100 things you SHOULD know about Africa
- Thread starter ParkBoyz
- Start date
That is not only intriguing but hilarious.
This is primarily because the current population of Egypt IS a mix. There are Arab Egyptians, there are African Egyptians, and there are pure Egyptians. Apparently Western culture is literate of only the Arab Egyptians or more likely those who are mixed to where they cannot be categorized, having a "mediterranean" appearance.
This is primarily because the current population of Egypt IS a mix. There are Arab Egyptians, there are African Egyptians, and there are pure Egyptians. Apparently Western culture is literate of only the Arab Egyptians or more likely those who are mixed to where they cannot be categorized, having a "mediterranean" appearance.
No such thing... They've all been watered down to some degree from millenia of invasions, this is wishful thinking.. The so-called "African Egyptians" are the purest ones, the others are mostly invaders. http://www.cnn.com/US/9707/16/racial.suit/index.html
I don't know why you feel as if you're mixed with "ancient Egyptian" and therefore inclined to speak on this, as if you're an authority on the matter or know something others don't..
I don't know why you feel as if you're mixed with "ancient Egyptian" and therefore inclined to speak on this, as if you're an authority on the matter or know something others don't..
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University
Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University
What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egypt—which led to the dynastic culture—migrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?
These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.
Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kushites, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.
Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kushites and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.
There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.
The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).
Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.
This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.
The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.
The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.
In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.
I never stated that I personally felt I was "mixed with 'ancient Egyptian'.." But there are many Egyptians who feel their ethnicity has not been significantly influenced by Arabs and they identify themselves as original Egyptians. As well I disagree that current "African Egyptians" are the purest of Egyptians, but I'm curious to see your reasoning in that.
ParkBoyz said:
I don't know why you feel as if you're mixed with "ancient Egyptian" and therefore inclined to speak on this, as if you're an authority on the matter or know something others don't..
Any Egyptian knows at least basic backround on the history of Egypt & it's culture, which is more than 99% of the people on the siccness know. You and a handful of others, obviously being in the other 1%, may be more knowledgeable because you have obviously extensively studied the subject but that doesn't mean you have to attack others input or disagreement in such a snobbish defensive manner.
note i dont favor any specific side on whether the ancient egyptians were ''blakk'' or not...its just interesting to hear different point of views and different theories
^King Tut's face was reconstructed by a team of scientists using 3D CT scans, as well as techniques taken from advanced CSI police forensics. this was for national geographic...
this is another render of what he may have looked like this time it was made by a team from the discovery channel...notice the huge difference between the two haha
heres ramses the 2nds mummy
an egyptian wall painting showing different people...starting from the left(lybian, nubian, syrian, and egyptian)
but egyptian art showed egyptians havin blue skin and shit too so that aint necessarily great evidence but it is obvious that they were trying to show the differences in what they looked like as opposed to there neighbors
this apparently shows king tut as a sphinx trampling a nubian and what i think is a hittite?
anyways pretty interesting thread i read almost all 100 on the front...good stuff park
^King Tut's face was reconstructed by a team of scientists using 3D CT scans, as well as techniques taken from advanced CSI police forensics. this was for national geographic...
this is another render of what he may have looked like this time it was made by a team from the discovery channel...notice the huge difference between the two haha
heres ramses the 2nds mummy
an egyptian wall painting showing different people...starting from the left(lybian, nubian, syrian, and egyptian)
but egyptian art showed egyptians havin blue skin and shit too so that aint necessarily great evidence but it is obvious that they were trying to show the differences in what they looked like as opposed to there neighbors
this apparently shows king tut as a sphinx trampling a nubian and what i think is a hittite?
anyways pretty interesting thread i read almost all 100 on the front...good stuff park
HUERO''909 said:
note i dont favor any specific side on whether the ancient egyptians were ''blakk'' or not...its just interesting to hear different point of views and different theories
^King Tut's face was reconstructed by a team of scientists using 3D CT scans, as well as techniques taken from advanced CSI police forensics. this was for national geographic...
this is another render of what he may have looked like this time it was made by a team from the discovery channel...notice the huge difference between the two haha
heres ramses the 2nds mummy
an egyptian wall painting showing different people...starting from the left(lybian, nubian, syrian, and egyptian)
but egyptian art showed egyptians havin blue skin and shit too so that aint necessarily great evidence but it is obvious that they were trying to show the differences in what they looked like as opposed to there neighbors
this apparently shows king tut as a sphinx trampling a nubian and what i think is a hittite?
anyways pretty interesting thread i read almost all 100 on the front...good stuff park
^King Tut's face was reconstructed by a team of scientists using 3D CT scans, as well as techniques taken from advanced CSI police forensics. this was for national geographic...
this is another render of what he may have looked like this time it was made by a team from the discovery channel...notice the huge difference between the two haha
heres ramses the 2nds mummy
an egyptian wall painting showing different people...starting from the left(lybian, nubian, syrian, and egyptian)
but egyptian art showed egyptians havin blue skin and shit too so that aint necessarily great evidence but it is obvious that they were trying to show the differences in what they looked like as opposed to there neighbors
this apparently shows king tut as a sphinx trampling a nubian and what i think is a hittite?
anyways pretty interesting thread i read almost all 100 on the front...good stuff park
I already knew about tut, that's a given, his family came from the South.. His first 3 reconstructions were all of African looking people, but Zahi Hawass of course needed to re do it his way.. There's no way to know nasal width, skin color, or eye color from a mummy. What we do know though is that Tut has an elongated African cranial type, and other features usually attributed to tropical Africans.. All of his features are well with in the range of African diversity.
About the mural of races.. Firstly, that reconstruction you posted is a copy/drawing (not a photograph of the tomb), the original had an Egyptian with darker Reddish-Brown skin.
^I'm not sure if the copy made the Egyptians' skin lighter intentionally or what, but it's slightly misleading. They never drew themselves that light unless it were women or a few Gods who represented Yellow, for fertility. The color isn't important anyways, the fact is that they weren't light skinned, most fell with in the range of native Africa, and out of the range of European or East Asian, and according to them, Middle Easterners (who are clearly shown here to be white skinned, or very light).. The mural of races is interesting though in the fact that it distinguishes Egyptians from everybody. Though the significant part of it is that they neither thought of themselves as Indo-European (Lybian) or northern Semitic (which most are now).. The Nubians indeed are portrayed differently there, but in the tomb of huey the Nubians are reddish-brown and black colored, and during the reign of Queen Hatshepsut the Egyptians made a voyage to the Land Of Punt, in modern day Somalia and Ethiopia where she depicted the inhabitants to be identical to the Egyptians. Also, Punt, or pwonit in Ancient Egyptian translates to "country of the first existence", or "Land of the ancestors".. The Egyptians traced their origins to East Africa, black people over there come in a variety of colors, maybe the Nubians were darker than the Egyptians, but Egyptians considered them sons of Heru, so obviously they thought of them selves as related. Even though all Egyptians weren't dark red anyways, some were darker, some probably a little lighter, this was simply artistic convention....
Nubian:
Somali lady (whom I believe to be Kin to ancient Egyptians), notice her "Reddish-brown" skin..
What the Greeks thought...
Quotes from Aristotle, Herodotus, and Marcellinus
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, scientist, and tutor to Alexander the Great.
"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
(Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)
Aristotle makes reference to the hair form of Egyptians and Ethiopians: "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."
(Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317)
Herodotus, "the father of history"(480 - 425 B.C.E.)
"It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race ... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and whoolly hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial."
Ammianus Marcellinus (33 to 100 A.D.), Latin historian and friend of the Emperor Julian
"The men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
Also, focusing on individual mummies and art work only leads to speculation, stereotyped thinking, and uninformed assumptions.. Here's all of the anthropological/archaeological data with accompanying scientific interpretation.. This page covers the important studies pertaining to this from the past 20 years or so. Any thing you need to know about the current opinion on the origins and/or race of the ancient Egyptians can be found here, and honestly I've came to the conclusion that they were just as "black" (socially speaking) as any Nubian or Ethiopian. Scientifically speaking they were Saharo-Tropical African variants.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html
Quotes from Aristotle, Herodotus, and Marcellinus
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) Greek philosopher, scientist, and tutor to Alexander the Great.
"Too black a hue marks the coward as witness Egyptians and Ethiopians and so does also too white a complexion as you may see from women, the complexion of courage is between the two."
(Physiognomics, Vol. VI, 812a)
Aristotle makes reference to the hair form of Egyptians and Ethiopians: "Why are the Ethiopians and Egyptians bandy-legged? Is it because the bodies of living creatures become distorted by heat, like logs of wood when they become dry? The condition of their hair supports this theory; for it is curlier than that of other nations, and curliness is as it were crookedness of the hair."
(Physiognomics, Book XIV, p. 317)
Herodotus, "the father of history"(480 - 425 B.C.E.)
"It is in fact manifest that the Colchidians are Egyptian by race ... several Egyptians told me that in their opinion the Colchidians were descended from soldiers of Sesostris. I had conjectured as much myself from two pointers, firstly because they have black skins and whoolly hair (to tell the truth this proves nothing for other peoples have them too) and secondly, and more reliably for the reason that alone among mankind the Egyptians and the Ethiopians have practiced circumcision since time immemorial."
Ammianus Marcellinus (33 to 100 A.D.), Latin historian and friend of the Emperor Julian
"The men of Egypt are mostly brown and black with a skinny and desiccated look."
Also, focusing on individual mummies and art work only leads to speculation, stereotyped thinking, and uninformed assumptions.. Here's all of the anthropological/archaeological data with accompanying scientific interpretation.. This page covers the important studies pertaining to this from the past 20 years or so. Any thing you need to know about the current opinion on the origins and/or race of the ancient Egyptians can be found here, and honestly I've came to the conclusion that they were just as "black" (socially speaking) as any Nubian or Ethiopian. Scientifically speaking they were Saharo-Tropical African variants.. http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/keita.html
u rite u rite...
from what ive read i always thought of ancient egypt as a mixed race society...egypt is in a interesting place...its africa...but its rite on the edge of the middle east and the Mediterranean is rite there too so theres no tellin how many different types of people there culd have been that settled there...
this is from an article i found along time ago and i had it saved on notepad haha
"The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society. The ancient Egyptians, like their modem descendants, were of varying complexions of color, from the light Mediterranean type, to the light brown of Middle Egypt, to the darker brown of Upper Egypt, to the darkest shade around Aswan and the First Cataract region, where even today, the population shifts to Nubian".<----this seems like a pretty good description of the differences in ancient egypt..even tho i also read that when the two kingdoms united that the "look" of the egyptians became less diverse...
...still from notepad haha
"Ancient and modern Egyptian hair ranges from straight to wavy to woolly; in color, it varies from reddish brown to dark brown to black. Lips range thin to full. Many Egyptians possess a protrusive jaw. Noses vary from high-bridged—straight to arched or even hooked—to flat-bridged, with bulbous to broad nostrils. In short, ancient Egypt, like modern Egypt, consisted of a very heterogeneous population."
"Unfortunately, we don’t have Nefertiti’s mummy. But we do have the mummy of Pharaoh Ramess II who reigned from 1279 to 1212 B.C.E. He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northeasternmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips.
This mummy may be contrasted with the mummy of Sequen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much farther south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features."
and about ramses his red hair culd be dye cause egyptians did dye there hair specially him he was like 80 something when he died, culda been to make him look younger haha...so his natural color culd have been darker...
haha and it sounds like u dont like ol buddy hawass? is he anti blakk o what?
from what ive read i always thought of ancient egypt as a mixed race society...egypt is in a interesting place...its africa...but its rite on the edge of the middle east and the Mediterranean is rite there too so theres no tellin how many different types of people there culd have been that settled there...
this is from an article i found along time ago and i had it saved on notepad haha
"The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society. The ancient Egyptians, like their modem descendants, were of varying complexions of color, from the light Mediterranean type, to the light brown of Middle Egypt, to the darker brown of Upper Egypt, to the darkest shade around Aswan and the First Cataract region, where even today, the population shifts to Nubian".<----this seems like a pretty good description of the differences in ancient egypt..even tho i also read that when the two kingdoms united that the "look" of the egyptians became less diverse...
...still from notepad haha
"Ancient and modern Egyptian hair ranges from straight to wavy to woolly; in color, it varies from reddish brown to dark brown to black. Lips range thin to full. Many Egyptians possess a protrusive jaw. Noses vary from high-bridged—straight to arched or even hooked—to flat-bridged, with bulbous to broad nostrils. In short, ancient Egypt, like modern Egypt, consisted of a very heterogeneous population."
"Unfortunately, we don’t have Nefertiti’s mummy. But we do have the mummy of Pharaoh Ramess II who reigned from 1279 to 1212 B.C.E. He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northeasternmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips.
This mummy may be contrasted with the mummy of Sequen-Re Tao, who died on the battlefield about 1580 B.C.E. He was from Thebes, much farther south. He had tightly curled, woolly hair, a slight build and strongly Nubian features."
and about ramses his red hair culd be dye cause egyptians did dye there hair specially him he was like 80 something when he died, culda been to make him look younger haha...so his natural color culd have been darker...
haha and it sounds like u dont like ol buddy hawass? is he anti blakk o what?
Hawass is a sound Egyptologist, but he needs to stay clear of the "race" issue, he's not an Anthropologist and obviously reflects bias in that respect. Here he is in this segment debating the issue..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/debate1.ram
As far as those quotes, I'm quite sure I know who wrote them. Classicist and Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz for the first one I believe, and late Egyptologist Frank Yurco for the other two.. Those quotes were expressed about right in the middle of the long drawn, 10 year+ "Black Athena" debate. What is of note is the conclusions and position they both took proceeding the debate (though Yurco seems to have always been neutral), placing Egypt with in an African context.
"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North". - Mary Lefkowitz
See See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.
and
"The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions". - Frank Yurco
See (F. Yurco "An Egyptological Review", 1996)
Overview of studies on Egyptian hair:
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html
I agree that Egypt was indeed a heterogeneous society in the long run, but anthropological studies and archaeological findings allude to a primarily African base and foundation, that incorporated different elements over time. This can and should be looked at in the same light as Ancient Greece is to Europe, which straddles the European and Middle Eastern world. That, in my opinion is the main point of contention among Africanists, and I'd have to agree with that point. Lefkowitz' (or Yurco, I forget) point remains valid though about 'race' being cultural baggage, just as long as it applies to all sides and reflects the reality of society and "how things really are", so that there is no room for hypocrisy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/rams/debate1.ram
As far as those quotes, I'm quite sure I know who wrote them. Classicist and Afrocentric critic Mary Lefkowitz for the first one I believe, and late Egyptologist Frank Yurco for the other two.. Those quotes were expressed about right in the middle of the long drawn, 10 year+ "Black Athena" debate. What is of note is the conclusions and position they both took proceeding the debate (though Yurco seems to have always been neutral), placing Egypt with in an African context.
"Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North". - Mary Lefkowitz
See See Bruce G. Trigger, "The Rise of Civilization in Egypt," Cambridge History of Africa (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982), vol I, pp 489-90; S. O. Y. Keita, "Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," History in Africa 20 (1993) 129-54.
and
"The peoples of Egypt, the Sudan, and much of East African Ethiopia and Somalia are now generally regarded as a Nilotic continuity, with widely ranging physical features (complexions light to dark, various hair and craniofacial types) but with powerful common cultural traits, including cattle pastoralist traditions". - Frank Yurco
See (F. Yurco "An Egyptological Review", 1996)
Overview of studies on Egyptian hair:
http://www.homestead.com/wysinger/hair2.html
I agree that Egypt was indeed a heterogeneous society in the long run, but anthropological studies and archaeological findings allude to a primarily African base and foundation, that incorporated different elements over time. This can and should be looked at in the same light as Ancient Greece is to Europe, which straddles the European and Middle Eastern world. That, in my opinion is the main point of contention among Africanists, and I'd have to agree with that point. Lefkowitz' (or Yurco, I forget) point remains valid though about 'race' being cultural baggage, just as long as it applies to all sides and reflects the reality of society and "how things really are", so that there is no room for hypocrisy.
cool cool...okay i gotta question..u say u did the DNA test rite? how do i do it..is it a site i gotta goto? o what? i googled it but i didnt come up with much just some random shit...if u gotta a link to more info about it can u pm me it cause some other dude said it was against the rules to spam? whatever that it...