|
Post by nebsen on Dec 24, 2011 18:41:32 GMT -5
www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/outreach/kemet/virtualkemet/I find this site to be excellent ! it would be nice if more main stream museums here in the states would do the same in their Egyptology Departments ! It seems that this UK museum is ahead of the curve in how they are exhibiting the world of ancient Egypt, to the masses, enjoy
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 25, 2011 12:09:54 GMT -5
Interesting attempt at using technology. It needs a bit of tweeking to make navigation a bit easier but I think its a great step in the right direction. My only complaint is in the question and answer section where the question is asked are the Modern Egyptians the same population as the ancients. They answer no, which is in correct. Although there have been invasions, changes in culture and language the population there is still the descendants of the ancients. Yes there has been mixture, but not to the point where you can no longer see the physical types that existed in the past. It should also be added that there had always been a certain percentage of people of mixed ancestry from Egypt's earliest history, particularly in the north. The only thing we can say is that today there is a higher percentage of mixture in the population, but like I said before, you can still see all the physical types in the museum walking on the streets of Cairo today. Not to mention the recent DNA findings which show the majority of their genetic input is African specific.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Dec 25, 2011 17:42:03 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007,
I do agree with you concerning the navigation of the site. It needs a bit of work ! But I do not agree with you concerning are the modern Egyptians the same population. I have never been to Egypt, but have close friends who have. They all say their is a admixture & the face of ancient Egypt is worn on the faces from the people of the south (Sudan) for many live & work in Egypt as the" Help". So in this sense one can see ancient Egypt in today's Egypt.
You say there has always been people of mixed ancestry from Egypt's earliest history. I agree somewhat with this statement. But the question is from where ? I tend to go with the theory of a confederate of sorts that helped to create ancient Kemet ( Egypt) from it's earliest times from other parts of Black Africa; not from the Mediterranean,Arabia, or China. You get my point ! In fact I have, & recommend, a most illuminating book which is considered heresy by the mainstream Egyptologist community, called" Black Genesis" by Robert Bauval.I'm sure many on this forum would be in agreement with the authors findings, including yourself, if you can keep an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 27, 2011 1:52:59 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007,
I do agree with you concerning the navigation of the site. It needs a bit of work ! But I do not agree with you concerning are the modern Egyptians the same population. I have never been to Egypt, but have close friends who have.
You need to go to Egypt yourself and have a good look around.... well... perhaps wait a bit for things to cool down. I've been going to Egypt pretty often since 1988. I've been to Alexandria to Aswan as well as living in an area with a large Egyptian community and working with them. So I am well aware of what they look like in real life.
They all say their is a admixture
As I said, there is mixture in the modern population. Its a historical fact and one that all Egyptians are aware of, nor do they try to deny it. In fact, if you go to Egypt, you will see many people with very white skin and bright red hair. The general consensus among Egyptians is that their appearance is due to recent European mixture.
& the face of ancient Egypt is worn on the faces from the people of the south (Sudan) for many live & work in Egypt as the" Help".
This is a slight exaggeration/oversimplification. First of all, yes there are a lot of Sudanese migrants in Egypt, however, not every dark skinned person you see in Egypt is a Sudanese or a Nubian. There are an aweful lot of Egyptians who are dark, who are neither Nubian or Sudanese and they are found all over Egypt, even in the north.
So in this sense one can see ancient Egypt in today's Egypt.
There was never one particular physical type that was representative of all Egyptians. There were many different physical types and they came in a range of colors as is still observed in Egypt today as well as many ethnic groups found throughout the Sahara such as the Tuaregs.
In the south/ Upper Egypt, the dominant physical type was very similar to people you still find today i East Africa, such as the Afar for example. However, it was not the only type. There were and still are people who look more stereotypically "African", meaning they have broader features. However, in northern Egypt there were and still are people who are lighter skinned. They evolved that way because that part of Africa is Sub-tropical. If you go to the Sun tropical region of Southern Africa you will find the San people, many of whom have also evolved yellowish, light brown skin, not dark brown skin. So light brown, yelowish skin tones are part of the normal range of variety found in Africa, Egypt was no exception.
Furthermore, its not just the skin tones, but most importantly the actual facial structures that one looks at. When you look at the sculptures from the Old Kingdom you see all of these physical types. For example google search "Egyptian sulpture" The Scribe, (images).You will see at least 3 Old Kingdom sculptures in The Cairo Museum. The most famous, the one with short hair is of the same physical type as the Egyptian actor Adel Immam, goolge search images. There is a second, with long hair. Facial features are typical of people you will still find in northern Egypt, actually looks like my best friend. The 3rd with the finger coil wig has features very typical of modern Egyptians that many people call "Arabic". It ain't Arabic...
