The term is even in the dictionary take it up with them.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=eurocentrist
Your contention that no one is a Eurocentrist is just your personal opinion.
[This message has been edited by Mansa Musa (edited 07 October 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Mansa, As a point of information, there is no such thing as a Eurocentric. a person is either a historian or they are not. There is only one definition.
there may not be a such thing as eurocentrism, but there sure is a such thing as delusion.
eurocentrism (hiding under the guise of conservatism) is a disease of denial dishonesty and falsification as it relates to history........
some historians are honest and forthright....true
But, many suffer from exposure to systems of thinking forged durning slavery and colonization. Many are unwilling to look at bias in scholarship as a problem. There is no answer to the question of why so many figurenes and statues of ancient egypt have their noses broken or chipped away.
Any attempts at addressing these issues are met with hostility and anger; and most of the blacks examining the same history and artifacts were encouraged not to buck the trend - but were unable to lie in the face of such overwhelming physical evidence.
so who are we to believe?
Horemheb, I must disagree with you. If there are supposed Afrocentrics then there are Eurocentrics. Everything in life has a spectrum. Right and Wrong. Left and Right. Up and down. White and Black. ect...... It's basically what the Egyptians belief in opposites.
Eurocentrics believe that all things great come from white/caucasian people and that everyone has never achieved or some cases if they have achieved it is due to white influence.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Oh, I see, in other words historians who agree with your politics are good and others are not?
nope.....
has nothing to do with politics.........
just put all the physical evidence on the table and lets go from there...
lets get geneticist of all persuasions to work on the markers and patterns of migration.......
lets take seriously "ALL" (including yours) theories of origin and put them to the test.......
lets examine text and oral tradition, geographical and botanical evidence......
and then approach it court style.......
tell me that with all of the above, one, such as myself, could not establish reasonable doubt about the validity of white or Euroasiatic Egypt........
give me 3 even two reasons I (or any one) should believe you with respect to your opinions about egypt....
Well as far as the destoyed artifacts or broken off noses I can say that alot of it was due to Coptic Christians during the Greco-Roman period and Arab Muslims during the Medieval period. The Ottoman Turks would also grind up temples and tombs into salt peter.
I can verify that some early Egyptologist did alter artifacts to make them look more European. Such as the case with Teti-Sheri.
In the same essay by Manu Ampin he does cite a source by Vivian Davies:
For details see: Mark Jones, ed., Fake: The Art of Deception (1990), pp. 160, 162. The ?Tetisheri? statue was first suspected to be a forgery in 1984 by Mr. W.V. Davies, Keeper of Egyptian Antiquities at the British Museum. See Davies, British Museum Occasional Paper (no. 36, 1984)
Also let me point out that there is one myth I commonly hear repeated. Many claim that Napolean blew off the nose of the Sphinx. This is not true. According to al-Maqrizi the nose of the Sphinx was knocked off by a deranged Sufi that was lynched by the Egyptian population.
I find it interesting and disutrbing that there is relaible info for the deliberate racial defacing of artifacts.
What of Nefertiti. I hear the bust was found in a work shop along with many other unfinished busts with her name on them such as this one.
I have never seen an Egyptian scuplture as well painted as that have any of you? I am very skeptical of conspiracy theories but if it took them 12 years to put her scuplture on display in Berlin then painting the face with chosen colors and skintone is plausible. But how likely is it?
Firstly, the items attributed to Nefertiti, found in a workshop and bought from some DEALER in Egypt, as opposed to actually DUG UP in an expedition, does NOT have her name on it. Therefore, there is no WAY to definitively say that it IS how Nefertiti looked. Secondly, there are MANY different heads supposedly from the same workshop, and the ALL look different. Case in point, the picture you posted shows signs of BROWN paint if I am not mistaken (unless it is a photographic issue). But, more importantly than that, the depictions of Nefertiti that actually WERE dug up from Tel Amarna, with her NAME on it bear NO resemblance to the ones from the workshop. So, if you are going to present the evidence, present ALL of it and don't cherry pick those pieces that YOU think prove your point.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Oh, I see, in other words historians who agree with your politics are good and others are not?
Horemheb, can't the same be said of you? You don't seem very objective and you think people shouldn't question historians, anthropologist, etc.
Where would the world be if humans didn't question those who came before them? Being a so-called “professor” you should know this very well. Sometimes you have to think outside the box. This is the only way for scientific disciplines are going to advance.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Mansa,Firstly, the items attributed to Nefertiti, found in a workshop and bought from some DEALER in Egypt, as opposed to actually DUG UP in an expedition, does NOT have her name on it. Therefore, there is no WAY to definitively say that it IS how Nefertiti looked. Secondly, there are MANY different heads supposedly from the same workshop, and the ALL look different. Case in point, the picture you posted shows signs of BROWN paint if I am not mistaken (unless it is a photographic issue). But, more importantly than that, the depictions of Nefertiti that actually WERE dug up from Tel Amarna, with her NAME on it bear NO resemblance to the ones from the workshop. So, if you are going to present the evidence, present ALL of it and don't cherry pick those pieces that YOU think prove your point.
