There's been a major historical schism regarding the racial makeup of the Ancient Egyptians which really started in the 18th century. It seems as though everyone wants to lay claim to this civilisation, for reasons that are easy to see. There's a bunch of hypothesis. Some say Caucasian. Some say 'Eurafrican'. Some say Moors. Some say Berbers. And some say 'Negroid', or what would be considered black Africans today. Why is it so fiercely contested? Well I think the argument is more vociferous amongst whites and blacks, even though this rivalry or schism seems to be a later development in the debate. The reason for this is pretty easy to guess. There are those who would like to keep the perception that blacks are inherently inferior alive and their are those who would like to dismantle this train of thought or break 'the curse of Ham' if you like. One of the most famous revisionists is a man named Cheikh Anta Diop, a Senegalese historian, physicist and politician who typically wrote about pre-colonial African history and ethnography. His attestation is that the Ancient Egyptians were Ethiopians. There's little doubt that black Africans were an important part of Egyptian society. Black Nubian pharaohs appear as numerous statues. But these supposedly were the people who ascended to Egyptian thrones after conquering it long after its inception (25th dynasty). We have a much discredited account (why it's discredited is up for debate) from the 'father of history' Herodotus who arrived in Egypt around 450BC who said: 'the Egyptians said they believed the Colchians to be descended from the same army of Sesostris, my own conjectures were founded, first, on the fact that they have black skin and woolly hair...' The French scholar goes further by laying out what he believed to be a sort of hierarchical order of race outlined in 'the strange ethnographical series' painted in various tombs in Biban El-Moluk. His names was Jean-Francois Champollion, the man who published the first translation of the Rosetta Stone. This is some of what he said about them: The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world ...; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order. We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians, their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart. I had this strange ethnographical series copied and colored. I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes for the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it. I think the last sentence says a lot, saying this kind of stuff in the open in the 18th century was probably risky business. I find this all fascinating and would be interested to hear from anyone who has any knowledge or opinion on this. But also I'd like to know what people think about the image of primitive black Africans... and why it is still so fiercely advanced?
Like the Indians of the Americas, most of the African Negroid tribes were very primitive. Up until the 19th century, before European colonization, they lived in hunter gatherer societies and had not even invented the wheel. As for the Egyptians ethnicity, haven't they done any genetic testing to figure it out?
The original Egyptians seem to have been Natufians followed by the Anu or Annu people.. There were cities and well developed cultures in Africa by the 16th century.
When European settlers discovered ruins of great civilizations at Mapungubwe in South Africa and Great Zimbabwe in Zimbabwe (then the British colony Rhodesia), they concluded that these marvelous stone cities could not have been built by black Africans. In order to justify their oppression of the black majority population, the white imperialists created a grossly distorted history that denied African civilization and culture. In fact, until the recent end of the apartheid era, the official South African version of history maintained that southern Africa was an empty land, completely uninhabited until the first Dutch settlers arrived there in 1652. The government rationalized that the exquisite art and surviving architecture of the Shona and Bantu people of South Africa and Zimbabwe were actually the creations of Arabs, Phoenicians, or other non-African peoples. Similarly, the government of Rhodesia censored guidebooks and until as recently as the 1970s instructed archaeologists to deny that the ancient city of Great Zimbabwe was built by Africans. But the reality is that Mapungubwe and Great Zimbabwe, as well as Thulamela, a more recent discovery, were black civilizations that developed sophisticated international trading economies and remarkable architecture in southern Africa as early as the 11th century A.D. Great Zimbabwe was such a source of black national pride that when Rhodesia gained independence from the British in 1980, it named itself Zimbabwe after its own great precolonial civilization. Today, Great Zimbabwe remains a symbol of national unity, and its likeness is depicted on the national currency. http://www.pbs.org/wonders/fr_e6.htm
That is the History according to Tarzan. As far as race goes for any group- race itself is not well defined. I find most of these discussions to be more motivated by racial politics rather than real historical curiousity.
There was a poster here on PF who used to argue that Native Americans and Africans were inferior to Europeans because they had never developed writing....and just could not accept it when I pointed out that Europeans never developed writing either. (And the reality is that Native Americans did develop writing independently)
I remember that poster.. Empire of Ancient Ghana http://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/history/ancient_ghana.php People like to say "they had no wheel".. The did.. they had potters wheels, wheels for grinding grains and wheels for raising water from wells... and they did have some cartage.. However, the use of the wheel for transportation is often limited by terrain. Wheels were perfectly useless in the sands of Arabia... but the camel's foot was perfect.
This was a similar issue in the Andes and Llamas. The concept that any specific technology defines how advanced a society is is very, very narrow and Eurocentric.
