The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian Rulers...
unutte...@my-deja.com
Rulers" by Robert G. Morkot and its fascinating and filled with
well-researched data!
Just a want to share a few thoughts for those interested (#'s 1&2 are
my own):
1. UPPER Nubia and UPPER Egypt exist in the Southern-most parts of their
respective regions OR looked at another way - facing more toward Africa
- away from the Mediterranean & Europe possibly identifying more with
the indigenous people of inner Africa…while Lower Nubia and Lower Egypt
exist in the Northern-most parts OR facing North, closer toward the
Mediterranean and Europe.
2. Some Egyptologists have maintained and focused more on the wars and
conflicts between the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians - rather than - the
peace and harmony that existed and contributed to the unification of
ancient Egypt. IMHO, peace and harmony between these two Africans is
certainly more important and honorable than the wars and conflicts.
3. Following the events of 1798, European interest in Egypt intensified.
As Egypt came under greater European influence, more antiquarians came
to draw the monuments and copy the reliefs and inscriptions, as well as
to remove antiquities to European museums.
4. The reservoir (Lake Nasser or Lake Nubia) flooded the whole of
Egyptian Nubia and part of Sudanese Nubia. The story of the UNESCO
campaign to record and salvage the monuments - most famously, Abu Simbel
- is well known.
Despite the enormous activity and interest generated during the UNESCO
campaign, most archaeologists preferred to return to Egypt after its
completion, with only a small number of foreign missions choosing to
continue their work in Sudan.
Now Egyptian Nubia lay beneath the waters of Lake Nassar. With the
flooding of Nubia, only one site remained accessible between Aswan and
the southern end of the lake, the fortress of Qasr Ibrim. Excavation has
continued here, and in 1990 revealed the earliest phases of the
fortifications, which raise many new questions about the history of
Nubia in the early Napatan period.
5. Last but not least, we come to page 52 of an illustration of "Queen
Kawit," shown on the exterior of her sarcophagus having her hair dressed
(braided - my emphasis). Kawit, however, as well as being painted black
in her sarcophagus, has the distinguishing characteristics of a Kushite
in Egyptian art, notably the so-called "Kushite fold". (Fig. 23).
Reference:
The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian Rulers
By Robert G. Morkot
ISBN: 0-948695-24-2
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Recently I started reading my book "The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian
>Rulers" by Robert G. Morkot and its fascinating and filled with
>well-researched data!
>
>Just a want to share a few thoughts for those interested (#'s 1&2 are
>my own):
>
>1. UPPER Nubia and UPPER Egypt exist in the Southern-most parts of their
>respective regions OR looked at another way - facing more toward Africa
>- away from the Mediterranean & Europe possibly identifying more with
>the indigenous people of inner Africa…while Lower Nubia and Lower Egypt
>exist in the Northern-most parts OR facing North, closer toward the
>Mediterranean and Europe.
Uhm, no. If one looks at the classical divisions of Egypt and Nubia,
from the NORTH, one sees:
Lower Egypt (including the Delta) This is the only region that touches
the Mediterranean;
Upper Egypt (To the First Cataract, beside Abu Simbel)
Lower Nubia (Called Yam, Wawat, Itjert and in ancient texts) which is
the northern region extending nearly 400 km. from the First Cataract to
the area around Semna and the Second Cataract. Today, it corresponds to
the area of southern Egypt and the northern Sudan.
Upper Nubia (Called Kush, and Iryshek, Tua, Imana'a, and Ruket. In the
eastern mountains were Awshek and Webet- in ancient texts) which is
south of Lower Nubia, extends upriver along the Nile to the Sixth
Cataract and Khartum. It corresponds to what is today the central Sudan.
>
>2. Some Egyptologists have maintained and focused more on the wars and
>conflicts between the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians - rather than - the
>peace and harmony that existed and contributed to the unification of
>ancient Egypt. IMHO, peace and harmony between these two Africans is
>certainly more important and honorable than the wars and conflicts.
The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>Despite the enormous activity and interest generated during the UNESCO
>campaign, most archaeologists preferred to return to Egypt after its
>completion, with only a small number of foreign missions choosing to
>continue their work in Sudan.
Most of the _Egyptian_ monuments that were not saved by the UNESCO
efforts had been recorded before Lower Nubia was flooded. Few Egyptian
monuments existed in lands beyond the flooded areas, so it's not
surprising that most Egyptologists turned their interests back to (of
all things) Egypt.
<snip remainder as covered ground>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
Troy Sagrillo
unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Despite the enormous activity and interest generated during the UNESCO
> campaign, most archaeologists preferred to return to Egypt after its
> completion, with only a small number of foreign missions choosing to
> continue their work in Sudan.
Which is not at all surprising given the fact that there is a civil war
currently raging in the Sudan. Americans are forbidden by the US State Dept.
from travelling to the Sudan (nor does the Sudani government particularly
welcome them either), and funding agencies are not in the habit of giving
money for field work in such areas. Other Westerners are not very welcome
either (the Swiss and Canadians being notable exceptions). The field missions
working in the Sudan now are very small for the most part, close to major
facilities as supplies need to be transported on-site and gasoline is very
expensive and hard to come by. That there are any missions whatsoever there
right now is remarkable.
Best,
Troy
unutte...@my-deja.com
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Recently I started reading my book "The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian
>Rulers" by Robert G. Morkot and its fascinating and filled with
>well-researched data!
>
>Just want to share a few thoughts for those interested (#'s 1&2 are
>my own):
>
>1.UPPER Nubia and UPPER Egypt exist in the Southern-most parts of their
>respective regions OR looked at another way - facing more toward Africa
>-away from the Mediterranean & Europe possibly identifying more with
>the indigenous people of inner Africa…while Lower Nubia and Lower Egypt
>exist in the Northern-most parts OR facing North, closer toward the
>Mediterranean and Europe.
Uhm, no. If one looks at the classical divisions of Egypt and Nubia,
from the NORTH, one sees: Lower Egypt (including the Delta) This is the
only region that touches the Mediterranean;Upper Egypt (To the First
Cataract, beside Abu Simbel)
**
**Uhm, yes. If one looks at a world map of Africa, one can see for him
or herself that what I said above is true and correct. I know where
Lower and Upper Egypt is, and I also know what other names each location
was called as you described below.
The point: Upper Egypt is in the SOUTH, as Lower Egypt is in the NORTH.
The fact is, the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians felt that Upper
Egypt/Nubia face the inner portions of Africa while "Lower" is
geographically closer to the Mediterranean/Europe. Uhm, yes...
>Lower Nubia (Called Yam, Wawat, Itjert and in ancient texts)
<snip>
>Upper Nubia (Called Kush, and Iryshek, Tua, Imana'a, and Ruket.
<snip>
>2. Some Egyptologists have maintained and focused more on the wars and
>conflicts between the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians - rather than - the
>peace and harmony that existed and contributed to the unification of
>ancient Egypt. IMHO, peace and harmony between these two Africans is
>certainly more important and honorable than the wars and conflicts.
The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
**
**Robert G. Morkot, the author of "The Black Pharaohs" writes:
The process by which the unified pharaonic state emerged is still poorly
understood. Current excavations in the Delta are showing that there were
strong contacts between that region and Western Asia.
Rather than a development confined to the Egyptian Nile valley, the
unified state arose in a context of cultural and trading relations
extending from Sudan to Mesopotamia. The role of Nubia in this process
was doubtless enormously important, certainly as a supplier of "luxury"
goods and perhaps also of soldiers. Nubian soldiers played an important
role in the Egyptian armies in many later phases of Egyptian history,
and they may also have played a part in the armies which brought about
the united Egyptian state. (Note: Surely you've seen the model figures
of dark-skinned Nubian soldies (bow-men) as well as brown-skinned
Egyptian soldiers). They resemble each other like kinfolk usually do...
Recent anthropological work on skeletal material from Predynastic Upper
Egyptian sites has shown that the population was ethnically the same as
the Nubian and upper Nile populations.
So you see Katherine, I simply based my opinion on more recent study
than your own. After all, you haven't written a book that I'm aware of
and I've already told you that I don't consider you an expert, either.
Overall, I was simply pointing out the fact that Egyptologists
(including people like you Katherine) like to focus more on the
conflicts - than the kinship they had in common and respected.
>Despite the enormous activity and interest generated during the UNESCO
>campaign, most archaeologists preferred to return to Egypt after its
>completion, with only a small number of foreign missions choosing to
>continue their work in Sudan.
Few Egyptian monuments existed in lands beyond the flooded areas, so
it's not surprising that most Egyptologists turned their interests back
to (of all things) Egypt.
**
**That's your opinion, not one that I share. I'm curious how much you
actually know about the numerous excavations in this region and the data
behind the excavations? More importantly, do you know the importance or
lack thereof on behalf of methods/attitudes in research and study during
by Europeans during this time <versus> their stronger interests in
obtaining objects of booty (seized and stolen goods) for their museums?
Just curious...
Another important factor which Martin Bernal emphasis is that Egyptology
was open to many influences from other academic fields, and was not, nor
is, a purely empirical, scientific, discipline.
<snip remainder as covered ground>
**
**Are you talking about the "braided hair" issue whereas you think Queen
Kawit is getting her "wig" braided while its sitting on top of her head?
Although I've maintained that African people, predominantly Black people
don't need to wear a wig to share the same hairstyle as the Ancient
Egyptians - we wear our own natural hair in braids - thank you very
much. And of course I'v maintained, the idea of these ancient African
people wore braided wigs is a Eurocentric invention, not one that
African people believe.
So, in light of my statement below that Queen Kawit is 'having her hair
dressed' is interpreted by the Eurocentrics as instead (getting her
"wig" braided.)
Reference:
The Black Pharaohs: Egypt's Nubian Rulers
By Robert G. Morkot
ISBN: 0-948695-24-2
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**Good grief - read the book!
Highly Recommended.
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
As the compass points, "Lower" = North of the respective countries.
However, no matter _how_ you look at it, Upper _Egypt_ is closer to the
Mediterrranean than is, say, Lower Nubia, which is in turn closer to the
Mediterranean than Upper Nubia. In the long run, only the Delta (Lower
Egypt) actually _touches_ the Mediterranean.
Culturally, which is the point you are apparently _trying_ to make,
Upper Egyptians have more in common with Egyptians of Lower Egypt --
more in ancient and modern times, although by the New Kingdom, there was
an extensive Egyptianizing of the Nubian population after their defeat
by the 18th Dynasty kings. Their inclusion in troops as mercenaries
begins in the Middle Kingdom, but no earlier, and Nubians are shown in
Old Kingdom reliefs as "defeated peoples" by Egypt.
See: http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94nubia.html
Excursis IV:
Nubia: The Land Upriver
(Current as of Aug 10, 2000)
>The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
>occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
>unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
>Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
>northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
>Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>**
>**Robert G. Morkot, the author of "The Black Pharaohs" writes:
>
>The process by which the unified pharaonic state emerged is still poorly
>understood. Current excavations in the Delta are showing that there were
>strong contacts between that region and Western Asia.
>
>Rather than a development confined to the Egyptian Nile valley, the
>unified state arose in a context of cultural and trading relations
>extending from Sudan to Mesopotamia. The role of Nubia in this process
>was doubtless enormously important, certainly as a supplier of "luxury"
>goods and perhaps also of soldiers. Nubian soldiers played an important
>role in the Egyptian armies in many later phases of Egyptian history,
>and they may also have played a part in the armies which brought about
>the united Egyptian state.
I cut here as this is the end of Markot's quote, the remainder being
your comments.
Markot has not said a single thing different that what I said above, so,
excuse me, but I don't see you have proven anything differently with his
work. As I said, Nubia was exploited economically for its gold and
other luxury goods since at least the Old Kingdom. As I mentioned
above, Nubians were Egyptianized and placed as mercenaries in Egyptian
forces, particularly in the Middle and New Kingdoms.
Markot's comments about the Nubians *may* (note the conditional) have
played a part in the unification of Egypt, without more than his
statement, is merely his opinion. The issue is debated, as most
Egyptologists find the Nubians carried out extensive trade with Egypt,
but as far as artifact evidence shows from the predynastic phases, there
does to appear to show a predominance of any Nubian culture _within
Egypt_ at the unification stage.
I have posted the Tomb U-J evidence in previous posts vis a vis the
Qustul debate, if you want to actually understand how they have come to
this conclusion.
> (Note: Surely you've seen the model figures
>of dark-skinned Nubian soldies (bow-men) as well as brown-skinned
>Egyptian soldiers). They resemble each other like kinfolk usually do...
>
>Recent anthropological work on skeletal material from Predynastic Upper
>Egyptian sites has shown that the population was ethnically the same as
>the Nubian and upper Nile populations.
Citations of such studies? Or if Markot's, please give his citations.
Note again that similiarities is not evidence of origin, as there is
very wide diversity of popele in the Egyptian Nile Valley since 8000
BCE, as I have noted to you several times, citing Hoffmann, Keita, etc.
>
>So you see Katherine, I simply based my opinion on more recent study
>than your own. After all, you haven't written a book that I'm aware of
>and I've already told you that I don't consider you an expert, either.
I have seen Markot's book, and did not find that it differed with what I
have read and taught for the past 20 years, so whether I have written
anything _you've read_ (and I promise you, I have researched and written
more on this topic than you, most likely) is really neither here nor
there.
<snip argumentum as, again, covered ground>
Thomas Becker
Hello Katherine!
> Despite the enormous activity and interest generated during the UNESCO
> campaign, most archaeologists preferred to return to Egypt after its
> completion, with only a small number of foreign missions choosing to
> continue their work in Sudan.
That is not correct however for all. In Germany ever more are
interested in the country Nubia. Momentarily the museum in Munich
presents "The gold of Meroe" A German Nubia page is:
http://www.nubien.de, singularly in the German Web.
Momentarily there are many German Universitys and Museums the
excavations in Nubia leads. Newest project: The Amun temple in Naga.
Director/conductor of the mission Dietrich Wildung. Even a society to
the old Nubia gives it. This is again fully actively
http://www.sag-online.de The members pay different excavations in Nubia.
In Nubia recently pit graves were discovers, with roadworks.
I must apologize still for mine badly English.
Thomas from Germany
Paul Kekai Manansala
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:07:22 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
> occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
> unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
> Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
> northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
> Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>
>
That's absolutely incorrect as we have discussed many times before.
Both the archaeological record and the historical record show that Nubia
was deeply invovled. Egypt tradition itself states as much.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
Lector Priest
> Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
> northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
> Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
Who defeated what?
Katherine Griffis
<mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
following:
>In article <6sa6psgj4siicq4cu...@4ax.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
>> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>>
>> >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:07:22 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
>> >alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>> >
>
>>
>> >
>> >Recent anthropological work on skeletal material from Predynastic
>Upper
>> >Egyptian sites has shown that the population was ethnically the same
>as
>> >the Nubian and upper Nile populations.
>>
>> Citations of such studies? Or if Markot's, please give his citations.
>> Note again that similiarities is not evidence of origin, as there is
>> very wide diversity of popele in the Egyptian Nile Valley since 8000
>> BCE, as I have noted to you several times, citing Hoffmann, Keita,
>etc.
>
>Predynastic Upper Nile populations did show close similarity with
>Teita and Khartoum series.
>
>Keita and Prowse and Lovell are the best recent works on this subject.
The biological evidence of genetic similarities of Egyptians with other
African groups is not as significant as one might think, as
one would expect that of populations existing/interatring for such a
long period of time on the continent. However, more evidence for the
diversity of peoples in Africa exists as well, and have so since
ancient times, which lays false the claim that later "variations" to the
ancient Egyptian population as seen in their artistic representations
are due to "invading" peoples altering the "true African" nature of the
Egyptians. As S.O.Y. Keita pointed out:
"The diversity of Africans, includes ancient Egyptian and Berber
speakers, is real and largely indigenous [thus, not traced to "later"
invasion of peoples from the north, as Afrocentrism scholars have liked
to claim - KGG]. An evolutionary perspective helps us understand why
Modern Homo sapiens have lived in Africa longer than anywhere else,
according to most scholars. The length of time means that more random
genetic mutations, the ultimate source of genetic variation, have
accumulated in Africa. Furthermore, Africa is climatically and
ecologically diverse. This favors diversification by Darwinian
selection. The continent is large, which allows for greater movements
and fissioning of populations. This promotes genetic variation, since
small portions of larger populations rarely accurately represent the
range of genetic variations in a larger group, whether it is ancestral
or exists at the same time.
<...>
Admixture with non-Africans probably does not explain the bulk of
variation from Algeria to South Africa, although Northern Africa was
more affected in this regard. At the DNA level great African
continent-wide diversity preceded the minor European and Near Eastern
migrations of later Holocene times...Even 'new' 'non-African' genes
would be subject to the human and physical environment of Africa and
hence would become reworked, thereby becoming part of the African
biohistory, just as recent tropical African genes have been processed in
Greece, Sicily and Portugal. In any case, it is important to reiterate
that Africa equals diversity. Evolutionary theory predicts and
extrapolations from molecular analyses and skeletal remains all indicate
an early and ongoing diversity in the indigenous populations of Africa.
The implication of this is the terms like 'Negro,' 'Caucasian,'
'Hamite,' etc. are misleading and unscientific as applied to Africa."
"The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," S.O.Y. Keita, _Egypt in Africa_,
Theodore Celenko, (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art: Indianapolis,
1996), p. 103-104.
In the same volume of _Egypt in Africa_, the article, "The Geographical
Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians,"
S.O.Y. Keita and A.J. Boyce (both of Oxford University), states, as
noted in other works that genetically, "Native Egyptians were variable.
Foreigners added to this variability." (p. 28). This supports Hoffman's
findings of population diversity in Egypt as well, as show in his work,
Michael Hoffman, _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, 1979:260 ff., 310 -313,
noted above.
So, Paul, even Keita does not agree with your assessment that
similarities equal evidence of origin, and in fact, rather puts lie to
the idea that many Afrocentrist have that the genetic variation within
the Egyptian groups are due to later "invaders."
You also said, when I said:
>> The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
>> occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
>> unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
>> Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
>> northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
>> Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>
>That's absolutely incorrect as we have discussed many times before.
>Both the archaeological record and the historical record show that Nubia
>was deeply invovled. Egypt tradition itself states as much.
You have yet to supply _one primary Egyptian source_ that can be
_verified_ as proving the Nubian area is the "fount" of Egyptian
civilization. Those arguments you have advanced have been addressed by
me and others in previous posts, including the fact there is no
reference to "mountains of the moon" in the Hunefer papyrus, and the
term /tA nTr/ means "protectorate" of the King of Egypt (Hannig: 914a).
As referenced in the post from which you are quoting, I have also
addressed many of the concerns of scholars about the Qustul Burner
evidence, noting the Tomb U-J finds at Abydos. A search of Deja news
under "Tomb U-J" should bring those arguments to your attention.
Regards --
Paul Kekai Manansala
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 07:07:22 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
> >alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
> >
>
> >
> >Recent anthropological work on skeletal material from Predynastic
Upper
> >Egyptian sites has shown that the population was ethnically the same
as
> >the Nubian and upper Nile populations.
>
> Citations of such studies? Or if Markot's, please give his citations.
> Note again that similiarities is not evidence of origin, as there is
> very wide diversity of popele in the Egyptian Nile Valley since 8000
> BCE, as I have noted to you several times, citing Hoffmann, Keita,
etc.
Predynastic Upper Nile populations did show close similarity with
Teita and Khartoum series.
Keita and Prowse and Lovell are the best recent works on this subject.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
unutte...@my-deja.com
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>The point: Upper Egypt is in the SOUTH, as Lower Egypt is in the NORTH.
>The fact is, the Ancient Egyptians and Nubians felt that Upper
>Egypt/Nubia face the inner portions of Africa while "Lower" is
>geographically closer to the Mediterranean/Europe. Uhm, yes...
As the compass points, "Lower" = North of the respective countries.
However, no matter _how_ you look at it, Upper _Egypt_ is closer to the
Mediterrranean than is, say, Lower Nubia, which is in turn closer to the
Mediterranean than Upper Nubia. In the long run, only the Delta (Lower
Egypt) actually _touches_ the Mediterranean.
Culturally, which is the point you are apparently _trying_ to make,
Upper Egyptians have more in common with Egyptians of Lower Egypt --
more in ancient and modern times, although by the New Kingdom, there was
an extensive Egyptianizing of the Nubian population after their defeat
by the 18th Dynasty kings.
**
**The point I'm trying to make is this:
The Ancient Egyptians had more in common and developed an association
and relationship with those from the interior of Africa, i.e. the
evidence of expeditions over two-thousand years to Punt for incense and
other African nations SOUTH - is no coincidence that UPPER is considered
by the ancient Egyptians as the SOUTHERN borders. How many ancient
Egyptian hieroglyphs or other evidence that depict Egyptians visiting
any European(s) in Ancient times?
At this point, one should be able to hear an echo...
But as I previously mentioned - the Eurocentrics focus more on the
conflicts and wars rather than the similarities and kinship these
ancient Africans shared.
>Their inclusion in troops as mercenaries begins in the Middle Kingdom,
>but no earlier, and Nubians are shown in Old Kingdom reliefs as
>"defeated peoples" by Egypt.
>See: http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94nubia.html
>Excursis IV: Nubia: The Land Upriver (Current as of Aug 10, 2000)
**
**What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of the
Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker" subjects always
as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from -
to be included in their military forces? Why?
>The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation and
>occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
>unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
>Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
>northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
>Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>**
>**Robert G. Morkot, the author of "The Black Pharaohs" writes:
>
>The process by which the unified pharaonic state emerged is stillpoorly
>understood.Current excavations in the Delta are showing that there were
>strong contacts between that region and Western Asia.
>
>Rather than a development confined to the Egyptian Nile valley, the
>unified state arose in a context of cultural and trading relations
>extending from Sudan to Mesopotamia. The role of Nubia in this process
>was doubtless enormously important, certainly as a supplier of "luxury
>goods and perhaps also of soldiers. Nubian soldiers played an important
>role in the Egyptian armies in many later phases of Egyptian history,
>and they may also have played a part in the armies which brought about
>the united Egyptian state.
I cut here as this is the end of Markot's quote, the remainder being
your comments.
**
**My comments were valid noting the similarities between the wooden
ancient Egyptian spearmen soldiers and the nubian bowmen wooden
soldiers. It's typical of you to ignore the truth and act like its not
there...old-school Egyptology.
Markot has not said a single thing different that what I said above, so,
excuse me, but I don't see you have proven anything differently with his
work. As I said, Nubia was exploited economically for its gold and
other luxury goods since at least the Old Kingdom. As I mentioned
above, Nubians were Egyptianized and placed as mercenaries in Egyptian
forces, particularly in the Middle and New Kingdoms.
**
**Katherine, it doesn't matter WHAT you say when you don't provide not
one iota of a citation or reference to back up your "opinions".
As far as the Nubians being "Egyptianized" - what EXACTLY does that
mean?
>Markot's comments about the Nubians *may* (note the conditional) have
>played a part in the unification of Egypt, without more than his
>statement, is merely his opinion. The issue is debated, as most
>Egyptologists find the Nubians carried out extensive trade with Egypt,
>but as far as artifact evidence shows from the predynastic phases,
>there does to appear to show a predominance of any Nubian culture
>_within Egypt_ at the unification stage.
**
**I'm more inclined to believe the research and findings of the author
Robert Morkot who wrote "The Black Pharaohs", someone who has done far
more research and study in this area - than to believe what you and your
"associates" claim.
<snip>
>Recent anthropological work on skeletal material from Predynastic Upper
>Egyptian sites has shown that the population was ethnically the same as
>the Nubian and upper Nile populations.
Citations of such studies? Or if Markot's, please give his citations.
Note again that similarities is not evidence of origin, as there is very
wide diversity of popele in the Egyptian Nile Valley since 8000 BCE, as
I have noted to you several times, citing Hoffmann, Keita, etc.
**
**Good grief, read the book "The Black Pharaoh" by Robert G. Morkot.
I have seen Markot's book,
**
**There we have it folks, Katherine admits that she's only "seen" the
book which explains why she thinks the authors name is "Markot" instead
of MORKOT.
and did not find that it differed with what I have read and taught for
the past 20 years,
**
**If that LIE be the case, why the argument(s)? On one hand you're
trying to claim the book is no different than what you've 'read and
taught for the past 20 years' yet you found many opportunities to point
out your opinions that differed on the matter. Just an observation...
<snip>
<snip argumentum as, again, covered ground>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**If I were you Katherine, I'd run from your old "wig theory" also. Glad
to see you conceded on that issue - it was silly. Your credibility was
at stake...
Unutterable One
unutte...@my.deja.com
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>**The point I'm trying to make is this:
>
>The Ancient Egyptians had more in common and developed an association
>and relationship with those from the interior of Africa, i.e. the
>evidence of expeditions over two-thousand years to Punt for incense and
>other African nations SOUTH - is no coincidence that UPPER is considered
>by the ancient Egyptians as the SOUTHERN borders. How many ancient
>Egyptian hieroglyphs or other evidence that depict Egyptians visiting
>any European(s) in Ancient times?
Quite a few, if one would bother to read about it. There are several
books written about Egyptian contacts with the civilizations in the
Aegean during the Middle and New Kingdoms. There is possible even some
late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate evidence as well. Have YOU
read them? I doubt it, but here are a few titles:
_Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of
Dows Dunham _, William K. Simpson (Editor) Museum of Fine Arts Boston;
ISBN: 0878461973
_Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant : Interconnections in the Second
Millennium BC_, W. V. Davies (Editor) ISBN 0714109878
_Die Beziehungen Aegyptens und Vorderasiens zur Aegčais : bis ins 7. Jh.
v. Chr_, Wolfgang Helck ISBN 3534075099
_Aegeans in the Theban tombs_, Shelley Wachsmann ISBN 9068310666
>At this point, one should be able to hear an echo...
>
>But as I previously mentioned - the Eurocentrics focus more on the
>conflicts and wars rather than the similarities and kinship these
>ancient Africans shared.
Morkot is writing about Nubian Pharaohs in the 9th century BCE (we're
talking WAY AFTER (as in 2500 years) the beginnings of Egyptian
statehood here): he is not, as I recall, making any claim for the
_origins_ of Egypt being made from Nubia. That, as I recall, is your
take on the situation, and one which Morkot alludes to only as a
_possible_, but unproven idea. Again, artifact evidence appears to say
there was more influence from Mesopotamia than other areas, as exhibited
in the art, but that isn't what you want to hear, so you ignore it.
>
>>Their inclusion in troops as mercenaries begins in the Middle Kingdom,
>>but no earlier, and Nubians are shown in Old Kingdom reliefs as
>>"defeated peoples" by Egypt.
>
>>See: http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94nubia.html
>>Excursis IV: Nubia: The Land Upriver (Current as of Aug 10, 2000)
>**
>**What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of the
>Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
>included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
As paid mercenaries, or assimilated after the defeat of Nubia in the New
Kingdom. Nubia opposed Egypt in the struggle with the Hyksos (there is
textual evidence they sided with the Hyksos to defeat the Theban dynasty
clans, with the intent of diving the land between themselves and the
Hyksos -- see for example, the Kamose Stela, which makes it clear a
Nubian messenger was capture which uncovered the plot against the
Egyptians. Kamose went to war then with both sides, and defeated the
Nubians in battle. As part of the occupation of Lower Nubia (and parts
of Upper Nubia) after the war, Egyptian fortresses and settlements were
set up to reduce Nubia into a governate of Egypt. It was at this time
that the title, "King's Son of Kush", referring to the _Egyptian
governor of the province_ was established.
>Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker" subjects always
>as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
>Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from -
>to be included in their military forces? Why?
They _were_ included in the military forces. Bedouins and
Syro-Palestinian groups were part of scout parties for the Egyptians,
and there is some evidence the Libyans acted in mercenary status as far
back as the Old Kingdom. Many of these people were brought into the
military under the same means as the Nubians. I can't think that anyone
would have said otherwise, had you bothered to ask. Asiatics, Nubians,
and Libyans are often shown as "defeated" peoples in Egyptian art (as
far back as the Old Kingdom, in fact), but you are so fixated on proving
some "Eurocentric agenda" you fail to read information properly.
There were distinct differences in the representations of Egyptians and
Nubians, and some of which I have noted to you in other posts, showing
how artistically how the two groups differ. You choose to ignore them,
so why should I bother to repeat myself? For those who are at all
interested, however, I refer you to _Magic and Symbol in Egyptian Art_,
Richard Wilkinson (Thames and Hudson: London, 1995), pp. 104-125, see
particularly, "The Hues of Gods and Men," pp. 110-125.
>
>Markot has not said a single thing different that what I said above, so,
>excuse me, but I don't see you have proven anything differently with his
>work. As I said, Nubia was exploited economically for its gold and
>other luxury goods since at least the Old Kingdom. As I mentioned
>above, Nubians were Egyptianized and placed as mercenaries in Egyptian
>forces, particularly in the Middle and New Kingdoms.
>**
>**Katherine, it doesn't matter WHAT you say when you don't provide not
>one iota of a citation or reference to back up your "opinions".
This is from a fellow who has claimed to be a "scholar" on the subject,
mind you. I have given you information as to citations, books,
scholarly monographs, etc. on Nubia, Egyptian culture, art, etc. for the
past what? 2-3 years?
I think it is you who do not provide any solid references for your
statements, actually. I know you have told me that you will not read
any citations I give you (and reiterate that, below, BTW),*so I will
make the statements of facts as they are, cite where I see it of
interest to _others_, as you have obviously NO interest in actually
learning any *factual* information.
* The statement in question being:
>**I'm more inclined to believe the research and findings of the author
>Robert Morkot who wrote "The Black Pharaohs", someone who has done far
>more research and study in this area - than to believe what you and your
>"associates" claim.
Again, the sign of a "scholar" in the field, I suppose.
>As far as the Nubians being "Egyptianized" - what EXACTLY does that
>mean?
After the defeat of the Nubians in the New Kingdom, they were
assimilated into Egyptian culture, which meant adoption of Egyptian
culture, religion and so on. You do understand "assimilation", correct?
>I have seen Markot's book,
>**
>**There we have it folks, Katherine admits that she's only "seen" the
>book which explains why she thinks the authors name is "Markot" instead
>of MORKOT.
I see: ad hominem over spelling now? I have seen and read sections of
the book for class development. Again, he does not disagree with the
assessment on the relationship between Nubia and Egypt as I have stated,
and most particularly, as _you have quoted_.
RE: Wigs arguments, which has been covered with Stephen ad nauseam.
><snip argumentum as, again, covered ground>
>
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>**
>**If I were you Katherine, I'd run from your old "wig theory" also. Glad
>to see you conceded on that issue - it was silly. Your credibility was
>at stake...
AFAICS, I have not conceded anything about wigs, BTW. I just see no
reason to argue with the deaf and blind.
However, as you seem to again be ignoring the evidence and abundant
literature on the topic, let's list it again in case others may want to
read about the use of wigs by the ancient Egyptians:
Biri Fay, in _Egypt's Golden Age: The Art of Living in
the New Kingdom, 1558-1085 B.C._, Boston: Museum of Fine Arts. (1982).
Georges Posener, "La legende de la tresse d'Hathor", _Egyptological
Studies in Honor of R.A. Parker_ (L.H. Lesko, ed.), (Hanover and London,
1986), p. 111-117.
A. Lucas, "Ancient Egyptian Wigs", ASAE 30 (1930), pp. 190-196.
E. Eisa, "A Study on Ancient Egyptian Wigs," ASAE 48 (1948), pp 9-18.
J. Cox, "Construction of an Ancient Egyptian Wig (c. 1400 BC) in the
British Museum," JEA 63 (1977), pp. 67 ff.
E. Riefstahl, "An Ancient Egyptian Hairdresser," BBM 13, pt 4, (1952),
pp. 7-16.
_The Tomb of Meryet-Amun at Thebes_, Herbert Winlock (New York, 1932).
_Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries_, 4th ed., A. Lucas (rev. by
J. Harris), (London, 1962).
_Women in Ancient Egypt_, Barbara Watterson (St. Martin's Press: New
York, 1991), pp. 101-104.
Troy Sagrillo
unutte...@my-deja.com wrote on 14.08.2000 1.10 AM:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>> Their inclusion in troops as mercenaries begins in the Middle Kingdom,
>> but no earlier, and Nubians are shown in Old Kingdom reliefs as
>> "defeated peoples" by Egypt.
> What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of the Middle
> Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were included/assimilated at
> several stages of Egyptian history. Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer
> to the "darker" subjects always as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient
> Egyptians never choose the Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you
> claim they came from - to be included in their military forces? Why?
Except of course all the defeated Syro-Palestinians, Libyans, and Aegeans
(including the Sea Peoples").... (though of course only the Aegeans/Sea
Peoples qualify as European)
Paul Kekai Manansala
Nor is it insignificant.
> "The diversity of Africans, includes ancient Egyptian and Berber
> speakers, is real and largely indigenous [thus, not traced to "later"
> invasion of peoples from the north, as Afrocentrism scholars have
liked
> to claim - KGG].
This is your own claim. "Afrocentrists" generally do not believe that
ancient Egyptians were invaders from the north.
The physical similarity of predynastic Upper Egyptians with Nubians was
also paralleled with cultural similarity as brought out in studies of
the African Aqualithic, as at Nabta Playa, and Qustul. The stream of
Egyptian civilization comes up from the Nile as they themselves state.
They prayed to the south, the land of the gods.
>
> In the same volume of _Egypt in Africa_, the article, "The
Geographical
> Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians,"
> S.O.Y. Keita and A.J. Boyce (both of Oxford University), states, as
> noted in other works that genetically, "Native Egyptians were
variable.
> Foreigners added to this variability." (p. 28). This supports
Hoffman's
> findings of population diversity in Egypt as well, as show in his
work,
> Michael Hoffman, _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, 1979:260 ff., 310 -313,
> noted above.
>
> So, Paul, even Keita does not agree with your assessment that
> similarities equal evidence of origin, and in fact, rather puts lie to
> the idea that many Afrocentrist have that the genetic variation within
> the Egyptian groups are due to later "invaders."
>
You really are confused. I have never gave "assessment" that variation
in Ancient Egyptians was due to invaders. Nor do Afrocentrists.
Remember we are referring to ancient Egypt here.
> You also said, when I said:
>
> >> The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation
and
> >> occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
> >> unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
> >> Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
> >> northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
> >> Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
> >
> >That's absolutely incorrect as we have discussed many times before.
> >Both the archaeological record and the historical record show that
Nubia
> >was deeply invovled. Egypt tradition itself states as much.
>
> You have yet to supply _one primary Egyptian source_ that can be
> _verified_ as proving the Nubian area is the "fount" of Egyptian
> civilization.
I've produced plenty of primary Egyptian sources. You've just ignored
them. The temple of Edfu, for example. The lands of Khenti.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Paul Kekai Manansala
unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> **What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of
the> Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
> included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
> Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker" subjects
always> as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
> Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from
-> to be included in their military forces? Why?
>
One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was an
integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were simply
Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
>
> I cut here as this is the end of Markot's quote, the remainder being
> your comments.
> **
> **My comments were valid noting the similarities between the wooden
> ancient Egyptian spearmen soldiers and the nubian bowmen wooden
> soldiers. It's typical of you to ignore the truth and act like its not
> there...old-school Egyptology.
>
Now, that Deja has purged its old records, you can expect Katherine to
start acting up again.
> **
> **I'm more inclined to believe the research and findings of the author
> Robert Morkot who wrote "The Black Pharaohs", someone who has done far
> more research and study in this area - than to believe what you and
your
> "associates" claim.
>
I actually have never heard of Morkot before. Can you tell us something
about him? Is he an "Afrocentrist?"
I think its fair to claim that both Nubian and Egytptian culture arose
out of the African Aqualithic, aka the Saharo-Sudanese, culture. The
recent findings at Nabta Playa only reinforce this view. A great work
(in French) by Anselin discusses the similarity in diet and material
culture between the Aqualithic and predynastic Egypt.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Katherine Griffis
>In article <01ueps849kt6ml0h7...@4ax.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
<snip>
Myself, quoting Keita:
>> "The diversity of Africans, includes ancient Egyptian and Berber
>> speakers, is real and largely indigenous [thus, not traced to "later"
>> invasion of peoples from the north, as Afrocentrism scholars have
>liked to claim - KGG].
>
>This is your own claim. "Afrocentrists" generally do not believe that
>ancient Egyptians were invaders from the north.
<sigh>. Again, Paul, read for content. The quote,which _is_ the claim
of many Afrocentric authors, is that the later _diversity_ of ancient
Egyptians from being only an "all-black" group is that this diversity is
explainable only due to "invasions" of other groups from the north, or
from Asia. What Keita has said is that the diversity is there all
along, and there is no one "race" of people who predominate the Egyptian
area at any time. As he noted,
"...The implication of this is the terms like 'Negro,' 'Caucasian,'
'Hamite,' etc. are misleading and unscientific as applied to Africa."
"The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," S.O.Y. Keita, _Egypt in Africa_,
Theodore Celenko, (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art: Indianapolis,
1996), p. 103-104.
>The physical similarity of predynastic Upper Egyptians with Nubians was
>also paralleled with cultural similarity as brought out in studies of
>the African Aqualithic, as at Nabta Playa, and Qustul. The stream of
>Egyptian civilization comes up from the Nile as they themselves state.
>They prayed to the south, the land of the gods.
Again, I am awaiting your citations of primary textual evidence from the
ancient Egyptian texts for such assertions. Thus far, it has been a
long time in coming.
As for cultural similiarities, I have also noted the long-term economic
interaction between the Nubians, which occurs since the early dynasties.
That certain items of Egytptian manufacture, such as the Qustul Burner,
which dates from Dynasty 1, are present is _not_ any more evidence of
origin than the Mesopotamian motifs on early maceheads. Both are
evidence of trade interaction.
And BTW, which Nubian group are you saying is the one "culturally
similiar" here, after all? C-Group, X-Group, A-Group? Which culture
reflects this 'affinity' with the Egyptian models? They are different
groups which occupied the Nubian area at different times, after all.
>> In the same volume of _Egypt in Africa_, the article, "The
>Geographical
>> Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians,"
>> S.O.Y. Keita and A.J. Boyce (both of Oxford University), states, as
>> noted in other works that genetically, "Native Egyptians were
>variable.
>> Foreigners added to this variability." (p. 28). This supports
>Hoffman's
>> findings of population diversity in Egypt as well, as show in his
>work,
>> Michael Hoffman, _Egypt Before the Pharaohs_, 1979:260 ff., 310 -313,
>> noted above.
>>
>> So, Paul, even Keita does not agree with your assessment that
>> similarities equal evidence of origin, and in fact, rather puts lie to
>> the idea that many Afrocentrist have that the genetic variation within
>> the Egyptian groups are due to later "invaders."
>>
>
>You really are confused. I have never gave "assessment" that variation
>in Ancient Egyptians was due to invaders. Nor do Afrocentrists.
>Remember we are referring to ancient Egypt here.
Really? Then I suppose this is not part of the Afrocentrist position as
well? See
http://new.melanet.com/clegg_series/mothers.html
(current as of AUG 15 2000)
"...The first true invasion of Africa took place almost four thousand
years ago. The special circumstances that led to this stem from events
that transpired at the end of the Middle Kingdom, i.e., the Twelfth
Dynasty. At that time Egypt had lapsed into confusion, contention and
internal strife that ultimately resulted in what is called the Second
Intermediate Period (i.e., the Thirteenth through the early Seventeenth
Dynasties, c. 1786-1567 B.C.)
<...>
During the time of the Hyksos occupation, a powerful Black family in
Upper Egypt founded the Seventeenth Dynasty. This family was headed by
Senakhtenre Tao and his wife Tetisheri.4 The king and queen built up
their power and cemented bonds with their Egyptian kinsmen and Nubian
royalty. Their goal was to develop enough power to drive out the Hyksos
occupants of Lower Egypt...."
Now, in reality, the 17th Dynasty family of Seneqenre Tao were from
Thebes, not Nubia, and found against the Nubians, when Kamose, either
son or brother or Seneqenre Tao, intercepted a message between the
Hyksos and the Nubians which showed they were allied against the Theban
Dynasty in the war. This is noted in explcit detail on the Kamose
Stela.
Or this:
"NUBIANS
Historically the northern Sudanese are descendants of the ancient
Egyptians and Nubians of the Nile Valley. Over different periods of time
people of various ethnic origins [Greeks, Romans, Turks and Arabs both
black and pale skinned] has populated the Nile Valley. These migrations
have resulted in a small part of the population in the north having a
hybrid or mixed appearance. But for the most part, the majority of the
Nubians have retained their African features and customs. [ Chaik Anta
Diop = The African Origin of Civilisation [sic] ]."
http://afrikan.i-dentity.com/dcforum97n/forum1/260.html
"A message to the Pan African pt 2"
(Current as of Aug 15 2000)
The same information is posted upon
http://afrocentricnews.com/html/about_slavery.html
Afrocentric News: THE TRUTH ABOUT SLAVERY
(current as of Aug 15 2000)
I also find similar statements on a page you should be quite familiar
with:
http://members.tripod.com/kekaitiare/afro.htm
The Afrocentric Debate Resource Homepage
(maintained by Paul Kekai Manansala)
(current as of Aug 15 2000)
I have read various posts on these newsgroups for the past 4+ years
here. Such assertions are made, and by "Afrocentricists," such as Diop,
Asante, and so on.
>
>> You also said, when I said:
>>
>> >> The Nubians were in combination of economic trade or exploitation
>and
>> >> occasional warfare with the Egyptians since before and after the
>> >> unification of Egypt. There is ample evidence that the Egyptian
>> >> Unification took place within the area of Thinis/Naqada, defeating
>> >> northern Delta inhabitants and little evidence (if any at all) that
>> >> Nubia (over 500 km away) had much to do with it.
>> >
>> >That's absolutely incorrect as we have discussed many times before.
>> >Both the archaeological record and the historical record show that
>Nubia
>> >was deeply invovled. Egypt tradition itself states as much.
>>
>> You have yet to supply _one primary Egyptian source_ that can be
>> _verified_ as proving the Nubian area is the "fount" of Egyptian
>> civilization.
>
>I've produced plenty of primary Egyptian sources. You've just ignored
>them. The temple of Edfu, for example. The lands of Khenti.
It seems you rely primarily on your interpretation of "the south" as
meaning only Nubia. As the land of Egypt is divided into "the North"
and "the South" as part of the Two Lands motif, I can suggest, with a
fair amount of textual back-up, that the references to which you refer
are to Egyptian land above the First Cataract.
There _were_ specific names for Lower and Upper Nubia, since the Old
Kingdom -- Yam, Wawat, Itjert (lower Nubia) and Kush, and Iryshek, Tua,
Imana'a, and Ruket. In the eastern mountains were Awshek and Webet --
all in Upper Nubia. Were there _specific references_ to any of these
names as being the "originating point" of the ancient Egyptians? No.
Katherine Griffis
<mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
following:
>In article <8n861v$cmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
>> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>>
>
>> **What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of
>the> Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
>> included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
>> Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker" subjects
>always> as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
>> Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from
>-> to be included in their military forces? Why?
>>
>
>One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was an
>integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were simply
>Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
After the New Kingdom, yes. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms, they held
more of mercenrarey status.
>>
>> I cut here as this is the end of Markot's quote, the remainder being
>> your comments.
>> **
>> **My comments were valid noting the similarities between the wooden
>> ancient Egyptian spearmen soldiers and the nubian bowmen wooden
>> soldiers. It's typical of you to ignore the truth and act like its not
>> there...old-school Egyptology.
>>
>
>Now, that Deja has purged its old records, you can expect Katherine to
>start acting up again.
Really, Paul: that was uncalled for. If "acting up" to you means citing
information on these issues that is accurate, I stand as accused.
Otherwise, I suggest you find another way to express it. I have
cited/referenced every assertion *I* have ever made on this issue, which
appears to be more than you have thus far.
Oh, BTW, for your information, Deja.com has noted that all the older
posts will return -- yours and mine. ;>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
"The tragedy of Afrocentrism for blacks is that, in the name of
promoting group pride, it provides young people with falsehoods
that undercut the accumulation of real knowledge -- and the
achievement and self-respect that real knowledge brings...
Despite their interest in the ancient world, Afrocentrists appear
to have missed one of the most important lessons we can learn from
the ancients -- the acknowledgment of civilizational differences
combined with a refusal to reduce these to biological characteristics..."
Dinesh D'Souza, "Pride and Prejudice"
Paul Kekai Manansala
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:15:44 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> <mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
> following:
>
> >In article <01ueps849kt6ml0h7...@4ax.com>,
> > k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Myself, quoting Keita:
>
> >> "The diversity of Africans, includes ancient Egyptian and Berber
> >> speakers, is real and largely indigenous [thus, not traced to
"later"
> >> invasion of peoples from the north, as Afrocentrism scholars have
> >liked to claim - KGG].
> >
> >This is your own claim. "Afrocentrists" generally do not believe that
> >ancient Egyptians were invaders from the north.
>
> <sigh>. Again, Paul, read for content. The quote,which _is_ the
claim
> of many Afrocentric authors, is that the later _diversity_ of ancient
> Egyptians from being only an "all-black" group is that this diversity
is
> explainable only due to "invasions" of other groups from the north, or
> from Asia.
What quote are you referring to? Made by whom? There was no such
assertion made so far in this thread.
What Keita has said is that the diversity is there all
> along, and there is no one "race" of people who predominate the
Egyptian
> area at any time. As he noted,
>
> "...The implication of this is the terms like 'Negro,' 'Caucasian,'
> 'Hamite,' etc. are misleading and unscientific as applied to Africa."
>
> "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," S.O.Y. Keita, _Egypt in
Africa_,
> Theodore Celenko, (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art: Indianapolis,
> 1996), p. 103-104.
>
Keita's quote above is in line with the general position of Diop and
most others labeled as "Afrocentrist."
As I have posted countless times before, Keita agrees with William's
assessment that Qustul culture was advanced northward sometime before
unification.
Also, Keita has generally supported the views advanced by so-called
"Afrocentrists" regarding the southern biological origins of early
Egyptians.
The site you gave posted gives a series of arguments that in fact
mostly agree with Keita's. First of all, we must separate the medieval
period from the ancient period. However, there is no standard
"Afrocentric" position.
Keita agrees with Chamla's findings that northern migrations have an
effect on North Africa around 2000 BCE. But these migrations have a
*minimal* impact on African variation over all.
Keita classifies dynastic Egyptians within the range of
tropically-adapted Africans.
Re: the South. I have posted many times about the inscriptions at Edfu,
which are confirmed by the Greek writings.
From the south, the gods and culture.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Paul Kekai Manansala
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:59:12 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> <mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
> following:
>
> >In article <8n861v$cmp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
> >> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
> >>
> >
> >> **What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of
> >the> Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
> >> included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
> >> Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker" subjects
> >always> as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose
the
> >> Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came
from
> >-> to be included in their military forces? Why?
> >>
> >
> >One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was
an
> >integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were
simply
> >Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
>
> After the New Kingdom, yes. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms, they held
> more of mercenrarey status.
>
Wrong, Lower Nubia was part of Egypt before many areas of the Delta.
OTOH, Libya and Palestine, even when ruled by Egypt, were never
considered a part of Kmt. They were soldiers were the true
"mercenaries."
D'Souza is a Republican running boy who blames minorities for most of
their problems while absolving his sugar-daddies.
His views are racist, so his writings on races relations need not be
taken seriously.
Like Lefkowitz, he has had works funded by right-wing,
anti-diversity organizations such as the Olin Foundation.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Katherine Griffis
>In article <9lhhpso3kq0ikra74...@4ax.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:15:44 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
>> <mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
>> following:
>>
>> >In article <01ueps849kt6ml0h7...@4ax.com>,
>> > k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>> <snip>
>> <sigh>. Again, Paul, read for content. The quote,which _is_ the
>claim of many Afrocentric authors, is that the later _diversity_ of ancient
>> Egyptians from being only an "all-black" group is that this diversity
>is explainable only due to "invasions" of other groups from the north, or
>> from Asia.
>
>What quote are you referring to? Made by whom? There was no such
>assertion made so far in this thread.
>
> What Keita has said is that the diversity is there all
>> along, and there is no one "race" of people who predominate the
>Egyptian area at any time. As he noted,
>>
>> "...The implication of this is the terms like 'Negro,' 'Caucasian,'
>> 'Hamite,' etc. are misleading and unscientific as applied to Africa."
>>
>> "The Diversity of Indigenous Africans," S.O.Y. Keita, _Egypt in
>Africa_,
>> Theodore Celenko, (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art: Indianapolis,
>> 1996), p. 103-104.
>>
>
>
>Keita's quote above is in line with the general position of Diop and
>most others labeled as "Afrocentrist."
>
>As I have posted countless times before, Keita agrees with William's
>assessment that Qustul culture was advanced northward sometime before
>unification.
>
>Also, Keita has generally supported the views advanced by so-called
>"Afrocentrists" regarding the southern biological origins of early
>Egyptians.
Then I suggest the above reading of the article I have quoted for you,
for Keita in 1996 does not claim that Egyptians originate from the south
at all, and most, if not all, diversity of the Egyptians comes from its
indigenous (which means localized_ population's interaction with varied
groups from _all_ locations in North, East, West and South -- in
contrast to a strictly southern origin. This is why, in particular, he
does not argue for *any* sort of classification of the ancient Egyptians
along any sort of "racial" line. As quote, now twice, he finds such
designations "...misleading and unscientific."
<snip>
>
>Re: the South. I have posted many times about the inscriptions at Edfu,
>which are confirmed by the Greek writings.
>
>From the south, the gods and culture.
As for the Edfu writings, let's review this again:
What you have posted as a translation source on the Edfu texts was
"..._A short history of the Egyptian people_, E.A. Wallis Budge, 1914,
pp. 22-2...", and when you did, you received this critique of the Budge
translation:
"...The texts at Idfu (Edfu) you mention in citation from Budge
(assuming he even translated it sufficiently) are nothing more than
temple propoganda to bolster the prestige of the Horus temple there, and
hopefully enhance their authority. Similar Ptolemaic "historical"
pseudoepigrapha is to be seen in the Bentresh Stela (from the temple of
Khonsu at Karnak) which claims Ramesses II received gifts and homage
from Bactria, and in the Famine Stela at Aswan (where the temple of
Khnum was claiming revenue and strengthing their privilages against the
rising power of the priests of Isis at Philae)."
[Troy Sagrillo, Message ID 326BB2...@utoronto.ca>, Troy Sagrillo
<t.sag...@utoronto.ca>, date: 1996/10/21]
At that time, when I posted this to refresh your memory, you said:
>
>No wonder that Herodotus and Diodorus both saw Egypt as originating
>from the south and moving northward along the Nile:
>
> "They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the
> Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony...And
> the larger part of the customs of the Egyptians are, they hold,
> Ethiopian..." (Diodorus Siculus, Book III. 2. 4-3. 3)
As for populating Egypt "from the south," he doesn't state that, either.
Herodotus goes through a rather elaborate description in Book II that
local legend has that the Delta region was at one time totally submerged
under water, and was a land of marshes only. However, with the actions
of a king "Moeris," the flooding by the Nile into this region was
stopped, forming Lake Moeris in the Faiyum and the inhabitable land of
the Delta emerged. In criticizing the Ionian contention that _only_ the
Delta was Egypt, Herodotus goes on further to say
"But in truth I do not believe that the Egyptians came into being at the
same time with the Delta, as the Ionians call it; I think they have
always existed ever since the human race began; as the land went on
increasing, part of the population came down into the new country, part
remained in their old settlements. In ancient times the Thebais bore the
name of Egypt, a district of which the entire circumference is but 6120
furlongs."
By Herodotus' earlier statements, he confirms this distinction, in
defining the entire length of the land of Egypt, he described the
borders of Egypt from the Mediterranean Sea to Thebes _only_, saying
"From Heliopolis to Thebes is nine days' sail up the river; the distance
is eighty-one schoenes, or 4860 furlongs. If we now put together the
several measurements of the country we shall find that the distance
along shore is, as I stated above, 3600 furlongs, and the distance from
the sea inland to Thebes 6120 furlongs."
Thebes is, of course, well above the First Cataract. Thebes was a small
provincial town during the Old Kingdom, and only first rose to some
prominence after the First Intermediate Period, primarily as a rival to
Memphis in Lower Egypt, with kings of the 9th and 10th Dynasties coming
from Armant [Grk: Hermonthis/Egy: Iunu-Montu] about 9 km southwest of
Luxor, to establish the urban center of Thebes.
As far as my reading of Book II of the Histories, Herodotus definitely
distinguishes between the Egyptian, Colchians and the Ethiopians, and
the only reference I see in discussing the three together has to do with
the fact that all three groups practice circumcision. However,
Herodotus also says: "... With respect to the Ethiopians, indeed, I
cannot decide whether they learnt the practice of the Egyptians, or the
Egyptians of them- it is undoubtedly of very ancient date in Ethiopia."
In all other cases, he distinguishes them, particularly the Ethiopian
from the Egyptian, mentioned several times within Book II..
See : Herodotus, _The Histories_, Book II.
Online at: http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.2.ii.html
As for as for Diodorus, once again, note the time period in which it was
written and the political agenda of the pseudoepigrapha.I would question
the statement of whether there was disagreement with Diodorus. I
certainly have seen questions on his works. You are aware that the
Romans do not consider "Ethiopia" the modern land of Ethiopia(which they
called Abyssinia), but again, a land to the East, possibly Somalia?
Once again, you have to recall the political and cultural biases within
Egypt at the time in which Diodorus Siculus lived/wrote, and as Troy
Sagrillo pointed out, the _heavy_ revisionist nature of pseudoepigraphic
texts which occurred after the 25th Dynasty, which emphasized a history
not borne out by the more ancient texts.
You also said:
>So again, instead of coming up with imaginative explanations that best
>fit your worldview, why do you avoid the most obvious? The Egyptians
>were said to be dark and frizzy-haired like the Ethiopians. They
>came from the same regions as the Ethiopians - the Afro-Asiatic
>homeland in Ethiopia or the nearby Nile region. From the standpoint of
>physical anthropology the recent work of Shomarka Keita using cranial
>studies and Prowse and Lovell's non-metric comparisons verify the close
>relationship between Nubians and ancient Egyptians.
>
>Do you think these original Afro-Asiatic speakers looked different than
>the modern people living in Ethiopia? If so, why?