My "point"? What are you insinuating Doug?
I'm quite sure that I covered the gist of what you are saying as explanations for this bust. Perhaps you did not understand the context of the thread. This thread is about whether or not the explanations for the possibility of these images not being authentic hold any validity. How are you going to ask me to present ALL the evidence? Didn't it ever occur to you that I don't have all the evidence and I created the thread for others to present their evidence?
As far as these other images with her name on them I have come across images that fit that description as well as a rebuttle for their inaccuracy.
Here is the White Supremacist's explanation for such an image.
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/nefer.htm
quote:
It is worth noting that some images of Nefertiti are grossly distorted, as was the style of El-Amarna and Akhenaton, her husband, who was known as the heretic king. Hence, there are depictions of Nefertiti which show her as follows:Portraits such as this are however obviously artistic distortions, as no person could actually have a skull shape such as this!
Though we all know what nut-jobs those people were I've heard the same thing said about Ahknaten. It is logical to think that Nefertiti's wall paintings were more so artistic convention, though I think the racist's contention that Nerfertiti must have been white because she was described as being "fair of face" is absurd, considering that being "fair" could just as easily and in fact more than likely mean beautiful rather than light-skinned.
In the close-up image I provided in the first post Nefertiti's bust does look like it has been whithered somewhat, the skin is not a sold beige it is a bit patchy. Its darker in some places, lighter in others and in some parts there is no paint at all such as on her ear and eye which appears to be broken off. Her crown also shows a bit of wear.
These Egyptian soldiers also show obvious signs of wear. Almost all of their heads which you can clearly see were once jet black afros are now White and their skin all of which are brown are faded in some areas.
Rather than butt heads over selective evidence which was not at all my intention this thread should be about discussing the facts.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
mansa, If you see a van pull up in front of your house and a group of guys wearing white coats get out, you better run.
Could you elaborate please? What is it that you
find in my logic to be so absurd that it would warrant the proverbial psych ward to apprehend me?
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Because the theory you have put forward is insane. This idea that evil white egyptologist are changing art is so goofey that it borders on real mental illness.
As I told TDog, you guys go to far and lose your credibility.
Thought does the same thing with his crazy ideas about the Greeks.
I'm only analyzing such claims. I stated at the beginning of the thread that I do not believe in a mass conspracyof lies by Egyptologists to distort the imagery or did both you and Doug not read that part?
Ausar gave thoughful insight into the reality of such claims.
I doubt the existence of a greater conspiracy but is it possible that someone unlreated to Egyptologists forged statues such as "Rahotep and Nofret" and that such images were put on display not knowing that the display was fake. It seems plausible.
Is it possible that some musuems altered images to make them more presentable to a European audience who at the time may have been uncomfortable glorifying the images of African kings? Its plausible.
The purpose of the thread is to analyze such claims and see if there is really some truth to them and if there is how much is true and how much is not.
As far as Thought's claims on the racial makeup of Greece I haven't looked into them too much but I'm sure they are just as ridicolous to you as you contention that Egypt was a non-Black African civilization is to many of us. I am only interested in the truth. The quest for the truth requires looking at things from all angles.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
First of all I never said that Egypt was not an African civilization, never said it was either. Anyone with half a brain can see that Ancient Egypt straddles two areas of the globe and is obviously influenced by both. A little moderation is in order, wouldn't you say? I'm sure Ausar would agree with that as well.
As for rahotep, the statue is not fake.
sure isn't ...........It's a
Zahi Hawass....original.....(LOL)
Maybe I misread your post, but I now see you are trying to sort out the evidence.
The problem here is that you have to take the evidence on a case by case, artifact by artifact basis. For example, is the Berlin bust authentic? That is a legitimate question, seeing as how it was purchased from a dealer as opposed to actually dug up by an archaeologist. Most museums would display such artifacts obtained that way with a disclaimer that puts it into perspective such as "we do not know if this is an authentic portrait, since it was obtained....". I have seen such disclaimers on many statues frome Greece and Rome. All of which points out the REAL issue here, which is that Egyptologists seem to want to allow artifacts to be presented and make statements about the population of ancient Egypt, without properly putting all the evidence into context. Therefore, many continue to consciously or unconsciously pick out those items which portray the ancient Egypt they want to see. Nefertiti's bust is a perfect example of this, and it is not necessarily the case that it really IS an authentic Egyptian relic, but I have no way of proving it.