Genetic studies have been done in Egypt and the people that live there today are the same people that lived there in the Days of it's glory. Look at them and you descide who they are.
Zahi Hawass, likes to say that if you want to know what the ancient Egyptians looked like you should just come to Egypt, "We are still here" This is actually true throughout the world. When the DNA of a 9000 year old bog burial was compared with a local in England the similarities were manifold and undeniable. Historical movements of peoples are largely the movements of the people's RULERS. The common men stay put for thousands of years. We Americans forget this because we are the exception. The USA is the end product of the largest mass migration of peoples in human history, and it is the central fact of our uniqueness as a nation.
Actually, the latest I've read on Jesus says that ancient depictions are more likely based on what pictures then existed of Alexander, who was widely worshiped as a god among the Roman military. How much of this leaked into Medieval and Renaissance portraits is unknown to me.
either way, believing in a white skinned Jesus beat the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of realizing he looked more like this guy for most white people
I'd like to see this affirmed. Egypt was conquered by Nubians, Greeks, Romans and Arabs, settled in by Jews. Arabs in fact are relatively new to Africa. Interbreeding wasn't really frowned upon, just like all great civilisations, Egypt was good at absorbing different cultures... remember Cleopatra was Greek. So it seems absurd to say that the population is exactly as it once was... it's a mix of all of the above.
I don't know how Arabs could be new to Africa... They have traded with Africa for thousands of years.
SAUDI ARABIA: First pharaonic inscription sheds new light on pre-Islamic past - Saudi archaeologists recently discovered the first royal pharaonic inscription on a mountain face near the ancient oasis city of Tayma, evidence, experts say, of the major trade networks that criss-crossed the region thousands of years ago. The discovery comes on the heels of a major push by Saudi authorities to foster wider appreciation for the Arabian peninsula's pre-Islamic history, which has often been glossed over or ignored in official narratives. In September, the Louvre in Paris wrapped up an exhibition of pre-Islamic Saudi artifacts, most of which had never been displayed before, according to an article in Le Monde at the time (a translation appeared in the Guardian). The attention on the country's pre-Muslim past has proved controversial in the ultra-conservative kingdom. Some Saudis believe that displaying non-Muslim artifacts, whether Pagan, Jewish or Christian, should be forbidden, even if these artifacts pre-date Islam. In 2009, the well-known Saudi cleric Mohammad al Nujaimi said such artifacts should be "left in the ground." - See more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bab...ry-archeology-islam.html#sthash.FnV6qM4W.dpuf
Sure, I should have been more clear. What I mean is the Islamic predominance in Africa, ie: North Africa is just that, Islamic. Therefore the majority of the Arab population in Africa is post-Islamic.
Arabs are new to Africa and there are written accounts on their migration. Egypt had at least a couple of Nubian Pharaohs . The "controversy" comes from the name of the country which was Kem ( Egypt means southern Greece) , Kem means "black lands" (like those in Moldavia) but some insecure idiots (both black and white) translate the name as "land of the blacks" . Black populations existed in Minoan Crete and elsewhere in Europe but they were absorbed through breeding . The claim that anyone around the Mediterranean is "single race" is laughable , people like to (*)(*)(*)(*) and our sea is a highway bringing us all together.
Where can I find the writings about Arab migration ? http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2010/11/saudi-arabia-history-archeology-islam.html SAUDI ARABIA: First pharaonic inscription sheds new light on pre-Islamic past - See more at: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bab...logy-islam.html#sthash.FnV6qM4W.KMwD3vXi.dpuf
My google search gives this : About 279,000 results (0.39 seconds) key words : "arab migration" "north africa" you need a secretary ?
Early human migration written in stone tools Humans may have trekked across the Arabian peninsula 125,000 years ago, on their way to Asia. excerpt: Other archaeologists say that the stone tools could have been produced by other archaic human relatives. And they point to genetic evidence from contemporary humans indicating that the ancestors of today's non-Africans left sometime around 65,000 years ago, quickly fanning out across Europe, Asia and even reaching Australia. That sequence of events doesn't leave much time for exploration, says team member Anthony Marks, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. "The idea that they left Africa at 60,000 and ended up at Australia at 50,000 — my God, did they ever stop running!" he asks. Genetic evidence is unclear about the path that modern humans took out of Africa. But caves in Israel dated to between 80,000 and 120,000 years ago, containing ostensibly human artefacts and remains, suggest a northern route, along the Nile, or from the Sahara. These early explorers probably never made it beyond the Levant, but many archaeologists have suggested that a later wave of humans followed a similar route. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110127/full/news.2011.55.html
Yeah lol so we are all "Arabs". Yes a small group of African losers crossed the straight from Africa to Yemen and all non Africans are coming from this group, this is not even news .
