Hamiti press says:
Is it possible for anyone to explain to me why the field of Egyptology over emphasizes biological/physical anthropology as the only criterion reliable enough to determine whether or not the Egyptians were of African or European origin, or Caucasoid origin?
I mean are there not other aspects of the field which should be consulted for drawing conclusions? Egyptology doesn't only look at physical anthropology. It considers art, language, etc.
Matter of fact I have heard that some old guard Egyptologists think that there is TOO MUCH
anthro and bio analysis coming into the field, messing up their own little fiefdoms. They
were upset when Diop came along exposing their inaccuracies and hypocrisies- something captured
in two of his quotes below. They were also upset at black folk calling them on these things
as well- and try every tactic- lie, dismiss, downplay, co-opt. Fortunately there are some
more open-minded and honest than others.
The reason hard data is given so much emphasis is that the standard bogus charge against black folk
reclaiming a more balanced view of their heritage is that they are "wild-eyed" cranks- you know- hanging
on to crazy myths and stories, with no factual basis. As can be seen here and on ES and elsewhere, that
charge is sheer nonsense. If anything the facts are overwhelming- and denials and distortions to the
contrary only expose the true nature and motives of opponents. That being said I think there is room for
legends, myth, and cultural narratives. The Egyptians for example said they came from the mountains of
the moon to the south in Ethiopia or other points thereby. Skeletal, cranial, dental, DNA, and cultural
data show that movement from the south into the Nile Valley alley is hard fact not mere myth. Different West African
tribes have legends of coming from the East- and this may be a deep ancestral memory for ancient migrations
out of Africa and inside Africa point to East Africa as a source as shown by DNA studies and other data.
So these legends etc etc may have a factual basis. My only beef with some folk is that they rely too much
on stories etc or push them to the extreme, neglecting the foundation of evidence that provides a key anchor.
This allows enemies an opening to spin distorted propaganda in quantity, and create enough "noise" to
drown out legitimate data and voices. I realize of course that "cointelpro" "stealth" tactics- including fake
"militants" setting up strawmen are part of the propaganda campaign. But whatever they try, a strong
base of evidence defeats them comprehensively.
Your comment also brings up a good point- the need to have a balanced package- several lines of
confirming evidence -skeletal, cranial-dental, religious, artifacts, cultural practices,
environment etc etc.. not just one. DNA is flawed and is being manipulated, just like all
the other methods. Several lines of evidence cross-checking one another establishes
a strong foundation. It is an approach Keita recommends, and is one Diop used. Only in this
way, can we resume ownership of our history like Anansi indicates.
