Negus (Perra/Pharaohs) of Ancient Kemet

[asante]

Here is the narrative behind these Negroid Peraa's presented here. 

Contrary to the racist lies seen on the National Geographic and History Channel all of the native ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were black, and by black I mean almost all of them were thick lipped and wide nosed, or in other words "Negroid" (give or take some Nilotic admixture via the Tutsi lineage of Ramses II and likely Akhenaton). 

"All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says: 

' As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians 

because, like them, they are black with woolly hair... 

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance) 

"In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold. 

"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites! 

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould." 

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83. 

The Great Sphinx (over 14,000 years old) 

---

The step design below correlates with the climax and decline of the civilization.

Early Period-Old Kingdom 

Menes-Narmer/The Scorpion King (First Negus of Kemet)

Nynetjer

Khasekhem (Reunified Kemet)

Sekhemkhet

Sanakht

Menkaure

The Great Pyramid Builder

Sahure

Pharaoh Amenemhet III

---

Middle Kingdom

---

New Kingdom

Thutmose's III

---

The Great Amenhotep_III (New Kingdom still)

The height of Dynastic Kemetian domination (from Nubia to Turkey):

Queen Tiye (Amenhotep III's wife)

Amenhotep's obelisk (monument) still stands in Turkey to this very day

---

Pharaoh Akhenaton is the source of all monotheist religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)

Queen Nefertiti (Akhenaton's wife)

Their daughters

King Tut's Golden Mask

Pharaoh 'Aye'

Seti I

Ramses III

---

Third Intermediate Period (Libyan Berber rulers)

Sheshong I - 22nd dynasty. Also spelled Shosheng, (the Biblical Shishak in kings).

Harsiese A

Takelot II

Osorkon III

Takelot III

[asante]

The Nubians Pharaohs of the 25th Dynasty (Still Third Intermediate Period

From earliest times, even from the time of unified Egypt's first Pharaoh - Narmer, Egypt's southern neighbor Nubia, {modern Sudan}, had always been treated as Egypt's private preserve for conquest, plunder and looting. The Nubians always rebelled, and always the rebellions were put down, sometimes brutally. This is best attested by the fact that the fortunes of the two countries were always the inverse: when Egypt was strong Nubia was weak, when Nubia was strong Egypt was weak. Yet at the same time, Nubia's culture was pretty much the same as Egypt's, Nubians were valued members of the Egyptian army, Pharaohs had Nubian wives and Nubians were found amongst Egypt's wealthy. One can only guess at the basis for this strange relationship, but surely it was buried in millennia.

Considering this history, the Hyksos king Apepi I, could hardly have been blamed for trying to form an alliance with the Nubians against Egypt when king Kamose began his war against the Hyksos to reunify Egypt. But Nubia refused, and instead, was Egypt's steadfast ally, providing all that was needed for a successful campaign, and together Egypt and Nubia expelled the Hyksos from Egypt.

Now a thousand years later, a similar situation exists, northern Egypt is once again in the hands of foreign kings, and once again, Egypt's salvation lies in the hands of Nubia. This history perhaps explains Nubian King "Piye's", seemingly strong emotional ties with Egypt, which he obviously considered part of his motherland.



Accordingly, Piye decided to step in and fix Egypt's problems. He marched north and subdued almost all the rebellious elements in Egypt. Then after conquering Egypt, Piye simply went home to Nubia, and to our knowledge, never again returned to Egypt. But he did maintain oversight from his capital in Nubia/Kush. Though Piye chose to govern from Kush, his successor "Shabaka", after completing the total reunification of Egypt, chose to rule from the city of Waset in Egypt. Conventionally, there were five Nubian kings of Egypt, they ruled for about sixty years and comprise the 25th dynasty.





The end of the Nubian 25th dynasty was brought on by two factors: first - the Egyptians had apparently tired of foreign rule, even if it was Nubian. Second - the full-scale invasion of Egypt by the Assyrians. By the time of Nubian king Pi'ankhy, Lower Egypt and part of Middle Egypt had already disintegrated into a number of petty princedoms, which were always ready to side with whichever of the two great powers (Nubia and Assyria), that would be the more likely to leave them with their independence.

---

The Late Period

The Assyrian era of ancient Egypt 





The smoldering hostility of the two great powers flared up afresh under Assyrian king Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.), whose third campaign in Canaan, started with the subjugation of the Phoenician coast-towns.

Trouble had arisen farther south however. The people of the Philistine city of Ekron had expelled their king Padi, on account of his loyalty to Assyria, but Hezekiah of Judah who had received and imprisoned him, became afraid and appealed to Egypt for help. The armies meant at Eltekeh, and a great defeat was inflicted on the Egyptian and Nubian forces.

Padi's throne was restored to him. Many towns of Judah were ravaged, though Jerusalem was not taken. To avoid this, Hezekiah submitted to pay a heavy tribute.

Upon the death of Sennacherib, his son "Esarhaddon" (680-669 B.C.), became Assyria's king. At the beginning of his reign, the Aramaean tribes were still allied with Elam against him, but Urtaku of Elam (675–664 B.C.) signed a peace treaty and freed him from campaigning there. This spelled trouble for Egypt.

In 679 B.C. Esarhaddon stationed a garrison at the Egyptian border, because Egypt, under the Nubian king Taharqa, was planning to intervene in Arum. Esarhaddon then put down, with great severity, a rebellion of the combined forces of Sidon, Tyre, and other Canaanite cities. Now the time was ripe to attack Egypt, which was suffering under the rule of the Nubians and was by no means a united country. Esarhaddon's first attempt in 674–673 B.C. miscarried, in 671 B.C. however, his forces took Memphis, the Egyptian capital. Assyrian consultants were immediately assigned to assist the princes of the provinces, their main duty being the collection of tribute.

The Egyptian records are silent, but stele and tablets inscribed in cuneiform, give circumstantial accounts of the campaign in which Esarhaddon, after subjugating Canaan, drove Nubian king "Taharka" reeling back to the south.

Here is a shortened excerpt from the best preserved of his inscriptions:

From the town of Ishhupri as far as Memphis, a distance of fifteen days, I fought daily, very bloody battles against Tarky, king of Egypt and Nubia, the one accursed by all the great gods. Five times I hit him with the point of my arrows, inflicting wounds, and then I laid siege to Memphis, his royal residence. I destroyed it, tore down its walls, and burnt it down. (After mentioning the booty which he carried off to Assyria he continues): All Nubians I deported from Egypt, leaving not even one to do homage to me. Everywhere in Egypt I appointed new kings, governors, officers, harbor overseers, officials, and administrative personnel.

Esarhaddon reorganized the political structure in the north, establishing Nekau/Necho I (a Libyan) as first king of the 26th dynasty at Sais. Upon Esarhaddon's return to Assyria he erected a victory stele, showing Taharqa's young Prince Ushankhuru in bondage.

Psamtik I


Upon the death of NeKau I (Necho) in 664, Psamtik I was recognized by his Assyrian overlords as King of Egypt, but this was a title at first without substance. He had rule over Memphis and Sais, but mostly the country was controlled by the old guard Egyptians and Libyan princes. He was tasked with the responsibilities of controlling not only the unruly princes and petty kings of the Delta, but also to reconcile with the power center at Thebes. Both Psamtik I, and his father NeKau I (Necho) of Sais, were originally involved with an intrigue associated with the Nubian ruler Taharqo against Assyria, but Psamtik was captured, held and indoctrinated by the Assyrians. Psamtik I was even given the Assyrian name, Nabu-shezibanni, before finally being returned to Egypt, where his father had assumed power in the Delta.

Working with Thebes turned out to be easier then he might have imagined, he was able to align himself with the daughter of a great Theaban nobleman named Mentuemhet. At that time, she held the title, "Adoratice of Amun (God's Wife of Amun). He was able to insert his own daughter Nitokris, as her successor. There can be no doubt, but that political considerations played a part in all this, for after all, Psamtik was himself half a Libyan, and the intense nationalism of the Egyptian natives found appeasement in this way. Moreover, Asiatics and Jews had poured into the country, the latter forming a colony at Elephantine where they were even permitted to build a temple to their god Yahu/ Jehovah. He was therefor able to effect both secular and religious ties that were to hold his growing presence in Egypt together, while he went after his Delta opponents.

In order to do this, he raised a conscript army, as well as employed the services of mercenaries, many of whom were Greek, including Carians. This involvement with foreign mercenaries, raises questions concerning the nature of their presence and their possible control within Egypt. Archaeological evidence suggests that sites such as Naukratis (an exclusively Greek town), among others, were established to facilitate this war, along with offering Egypt an increased commercial presence within the Mediterranean world. From Ramesside times Libyans and other Mediterranean peoples had contributed a substantial part to the armies on which the Egyptian monarchs relied; land had been bestowed upon them in return for their services.

Ahmose II (Amasis)


Ahmose II who was probably the 5th ruler of Egypt during the 26th Dynasty, has been called the last great Egyptian Pharaoh. This is because the rule of his son, Psamtik III, was very short lived, and in fact even in the last days of Ahmose' life, the Persians were already advancing on Egypt. They were the overwhelming power of the region, and would control Egypt up until Alexander the Great 's conquest of Egypt, and the ensuing Greek rulers. After his son “Psamtik III”, never again would an Egyptian rule Egypt, even unto today.

