posted 18 September 2004 08:55 PM            

Here are some noteworthy facial reconstructions!

Famous Tutankhamun!

Noteworthy Nefertiti, but has to endure questions from dissidents!

The reconstruction of Mummy of Harwa from Egyptian Museum, Torino, Italy. It is from the XXII or XXIII dynasty, 945–715 BC.

Yet another image of the mummy depicted above. This one showing the skull on the left hand side. The specifics of that facial reconstruction can be obtained from this website: http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/183/3/755


Facial reconstruction images, the skull above and this fleshed one, are that of the Sulman Egyptian Mummy, the result of the 3-D Digital work headed by Western's Dr. Andrew Nelson, Associate Professor of Anthropology. The associated website is : http://www.orion.on.ca/newsjan04/1mummy.html

The final facial reconstruction of the Egyptian mummy Nesperennub, priest of Karnak, hidden in a decorated coffin. Read the details here: http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/122/122998_return_of_the_mummy.html

posted 18 September 2004 11:14 PM            

And who can forget the Ramesses II facial reconstruction, details of which can be found at: http://highculture.8m.com/r2.htm

More to come…

posted 19 September 2004 02:18 AM            

This was picture is from the website, http://users.iafrica.com/g/gr/grenvill/mummies.htm

A quote from the website regarding the facial reconstruction:
“A reconstruction of the head of Peten-Amun, was completed in 1990 by Dr. Bill Aulsebrook who holds a Ph.D. in Forensic Facial Reconstruction. A Computerized Axial Tomography (CAT) scan was taken at the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban and plastic templates were made from the individual sectional images. The templates were then assembled to form a three-dimensional construction of the skull. Using this reconstructed skull, Dr. Aulsebrook was able to build up the facial musculature features. The bust is displayed alongside the coffin and mummy.

That picture is provided below:

Again, a quote is from the website states:
“In this popular and well-attended museum is a wooden anthropoid coffin with a lid, containing a mummy with cartonnage elements, reputedly from Akhmim, Upper Egypt, of early Ptolemaic date (c. 300 BCE). The coffin and cartonnage elements indicate that they were mass-produced items of the type held in coffin-maker's workshops. The mummy is that of a minor priest named Peten-Amun (Ptn-'Imn), thought to have died aged about 60 years. The mummy was acquired by the Durban Museum between 1889 and 1910.”

------------------
Logic

posted 20 September 2004 10:19 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
What a bunch of nonsense.

---

posted 20 September 2004 11:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I think it is a great science and the legit science does not give us these views.

---

Now that is nonsense. Do you have a specific criticism about the work done by forensic scientists cited above, or no? Isn't it true that you simply are bitter about the results?

quote:

---

If it did you guys would not spend all your time complaining about the Euro conspiracy

---

quote:

---

I find it ironic that Africa is in a state of deep crisis

---

posted 20 September 2004 11:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I think it is a great science and the legit science does not give us these views. If it did you guys would not spend all your time complaining about the Euro conspiracy to steal some mythical heritage.
I find it ironic that Africa is in a state of deep crisis and you fellows spend all your time promoting this fictional history when you could be trying to save the people living today. You might be better off trying to teach poor african kids to read than to try to sell the academic community all this nonsense. You'll never win your point on history but you might really help some people living today.

---

Horemheb,
Giving Negro African kids an History is helping them. When most of Africa in history is a barbarian non-civilisation (compared to the high cultures of Europe and Syria etc), it is beneficial to Africa today and for Her future, to show them that Negroes in the past had a Great Civilisation. Telling Blacks that the Ancient Egyptians were White does not give them pride or encouragement. As a European I find immense pride in my heritage and past; ie Romans, celts etc. I hope that all people(s) can do the same. And I love the Ancient Egyptians too- whether they are Negroes, Afro-Asiatic or a type of Aryan.

posted 20 September 2004 11:55 AM            

quote:

---

Telling Blacks that the Ancient Egyptians were White does not give them pride or encouragement

---

More important: telling yourself that the Ancient Egyptians were 'white' is a form of personal abuse. In this regard, you would do better to worry about your own mental health, as imagining the Egyptians to be white, as in black white people, black cacucasians, meditteranian whites and so forth is likely to lead to some form of deep schizophrenia. Hopefully it is not too late.

posted 20 September 2004 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Egypt can never be sold the way these people are trying to do it.

---

posted 20 September 2004 12:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
I'm not going to argue with you rasol.

---

posted 20 September 2004 12:15 PM            

quote:

---

Horemheb,
Giving Negro African kids an History is helping them. When most of Africa in history is a barbarian non-civilisation (compared to the high cultures of Europe and Syria etc), it is beneficial to Africa today and for Her future, to show them that Negroes in the past had a Great Civilisation. Telling Blacks that the Ancient Egyptians were White does not give them pride or encouragement. As a European I find immense pride in my heritage and past; ie Romans, celts etc. I hope that all people(s) can do the same. And I love the Ancient Egyptians too- whether they are Negroes, Afro-Asiatic or a type of Aryan.

---

What people must realize is that the modern and ancient Egyptians were hetrogenous people. The AE never died nor went anywhere but still live in the stock of the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt. Basically during pre-dyanstic times you have various stocks of Africans and also Mediterranean types that complied into the ancient and modern Egyptians. The pre-dyanstic skeletal remains in Upper Egypt reviwed by nearly every anthropologist has been classified as negriod. Certainly the modern Egyptians don't look like Central/Western Africans but do share many cultural traits and common origins because of both having a Saharan origin.