I think for most people who work in Egyptian history and culture, the
matter is best summed up this way:
"The attempt by some to claim negritude for ther ancient Egyptians, who
were racially heterogeneous, will not wash. So far as we can determine,
skin tone did not have the same associations for the Egyptians as for
later peoples. It is sad how so many zealous campaigners for equality
stubbornly misidentify the problem: the real issue is not race but
oppression, and it is characteristic of oppressive regimes that they
foster the setting of one group against another, on the long-established
_divide et impera_ principle. We can acknowledge crucial lessons from
the ancient Egyptians without having to decide how much melanin they had
in their skin. The fact remains that Egypt sits firmly in Africa and
that pharaonic civilization can teach us much about the spiritual
experience potentiated by art."
_Black and Gold God: Colour Symbolism of the God Anubis with Observation
on the Phenomenology of Colour in Egyptian and Comparative Religion_,
Terence DuQuesne, Oxofordshire Communications in Egyptology V, (Darengo
Publications/London, 1996), §16-17, 109.
Katherine Griffis
>In article <j7nhps0f3rc5ep228...@4ax.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
Paul had said:
>> >One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was
>an integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were
>simply Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
>>
>> After the New Kingdom, yes. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms, they held
>> more of mercenrary status.
>>
>
>
>Wrong, Lower Nubia was part of Egypt before many areas of the Delta.
>OTOH, Libya and Palestine, even when ruled by Egypt, were never
>considered a part of Kmt. They were soldiers were the true
>"mercenaries."
And your citation for such information? Even Morkot's book does not
agree with this assessment, nor does any book or online information on
Nubia that I have read, so citation, please.
<snip>
>> "The tragedy of Afrocentrism for blacks is that, in the name of
>> promoting group pride, it provides young people with falsehoods
>> that undercut the accumulation of real knowledge -- and the
>> achievement and self-respect that real knowledge brings...
>>
>> Despite their interest in the ancient world, Afrocentrists appear
>> to have missed one of the most important lessons we can learn from
>> the ancients -- the acknowledgment of civilizational differences
>> combined with a refusal to reduce these to biological
>characteristics..."
>>
>> Dinesh D'Souza, "Pride and Prejudice"
>
>D'Souza is a Republican running boy who blames minorities for most of
>their problems while absolving his sugar-daddies.
>
>His views are racist, so his writings on races relations need not be
>taken seriously.
>
>Like Lefkowitz, he has had works funded by right-wing,
>anti-diversity organizations such as the Olin Foundation.
Ah, attack the messenger and not the message. That is, as I recall, a
typical "Afrocentrist position" as well.
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
unutte...@my-deja.com
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>**The point I'm trying to make is this:
>
>The Ancient Egyptians had more in common and developed an association
>and relationship with those from the interior of Africa, i.e. the
>evidence of expeditions over two-thousand years to Punt for incense and
>other African nations SOUTH-is no coincidence that UPPER is considered
>by the ancient Egyptians as the SOUTHERN borders. How many ancient
>Egyptian hieroglyphs or other evidence that depict Egyptians visiting
>any European(s) in Ancient times?
Quite a few, if one would bother to read about it. There are several
books written about Egyptian contacts with the civilizations in the
Aegean during the Middle and New Kingdoms.
**
**Aside from the 'several books written,' are there many stone reliefs
that depict Egyptian contacts with European civilization(s) from the Old
Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, or New Kingdoms? Sure, there are [very few]
that I'm aware of, and like those of the Nubians, are depicted as
"defeated peoples", i.e. prisoners of war.
Besides the textual evidence by the Euro-centrics, are there any bas
reliefs or other representations left by the Ancient Egyptians
themselves of any "expeditions" to the European countries, mind you, not
as war victims? I highly doubt it - but please, prove me otherwise.
There is possible even some late Old Kingdom and First Intermediate
evidence as well. Have YOU read them? I doubt it, but here are a few
titles:
**
**How can I read what is only "possible" as you claim in your sentence
above? You start your sentence off with "There is possible..." and
proceed to try and mis-lead us into a wild goose chase with the few
titles you provided below.
I don't mind your references when they are absolutely relevant to our
discussion, which in most cases, you can never seem to back-up your
assertions directly with any citation or quote - directly. Instead you
ALWAYS provide a few titles here and there and expect us all to go read
all of these books to understand what you mis-understand. No thank you,
provide relevant quotes and citations and maybe I'll take you more
seriously...
_Studies in Ancient Egypt, the Aegean, and the Sudan: Essays in Honor of
Dows Dunham _, William K. Simpson (Editor)
_Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant : Interconnections in the Second
Millennium BC_, W. V. Davies (Editor) ISBN 0714109878
>But as I previously mentioned - the Eurocentrics focus more on the
>conflicts and wars rather than the similarities and kinship these
>ancient Africans shared.
Morkot is writing about Nubian Pharaohs in the 9th century BCE (we're
talking WAY AFTER (as in 2500 years) the beginnings of Egyptian
statehood here): he is not, as I recall, making any claim for the
_origins_ of Egypt being made from Nubia.
**
**First off, you've only "seen" this book - how in the world would you
know what he has written? Instead of asserting what you "think" he's
written, good grief - read the book! But for your information, Morkot is
not focusing on the 9th century BCE...
That, as I recall, is your take on the situation, and one which Morkot
alludes to only as a _possible_, but unproven idea. Again, artifact
evidence appears to say there was more influence from Mesopotamia than
other areas, as exhibited in the art, but that isn't what you want to
hear, so you ignore it.
**
**Are you familiar with archaeology, anthropology and the numerous
excavations in the Nile Valley region that allude to the origins of
these ancient African people? So if I choose to ignore your assertions
about any influence from Mesopotamia is simply to say that although I
respect your view on this, I don't agree with it.
My original post was about the book "The Black Pharaohs" and the ancient
Nubians and their influence on Egyptian empires - why are you trying to
confuse people babbling about Mesopotamia?
>>Their inclusion in troops as mercenaries begins in the Middle Kingdom,
>>but no earlier, and Nubians are shown in Old Kingdom reliefs as
>>"defeated peoples" by Egypt.
>
>>See: http://www.library.nwu.edu/class/history/B94/B94nubia.html
>>Excursis IV: Nubia: The Land Upriver (Current as of Aug 10, 2000)
>**
>**What importance is it that they were included in the beginning of the
>Middle Kingdom or the Old Kingdom, the point is, they were
>included/assimilated at several stages of Egyptian history.
As paid mercenaries, or assimilated after the defeat of Nubia in the New
Kingdom.
**
**There seems to be plenty of evidence that supports a more important
aspect to the ancient Nubians inclusion to the Egyptian monarchy than
your "paid mercenaries" and "assimilated after defeat" claims. The book
"The Black Pharaohs" reveals much of this evidence - if you'd only read
the book. You keep trying to convince Paul, myself, and others of this
"mercenaries" theories of yours when evidence reveals otherwise. That,
my dear, I classify as "Eurocentricks!"
<snip>
>Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the "darker"subjects always
>as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
>Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from -
>to be included in their military forces? Why?
They _were_ included in the military forces. Bedouins and
Syro-Palestinian groups were part of scout parties
**
**Is this a branch of the Boy Scouts? I'm talking about MILITARY FORCES
which I have never seen any wooden figures of any military groups of any
Bedouins or Syro-Palestinians. Could you possibly give us some examples
of these wooden artifacts?
<snip>
Asiatics, Nubians, and Libyans are often shown as "defeated" peoples in
Egyptian art (as far back as the Old Kingdom, in fact), but you are so
fixated on proving some "Eurocentric agenda" you fail to read
information properly.
**
**You're starting to show those fangs again! Katherine, why do you skip
over the EUROPEANS who are also shown as "defeated" peoples in Egyptian
art? Surely you've seen them and if not, I'd be happy to provide you
with the evidence that I have readily available.
Overall, I maintain that it's the Eurocentrics who fail to see African
history for what its worth - and instead have changed the names, places,
and faces of many of these ancient Africans. Eurocentrics have not only
confused the issues, but have severely damaged the sequence and re-wrote
His-story - his way.
<snip>
>**
>**My comments were valid noting the similarities between the wooden
>ancient Egyptian spearmen soldiers and the nubian bowmen wooden
>soldiers. It's typical of you to ignore the truth and act like its not
>there...old-school Egyptology.
There were distinct differences in the representations of Egyptians and
Nubians, and some of which I have noted to you in other posts, showing
how artistically how the two groups differ. You choose to ignore them,
so why should I bother to repeat myself?
**
**Excuse me, the differences are hardly "distinct" differences as you
imply. As a matter of fact, the differences appear to be in their
regalia and skin tones - because - the ancient Egyptians wore braids, so
did the Nubians. The ancient Egyptians carried spears while the Nubians
carried bows. The ancient Egyptians had a bronze complexion while the
Nubians were a dark complexion. The similarities far outweigh the
so-called "distinct" differences as your 'figment of imagination' has
led you to believe.
<snip>
>**
>**Katherine, it doesn't matter WHAT you say when you don't provide not
>one iota of a citation or reference to back up your "opinions".
This is from a fellow who has claimed to be a "scholar" on the subject,
mind you. I have given you information as to citations, books,
scholarly monographs, etc. on Nubia, Egyptian culture, art, etc. for the
past what? 2-3 years?
**
**Quite the opposite. You have not provided sufficient evidence over the
past 2-3 years to prove anything. You rarely give direct citations and
references, so I will agree - I have not taken you seriously.
I think it is you who do not provide any solid references for your
statements, actually. I know you have told me that you will not read
any citations I give you (and reiterate that, below, BTW),*so I will
make the statements of facts as they are, cite where I see it of
interest to _others_, as you have obviously NO interest in actually
learning any *factual* information.
*The statement in question being:
>**I'm more inclined to believe the research and findings of the author
>Robert Morkot who wrote "The Black Pharaohs", someone who has done far
>more research and study in this area - than to believe what you and
>your"associates" claim.
Again, the sign of a "scholar" in the field, I suppose.
**
**Actually, my statement above is the sign of a sane person. I would be
a damn fool/insane to believe you - as opposed to - Robert Morkot, the
author of the book.
>As far as the Nubians being "Egyptianized" - what EXACTLY does that
>mean?
After the defeat of the Nubians in the New Kingdom, they were
assimilated into Egyptian culture, which meant adoption of Egyptian
culture, religion and so on. You do understand "assimilation", correct?
**
**Yes, I understand "assimilation" quite well - except you conveniently
left out MISCEGENATION. Miscegenation is certainly an aspect of an
assimilated population...you do understand "miscegenation", correct?
>I have seen Markot's book,
>**
>**There we have it folks, Katherine admits that she's only "seen" the
>book which explains why she thinks the authors name is "Markot" instead
>of MORKOT.
<snip>
RE: Wigs arguments, which has been covered with Stephen ad nauseam.
><snip argumentum as, again, covered ground>
>
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>**
>**If I were you Katherine, I'd run from your old "wig theory"also. Glad
>to see you conceded on that issue - it was silly. Your credibility was
>at stake...
AFAICS, I have not conceded anything about wigs, BTW. I just see no
reason to argue with the deaf and blind.
**
**That would require you to answer to yourself.
However, as you seem to again be ignoring the evidence and abundant
literature on the topic, let's list it again in case others may want to
read about the use of wigs by the ancient Egyptians:
**
**The abundance of textual (written) evidence does not PROVE by a
long-shot nor does it equate to any tangible evidence to prove that all
or most ancient Egyptians wore wigs. Not only that, you still have
FAILED drastically to prove otherwise that the ancient Egyptians didn't
braid their own natural "curly and wooly hair" the Greeks described them
as having. So please, keep providing all the written evidence you want -
does not change the FACT that Black people too - braid our hair just
like our ancestors. Not to mention the fact that you never answered to
why museums only display one (1) wig as to prove that the overwhelming
majority possibly wore wigs - if that even makes any sense at all. Yet
Katherine has claimed the ancient Egyptians (Africans) wore wigs to keep
their heads cool. Ha! And YOU call yourself a scholar...
<snip>
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**Unutterable One
**unutte...@my-deja.com
Paul Kekai Manansala
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:30:56 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> <mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
> >Keita's quote above is in line with the general position of Diop and
> >most others labeled as "Afrocentrist."
> >
> >As I have posted countless times before, Keita agrees with William's
> >assessment that Qustul culture was advanced northward sometime before
> >unification.
> >
> >Also, Keita has generally supported the views advanced by so-called
> >"Afrocentrists" regarding the southern biological origins of early
> >Egyptians.
>
> Then I suggest the above reading of the article I have quoted for you,
> for Keita in 1996 does not claim that Egyptians originate from the
south
> at all, and most, if not all, diversity of the Egyptians comes from
its
> indigenous (which means localized_ population's interaction with
varied
> groups from _all_ locations in North, East, West and South -- in
> contrast to a strictly southern origin. This is why, in particular,
he
No one said anything about "strictly southern origin." No people are of
"pure" origin except in the sense that they all come from Africa, right?
But here is Keita's views in a nutshell:
"Biologically, the ancient 'Egyptians' gain other relationships
by intermarriage, but retain their southern affinities. Culturally,
the *core* remains Saharo-Sudanic-Nilotic (African) to the end."
S.O.Y Keita, "Black Athena: "Race," Bernal and Snowden," _Arethusa_,
Fall 1993.
The claims that the temple of Edfu, Diodorus, etc. are political
"propaganda" can be summed very simply:
It is the Eurocentric, race-oriented scholars of today that
are spouting the real propaganda.
>
The fact remains that Egypt sits firmly in Africa and
> that pharaonic civilization can teach us much about the spiritual
> experience potentiated by art."
>
I agree with this. The problem is getting the Eurocentric establishment
to rid themselves of racist orientation. To them, Black people were
present in Egypt only as slaves and "mercenaries," when the reality is
they were the soul and driving force of ancient Egypt.
It was to Ta-aakhu, the land of the ancestral spirits, that the
Egyptians prayed.
Now following the standard of Diop, let us see if there is anything like
an "Afrocentric" position:
"We have written in _Nations negres et culture_ and in our later
publications that, according to the quasi-unanimous testimony of
the ancients, Nubian civilization preceded and might have given
birth to that of Egypt...But conclusive archaeological facts to
demonstrate this were missing. The gap, it seems, has been filled,
thanks to the excavations of Keith Seele, of the University of
Chicago, conducted at the Qostul cememtary in Nubia..." (p.103)
"Now we understand better why the Egytpian turns toward the South,
the heart of Africa, the land of his origins, land of his ancestors,
"land of the Gods,"...(p. 108)
(Cheikh Anta Diop, _Civilization or Barbarism: An Authentic
Anthropologist_, 1991)
No northern invasions.
Khenti, the land of origin, Ta-aakhu, the land of the ancestral spirits,
Ta-Neter (in the earliest texts), the land of the gods, all applied
specifically to the South.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Paul Kekai Manansala
k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:37:41 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> > k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> Paul had said:
>
> >
> >their problems while absolving his sugar-daddies.
> >
> >His views are racist, so his writings on races relations need not be
> >taken seriously.
> >
> >Like Lefkowitz, he has had works funded by right-wing,
> >anti-diversity organizations such as the Olin Foundation.
>
> Ah, attack the messenger and not the message. That is, as I recall, a
> typical "Afrocentrist position" as well.
>
I attack the messenger and the message. Minority leaders of all shades,
most of whom are not "Afrocentrist," have condemned the writings of
D'Souza.
Maybe you just do a little homework on this issue.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
unutte...@my-deja.com
>unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 20:22:32 GMT, unutte...@my-deja.com in
>alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
<snip>
>Why must Eurocentrics focus and/or refer to the"darker"subjects always
>as "defeated peoples" yet the ancient Egyptians never choose the
>Europeans and/or Mediterranean folks many of you claim they came from
>to be included in their military forces? Why?
One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was an
integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were simply
Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
**
**I agree.
>**I'm more inclined to believe the research and findings of the author
>Robert Morkot who wrote "The Black Pharaohs", someone who has done far
>more research and study in this area-than to believe what you and your
>"associates" claim.
I actually have never heard of Morkot before. Can you tell us something
about him? Is he an "Afrocentrist?"
**
**I don't know if I'd classify him as an "Afrocentrist." That label
alone causes many hairs to rise on one's back of the neck! Personally, I
don't think he's an Afrocentrist.
On the back of his book states: Dr. Morkot has contributed articles on
Nubian history and Egyptology to specialist journals, and is one of the
co-authors, with Peter James, of "Centuries of Darkness," the
controversial reassessment of the Late Bronze Age of the Near East.
Published by:
The Rubicon Press
57 Cornwall Gardens
London SW7 4BE
I ordered my copy from Barnes & Nobles. I hope this helps...
I think its fair to claim that both Nubian and Egyptian culture arose
out of the African Aqualithic, aka the Saharo-Sudanese, culture. The
recent findings at Nabta Playa only reinforce this view. A great work
(in French) by Anselin discusses the similarity in diet and material
culture between the Aqualithic and predynastic Egypt.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
**
**Glad to see you're still around and sharing your knowledge...
Unutterable One
Unutte...@my-deja.com
unutte...@my-deja.com
>On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:59:12 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
><mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
>following:
<snip>
>>Now, that Deja has purged its old records, you can expect Katherine
>>to start acting up again.
>
>Really, Paul: that was uncalled for. If "acting up" to you means citing
>information on these issues that is accurate, I stand as accused.
>Otherwise, I suggest you find another way to express it. I have
>cited/referenced every assertion *I* have ever made on this issue,which
>appears to be more than you have thus far.
**
**If you were Pinocchio, your nose would poke right through your
monitor! Everyone can see the falsehood in your statement, clearly. You
have not cited/referenced every assertion you ever made on this issue,
hardly.
>Oh, BTW, for your information, Deja.com has noted that all the older
>posts will return -- yours and mine. ;>
>
>Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
>
>Member, American Research Center in Egypt
>International Association of Egyptologists
>
>University of Alabama at Birmingham
>Special Studies
>
>http://www.griffis-consulting.com
>
>"The tragedy of Afrocentrism for blacks is that, in the name of
>promoting group pride, it provides young people with falsehoods
>that undercut the accumulation of real knowledge -- and the
>achievement and self-respect that real knowledge brings...
**
**"The value of Afrocentrism for Blacks is that, in the name of
promoting truth, it provides people of all nationalities the truth about
Africa and its people - and the achievement and self-respect that truth
brings. It clearly debunks Eurocentrism and the prejudiced views several
scholars have pushed in academia for literally hundreds of years without
challenge." - Unutterable One
<snip>
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
P.S. "To die for the racist, is lighter than a feather. But to die for
the people, is heavier than any mountain, and deeper than any sea."
- Huey P. Newton
Wayne Johnson
Black race down.
Kiss My BLACK AZZ
Wayne "You need help" Johnson
cia...@hotmail.com
======================================
Wayne's SCAA Sideline Recommendations:
Any Post Originating From Supernews or Remarq
Any Post Originating From Cotse.com
Anonymous (Note: All users named Anonymous are sidelined)
B9 Predator (Uses various phony provider names)
Big Don
Gary Glaenzer
sheets3inthwind
Spectre
smiley
> Fuck yo White Motha Fuckaz and you Fucking Jews who been keeping the
> Black race down.
> Kiss My BLACK AZZ
>
> Wayne "You need help" Johnson
> cia...@hotmail.com
Finally we are back on topic!
--
:-)
Paul Kekai Manansala
unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <j7nhps0f3rc5ep228...@4ax.com>,
> k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:59:12 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> ><mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
> >following:
>
>
> **
> **"The value of Afrocentrism for Blacks is that, in the name of
> promoting truth, it provides people of all nationalities the truth
about
> Africa and its people - and the achievement and self-respect that
truth
> brings. It clearly debunks Eurocentrism and the prejudiced views
several
> scholars have pushed in academia for literally hundreds of years
without
> challenge." - Unutterable One
>
The Eurocentric approach has been to devise complex and fanciful
explanations for anything that does not agree with their theory of a
"Caucasoid"-dominated Kmt.
Let's look at the Euro spin regarding Nubian or other southern influence
on Egypt:
HISTORICAL EVIDENCE
1. The temple of Edfu has explicit inscriptions documenting the invasion
of the Ta-Seti (Egyptian Nubia) king into Egypt resulting in the
unification of the two lands.
Euro spin: Temple propaganda.
2. Diodorus, quoting 'Ethiopian sources' states that Egyptian
civilization came up from Ethiopia.
Euro spin: Political propaganda (D. obviously an agent of Ethiopia).
3. The term Ta-aakhu is applied to lands south of Egypt. Aakhu is used
consistenly in other texts to refer to ancestral spirits who were
regularly worshipped.
Euro spin: Taking a different word from the same root as aakhu but
meaning 'horizon', they susbstitute that meaning into the text and
interpret Ta-aakhu as meaning 'land of the horizon dwellers.'
4. The term Khenti means "first, origin, beginning, etc." As applied to
the Egyptian heaven, it referred to the prime or best part of paradise.
On earth it applied to the Nubian regions.
Euro spin: Khenti refers to prominent landmarks in Nubia without
showing any special reverence despite other correlating evidence
to the contrary (praying to the south, gods proceeding up the Nile
from the south, Ta-aakhu, etc.).
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
1. First evidence of relatively advanced social organization and
funerary practices that resemble those developed in predynastic Egypt
appear in Khartoum. These are related to the ancient culture known as
the African Aqualithic. The latter culture may have had a mathematical
system that was eventually used in ancient Egypt. Dietary practices were
similar to predynastic and dynastic Egyptians.
Euro spin: Either ignore this or claim that Aqualithic people were
primitive "Caucasoid" Khoisanoids.
2. Similar Aqualithic-related culture appears at Nabta Playa in the
Nubian desert, where there is also evidence of astronomy and the ability
to move great stones at the so-called 'Saharan Stonehendge.'
Euro spin: See previous entry.
3. Qustul A-culture is closely related to predynastic Egyptian culture.
A sudden increase of A-culture artifacts around the period of
unification in Upper Egyptian burials.
Euro spin: Basic denial, despite the agreement of this evidence with
the inscriptions at Edfu. Claim that A-culture is entirely derived
from Egyptian (which is often itself derived from W. Asiatic).
3. Predynastic elite remains show a closer relationship to contemporary
Nubians as compared to neighboring south Egyptians. This might show a
gradual movement of people from south to north, which may have presaged
the events in the previous entry.
Euro spin: Egyptians were highly variable.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
1. The royal mummies had signficant similarity with modern and ancient
Nubians wrt to dental morphology.
Euro spin: Pharoahs sucked their thumbs a lot.
2. Royal mummies had significant cephalometric similarities to Nubians.
Euro spin: Egyptians were highly variable, Nubians are dark whites
anyway.
3. Modern Egyptians are strongly YAP+ in regards to Y chromosome
haplotypes. Their YAP+ haplotype is distinctly African.
Euro spin: Specific Egyptian YAP+ haplotype was developed in Egypt
and was carried from their to other parts of Africa, or, YAP+
belongs to ancient primitive Caucasoid sun people.
4. A wide array of biological data shows similarities between ancient
Egyptians with Nubians and other East Africans.
Euro spin: East Africans are sun-drenched 'Mediterraneans'. No
relationship to other "sub-Saharan" Africans.
Now, given the fact that Upper Egypt and Nubia set side-by-side along
the same life line (the Nile) why would one want to resort to such
complex arguments while ignoring the simple and natural explanation?
Were the ancients or the moderns guilty of propaganda in this case?
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
ame...@my-deja.com
It really doesn't surprise me that katherine griffis quotes d'souza,
given her history in the newsgroups of trying to debunk
"Afrocentricism". Yet she goes balistic when someone quotes people
like Diop to prove a point. The biggest joker in the deck is that she
doesn't have enough sense to realize that what she is doing is the same
thing she is accusing the "Afrocentrists" of doing.
The funny thing about d'souza is that he is of east indian heritage and
India is perhaps the most racist country on the planet. He doesn't
talk about how racist his people are and the severe problems facing his
country, he wastes his time talking about how pitiful African-Americans
are instead. One has to wonder where his views come from. I think his
views have a lot to do with the fact that he is married to a white
woman with conservative views. Think about it, how many Indian men
married to Indian women waste their time talking about the garbage
d'souze writes?
Søn of Sambo
> I think his
> views have a lot to do with the fact that he is married to a white
> woman with conservative views.
And what race do you think D'Souza is? At least East Indians have some
brain cells to spare and do well in science and math, unlike the
brillo-haired, bootlipped afro-apes who support this 'afrocentrist' bullshit
and have a tough time even doing basic arithmetic.
Another thing: Chances are that his kids will "pass" for White, unlike
quadroons and octoroons, who are just light-skinned niggers (high yellahs,
snow queens, etc.).
ame...@my-deja.com
"Søn of Sambo" <o...@booga.com> wrote:
> <ame...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> > I think his
> > views have a lot to do with the fact that he is married to a white
> > woman with conservative views.
>
> And what race do you think D'Souza is? At least East Indians have
>some
> brain cells to spare and do well in science and math, unlike the
> brillo-haired, bootlipped afro-apes who support this 'afrocentrist'
>bullshit
> and have a tough time even doing basic arithmetic.
For your information, Diop (one of the most staunch "Afrocentrists")
happens to have a Ph.D in Physics, unlike jerks like you who waste
their time on the internet talking a bunch of bullshit.
>
> Another thing: Chances are that his kids will "pass" for White,
>unlike
> quadroons and octoroons, who are just light-skinned niggers (high
>yellahs,
> snow queens, etc.).
One other thing: Chances are you will "pass" for a jackass.
Paul Kekai Manansala
ame...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The funny thing about d'souza is that he is of east indian heritage
and
> India is perhaps the most racist country on the planet. He doesn't
> talk about how racist his people are and the severe problems facing
his
> country, he wastes his time talking about how pitiful
African-Americans
> are instead.
I think D'Souza would probably counter that he is an Indo-American,
although I get your point.
I've heard this guy glowingly talk about Indo-Americans, who represent
somewhat of a brain drain to India (not entirely negative though). He
seems to ignore that many Indians here, especially those who came in the
last few decades, represent some of the best students, scholars and
professionals that India has to offer.
But I wonder how he would deal with a discussion on
ethnic/economic/social problems in India itself? As a Christian, I guess
he would feel no compulsion to defend the caste system, but who can
tell.
Søn of Sambo
<ame...@my-deja.com> wrote
> For your information, Diop (one of the most staunch "Afrocentrists")
> happens to have a Ph.D in Physics
Then he should stick to the field he trained in and leave history to
historians.
ame...@my-deja.com
> although I get your point.
>
> I've heard this guy glowingly talk about Indo-Americans, who represent
> somewhat of a brain drain to India (not entirely negative though). He
> seems to ignore that many Indians here, especially those who came in
>the
> last few decades, represent some of the best students, scholars and
> professionals that India has to offer.
To anyone who wishes to use the genetic arguement all they have to do
is look at people of Indian descent from countries like Trinidad,
Guyana and Jamaica. Most of the people from these countries hold no
unusual academic advantage over americans when they come here.
>
> But I wonder how he would deal with a discussion on
> ethnic/economic/social problems in India itself?
I don't think he would. He would probably find some way to politely
remove himself from the discussion. You must realize that most Indians
who come to this country and achieve success and marry whtie people
become like white people. Issues about India no longer concerns them
they lose their accents and they forget how to speak their languages
hence the term "whitinization".
>As a Christian, I
>guess
> he would feel no compulsion to defend the caste system, but who can
> tell.
Him being a christian doesn't mean anything, people who call themselves
christians come a dime a dozen. You even see people on the Jerry
Springer show wearing crosses. He probably adopted christianity for
the sake of his wife. The cross is a symbol of hate and white
supremacy, so I wouldn't be surprised if he condones the caste system.
Paul Kekai Manansala
ame...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8ns30f$89m$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > But I wonder how he would deal with a discussion on
> > ethnic/economic/social problems in India itself?
>
> I don't think he would. He would probably find some way to politely
> remove himself from the discussion. You must realize that most
Indians
> who come to this country and achieve success and marry whtie people
> become like white people. Issues about India no longer concerns them
> they lose their accents and they forget how to speak their languages
> hence the term "whitinization".
>
I don't know about Indians who marry whites, but otherwise they seem to
hold on to their culture pretty strongly even after arriving here.
At least in terms of clothing, I think Indians continue to hold on to
their traditions longer than most other groups. They also do a pretty
good job of passing on the language from one generation to another.
There are some Sikh families in California that have been here
generations and the children can still speak their native language.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
unutte...@my-deja.com
>On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:37:41 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
><mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
following:
>
>>In article <j7nhps0f3rc5ep228...@4ax.com>,
>>k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
>>Paul had said:
>>One point: Lower Nubians were *not* mercenaries! Egyptian Nubia was
>>an integral part of the Egyptian state, and Nubians from their were
>>simply Egyptian soldiers and not *mercenaries*.
>>
>>After the New Kingdom, yes. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms, they held
>>more of mercenrary status.
>>
>>
>>
>Wrong, Lower Nubia was part of Egypt before many areas of the Delta.
>OTOH, Libya and Palestine, even when ruled by Egypt, were never
>considered a part of Kmt. They were soldiers were the true
>"mercenaries."
>
>And your citation for such information? Even Morkot's book does not
>agree with this assessment, nor does any book or online information on
>Nubia that I have read, so citation, please.
**
**Indeed, Robert G. Morkot writes about the Libyan and Palestine
mercenaries and how they were designated "foreigners" of KMT. I don't
know how Katherine can say what is or is not written in this book when
she hasn't read it.
<snip>
>Ah, attack the messenger and not the message. That is, as I recall, a
>typical "Afrocentrist position" as well.
>
> Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
**
**And you actually signed your name to this? Unbelievable! While you
find it "Afrocentric" to attack the messenger and not the message,
sounds like you're AFROCENTRIC. Attack the messenger...while dismissing
the message. You happen to do this quite often!
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
ame...@my-deja.com
Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I don't know about Indians who marry whites, but otherwise they seem
>to
> hold on to their culture pretty strongly even after arriving here.
>
> At least in terms of clothing, I think Indians continue to hold on to
> their traditions longer than most other groups. They also do a pretty
> good job of passing on the language from one generation to another.
> There are some Sikh families in California that have been here
> generations and the children can still speak their native language.
I agree, but whether or not an Indian marries a white person is a very
powerful component of how much Indian culture they hold on to. The
type of people you are talking about usually have a very low opinion of
americans in general and issues involving blacks and minorites simply
don't concern them. This is why after I heard of what d'souza was
writing, I guessed that he was married to a white woman. Just like
blacks who are against affirmative action are usually married to whites.
David
Only Cheikh Anta Diop could have said it better.
I am serious.
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nej89$86h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8nd0g7$eds$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <j7nhps0f3rc5ep228...@4ax.com>,
> > k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com wrote:
> >
> > >On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 23:59:12 GMT, Paul Kekai Manansala
> > ><mana...@my-deja.com> in alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the
> > >following:
> >
> >
>
> > **
> > **"The value of Afrocentrism for Blacks is that, in the name of
> > promoting truth, it provides people of all nationalities the truth
> about
> > Africa and its people - and the achievement and self-respect that
> truth
> > brings. It clearly debunks Eurocentrism and the prejudiced views
> several
> > scholars have pushed in academia for literally hundreds of years
> without
> > challenge." - Unutterable One
> >
>
>
> Regards,
> Paul Kekai Manansala
> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
>
>
David
original inhabitents of Egypt were indistinguishably Black/African/
"Negroid" (I dont like that word but I cant find a better anthropological
one). There are varieties of Caucasoids, from smooth nosed french to large
nosed Russians, etc... but the Eurocentric tries to say that there is only
one type of Black African and that any deviation from this "classical negro"
is inherently not Black or African. Its as if there is an isolated Black
ancestor with many many Meditteranean or White insurgencies. This is false.
SInce we know that the Aqualithics came from further South and East
(Khartoum as you said as well as areas in Sub-Sahara most likely), why would
one make a claim that they are distinguishably European or Meditteranean?
They didnt start from Europe, come down, and go back up again. WHere are the
corresponding Paleolithic or Prehistorical European groups? There are none!
The Euroentric idea is like this: The band of Mixing occured between the
northeren (meditteranean) coast of Africa all the way down to Sudan...
Well lets say instead that the band of mixing started somewhere in
Meditteranean greece and stopped somewhere around Palestine/Caanan/Phonecia?
It seems more probable during this time. Until there is evidence to refute
this, Eurocentrics are lost on that one. There were no European migrations
south, but there were many African migrations north!
Now we get to Narmer who was an UPPER EGYPTIAN who conquered Lower Egypt.
Again, this shows that the indistinguishably Black Upper Egypt came north
and conquered the distinguishably Black southern Lower Egypt.
So we have Ta-Mehau (lower Egypt)
We have Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt)
We have Ta - Ankku (lower nubia?)
We have Ta - Nefer (defnintely Nubia)
During many events during Egyptian history Egyptians referred to the pale,
blonde, asiatics. And they distinguished themselves from them. The Hyksos,
Hittites, (some of) the Lybians...
Greeks like Herodotus, and others referred to the Egyptians as Black... not
"dark skinned" not "tanned" not "swarthy" but Black... this sits well with
any Occam's razor. The line of seperation from the Eurocentric accepted
Black cultures of Nubia, Kerma, and Pnewet is not geologically in existence,
as well no distinguishable cultural borders are drawn... but the barrier
between Egypt and non Egypt was clear, Egypt ended on the fringes of Sinai,
the "colonies...or vassal states" which served as a buffer extended from
Caanan/Palestine eastward towards syria, and by the time of Amenhotep III
they went as far north as Kadesh, and as far east as Baghdad! Now, if
cultural mixing can occur with whites blending into Blacks in Nubia, whats
to stop them from going the other way around?
Finally the cultural significance of the Saite period. Everyone knows that
it was the Saite dynasties that correctly, accurately, restored Egyptian
culture and infrastructure for the 100 years or so of their rule. They tried
to restore Egypt and many times it is shown that the works of the Saite
pharoahs were true to the ways of the earlier New/Middle/Old kingdom.
Conversely, the Greeks Ptolemies they ignorantly (but with good faith)
misinterpreted Egyptian religion, they couldn't understand many of the
architectual and (by that time) archaeological remains of the earlier
period. Not to mention the Saite dynasty existed during the reign of
Solomon...
Throughout all of this time (up to the time of the persians), the White
influences were confined to Anatolia and no further south, and the Aegean
(not Egypt). The mixed groups were those peoples in Mesopotania. Please
correct any mistakes about the chronology. I am still reading Diop's books.
"Paul Kekai Manansala" <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nctmt$b6b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Gene Aldrich
news:QzGq5.7232$_e4.3...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> You are a genius!
> Only Cheikh Anta Diop could have said it better.
>
> I am serious.
So am I, that is about home-schooling my granddaughters after seeing this
afrocentric black Egyptian crap in their public school textbooks.
David
believe it is true?
I look at the eurocentric view of Egyptian history as crap, because its not
true history.
Can you find any evidence that can refute this afro-centric "crap"? No, I
didn't think so.
"Gene Aldrich" <ge...@ameritech.com> wrote in message
news:sqna4t...@corp.supernews.com...
Roque
> Is it "crap" because it is "afro-centric" or is it crap because you don't
> believe it is true?
It's crap because it's little more than a black-on-black con job that plays
and preys upon black ignorance.
If you jigaboos want to believe that black Africans flew hang gliders around
the pyramids, conquered the world in 10,000 B.C., or teleported yourselves
around the galaxy 100,000 years ago, fine. But if I so much as even THINK
that this bullshit will be taught to my kids in school, I'll home-school
themself, and God help any nigger bitch social worker who tries to have them
taken away by the state because I pissed off some negroid "history" teacher
hired to fill a minority quota.
frank y hung
David wrote:
>
> Cant we start from the top though?
A very good place to start!
> We start with the notion that the
> original inhabitents of Egypt were indistinguishably Black/African/
> "Negroid"
Why? What evidence have you got that this is anything more than a "notion".
And if it's just a notion, let's keep it that way, and not build too much on
it.
> (I dont like that word but I cant find a better anthropological
> one). There are varieties of Caucasoids, from smooth nosed french to large
> nosed Russians, etc... but the Eurocentric tries to say that there is only
> one type of Black African and that any deviation from this "classical negro"
> is inherently not Black or African. Its as if there is an isolated Black
> ancestor with many many Meditteranean or White insurgencies. This is false.
OK, he Eurocentrics were/are wrong. Why then adopt their mistaken methods
(only substituting "black" for "white", and vice-versa) to produce an
Afrocentric mirror-image?
> SInce we know that the Aqualithics came from further South and East
> (Khartoum as you said as well as areas in Sub-Sahara most likely), why would
> one make a claim that they are distinguishably European or Meditteranean?
> They didnt start from Europe, come down, and go back up again. WHere are the
> corresponding Paleolithic or Prehistorical European groups? There are none!
>
> The Euroentric idea is like this: The band of Mixing occured between the
> northeren (meditteranean) coast of Africa all the way down to Sudan...
> Well lets say instead that the band of mixing started somewhere in
> Meditteranean greece and stopped somewhere around Palestine/Caanan/Phonecia?
> It seems more probable during this time. Until there is evidence to refute
> this, Eurocentrics are lost on that one. There were no European migrations
> south, but there were many African migrations north!
This whole type of argumentation is irrelevant. The whole Eurocentric vs.
Afrocentric business isn't basically about where and when and in what
direction various presumed migrations took place. The prime obsession of both
groups is what "race" the Ancient Egyptians were, i.e. what they looked like
physically. So where the "Aqualithics" came from, where supposed "bands of
mixing" took place etc.etc. doesn't in the end matter. If scientific
investigation shows that the A.E. were predominantly of a particular physical
"race", that's what will "prove" either the Eurocentrists or Afrocentrists
right. (It's proved them both wrong).
Note that the terms "European" and "African" are grossly misleading in this
context. They are, or should be, basically *geographic* terms, with no
necessary "racial" connotations. In fact, the Greeks invented the terms
Europe, Asia, and Africa, with regard to their own particular *local*
environment, and the peoples they thus distinguished were actually, on a
global scale, quite similar to each other (South Europeans, West Asians, North
Africans).
> During many events during Egyptian history Egyptians referred to the pale,
> blonde, asiatics. And they distinguished themselves from them. The Hyksos,
> Hittites, (some of) the Lybians...
The Ancient Egyptians also distinguished themselves from the Nubians and other
"black Africans", so this sort of argument proves nothing.
> Greeks like Herodotus, and others referred to the Egyptians as Black... not
> "dark skinned" not "tanned" not "swarthy" but Black... this sits well with
> any Occam's razor.
In previous times in Europe (before the influx of large numbers of "black"
African descended people) completely "white" people with dark complexion and
hair were often described as "black", or the equivalent in other languages -
hence the common surnames "Black", "Blake", "Schwarz" (in Germany), "Swart"
(in Holland and Belgium) etc.etc. The Romany Gypsies are also called "blacks",
or the equivalent, and they are clearly not "black", in the sense of "black
Africans".
(snip more irrelevant speculations)
> Throughout all of this time (up to the time of the persians), the White
> influences were confined to Anatolia and no further south, and the Aegean
> (not Egypt). The mixed groups were those peoples in Mesopotania. Please
> correct any mistakes about the chronology.
No point in correcting any chronology. That's the least of the problems about
your picture - let's start with physical anthropology, linguistics etc.etc.
> I am still reading Diop's books.
Which accounts for your confusion, which will only get worse if, as you seem
to be doing, you take what he asserts as the whole truth about Ancient Egypt.
Let's just get two things straight:
(i)As Afrocentrists constantly remind us, the general view these days is the
Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e."Modern humans") evolved in Africa, and spread out
to the rest of the world from there at a more recent date. This has a number
of consequences.
Firstly, because of the much deeper time scale of H.s.s. in Africa, the
genetic variation within Africa is much greater than that in the rest of the
world. In fact, all non-Africans are, on this scale, very closely related to
each other. Not only this, but because non-Africans originated from a
particular group of Africans, certain Africans are more closely related to
non-Africans than they are to other Africans. Thus any idea of an unified
black "African race" is actually bogus, and was largely a creation of white
racists. It is ironic to see it now become a lynchpin of the Afrocentric
hypothesis.
(ii) All *reliable* studies of the physical anthropology of the Ancient
Egyptians leads to an inescapable conclusion - and a study of their artistic
representations of themselves leads to a similar conclusion - The A.E. were
NOT BLACK AFRICANS. They did not share a close genetic and evolutionary
relationship with the majority of people in Black Africa. The closest
relationships of the A.E. are with other circum-Mediterranean peoples, in
particular with the Berbers and the West Asians (although they are
distinguishable from both these). There is also, unsurprisingly, a close
relationship with some of their immediate neighbours to the south, such as the
Nubians.
What there is *not* is any particularly close relationship with the "black"
peoples of West and South Africa, such as the Wolof, Ashanti, Yoruba, Shona
etc.etc., i.e. the sorts of people who were the ancestors of Diop, Ivan Van
Sertima, Molefi Kete Asante etc.etc. and most of their disciples.
That being said, there was undoubtedly a strain in the ancestry of many A.E.
which could more meaningfully be described as "black African". This largely
came via Nubia. It was not predominant, but it's true that previous
Eurocentric writers tended to overlook this strain, while at the same time
exaggerating and overemphasizing the presence of a small minority of A.E. who
had red or blond hair.
The overwhelming majority of Ancient Egyptians were neither blond "caucasians"
nor "black Africans" - they were - Egyptian!!!
(BTW, only Diop and Afrocentrists seem to think that Keith Seele's excavations
at Qustul "prove" that Nubian civilization preceded Egyptian and "might have
given birth" to it.)
Frank
(BTW, I am *not* "white")
Paul Kekai Manansala
"David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> SInce we know that the Aqualithics came from further South and East
> (Khartoum as you said as well as areas in Sub-Sahara most likely), why
would
> one make a claim that they are distinguishably European or
Meditteranean?
> They didnt start from Europe, come down, and go back up again. WHere
are the
> corresponding Paleolithic or Prehistorical European groups? There are
none!
>
At one time there was a theory of an early invasion of Europeans into
Africa based on similarities in stone toolkits which supposedly
originated in Europe.
However, a few years ago, *much* earlier evidence of this culture was
found in Africa. Given the 'Khoisanoid'-looking appearance of the
'mother goddess'statues in Europe, this was not too surprising.
The line of seperation from the Eurocentric
accepted
> Black cultures of Nubia, Kerma, and Pnewet is not geologically in
existence,
> as well no distinguishable cultural borders are drawn... but the
barrier
> between Egypt and non Egypt was clear,
Right. The nation of Egypt was defined early on and Ta-Seti (Egyptian
Nubia) was included. Although areas to the south were held in reverence,
they were never considered part of Egypt, nor were regions in the other
directions.
Now, if
> cultural mixing can occur with whites blending into Blacks in Nubia,
whats
> to stop them from going the other way around?
>
>
Most linguists would agree that Afro-Asiatic languages came out of
Africa, probably from the region of Ethiopia or Sudan. The people seem
to have adopted the Aqualithic culture.
I don't think anyone should be surprised if these people resembled East
Africans, but this is something hard for Eurocentrists to swallow. Thus,
Nostratic theories and the like.
MuadDib
Ok - lets say AE were black. Blacks built the pyramids, the Sphinx - all
of ancient Egypt was built by blacks. What have blacks contributed in the
last thousand years? What great innovations have come from the "pyramid
builders" - what has Africa (or a black) contributed to the world - other
than AIDS?
Byker
news:MPG.141617f14...@news.alt.net...
Slaves
Unskilled labor
Income for Dept. of Corrections personnel
unutte...@my-deja.com
<ve...@umich.edu?> - I can't believe this idiot is in school? What, you
work there?
>>Is it "crap" because it is "afro-centric" or is it crap because you
>>don't believe it is true?
>It's crap because it's little more than a black-on-black con job that
>plays and preys upon black ignorance.
**
**You came up with this - all by yourself? :-o
You shouldn't worry about black ignorance as much as your own!
>If you jigaboos want to believe that black Africans flew hang gliders
>around the pyramids, conquered the world in 10,000 B.C., or teleported
>yourselves around the galaxy 100,000 years ago, fine. But if I so much
>as even THINK that this bullshit will be taught to my kids in school,
>I'll home-school themself,
**
**If you teach them anything like the drivel you wrote above, GOD help
them!
>and God help any nigger bitch social worker who tries to have them
>taken away by the state because I pissed off some negroid "history"
>teacher hired to fill a minority quota.
**
**PoorWhiteTrash. [Sad.] And look...he's brought company...(i.e.
alt.flame.niggers). There goes the neighborhood...
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
David
evidence to prove your point which you try to make so "easily"? Everyone
knows that Egyptians were far more closer, biologically, culturally,
regionally, and in appearance, to other African groups than they were to
Asians. Keep the immaturity coming but it won't change that fact.
You may as well say that the Zimbabwe kingdom wasn't Black or that the Ghana
and Songhai kingdoms weren't Black, but those aren't true either. So come
on, show something, a photo, an article with references, anything.
<unutte...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8oi305$6f2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
David
stupidity says: They weren't contributing... but contributing to who? To
YOUR european selfish greedy butt? They actually were, the forced slavery
is what allowed your lazy male ancestors to go around dancing in feminine
dresses, and wearing makeup, and making all sorts of cultural advancements.
See your problem is, you try to decide the value of other people based on
what they can offer YOU. But YOU aren't that important. European technology
was brought to you by the slavery and forced labor of many non-europeans
over the years. And as far as the last 1000 years, African and Arabs were on
top 1000 years ago. Europe was a backwards continent, Europeans didn't
bathe, and they thought the world was flat. The compass which is an African
invention as well as Algebra, an Arabic invention probably gave you some
sense of intelligence.
As far as AIDS goes, what nitwit believes that a virus like that just
suddenly appears out of nowhere in 30 years? LOL! Oh let me guess, an
african had sex with a monkey... yeah right.
David
"frank y hung" <hun...@sbu.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39ABED60...@sbu.ac.uk...
>
> Why? What evidence have you got that this is anything more than a
"notion".
> And if it's just a notion, let's keep it that way, and not build too much
on
> it.
Frank you WISH and HOPE its just a notion, that way you can dismiss it, but
it is not a notion. Lets look at it like this, if we look objectively we can
say the original african/Egyptians were anything from fair skinned to the
darkest dark. From an unbiased and totally blind opinion it would be
accurate. Now lets add data from our knowledge of history. 1. Africa is a
hot region, thereby the original people there would most likely be dark
skinned and start off dark skinned and remain dark skinned. 2. The people
of Egypt are known by archaeologists to originate from deeper within Africa,
not from the MEditteranean OR Asia/ARabia. 3. The Ethiopian cultures are
well known to be the originators of Ancient Egyptian cultures, from as far
back as the 5th century B.C. Now with that evidence, how can you call the
idea of a dark skinned original egyptian a notion? NO, Occam's razor and
logic suggests that the most probable thing would be they were dark and
indistinguishably Black. Now you can BELIEVE that they were not Black and
that they were fair skinned, but THAT would be a "notion" because you have
no evidence, not a shread to prove it. All you have is a notion.
>
> > (I dont like that word but I cant find a better anthropological
> > one). There are varieties of Caucasoids, from smooth nosed french to
large
> > nosed Russians, etc... but the Eurocentric tries to say that there is
only
> > one type of Black African and that any deviation from this "classical
negro"
> > is inherently not Black or African. Its as if there is an isolated Black
> > ancestor with many many Meditteranean or White insurgencies. This is
false.
>
> OK, he Eurocentrics were/are wrong. Why then adopt their mistaken methods
> (only substituting "black" for "white", and vice-versa) to produce an
> Afrocentric mirror-image?
No I am basing what I believe on what I have seen and studied. Should I say
they are NOT black just to make the arguement seem "neutral" or should I
state what I believe based on what I see? Should I say that Greeks and
Romans weren't white just because that would be a notion or an afro-centric
opinion? Of course not. Greeks (Hellenic) & Romans look indistinugishably
white, no matter how hard you try to change that. And Egyptians, based on
archaeological remains, based on their own paintings, based on ancient
observations (Herodotus, as well as others) clearly show a Black group just
as clearly as one could see a white group established in Rome.
What proof? What "investigation" do you know of that shows that Egyptians
were not of a predominantly Black orientation? Bear in mind that
"measurements" have been proven false, because one could go into the
Blackest deepest part of Africa and use those same measurements and say "oh
these obviously Black african groups aren't black based on these
measurements" so don't even try THAT one.
>
> Note that the terms "European" and "African" are grossly misleading in
this
> context. They are, or should be, basically *geographic* terms, with no
> necessary "racial" connotations. In fact, the Greeks invented the terms
> Europe, Asia, and Africa, with regard to their own particular *local*
> environment, and the peoples they thus distinguished were actually, on a
> global scale, quite similar to each other (South Europeans, West Asians,
North
> Africans).
That is correct. So when i say "indistinguishably" black, I am merely saying
that if you were to take the ancient egyptians (before the Persian period)
each one... and place them in our modern time, our society in America, we
would look at them as Black... 80% of the time. Because you would not be
able to distinguish an ancient egyptian from a modern Black person.
>
> > During many events during Egyptian history Egyptians referred to the
pale,
> > blonde, asiatics. And they distinguished themselves from them. The
Hyksos,
> > Hittites, (some of) the Lybians...
>
> The Ancient Egyptians also distinguished themselves from the Nubians and
other
> "black Africans", so this sort of argument proves nothing.
Got you there, thank you for the free handout. In Ramesses II and Sesostris
tombs and in other Ancient Egyptian wall paintings, the Egyptians ALSO had
their notions of race and region. It was as follows: Lybia, Abyssinia
(Africans), Kemet (Egypt), and Assyrian(Mesopotamia). The Lybians were
shown as fair skinned White looking people, the Asiatics were shown as a
yellow/tan looking people, the Abyssinians were shown as a very dark skinned
people, and :) so were the Kemetics... I have the pictures, I have the
references. I have even the racist French analyses which even then could not
help but admit...
From Champollion (The guy who cracked the Hieroglyphic language) even
showed his resignation when he realized this. The Egyptian and Negro
continiously are shown closest towards each other with the Assyrian and
Lybian being more distant variants of what the Egyptian considred standard.
>
> > Greeks like Herodotus, and others referred to the Egyptians as Black...
not
> > "dark skinned" not "tanned" not "swarthy" but Black... this sits well
with
> > any Occam's razor.
>
> In previous times in Europe (before the influx of large numbers of "black"
> African descended people) completely "white" people with dark complexion
and
> hair were often described as "black", or the equivalent in other
languages -
> hence the common surnames "Black", "Blake", "Schwarz" (in Germany),
"Swart"
> (in Holland and Belgium) etc.etc. The Romany Gypsies are also called
"blacks",
> or the equivalent, and they are clearly not "black", in the sense of
"black
> Africans".
? I can say that practically anyone with a dark complexion is "white" with a
tan. But that doesn't work in reality because it becomes "diffusionist".
The reality is that most likely those dark skinned white people aren't
"completely" white. They are in many cases mixed with Ethiopian (as the
Roma... or GYpsy as you call them are) and Asian lines. OH yes, the
Roma(Gypsy) were very much of Ethiopian descent as well as Hindu and other
descent. Go to any Roma anthropological or ethnic historical reference, and
it will be there clear as a bell. They are not "completely" black, not by a
long shot, but they are definitely not completely white.
Ah once again you try that line of reasoning which won't work. If I go to
Senegal and I see four or five groups of Black africans, I will see that
they vary in shades, yet remain to be obviously Black. If I go to Ethiopia I
will see the same thing. Now, you postulate that Black would mean in most
cases, white with dark complexion. Now honestly, how far can one take this
assertion? As in your Gypsy case, not very far, because the Roma have
African ancestry...
>
> (snip more irrelevant speculations)
>
> > Throughout all of this time (up to the time of the persians), the White
> > influences were confined to Anatolia and no further south, and the
Aegean
> > (not Egypt). The mixed groups were those peoples in Mesopotania.
Please
> > correct any mistakes about the chronology.
>
> No point in correcting any chronology. That's the least of the problems
about
> your picture - let's start with physical anthropology, linguistics
etc.etc.
YOu cant correct it because there is nothing to correct. Lybians and some
Semitic peoples are as close as it got.... and the Egyptians took great care
in distinguishing themselves from those two groups.
>
> > I am still reading Diop's books.
>
> Which accounts for your confusion, which will only get worse if, as you
seem
> to be doing, you take what he asserts as the whole truth about Ancient
Egypt.
No some of what he is saying I don't agree with. But he offers far more
evidence that those in your position do. Even in this exchange you put
sarcasm and contempt in the place of "references" and "documented research".
>
> Let's just get two things straight:
>
> (i)As Afrocentrists constantly remind us, the general view these days is
the
> Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e."Modern humans") evolved in Africa, and spread
out
> to the rest of the world from there at a more recent date. This has a
number
> of consequences.
>
> Firstly, because of the much deeper time scale of H.s.s. in Africa, the
> genetic variation within Africa is much greater than that in the rest of
the
> world. In fact, all non-Africans are, on this scale, very closely related
to
> each other. Not only this, but because non-Africans originated from a
> particular group of Africans, certain Africans are more closely related to
> non-Africans than they are to other Africans. Thus any idea of an unified
> black "African race" is actually bogus, and was largely a creation of
white
> racists. It is ironic to see it now become a lynchpin of the Afrocentric
> hypothesis.
You are right, but once again, I am not talking about blackness in a white
racist sense, I am talking about sentiment and affiliation. The idea that
Egyptians were white with a tan is what you propose, and that merely says
that whenever a Black group of people do something great, they probably
weren't Black. The greatness of Egypt couldn't have come from a Black group
in your mind.
>
> (ii) All *reliable* studies of the physical anthropology of the Ancient
> Egyptians leads to an inescapable conclusion - and a study of their
artistic
> representations of themselves leads to a similar conclusion - The A.E.
were
> NOT BLACK AFRICANS. They did not share a close genetic and evolutionary
> relationship with the majority of people in Black Africa. The closest
> relationships of the A.E. are with other circum-Mediterranean peoples, in
> particular with the Berbers and the West Asians (although they are
> distinguishable from both these). There is also, unsurprisingly, a close
> relationship with some of their immediate neighbours to the south, such as
the
> Nubians.
> What there is *not* is any particularly close relationship with the
"black"
> peoples of West and South Africa, such as the Wolof, Ashanti, Yoruba,
Shona
> etc.etc., i.e. the sorts of people who were the ancestors of Diop, Ivan
Van
> Sertima, Molefi Kete Asante etc.etc. and most of their disciples.
In essence anyone Black who does not follow a European "established" notion
would by default be dismissed as fallacy.
Nope again, you fail by simply putting sarcasm into the end of the whole
thing. How about Sir. E. Wallace Bulge? There's a white guy who did almost
as much research as Petrie did, and he shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the
linguistic and religious proximity of Africa and A.E.
