posted
As the title says, lets take a closer look, paragraph by paragraph -
quote: Modern scholars such as W.E.B. DuBois,[77] Chancellor Williams,[78] Cheikh Anta Diop,[79][80][81] John G. Jackson,[82] Ivan van Sertima,[83] and Martin Bernal[84] all supported the theory that the Ancient Egyptian society was indigenous to Africa (or Afro-Asiatic in the case of Bernal) and a mostly Black civilization.
Firstly note that if you want to add a scholar who does NOT believe the ancient egyptians were 'Black', they strictly have to be:
(a) Anthropologists (b) Egyptologists
However Afrocentrics are allowed to add any old Joe Bloggs who has no credentials in these relevant fields - DuBois, a civil rights activist and political writer, Bernal, who has a bogus degree in Chinese political history etcetc.
Afrocentrics always get away with adding charlatans or not qualified authorities.
quote:The debate was popularized throughout the 20th century by the aforementioned scholars, with many of them using the terms "Black," "African," and "Egyptian" interchangeably
No credible source or examples cited.
Completely bogus.
quote:Diop and others believed the prevailing views were fueled by scientific racism and based on poor scholarship
Failed appeal to emotion. What does this have to do with the topic?
quote:Several Ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians and Ethiopians were black or dark skinned,[94] with woolly hair,[95] which became one of the most popular and controversial arguments for this theory. The Greek word used is “melanchroes”. While scholars such as Diop, Selincourt and George Rawlinson translate the Greek word "melanchroes" as "black", Najovits states that "Dark-skinned is the usual translation of the original Greek melanchroes"[96] and he is followed by A.D. Godley and Alan B. Lloyd.
Note that before a huge war on the talk page about the ambiguous definition of "melanchroes", the article gave a very distorted view of the definition/translation ''Black''.
It was only after a huge conflict on the talk page, that resulted in posting of extreme aggressiveness and several bannings that this was actually changed to give a more neutral overview. However this section is still biased, distortion and factually incorrect:
quote:Several Ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians... with woolly hair
Selective source use.
Why aren't the classical sources provided such as Galen which describe the egyptians as NOT woolly hair also provided?
quote:Lucian observes an Egyptian boy and notices that he is not merely black/dark, but has thick lips
A complete distortion of this passage.
Lucian actually clarifies that the boy is a SLAVE, not an Egyptian.
quote:Diodorus Siculus mentioned that the Ethiopians considered the Egyptians a colony. Appollodorus, a Greek, calls Egypt the country of the black/dark footed ones.[99] Aeschylus, a Greek poet, wrote that Egyptian seamen had "black/dark limbs."[100] Strabo mentions that the Ethiopians and Colchians (predecessors to modern Georgians of the Caucasus) are of the same race
More selective sources. Why are the classical sources which describe the Egyptians as light skinned and clearly Caucasoid in appearance not cited? And there are plenty. So much for the Afrocentric model relying on classical literature or being the ''ancient model''. LMAO. Yes, an ''ancient model'' which just ignores all ancient quotes which describe the egyptians as non-Black.
quote:Diop used a multi-faceted approach to counteract prevailing views on the Ancient Egyptian's origins and ethnicity. Diop and Obenga attempted to linguistically link Egypt and Africa, by arguing that the Ancient Egyptian language was related to Diop's native Wolof (Senegal).[108] Diop's work was well received by the political establishment in the post-colonial formative phase of the state of Senegal, and by the Pan-Africanist Négritude movement, but was rejected by mainstream scholarship. Diop claimed that the name (KMT, or Kemit) used by Egyptians to describe themselves, or their land (depending on your point of view), meant "Black."[109]
Diop attempted to culturally link Ancient Egypt and Africa. In biblical traditions, it is agreed that Ham (son of Noah) fathered Kush, which is also the name that the Egyptians used to refer to the Blacks in Nubia.[110] Diop notes that Ham's other offspring, Mezraim (Egypt) and Canaan, share many cultural and ethnic ties with their siblings, Kush and Phut.[111]
Diop also points to the depictions of the Egyptians in certain paintings and statues,[112] and to the cultural traits that are shared with Black Africa, such as circumcision,[113] matriarchy, totemism, and kingship cults.[79] According to Diop, historians are in general agreement that the Ethiopians, Egyptians, Colchians, and people of the Southern Levant were among the only people on Earth practicing circumcision, which confirms their cultural affiliations, if not their ethnic affiliation.[113]
Afrocentric bias.