Today in Egypt you get everything from lighter types in northern Egypt[Lower Egypt] down to black types in Upper Egypt. So I say that some where ''black'' and some were not. All these people were Egyptians and this is all that mattered to them.

We can definately say the ancient Egyptians were not ''white'' Europeans nor Indo-Europeans definately.

BTW,people have been feed that you must have a glorious history to accomplish something in the modern era. This is complete non-sense,and the Japanese who don't have a great historical past proved this to be wrong.Japan was a backwater before World War II but look at them know?

The tides of history turn across the globe and it has for so many people including the Islamic empires that once stood.

Another big myth is that Egypt is all Africa has to offer,for during the Middle Ages many regions in Western Africa developed thriving kingdoms. Many Africans even had superior govermental systems to the ancient Egyptians divine kingship.

I am from Aswan Egypt and I am proud of my ancient Egyptian ancestors. Not really about what they accomplish but because my culture is still intact after many years of domination by alien races of people. Upper Egyptians have held on to their traditions for so long and continue to in the Globalized world. This is all that matters to me.

posted 20 September 2004 01:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Egypt can never be sold the way these people are trying to do it. If I wanted to do what you are saying Nubia is a much stronger choice.

---

posted 20 September 2004 01:33 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by blackman:
Horemheb,
Nubia faces the same problem as Egypt. Some people believe Nubia was founded by caucasain hamites. If the battle is going to be fought and won it starts with Egypt.

---

Correct. You can't run from the facts: Nilotic civilization begins in Nubia:
This decoration of an incense burner found at Qustul depicts a sacrifical procession and the definite image of a king who wears a conical white crown [symbol of Upper Egypt] and falcon-label. A cemetery of large tombs containing evidence of wealth and representations of the rulers and their victories was found at Qustul. If datings are correct, these finds are some 200 years older than the founding of Egypt's first dynasty, founded by Narmer (Menes), and represent the world's first monarchy.....If this is the case then Qustul in Nubia could well have been the seat of Egypt's founding dynasty http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Classroom/9912/nubia.html

Moreover studies of Pre-Dyanstic and early Dynastic tombs have shown time and again the the population clustered closely with Nubian:
"this dynasty, the first to give Egyptian civilization its almost definitive form and expression, was of Sudanese Nubian origin. The equally Negro's features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the Negro's features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves. It was Petrie's conviction that there was "a peaceful", if not a united, rule all over Egypt and Nubia [Sudan] during the entire pre-dynastic period." The Making of Egypt, 1939, William Petrie.

What Petrie knew almost 100 years ago, Keita and others have re-affirmed using the most modern emperical methodologies:
Early southern predynastic Egyptian crania show tropical African affinities

That is why efforts to white-wash Egypt lead invariably to Nubia.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in doing an educational service needs to visit any one of the white fantasy web-sites where-in they speak of such absurdities as original white nubians; and black caucasians of east africa; in order to justify their phony, "pseudo-historical" views.

Nile Valley civilizations were founded by Black Africans. That includes Nubia and Kemet [egypt]. I offer a fair and open challenge to anyone who has evidence to the contrary. Bring it. Please...you will save us from the sheer boredom, of people who supposedly disagree but cannot engage in fact based discussion.

As it stands...they can't even deal honestly with the forensic evidence provided in this one thread. Which is why they work so hard to change the subject. How lame.

posted 20 September 2004 01:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
It can't be won in Egypt blackman. The academic backlash has already started,

---

quote:

---

The problem is that these Afrocentrics have gone too far.

---

quote:

---

There was a black presence in AE, none of us dispute that

---

posted 20 September 2004 01:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Ausar tries to point out here that Egypt was a diverse place but it just falls on deaf ears. There was a black presence in AE, none of us dispute that but nothing like these guys are trying to sell.

---

Thought Writes:

posted 20 September 2004 08:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
Horemheb,
Giving Negro African kids an History is helping them. When most of Africa in history is a barbarian non-civilisation (compared to the high cultures of Europe and Syria etc), it is beneficial to Africa today and for Her future, to show them that Negroes in the past had a Great Civilisation. Telling Blacks that the Ancient Egyptians were White does not give them pride or encouragement. As a European I find immense pride in my heritage and past; ie Romans, celts etc. I hope that all people(s) can do the same. And I love the Ancient Egyptians too- whether they are Negroes, Afro-Asiatic or a type of Aryan.

regards,
sneuropa

---

Sneuropa, it seems as though you might have good intentions in what you say, but a careful inspection of your words, also reflects erroneous statements. Most ancient African history, aside from the Nile valley Civilization, is largely unknown to Westerners. However, that doesn't stop some Westerners from trying to figure out the mystery.
Here is a quote, that reflects basic knowledge of Western Historians concerning other Ancient Africans. Yet, throughtout all these "basic knowledge" interpretations, the historians have time and again, made it clear to their audience, that they are yet to know the specifics of the history they are discussing, and that they could indeed still be getting much wrong:

Historian Richard Hooker writes:
"Early sub-Saharan Africans developed metallurgy at a very early stage, possibly even before other peoples. Around 1400 BC, East Africans began producing steel in carbon furnaces (steel was invented in the west in the eighteenth century). The Iron Age itself came very early to Africa, probably around the sixth century BC, in Ethiopia, the Great Lakes region, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Iron technology, however, only spread slowly across Africa; it wasn't until the first century AD that the smelting of iron began to rapidly diffuse throughout the continent."