By this late date in Pharaonic history, Wahibres' army was mostly made up of Aegean mercenaries. The two armies met somewhere in the north-west Egyptian Delta in about January or February of 570 B.C, and Apries was forced to retreat. However, this did not give Ahmose complete control of Egypt. Wahibre's apparent retreat was only as far south as Memphis and he continued to control southern Egypt, while Ahmose established himself at Sais in Northern Egypt. Yet Wahibre was not content with this, and aided by his Greek troops, once again marched on Ahmoses’ in October of 570 B.C, where he was once again defeated by his former general. With this defeat, Wahibre could only find safety abroad, and he eventually turned up in the court of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Now Ahmose took control of a united Egypt.

This was complete when sometime between October 19th and December 9th of 570 B.C, Thebes submitted to his reign. Yet poor Wahibre was not yet finished. In March of 567, he again marched on Egypt at the head of a Babylonian army, but once again, Ahmose defeated him, this time capturing the former king. It seems that Ahmose allowed Wahibre to live for a short time, however because we find Herodotus telling us that:

The Egyptians complained that he did wrong by maintaining a man who was the greatest enemy both to them and (Amasis), therefore he delivered Apries to the people, who strangled him.

Apparently, Ahmose still held some respect for his former ruler, because he buried Wahibre with kingly honors in the royal necropolis at Sais. This may very well be explained if indeed Ahmose was married to Wahibres' daughter. However, various sources differ somewhat on these events. Now as the ruler of all Egypt, Ahmose took on the traditional role of builder, and is attested to by quarry inscriptions at Tura and Elephantine and with building projects at Memphis including two granite colossi and a temple of Isis Philae Elephantine, Edfu Sohag, Abydos Koptos, Karnak and any number of Delta sites, including his tomb at Sais. While we have never discovered this tomb, again Herodotus steps in to describe it for us: (It is) a great cloistered building of stone, decorated with pillars carved in the imitation of palm-trees, and other costly ornaments. Within the cloister is a chamber with double doors, and behind the doors stands the sepulchre."

This was really a very prosperous time for Egypt. We are told that agriculture, always the backbone of Egypt, met a spectacular level of success, and Herodotus again tells us that the number of inhabited cities in Egypt reached as high as 20,000. After consolidating his power, Ahmose was apparently somewhat weary of the Greeks, who had been around since the beginning of the Dynasty, and of course, fought against him on the side of Wahibre. Psamtik I had encouraged the Greek merchants in the city of Naukratis, and Ahmose consolidated them in that area only.

This made for easier control of these merchants, and created a lucrative income for the crown in the form of taxes. Prior to Wahibres' defeat, the Greek mercenaries were established in camps between Babastis and the sea on the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, where Herodotus tells us they had remained for over a century. Apparently, he first moved them to Memphis, where he could keep an eye on things. But, Ahmose was not willing to push the Greeks too far because he needed their alliance against the expanding threat of the Persians, as well as an attempted invasion by the Chaldaeans.

Apparently after their unsuccessful invasion, he formed an alliance with the Chaldaeans, Croesus of Lydia, and Sparta. Unfortunately, the Persians destroyed the alliance by first capturing Lydia in 546 and then the Chaldaeans. So instead, he cultivated his relationship with the Aegean world, extending his foreign relationships to include Cyprus. He is said to have even financed the rebuilding of the temple of Apollo at Delphi, after its destruction in 548 B.C. According to archaeological records, he probably even allowed the Greek soldiers to return to their old mercenary camps.

Regrettably, for all his efforts, the Persians would eventually prove too ambitious to stop. By the time of Ahmoses’ death after a long reign of some 44 years, the Persians had long ago conquered Babylon, and were already at the frontiers of Egypt. His son was eventually captured by the Persians, and Herodotus tells us that the Persian ruler Cambyses, had Ahmose's mummy exhumed and:

"subjected to every indignity, such as lashing with whips and the plucking of its hairs, until the executioners were weary. At last, as the corpse had been embalmed and would not fall to pieces under the blows, Cambyses ordered it burnt"

This Marks the end of Egyptian rule in Egypt, Egyptians will never again rule their country, even unto today.

---

The Persians era of ancient Egypt


When Cyrus II (Cyrus the great), ascended the Persian throne in 559 B.C. He would be like all others – sooner or later – his eyes would turn westward – toward Egypt.

And so it was that Cyrus, by the time of his death in 529 B.C, together with his son Cambyses II, had already completed their plans for a successful assault on Egypt. So after Cyrus had died and Cambyses had become king, Cambyses launched his invasion of Egypt, and it was indeed successful. The Persian kings constitute the 27th dynasty of Egypt.

However over time, dissension at home among the Persians, and various Persian palace intrigues, provided an opportunity for one "Amyrtaios", to take the throne of Egypt. He is believed to have expelled the Persians from the entire country. He was the only ruler of the 28th Dynasty, and he is thought to have been a Libyan, as are all the rest. He ruled Egypt from Sais for six years.

His reign however, was unstable and he was removed from the throne by Nepherites I, who stabilized the country. Nepherites I, thus became the first ruler of the Twenty-ninth Dynasty. Nepherites I, had sent a gift to the Spartans after an allegiance had been entered into with Sparta against Persia. The gift was taken by the Persians after the ships from Egypt were captured as they approached Rhodes. The Egyptians did not know that the Rhodians had defected to the Persians.

The 29th and 30th dynasties are much the same, various obscure rulers, from various places. But since this marks the end of Dynastic Egypt, lets hear from its last kings.



Nectanebo I was the first ruler of the Thirtieth Dynasty and was a general from Sebennytus. He is thought to have been related to the family of Nepherites I. He imposed heavy taxes on the people of Egypt in order to finance Egypt's war with Persia. In the spring of 373 B.C, the Persian army moved in to attack Egypt. They got as far as the Mendesian mouth of the Nile. The two commanders of the Persian forces could not agree on their strategy. As the time passed, the Nile rose and flooded the Delta area, making a march southward impossible. The Persians abandoned their efforts and left. The Egyptians had successfully turned back the Persians, with a little help from the Nile, and peace was reestablished. Nectanebo restored and built many monuments throughout Egypt.



Nectanebo II
360-343 B.C.
Nectanebo II, was the third and final ruler of the Thirtieth Dynasty. He became king after the previous ruler, his uncle "Teo", had campaigned into Phoenicia, which was then a Persian provence, while leaving behind Nectanebo's father Tjahapimu, as governor of the country.

Well, Tjahapimu rebelled, and offered the throne to his son Nectanebo II, who was commanding Teo's troops in Phoenicia, some say Persian money was behind this intrigue. This turn of events left Teos little choice, and he fled to Persia, where he was given refuge, (the Persians felt that a former king would come in handy for the next attack), and Nectanebo returned to Egypt as Pharaoh.



Nectanebo ruled for eighteen years, and built many monuments in Egypt. After the disaster with the Persians, he risked no further expeditions against the Levant states. However, Cyprus and Phoenicia were now fighting against the Persians, and they were assisted by some troops sent by Nectanebo II.

Unfortunately, the Persian King Artaxerxes III, destroyed these troops and then moved against Egypt. Unlike the last Persian attack against Egypt, some thirty years before, this time the Nile flooding had already passed, and the Persian attack was made much more wisely than the last time, (when Nectanebo I was king). The Persian attack was made at three different points at the same time. Defeated, Nectanebo II retreated to Memphis, where he felt that he could make a stand against the Persians. But as city after city fell, all that he could do was gather up, as much of his possessions as he could, and flee to Nubia.

Thus the Persian king, Artaxerxes III, makes Egypt once more a Persian province. Artaxerxes, after taking over all of Egypt, demolished the walls of the most important cities and plundered the shrines, he carried off a vast quantity of silver and gold. He also carried off the written records from the ancient temples, these were later returned to the Egyptian priests, on the payment of huge sums. Then after he had lavishly rewarded the Greeks, who had accompanied him on the campaign, each according to his just deserts, he dismissed them to their native lands. And then, after having installed one "Pherendates" as satrap of Egypt, he returned home with his army.

 
Nectanebo II (Still black) 





[Acapella Verse]

I promised Dave I'd never use the phrase "fuck nigga"

He said, "Think about what you saying: 'Fuck niggas'

No better than Samuel on Django

No better than a white man with slave boats"

Sound like I needed some soul searching

My Pops gave me some game in real person

Retraced my steps on what they never taught me

Did my homework fast before government caught me

So I'ma dedicate this one verse to Oprah

On how the infamous, sensitive N-word control us

So many artists gave her an explanation to hold us

Well, this is my explanation straight from Ethiopia

N-E-G-U-S definition: royalty; King royalty - wait listen

N-E-G-U-S description: Black emperor, King, ruler, now let me finish

The history books overlook the word and hide it

America tried to make it to a house divided

The homies don't recognize we been using it wrong

So I'ma break it down and put my game in a song

N-E-G-U-S, say it with me

Or say no more. Black stars can come and get me

Take it from Oprah Winfrey, tell her she right on time

Kendrick Lamar, by far, realest Negus alive

[asante]

The Ptolemy Greek-Roman rule (The Late Dynastic Period/The End of ancient Egypt)

So now, Egypt is ruled by Greek kings, Alexander the Great has taken Egypt from the Persians, and made it a part of the Greek Empire. The arrival of the Greeks brought an unprecedented amount of change in Egypt, as they overlaid the existing society with that of their own. The Ptolemaic dynasty of the Greeks, would successfully rule Egypt by mingling Hellenic traditions with the legacy of the Pharaohs. The Greek kings, followed in the ancient Egyptian tradition of having themselves deified as gods, having temples built, and having statues made in their honor. Many of the statues, relief's, and funerary objects which are today, in museums around the world, are from this period.