Virtually no criticism posted against Diop, despite the fact his claims have been debunked over and over in many peer-reviewed journals (of course none of these are referenced in article).
quote:Several anthropologists who study the biological relationships of the Ancient Egyptian population call for a recognition of Africa's genetic diversity when considering the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians.[118]
Bogus inserted end quote in a desperate attempt to try and mislead people into thinking Afrocentrism has modern support within academia. Note that this quote has nothing whatsoever to do though with the claim the ancient egyptians were ''Black''.
Posts: 1575 | From: - | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentrics always get away with adding charlatans or not qualified authorities.
'The Peopling of Ancient Egypt and the deciphering of Meroitic script p102
General conclusion
Although the preparatory working paper (see Appendix 3, p.135) sent out by Unesco gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched constributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop ad Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance in the discussions.'
‘Until recently, Cleopatra’s dynasty was thought to be Greek, European, Caucasian, but some scholars now believe Cleopatra and her siblings had African blood. Could the answer be in this skull?
The distance from the forehead to the back of the skull is long in relation to the overall height of the cranium and that’s something you see quite frequently in certain populations, one of which is Ancient Egyptians and another would be ...um...certain black African groups will also show that characteristic. This one certainly looks more white European but does have this long head shape. It could suggest a mixture of ancestry.’ Professor Caroline Wilkinson, forensic anthropologist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO78VHqAopI&feature=player_embedded
Sheldon Peck, an American orthodontist arrived at the conclusion that the sphinx is the depiction of an African. He wrote in to the New York Times with the following in July, 1992
'the Sphinx is likely a facial representation of a black African.'
Other examples - George Sandy, who was a traveller and poet wrote after seeing the Sphinx in 1615; "Not far off from these the colossus doth stand… wrought altogether into the forme (sic) of an Ethiopian woman and adored heretofore by the countrey (sic) people as a rurall (sic) Deity.”
French novelist Gustave Flaubert said of the Sphinx when he visited Egypt in 1849: 'it exactly faces the rising sun, its head is grey, ears very large and protruding like a negro’s, its neck is eroded; from the front it is seen in its entirety thanks to great hollow dug in the sand; the fact that the nose is missing increases the flat, negroid effect. Besides, it was certainly Ethiopian; the lips are thick.'
This is what M.Constantine de Volney, philosopher and historian, said when he travelled in the Near East and Egypt 1783-85:
"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their "mulatto' appearance) (It's features) were those of the Negro. The Egyptians therefore must have been real Negroes, of the same species of the natives of Africa. How are we astonished when we reflect that to the race of Negroes, at present our slaves, and the objects of our extreme contempt, we owe our arts, sciences, and even the very use of speech; and when we recollect that in the midst of those nations who call themselves the friends of liberty and humanity, the most barbarous of slaveries is justified, and that it is even a problem whether the understanding of Negroes be of the same species with that of white men!
In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original colour but retained the impress of its original mould."
Question to Keita: 'The largely Caucasian academic reluctance to accept the African ethnicity of ancient and indeed modern day Egyptians appears to be based less on established evidence and more inherently racist notions of Africans inferiority which in their minds rendered them incapable of being cultural originators of Egypt. Does this therefore suggest that African scholars should not engage in debating or proving anything to the Caucasian world and simply focus on establishing meaning, interpretation and application in current day relevance of Ancient African knowledge?'
Shomarka Keita : 'Uh...absolutely. The African world has to do its own research whether that African world is in Nigeria, or in Brazil, or in Mississippi in the United States, or in Liverpool. On the other hand there are standards of excellence that have to be applied in scholarship, you just don’t stand up and say anything you want and that goes also for the Eurocentrists.'
