of Lebanon, construct the royal ships in order that people may sail south in them to bring all the marvels of the "Garden" to the palace. LPH. ... The chieftains of Retjenu (Retenu) who drag the flagpoles by means of oxen to the shore, it is they who come with their dues to the place where his majesty is, to the Residence in ...... bearing all the fine products brought as marvels of the south and being taxed for tribute annually as (with) all bondsmen of his Majesty."
Operations against more 'white' 'Troglodytes':
"Then my Majesty made them take their oaths of allegiance as follows: never again shall we do anything evil against Menkheperre (another name for Thutmose III), may he live forever ... Then my Majesty had them set free on the road to their cities*). They went off on donkeys for I had seized their chariotry. I captured their inhabitants for Egypt and their property likewise." [W. Helck transl. by B. Cummings (1982), `Urkunden der 18. Dynastie', `Egyptian Historical Records of the Later 18th Dynasty']
"His majesty proceeded northward, to overthrow the Asiatics (Mntyw-Stt). His majesty arrived at a district, Sekmem (Skmm) was its name. His majesty led the good way in proceeding to the palace of `Life, Prosperity, and Health (L.P.H.,' when Sekmen had fallen, together with Retenu (Rtnw) the wretched, while I was acting as rearguard." [Breasted, `Records', Vol. I, Sec. 680] Time of Seti the Great - Presentation of Syrian Prisoners and Precious Vessels to Amon
"Smiting the Troglodytes, beating down the Asiatics (Mn·t·yw), making his boundary as far as the `Horns of the Earth', as far as the marshes of Naharin (N-h-r-n)." [Ibid., Vol. III, Sec. 118;]
"Slaying of the Asiatic Troglodytes (Ynw-Mn·t·yw [Menate, Manasseh]), all inaccessible countries, all lands, the Fenkhu of the marshes of Asia, the Great Bend of the sea (w'd-wr)."
Booty seized from "white" Caananites:
".... 340 living prisoners; 83 hands; 2,401 mares; 191 foals; 6 stallions; ... young ...; a chariot, wrought with gold, (its) pole of gold, belonging to the chief of `M-k-ty' (as the land around Jerusalem was called); .... 892 chariots of his wretched army; total, 924 (chariots); a beautiful suit of bronze armor, belonging to the chief of Jerusalem; .... 200 suits of armor, belonging to his wretched army; 502 bows; 7 poles of (mry) wood, wrought with silver, belonging to the tent of that foe. Behold, the army of his majesty took ...., 297 ...., 1,929 large cattle, 2,000 small cattle, 20500 white small cattle." [JBRE, `Records', Vol. II, Sec. 435; See also the following sections.]
Tribute from "white" Assur/Assyria "The tribute of the chief of Assur (Ys-sw-r): genuine lapis lazuli, a large block, making 20 deben, 9 kidet; genuine lapis lazuli, 2 blocks; total, 3; and pieces, [making] 30 deben; total, 50 deben and 9 kidet; fine lapis lazuli from Babylon (Bb-r); vessels of Assur of hrrt- stone in colors, ---- very many." "Tribute of the chief of Assur: horses ---. A ---- of skin of the M-h-w as the [protection] of a chariot, of the finest of --- wood; 190(+x) wagons --- --- wood, nhb wood, 343 pieces, carob wood, 50 pieces; nby and k'nk wood, 206 pieces; olive oil, ------.." [BREASTED, Vol. II, Sec. 446, 449]
"Whites" put to slave labor in Egypt.
from Project Guttenberg full text of: A HISTORY OF EGYPT FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERSIAN CONQUEST BY JAMES HENRY BREASTED, II, 760-1, 773. 2 II, 761.
Inscription "the Asiatics of all countries came with bowed head, doing obeisance to the fame of his majesty."
book text:
"Thutmose's war-galleys moored in the harbour of the town; but at this time not merely the iceaUh of Asia was unloaded from the ships; the Asiatics themselves, bound one to another in long lines, were led down the gang planks to begin a life of slave- labour for the Pharaoh (Fig. 119). They wore long matted beards, an abomination to the Egyptians ; their hair hung in heavy black masses upon their shoulders, and they were clad in gaily coloured woolen stuffs, such as the Egyptian, spotless in his white linen robe, would never put on his body.
Their arms were pinioned behind them at the elbows or crossed over their heads and lashed together ; or, again, their hands were thrust through odd pointed ovals of wood, which served as hand-cuffs. The women carried their children slung in a fold of the mantle over their shoulders. With their strange speech and uncouth postures the poor wretches were the subject of jibe and merriment on the part of the multitude ; while the artists of the time could never forbear caricaturing them. Many of them found their way into the houses of the Pharaoh's favourites, and his generals were liberally rewarded with gifts of such slaves; but the larger number were immediately employed on the temple estates, the Pharaoh's domains, or in the construction of his great monuments and buildings."
Ancient Egyptians warn against cowardly, treacherous "whites" comparing them to destructive thieves and reptiles.
"The Instruction for King, Merikare takes a similar tone for peoples in the north (Lichtheim 1973: 10404):
Lo the miserable Asiatic (white), He is wretched because of the place he's in: Short of water, bare of wood, Its paths are many and painful because of mountains. He does not dwell in one place, Food propels his legs, He fights since the time of Horus.. He does not announce the day of combat, Like a thief who darts about a group.."
"Asiatics (whites) are both cowardly and pitiful, leading a marginal existence, constantly fighting but with nothing ever settled. They are also sly and ultimately treacherous, attacking without warning. This passage characterizes Asiatics as both primitive and threatening.. In this case, the passage reflects Egypt's combination of colonial domination and outright military conflict.."
Merikare goes on (Lichtheim 1976: 103-104)
"The Asiatic [white] is a crocodile on its shore It snatches from a lonely road, It cannot seize a populous town."
"Along the same lines, the Prophecy of Neferti (c. 1950 BC) portrays Asiatic immigrants as a flock of rapacious birds descending on Egypt, taking advantage of civil wars of the First Intermediate Period (c. 2150 - 2050 BC) to infiltrate parts of the rich Egyptian delta (Lichtheim 1973: 141):
A strange bird will breed in the delta marsh, having made its nest besides the people.. All happiness is vanished, The land is bowed down in distress, Owing to those feeders, Asiatics [whites] who roam the land..
From: --Stuart Tyson Smith. (2003) Wretched Kush: ethnic identities and boundaries in Egypt's Nubian empire. Routledge, pp. 28-31
Posted by Neferefre (Member # 13793) on :
^ good read Cardova
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
here is a negative review on Amazon of Wilkinson's book:
1.0 out of 5 stars A Severely Skewed History, July 9, 2011 By Muttley - This review is from: The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt (Hardcover)
Meet Toby Wilkinson, the Egyptologist who HATES ancient Egypt. Most Egyptologists are content to merely write off the ancient Egyptians as muddle-headed primitives with silly animal-headed gods and a morbid obsession with death who somehow in spite of themselves managed to pull off the Pyramids and other amazing technical feats. Mr. Wilkinson, apparently eager to outdo other Egyptologists at their game, takes this one step further: ancient Egyptians weren't just stupid, they were BAD.
Prepare to have any nice idea you ever had about ancient Egypt "debunked" by a relentless catalogue of sordid, violent and generally nasty details. It seems that higher emotions were entirely absent in this primitive time and from its earliest era Egyptian society was characterized by nothing but a viciously ruthless quest for power and control. Egyptian "spirituality" is hardly even worth sneering at and obviously could have been no more than a thin veneer given the savage nature of its people. Never mind that any people that has ever existed in history could be portrayed this way if you just decide to emphasize everything negative they ever did and reject any positive interpretation. The approach leads to pronounced stylistic monotony as the author is repeatedly at pains to steer the reader away from any generous interpretation of the material. Expect to encounter phrases like "But things were not so rosy in ancient Egypt...", "But there was a darker side...", "But beneath the facade..." and close variations thereof, over and over and over.
Those ancient Egyptians were up to no good, and Toby Wilkinson is here to let you know you are sadly deluded to think anything different. His seems to be an extreme version of the "debunking" attitude so many Egyptologists have. The ancient Egyptians are interpreted as "obsessed with death" because of their elaborate funereal customs. That's really just an artifact of our perception because much more evidence has survived in tombs than from the daily life of Egyptians. But no, we are supposed to think of them as wandering around in a haze obsessed with death, somehow just managing to accidentally produce a few cultural achievements along the way, but really not much better than animals. Perhaps it is actually Egyptologists who wander around in a haze, obsessed with their tenure and the opinion of their colleagues, at the expense of doing justice to the ancient culture whose story has been entrusted to them.
__________________________
another member replies:
Katherine Barlow says: Have...you read this? No - seriously, everything you are describing about Egyptology, about it being "content to merely write off the Ancient Egyptians as muddle-headed primitives" is utterly ridiculous. Why the hell would someone put the time and effort into getting a PhD studying people they fundamentally despise? In fact, the exact opposite is often the case: I can't think of a popular book on Egyptology that doesn't make the ancient Egyptians out to be anything less than awesome, because face it - 98% of what they left behind is utterly amazing. More importantly, it was MEANT to be amazing. It's almost uncanny how well the pharaohs planned to be admired for eternity.
But that means that 98% of what we see - the gigantic pyramids, the accounts of battles like Qadesh and Megiddo, the classics of the Middle Kingdom - is essentially propaganda. The entire history of Ancient Egypt as they presented themselves thus must be taken with a grain of salt, which is hard to do when everything they created was just...so badass. This book attempts to accomplish that, to point out the costs associated with the creation of such monuments, by drawing parallels with not so savory modern examples like N. Korea, and the like. And you know what? Egypt still comes out as awesome, and I think Mr. Wilkinson knows that too. That the Egyptian Pharaohs, five thousand years ago, developed masterful propaganda, an organized and effective taxation system, and the idea of divine kingship that would persist for many millenia in the future - is a sign of magnificent bastardry.
To summarize, Wilkinson doesn't "lower" the Ancient Egyptians in any way by presenting the unsavory, more real side of their politics; he just makes them more human to our modern eyes, more clever, and not just "primitives" who stumbled onto the pyramids - or worse, had aliens build it for them.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@userman
Is that why I have a degree in English Literature (2:1) and a Masters degree from the School of Oriental and African Studies here in London.
BTW, how's your Mandarin? I can also read Portuguese newspapers. You?
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
This is a review of another of Wilkinson's works which chimes with my own reading of his Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt. It's by a a guy called Donald Peyton, who - perhaps rightfully so - is scathing when reviewing the work of most mainstream Egyptologists;
'Toby Wilkinson's "dramatic new discoveries" that were supposed to "rewrite the origins of Ancient Egypt" quickly morphs into a pathetic variation of the tired, worn out race-based "Egyptology" of the past, an Egyptology that forces all archeological, ethnological, linguistics, ancient Egyptian written documents-all scientific evidence -into a rigid intellectual paradigm. The UNSTATED premise of this rigid paradigm was that ancient Egypt was not a black African creation. On pages 21-22, Wilkinson writes of Winkler's "obsession" : was the great civilization of "ancient Egypt" the "creation, not of "savage Africans, but of enlightened invaders from the "Aryan' world of the east." This was not only Winkler's obsession-it remains the obsession of Toby Wilkerson and most euro-centric writers and thinkers. They simply never state the premise! But they respect it! They adhere to it!
