PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Blacks during Black History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Egyptians were anything but Black, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Molefi Kete Asante decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The Black Pharaohs-Conquerors of Ancient Egypt.”
“If you assume that this article is about the Black pharaohs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other pharaohs?” Dr. Asante asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Africa,” a comprehensive history of the continent, National Geographic writer Robert Draper erroneously suggests the pharaohs were not Black and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Piye’s (the Nubian monarch who reunified Ancient Egypt) historic conquest of Egypt, the fact that his skin was dark was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Draper jabbed at Black scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the African desert does little to advance the case of Afrocentric Egyptologists, who argue that all Ancient Egyptians . . . were Black Africans.”
Mr. Draper added, “Tut’s own grandmother, the 18th dynasty Queen Tiye, is claimed by some to be of Nubian heritage.”
He points to a bust of Queen Tiye and asks, “Did the powerful Queen Tiye, King Tut’s grandmother, have Nubian ancestry? This bust, made of wood that has darkened with age, has inspired claims that she did.”
Dr. Asante scoffed at that notion. “Look at the lips! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Europe. Greece and Rome combined do not make Egypt.”
Referring to Septimus Severus, a Black Emperor of Rome, Mr. Asante said, it would have been better to write an article called “The Black Emperors of Rome.” “That would of made sense since most of them are White. But to say ‘The Black Pharaohs of Egypt’ where most of them were Black, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw African people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Europeans to claim Egypt as not African. That was the attempt of the King Tutankhamen’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Egyptians as anything other than Black. The June 2005 edition featured a Caucasian-looking King Tut on the cover. The same image was used on a King Tut exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Zawi Hawas, head of the Supreme Council for Egyptian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Egyptians are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the Black statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land,” said Dr. Hawas.
Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
“The idea that the Ancient Egyptians are like the current Egyptians is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the Black people of Egypt of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Romans, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Egypt, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to Egypt. They found the Black people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in Egypt should not be read as an ancient presence just as a White presence in Australia should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Asante said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Egyptians as “melanchroes” (Black-skinned). Dr. Asante argued if the ancient Egyptians were White, Herodotus would have used the term “leucochroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Asante debunks the notion that ancient Egyptians did not refer to themselves as Black as European Egyptologists suggest. The meaning of Egypt or Kemet is “Black nation,” “Black country,” “the Black City,” “Black land,” or “Land of the Black People,” Dr. Asante said.
quote: Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
I'd really like to see that video of S. Keita asserting that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are one and the same since that seems to contradict previous statements made by this same person, as well as his own interpretation of the skeletal and genetic data. My first impression would be that it's a distortion of what he actually said. If not, I'd have to say that I'm definitely disappointed in him.
^^I believe that they oversimplified his position, though I do see where they'd draw that from what he said, given that they be selective in what they want to hear (especially the ridiculous part about light-skinned non-blacks since Keita said no such thing). He said that the diversity in Modern Egypt would indeed probably be similar to the diversity of the past, though directly proceeding, he emphasized that northern Egypt had indeed been infiltrated by many non-Egyptian ethno-nationalities. The implication is that the diversity in the south would be a better representation. I don't disagree with this at all and the author I think took Keita out of context as he also affirms ancient Egypt's African identity within the same piece as well as criticizing pseudo-scholarship that seeks to divide Africa into north and southern regions by way of the Sahara, identifiable through skin color. Keita is a true scholar, they need to cut the crap. Glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Good post btw, SEEKING. First time seeing the prof. portrayed on video. I keep checking Myra's site for any updates but the most recent paper of his that I can access is 3 years old. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on something newer from him concerning this topic.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hawass: If you look at the statues that were colored black, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes black can show the fertility of the land.
^ I would love to put a lie detector on this clown when he says this while trying to keep a straight face.
Kemet, Black "Egypt"....lives, and to this day still strikes fear in the heart of imposters like Hawass.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Another video provided is of Shomarka Omar Keita, a Black geneticist who postulates that modern Egyptians look similar to ancient Egyptians, i.e., light skinned Arabs or non-Black.
I'd really like to see that video of S. Keita asserting that Modern and Ancient Egyptians are one and the same since that seems to contradict previous statements made by this same person, as well as his own interpretation of the skeletal and genetic data. My first impression would be that it's a distortion of what he actually said. If not, I'd have to say that I'm definitely disappointed in him.
^^I believe that they oversimplified his position, though I do see where they'd draw that from what he said, given that they be selective in what they want to hear (especially the ridiculous part about light-skinned non-blacks since Keita said no such thing). He said that the diversity in Modern Egypt would indeed probably be similar to the diversity of the past, though directly proceeding, he emphasized that northern Egypt had indeed been infiltrated by many non-Egyptian ethno-nationalities. The implication is that the diversity in the south would be a better representation. I don't disagree with this at all and the author I think took Keita out of context as he also affirms ancient Egypt's African identity within the same piece as well as criticizing pseudo-scholarship that seeks to divide Africa into north and southern regions by way of the Sahara, identifiable through skin color. Keita is a true scholar, they need to cut the crap. Glad I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Good post btw, SEEKING. First time seeing the prof. portrayed on video. I keep checking Myra's site for any updates but the most recent paper of his that I can access is 3 years old. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on something newer from him concerning this topic.
Evergreen Writes:
The problem is not in what Dr. Keita stated. The problem is the context of the discourse. Egypt was an admixed civilization, but so was Greece, Sumeria, ancient China and every other civilization if we get rid of the racial paradigm. However, Egypt is the only civilization which has to be put through this sort of litmus test. It is naturally assumed for example that Greece is a "Western Civilization". If we are going to deconstruct the racial construct let's do so equally and apply the same racial deconstruction to Greece.
On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: [QUOTE]On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
1. Many elements of Eurasian phenotype such as melanin level and eye color were still evolving as late as the neolithic period.