Also read his comment on the skin colour of the Egyptians in an e-mail behind the link below
Question #2: Were the Ancient Egyptians predominately dark-skinned throughout the Dynastic period and were they predominately African biologically (a pictorial reference to modern populations to illustrate what the majority looked like would be helpful)?
Keita's answer: No one can say exactly what colour they were, but one might reasonably say that the typical Upper Egyptian to Nubian color would have been the modal colour in most of the country.
Question #3: Why do some of the mummies of the Ancient Egyptians have light (yellow, red etc.) hair?
Keita's answer:
The hair colour question is no doubt difficult and has many answers--some related to artificial colouring, some related to different folk being in Egypt, some related natural variation. Remember there are dark skinned Australian Aborigines and New Guineans with blond hair.
Here's a final message from Keita that I think can apply to everyone interested in the topic:
I hope that this helps. Be scientific in all of your work. Understand evolution. Understand also the racist history of ideas that tried to remove Egypt from Africa.
He goes on to say 'Without an analysis of histology of the skin and accurate portraits one cannot say how they looked. We can extrapolate by looking at the variability of the modern Egyptian with a focus on Upper Egyptian , considering a predictive approach based on latitude, and imagining what they would have been like without the gene flow from the Near East and Europe over thousands of years . This will help you conceptualise the variability of the Nile indigenous population...My research cannot indicate skin colour in any empirical sense.'
Regarding cranial affinities, he writes
'I think that the correct comparative series would be indigenous northeast Nilotic and Horn, and northwest Africans.' EgyptSearch Forums: Some questions I recently asked Dr. Shomarka Keita about the Ancient Egyptians
also
"The living peoples of the African continent are diverse in facial characteristics, stature, skin color, hair form, genetics, and other characteristics. No one set of characteristics is more African than another. Variability is also found in "sub-Saharan" Africa, to which the word "Africa" is sometimes erroneously restricted. There is a problem with definitions. Sometimes Africa is defined using cultural factors, like language, that exclude developments that clearly arose in Africa. For example, sometimes even the Horn of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea) is excluded because of geography and language and the fact that some of its peoples have narrow noses and faces. However, the Horn is at the same latitude as Nigeria, and its languages are African. The latitudeof 15 degree passes through Timbuktu, surely in "sub-Saharan Africa," as well as Khartoum in Sudan; both are north of the Horn. Another false idea is that supra-Saharan and Saharan Africa were peopled after the emergence of "Europeans" or Near Easterners by populations coming from outside Africa. Hence, the ancient Egyptians in some writings have been de-Africanized. These ideas, which limit the definition of Africa and Africans, are rooted in racism and earlier, erroneous "scientific" approaches." (S. Keita, "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," in Egypt in Africa, Theodore Clenko, Editor (1996), pp. 104-105. [10]) http://www.africanamericanculturalcenterpalmcoast.org/historyafrican/quotetext.htm
Game over for Anglo the racist nutjobPosts: 838 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
Here are some mainstream books on ancient Egypt by people with Egyptology degrees:
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Ian Shaw (Editor)
A History of Ancient Egypt by Nicolas Grimal
Handbook to Life in Ancient Egypt (Facts on File Library of World History) [Hardcover] Rosalie David (Author Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization Barry J. Kemp (Author) Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, it's wikipedia which is subject to all kinds of b.s.
Second of all, while citing people like W.E.B. Dubois is indeed questionable the likes of Diop, Bernal, and others who have degrees in Egyptology and history are certainly not!
And what of the many Egyptologists who do support the FACT of a black African Egypt? Folks from Michael Rice, to Egyptian Egyptologist Ahmed Saleh?!
Of course you can't complain about that now can you? Posts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Most of so-called "Afrocentric" editors who are allegedly adding "radical" information, are themselves bogus creations of the white Wiki moles, who make "Extreme" edits that can be called "vandalism" or "POV" and so provide a pretext for "protecting" a page.