In this book Mr. Wilkinson engages in an orgy of speculation to support his hypotheses. It is a web of speculation deliberately contrived to mislead the general reader and to spread euro-centric myths in place of known facts. Mr. Wilkinson writes on page 14, this astonishingly, euro-centric, ethnocentric, false and misleading assertion: "To European archeologists, as to the ancient Egyptians themselves, Nubia was a strange and exotic place, not quite part of pharaonic Egypt." To imply that "European archeologist" and "ancient Egyptians" held similar opinions about Nubia is nonsense . In the texts from the tombs of Seti I, Merenptah, and from Ramses III(Book Of Gates) we find indisputable evidence written by the ancient Egyptians themselves which demonstrates that they considered themselves to be profoundly related to the peoples of Nubia. "The Semites(3mou), Sekhmet has transformed them,it is She that hammers their souls. You are those(Egyptians) that strike against them (Semites) for me. I am happy for the multitude that I gave birth to(or who came from me)among your name(those of the Egyptians) destined for the Nubian-Sudanese(nehasu),who are born with the favor of Horus. It is he who protects their souls." The passage is repeated with tamahou(Indo-Europeans) replacing 3mou(Semites/Asiatic). We know that etymologically the ancient Egyptian terms for Europeans and Asians are extremely pejorative, indicating a animal-like human, with a qualifying sign indicating something that walks on four paws like an animal. The word for Nubian (nehase) does not have any racial or pejorative connotation whatsoever in the ancient Egyptian language. To translate the word nehase as black or Negro is a deliberate mistranslation. It seems to be the name of some group of ancient Africa people just as Yam and WaWat, were names of other African peoples. Toby Wilkinson stumbles along attempting to create some kind of Apartheid Wall between these two ancient African peoples. Wilkinson often remarks about the use of hippopotamus figures in ancient Egyptian culture. Toby Wilkinson again attempts to separate, in the minds of his readers, ancient Africans from ancient Egyptians (p.64). He writes how the lumbering bulk and small ears of hippos amused the ancient Egyptians... "inspired wry amusement" in those who drew them. On the other hand he writes, "....to African people, hippos are not always figures of fun: they are dangerous wild animals that pose a threat to humans". If Mr. Wilkinson dared step out side his euro-centric intellectual prison; he would have been able to tell his readers that the hippo is inextricably connected to African cultures. For example, the river valley civilizations of Africa could shade much needed light on the customs of ancient Egypt. Among the Pulaar people who live along the Senegal River there is a Diba clan, which has the Hippo as a totem for fishermen. We know there are several words for hippo in ancient Egyptian:h3b,db and dib, each term is followed by a hippo determinative . Thus we have the diba clan or hippo clan among African people today(De L'orgine Egyptienne Des Peuls, by Dr.Aboubacry M. Lam p.211). We could cite many, many, many more examples from throughout Africa from culture, language and religion. So again Mr. Wilkinson clearly shows that his work is far from scholarly, and that he remains willingly captive to the tyrannical Euro centric paradigm.
Perhaps Toby Wilkinson personifies the dilemma of the modern Euro-centric scholar who knows very well what happened to the late Sir E. A. Wallis Budge Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge,Tyrwhitt Hebrew Scholar, Keeper of The Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities, British Museum. Even knighthood could not save Budge from the vicious and endless slander that was heaped upon him and all of his work after he wrote in V.1 of Osiris& The Egyptian Resurrection, Dover1971,(p.xvii,Preface)the following about the study of the Ancient Egyptians: "The modern Sudani beliefs are identical with those of ancient Egypt, because the Egyptians were Africans and the modern peoples of the Sudan are Africans". All hell broke loose and Budge's works were condemned and ridiculed-finally they were ignored. Budge became a pariah. So instead of "Dramatic New Discoveries to Rewrite the origins of Ancient Egypt", Mr. Wilkinson gives us an orgy of speculations, suggestions and assertions about African rock art from the Eastern desert. Again, all interpretations of the rock art is forced into the race-based euro-centric paradigm. Wilkinson does not tell his readers that all the periods and categories of rock art are found only in Africa.
Poor Toby Wilkinson remains locked in his Euro-centric Cambridge-built intellectual prison. He has the key to unlock the door. But what he does not have is the intellectual courage to use the key to unlock the door and step out into the bright sunshine. Only then can he contribute to the rewriting of the true history of these fascinating African civilizations that we call "Ancient Egypt"!
Alas poor Toby...!'
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ He either gives books one star or five
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@lioness
'He either gives books one star or five'
He did give the three books written by Miriam Lichteim's 2 stars, let's be fair!
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
I wonder what he would have thought of the Great Lakes/Southern Africa/Tropical West Africa links to 18th dyn first family.. Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
In the texts from the tombs of Seti I, Merenptah, and from Ramses III (Book Of Gates) we find indisputable evidence written by the ancient Egyptians themselves which demonstrates that they considered themselves to be profoundly related to the peoples of Nubia.
"The Semites (3mou), Sekhmet has transformed them, it is She that hammers their souls. You are those (Egyptians) that strike against them (Semites) for me. I am happy for the multitude that I gave birth to (or who came from me) among your name (those of the Egyptians) destined for the Nubian-Sudanese (nehasu), who are born with the favor of Horus. It is he who protects their souls."
The passage is repeated with tamahou (Indo-Europeans) replacing 3mou(Semites/Asiatic). We know that etymologically the ancient Egyptian terms for Europeans and Asians are extremely pejorative, indicating a animal-like human, with a qualifying sign indicating something that walks on four paws like an animal.
The word for Nubian (nehase) does not have any racial or pejorative connotation whatsoever in the ancient Egyptian language. To translate the word nehase as black or Negro is a deliberate mistranslation. It seems to be the name of some group of ancient Africa people just as Yam and WaWat, were names of other African peoples.
Toby Wilkinson stumbles along attempting to create some kind of Apartheid Wall between these two ancient African peoples. Wilkinson often remarks about the use of hippopotamus figures in ancient Egyptian culture. Toby Wilkinson again attempts to separate, in the minds of his readers, ancient Africans from ancient Egyptians (p.64). He writes how the lumbering bulk and small ears of hippos amused the ancient Egyptians... "inspired wry amusement" in those who drew them. On the other hand he writes, "....to African people, hippos are not always figures of fun: they are dangerous wild animals that pose a threat to humans"
^Interesting writeup by reviewer Donald Peyton. Outside a "Racial" frame though, I think Wilkinson has some info of value to present, as he has done in in the past- as in his "Pre-dynastic Egypt" book, provided people look at it with a critical eye. Wilkinson does not buy into the Dynastic Race migration theory. If Peyton is correct, it appears that in WIlkinson's framework of "debunking" Ancient Egypt he is spinning in every possible negative, including dubious "racial" framing of certain things. Still his work has to be looked at on balance.
Not all reviews of Wilkinson were negative. "Brandon Pilcher" aka "Truthcentric" sharply disagreed with Donald Peyton, in his book review, as show below and gives it 5 stars:
REVIEW By Brandon Scott Pilcher 5* 5.0 out of 5 stars Not Eurocentric at all, October 26, 2010
The earlier reviewer Donald Peyton is an illiterate idiot if he thinks this is Eurocentric propaganda. The truth couldn't be more different! Wilkinson is very critical of the old "Dynastic Race" theory which attributed dynastic Egyptian culture to Southwest Asian invaders, and although he does claim there were Palestinian immigrant communities in prehistoric northern Egypt, he makes it clear that most of northern Egypt at the time was an uninhabitable marsh and that it was the southern Egyptians, especially those living in the southeast, who laid the foundations for classical Egyptian civilization.
In fact, while reading Wilkinson's reconstruction of prehistoric Egyptian culture, I was reminded of another book I read about the Dinka in southern Sudan, "Warriors of the White Nile" by John Ryle and Sarah Errington. The proto-Egyptians as described by Wilkinson had the exact same cattle fixation and semi-nomadic lifestyle of shifting between river valley and savanna that the Dinka do today! In addition, both ancient Egyptians and Dinka consider cattle synonymous with wealth, as do many other cattle-herding cultures in Africa.
Far from being Eurocentric propaganda, this is an excellent resource for those interested in ancient Egypt's African heritage.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Happy New Years everybody. And again New Year, same ol sh|t.
In the case of Wilkinson, I've expressed this before and I'll say it again, the guy seems to be caught in a sort of schizo mind-frame regarding the Egyptians. He acknowledges via all the evidence that the Egyptians are an African people as he noted himself in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs yet he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that this thus means they are closely related to other African peoples like the Nubians. I've only read his Genesis of the Pharaohs and not his other works, and these other works of his seems strikingly contradictory from his Genesis works. I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: In the texts from the tombs of Seti I, Merenptah, and from Ramses III (Book Of Gates) we find indisputable evidence written by the ancient Egyptians themselves which demonstrates that they considered themselves to be profoundly related to the peoples of Nubia.
"The Semites (3mou), Sekhmet has transformed them, it is She that hammers their souls. You are those (Egyptians) that strike against them (Semites) for me. I am happy for the multitude that I gave birth to (or who came from me) among your name (those of the Egyptians) destined for the Nubian-Sudanese (nehasu), who are born with the favor of Horus. It is he who protects their souls."
The passage is repeated with tamahou (Indo-Europeans) replacing 3mou(Semites/Asiatic). We know that etymologically the ancient Egyptian terms for Europeans and Asians are extremely pejorative, indicating a animal-like human, with a qualifying sign indicating something that walks on four paws like an animal.
The word for Nubian (nehase) does not have any racial or pejorative connotation whatsoever in the ancient Egyptian language. To translate the word nehase as black or Negro is a deliberate mistranslation. It seems to be the name of some group of ancient Africa people just as Yam and WaWat, were names of other African peoples.
Toby Wilkinson stumbles along attempting to create some kind of Apartheid Wall between these two ancient African peoples. Wilkinson often remarks about the use of hippopotamus figures in ancient Egyptian culture. Toby Wilkinson again attempts to separate, in the minds of his readers, ancient Africans from ancient Egyptians (p.64). He writes how the lumbering bulk and small ears of hippos amused the ancient Egyptians... "inspired wry amusement" in those who drew them. On the other hand he writes, "....to African people, hippos are not always figures of fun: they are dangerous wild animals that pose a threat to humans"
This is a first I've read about Sekhmet. I know that in the myth of Nefertum, both Egyptians and Nehesi are born from the god's bodily fluids whereas the Aamu and others are not, and there other similar myths. In fact this reminds me how in the folktales of many Africans, there is a hierarchy of peoples where one group claims to be the chosen of a deity or deities either born from them and other Africans follow whereas non-Africans are lower forms of humanity. This seems racist at its core but merely reflects the particular African people's view of familiarity contrasting to the alien. Non-African, non-black peoples are obviously most alien therefore least human. In the mean time the African group sees themselves as the apical group. Hence names like People of people or Men of Men which is found from people like the Dinka to the Egyptians themselves who call themselves Ret no Romet (Men of Men) just as the Dinka and other Africans do.
As for the hippo. The hippo is an animal and like any animal African peoples regarded them with BOTH dangerous as well as benevolent qualities. The hippo is seen in Nilotic cultures as far south as Uganda as humorous in that they are fat creatures that like to lounge in the rivers as they are dangerous and hostile.
quote:^Interesting writeup by reviewer Donald Peyton. Outside a "Racial" frame though, I think Wilkinson has some info of value to present, as he has done in the past- as in his "Pre-dynastic Egypt" book, provided people look at it with a critical eye. Wilkinson does not buy into the Dynastic Race migration theory. If Peyton is correct, it appears that in Wilkinson's framework of "debunking" Ancient Egypt he is spinning in every possible negative, including dubious "racial" framing of certain things. Still his work has to be looked at on balance.
Not all reviews of Wilkinson were negative. "Brandon Pilcher" aka "Truthcentric" sharply disagreed with Donald Peyton, in his book review, as show below and gives it 5 stars:
REVIEW By Brandon Scott Pilcher 5* 5.0 out of 5 stars Not Eurocentric at all, October 26, 2010
The earlier reviewer Donald Peyton is an illiterate idiot if he thinks this is Eurocentric propaganda. The truth couldn't be more different! Wilkinson is very critical of the old "Dynastic Race" theory which attributed dynastic Egyptian culture to Southwest Asian invaders, and although he does claim there were Palestinian immigrant communities in prehistoric northern Egypt, he makes it clear that most of northern Egypt at the time was an uninhabitable marsh and that it was the southern Egyptians, especially those living in the southeast, who laid the foundations for classical Egyptian civilization.
In fact, while reading Wilkinson's reconstruction of prehistoric Egyptian culture, I was reminded of another book I read about the Dinka in southern Sudan, "Warriors of the White Nile" by John Ryle and Sarah Errington. The proto-Egyptians as described by Wilkinson had the exact same cattle fixation and semi-nomadic lifestyle of shifting between river valley and savanna that the Dinka do today! In addition, both ancient Egyptians and Dinka consider cattle synonymous with wealth, as do many other cattle-herding cultures in Africa.
Far from being Eurocentric propaganda, this is an excellent resource for those interested in ancient Egypt's African heritage.
Yes there were some Egyptologists who have pointed out the Dinka and other Nilotic tribes as the best example of predynastic Egyptian culture. Egyptologists like Barbara Wilkinson for example.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: might be it, I don't have further info
This is a Greek vase NOT an Egyptian goblet. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I wonder what he would have thought of the Great Lakes/Southern Africa/Tropical West Africa links to 18th dyn first family..
This affinity is based on only 8 loci of autosomal DNA genes of which we don't even know. I'm sure other loci would show different things. You have to remember that autosomal DNA is recombinant and therefore not as clear in determining origins as uniparental lineages like mitochondrial DNA. That chart to my knowledge was presented by Lyinass without citing the source let alone details of such findings.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: might be it, I don't have further info
This is a Greek vase NOT an Egyptian goblet.
I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?
^^Part of the schizoid nature of Egyptology. They know the truth, and what the data says about the indigenous African character of Egypt, but to openly admit it in a sustained, consistent way, would shake up at over a century of Eurocentric thinking appropriating KEmet and its peoples into European frameworks. Entire careers, an entire worldview would be disrupted. It is painful for the establishment to have to do this. A "minimization" strategy may offer the best way to ease the pain.
It is painful on the extremer end for white racists to do this as well, for it undermines a central prop of their bogus ideology. They must therefore deny, deny, deny to the bitter end.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: might be it, I don't have further info
This is a Greek vase NOT an Egyptian goblet.
I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?
^^Part of the schizoid nature of Egyptology. They know the truth, and what the data says about the indigenous African character of Egypt, but to openly admit it in a sustained, consistent way, would shake up at over a century of Eurocentric thinking appropriating KEmet and its peoples into European frameworks. Entire careers, an entire worldview would be disrupted. It is painful for the establishment to have to do this. A "minimization" strategy may offer the best way to ease the pain.
It is painful on the extremer end for white racists to do this as well, for it undermines a central prop of their bogus ideology. They must therefore deny, deny, deny to the bitter end.
I think it doesn't stop there. When you read some of these authors like Breasted for example. They constantly reference the bible in relation to creating time lines for Ancient Egypt, which is laughable/silly. But think about this. Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all descended from the Ancient Egyptian religion, if one can call it a religion. The "prophet kings" spoken about i.e. Daud, Solomon, Moses etc are Egyptian Pharaohs (so I believe). I also believe Jesus to have been in the Egyptian royal family. I don't believe he lived during the time of the Romans. So whats my point? If that is true, and if these were black africans, what does that say for much of what Europe has based itself on? 1. it would prove modern day jews are descended from converts. It would prove that Christianity as it is understood today is a falsehood etc. Putting Egypt, world religion and many other things into its proper context really upsets history, no, reality as we know it today.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
YEs, putting Egyptian religion out there upsets a lot of carts and, the Bible is not a first rank source for anthro/archaeo information. I don't think though that Solomon or David were Egyptians. They came centuries after Moses and the account of Exodus.
Moses was an Egyptian, based in place of birth and adoption by an Egyptian female, and general recognition of his administrative position (we are not told exactly what it was but be was "skilled in all the knowledge of the Egyptians" while he was in Egypt- perhaps he had scribal training. Moses was never a king, neither in Egypt, nor in Israel.
Both Christianity and Judaism are in numerous ways incompatible with Egyptian religion- the animal gods for example, or the king as God. Core Egyptian religion in general has more in common with the indigenous religions of NE Africa than Judaism or Christianity. QUOTE:
"A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty." "It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508)
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: YEs, putting Egyptian religion out there upsets a lot of carts. I don't think though that Solomon or David were Egyptians. They came centuries after Moses and the account of Exodus.
Moses was an Egyptian, based in place of birth and adoption by an Egyptian female, and general recognition of his administrative position (we are not told exactly what it was but be was "skilled in all the knowledge of the Egyptians." while he was in Egypt- perhaps he had scribal training. Moses was never a king, either in Egypt, or in Israel.
Both Christianity and Judaism are in numerous ways incompatible with Egyptian religion- the animal gods for example, or the king as God. Egyptian religion has more in common with the indigenous religions of NE Africa than Judaism or Christianity. QUOTE:
"A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apil-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty." "It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk)." (Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508)
Check out a book written by Ahmed Osman called the Hebrew Kings of Egypt. Also, there is no historical evidence for a king david or solomon. When they dig down to the time period they supposedly lived, in Israel there is nothing there. You can find out more about that from Shlomo Sand's book (which the name escapes me) however, we do have a Egyptian king who ruled from Mesopotamia to the nile, fought the same wars that King David fought etc. etc. and that is Tutmoses III. I won't elaborate any further on it but if you are interested I would HIGHLY recommend Ahmed Osman's books (you should really read all of them). You also have to be careful when going by chronology of the bible, there are to many errors and contradictions in it to do so. I should add, from the biblical account there seems to be TWO davids. One being a local/tribal hero (the one which lived much later) and a King (one I believe to have lived much earlier)
As for Moses I also suggest Ahmed Osman's books as well as two books written by Sigmund Frued titled "Moses and Monotheism"
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: might be it, I don't have further info
yes this is Greek, my bad
zarahan, you think Wilkinson's racist?
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@Djehuti
'[Wilkinson]seems to be caught in a sort of schizo mind-frame regarding the Egyptians. He acknowledges via all the evidence that the Egyptians are an African people as he noted himself in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs yet he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that this thus means they are closely related to other African peoples like the Nubians. I've only read his Genesis of the Pharaohs and not his other works, and these other works of his seems strikingly contradictory from his Genesis works. I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?'
Yes, although I haven't yet finished The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, I'm in agreement with what you write here.
When I first started reading, I got the sense that he was avoiding the issue of race and the identity of the AEs- fair enough I thought. There were however a couple of indications which I thought revealed his understanding that they were black Africans; on page 4 in describing the tomb of Tutankhamun he writes of the 'two life-size figures of the dead king, with black skin and gold accroutements'. I noticed that he didn't say 'blackened skin', or try to qualify why they might be depicted as such, i.e. using the black as fertility and re-birth approach.
Elsewhere he also describes one of the Egyptian Queens (I forget which) as having the appearance of an 'African Queen' when in full regalia.
He also desribes that when besieging a city, some of the Egyptian fatalities arose from objects being dropped onto their heads. He strangely writes that their tightly curled hair was unable to protect them. (Someone needs to tell Wilkinson that Afros aren't helmets!)
However, there were other instances which fed the suspicion that there was some sort of strategy at work to separate the Egyptians from the rest of Africa. For instance, he cautions that we shouldn’t take Egyptian xenophobic propaganda at face value when it was directed at Asiatics, but that we should when it concerned Nubians. (p56-57)
The suspcion that he is making an effort to differentiate the Egyptians and Nubians grows with his deployment of the historical record concerning the atrocities carried out under Horemheb. ‘More unsettling still are the scenes of prisoners of war from Horemheb’s campaigns in the Near East and Nubia, row upon row of captives lined up before the commander-in-chief to await their fate. With wooden manacles on their wrists and ropes around their necks, Asiatic prisoners are paraded, pushed and cajoled by Egyptian soldiers.’ However, Wilkinson informs the reader that ‘Even more humiliating treatment was received for the Nubian citizens of ‘vile Kush’, ancient Egypt’s favourite whipping boy. The Kushite chief was forced to prostrate himself before Horemheb while armed Egyptian soldiers harassed and assaulted his men, beating them with sticks and punching them on the jaw in acts of deliberate humiliation.’ (p310)From what I've read the Egyptians applied the term 'vile' to all of their enemies, but so far, I've only seen Wilkinson reference it regarding the Nubians.
After reading this I decided to jump a hundred or so pages to the 25th dynasty and the section on Kushitic rule. In contrast to his understated approach regarding the racial identity of the Eyptians,and indeed the other Ancient peoples encountered in his narrative, Wilkinson immediately makes overt reference to Piankhi as the ‘black crusader’ (p414). (Maybe Wilkinson should be asked why he felt it was salient so obviously raise the issue of race regarding the Kushites?)
He also writes that 'the ruler os Kush...earnestly believed themselves to be the true guardians of Egyptian kingship. This astonishing conviction was a legacy of New Kingdom imperialism. When Thutmose I had invaded Kush, he had taken with him not just battalions of Egyptian soldiers but also the High Priest of Amun. His objective had been not simply to subjugate 'vile Kush' but to convert its heathen inhabitants to a 'true' religion'...'Little did the Egyptians imagine, however, that once they left Nubia, their own propaganda would come back to haunt them'. (p414-415). I had been under the impression that concepts of Egyptian kingship had originated in Nubia. If my understanding is correct, then it would appear that Wilkinson is again attempting to create differentiation between Egypt and Kush, and deny the Kushites agents in shaping Egyptian kingship; whatever concerns they must have had, Wilkinson is trying to say, must have resulted from inculcation through Egyptian imperialism. His use of the word 'astonishing' suggests that the very premise of the Kushites' approach is outlandish and incongruous.
Wilkinson also suggests that under Kushite rule, in the area of statuary, ‘there was a deliberate return to Old Kingdom proportions, the rather squat and muscular treatment of the male body perfectly in tune with the Kushite rulers’ self-image. The close-fitting cap-crown favoured by the Kushite kings also seems to have been chosen for its great antiquity. Yet certain features of royal portraiture were undeniably Nubian: the African facial features, thick neck, large earrings and ram’s-head pendants.’
He basically seems to be citing these 'African facial features'as a point of differentiation between Egyptians and Kushites. My reading over the last six months tells me that ethnically, the Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites were related. (Someone other than the racists here please correct me if I have misunderstood.)
Wilkinson continues; ‘These kings from Upper Nubia were determined to present themselves as more Egyptian than the Egyptians, respectful of the ancient traditions. But underneath, they were foreigners all the same, born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.’ I may be wrong in my reading of this, but my attention lingered on the insertion of the comma in 'born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.' Here, Wilkinson appears to imply that Ancient Egyptian wasn’t an African culture. Had he written 'born and bred of a fundamentally different African culture' then he would be saying that the cultures of Egypt and Kush were both African but different. However, and again I might be over-thinking here, he seems to be saying that they were different because one was African (Kush) and the other was not (Egypt). I hope I'm wrong on this.
Continuing the theme of differentiation, he adds that when the Kushites attempted to portray themselves as true Egyptians, it 'was not always a comfortable mix’ (p427)
Lastly, paying homage to the enduring fascination with the Egyptians in the epilogue, Wilkinson writes;
‘Individuals and popular movements, too, have appropriated pharaonic ideas in pursuit of their particular cause. Akhentaten, to take just one example, has been co-opted as a role model by Freudian psycholanalysts, Protestant fundamentalists, Fascists, Afrocentrists, New Age spiritualists and gay rights campaigners.’ (p512)
I'll leave you to work out whether there was any ulterior motive in listing Afrocentrists immediately after Fascists.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I wonder what he would have thought of the Great Lakes/Southern Africa/Tropical West Africa links to 18th dyn first family..
This affinity is based on only 8 loci of autosomal DNA genes of which we don't even know. I'm sure other loci would show different things. You have to remember that autosomal DNA is recombinant and therefore not as clear in determining origins as uniparental lineages like mitochondrial DNA. That chart to my knowledge was presented by Lyinass without citing the source let alone details of such findings.
^ Dumb Used Saqaliba descended fool forgets the map he parades represents MODERN populations not ancient ones, since the same source of his map presents this chart based on findings of the mummies!
^ Look which region on his map the 18th dynasty royals have the highest affinity to!!
LMAO I wonder what the dumb muktaba has to say now!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti
'[Wilkinson]seems to be caught in a sort of schizo mind-frame regarding the Egyptians. He acknowledges via all the evidence that the Egyptians are an African people as he noted himself in his book Genesis of the Pharaohs yet he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that this thus means they are closely related to other African peoples like the Nubians. I've only read his Genesis of the Pharaohs and not his other works, and these other works of his seems strikingly contradictory from his Genesis works. I mean you consider the Egyptians to be Africans yet you disparage African culture. What is one to make of this?'
Yes, although I haven't yet finished The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt, I'm in agreement with what you write here.
When I first started reading, I got the sense that he was avoiding the issue of race and the identity of the AEs- fair enough I thought. There were however a couple of indications which I thought revealed his understanding that they were black Africans; on page 4 in describing the tomb of Tutankhamun he writes of the 'two life-size figures of the dead king, with black skin and gold accroutements'. I noticed that he didn't say 'blackened skin', or try to qualify why they might be depicted as such, i.e. using the black as fertility and re-birth approach.
Elsewhere he also describes one of the Egyptian Queens (I forget which) as having the appearance of an 'African Queen' when in full regalia.
He also desribes that when besieging a city, some of the Egyptian fatalities arose from objects being dropped onto their heads. He strangely writes that their tightly curled hair was unable to protect them. (Someone needs to tell Wilkinson that Afros aren't helmets!)
However, there were other instances which fed the suspicion that there was some sort of strategy at work to separate the Egyptians from the rest of Africa. For instance, he cautions that we shouldn’t take Egyptian xenophobic propaganda at face value when it was directed at Asiatics, but that we should when it concerned Nubians. (p56-57)
The suspcion that he is making an effort to differentiate the Egyptians and Nubians grows with his deployment of the historical record concerning the atrocities carried out under Horemheb. ‘More unsettling still are the scenes of prisoners of war from Horemheb’s campaigns in the Near East and Nubia, row upon row of captives lined up before the commander-in-chief to await their fate. With wooden manacles on their wrists and ropes around their necks, Asiatic prisoners are paraded, pushed and cajoled by Egyptian soldiers.’ However, Wilkinson informs the reader that ‘Even more humiliating treatment was received for the Nubian citizens of ‘vile Kush’, ancient Egypt’s favourite whipping boy. The Kushite chief was forced to prostrate himself before Horemheb while armed Egyptian soldiers harassed and assaulted his men, beating them with sticks and punching them on the jaw in acts of deliberate humiliation.’ (p310)From what I've read the Egyptians applied the term 'vile' to all of their enemies, but so far, I've only seen Wilkinson reference it regarding the Nubians.
After reading this I decided to jump a hundred or so pages to the 25th dynasty and the section on Kushitic rule. In contrast to his understated approach regarding the racial identity of the Eyptians,and indeed the other Ancient peoples encountered in his narrative, Wilkinson immediately makes overt reference to Piankhi as the ‘black crusader’ (p414). (Maybe Wilkinson should be asked why he felt it was salient so obviously raise the issue of race regarding the Kushites?)
He also writes that 'the ruler os Kush...earnestly believed themselves to be the true guardians of Egyptian kingship. This astonishing conviction was a legacy of New Kingdom imperialism. When Thutmose I had invaded Kush, he had taken with him not just battalions of Egyptian soldiers but also the High Priest of Amun. His objective had been not simply to subjugate 'vile Kush' but to convert its heathen inhabitants to a 'true' religion'...'Little did the Egyptians imagine, however, that once they left Nubia, their own propaganda would come back to haunt them'. (p414-415). I had been under the impression that concepts of Egyptian kingship had originated in Nubia. If my understanding is correct, then it would appear that Wilkinson is again attempting to create differentiation between Egypt and Kush, and deny the Kushites agents in shaping Egyptian kingship; whatever concerns they must have had, Wilkinson is trying to say, must have resulted from inculcation through Egyptian imperialism. His use of the word 'astonishing' suggests that the very premise of the Kushites' approach is outlandish and incongruous.
Wilkinson also suggests that under Kushite rule, in the area of statuary, ‘there was a deliberate return to Old Kingdom proportions, the rather squat and muscular treatment of the male body perfectly in tune with the Kushite rulers’ self-image. The close-fitting cap-crown favoured by the Kushite kings also seems to have been chosen for its great antiquity. Yet certain features of royal portraiture were undeniably Nubian: the African facial features, thick neck, large earrings and ram’s-head pendants.’
He basically seems to be citing these 'African facial features'as a point of differentiation between Egyptians and Kushites. My reading over the last six months tells me that ethnically, the Egyptians and Nubians/Kushites were related. (Someone other than the racists here please correct me if I have misunderstood.)
Wilkinson continues; ‘These kings from Upper Nubia were determined to present themselves as more Egyptian than the Egyptians, respectful of the ancient traditions. But underneath, they were foreigners all the same, born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.’ I may be wrong in my reading of this, but my attention lingered on the insertion of the comma in 'born and bred of a fundamentally different, African culture.' Here, Wilkinson appears to imply that Ancient Egyptian wasn’t an African culture. Had he written 'born and bred of a fundamentally different African culture' then he would be saying that the cultures of Egypt and Kush were both African but different. However, and again I might be over-thinking here, he seems to be saying that they were different because one was African (Kush) and the other was not (Egypt). I hope I'm wrong on this.
Continuing the theme of differentiation, he adds that when the Kushites attempted to portray themselves as true Egyptians, it 'was not always a comfortable mix’ (p427)
Lastly, paying homage to the enduring fascination with the Egyptians in the epilogue, Wilkinson writes;
‘Individuals and popular movements, too, have appropriated pharaonic ideas in pursuit of their particular cause. Akhentaten, to take just one example, has been co-opted as a role model by Freudian psycholanalysts, Protestant fundamentalists, Fascists, Afrocentrists, New Age spiritualists and gay rights campaigners.’ (p512)
I'll leave you to work out whether there was any ulterior motive in listing Afrocentrists immediately after Fascists.
It's official. Wilkinson is obviously one conflicted individual. From what you describe in his Rise and Fall of Egypt, it is as if it were written by a completely different person! I mean, his Genesis of the Pharaohs was so ingrained in the African nature and character on the ancestral culture of Egypt and how this culture was not located in the eastern desert but can be found farther south into 'Nubia', that I am just befuddled. And no you do not misunderstand when you state the Egyptians share a close relation with Kushites and other Nubians. As a rule in bio-anthropology populations, especially in ancient times were usually closely related to neighboring peoples. This is proven time and again through countless analyses of skulls and skeletal material showing Egyptians' close affinities to peoples of northern Sudan. In fact it is because of such close affinity that believe it or not there are Euronuts who now try to white-wash Nubians!! Yes it has gotten that bad. Before, at least Nubia was safe as a black African civilization albeit a 'cheap knockoff' of Egypt as was once believed, but ever since the discovery of Qustul Culture in the 1970s by Bruce Trigger and the Oriental Institute showing origins of pharaonic culture, the mental disease of white-wash assimilation must follow.
By the way, while it is true that epithets like 'vile' or 'wretched' were used of any enemy people of Egypt, during the 18th dynasty it seemed to have been over-emphasized on Kushites. Why?? Because not only did Kush plot with the Hyksos to divide Egypt between them but some years prior to that, Kush and her allies in the south invaded and sacked Egypt terrifically as can be read here!! The raid was described as so devastating, that Egyptian civilization itself was almost destroyed! So after the raid, the plot with the Hyksos was enough to warrant the wrath and hatred of Egyptians. Needless to say there was nothing racial at all regarding such enmity. In fact the Egyptians vanquished the Kushites with aid from another Nubian group-- the Medjay who became the military elite and police force in domestic affairs. Egyptologist Frank Yurco even postulates Medjay ancestry for the 17th dynasty which I'm trying to find more evidence of.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I wonder what he would have thought of the Great Lakes/Southern Africa/Tropical West Africa links to 18th dyn first family..
This affinity is based on only 8 loci of autosomal DNA genes of which we don't even know. I'm sure other loci would show different things. You have to remember that autosomal DNA is recombinant and therefore not as clear in determining origins as uniparental lineages like mitochondrial DNA. That chart to my knowledge was presented by Lyinass without citing the source let alone details of such findings.
Oh right. I was away on vacation those days and have to catch up on what I missed.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@Djehuti
So is Wilkinson misleading when he suggests that the idea of Kushite guardianship over Egyptian kingship is astonishing?
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti
So is Wilkinson misleading when he suggests that the idea of Kushite guardianship over Egyptian kingship is astonishing?
If the idea of Kushite guardianship over Egyptian kingship is astonishing, and one applies this line of thinking evenly (which Wilkinson fails to do accross the board, as is also seen in his emphasis on ''Vile Kush''), an association of royal regalia with Lower Egypt should be considered even more ''odd'' or ''out there'', since proto-pharaonoic culture reached and was inspired by Ta-Seti way before it reached Deltaic Egypt:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Correct. Proto-pharonic culture was found in Ta-Seti (Lower Nubia) first. So really Egyptian kingship belonged to that area first.
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti
So is Wilkinson misleading when he suggests that the idea of Kushite guardianship over Egyptian kingship is astonishing?
He is misleading, though I don't think intentionally so. By the time of the 25th dynasty, the Kushites saw themselves as the legitimate rulers of Kemet (Egypt) as oppose to foreigners like the Libyans. Some may attribute this to Egyptianization policies brought on them by the 18th dynasty, though some would suggest that their claim to rule the entire Nile come from much more ancient notions. For example, there is evidence showing the 12th dynasty may Nubian ancestry and there were polities in Nubia that wanted to conquer Egypt from that time. The devastating raid during the 17th dynasty was viewed as an act of dominating power to show who's boss, so obviously Kush or 'Nubia' was not the weak inferior Eurocentrics have made it out to be.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
^^Is there any good evidence for the 12th dynasty being "nubian"? From what i remember reading, it always came down to the 12th dynasty looking "black" (i.e. fitting close to the true negro stereotype) and the female line having originated in the deep south of egypt (near "nubia"). So, egyptologists do what they have always done and label egyptians who they view as too black as "nubians" or say they probably were.