There were many Greek kings, notable among them were..

Ptolemy I (Soter I)
323-285 B.C.
Upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C, the throne of Egypt fell to Ptolemy I. He was a veteran soldier and trusted commander who had served Alexander. He started the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which lasted about 300 years. He ran Egypt like a business, strictly for profit.

Ancient Egypt under Greek and Roman Rule

From: New York University

The Importance of Periods of Foreign Domination to the Study of Egypt Overall

If one wishes to understand how the Egyptians conceived of themselves (or, as many would put it, how the Egyptians constructed their identity), one of the most productive ways of doing so would be to examine the interactions between Egyptians and foreigners - the Egyptians’ view of things when their land was under foreign control. For one thing, there are several examples of foreign rulers attempting to present themselves as part of the ancient pharaonic tradition. During times of foreign rule the Egyptians frequently adopted certain means to maintain and emphasize the distinctness of their cultural heritage. Both attempts, those of foreigners to acquire an Egyptian identity as well as those of the Egyptians to maintain it, offer some telling insights into what being Egyptian was. Although we cannot be certain, it is likely that in these efforts of both parties, we are shown behavior which probably closely paralleled events in other, less documented eras of Egyptian history, such as the Hyksos Period.

Some General Characteristics of Greek Rule in Egypt

The Ptolemies were quite unlike other foreigners who had ruled Egypt in several respects. Most importantly, they ruled within Egypt. One of the best phrases for understanding the nature of their government’s relationship with the country on which they imposed their rule is that “the Ptolemies used Egypt.” (By contrast, it is fair to say that “the Romans abused Egypt.”) The Greeks could use Egypt because they came upon a well developed country in respect to its economic, intellectual, and political life. These factors were in force to an extent which was unparalleled anywhere else within the Hellenistic world where the Greeks had placed themselves to rule over indigenous populations. In the case of Egypt, the Ptolemies found themselves in control of a highly sophisticated ancient civilization and administration, not a group of cloddish barbarians. The Egyptians had as high a level of culture as the Greeks, but it was quite different from theirs. The fact that the Egyptians stuck to their ways annoyed and puzzled the Greeks and gave the Egyptians the reputation as being stubborn, ornery, and, for lack of a better word, reversed.

On the latter point, we should listen to Herodotos describing his impression of Egypt as he visited it (Book 2, 35): “Just as the climate that the Egyptians have is entirely their own and different from anyone else’s, and their river has a nature quite different from other rivers, so, in fact, the most of what they have made their habits and their customs are the exact opposite of other folks’. Among them the women run the market and shops, while the men, indoors, weave; and, in this weaving, while other people push the woof upwards, the Egyptians push it down. The men carry burdens on their heads, the women carry theirs on their shoulders. The women urinate standing upright, while the men do it squatting. The people ease nature’s needs in the houses but eat outdoors in the streets; their explanation of this is that what is shameful but necessary should be done in secret, but what is not shameful should be done openly. No woman is dedicated to any god, male or female, but men to all gods and goddesses. There is no obligation on sons to maintain their parents if they are unwilling, but an absolute necessity lies on the daughters to do so, whether they will or not.”

This is typical of Herodotos in that it is a mixture of fact and fiction, all of which was heavily colored by his desire always to tell a good story. To this observation we should also add the remarks of Alan Lloyd, an Egyptologist who has done what still remains as the best study of Herodotos’ description of Egypt from an Egyptological point of view. Lloyd, not incidentally, is the author of the relevant chapter in our textbook. Lloyd’s ultimate conclusion is that Herodotos, “presents a view of Egypt’s past which shows no genuine understanding of Egyptian history. Everything has been uncompromisingly customized for Greek consumption and cast unequivocally into a Greek mold.” The last statement here also summarizes much of the Greek point of view when dealing with Egypt administratively . . . at least, that is what they tried at first.

The Ptolemaic regime may have modernized several aspects of the Egyptian economy, particularly with the introduction of coinage that made transactions much more efficient, yet we should also bear in mind that Egypt already had had a successful agricultural system in place for several millennia when the Greeks appeared. The history of Ptolemaic Egypt is not a unity; it changed with the course of time, particularly in the Ptolemies’ governance of their Egyptian subjects. In the end run it was not possible to exclude the indigenous population and at the same time to compete successfully against the other nations of the Mediterranean. It is also important to remember that the Greeks were never evenly distributed throughout Egypt, especially at the beginning of Ptolemaic rule.

The two cultures existed side-by-side, but they seldom truly mixed in any meaningful fashion. It was possible for an Egyptian to Hellenize, but the process was rather formidable, since it essentially required abandoning the native culture almost totally. To a great extent in the past this had been true of foreigners entering Egypt who had wished to adopt the Egyptian way of life.

Language and dress, rather than any notions of race or ethnicity, were the means by which one became Egyptian (or Greek). In general, one does not really see anything quite like what we would consider as racism until perhaps Roman times. If nothing else, the willingness of Greek men to marry Egyptian women – not merely to have them as concubines – speaks loudly to that point. As Ritner puts it, (“Cross-cultural Interaction,” p. 289), “Clear evidence of any sort of racial or cultural chauvinism is exceedingly rare for the Ptolemaic period.” Attitudes of cultural superiority, of course, were another matter, but this feeling of superiority was by no means necessarily racist in its nature. In both societies there was a great degree of snobbishness towards outsiders. The very word “barbarian” was derived from a Greek word that originally meant “a non-Greek speaker.” The Ionian Greeks, for example, were well aware that their Persian overlords whom they describe as “barbarians” possessed a very high level of cuture. Clannishness of both Greeks and Egyptians certainly existed, but this is to be expected given the cultural and language differences in the towns where they lived side-by-side.

Certainly one of the most telling indicators in this matter was the prevalence of intermarriage. Intermarriage was even more common out in the countryside and among the military where there was not as much of a wealth and status difference between the Egyptians and Greeks. In all fairness, it should be pointed out that in almost every case the documentation shows a Greek or Macedonian man marrying an Egyptian woman and seldom an Egyptian man marrying a Greek woman. The law seems to have been that the children inherited their ethnic identification through the father. A Greek woman marrying an Egyptian man would probably be losing her status (“marrying down”). However, in the end run, Egyptian culture was always more tolerant in its outlook than the Greek.

For another critical aspect of making a cross-cultural transformation in Ptolemaic society, we should consider a word borrowed from contemporary Greek society, i.e. “barbarian.” As pointed out above, although today the word means a brutish, uncultured, and unlettered foreigner, in Ptolemaic times the term primarily meant “one who did not speak the Greek language.” It is important also to remember the significance of the term for this period – the Hellenistic Period, lit. the Greek-speaking Period. Here again, both the Greek and Egyptian cultures were in agreement that in order for one to enter their respective societies, one had to speak their language.

“Church” and “State” in Ptolemaic Egypt

These entities two were never separate in pharaonic Ancient Egypt, so we shouldn’t expect too much difference in this respect during the Ptolemaic period. Nevertheless, the Greeks tended to keep church and state more separate, except, strikingly enough, in Ptolemaic Egypt. These rulers strongly promoted a cult of the divine king, even while the monarch was still alive. This cult, furthermore, was aimed primarily at the Greek part of the population. By Alexander’s time there were three politically relevant groups in Egypt: the military, the bureaucracy and the clergy. Of these, the “church,” i.e. the temple system and the associated priesthoods, was the trickiest aspect of the culture to deal with. The Egyptian temples were the main repositories of the native cultured and the primary site of native elite intellectual life. The Greek administration recognized this from the beginning and acted accordingly. The idea would be to co-opt this power to the benefit of the Ptolemaic kings. Above all, this aid to the “church” took the form of fiscal relief and exemptions from various regulations, and most important of all temple building along the requisite financial support.

It should be borne in mind that for a great deal of the Ptolemaic regime, the only means for advancement for many native Egyptians were through the temple and priestly administrations. The phyle system of rotating priestly activity, which had the practical result of the priests spending most of their time in cultivating their lands for their own support, was a major factor in the economy. This meant that the priests were by no means separate from the daily concerns of their fellow Egyptians. Instead men who were nominally priests moved among the rest of the population as regular citizens, especially in the economic sense. In addition, this mean that for the practical matters of most of their daily life, Egyptian priests were literally neighbors to the Greeks living on the military cleruchies (land allotments), who were military men by their formal occupation, but farmers for most practical concerns. These two important groups knew each other well. The combination of their priestly and agricultural duties meant that the Egyptian priests’ role as the guardians of the traditional culture was quite fitting.

The priesthood may have been something of a hereditary occupation at this time. Egyptian culture required that there should be textual support for the legitimacy of the Ptolemaic kings in the temples. At the same time, these temples were the chief locations for the support of the native Egyptian culture. The Greek rulers needed the Egyptians to put the correct formulations on their legitimacy.

Some Egyptian cults had quite a bit of success among the Greeks, especially that of Osiris and Isis. The cult of Serapis represents an interesting attempt on the part of the Greek ruling house to integrate into the Egyptian belief system, but it remained a primarily Greek-oriented cult. The Serapis cult was not, however, an attempt to integrate the two religious spheres as is sometimes stated. Serapis was not worshipped under that name among the Egyptians. Also striking was the deification of the Ptolemy kings and queens even while they were alive, something relatively uncommon among the Egyptians. Ptolemy I by-name “Sotor (the Savior),” eventually took on a religious designation as well. The royal cult was a most important aspect of Ptolemaic kingship. It is hard, however, to judge how this transferred into genuine religious feeling among the Greeks, let alone the Egyptians.

