Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: JOHN CLARKE
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:29:58
In article <54o153$q07@news-e2b.gnn.com> JOHN CLARKE wrote:
>In article <326E2ED1.6976@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida wrote:
>
>
> Allow me to jump into the fray. I see some basic
> mistakes here.
>
>
>>Greg Reeder wrote: (quoting others)
>>
>>> >You seem to have this idea that we sit here in these newsgroups and
>>> >claim that the Ancient Egyptians were "white". Can you please tell me
>>> >where this assertion has *ever* been made here?
>>> >
>>> >(snippage)
>>> and more snippage...
>>>
>>> Actually several have posted here that the ancient Egyptians were
>>> caucasian and "essentially white." I do not accept this. What ever the
>>> merits or demerits of Afrocentrism the Egyptians were not "white" imho!
>>> Here is a photo of a young Egyptian boy from Kom Lollah ( the small
>>> village in front of the Temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu).
>>> http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/photo5.html He looks to me like the young
>> > TUT. There is no way he could be called white. He is
>>African-Egyptian.
>>> It is so sad that this discussion has degenerated to such depths of
>>> rancor. I am not on either side. But lets be civil and discuss this with
>>> clear heads.
>>
>>Greg, I know we have gone over this before, but it really is
>>oversimplifying to say that the ancient Egyptians were neither white nor
>>black. I would never say that *all* of the Egyptians were white, but I
>>will be the one to say that surely a great many were!
>
>
> Of all the depictions of Egyptians, from the ancient through
> the modern era, none could be considered white. If you have
> examples, please provide illustrations or references.
>
> For the most part, Egyptians had have held physiological
> traits specific to the Midlle East, Northern Africa, and
> down to Somalia. These people, although sometimes classified
> as white, even modern Ethiopians darker and Negroid than some
> AfricanAmericansfor whatever reason, would never be
> considered white by the average white person.
>
>
>>You have given us the example of a boy that reminded you of King Tut. I
>>feel that you are implying that Tut, also, was "African", which I take,
>>in this case, to mean "black". While I have no idea what the shade of
>>Tutankhamun's skin was, there is no reason to assume that he was...well,
>>black!
>
>
> If one observes the Death Mask of King Tut, one could say
> that his nasal ridge could be more characteristic of Caucasions
> and his full lips and almond shaped eyes as more characteristic
> of a Negroid nature. However, one could say that these features
> are distrubuted across these two races, perhaps moreso in one
> than in the other. Likewise, the features of the statutes at
> the Abu Simbel Temple depict a people with interesting
> characteristics.
>
>
>>Look at his family. If you think the Amarna people look Nubian or
>>"negroid", then you see them one way and I another. I give you, as an
>>example, the excellently-preserved mummy of the lady supposedly Queen
>>Tiye. She looks like a white person to me with her long fine hair and
>>sharp features.
>
>
> Ever seen an Ethiopian, Somalian, a member of the Masai, or even
> a Nigerian?
> You'll find long hair (fineness cannot be determined from a
> picture) and sharp features in these peoples.
>
>
>>Scott Woodward, who did the DNA testing on the royal
>>mummies has already been quoted as saying that in testing 8 generations
>>of remains having to do with the 18th Dynasty, he has found a very small
>>genetic pool, indicating that there was NO marriage outside the family.
>>Woodward has also said that Tut and the person believed to be Smenkhare
>>share a blood group of A2 with anitgen MN, which is rarely found in
>>ancient Egypt. Woodward is doing this testing not only to determine
>>familial connections among the royal mummies, but also to try to answer
>>the question "Who was an ancient Egyptian".
>
>
> He must take care that he is not researching a inherited
> familial trait, e.g. anemia, which may not be found in the
> larger surrounding populace. In any case, this evidence
> is inconclusive.
>
> As of now, it is difficult to say the precise ethnic origin
> of the Egyptians. Aside from Afrocentrism and Eurocentricism,
> it seems likely that these peoples originated from the west
> in the dessicating and dying regions or the Sahara or further
> south along the Nile.
>
>
>>I find the face of the mummy of Tutankhamun at variance with some of his
>>representations, including the wonderful mask. I see quite a bit of
>>idealization there and, as I've said in the past, I see a tendancy from
>>about the time of Thutmose IV to make the royal family look more
>>"southern" or "Nubian" in some portraiture than they actually were. It
>>occurs to me that this may have been done because there was some doubt
>>about the "Egyptianess" of the family at this time--that they may have
>>had too much "northern" read "Asiatic" blood.
>
>
> You make the unproven assumption that you knew what "they
> actually were." I think I remember you saying that we should
> give these people some credit for depicting themselves
> accurately.
>
>
>>The 19th Dynasty is even more "suspect", IMHO. I don't know how many
>>times I've repeated, in this group, that French scientists found
>>Ramesses II to be a "leukoderm" or fair-skinned man, whose hair, when
>>younger, probably was red or auburn.
>
>
> First of all, Ramses II did not come to power until the tail
> end of the New Kingdom, reigning from 1290 B.C. to 1224 B.C.,
> over 2000 years! after the beginning of the Archaic Period; thus,
> his relation to the origin pharoahs extremely dubious.
>
> Secondly, there are a number of "authentic" depictions of
> Ramses II, one by Egyptian Artist Adel Ghabour, from paintings
> at the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens that
> show a man who is of typical swarthy Middle Eastern complexion,
> and definitely cannot be mistaken for white.
>
>
>>Yes, Egypt is in Africa--no one can deny this. But it is also
>>geographically connected to an area called the Levant, whose inhabitants
>>must certainly be called "white".
>
>
> Mind you that Ethiopians are also classified as white, but
> noone aside from this most abstract designation would call
> an Ethiopian a white person. The fact of the matter is that
> whites are considered to be of European and some of Asian
> descent, Asia Minor not included. Don't be too reliant
> on the technical fiction you read in books.
>
>
>> My point is, the ancient Egyptians
>>may be difficult to categorize ethnically, but it would not be correct
>>to assume that there were not olive or fair-skinned individuals among
>>them who cannot justifiably be termed as anything but "white" if such a
>>designation must be assigned. It seems to me that this whole thing only
>>comes up whenever the Afrocentrists come in with their sweeping
>>generalities. Civility, also, is something they leave outside the door
>>before they enter.
>
>
> I prefer to stay away from mudslinging, and with the exception
> of a few individuals, the Afrocentrists, Egyptologists, and the
> Egyptians bring up some interesting interpretations. It seems.
> also, that some have become so frustrated with each other
> that your responses are reduced to egoistic strutting and bravado.
> It's probably best that these people take a break and come
> back at a later time.
>
>
>>IMHO, the confusion about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is only
>>temporary, anyhow.
>
>
> Make no mistake. Many peoples would like to lay claim to
> the glories of Egypt, either in heritage or to the goods.
> (Hell, the British have virtually extracted every significant
> portable artifact from the pyramids.) And, the fact of the
> matter is that the Ancient Egyptians, unique as a society,
> will probably remain an ego-boosting pawn for ages to come,
> as most ancient cultures have been.
>
> -John
Welcome to the USENET continuum.
I will be your host in this strange but wonderful journey through
the far reaches of cyberspace.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: JOHN CLARKE
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:31:35
In article <54o153$q07@news-e2b.gnn.com> JOHN CLARKE wrote:
>In article <326E2ED1.6976@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida wrote:
>
>
> Allow me to jump into the fray. I see some basic
> mistakes here.
>
>
>>Greg Reeder wrote: (quoting others)
>>
>>> >You seem to have this idea that we sit here in these newsgroups and
>>> >claim that the Ancient Egyptians were "white". Can you please tell me
>>> >where this assertion has *ever* been made here?
>>> >
>>> >(snippage)
>>> and more snippage...
>>>
>>> Actually several have posted here that the ancient Egyptians were
>>> caucasian and "essentially white." I do not accept this. What ever the
>>> merits or demerits of Afrocentrism the Egyptians were not "white" imho!
>>> Here is a photo of a young Egyptian boy from Kom Lollah ( the small
>>> village in front of the Temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu).