Wilkinson's flip-flop and slipperiness on egypt's africaness is not much different from many recent mainstream authors (yurco comes to mind). They've cut the near east origin bull and will even show links between egypt and other african cultures but yet they still view egyptians as looking like those actors you see on discovery playing pharoah. And from their writings (even though this is almost never explicit) you can tell they see egypt (and other "north africans") as being separate from other africans. Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious: ^^Is there any good evidence for the 12th dynasty being "nubian"? From what i remember reading, it always came down to the 12th dynasty looking "black" (i.e. fitting close to the true negro stereotype) and the female line having originated in the deep south of egypt (near "nubia"). So, egyptologists do what they have always done and label egyptians who they view as too black as "nubians" or say they probably were.
Wilkinson's flip-flop and slipperiness on egypt's africaness is not much different from many recent mainstream authors (yurco comes to mind). They've cut the near east origin bull and will even show links between egypt and other african cultures but yet they still view egyptians as looking like those actors you see on discovery playing pharoah. And from their writings (even though this is almost never explicit) you can tell they see egypt (and other "north africans") as being separate from other africans. Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.
You have to let go of this silly notion of "true negro". This is some European's attempt to disassociate Egypt from Africa. North Africa has just as many blacks living in it as there are whites. They use these terms knowing that most who read their books have never been to the region in question hence they will buy into their lies.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@africurious
'Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.'
Yep, and it's noteworthy that Toby Wilkinson is only 41 years old, so would have grown up in post-imperial Britain and been exposed to generally progressive memes around race. I wonder if in writing The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt he was trying to write something which was definitive but still appealed to a certain, perhaps conservative demographic.
This is why there should be a concerted effort to disseminate the fact of Black Egypt in the independent or even mainstream media. People shouldn't wait for mainstream Egyptology. It should be bypassed.
There's a progressive organisation called media lens which squeezes the balls of mainstream journalists and news reporters on issues of foreign policy and climate change. They initiate e-mail correspondence with the journalist in question and e-mail the (often hilarious)correspondence to subscribers. Maybe people like Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson should be targetted like this? There's enough expertise on this forum to do that, and people like Kemp and Wilkinson would be pretty flat-footed on debates around the racial identity of the AEs and easily 'debunked'.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by africurious: ^^Is there any good evidence for the 12th dynasty being "nubian"? From what i remember reading, it always came down to the 12th dynasty looking "black" (i.e. fitting close to the true negro stereotype) and the female line having originated in the deep south of egypt (near "nubia"). So, egyptologists do what they have always done and label egyptians who they view as too black as "nubians" or say they probably were.
Wilkinson's flip-flop and slipperiness on egypt's africaness is not much different from many recent mainstream authors (yurco comes to mind). They've cut the near east origin bull and will even show links between egypt and other african cultures but yet they still view egyptians as looking like those actors you see on discovery playing pharoah. And from their writings (even though this is almost never explicit) you can tell they see egypt (and other "north africans") as being separate from other africans. Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.
You have to let go of this silly notion of "true negro". This is some European's attempt to disassociate Egypt from Africa. North Africa has just as many blacks living in it as there are whites. They use these terms knowing that most who read their books have never been to the region in question hence they will buy into their lies.
Huh?? You're preaching to the choir. What I said was similar to what you just wrote.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @africurious
'Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.'
Yep, and it's noteworthy that Toby Wilkinson is only 41 years old, so would have grown up in post-imperial Britain and been exposed to generally progressive memes around race. I wonder if in writing The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt he was trying to write something which was definitive but still appealed to a certain, perhaps conservative demographic.
This is why there should be a concerted effort to disseminate the fact of Black Egypt in the independent or even mainstream media. People shouldn't wait for mainstream Egyptology. It should be bypassed.
There's a progressive organisation called media lens which squeezes the balls of mainstream journalists and news reporters on issues of foreign policy and climate change. They initiate e-mail correspondence with the journalist in question and e-mail the (often hilarious)correspondence to subscribers. Maybe people like Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson should be targetted like this? There's enough expertise on this forum to do that, and people like Kemp and Wilkinson would be pretty flat-footed on debates around the racial identity of the AEs and easily 'debunked'.
Aaahh, you make such an excellent point with regard to Wilkinson's age! He would be among the youngest of scholars with major publications and look at what he's writing, smh.
Your idea for using the media lens approach is interesting. Idk if it would work though. These guys are scholars and live in an ivory tower so they will probably just ignore the "targeting" as we are beneath them. And the general public will just follow what the mainstream scholarship says and label us afrocentrics seeking to feel good about ourselves. We'd need at least 1 esteemed scholar on our side who is willing to challenge the establishment openly (good luck for us finding that. Who wants to jeapordize their career).
Btw, i've gotta say i've noticed a slight change in the discovery channel choice of actors for AE's and even N. AF's maybe. They put a few black actors to play AE's in non-slave roles. Often these actors are as light as possible however (lol) but the royal family is always played by whites however (smh). Even this serial docu they or the history channel had on hannibal, they used an extremely light skin person to play hannibal. I guess they see that as a compromise or something.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious: We'd need at least 1 esteemed scholar on our side who is willing to challenge the establishment openly.
Which is precisely why I'm getting into academia. Change has to come from within the system.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious:
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: You have to let go of this silly notion of "true negro". This is some European's attempt to disassociate Egypt from Africa. North Africa has just as many blacks living in it as there are whites. They use these terms knowing that most who read their books have never been to the region in question hence they will buy into their lies.
Huh?? You're preaching to the choir. What I said was similar to what you just wrote. [/QB]
that's typeZeiss' style, even if you agree with him, you're wrong he knows better
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by africurious: We'd need at least 1 esteemed scholar on our side who is willing to challenge the establishment openly.
Which is precisely why I'm getting into academia. Change has to come from within the system.
I wish you all the success with that. I flirted with the idea a few times but decided not to. Kudos to you for going ahead with it. Maybe one day I'll read your work.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious: I wish you all the success with that. I flirted with the idea a few times but decided not to.
What made you change your mind?
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
^^Well, i thought about this after being unsatisfied with my present career. But a career switch would involve a significant drop in pay, history/anthro jobs seem to lag far behind demand, and at this point I don't want to go through all those yrs of schooling to get a phd. So, I decided to just keep this a personal passion instead of a professional one too.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by africurious:
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: You have to let go of this silly notion of "true negro". This is some European's attempt to disassociate Egypt from Africa. North Africa has just as many blacks living in it as there are whites. They use these terms knowing that most who read their books have never been to the region in question hence they will buy into their lies.
Huh?? You're preaching to the choir. What I said was similar to what you just wrote.
that's typeZeiss' style, even if you agree with him, you're wrong he knows better [/QB]
*chuckle* uhuh
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@africurious
This November will see the 90th anniversary of the re-discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun. In the UK , October is Black History Month, and although I don't pay any attention to it, I would love to see the death mask of Tutankhamun on the front cover of the events programmes that the local borough council (Lambeth) posts through our doors.
I've actually thought of contacting the council myself to see if they would be open to this. It would be so much more fitting than having pop stars featured as representatives of black history. My idea would be for programme/brochure to feature the death mask on the front, with accessible articles detailing the mounting evidence for Kemet as a black civilization, and feature the reign of King Tut. It would also cover the excavation in 1922, but rather than focusing on the exploits of Carter, it would highlight the role played by the Egyptian excavation team. I remember seeing a documentary about the excavation as a kid but not quite knowing how the black men featured in the story of Egypt!
What do you reckon? Of course, I'm not sure that I would have the expertise or credibility to do the writing myself, but if Lambeth council was open to it, and the town hall is in Brixton, seen as the centre of Black Britain, then I could maybe approach academics like Dr Sally-Ann Ashton at the Fitzwilliam museum and Professor Stephen Quirke at the Petrie museum to see if they would be up for it. Maybe even Shomarka Keita could write something on the bio-anthropological evidence.
I've asked Dr Ashton if either Lambeth or Southwark councils have contacted her to do presentations for their residents, and she said that none of the London councils have ever done so. Maybe it's time for a change.
What do you think?
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@africurious
'Well, i thought about this after being unsatisfied with my present career. But a career switch would involve a significant drop in pay, history/anthro jobs seem to lag far behind demand, and at this point I don't want to go through all those yrs of schooling to get a phd. So, I decided to just keep this a personal passion instead of a professional one too.'
I get a sense of how you feel.I know I could do an excellent job as an Egyptologist but certain factors militate against me getting there. I have an MA in African Studies from London's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) but it's in colonial and post-colonial history and politics, so if I wanted to take the plunge and do a Phd in Egytology - the only way you could be taken seriously imo- I would need to convince an institution that I would be capable of making the leap. However my own personal circumstances- I'm 40 and have 2 small kids-make me think twice about a career change and starting from scratch to enter a niche field.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
^ Over here in the US, February is Black History Month. I would love to do a similar presentation on African Egypt at UCSD where I go to, but I doubt students can arrange presentations unless they're in a club (and while I did once sign up for the Anthropology Club, I haven't heard from them in ages).
I'm majoring in Biological Anthropology and hope to earn a PhD. in the field, but I'm not sure how much influence someone in my field will have over Egyptology. I did e-mail my Ancient Egyptian History professor about the recent Amarna genetic findings and he said it was a cool thing to learn about but not much else.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@truthcentric
'I'm majoring in Biological Anthropology and hope to earn a PhD. in the field, but I'm not sure how much influence someone in my field will have over Egyptology.'
!!!
But the evidence presented by Shomarka Keita, a Bio-Anthropologist, has been seismic has it not? The thing that people like Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson cannot argue with is science. It's not their field of expertise and you would be able to run rings around them.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: But the evidence presented by Shomarka Keita, a Bio-Anthropologist, has been seismic has it not? The thing that people like Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson cannot argue with is science. It's not their field of expertise and you would be able to run rings around them.
Good point. A bio-anthropologist is exactly the sort of person who would have the last word on any conversation on the ancient Egyptians' population affinities and phenotype.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @africurious
This November will see the 90th anniversary of the re-discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun. In the UK , October is Black History Month, and although I don't pay any attention to it, I would love to see the death mask of Tutankhamun on the front cover of the events programmes that the local borough council (Lambeth) posts through our doors.
I've actually thought of contacting the council myself to see if they would be open to this. It would be so much more fitting than having pop stars featured as representatives of black history. My idea would be for programme/brochure to feature the death mask on the front, with accessible articles detailing the mounting evidence for Kemet as a black civilization, and feature the reign of King Tut. It would also cover the excavation in 1922, but rather than focusing on the exploits of Carter, it would highlight the role played by the Egyptian excavation team. I remember seeing a documentary about the excavation as a kid but not quite knowing how the black men featured in the story of Egypt!
What do you reckon? Of course, I'm not sure that I would have the expertise or credibility to do the writing myself, but if Lambeth council was open to it, and the town hall is in Brixton, seen as the centre of Black Britain, then I could maybe approach academics like Dr Sally-Ann Ashton at the Fitzwilliam museum and Professor Stephen Quirke at the Petrie museum to see if they would be up for it. Maybe even Shomarka Keita could write something on the bio-anthropological evidence.
I've asked Dr Ashton if either Lambeth or Southwark councils have contacted her to do presentations for their residents, and she said that none of the London councils have ever done so. Maybe it's time for a change.
What do you think?