Other cases of outright alteration can probably be seen in many of the reconstructions of ancient tombs/temples. In some cases the artwork has been altered either due to weather, chemical cleaning process or the general perception and attitude of the restorer towards the subject at hand. Classifying whether something has been defaced due to malice or is just a result of the aging process is a huge effort and quite beyond the scope of this board. However, I do say that once again, many restored artifacts are not clearly labelled with a disclaimer, especially those with faded colors, so that the audience is not fooled into thinking that such restorations are 100% accurate. However, this most often is not the case and the restorations are allowed to stand, without disclaimer, and Egyptologists readily make statements about the accuracy of such depictions, with total disregard to the fact that the depiction has changed and therefore cannot be 100% accurate.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Afro, We have a nice bed for you in the mental ward at the Texas Medical Center. They might be able to help you get rid of those demons that are screwing up your brain.
ok bad joke ........
the point is that at least there is consistency among those of us who believe that egypt is a child of africa and africans.........
those who believe otherwise produce all types of nefarious schemes to separate it from the continent; they make all sorts of claims about it being this great melting pot - which it eventually became........
but we know for a fact that the only people ancient egyptians held in high regard were those closest to them.......those from the interior of Africa; regardless of how they looked
they transport current ideas about race and migration back in time.......comparing a country of 50 some odd million to a country of maybe 1.5 million during antiquity.
none of the trite racist metaphors inaccurately describing ancient egyptians fit..........the lengths gone to, to disprove its black African beginnings are unmatched in any other academic arena......
In any and all other fields of research as with law, when you have so much evidence pointing to truth beyond a reasonable doubt, you go with what is reasonable; not what is convenient. The cover up of critical relevant information in this matter has been and continues to be commonplace...........
so it would seem that you "friend" are the one in need of mental help........
you guys are so truamatized by the realization that most of your accomplishments are achieved in the shadow of Africa's past...................
face it............until very recently innovation was not the strong suit of europeans ..............TEXAN
[This message has been edited by Horemheb (edited 12 October 2005).]
Ancient Egyptians are East African people and they would have had NARROW noses. This is what we would expect to see depicted in their art. Why would White people, in order to take ownership of Egyptian history, deface art work in such a way that it would remove the most Caucasian looking feature of East African people?
I think we are looking at unintentional damage done by looters or we are looking at intentional damage done by religious or political opponents to what the objects represented. I do think there was art intentionally destroyed by Europeans due to race envy, but very little.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Afro...I'm sorry pal, you are as looney as a march hare. You live in a dream world of your own creation. have fun in there.[This message has been edited by Horemheb (edited 12 October 2005).]
IF you say so........it must be true.....
NOT
I enjoy discussing these issues with like minded people........
I can't understand why that bothers you so.
I'm no teacher
no egyptologist
no anthropologist
no archaeologist
no geneticist
but I am a scientist.....(Avery Dennison)
my opinions are a compilation of all the things I've read heard seen and experienced
my conclusions are not emotional or biased........most of what I've read about egypt and Africa in general is written by white authors.....very general and minimal, admittedly, is my knowledge of ancient Africa. However I do not believe that I have, if at all, been lead very far astray about most of what I've learned.
How is it that you've come to be such an authority on ancient Egypt or the integrity of archaeologists over the past 200 years.
How can you be sure you aren't the looney one.........?
I'll answer for you......
YOU CAN'T
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
II am confused about the theories of conspiracies being presented. First of all, East Africans have a more Caucasian appearance on the average due to their narrow nose. Everyone knows this to be a reality of the difference between Central and East Africans. If you go to East Africa you will see people, on an average, with features that are more elongated and narrow.Ancient Egyptians are East African people and they would have had NARROW noses. This is what we would expect to see depicted in their art. Why would White people, in order to take ownership of Egyptian history, deface art work in such a way that it would remove the most Caucasian looking feature of East African people?
I think we are looking at unintentional damage done by looters or we are looking at intentional damage done by religious or political opponents to what the objects represented. I do think there was art intentionally destroyed by Europeans due to race envy, but very little.
Are we to assume that whites are the only xenophobes on the planet. I've heard plenty of theories about Arabs and quote"NORTH AFRICANS"unquote with respect to their attempts to dissociate themselves from darker more quote"NEGROID"unquote Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
You were doing great until you screwed it all up with that last line. More Koolaide on the way.
That's what your types do.......t's very defeatist. You forgot to call me a name.
I (don't know how I did) forgot you were a bush supportun card carryun Republicun
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
whatever.
quote:
From Afrocentrist2:That's what your types do.......t's very defeatist. You forgot to call me a name.
I (don't know how I did) forgot you were a bush supportun card carryun Republicun
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
whatever.
I'm a conservative Republican and you don't see me acting like Hor so don't generalize about political groups.
[This message has been edited by osirion (edited 12 October 2005).]
quote:
Originally posted by AFROCENTRIST32:
Are we to assume that whites are the only xenophobes on the planet. I've heard plenty of theories about Arabs and quote"NORTH AFRICANS"unquote with respect to their attempts to dissociate themselves from darker more quote"NEGROID"unquote Africans.
Actually I use to think like you until I really considered the matter. My first impressions was that the Mamelukes did this since they were rather racist. However, the defacing I have seen does not show a pattern of racial bigotry. I see damage to Negroid and Caucasoid looking artifacts equally. The very picture you show, if the nose was still present, it would be a rather Caucasian looking Nose which really doesn't mean anything, East Africans have this appearance and they are STILL BLACK. They simply have a few adaptations that are different than Central Africans.
This is still a Black person!