The use of the Egyptian gods for oracles was still quite common among the native populace, another factor in maintaining the influence of the old religion. In this, one can say that their gods were still very much involved in the daily life of the native population.

From the native point of view, legitimacy also had to be transferred into the practical political sphere. The Egyptians had to identify with the aspirations, domestic and foreign, of the Ptolemies. The temples were a particularly good medium for the spreading of royalist propaganda, as had been the case in pharaonic times.

Counter-Greek propaganda existed in literary forms that was produced and broadcast primarily through the temples. The “Demotic Chronicle” and the “Potters Prophecy” reveal that there were opposing opinions among the Egyptian intellectuals to the ruling power. Of course, with these oracles’ predictions of eventual disaster to befall the foreign interlopers, such documents expressed a type of wishful thinking prevalent among the native population that had to be placated. At the same time, the Nectanebos Legend, stating that Alexander was an offshoot of the last legitimate native king is significant, perhaps expressing a desire among the native population to see in the new rulers a tie with the last of the independent Egyptian monarchs.

Other Aspects of Greek-Egyptian Relationships

The appearance of the Greeks in Egypt was in effect a social revolution in a different form. Egypt was now dominated by a new elite. Before the arrival of the Greeks, furthermore, status in society was determined largely by one’s function, i.e. occupational caste. The country was not merely divided now between rich and poor, for members of either group could become wealthy or poor. Originally, the Greeks came as mercenaries who were settled as colonists, the so-called cleruchies (kleruchoi, from the term kleroi “allotments”). Generally speaking, this land grant system was not normally the practice with mercenaries elsewhere in the ancient world who often went home after their enlistments were over, so the kleruchoi were something of a Ptolemaic innovation. As time went on, other Greeks entered Egypt in considerable numbers through immigration, but never amounting to a substantial proportion of the overall population. Nevertheless, these Greeks now became the dominant voice in the historical record. After all, the literacy rate in their own language was higher among the Greeks than it was among the Egyptians. Outside of Alexandria and its immediate vicinity, the major Greek settlements were at Naukratis, Philadelphia (in the Fayyum), and Ptolemais (near Dendera in Upper Egypt). These settlements were unlike the Greeks’ former pattern of colonization through independent cities, since these places had none of the same degree of self-government found in the colonies outside of Egypt. The local governments, the politeumata, in many ways were formed largely as a means of preserving (Greek) national identity more than anything else. The alphabetized Greek language, considerably easier to learn for the purposes of reading and writing, was to have a profound influence on the profile of literacy in the country. To enter the bureaucracy one had to Hellenize, i.e. adopt the Greek language. There are cases in which the officials would label someone who could read Egyptian (but not Greek) as being illiterate -- a rather telling attitude!

Obviously, under circumstances such as these, an ambitious young Egyptian would have to learn Greek if he wished to be successful in this society and its administration. Significantly, despite the Greek attitude towards the Egyptian language, it was possible to deposit documents in Demotic for legal purposes during the Ptolemaic period, provided the matter concerned Egyptian parties alone; an abstract of the document in Greek was frequently appended. The Romans discontinued this practice of limited acceptance of the Demotic dialect—a major blow to the survival of the ancient language. In addition, there seem to have been a great number of bilingual people in the land, but these men and women for the most part were in the middle and upper strata of society. In respect to written language, however, it was the flow towards Greek that overwhelmingly predominated. Greeks were not apt to learn how to read and write Egyptian. Increasingly the native language was supported only by the priestly class. Consequently, one never sees Greeks playing a role in Egyptian cult, which was ultimately quite language oriented, especially because it was the main repository of Egyptian culture. At the same time, however, certain Egyptian deities enjoyed considerable popularity among the Greeks, whereas Greek religion never found much support among the Egyptians. This does not mean that the native religion did not receive subsidies from the royal house—quite to the contrary, as remarked previously. The Jews were another prominent group of foreigners in the land, located mostly in Alexandria, but could be found on the local level as well. On the whole, the Ptolemies seem to have had a “philo-Semitic” policy. The Jews did not mix as well with the Egyptians, however.

The Greeks intermarried extensively with the Egyptians. Discrimination was seldom on any basis which one might call racial by today’s standards. At least among the Egyptians, marriage was considered to be a strictly civil matter, much like other civil contracts and removed from any interference from civil and religious authorities. Language and customs determined who one was in the eyes of society. Obviously, clothing also played an important role here. The native legal system was allowed to exist, but only where it did not conflict with the dominant Greek interests. Mixed courts even existed to a limited extent. Again, this was a practice which the Romans were to end.

As mentioned above, citizenship from the Greek point of view was hard to come by and strictly controlled. People were associated with ‘tribes’ and other local units (demes) that had Greek names. On the local level Greek males belonged to assemblies, gymnasia, acted as magistrates and members of local councils, but the overall practice was not really democratic in the sense of the older Greek tradition. Often one had to show Greek ancestry to enter into this combination of educational and fraternal system. Wealth and privilege were tied to governmental obligations as well. This distinctive set-up was allowed to persist into the Roman era.

Native Revolts and Resistance

There were several of native uprisings of varying severity during the Ptolemaic regime. These colored heavily the Greeks’ relations with their Egyptian subjects, forcing them towards increasing accommodation if they wished to survive the pressures from the outside. During the Third Syrian war (246-241) in Euergetes’ reign (Ptolemy III Euergetes “Benefactor” I 246-222), there were disturbances caused by the economic hardships arising from the need to support a long war. The resulting unrest was severe enough to force the king’s return to Egypt. Thebes was the focal point of one serious revolt in 207/6, and seemed to have housed two native “pharaohs” for a while, perhaps with Nubian backing. Dissatisfaction was rife well up into the 190s in this region of Egypt. As I may have pointed out before, this uprising may have all been a result of the prominent role of the Egyptian troops at the battle of Raphia in 217 BC and the failure for the Ptolemies to throw enough sops in the direction of the Egyptians afterwards. This intermittent series of uprisings were perhaps the most worrisome of all and Ptolemy V’s Rosetta (or: Memphis) Decree was probably a direct result. Ptolemy V (Ptolemy V Epiphanes “God-manifest” 204-180) was crowned at Memphis according to the ancient Egyptian custom as well, even though he continued to rule from Alexandria. Other revolts broke out in the 160s then again 130s as well. Later on we have literary evidence of resistance to Egyptian rule, such as the so-called Oracle of the Potter, a Demotic text predicting the end of the reign of Alexandria and the return to Memphis of the (Egyptian) ruling house, i.e. the restoration of native rule. Thus, both pressure within and pressure without forced the Ptolemies to bring Egyptians more fully into both the military and the governing apparatus.

The focal point for most of the Egyptian resistance to Greek rule was centered on the temples, which were the focal points of Egyptian cultural activity.

Cultural Disasters under Ptolemy VIII and later

For all its great reputation as the intellectual capital of the Hellenistic world, Alexandria did not maintain that position for ever. An enormous blow to its reputation came in 145 BCE when Ptolemy VIII (Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physcon 145-116) expelled nearly all the leading intellectual lights of his capital city in a fit of unexplained pique. He removed Aristarchos of Samothrace, a man of world-wide scholarly reputation, as the head of the famous Library, replacing him with a low-level military officer, so as to deepen the insult. The Museum and its scholars suffered similarly. As a consequence, even when the city was to regain some of its intellectual prestige in later years, it never quite recovered from this needless blow. During the Mitradaic war, many writers, artists, and thinkers from all over the region fled to Alexandria to avoid this clash between Rome and the Pontic kingdom. Rome, now an intellectual center in its own right, also benefited from this flight.

Nearly a hundred years after this great banishment, Julius Caesar appeared in Alexandria in the summer of 48 BCE. Among other things, he attempted to settle the dispute between Cleopatra (VII) and her brother Ptolemy XII, by establishing a joint rule between them. He had a love affair with Cleopatra from which sprang their child, Casareon (Ptolemy XIV). Unfortunately, the struggle between the various parties did not end, and in 47 BCE the Alexandrians rose up against Caesar, who at one point barely escaped with his life. During this revolt (or riot) the great Library supposedly caught fire and burnt to the ground. Other versions of the events, however, say that it was only a warehouse in which copies of works for export were stored that was destroyed and the Library survived only to be destroyed later. Caesar later defeated the Egyptians, killing Ptolemy XIII in the process. He handed over the reigns of the country to Cleopatra and Ptolemy XIV to rule jointly and, returning home, left three legions in Egypt to maintain Roman control. The country became a Roman province between 47-44. Caesar left before his son was born

The Economy

This was by far the most successful aspect of the Ptolemaic regime. It was still primarily agriculturally based, although in Alexandria foreign trade and finance were to play a considerable role in the life of that city. Trade guilds, something which we know of in small numbers in pharaonic times, became more important at this time. Royal patronage was important in this respect. It is important to bear in mind that even as the Ptolemies were declining as a military and political power (and as Rome’s influence was growing), Egypt’s position as a major economic power remained virtually unchanged.