2. There is no evidence of large-scale Eurasian migration into Egypt prior to the Late Kingdom.
3. The boundaries of the civilization of Ancient Egypt waxed and wanned and often included parts of Sudan.
4. Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there is no battle. This isn't some World Wrestling Federation tag team match where every body is getting hyped up for some big show down. It doesn't work like that. This is about serious and mature scholarship, not emotional gamesmanship.
The PROBLEM here is that BLACK African scholarship has REGRESSED, from where it was. Where are the RECENT books on Ancient Egypt, Sudan, Chad and West Africa showing UP TO DATE information on the ancient cultures on these regions? Where are the BLACK AFRICAN scholars publishing accounts of THEIR OWN history? Why are blacks BEGGING WHITES to tell the truth about black HISTORY? Why aren't blacks TELLING THEIR OWN history? Blacks shouldn't have to BEG WHITES to tell their history for them. That is ridiculous. They shouldn't have to PROTEST in order to get the TRUTH to be told. There should be DOZENS of books by BLACK AFRICAN authors on the black legacy in Ancient Egypt. Who writes MOST of the books on Ancient Egypt? And therein lies the problem. People from THOUSANDS of miles away from Egypt writing books and researching a culture THAT THEY had nothing to do with.
30 years after PROTESTING to get African/African American studies onto American University campuses, WHAT scholars have they produced? Molefi Asante is responsible for getting a PHD African Studies program at Temple University, one of the first in the country and what SCHOLARSHIP has this produced? Africans are still in PROTEST mode as opposed to PROACTIVE mode. Which means they STILL haven't achieved the ability to develop, promote and distribute THEIR OWN scholarship to DEBUNK white supremacy. Sad. Very sad and blacks LIVE in Africa, most white scholars don't.
The funny part is that MUCH of the modern scholarship shows VERY CLEARLY that Upper Egypt has ALWAYS had significant relations with the South, specifically Northern Sudan.
Cultures in Nabta Playa, Wadi Kubbaniya and elsewhere are ALL said to be precursors to dynastic Egyptian culture.
Predynastic centers as Nubt (probably would be called "nubtia/nubia" if using proper english and the closest thing to a region called Nubia by the ancient Egyptians) were very actively trading with and interacting with cultures in Northern Sudan.
Most of the most ancient settlement sites in the Nile Valley are in Northern and Central Sudan and Upper Egypt, like Nabta Playa, Wadi Kubbaniya and Arkin 8, along with the Khartoum Mesolithic.
The pattern of predynastic culture that eventually became Egyptian culture arose in the South of Egypt, sharing many similarities with the older cultures of Northern Sudan, Upper Egypt and the Sahara.
Almost all of the pharaohs from old kingdom to the late period depicted themselves in black granite from Aswan, like the kushites. This region has ancient sites of granite artifacts in the predynastic.
The early dynasties were ALL located in the South.
The First Nome of dynastic Egypt was called Ta Seti, the same name as the ancient Kingodm of Northern Sudan.
The first intermediate period and other periods had a few pharaohs named Nehesi, indicating that these were Southerners. Nehesi is the term often used for Southerners in Egypt.
The Middle Kingdom featured many pharaohs from Ta Seti and even had a hymn speaking of the rise of a Pharaoh from Ta Seti land.
The 18th dynasty arose with strong support from the South, including strong ties of religion, whereby Gebel Barkal was considered the southern Shrine of Amun and source of pharaonic power, where the 18th dynasty pharaohs proclaimed that this was the ancient original site of Amun worship.
Many of the oldest deities in the Egyptian pantheon originated in Upper Egypt and Ta Seti.
All of these things are widely documented and based on facts an evidence. Therefore, where is the battle? It is obvious that throughout the history of dynastic Egypt, there have been ties between Egypt, Northern Sudan and the Sahara. Therefore, how on earth can the 25th dynasty be the first to have a Pharoah from so-called Nubia, when there were many pharaohs from Ta Seti and the South before this.
Therefore, this battle is really just a bunch of noise making and toe squishing, trying to mash sour grapes in the smack down of bitter fruit, but not about facts and evidence.
Of course the name of the Article "The black Pharaohs", is misleading because it omits all of the facts of ties and culture between Northern Sudan and Egypt since before there was an Egyptian state. It presents Egypt as separate from Sudan when it isn't and anyone who calls that out as a non factual way of presenting Nile Valley history is quite accurate.
And as for the term black itself, given the large number of images from Egypt of undeniably black Africans from old Kindom to Late period, it is impossible to suggest that blacks Kings only arrived in Egypt during the 25th dynasty.
And many more. Compare these images from Egypt to that on the cover of National Geographic and tell me that the first black pharaohs got to Egypt in the 25th dynasty.
quote:On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
I would think that the modal phenotype of Eurafrican in the North and African in the South. All the photos and Egyptians I have met attest to this.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
I would think that the modal phenotype of Eurafrican in the North and African in the South. All the photos and Egyptians I have met attest to this.
What's a Eurafrican?
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Most North Africans--confirmed by the DNA of North African[Iberian] and the Y chromosome DNA of the males[East African E3b].
But let me correct observation above that the modal phenotype in the North of Egypt is Eurafrican. I would say rather that it is Afroasiatic. That is the original African phenotype partially modified over the millenia and centuries by invaders and migrants from West Asia and its environs--Turkey, Greece, etc.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Most North Africans--confirmed by the DNA of North African[Iberian] and the Y chromosome DNA of the males[East African E3b].
But let me correct observation above that the modal phenotype in the North of Egypt is Eurafrican. I would say rather that it is Afroasiatic.
Evergreen Writes:
So what is the Afroasiatic phenotype? Is it best represented by the Hausa, the Sephardic Jew or the Beja? I allways thought Afroasiatic was a language and not a phenotype.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Evergreen Writes:
Here is one of the many examples of back-migration from various parts of Eurasia into the Levant since the Bronze Age that would create a tangible impact on the modal phenotype of modern Egypt.
Evergreen Posts:
Crusades, Islam Expansion Traced in Lebanon DNA Amitabh Avasthi for National Geographic News
March 28, 2008
A new study has found genetic traces of both the arrival of the Crusades and of the expansion of Islam in Lebanon.