Lets try to make it easier. Defining Black as a race is fallacy, for as you
said it was imposed by White europeans upon people living in Africa. So lets
just go ahead and throw out the idea, along with the idea that the A.E.
shared more with other meditteranean peoples. During A.E. period West africa
was not as populated as it is now. The Wolof, Ashanti, Yourba did not exist
as groups during this time. However Wolof (my brother in law is Fulani from
Senegal) share a stronger linguistic and cultural connection to A.E. than
any Berbers or West Asians. the clothing, the word King in Wolof is "Phari"
for goodness sake, and the fact that Wolof culture is said to have come from
the East sometime after the end the New Kingdom... compels me to believe
there is a closer connection. JJust because Egypt is in the same northern
meditteranean latitudial area as other mediterranean areas does not give
your position any more credibility. Because much more of Egypt is closer to
other African groups...
>
> That being said, there was undoubtedly a strain in the ancestry of many
A.E.
> which could more meaningfully be described as "black African". This
largely
> came via Nubia. It was not predominant, but it's true that previous
> Eurocentric writers tended to overlook this strain, while at the same time
> exaggerating and overemphasizing the presence of a small minority of A.E.
who
> had red or blond hair.
Now, again you speak of a strain, which implies a very small weak link.
However Nubia had been and for the most part remained a province of Egypt.
Also, think logically, there wasn't a magic line that seperated the physical
caracteristics of Nubians from Upper Egyptians. No, even moreso, Pharoahs
during the old period are represeneted with curly hair african features,
their wives wear braids from wolly hair. Its simply obvious. It is not a
little strain, but a heavy strong bond.
>
> The overwhelming majority of Ancient Egyptians were neither blond
"caucasians"
> nor "black Africans" - they were - Egyptian!!!
>
> (BTW, only Diop and Afrocentrists seem to think that Keith Seele's
excavations
> at Qustul "prove" that Nubian civilization preceded Egyptian and "might
have
> given birth" to it.)
No, if you look at the first archaeological remains of Egypt, esp. Nabta
Playa, Buto, kerma et others, you can see a gradual movement from further
west and south.
Look at it this way, if you split it down the middle between the fairest
white and the darkest Black, you will undoubtedly come to a person who
shares a very dominant African Black physical appearance. If you wish to try
to put the Egyptians "in the middle"you still end up with a group of people
who if seen today would be placed in a "black" socialization.
So lets sum it up
1. Weather leans towards a darker shade
2. Original orientation shows a group who migrated from further south and
west
3. Physical representations showed a closer affiliation towards a darker
african orientation.
4. Historical observations (even during racist eurocentric periods) show a
people who were Black... not tanned whites.
5. The line of reasoning cannot be undermined by speculation which sprinkled
with sarcasm seeks to grasp at a "non existance" of Black orientation.
6. The fallacy of race as my friend here has pointed out cancels out any
"racial connection" to any other Mediterranean groups. But the discussion
isn't about "race" as it is about regional affiliation. A.E. shows more
close relation to other African groups than other Asian or Mediterranean
groups.
>
> Frank
> (BTW, I am *not* "white")
David
(BTW, It doesn't matter)
David
> "caucasians"
> > nor "black Africans" - they were - Egyptian!!!
Sigh... you would be more apt to believe that Kemet meant dark soil, than
dark skinned people. You would be more inclined to believe that Egyptians
were dark haired tanned caucasians even you do not say it.
Until the term "Black African" is more clearly defined within the context of
this discussion, I can see you will be able to dodge any attempt to place
A.E. into the sphere of African civilization. That why I use terms like
"indistinguishably Black" because it implies that one cannot distinguish a
difference between an A.E. and a Ethiopian any more than one can distinguish
a difference between a Fulani and Yoruba. Yes there are differences, but
relatively speaking they are much closer to each other than they are to any
European or Asiatic group. Shall we take this to the next level and offer
some picturess to trade or post or web references with pictures or
references?
I have never seen any references before the 1800's that showed A.E. being
classified as Semetic or indistinugishably Mediterranean. And definitely not
any ancient resources. Could you please point out some?
Finally: words like "moorish, ruddy, berber, hamitic" are totally invalid
and imporper in this discussion. They are impossible to trace
phenotypically, and only imply a "fair skinned, slightly african mixed
caucasian or asiatic". P.S. are fair skinned Black people "berber,
moorish?" does it automatically imply that if one's hair is not the tightest
knappy curly, then they are not "Black?" whether in ancient history or now?
Does the only valid "Black" of antiquity have tight curly hair, the darkest
skin possible and only one type of nose and one type of lips? If Black can
mean completely white with a dark complexion, can White mean completely
Black with a fair complexion? Oops can't do that, because white means "of
whole european ancestry". Oh well there goes objectivity out the window!
řřřř
Oh, it was black all right, but its "kingdom" was laughable compared to
Egypt's.
> or that the Ghana
> and Songhai kingdoms weren't Black
They were black, too, (that is, if you want to call them "kingdoms") but
Neolithic.
Stone Age tribes in New Guinea also refer to their lands as "kingdoms". LOL
Byker
> What can any group contribute when it is enslaved and brutalized? Your
> stupidity says: They weren't contributing... but contributing to who? To
> YOUR european selfish greedy butt? They actually were, the forced slavery
> is what allowed your lazy male ancestors to go around dancing in feminine
> dresses, and wearing makeup, and making all sorts of cultural
advancements.
> See your problem is, you try to decide the value of other people based on
> what they can offer YOU. But YOU aren't that important. European
technology
> was brought to you by the slavery and forced labor of many non-europeans
> over the years. And as far as the last 1000 years, African and Arabs were
on
> top 1000 years ago. Europe was a backwards continent, Europeans didn't
> bathe, and they thought the world was flat. The compass which is an
African
> invention as well as Algebra, an Arabic invention probably gave you some
> sense of intelligence.
Hey, boy, what's your major at UM? Some easy liberal-arts bullshit whose
sheepskin is worth about as much as one from a diploma mill? It sure as
hell isn't math or science. Wait until you get out there in the REAL WORLD
and find out that all your ersatz afro-*history* won't be worth shit in
finding you a job. Oh yes, that's right: Being an afroid, you can fall
back on Affirmative Action and get a do-nothing 'gubmint' job whose only
requirement is a college degree in ANYTHING (GPA is irrelvant, too) so you
can sit at a desk all day and polish a chair with your ass, while boring the
daylights out of your co-workers with tales of "The Negro King of Persia in
3900 B.C".......
frank y hung
quick glance reveals nothing much more than the usual unfounded Afrocentric
assertions, which have been aired over and over and over again.
David wrote:
>
> > > The overwhelming majority of Ancient Egyptians were neither blond
> > "caucasians"
> > > nor "black Africans" - they were - Egyptian!!!
>
> Sigh... you would be more apt to believe that Kemet meant dark soil, than
> dark skinned people.
I'm no more "apt to believe" in any translation of KMT. IMHO the most likely
proposed translation is that it refers to the dark soil of the fertile Nile
Valley and Delta, as opposed to the infertile red desert DSRT soil. This makes
sense. I'm not sure it's ever been "proved", but it'll do for now.
To translate KMT as "black people" in the sense of "black African" (as the
Afrocentrists would see it) requires a number of assumptions. Are there any
"black African" peoples who called *themselves* "black"? OTC, such names as
"Nigerians", "Ethiopians", are names given by *others* to "black Africans".
Actually, I can't think of any people in the world whose original native
national/ethnic name is an indication of their colour! If KMT does actually
mean "black people", you would have a totally unique situation in world
history.
But OK, let's assume that KMT means "black people". Then something very
strange is going on, because, contra your Diopian Afrocentric assertions, all
the objective scientific evidence shows that the A.E. were not Black Africans,
in the sense that Diopian Afrocentrists want them to have been.
> You would be more inclined to believe that Egyptians
> were dark haired tanned caucasians even you do not say it.
I'm no "more inclined to believe that Egyptians" were anything rather than
*what they were*. I do not think of them as "caucasians", and avoid that term
as much as possible, because it is so often used as a synonym for "white".
>
> Until the term "Black African" is more clearly defined within the context of
> this discussion, I can see you will be able to dodge any attempt to place
> A.E. into the sphere of African civilization.
Yes, the term "Black African" *does* need to be more clearly defined in this
context. But it is precisely the Afrocentrists who use this term in different
ways in different contexts. This fuzziness of terminology enables them to make
apparently "logical" arguments out of illogical leaps of fancy.
As for A.E. being an "African civilization", of course it was, because Egypt
is on the continent of Africa! It is characteristic of the Afrocentric style
of "discussion" that this simple geographic fact is then used as part of an
argument which confuses geography, "race", language, culture etc.etc.
> That why I use terms like
> "indistinguishably Black" because it implies that one cannot distinguish a
> difference between an A.E. and a Ethiopian any more than one can distinguish
> a difference between a Fulani and Yoruba. Yes there are differences, but
> relatively speaking they are much closer to each other than they are to any
> European or Asiatic group.
Not true. The Ancient Egyptians were largely more similar to Berbers and West
Asians than to Ethiopians. And they were much more similar to Ethiopians than
to Wolof, Yoruba, Shona etc.etc.
> Shall we take this to the next level and offer
> some picturess to trade or post or web references with pictures or
> references?
> I have never seen any references before the 1800's that showed A.E. being
> classified as Semetic or indistinugishably Mediterranean. And definitely not
> any ancient resources. Could you please point out some?
The question is not what "references" of any period said of the A.E. (I've
pointed out that Herodotus' description, for one, is highly ambiguous, and
does not mean that he sees them as "black Africans" in an Afrocentric sense).
The question is what they were actually like. Here we have more than enough
evidence through their physical remains, and through the way they depicted
themselves, to show that they were *not* predominantly "Black African".
> Finally: words like "moorish, ruddy, berber, hamitic" are totally invalid
> and imporper in this discussion.
??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly accept that
it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically) distinctive,
and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
> They are impossible to trace
> phenotypically, and only imply a "fair skinned, slightly african mixed
> caucasian or asiatic". P.S. are fair skinned Black people "berber,
> moorish?" does it automatically imply that if one's hair is not the tightest
> knappy curly, then they are not "Black?" whether in ancient history or now?
> Does the only valid "Black" of antiquity have tight curly hair, the darkest
> skin possible and only one type of nose and one type of lips? If Black can
> mean completely white with a dark complexion, can White mean completely
> Black with a fair complexion? Oops can't do that, because white means "of
> whole european ancestry". Oh well there goes objectivity out the window!
The only way to approach the subject objectively is to ditch this whole "black
African" vs "white caucasian" business out of the window.
On the one hand, there are those, such as yourself, who want us to call the
A.E. "Black Africans", with the implication that they have some sort of
special relationship with the Wolof, Yoruba, Shona etc.etc. (They haven't)
On the other hand, there are those, mainly white racists, who want us to see
the A.E., or rather the ruling and intellectual castes of such, as blond
blue-eyed "caucasians", maybe even "Celts". (They weren't)
I'm sorry, but I say "A plague on *both* your houses". It is absolutely
ridiculous to think that the peoples of the world can be classified so neatly
that the A.E., if not "white", must therefore be "black"! Here again, the
Afrocentrists have merely taken over all the by-now discredited typological
ideas and terminology so beloved of white racist pseudoscience in the past,
and still prevalent among white Racists today. The only difference is that
Afrocentrists want to use this to proclaim "Black" superiority.
So if anyone asks me "Were the A.E. Black or White?", my answer would be
"neither - they were Ancient Egyptians".
(Their closest "racial" relatives today are almost certainly the modern
Egyptians, although there has been a considerable influx into Egypt since
pharaonic times. However this influx has been both northern - Arabs, Greeks
etc. - and southern - mostly Black African slaves, but also Nubians)
Frank
unutte...@my-deja.com
"David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote:
<snip>
David, please accept my apology. I actually took you as the person ROQUE
who wrote the garbage I actually responded to. I was in a hurry at the
time and thought you were the individual who wrote the "jiggaboo"
comments and other asinine statements.
My bad...
Unutterable One
unutte...@my-deja.com
P.S. I actually agree with what you wrote/written.
PJKG
Menkaure and infact all of the Middle Kingdom Pharaoh statues.
--
Philip Gould
Moderator Am...@egroups.com
Subscribe: Amun-su...@egroups.com
Amun - The Egyptology Information Exchange
Andy
unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <bR5r5.11750$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> "David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> David, please accept my apology. I actually took you as the person ROQUE
> who wrote the garbage I actually responded to. I was in a hurry at the
> time and thought you were the individual who wrote the "jiggaboo"
> comments and other asinine statements.
>
> My bad...
>
> Unutterable One
> unutte...@my-deja.com
>
> P.S. I actually agree with what you wrote/written.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
I love it when the nogs can't even remember who is who. That's why the
homies are always cutting each others throat.
JŠ §moke
Andy <i...@homec.com> wrote in message news:39AD693C...@homec.com...
>
>
> unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <bR5r5.11750$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> > "David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > David, please accept my apology. I actually took you as the person ROQUE
> > who wrote the garbage I actually responded to. I was in a hurry at the
> > time and thought you were the individual who wrote the "jiggaboo"
> > comments and other asinine statements.
> >
> > My bad...
> >
> > Unutterable One
> > unutte...@my-deja.com
> >
> > P.S. I actually agree with what you wrote/written.
> >
> homies are always cutting each others throat.
Apparently they all look alike even to EACH OTHER.
Byker
> Is it "crap" because it is "afro-centric" or is it crap because you don't
> believe it is true?
> I look at the eurocentric view of Egyptian history as crap, because its
not
> true history.
> Can you find any evidence that can refute this afro-centric "crap"? No, I
> didn't think so.
Hey David: Let's see you answer this one:
So your "afro-historian" Diop has a doctorate in physics, eh? OK, so you
afrocentroids believe every jot and tittle of his "history".
William Pierce also has a PhD. in physics. Why shouldn't we White folks
listen to what HE has to say?
Can you find any reason why we shouldn't? No, I didn't think so.......
Katherine Griffis
sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>I'll reply to your other massive posting when I have had time to read it. A
>quick glance reveals nothing much more than the usual unfounded Afrocentric
>assertions, which have been aired over and over and over again.
True.
>David wrote:
>>
>> > > The overwhelming majority of Ancient Egyptians were neither blond
>> > "caucasians"
>> > > nor "black Africans" - they were - Egyptian!!!
>>
>> Sigh... you would be more apt to believe that Kemet meant dark soil, than
>> dark skinned people.
>
>I'm no more "apt to believe" in any translation of KMT. IMHO the most likely
>proposed translation is that it refers to the dark soil of the fertile Nile
>Valley and Delta, as opposed to the infertile red desert DSRT soil. This makes
>sense. I'm not sure it's ever been "proved", but it'll do for now.
>
>To translate KMT as "black people" in the sense of "black African" (as the
>Afrocentrists would see it) requires a number of assumptions. Are there any
>"black African" peoples who called *themselves* "black"? OTC, such names as
>"Nigerians", "Ethiopians", are names given by *others* to "black Africans".
>Actually, I can't think of any people in the world whose original native
>national/ethnic name is an indication of their colour! If KMT does actually
>mean "black people", you would have a totally unique situation in world
>history.
>
>But OK, let's assume that KMT means "black people". Then something very
>strange is going on, because, contra your Diopian Afrocentric assertions, all
>the objective scientific evidence shows that the A.E. were not Black Africans,
>in the sense that Diopian Afrocentrists want them to have been.
>
FWIW, the term /kmt/, when used to refer to the land know as Egypt, does
not have the determinative attached to it which refers to it as a "land
of black peoples," as David seems to want it to. It has a location
determinaive (usually called a village determinative) which means it
refers to settled land, I6-G17-X1:)49 [village det]. Literally, it
means, "the black land, Egypt" (Faulkner: 286; Hannig Sachgr: 183b).
Faulkner notes that this term, in referring to the land of Egypt can be
found first in the Middle Kingdom story of "Sinuhe." Later, in pKahun,
the inhabitants of "the black land," that i , Egyptians, are referred to
as /kmt/ with a people determinative, but in context, as _inhabitants of
the _land_ of Kmt.
>> I have never seen any references before the 1800's that showed A.E. being
>> classified as Semetic or indistinugishably Mediterranean. And definitely not
>> any ancient resources. Could you please point out some?
>
>The question is not what "references" of any period said of the A.E. (I've
>pointed out that Herodotus' description, for one, is highly ambiguous, and
>does not mean that he sees them as "black Africans" in an Afrocentric sense).
>The question is what they were actually like. Here we have more than enough
>evidence through their physical remains, and through the way they depicted
>themselves, to show that they were *not* predominantly "Black African".
>
Frank Snowden, writing on the classical writers' descriptions of black
peoples in Africa, noted the following:
"...In short, Greco-Roman textual sources clearly document differences
perceived in the physical characteristics of Ethiopians and Egyptians.
These sources show that 1) all peoples described as dark-skinned were
not Ethiopians in the full sense of the classical word, and 2)
adjectives for dark and black -- melas and niger, for example -- were
relatives terms embracing gradations of skin color such as Greeks and
Romans noted in their comparisons of Ethiopians, Egyptians, and Indians.
<..>
In support of the view that Egyptians were black or Negroid, a
frequently cited passage (Herodotus 2, 104) has been glaringly misread
(Bernal 1987: 52-53). Arguing that Colchians were of Egyptian origin,
Herodotus writes that Colchians were dark-skinned and wolly-haired, but
emphasizes in the very next sentence that this observations amounts to
nothing since it applies to several other peoples also, Therefore,
rejecting color and hair as criteria, Herodotus argues that
Colchian-Egyptian kinship was based upon similarities in languages and
customs, i.e., _cultural, not physical criteria_ (Snowden, 1989: 83-93;
1990: 543-557 for examples of other misreadings of classical sources)
[emphasis_ _ Snowden's]
In short, the totality of classical evidence highlights the fact that
physical characteristics of Egyptians were not considered Ethiopian in
the Greco-Roman sense. The physical traits of both the blacks of
classical art and the Ethiopians of Greco-Roman texts -- i.e. color,
hair texture, and nose type -- have been appropriate described as
'Negroid' or 'black' in later anthropological and historical usage. And
regarding differences between Egyptians and Ethiopians, an observation
of D. O'Connor (1971:2) is relevant:
'Thousands of sculpted and painted representations from Egypt
as well as hundreds of well preserved bodies from the cemeteries show
that the typical physical type was neither Negroid nor Negro.'
And classical descriptions of physical traits of Nile Valley inhabitants
are strikingly similar to characteristics by later anthropological
observers.
In conclusion, the color and other traits of Ethiopians were prominently
noted in classical descriptions of Egypt's southern neighbors."
"The Physical Characteristics of Egyptians and Their Southern
Neighbors." Frank M. Snowden, Jr. (Howard University), in _Egypt in
Africa_, Theodore Celenko (ed.), (Indianapolis Museum of Art:
Indianapolis, 1996), pp. 106-108.
Snowden's Citations:
Frank M. Snowden.
1989 "Bernal's Blacks: Herodotus and other Classical Evidence."
Arethusa (Special Fall Issue): 83-95.
1990 "Romans and Blacks: A Review Essay." American Journal of
Philology 3 (4).
David O'Connor
1971 "Ancient Egypt and Black African -- Early Contact."
Expedition, the Magazine of Archaeology/Anthropology 14 (1):2.
Regards --
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg
Member, American Research Center in Egypt
International Association of Egyptologists
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Special Studies
http://www.griffis-consulting.com
Reading mail from me in a Usenet group does not
grant you the right to send me unsolicited commercial e-mail.
All senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail will be
reported to their postmasters as Usenet abusers.
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 7.56 PM:
"frank y hung" <hun...@sbu.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39AD3C1E...@sbu.ac.uk...
>> Not true. The Ancient Egyptians were largely more similar to Berbers and West
>> Asians than to Ethiopians. And they were much more similar to Ethiopians than
>> to Wolof, Yoruba, Shona etc.etc.
> There you go with that "berber" stuff. That group is not clearly defined.
sure it is: people who speak, or whose ancestors spoke, a Libyco-Berber
language
>>> Finally: words like "moorish, ruddy, berber, hamitic" are totally invalid
>>> and imporper in this discussion.
>>
>> ??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly accept that
>> it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
>> culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically) distinctive,
>> and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
> No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast of
> africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt.
and who do you think founded Dynasties 22, 23, 24, and 26? (Not to mention
strong influences in Dynasty 21, which some scholars consider to be Libyan
as well)
Berber-speakers (called "Libyans" by Egyptologists) have been in contact
with the Nile valley since the Predynastic period, and very likely even
earlier.
> Heck the word Berber is from the Barbary (meaning Roman for North Africa)
> Coast.
no it isn't. "Berber" is a loan word in English from Arabic "barbar" (whence
"Barbary" as well), itself a loan word from Latin. It goes back to a the
Greek root from which English "barbarian" is derived (meaning in Greek
"non-Greek speaking person"). Modern "Berbers" don't call themselves that
and most find the term offensive.
> They were not linguistically connected with Egypt
As a mater of fact they are, even much more so than Semitic. The
similarities in grammar are quite clear. Given that Egyptians and Amazigh
("Berber") peoples have a common North African origin and live in immediate
proximity of one another this is hardly surprising.
> any more or less than any other ancient group.
That is highly debatable.
> They weren't a concentrated "people" they were merely a broad
> grouping by the Romans of a people who lived "on the Barbary coast".
see my comments about the Libyan dynasties above. As I mentioned, the people
living west of Egypt have been in contact with the Nile valley since the
Predynastic period. There were major contacts in the Old Kingdom and
significant military conflicts with the Egyptians during the Ramesside
Period. This lead ultimately to the Libyan take over of Egypt during the
Third Intermediate Period, which not even the Napatan Dynasty 25 could
wholly dislodge.
> Some Berbers may have had ties, while others did not.
of course
> Their culture was not one.
that can be said of any group of people inhabiting a large geographic region
(another good example are Arabs)
>Tuareg and Kabyle are not the same language. they are distinctly
> different.
They are different, but this is primarily due to a stronger influence of
Arabic in Qabyle, plus some minor phonetic differences; of the 2, Twareq is
much more conservative. Many linguists specialising in modern Libyco-Berber
languages in fact argue there is only a Pan-Berber language with regional
differences (such as is the case with Arabic). IMO that is overstating the
case a bit, but I do understand why the claim is made.
However, this is immaterial as neither the Qabyle nor the Twareq existed in
the period of ancient Egypt as recognisable cultural or linguistic groups.
Their ancestors did though.
David
ok. Stop giving me the same "Eurocentric" drivel. It is not working. All
it's doing is making me believe more and more that you are unable to win the
arguement with hard concrete evidence and references.
"frank y hung" <hun...@sbu.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:39AD3C1E...@sbu.ac.uk...
THe sense that Diop and others are claiming is something that I think you
are confused about. Diop said that there was a mixing of Semetic and
Asiatic groups later in Egyptian history, but the dominant group in Egypt
were the African peoples (just like in America the dominant group are the
European/white peoples despite the fact that at least 1/3 of the people in
America aren't white.).
>
> > You would be more inclined to believe that Egyptians
> > were dark haired tanned caucasians even you do not say it.
>
> I'm no "more inclined to believe that Egyptians" were anything rather than
> *what they were*. I do not think of them as "caucasians", and avoid that
term
> as much as possible, because it is so often used as a synonym for "white".
> >
> > Until the term "Black African" is more clearly defined within the
context of
> > this discussion, I can see you will be able to dodge any attempt to
place
> > A.E. into the sphere of African civilization.
>
> Yes, the term "Black African" *does* need to be more clearly defined in
this
> context. But it is precisely the Afrocentrists who use this term in
different
> ways in different contexts. This fuzziness of terminology enables them to
make
> apparently "logical" arguments out of illogical leaps of fancy.
Well you just did the same thing by saying that Diop wanted them to be a
particular "Black African"... when Diop and Sertima have expressed time and
time again that there is not just one "type" of Black people. There are many
varieties and not just one inhabited Egypt.
>
> As for A.E. being an "African civilization", of course it was, because
Egypt
> is on the continent of Africa! It is characteristic of the Afrocentric
style
> of "discussion" that this simple geographic fact is then used as part of
an
> argument which confuses geography, "race", language, culture etc.etc.
Once again, you are taking something which signifies a
cultural/ethnic/affilationial grouping and trying to make it sound as if I
am merely stating a regional continental group. They were african in the
sense that they shared as much if not physically more with other Equatorial
Africans than they did with Asiatics and Semitics.
>
> > That why I use terms like
> > "indistinguishably Black" because it implies that one cannot distinguish
a
> > difference between an A.E. and a Ethiopian any more than one can
distinguish
> > a difference between a Fulani and Yoruba. Yes there are differences, but
> > relatively speaking they are much closer to each other than they are to
any
> > European or Asiatic group.
>
> Not true. The Ancient Egyptians were largely more similar to Berbers and
West
> Asians than to Ethiopians. And they were much more similar to Ethiopians
than
> to Wolof, Yoruba, Shona etc.etc.
There you go with that "berber" stuff. That group is not clearly defined. I
can see clearly based on the pictures and mural paintings that the Egyptians
mostly had dark skin (distinugishably darker than their representations of
Asians and not much lighter than Ethiopians) Ramesses tombs, Akhenaten,
Queen Tiye, Khufu, Cheops, etc. When I look at them I don't see an asiatic
face or an asiatic clothing or an asiatic representation. I see a more
Ethiopian, African representation. Look at the pictures, POST them on the
website if you must. I will if you deny it again, and we can let them speak
for themselves. The melanin content of many of the old dynasty mummies was
as much as a Black African, (which is far more than a tanned dark european
or asiatic)... you see that "tan" thing doesnt work, because even today
Arabs have lived in the region for almost 1500 years, and their skin tones
still remain highly fair. The melanin within the mummies are shown to have
a concentration above this and at the level of Yoruba, Oromo, and other
ethnic equatorial africans.
>
> > Shall we take this to the next level and offer
> > some picturess to trade or post or web references with pictures or
> > references?
> > I have never seen any references before the 1800's that showed A.E.
being
> > classified as Semetic or indistinugishably Mediterranean. And definitely
not
> > any ancient resources. Could you please point out some?
>
> The question is not what "references" of any period said of the A.E. (I've
> pointed out that Herodotus' description, for one, is highly ambiguous, and
> does not mean that he sees them as "black Africans" in an Afrocentric
sense).
> The question is what they were actually like. Here we have more than
enough
> evidence through their physical remains, and through the way they depicted
> themselves, to show that they were *not* predominantly "Black African".
Then let me start posting pictures and references my friend. because now its
time to move on from this BS.
>
> > Finally: words like "moorish, ruddy, berber, hamitic" are totally
invalid
> > and imporper in this discussion.
>
> ??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly accept
that
> it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
> culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically)
distinctive,
> and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
>
No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast of
africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt. Heck the word Berber
is from the Barbary (meaning Roman for North Africa) Coast. They were not
linguistically connected with Egypt any more or less than any other ancient
group. They weren't a concentrated "people" they were merely a broad
grouping by the Romans of a people who lived "on the Barbary coast". Some
Berbers may have had ties, while others did not. Their culture was not one.
Tuareg and Kabyle are not the same language. they are distinctly different.
And I agree so is many African groups.