That's an ambitious goal--try it and see where it leads. Aside from any political qualms the council may have, there may also be a budget issue i.e. printing the write up may require them to have additional pages in the brochure. I know budgets are tight all around in britain.
Aside from this, I have to say I am a bit hesitant sometimes when it comes to egypt and black history. I feel many ppl are too egypt-centric as that has been the african civ given most respect by western academics and african ppl & history are so much more than that. How about having the death mask and other images from african civs all over africa: at least 1 image each from the west, south, east and north? Yes, the articles with evidence of egypt's africanness would be great as the gen public is unaware (a little summary of the other african civs on the cover should be included too). If you pursue this, let us know how it goes.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious: How about having the death mask and other images from african civs all over africa: at least 1 image each from the west, south, east and north?
The problem is that any parallels between Egypt and non-Afrasan African cultures will likely be written off as coincidental. Pointing out the African origins of Afrasan and Sudanic influences on early Egyptian cultures, as Ehret has done, would work better in my opinion. Furthermore, let's not forget that even if Africans across the continent do share a few cultural characteristics, they are still otherwise diverse. It's one thing to say that the Egyptians were tropically adapted and evolved their culture within Africa, but we can't treat Africa as a cultural monolith as many "Afrocentric" people want to do.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: But the evidence presented by Shomarka Keita, a Bio-Anthropologist, has been seismic has it not? The thing that people like Barry Kemp and Toby Wilkinson cannot argue with is science. It's not their field of expertise and you would be able to run rings around them.
Good point. A bio-anthropologist is exactly the sort of person who would have the last word on any conversation on the ancient Egyptians' population affinities and phenotype.
^^True. Slowly but surely the evidence will win the day as more bio-ants speak unambiguously to AE's africanness. Right now it seems AE's are seen as at least geographic africans i.e. physically in africa and developed there, but somehow separate from "sub-saharans" the real africans, lol. Maybe one day it will be accepted in the mainstream that AE's were as african as any "sub-saharan".
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
quote:Originally posted by africurious: How about having the death mask and other images from african civs all over africa: at least 1 image each from the west, south, east and north?
The problem is that any parallels between Egypt and non-Afrasan African cultures will likely be written off as coincidental. Pointing out the African origins of Afrasan and Sudanic influences on early Egyptian cultures, as Ehret has done, would work better in my opinion. Furthermore, let's not forget that even if Africans across the continent do share a few cultural characteristics, they are still otherwise diverse. It's one thing to say that the Egyptians were tropically adapted and evolved their culture within Africa, but we can't treat Africa as a cultural monolith as many "Afrocentric" people want to do.
Oh, no, you misunderstood me. I meant to have other african civs' images to show that african history is more than fabled egypt, not to show any links necessarily. Yea, the cultural monolith thing irks me too--it's just not reality.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@africurious
I think Egypt is a starting point for exploration of pre-colonial African civilizations. As I've mentioned above, my knowledge of Africa is related to the colonial and post-colonial periods, but having read about Egypt over the last six month, my interest in other pre-colonial African societies has risen; Kush was always there, but Mali, Songhai, Ghana, Great Zimbabwe, Carthage, the Garamantes and the Moors are others that I want to dive into. I'm also interested in how early African peoples dealt with the ecological realities and challenges of living Africa, and what sort of expertise and strategies were developed.
So, yes there may too much focus on Egypt, but I think that as well as studying it in its own right-warts and all- it serves as a potential pathway to other areas.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @africurious
I think Egypt is a starting point for exploration of pre-colonial African civilizations. As I've mentioned above, my knowledge of Africa is related to the colonial and post-colonial periods, but having read about Egypt over the last six month, my interest in other pre-colonial African societies has risen; Kush was always there, but Mali, Songhai, Ghana, Great Zimbabwe, Carthage, the Garamantes and the Moors are others that I want to dive into. I'm also interested in how early African peoples dealt with the ecological realities and challenges of living Africa, and what sort of expertise and strategies were developed.
So, yes there may too much focus on Egypt, but I think that as well as studying it in its own right-warts and all- it serves as a potential pathway to other areas.
I agree with this. The whole argument over the relationship of the Egyptians to the rest of Africa has also sparked in me a larger interest in precolonial Africa. I want to take a class lesson in early African history as soon as possible.
By the way, exactly which African cultures outside Egypt and Nubia do people here find the most interesting? I find that I tend to gravitate towards pastoral cattle-herding tribes like the Dinka, Zulu, and Maasai, as they remind me the most of predynastic Egyptians.
Come to think of it, I actually find predynastic Egypt much more captivating than the oft-celebrated dynastic period. Not only are the parallels with Nilotic and other "tribal" African cultures more obvious during the predynastic period, but I've always loved prehistoric and tribal stuff.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
lol, what the hell has van Gogh to do with the ancient Nile Valley history and culture? lol
Pathetic dumbarse.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: [QUOTE]By the way, exactly which African cultures outside Egypt and Nubia do people here find the most interesting? I find that I tend to gravitate towards pastoral cattle-herding tribes like the Dinka, Zulu, and Maasai, as they remind me the most of predynastic Egyptians.
Come to think of it, I actually find predynastic Egypt much more captivating than the oft-celebrated dynastic period. Not only are the parallels with Nilotic and other "tribal" African cultures more obvious during the predynastic period, but I've always loved prehistoric and tribal stuff.
C'mon, dude, plz refrain from using "tribal" when referring to africans as the gen pop likes to do. It's a pejorative (connoting backwardness) unless used in the correct sense to demark groups within an ethnicity, not whole ethnicities themselves. I had to say something the term jars me.
But to answer your question, I like to study how africans reacted to enslavement in the americas and the cultural traits that were preserved by their descendants. This means I also have to study the people in africa that slaves came from. Outside of that, I have no interest in a particular area/group of africa. I like to study it all. It makes you understand africa in its totality.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Of course most peoples in Africa are not even tribal in that they use a tribal system, but yes Truthcentric is aware of that and really means those Africans who are tribal. He also knows that his European ancestors were just as if not more so tribal than Africans.
To be honest I am just as interested in the early history of pre-Roman colonial tribal Europe as I am in precolonial Africa.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss:
quote:Originally posted by africurious: ^^Is there any good evidence for the 12th dynasty being "nubian"? From what i remember reading, it always came down to the 12th dynasty looking "black" (i.e. fitting close to the true negro stereotype) and the female line having originated in the deep south of egypt (near "nubia"). So, egyptologists do what they have always done and label egyptians who they view as too black as "nubians" or say they probably were.
Wilkinson's flip-flop and slipperiness on egypt's africaness is not much different from many recent mainstream authors (yurco comes to mind). They've cut the near east origin bull and will even show links between egypt and other african cultures but yet they still view egyptians as looking like those actors you see on discovery playing pharoah. And from their writings (even though this is almost never explicit) you can tell they see egypt (and other "north africans") as being separate from other africans. Egyptology has come a long way but it's naive to think that egyptologists in general have completely cast off the old racial notions.
You have to let go of this silly notion of "true negro". This is some European's attempt to disassociate Egypt from Africa. North Africa has just as many blacks living in it as there are whites. They use these terms knowing that most who read their books have never been to the region in question hence they will buy into their lies.
True. To look for an ancient Egyptian royal that fits the "true negro" mold is just a Eurocentric goose chase. It doesn't matter because ALL native pharaohs and royals looked black anyway. Although suffice to say that some dynasties looked no different from the 25th Kushite dynasty and in particular these were the early founding dynasties of the archaic and Old Kingdom periods.
But Africurious, just to answer your query here are a couple of excellent threads with lots of juicy info for you:
Petrie: UAH-KA Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
^^Ooooh, tx for those threads Djehuti. I read the 1st one. Juicy info indeed. So, I guess the 12th dynasty were real "nubians" as opposed to too black egyptians, lol. I'm gonna read the 2nd one too. There are some questions I have but they may already be answered in that thread.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
Right now it seems AE's are seen as at least geographic africans i.e. physically in africa and developed there, but somehow separate from "sub-saharans" the real africans, lol. Maybe one day it will be accepted in the mainstream that AE's were as african as any "sub-saharan".
Actually it already is partly in the mainstream. But the establishment wants it played down & obscured, but they can;t deny it. Which is why even National Geographic hired Keita to give some commentary on its site. Keita is a danger to them, as he exposes much of the distortion. Keita and Hawass appeared in separate video clips on N-Geo, both measuring their words carefully and sounding a bland as possible. The vibe: Keep it on the down low.. quiet truce.. We won't push the old distortions and denials, you don't attack openly. Keita knows the game, but his video series a Cambridge and Manchester shows he is pushing ahead, quietly. It could be the establishment wants a "decent interval" to prepare generations of distorters and to overcome generations of distortions about the African character of Egypt. Hasass will continue his BS claims, which satisfy nativist Egyptian pharonists. HE is already popular in Egypt for "standing up to the Zionists", (allegedly) so he will continue his spiel for internal consumption of the natives, and provide cover for the Egyptological establishment. White racists of course, and Arab racists want to bury or deny the data altogether.
But here is what conservative Egyptologist Donald Redford has to say, himself a critic of so-called "Afrocentrists"..
Conservative mainstream Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt shows ancient Egypt derived from an African cultural sub-stratum
[QUOTE:]
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28
And that's just one source out of dozens of "mainstream" scholars.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@zarahan
That's good. But as long as the general perception is that the Egyptians were Arabs or Europeans, then it all remains academic.
More effort needs to be put into dissemination and education.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
But as long as the general perception is that the Egyptians were Arabs or Europeans, then it all remains academic
Actually, there isn't a general perception that ancient Egyptians were Arabs or Europeans. No credible modern school text even at the lower levels makes that claim. Young college kids today for example would not automatically make that argument as those in older generations might. And in the black community there arent many who have that general perception. I would agree that what is needed is more education and dissemination, so people are more accurate in their statements and beliefs.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
@zarahan You're missing what i'm saying. Yes, the mainstream currently shows links with AE's and "sub-saharans" in terms of linguistics and culture. However, there is still a reluctance on their part to see them as physically linked. Hence Wilkinson as was mentioned earlier can talk a good game about cultural similarities between the 2 but then surprisingly says the AE's took "a typical" racist cheap-shot at kushites. Would they ever say greeks and romans took "typical" racist shots at northern europeans for what greco-romans frequently said was the n. euros lack of intelligence and emotional control?? Hell no! Regardless of the links many mainstream scholars show between AE's and other africans, they still see AE's as some separate Africans that look like the white actors who play pharoah on discovery or history channels. That's my gripe with them. Instead of hamites or black causasoids, we now have white or off-white africans who are separate from the other africans. They can gtfoh with that.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@zarahan 'Actually, there isn't a general perception that ancient Egyptians were Arabs or Europeans. No credible modern school text even at the lower levels makes that claim. Young college kids today for example would not automatically make that argument as those in older generations might. And in the black community there arent many who have that general perception. I would agree that what is needed is more education and dissemination, so people are more accurate in their statements and beliefs.'
If a survey of the general populace in the US or Britain was taken, the majority of respondents would not give an accurate answer for the identity of the Ancient Egyptians.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@africurious
Yep, I agree. Until mainstream documentary reconstructions start consistently using black Africans, the meme of Kemet as a black African civilization will remain marginalised.