In fact he looks a lot like my Ethiopian Grandfather, except he was much darker.
Osirion, the person who wrote the website,Manu Ampin, believes that the ancient Egyptians looked like Western Africans.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:
Osirion, the person who wrote the website,Manu Ampin, believes that the ancient Egyptians looked like Western Africans.
Well, it depends on what you mean by "looked like West Africans", since there isn't a definitive "West African" phenotype. Where did Ampim say this? We know for a fact that folks, who have been cranio skeletally linked to Niger-Congo speakers [Brace et al.], have been found in the region. And I suspect that Angel too, was thinking of stereotypical "negro" traits, when he referred to "Negroid traits" from "Nubia".
[This message has been edited by Super car (edited 12 October 2005).]
I just don't get the Anit-Afrocentrics position. I understand the Afrocentrics go to far but you all are quite aware of the social definition of Black that you accept knowing that your argument against a Black Egypt is a complete double standard!
How can this be Black:
And this not be Black:
And lets not even get into the race classification of the founder of Afrocentrism!
Between the overexaggerating Afrocentrics and the double-minded and double standard Eurocentrics - there are people like me.
AE was Black in an American sense of Black. Phenotype classification would be diversely classified but primarily predominantly neither Black or White (primarily in between) but genetically related to people that are considered Black ( PN2 clade ) East African people by every American standard I have known.
End of story - no need to debate.
W.E. Dubois was not the founder nor the person who coined Afrocentrism. This was done by Molefi Assante during the 80's.
quote:
Originally posted by osirion:
Actually I use to think like you until I really considered the matter. My first impressions was that the Mamelukes did this since they were rather racist. However, the defacing I have seen does not show a pattern of racial bigotry. I see damage to Negroid and Caucasoid looking artifacts equally. The very picture you show, if the nose was still present, it would be a rather Caucasian looking Nose which really doesn't mean anything, East Africans have this appearance and they are STILL BLACK. They simply have a few adaptations that are different than Central Africans.This is still a Black person!
In fact he looks a lot like my Ethiopian Grandfather, except he was much darker.
AGREED
Another twist to the discussion is the way how National Geographic persistently represents the AEs as 3 shades lighter than the way they(AEs) represented themselves, the way the forensic experts fleshed out the TUT skull for modern consumption and the way the Berlin Nefertiti has been presented as authentic.
It may just be an unconscious thing--if one wants to err on the side of charity. Think of all those "race" a nd "gender" tests done in the U.S. Example: a group of essays purportedly written by female students were graded lower than when the same essays were said to be written by male students. And don't forget all those job and apartment vacancy traps set for those who hire or rent.
So in the European unconscious mind here is what happens: Africans are biologically inferior in terms of mental skills so any artifice or culture that shows superior mental skills must be non-African/black. If the evidence is overwhelming then elide it away as is done in a crime defence trial. Set the bar as high as possible for "beyond a reasonable doubt". If the facts are weak for the defence then bluster, bluster, bluster.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:W.E. Dubois was not the founder nor the person who coined Afrocentrism. This was done by Molefi Assante during the 80's.
VERY TRUE
but, Dubois was the first of the English speaking blacks that I've ever read about who spoke openly about the greatness of blacks both hear and abroad..........it was mostly reading about him and reading some of his works which inspired me as a child to take pride in Africa and Blacks in general.
As far as this talk of the pointlessness of defacing the nose of an elongated East African, since the nose is gone it is quite plausible that if true it was a broader nose than average. Arthur Kemp, the White Supremacist who wrote the Nordic Desert Empire page tries to pass off the narrowest nosed Pharonic images as Whites with the motto that "If it is not Negroid it must be White".
I'd like to note that even the elongated statues differ from the overtly narrow noses of Greek, Roman and Assyrian statues. If Nefertiti's bust were painted a medium brown she'd be viewed by most people in the know as an African Queen since her features are perfectly within the proportions of East Africans.
I only bring up the defaced art because that is a common accusation and because in my quest for images of the Pharaohs on unbelievable high number of images seemed to have bring nose and sometimes lips and that was the ONLY thing that was broken as if it were intentional.
quote:
Originally posted by Doug M:
Mansa,Firstly, the items attributed to Nefertiti, found in a workshop and bought from some DEALER in Egypt, as opposed to actually DUG UP in an expedition, does NOT have her name on it. Therefore, there is no WAY to definitively say that it IS how Nefertiti looked. Secondly, there are MANY different heads supposedly from the same workshop, and the ALL look different. Case in point, the picture you posted shows signs of BROWN paint if I am not mistaken (unless it is a photographic issue). But, more importantly than that, the depictions of Nefertiti that actually WERE dug up from Tel Amarna, with her NAME on it bear NO resemblance to the ones from the workshop. So, if you are going to present the evidence, present ALL of it and don't cherry pick those pieces that YOU think prove your point.
You're right, I've never heard anything about the Nefertiti bust being dug up either...which is why a lot of people say it's a fake.