The findings not only confirm well-documented history but also present a rare genetic trail showing the movement of two major religions into Lebanon, scientists say.
"Lebanon has always had a rich history of receiving different cultures," said the study's lead author, Pierre Zalloua, an associate professor at the Lebanese American University,
"This study tells us that some of them did not just conquer and leave behind castles. They left a subtle genetic connection as well."
Zalloua and his colleagues at the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project were conducting a broader survey of Middle Eastern populations when they stumbled upon their finding. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)
Unlike previous studies that have relied on mitochondrial DNA—which is passed on maternally—to unlock secrets of human migration, researchers in the current study focused on the paternally provided Y chromosome, as it is thought to provide more detailed information.
The study appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Crusaders and Muslims
The distribution of genetic markers at first appeared virtually indistinguishable across the Christian, Druze, and Muslim populations of Lebanon. But a closer look at the Y chromosomes of 926 Lebanese men sampled in the study revealed something intriguing.
"We noticed some interesting lineages in the dataset. Among Lebanese Christians, in particular, we found higher frequency of a genetic marker—R1b—that we typically see only in Western Europe," said Spencer Wells, a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence.
The study matched the western European Y-chromosome lineage against thousands of people in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Wells said the lineage was seen enriched to a higher frequency only in the Christian populations in Lebanon and was not seen in the Muslim population.
"It certainly doesn't undermine the similarities among the various Lebanese communities, but it does agree with oral tradition—that some Lebanese Christians are descendents of Crusaders—and points to a genetic connection to the Crusaders," he added.
"We have a correspondence between what we knew about the history of the region from written documents and what we're starting to see that in the genetic patterns as well."
The researchers noticed a similar pattern when they looked at Y-chromosome lineages in the Muslim population.
"We found that a lineage that is very common in the Arabian Peninsula—Hg J*—is found in slightly higher frequencies preferentially in the Muslim population," said Wells, who also heads the Genographic Project.
Wells said that even though the genetic matches are found only in about 2 percent of the population, they provide a detectable impact of two historical migrations into Lebanon.
"What is cool is that we found this lineage in the Lebanese Christians that we don't see elsewhere in the Middle East, or at least we haven't seen it yet," Wells said. "So it seems to have migrated from Western Europe relatively recently into the Lebanese population of Christians, but not Muslims.
"Now what historical events would have brought a substantial number—2 percent—of Y chromosomes in the Christian population in from Western Europe?" he added. "The most likely answer is the Crusades."
The Genographic researchers say their discoveries suggest, in particular, that Crusaders from the 11th to 13th centuries A.D. introduced their lineages into the Lebanese population.
The expansion of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century A.D. likely introduced lineages into people who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims, they add.
Not Convinced
Peter Underhill is a senior research scientist at Stanford University who has previously analyzed Y chromosomes to study human migrations out of Africa.
He says the treasure trove of data from the new study will be helpful in studying historical human migrations. But he is not fully convinced about the findings.
"I must admit that I hesitate to fully embrace the assumptions and the conclusions of major historic Crusader and Muslim influences being the major forcing factors modulating the genetic landscape in Lebanon," Underhill said.
"I am always tempted to ask the question, What if the Crusaders or Muslim events never happened? Is it feasible that one would still see similar patterns?"
Christians were established and converting "locals" in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, Underhill pointed out. The Greeks also had a pre-Crusade presence, so the chromosome match could have come from Greece rather than France or England.
But Wells and his colleagues disagree.
"The fact that we do detect significant excesses of the lineages Hg J* and R1b in the relevant Lebanese subpopulations requires explanation," Wells said.
"The documented Muslim and Crusader migrations could, following Underhill's line of reasoning, have left no genetic impact, but in that case, other undocumented migrations of significant numbers of men from the same source regions must have taken place."
Wells said such an alternative explanation is more complicated and less plausible than the simpler explanation that the migrations known from history are responsible for the observed genetic effects.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Early Palestinians were themselves of recent (holocene) African ancestry. The major shift in Palestine may have occured with the migration of populations from Central Asia circa 2,000 BC.
Do you have a genetic study that supports your back migration theiry from Central Asia to Palestine such that it replaced local populations?
Evergreen Writes:
No. Hence this is why I never claimed that Central Asians **replaced** indigenous Palestinians during the Bronze Age. What I claimed was a major **shift** in relation to genetic ancestry. This is supported in the linguistic, historic and archaeological record.
Do you have a genetic study supporting this "Shift"?
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen:
Here is one of the many examples of back-migration from various parts of Eurasia into the Levant since the Bronze Age that would create a tangible impact on the modal phenotype of modern Egypt.
Evergreen Posts:
Crusades, Islam Expansion Traced in Lebanon DNA Amitabh Avasthi for National Geographic News
March 28, 2008
A new study has found genetic traces of both the arrival of the Crusades and of the expansion of Islam in Lebanon.
The findings not only confirm well-documented history but also present a rare genetic trail showing the movement of two major religions into Lebanon, scientists say.
"Lebanon has always had a rich history of receiving different cultures," said the study's lead author, Pierre Zalloua, an associate professor at the Lebanese American University,
"This study tells us that some of them did not just conquer and leave behind castles. They left a subtle genetic connection as well."
Zalloua and his colleagues at the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project were conducting a broader survey of Middle Eastern populations when they stumbled upon their finding. (The National Geographic Society owns National Geographic News.)
Unlike previous studies that have relied on mitochondrial DNA—which is passed on maternally—to unlock secrets of human migration, researchers in the current study focused on the paternally provided Y chromosome, as it is thought to provide more detailed information.
The study appears in the current issue of the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Crusaders and Muslims
The distribution of genetic markers at first appeared virtually indistinguishable across the Christian, Druze, and Muslim populations of Lebanon. But a closer look at the Y chromosomes of 926 Lebanese men sampled in the study revealed something intriguing.