Most labor was paid for in kind rather than coinage. Outside of Alexandria probably only around one-fifth to one-sixth of the population lived in what might be considered an urban environment, but still, this was a much higher percentage than had been the case during pharaonic times. Alexandria, always a special case, grew to an immense size—it has been estimated that in the early days of Roman control Alexandria may have had over a million inhabitants. Villages were quite common, but could never grow much in size due to the constraints of the environment. Plagues could wipe out a large segment of any town. Out in the countryside the peasantry lived by subsistence farming, but real, abject poverty was rare. Consequently, Egypt may have enjoyed something of a population boom during the Ptolemaic Period. On occasion when the burdens of taxation, etc. became too great, large segments of the farming population would abandon their plots and flee into the nearby desert – anachoreisis, as the phenomenon was called. This phenomenon increased under the Romans.

The main impact of the Greeks was the successful implementation of coinage, and therefore, money. This did not however end the barter or exchange aspect of the economy, but it did greatly increase the role of markets in the system. Taxes, certainly, continued to be paid in kind, since the peasantry by-and-large participated only marginally in the monetized segment of the economy. These people, furthermore, no longer needed to be located near the river to participate in the economy. Fairly soon on, the coinage became “closed,” i.e. foreign currency was not allowed and had to be exchanged for the Ptolemaic coinage. People were aware of any fooling around with the currency, so debasement or the like could not be done by the ruling house with impunity. The government may have taken about 30% of the gross national product of the country in taxes. Additional governmental influence on the economy came in the form of regulations. We have no idea of how the rate of taxation compared with the practices of the ancient pharaonic regime.

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)
282-246 B.C.
Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which means 'Brother/Sister-loving', was the second ruler of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. He was married to his full sister Arsinoe II. His greatest contribution to the world is that it was he, who desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.

Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest "Eleazar" in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel to come to Alexandria. These translators were known as "The seventy-two" (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five). The reason for so many translators, was so that the many translations could be compared to each other for accuracy.

The translators are said to have arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy's gracious hospitality, and translated the Pentateuch: [The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures], believed by some to have been written by Moses. The work was completed in seventy-two days? Although opinions differ, most agree on 282 B.C, as the time of completion. Thus the SEPTUAGINT, {the original Bible}, derived from the Latin word for "seventy", was written. Of course, all of this is Very Controversial, and opinions do vary.

In the springtime of 51 B.C, Ptolemy Auletes died, and left his kingdom to his eighteen year old daughter Cleopatra, and her younger brother Ptolemy XIII, who was twelve at the time. Cleopatra was born in 69 B.C, in Alexandria Egypt. She had two older sisters, Cleopatra VI and Berenice IV, as well as a younger sister, Arsinoe IV. There was two younger brothers as well, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. It is thought that Cleopatra VI may have died as a child, and that Auletes had his daughter Berenice beheaded.

Also upon Ptolemy Auletes death, "Pompey" a Roman leader, was left in charge of the children. During the two centuries that preceded Auletes death, the Greek Ptolemies had been allied with the Romans. Now the Ptolemies' strength was failing, and the Roman Empire was rising. City after city was falling to Roman power, and the Ptolemies could do nothing but create a pacts with them.

Over time, the Romans gained more and more control over Egypt. Tributes had to be paid to keep them away. When Ptolemy Auletes died, the fall of the Dynasty appeared closer and closer. Thus begins the "well known" saga of Cleopatra, Caesar and Mark Antony.

Below is a recent reconstruction of Cleopatra based on her sister's "negroid" skeletal remains:

The Romans
With the death of Cleopatra, Egypt passed into Roman hands. And so now, Egypt has a Roman King. It is with the ascension of the Roman emperor Constantine, that a new era begins for Alexandria, as well as for the Empire as a whole. By defeating his co-ruler "Licinius" (Rome had begun the practice of having two rulers, one for the eastern half of the Empire, and one for the western half), Constantine now is sole ruler.

He established the eastern capital for the Empire in what is now modern Turkey, in a city called Byzantium, which he renamed Constantinople. (After this city is sacked and taken over by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, it would be renamed Istanbul). The Romans, as the Greeks had earlier done, assume Egyptian customs and regalia, and do their best to drain the country dry. As had happened when the Greeks took control of Egypt, now Romans and those under Roman hegemony have unfettered access to Egypt. Further eroding the population demographic.

Egyptians fared no better under Roman occupation than they had under the Greeks. It was just more of the same, which continues unto today, marginalization into obscurity. With the occupiers now claiming ethnic identity.

As would be expected, under Greek, and then Roman rule; Egypt would be a tale of three people. The White Greeks or Romans; The "Mixed-Race" Greeks and Romans; (it is unknown how many of these people CAME to Egypt as mixed race people, (Greece and Rome were both mixed race societies at this time); and how many were Egypt "Mixed"; and then the indigenous Black African Egyptians. There can be no doubt that the Black African Egyptians would be in the more difficult position. This is demonstrated by the relative quality of Black African Egyptian tombs, as compared to White and mixed-race tombs of the Graeco-Roman period.

---

Biological Evidence Confirming Racial Distinction Between the Black Pre-Early Dynastic Periods and the White/Mixed Race Late Dynastic Period:

Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.

Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990). Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."

-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528

"To further elaborate on the "Late Period" group that really brought the biological change to ancient Egypt. Still, it appears that the process of state formation involved a large indigenous component. Outside influence and admixture with extraregional groups primarily occurred in Lower Egypt—perhaps during the later dynastic, but especially in Ptolmaic and Roman times (also Irish, 2006). Further analysis of the population history of ancient Egyptians." Schillaci MA, Irish JD, Wood CC. 2009

"Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid traits.” Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404."

More info.

---

Frank Yurco (racist)



The Depictions of the ancient Egyptians that famed Egyptologist Frank Yurco deliberately mislabeled the Kemite below in his book as a Nubian when the Medu Neter states plainly that this was the representative for the ancient Kemetic type (RMT):

 

‘In 1998, after reading Yurco’s “Two Tomb-Wall Painted Reliefs of Rameses III and Sety I and Ancient Nile Valley Population Diversity” in which he proclaimed that the “four races of man” pastiche used by many African-centred writers to demonstrate that the ancient Egyptians viewed themselves as a black people, is based on a nineteenth century copy that is incorrect, I informed Yurco that not only had I been in the tomb of Ramesses III but that I personally photographed the wall painting. He seemed somewhat surprised at the time. I invited him to view the photos at a training session for volunteers that I was conducting the following day at the Field Museum of Natural History . He did not show. Although we would occasionally see one another at the museum , nothing more was said about his article or my photographs, that is until the museum conducted another volunteer training session for the new Cleopatra exhibit which opened in October 2001. I saw Yurco at the first session and decided then and there that I would give him a copy of “The Unwrapping of Egyptology”, which was first published in the Kemetic Voice in 1999. The following week I did just that. I personally handed him a copy of the Kemetic Voice and asked him to read the article and to give me feedback. Amiably, he agreed. However, he did not show for the final training session. I do not know whether my article had anything to do with his absence, but I was reminded of the first time I tried to present him with this information in 1998. Finally an opportunity presented itself during a walk-through of the Cleopatra exhibit. As I stood near the exit of the exhibit, I saw Yurco explaining certain aspects of the exhibit to a group of volunteers. I positioned myself so that it was virtually impossible for him to pass without seeing me. To my amazement, Yurco scurried right past me without uttering one word. I literally ran after him. Fortunately, there were two other members of the Kemetic Institute present to witness this encounter. When I caught Yurco and asked him what he thought about the article, the first thing he said was “I still maintain that it is a pastiche.” It was obvious from his statement that he had read the article. I again agreed with him on that point and pressed him further with regard to the contents of the pastiche and my photographs. In other words, were the ancient Egyptians as depicted in the tomb of Ramesses III shown in the same skin colour and dress as the Ku****es? Still walking hurriedly and looking quite ill at ease Yurco finally conceded that the depiction of the ancient Egyptians in the tomb of Ramesses III shows them to have the same black skin colour and dress as the Ku****es. When asked if this was a valid representation of the ancient Egyptians, Yurco again conceded. ‘ (p34).'The Battle for Kemet' Charles A.Grantham

Credit to Ozzy of old ES as the source:

The benevolent gods were called KemHor (Black/good Horus) or KemIsi

(Black/good Isis), whereas the evil gods were prefaced with Deshret

(Red). Here is the Deshret/Red construct:

(EHD p889b,890a)

Desher = to be read, to terrify

Deshreti = horrible, terrible

Deshret = red thing; blood; gore (Deret in Wolof)

Deshrut = Red devils

Deshru = red ones - the wicked gods who were associated with Set

----- Set = the God of Evil (627b)

---------------- Hompt Set = Red (Asiatic) copper (486a)

---------------- Hompt Kemet = Black (Egyptian) copper

---------------- Tamahu = The Created Red (White) people; Europeans

[zarahan]

Contrary to the racist lies seen on the National Geographic and History Channel all of the native ancient Egyptian Pharaohs were black, and by black I mean almost all of them were thick lipped and wide nosed (don't know where the "they were mostly "Horner" looking" nonsense came from).

Incorrect, and seems like a troll bait statement, or a bogus strawman set
up to demonstrate "refuting the Afrocentrists." No, "almost all" the ancient
Egyptian Pharoahs were NOT "thick lipped and wide nosed." They varied, especially
near the later dynastic era, or when foreign influence was dominant as in
the Hyskos era. And Diop never made any such claim as that opening above.
African people also vary in features, for Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity
as credible scholars show.

There is no need to claim almost all pharaohs looked like Louis Armstrong or Mike Tyson.
That's a strawman statement. They didn't, and common sense should tell you that. Common
sense also shows that not all Africans look alike, and they don;t have to look alike to
be "authentically African."