You say there has always been people of mixed ancestry from Egypt's earliest history. I agree somewhat with this statement. But the question is from where ? I tend to go with the theory of a confederate of sorts that helped to create ancient Kemet ( Egypt) from it's earliest times from other parts of Black Africa;
The oldest population of Egypt originated in several areas of Africa, mostly the region of the horn which is Sub Saharan. All evidence so far shows that when the Sahara was green the Nile Valley was very sparsely populted. After it began to dry up they settled in the Nile Valley. What we recognize as Pharaonic culture originated in Southern Egypt/Northern Sudan. Over the course of its 3,000 year history there was influx from the southern regions of Africa nearby into Egypt. This is still the case today. Its a process that never stopped.
not from the Mediterranean,Arabia, or China. You get my point !
No not from China, probably not from Arabia, but from the Eastern Mediterranian most certainly there was. Keep in mind though that these would not have been large groups of people as they would have been pastoralists living in very small bands, probably no more that 100 people or even less. All they had to do was walk west. Now keep in mind that when you speak of Ancient Egypt, you're talking about a 3,000 year period. A lot of things happened in that time. There were Asiatics who were brought into the country as slave labor. There were Asiatics who voluntarily came to the country looking for economic opportunity. There wre Greek traders prior to Alexander, who were settled in a town in the Delta called Neocratis. Before that, there were Asiatics who were hired as mercinaries. Not to mention that the fact that there were foreign political marriages and concubines in the royal houses.
Pharaonic Egypt was not isolated from the outside world whether that outside world was Africa below the Sahara or the Mediterranian. However pointing out this fact is in no way saying that Egyptian civilization was the product of any of those non African societies. Egyptian civilization was the product of native African peoples.
In fact I have, & recommend, a most illuminating book which is considered heresy by the mainstream Egyptologist community, called" Black Genesis" by Robert Bauval.I'm sure many on this forum would be in agreement with the authors findings, including yourself, if you can keep an open mind.
I'm familiar with him. However, there is nothing in his book that will negate the fact that the people in Egypt today are in fact the descendants of the Ancient population. The issue here is not whether or not they are mixed or not mixed or how mixed they are. Regardless of the degree of mixture an individual has does not erase their ancestral lineage. Just as the fact that hundreds of thousands of African Americans are so mixed that they no longer look like their West and central African ancestors, doesn't change the fact that they are still people of African descent; Egyptians today are still the children of the ancients. And just like African Americans, the fact that most of them are mixed doesn't mean they are so mixed that there aren't any individuals left who resembles their ancestors of the past, same holds true for Egyptians today. The modern people of Egypt are the direct descendants of the ancients whether they "look it" or not. And unless you have an individuals personal autosomal DNA profile in your hand stating that their DNA shows all European and Asiatic haplotypes, no one has the right to tell them that Egypt is not their rightful homeland.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Dec 27, 2011 3:23:42 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007,
Point 1. one day I hope to get to Egypt. 'Point 2. I'm aware that their is mixture in Egypt & some recent with Europeans point 3. I'm also aware of many Modern Egyptians who are dark & are not Sudanese or Nubians they are still in Africa, mind you.
Point 4. We do not differ in the the fact of people from parts of Africa, like the Horn & Sahara helped populate what became ancient Kemet( Egypt) eons ago.
5. I would be an idiot, to think ancient Egypt was in a vacuum & did not have contact with people of the Mediterranean , Levant, or Asia minor & they did not share cultural exchanges or have intermarriages that produced off-springs. That's a given ! But by, what percentage ?
I think were we differ, is the Arab invasion, in the 6 or 7th century, & it's impact on the populations, where it is seen today as the largest Arab nation, population wise, of all Arab speaking nations. (not Muslims, but people who are Arab)
Also their animus towards dark skin Africans from other regions.Do they acknowledge that Pharaonic Egypt was at it's core An African ( Black) creation ?
How do they today trace, their descent through the Mother or father ?
It's the arabicization of Egypt's ancient past & identity, that I have problems with my friend !
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 27, 2011 10:57:48 GMT -5
Point 1. one day I hope to get to Egypt. 'Point 2. I'm aware that their is mixture in Egypt & some recent with Europeans point 3. I'm also aware of many Modern Egyptians who are dark & are not Sudanese or Nubians they are still in Africa, mind you.
Of course they are. Even if a lot of them don't want to admit it, but more on that later...
Point 4. We do not differ in the the fact of people from parts of Africa, like the Horn & Sahara helped populate what became ancient Kemet( Egypt) eons ago.
5. I would be an idiot, to think ancient Egypt was in a vacuum & did not have contact with people of the Mediterranean , Levant, or Asia minor & they did not share cultural exchanges or have intermarriages that produced off-springs. That's a given ! But by, what percentage ?
As I said in my original comment, it would have been small at any given point but did increase over the course of time as we know from historical records. Exactly how much at any given time within that 3,000year period, we will never be able to know. The point is that people like that did exist at that time, so there is nothing we see in Egypt today that didn't exist at some point during the pharaonic period. Only thing we can say is that there is a higher percentage today due to the impact of outside migrations.
I think were we differ, is the Arab invasion, in the 6 or 7th century, & it's impact on the populations, where it is seen today as the largest Arab nation, population wise, of all Arab speaking nations. (not Muslims, but people who are Arab)
No one denies that there was a radical change in Egypt due to the Arab invasion. But from looking at the artifacts in the museum and looking at the living poulation I can say that the physical diversity seen in Egypt was already in place by the time they got there. Were there Arab settlers, yes there were. In fact there are still tribes in various parts of Egypt who trace their decent back to such migrations, they are not a secrate in Egypt, nor do they consider themselves Egyptian as such. For example, in Mersa Metruh on the north west coast the people identify as bedouin and do not consider themselves "people of the Nile". There are still many ethnic bedu all over Egypt. Everyone knows they migrated in. However, #1: many Arabs themselves are the product of African Asiatic admixture, #2: The Arabian peninsula was never densly poulated enough to replace or over run the native population.
Their biggest impact was not genetic but cultural: Language, religion, certain daily practices. It was a radical change, yet many of the old practices remain which have nothing to do with Arab culture. Their agricultural practices, rural architecture, folk dances, circumcision of women, the practice of the Sabua 7 days after the birth of a child, (like a christening), is depicted on temple walls, a lot of their festivals are just some of the things that survive. Those are just a few of the things I know off the top of my head. What is needed is some real scholarly research on these aspects. To my knowledge none has ever been done
Also their animus towards dark skin Africans from other regions.Do they acknowledge that Pharaonic Egypt was at it's core An African ( Black) creation ?
And exactly how is that any different from attitudes held by peoples in our own communities such as the Creoles, people from the Dominican Republic, all the thousands and thousands of people who ran away from/abandoned their families/children to "passe for white". What about the people you can still find on the Swahili coast as black as night who will look you in the fact and tell you they are not African but Arab or Persians? Stupidity dorsn't change genetics or history.
Just consider the fact how radically different the cultures and world views of most Afro decended people in the Western Hemisphere is compared to their original African cultures. We all speak European languages, the majority of us have a European based world view and spiritual philosophy. Just go to any black church and suggest they become Vudun practitioners, or Santeros, or Obeah practitioners and see what happens. And we all know that for a great many African Americans still, the worse thing you could call them is an African. I had a girl in high school almost kill me because I told her she looked like an African. "African booty scratcher" is still a common insult inmany of our communities. Just consider our obsessions with light skin and the epidemic of bleaching that exists in countries like Jamaica. What's the difference?
How do they today trace, their descent through the Mother or father ?
And how do most Afro Americans trace their descent? Isn't it through the father? You don't go through centuries of colonialism and enslavement and walk away without any psychological scars. Now consider Egypt's being colonized for 2,000 years ending with the British, French and Ottoman Turks who initiated their own process of Europeanization, what do you expect?
It's the arabicization of Egypt's ancient past & identity, that I have problems with my friend !
Changes in culture and world view happen. There isn't a country in the Mediterranian except Greece that still speaks its original language, practices its original religion and culture. They all went through change. Yet would anyone doubt that Iraqis are the descendants of the Sumerians or the Babylonians? Does anyone doubt that Syrians are the descendants of the Hitties and Assyrians? Or the Lebanese the Phoenicians? No. So to are the Egyptian stil the descendants of Kemites, despite the changes due to admixture and culture that they have experienced in their past.
And just for the record, there are many, many Egyptians who do not consider themselves Arabs. There are many who do consider themselves to be Africans. As for whether they consider themselves black..... Black according to whose standards exactly? By the USA one drop rule, by the Latin American casta system? Egyptians have never had a racial classification system and why should they? The very concept of race was something created by Europeans to justify slavery and colonialism and to brain wash all the rest of us to believe they were superior. Egyptians have a very vague concept of race. They identify people by their actual skin color and there is no overall consensus. Therefore you will hear people say things like I am white my brother or father is black. Do they have a color complex, just as we still do, absolutely. But all that means is we bot have work to do. However, considering the economic and political crisis they are in, issues of color and identity are not even on the radar for them the way it is for us.
Bottom line is, they need to work out the'ir own shit and they have a lot of shit to go through before they get to the color thing. We have our own shit to work on as well and Egyptians attitudes about color have absolutely nothing to do with our economic independence, poor educational system, poverty, broken homes drug crisis etc. Showing that Egypt was a native African civilization created by Africans has a psychological importance because it shows that the underliying concept of white supremacy is not true. Tropical Africans and their descendants are not genetically imferior, the proof is that we can see all over Africa examples of social organization, architecture, higher learning, philosophy. The best kknown of these happens to be Egypt. If some people there today want to be stuck on stupid and deny the Africanity in themselves and their history, that's on them. It doesn't change the truth of the past when archeology, anthropology, linguistics, genetics all point to the Africanity of the people and the civilization. Those Egyptians who are educated can see it. It was an Egyptian after all who pointed out to me the Africanity of Egyptian civilization. So for the ones who argue it... my experience has shown they don't even know point one of their basic Egyptian history, so who gives a rats ass. I got more important things to worry about other than somebodies personal ignorance and hang ups, especially when everyone who goes to Egypt can tell its a country chuck full of people who'd have been forced to ride the back of the bus in this country not too long ago.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Dec 27, 2011 14:37:09 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007 You say no one denies the radical changes due to the Arab invasion.But strange this is the first time that you have mentioned it. I know their have been Bediouns in the area for many thousands of years.
The issue of" Black" by who's standard, well I'm not going to play the" Black semantics" game here, for I do understand the negative connotations the word has among many people both here in the states & else where in the world !
I also know about the difference between native born Africans & Africans Americans . I married a African women many years ago when you were still probably in grade school if you are in your 40's.as your member profile states. I have also spent time in Haiti,so i know about the different aspects of our religion. I'm dam near 70 & don't need to be lectured.
To cut to the chase. I still agree with the Fizwilliam Museum statement about the difference. When you get your degree in Egyptology & write your book on the matter I might reconsider. Until than I'll cast my lot with Egyptologist such as Theophile Obenga, Mario Beatty, Anthony T. Browder, S.O.Ketia , & the like. We can agree to disagree. I admire your passion. I would love to read a book by you on the matter some day ! !
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 28, 2011 3:20:35 GMT -5
Truthteacher2007 You say no one denies the radical changes due to the Arab invasion.But strange this is the first time that you have mentioned it. The changes are cultural not biological. Yes, their culture has been altered a great deal by Arabs via language, religion etc. But they were not wiped out and replaced by an incoming population. Its not like what happened to the Natives in the Caribbean Islands. The people living there today are infact the direct biological descendants of the ancients. Mixture and changes in culture do not, can not nor will they ever be able to change who your kids are. Even if they don't speak like you act like you etc, they are still your kids because they've inherited your DNA. So yes, those people there today are in fact the direct descendants of the Ancient EgyptiansI know their have been Bediouns in the area for many thousands of years. And yet in your previous statement you implied that there was no migration from outside Africa. Regardless, it still doesn't change the fact that the civilization was not an Asiatic import but a native African development. Wether there was one budu or 1,000 does not change that fact. On this I'm sure we agree.The issue of" Black" by who's standard, well I'm not going to play the" Black semantics" game here, for I do understand the negative connotations the word has among many people both here in the states & else where in the world ! I'm not speaking in terms of negative connotations. I mean that what is considered a black person in one culture is not considered a black person in another. In The US no matter how much non African ancestry you have as long as you have even 1 African ancestor, you are considered black, even if you look like a European. In other places if you have even 1 non African ancestor you are not considered black. That's the problem. There is no consensus as to exactly what that thing called black is. Mostly because the concept was created by colonial Europeans and they kept changing the rules as to who was or who wasn't black based on their individual needs. I got tired over the years of having to explain to people in other countries that I was black because to their eyes my skin wasn't black but brown and therefore I couldn't possibly be black, especially since my father is white. Then having to explain to them that my father is also black even though he looks white... It got to be to tiresome. However, if I tell people I'm of African descent, they get it because even though I may not look like what they think a "black person" should look like, my ancestors are still my ancestors undisputed. Therefore, when discussing Africa I never use the term black because then you get into a row as to whose definition to use. Native African/of african ancestry/african descent cuts through a lot more bullshit.I also know about the difference between native born Africans & Africans Americans . I married a African women many years ago when you were still probably in grade school if you are in your 40's.as your member profile states. I have also spent time in Haiti,so i know about the different aspects of our religion. [So then you should understand that changes in world view, religion, culture etc are social constructs/adaptations which do not affect nor alter a persons genetic history. What is true for us is true for Egyptians as well, no different.I'm dam near 70 & don't need to be lectured. So whose lecturing? I'm just pointing out facts. Facts that are far older than the both of us put together...To cut to the chase. I still agree with the Fizwilliam Museum statement about the difference. When you get your degree in Egyptology & write your book on the matter I might reconsider. If I care that much I'd have done that. I don't. And even if I did, you would still believe exactly what you want to believe, truth be damned, just like everyone else does on this dust ball we call Earth...Until than I'll cast my lot with Egyptologist such as Theophile Obenga, Mario Beatty, Anthony T. Browder, S.O.Ketia , & the like. We can agree to disagree. S.O. Keita.... He sounds familiar. I have heard his name before...Oh wait a minute, you mean this guy right? You might want to listen very closely to what he has to say about the diversity in Egypt and its relation to what is thee now.
Then you might want to pay close attention to what he has to say in these 3 videos. Pay close attention around 4:10
I admire your passion. ???Passion? Hardley...I would love to read a book by you on the matter some day ! ! To write a book would mean that I'd have to care enough to want to do the years of study and research neccessary to do something like that. I have a life. Its real simple, the Africanity of this civilization simply proves that the premise of white supremacy is bullshit. The fact is whether they were blue black or light brown, this civilization was created by people who were of a physical type that is still called nigger today by many people. Not too long ago they'd have had to ride the back of a bus and drink from the colored water fountain in the ?USA because of their inherant "inferiority". Such people were incapable of higher learning or producing civilization.
Modern egyptians, regardless of how mixed they may or may not be are of a color and physical type that is still called nigger by many people today. Not too long ago they'd have had to ride the back of a bus and drink from the colored water fountain in the ?USA because of their inherant "inferiority". Such people were incapable of higher learning or producing civilization.
Afro Americans/ Afro Latinos/ Afro Caribbean folks, (such as myself), regardless of how mixed they may or may not be are of a color and physical type that is still called nigger by many people today. Not too long ago they'd have had to ride the back of a bus and drink from the colored water fountain in the ?USA because of their inherant "inferiority". Such people were incapable of higher learning or producing civilization.
I know I'm being sarcastic, but are you getting my point? It doesn't matter. They hate all of us and have tried to deny our basic humanity. Egypt shows that their world view is nothing but lies and bullshit. To sit here and squabble of which nigger is better than which, or which nigger to day is related to which dead nigger yesterday, or for nigger #2 to argue with nigger #3 over whether or not his daddy was nigger #1 or nigger #5 is absolutely rediculous, counter productive and a total waste of time. They consider all of us niggers, they consider all of us inferior to themselves. All we need to do is show them, "you're a god damn liar and this is why" and keep it moving. Because at the end of the day the truth is they know they're liying... its what they do. They don't give a rats ass abot who built what. All they care about is exploiting or lands and resources and they will do anything, say anything to do it, even if its means war or outright murder. All the illystrious achievements in the world will not change their minds. It didn't stop them from trying to exterminate the Incas and Aztecs, its didn't stop them from killing and murdering the East Indians, it didn't stop them from trying to do the same to the Chinese or anyone else. So who is this for? Its for us. So that we know we were lied to about ourselves. So stop whining and feeling bad about ourselves and pick up ourselves and fight. That's what really matters.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Dec 28, 2011 17:27:51 GMT -5
TruthTeacger2007,
I have all these videos myself, so you are not showing me something I have not checked out a number of times. Key words, imagined ,we don't know, would likely be, we don't a have a lots of DNA about the ancient populations. The one thing I love about Keita, is he doe's not like to get into ideology left or right so to speak, but sticks as close as he can to the science of the matter.
This video was one of the first interviews that I believe he did for the public , in fact it appeared on the Root.com a few years back. He is very careful here not to take sides of the "debate" but stays. as close as to the science as he see's it.
He say's nothing as far as I concerned, that is not in agreement with any of the data, information, I believe to be accurate.
Most of your counter argument I'm just going to leave as is, because it's beginning to feel to me like argument for argument sake, & that a waste of my time as well as yours.
I will say this," facts" are always up for interpretation or they can change over time, in another word , mutable . I hope at some time others on the forum will chime in on this discussion ,so we can get other view points, other than ours. I'm very interested in hearing how others feel & think about this topic. One, my post is getting some good traffic ,so I know others are reading our comments ,& visiting the museum site, which is a good thing !
"I know I'm being sarcastic" your words. Their is always an energetic imprint to peoples words written or spoken. I would say "sarcastic" is the tone I pick up from your thoughts & writing a lots, even" cocky" which for my generation can boarder on disrespectful at times. The main point in communication is to inform not turn off . Finally , their is noting wrong with" passion" so many today, lack this very important ingredient of life. it should be celebrated not dismissed.
So I'm ending this dialogue, & let others chime in, if they choose to. But for me I'm done ! Thanks for the exchange, I gained some insight to how others might view the same topic, PEACE!
|
|
|
Post by truthteacher2007 on Dec 28, 2011 22:44:33 GMT -5
TruthTeacger2007, I have all these videos myself, so you are not showing me something I have not checked out a number of times. Key words, imagined ,we don't know, would likely be, we don't a have a lots of DNA about the ancient populations. The one thing I love about Keita, is he doe's not like to get into ideology left or right so to speak, but sticks as close as he can to the science of the matter. This video was one of the first interviews that I believe he did for the public , in fact it appeared on the Root.com a few years back. He is very careful here not to take sides of the "debate" but stays. as close as to the science as he see's it. He say's nothing as far as I concerned, that is not in agreement with any of the data, information, I believe to be accurate. Most of your counter argument I'm just going to leave as is, because it's beginning to feel to me like argument for argument sake, & that a waste of my time as well as yours. I will say this," facts" are always up for interpretation or they can change over time, in another word , mutable . I hope at some time others on the forum will chime in on this discussion ,so we can get other view points, other than ours. I'm very interested in hearing how others feel & think about this topic. One, my post is getting some good traffic ,so I know others are reading our comments ,& visiting the museum site, which is a good thing ! "I know I'm being sarcastic" your words. Their is always an energetic imprint to peoples words written or spoken. I would say "sarcastic" is the tone I pick up from your thoughts & writing a lots, even" cocky" which for my generation can boarder on disrespectful at times. The main point in communication is to inform not turn off . Finally , their is noting wrong with" passion" so many today, lack this very important ingredient of life. it should be celebrated not dismissed. So I'm ending this dialogue, & let others chime in, if they choose to. But for me I'm done ! Thanks for the exchange, I gained some insight to how others might view the same topic, PEACE! I've already said all I care to. Just because I'm not a card carying member of the geritol generation yet means nothing. I'm old enough to be disenchanted and fed up with all the nonsense and stupidity I see arond me. And old fart enough to not give a f*&^ what people think anymore. When I'm having a conversation with someone and they turn defensive, as in "I'm XYZ years older than you ... and I don't need to be lectured...", that's when I become, sacrastic, obnoxious, disrespectful, cokey. The paint on the house may look new but the plumings damn near 50yrs old, so I'm a god damn grown man, not a child and I'll speak however the fuck I want to whoever the fuck I want because I've earned it. Speak nicely to me I'll do the same. Try to pull rank on me because of age? Kis my entire... you know the rest. So since it wasn't possible for me to speak with you and share a different perspective without you taking me "there", I don't care to go any further. I've said what I need to. My basic premise is that no amount of racial mixing can erase your ancestral line. The people in Egypt today are the biological descendants of the people who lived there in antiquity. The modern population, as DNA shows, is majority African specific in their biology. Their anatomical structure is still tropical. Niether you nor I have the right to tell anyone that their history and ancestors do not belong to them simply because you don't like the way they look or because they don't act in ways that you like. If you want to prove that the modern population are foreign migrants then the burden of proof is on you to show the DNA data that states their DNA is entierly non African. Any degree of Africanity in the modern people means that they are still the descendants of the ancients. If that ruffles your feathers... I'll tell you the same thing I tell Egyptians who don't like hearing that geographically, biologically and historically they are Africans, TOUGH, DEAL WITH IT!
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jan 6, 2012 3:05:43 GMT -5
Sally-Ann Ashton talking at the Manchester Museum, University of Manchester, UK, at the conference, Egypt in its African Context, 3-4 October 2009. Sally-Ann is a Senior Curator in the Department of Antiquities, Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, UK. She is discussing the presentation of ancient Egypt as part of Black history, in media and museums. This vid is from a discussion over at E/S Yes believe it or not main stream Egyptologist is finally taking a definitive stance on the matter of the make up of Kemet, also ground breaking is the thread on the make-up of the 18th dyn family of the Amarna era with Bantu connections egyptsearchreloaded.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bag&action=display&thread=991Here and a very great exchange over at E/S www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=005881;p=10Clik^
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jan 7, 2012 14:19:29 GMT -5
Anansi,
thanks for the posting of the video's of Sally- Ann Ashton. I first saw her in the outstanding documentary" Nubian Spirit" by Louis Buckley 08". I had to do a double take to make sure my eyes & ears were actually working correctly, in her affirmation in a African-Black ancient Egypt- -Kemet. Also her colleague, who is also European Stephen Quirke, was on the same page !
Their are not that many Europeans or Euro- American academics who are willing to go on record, in pro claiming ancient Egypt's- Kemet, Africaness thus' Blackness ". It takes courage & guts to do this & stand their ground, as such as our beloved Basil Davidson did.
It is a great day (era) when such people are willing to stand up & speak their truth & to correct centuries of lies & false-hoods about the true nature of the ancient Egyptian peoples. That's one, among many of the reasons, I feel" Black Genesis" by Robert Bauval & Thomas Brophy is such a ground breaking work, both "white" & believe in the scientific method, & approach. also one should check out the " Resource Section" on Virtual Kemet; some great interviews of Nubians & Nubians scholars on video, about ancient Kush, & modern day Sudan.
|
|
|
Post by anansi on Jan 7, 2012 15:56:02 GMT -5
Anansi, thanks for the posting of the video's of Sally- Ann Ashton. I first saw her in the outstanding documentary" Nubian Spirit" by Louis Buckley 08". I had to do a double take to make sure my eyes & ears were actually working correctly, in her affirmation in a African-Black ancient Egypt- -Kemet. Also her colleague, who is also European Stephen Quirke, was on the same page ! Their are not that many Europeans or Euro- American academics who are willing to go on record, in pro claiming ancient Egypt's- Kemet, Africaness thus' Blackness ". It takes courage & guts to do this & stand their ground, as such as our beloved Basil Davidson did. It is a great day (era) when such people are willing to stand up & speak their truth & to correct centuries of lies & false-hoods about the true nature of the ancient Egyptian peoples. That's one, among many of the reasons, I feel" Black Genesis" by Robert Bauval & Thomas Brophy is such a ground breaking work, both "white" & believe in the scientific method, & approach. also one should check out the " Resource Section" on Virtual Kemet; some great interviews of Nubians & Nubians scholars on video, about ancient Kush, & modern day Sudan. My only complaint is the continued mis use of the term Nubia,as it tends to hide the many different polities to the south of kemet and group them as one,for example Elam and Sumer may share the same geographical location but were different polities but researchers are sure to tell them apart.
|
|
|
Post by nebsen on Jan 7, 2012 19:04:08 GMT -5
In the " Resource Section" in one of the video's it is" explained", why the different terms are used.
|
|
|
Post by anonymous on Apr 11, 2016 14:22:13 GMT -5
THE FITZWILLIAM MUSEUM
What is an African centred approach to Egypt?
African Centred Egyptology aims to look at Egypt as part of African culture. People mainly look at Ancient Egypt through a European bias. This is because the majority of books on Egyptology are written be researchers of European, or North American backgrounds. There are also increasing numbers of Egyptian scholars also publishing in English as well as Arabic. However, there are comparatively few scholars of African origin or descent who work on the subject of Ancient Egypt. Their views, when African Centered, are often and wrongly dismissed by more mainstream Egyptologists. Historians and archaeologists rarely disclose their culture identities in the same way that someone working in sociology (the study of society and the people in it) or anthropology (the study of people and culture) would automatically declare in their books and articles. The reason that some disciplines talk about the identity of the author is because how we view the world can influence how we interpret it. Our views can be influenced by where we grew up, where we received our education and to what extent we have been exposed to other cultures and groups of people. What does Kemet mean?
People in Egypt today call their country by the Arabic name of 'Misr'. The word 'Egypt' is the name that the Ancient Greeks gave to the country and is still used in Europe today. Prior to Europe's involvement with Egypt, the people of Ancient Egypt had many names for their country such 'Ta Mery' (the beloved land), 'Ta Sety' (the land of the bow) which was used for the southern most regions of the country and Nubia. Another name was 'Kemet', which means 'the black land'. All of these names were originally spelt without vowels, so for example 'Kemet' was 'Kmt'. The meaning of Kemet has been much debated. The word was spelt with four hieroglyphs: a piece of crocodile skin with spines making the sound 'K'; an owl making the 'M' and a half loaf of bread making the sound 'T'. There are parallels - Sudan for example comes from the Arabic Bilad-Al-Sudan meaning country of the blacks and Ethiopia derives from the Greek meaning 'burnt face' in reference to the people and their black skin. The word 'Kem' means black. However, people have interpreted the reference to the colour black this in two different ways: *In reference to the colour of the silt of the Nile and so the fertile soil of Egypt.*
*In reference to the colour of the people.* Were the people in Ancient Kemet the same people who live in Egypt today?
No. Throughout Egypt's history it had traded and fought with people from other countries. From around 750BC the Nubian rulers, often called 'The Kushites' controlled Kemet and became its twenty-fifth Dynasty. During this time, Kemet enjoyed a renaissance, or return to earlier culture, as indicated by the promotion of the cult of the god Amun and also copies of earlier statues that were made by officials and the rulers. Later, the population was affected by the immigration of soldiers, traders and settlers from outside cultures, which included two Persians invasions in 525BC and 343BC; Macedonian Greeks who ruled Kemet from 332-30BC; Romans, who took control of Kemet in 30BC; and the Islamic settlement in AD 642. The Persians ruled Kemet from their own country. The Greek rulers, in contrast, lived in Kemet and adopted Egyptian culture and traditions; however, the language for administration was changed to Greek. The Romans although absent rulers, had large numbers on their army in Kemet and were keen to promote Egyptians culture, albeit their own version of it. The last hieroglyphic inscription dates to AD after this time Christianity, which had been present in Egypt from the first century AD, gradually became the dominant religion. Early Islamic rulers maintained cultural links with earlier Egypt, as seen by the minaret at the Mosque of Ibn Tulun in Cairo, which is in the form of the famous lighthouse Alexandria and which dated to the third century BC. The language was changed to Arabic at this time and the religion to Islam. Where was Nubia and who was the Nubians?
Nubian cilvilization pre-dates Kemet. The earliest artifacts that were found in this region date to around 300,000 years, possibly earlier. Kemet and Nubia were closely linked from around 6,000 years ago. Early pottery indicates that the Nubians were capable of making very thin, high quality bowls and jars from 7,000 years ago; these skills were taken to Egypt as people moved northwards. Nubia was originally called 'Ta Sety' (the land of the bow). The Nubians were skilled warriors, famous also for their wrestling. The word Nubian comes from the Ancient Egyptian word 'nbt', meaning gold. They controlled the gold mines and were often shown in tomb paintings bringing gold as an offering. Geographically, Nubia is defined as the land between Dongola in northern Sudan and Aswan in southern Egypt. This region is home to people who are linked through dialects that belong to a distinct language that connects them linguistically to the Ancient Nubia language, but who are culturally diverse from each other and from the past. Nubians are divided into three main groups: the Danaqla and the Mahas in Sudan and the Sikurta around Aswan in Egypt. Nubian, like Ancient Egyptian, belong to the African language family. Modern Nubian culture was affected by the building of the Aswan dam in the 1960's. This dam prevented the annual flooding of the river Nile but also meant that a huge lake was formed behind it. This lake flooded many ancient sites and modern Nubian communities. Some temples such as Abu Simbal, Kalabsha and Philae, were moved block in order to save them. However, many old Nubia settlements and people's homes were lost. Nubian identity has been more widely adopted by the African diaspora, most notably in the US. In Britain an increasing number of member of the Black British community have begun to seek to understand their African heritage and see a connection to Ancient Nubian culture as a means of self-empowerment. Today, many people forget that Egypt is part of the continent of Africa and only think of the modern state of Egypt, which has closer ties to the Islamic world and is often seen by people to be part of the 'Middle East'. The 'Middle East' includes countries such as Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. Where the Ancient Egyptians Africans? What colour was their skin?
Yes. Egypt is in Africa and there are many cultural links to other African civilisations. If we look at the skin colour and also facial features on representations of Egyptians, many are what we would consider today to be Black African. Skin colours on temple and wall reliefs show ranges between dark brown and black, which is typical of what we see today with regard to people of Black African descent or origin. Furthermore, Nubians, a group who are accepted universally as Black Africans are, like their neighbors from Kemet, shown on reliefs with both jet black and red-brown skin and can be distinguished as Nubian by their short wigs. Many statues have lost their original skin colour. Sometimes colours were used by the Egyptians symbolically, so for example a statue of a god or royal person would be painted gold to represent immortality. If we leave colour aside for a moment, we can also find out a great deal from looking at the facial features shown on Egyptian statues. Here, there can be no doubt that we are dealing with people who were African. Faces were broad with high cheekbones and the jaws are typically strong. The noses are also broad and the lips are generally full and fleshy in appearance. How long ago was 'Ancient Egypt' or Kemet?
Kemet's origin were small farming communities who lived in groups throughout the country. We can gage the development of this early culture through the kinds of objects that people were buried with. These objects were so sophisticated and included items such as stone vases and some objects or materials that indicate trade with foreign lands. This period is called Pre-Dynastic, because it was before there was a single king and the country was unified. This period started around 4,000BC, which is over 6,000 years ago. Before this time there is evidence of a culture that we call Paleolithic and which dated in Kemet to around 100,000BC, and which was centred around the southern part of the country. Objects from this phase were mainly in the form of flint tools and weapons. The first rulers in Kemet around 3,000BC, which is 5,000 years ago. If we compare Kemet to Greece and Rome we can see that Kemet is much older and developed ideas such as monumental buildings, religious beliefs and writing much earlier than European cultures. We know that many of the famous Greek philosophers, playwrights and mathematicians went to Kemet to learn and study. And we can also see Kemet early development through its mud-brick and monumental architecture. Greek civilisations and democracy falls into the so-called Late Period of Kemet, and Rome expanded later still. Some people would like to see Kemet as an earlier civilisation. The problem with re-dating key monuments such as the sphinx is that everything else needs to be re-dated accordingly and in relation. We date archaeological sites and contexts through pottery, inscriptions and sequences. If you wish to use a alternative chronology, it is essential that you keep this in mind. When looking at Ancient Kemet it helps to remember that we are before Christ (B.C) or before common Era. This is any date before year 0 of our calendar. This year 2009 is AD., which stands for 'Anno Domini', in Latin phrase meaning 'the year of our lord'. Some people find this easier to remember this as 'After Death'. The term Common Era is also used to refer to anything after year 0. When working out how many years ago objects were made ass current year to the B.C date. For example if something dates to 3,000BC you add 3000+2009 (the current year) to get 5009 years old. Many dates in Kemet are estimates and so may find in consulting books that different years are given for rulers. Who was Cleopatra? Was she African?
In African American oral tradition Cleopatra is often said to be an African woman. However, many academics who follow an African centred approach to Kemet ignore her. This is because Cleopatra's family came to Kemet from Macedonia (region that is now part of northern Greece rather than the modern state with the same name). Her family had lived in Kemet for around 300 years before she was born and had enthusiastically adopted the traditional culture of Kemet and its religion and were proud to be shown as kings and queens of Kemet. Unlike earlier kings of Kemet, the Ptolemies (pronounced 'Tolemees') as they were known, usually took only one official wife but had many mistresses and concubines. These relationships often resulted in children who were illegitimate. Cleopatra and her father were born from such relationships and it has been suggested that both her mother and grandmother were native Kemet and so African. This is because of the close ties between the royal family and the native elite in Kemet, and the fact that the Ptolemies had been in Kemet for so long at this time. Statues of Cleopatra suggest that the queen was part African and the Romans referred to her as an Egyptian, not as a Greek. Why have many Egyptians statues lost their noses? Was this deliberate?
In asking this question many people suggest that the damage occurred to statues in order to hide their African features. The sphinx at Giza for example is often cited as the subject of target practice for the French and British troops occupying Egypt. However, an etching by a Danish artist dating to 1737, before the French and British arrived, shows the monument without its nose. Later sketches show the nose restored, perhaps on account of artistic convention. There is a reference to the sphinx being damaged much earlier, in 1378AD. The Arab historian Al-Maqrizi wrote that a man named Muhammad Sa'im Al-Dahr attacked the statue when he saw farmers making offerings in front of it, because this was not acceptable according to his view of Islamic tradition. In ancient times statues were also often reused in buildings and walls and were damaged as part of this process. Many of the temples in Kemet were damaged by later people of different religions, who were offended by the images of animals as gods. This was because as the traditonal religion of Kemet was replaced firstly by Christianity and later by Islam, many of the old temples housed churches, monasteries and mosques. This would suggest that some damage to material from Kemet was deliberate. www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/dept/ant/egypt/kemet/virtualkemet/faq/
|
|