Its like the fake "black militants" who appear on biodiversity websites, spouting "revolutionary" dialog. Behind the "revolutionary" "militant" accounts is a lame white guy.
Few are being fooled by that crap. They think their bullshiit antics are significant, but they are not. They still fail, along with all the effort going into "protecting" the page on their "watchlists." Pathetic Buffoons...
the Wikipedia "article" in question is a weak page, and deliberately kept so, by "biodiversity" moles and their administrative collaborators. They imagine that said "weak" page will be the last word for persons wanting information on the subject, and they scurry to and fro "guarding" and "protecting" it while locking out legitimate scholarship with deception and delay tactics.
But they ultimately fail. ES and Reloaded have created an advanced central database, with verifiable scholarship for all to check by themselves. For example, some people may agree or disagree with the studies of Keita, but his work will be put on the table for all to see and judge for themselves. It will not be "edited out", or "reverted", and anyone who has something to say about it will not be "posted" to the "Adminis Notice Board" for "violating" so-called "WP CIVIL" and such circular rigamarole used by the biodiversity moles to cynically delay and exhaust legitimate, good faith editors. We all know the game.
And the accurate database has good representation in Google, with much more ES hits in aggregate daily than their little Wiki "article." People are getting the info from a more credible source than WIki. This means new readers who spot the errors and distortions in their "article" will always be disrupting their "protected" pages- driving up their "watchlist" workload with no end in sight.
ES and reloaded are now the true open forums, the true democratic venues, the most accurate and up-to-date centers of data. The wiki moles and their admin collaborators have failed. ANd no one is being fooled by their fake "militant Afrocentrist" accounts..
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ W.E.B. Dubois, Booker T. Washington etc. etc. while they may not be experts on the field of Egyptology and anthropology were certainly educated enough on matters of history to know that Europeans whites indeed acknowledged the Egyptians as black skinned peoples of Africa. That white losers like Prime-Idiot are in desperate denial of this is quite telling.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: lol..
Most of so-called "Afrocentric" editors who are allegedly adding "radical" information, are themselves bogus creations of the white Wiki moles, who make "Extreme" edits that can be called "vandalism" or "POV" and so provide a pretext for "protecting" a page.
Its like the fake "black militants" who appear on biodiversity websites, spouting "revolutionary" dialog. Behind the "revolutionary" "militant" accounts is a lame white guy.
Few are being fooled by that crap. They think their bullshiit antics are significant, but they are not. They still fail, along with all the effort going into "protecting" the page on their "watchlists." Pathetic Buffoons...
the Wikipedia "article" in question is a weak page, and deliberately kept so, by "biodiversity" moles and their administrative collaborators. They imagine that said "weak" page will be the last word for persons wanting information on the subject, and they scurry to and fro "guarding" and "protecting" it while locking out legitimate scholarship with deception and delay tactics.
But they ultimately fail. ES and Reloaded have created an advanced central database, with verifiable scholarship for all to check by themselves. For example, some people may agree or disagree with the studies of Keita, but his work will be put on the table for all to see and judge for themselves. It will not be "edited out", or "reverted", and anyone who has something to say about it will not be "posted" to the "Adminis Notice Board" for "violating" so-called "WP CIVIL" and such circular rigamarole used by the biodiversity moles to cynically delay and exhaust legitimate, good faith editors. We all know the game.
And the accurate database has good representation in Google, with much more ES hits in aggregate daily than their little Wiki "article." People are getting the info from a more credible source than WIki. This means new readers who spot the errors and distortions in their "article" will always be disrupting their "protected" pages- driving up their "watchlist" workload with no end in sight.
ES and reloaded are now the true open forums, the true democratic venues, the most accurate and up-to-date centers of data. The wiki moles and their admin collaborators have failed. ANd no one is being fooled by their fake "militant Afrocentrist" accounts..