I think a version of 'Rome' and parallel scientifically and archaelogically based discussions in the media would do it in the space of months.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
I believe today's Egyptologists (at least those with certain biases) are coming to grips with the African reality of Egypt and are suffering from an inner-conflict in their reconciliation of Egypt's identity. This is clear from the writings of not only Toby Wilkinson, but also guys like Donald Redford, Ian Shaw, and even the late Frank Yurco R.I.P. Yurco for example spoke in rather ambiguous terms about the Egyptians saying they were neither white or black but were definitely Africans yet he claims that dark brown people of rural Upper Egypt best represent the ancients with even darker types in Aswan looking like the early dynastic founders. His Afro-Caribbean wife was even mistaken for a native Egyptians and he explains that is because her look is similar to the natives of the area. Donald Redford who claims pharaonic continuity with Sub-Saharan cultures also wrote From Slave to Pharaoh about the Nubians, and Ian Shaw focuses more western origins for Egypt than southern ones. There is so much talk of connections with Sub-Sahara yet predynastic cultures formed at a time when the Sahara didn't exist as it does today! All in all I believe Egyptology is in a transition period of getting in the road to acceptance of African identity.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@Djehuti 'Yurco for example spoke in rather ambiguous terms about the Egyptians saying they were neither white or black but were definitely Africans yet he claims that dark brown people of rural Upper Egypt best represent the ancients with even darker types in Aswan looking like the early dynastic founders.'
Wow, Yurco's contortions were quite incredible. The colour of the Egyptians would have easily fallen with the range of the global heterogeneity of people of black African descent. Easily. The term 'black' therefore applies.
'His Afro-Caribbean wife was even mistaken for a native Egyptians and he explains that is because her look is similar to the natives of the area.'
Yes, my backgrounds are Afro-Caribbean and as I delight in telling userman, that also happened to me in Egypt. And this was in Cairo.
'All in all I believe Egyptology is in a transition period of getting in the road to acceptance of African identity.'
It's inexcusable though.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti 'Yurco for example spoke in rather ambiguous terms about the Egyptians saying they were neither white or black but were definitely Africans yet he claims that dark brown people of rural Upper Egypt best represent the ancients with even darker types in Aswan looking like the early dynastic founders.'
Wow, Yurco's contortions were quite incredible. The colour of the Egyptians would have easily fallen with the range of the global heterogeneity of people of black African descent. Easily. The term 'black' therefore applies.
'His Afro-Caribbean wife was even mistaken for a native Egyptians and he explains that is because her look is similar to the natives of the area.'
Yes, my backgrounds are Afro-Caribbean and as I delight in telling userman, that also happened to me in Egypt. And this was in Cairo.
Yurco is full of crap with his mental gymnastics. I think Djehuti is prob thinking of the same article i read a while back. Yurco proceeded to make light of the fact that blacks who go to egypt are often mistaken for natives. Also in same article it was revealed that his wife was traveling with an egyptian woman and the egyptian woman was thought by the egyptians to be a foreigner because of her height while Yurco's wife was thought to be native, go figure. I have the same background as you, claus, and same thing happened to me all over egypt.
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: 'All in all I believe Egyptology is in a transition period of getting in the road to acceptance of African identity.'
It's inexcusable though.
Yea, it is inexcusable but these things take a really looong time to fully change. Much of what is admitted in mainstream today would've been insanity maybe 50yrs ago. This makes me confident full acceptance will come.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @africurious
Yep, I agree. Until mainstream documentary reconstructions start consistently using black Africans, the meme of Kemet as a black African civilization will remain marginalised.
I think a version of 'Rome' and parallel scientifically and archaelogically based discussions in the media would do it in the space of months.
DING DING DING!!! You hit the nail on the head. We need a major docu like that. The closest thing I heard was will smith was considering making the movie "last pharaoh" which is based on taharqa battling the assyrians. I dont have much hope for that. The 25th dynasty are already seen as "black pharaohs". And i bet they're just gonna make the "nubians" black and the "egyptians" white/off-white. It was mentioned that they were considering some white actress to play his wife or love interest (i'm sure she'd play the egyptian). So this movie will probably just reflect the status quo. If this movie is ever made, Will Smith has the pull to make it more reflective of reality but I doubt he's aware of what we know.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious: The closest thing I heard was will smith was considering making the movie "last pharaoh" which is based on taharqa battling the assyrians. I dont have much hope for that. The 25th dynasty are already seen as "black pharaohs". And i bet they're just gonna make the "nubians" black and the "egyptians" white/off-white. It was mentioned that they were considering some white actress to play his wife or love interest (i'm sure she'd play the egyptian). So this movie will probably just reflect the status quo.
Precisely why I was less than enthusiastic about this movie too. I'm all for giving the Nubian civilization more exposure, but I'm weary of people emphasizing their Africanity at the expense of the Egyptians'.
quote:Until mainstream documentary reconstructions start consistently using black Africans, the meme of Kemet as a black African civilization will remain marginalised.
I think a version of 'Rome' and parallel scientifically and archaelogically based discussions in the media would do it in the space of months.
I agree that pop culture is the best way to influence people's perception of Egypt on a large scale, especially a documentary or movie.
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
t was mentioned that they were considering some white actress to play his wife or love interest (i'm sure she'd play the egyptian).
They will not play a white actress as Will SMith's love interest. They will get some Hispanic gal. Hollywood is too hypocritical to consistently show real interracial hookups with attractive characters, (particularly where black men are involved) despite a lot of liberal talk. Hollywood usually "taints" the scenes in some way one writer argues on Salon.com.
Usually when they show an IR relationship, they make the white female character some type of slut or airhead. Not always, but often. Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" is a typical example. In yet another Spike Lee film "He Got Game" they show Denzel getting it on, but guess what, they make beautiful Milla Jovovich a hooker. Well, THAT's OK then... she is a "tainted" woman..
Hollywood also tries to throw subtle dampers on IR relationships by making the sex seem uncomfortable or dirty. So in "Jungle Fever", the black guy has sex with the white gal on an hard, messy office desk. Yeah right, real "sexy." In "A Gathering of Crows", Cuba Gooding does the biz standing up on a stairwell with a gal who also sleeps with another man. Again, notice the subtle "message" being conveyed by Hollywood- make it unappealing and physically awkward, or put a taint on the white female character.
Another is "Black and White" where the film opens with 2 black "gangsta" types, and 2 white sluts (of course) doing the grimy business in a park. This film was hailed by some of the "progressive" crowd as being something "daring" but it was essentially the same subtle, downgrade message- make it grimy and/or sleazy, taint the white female characters. It would have been much more daring to show a nice, clean, comfortable room with clean, attractive IR couples getting it on, but that would not fit the subtle "freak" or "taint" agendas.
Now what happens where you have a great, attractive white female actress who will not go for this "slut" routine? Well, Hollywood makes sure that such characters do not get together with the black guy. Therefore Denzel is careful to say clear of Julia Roberts in "The Pelican Brief" even though the situation was tailor made for an onscreen romance. In the popular "Men In Black" there is some romantic chemistry between and Linda Fiorentino and Will Smith, but what happens? Fiorentino's character loses her memory, conveniently.. Hollywood Message: If we can't make her a slut or airhead, make sure nothing happens between them.
Hollywood should just drop the pretense and have a black actress play the part. Save us all its hypocrisy.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: Hollywood should just drop the pretense and have a black actress play the part. Save us all its hypocrisy.
This. I support interracial love, but knowing Egyptian and Nubian cultures, I seriously doubt Taharqa would have had as his Great Wife anyone who wasn't from the Nile Valley.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
who would be good casting for a movie epic on Ramesses II?
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I don't know about Rameses II himself, but I think either Christine Adams (of Terra Nova fame) or Gabrielle Union would look good as Nefertari:
Just please don't make her a really light-skinned chick.
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:They will not play a white actress as Will SMith's love interest. They will get some Hispanic gal.
They mentioned a specific white actress that wasn't hispanic in an article i read a while back. Can't remember her name.
And, actually, when it comes to big movies hollywood likes to put IR couples as the lead if one of the leads is black cuz for some reason you can't have a black lead couple (the world will fall off it's axis or something). One director or producer or something actually spoke about this in reference to a denzel movie. He said movie goers like to see IR couples as it's more interesting. Funny how they never think this when the lead couple is white. Such obvious bull. Btw, hispanics can serve as the whitening element for the movie cuz there are white hispanics or those close to it who have been used as such before.
The IR couple issue in hollywood is just part of a wider racial issue they have.
Posted by asante (Member # 18532) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: who would be good casting for a movie epic on Ramesses II?
quote:Just please don't make her a really light-skinned chick.
Don't you know of the rule, truthcentric? The black female lead has to be lighter than the black male lead so if it's will smith as the pharaoh then guess what, hahahaaa. Think of all the movies you know with black lead couples and prob 95% of them the female will be lighter.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
@djehuti 'Think of all the movies you know with black lead couples and prob 95% of them the female will be lighter.'
Considering that Michelle Obama is darker than her husband, you would have thought that Hollywood would have at least made moves towards changing this formula by now.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Don't you know of the rule, truthcentric? The black female lead has to be lighter than the black male lead so if it's will smith as the pharaoh then guess what, hahahaaa. Think of all the movies you know with black lead couples and prob 95% of them the female will be lighter.
Which is exactly what I was complaining about. Whether her male love interest is black or white, the black female lead must always be light-skinned. In fact I was going to rant earlier that while a black man in a Hollywood IR couple can be almost any color, a black woman in the same situation must be light-skinned. It's like the idea of dark-skinned black women with non-black love interests is the biggest taboo of all.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
^ This is one of the reasons I tend to avoid Hollywood films dealing with race; or, these days, Hollywood films in general.
Some people aren't going to like me writing this, but on issues of race, America's cinematic influence has had a largely corrosive and distorting impact on the self-image of black people.
As a parent, I will vet and deliberately limit and largely filter out the amount of American films/television that my children watch.
^^damn, you're spot on!! I feel what you're saying cuz i worry about when i have kids what will be their perceptions of themselves and other blacks because of what's in the media (not just even hollywood). I'll try to watch some of those youtube vids you posted. Took quick look at the 1st one and seems interesting.
@truthcentic yea, the whole avoidance of dark skinned female romantic leads is so upsetting. And it unfortunately affects ppl's self-perceptions, which is the problem.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: This is one of the reasons I tend to avoid Hollywood films dealing with race; or, these days, Hollywood films in general.
I wouldn't go so far as to write off Hollywood films in general, but those that deal with race, yes. Hollywood pseudo-liberals are incapable of making a decent movie about race as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by claus3600 (Member # 19584) on :
^ Maybe you wouldn't, or will never feel the need to. Hollywood serves as a vehicle for white culture, white as normative. If racism didn't exist, then that wouldn't be a problem. But it does. Overexposure to white media, without compensatory viewing of sufficient amounts of decent black media, leads to the issues of self-image detailed in the last link that I provided. It leads to what could be described as the internalization of 'othering', 'self-othering', when one sees oneself as 'unusual' or even 'freaky'.
This is conclusion I never, EVER, thought I would reach, but 40 years of lived experience tells me that living in a diverse area and exposure to diverse media are important in the development of healthy memes in black and other so-called minority children.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: This is conclusion I never, EVER, thought I would reach, but 40 years of lived experience tells me that living in a diverse area and exposure to diverse media are important in the development of healthy memes in black and other so-called minority children.
Same here. Racists on all sides may rant about it, but true multiculturalism, without all the residential segregation and prejudice, is my idea of a perfect society. I am an ardent integrationist and am angry that America hasn't been as committed to integration as it should be.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by africurious:
quote:Originally posted by claus3600: @Djehuti 'Yurco for example spoke in rather ambiguous terms about the Egyptians saying they were neither white or black but were definitely Africans yet he claims that dark brown people of rural Upper Egypt best represent the ancients with even darker types in Aswan looking like the early dynastic founders.'