> > They are impossible to trace
> > phenotypically, and only imply a "fair skinned, slightly african mixed
> > caucasian or asiatic". P.S. are fair skinned Black people "berber,
> > moorish?" does it automatically imply that if one's hair is not the
tightest
> > knappy curly, then they are not "Black?" whether in ancient history or
now?
> > Does the only valid "Black" of antiquity have tight curly hair, the
darkest
> > skin possible and only one type of nose and one type of lips? If Black
can
> > mean completely white with a dark complexion, can White mean completely
> > Black with a fair complexion? Oops can't do that, because white means
"of
> > whole european ancestry". Oh well there goes objectivity out the window!
>
> The only way to approach the subject objectively is to ditch this whole
"black
> African" vs "white caucasian" business out of the window.
>
(Sorry I had to snip your assumptions about my position, many of them are
false)
> (Their closest "racial" relatives today are almost certainly the modern
> Egyptians, although there has been a considerable influx into Egypt since
> pharaonic times. However this influx has been both northern - Arabs,
Greeks
> etc. - and southern - mostly Black African slaves, but also Nubians)
>
> Frank
Frank gotcha. I love how you want to say that the Black Africans were mostly
slaves... its just icing on your cake isn't it? Well this limited view is
gonna be squashed.
David
believed that a pyramid race came into egypt built the pyramids and
civilized the Black Anu Egyptians. There are other PH.D white professors who
thought that the Ife didn't make their own sculptures and that Greeks came
and taught them to make sculpture.
There are other white PH.D people who believe that Egyptians are a semetic
group and that their skin was dark because of tanning. There are other PH.D
whites asserted that Nubians were merely slaves, dancers, and soldiers...
I believe Ivan Van Sertima to many degrees because his work uses a method
that does not add unnessecary speculation to his position (like a lot of
what ifs of ideas which are least likely to be true ...for example: like
fair skinned egyptian people who call themselves Black, represented as dark
skinned wolly haired people, and who have been described as such during
antiquity, yet are discredited as such because some modern people
unnessecarily add an interpretation of "tanned" whites who are Black.)
"Byker" <byker_@do+rag.net> wrote in message
news:8ok1ed$o0u$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> David <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:HPPq5.8327$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
> > Is it "crap" because it is "afro-centric" or is it crap because you
don't
> > believe it is true?
> > I look at the eurocentric view of Egyptian history as crap, because its
> not
> > true history.
> > Can you find any evidence that can refute this afro-centric "crap"? No,
I
> > didn't think so.
>
> Hey David: Let's see you answer this one:
>
> So your "afro-historian" Diop has a doctorate in physics, eh? OK, so you
> afrocentroids believe every jot and tittle of his "history".
>
> William Pierce also has a PhD. in physics. Why shouldn't we White folks
> listen to what HE has to say?
>
> Can you find any reason why we shouldn't? No, I didn't think so.......
>
>
unutte...@my-deja.com
"JŠ §moke" <s...@ngeFruit.net> wrote:
>
> Andy <i...@homec.com> wrote in message
news:39AD693C...@homec.com...
> >
> >
> > unutte...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <bR5r5.11750$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>,
> > > "David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
>>>David, please accept my apology. I actually took you as the person
ROQUE
> > > who wrote the garbage I actually responded to. I was in a hurry at
the
> > > time and thought you were the individual who wrote the "jiggaboo"
> > > comments and other asinine statements.
> > >
> > > My bad...
> > >
> > > Unutterable One
> > > unutte...@my-deja.com
> > >
> > > P.S. I actually agree with what you wrote/written.
> > >
the
> > homies are always cutting each others throat.
>
> Apparently they all look alike even to EACH OTHER.
**Most if not all won't waste their time with you kids - cause you don't
know any better. You're only humiliating yourselves without even knowing
it, but then again, you probably know. You probably like being perceived
as a "fuck-up". Of course you do...
I'm sure the doctors slapped your mothers - when you were born.
[Don't even waste your time responding cause I really don't give a
damn.]
Racists are insignificant because you're usually stupid and ignorant as
hell. Look at Tim McVeigh. Killed innocent Americans. You work for the
devil and hate yourself. Enjoy in your freakin' hate world...
I wish there was an island for your idiots (who screw it up for
everyone else) where you all could hate each other to death...
Ahhhhh, that felt good!
David
"David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:...
> I did. heres a post of them. By the way none of those four are Middle
> Kingdom, but I will assume you meant "in addition" to those I would "also"
> look at middle kingdom Pharoah statues, busts, and sculptures.
> Here are the pics. Please tell me that I am looking at a bunch of semetic,
> or "tanned" whites, or berbers!
> I mean look at Khafre and his two wives, they look.
>
> Examples of Eurocentric outcries:
> 1. Their lips aren't all that big! (Nor are many West african lips and
> Ethiopian lips. My aunt from Ghana has thin lips and is
> not mixed at all. She is Black.
> 2. They don't LOOK like Kunta Kente (Lol, I guess there is only one type
of
> Black face huh, WRONG)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "PJKG" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote in message
> news:8ojo8e$98j$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Alex
Katherine Griffis heeft geschreven in bericht <5vdrqsgodfhics9vl...@4ax.com>...
Does it have a determinative after it that designates "land"? That would help
a little.
Alex
David
"Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B5D32889.113D7%mesh...@hotmail.com...
> in article JXir5.13014$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net, David at
> ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 7.56 PM:
> sure it is: people who speak, or whose ancestors spoke, a Libyco-Berber
> language
>
How can you use such a definition on a people who did not speak that tounge
at all???
That is your line of reasoning? Berber are people who spoke a partuclar
tounge, therefore another group of people who were much earlier are similar
looking to them! Thats not a good way to debate history.
> >>> Finally: words like "moorish, ruddy, berber, hamitic" are totally
invalid
> >>> and imporper in this discussion.
> >>
> >> ??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly accept
that
> >> it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
> >> culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically)
distinctive,
> >> and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
>
> > No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast of
> > africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt.
>
> and who do you think founded Dynasties 22, 23, 24, and 26? (Not to mention
> strong influences in Dynasty 21, which some scholars consider to be Libyan
> as well)
THAT IS long after the fall of the New Kingdom. You may as well say "who
founded the Caliph dynasties or the Byzantine dynasties. The 22-26 dynasties
are known to be "FOREIGN" just like the Persian, Greek, and Hyksos!
>
> Berber-speakers (called "Libyans" by Egyptologists) have been in contact
> with the Nile valley since the Predynastic period, and very likely even
> earlier.
AAAAH! NO that is so false! The Sea Peoples came during the middle of the
19th dynasty and THEY are the ones who changed the demographics of much of
that area! (North Africa west of EGYPT)
>
> > Heck the word Berber is from the Barbary (meaning Roman for North
Africa)
> > Coast.
>
> no it isn't. "Berber" is a loan word in English from Arabic "barbar"
(whence
> "Barbary" as well), itself a loan word from Latin. It goes back to a the
> Greek root from which English "barbarian" is derived (meaning in Greek
> "non-Greek speaking person"). Modern "Berbers" don't call themselves that
> and most find the term offensive.
LATIN is the ROMAN tounge!!! Barbary is derived from the latin/greek word
Barbarian just like you said... Barbarian is a Roman word! It IS offensive!
The Barbary coast is the name the Romans gave to North Africa. Come on!!!!
>
> > They were not linguistically connected with Egypt
>
> As a mater of fact they are, even much more so than Semitic. The
> similarities in grammar are quite clear. Given that Egyptians and Amazigh
> ("Berber") peoples have a common North African origin and live in
immediate
> proximity of one another this is hardly surprising.
Show me some examples, some research, some authors, anything. I'm not taking
your word on this one!
> > They weren't a concentrated "people" they were merely a broad
> > grouping by the Romans of a people who lived "on the Barbary coast".
>
> see my comments about the Libyan dynasties above. As I mentioned, the
people
> living west of Egypt have been in contact with the Nile valley since the
> Predynastic period. There were major contacts in the Old Kingdom and
> significant military conflicts with the Egyptians during the Ramesside
> Period. This lead ultimately to the Libyan take over of Egypt during the
> Third Intermediate Period, which not even the Napatan Dynasty 25 could
> wholly dislodge.
Thank you... this was the Third Intermediate period... you even show that
they were considered a military threat to Egypt, how could they be
"related"? The Egyptians themselves in Ramesses and Sesostris tombs show
the Lybians as a distinctly seperate (and barbaric) group. Totally different
looking than the Egyptians. Don't respond with a denial. Go get any books
about the Egyptian's especially the writings of Rienzi & Champollion (Mr.
Rosetta Stone Champollion) Egypte Ancienne 1839.....P.S. These two were
definitely not happy with their results...
>
> > Some Berbers may have had ties, while others did not.
>
> of course
>
> > Their culture was not one.
Exactly and you can't say "the Egyptians looked like a group of people who
didn't look a certain way". Berbers came in all shades. The Berbers are
known for tatooing in their culture, and in Ancient Egyptian
representations, they are shown tattooed, which the Egyptians are not. What
kind of relationships are you trying to show?
>
> that can be said of any group of people inhabiting a large geographic
region
> (another good example are Arabs)
>
> >Tuareg and Kabyle are not the same language. they are distinctly
> > different.
>
> They are different, but this is primarily due to a stronger influence of
> Arabic in Qabyle, plus some minor phonetic differences; of the 2, Twareq
is
> much more conservative. Many linguists specialising in modern
Libyco-Berber
> languages in fact argue there is only a Pan-Berber language with regional
> differences (such as is the case with Arabic). IMO that is overstating the
> case a bit, but I do understand why the claim is made.
Well this covers people who existed AFTER the fall of the New Kingdom, you
are very weak in making a connection to Early Dynastic.
>
> However, this is immaterial as neither the Qabyle nor the Twareq existed
in
> the period of ancient Egypt as recognisable cultural or linguistic groups.
> Their ancestors did though.
>
Ah! But they didn't resemble the Egyptians. THe Egyptians themselves show
that time and time again. THe Berbers/Lybians/fair skinneds were shown
tattooed and wore clothing and spoke languages different than the dark
(red)/black haired/Negroid/African Egyptians...
David
attempt. I even used White french anti-African biased writings to help me.
Even Champollion admitted that the Egyptians represented themselves much
more closely to the African than to the Lybian!
"Katherine Griffis" <k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:5vdrqsgodfhics9vl...@4ax.com...
David
Wolof, Coptic, Amharic, and a variety of other languages. Berber is known to
be derived from many many different languages. The Berbers were not a
specific group, but a generalized grouping of vaguely related peoples who
were in the same region. Just like the word arabic, or white, or black, or
hispanic, or asian!
David
certain. I don't want to confuse anyone so I will post a shorter version of
this...
It is understood that KMT referrs to the country as "America" refers to the
country. Kemu refers to the people, and no country I know of calls itself
"Land of so and so people" but many countries have "land" attached to them.
The word "-stan" means land... Afganistan...Turkmenistan... but France does
not have "land" in it. Kemet does not have "Ta-Kemet"
Ta- is the demonstrative of "land" Ta-, Ba- and Wa- were words that meant
"land of" in many African languages and Egyptian...
The confusion arises is that land of Black people would be called "Kemu".
But here we have examples of areas of KMT which referred to the land...or
the people?
Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt)
Ta-Mehau (Delta/Lower Egypt)
Ta-Neferu (Nubia... literally translated "land of beauty")
here is the kicker, Egyptians seperated themselves from Desert dwellers, and
that is where the identity of Kmt vs Dsrt comes from. This is no afrocentric
dogma you would hope to say it is. This is widely accepted in all Egyptology
circles. And all of you in here know that your fair skinned berbers and
semetics were in the desert.
KM (Kime) - was the word for the dirt on the banks of the nile. It is also
the word for "black" (as in a very dark color anything)
DSR (Dese{r}) - was the word for redness...
How can you have two words Deshret and Kemet with the same endings ...?
Perhaps coiencidence but when they are used as stark comparitives in the
context of the period, I investigated further...
Peret & Akhet also has meanings referring to compositions of the "land"
Now it can be debated if Kmt referred to the "land of" or the "people"
of...because of the ending "-et" and I would almost be inclined to lose on
this one: Akh-et meaning Flooding of (land) and per-et meaning harvesting
of(the land) but here we have a confusion. The Egyptians called themselves
KEMU (black people), and not...
Kem-et-u (or Kemetnu?) which means "people of the black land"...
I can easily assert that Kemet means "land of black people" as well as
"black land"
The ending "u" or "au" refers to "people of". Nebu - for nubians, Libu -for
Lybians, Keftu - for people of Crete... "Shems" in the language meant "to
follow" ..., and Shemsu meant "people who followed"... not "land that
followed" (Shemset?)
My problem is that Ta- & -et seems to mean the same thing. AH, but when one
looks at the context. Ta-shemau Ta-mehau- and Ta-Nefer are lands which are
postively Egyptian... THEIR home... Ta- I believe would mean "homeland" or
"land which we are of"
Ta-Shemau could mean "land of the people who followed", which would make
more sense, since Upper Egypt colonized Lower Egypt... but I won't try to
say this is fact because the second "s" in Shems confuses me... Shems means
to follow, but would Shem mean "after" or what? I thought that perhaps
"Shomu" which meant summertime in the language would paint a clue. Shomu
(dry hot season) and maybe Ta-SHemau meant people who lived in a hotter
dryer area. But I am not saying I am convinced of these possibilities as
facts.
of course the mere fact that a word ends in "u" in kemetic words does not
nessecarily mean "people of" BUT when added to a land, usually the word is
like that. Ta-Neferu means perhaps "people of a beautiful land" or "land of
beautiful people". I am having difficulty placing the adjectives when the
two (Ta- & -u) are combined. So for that reason i would not try to lay this
claim.
BUT:
Kemet was the name of the country like "Ire-land" "Afgani-stan"
and the people called themselves "Kem-u" people of black (soil)" not Kemetu
"people of the black land" therfore the idea that Kemet means "black land"
is not definitely meaning "people of black soil" and THIS is the debate.
David L. Moffitt
"David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:1qlr5.13344$_e4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> "David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message news:...
> > I did. heres a post of them. By the way none of those four are Middle
> > Kingdom, but I will assume you meant "in addition" to those I would
"also"
> > look at middle kingdom Pharoah statues, busts, and sculptures.
> > Here are the pics. Please tell me that I am looking at a bunch of
semetic,
> > or "tanned" whites, or berbers!
> > I mean look at Khafre and his two wives, they look.
> >
> > Examples of Eurocentric outcries:
> > 1. Their lips aren't all that big! (Nor are many West african lips and
> > Ethiopian lips. My aunt from Ghana has thin lips and is
> > not mixed at all. She is Black.
> > 2. They don't LOOK like Kunta Kente (Lol, I guess there is only one
type
> of
> > Black face huh, WRONG)
%%%%% Why does it matter if the Pharaoh's were black or not? They have been
dead and stuffed for a long time and no one has personal claim on their
estate! What is your point?
David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,TFA Member----and damn proud of it!
Enter and win a free gun at site below
http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?1770
JŠ §moke
news:8oke9a$vpn$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Which is the way I feel after going to the john and giving birth to an
Unutterable.
Bill Johnston
> > What can any group contribute when it is enslaved and brutalized? Your
> > stupidity says: They weren't contributing... but contributing to who? To
> > YOUR european selfish greedy butt? They actually were, the forced slavery
> > is what allowed your lazy male ancestors to go around dancing in feminine
> > dresses, and wearing makeup, and making all sorts of cultural
> advancements.
Actually, it was largely the exploitation of poor white people that allowed THAT. Russia, Sweden,
Austria, for example, had nothing to do with slaves at all, but their aristocrats were just as
decked out as anyone elses were.
> > See your problem is, you try to decide the value of other people based on
> > what they can offer YOU. But YOU aren't that important. European
> technology
> > was brought to you by the slavery and forced labor of many non-europeans
> > over the years.
Not really. The Western scientific revolution had its roots in the Renaissance, before the
discovery of America and largescale black slavery. The expansion of knowledge would have
happened no matter what. There is SOME dispute over whether or not exploitation from slaves and
the New World were necesarry for Europe's industrialisation. I kind of doubt it- what did we get
of actual practical value from all that? Sugar? Silver? Gold? Although these things made a
small number of Europeans personally rich, none of it actually contributed to the productive
abilities of the societies. Now, I suppose there is some point to the argument that it aided
European capital accumulation and the development of a capitalistic economic system...
And as far as the last 1000 years, African and Arabs were
> on
> > top 1000 years ago.
Arabs yes. Sub-Saharan Africa...not really. There was the kingdom of Ghana, but that was a
fairly small, isolated thing based on trade to the Muslims in gold and slaves.
Europe was a backwards continent, Europeans didn't
> > bathe, and they thought the world was flat.
Wrongo. Educated Europeans had known the Earth was round since Greek times.
While we were poorer and less developed than the Arab world, Byzantium (uh-oh, Christian white
people), or China, we were not totally savage at the time- we had some pretty decent Romanesque
churches, some fairly literate priests... more developed than Ghana, at any rate.
The compass which is an
> African
> > invention
Nope. Chinese.
as well as Algebra, an Arabic invention probably gave you some
> > sense of intelligence.
That happens to be true.
I dont mind recognition of African achievements, so long as its based on facts.
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
>"Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:B5D32889.113D7%mesh...@hotmail.com...
>> in article JXir5.13014$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net, David at
>> ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 7.56 PM:
>
>> sure it is: people who speak, or whose ancestors spoke, a Libyco-Berber
>> language
>>
>
>How can you use such a definition on a people who did not speak that tounge
>at all???
>That is your line of reasoning? Berber are people who spoke a partuclar
>tounge, therefore another group of people who were much earlier are similar
>looking to them! Thats not a good way to debate history.
However, Troy is right here. The Libyans have spoken a language that is
traceable as a written language since at least the 2nd century CE, and
existed in various forms long before that. See _Ancient Egyptian: A
Linguistic Introduction_, Antonio Loprieno (Cambridge Univ Press:
Cam,brudge, 1995), pp. 3-7.
>> >> ??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly accept
>that
>> >> it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
>> >> culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically)
>distinctive,
>> >> and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
>>
>> > No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast of
>> > africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt.
>>
>> and who do you think founded Dynasties 22, 23, 24, and 26? (Not to mention
>> strong influences in Dynasty 21, which some scholars consider to be Libyan
>> as well)
>
>THAT IS long after the fall of the New Kingdom. You may as well say "who
>founded the Caliph dynasties or the Byzantine dynasties. The 22-26 dynasties
>are known to be "FOREIGN" just like the Persian, Greek, and Hyksos!
If that is the case, then, the Nubian Dynasties of the 25th Dynasties
are, in fact, "foreign," using your defintion. However, again, Troy is
correct in pointing out that there is evidence that the Libyans and the
Egyptians were in strong contact with one another even in the latter
part of the New Kingdom of Dynasty 21.
>> Berber-speakers (called "Libyans" by Egyptologists) have been in contact
>> with the Nile valley since the Predynastic period, and very likely even
>> earlier.
>
>AAAAH! NO that is so false! The Sea Peoples came during the middle of the
>19th dynasty and THEY are the ones who changed the demographics of much of
>that area! (North Africa west of EGYPT)
Again, wrong. Representations of Libyans are attested from at least Old
Kigdom reliefs, and references to certain Egyptian deities (such as
Neith) in the Old Kingdom as originating from THnw (Libya) ar noted in
the Sed Festival of Niuserre.
<snip>
>> see my comments about the Libyan dynasties above. As I mentioned, the
>people
>> living west of Egypt have been in contact with the Nile valley since the
>> Predynastic period. There were major contacts in the Old Kingdom and
>> significant military conflicts with the Egyptians during the Ramesside
>> Period. This lead ultimately to the Libyan take over of Egypt during the
>> Third Intermediate Period, which not even the Napatan Dynasty 25 could
>> wholly dislodge.
>
>Thank you... this was the Third Intermediate period... you even show that
>they were considered a military threat to Egypt, how could they be
>"related"? The Egyptians themselves in Ramesses and Sesostris tombs show
>the Lybians as a distinctly seperate (and barbaric) group. Totally different
>looking than the Egyptians. Don't respond with a denial. Go get any books
>about the Egyptian's especially the writings of Rienzi & Champollion (Mr.
>Rosetta Stone Champollion) Egypte Ancienne 1839.....P.S. These two were
>definitely not happy with their results...
I suggest it is you who needs to read a bit more: There are several
reprsentations of Egyptian kings and deities in Libyan style clothing
(particular the Libyan penis sheaths) as far back as Old and Middle
Kingdom. One of the most accessible images of a male deity from the Old
Kingdom in a penis sheth of Libyan style is that of Onuris from Dynasty
3, found in the chapels of the funerary complex of Djoser at Saqqara.
See _Egyptian Art in the Age of the Pyramids_ Metropolitan Museum of Art
(Harry Abrams: New York, 1999), p. 178-179, No. 10.
<snip>
Katherine Griffis
sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>
>Katherine Griffis heeft geschreven in bericht <5vdrqsgodfhics9vl...@4ax.com>...
>>On W
>>FWIW, the term /kmt/, when used to refer to the land know as Egypt, does
>>not have the determinative attached to it which refers to it as a "land
>>of black peoples," as David seems to want it to.
>
>Does it have a determinative after it that designates "land"? That would help
>a little.
No. As I said, it has a "village" determinative (O49), meaning a
settled land, called the black /kmt/, or fertile land (as opposed to
/dSr.t/, the desert (red) non-arable land).
David
"Bill Johnston" <nos...@youbastards.com> wrote in message
news:39AE69...@youbastards.com...
> Byker wrote:
> >
> > David <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message
> > news:jX5r5.11751$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net..
> > > What can any group contribute when it is enslaved and brutalized?
Your
> > > stupidity says: They weren't contributing... but contributing to who?
To
> > > YOUR european selfish greedy butt? They actually were, the forced
slavery
> > > is what allowed your lazy male ancestors to go around dancing in
feminine
> > > dresses, and wearing makeup, and making all sorts of cultural
> > advancements.
>
> Actually, it was largely the exploitation of poor white people that
allowed THAT. Russia, Sweden,
> Austria, for example, had nothing to do with slaves at all, but their
aristocrats were just as
> decked out as anyone elses were.
Hmm, I don't know about that. If I recall Russia was ruled by a french
bougoise class. The exploitation of the pooer classes was tentamount to
slavery, for the "peasants" were obliged to live as slaves.
>
> > > See your problem is, you try to decide the value of other people based
on
> > > what they can offer YOU. But YOU aren't that important. European
> > technology
> > > was brought to you by the slavery and forced labor of many
non-europeans
> > > over the years.
>
> Not really. The Western scientific revolution had its roots in the
Renaissance, before the
> discovery of America and largescale black slavery. The expansion of
knowledge would have
> happened no matter what. There is SOME dispute over whether or not
exploitation from slaves and
> the New World were necesarry for Europe's industrialisation. I kind of
doubt it- what did we get
> of actual practical value from all that? Sugar? Silver? Gold? Although
these things made a
> small number of Europeans personally rich, none of it actually contributed
to the productive
> abilities of the societies. Now, I suppose there is some point to the
argument that it aided
> European capital accumulation and the development of a capitalistic
economic system...
You are not aware of the tobacco, cotton, and foods gained by slavery in the
period. It definitely contributed to the economy of America. and it was so
valuable that it took the bloody civil war to end it. You also do not
address the value comment. You are focusing on the value of slavery which
was valued in some way else it would have been abandoned long before. It
served its purpose for the time... for the europeans at that time.
>
> And as far as the last 1000 years, African and Arabs were
> > on
> > > top 1000 years ago.
>
> Arabs yes. Sub-Saharan Africa...not really. There was the kingdom of
Ghana, but that was a
> fairly small, isolated thing based on trade to the Muslims in gold and
slaves.
See, there you go, making a magic line in the sand. The Muslims in Moorish
Spain weren't just arabs, they were also africans.
>
> Europe was a backwards continent, Europeans didn't
> > > bathe, and they thought the world was flat.
>
> Wrongo. Educated Europeans had known the Earth was round since Greek
times.
ditto on the bathing? And how many of the Europeans were educated enough
to know this? .001%?
>
> While we were poorer and less developed than the Arab world, Byzantium
(uh-oh, Christian white
> people), or China, we were not totally savage at the time- we had some
pretty decent Romanesque
> churches, some fairly literate priests... more developed than Ghana, at
any rate.
I don't think so. Ghana, Songhai, Mali, as well as Ethiopia showed more
development than you think. You may have studied the African cultures in
depth but I doubt it. You probably did a cursory overview of the cultures
and are basing your claims on that. Study them further. Mali empire
encompassed more territory than all of Europe. P.S. there is nothing to
"uh-oh" about, there is no fear over here. The accomplishments of Europe are
not in question, its the lack of accomplishments in africa that I am
questioning.
>
> The compass which is an
> > African
> > > invention
>
> Nope. Chinese.
You are right, but the compass was used widely in West africa before
Europeans arrived. Mansa Musa used it to navigate. I remembered the Chinese
using it in the 11th century vaguely. I honestly made the mistake of
thinking they brought it from Africa during the 11th century.
>
> as well as Algebra, an Arabic invention probably gave you some
> > > sense of intelligence.
>
> That happens to be true.
>
> I dont mind recognition of African achievements, so long as its based on
facts.
I understand, I definitely made a mistake about the compass.
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 11.38 PM:
> Actually I agree the linguistic connection is there, but it is also there in
> Wolof, Coptic, Amharic, and a variety of other languages.
Wolof is not related to Amharic or Coptic.
> Berber is known to
> be derived from many many different languages.
no, Libyco-Berber languages are derived from Proto-Berber, and the entire
group forms one of the branches of the Afro-Asiatic group. It is not a
creole or pidgin as you are suggesting. However, like all languages, it has
had a variety of outside influences, including Punic, Greek, Latin, and most
lately Arabic and French. Some modern Libyco-Berber languages, such as
Qabyle, are highly influenced by Arabic and French loanwords (though the
core grammar is of course native), whereas others in more remote regions,
such as Twareq, are not.
> The Berbers were not a specific group, but a generalized grouping of vaguely
> related peoples who were in the same region.
they were and are not "vaguely related", but very closely related. The
Amazigh have a common origin in north-east Africa and share a common
linguistic source as well. Sure, over time, there are now differences in
cultural patterns and language. Time and geography do that.
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 11.32 PM:
> Frank I am hungry for your replies. I already did away with the Berber
> attempt. I even used White french anti-African biased writings to help me.
> Even Champollion admitted that the Egyptians represented themselves much
> more closely to the African than to the Lybian!
Libyans are Africans.
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 11.30 PM:
>
> "Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B5D32889.113D7%mesh...@hotmail.com...
>> in article JXir5.13014$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net, David at
>> ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 7.56 PM:
>
>> sure it is: people who speak, or whose ancestors spoke, a Libyco-Berber
>> language
>>
>
> How can you use such a definition on a people who did not speak that tounge
> at all???
I am sorry. I don't understand you. Are you claiming the ancestors of the
modern Amazigh ("Berbers") didn't speak a Libyco-Berber language? If so, you
are wrong
>>> No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast of
>>> africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt.
>>
>> and who do you think founded Dynasties 22, 23, 24, and 26? (Not to mention
>> strong influences in Dynasty 21, which some scholars consider to be Libyan
>> as well)
>
> THAT IS long after the fall of the New Kingdom.