Egyptologists have been known to paint over, or repaint artifacts. And the accusations claim they paint them in a lighter color to misrepresent them. I'm sure this has been done before, but I don't know how widespread it is.
quote:
Originally posted by ausar:W.E. Dubois was not the founder nor the person who coined Afrocentrism. This was done by Molefi Assante during the 80's.
The points made by Afrocentrics were made by WEB Dubois decades before the term was coined.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
Because the theory you have put forward is insane. This idea that evil white egyptologist are changing art is so goofey that it borders on real mental illness.
Such a theory is not impossible; it should be known however that vandalism was done on countless Egyptian works but by native Egyptians who were Muslims or Christians and wanted to rid themselves of pagan stuff.
Despite the wear and tear, you can still get the idea of how these Egyptian soldiers were originally depicted. "caucasoid"? I think not!
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
First of all I never said that Egypt was not an African civilization, never said it was either. Anyone with half a brain can see that Ancient Egypt straddles two areas of the globe and is obviously influenced by both. A little moderation is in order, wouldn't you say? I'm sure Ausar would agree with that as well...
LOL Egypt does not "straddle" two areas of the globe. It is totally in Africa with the exception of the Sinai area. But we all know the main center of culture was not in Sinai but in the Nile Valley. Everything about Egyptian culture is black African and you would know this if you even had a slight knowledge about African culture. On the other hand, Egypt had very little in common with the Near-East culturally, which is why the "straddle" thing seems to be inaccurate a view.
quote:
Originally posted by Horemheb:
First of all I never said that Egypt was not an African civilization,
never said it was either. Anyone with half a brain can see that Ancient Egypt straddles two areas of the globe and is obviously influenced by both. A little moderation is in order, wouldn't you say? I'm sure Ausar would agree with that as well.
As for rahotep, the statue is not fake.
[B]First of all I never said that Egypt was not an African civilization,
YOU LYING ASS BASTARD!!!!!WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR "NORTH AFRICAN CAUCAZOIDS?????????
Will someone please find the fruit truck this fool fell off of so we can put him right back on it!!
[This message has been edited by Serpent Wizdom (edited 13 October 2005).]
quote:Not really. The definition of Black has varied so much, but in the USA it came down to having 'Black' African Ancestry. Which to many people equated to West Africans. To others it meant all dark skinned people. But in the USA they went by one-droppism of West African ancestry.
Originally posted by osirion:
[QB] I just don't get the Anti-Afrocentrics position. I understand the Afrocentrics go to far but you all are quite aware of the social definition of Black that you accept knowing that your argument against a Black Egypt is a complete double standard!
quote:The same way he was Black:
How can this be Black:
And this not be Black:
quote:Not really. Like I said, many might confuse others for Black. But on the same token, many American Blacks are questioned for their Blackness and asked if they are Egyptian, Latino, Indian or what not. Obviously they just don't equate the two. Mixed people have always had a harder time being classified.
AE was Black in an American sense of Black. Phenotype classification would be diversely classified but primarily predominantly neither Black or White (primarily in between) but genetically related to people that are considered Black ( PN2 clade ) East African people by every American standard I have known.
End of story - no need to debate.
quote:It is on the post.
Originally posted by KING:
Ancient egyptians are not mixed race people. They were black african. I ask you again salassin what is Loring Braces email so I can ask him some questions of my own.
quote:At the end of the day what most people on this board are contending is that the range in appearance of most indegenious Egyptians throughout the Pharonic period was like this:
Originally posted by creolite:
Not really. Like I said, many might confuse others for Black. But on the same token, many American Blacks are questioned for their Blackness and asked if they are Egyptian, Latino, Indian or what not. Obviously they just don't equate the two. Mixed people have always had a harder time being classified.
quote:Case in point, you talk about the subjectvity of One Droppism in America, which I agree with and then you go back to argue about to what degree Ancient Egypt was "non-Black" as if it were objective.
Originally posted by creolite:
It is on the post.
Egyptians were a clinal variation and back migrations from both North West Africa and the Levant as well as the South.
No all were not Black.
quote:
Were the Ancient Egyptians Black? That is entirely up to you. But were they biologically African? It would seem that they were. After considering the full range of anatomical, linguistic, cultural, archaeological, and genetic evidence, Shomarka Keita feels confident in concluding that the original Egyptians, by which he means the pre-dynastic people of southern Egypt, who founded Egyptian civilization evolved entirely in Africa. Both culturally and biologically, he says, they were more related to other Africans than they were to non-Africans from Europe or Asia.
Through the years, Keita believes, the Egyptians appear to have blended, with many immigrants and invaders, many of whom were lighter-skinned and more Caucasoid in appearance than the original Egyptians. Libyans, Persians, Syro-Palestinians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans all left their imprint on the faces of Egypt. But Egyptian Civilization remained profoundly African to the very end.
Keita himself rarely resorts to such crudely racial expressions as black and white. But if we might be forgiven a momentary lapse into everyday speech, it would probably not hurt to concieve of Keita's theory as the polar opposite of the Hamitic Hypothesis. Whereas the Hamitic theorists saw Egypt as a nation of White people that was gradually infiltrated by blacks, the biological evidence seems to suggest that it was more like a black nation that was gradually infiltrated by whites.