(Steel was only invented in Europe in the 1700s)

"The instrument of that spread was the Bantu migrations. Bantu is a family of languages that are closely related and represent the largest linguistic family of African languages. Bantu speaking people migrated out of north-central Africa in the last century BC and these migrations continued all throughout the first millenium AD. They migrated south into the rain forest regions around the Congo and they migrated east into the East African highlands. Wherever they migrated, they imposed their language, which mixed with and replaced indiegenous languages. How they managed to impose their language on such a wide range of people across such a huge swathe of territory is anyone's guess. Further migrations in the first millenium then displaced the earlier Bantu immigrants, who pushed farther east and south. These Bantu immigrants would eventually found the civilization of the Mwenumatapa, or "Great Zimbabwe" civilization. Not only did the Bantu spread iron-smelting techniques across Africa, they also were responsible for diffusing agriculture, particularly agriculture of high-yield crops such as yams, bananas, and plantains. The spread of agriculture led to the explosive growth of village life all throughout Africa. Urban settlement began at a very early date in Africa. The earliest urban settlement were stone-walled towns in southern Mauritania that date back to sometime in the second millemium BC. An explosion of urban settlement in the Sahel region immediately south of the Sahara began between 600 and 200 BC. The Sahel is a hot, dry savannah that can support human agriculture and settlement. The first urban settlements were Sahelian: Jenne, Gao, and Kumbi (later Kumbi Saleh, the capital of the kingdom of Ghana). All of these urban centers grew up in oasis and river regions which could support such large populations."

Here is yet another website, whose interpretations bears similarity to the one quoted above, in terms of the direction of its storyline and the author's constant assertions that missing information makes it difficult to come to conclusive comments: http://barney.gonzaga.edu/~sbennet3/mead/lessonplans/EarlyAfrica.htm

The Unesco study takes African Iron age back to a far as 3000 B.C., which itself is just another approximation!

Ancient Africa, at the time of ancient civilizations of Nubia and Egypt, was sparse in many areas, until migrations led to settlements to various the regions we are now familiar with. Needless to say, that some of these migrating groups were nomadic, before they could find conditions essential to their settlements. This however, didn't prevent Africans from poineering work, in terms of sophisticated artistry, weaponry, metallurgy, agriculture, and new communication tools for trade with other groups.

That there weren't many African civilizations, even before various European civilizions matured, is another myth that needs to perish!

Here is another forum, where I have touched this point: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=350630&messageid=1095649735&lp=1095669739

Interested posters should check out this new forum; it is less restrictive subject-wise!

But I like Ausar's earlier answer to your comment:

"Another big myth is that Egypt is all Africa has to offer,for during the Middle Ages many regions in Western Africa developed thriving kingdoms. Many Africans even had superior govermental systems to the ancient Egyptians divine kingship."

I think C.Bass' new forum can also open a way to crush myths regarding other African history, and including those of African Diaspora!

------------------
Logic

posted 20 September 2004 08:54 PM            

quote:

---

AE never died nor went anywhere but still live in the stock of the modern Fellahin in Upper Egypt

---

posted 20 September 2004 09:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Indeed. The point is made with some of the reconstructions that modern Egyptians were used as templates, esp. where variables such as skin color were involved. I am not surprised at the results and suspect that if anything, they may have looked even more Africoid in life.

---

Could you just imagine, that if most these facial reconstructions were done by black forensic artists or Egyptians themselves, the results might turn out to be indeed questionable to the likes of Horemheb!

posted 20 September 2004 09:15 PM            

Richard Neave was the person who has done most of these reconstructions at Manchester. His methdology is highly priased and accurate because of its combination of facial thickness and anatomical knowleadge.

posted 21 September 2004 10:15 AM            

Not to cast aspersions on Sneuropa, but...

I’ve heard such rhetoric before, and it’s beginning to sound as if, now that the origins of AE are more clear, the next step of eurocentrics will be to paint concessions to the truth as just “politically correct” generosity to help the self-esteem of "Negroes".

I've already come across such cynical statements on the internet about the motives of whites who acknowledge the African origins of AE.

However, “giving Negroes a history” has nothing to do with the facts of the matter, which are made pretty clear in the art and testimony of the Ancient Egyptians themselves.

Rather than "give negroes a history", let's just acknowledge and publicize the full body of the evidence regarding the origins and character of AE, and dispel the outright lies. That would be plenty.

posted 21 September 2004 10:26 AM            

If not, he simply needs to understand:

posted 21 September 2004 10:54 AM            

Personally I reckon the Ancient Egyptians to be racially similar to Egyptians today, but today all the different strains have mixed together. In Ancient times different tribes, geographical areas would have been populated by a more diverse peoples. Like Ausar says that Upper often different to Lower Egypt.

When I said "give people a history" it wasn't meant in a patronising way. People believe what they are told time and again. Thats the same what ever colour people are. We (thats you and me) may well be able to study and come to conclusions our selves- and help each other a bit along the way. but most people don't do this. Thats why "history" can be dangerous, or can be beneficial- depends what message is given out to the readers/viewers.

The Egyptians themselves seem to view (from their art) themselves as red skinned and black haired, and call themselves "KMT" which I am informed means "black". I'm not going to argue with them. But I'm sure they varied a bit more than this.

As for facial reconstructions- they are good for this only: shape, features. not colour, of skin nor hair. But if the faces look like the faces of Negroes then... This science is worth study and practise but like so many studies, not the answer to everything.

regards,
sneuropa

posted 21 September 2004 11:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
[b]Wow!
Lots of replies to my post!
Ok guys,
I've studied some African history, and there is a lot to know- ie the Caliphates of the Western Sahel like the Sokoto Caliphate. And of course in Ancient history with Nubia. But Nubia is not Athens or Babylon or Thebes. Nor are the Caliphates very comparable to the Caliphates of the Ottomans or Spain/Morrocco.

---

quote:

---

Personally I reckon the Ancient Egyptians to be racially similar to Egyptians today, but today all the different strains have mixed together.

---

quote:

---

The Egyptians themselves seem to view (from their art) themselves as red skinned and black haired, and call themselves "KMT" which I am informed means "black". I'm not going to argue with them. But I'm sure they varied a bit more than this.

---

Their art also varied. Actually why not just look at the facts regarding how the AE viewed themselves rather than speculating?
It seems to me that the purpose of speculation is to avoid dealing with facts: http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/

posted 21 September 2004 11:29 AM            

quote:

---

As for facial reconstructions- they are good for this only: shape, features. not colour, of skin nor hair. But if the faces look like the faces of Negroes then...

---

lol. Actually facial features are what is most of interest. Few people dispute the fact that the native AE were dark skinned as their history of Art reveals them to be a brown to black skinned people. Forensic scientists often use Native Egyptians as the basis for skin color in their reconstructions, which also happens to be consistant with most of the portraiture.

Also Professor Cheikh Anta Diop's melanin dosage test can and has been used to determine skin color of mummies, and they were determined to be Black peoples.
And, the AE's limb ratios have been shown to be those of Black Africans. The evidence is quite clear. There is no use pretending this is some mysterious irresolvable issue.

posted 21 September 2004 12:04 PM            

Don't tell me you're one of those people who don't like what the AE themselves had to say...

--

This is precisely why I'd rather see people acknowledge the facts rather than "give" anyone anything. I question the motives of people who want to "help" but don't like the truth & hang on to the lie.

In the U.S., political "liberals" have played this underhanded role for a long time with regard to "racial" issues. ...So this sort of thing is quite familiar.

In the case of the "dispute" over the origins of AE, "giving negroes a history" is just another way of dismissing the truth, maintaining the lie in the minds of most people, and making yourself seem "big" in the process.

Political liberalism sucks! The truth is the light.

---
Just so you know where I stand on the issue, my opinion is: AE was a heterogenous society for much of its history. But the great extent to which it was african (and "black") is desperately covered up the Eurocentrics, while they *grossly* exaggerate and even lie about the Asiatic ("white"?) aspect. And the origins of AE were in Africa and African people.

posted 21 September 2004 01:12 PM            

What also must be stated as pointed out by mainstream Egyptologist like Gay Robbins,Frank Joseph Yurcoa,and others is that the reddish brown/yellowish skin for women was just a convention means which represented symbolism. This did not mean that all Egyptians universally looked like these models,for in later periods we have depictions of people from Upper Egypt that have dark brown to black skin like many do today around the Luxor/Aswan area. The same is true for northern Egyptians like Rahotep/Nofret who represent many northern Egyptians. Be very careful with using artwork as literal over skeletal remains for biological affinities of a population.

By the Middle and New Kingdom period we get much more realistic portrayals of ancient Kemetians[Egyptians] than in the past. The depictions show a people that range from light brown to dark brown. The dark brown people were Upper Egyptian of course,and the lighter brown people were most likely Lower Egyptians.

Here's a little about the color symbolism in AE art by Gay Robbins who is a leading Egyptologist and specialist in Egyptian art. See the following:

[......The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The
Egyptian man,rather than a more realistic range of shades ,should
also considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the
representations of foreginers. The foreigne men to the north and west
of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that odf traditional
Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin.
Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed
little from that of Egypt's neighboors,in the Egyptian worldview
foreigners had to be distinguished . Thus Egyptian men had to be
marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-
Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with
some foreign men scarcely mattered,since the Egyptian male is primary
and formed the reference point in these two color scemes---
contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with
Egyptian females. Within the scheme of Egyptian/non-Egyptian skin
color,black was not desirable for ordinary humans ,because it marked
out figures as foreign ,as enemies of Egypt,and ultimatley as
represenatives of chaos;black thereby contrasted with its positive
meaning elsewhere. This example helps demostrate the importance of
context for reading color symbolism.........]

[......Thus,the gender distinctionencoded for human figures was
transferred at times to the divie world. The symbolisminherant in the
skin colors used for some deities and royal figures sugest that the
colors given to human skin---although initiallyseeming to be
naturalistic -----might also be symbolic. Male and female skin colors
were probabaly not uniform among the entire population of Egypt,with
pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to sub-sahara Africans]
and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easteners] A
woman from the south would probabaly have had darker skin than a man
from the North. Thus,the colorations used for skin tones in the art
must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic;the
clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based
on elite ideals relating to male and female roles,in which women's
responsibilities kept them indoors,so that they spent less time in
the sun than men.Nevertheless, the signifcance of the two colors may
be even deeper,making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference
between men and women in Egyptian worldview............]

The Ancient God Speak by Donald Redford

A Guide to Egyptian Religion

Page 57-61 Color Symbolism

Gay Robins

Also many people here are missing the point about AE civlization is that their culture had similarities with other regions in Africa. The divine kingship,the concept of rainmaker kingd,ancestor whorship, and circumcision rights as well as scarification was praticed by the ancient Kemetians and by people in modern and ancient Africa.

The pre-dyanstic sites in Upper Egypt examined by most anthropologist[Angel,Keita,and Strouhal] show a group of people that have affinities with tropical Africans. The foundations of ancient Kemetic soceity was in the pre-dyanstic periods. What occured later during unification was that mixing occured between Upper and Lower Egyptian regions. The early burials at Abydos attest to many royal names from the Delta but the Upper Egyptian culture replaced the Delta culture.

posted 21 September 2004 06:52 PM            

BTW, good observation by sunstorm about the various "liberal-minded" westerners, of trying to act as though they are merely being "politically correct", as a gesture of showing consideration to the plight of the "oppressed" folks: another way of indirectly disregarding truth, in the context of our discussion. There may be folks who are being genuine, but the slow pace of updating national curricula to reflect new discoveries, particularly in the U.S., makes it hard for one to separate those folks from the other ones, who are simply trying be "politically correct"! One only needs to carefully dissect how people put their wording, to make a fair assessment of whether they are being genuine or not. As crafty as people can be, their true motives always show in one form or another, through the communication!

posted 21 September 2004 09:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
The funniest thing about Eurocentric advocates of the idea that Africans ought to be more proud of Nubian civilization than Egyptian one, is their ignorance of the aspect of cultural similarity between the forementioned cultures

---

* cultural similarity
* biological affinity
* geographic proximity
* royal pedigree (Nsu Biti Suten -> he who comes from the South)

Bruce Williams of the Oriental Institute of Chicago on evidence that Group A Nubians founded Kemet:

* the 10 monarchs of Qustul, corresponding to the "historical" kings of the late Naqada period.

* direct progression of royal complex designs from Qustul to Hierakonpolis to Abydos;

* Egyptian objects in Naqada III a-b tombs;

* no royal tombs yet in Lower and Upper Egypt (circa 3800bc);

* Pharonic monuments refering to conflict in Upper Egypt;

* inscriptions of the ruler Pe-Hor that are older than Iry-Hor of Abydos;

Imagine the absurdity of the 'apartheid' history Eurocentrists wish to foist upon Africa.

The conical crown of the King at Qustul appears...300 years later on the head of Narmer (1st Pharaoh of dynastic Kemet), however...we won't go there, so don't ask the obvious questions implied by this. African history stops at the 1st cataract of the Nile.

posted 23 September 2004 08:07 AM            

Also I've spent some time analysing paintings and statues etc. As you say they vary a lot. But, 1) when many are depicted together they are all dark- like Negroes. With black hair. When individual they vary much. I found many with the "yellow" skin colour you mention. I personally see it as tan- like perhaps a Mediterranean/"Hamitic" sub-race? Others are depicted with the red skin (especially in paintings) - but I've always considered it was to make them look "alive" as red is considered a colour of life? Others/ many are without a doubt black (Negro). Others (well I found two, and pre-Hellenistic)are with "white" skin- I found one statue definately "white"; she was a daughter of Rameses II. However all the depictions have black hair. Though possible that some of this is wigs. Ramesses' daughter being white doesn't mean much as we all know that he had lots of foreign wives!

I've also looked at some 'mummies'. They too vary; but they are a bit too dead to see very well. They look like they come from more than one race though. The work on facial reconstruction is very clever, but I always have reservations, though without a doubt some look like Negroes and I reckon are so.

Ausar, you mention that men and women worked together in the fields etc. I too have noted this in past study. More interesting is that men did "women's work" like weaving. What strikes me with this is how unlike Indo-Aryan and Syrian etc societies this is,where much of this work was segregated. Even some peoples like Sumerians (of Dravidian type stock) having seperate languages for men and women probably due to this. I wonder if sharing of duties is often typical practice of African societies? At any rate it differentiates from other Mediteranean societies.

As for Nubia; I have nothing against this! But its like many civilisations emerging from greater- more widespread- nations: When they are near the Mediterranean; I call it the "Mediteranean Magic Touch"!

Personally I think some of you guys misunderstood my post- it was directed to Horemheb and in reply to our friend saying that Wally and Rasol etc would be far better off like digging a well in the Sudan or something!! Instead of following their research. Anyway, I can take it.

Regards,
sneuropa

posted 23 September 2004 09:35 AM            

quote:

---

I personally see it as tan- like perhaps a Mediterranean/"Hamitic" sub-race?

---

You are compounding that error by regurgitating racist pseudo science about Mediterranean and Hamitic sub races; falsehoods long ago discredited by modern science.

Of course you are entitled to an opinion. But as with saying that 2X2=5, and opinion can objectively be shown to be fallacious, and your opinion is fallacious.

quote:

---

Others are depicted with the red skin (especially in paintings) - but I've always considered it was to make them look "alive"

---

The AE had a word for red people: Deshrutu, which means "red ones". It is a prejorative and they would have been offended by your referring to them as red peoples. OF course, they called themselves Kememou, or Black peoples. It's as simple as that. You can't run away from that fact, by putting on quite literally "rose colored glasses" while viewing AE art. That is really what you are doing you know. Trying to convince yourself of something that is transparently false. It is also dishonest. When the earliest Europeans viewed "Egyptian" art, they almost invariably commented on its dark, and African appearance. Only after contrived racialist ideas such as "dark white, Medit. race" were developed by Seligman and others, did Europeans even attempt to find a way of seeing themselves in AE art, and not Black Africans. It was an unconvincing argument then, and it is twice as unconvincing today.

quote:

---

I've also looked at some 'mummies'. They too vary; but they are a bit too dead to see very well.

---

quote:

---

As for Nubia; I have nothing against this! But its like many civilisations emerging from greater- more widespread- nations: When they are near the Mediterranean; I call it the "Mediteranean Magic Touch"!

---

Here's a logical theory of why African civilization flowered in the Nile Valley:

The Nile is the longest river in the world.
It gathers fertilising minerals and sediment from the East/Central African highlands, and carries it 4000 miles, and then deposits and pre irrigates, the richest soil on Earth in Egypt's Nile Vally; an area in which it seldom rains and thereby washing the soil away. It is an almost unmatched combination of fertile, irrigated land that is not prone to leaching of soil due to rain. It is one of the most perfect places on Earth for Agricultural civilisation to flower. Kemet is the gift of Africa's Nile river. The Mediterranean Sea really has nothing to do with this. Just a theory.

posted 23 September 2004 09:49 AM            

You will often see on papyri that mourning women are painted white which is most likely symbolic. You can't really take the color symbolism except in some way to convey ethnicity or racial affinity. Only in some cases from the Middle Kingdom to New Kingdom.

posted 23 September 2004 09:52 AM            

IT is clear that nubia was clearly a nilo-saharan/sudanic african civilization,but so was egypt and upper egypt more so than lower egypt in later times.

There are two types of nilo-saharans,one is sudanic and the other is nilotic.THE nilotic folks lived along the nile longer and the sudanic african blacks lived the sahara and the sudan regions of west and central africa.both are clearly black africans.

MOST ancient egyptians came from the SAHARA and nubia.no true scholar denys this.

posted 23 September 2004 10:02 AM            

Select Search ----- All Bartleby.com ----- All Reference ----- Columbia Encyclopedia World History Encyclopedia Cultural Literacy World Factbook Columbia Gazetteer American Heritage Coll. Dictionary Roget's Thesauri Roget's II: Thesaurus Roget's Int'l Thesaurus Quotations Bartlett's Quotations Columbia Quotations Simpson's Quotations Respectfully Quoted English Usage Modern Usage American English Fowler's King's English Strunk's Style Mencken's Language Cambridge History The King James Bible Oxford Shakespeare Gray's Anatomy Farmer's Cookbook Post's Etiquette Brewer's Phrase & Fable Bulfinch's Mythology Frazer's Golden Bough ----- All Verse ----- Anthologies Dickinson, E. Eliot, T.S. Frost, R. Hopkins, G.M. Keats, J. Lawrence, D.H. Masters, E.L. Sandburg, C. Sassoon, S. Whitman, W. Wordsworth, W. Yeats, W.B. ----- All Nonfiction ----- Harvard Classics American Essays Einstein's Relativity Grant, U.S. Roosevelt, T. Wells's History Presidential Inaugurals ----- All Fiction ----- Shelf of Fiction Ghost Stories Short Stories Shaw, G.B. Stein, G. Stevenson, R.L. Wells, H.G.





Reference > Columbia Encyclopedia

PREVIOUS NEXT


CONTENTS · INDEX · GUIDE · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001.

African languages


geographic rather than linguistic classification of languages spoken on the African continent. Historically the term refers to the languages of sub-Saharan Africa, which do not belong to a single family, but are divided among several distinct linguistic stocks. It is estimated that more than 800 languages are spoken in Africa; however, they belong to comparatively few language families. Some 50 African languages have more than half a million speakers each, but many others are spoken by relatively few people. Tonality is a common feature of indigenous African languages. There are usually two or three tones (based on pitch levels rather than the rising and falling in inflections of Chinese tones) used to indicate semantic or grammatical distinction. 1
In the last few decades great strides have been made in the study and classification of the African languages, although the results are still far from definitive. The principal linguistic families of Africa are now generally said to be Afroasiatic; Niger-Kordofanian (including Niger-Congo); Nilo-Saharan; and Khoisan, or Click; two other stocks, Indo-European and Malayo-Polynesian, are also represented. Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan are two large families of languages spoken exclusively in Africa. These languages are spoken in all parts of the continent, from the extreme south up to the territory of the Afroasiatic languages of N Africa. The Afroasiatic family is also spoken in the Middle East. Some authorities believe that the languages spoken in the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan families are sufficiently similar to suggest that both stocks had the same ancestor language. 2

Niger-Kordofanian
The Niger-Kordofanian family has two branches, Niger-Congo and Kordofanian. The Kordofanian tongues are spoken in Sudan and form five small groups (Koalib, Tegali, Talodi, Tumtum, and Katla). Niger-Congo is an enormous branch whose languages are found throughout S and central Africa and in most of W Africa below the Sahara. It is generally subdivided into six groups: West Atlantic; Mande; Gur, or Voltaic; Kwa; Benue-Congo; and Adamawa-Eastern. 3
The West Atlantic branch includes many languages, among them Wolof (in Senegal), Temne (in Sierra Leone), and Fulani, the tongue of several million people inhabiting an area from Senegal to a region E of Lake Chad. The Mande group consists of languages prevalent in the Niger valley, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, such as Mende in Liberia and Malinke in Mali. Gur, or Voltaic, is made up of several language groups and includes Mossi, the dominant tongue of Burkina Faso, as well as the Dagomba and Mamprusi of N Ghana. The Kwa languages, spoken chiefly in Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, Benin, Nigeria, and Liberia, include Ewe, Yoruba, Igbo, Nupe, Bini, Ashanti, and possibly Ijo (which is sometimes considered a separate branch). Benue-Congo includes the huge Bantu group of hundreds of tongues found throughout central and S Africa (see Bantu languages), as well as such non-Bantu languages as Tiv, Jukun, and Efik, which are spoken in Nigeria and Cameroon. The Adamawa-Eastern branch, to which Banda, Zande, and Sango belong, is composed of a number of languages spoken in Nigeria, Cameroon, and an area north of the Bantu territory to Sudan. 4
A characteristic feature of most of the Niger-Congo languages is the use of tones. Case inflection is entirely lacking, and gender marking is almost unknown in the Niger-Congo family. The verb root tends to remain unchanged; moods and tenses are denoted either by particles or by auxiliary verbs. For example, in a number of languages the infinitival is the auxiliary designating the future. Typical of the Niger-Kordofanian stock as a whole is the division of nouns, which has been compared to the gender system of the Indo-European tongues. However, Indo-European features only three classifications (masculine, feminine, and neuter), whereas some of the Niger-Kordofanian languages have as many as 20 noun classes. One class, for example, designates human beings, another is used for liquids, and a third class is used for animals. Each class has its own pair of affixes to indicate the singular and the plural. 5

Nilo-Saharan
The Nilo-Saharan language stock has six branches: Songhai (spoken in Mali), Saharan (including languages spoken both near Lake Chad, as in Kanuri, and in central Sahara), Maban (a group of tongues found E of Lake Chad), Furian (comprising only Fur, an important language of Sudan), Koman (a group of languages of Ethiopia and Sudan), and Chari-Nile, the principal branch of Nilo-Saharan, composed of the Eastern Sudanic languages, the Central Sudanic languages, and two additional tongues, Kunama and Berta; the Chari-Nile tongues are spoken in Sudan, Congo (Kinshasa), Uganda, Cameroon, Chad, the Central African Republic, Kenya, mainland Tanzania, and Ethiopia. The Eastern Sudanic subdivision of Chari-Nile itself has ten branches, the two most important of which are Nubian and Nilotic, both found in Sudan. Nubian is unique among modern African languages in that it has written texts of the medieval period. The Nilotic tongues include Shilluk, Dinka, Nuer, Masai, Turkana, Nandi, and Suk. The Central Sudanic subdivision of Chari-Nile consists of a number of languages, among them Mangbetu, spoken in Congo (Kinshasa), and Efe, used by the pygmies. Like the Niger-Congo languages, most of the Nilo-Saharan languages use tones; some Nilo-Saharan tongues inflect their nouns according to case, and still others have gender. The verb in many Nilo-Saharan languages has a system of verb derivation. 6

Khoisan
The Khoisan, or Click, linguistic family is made up of three branches: the Khoisan languages of the San (Bushmen) and Khoikhoi, spoken in various parts of sub-Saharan Africa; Sandawe, a language found in E Africa; and Hatsa (Hadzane or Hadzapi), also spoken in E Africa. Although all the Khoisan languages use click sounds, Sandawe and Hatsa are unlike the other Khoisan tongues and are not related to each other. All of the Khoisan languages appear to use tones to distinguish meanings, and the Khoikhoi languages and some of the San languages inflect the noun to show case, number, and gender. The outstanding characteristic of the Khoisan tongues, however, is their extensive use of click sounds. (Examples of click sounds familiar to speakers of English are the interjection tsk-tsk and the click used to signal to a horse.) Click sounds, which are found only in Africa as parts of words, involve a sucking action by the tongue, but the position of the tongue and the way in which air is released into the mouth vary, just as in the formation of other sounds; thus clicks may be dental, palatal, alveolar, lateral, labial, or retroflex; voiced, voiceless, or nasal; aspirated or glottal. Six types of clicks are known for the San languages as a whole, although no single tongue has all of them. The Khoikhoi languages have dental, palatal, retroflex, and lateral clicks. Some Bantu languages, notably Zulu and Xhosa, which are spoken near the Khoisan area, have borrowed click sounds from the Khoisan languages. 7

Indo-European and Malayo-Polynesian
Indo-European tongues used in Africa include Afrikaans and English (native to many people in the Republic of South Africa and Zimbabwe). African Americans coming to Liberia in the 19th cent. introduced English there, and repatriated slaves who settled in Freetown, Sierra Leone, in the 19th cent. used a form of pidgin English, from which a creole English (now called Krio) developed. A form of creole Portuguese is current in Guinea-Bissau. Many other African lands employ European languages, particularly French, Portuguese, and English, which are often used in schools and in government as a second language. The Malayo-Polynesian family is represented by Malagasy, which is spoken on the island of Madagascar. 8

Twentieth-Century Developments
Most of the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan languages still have no writing (except perhaps for translations of the Bible), although there are several important exceptions. The Nilo-Saharan tongue Nubian, the only modern African language with early written records (dating from the 8th cent. A.D. to the 14th cent.), is of considerable linguistic interest. Its alphabet was derived from that of Coptic. Swahili, a Bantu tongue of the Niger-Kordofanian stock, was written before the European conquest of Africa (see Swahili language), and Vai, a language belonging to the Mande subdivision of Niger-Congo, employs an indigenous script developed in the 19th cent. 9
Because the majority of Africans do not know a European tongue, the use of written African languages has become increasingly important for the growing field of mass communication. Arabic and Roman letters are now being used increasingly for languages of the Niger-Kordofanian and Nilo-Saharan stocks, and the International African Institute has had some success in promoting the use of the written form of indigenous African languages. Many newspapers, magazines, and radio broadcasts now employ various vernaculars, and film theaters can switch sound tracks to accommodate the audience in a given language area. However, Africa’s linguistic diversity can be a hindrance to mass communication, and European tongues (especially English and French) are still widely used in the media. 10
The modern scientific study of the classification and distribution of African languages has thrown some light on the history of Africa and its inhabitants. More knowledge can be expected from the combined use in the future of evidence from linguistic sources, historical records, reliable traditions, and archaeology. For example, the study of loan words from languages such as Greek, Latin, Punic, Arabic, and Portuguese should reveal much about contacts between African and non-African cultures. The study of loan words of African origin that have been absorbed by English has become of increasing interest to American linguists and scholars. 11

Bibliography
See E. A. Gregersen, ed., Language in Africa (1977); M. Mann and D. Dalby A Thesaurus of African Languages (1987). 12


The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright © 2003 Columbia University Press.

posted 23 September 2004 10:03 AM            

Yes,but it's not the realistic color. In the tombs of Menna,Nakht,Sennefer,and others that show conventional skin color. Reddish brown was symbolic as was yellowish colors for women. See the following:

Old Kingdom to Amarna: The Changing Use of Color as Gender Indicator in Egyptian Art

Mary Ann Eaverly, PhD

Classics Department

P.O. Box 117435

University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611-7435

Eaverly@classics.ufl.edu

Even casual observers of Egyptian art have commented upon the radical departure from traditional figural style found in the sculpture of the New Kingdom 'heretic' pharaoh Akhenaten (1353-1335 BCE). For example, figures are shown with elongated crania, spindly calves and broad thighs. However, little or no attention has been paid to a shift in the depiction of flesh tones during this period. While standard Egyptian practice for millennia was to show women as light-skinned (yellow, cream or white) and men as dark-skinned (reddish brown or dark brown) Akhenaten's art (called Amarna after the major site) represents a change. Elite women including Nefertiti, the pharaoh's wife, and their daughters are often shown with reddish brown or dark brown skin. This paper will examine the significance of this change as an indicator of the status of royal women in Amarna Period Egypt and place this color convention reversal within the framework of previous Old and New Kingdom depictions of women

posted 23 September 2004 10:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
The skin color in the overwhelming number of reliefs is redish brown.

---

posted 23 September 2004 10:26 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by sneuropa:
Sorry I haven't replied till now; but I couldn't. I've read through all your posts with interest.

Also I've spent some time analysing paintings and statues etc. As you say they vary a lot. But, 1) when many are depicted together they are all dark- like Negroes. With black hair. When individual they vary much. I found many with the "yellow" skin colour you mention. I personally see it as tan- like perhaps a Mediterranean/"Hamitic" sub-race? Others are depicted with the red skin (especially in paintings) - but I've always considered it was to make them look "alive" as red is considered a colour of life? Others/ many are without a doubt black (Negro). Others (well I found two, and pre-Hellenistic)are with "white" skin- I found one statue definately "white"; she was a daughter of Rameses II. However all the depictions have black hair. Though possible that some of this is wigs. Ramesses' daughter being white doesn't mean much as we all know that he had lots of foreign wives!

I've also looked at some 'mummies'. They too vary; but they are a bit too dead to see very well. They look like they come from more than one race though. The work on facial reconstruction is very clever, but I always have reservations, though without a doubt some look like Negroes and I reckon are so.

Ausar, you mention that men and women worked together in the fields etc. I too have noted this in past study. More interesting is that men did "women's work" like weaving. What strikes me with this is how unlike Indo-Aryan and Syrian etc societies this is,where much of this work was segregated. Even some peoples like Sumerians (of Dravidian type stock) having seperate languages for men and women probably due to this. I wonder if sharing of duties is often typical practice of African societies? At any rate it differentiates from other Mediteranean societies.

As for Nubia; I have nothing against this! But its like many civilisations emerging from greater- more widespread- nations: When they are near the Mediterranean; I call it the "Mediteranean Magic Touch"!

Personally I think some of you guys misunderstood my post- it was directed to Horemheb and in reply to our friend saying that Wally and Rasol etc would be far better off like digging a well in the Sudan or something!! Instead of following their research. Anyway, I can take it.

Regards,
sneuropa

---

posted 23 September 2004 10:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
interesting that many of these pseudo-scholars here point to AE's African location as a reason that it is a black African society. They fail to point out that it is just as close to the middle east in terms of location and was influenced by both areas. If you come to Texas you will find that we are heavily influenced by Mexican culture but it doesn't make us Mexicans. The skin color was redish brown, not black and everyone here knows that.

---

most ancient egyptians were still black folks,i guess for you light skin,brownskin or dark brownskin blacks with negriod features are not black as well.that type of thinking is non-sense and incorrect.

posted 23 September 2004 10:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
kenndo...again, the overwhelming number of reliefs do not show negro features. If you are going to pick and choose you can prove anything.

---

posted 23 September 2004 11:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
[B]interesting that many of these pseudo-scholars here point to AE's African location as a reason that it is a black African society. They fail to point out that it is just as close to the middle east in terms of location and was influenced by both areas.

---

posted 23 September 2004 11:13 AM            

However,many do so features common to Eastern Africans. Art should not be taken as a means of physical anthropology. The early pre-dyanstic remains show that negriod people have always been and are still in Egypt today.

However,Egypt was a diverse place which lighter people in northern Egypt and more negriod African people in the south. All this argument is futile,for ancient Egypt was founded by people from Upper Egypt and not Lower Egyptians. AE culture and lifestream came from the south and not the north. Not to say that Lower Egyptians never contributed anything because they did in later periods.

Reddish-brown conventions was just something AE did to differentiate themselves from other people surrounding them. If you want realistic paintings in AE soceity then look in individual tombs where color of the occupant is depicted in realistic form. Even the Nubian temples at Kawa around the Fourth cataract show women with yellowish skin and men with reddish-brown skin. AE art was not meant to be taken realistically like Greco-Roman art.

Notice that modern ''black'' Upper Egyptians matches the color of his ancestors!