Just as those who push the simplistic "Horner looking" meme are dubious, so we
too should not fall into that easy trap, & need to be careful to keep with the data and not make
sweeping statements the enemies of a balanced African bio-history are all too ready
to seize on, exploit and distort. Your roundup of images is good but they themselves
show that not all Pharaohs stereotypically looked like Louis Armstrong or Tyson.
Which is fine, because Africans too, do not "all look alike."



PS: I think I deleted some original pics trying to get the URLS, please restore if missing.

[zarahan]

From earliest times, even from the time of unified Egypt's first Pharaoh - Narmer, Egypt's southern neighbor Nubia, {modern Sudan}, had always been treated as Egypt's private preserve for conquest, plunder and looting.

Not quite, "from earliest times" and "always been treated." Indeed
per scholars Bruce Trigger and Bruce Williams Nubia was the first to
pioneer the divine kingship pattern that later formed the basis of the Egyptian
pharaonic system. And the Dynasties were established by
hegemons from the Nubian region, and its borderlands in southern Egypt.
Again, watch sweeping statements sch as "from earliest times" an "always."
It is more accurate to say that IN SOME ERAS Egypt dominated the area
known as Nubia.

Also keep in mind that long before the 25th Dynasty, forces based in
the Nubian and Sudanic regions almost conquered Egypt. Egyptian propaganda
inscriptions have hidden the full story of this defeat for millennia, but it is
now documented. We now know that the southern regions were not mere
pushovers or private playgrounds for the Egyptians.
--------------------------------------------------------------



Tomb reveals Ancient Egypt?s humiliating secret
By Dalya Alberge
Our correspondent reports on how details of crushing defeat by another Nile superpower were kept hidden
ANCIENT Egyptians ?airbrushed? out of history one of their most humiliating defeats in battle, academics believe. In what the British Museum described as the discovery of a lifetime, a 3,500-year-old inscription shows that the Sudanese kingdom of Kush came close to destroying its northern neighbour.

The revelation is contained in 22 lines of sophisticated hieroglyphics deciphered by Egyptologists from the British Museum and Egypt after their discovery in February in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt.

Vivian Davies, Keeper of the museum?s Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, said: ?In many ways this is the discovery of a lifetime, one that changes the textbooks. We?re absolutely staggered by it.?

The inscription details previously unknown important battles unprecedented ?since the time of the god? ? the beginning of time. Experts now believe that the humiliation of defeat was one that the Ancient Egyptians preferred to omit from their historical accounts.

Contemporary Egyptian descriptions had led historians to assume that the kingdom of Kush was a weak and barbaric neighbouring state for hundreds of years, although it boasted a complex society with vast resources of gold dominating the principal trade routes into the heart of Africa. It did eventually conquer Egypt, in the 8th century BC.

Mr Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: ?Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.

?They swept over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit. This is the first time we?ve got evidence. Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time.

?Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have eliminated it. That?s how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive, and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kushites weren?t interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of damage.?

The inscription was found between two internal chambers in a rock-cut tomb that was covered in soot and dirt. It appeared gradually as the grime was removed.

Mr Davies said: ?I thought it would be a religious text, but it turned out to be historical. Gradually, a real narrative emerged, a brand new text inscribed in red paint, reading from right to left.?

The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550BC).

The inscription describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush and its allies from the south, including the land of Punt, on the southern coast of the Red Sea. It says that vast territories were affected and describes Sobeknakht?s heroic role in organising a counter-attack.

The text takes the form of an address to the living by Sobeknakht: ?Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw. . .? It describes the decisive role played by ?the might of the great one, Nekhbet?, the vulture-goddess of El Kab, as ?strong of heart against the Nubians, who were burnt through fire?, while the ?chief of the nomads fell through the blast of her flame?.

The discovery explains why Egyptian treasures, including statues, stelae and an elegant alabaster vessel found in the royal tomb at Kerma, were buried in Kushite tombs: they were war trophies.

Mr Davies said: ?That has never been properly explained before. Now it makes sense. It?s the key that unlocks the information. Now we know they were looted trophies, symbols of these kings? power over the Egyptians. Each of the four main kings of Kush brought back looted treasures.?

Page 1

Page 2
The alabaster vessel is contemporary with the latter part of the 17th Dynasty. It bears a funerary text ?for the spirit of the Governor, Hereditary Prince of Nekheb, Sobek- nakht?. Now it is clear that it was looted from Sobeknakht?s tomb, or an associated workshop, by the Kushite forces and taken back to Kerma, where it was buried in the precincts of the tomb of the Kushite king who had led or inspired the invasion.

The El Kab tomb was looted long ago, probably in antiquity. There is more to investigate at the enormous site and the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now making such work a priority.

Rich pickings from ebony and ivory

Kush was a vast territory spanning modern-day northern Sudan. Ruled by kings who were buried with large quantities of luxury goods, including jewellery and inlaid furniture, it had complex political and religious institutions.

The economy was based on trading in ivory, ebony and incense, as well as slaves. Its skilled craftsmen left behind some of the finest ceramics produced in the ancient world.

The independent kingdom of Kush arose during the 8th century BC. The native kings laid claim to the Egyptian throne, declaring themselves the true heirs of Thutmose III and other great pharaonic ancestors. Under the leadership of King Piye (c747-716BC), they conquered Egypt, ruling as its 25th Dynasty.

The reign of King Taharqo (690-664BC) was a high point of the Kushite empire. He erected imposing temples, shrines and statues throughout the Nile Valley. His pyramid, the largest of the Kushite examples, soared to more than 48m (160ft).

Over 4,000 years interaction between the empires was inevitable. While they had different funerary practices at the time of the El Kab inscription ? the Egyptians had tombs and pyramids while the Kushites preferred tumuli (grave mounds) ? the Kushites went on to build pyramids and mummify their dead.

In return, the Egyptians were particularly influenced by Kushite jewellery design.




Original Times article:
www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1955811.ece

[anastasiaescrava]

What evidence do you have that the majority of Ancient Egyptians had BROAD features?
Why do you keep insisting that Broad Features are Authentic when it's already been established that Africans naturally come in all shape, sizes and facial features?
FACT.
Why would they not have anything in common with the people closest to them (horners)?

[asante]

Mar 19, 2014 11:43:03 GMT -5 zarahan said:

No, "almost all" the ancient
Egyptian Pharoahs were NOT "thick lipped and wide nosed." They varied, especially near the later dynastic era, or when foreign influence was dominant as in the Hyskos era.

While black African diversity has never been denied by myself to have existed in ancient Egypt it is clear from the chain of statuary above that my claim that "almost all" of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were depicted as having facial features stereotypical of these African groups is supported. The diversity of ancient Egypt has never been put into context. Perhaps there were in fact certain groups who were generally perceived as the "ruling classes" (The Anu) among these distinct groups (as some ancient text seems to indicate).

Also the reason that this huge change occurred during the Late Dynastic Period (particularly the Greco-Roman era) was not only because of that "European"/mulatto element being absorbed into the northern Egyptian population, but also because of the dispersal of contemporary West-Equatorial African groups from ancient Egypt/Nubia. 

And Diop never made any such claim as that opening above. African people also vary in features, for Africa has the highest phenotypic diversity as credible scholars show.

I believe that it was Yoseph Ben Jachannan that stated that, but I'll post it when I come across it. Until then though Robert Bauval raves about of how "obviously Sub Saharan" the statuary is. By "Sub Saharan" Robert Bauval is 9/10 referring to "these Africans":



Now while that was a very incorrect implication of indigenous African diversity on his part, his overall point is at least clear and correct as far as I've seen. The statuary indicates our (an AA presumably) African types as opposed to Africans who generally appear with more gracile features (which includes both Nilotes and Horners) comprised most of the ruling classes:



How many of the pharonic statues above would Somalia's ex-president mirror?

There is no need to claim almost all pharaohs looked like Louis Armstrong or Mike Tyson.

It's not a matter of "claiming" lol. All you have you have do is post the statuary of these individuals to shut even the most die hard racist up. As simple an effective as this is to ending these silly race debates, some over on ES (following Keita) tell us to avoid using this evidence. The reason that some have chose to avoid using this evidence was logically coming from some fear that thick lips and wide noses were a minority in Egyptian art and you would get caught up in a debate going that route. Well clearly from this thread that fear is based on BS. In fact this is perhaps the most damning and effective method to sweeping these debates about ancient Egypt. It was from the statuary alone that made Count De'Volney conclude this about the population history of ancient Egypt.:

"All the Egyptians," wrote de Volney, "have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto. I was tempted to attribute it to the climate, but when I visited the Sphinx, its appearance gave me the key to the riddle. On seeing that head, typically Negro in all its features, I remembered the remarkable passage where Herodotus says:

'As for me, I judge the Colchians to be a colony of the Egyptians

because, like them, they are black with woolly hair...

"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance)

"In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.

"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

Original Times article:

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1955811.ece

Thanks for posting this. I wasn't too fund of that write up of Nubian and Egyptian interaction because he didn't note this nor  did he really go into the Nubian origins of ancient Egypt, but I didn't want to mess up the sequence of information that he was presenting.

[asante]

Mar 19, 2014 15:20:09 GMT -5 anastasiaescrava said:

What evidence do you have that the majority of Ancient Egyptians had BROAD features?

Well the first line of evidence is in fact the statuary attesting to this claim posted atop. I also said the "pharaohs", not the general ancient Egyptian population. The Unesco Conference of 1974 concluded that over 1/3 of the Dynastic Egyptian population was "Negroid" or "broad featured". A more recent study shows that these broad featured Egyptians who descended from the "Negroid" Badarians suddenly ceased to be in Egypt during the Late Period when great change occurred in the population:

On this basis, many have postulated that the Badarians are relatives to South African populations (Morant, 1935 G. Morant, A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari based on measurements taken by Miss BN Stoessiger and Professor DE Derry, Biometrika 27 (1935), pp. 293–309.Morant, 1935; Mukherjee et al., 1955; Irish and Konigsberg, 2007). The archaeological evidence points to this relationship as well. (Hassan, 1986) and (Hassan, 1988) noted similarities between Badarian pottery and the Neolithic Khartoum type, indicating an archaeological affinity among Badarians and Africans from more southern regions. Furthermore, like the Badarians, Naqada has also been classified with other African groups, namely the Teita (Crichton, 1996; Keita, 1990).

Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here. In the current analysis, the Badari sample more closely clusters with the Naqada sample and the Kerma sample. However, it also groups with the later pooled sample from Dynasties XVIII–XXV. -- Godde K. (2009) An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? Homo. 2009;60(5):389-404.

That "Negroid" element (which dominated southern Egypt) went further south into Kush following Taharqa's defeat which ushered in the Late Period, and from Kush they went into their respective locations. 

Why do you keep insisting that Broad Features are Authentic when it's already been established that Africans naturally come in all shape, sizes and facial features?

Well for one I only emphasize "broad features" because I'm generally referring to one particular group of Africans (my ancestral M2 lineage carrying, Niger-Congo speaking ancestors) in my discussions. Through that emphasis I've never stated anything remotely implying that others groups like Nilotes and Horners were less African. You might want to back and reread whatever you thought I was saying.

FACT.Why would they not have anything in common with the people closest to them (horners)?

What? Where you getting this from me?

[asante]

Ramses II (though not father and son) was Tutsi.

Ramses II


Ramses II and Tutsi

---

What does name "Tutsi" translate into?

Ethnic names in the Mdu Ntr (Kemet/Egypt)

Tutsi

Tutsi "the assembled gods"; "all of them (gods)"

---

While Tutsis are Bantu speakers and are overwhelming comprised of M2 lineages, their noted distinction in phenotype from their neighboring groups (most notably the Hutu) is due to Nilotic admixture. This would explain why they are seen as taller and have more "gracile" features, as those are Nilotic traits. 

[anansi]

are these men and women not horners? if so why use the man below as if to typify a Horner.


While I have never been to the area I am willing to bet that such look as the gentleman in the suit have is a minority among Horners but not unknown the features of the above is in no way different from the statues and carvings you posted,sorry to say this but this thread is nothing but a continuation of your previous thread.
Sub Saharan look according to Bauval, there is nothing special to it as a matter of fact the Horn is Sub Saharan,the 11th dyn rulers

Notice where these folks are located especially the Mentu Setet,these are the folks who are connected to the "Mentu" named kings of the 11 dynasty the Intiu-seti of the 12th Dynasty I and A are interchangeable like for instance Imn is the same as Amen thus we get the Amen named kings as in Amenhotep look where some of their kingsmen were located.

"Ancestry of Senusert. In the tomb of prince Uah-ka B at Qau, in an inner chamber, is painted a scene of the son of Uah-ka, named Senusert; there is no cartouche. As the Uah-ka family were of about the 4th or 5th dynasty (the name being unknown either in the 11th of the 12th dynasty), this implies that the 12th dynasty Senusert family descended from the Uah-ka family. Here we have, then, a link between the Galla type on the sphinxes and the 12th dynasty. The separate identification of these sphinxes follows further on. The 12th dynasty was undoubtedly descended from Amenemhat, the great vizier of the 11th dynasty. It seems, then, that he married the heiress of the Uah-ka family, as stated in the pseudo-prophecy, "A king shall come from the south whose name is Ameny, son of a Nubian woman." She called her son by the family name Senusert, and he was the founder of the 12th dynasty, according to Manetho. Waka is the god of the Gallas." (Petrie, W.M.F., The Making of Egypt, 1939, p. 126)

The Alternate name for Galla is Oromo,
wysinger.homestead.com/12thdynastytree.html
In other words much of the sculptures you posted were in fact broad featured Horners by decent.







Thanks to Al-Takruri for producing Flinders over at ES
www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=8;t=007406

[zarahan]

Asante says:
While black African diversity has never been denied by myself to have existed in ancient Egypt it is clear from the chain of statuary above that my claim that "almost all" of the pharaohs of ancient Egypt were depicted as having facial features stereotypical of these African groups is supported.


Fair enough but you have shifted from your opening definition of
"almost all" having broad noses and thick lips, and even in the
pic gallery you show, several do not have those stereotypical
features. Also the map you show has folks with a wide range of
diversity- including millions of people with narrow noses and thin
lips. Basically you have qualified your opener, and that is fine.
Your comparison now is to a vast range of AFRICANS from West to
East to South Africa- ALL "true" representatives of the diversity
that is Africa. OK with me, I only objected to sweeping statements
that seemed to set up easy scores for the enemies of African
bio-history, based on their bogus "true negro" stereotype.



Also the reason that this huge change occurred during the Late Dynastic Period (particularly the Greco-Roman era) was not only because of that "European"/mulatto element being absorbed into the northern Egyptian population, but also because of the dispersal of contemporary West-Equatorial African groups from ancient Egypt/Nubia.

What I dont understand though is how the dispersal of West
African groups FROM the Nile Valley towards the West, would
lead to an increase of pople looking more like Arabs, Greeks,
Assyrians etc. Chancellor Williams posited that invading Asiatic/
Europeanized elements DISPLACED or forced out original "Negro
stocks" towards the West. I disagree with the notion of any vast
migration towrds the West because of incoming Asiatics. Yes
the invaders would conquer and disrupt the natives of Kemet,
and that conquest would involve some displacement. But I don't
see any big migration out, simply because "Middle Eastern" types showed up.

The "negro stocks" were already well in place, in a broad arc
stretching from Kemet all the way to the coast of Guinea.
Since the Sahara was once a broad greenbelt stretching across
Africa, a true "Pan African" entity, there has always been "Pan African"
movement- in good times, as well as in bad when the Sahara began
drying up and forcing people to migrate to better areas. I don't seen
any vast migration of contemporary groups. What Equitorial Groups
for example?

Is the dispersal you talk about due to Kemet being absorbed
or overrun to end the Dynastic era, or are you just talking general, generic,
routine dispersals of Africans throughout the millennia based on climate or
pastoralism, etc?





18th Dynasty- long before the 25th...

Until then though Robert Bauval raves about of how "obviously Sub Saharan" the statuary is. By "Sub Saharan" Robert Bauval is 9/10 referring to "these Africans"

I have no problem with this per se, save for the notion of
"obviously sub-Saharan." Bauval uses a lot of stereotypical
thinking in his writing- typical. Since Sub-Saharan Africans are
the most phenotypically diverse, "obviously Sub-Saharan" includes
the most variation on earth. Its time such scholars drop their
obsolete mentality. But anyway, "Sub-Saharan" Africa for example includes
places like Ethiopia and Somalia- where there are plenty of
narrow nosed types. But even these are nothing special in Africa
for further south in East Africa they are well in place. In fact narrow noses
can be a product of both desert and cool high altitude zones. Narrow
noses are nothing special in "SUB-SAHARAN" Africa. There are some who
seem to think they are so precious or special because of such noses, but
they ain't nuthin.




All you have you have do is post the statuary of these individuals to shut even the most die hard racist up

Actually it wont shut them up because they will find pics of pharaohs
with narrow noses and thin lips to contradict your example. You would
actually be playing into their hands- focused on pictures not hard data. The
ABSOLUTE and first point to establish and insist on is:

(1) The supreme ORIGINAL diversity of indigenous tropical Africans- the most
diverse in the world, They can have light skin, narrow noses and loose
hair all BUILT-IN without needing any "race mix" to explain why.
This is the first thing that must be established, and credible scholars
show that it is so. Africans are the originals- they can have almost any
feature as native, Even light skin color- (ultra pale/white pigment needs cold
northern Asiatic or more northerly Euro climates) - for light brown skin is found
not only in temperate South African zones among people like the San
but in heavy tropical West Africa, among the so-called 'Red Igbo" for example.
Africans don't need any "race mix" from anyone to explain why they
look different. Unless you establish this point as Job One you are not
doing real business.

(2) The second thing to insist on is that Africa has numerous climatic
zones from snow-capped mountains to sweltering lowland jungle, to
arid desert. This allows for plenty of local variation in features- no outsiders needed.
This does not mean Africa is free of outsiders, not at all -there have been plenty
over the years- but they are not essential to explain why Africans have varied looks.
Narrow noses for example can be shaped by the dry air of deserts,
or high altitude locations, or cool lowland. Narrow noses in Nile Valley are nothing special
for Egypt, the Sudan, parts of Chad etc has plenty of such desert, and thus
more than enough scope to produce narrow noses Africans don't need to wait
for any 'Eurasians" to show up to get a narrow nose. Cool coastal lowland,
high altitude plateau etc also contribute their own to tha mix.

(3) The third point to establish is that indigenous Africans are not static
entities huddling behind some sort of climatic "apartheid" barrier., They
do move around throughout the continent, with plenty of range when
the Sahara was a fertile greenbelt and more hospitable, and when that
dried up they kept moving as a response up and down the continent. Africans move
i all directions thru the Sahara.They came from the south to form the civilizations
of Kemet. They were never sitting around waiting for "Eurasians" or
"Middle Easterners" to show up to give them "diversity."

Once these three central points are established, all contenders can be readily
defeated. Swapping pictures leads into a trap for a counter picture can always
be produced. Pictures are valuable but as a SUPPLEMENT AFTER the three
central points are established:
1) The original diversity of humanity making Africans the most diverse population
2) The varied climate zones of Africa allowing for plenty of local variation on top of #1
3) African are not static entities who "know their place" but do move around

A fourth point to mention is that Europeans themselves have "race mixes"
from elsewhere- from the Middle East and from Africa as DNA haplogroups
originating in Africa found in Greece and southern Europe attest. If anyone is
hollering about "mixed Africans" then they must likewise holler about "Mixed Europeans"





In fact this is perhaps the most damning and effective method to sweeping these debates about ancient Egypt. It was from the statuary alone that made Count De'Volney conclude this about the population history of ancient Egypt.:

Nope, it can be a trap, with narrow-nosed pictures easily conjured
up to counter broad-nosed ones. As said above the three points must
be established first UP FRONT BEFORE picture swapping. Count
Volney is fair background but he wrote in the 1700s, based on his
personal impressions- hardly something likely to add weight to a
hard-nosed debate these days. To be effective we need the hard data of the
present era, and that generally supports Volney. But Volney
should come as a SECONDARY appetizer AFTER the THREE
CENTRAL COURSES of the main meal.


"When I visited the Sphinx, I could not help thinking that the figure of that monster furnished the true solution to the enigma (of how the modern Egyptians came to have their 'mulatto' appearance) "In other words, the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same type as all native-born Africans. That being so, we can see how their blood, mixed for several centuries with that of the Greeks and Romans, must have lost the intensity of its original color, while retaining nonetheless the imprint of its original mold.


But the notion of "mulatto appearance" is the old race model format circa 1700s
and still falls into the trap of needing a "race mix" with someone
to look different. The better model is that the tropical Africans in place
in Kemet did not need any race mix to look as they did. Cooler temperate
climes such as near the MEdit or in a green Saharan era can over time
make for lighter skin. The deserts that surround Egypt can produce narrow noses.
nd f courses Africans move all over the place, unlimited by any climatic "apartheid."
No "race mix" is needed to explain so-called "mulatto looks." There is no such
thing as "Mulatto appearance" where ultra diverse tropical Africans are concerned.
Now did latecoming Hyskos, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs etc mate with Egyptians
to produce mixes of some sort? Sure, BUT such latecomers are not needed to
explain say brown skin or narrow noses in Africa, or Kemet prior to their coming.





The Unesco Conference of 1974 concluded that over 1/3 of the Dynastic Egyptian population was "Negroid" or "broad featured"

It did, and while valuable for its time, is based on 1970s racial models. "Broad Featured"
is not the only thing that defines indigenous tropical Africans. Narrow features are just
as African. The "one-third" is actually understated once a fuller picture of African diversity
is considered. And "negroid" is an obsolete term. Much better and
more in keeping with modern data is "tropical African" which, as scholars
'show ARE THE M OST DIVERSE PEOPLE ON EARTH. "Negroid" is a
trap back to the old "true negro" stereotype. Hence certain scholars still use
the term or the concept in order to deny or downplay the full range of African diversity.
If it is not the stereotypical "true negroid" then they can allocate it to some other group.
This is their basic Eurocentricc game of denying and distorting African diversity.
Do not fall into this trap by using dated references uninformed by modern data.


A more recent study shows that these broad featured Egyptians who descended from the "Negroid" Badarians suddenly ceased to be in Egypt during the Late Period when great change occurred in the population:


The Goode study you quote though shows no such sudden disappearance.
Broad "negroid" Badarians co-existed with narrow nosed types-
they are all African, all native. The Badarians may have receded due to
any number of reasons, none of which require any incoming "Eurasians".
Climate change that drove OTHER types of AFRICANS into the Nile Valley
is a fair reason. People in desert areas tend to have narrower noses,
so an increase of these ancients could well have supplanted and/or absorbed
the broader Badarians, but again, these would be FELLOW AFRICANS, not "Hamites"
"Mediterraneans", "Orientals", "Middle Easterners" or "Eurasians.".



Nutter (1958) noted affinities between the Badarian and Naqada samples, a feature that Strouhal (1971) attributed to their skulls possessing “Negroid” traits. Keita (1992), using craniometrics, discovered that the Badarian series is distinctly different from the later Egyptian series, a conclusion that is mostly confirmed here.
Indeed but the "Negroid" traits are not only that of broad-nosed
Badarian. Narrow nosed is also a "negro" trait in Africa, to use the
old fashioned terminology, This is a crucial point you must consider.
Just because its narrow-nosed does not make it "non-negroid."
narrow noses in Africa are just as "negroid" as broad noses, for Africans
are the most diverse people in the world. Again, you have to establish
this point FIRST in these debates else you are on weaker ground. Picture
swapping is the last thing you do in the mix unless it can confirm the main point.


That "Negroid" element (which dominated southern Egypt) went further south into Kush following Taharqa's defeat which ushered in the Late Period, and from Kush they went into their respective locations.


But the "negroid" element never left Egypt. Some make it sound like Charleston
Heston in the 10 Commandments leading out a horde of "negroes"- shuffling
south once the 25th Dynasty was defeated. Foreign influence no doubt
displaced SOME Egyptians and added mixes, but "black Egypt" is a modern reality
still seen in the Baladi or the rural Fellahim/peasants of today. Itis seen in ex-prez
Anwar Sadat whose mother is part of a region historically linked with ancient Egypt.
These people may self-identify these days as modern Arabized Egyptian but they are still there.
Do not fall into a trap of assuming that the retreat of the 25th Dynasty means
that "the blacks left Egypt." They were there before the 25th, and they were there after.


Someone said:
FACT.Why would they not have anything in common with the people closest to them (horners)?
Actually Horners are not the closest people to Egyptians.
Closer are Nubians and Sudanics, BEFORE you even get to the Horn.

[anansi]

All that intra-African variation within the same family the 4th dynasty. 

[anansi]

Asante.

Ramses II and Ramses III (though not father and son) were Tutsi.

"Sigh" No! they were not Tutsi they may share features with them cultural and genetic but they were different nationalities separated by time and space Ok take a look at the 12 dynasty those kings repelled their close relations to the south of them because they fell on different side of the boarder ie different political entities,much like the Windsors had bloody wars with their German relatives WWI and WWII.

[asante]

Mar 20, 2014 1:35:50 GMT -5 anansi said:

are these men and women not horners? if so why use the man below as if to typify a Horner.

Why are you pretending that my designation of "Horner" ("Horner looking" is what I said) was in "geographical" sense of the word rather than specifying the gracile "Ethiopic" populations (in which I linked an example to in the Op) who characterize this African region? Did we not go through this in the other thread? Really?

such look as the gentleman in the suit have is a minority among Horners

So are you implying that most people in Somalia look like the Bantu populations (the most distinct in the country) who inhabit the southern rim of the country? Are you saying that most Ethiopians don't look like these Ethiopian representatives in the Olympics,




But instead you are implying based on some unfounded assumption that the region is characterized by the Omotic speaking communities who reside along the southern rim of Ethiopia? Why the obfuscation?

but not unknown the features of the above is in no way different from the statues and carvings you posted

Ok now I know that your philosophy is that all black Africans are one with no differences and what not but that comparison that you made between Somalia's ex-president and Amhose I was utterly ridiculous and you know it. That Somali man is a misfit among over 90% of the statuary above and you know it. With that man's nose alone the closest match of those above in terms of facial features is this Greek man:




Now before you flip the keyboard over think. Anthropology will label both of these individual's cranial patterns as somewhat similar, and we know this because Horner populations were often misclassified as "Caucasoid" in the past. We know however that Europeans like all non Africans descend from Horn African ("Ethiopic") populations. That being said there is no need to pretend (for the sake of "African unity") that this Somali individual looks like most of the native Egyptian pharaohs posted.

Sub Saharan look according to Bauval, there is nothing special to it as a matter of fact the Horn is Sub Saharan,the 11th dyn rulers

See what I mean? Did I not condemn Bauval's statement on pigeon holing African diversity? Why stay stuck on that silliness? 

Notice where these folks are located especially the Mentu Setet,these are the folks who are connected to the "Mentu" named kings of the 11 dynasty the Intiu-seti of the 12th Dynasty I and A are interchangeable like for instance Imn is the same as Amen thus we get the Amen named kings
as in Amenhotep

Interesting but what is the point of this statement?

look where some of their kingsmen were located.

If you had actually read my responses then would have seen that I provided the exact same link about the Oromo connection with ancient Egypt. So basically this little snippet is very irrelevant as you are not telling me anything that I do not already know nor are you refuting any of my points brought up in this thread.

[asante]

Mar 20, 2014 2:22:54 GMT -5 anansi said:

All that intra-African variation within the same family the 4th dynasty.

Every piece of statuary that you posted with the exception of the above are characteristic traits of these African populations. The individual above to me looks like a Nilote with "European features" (haha). Also you are incorrect on the great Sphinx representing a 4th Dynasty king. A link was added to the opening post showing the true age of the Sphinx to be around 12,000 years (which was explained in my other thread).