posted 23 October 2005 09:17 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian:
well the arrows also extend from the Tanzania/Mozambique area to a larger cluster, then to West Africa. so based on that, it looks like slaves were brought there. which they weren't. so the same rule must apply to the other arrows and their locations. to me it looks like slaves were taken from Upper Egypt/Northern Sudan. but i don't know.

---

The map appears to indicate that slaves were taken from the East African cluster in ships and traveled up the Red Sea.

I'm not aware of Upper Egyptians or Sudanese being traded as slaves, its possible but I can't say for certain without a historical reference.

The map came from this link:
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/mapofafricadiaspora.html

posted 23 October 2005 09:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Is that even a coherent statement?

---

posted 23 October 2005 01:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mazigh:
begin with sayying that the berber are diffirent, and place some animals with them!

---

posted 23 October 2005 03:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by beanpiee:
THE PICS AT THE FOLLOWING SITE, WERE TAKEN AT THE CAIRO MUSEUM BY A [b] CAUCASIAN! .

LET THE PICS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES!...
www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGpix.htm [/B]

---

Bean, pictures are never going to be the authority on these discussions because people see what they want to see in them. Believe me, I went that route once. The discussion of the ethnicity if the Ancient Egyptians is better done analyzing anthropology, genetics, culture, archeology and PROPERLY interpreting pictures.

posted 23 October 2005 03:18 PM            

The original Egyptians were unmixed pure black folks. When they were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any means. During the middle dynasties especially (and later) when people migrated to this great land there was some intermarrying. This is natural and doesn't need to be debated. It was even done within royalty lines at times to solidify alliances, which was a common practice between powers during that period of history. Chancellor Williams refers to this phenomenon in his book "The Destruction of Black Civilization." And frankly, he theorizes that this mixing was part of the reason for the fall of Black Civilization. Nevertheless, there was never so much of this that at any time the ancient Egyptians could ever be classified as other than a black people.

It's reasonable to say that Egypt was a gateway for the meeting and interchange of goods, ideas, and people; and that the Egyptians were themselves a unique expression of human strength, beauty, intelligence and diversification. Ancient Egypt was an African civilization. It is also interesting to note that the Biblical record states "Israel also came into Egypt...the land of Ham." (Psalm 105: 23).

posted 24 October 2005 05:25 AM            

quote:

---

The original Egyptians were unmixed pure black folks. When they were at the pinnacle of their glory they were not a mixed group by any means.

---

posted 24 October 2005 11:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Underpants Man:
Actually, they were mixed. Egypt has always been racially heterogeneous since ancient times. To argue otherwise is like arguing that Americans today are unmixed pure whites.

---

There has really been no conclusive evidence of Egyptians having any non-African ancestry until the Middle Kingdom with the advent of the Hyksos. There are those that argue there was an Asiatic presence in Lower Egypt during Dynastic times, yet this has remained inconclusive. What is certain is that Lower Egyptians did indeed have contact with the Levant by evidence of material, but as far as the actual people it is still a matter of debate.

Personally I don't how Lower Egypt could be any less African than Upper Egypt.

posted 24 October 2005 10:53 PM            

This debate would be over and done with if it wasn't for the Eurasian element in pre-dynastic lower Egypt. What is far more conclusive is the continuity of African culture in Egypt up until Ptolemy/Egypt.

Discussion about culture is far more effective than trying to rule out the obvious migration of Eurasian people into the Delta areas and across Northern Africa.

posted 25 October 2005 12:10 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Underpants Man:
Actually, they were mixed. Egypt has always been racially heterogeneous since ancient times. To argue otherwise is like arguing that Americans today are unmixed pure whites.

---

That doesn't sound like a good analogy to me.

America 5000 years ago was not racially, culturally or in any way identical to America today.

It may be true that the territory encompassing America today was not occupied by a single unified civilization in antiquity the way Egypt was but Modern Egypt is no more than same country as Ancient Egypt than Modern Italy was Ancient Rome. Rome was a city-state in what is now Modern Italy. Likewise Khemet was a nation in what is now Modern Egypt.

Racial purity is not an issue here. Rome and Greece were not racially homogenous societies either, neither during their civilization's existence nor at its founding.

posted 25 October 2005 03:23 AM            

now for another post.
menes to me looks like a pure african and he was,mixing was first only wide spread in lower egypt after menes conquered lower egypt.
picture of menes. http://images-partners.google.com/images?q=tbn:aXgw_deFHQMJ:www.aldokkan.com/egypt /menes.jpg

posted 25 October 2005 03:29 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mansa Musa:

Racial purity is not an issue here. Rome and Greece were not racially homogenous societies either, neither during their civilization's existence nor at its founding.

---

Thought Writes:

Good point. The idea of a people being "Mixed Race" is obsolete because of the non-existence of Races in a biological sense. The term Race implies a biological grouping that is distinct from others. This is a non-starter because all Non-Africans carry a subset of African genetic lineages. In addition that have been additional waves of genes flowing bi-directionally between Africa and Western Eurasia since the Mesolithic introduction of Black African derived lineage E3b1 delta into Europe. Of course some have espoused a critically flawed theory that somehow to claim that by calling E3b1 delta Black African derived one is espousing a Racial paradigm. This could not be further from the truth. The term "caucasoid" by its very etymological structure implies Race because of the focus on Typeology in the suffix 'oid. The term Black on the other hand is a more fluid term that represents ranges, variability and human interaction. The term Black is rooted in the American experience and hence it needs to be LOCALIZED into different languages and not TRANSLATED. To localize is to translate in a way that makes sense to the intended audience, which is the local one. Black people in the USA have allways known that they have genetic links to northern europeans and/or Native Americans, yet we also realize that we are PRIMARILY African in a biological sense. Hence the term Black unlike 'Caucasoid' recognizes plurality and unity simultaneously.

posted 25 October 2005 01:06 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by osirion:
...Just look at the Narmer plate, those are clearly Eurasians being conquered by Upper Egyptians; which Narmer may have himself been a mix between Eurasian an African based on his appearance...

---

posted 25 October 2005 01:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Djehuti:
It's one thing to argue the presence of Asiatics in the Delta, but Narmer is from the south. Most anthropologists agree there wasn't that significant mixing between Lower and Upper populations until dynastic times. Exactly how does Narmer's appearance look 'mixed' anyway?! We have been over the variety of features 'pure' Africans have, why attribute his appearance to admixture?

---

Thought Writes:

posted 25 October 2005 03:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horemheb:
Whether they argue about genetic evidence or artifacts they need to have enough education to understand what they are reading.

---

Horemheb, I sense a bit of hypocrisy from you.

How can you say people need to have a certain amount of education in what they are reading to hold a discussion on this forum and then give credence to ANYTHING Dr. Zahi Hawass says about an anthropological subject?

Now Hore, I for one don't think you are stupid. I just think you are so stubborn that you are less concerned about contradicting yourself than you are stating an opinion just to perpetuate your point of view.

If it doesn't agree with your point of view then whoever said it is sipping koolaide. Logic need not apply. Contradictions need not be addressed. I'd hate to be one of your students professor.

You know funnily enough I had a biology teacher in 9th grade who was viewed as being such a crackpot that the students in my class got together and had a walkout. We all went straight to the office and complained to the principal.

I any case I haven't heard a single person on here claim to have a degree in anthropology so I'd assume most of the people in this forum citing posts are operating on intellectualism in their interpretations of the data rather than formal education.

So I agree with the point that in order for their words to be taken objectively they would have to be formally educated in the subject. I don't think Rasol, Charlie Bass, Thought or anyone else would be admitted into an institution to give a lecture on the data they are trying to interpret.