Black Spark, White Fire: Black, White or Biologically African page. 471
quote:On that I agree.
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Nice try at puting a mixed West African decent person. I agree on her, but Eddie Murphy?
[quote] Not like This:
quote:Settlements before any Pharaonic presence as well.
And that major invasions and settlements during and after the Pharonic period are primarily responsible for the Modern diversity we see in Egypt today.
quote:So tell me what in Levantine populations was so big that it would cause such a variation of looks that they would make such a difference in Egyptian population? What is the big difference in climate that would change the ancient berebers and levantines that would contrast so much with Egyptians in the same environmental clade?
Things like this:
This:
And This:
Caused This:
None of that is to say that people of different skin tones and facial features on a broad field of human diversity did not exist in that region of the world throughout much of its ancient history and prehistory, the question is to what degree?
People who come here and facy themselves as anti-Afrocentrists who bear the truth "free of bias" typically stress a North-South, Light skin - Dark Skin cline that has always existed in Egypt as it does today, I for one think that is inaccurate. [/QB]
quote:Eddie Murphy is to my knowledge an African-American, but what evidence do you have that he is of "mixed West African Descent"?
Originally posted by creolite:
Nice try at puting a mixed West African decent person. I agree on her, but Eddie Murphy?
quote:I question the significance of those settlements if there were any. I don't recall the source but I remember Rasol linking to evidence proving that the Egyptians of the Greco-Roman era were varied substantially in appearance from the original inhabitants of Lower Egypt.
Settlements before any Pharaonic presence as well.
quote:The Levant may have been a primary place of travel as many groups of people would have come through the Levant across the Sinai Peninsula to enter Egypt.
So tell me what in Levantine populations was so big that it would cause such a variation of looks that they would make such a difference in Egyptian population? What is the big difference in climate that would change the ancient berebers and levantines that would contrast so much with Egyptians in the same environmental clade?
quote:
Genetics, Egypt, and History: Interpreting Geographical Patterns of Y Chromosome Variation
Excerpt
Modern Egypt, the site of Africa's earliest state, lies near the crossroads of two other continents, and has had historic interactions with all its neighboring regions. This alone would make it an ideal place to study historical population biology. Egypt can also be conceptualized as a linear oasis in the eastern Sahara, one that traverses several regions of Africa. An oasis can be a way station or serve as a refugium, as well as be a place of settlement with its own special biological and cultural adaptive strategies. Both of these perspectives—crossroads and oasis/refugium—can be expected to provide insight into the processes that could have affected the Nile valley's populations/peoples. From these vantage points [End Page 221] this presentation will examine aspects of what might be called the historical genetics of the Nile valley, with a focus on the Y chromosome. The time-frame is the late pleistocene through holocene; within this there are different levels of biocultural history. Of special interest here is patterns of north-south variation in the Egyptian Nile valley.
Bidirectional clinal variation in Egypt for various p49a,f TaqI Y RFLP haplotypes (Table 1) has been suggested to be likely related to specific military campaigns during and after the Middle Kingdom (Lucotte and Mercier 2003a). The events considered to have brought together northern and southern populations having different Y genetic profiles are: the...
quote:From an unspecified location.
Originally posted by ausar:
Mansa Musa, where are those pictures of Egyptians from?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Here is the thing, as reiterated in the Cinnioglu et al citation:
The Neolithic (along with the E3b Black African gene)spread into Anatolia and eventually the Danube Valley. This process would have been a two way street. With the spread of civilization/agriculture from Africa to Central Europe population growth would have accelerated in Europe. Trade routes would have been established and northern European genes would have flowed back into Anatolia, then the Levant and eventually into NE Africa...
Richards et al.
"We conclude that (i) there has been substantial back-migration into the Near East..."
quote:GOOD POST
Originally posted by ausar:
Here are some things to remeber in this debate:
1. The Delta of Egypt was not formed untill around 8500 B.P.[6500 B.C.] See the folowing reference: 1. Stanley, D. J., and Warne, A. G., 1993, Sea level and
initiation of of Predynastic culture in the Nile delta.
Nature. vol. 363, pp. 435-438.
2. Very little skeletal material remains from Pre-dyanstic Lower Egyptian sites with the exception of a whole body found in Faiyum and Maadi. Most of the skeletal samples present in Lower Egypt come from a later period than pre-dyanstic times. If you can find pre-dyanstic skeletal samples then please post them.
3. The Sahara desert was not always a barrier between Western Africa and Northern Africa. We have remains in the Sahara that match modern day sub-saharans. According to Egyptian archaeologist/Egyptologist Fekri Hassan the early culture of the ancient Egyptians resembles that of the Sahara desert. Once the Sahara dried the populations pushed into both the Sahel and into the Nile Valley.
4. Most of the Nile Valley up to 5200 B.C. was a swampy marsh that was cleared by humans beings. Any previous inhabitant see the following reference:
In the Paleolithic period [before 5000 B.C.] the Delta and Nile Valley were virtually uninhabitable. The annual flood [inundation] of the river Nile would have placed all areas of the Nile Valley under water for three months of each year, and at other times it was covered with thick vegetation that provided habitation for a variety of wild animals. In the north much of the low lying Delta was converted with papyrus swamps. At this time people lived on the desert spurs and hunted prolific game. As the climate became drier and the vegitation of the Nile Valley gradually changed , they were able to move down into the valley once the inudation receded . Here during the Neolithic period[c. 5000-4000 B.C.] they began to cultivate the land ,gorwing grain and learning to domesticate animals.
Reference:
Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Cultural Atlas of) - John Baines; Hardcover
page 59
ISBN: 0871963345
Publisher: Facts on File (July 1, 1980)
6. The contemporary populations within the Levant or Western Asia donot necessarily reflect populations in Neolithic times. Much migration has occured in these areas during many periods.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:Does he even understand what 'clinal variation' means. I recall a past thread where he tried to associate features like narrow noses to be due to admixture.
It is on the post.
Egyptians were a clinal variation and back migrations from both North West Africa and the Levant as well as the South.
No all were not Black.
quote:What makes you assume that Eddie Murphy is of 'mixed' ancestry? Are you suggesting that 'pure' West Africans don't look like him??
Originally posted by the banned one:
Nice try at puting a mixed West African decent person. I agree on her, but Eddie Murphy?
quote:The majority of the US is.
Originally posted by Mansa Musa:
Eddie Murphy is to my knowledge an African-American, but what evidence do you have that he is of "mixed West African Descent"?
quote:Which all have had Bantu migrations, but not in ancient Egyptian times, but I have never seen phenotypes like that of Eddie in Egypt.
Do you have access to his genaological records and genetic data? Some African-Americans trace their ancestry to places such as Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and Madagascar all of which host people with appearances similar to Eddie Murphy.
quote:LOL. I trust rasol as much as I trust a pathologic lier.
I question the significance of those settlements if there were any. I don't recall the source but I remember Rasol linking to evidence proving that the Egyptians of the Greco-Roman era were varied substantially in appearance from the original inhabitants of Lower Egypt.
quote:Except for the Persians and Greeks, the Arabs and Assyrians werw Levantine.
The Levant may have been a primary place of travel as many groups of people would have come through the Levant across the Sinai Peninsula to enter Egypt.
But groups such as the Assyrians, Persians, Greeks
and Arabs are not Levantines.
quote:Completely different. Much larger migrations, variation of terraine and time of genetic separation without intermixing.
What was it in the populations of Southern Europeans and West Africans that changed the face of South and Central America so drastically?
quote:And the mixture was there before the formation of Egypt as well. Admixture of Northern Africans and Southern,and of Levantine populations as well.
Egypt's transformation happened over a much longer period of time from the original inhabitants to the current population and through much more convenient travel.
quote:Nice try. Admixture has played a factor as has clinal variation. Two separate elements.
Originally posted by Duh hooti:
And yet we still have folks like alias Salsa who insist on foreign intrusions and settlements from the predynastic era, without any substantial evidence to support the claim.
Various elements of Near Eastern provenance (arrowheads types, pear-shaped maceheads, footed pottery, emmer wheat, sheep and goats) have been detected both in Merimde and Fayum cultures.
Also this site seems to dispute your claims
http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp010-1_egypt.htm
quote:Yeah, we know your obsession.
All in the name of attributing civilization to "Black" people.
quote:Does he even understand what 'clinal variation' means. I recall a past thread where he tried to associate features like narrow noses to be due to admixture.
[quote]Egyptians were a clinal variation and back migrations from both North West Africa and the Levant as well as the South.
No all were not Black.
And as far as Northwest Africa, there have been no evidence of 'white' or 'caucasoid' Berbers until the New Kingdom.
As for the Levant, Ausar and others have already answered that issue. [/QB]
quote:Most African Americans are and those West Africans that look like Eddie probably have some level of mixture. Plenty of mixing has ovvured in colonial times as well.
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:What makes you assume that Eddie Murphy is of 'mixed' ancestry? Are you suggesting that 'pure' West Africans don't look like him??
Originally posted by the banned one:
Nice try at puting a mixed West African decent person. I agree on her, but Eddie Murphy?
quote:Do you have actual stats on the genetic lineages of African Americans?
Originally posted by banned troll:
The majority of the US is.
quote:Incorrect as usual. Some of the genetic lineages found among African Americans are associated with indigenous East Africans and have nothing to do with 'Bantus'.
Which all have had Bantu migrations, but not in ancient Egyptian times,..
quote:From the way you talk, you apparently haven't seen much phenotypes from the African continent in general!
..but I have never seen phenotypes like that of Eddie in Egypt.
quote:Then I take it you don't trust YOURSELF too much, huh?
LOL. I trust rasol as much as I trust a pathologic lier.
quote:Not really, since there were incursions and immigrations since then.
The diversity was already there that exists now.
quote:Your point?? Even before these incursions, there were excursions of Africans into the Levant.