Wow, Yurco's contortions were quite incredible. The colour of the Egyptians would have easily fallen with the range of the global heterogeneity of people of black African descent. Easily. The term 'black' therefore applies.
'His Afro-Caribbean wife was even mistaken for a native Egyptians and he explains that is because her look is similar to the natives of the area.'
Yes, my backgrounds are Afro-Caribbean and as I delight in telling userman, that also happened to me in Egypt. And this was in Cairo.
Yurco is full of crap with his mental gymnastics. I think Djehuti is prob thinking of the same article i read a while back. Yurco proceeded to make light of the fact that blacks who go to egypt are often mistaken for natives. Also in same article it was revealed that his wife was traveling with an egyptian woman and the egyptian woman was thought by the egyptians to be a foreigner because of her height while Yurco's wife was thought to be native, go figure. I have the same background as you, claus, and same thing happened to me all over egypt.
Mental gymnastics indeed. Remember this piece posted by the troll usedman:
Statement from Fran Yurco Egyptologist The original Egyptians were Africans. Yet, contrary to claims of some, in Africa, you have the same sort of wide diversity as there is in Europe and Asia. So, the claim that because the ancient Egyptians were Africans, a priori, they must have been black is just so much false speculation, driven by the American social construct of "black" and "white".........Thus, with the wide diversity of the African continent, yes, the Egyptians were of the North African variety.........So, the idea that the Egyptians came from somewhere way south of Nubia-Sudan, is again, just speculation and mis-information.
Most sincerely, Frank J. Yurco University of Chicago
Note discrepancies in his claims. First off Europe is not a continent but a subcontinent of Asia itself. Second, the diversity in Europe is minimal compared to that of Africa or Asia yet of course whatever little diversity Europe has, last time I checked all indigenous Europeans were classified as 'white'. Asia is more vast but more importantly you have more extensive mountain ranges that have isolated populations from one another for long periods of time. You don't have this in Africa where gene-flow was more constant as was proven time and again with genetics including the recent DNA Tribes finding. As for the whole Nubia thing being speculation, I find this claim surprising with Qustul culture in Nubia being ancestral to pharaonic culture as discovered Oriental Institute also in Chicago.
Overall the whole 'African but not black' argument is null and void.
By the way, the whole Afro-Caribbean background reminds me of the actor Peter Williams who is Jamaican. He played the villain Apophis in the scifi series Stargate SG1.
^ I swear because of his looks, I actually thought he was Egyptian in real life.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
As for Hollyweird in general let alone that Will Smith movie, I wouldn't hold my breath. Hollyweird has a sordid past of racism that it quite hasn't got over despite their entrenched liberalism which is what makes it worse. Liberal racism is always worse than the more overt traditional or conservative brand. No doubt they will make the leading lady anyone else BUT black because of not only their holdover of Egyptians not being black, but also the status quo that if both leading sexes are black then that automatically makes it a 'black movie' that won't appeal to mainstream white audiences. Frankly, I'm still waiting for that Halle Berry movie Goddess of the Sun. I haven't heard a peep since word of its production got out years ago.
Remember what Hollyweird did to the movie version of The Last Airbender.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Asia is more vast but more importantly you have more extensive mountain ranges that have isolated populations from one another for long periods of time. You don't have this in Africa where gene-flow was more constant as was proven time and again with genetics including the recent DNA Tribes finding.
And then there's the fact that Eurasia has much greater climatic diversity than Africa. Eurasia extends from the Arctic to the Equator, which is why you have fair-skinned Europeans and Chinese in the north grading to dark-skinned Indians and Negritos in the south. By contrast, almost all of Africa is either tropical or subtropical. If different ethnic appearances are caused by adaptations to different environments, then while Africans may have the most genetic diversity, they should all be quite dark (not counting those with significant Eurasian admixture).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't know about Rameses II himself, but I think either Christine Adams (of Terra Nova fame) or Gabrielle Union would look good as Nefertari:
Just please don't make her a really light-skinned chick.
As long as she's a fine as the actress who played Nefertari in the Discovery program Ramses: Wrath of God or Man: Here (starting 4:26) She was the only thing good about that program.
And yes, I get annoyed with the really light-skinned cop-outs as well. If the actress in the video above were darker it would have been spot on (she's Moroccan).
Posted by africurious (Member # 19611) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: As for Hollyweird in general let alone that Will Smith movie, I wouldn't hold my breath. Hollyweird has a sordid past of racism that it quite hasn't got over despite their entrenched liberalism which is what makes it worse. Liberal racism is always worse than the more overt traditional or conservative brand. No doubt they will make the leading lady anyone else BUT black because of not only their holdover of Egyptians not being black, but also the status quo that if both leading sexes are black then that automatically makes it a 'black movie' that won't appeal to mainstream white audiences. Frankly, I'm still waiting for that Halle Berry movie Goddess of the Sun. I haven't heard a peep since word of its production got out years ago.
Remember what Hollyweird did to the movie version of The Last Airbender.
Never heard of that Goddess of the Sun movie. Just read a little about it on the ES forum. It definitely seems like a big improvement from the past. Though it's not being made.
I'm glad you mentioned the airbender movie cuz i'm not familiar with the story but when i saw the ads for the movie i wondered about the casting. Guess my suspicions were right.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric:
Just please don't make her a really light-skinned chick. [/QB]
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I got this from another website.
Why Does This Matter?
Some people may wonder why the skin color or ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians matter. Who cares if they were black, white, or magenta? This debate matters because ancient Egypt has been inaccurately depicted for so long. Portraying the ancient Egyptians as non-African is like portraying the Romans as being non-European or portraying the Maya as being non-Native American. It is perpetuating myths. If Egypt is to be accurately portrayed, its African identity must be accepted.
In conclusion, ancient Egypt was a fundamentally African culture founded by African people, not an import from Europe or Asia. If we are to move forward from our racist past, acknowledging this is a good step to take.
I did not see all of this yet,but check this out.
The Last Pharaoh Film. Will Smith Portrays Pharaoh Taharqa in ...
quote:They will not play a white actress as Will SMith's love interest. They will get some Hispanic gal.
They mentioned a specific white actress that wasn't hispanic in an article i read a while back. Can't remember her name.
I think it was a arab actress who plays an egyptian queen,of course taharqa wife's were kushites and all of them closely related to him.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ That may be but remember, in Hollywack if both leading sexes are black then it automatically makes it a 'black movie'.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
True about the black movie part,they will try to find away to ignore THE FACT that taharqa wifes are His sisters,and i think one of them was his mother,anyway they were all from his family.
Of course they are trying to reach a mainstream crowd and like i said they will try to ignore that part of the real kushite history if they could get away with it,but i wonder if will smith is aware enough and big enough to get away with it since he has said taharqa is one of his favorite heroes and he always wanted to do a movie about him.
I WONDER WHAT his wife would say about that.
He is one of the folks behind this movie,BUT IT'S A HOLLYWERID MOVIE AND i still do not trust them.
I guess we have to wait and see in 2013.
HOPEFULLY AFRICAN MOVIE MAKERS WOULD GET THE IDEA AND START MAKING MORE MOVIES about Nubia,Egypt,Axum ETC..
Mande and now some nigerian film makers are making some movies and shows about the african past,so that's a really good start.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Oh,and to make clear when i mean will smith big enough to get away with it,i mean in the movie if it gets made, does he have enough power to make sure his wifes including has main one is shown has black kushite women and if he conscious enough to do that? That remains to be seen.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
I don't think Toby Wilkinson's really on our side. Have you read his recent The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt? In there he calls one Kushite ruler "the Black Crusader", describes the Kushites in general as having "African features" and coming from a "fundamentally different African" culture, and even claims that one particular piece of Egyptian anti-Kushite propaganda as a "cheap racial slur" because it also featured monkeys (as if the Egyptians would have been aware of the modern racist association between black people and monkeys ). Wilkinson may not believe that the Egyptians were Mesopotamian invaders, but he doesn't seem to think Egyptians were what we would call "black" either.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
... BTW, the Monkey thing is obsurd. The Egyptians worshipped Babboons and even believed Babbons to be Close to Humans and that Humans came from monkeys. The Egyptians also worshiped a Short God obviously modeled after Central Africans.
As for the 'black' is subjective. Again, by their standards there would be many people in Sub-Sahara who would not be considered 'black' when to the public eye they are obviously are considered as such!
As for Donald Redford, I swear he Wilkinson, and other Egyptologists seem to have this schizophrenic view of Egyptians. They say in so many words that the Egyptians are African yet go at pains to say the Nubians immediately to their south are black but the Egyptians are not. ... As for that "monkey" mess. They really lost it, since the Egyptians worked with monkeys, worshiped with them, and even mummified and buried them like people!
Also this most coveted locally crafted gift from Kush to King's Son of Kush Huy for Pharaoh Tutankhamen is a little scene of some part of Kush. To Wilkinson and ilk this would be an example of Kushites racially slurring themselves as monkeys since it too depicts Kushites and "monkeys stealing dates from palm trees".
Posted by Clyde Winters (Member # 10129) on :
Move it up. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
I don't think Toby Wilkinson's really on our side. Have you read his recent The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt? In there he calls one Kushite ruler "the Black Crusader", describes the Kushites in general as having "African features" and coming from a "fundamentally different African" culture, and even claims that one particular piece of Egyptian anti-Kushite propaganda as a "cheap racial slur"
^^What makes his claims dubious or shaky is that the Nubians are ethnically the closest people to the Egyptians. "African features" are part and parcel of Egyptian reality. Sounds like Wilkinson is writing to placate the Egyptian and Egyptologist empire- garner a few more paydays. His "racial read-back" of alleged "racial" slurs into that ancient reality is bogus, and is against everything other "mainstream" Egyptologists, like Yurco warned against. Forced by the data to admit the African context of Egypt, they still want to play the old games. BUt it is too late. The web and places like ES means they can no longer spin like they used to, even if the "empire strikes back." The "rebel alliance" - ES and other similar persons working to restore a balanced picture of Egypt in Africa is already on the case.
and from Redford:
[QUOTE:]
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization.."
-- Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p.28
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Also this most coveted locally crafted gift from Kush to King's Son of Kush Huy for Pharaoh Tutankhamen is a little scene of some part of Kush. To Wilkinson and ilk this would be an example of Kushites racially slurring themselves as monkeys since it too depicts Kushites and "monkeys stealing dates from palm trees".
Wow. interesting artifice. I take it this wasn't exactly the scene Wilkinson spoke of comparing Kushites to monkeys, but it makes me wonder if his claim of them "stealing dates like monkeys" was merely a depiction of them simply picking dates from their own date palms. LOL @ Kushites racially "slurring" themselves! The scene obviously represents something sacred or of great religious significance. The depictions is largely what I believe to be gold statuary of giraffes feeding on date palms where both monkeys and Kushites are picking which is symbolic of life giving on either side of a centerpiece. Painted Kushites are shown prostrating themselves on either side of the centerpiece with the centerpiece itself being a gold pyramid and date trees springing from a support that consists of a stand with a leopard skin (worn by Egyptian and other African priests) in the center and cow skin on either side and a row of Kushite heads on the stand.
I can only wonder what this pyramid represents or where in Kush was it present if it existed.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
). Wilkinson may not believe that the Egyptians were Mesopotamian invaders, but he doesn't seem to think Egyptians were what we would call "black" either.
quote:As for the 'black' is subjective. Again, by their standards there would be many people in Sub-Sahara who would not be considered 'black' when to the public eye they are obviously are considered as such!