>>> http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/photo5.html He looks to me like the young
>> > TUT. There is no way he could be called white. He is
>>African-Egyptian.
>>> It is so sad that this discussion has degenerated to such depths of
>>> rancor. I am not on either side. But lets be civil and discuss this with
>>> clear heads.
>>
>>Greg, I know we have gone over this before, but it really is
>>oversimplifying to say that the ancient Egyptians were neither white nor
>>black. I would never say that *all* of the Egyptians were white, but I
>>will be the one to say that surely a great many were!
>
>
> Of all the depictions of Egyptians, from the ancient through
> the modern era, none could be considered white. If you have
> examples, please provide illustrations or references.
>
> For the most part, Egyptians had have held physiological
> traits specific to the Midlle East, Northern Africa, and
> down to Somalia. These people, although sometimes classified
> as white, even modern Ethiopians darker and Negroid than some
> AfricanAmericansfor whatever reason, would never be
> considered white by the average white person.
>
>
>>You have given us the example of a boy that reminded you of King Tut. I
>>feel that you are implying that Tut, also, was "African", which I take,
>>in this case, to mean "black". While I have no idea what the shade of
>>Tutankhamun's skin was, there is no reason to assume that he was...well,
>>black!
>
>
> If one observes the Death Mask of King Tut, one could say
> that his nasal ridge could be more characteristic of Caucasions
> and his full lips and almond shaped eyes as more characteristic
> of a Negroid nature. However, one could say that these features
> are distrubuted across these two races, perhaps moreso in one
> than in the other. Likewise, the features of the statutes at
> the Abu Simbel Temple depict a people with interesting
> characteristics.
>
>
>>Look at his family. If you think the Amarna people look Nubian or
>>"negroid", then you see them one way and I another. I give you, as an
>>example, the excellently-preserved mummy of the lady supposedly Queen
>>Tiye. She looks like a white person to me with her long fine hair and
>>sharp features.
>
>
> Ever seen an Ethiopian, Somalian, a member of the Masai, or even
> a Nigerian?
> You'll find long hair (fineness cannot be determined from a
> picture) and sharp features in these peoples.
>
>
>>Scott Woodward, who did the DNA testing on the royal
>>mummies has already been quoted as saying that in testing 8 generations
>>of remains having to do with the 18th Dynasty, he has found a very small
>>genetic pool, indicating that there was NO marriage outside the family.
>>Woodward has also said that Tut and the person believed to be Smenkhare
>>share a blood group of A2 with anitgen MN, which is rarely found in
>>ancient Egypt. Woodward is doing this testing not only to determine
>>familial connections among the royal mummies, but also to try to answer
>>the question "Who was an ancient Egyptian".
>
>
> He must take care that he is not researching a inherited
> familial trait, e.g. anemia, which may not be found in the
> larger surrounding populace. In any case, this evidence
> is inconclusive.
>
> As of now, it is difficult to say the precise ethnic origin
> of the Egyptians. Aside from Afrocentrism and Eurocentricism,
> it seems likely that these peoples originated from the west
> in the dessicating and dying regions or the Sahara or further
> south along the Nile.
>
>
>>I find the face of the mummy of Tutankhamun at variance with some of his
>>representations, including the wonderful mask. I see quite a bit of
>>idealization there and, as I've said in the past, I see a tendancy from
>>about the time of Thutmose IV to make the royal family look more
>>"southern" or "Nubian" in some portraiture than they actually were. It
>>occurs to me that this may have been done because there was some doubt
>>about the "Egyptianess" of the family at this time--that they may have
>>had too much "northern" read "Asiatic" blood.
>
>
> You make the unproven assumption that you knew what "they
> actually were." I think I remember you saying that we should
> give these people some credit for depicting themselves
> accurately.
>
>
>>The 19th Dynasty is even more "suspect", IMHO. I don't know how many
>>times I've repeated, in this group, that French scientists found
>>Ramesses II to be a "leukoderm" or fair-skinned man, whose hair, when
>>younger, probably was red or auburn.
>
>
> First of all, Ramses II did not come to power until the tail
> end of the New Kingdom, reigning from 1290 B.C. to 1224 B.C.,
> over 2000 years! after the beginning of the Archaic Period; thus,
> his relation to the origin pharoahs extremely dubious.
>
> Secondly, there are a number of "authentic" depictions of
> Ramses II, one by Egyptian Artist Adel Ghabour, from paintings
> at the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens that
> show a man who is of typical swarthy Middle Eastern complexion,
> and definitely cannot be mistaken for white.
>
>
>>Yes, Egypt is in Africa--no one can deny this. But it is also
>>geographically connected to an area called the Levant, whose inhabitants
>>must certainly be called "white".
>
>
> Mind you that Ethiopians are also classified as white, but
> noone aside from this most abstract designation would call
> an Ethiopian a white person. The fact of the matter is that
> whites are considered to be of European and some of Asian
> descent, Asia Minor not included. Don't be too reliant
> on the technical fiction you read in books.
>
>
>> My point is, the ancient Egyptians
>>may be difficult to categorize ethnically, but it would not be correct
>>to assume that there were not olive or fair-skinned individuals among
>>them who cannot justifiably be termed as anything but "white" if such a
>>designation must be assigned. It seems to me that this whole thing only
>>comes up whenever the Afrocentrists come in with their sweeping
>>generalities. Civility, also, is something they leave outside the door
>>before they enter.
>
>
> I prefer to stay away from mudslinging, and with the exception
> of a few individuals, the Afrocentrists, Egyptologists, and the
> Egyptians bring up some interesting interpretations. It seems.
> also, that some have become so frustrated with each other
> that your responses are reduced to egoistic strutting and bravado.
> It's probably best that these people take a break and come
> back at a later time.
>
>
>>IMHO, the confusion about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is only
>>temporary, anyhow.
>
>
> Make no mistake. Many peoples would like to lay claim to
> the glories of Egypt, either in heritage or to the goods.
> (Hell, the British have virtually extracted every significant
> portable artifact from the pyramids.) And, the fact of the
> matter is that the Ancient Egyptians, unique as a society,
> will probably remain an ego-boosting pawn for ages to come,
> as most ancient cultures have been.
>
>
Subject: Re: Egyptians were and are...
From: "S. F. Thomas"
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:46:50 -0400
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>
> S. F. Thomas wrote:
>
> > There is no argument as to present and past race-mixing in
> > Egypt. The question is what were the *original* Egyptians.
>
> I take it that by "the original Egyptians" you mean the founders
> of the First Dynasty. We know that the 25th Dynasty was Nubian.
> Whether the first one was, is for the archaeologists to decide,
> I'm a mere linguist. All I'm pointing out is:
>
> 1) The Egyptian language is closely related to its Western neighbour
> Berber, and its Eastern neighbour, Semitic. It is in no way related
> to either Meroitic or Old Nubian, its southern neighbours.
I am no linguist, but it strikes me that your last statement is
incredible. I would have thought, given that we ultimately all
share a common origin, that ALL languages would be related to
SOME degree. I remember reading somewhere, for example, that
the baby word for mother, "ma", is pretty much the same across
all languages. And I have myself observed the similarity in the
words for "father" across widely divergent languages: "baba" (Yoruba),
"babu" (Hindi), "papa" (various European). So, your categorical
assertion that ancient Coptic is "in no way related" to Old
Nubian strikes me as a priori incredible and over-reaching.
But I'm no linguist, so I offer that not to dispute your metric
for linguistic distance, which would probably turn out to be
subjective, but merely to get over the point that I take your
assumption of linguistic authority with a common-sense grain of
salt.
> 2) The ethnic makeup of Egypt is now and has been for quite some
> time essentially no different from the ethnic makeup of the rest
> of the geographical area where Egypt belongs: the Mediterranean basin,
> specifically its southern part (North Africa).
They're predominantly "white", right? I took away a different
impression from my visit to Egypt. I saw a range of hues,
ranging from dark black to blonde and blue-eyed. They are
mostly a mixed, mulatto sort of people, but the predominant
impression I took away is "Negroid". In any case, as I pointed
out before, the fact of mixing is not in dispute. The question
is what were the *original* Egyptians. The physical evidence
supports a Black African origin. I believe that evidence
trumps your in any case inconclusive linguistic argument.
> If the archaeological facts would prove a Nubian origin for the
> First Dynasty, that's fine with me, and I'm sure it would make you
> very happy.
Frankly my self-esteem is not riding on the truth of the
matter, whatever it may be. It seems rather the reverse,
that the white-supremacy compulsion/obsession/delusion under
which we have all labored is what also compelled the great
LIE that is taught in the Western school-books, viz. that
Black Africans have contributed nothing to human history.
The heated reaction to Diop and the afrocentrists betray
white emotional investment in their delusions of superiority.
Blacks by contrast, can stand the truth, because it can't
be worse than the lies to which we have been subjected for
at least the last 200 years.
> But let's not get carried away: the 25th was Nubian,
> the Chinese Ch'ing dynasty was Manchu. They conquered the lands,
> but were quickly assimilated lock, stock and barrel.
You left out the Mongols and Hindu India. Be that as it
may, the arguments for Black African origin do not hinge,
obviously, on the response by Piankhy, King of Sudan, to
the call for help by the priests and priestesses in
Thebes to rescue Egypt from the usurpers. The founding
of the 25th dynasty which then ensued took place toward
the near end of the Egyptian empire. In any event, what
is more remarkable is that the authority of this
Sudanese dynasty was "recognized by Egypt, less as that
of an enemy imposing his rule by force, than as a guardianship
invited by the prayers of a long-suffering country..."
(Diop, African Origins, p. 146, quoting Cherubini.)
>
> None of that would change facts (1) and (2) above, to wit, that the
> Egyptian language, people and culture are essentially Mediterranean-
> North African, not Nubian-Black African.
The question is what were they *originally*.
> ==
> Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
> Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
> mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
>
> ========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:43:57 GMT
In article <3270B8C7.6D21@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
Saida wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
>>
>> >
>> >>>(snippage)
>> >>>
>> >>>> Yurco's strategy of having people look at mummified remains reminds
>> >>>> of how Heyerdahl did the same thing with South American mummies to
>> >>>> prove their Caucasoid affinities. One cannot not determine the
>> >>>> proper classification of hair from mummies that have been subjected
>> >>>> to herbal and other treatment (smoking?), wrapped in bandages and
>> >>>> dormant for thousands of years. Doesn't the curly or kinky hair tend
>> >>>> to straighten out after people die anyway?
>> >>>
>> >>>Wait a minute. You cannot be serious. The kink goes out of hair after
>> >>>you die?
>> >
>> >>Do you want a forensic reference? If I have time I'll try to post one.
>> >
>> >This I would like to see as well.
>> >
>>
>> Hair changes after death. It loses color and thickness and changes
>> texture. The hair also becomes dry and brittle. This is only
>> a few months after death! You might want to consult some of the
>> refutations of Heyerdahl's arguments regarding Peruvian mummy hair.
>> Can you cite studies that claim human hair retains the same
>> appearance after thousands of years? And can you verify that
>> Egyptian mummification does not relax hair. Microscopic studies are
>> the most scientific approach, and they suggest "Negroid" or "mulatto"
>> hair. Here are my refs regarding hair degradation after death:
>>
>> Rogers, Spencer Lee, 1905-
>> _Personal identification from human remains_ by Spencer L. Rogers.
>> Springfield, Ill., U.S.A. : Charles C. Thomas, c1987
>>
>> Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology / editors, Dan Morse, Jack
>> Duncan, James Stoutamire ; [art by Timothy Jones]. D. Morse ; Tallahassee, Fla.
>> 1983.
>
>
>I don't know anything about Peruvian mummies. I do know about Egyptian
>ones. If anything, the individuals who had straight hair have had their
>hair "set" into wavy, haphazard patterns (whenever it was not already
>arranged in some other style) by pressure applied by the bandages over
>the millenia. Although there is doubtlessly some chemical changes in
>human hair due to the mummification process, it does not alter its
>appearance to the degree one cannot see what sort of hair it was
>originally. Changes are in color primarily, an example being the hair
>in the small case found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Due to unguents
>being poured over it, it had become rather reddish as opposed to its
>original dark brown. How did we know it used to be dark brown? Because
>it matched, microscopically, with the hair on the head (dark brown) of
>the "Elder Lady" from KV35.
I'm afraid you've simply ignored the references I gave. You have absolutely
no idea what the original color was and have given no scientific justification
for believing hair remains the same after thousands of years of mummification.
Microscopic matches of two mummies in no way confirms the original color of the
hair. You've also ignored the fact that microscopic studies of hair have
confirmed that the black racial element in ancient Egyptian hair remains.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 11:54:06 GMT
In article <3270D249.4B5FE752@decan.com>,
"S. F. Thomas" wrote:
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>>
>> pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>
>> >Maybe if you bothered to check first, you would find that Miguel C.
>> >Vidal had stated that Egyptians were white on the very same day as this
>> >question was asked. I have found Vidal a capable linguist and certainly
>> >not a crank.
>>
>> Thank you. Just to clarify my position, I said, if I remember correctly:
>>
>> ...predominantly "white"...
>>
>> which is not quite the same thing.
>>
>> As I have replied to S.F. Thomas, I merely wanted to point out two problems I
>> see with a Nubian origin of Egyptian civilization (based on what I have read in
>> this thread I believe that to be Diop's main thesis). One is based on my
>> subjective impression of the (modern) ethnic makeup of Egypt, which looks
>> "predominantly" Mediterranean/North African to me. The more important, and
>> objective one, is the linguistic problem posed by the Ancient Egyptian language:
>> its close ties with Berber and Semitic within the Afro-Asiatic language family,
>> and its lack of relationship with the languages of Nubia (Meroitic and Nubian,
>> the first probably, the second surely members of Nilo-Saharan).
>
>We have already seen that your linguistic argument contains
>an elementary logical fallacy. Your recapitulation here does
>not rescue it, although it does provide excellent disguise,
>and might even fool those who have not been paying attention.
Somehow, I missted the original post so I'll respond using S.F.'s reply. It seems
to me that Miguel may not ever have visited modern Egypt to say that Egyptians
are mostly "white." Actually, the charateristics differ depending on geographical
region you go to. The further south you go, the greater the black element in the
population. It has been stated many times by anthropologists over the centuruies
that from about Abydos southward the population has more in common with Nubian types.
North of that the population is more mixed. When I was among the nomadic tribes of
the Sinai, even there the population was highly mixed with many black types.
Also, there is a type in Egypt that does not conform to our notion of "black," but
neither could it be called "white." This type is no closer to a southern Italian
than it is to a Nubian.
Regarding language, I do not know where Miguel goes off saying that Egyptian is closer
to Berber and Semite than the languages of Nubia and the Sudan. I had always heard the
best modern language to study to get an idea of ancient Egyptian was modern Eastern
Sudani.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:33:19 -0500
JOHN CLARKE wrote:
>
> In article <54o153$q07@news-e2b.gnn.com> JOHN CLARKE wrote:
> >In article <326E2ED1.6976@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida wrote:
> >
> >
> > Allow me to jump into the fray. I see some basic
> > mistakes here.
> >
> >
> >>Greg Reeder wrote: (quoting others)
> >>
> >>> >You seem to have this idea that we sit here in these newsgroups and
> >>> >claim that the Ancient Egyptians were "white". Can you please tell me
> >>> >where this assertion has *ever* been made here?
> >>> >
> >>> >(snippage)
> >>> and more snippage...
> >>>
> >>> Actually several have posted here that the ancient Egyptians were
> >>> caucasian and "essentially white." I do not accept this. What ever the
> >>> merits or demerits of Afrocentrism the Egyptians were not "white" imho!
> >>> Here is a photo of a young Egyptian boy from Kom Lollah ( the small
> >>> village in front of the Temple of Ramesses III at Medinet Habu).
> >>> http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/photo5.html He looks to me like the young
> >> > TUT. There is no way he could be called white. He is
> >>African-Egyptian.
> >>> It is so sad that this discussion has degenerated to such depths of
> >>> rancor. I am not on either side. But lets be civil and discuss this with
> >>> clear heads.
> >>
> >>Greg, I know we have gone over this before, but it really is
> >>oversimplifying to say that the ancient Egyptians were neither white nor
> >>black. I would never say that *all* of the Egyptians were white, but I
> >>will be the one to say that surely a great many were!
> >
> >
> > Of all the depictions of Egyptians, from the ancient through
> > the modern era, none could be considered white. If you have
> > examples, please provide illustrations or references.
What good would that do? It appears, from these posts, that even the
persons who are obviously meant to be white from their pink skin pigment
like Nefertiti and Nefertari are seen by others as black!
> >
> > For the most part, Egyptians had have held physiological
> > traits specific to the Midlle East, Northern Africa, and
> > down to Somalia. These people, although sometimes classified
> > as white, even modern Ethiopians darker and Negroid than some
> > AfricanAmericansfor whatever reason, would never be
> > considered white by the average white person.
Says who?
> >
> >
> >>You have given us the example of a boy that reminded you of King Tut. I
> >>feel that you are implying that Tut, also, was "African", which I take,
> >>in this case, to mean "black". While I have no idea what the shade of
> >>Tutankhamun's skin was, there is no reason to assume that he was...well,
> >>black!
> >
> >
> > If one observes the Death Mask of King Tut, one could say
> > that his nasal ridge could be more characteristic of Caucasions
> > and his full lips and almond shaped eyes as more characteristic
> > of a Negroid nature. However, one could say that these features
> > are distrubuted across these two races, perhaps moreso in one
> > than in the other. Likewise, the features of the statutes at
> > the Abu Simbel Temple depict a people with interesting
> > characteristics.
It seems you are making some *basic* mistakes of your own. As far as I
know, there is no "death" mask of Tutankhamun. A "death" mask is an
impression taken of a person's face shortly after he has died. This can
only be done with some malleable material, such as clay. The mask to
which you refer is a "mummy" mask, which is a different item, made to
fit over the wrapped, embalmed body. The reliability of such masks
varies greatly as far as portraiture is concerned. The mask of Tut (and
other effigies) were apparently made by a master craftsman, a
Michelangelo of a goldsmith. He made a marvelous face, but it is not
necessarily the face of the pharaoh. When I say there are discrepancies
between the mask (for one) and the mummy I mean:
The eyes of the mask are typical, idealized, one-kind-fits-all Egyptian
eyes as seen in paintings, etc. They are pretty but are not intended to
represent the eyes of the individual as they actually looked.
Almond-eyes are hardly an exclusive trait of black people!
The eyes of the mummy appear to be almond-shaped, but, unlike the mask,
have pronounced occipital ridges and appear rather more deep-set than
the mask suggests. I don't know whether Tut had artificial eye-balls or
not. Nowadays, the head of Tut has so deteriorated that his eye-sockets
have all but fallen in, so I am talking about early photos.
The nose of the mummy (though flattened, appears to be bigger and more
high-bridged than on the effigies.
The mummy has considerably less lips than the portraits. Lips do shrink
back quite a bit, but Tut has enormous incisors, a huge overbite. It
seems to me he could only have closed his lips over them with
difficulty--yet the pharaoh could NEVER have been portrayed with buck
teeth.
> >
> >
> >>Look at his family. If you think the Amarna people look Nubian or
> >>"negroid", then you see them one way and I another. I give you, as an
> >>example, the excellently-preserved mummy of the lady supposedly Queen
> >>Tiye. She looks like a white person to me with her long fine hair and
> >>sharp features.
> >
> >
> > Ever seen an Ethiopian, Somalian, a member of the Masai, or even
> > a Nigerian?
> > You'll find long hair (fineness cannot be determined from a
> > picture) and sharp features in these peoples.
I have seen these people you mention--Imam is a lovely example of a
Somali woman--nothing at all like the Elder Lady!
> >
> >
> >>Scott Woodward, who did the DNA testing on the royal
> >>mummies has already been quoted as saying that in testing 8 generations
> >>of remains having to do with the 18th Dynasty, he has found a very small
> >>genetic pool, indicating that there was NO marriage outside the family.
> >>Woodward has also said that Tut and the person believed to be Smenkhare
> >>share a blood group of A2 with anitgen MN, which is rarely found in
> >>ancient Egypt. Woodward is doing this testing not only to determine
> >>familial connections among the royal mummies, but also to try to answer
> >>the question "Who was an ancient Egyptian".
> >
> >
> > He must take care that he is not researching a inherited
> > familial trait, e.g. anemia, which may not be found in the
> > larger surrounding populace. In any case, this evidence
> > is inconclusive.
> >
> > As of now, it is difficult to say the precise ethnic origin
> > of the Egyptians. Aside from Afrocentrism and Eurocentricism,
> > it seems likely that these peoples originated from the west
> > in the dessicating and dying regions or the Sahara or further
> > south along the Nile.
> >
> >
> >>I find the face of the mummy of Tutankhamun at variance with some of his
> >>representations, including the wonderful mask. I see quite a bit of
> >>idealization there and, as I've said in the past, I see a tendancy from
> >>about the time of Thutmose IV to make the royal family look more
> >>"southern" or "Nubian" in some portraiture than they actually were. It
> >>occurs to me that this may have been done because there was some doubt
> >>about the "Egyptianess" of the family at this time--that they may have
> >>had too much "northern" read "Asiatic" blood.
> >
> >
> > You make the unproven assumption that you knew what "they
> > actually were." I think I remember you saying that we should
> > give these people some credit for depicting themselves
> > accurately.
I never said that they depicted themselves "accurately" at all times.
They depicted themselves "differently" from other races. Obviously,
there could be problems with this at times. For example, the Pharaoh
Seti I had examples of various races painted in his tomb, one of them
being the "Aamu" or Asiatic. The irony was that Seti, himself,
resembled the "Aamu" more than any other in his tomb portraits.
I do not know what the people of the 18th Dynasty were ethnically. But
I have my suspicions.
> >
> >>The 19th Dynasty is even more "suspect", IMHO. I don't know how many
> >>times I've repeated, in this group, that French scientists found
> >>Ramesses II to be a "leukoderm" or fair-skinned man, whose hair, when
> >>younger, probably was red or auburn.
> >
> >
> > First of all, Ramses II did not come to power until the tail
> > end of the New Kingdom, reigning from 1290 B.C. to 1224 B.C.,
> > over 2000 years! after the beginning of the Archaic Period; thus,
> > his relation to the origin pharoahs extremely dubious.
The tail end! I take it by "origin" you mean original. Yes, you are
very correct there. The "original" pharaohs were very far removed from
the 19th, the 18th and many dynasties before them! A lot happened that
could have changed the ethnicity of the pharaohs we discussed. But they
were still ancient Egyptians, n'est-ce-pas?
> >
> > Secondly, there are a number of "authentic" depictions of
> > Ramses II, one by Egyptian Artist Adel Ghabour, from paintings
> > at the Valley of the Kings and the Valley of the Queens that
> > show a man who is of typical swarthy Middle Eastern complexion,
No more "authentic" than that of Winifred Brunton, who definitely saw
him as a white, rather "Semitic-appearing" gentleman. My own portrait
looks different than Brunton's, but I agree with her.
> > and definitely cannot be mistaken for white.
> >
> >
> >>Yes, Egypt is in Africa--no one can deny this. But it is also
> >>geographically connected to an area called the Levant, whose inhabitants
> >>must certainly be called "white".
> >
> >
> > Mind you that Ethiopians are also classified as white, but
> > noone aside from this most abstract designation would call
> > an Ethiopian a white person. The fact of the matter is that
> > whites are considered to be of European and some of Asian
> > descent, Asia Minor not included. Don't be too reliant
> > on the technical fiction you read in books.
How about what I read in newsgroups?
> >
> >
> >> My point is, the ancient Egyptians
> >>may be difficult to categorize ethnically, but it would not be correct
> >>to assume that there were not olive or fair-skinned individuals among
> >>them who cannot justifiably be termed as anything but "white" if such a
> >>designation must be assigned. It seems to me that this whole thing only
> >>comes up whenever the Afrocentrists come in with their sweeping
> >>generalities. Civility, also, is something they leave outside the door
> >>before they enter.
> >
> >
> > I prefer to stay away from mudslinging, and with the exception
> > of a few individuals, the Afrocentrists, Egyptologists, and the
> > Egyptians bring up some interesting interpretations. It seems.
> > also, that some have become so frustrated with each other
> > that your responses are reduced to egoistic strutting and bravado.
> > It's probably best that these people take a break and come
> > back at a later time.
> >
> >
> >>IMHO, the confusion about the ethnicity of the ancient Egyptians is only
> >>temporary, anyhow.
> >
> >
> > Make no mistake. Many peoples would like to lay claim to
> > the glories of Egypt, either in heritage or to the goods.
> > (Hell, the British have virtually extracted every significant
> > portable artifact from the pyramids.) And, the fact of the
> > matter is that the Ancient Egyptians, unique as a society,
> > will probably remain an ego-boosting pawn for ages to come,
> > as most ancient cultures have been.
> >
> > -John
Whatever.
>
> Welcome to the USENET continuum.
>
> I will be your host in this strange but wonderful journey through
> the far reaches of cyberspace.
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 11:45:08 -0500
Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
> >
> > Saida wrote:
> > >
> > > Paulo da Costa wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In <326B0D7F.3F8378D9@decan.com> "S. F. Thomas" writes:
> > > >
> > > > >Saida wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >> > In any case, no one is denying that there were varied
> > > > >> > infusions of non-Black-African into the Egyptian gene
> > > > >> > pool. The most famous icon of ancient Egypt, Nefertiti,
> > > > >> > is one such, being a White Mitanni woman who married into
> > > > >> > Egyptian royalty.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Her famous bust is painted with pinkish skin tones, I believe, but there
> > > > >> is no evidence making her anything but a native Egyptian. No one knows
> > > > >> who Nefertiti was before she became Queen of Egypt.
> > > >
> > > > The famous bust of Nefertiti is olive-skinned. She looks the same as
> > > > the other royal family depicted on various statues and objects in the
> > > > same museum from the same period. Copies of the bust found for sale
> > > > all over the place are usually lighter-skinned. Blame that on the
> > > > modern copiers, not the Egyptians.
> > > >
> > > > >Why is it that there is no talk of "artistic canon" when
> > > > >Nefertiti and pink skin tones are involved?
> > > >
> > > > There should be. Nefertiti and the others there are clearly neither "white"
> > > > nor "black" in the sense you people want. Nefertiti looks, in fact, like
> > > > a much improved version of Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
> > >
> > > I don't know about that, but I can buy the olive-skin or yellow-ish
> > > cast. I have never seen the bust of Nefertiti in person, only color
> > > photos, which are not necessarily reliable. Yet I wonder why you would
> > > say that a person with an olive skin cannot be considered "white"?
> >
> > Today I saw two interesting things: One a large photo of the famous
> > bust of Nefertiti in an expensive art book. I was right the first time.
> > She's painted in pinkish flesh tone--no yellow at all. The color used to paint the bust was a mixture of white and red ochre
> (iron oxide). Red ochre is the standard paint used by the Egyptians on
> representations of men. This mixture used on the bust is very stable
> and hasn't changed much (if at all)since it was painted.
> Nefertiti's eye (she only has a right) is of calcite and rock crystal
> held in with a black wax. This gives the eye depth. No iris is
> indicated. This technique was used in numerous other examples, i.e.
> Rahotep & Nefert of the 4th dynasty. If the iris becomes loose, the eye
> looks grey/blue.
>
> I read in a back
> > issue I got in the mail of the British archaeology magazine, Minerva,
> > that "the head of the inner sarcophagus of Tuya (wife of Yuya and mother
> > of Queen Tiye) is of gilded wood with the eyes inlaid with white
> > 'marble', obsidian (a black stone) and opaque, violet-colored glass."
> >
> > Why violet? The answer is obvious. For the same reason that the inlay
> > of the eyes of the mutilated coffin in which the mummy of Seti I was
> > found (originally part of his funerary equipment) was blue.
> > The violet and blue colors refered to are the kohl-lines around the
> eyes. The whites in the eyes was of calcite and the iris is obsidion.
> No pupil is indicated. The color of the living eye was not what was
> represented, rather it was that the person would become a god with
> obsidion eyes (or whatever could pass for obsidion).
>
> > We've got to face it--we don't know who or what these people were at
> > all.
>
> They were like many people - showing us what they wanted to be, and not
> what they were. Today they would use "Image Consultants". :-)
You are probably right about Thuya's coffin. I dug up an old copy of
KMT, on which is a large color photo of Thuya's mask (but not coffin).
The kohl lines do seem to be in some purplish material there.
As for the eyes on Seti's coffin, I only have Romer to go by. Here is
what he says about them in "Valley of the Kings" page 149:
"The restorers (ancient) find the face irretrievably scarred, remodelled
it, cutting down its size and leaving the huge elegant inlaid eyes of
blue glass and white limestone, with black obsidian pupils, strangely
large, floating in the bland, white-washed countenance." (The entire
coffin was white-washed by the restorers--nothing racial there.) I'm
not sure if Romer meant the iris or just the pupil--anyway he says
"pupil". He doesn't mention the kohl-lines--although they are, of
course, present.
I have seen the eyes of Ra-hotep and wife and their eyes do look grey
(and startling!). What makes you think they are loose? Just curious.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art And Beating Dead Horses!!!
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 13:31:21 GMT
In article <3270E3ED.2D62@netins.net>, Xina wrote:
>Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
>> Again, you seem to be working under a lot of preconceptions. Neither
>> of us have suggested others AT ALL times were black African.
>
>OH!? Maybe not *you* personally, but I can dig up plenty of posts that
>claim every Pharaoh and Queen, from Narmer to CleopatraVII were indeed
>"black african". Ive seen afrocentrists such as Peter Bromfield,
>GrooveYou
Are Peter Bromfield and GrooveYou claiming to be Afrocentric scholars?
Your original post was aimed at people like Diop.
and others claim every historical figure of note as to being
>"black" from Shakespeare, to Beethooven to Elizabeth I to Albert
>Einstien for pete sake!
>
There are also people on this list claiming all sorts of things.
Btw, the masters of this type of trick are Eurocentric not Afrocentric
scholars. They were the first to this on a wide scale, are the main ones
still doing it now.
> I have
>> claimed that Egypt originated as a black African civilization.
>> The predynastic, early dynasty, and Old Kingdom Giza dynasties were
>> predominantly of that type (Prowse and Lovell, 1996; Keita, 1993, 1992).
>
>
>Yes, Im sure you are probably at least partially right. So?
So, why not just acknowledge this with getting all upset? Are you being
threatened in some way?
>When you get done typecasting and putting everybody and everything into
>neat little petrie dishes, let me know. Because this whole bloody
>arguement is getting extrememly stale.
>
You're quite the hypocrite. I you really were not interested in preserving myths
about the ancient Egyptians, then this conversation should not bother you
in the least. You could simply ignore it. The problem with Eurocentrists is that
they fly into rages when their false constructs are threatened. Obviously, there
is a lot of fear out there, and that's hindering any rational and dispassionate
discussion.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Martin Stower
Date: 25 Oct 1996 17:41:00 GMT
fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray) wrote:
[. . .]
>however...as certain other findings of like evidence have later been
>found to not be what they were once believed to be, (notably, vyse's
>finding of menkare's mummy - wrong by a couple of millennia; and
>maspero's finding of merenre's - which also turned out to be a later
>internment) a few questions must be asked...has iput been accurately
>dated, and if so, how so??...what analysis of the cement, its
>technique of application, and its probable dating...and the dating of
>the cedar coffin??...
Tu quoque, Frank.
Has the sealing of Sekhemkhet's sarcophagus been accurately dated, and
if so, how? What analysis of the cement, its technique of application,
and its probable dating? And the dating of the vegetation - a wreath?
- found upon it?
Can you exclude - on any principled basis - the possibility that it was
sealed by a later dynasty: the one responsible for those curious animal
burials in the shaft?
If not, what unwarranted theoretical assumption have you made? How do
you justify passing this off as that mythical beast, the confrontation
of a theory by naked, untheorised, falsifying fact?
(While you're at it Frank, which are you: naive falsificationist or naive
positivist? Assuming, that is, you can articulate a consistent theoretical
position - and not just an ad hoc rhetorical one, designed to engineer a
particular conclusion.)
Martin
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:46:13 GMT
On 25 Oct 1996 16:23:36 GMT, Martin Stower
wrote:
excellent post martin, goes directly to evidentiary questions, and
with the exception of the minor transgressions of the final paragraph,
avoids both the ad hominem and ad verbulem in its (hopefully ongoing)
growth towards civility...
>Has the sealing of Sekhemkhet's sarcophagus been accurately dated, and
>if so, how? What analysis of the cement, its technique of application,
>and its probable dating? And the dating of the vegetation - a wreath?
>- found upon it?
i am unaware of any scientific dating of the cement or of the
wreath...if others here are, perhaps they might point us towards any
such...
>Can you exclude - on any principled basis - the possibility that it was
>sealed by a later dynasty: the one responsible for those curious animal
>burials in the shaft?
no...possibilities are extremely difficult to absolutely exclude;
probabilities are another matter...i've already quoted edwards
judgement that the sarcophagus had not been opened "since it was
ceremoniously closed at the time of the funeral"...here i'll quote
goneim: (the buried pyramid - page 114)
"Here we had an unfinished pyramid which, from the evidence provided
by later burials, had remained untouched and probably unknown for at
least three thousand years. The entrance was sealed with a massive
wall of dry masonry which also had not been touched since the day it
was built. Within the pyramid the entrance chamber was sealed at two
other points, and these sealings also were intact. At the heart of
the pyramid was an unfinished chamber, from which there was no exit
save the sealed corridor, containing a sarcophagus which, from its
form and design, was clearly made in the Third Dynasty, contemporary
with the pyramid itself. And the sarcophagus was closed by a sliding
panel which was firmly cemented into position. What more logical
conclusion could one reach than that the sarcophagus contained a body,
and that body was most lkely to be that of the king for whom the
monument was built, a king whose name we had already discovered."
but no body was found...we cannot entirely exclude all posssibility
that goneim and a number of co-conspirators actually did find a jewel
bedecked mummy, hid it, sold the gold and jewels, and blew the money
in one wild weekend in vegas...nor can we entirely exclude the
possibility that hovering aliens, seeing one of their beloved pharaohs
about to be disturbed, beamed him out of the sarcophagus at the last
moment...however, as i've no evidence of either of the latter two
scenarios taking place, i find the account given by goneim the more
probable...
if you are aware of evidence that the chambers and sarcophagus were
resealed at a later date, please state that evidence...further, if you
are even aware of well informed opinion that resealings did take
place at a later date, so state...
>If not, what unwarranted theoretical assumption have you made?
i assume that the reputable egyptologists reported that evidence as
they found it to be...if you've evidence that they did not, please so
state...
>............................................................... How do
>you justify passing this off as that mythical beast, the confrontation
>of a theory by naked, untheorised, falsifying fact?
"the confrontation of theory by naked , untheorized, falsifying,
fact"??...hmmm....don't believe i used that phrase...nor am i inclined
to play strawman to your attacking of it, as it smacks of mere
reductionist gabble-de-gooble...distinquishing between evidence and
theory is often difficult and legitimate disagreement can occur where
the two fade into one another...but lets leave the mealy dabbles of
metaphysics where they belong, and stick with an examination of that
which we can mutually agree to be evidence...
>(While you're at it Frank, which are you: naive falsificationist or naive
>posivist? Assuming, that is, you can articulate a consistent theoretical
>position
if you feel that i've not here answered any of the relevant questions,
feel free to reask...i understand and use argument as a method of
enquiry, rather than as game to win, and find great pleasure in having
my preconceptions shown faulty, as that allows discard of unwarranted
belief...that intent requires my answering relevant questions without
regard to whether such answer strenghens or weakens my case...i trust
that you'll soon drop the silly personal attacks and hew to that
course as well...you're obviously intelligent enough to see its
benefits...
frank
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: Saida
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 13:59:25 -0500
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> In article <3270B8C7.6D21@PioneerPlanet.infi.net>,
> Saida wrote:
> >Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>>(snippage)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Yurco's strategy of having people look at mummified remains reminds
> >> >>>> of how Heyerdahl did the same thing with South American mummies to
> >> >>>> prove their Caucasoid affinities. One cannot not determine the
> >> >>>> proper classification of hair from mummies that have been subjected
> >> >>>> to herbal and other treatment (smoking?), wrapped in bandages and
> >> >>>> dormant for thousands of years. Doesn't the curly or kinky hair tend
> >> >>>> to straighten out after people die anyway?
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Wait a minute. You cannot be serious. The kink goes out of hair after
> >> >>>you die?
> >> >
> >> >>Do you want a forensic reference? If I have time I'll try to post one.
> >> >
> >> >This I would like to see as well.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hair changes after death. It loses color and thickness and changes
> >> texture. The hair also becomes dry and brittle. This is only
> >> a few months after death! You might want to consult some of the
> >> refutations of Heyerdahl's arguments regarding Peruvian mummy hair.
> >> Can you cite studies that claim human hair retains the same
> >> appearance after thousands of years? And can you verify that
> >> Egyptian mummification does not relax hair. Microscopic studies are
> >> the most scientific approach, and they suggest "Negroid" or "mulatto"
> >> hair. Here are my refs regarding hair degradation after death:
> >>
> >> Rogers, Spencer Lee, 1905-
> >> _Personal identification from human remains_ by Spencer L. Rogers.
> >> Springfield, Ill., U.S.A. : Charles C. Thomas, c1987
> >>
> >> Handbook of forensic archaeology and anthropology / editors, Dan Morse, Jack
> >> Duncan, James Stoutamire ; [art by Timothy Jones]. D. Morse ; Tallahassee, Fla.
> >> 1983.
> >
> >
> >I don't know anything about Peruvian mummies. I do know about Egyptian
> >ones. If anything, the individuals who had straight hair have had their
> >hair "set" into wavy, haphazard patterns (whenever it was not already
> >arranged in some other style) by pressure applied by the bandages over
> >the millenia. Although there is doubtlessly some chemical changes in
> >human hair due to the mummification process, it does not alter its
> >appearance to the degree one cannot see what sort of hair it was
> >originally. Changes are in color primarily, an example being the hair
> >in the small case found in the tomb of Tutankhamun. Due to unguents
> >being poured over it, it had become rather reddish as opposed to its
> >original dark brown. How did we know it used to be dark brown? Because
> >it matched, microscopically, with the hair on the head (dark brown) of
> >the "Elder Lady" from KV35.
>
> I'm afraid you've simply ignored the references I gave. You have absolutely
> no idea what the original color was and have given no scientific justification
> for believing hair remains the same after thousands of years of mummification.
> Microscopic matches of two mummies in no way confirms the original color of the
> hair. You've also ignored the fact that microscopic studies of hair have
> confirmed that the black racial element in ancient Egyptian hair remains.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Kekai Manansala
Your statements are absurd. You are one racist dude. In which of your
"sources" did you read that last statement of yours? How does it
pertain to Egyptian mummies? Cite us the relevant passages.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 18:52:39 GMT
pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
> It seems
>to me that Miguel may not ever have visited modern Egypt to say that Egyptians
>are mostly "white."
I have worked, as a translator, with both Egyptians and Sudanese.
There are many Egyptians in my Amsterdam neighbourhood, e.g. one
place where I buy food almost every week. One guy there could pass
for Black African, the other two might be Moroccans. But I've
never been to Egypt, as you say.
>Regarding language, I do not know where Miguel goes off saying that Egyptian is closer
>to Berber and Semite than the languages of Nubia and the Sudan. I had always heard the
>best modern language to study to get an idea of ancient Egyptian was modern Eastern
>Sudani.
You probably mean Beja (To Bedawi), a Cushitic language spoken in East
Sudan. Some linguists would classify Beja as separate from the rest of
Cushitic and put it in its own group, occupying an intermediate position
between Egyptian and Cushitic. Unfortunately, I have never seen a
sample or a description of the language, so I cannot say if this is a
correct assessment. I do have a reference: A. Zaborski, "Der Wortschatz
der Bedscha-Sprache. Eine vergleichende Analyse", in ZDMG, Supplement
VII (Stuttgart, 1989), 573-91.
If you are looking for linguistic links between Egypt and the South,
Beja is your best bet. Trouble is, as far as I know, the Beja have
never been linked to Nubia or the Nile (the EB article claims the Beja
are "descended from peoples who have lived in the area [Egypt to
Eritrea] since 4000 BC or earlier", but as this is not backed up in any
way, you may take it with a grain of salt).
The internal relationships of Afro-Asiatic are still a matter of debate.
Ruhlen lists seven different recent proposals:
Voegelin & Voegelin '77:
=======================
Chadic
Berber
Egyptian
Semitic
(Beja=Cushitic)
Omotic
Ehret '79:
=========
Chadic
(Berber=Semitic)-Egyptian
Beja=Cushitic
------
Omotic
Newman '80: [*]
==========
Chadic-Berber
Egyptian-Semitic
Beja-Cushitic
[Omotic excluded]
[*] That's Paul Newman (really!): I did some work for him on Hausa as a
student in Leiden University.
Fleming '81:
===========
(Chadic=Berber)-Egyptian-Beja
Semitic
Cushitic
------
Omotic
Greenberg '81:
=============
Chadic
Berber
Egyptian
Semitic
(Beja=Cushitic)
-------
Omotic
Bender '81:
==========
Chadic
Berber-Egyptian-Semitic
Beja
Cushitic-Omotic
Hetzron '82:
===========
Chadic
Berber
Egyptian
Semitic
Beja
Cushitic
Omotic
If we may draw a kind of "statistical" conclusion from these different
opinions, it's that each language group is most often linked with its
direct neighbours:
Berber -- Egyptian -- Semitic
| |
Chadic Beja
\
Cushitic
/
Omotic
Egyptian is thus most often linked with Semitic (Ehret, Newman, Bender),
Berber [c.q. Berber-Chadic] (Ehret, Fleming, Bender) and Beja (Fleming).
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art And Beating Dead Horses!!!
From: Xina
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 14:39:48 -0500
Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
>
> In article <3270E3ED.2D62@netins.net>, Xina wrote:
> >Paul Kekai Manansala wrote:
> There are also people on this list claiming all sorts of things.
> Btw, the masters of this type of trick are Eurocentric not Afrocentric scholars. They were the first to this on a wide scale, are the main ones still doing it now.
So who would you surmise are the *main* eurocentric scholars that are
guilty of this now.
>
> > I have
> >> claimed that Egypt originated as a black African civilization.
> >> The predynastic, early dynasty, and Old Kingdom Giza dynasties were
> >> predominantly of that type (Prowse and Lovell, 1996; Keita, 1993, 1992).
> >
> >
> >Yes, Im sure you are probably at least partially right. So?
>
> So, why not just acknowledge this with getting all upset? Are you being threatened in some way?
No, Im not threatened, I just *did* aknowlege it, my complaint is the
issue of race seems to come up again and again. There are many in the
NG, not necessarily yourself or the Afrocentric 'scholars' who are not
content with an aknowlegement. No, they want to continually throw it up
into the faces of people who study Egypt for love of the subject matter,
and there are even others that go further that say "how dare those
'white' people look at our history and religion! They dont have enough
melanin in their skins so they couldnt possibly have the appropriate DNA
to understand it. I grew up experienceing the 'race issue' first hand.
(Or did you think that no one has ever been prejudiced against anyone
who is of another race other than black?) I grew up around it, it
stinks no matter who is dishing it out....that and only that is what I
find offensive.
Paul, I can respect your point of view, I dont always agree with it
100%, and you have presented more evidence on your side than most
Afrocentric 'scholars', but honestly...after we admit to the race issue
(which I have already done btw) still we have the quetsion....then what?
> >When you get done typecasting and putting everybody and everything into
> >neat little petrie dishes, let me know. Because this whole bloody
> >arguement is getting extrememly stale.
> >
>
> You're quite the hypocrite. I you really were not interested in preserving myths
> about the ancient Egyptians, then this conversation should not bother you
> in the least. You could simply ignore it. The problem with Eurocentrists is that
> they fly into rages when their false constructs are threatened.
I care more about the legends and Religion of Ancient Egypt than you are
capable of comprehending. How incredibly pompous a statement that is.
You are the one who gets bent out of shape when it is pointed out to you
in a calm and concise manner that there was an artistic cannon of
Egyptian art, and that every glyph, every symbol every nuance was
prescribed by that same cannon. Look at the glyph of a mouth (the
letter R) it is ALWAYS Red, when it is painted, the Owl glyph (M) is
ALWAYS Yellow.....the skin of Goddesses is ALWAYS yellow or gold....so
my point is, you are going to have to live with the fact that the
Eguptians did art, language, religion etc through the symbology, like it
or not. No amount of conspiracy theories, no amount of jumping up and
down nor denial is going to change the facts.
Im not a eurocentrist, Paul, Im the last person in the world who is
intersted in perpetuating the liars scrawl of nineteenth century racist
european authors. I read plenty of accounts of how my people were
'ignorant heathen savages, in need of the white race's superior
influence in order to save them from themselves'. Im glad that African
Americans are proud of their heritage, Im certainly proud of mine. What
bothers me are the notions put forth by **some** (Not necessarily YOU)
Afro-C "scholars" or its self styled champions that we who dont have
that much melanin in our skins shouldnt study egyptology...period. That
would include all persons of non-black decent. An example of this would
be (Im not making this up, Ive had it actually *said* to me )"Why would
you study Egyptology? Youre not black! Its not *your* history its
ours!" Thats audacity! That is what I find offensive.
Obviously, there
> is a lot of fear out there, and that's hindering any rational and dispassionate
> discussion.
Obviously you have overestimated your ability to intimidate me and have
a notion that Im afraid of whether or not the Egyptians were originally
black. Im dispassionate enough. I dont personally care if the Egyptians
are black, green, blue, or yellow or red, and yet Ive seen the tomb
paintings that shows them as all of the above. In know that it was an
artistic cannon. Hell, I was on a mailing list where some guy from
Brazil was convinced (and trying to convince everyone else) that not
only were the Egyptian Gods and Goddesses originally white but blonde
and blue eyed to boot! Now I KNOW that isnt the truth!
I ask you your own question, cant we have a dispassionate discussion
about Egyptology? One that doesnt insist on proprietary rights of who is
or was Egyptian. Is that too much to ask?
Respectfully,
Xina
> Regards,
>
> Paul Kekai Manansala
Subject: Re: Nefertiti (was Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST))
From: Doug or Kathy Lowry
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 15:42:45 -0400
Saida wrote:
>
> Doug or Kathy Lowry wrote:
> >
> > Saida wrote:
> > >
> > > Saida wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Paulo da Costa wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In <326B0D7F.3F8378D9@decan.com> "S. F. Thomas" writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > >Saida wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >> > In any case, no one is denying that there were varied
> > > > > >> > infusions of non-Black-African into the Egyptian gene
> > > > > >> > pool. The most famous icon of ancient Egypt, Nefertiti,
> > > > > >> > is one such, being a White Mitanni woman who married into
> > > > > >> > Egyptian royalty.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Her famous bust is painted with pinkish skin tones, I believe, but there
> > > > > >> is no evidence making her anything but a native Egyptian. No one knows
> > > > > >> who Nefertiti was before she became Queen of Egypt.
> > > > >
> > > > > The famous bust of Nefertiti is olive-skinned. She looks the same as
> > > > > the other royal family depicted on various statues and objects in the
> > > > > same museum from the same period. Copies of the bust found for sale
> > > > > all over the place are usually lighter-skinned. Blame that on the
> > > > > modern copiers, not the Egyptians.
> > > > >
> > > > > >Why is it that there is no talk of "artistic canon" when
> > > > > >Nefertiti and pink skin tones are involved?
> > > > >
> > > > > There should be. Nefertiti and the others there are clearly neither "white"
> > > > > nor "black" in the sense you people want. Nefertiti looks, in fact, like
> > > > > a much improved version of Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
> > > >
> > > > I don't know about that, but I can buy the olive-skin or yellow-ish
> > > > cast. I have never seen the bust of Nefertiti in person, only color
> > > > photos, which are not necessarily reliable. Yet I wonder why you would
> > > > say that a person with an olive skin cannot be considered "white"?
> > >
> > > Today I saw two interesting things: One a large photo of the famous
> > > bust of Nefertiti in an expensive art book. I was right the first time.
> > > She's painted in pinkish flesh tone--no yellow at all. The color used to paint the bust was a mixture of white and red ochre
> > (iron oxide). Red ochre is the standard paint used by the Egyptians on
> > representations of men. This mixture used on the bust is very stable
> > and hasn't changed much (if at all)since it was painted.
> > Nefertiti's eye (she only has a right) is of calcite and rock crystal
> > held in with a black wax. This gives the eye depth. No iris is
> > indicated. This technique was used in numerous other examples, i.e.
> > Rahotep & Nefert of the 4th dynasty. If the iris becomes loose, the eye
> > looks grey/blue.
> >
> > I read in a back
> > > issue I got in the mail of the British archaeology magazine, Minerva,
> > > that "the head of the inner sarcophagus of Tuya (wife of Yuya and mother
> > > of Queen Tiye) is of gilded wood with the eyes inlaid with white
> > > 'marble', obsidian (a black stone) and opaque, violet-colored glass."
> > >
> > > Why violet? The answer is obvious. For the same reason that the inlay
> > > of the eyes of the mutilated coffin in which the mummy of Seti I was
> > > found (originally part of his funerary equipment) was blue.
> > > The violet and blue colors refered to are the kohl-lines around the
> > eyes. The whites in the eyes was of calcite and the iris is obsidion.
> > No pupil is indicated. The color of the living eye was not what was
> > represented, rather it was that the person would become a god with
> > obsidion eyes (or whatever could pass for obsidion).
> >
> > > We've got to face it--we don't know who or what these people were at
> > > all.
> >
> > They were like many people - showing us what they wanted to be, and not
> > what they were. Today they would use "Image Consultants". :-)
>
> You are probably right about Thuya's coffin. I dug up an old copy of
> KMT, on which is a large color photo of Thuya's mask (but not coffin).
> The kohl lines do seem to be in some purplish material there.
>
> As for the eyes on Seti's coffin, I only have Romer to go by. Here is
> what he says about them in "Valley of the Kings" page 149:
>
> "The restorers (ancient) find the face irretrievably scarred, remodelled
> it, cutting down its size and leaving the huge elegant inlaid eyes of
> blue glass and white limestone, with black obsidian pupils, strangely
> large, floating in the bland, white-washed countenance." (The entire
> coffin was white-washed by the restorers--nothing racial there.) I'm
> not sure if Romer meant the iris or just the pupil--anyway he says
> "pupil". He doesn't mention the kohl-lines--although they are, of
> course, present.
>
> I have seen the eyes of Ra-hotep and wife and their eyes do look grey
> (and startling!). What makes you think they are loose? Just curious.I can't cite the exact source but, I read an article about the
construction of Egyptian art. The article spoke of using different
materials (wood, stone, glass, metal, etc.) to form a "composite"
statue. The author stated that of the grey/blue eyes in statues and
coffins he had examined in the Cairo Museum and elsewhere, the eyes had
an air-pocket behind the pupil. As an experiment, take a drinking
glass, wrap a piece of white paper around it (the bottom will represent
the rock crystal and the paper will be the whites) and place it on a
black surface. It will register black until the glass is tipped
slightly, it then becomes grey. I've noticed that some statues I've
seen, do have two different colored eyes. Its a little disconserting to
see. Also some of the pupils were painted on the back and the paint has
flaked off. Much the same as tempra paints do not adhere well to glass.
Subject: Re: BLACKNESS in Egyptian Art, Murals, etc. (REPOST)
From: pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 96 15:37:20 GMT
In article <54r246$g00@halley.pi.net>,
mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>pmanansala@csus.edu (Paul Kekai Manansala) wrote:
>
>>>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal wrote:
>> It seems
>>to me that Miguel may not ever have visited modern Egypt to say that Egyptians
>>are mostly "white."
>
>I have worked, as a translator, with both Egyptians and Sudanese.
>There are many Egyptians in my Amsterdam neighbourhood, e.g. one
>place where I buy food almost every week. One guy there could pass
>for Black African, the other two might be Moroccans. But I've
>never been to Egypt, as you say.
>
>>Regarding language, I do not know where Miguel goes off saying that Egyptian is closer
>>to Berber and Semite than the languages of Nubia and the Sudan. I had always heard the
>>best modern language to study to get an idea of ancient Egyptian was modern Eastern
>>Sudani.
>
>You probably mean Beja (To Bedawi), a Cushitic language spoken in East
>Sudan. Some linguists would classify Beja as separate from the rest of
>Cushitic and put it in its own group, occupying an intermediate position
>between Egyptian and Cushitic. Unfortunately, I have never seen a
>sample or a description of the language, so I cannot say if this is a
>correct assessment. I do have a reference: A. Zaborski, "Der Wortschatz
>der Bedscha-Sprache. Eine vergleichende Analyse", in ZDMG, Supplement
>VII (Stuttgart, 1989), 573-91.
>
>If you are looking for linguistic links between Egypt and the South,
>Beja is your best bet. Trouble is, as far as I know, the Beja have
>never been linked to Nubia or the Nile (the EB article claims the Beja
>are "descended from peoples who have lived in the area [Egypt to
>Eritrea] since 4000 BC or earlier", but as this is not backed up in any
>way, you may take it with a grain of salt).
>
>The internal relationships of Afro-Asiatic are still a matter of debate.
>Ruhlen lists seven different recent proposals:
>
>Voegelin & Voegelin '77:
>=======================
>Chadic
>Berber
>Egyptian
>Semitic
>(Beja=Cushitic)
>Omotic
>
>Ehret '79:
>=========
>Chadic
>(Berber=Semitic)-Egyptian
>Beja=Cushitic
>------
>Omotic
>
>Newman '80: [*]
>==========
>Chadic-Berber
>Egyptian-Semitic
>Beja-Cushitic
>[Omotic excluded]
>
>[*] That's Paul Newman (really!): I did some work for him on Hausa as a
>student in Leiden University.
>
>Fleming '81:
>===========
>(Chadic=Berber)-Egyptian-Beja
>Semitic
>Cushitic
>------
>Omotic
>
>Greenberg '81:
>=============
>Chadic
>Berber
>Egyptian
>Semitic
>(Beja=Cushitic)
>-------
>Omotic
>
>Bender '81:
>==========
>Chadic
>Berber-Egyptian-Semitic
>Beja
>Cushitic-Omotic
>
>Hetzron '82:
>===========
>Chadic
>Berber
>Egyptian
>Semitic
>Beja
>Cushitic
>Omotic
>
>If we may draw a kind of "statistical" conclusion from these different
>opinions, it's that each language group is most often linked with its
>direct neighbours:
>
>Berber -- Egyptian -- Semitic
> | |
>Chadic Beja
> \
> Cushitic
> /
> Omotic
>
>Egyptian is thus most often linked with Semitic (Ehret, Newman, Bender),
>Berber [c.q. Berber-Chadic] (Ehret, Fleming, Bender) and Beja (Fleming).
>
>
Actually, I could give you dozens of other attempts to classify Egyptian,
given your timeline of the late 70s, but generally I don't think a close
relationship between Egyptian and Semitic has ever been widely accepted.
Previously, Egyptian was treated as a Hamitic language closely related
to those found south of Egypt. This was based largely on morphology.
The widely-accepted modern theories like those of Greenberg classify Egyptian
as a totally separate family.
One problem with Egyptian-Semitic comparisons is Egyptian is composed mostly
of monosyllabic roots of one or two consonants. Semitic has mostly two-syllable
roots with three consonants. There are many other problems, but that would be
better addressed in a linguistic forum.