Except for the Persians and Greeks, the Arabs and Assyrians werw Levantine.
quote:You're right about that, especially in the case of North America where entire populations were displaced. Africa on the other hand has had no displacement only admixture and even then this admixture has had little affect on the overall gene pool compared to other geographic regions of the globe.
Completely different. Much larger migrations, variation of terraine and time of genetic separation without intermixing.
quote:Northern and Southern Africans were still Africans, with little genetic differences. And what evidence do you have of a Levantine impact?
And the mixture was there before the formation of Egypt as well. Admixture of Northern Africans and Southern,and of Levantine populations as well.
quote:I disagree with all of your posts, since they are usually inaccurate.
I didn't disagree with the rest of your post, but I see no conflict with what I said either.
quote:We know YOURS-- attributing everything to "mixture" LOL
Yeah, we know your obsession.
quote:Either way, Egyptians were African and yes 'black'.
Egyptians were a clinal variation and back migrations from both North West Africa and the Levant as well as the South.
quote:To you, a midnight dark Andamanese is not black, so what YOU consider 'black' is irrelevant.
No all were not Black.
quote:Yes, intra-African admixture, as shown by the archaeological evidence.
Nice try. Admixture has played a factor as has clinal variation. Two separate elements.
quote:LOL Of course for you, 'mixing' makes the world go round!
Originally posted by banned troll:
Most African Americans are and those West Africans that look like Eddie probably have some level of mixture. Plenty of mixing has ovvured in colonial times as well.
quote:Which would explain how African genetic lineages (E3b) and morphology spread throught the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean as cited by Angel and Brace et. al.
Originally posted by banned troll:
So sorry the Nile Delta did exist before it just behaved differently. Although I found it a fasinating theory about how geological changes may have made the Delta suitable for agriculture.
In other words people may have been living in the Delta it just wasn't good fopr agriculture until c. 6000 B.C.E.
Pierre
Re: Predynastic Egypt
Posted by: bernard (IP Logged)
Date: March 22, 2006 01:28PM
> 4. Most of the Nile Valley up to 5200 B.C. was a
> swampy marsh that was cleared by humans beings.
> Any previous inhabitant see the following
> reference:
>
> In the Paleolithic period the Delta and Nile
> Valley were virtually uninhabitable. The annual
> flood of the river Nile would have placed all
> areas of the Nile Valley under water for three
> months of each year, and at other times it was
> covered with thick vegetation that provided
> habitation for a variety of wild animals. In the
> north much of the low lying Delta was converted
> with papyrus swamps. At this time people lived on
> the desert spurs and hunted prolific game. As the
> climate became drier and the vegitation of the
> Nile Valley gradually changed , they were able to
> move down into the valley once the inudation
> receded . Here during the Neolithic period they
> began to cultivate the land ,gorwing grain and
> learning to domesticate animals.
>
>
> Reference:
>
>
> Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Cultural Atlas of) - John
> Baines; Hardcover
>
> page 59
>
>
> ISBN: 0871963345
>
> Publisher: Facts on File (July 1, 1980)
>
TILT. I keep telling you that it is essential to check every reference for accuracy. I have the precise book and edition before me. P. 59 has nothing whatever to do with the topic cited. It has to do with techniques of sculpture and painting.
The topic is covered on pp. 12-16 "The Geography of Ancient Egypt" no such quote exists. I'll quote the description frthe time period. p. 13 "In the millennia after the end of the last Ice Age (about 10,000 BC) the Nile Valley was one of the areas that attracted population from the Sahara and much of North Africa. During the Pleistocene era the valley [BOM the whole Nile Valley not just the Delta] was for much of the time impassable swamp, and river levels were much higher than now. As the Sahara dried out at the end of this phase, it became progressively much more hospitable to the nomadic bands which had originally spread over much of its area."
What I found from debating Manansala, Winter, Van Sertima et al is that they manufacture all kinds of "quotes" with citations that turn out to be inaccurate, miscited, paraphrases, or non-existent.
Ask for direct word-for-word quotes with exact verifiable citations.
Bernard
quote:First of all, a couple of statues alone can't determine anything about the appearance of the overall general population..
Originally posted by Underpants Man:
Even if the Rahotep/Nofret statue isn't fake, that doesn't prove a non-black Egypt. Possibly, Nofret might have suffered vitiligo.
quote:Lol, well said! vitiligo is just as rediculas as saying those who were painted in darker shade had been in the sun for too long before they were depicted by AE artists
Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:First of all, a couple of statues alone can't determine anything about the appearance of the overall general population..
Originally posted by Underpants Man:
[qb] Even if the Rahotep/Nofret statue isn't fake, that doesn't prove a non-black Egypt. Possibly, Nofret might have suffered vitiligo.
And second, one needs not to postulate any theory as drastic as a person having a skin disease, as to why his/her millenia old statue looks the way it does.
circular reasoning at its best! quote:I agree with this.
We need to brake the paradigm that all people who don't look like the average Congolese are not Africans, but are instead European immigrants who's original home is among other Europeans.