No, it isn't "long after the fall of the New Kingdom"; it is *right* after
the fall of the New Kingdom. In any event, so what? After the fall of the
New Kingdom came over 1/3 of Pharaonic history, a good 1000+ yrs worth. It
just happened to be a period when foreigners dominated politically. The
point is -- which apparently you missed -- is that "Berber peoples" existed
long before "the fall of Egypt", both before and after the New Kingdom if it
makes any difference to you, contrary to what you claim.
> The 22-26 dynasties are known to be "FOREIGN" just like the Persian, Greek,
> and Hyksos!
yes, and so what? you said that "Berber peoples...existed only after the
fall of Egypt". This is of course patently wrong. Pharaonic Egypt didn't end
until the death of Kleopatra VII. "Berber peoples" have been to the west of
Egypt since the Neolithic period.
>> Berber-speakers (called "Libyans" by Egyptologists) have been in contact
>> with the Nile valley since the Predynastic period, and very likely even
>> earlier.
>
> AAAAH! NO that is so false! The Sea Peoples came during the middle of the
> 19th dynasty and THEY are the ones who changed the demographics of much of
> that area! (North Africa west of EGYPT)
You are mistaken. Sea Peoples are not Libyans and have nothing to do with
this beyond that fact that some served as mercenaries for the Libyans during
the New Kingdom. The Sea Peoples were Aegeans & Anatolians, and there is no
doubt of that. The Libyans had been in the area since the Neolithic and in
contact with the Nile valley since at least the Predynastic, and probably
earlier. For references, see below.
>>> Heck the word Berber is from the Barbary (meaning Roman for North Africa)
>>> Coast.
>>
>> no it isn't. "Berber" is a loan word in English from Arabic "barbar" (whence
>> "Barbary" as well), itself a loan word from Latin. It goes back to a the
>> Greek root from which English "barbarian" is derived (meaning in Greek
>> "non-Greek speaking person"). Modern "Berbers" don't call themselves that and
>> most find the term offensive.
>
> LATIN is the ROMAN tounge!!! Barbary is derived from the latin/greek word
> Barbarian just like you said... Barbarian is a Roman word! It IS offensive!
> The Barbary coast is the name the Romans gave to North Africa. Come on!!!!
I seem to have not explained myself clearly. The English word "Barbary" is a
directly loanword of **Arabic** "barbari" (meaning "that which is of the
Barbars") and not Latin as you claim. I did point out that the Arabic,
however, comes from Latin. At no point did "Berbers" ever call *themselves*
that, making it immaterial for discussions about the relations of the
so-called Berbers with ancient Egypt. Moreover it has nothing to do with
whether or not Berber-speakers existed in North Africa before the Romans.
(The Welsh obviously existed before the Angles and Saxons started calling
them "Welsh" (meaning "foreigner").)
>>> They were not linguistically connected with Egypt
>>
>> As a mater of fact they are, even much more so than Semitic. The similarities
>> in grammar are quite clear. Given that Egyptians and Amazigh ("Berber")
>> peoples have a common North African origin and live in immediate proximity of
>> one another this is hardly surprising.
>
> Show me some examples, some research, some authors, anything. I'm not taking
> your word on this one!
Sure. For lexical relations (and obviously some general survey), see:
Bates, Oric. 1914. The Eastern Libyans: An Essay. Cass Library of African
Studies 87, ser. ed. John Ralph Willis. London: Frank Cass and Company
Limited.
Behrens, Peter. 1984/85. "Wanderungsbewegungen und Sprache der fruhen
saharanischen Viehzuchter." Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6:135-216.
------. 1986. "Language and Migrations of the Early Saharan Cattle Herders:
The Formation of the Berber Branch". In Libya antiqua: Reports and Papers of
the Symposium Organized by the UNESCO in Paris, 16th to 18th January 1984.
The General History of Africa: Studies and Documents 11. Paris: UNESCO.
29-50.
Orel, Vladimir Emmanuilovic^, and Olg'a Valer'evna Stolbova. 1995.
Hamito-Semitic Etymological Dictionary: Materials for a Reconstruction.
Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 18, ser. eds.
Bertold Spuler and Hartwig Altenmuller. Leiden, New York, Koln: E. J. Brill.
Takacs, Gabor. 1996. "Some Berber Etymologies." Lingua posnaniensis
38:43-59.
------. 1997. "Afrasian Numerals in Egyptian and Egyptian Numerals in
Afrasian." Lingua aegyptia: Journal of Egyptian Language Studies 5:211-222.
------. 1999. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume 1: A Phonological
Introduction. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 48,
ser. eds. Hartwig Altenmuller, Barthel Hrouda, Baruch A. Levine, Rex S.
O'Fahey, Klaas R. Veenhof, and Cornelis H. M. Versteegh. Leiden, New York,
Koln: E. J. Brill.
Zyhlarz, Ernest. 1932/1933. "Ursprung und Sprachcharakter des
Altagyptischen." Zeitschrift fur Eingeborenen-Sprachen 23:25-45, 81-110,
161-194, 241-254.
------. 1934. "Konkordanz agyptischer und libyscher Verbalstammtypen."
Zeitschrift fur Agyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 70:107-122.
For general linguistic relations, see:
D'jakonov, Igor' Mixajlovic^. 1965. Semito-Hamitic Languages: An Essay in
Classification. Languages of Asia and Africa, ser. ed. G. P. Serdyuchenko.
Moscow: "Nauka" Publishing House.
------. 1988. Afrasian Languages. Languages of Asia and Africa, ser. ed. G.
P. Serdyuchenko. Moscow: Nauka Publishers.
Moller, Georg. 1924. "Die Agypter und ihre libysche Nachbaren." Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 78:36-60.
For grammatical relations see any grammar on Libyco-Berber languages and
Egyptian (LMK if you'd like some titles), or these specialised studies:
Chaker, Salem. 1995. Linguistique berbere: Etudes de syntaxe et de
diachronie. M. S.--Ussun amazigh, ser. ed. Salem Chaker. Paris and Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters.
Hodge, Carleton Taylor, ed. 1971. Afroasiatic: A Survey. Jana Linguarum
(Series Practica) 163, ser. ed. C. H. van Schooneveld. 's Gravenhage and
Paris: Mouton & Co. N. V.
Loprieno, Antonio. 1995. Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
>> see my comments about the Libyan dynasties above. As I mentioned, the people
>> living west of Egypt have been in contact with the Nile valley since the
>> Predynastic period. There were major contacts in the Old Kingdom and
>> significant military conflicts with the Egyptians during the Ramesside
>> Period. This lead ultimately to the Libyan take over of Egypt during the
>> Third Intermediate Period, which not even the Napatan Dynasty 25 could wholly
>> dislodge.
>
> Thank you... this was the Third Intermediate period... you even show that
> they were considered a military threat to Egypt, how could they be
> "related"?
cousins fight all the time. Look at the Iraqi invasion of Kuwayt. Just
because the Egyptians and the Libyans were related doesn't mean they got
along, though they did at times. For example, many Libyans served as troops
in the Egyptian military.
> The Egyptians themselves in Ramesses and Sesostris tombs show
> the Lybians as a distinctly seperate (and barbaric) group.
yes, as they were not Egyptians. (BTW, I assume you mean Seti I's tomb and
not "Sesostris"). Why do you say they are shown as a "barbaric" group? If
so, the same can be said of the Semitic and Nubian representatives. However,
I seriously doubt the Egyptian artists had this notion in mind; it is your
own.
> Totally different looking than the Egyptians. Don't respond with a denial.
?? why would I?? It is perfectly true that by the New Kingdom Libyans and
Egyptians had developed different cultural traits. That is to be expected!
However, in the Predynastic and Early Dynastic Periods it is not at all easy
to tell the 2 apart. Egyptologists will often remark that on some of the
early palettes, including that of Narmer, it is impossible to tell them
apart. There are many instances where one scholar will say "Egyptian" but
another will say "Libyan". In the Old Kingdom things are a bit more clear,
but still you can see instances of common traits (penis sheaths, "uraeus"
fore-locks, the use of animal tails to indicate high status, etc.). By the
New Kingdom these cultural differences where even more extreme. In the Third
Intermediate Period you see instances of native Egyptians adopting Libyan
traits (such as wearing ostrich feathers) for political reasons (as the
Libyans were running the country at the time).
>>> Their culture was not one.
> Exactly and you can't say "the Egyptians looked like a group of people who
> didn't look a certain way".
Other than what I just mentioned above, I don't believe I addressed how
either Libyans or Egyptians looked at all. Nor did I write "their culture
was not one" -- I think you did actually -- but it is understandable that
you got confused by all the quoting.
> Berbers came in all shades.
today. Who knows about the past. Like most peoples, they probably did come
in all shades. The Egyptians did (and do).
> The Berbers are known for tatooing in their culture, and in Ancient Egyptian
> representations, they are shown tattooed, which the Egyptians are not.
Egyptians did tattoo at times (esp. women), but never as much as the
Libyans.
You seem to think I believe that Egyptians and Libyans were identical. Not
at all. All I am saying is that they did in fact share a common origin in
north-east Africa (thus making them both African), including a linguistic
one. As time progressed and the Sahara desiccated into a desert, the
Egyptians basically stayed put in the Nile valley, whereas their cousins,
the Libyans, mainly stayed in the oases, desert, and coastal areas west of
the Nile valley. Given that each group of people had different environmental
pressures, they developed on different cultural lines. This can be seen
linguistically (see esp. Behrens' work listed above), and archaeologically.
For this see:
Mc Hugh, William Paul. 1971. Late Prehistoric Cultural Adaptation in the
Southeastern Libyan Desert. Doctoral dissertation; Madison: University of
Wisconson at Madison, Department of Anthropology.
------. 1974. "Late Prehistoric Cultural Adaptation in Southwest Egypt and
the Problem of the Nioltic Origins of Saharan Cattle Pastoralism." Journal
of the American Research Center in Egypt 11:9-22.
>>> Tuareg and Kabyle are not the same language. they are distinctly
>>> different.
>>
>> They are different, but this is primarily due to a stronger influence of
>> Arabic in Qabyle, plus some minor phonetic differences; of the 2, Twareq is
>> much more conservative. Many linguists specialising in modern Libyco-Berber
>> languages in fact argue there is only a Pan-Berber language with regional
>> differences (such as is the case with Arabic). IMO that is overstating the
>> case a bit, but I do understand why the claim is made.
>
> Well this covers people who existed AFTER the fall of the New Kingdom, you
> are very weak in making a connection to Early Dynastic.
it was you who brought up modern Libyco-Berber languages, trying to make a
point which I addressed. Neither Qabyle nor Twareq existed as languages in
the Early Dynastic, or even the New Kingdom. Their common ancestor did
however. Personally I don't think it has much bearing on the question.
>> However, this is immaterial as neither the Qabyle nor the Twareq existed in
>> the period of ancient Egypt as recognisable cultural or linguistic groups.
>> Their ancestors did though.
>>
> Ah! But they didn't resemble the Egyptians. THe Egyptians themselves show
> that time and time again. THe Berbers/Lybians/fair skinneds were shown
> tattooed and wore clothing and spoke languages different than the dark
> (red)/black haired/Negroid/African Egyptians...
Look, let me spell out my view for you clearly:
1. Egyptian and Libyco-Berber languages have a common origin, along with
Chadic, Semitic, Omotic, and other Afro-Asiatic languages. The original
homeland of all these people has been suggested to be either in the Sudan or
northern Ethiopia/Eritrea or in the Sahara (before it desiccated). The
Semitic-speakers moved out 1st. Later the ancestors of the Egyptians moved
into the Nile valley while the ancestors of modern "Berbers" moved into the
area immediately south of Egypt and immediately west of Egypt (moving
northwards slowly) -- it appears this happened about 6000 bce based on
linguistic evidence. (Other Afro-Asiatic groups moved further west, while
some stayed put in the original homeland). By the time of the Old Kingdom, a
2nd linguistic group (the ancestors of modern Nubian-speakers) moved into
the Sudan, splitting a wedge between AA-speakers in the south (such as in
Ethiopia) and the north (such as Egypt). As *some* Libyco-Berber speakers
were in that direct area, they also were forced to move west. All of this
took place over a long period of time, and most of it before recorded
history.
2. as Libyans and Egyptians have been in very close proximity to one another
for a very long time they influenced each other. Some times this influence
was cultural (such as in the Early Dynastic), some times it was military
(such as in the New Kingdom), and some times it was political (such as in
the 3IP).
3. despite being related linguistically and historically, the African
Libyans and the African Egyptians did, thanks to their differing
environment, develop along their own cultural tangents. This means
Egyptians are NOT Libyans, but they are related. As time progressed, those
differences became even more pronounced. (Think of Germans and Celts if you
want). Even more closely related peoples (such as Saudi bedouin and Lebanese
fishermen and Tunisian farmers) live significantly differently from one
another yet share a common origin.
4. no group of people lives in a vacuum. The Libyans of the Predynastic
period did not dress or live the same way as those of the New Kingdom or the
Late Period. To expect such is misleading. The same can be said of the
Egyptians.
5. the "Berbers" (called Libyans by Egyptologists) have been in Africa since
"the beginning", and did not appear wholly anew "after the fall of Egypt" as
you claimed.
Alex
Katherine Griffis heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:17:27 +0200, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> in
>sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>
>>
>>Katherine Griffis heeft geschreven in bericht <5vdrqsgodfhics9vl...@4ax.com>...
>>>On W
>>>FWIW, the term /kmt/, when used to refer to the land know as Egypt, does
>>>not have the determinative attached to it which refers to it as a "land
>>>of black peoples," as David seems to want it to.
>>
>>Does it have a determinative after it that designates "land"? That would help
>>a little.
>
>No. As I said, it has a "village" determinative (O49), meaning a
>settled land, called the black /kmt/, or fertile land (as opposed to
>/dSr.t/, the desert (red) non-arable land).
But then, doesn't a village denote people? Rather than the soil?
Alex
Brian M. Scott
<mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Takacs, Gabor. [...]
>------. 1999. Etymological Dictionary of Egyptian. Volume 1: A Phonological
>Introduction. Handbuch der Orientalistik 1: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten 48,
>ser. eds. Hartwig Altenmuller, Barthel Hrouda, Baruch A. Levine, Rex S.
>O'Fahey, Klaas R. Veenhof, and Cornelis H. M. Versteegh. Leiden, New York,
>Koln: E. J. Brill.
Any idea to how many volumes this will run when it's completed?
Sounds like a monster.
[...]
Brian M. Scott
frank y hung
David wrote:
>
> "frank y hung" <hun...@sbu.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:39ABED60...@sbu.ac.uk...
>
> > Why? What evidence have you got that this is anything more than a
> "notion".
> > And if it's just a notion, let's keep it that way, and not build too much
> on
> > it.
>
> Frank you WISH and HOPE its just a notion, that way you can dismiss it, but
> it is not a notion.
David, it was YOU who called it a notion! My comment was a reply to your
opening statement, which you should have re-posted to put mine in context.
You wrote "We start with the notion that the original inhabitants of Egypt
were indistinguishably Black/African/"Negroid"".
As for my wishes and hopes, I have none in this, except that truths about the
Ancient Egyptians emerge.
To avoid overloading bandwith, I'll comment on a selection of your assertions.
If you want to take up any others, I'd be happy to do so.
> 1. Africa is a
> hot region, thereby the original people there would most likely be dark
> skinned and start off dark skinned and remain dark skinned.
(i) What the "original" people were like may have little to do with what the
Ancient Egyptians were like. After all, we *all* originate from Africa, and
descend from the "original" Africans! (ii) Both in Egypt, in other parts of
North Africa, in Arabia (some of whose areas get considerably hotter than
Egypt), and in many other hot parts of the world (such as the New World), the
indigenous peoples, while darker-skinned than white "caucasians", are much
lighter-skinned than the mass of "Black Africans", i.e. it is not possible to
argue that because a country is hot, the indigenes must be like Black
Africans.
> 2. The people
> of Egypt are known by archaeologists to originate from deeper within Africa,
> not from the MEditteranean OR Asia/ARabia.
By which archaeologists? Actually, the origins of the Ancient Egyptians have
not been clearly demonstrated so far by archaeology, except that it seems
pretty certain that the picture is more complex than the one you proclaim. In
any case, when considering the ethnic relationships of the A.E., the "origins"
may again be an irrelevance, since, I repeat, we *all* originate in Africa.
> 3. The Ethiopian cultures are
> well known to be the originators of Ancient Egyptian cultures, from as far
> back as the 5th century B.C.
Where did you get that one from? What do you mean by "Ethiopian"? Do you mean
the speakers of Ge'ez and their descendants? Do you mean the Cushites?
In any case, neither of these is "well known" to be the origin of Ancient
Egyptian culture, and the 5th.century BC is *far* too late for any people to
be involved as the originators of Egyptian civilization!
> Now with that evidence, how can you call the
> idea of a dark skinned original egyptian a notion? NO, Occam's razor and
> logic suggests that the most probable thing would be they were dark and
> indistinguishably Black.
Occam's razor and logic only come into play if the basic facts and surmises
are correct. In your case, many of them are not.
> > OK, he Eurocentrics were/are wrong. Why then adopt their mistaken methods
> > (only substituting "black" for "white", and vice-versa) to produce an
> > Afrocentric mirror-image?
>
> No I am basing what I believe on what I have seen and studied. Should I say
> they are NOT black just to make the arguement seem "neutral" or should I
> state what I believe based on what I see?
You haven't taken in my point. The Eurocentrics were wrong in their
methodology because, for racist reasons, they wanted to believe in an, to
them, inferior "Black African" race - they called them "Negroids" or
"Negroes". The Afrocentrists have taken up this wrong premise - except that
for them this Black African race has become the source of all civilization and
especially the A.E.
> And Egyptians, based on
> archaeological remains, based on their own paintings, based on ancient
> observations (Herodotus, as well as others) clearly show a Black group just
> as clearly as one could see a white group established in Rome.
Not so. The vast majority of the evidence shows they were not predominantly a
Black African people.
> > physically. So where the "Aqualithics" came from, where supposed "bands of
> > mixing" took place etc.etc. doesn't in the end matter. If scientific
> > investigation shows that the A.E. were predominantly of a particular
> physical
> > "race", that's what will "prove" either the Eurocentrists or Afrocentrists
> > right. (It's proved them both wrong).
>
> What proof? What "investigation" do you know of that shows that Egyptians
> were not of a predominantly Black orientation?
What "investigation" do you know of that shows that they *were*, apart from
those of Diop etc. which have been shown to be flawed over and over again?
Bear in mind that I am not claiming that the A.E. were "white". From the
overwhelming mass of evidence I have seen, it is clear that the A.E. were a
diverse people, with however a strong basic strain, which can neither be
called "white caucasian" nor "Black African" without creating serious
misunderstanding as to what they were actually like.
IOW, it is up to all those who wish to hijack the A.E. for their ethnocentric
purposes to prove their point. It is up to those who think they were
Black/white/Celtic/Wolof/purple/aliens from Sirius etc.etc. to prove that they
were any of those things. It is not up to me, or anyone else, to prove that
they were not.
> Bear in mind that
> "measurements" have been proven false, because one could go into the
> Blackest deepest part of Africa and use those same measurements and say "oh
> these obviously Black african groups aren't black based on these
> measurements" so don't even try THAT one.
I suspect that what you're actually saying here is that you won't consider
*any* data which go against your pet Afrocentric theories. Hence your warning.
Therefore - end of all possibility of reasoned discussion on the totality of
the data.
(snip)
> That is correct. So when i say "indistinguishably" black, I am merely saying
> that if you were to take the ancient egyptians (before the Persian period)
> each one... and place them in our modern time, our society in America, we
> would look at them as Black... 80% of the time. Because you would not be
> able to distinguish an ancient egyptian from a modern Black person.
An assertion for which you have no proof.
But even accepting your assertion, what would this prove? You are accepting
the race-classification based on the racist prejudices of white Americans!
Anyone looking at a representative sample of Black Americans realises that
this category includes a great number of people with varying degrees of
non-Black African ancestry. So what does it matter, in a scientific rather
than a sociological sense, if 20%, 30%, 50%, 80% (did you pluck that number
out of the air?) or even 100% of A.E. would be classified as "black"?
Australian Aborigines and Melanesians would be classified 100% as black, and
all reliable studies have shown that neither are closely related to Black
Africans.
Even so, IMHO, I don't see that much similarity between most A.E. and most
Black Americans - a minority could be confused, but not much more.
> > > During many events during Egyptian history Egyptians referred to the
> pale,
> > > blonde, asiatics. And they distinguished themselves from them. The
> Hyksos,
> > > Hittites, (some of) the Lybians...
> >
> > The Ancient Egyptians also distinguished themselves from the Nubians and
> other
> > "black Africans", so this sort of argument proves nothing.
>
> Got you there, thank you for the free handout.
> In Ramesses II and Sesostris
> tombs and in other Ancient Egyptian wall paintings, the Egyptians ALSO had
> their notions of race and region. It was as follows: Lybia, Abyssinia
> (Africans),
Who? Abyssinia was a name given to (modern) Ethiopia, and, I gather, much
disliked by Ethiopians. Do you mean Cushites/Nubians/Meroitics?
> Kemet (Egypt), and Assyrian(Mesopotamia). The Lybians were
> shown as fair skinned White looking people, the Asiatics were shown as a
> yellow/tan looking people, the Abyssinians were shown as a very dark skinned
> people, and :) so were the Kemetics... I have the pictures, I have the
> references. I have even the racist French analyses which even then could not
> help but admit...
Bully for you! Well, let's have all these references! And references for your
pictures in books/journals where they have been *reliably* reproduced.
The funny thing is that I can go to an Egyptological Library, or even my own
modest bookshelves, and over and over again is there pictorial evidence, and
some literary, that the A.E. did NOT see themselves as "Black Africans". The
A.E. were very careful about noting the differences between themselves and
their neighbouring peoples. They always show themselves as different from the
Nubians, and there is some indication that they even distinguished between the
Nubians and other groups further south, who are shown as more "Black African"
than the Nubians.
> From Champollion (The guy who cracked the Hieroglyphic language) even
> showed his resignation when he realized this. The Egyptian and Negro
> continiously are shown closest towards each other with the Assyrian and
> Lybian being more distant variants of what the Egyptian considred standard.
> >
Again, where are the references?
> > In previous times in Europe (before the influx of large numbers of "black"
> > African descended people) completely "white" people with dark complexion
> and
> > hair were often described as "black", or the equivalent in other
> languages -
> > hence the common surnames "Black", "Blake", "Schwarz" (in Germany),
> "Swart"
> > (in Holland and Belgium) etc.etc. The Romany Gypsies are also called
> "blacks",
> > or the equivalent, and they are clearly not "black", in the sense of
> "black
> > Africans".
>
> ? I can say that practically anyone with a dark complexion is "white" with a
> tan. But that doesn't work in reality because it becomes "diffusionist".
> The reality is that most likely those dark skinned white people aren't
> "completely" white.
Again, you're taking up the racist idea that there was/is a "pure" white race!
Once you accept that this is a Racist fabrication, you don't have to consider
whether X or Y are "completely" white.
> They are in many cases mixed with Ethiopian (as the
> Roma... or GYpsy as you call them are) and Asian lines. OH yes, the
> Roma(Gypsy) were very much of Ethiopian descent as well as Hindu and other
> descent. Go to any Roma anthropological or ethnic historical reference, and
> it will be there clear as a bell.
None of the anthropological references on the Romany I have seen have
mentioned "Ethiopian descent". So, once again, where are your refences?
> If I go to
> Senegal and I see four or five groups of Black africans, I will see that
> they vary in shades, yet remain to be obviously Black. If I go to Ethiopia I
> will see the same thing.
So what? I've been the one all along pointing out that there isn't such a
thing as a unified, uniform "Black African" race. Now, if you want to use that
to extend the category to include Ancient Egyptians, that's up to you, but
with each extension of meaning, it becomes less meaningful. Let's *all* be
classified as Black Africans!
But that wasn't the direction Diop and his disciples wanted to point! Their
main point is to prove a particular, special, connection between the Ancient
Egyptians and the modern peoples of West Africa, and their descendants around
the world.
> > No point in correcting any chronology. That's the least of the problems
> about
> > your picture - let's start with physical anthropology, linguistics
> etc.etc.
>
> YOu cant correct it because there is nothing to correct. Lybians and some
> Semitic peoples are as close as it got.... and the Egyptians took great care
> in distinguishing themselves from those two groups.
And from the Nubians and Black Africans.
> > > I am still reading Diop's books.
> >
> > Which accounts for your confusion, which will only get worse if, as you
> seem
> > to be doing, you take what he asserts as the whole truth about Ancient
> Egypt.
>
> No some of what he is saying I don't agree with. But he offers far more
> evidence that those in your position do.
"..those in your position"- it's quite evident that you don't know what my
position is! The trouble is that, like your Afrocentric mentors, you think
that anyone who isn't a convinced Afrocentrist must be a Racist Eurocentrist.
The idea that anyone can come to a conclusion which says "a plague on *both*
your houses" seems to be beyond you.
> Even in this exchange you put
> sarcasm and contempt in the place of "references" and "documented research".
I hope I haven't been sarcastic when it hasn't been warranted! As for
"contempt", I have contempt for no one, as I believe we are all made in God's
image, and have the seeds of goodness within us. But I do have contempt for
certain actions and procedures - such as when people misuse their intelligence
to distort and misrepresent evidence to support their pet ideologies. For the
people who do this, such as Diop, I have feelings not of contempt, but of
sorrow at such a waste of talent.
As for Diop's "evidence" "references" and "documented research", I'm afraid
most of it is scientifically worthless, at least in the fields of Egyptology,
Linguistics, and Physical Anthropology. (I'm not commenting on his work in
Nuclear Physics, as I know nothing about it, and it's irrelevant to this
discussion).
> You are right, but once again, I am not talking about blackness in a white
> racist sense, I am talking about sentiment and affiliation.
So the A.E. were "Black Africans" throgh sentiment and affiliation? What do
you mean by "sentiment"? That they had particular psychological and cultural
characteristics which were identical to "Black Africans", or at least much
closer to them than to anyone else? If so, I disagree. IMHO, I think that in
"sentiment" the A.E. were the A.E. - sufficiently different from *all* others,
past and present, to be interesting, and sufficiently similar to *all* for
them to be at least partially understandable, and therefore sympathetic.
And "affiliation"? Are you thinking, apres Diop, of genetic relationship? Then
it must be pointed out to you (although of course you won't accept it) that
all reliable studies have shown that the A.E. were very dissimilar to
Wolof/Yoruba etc.
> The idea that
> Egyptians were white with a tan is what you propose,
No, it isn't! I repeat, I don't regard the A.E. as "white".
But, since you've brought up tanning, what do you make of the fact that A.E.
women of the middle and upper classes are overwhelmingly portrayed as having
skin of a creamy-yellow shade (and never, AFAIK, as black), while men, and
lower class women are shown as red-brown? Both clearly distinguished from the
dark brown or black Nubians and Africans from further south.
> and that merely says
> that whenever a Black group of people do something great, they probably
> weren't Black. The greatness of Egypt couldn't have come from a Black group
> in your mind.
The greatness of Egypt *could* have come from any group of any shade, as far
as I'm concerned. What we'rs concerned with is what the A.E. actually were
like.
Here again, you adopt the classic Afrocentrist obfuscation - if anyone doesn't
accept your theories, it must be because they are Eurocentric racists etc.etc.
This sort of thing is the death of any attempt at reasoned discussion. If
Afrocentrists feel that they have a real point to make, as I assume they do
feel, they will have to adopt very different methods of argumentation if they
are to break out of their Afrocentric academic strongholds and be taken
seriously by people at large.
> > etc.etc., i.e. the sorts of people who were the ancestors of Diop, Ivan
> Van
> > Sertima, Molefi Kete Asante etc.etc. and most of their disciples.
>
> In essence anyone Black who does not follow a European "established" notion
> would by default be dismissed as fallacy.
Nope. Yet again the classic Afrocentric slur.
I am glad of anyone, of any shade, who can really dent any "established"
notion, especially if it dents Eurocentric Racist notions (and I have suffered
personally as a result of these notions - so don't lecture me on
Eurocentrism).
OTOH, few things help Eurocentrism so much as the spread of Diopian style
Afrocentrism. It only serves to confirm in many minds the calumny of white
Racists that "blacks" are incapable of logical, scientific, objective
reasoning.
> thing. How about Sir. E. Wallace Bulge? There's a white guy who did almost
> as much research as Petrie did, and he shows beyond a shadow of a doubt the
> linguistic and religious proximity of Africa and A.E.
I presume you mean Wallace Budge? Anyone claiming him *today* as an authority
is in desperate straits. But it doesn't matter in any case. I have before me
the guidebook he wrote for Thomas Cook on Egypt ("The Nile" 12th.edn.1912).
It's quite clear he wasn't an Afrocentrist in the Diopian sense! He believes
that the Dynastic Egyptians came from Asia (p.154)
> Lets try to make it easier. Defining Black as a race is fallacy, for as you
> said it was imposed by White europeans upon people living in Africa. So lets
> just go ahead and throw out the idea, along with the idea that the A.E.
> shared more with other meditteranean peoples.
That doesn't follow! The fact that the unified "Black African" race is a
fantasy cooked up by Racists doesn't mean that genetic relationships between
different groups don't exist! I repeat, all reliable studies have shown that,
unsurprisingly, the A.E. have most in common with other North Africans (such
as Berbers, who, contra your Afrocentrist mentors, do exist as a recognizable
linguistic/cultural group, and have done so for some time) and with West
Asians.
> as groups during this time. However Wolof (my brother in law is Fulani from
> Senegal) share a stronger linguistic and cultural connection to A.E. than
> any Berbers or West Asians.
They don't. A.E., Berber, Semitic are all members of the Afro-Asiatic language
family. Wolof isn't.
> the clothing, the word King in Wolof is "Phari"
> for goodness sake,
What does that prove? OK, let's assume you're right and "Phari" comes
eventually from A.E. All this shows is that a term from A.E. eventually found
its way to the Wolof. So what? Does the Russian use of the word "Czar", from
Latin "Caesar", mean that the Russians have a special relationship with the
Romans?
> and the fact that Wolof culture is said to have come from
> the East sometime after the end the New Kingdom... compels me to believe
> there is a closer connection.
You're on dangerous ground here. You're getting close to the "Hamitic"
hypothesis so beloved of white Racists, who wanted to derive every advanced
feature in "Black Africa" from Egypt. In any case, the questions at hand are
the origin of Egyptian civilization and the physical characteristics of A.E.
people. The *present-day* Wolof have very little, if any, relevance to these
questions.
> JJust because Egypt is in the same northern
> meditteranean latitudial area as other mediterranean areas does not give
> your position any more credibility. Because much more of Egypt is closer to
> other African groups...
I make no assumption from Egypt's position except that it's peoples are likely
to be most similar to those with which they share the longest borders and have
had the longest interactions - which proves to be the case, from the
*evidence*, which in the end is the only important deciding factor.
> > That being said, there was undoubtedly a strain in the ancestry of many
> A.E.
> > which could more meaningfully be described as "black African". This
> largely
> > came via Nubia. It was not predominant, but it's true that previous
> > Eurocentric writers tended to overlook this strain, while at the same time
> > exaggerating and overemphasizing the presence of a small minority of A.E.
> who
> > had red or blond hair.
>
> Now, again you speak of a strain, which implies a very small weak link.
I speak of a strain which means a strain, and implies nothing as to the
strength of that strain. But of course you won't be satisfied until I say that
there was an overwhelming Black African ancestry to the A.E., which I won't
say, because it isn't true.
> caracteristics of Nubians from Upper Egyptians. No, even moreso, Pharoahs
> during the old period are represeneted with curly hair african features,
They weren't.
> > (BTW, only Diop and Afrocentrists seem to think that Keith Seele's
> excavations
> > at Qustul "prove" that Nubian civilization preceded Egyptian and "might
> have
> > given birth" to it.)
>
> No, if you look at the first archaeological remains of Egypt, esp. Nabta
> Playa, Buto, kerma et others, you can see a gradual movement from further
> west and south.
Again, references please! I know of no reliable Egyptologist today who
believes that Nubian civilization pre-dated Egyptian! Movement of peoples -
the evidence for which is tenuous and confusing (a very few still follow
Budge, Petrie etc. and see clear signs of Mesopotamian invaders/civilisers) -
is beside the point. The earliest evidence for Egyptian civilisation occurs
within *Egypt*, not Nubia or anywhere else. Any relevant movements refer to
movement within Egypt.
I look at your six summing-up points, and find I've dealt with them all above,
and that I find that every one is either wrong or misleading.
>
> Frank
> > (BTW, I am *not* "white")
>
> David
> (BTW, It doesn't matter)
Of course it shouldn't matter. But there are only too many people to whom it
would.
frank y hung
frank y hung
have to wait for later, as I've already taken up too much time and bandwidth
in replying to another of your posts.
David wrote:
>
> Mr Hung. SHOW ME SOME EVIDENCE MAN!
Coming up soon!
Troy Sagrillo
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 31.08.2000 1.59 PM:
> "Katherine Griffis" <k.gr...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message
> news:nuqsqsggg04ki4itb...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 07:17:27 +0200, "Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> in
>> sci.archaeology, wrote the following:
>>
>>>
>>> Katherine Griffis heeft geschreven in bericht
> <5vdrqsgodfhics9vl...@4ax.com>...
>>>> On W
>>>> FWIW, the term /kmt/, when used to refer to the land know as Egypt, does
>>>> not have the determinative attached to it which refers to it as a "land
>>>> of black peoples," as David seems to want it to.
>>>
>>> Does it have a determinative after it that designates "land"? That would
>>> help a little.
>>
>> No. As I said, it has a "village" determinative (O49), meaning a
>> settled land, called the black /kmt/, or fertile land (as opposed to
>> /dSr.t/, the desert (red) non-arable land).
> Are you telling me that
>
> Kemet, Desret, Peret, Akhet, Penwet, Khanet, Roshayet, the endings aren't
> signifying land in a more general sense?
> Kemet would have to simply mean land of black soil in order for this to be
> rock solid and the people would have to be called Kemetu not Kimu (as they
> called themselves)
there is no such word "kimu" (meaning "Egyptians"). The Egyptians referred
to themselves as /rmTw n kmt/ 'people of Kemet' (Coptic remenke:me); this is
the most common. Also used on occasion were /kmtw/ "Egyptians", and /kmtiw/
"those of Kemet"
The use of the village determinative (Gardiner O49) is typically reserved
for settled, cultivated lands within the Nile valley, from Aswan north. It
is never used for mere geographic regions (i.e., mountains, deserts, &c.),
and never for places outside of the *Egyptian* Nile valley. Places outside
of this area were given the determinative of either hills or a throw stick,
and often both.
David
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 05:30:26 GMT, "David" <ve...@umich.edu> in
> alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>
> >
> >"Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:B5D32889.113D7%mesh...@hotmail.com...
> >> in article JXir5.13014$_e4.4...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net, David at
> >> ve...@umich.edu wrote on 30.08.2000 7.56 PM:
> >
> >> sure it is: people who speak, or whose ancestors spoke, a Libyco-Berber
> >> language
> >>
> >
> >How can you use such a definition on a people who did not speak that
tounge
> >at all???
> >That is your line of reasoning? Berber are people who spoke a partuclar
> >tounge, therefore another group of people who were much earlier are
similar
> >looking to them! Thats not a good way to debate history.
>
> However, Troy is right here. The Libyans have spoken a language that is
> traceable as a written language since at least the 2nd century CE, and
> existed in various forms long before that. See _Ancient Egyptian: A
> Linguistic Introduction_, Antonio Loprieno (Cambridge Univ Press:
> Cam,brudge, 1995), pp. 3-7.
Gladly, but Coptic & AMharic which was spoken in Ethiopia has a stronger
connection to A.Egypt.
>
> >> >> ??? Of these, the *only* word I've used is Berber, and I hardly
accept
> >that
> >> >> it's invalid, since it describes a distinct group of people, who are
> >> >> culturally and linguistically (and, to some extent, physically)
> >distinctive,
> >> >> and who certainly had ancient links with Egypt.
> >>
> >> > No they are not Berber peoples are varied across the Northern coast
of
> >> > africa and they existed only after the fall of Egypt.
> >>
> >> and who do you think founded Dynasties 22, 23, 24, and 26? (Not to
mention
> >> strong influences in Dynasty 21, which some scholars consider to be
Libyan
> >> as well)
> >
> >THAT IS long after the fall of the New Kingdom. You may as well say "who
> >founded the Caliph dynasties or the Byzantine dynasties. The 22-26
dynasties
> >are known to be "FOREIGN" just like the Persian, Greek, and Hyksos!
>
> If that is the case, then, the Nubian Dynasties of the 25th Dynasties
> are, in fact, "foreign," using your defintion. However, again, Troy is
> correct in pointing out that there is evidence that the Libyans and the
> Egyptians were in strong contact with one another even in the latter
> part of the New Kingdom of Dynasty 21.
That is not in question, however the Nubian dynasties were the only
"foreign" ones who upheld the traditional Egyptian culture and social
structure! The Lybians may have been in contact, but our discussion has now
shifted from OLD kingdom to the Third intermediate period. I have no issue
in this thread with the events after Ramesses III... you can say what you
want about the period after 1200 B.C. I am not interested in that, I am and
have been speaking of Old, Middle, New kingdom events.
I am ok with that, there are several Egyptian kings that look very semetic
and mediterranean, that is not in dispute. Not every pharoah looked
predominantly Equatorial African B/A/N but I have heard enough of the "one
or two" pharoahs whom you believe "might" have been African a "little bit"
The entire 18th dynasty in my opinion (except maybe Amenophis I) looked
undeniably Eq NAM or predominantly so.
PJKG
news:8olf1l$hh6$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
http://www.crystalinks.com/pyrkhafre.html
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/images/menkaure&queen.jpg
http://www.us.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/culture/html/life001.htm Sneferu's son
http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/permex/egypt/egn-nar2.jpg
http://mfah.org/splendor/docs/highlts/4.html
Try explaining these Stephen. Doubtless you will say that these are either
fakes or they were foreign invaders.
Hamlyn History of ancient Egypt - Nathaniel Harris p43 - Depiction of a
Nubian slave. P32 - Depiction of Khafre.
The list goes on.
Nubkhas
shown in Lybian dress. Lybians could be fair-haired but there are no
fair-haired (adult) people from North Africa or the Levant whose hair is
straight. I can't explain this phenomenon, but even among the Jews today, the
ones with blond hair have very curly hair. As examples, I'll give you Art
Garfinkel and Kenny G, two prominent fair-haired Jews. (Those with straight,
bleached hair don't count). The ancient Egyptians had fine, straight hair.
Kinky hair was introduced into Egypt from the South and from Libya.
Among the Royal Mummies, there are only two (who have hair on their heads) with
kinky hair. One is an anonymous, blond young man and the other is Masaharta, a
man of Libyan descent. I am not going to argue with anybody about the
ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians. I am just telling a fact.
David
numbers.
"Shreesh Mudri" <N...@nn.com> wrote in message
news:39AEBA8A...@nn.com...
> > > as well as Algebra, an Arabic invention probably gave you some
> > > > > sense of intelligence.
> > >
> > > That happens to be true.
> > >
> > > I dont mind recognition of African achievements, so long as its based
on
> > facts.
> >
> > I understand, I definitely made a mistake about the compass.
>
> remember that Arabs learnt the numbers and
> also a lot about Algebra from the Indians. I
> am sure David will ask how?, Ans: Arabs
> learnt from Indians because they had trading
> relations with Indians.
>
> Lets recognize achievements of all people not
> isolated cases in order to be fair to all.
David
"Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B5D40D33.114B1%mesh...@hotmail.com...
David
> in article yOyr5.13578$_e4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net, David at
> ve...@umich.edu wrote on 31.08.2000 1.59 PM:
>
> there is no such word "kimu" (meaning "Egyptians"). The Egyptians referred
> to themselves as /rmTw n kmt/ 'people of Kemet' (Coptic remenke:me); this
is
> the most common. Also used on occasion were /kmtw/ "Egyptians", and
/kmtiw/
> "those of Kemet"
So then you are telling me that Kemetu (Kmtw) was the occasional use, while
Remtu nu Kemet (People of Kemet) were used more commonly and Kemetiu (Kmtiw)
was also common...
>
> The use of the village determinative (Gardiner O49) is typically reserved
> for settled, cultivated lands within the Nile valley, from Aswan north. It
> is never used for mere geographic regions (i.e., mountains, deserts, &c.),
> and never for places outside of the *Egyptian* Nile valley. Places outside
> of this area were given the determinative of either hills or a throw
stick,
> and often both.
Ok then what does Ta-Mehu, Ta-Shemau mean in this analysis then?
I am interested in knowing where you got this reference or fact which you
present.
>
David
"PJKG" <z...@megadodopublishing.com> wrote in message
news:8omg9o$bji$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
Thank you... I will let it go now.
> >
> > David Moffitt Lifetime NRA,GOA,JPFO,TFA Member----and damn proud of it!
> >
> > Enter and win a free gun at site below
> > http://directedfire.com/greatgungiveaway/directedfire.referrer.fcgi?1770
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.crystalinks.com/pyrkhafre.html
> http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/imageswomen/images/menkaure&queen.jpg
> http://www.us.sis.gov.eg/egyptinf/culture/html/life001.htm Sneferu's son
> http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/permex/egypt/egn-nar2.jpg
> http://mfah.org/splendor/docs/highlts/4.html
>
> Try explaining these Stephen. Doubtless you will say that these are either
> fakes or they were foreign invaders.
http://www.plasticsurgery4u.com/procedure_folder/nasal_deformity_sphinx3.htm
l Khufu
http://www.osirica.com/aten/marfan/marfan.htm> Akhenaton & his mother
Queen Tiye
http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/arthist10/images.done/rahotep_nofret_m.jpg
http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/arthist10/images.done/tutankhamon_mask_m.jpg
http://www.qadas.com/~shannon/content/egypt_khafre.html
http://www.foxborough.k12.ma.us/fpsweb/IGO/IGOArtPages/IGOVirtualMuseum/Menk
aure%26Family.html
http://www.foxborough.k12.ma.us/fpsweb/IGO/IGOArtPages/IGOVirtualMuseum/Fish
ingFowling.html
http://www.foxborough.k12.ma.us/fpsweb/IGO/IGOArtPages/IGOVirtualMuseum/Thut
moseIII.html
Now here are modern Black oriented peoples of today who I find strikingly
similar to the Ancient Egyptians. Notice how many of them presented here
have "brown, or beige" skin, how many of them have features which do not
rigidly conform to the "Pure negroidic" steretoypical Black look... yet they
all look like everyday Black people.
http://www.mcjc.org/MJOLDART/mjamc001.htm - here we can see the same
features in these people as many ancients
http://www.chutzpah.org/eva/pictures/E9.htm
http://www.chutzpah.org/eva/pictures/H0.htm
http://www.chutzpah.org/eva/pictures/E15.htm - on this one notice the
amazingly similar hairstyles of them and the Ancient Egyptians:
http://www.foxborough.k12.ma.us/fpsweb/IGO/IGOArtPages/IGOVirtualMuseum/Banq
uetGuests.html
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/egypt/tt99/ - Sennefer (a prominent EGyptian)
http://www.tulane.edu/lester/images/Ancient.World/Egypt/A81.jpg
The Banquet scene at Nebamun I cannot find but anyone can see in the book
"Women in Ancient Egypt" byut Gay Robbins
P.S. none of these websites (except my osirica website #2) are afrocentric
in any sense.
David
any more than the dark brown color of Rahotep.
I can easily say that Rahotep is african based on the sculpture and skin
color any more or less than you can say that Nofret is semetic based on her
skin color... Yellow and dark Red are colors representing Fertility &
Strength. (Often women are yellow colored, and men are dark red).
David
continiously as I would like. I will be gathering information and reading
the books which you all have pointed out, those which I have not already
read.
"David" <ve...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:rCCr5.13654$_e4.5...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
Troy Sagrillo
ve...@umich.edu wrote on 31.08.2000 4.52 PM:
> "Troy Sagrillo" <mesh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:B5D41DD6.114DA%mesh...@hotmail.com...
>> there is no such word "kimu" (meaning "Egyptians"). The Egyptians referred to
>> themselves as /rmTw n kmt/ 'people of Kemet' (Coptic remenke:me); this is the
>> most common. Also used on occasion were /kmtw/ "Egyptians", and /kmtiw/
>> "those of Kemet"
>
> So then you are telling me that Kemetu (Kmtw) was the occasional use, while
> Remtu nu Kemet (People of Kemet) were used more commonly and Kemetiu (Kmtiw)
> was also common...
most common was /rmT n kmt/ (lasting into Coptic). The other 2 are not very
common.
Actually, I just realised that /kmtw/ is better rendered /kmt/ with the
plural strokes indicating a collective form. If it had been a true plural,
it would have been *kmwt. Sorry for the mistake.
for this see:
Erman, Adolf, and Hermann Grapow, eds. 1926-1953. Worterbuch der
aegyptischen Sprache im Auftrage der deutschen Akademien. 6 vols. Leipzig:
J. C. Hinrichs'schen Buchhandlungen. (Reprinted Berlin: Akademie-Verlag
GmbH, 1971). volume 5:127-128
>> The use of the village determinative (Gardiner O49) is typically reserved for
>> settled, cultivated lands within the Nile valley, from Aswan north. It is
>> never used for mere geographic regions (i.e., mountains, deserts, &c.), and
>> never for places outside of the *Egyptian* Nile valley. Places outside of
>> this area were given the determinative of either hills or a throw stick, and
>> often both.
>
> Ok then what does Ta-Mehu, Ta-Shemau mean in this analysis then?
North (or Papyrus) Land and South (or Reed) Land (i.e., Lower Egypt and
Upper Egypt). Both are written with the O49 village crossroads hieroglyph,
indicating they were settled areas within Egypt. Contrast this with /t3-sti/
"Bow Land" ('Lower Nubia') or /t3-TmH/ "Tjemehu-Libyan Land" (i.e., the
Dunqul Oasis), both of which are written with the hill country glyph.
> I am interested in knowing where you got this reference or fact which you
> present.
Gardiner, Alan Henderson. 1957. Egyptian Grammar; Being an Introduction to
the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3rd ed. Oxford: Griffith Institute. page 498, sign
O48.
this is quickly born out by perusal of any list of Egyptian and foreign
toponyms in Egyptian texts. You'll see that even the big south-west Asian
cities, like Babylon, Assur, Megiddo, etc. are given a hill country
determinative, a throw stick determinative (or both) -- marking the place as
a foreign place -- and not the village crossroads sign. If you would like a
list of toponym dictionaries to consult, lmk.
David
>
> Actually, I just realised that /kmtw/ is better rendered /kmt/ with the
> plural strokes indicating a collective form. If it had been a true plural,
> it would have been *kmwt. Sorry for the mistake.
Troy, not to be an asshole or anything, but I was suspicious of your plural
form from before. Kemwt would sound better however I am aware of the circle
with the two intersecting paths inside to designate a village "hwt" or
town... I wanted to make sure we agree on that, so I asked. Howver the word
Kemwt would not make sense to me, I need to read these books you presented
to find out why it would be the only term not used consistently with the
others.
Its like you are saying Ireland was the name of the country but Irishlander
was the name of the people instsead of just "Irish"... for Iceland it would
make sense...Icelander...but I think that would be because of the phonics of
Ice+land... Iceish, does not
sound right.
Kemetu vs Kemu... you are saying it is Kemetu and Kemu does not exist. I
really want to read your sources, so I will get back to you on that. Even if
this were so, it would still not take away from the BAN compliment of the
people. I am still hung on the word "Kem" which I feel means black, dark
color... If not, I would like to know what the word "dark" or "black" means
in the language... "An" perhaps? And the Anu would be the "black people"?
I will read before I pass judgement... but you will also find that the
references to the sculptures and murals show a definite presence in Egypt of
BAN peoples.
All I am saying is that BAN people were not just slaves, or soldiers or
dancers. They are in the upper classes very often, scribes, administrators,
pharoahs, and they make a substantial contribution to Old, Middle, New
Kingdom society... they weren't sidekicks or stratified minorities. I am
not going to repeat this again.
Be back in a few days (perhaps weeks)
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
>Ok here is my take on the linguistics. I will admit now that I am not
>certain. I don't want to confuse anyone so I will post a shorter version of
>this...
>
>It is understood that KMT referrs to the country as "America" refers to the
>country. Kemu refers to the people, and no country I know of calls itself
>"Land of so and so people" but many countries have "land" attached to them.
>The word "-stan" means land... Afganistan...Turkmenistan... but France does
>not have "land" in it. Kemet does not have "Ta-Kemet"
>Ta- is the demonstrative of "land" Ta-, Ba- and Wa- were words that meant
>"land of" in many African languages and Egyptian...
>
>The confusion arises is that land of Black people would be called "Kemu".
>But here we have examples of areas of KMT which referred to the land...or
>the people?
>
>Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt)
>Ta-Mehau (Delta/Lower Egypt)
>Ta-Neferu (Nubia... literally translated "land of beauty")
FWIW, you have the last one incorrect. The word for Nubia was tA-sty
(Land of the Bow, for the Nubians were archers); the phrase for lands
under Egypt's protection (i.e., a protectorate) is /tA nTr/ (not
/tA-nfr/) and referred to several lands under Egyptian influence,
including Punt, Lebanon, Sinai, Nubia, etc., and to Egypt itself
(Faulkner: 293; Wb V: 225, and Hannig Sachgr: 164, 243, 247, 284).
>here is the kicker, Egyptians seperated themselves from Desert dwellers, and
>that is where the identity of Kmt vs Dsrt comes from. This is no afrocentric
>dogma you would hope to say it is. This is widely accepted in all Egyptology
>circles. And all of you in here know that your fair skinned berbers and
>semetics were in the desert.
The "separation" of /kmt/ from /dSr.t/ refers to the *duality* of the
land of Egypt itself, which is made up of two strips of fertile land
(less than one mile wide) on either side of the Nile River, which then
abuts up again the red land of the desert. If you have ever been in
Egypt itself, you would see that these two disparate forms of land sit
right up against one another and the contrast is stark.
>
>KM (Kime) - was the word for the dirt on the banks of the nile. It is also
>the word for "black" (as in a very dark color anything)
>DSR (Dese{r}) - was the word for redness...
The words are (in transliterated ACSCII format) /km/ and /dSr/,
meaning "black" and "red," respectively.
The -t ending is used in the ending of nouns, adjectives, participles,
etc. It is normally used for the ending of feminine nouns (Egyptian
nouns having two genders), for example (See Gardiner, _Egyptian Grammar
(Third Edition)_, §26, 354); for infinitives (§267,299), as part of the
suffix-pronoun (§34); and as summary writing for /ti/ [ [U33] in the
old perfective (§309).
>How can you have two words Deshret and Kemet with the same endings ...?
>Perhaps coiencidence but when they are used as stark comparitives in the
>context of the period, I investigated further...
>
>Peret & Akhet also has meanings referring to compositions of the "land"
>
>Now it can be debated if Kmt referred to the "land of" or the "people"
>of...because of the ending "-et"
The word /kmt/ can mean either "settled land" or "people" [NB: BOTH
NOUNS] based upon their _determinatives_, which are not transliterated,
and _not_ due to the -et (as you write it) ending.
You must understand that ancient Egyptian is made up of _both_
phonograms (sound signs) and ideograms (concept signs). O49 (as I
mentioned before), when attached at the end of /kmt/ makes the word
refer to the _land of Egypt_, which is settled. However, when /kmt/ is
followed by the "multiple person" determinative [A1*B1:Z2) it is a
_collective term_ for the people who reside in Egypt, i.e., the
Egyptians.
>and I would almost be inclined to lose on
>this one: Akh-et meaning Flooding of (land) and per-et meaning harvesting
>of(the land) but here we have a confusion. The Egyptians called themselves
>KEMU (black people), and not...
No, the Egyptians referred to _themselves_ as /rmt/, "the men/mankind"
(Faulkner: 149), as can be found in Gardiner's _Ancient Egyptian
Onomastica_ [an explanation of names], translated directly from
Egyptian.
>Kem-et-u (or Kemetnu?) which means "people of the black land"...
>I can easily assert that Kemet means "land of black people" as well as
>"black land"
Since you are thoroughly confused on the use of Egyptian language and
grammar, I can only say you are wrong, and the determinatives (of which
you seem to be unaware) is what controls in what fashion /kmt/ would be
translated.
>My problem is that Ta- & -et seems to mean the same thing. AH, but when one
>looks at the context. Ta-shemau Ta-mehau- and Ta-Nefer are lands which are
>postively Egyptian... THEIR home... Ta- I believe would mean "homeland" or
>"land which we are of"
tA means "land, earth, ground. (Faulkner: 292).
/mhw/ refers to the papyrus plants /mHyt/ [Faulkner: 114] which grow in
Northern (Lower) Egypt, ergo: tA-mhw = "land of the papyrus plant"
(Lower/Northern Egypt) [Faulkner: 293]
>Ta-Shemau could mean "land of the people who followed", which would make
>more sense, since Upper Egypt colonized Lower Egypt... but I won't try to
>say this is fact because the second "s" in Shems confuses me... Shems means
>to follow, but would Shem mean "after" or what?
Again, you are not watching the hieroglyph signs themselves, but
obviously are reading what someone else has told you. The glyph which
makes the word /Sma/ is M26 of Gardiner's sign list (See: Gardiner,
_Egyptian Grammar_: 483), which is a flowering swt plant, which
flourishes in Upper Egypt.
Thus, as in the case of /tA-mHw/, /tA-Smaw/ means the "land of the
flowering swt plants (Upper Egypt)," and the term /Smaw/ later comes to
refer to Upper Egypt itself.
<snip meanderings>
>
>BUT:
>
>Kemet was the name of the country like "Ire-land" "Afgani-stan"
>and the people called themselves "Kem-u" people of black (soil)" not Kemetu
>"people of the black land" therfore the idea that Kemet means "black land"
>is not definitely meaning "people of black soil" and THIS is the debate.
Since a) the Egyptians never referred to themselves as "Kemu" (in fact,
there is no such word in ancient Egyptian as /kmw/), but as /rmt/ with
an A1 or A1*B1:Z1 (collective persons) determinative, and b) that the
determinatives for /kmt/ with O49 (village/settled land) determinative
refers to the _land_ of Egypt, thus /kmt/ with the collective
determinative [A1*B1:Z2] refers to people who _reside in said land_,
then I would say your argument is faulty.
Katherine Griffis
alt.history.ancient-egypt, wrote the following:
/kmt/ + O49 means land that is worked and settled, ie., arable
[cultivated] land. The people who work said soil are referred to as
residents *of* said land, thus /kmt/ with a collective person
determinative {A1*B1: Z2).