"We noticed some interesting lineages in the dataset. Among Lebanese Christians, in particular, we found higher frequency of a genetic marker—R1b—that we typically see only in Western Europe," said Spencer Wells, a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence.
The study matched the western European Y-chromosome lineage against thousands of people in France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Wells said the lineage was seen enriched to a higher frequency only in the Christian populations in Lebanon and was not seen in the Muslim population.
"It certainly doesn't undermine the similarities among the various Lebanese communities, but it does agree with oral tradition—that some Lebanese Christians are descendents of Crusaders—and points to a genetic connection to the Crusaders," he added.
"We have a correspondence between what we knew about the history of the region from written documents and what we're starting to see that in the genetic patterns as well."
The researchers noticed a similar pattern when they looked at Y-chromosome lineages in the Muslim population.
"We found that a lineage that is very common in the Arabian Peninsula—Hg J*—is found in slightly higher frequencies preferentially in the Muslim population," said Wells, who also heads the Genographic Project.
Wells said that even though the genetic matches are found only in about 2 percent of the population, they provide a detectable impact of two historical migrations into Lebanon.
"What is cool is that we found this lineage in the Lebanese Christians that we don't see elsewhere in the Middle East, or at least we haven't seen it yet," Wells said. "So it seems to have migrated from Western Europe relatively recently into the Lebanese population of Christians, but not Muslims.
"Now what historical events would have brought a substantial number—2 percent—of Y chromosomes in the Christian population in from Western Europe?" he added. "The most likely answer is the Crusades."
The Genographic researchers say their discoveries suggest, in particular, that Crusaders from the 11th to 13th centuries A.D. introduced their lineages into the Lebanese population.
The expansion of Islam from the Arabian Peninsula beginning in the seventh century A.D. likely introduced lineages into people who subsequently became Lebanese Muslims, they add.
Not Convinced
Peter Underhill is a senior research scientist at Stanford University who has previously analyzed Y chromosomes to study human migrations out of Africa.
He says the treasure trove of data from the new study will be helpful in studying historical human migrations. But he is not fully convinced about the findings.
"I must admit that I hesitate to fully embrace the assumptions and the conclusions of major historic Crusader and Muslim influences being the major forcing factors modulating the genetic landscape in Lebanon," Underhill said.
"I am always tempted to ask the question, What if the Crusaders or Muslim events never happened? Is it feasible that one would still see similar patterns?"
Christians were established and converting "locals" in the Middle East prior to the arrival of the Crusaders, Underhill pointed out. The Greeks also had a pre-Crusade presence, so the chromosome match could have come from Greece rather than France or England.
But Wells and his colleagues disagree.
"The fact that we do detect significant excesses of the lineages Hg J* and R1b in the relevant Lebanese subpopulations requires explanation," Wells said.
"The documented Muslim and Crusader migrations could, following Underhill's line of reasoning, have left no genetic impact, but in that case, other undocumented migrations of significant numbers of men from the same source regions must have taken place."
Wells said such an alternative explanation is more complicated and less plausible than the simpler explanation that the migrations known from history are responsible for the observed genetic effects.
quote:So what is the Afroasiatic phenotype? Is it best represented by the Hausa, the Sephardic Jew or the Beja? I allways thought Afroasiatic was a language and not a phenotype.
It would refer to those sections of the population of West Asia[Arabia and the Gulf states especially but here and there all over the Levant and places like Iraq, Iran, Turkey, etc.] and North Africa where it can be historically documented that an original African population has exchanged DNA(mixed) with an original West Asian population. Perhaps 30% of the Arabian peninsula and perhaps 30% of Northern Egypt, Lybia and Tunisia. But of course, such must be proven by DNA(Y and MtDNA) analysis.
Sure, according to Western linguists like Joseph Greenberg, who replaced "Hamito-Semitic" with "Afro-Asiatic", the latter is a "family of related languages", but I think the term is also appropriate for the obviously Africanoid populations of the Arabian peninsula and some elements of North Africa.
Note that even though Greenberg(Jewish) had no problem with "Semitic languages" he chose to throw out "Hamitic" because of its spurious racial connotations.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You may be missing the point regarding Greenberg.
The idea of Hamito-Semito is rooted in two false premises.
1) That Semitic is the base of these related languages.
2) That African languages can be grouped together because they are the product of Asiatic Semites who waundered into Africa.
Greenberg was *one of* the earliest linguists to face the fact that Semitic is one of the youngest languages in this proposed family which otherwise exists entirely in Africa.
Meanwhile - never is there a Hamitic family, such that Taureg/Berber and Hausa/Chadic are somehow related to each other, but not to Tigray/Semitic.
That there is a Semitic family is not in dispute. But it's part of a broader family of African languages.
Christopher Ehret has taken Greenberg's reasoning to it's logical conclusion and replaed the term Afro-Asiatic with Afrisan.
The term Asiatic is reasoned correctly by Ehret as ultimately biased and the product of Eurocentric wishfull thinking as there are too few of this languages spoken in Asia to warrant such a designation.
It is very interesting to note the language disjunction that exists between "Africa and the Levantine", on the one hand, the southern Europe on the other.
Europes language history is disjunctive with the political-geography conception of "meditteranean", which like most Euro-geography exists as propaganda assertion aimed at falsely conflacting the role of Europeans in history.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: Evergreen Writes:
The problem is not in what Dr. Keita stated. The problem is the context of the discourse. Egypt was an admixed civilization, but so was Greece, Sumeria, ancient China and every other civilization if we get rid of the racial paradigm. However, Egypt is the only civilization which has to be put through this sort of litmus test. It is naturally assumed for example that Greece is a "Western Civilization". If we are going to deconstruct the racial construct let's do so equally and apply the same racial deconstruction to Greece.
On the point of phenotype in Ancient Egypt certainly the modal phenotype in modern Egypt is more Eurasian than the modal phenotype in ancient Egypt. A proper model has not been used to assess this and I disagree with Keita on this point.
^Precisely!
It seems I can never restrain myself from stressing this enough.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians and they would have been a part of their population. They were no more a "White" Civilization than Egypt was a "Black" civilization.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
------------------------- The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt. -------------------------
hahahaha
The peowuvian pea brain just got lampooned by his own pseudoscience.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians
^ lol @ racist knucklehead Chimpu, still trying to sell his *mixed-up* ideology to and audience that laughs at him.
If the precense of Ethiopians in Greece makes Greece a mixed and therefore 'non white' civilisation, then it also makes Greece a mixed and thefore non European civilisation, as Ethiopians are as non European as they are non white.
And since subsequent "European" societies derive from Greece.... this means that Rome, Spain Great Britian, etc. are also non European civilisations.
All that is required to make this argument is to play the concept of Europe off against "mixture" in which case virtually nothing in Europe is -european-.
Finally, since African and Asian civilisation far predate European it follows that no European society can escape their influence, in which case there can be no European civilisation..
Chimpu, you should try arguing that, instead of focusing your racist obsessions on Africans.
As is, you only prove yourself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
Actually it isn't entirely clear what the term Aitheopian derives from.
It could indeed relate the notion of Aeithopes ie - burnt faces - but could equally derive from Kemetic - Eithoshi = "frontier".
The Greeks sometimes used the terms Ethiopia even to reference non Blacks and quite specifically so - "leuco Aeithiopoes" - technically 'white Ethiopian', sometimes referenced some Maghrebi. Ethiopian was also used by the Greeks as a general reference to Africans or Blacks including Egyptian and Sudanese, and sometimes as you note to specifically reference Africa south of Egypt.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Just curious, in what writing(s) did the greeks refer to or call egyptians "ethiopian"? They often made comparisons between the ethiopians and egyptians but i don't remember them directly refering to egyptians *as* ethiopian. I was under the impression they refered to them as Egyptians. As I understand, ethiopian would become a "catch-all" term for non-egyptians africans the greeks came across or knew of.
-------------------- Dont be evil - Google Posts: 426 | From: Cali-for-nia | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^My testimony won't be as useful due to lack of detail and specific citation, but I specifically recall a particular Greco-Roman author named Virgil discussing the "Aethiopians of southern Egypt". As a matter of fact, you type in the key words "Aethiopians" and "Southern Egypt" (with in the same string) into google, and you'll even find pages referencing such. You'll also see some of the Eurocentric slant used to explain it away. Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mmmkay: ^ The "ethiopians" of the ancient world was not referring to modern day ethiopia. it comes from the greek word "aitheopian" which means "burnt faces". There were usually refering to black african groups south and west of egypt.
I am well aware of this. Your point? Aethiopia usually was referring to Sudan and beyond.
Rasol explained it some of it.
quote:It could indeed relate the notion of Aeithopes ie - burnt faces - but could equally derive from Kemetic - Eithoshi = "frontier".
The Greeks sometimes used the terms Ethiopia even to reference non Blacks and quite specifically so - "leuco Aeithiopoes" - technically 'white Ethiopian', sometimes referenced some Maghrebi. Ethiopian was also used by the Greeks as a general reference to Africans or Blacks including Egyptian and Sudanese, and sometimes as you note to specifically reference Africa south of Egypt.
I doubt it came from Eithoshi, as there is no indication of a Phonetic EITHo- but always a clear aeTHIOP sound.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ lol @ racist knucklehead Chimpu, still trying to sell his *mixed-up* ideology to and audience that laughs at him.
LOL. The Black racist is still trying to claim everyone else racist but himself.
quote:If the precense of Ethiopians in Greece makes Greece a mixed and therefore 'non white' civilisation, then it also makes Greece a mixed and thefore non European civilisation, as Ethiopians are as non European as they are non white.
Nice try. Culture is situational. Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences. Just like Egypt. Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
quote:As is, I only prove myself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
posted
^^Well, as stated, there were exceptions, as in the case of Virgil who referenced the Ethiopians of southern Egypt.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correct. You really have to understand that the Greeks did not have the word -Africa-.
Aiethiopes literally does not contain the word black or the concept of black. It just doesn't.
The word for Black in Greek is Melas.
This is from whence the term "melanin" is derived.
It is the strongest, clearest and most direct Greek term for black.
In Herodotus the Histories, whenever he references black, melas, is the term that is used:
"Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them. She alighted on an oak, and sitting there began to speak with a human voice, and told them that on the spot where she was, there should henceforth be an oracle of Jove.
Lastly, by calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated that the woman was an Egyptian".
^ The word that is used for black is Melas. And in all original English translations of Herodotus the Histories, whenever he mentioned Melachrone Egyptians it is translated CORRECTLY as Black.
Eurocentrists have long recognised the "problem" here, and some try to rewrite Herodotus, but this only exposes their awareness of the devastating implications to their ideology.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
quote:Just like Egypt.
^ Not.
Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
quote: Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Why not? This is where your phony discourse breaks down.
If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Ironically - the Greeks had no word for "African" nor did they reference themselves as "European", but they did have a word for Blacks - and that is what they called Egyptians and Ethiopians.
Yet you desparately try to deny this? Why? Because you are Kemophobic racist loon.
quote:Chimpu wrote: As is, I only prove myself to be a slow witted debator as well as a racist loon.
True.
quote:Chimpu writes: Fixed
No, it's still broken.... your brain that is.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SEEKING in an alternate universe: The battle to keep ancient Scandinavia White
By Sundiata Hieglief Updated Apr 2, 2008, 11:14 pm
PHILADELPHIA (FinalCall.com) - National Geographic magazine insulted the historical and cultural legacy of Whites during White History Month by distorting history and blatantly insinuating that ancient Norse were anything but White, said a critic. In an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Temple University scholar Dr. Erik von Haraldhassen decried the article’s entire framework, beginning with its title “The White Chiefs-Conquerors of Ancient Scandinavia.”
“If you assume that this article is about the White chiefs then the question that is begged is that, who were the other chiefs?” Dr. Haraldhassen asserted.
According to the author of “The History of Europe,” a comprehensive history of the subcontinent, National Geographic writer Imhotep Pumbaa erroneously suggests the Norse chiefs were not White and it didn’t matter since “the ancient world was devoid of racism. At the time of Harald Bluetooth’s (the Danish monarch who Christianized ancient Scandinavia) historic conversion of the Norselands, the fact that his skin was light was irrelevant,” he argued.
Mr. Pumbaa jabbed at White scholarship stating, “Revisiting that golden age in the European forests does little to advance the case of Eurocentric Nordologists, who argue that all Ancient Norse. . . were White Europeans.”
Mr. Pumbaa added, “Beowulf’s own father, the 6th century King Ectheow, is claimed by some to be of Swedish heritage.”
He points to a bust of Ectheow and asks, “Did the powerful Ectheow, Beowulf's father, have Swedish ancestry? This bust, cover with paint that has lightened with age, has inspired claims that he did.”
Dr. Haraldhassen scoffed at that notion. “Look at the blue eyes! These days what we have to do is assume that these people will never accept it. They will never accept the truth ... that nothing like this was in Africa. Egypt and Songhay combined do not make the Norselands.”
Referring to Cleopatra, a Macedonian-descended Queen of Egypt, Mr. Haraldhassen said, it would have been better to write an article called “The White Rulers of Egypt.” “That would have made sense since most of them are Black. But to say ‘The White Chiefs of Scandinavia' where most of them were White, that doesn’t make sense,” he said.
“I disagree with the article’s intent because the intent is to throw European people a bone. This article came as the result of the tremendous attempt on the part of Africans to claim the Norselands as not European. That was the attempt of Beowulf’s exhibit when it was first presented. So this is a long struggle.” National Geographic has a history, going back at least to the 1940s, of portraying the ancient Vikings as anything other than White. The June 2005 edition featured a Saharatropical-looking Beowulf on the cover. The same image was used on a Beowulf exhibit that recently toured the country and featured on the cover of the February 2008 edition.
Seemingly anticipating some backlash, the online edition of National Geographic provides a video of Dr. Hawass, head of the Supreme Council for Scandinavian Antiquities, who said the race and the origin of the ancient Germanic peoples are difficult to ascertain.
He attempted to explain away the White statues. “If you look at the statues that were colored white, it doesn’t mean anything. Sometimes white can show the color of the snow,” said Dr. Hawass.
Another video provided is of Gwyndeyln Wieglief, a White geneticist who postulates that modern Scandinavians look similar to ancient Norse , i.e., brown-skinned Arabs or non-White.
“The idea that the Ancient Norse are like the current Norse is so far off that it is laughable. General Amr ibn al As was invited by the White people of Scandinavia of the 7th century to come over to help throw out the Kushites, when this was so he remained. This was the beginning of the large Arab presence in Scandinavia, 639 (B.C.) was the major movement of Arabs to the Norselands. They found the White people already there.
“The presence of Arabs today in northern Europe should not be read as an ancient presence just as a Black presence in Hawaii should not be read as an ancient presence. The same for America. We have to take back the writing of our own history for it is absolutely essential,” Dr. Haraldhassen said.
He pointed to ancient firsthand testimony from the 5th century BC Greek historian Herodotus who referred to the ancient Vikings as “leucochroes” (White-skinned). Dr. Haraldhassen argued if the Norse were Black, Herodotus would have used the term “melanchroes” and if brown or red skinned “phrenychroes” would have been used.
Professor Haraldhassen debunks the notion that ancient Norse did not refer to themselves as White as African Nordologists suggest. One pre-Christian Norse king was named "Erik the Red", referring to his red hair, a characteristic typical of White Europeans.
BTW, is anyone here familiar with Scandinavian and/or pre-Christian Germanic culture? Do any Scandinavian works describe the skin colors of any individuals?
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow." Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: And you guys should make that claim more. Greeks obviously had strong contact with Ethiopians and they would have been a part of their population. They were no more a "White" Civilization than Egypt was a "Black" civilization.
LOL, this guy is slick..you really think you are going to get away with this statement on this board come on man lol. You are being invidious and that is considered trolling. Try not to be so overt with your agenda.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Why not? This is where your phony discourse breaks down.
If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Excellent point and I think this exposes Chimu's agenda. Hey man I was with you on the two pics you posted of the Khoisan and the Asian, but with other claims you support they don't make a lot of sense. I will have to watch you more closely because I thought you were honestly making an objective judgment on the definition of black. Now I am seeing a lot of just plain clear racism from you
I must admit I am disappointed in anyone that exhibits this behavior and as well that I was supporting your scrutiny in the beginning because I might be associated with your racism by other members of this forum.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: "The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow."
Yeah, and the reason the Chinese are called "yellow" and paint their skin yellowish, is because they live around the Huang He ("Yellow") River.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Exactly, it's all about symbolism. You see, symbolic use of color can refer to everything...except skin.
Color, at least the color black, must never refer to skin, symbolically or otherwise.
So when Osirus - ancestor of all Egyptians is refered to as - The Great Black one, and "he of the Black face." - it symbolizes everything *but* his skin color:
- death - fertility - land - cosmology,
...but in no way communicates the idea that he was a Black man from inner Africa, or heaven forfend that the Kemetians viewed their ancestors that way.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ Correct. You really have to understand that the Greeks did not have the word -Africa-.
Aiethiopes literally does not contain the word black or the concept of black. It just doesn't.
The word for Black in Greek is Melas.
My personal theory is that the ancient Greek word "Aethiopian" does not refer to what we think of as "native Africans" in general, but specifically to the very darkest of Africans, such as the Sudanese. "Aethiopes" literally means "burnt". Most Africans, although dark by northern Eurasian standards, are not so dark as to look "burnt" (i.e. the color of ash or charcoal); they're more of a dark brown or chocolatey color, so they wouldn't be "Aethiopians" (burnt people).
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
THE ancient GREEKS mention that those in the nile valley south of egypt(kush)were the darkest and most woolly haried they knew too,not just the original or native libyans,of course there other types of libyans that were not dark and did not have woolly hair.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are also numerous other Aithiopian tribes [i.e. besides those centered at Meroe]; some live along both sides of the river
Nile and on the islands in the river, others dwell in the regions that border on Arabia [i.e. to the east], others again have settled in
the interior of Libya [i.e. to the west]. The majority of these tribes, in particular those who live along the river, have black skin, snub-nosed faces, and curly hair". (woolly hair-same thing) See The "Ethiopians" According to Diodorus Siculus.
or from the book the kingdom of kush quote- diodorus describes the majority of the 'ethiopians',particularly those living along the nile as being black in colour,with flat noses and woolly hair.
Ethiopians Aithiopians
To the ancient Greeks, all of Africa west of Egypt was considered to be Libya.
Herodotus also mentions another aspect of the Ethiopians which would make it seem that he regarded most of the non-Egyptian Africans to be “Ethiopians;” in describing the geography of Libya, Herodotus tells of the cave-dwelling Ethiopians; they ate snakes, lizards and other reptiles; they were fleet of foot and had voices like the squeaking of bats; another tribe of Libyans, the Garamantes, hunted the Ethiopians with four-horse teams but whether the Garamantes hunted the cave-dwellers for sport or food is not clear.
Herodotus also mentions Ethiopians from Asia and their tribute to the Persian Empire; the Asian Ethiopians who fought in the army of Xerxes had straight hair and were teamed with the Indians whereas the Ethiopians who were teamed with the Arabians were from Africa and had wooly hair; other than their hair and speech, the Asian and African Ethiopians seemed to be of the same race; the nation of Cyprus had Ethiopians in its population.
Histories, book 2, chapters 11, 29, 30, 100, 104, 110, 137, 139 and 161; book 3, chapters 17-26 and 94; book 4, chapter 183; book 7, chapter 70 and 90
HERODOTUS' CONTRIBUTION TO THE "BIG" QUESTIONS Were Egyptians Africans? Herodotus believed that the Colchians (southern Black Sea area) were introduced to Asia by Egyptian expansion as far as Thrace and Scythia because "they have black skins and curly hair (not that that amounts to much, as other nations have the same)." [Herodotus, Histories, 167.] They also practised circumcision, unlike Mediterranean peoples of the time.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________ john g. jackson quote-
between Colchis (the country to the south of the Caucasus) and prehistoric Egypt. Herodotus remarked upon a series of resemblances between the Colchians and the Egyptians." (Wells' New and Revised Outline of History, p. 184, Garden City, 1931.) It would have been proper for Wells to have quoted the remarks of Herodotus, so as to give us precise information on the series of resemblances between the Cholchians and the Egyptians. Why he did not do so we shall now see. In Book II, Section-104, of his celebrated History, Herodotus states: "For my part I believe the Colchi to be a colony of Egyptians, because like them they have black skins and frizzled hair." (See any English translation of The History of Herodotus. The translation by Professor George Rawlinson is the best.
In modern geography the name Ethiopia is confined to the country known as Abyssinia, an extensive territory in East Africa. In ancient times Ethiopia extended over vast domains in both Africa and Asia. "It seems certain," declares Sir E. A. Wallis Budge, "that classical historians and geographers called the whole region from India to Egypt, both countries inclusive, by the name of Ethiopia, and in consequence they regarded all the dark-skinned and black peoples who inhabited it as Ethiopians. Mention is made of Eastern and Western Ethiopians and it is probable that the Easterners were Asiatics and the Westerners Africans." (History of Ethiopia, Vol. I., Preface, by Sir E. A. Wallis Budge.) In addition Budge notes that, "Homer and Herodotus call all the peoples of the Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, Palestine and Western Asia and India Ethiopians." (Ibid., p. 2.) Herodotus wrote in his celebrated History that both the Western Ethiopians, who lived in Africa, and the Eastern Ethiopians who dwelled in India, were black in complexion, but that the Africans had curly hair, while the Indians were straight-haired. (The aboriginal black inhabitants of India are generally referred to as the Dravidians, of whom more will be said as we proceed.) Another classical historian who wrote about the Ethiopians was Strabo, from whom we quote the following: "I assert that the ancient Greeks, in the same way as they classed all the northern nations with which they were familiar as Scythians, etc., so, I affirm, they designated as Ethiopia the whole of the southern countries toward the ocean." Strabo adds that "if the moderns have confined the appellation Ethiopians to those only who dwell near Egypt, this must not be allowed to interfere with the meaning of the ancients." Ephorus says that: "The Ethiopians were considered as occupying all the south coasts of both Asia and Africa," and adds that "this is an ancient opinion of the of the Greeks." Then we have the view of Stephanus of Byzantium, that: "Ethiopia was the first established country on earth; and the Ethiopians were the first who introduced the worship of the gods, and who established laws." The vestiges of this early civilization have been found in Nubia, the Egyptian Sudan, West Africa, Egypt,-----
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chimu: [QUOTE]Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences. Just like Egypt. Doesn't change that Greece was European and Egypt was African.
Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, can you name a culture which was not a "creolized" culture? Your relativist approach is applied in an inconsistent manner.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
Evergreen Writes:
Very strong statement. Well put!
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrann0saurus: My personal theory is that the ancient Greek word "Aethiopian" does not refer to what we think of as "native Africans" in general, but specifically to the very darkest of Africans,
I've already shown you why this is wrong.
"Above the tracts washed by the Libyan sea live the Leuco Ethiopians" - Pomponius. Melanoderm = Black Leucoderm = White.
The above literally translates as white Ethiopian, or in this case - whites of Africa. [not white black which makes no sense].
If the purpose of the term Ethiopians were soley to signify a skin tone, then the term Leuco Ethiopians would be and oxymoron.
Have to start by knowing what words mean. In Greek the word for black is Melas.
There is no such word Ethiopia in Greek meaning -very black-.
Effort is made to transliterate aeithien 'burnt' to Ethiopia but it is not clear that the terms are related and moreover 'burnt' is not a color and where it can be associated with a color - it can just as easily relate to 'white' [burnt ash] as to black.
And as for it referring to the 'darkest or blackest', Homer mentions Ethiopians of the far East [India] and the far West [Libya?], so again, the term can't be pinned down to only Sudan, only the darkest people, or even only Blacks..... unless you simply ignore every use of it that does not correspond to a faulty theory.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years.
Greece invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
This is much *unlike* the Black AFrican founders of Kemit, who preceded Greece and Europe and whites by thousands of years, and whose seminal influence on them is therefore inescapable.
Evergreen Writes:
quote:Very strong statement. Well put!
The mulatto-centric model of Frank Sweets parroted by banned troll Jamie/Chimu is ultimately racist, contrived, and as sterile as it's namesake [the mule].
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
Sorry bub, but significant presence is more than just some foreigners making aminor impact.
quote:Since Kemet is the worlds 1st Nation state, whereas Greece post dates Nile Valley Civilisation by literally thousands of years. Greec invented almost nothing fundamental to 'civilisation', and therefore Europe invented nothing fundamental to civilisation, and therefore whites invented nothing fundamental to civilisation.
LMAO. Kemet may have been the first Nation state, but not the first city states and Middle Eastern culture predates that of Africans. The same claim could be made of Egypt. Later timeline does not indicate that they learned everything from Egypt. And there were other European civilizations before Greece. Try again.
quote:If non European influences do not make Greece non European - then why would non white influence make Greece non white?
Sorry bub. Your myopia is not mine. Europe is a regional distinction. White is an ascription of race that you have yet to show.
quote:If non African influences do not make Egypt non African, then why would non Black influence [if such exist] make Egypt non Black?
Again. Africa is a region. Black is an ascription of race. And identity. That you have not shown.
quote:Ironically - the Greeks had no word for "African" nor did they reference themselves as "European", but they did have a word for Blacks - and that is what they called Egyptians and Ethiopians.
And Europe is just a descritpive term for a region. And Greeks did not call Egyptians Black.
quote:it's still broken.... my brain that is.
I guess it is still broken.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QB] "The white skinned images of ancient Europeans prove nothing. White skin images often referred to the snows of Europe. They called themselves whites, and painted their skin white, not because they considered themselves 'whites' but rather because of the snow."
And your evidence that they called themselves White as a people? None.
Posts: 385 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Banned troll writes: Greece was a creolized culture taking foreign and local influences
^ Dissembling babblement, which might describe any country from Sweden to Japan.
quote:Trolling embicile writes: Sorry bub, but significant presence is more than just some foreigners making aminor impact.
Minor impact? Does Japanese caligraphic writing and Buddhism originate in Japan? Is alphabetic writing and Christianity native to Sweden? Are these "minor contributions" to their cultures?
So these civilisaitons are somehow [pure] whereas others are somehow mixed?
Sorry Chimpu, your brain is still broken, and clearly clogged by racism, which is the source of your internal contradictions.
Whether your realise it or not, it is racism that is at the root of your ideology of purity vs. mixture.
That you are a racist, is the only point you've ever made on Egyptsearch.
quote:Europe is a regional distinction. White is an ascription of race.
Europe is a reference to geography. White is reference to color. Both references can be ethnic, and neither can qualify "race", and the ethnic reference to 'whites' is probably older than 'european' and predates reference to Europeans.
So your comment is just a stall which fails completely to address the question of how so called 'mixture' qualifies white, but not European?
quote:Evergreen Writes:
Chimu, can you name a culture which was not a "creolized" culture? Your relativist approach is applied in an inconsistent manner.
Obviously he can't answer, and so won't. This proves that he knows his ideology is bogus, but argues it anyway for trollings sake.
He can save time by just admitting his ideology is contradictory and utterly vapid.
Chimu's mulatoo-guru Frank Sweets is equally daft, and if he ever shows his cowards face here, he'll get a beat down just like you're getting.
quote:And your evidence that [Europeans] called themselves White as a people?
^ As a people? As opposed to what? Rocks? Trees? Snow?
Your query provides evidence that you're too dumb to understand and analogy. It's ok, everyone else understands. Don't strain your brain. Just enjoy your beatdown, which is all you're good for anyway.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Book of Glory of the Blacks over the Whites
"The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks"
--Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD.
"My mind is filled with confustion. My head and my heart.....are full of hate and dispair. This is why I keep returning to Egyptsearch for another beatdown, even though I have been banned from this site." - Chimpu [2008]
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Book of Glory of the Blacks over the Whites
"The Ethiopians, the Berbers, the Copts, the Nubians, the Zaghawa, the Moors, the islands in the seas...are full of Blacks"
--Al-Jahiz, Book of the Glory of the Blacks Over the Whites, written in 800 AD.
Evergreen Writes:
Rasol, thanks for pulling this quote out. I haven't considered this quote in some time. However the observations by Al-Jahiz support the assertion that the NW African modal phenoype changed with the importation and admixture with Northern European women during and after the Moorish occupation of Iberia.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ This seems to be so based on mtdna and y chromosome study.
But what do you say to those who claim that the lightest Berber of Algeria - the Kabyle - descend from relatively isolated populations from the Atlas Mountain regions?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wolofi: I think it is more based on experience and knowledge of the Nile valley in Greek perception which is why they separate Ethiopia and Libya.
In the Herodotus claim he states that the Libyans were the darkest and most wooly haired of *Ethiopians* and that it comes down to the fact that Greeks really hadn't explored the rest of the Continent as much as the Nile Valley.
So Ethiopian seems to be a description as well as a cultural epithet to the Greeks throughout their accounts which covered centuries of writing and history. Such like "acting black(which really makes no sense but is still used)" and "being black" in modern times today.
THE ancient GREEKS mention that those in the nile valley south of egypt(kush)were the darkest and most woolly haried they knew too,not just the original or native libyans,of course there other types of libyans that were not dark and did not have woolly hair.
Who said anything about original or native? All Libyans were native. Ethiopians in a Greek context are just as native as any other African so what are you talking about?
Posts: 343 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic