Eddie Griffin vol. who built the pyramids

[jerryjones]

Carlos Tevez, i'll go back to my original question, if you believe that the southern egyptians where black and narmer came from southern egypt wouldn'tthe first pharoah of egypt have been a black man according to your own logic?

 

[jerryjones]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

Originally Posted by jerryjones

but there has never been a period in time when black people only came in one skin tone. so i am confused as to why you would believe than skin tone variation is a sign that the egyptians were not black and at the same time hold the position that the northern egyptians were not mixed with an outside group.

I believe that skin tone variation was a sign that not ALL Egyptians were black because when you look at Ancient Egyptian art, you see that they clearly differentiate between "us" and "them". If you look at the art, you see that the Northeners paint themselves as lighter skinned and the Southerners as clearly black (they use really dark paint).

I think it is important for us to analyze the way the Ancient Egyptian depicted themselves. They clearly believed that they were ethnically different from Asians in the North-East and Negros in the South. Their features are clearly characterized differently in Egyptian art.

Take a look at this piece...

It seems to me that it is clear that multiple races existed in Egypt at the time and there is little evidence to suggest that the Ancient Egyptians were black as if that was the only prevalent race in the country at the time. If the Egyptians themselves depicted their skin color, clothes, facial features, hair, material goods as different from Asians and Negros, then why do you guys still insist on bunching the Northern and Southern Egyptians together under one race? The art itself is telling us that they were different.

The Egyptians in northern Egypt appear to be originally light-skinned, just like the original inhabitants of the rest of Northern Saharan Africa.

Other than a few people in here, I do not see many of you providing evidence to back up the claim that Egyptians were black other than "Egypt = Africa = Black".

This is not a matter of Eurocentrics trying to downplay the "Black mans accomplishments in ancient civilizations" as some of you may think. Lets by-pass the European twist on things and look at how the Egyptians portrayed themselves.

IMO this piece contradicts your original argument. This piece which is an image of a pharoah slaying nubians shows that the nubians came in avariety of colors, the nubians in this piece have skin tones rangin from charcoal black to a reddish brown color. If you compare the nubians skin tone to thatof the pharoah himself you will notice that over half of the nubians have the EXACT skintone of the pharoah. As a matter of fact if you look closely it appearsthat some of the nubians have a skin tone actually lighter than the pharoahs! So how can you hold the position that a "light skin tone" is anindicator that they were not black while in the very piece that you present the majority of the nubians (a group of people that no one can question whetherthey are black or not" are the exact same "light skin tone" of the egyptian pharoah?

 

[carlos tevez]

I guess it is a matter of differences of opinion.

You're right that the Egyptians did not categorize based on race, they categorized based on nationality. An Egyptian was an Egyptian, regardless of colourwhile non-Egyptians such as Libyans, Nubians, Palestinians, Asiatics, etc. were labeled as outsiders.

That being said, race has become such a controversial topic over the last few centuries. Unfortunately the debate between Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics hasturned this into a competition of claiming the accomplishments of the Ancient Egyptians as their own.

I believe that both sides have significant shortcomings. I'm not going to waste time refuting the Eurocentric position because I think that we can allagree that it is weak and inaccurate.

As for the Afrocentric position, they assume that the Egyptians were a racially pure black people (with different tones of black) and dismiss the idea thatNorth Africans were naturally light-skinned "olive-skinned" people with different features from blacks. They seem to solely focus on the race ofEgyptians while ignoring the rest of North Africa are similar in appearance to Egyptians...thus ignoring the possibility that North Africans were a naturallydifferent race from blacks. This position also seems to ignore scientific and archaeological evidence that the Egyptians came in a wide variety of skin tonesand features that to simply categorize them under one race such as "black" would be factually incorrect. Unfortunately Afrocentrics want tomis-represent the race of the Ancient Egyptians as purely black in order to push their view that Blacks ruled the world and as a way of overcoming oppression.While it is undeniable that blacks played a huge role in Ancient Egypt history, the idea that the Egyptians were originally pure blacks has been dismissed timeand time again (by unbiased scholars and scientists without an agenda).

jerryjones, there were undoubtedly black Pharaohs in charge of Egypt. I do not know too much about Narmer or what race he was (maybe you could provide us witha link about Narmer) but having a black Pharaoh in charge does not mean that all Egyptians were black. As Huey pointed out, the Egyptians did not distinguishbetween races amongst fellow Egyptians but between the race of different nationalities. Thus, having a dark-skinned Pharaoh probably wasn't as big of adeal back then as it is in 21st century America

 

[jerryjones]

Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez

I guess it is a matter of differences of opinion.

You're right that the Egyptians did not categorize based on race, they categorized based on nationality. An Egyptian was an Egyptian, regardless of colour while non-Egyptians such as Libyans, Nubians, Palestinians, Asiatics, etc. were labeled as outsiders.

That being said, race has become such a controversial topic over the last few centuries. Unfortunately the debate between Eurocentrics and Afrocentrics has turned this into a competition of claiming the accomplishments of the Ancient Egyptians as their own.

I believe that both sides have significant shortcomings. I'm not going to waste time refuting the Eurocentric position because I think that we can all agree that it is weak and inaccurate.

As for the Afrocentric position, they assume that the Egyptians were a racially pure black people (with different tones of black) and dismiss the idea that North Africans were naturally light-skinned "olive-skinned" people with different features from blacks. They seem to solely focus on the race of Egyptians while ignoring the rest of North Africa are similar in appearance to Egyptians...thus ignoring the possibility that North Africans were a naturally different race from blacks. This position also seems to ignore scientific and archaeological evidence that the Egyptians came in a wide variety of skin tones and features that to simply categorize them under one race such as "black" would be factually incorrect. Unfortunately Afrocentrics want to mis-represent the race of the Ancient Egyptians as purely black in order to push their view that Blacks ruled the world and as a way of overcoming oppression. While it is undeniable that blacks played a huge role in Ancient Egypt history, the idea that the Egyptians were originally pure blacks has been dismissed time and time again (by unbiased scholars and scientists without an agenda).

jerryjones, there were undoubtedly black Pharaohs in charge of Egypt. I do not know too much about Narmer or what race he was (maybe you could provide us with a link about Narmer) but having a black Pharaoh in charge does not mean that all Egyptians were black. As Huey pointed out, the Egyptians did not distinguish between races amongst fellow Egyptians but between the race of different nationalities. Thus, having a dark-skinned Pharaoh probably wasn't as big of a deal back then as it is in 21st century America

Sure i'll provide a link with more info on narmer http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/narmer.htm and also check out http://www.reshafim.org.i.../egypt/narmer/index.html (this one is titled "the narmer palette:the victorious king of the south")

This site gives information about egypt's first pharoh and also explains the meaning of the narmer palette, which you previously posted.
notice in the second paragraph it states "The two-sided Narmer palette, is interpreted as being a thanks-offering for the successful definitive victory ofthe southern over the northern kingdoms."

Also i wasn't posing the question about narmer to imply that it would have been a big deal to have a black pharaoh, i was posing the question to illustratethat the black pharaoh is fundamental to ancient egyptian history, that a black pharaoh unified egypt, thus creating egypt as it is understood today and toillustrate that, according to your own logic egypt was founded by a black man. In fact i would go as far as to say that it would have been a big deal if theperson sitting in the seat of the pharoah in ancient egypt wasn't black.

another point---you say that afrocentrist state that the egyptians were pure black, to be honest with you i have never heard that argument before. I would bethe first to say that the egyptians were not pure black. it is almost a certainty that they were mixed with non black peoples to some degree, but the ancientegyptian's culture, social structure, religion, cosmology and the very concept of the pharoah was fundamentally black african.

at the UNESCO Egyptologist conference in Cairo,1974 (the most prestigious conference ever held by the world's mosteminent Egyptologists). it was concluded that "the ancient Kamites (Egyptians) were Black Afrikans. Professor J. Vercoutter of France, a major contributor to theconference concluded, 'Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture and in its way of thinking.' The entire symposium 'rejected the ideathat Pharaonic Egyptian was a Semitic language,' concluding that it was Afrikan. (General History of Africa Vol. II, Ancient Civilizations ofAfrica, Editor: G. Mokhtar. UNESCO 1981)"

Thus it was shown ancient egypt was fundamentally a black african culture that racially admixed with non black cultures over various periods in her long richhistory.

 

[mr kuter]

JerryJones, that first link you posted about narmer aint working man. Thes characters (%C2%A0) are after the ".htm", just delete those and the siteworks.

 

[jerryjones]

try this http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/narmer.htm you may have to copy n paste sorry

 

[carlos tevez]

jerryjones, I think you're kind of overstating Narmer's significance in Egyptian history. While he will always be remembered as one of the all timegreat pharaohs for unifying Upper and Lower Egypt, he was not the 1st Pharaoh nor the founder of Egypt like you claim.

I am not trying to understate the role of blacks in Egyptian history. It's hard for me to believe that I've contributed so many replies to this threadwhen all I intended to do at first was to challenge the notion that "Egyptians were black" and "Black people built the pyramids of Giza" asif Ancient Egypt consisted of only a pure black race.

All I wanted to show was that Egyptians were not just black but consisted of other mixed races as well.

African culture does not mean that the Egyptians were all naturally black.

Here is an addition to the quote you provided...

Prof. Jean Vercoutter (France) remarked that "Egypt was African in its way of writing, in its culture, and in its way of thinking." He stated, however, that "the inhabitants of the Nile Valley had always been mixed."
The common consensus is that they were mixed. As strong as Cheikh Diop's work was, he falls into the same trap as the Eurocentrics of broadlylabeling the Egyptians. While the Europeans claimed that all the Egyptians had caucasian traits, Diop does the same by using a very broad approach to labelAncient Egypt as a black civilization.

I do not believe that you can use the word Black to describe the majority of the Ancient Egyptian people. African? Definitely. But being African does notnecessarily mean that you are black...just look at the rest of North Africa.

 

[bwoodfolkgd74]

always been mixed?

simply not true, since that would be impossible.

i got to get some sleep . 1

 

[joe camel smooth]

are we really arguing over whether or not egypt was populated by blacks?

wow nt is the home of going off on tangents far less interesting than the original topic.

 

[jerryjones]

lol i have to admit im suprised that i've contributed so many post to this thread as well, also i wasn't saying narmer founded egypt as to suggest thatnothing took place in egypt before him. I was saying he founded the powerful unified kingdom of egypt. Every egyptologist i know of dates the begining of egyptproper with his unification of the upper and lower. In fact records of egyptian history prior to narmer are scanty (if any records prior to the narmer paletteexist at all). The Narmer palette has been referred to as the first historical document in the world.

Also im confused, how was narmer not egypt's first pharoah? every document i've seen states that narmer or menes founded the first dynasty thus makinghim egypt's first pharaoh (The general scholarly consensus is that Narmer and Menes (or his successor Hor-Aha) are in fact the same person.).According tothe ancient egyptian's own records( the egyptian priest manetho "history of egypt") menes was egypts first pharaoh.

Before narmer evidence suggest there were only rulers of small city-states.