LOL You have a good point. I would not all be surprised if the wiki editors who make mention of black figures who are not experts in the field are non other than white idiots who are trying to make a political point while perhaps intending to give the impression that they themselves are black. Hell, a par examplar is the troll lioness in this very forum. LOLPosts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Here are some mainstream books on ancient Egypt by people with Egyptology degrees:
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Ian Shaw (Editor)
SOME INFO FROM SHAW FROM ENCYC OF EGYPT AND AFRICA
Genesis from Egyptian civilization from the 'darker' tropical south
QUOTE(s): "While not attempting to underestimate the contribution that Deltaic political and religious institutions made to those of a united Egypt, many Egyptologists now discount the idea that a united prehistoric kingdom of Lower Egypt ever existed."
"While communities such as Ma'adi appear to have played an important role in entrepots through which goods and ideas form south-west Asia filtered into the Nile Valley in later prehistoric times, the main cultural and political tradition that gave rise to the cultural pattern of Early Dynastic Egypt is to be found not in the north but in the south.": The Cambridge History of Africa: Volume 1, From the Earliest Times to c. 500 BC, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), Edited by J. Desmond Clark pp. 500-509
"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)
Egyptian state founded from the south, and indigenous in character. Egyptians dominated Palestine in some eras.
"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less clear... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character." (Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.)
"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt.
Contact between northern Egypt and Palestine was overland, as evidence in northern Sinai demonstrates.. Israeli archealogists suggest that this evidence represents a commercial network established and controlled by the Egyptians as early as EBA Ia, and that this network was a major factor in the rise of the urban settlements found later in Palestine EBA II. Naomi Porat's technological study of ceramics from EBA sites in southern Palestine clearly demonstrates that in EBA Ib strata many of the pottery vessels used for food preparation were probably manufactured by Egyptian potters using Egyptian technology but local Palestinian clays. In EBA Ib strata there are also many storage jars made from Nile silt and marl wares, which must have been imported from Egypt. Not only did the Egyptians establish camps and way stations in northern Sinai, but the ceramic evidence also suggests that they established a highly organized network of settlements in southern Palestine where an Egyptian population was in residence." --(Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)
Much older scholarship shows cultural similarities between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa, contradicting claims of Middle Eastern inspiration.
--Specific central African tool designs found at the well known Naqada, Badari and Fayum archaeological sites in Egypt (de Heinzelin 1962, Arkell and Ucko, 1956 et al). Shaw (1976) states that "the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life."
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
White Nord
A banned big lipped primate
Member # 14093
posted
Afronuts have also been posting the same unlinked misquote that they claim is from the Oxford Encyclopedia right here
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."
"Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization........."
"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28
This is the exact same quote that has been spammed across internet forums across the web. Notice how much is omitted in their selective copying and paste and of course they never give a link to the actual source, but rather expect us to take their word.
Posts: 219 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by White Nerd: Afronuts have also been posting the same unlinked misquote that they claim is from the Oxford Encyclopedia right here
"The evidence also points to linkages to other northeast African peoples, not coincidentally approximating the modern range of languages closely related to Egyptian in the Afro-Asiatic group (formerly called Hamito-Semetic). These linguistic similarities place ancient Egyptian in a close relationship with languages spoken today as far west as Chad, and as far south as Somalia. Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons..."
"Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization........."
"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African....."
"Physical anthropologists are increasingly concluding that racial definitions are the culturally defined product of selective perception and should be replaced in biological terms by the study of populations and clines. Consequently, any characterization of race of the ancient Egyptians depend on modern cultural definitions, not on scientific study. Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'blacks' [i.e in a social sense] while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans." Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28
This is the exact same quote that has been spammed across internet forums across the web. Notice how much is omitted in their selective copying and paste and of course they never give a link to the actual source, but rather expect us to take their word.
Can you pray-tell provide us what is "omitted" then?? So far all these quotes from actual experts seem sound. The Egyptians were indigenous Africans whose physical appearance by modern notions of 'race' would indeed qualify them as black. And? Anything else that's missing?
Posts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^lol.. You are being too logical again there Djehuti. The pathetic buffoon does not realize he just shot himself in the foot with his "rebuttal." The quote IS from the Oxford Encyc of Ancient Egypt- Vol 3, and is by none other than conservative Egyptologist Donald Redford, himself on record as disapproving extreme Afrocentrists, and "political correctness".
I remember this quote quite well. It was added to Wiki article and was quickly removed by the racist moles. They must have thought it would end there, and that they had "won." Witless buffoons.. Not at all.
If they had left it, it would have remained buried in obscurity in an article receiving then at the most 10-12 hits a day. Now it is all over the web getting 20 times the hits per day, and still increasing. Their efforts have backfired on them to say the least.
And they STILL fail in attempts to "white out" legitimate scholarship.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova: ^^lol.. You are being too logical again there Djehuti. The pathetic buffoon does not realize he just shot himself in the foot with his "rebuttal." The quote IS from the Oxford Encyc of Ancient Egypt- Vol 3, and is by none other than conservative Egyptologist Donald Redford, himself on record as disapproving extreme Afrocentrists, and "political correctness".
I remember this quote quite well. It was added to Wiki article and was quickly removed by the racist moles. They must have thought it would end there, and that they had "won." Witless buffoons.. Not at all.
If they had left it, it would have remained buried in obscurity in an article receiving then at the most 10-12 hits a day. Now it is all over the web getting 20 times the hits per day, and still increasing. Their efforts have backfired on them to say the least.
More like "blackfired" to cite Martin Bernal! LOL There goes the black char on their burnt faces.
You know they got a serious problem when they run from white conservative Donald Redford like the plague! LOLPosts: 26256 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by zarahan- aka Enrique Cardova:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: .
Here are some mainstream books on ancient Egypt by people with Egyptology degrees:
The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt Ian Shaw (Editor)
"..the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life." (Source: Shaw, Thurston (1976) Changes in African Archaeology in the Last Forty Years in African Studies since 1945. p. 156-68. London.)
Egyptian state founded from the south, and indigenous in character. Egyptians dominated Palestine in some eras.
"What is truly unique about this state is the integration of rule over an extensive geographic region, in contrast to other contemporaneous Near Easter polities in Nubia, Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Levant. Present evidence suggests that the state which emerged by the First Dynasty had its roots in the Nagada culture of Upper Egypt, where grave types, pottery and artifacts demonstrate an evolution of form from the Predynastic to the First Dynasty, This cannot be demonstrated for the material culture of Lower Egypt, which was eventually displaced by that which originated in Upper Egypt. Hierarchical society with much social and economic differentiation, as symbolized in the Nagada II cemeteries of Upper Egypt, does not seem to have been present, then, in Lower Egypt, a fact which supports an Upper Egyptian origin for the unified state. Thus archaeological evidence cannot support earlier theories that the founders of Egyptian civilization were an invading Dynastic race from the east.."
"Egyptian contact in the 4th millennium B.C. with SW Asia is undeniable, but the effect of this contact on state formation is Egypt is less clear... The unified state which emerged in Egypt in the 3rd millenium B.C. however, was unlike the polities in Mesopotamia, the Levant, northern Syria, or Early Bronze Age Palestine- in sociopolitical organization, material culture, and belief system. There was undoubtedly heightened commercial contact with SW Asia in the 4th millennium B.C., but the Early Dynastic state which emerged in Egypt is unique and religious in character." (Bard, Kathryn A. 1994 The Egyptian Predynastic: A Review of the Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 21(3):265-288.)
"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt.
...
Much older scholarship shows cultural similarities between ancient Egypt and the rest of Africa, contradicting claims of Middle Eastern inspiration.
--Specific central African tool designs found at the well known Naqada, Badari and Fayum archaeological sites in Egypt (de Heinzelin 1962, Arkell and Ucko, 1956 et al). Shaw (1976) states that "the early cultures of Merimde, the Fayum, Badari Naqada I and II are essentially African and early African social customs and religious beliefs were the root and foundation of the ancient Egyptian way of life."
European scholarship has always had its truthsayers spotlighting Egypt as the evolutionary showcase of African civilization. Anglophile and other Neandernazis would do well to follow their example. I do. Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic