Denial of the African origins of Ancient Egypt?

[Broomstick]

This quote, especially the part in bold, raised red flags. The claim of race being a biologically meaningful concept when applied to human biological variation is outside the scientific mainstream.

It is, however, within the medical mainstream as different populations really do have some differences and some of those traits do tend to follow ethnic/racial lines.

However the part in bold in particular about racial differences in gestation and twinning rates is an obvious reference to the research of J. Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, Canada who wrote a controversial book titled Race, Evolution and Behavior: A Life History Perspective which is widely recognized in academia to be a promotion of Scientific Racism.

I'm sorry if it upsets you, but the difference in twinning rate really does exist. Specifically, the Yoruba of Nigeria have the highest fraternal twinning rate in the world. The Chinese have the lowest. This has been confirmed by many sources, not just one. The personality and/or prejudices of someone does not alter whether the facts they present are valid or not.

While I do not agree with Rushton using these facts to rank people, much of that chart contains valid data. Granted, there is also important information left out - one of the reasons that cranial capacity of his categories whites and orientals are so close is due to those populations being less variable in size. The blacks appear smaller, but that is an artifact of two things: Africans and those of African descent are much more variable in height than those of ancestry from other continents so you have to be careful because any random sample you use are may have enough smaller-than-global-average individuals that will, due to size alone, have a perfectly proportional but smaller crania (and you must also take care that your sample might have many taller-than-human-average individuals), and so many of the Africans and their diaspora live in sufficient poverty that stunted growth must be a factor taken into consideration. That's part of the problem of mixing data that's gene-based (as fraternal twin rate is believed to be) and environmental (which operates outside the genes), and failing to account for the fact that some traits are influenced by both.

In sum, while you can contest many of his "facts", some of which are clearly environmental and cultural and not genetic, you can not dismiss all of them as "products of a racist". I certainly encourage you to challenge the data, but you can not do that by attacking a person's viewpoint. (You can, of course, attack a person's conclusions if you think there is bias at work, which in the case of Rushton you clearly do)

From your quote from review of Rushton's book by evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin:

Finally, like all works of its genre, Race, Evolution, and Behavior has a hard time distinguishing between speculations and proven causal relations.

Emphasis added - Lewontin is acknowledging that there are, in fact, "proven causal relations" and data in Rushton's book, the problem is that they are mixed in with speculations.

Just in case anyone is wondering - the proven facts in that chart are the following:

-Fraternal twinning rate

-Possibly the cranial capacity although that is so variable among adult humans and various groups that without knowing the size of the sample used and the methodology it's essentially meaningless. On top of which, Rushton attempts to correlate this with intelligence as a stand in for brain size, likewise the bit on "cortical neurons", but that ignores medical science which see no correlation between brain size within the normal range and intelligence. Indeed, children with heads on the large end of the average scale are usually whisked off to medical testing for hydrocephalus, which is associated with mental retardation, and there are several disorders that result in too many cells in the brain rather than not enough. which also result in mental retardation, so perhaps what Rushton's chart is showing is that black people are less likely to suffer these disorders, even in mild and treated forms (hydrocephalus can be treated and intelligence preserved if caught early enough) than other peoples! So, while the data may be valid, the conclusions drawn from it may not be.

- At least in America, those of African descent are more like to deliver their children before 40 weeks of gestation. Whether that's a problem or not depends on how premature, and how late everyone else is delivering as going much past 40 weeks is also indicative of a problem. Those of African descent are also more likely to have babies that weigh less than average at birth. However, both of those numbers are definitely affected by the environment, and poor nutrition and stress are far more likely to have an impact that than genetics. If there is a genetic basis for this it's buried in environmental effects.

- The skeletal and dental data is true. Those of African descent go through the usual skeletal and dental growth stages slightly faster than Europeans, who do so slightly earlier than those from Asia (I keep noting the Americas are entirely left out of these discussions). What does it mean as far as better or worse? Absolutely nothing. What does the greater body hair of Europeans signify? Nothing. These are just variations, none of which have either sufficient detriments to be eliminated nor sufficient advantage to become universal. What use are the "shovel" shaped incisors common in Asia? So far as anyone can see they work as well as any other human teeth and confer neither advantage nor disadvantage. Rushton somehow concludes that these skeletal and dental traits result in a ranking of "races", that is where he is wrong, not in the existence of these traits. About the only "use" these traits have are, first of all, slightly adjusting the age at which an adolescent is sent for medical testing if not physically maturing as expected, and in forensic pathology slightly altering age estimates for corpses. Outside of those somewhat specialized area it's irrelevant.

The lifespan data are also true - at least once a year we hear that the Japanese are the longest lived people on Earth, and some African countries have horrifically low average lifespans. But this has more to do with Japan being a peaceful and prosperous nation and some of those African nations being embroiled in decades-long civil wars and/or lacking modern medical care. These are not inherent physical traits but environmental, social, and cultural ones. Africans who leave those civil war torn countries and move elsewhere will "suddenly" have much longer life expectancies. People of Japanese ancestry who live outside of Japan have life expectancies in line with their neighbors.

Everything else on that chart are environmental factors, not something inherent in genes or bodies. The inclusion of actual facts (particularly when divorced from context) gives an aura of respectability to such charts, but it's covering a lump of lead with gold leaf. Oh, yes, the gold leaf IS real gold.... but it's only a thin veneer over a much less pleasant lump.

Your Lewontin quote actuallly does do a pretty good job of explaining the issue with Rushton's work.

So, while I agree with you that Rushton is showing racism, I disagree that his data is wholly garbage. There's just enough valid information in with the bullshit to trip people up.

[Thanas]

Why are we even discussing Rushton? Unless he can prove she is a direct follower of Rushton, let us concentrate on important things, please.

[Edi]

Why are we even discussing Rushton? Unless he can prove she is a direct follower of Rushton, let us concentrate on important things, please.

Indeed. I would like people to refrain from posting unless they have anything of real substance to add. If Thanas has a reply in five parts, then it's going to be pretty damned long and I'd rather see the entire argument play out first before the bit players chip in.

In this respect, the thread from now on is more like a Coliseum match than a free-for-all. Irrelevant tangents especially should be avoided.

[Thanas]

Ancient writers Part II: The Egyptians

After Menhutotep brought up a somewhat valid point - that the greeks lived too late and were not Egyptian themselves, let us consider what Egyptian writers themselves write. The question here is therefore: Did they see a biological difference between themselves and Nubia? And if so, when did that start?

My sources for this is:

ANCIENT RECORDS OF EGYPT, HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS FROM ThE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERSIAN CONQUEST. COLLECTED, EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH COMMENTARY by JAMES HENRY BREASTED, PH.D., a gigantic collection of ancient records in four volumes, which I happen to have as ebooks.

A few notes - for the sake of propriety, I have changed the term "negro", which was common in the 1900s but which carries a whole lot of unfortunate implications, to "black(s)". I am sure everybody understands why I am not willing to use the term originally used by the translator. As for Breasted, his competence is without question, for he was a true pioneer in Egyptian epigraphy.

So let us look at the inscriptions. And lo and behold, we find such a distinction already in the third dynasty.

Third dynasty:

Palermo Stone, 146 (reign of Snepru):

146. [...]Hacking up the land of the Blacks.
Bringing of 7,000 living prisoners, and 200,000 large and small cattle.


Sixth Dynasty
Inscription of Uni (reign of Pepi I)

311: His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands:
in the entire south, southward to Elephantine: and northward to Aphroditopolis;
in the Northland on both sides [...]and in the midst of the strongholds, among the Irthet blacks, the Mazoi blacks, the Yam blacks, among the Wawat blacks, among the Kau blacks, and in the Land of Temeh.


same inscription (now reign of Mernere):

324: [...]Then the black chiefs of Irthet , Wawat, Yam and Mazoi drew timber therefor, and I did the whole in only one year. They were launched and laden with very large granite
blocks for the pyramid (called) : "Mernere-Shines-and-is-Beautiful."


Sixth dynasty, Pepi II:
Inscriptions of Sebni (detailing a visit to Nubia):

366. [Then I took] a troop of my estate, and 100 asses with me, bearing ointment, honey, clothing, oil and 1 of every sack, in order to rmake presents [in]' these countries [and I went out to] these countries of the blacks.

372. I [went north] to Memphis bearing the gifts of these countries which this count had brought. I deposited every gift which this my father deposited - before this my army and the blacks [...]


Twelth dynasty, Amenemhet II:
Inscription of Sihathor

602. I visited the Mine-land (Sinai) as a youth, and I forced the chiefs to wash gold. I brought malachite, I reached Nubia of the blacks.


Twelth dynasty, Sesostris III:
The first Semneh Stela

652. Southern boundary, made in the year 8, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khekure (Sesostris III), who is given life forever and ever; in order to prevent that any black should cross it, by water or by land, with a ship, (or) any herds of the blacks;
except a black who shall come to do trading in Ikene (Ykn), or with a commission. Every good thinga shall be done with them, but without allowing a ship of the blacks to pass by EIehb, going downstream, forever.

The second Semneh Stela:
657 [...] Valiance is eagerness, cowardice is to slink back; he is truly a craven who is repelled upon his border; since the black hearkens to the [----] of the mouth.


STELA OF SEBEK-KHU, CALLED ZAA
687. Then I made ready at his side, (and) his majesty caused that
I be appointed to be an 'attendant of the ruler.' I furnished sixty men
when his majesty proceeded southward to overthrow the Troglodytes of
Nubia. Then I captured a black in[...]

And this is just what a curosry glance of the first volume brought. I could continue, but I think my point is well made here: Egyptians themselves were of the opinion that the Nubians had a much darker skintone, even by the time of the third dynasty. Furthermore, they thought it enough of an identifier that they even used it in legal texts and treaties. In fact, the primary difference seems to be that their skin is much, much darker than the Egyptians, that in fact the difference can be spotted at first sight.

Thus, one cannot assume the lightness of the Egyptian skin when compared to the Horners by the Greek writers is a recent development. We have it being mentioned in the third dynasty, over 2600 years BC, which means it was most likely there from the start. (Unless you want to make the claim that there were mass incursions during the start of the Old Kingdom or predynastic times, which again would clash with the idea of Egypt and its technology being an overwhelmingly african or nubian development). In fact, the ancient Egyptian writers seem to be at pains to stress that they are not Nubians. The Nubians are named as much foreigners of different breeding and characteristics as are the Semitic people.

Note that this style carries over even on to Pharaohs which some people consider to be "black", as even in the reign of Amenhotep III nubians are still called "the blacks".

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Mentuhotep, you are assuming that Mathilda references Rushton in that comment on her "about" page. I'd rather have evidence of that than mere speculation.

Edi,

In the interest of furthering the discussion I will not get into detail on Rushton and refute the arguments favoring his data although I am fully capable of doing so. It's simply not going to benefit the discussion but only distract from it. I think I made a good case however for Mathilda referencing Rushton. It is obvious. He is the only scholar I have heard of who uses gestation and twinning rates as an argument for racial differences and the rest of her rhetoric about "we are not all the same" is a clear promotion of racialism. This is not an attempt at character assassination but simply providing readers with a balanced perspective on who Thanas' source really is. He presents her as a reliable commentator on the subject who is a victim of Afrocentric attacks when in reality she is not a scholar and does in fact advocate racialist sentiments on her blog in her own "about" page. These facts should not be taken lightly when we have charges of racism and source bias flying around the thread.

There is no evidence that she means it in any other way besides a technical term. Heck, she even agrees that Africa was the birthplace of mankind etc. Colouring her a racist is just a huge misdirection attempt here.

Actually she doesn't:


I think… the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution is somewhat inaccurate, even though the media seem to be all for it. It’s not amazingly popular among anthropologists and geneticists (see blog for papers on that) although it’s repeatedly printed as the proven truth. I’ve got multiple DNA and anthropological studies that don’t support it.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/about-2/


But even if she did it wouldn't make her any less racist. Rushton agrees with the the "Out of Africa" model yet maintains the idea of racial differences in intelligence and personality.

I do believe it is fair to color her as a racist given the direction of her blog and associations. If you are going to portray her as some sort of an innocent victim it's only fair that I mention her promotion of racialist research as as well as associations with people such as "Dienekes Pontikos" and "Racial Reality" (see her links on the right) who are members of a racialist message board known as Dodona/Anthroscape which is full of some rather demented race-obsessed posters who are not above hurling racial slurs at opponents. Mathilda also approves of every post on her blog and Rushton's work has been cited directly. This is not character assassination. I don't say this to discredit her but in the interest of fairness. She cannot be portrayed as innocent and objective when she is anything but that. Her comments and associations do suggest an anti-Black, racist agenda as the goal of her blog.

In sum, while you can contest many of his "facts", some of which are clearly environmental and cultural and not genetic, you can not dismiss all of them as "products of a racist". I certainly encourage you to challenge the data, but you can not do that by attacking a person's viewpoint. (You can, of course, attack a person's conclusions if you think there is bias at work, which in the case of Rushton you clearly do)

It's probably best that we get off of Rushton but I will provide counter links that challenge both his data and understanding of human evolution for the sake of any interested readers:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=FVT24OYK

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=6EX30EIL

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IP1ANDEI

Ancient writers Part II: The Egyptians

After Menhutotep brought up a somewhat valid point - that the greeks lived too late and were not Egyptian themselves, let us consider what Egyptian writers themselves write. The question here is therefore: Did they see a biological difference between themselves and Nubia? And if so, when did that start?

My sources for this is:

ANCIENT RECORDS OF EGYPT, HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS FROM ThE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PERSIAN CONQUEST. COLLECTED, EDITED AND TRANSLATED WITH COMMENTARY by JAMES HENRY BREASTED, PH.D., a gigantic collection of ancient records in four volumes, which I happen to have as ebooks.

A few notes - for the sake of propriety, I have changed the term "negro", which was common in the 1900s but which carries a whole lot of unfortunate implications, to "black(s)". I am sure everybody understands why I am not willing to use the term originally used by the translator. As for Breasted, his competence is without question, for he was a true pioneer in Egyptian epigraphy.

So let us look at the inscriptions. And lo and behold, we find such a distinction already in the third dynasty.

Third dynasty:

Palermo Stone, 146 (reign of Snepru):

146. [...]Hacking up the land of the Blacks.
Bringing of 7,000 living prisoners, and 200,000 large and small cattle.


Sixth Dynasty
Inscription of Uni (reign of Pepi I)

311: His majesty made war on the Asiatic Sand-dwellers and his majesty made an army of many ten thousands:
in the entire south, southward to Elephantine: and northward to Aphroditopolis;
in the Northland on both sides [...]and in the midst of the strongholds, among the Irthet blacks, the Mazoi blacks, the Yam blacks, among the Wawat blacks, among the Kau blacks, and in the Land of Temeh.


same inscription (now reign of Mernere):

324: [...]Then the black chiefs of Irthet , Wawat, Yam and Mazoi drew timber therefor, and I did the whole in only one year. They were launched and laden with very large granite
blocks for the pyramid (called) : "Mernere-Shines-and-is-Beautiful."


Sixth dynasty, Pepi II:
Inscriptions of Sebni (detailing a visit to Nubia):

366. [Then I took] a troop of my estate, and 100 asses with me, bearing ointment, honey, clothing, oil and 1 of every sack, in order to rmake presents [in]' these countries [and I went out to] these countries of the blacks.

372. I [went north] to Memphis bearing the gifts of these countries which this count had brought. I deposited every gift which this my father deposited - before this my army and the blacks [...]


Twelth dynasty, Amenemhet II:
Inscription of Sihathor

602. I visited the Mine-land (Sinai) as a youth, and I forced the chiefs to wash gold. I brought malachite, I reached Nubia of the blacks.


Twelth dynasty, Sesostris III:
The first Semneh Stela

652. Southern boundary, made in the year 8, under the majesty of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khekure (Sesostris III), who is given life forever and ever; in order to prevent that any black should cross it, by water or by land, with a ship, (or) any herds of the blacks;
except a black who shall come to do trading in Ikene (Ykn), or with a commission. Every good thinga shall be done with them, but without allowing a ship of the blacks to pass by EIehb, going downstream, forever.

The second Semneh Stela:
657 [...] Valiance is eagerness, cowardice is to slink back; he is truly a craven who is repelled upon his border; since the black hearkens to the [----] of the mouth.


STELA OF SEBEK-KHU, CALLED ZAA
687. Then I made ready at his side, (and) his majesty caused that
I be appointed to be an 'attendant of the ruler.' I furnished sixty men
when his majesty proceeded southward to overthrow the Troglodytes of
Nubia. Then I captured a black in[...]

And this is just what a curosry glance of the first volume brought. I could continue, but I think my point is well made here: Egyptians themselves were of the opinion that the Nubians had a much darker skintone, even by the time of the third dynasty. Furthermore, they thought it enough of an identifier that they even used it in legal texts and treaties. In fact, the primary difference seems to be that their skin is much, much darker than the Egyptians, that in fact the difference can be spotted at first sight.

Thus, one cannot assume the lightness of the Egyptian skin when compared to the Horners by the Greek writers is a recent development. We have it being mentioned in the third dynasty, over 2600 years BC, which means it was most likely there from the start. (Unless you want to make the claim that there were mass incursions during the start of the Old Kingdom or predynastic times, which again would clash with the idea of Egypt and its technology being an overwhelmingly african or nubian development). In fact, the ancient Egyptian writers seem to be at pains to stress that they are not Nubians. The Nubians are named as much foreigners of different breeding and characteristics as are the Semitic people.

Note that this style carries over even on to Pharaohs which some people consider to be "black", as even in the reign of Amenhotep III nubians are still called "the blacks".

The problem I have with these quotes lies with the reliability of Breasted himself as a translator.


It should be noted that Breasted himself, while a prominent Egyptologist, was a man of his time and not exempt from the prejudices of the early 20th century concerning the contributions of Black people to civilization.

Cheikh Anta Diop, who was trained to read Hieroglyphics, notes that many early 20th Century scholars followed the convention of translating the word "Nahasi" to mean "Negro" or "Black" when the Ancient Egyptians themselves gave no indication that this word was in reference to the skin color of the people:

If modern civilization should disappear today, but leave libraries untouched, survivors could open almost any book and perceive immediately that persons living South of the Sahara are called "Blacks." The term "Black Africa" would suffice to indicate the habitat of the Black race. Nothing similar is found in Egyptian texts. Whenever the Egyptians use the word "Black" (Khem), it is to designate themselves or their country: Kemit, land of the Blacks.

Not one of the many modern texts is authentic that mentions the term "Blacks" as if it had ever been used by the Egyptians to distinguish themselves from Negroes. Whenever these texts relate some fact reported by the Egyptians about "Blacks," it is a distortion. They translate Nahasi by "Blacks" in order to serve the cause.

Source: The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality page. 168


These quotes are even less reliable than the Greek text because while they are within the right time period there is no indication that the Egyptians were talking about the skin color of a people. All one needs to do is challenge the assertion that "Nahasi" meant "Black" or darker-skinned and the argument folds.

[Edi]

Are you seriously going to try more character assassination in response and then immediately afterward cite what amounts to the father of afrocentrism whose work, while in part influential, is nowhere near noncontroversial in many respects.

Furthermore, you take one quote out of one book and expect that to refute a far better sourced work simply because you cry "bias"?

Think again.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Are you seriously going to try more character assassination in response and then immediately afterward cite what amounts to the father of afrocentrism whose work, while in part influential, is nowhere near noncontroversial in many respects.

Furthermore, you take one quote out of one book and expect that to refute a far better sourced work simply because you cry "bias"?

Think again.

Diop's criticism makes my point. It is virtually, universally noted by professional Egyptologists that the proper word for "Black" in the Ancient Egyptian language was "Khem". That alone calls into question taking Breasted's translations at face value.

You can call Diop the father of Afrocentrism but that does nothing to refute the point any more than I would by calling Breasted a father of Eurocentric Egyptology. And while I acknowledge controversy over Diop's own work that is besides the point. The issue is with the reliability of Breasted's translation. Does Nahasi mean Black in Ancient Egyptian? No. Do these quotes directly reference skin color? No.

I've already provided more reliable evidence for the Ancient Egyptian's actual skin color. Histological analysis of the skin indicates that the Ancient Egyptians were as dark as tropical African populations. I'm pointing out the problems with Thanses's arguments since he wants his claims to be challenged.

As far as character assassination of Mathilda is concerned I am responding to claims that she is a reliable source who is a victim of racist attacks. If people are going to defend her objectivity and reliability why is it wrong that I point out reasons to call her objectivity and reliability into question?

[Edi]

If you think I'm going to take your word for it that the only word for black in ancient Egyptian was "khem", you're deluded.

There are at least three words in my own language, not counting dialects. For various shades of dark, there are more. English has a lot of words for the same colors as well. I don't expect ancient Egyptian to have been any different and if you want to claim otherwise, then produce something from a respectable source. Your say-so doesn't cut it.

[Thanas]

I think I made a good case however for Mathilda referencing Rushton. It is obvious. He is the only scholar I have heard of who uses gestation and twinning rates as an argument for racial differences and the rest of her rhetoric about "we are not all the same" is a clear promotion of racialism. This is not an attempt at character assassination but simply providing readers with a balanced perspective on who Thanas' source really is. He presents her as a reliable commentator on the subject who is a victim of Afrocentric attacks when in reality she is not a scholar and does in fact advocate racialist sentiments on her blog in her own "about" page. These facts should not be taken lightly when we have charges of racism and source bias flying around the thread.

Ah yes, more charaacter assassination.

There is no evidence that she means it in any other way besides a technical term. Heck, she even agrees that Africa was the birthplace of mankind etc. Colouring her a racist is just a huge misdirection attempt here.

Actually she doesn't:


I think… the ‘out of Africa’ theory of human evolution is somewhat inaccurate, even though the media seem to be all for it. It’s not amazingly popular among anthropologists and geneticists (see blog for papers on that) although it’s repeatedly printed as the proven truth. I’ve got multiple DNA and anthropological studies that don’t support it.

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/about-2/

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you just happen to scroll past her post on the same page, or are you too dishonest?

Technically I support the ‘weak Eden’ theory, which means mostly Out of Africa, but with a bit of archaic human like Neanderthal and Erectus mixed in. Also, not at all recent. Anyone who quotes 40k as the exit date from Africa needs to read up a lot, it was probably over 100k ago.

So want to try more character assassination? How about you freaking do what you promised to do and try to engage in a scholarly debate?

The problem I have with these quotes lies with the reliability of Breasted himself as a translator.


It should be noted that Breasted himself, while a prominent Egyptologist, was a man of his time and not exempt from the prejudices of the early 20th century concerning the contributions of Black people to civilization.

...and more character asssassination. You will either cite evidence that he was a racist immediately or retract that claim.

You will also cite evidence with the original hieroglyphs that the translation is incorrect. And I mean scholarly evidence, not some afrocentric nut.

Cheikh Anta Diop, who was trained to read Hieroglyphics, notes that many early 20th Century scholars followed the convention of translating the word "Nahasi" to mean "Negro" or "Black" when the Ancient Egyptians themselves gave no indication that this word was in reference to the skin color of the people:

If modern civilization should disappear today, but leave libraries untouched, survivors could open almost any book and perceive immediately that persons living South of the Sahara are called "Blacks." The term "Black Africa" would suffice to indicate the habitat of the Black race. Nothing similar is found in Egyptian texts. Whenever the Egyptians use the word "Black" (Khem), it is to designate themselves or their country: Kemit, land of the Blacks.

Not one of the many modern texts is authentic that mentions the term "Blacks" as if it had ever been used by the Egyptians to distinguish themselves from Negroes. Whenever these texts relate some fact reported by the Egyptians about "Blacks," it is a distortion. They translate Nahasi by "Blacks" in order to serve the cause.

Source: The African Origin of Civilization: Myth or Reality page. 168

Here we got an even worse explanation. No philological analysis, nothing other than "they are wrong because...they are all racist. Racist I say." And that from a guy who had no academic credentials in the field of hieroglyphs, who was a physicist by trade. Whose Ph.D. thesis he submitted on the fly was deemed so laughable that no reputable journal would publish it. And who singlehandedly invented afrocentrism.

Right. And you claim to use fair and balanced sources? Why should I believe anything Diop says?


Meanwhile, the translation I provided remains in use. How do you describe that? You cannot just handwave things away like that because you do not like it. That is just not how the way this works.

These quotes are even less reliable than the Greek text

Really.....:

To support his theory, Diop cited the writings of several Greek and Latin writers who had described the ancient Egyptians.

The Greek historian Herodotus, for example, described the Colchians of the Black Sea shores as "Egyptians by race" and pointed out they had "black skins and kinky hair."

Apollodorus, the Greek philosopher, described Egypt as "the country of the black-footed ones" and the Latin historian Ammianus Marcellinus said "the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look."

So you trust a guy who uses (in your opinion) unreliable Greek writers....except for when he seems to follow your line of thought? Or is Diop wrong? If he is right and greek sources are suddenly to be trusted, then why disagree with the greek sources that the Egyptians were not black? Or do you engage in cherrypicking to claim things the greek sources actually do not say?

You can call Diop the father of Afrocentrism but that does nothing to refute the point any more than I would by calling Breasted a father of Eurocentric Egyptology. And while I acknowledge controversy over Diop's own work that is besides the point. The issue is with the reliability of Breasted's translation. Does Nahasi mean Black in Ancient Egyptian? No. Do these quotes directly reference skin color? No.

Okay. You will now show us both the hieroglyphs and the superior translation. Do it now.

If you pointlessly slander one of the greatest Egyptologists who ever lived then you better have some concrete evidence which you will provide right now.

As far as character assassination of Mathilda is concerned I am responding to claims that she is a reliable source who is a victim of racist attacks. If people are going to defend her objectivity and reliability why is it wrong that I point out reasons to call her objectivity and reliability into question?

Because so far all you got is insinuation instead of solid proof. Name racist thoughts and things she personally endorses. Do it now.

And while you are at it, try and retort with something better than "they are all a vast conspiracy of racists".

********************

Btw, you still have not replied to my post regarding your idiocy with the greek writers.

[Thanas]

And consider the following: the Beinlich wordlist disagrees with you with regards to your fictional terminology. Is Beinlich a racist? Is the entire German Egyptology community which uses the wordlist racist?

And I just love the thought process here. Hundreds of years of Greek scholarship is....wrong. Why? Because they can't be right.
Thousands of years of Egpytian writers are wrong....because every single one of them is mistranslated by RACISTS.
Meanwhile, an afrocentrist physicist with no history degree is supposed to be the definite authority on this subject, over hundreds of trained egyptologists who all have no issue with using this translation.

If this wasn't so sad I'd die of laughter.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

If you think I'm going to take your word for it that the only word for black in ancient Egyptian was "khem", you're deluded.

There are at least three words in my own language, not counting dialects. For various shades of dark, there are more. English has a lot of words for the same colors as well. I don't expect ancient Egyptian to have been any different and if you want to claim otherwise, then produce something from a respectable source. Your say-so doesn't cut it.

I flip it around and ask for anyone to provide a source for a modern Egyptologist with an expertise in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs supporting Breasted's assertion that Nahasi was a reference to skin color.

I maintain that Diop's argument is reasonable and translations by early 20th century Egyptologists are superseded by actual scientific evidence for the Ancient Egyptian's skin color and biological affinities.

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you just happen to scroll past her post on the same page, or are you too dishonest?

Technically I support the ‘weak Eden’ theory, which means mostly Out of Africa, but with a bit of archaic human like Neanderthal and Erectus mixed in. Also, not at all recent. Anyone who quotes 40k as the exit date from Africa needs to read up a lot, it was probably over 100k ago.

Her page has been edited several times so I must have overlooked this gibberish.

So want to try more character assassination? How about you freaking do what you promised to do and try to engage in a scholarly debate?

This isn't a scholarly debate. It's a message board. Scholars do not engage in bullying tactics the way you are beginning to do. I promised to support my arguments and so far I have done so. I don't appreciate the insults and aggressive demands that I debate the way you want me to. I understand that you guys have rules around here that allows this debate style but I'm not walking on eggshells for you. I will answer every argument and sensible request in the interest in furthering discussion. If it isn't done to your liking then you do what you have to do.

...and more character asssassination. You will either cite evidence that he was a racist immediately or retract that claim.

Here you go:


http://www.daghettotymz.com/current/bro ... -lies.html


Mr. Draper neglected to mention the racist opinions of James Breasted, the founder of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and regarded as one of America’s foremost Egyptologists. In a 1935 publication entitled Ancient Times Breasted described the Egyptians as, “...members of a race of white men, who have been well called the Great White Race.” Breasted also referred to “The Negro peoples of Africa” as having no “influence on the development of earlier civilization.”

You will also cite evidence with the original hieroglyphs that the translation is incorrect. And I mean scholarly evidence, not some afrocentric nut.

There is no known direct translation for the word Nahasi into English. I know of know modern Egyptologists who have even inquired on the subject because race has been given far less importance in Egyptology than it had in Breasted's day.

Here we got an even worse explanation. No philological analysis, nothing other than "they are wrong because...they are all racist. Racist I say." And that from a guy who had no academic credentials in the field of hieroglyphs, who was a physicist by trade. Whose Ph.D. thesis he submitted on the fly was deemed so laughable that no reputable journal would publish it. And who singlehandedly invented afrocentrism.

Right. And you claim to use fair and balanced sources? Why should I believe anything Diop says?

He argued that they are wrong because the proper word for black in the Ancient Egyptian language was Khem. The word for Nahasi is unknown. It is suggested by Diop that the word meant "savage" or "barbarian" given that there is a similar word in Wolof for that meaning. The fact is that Breasted's translations themselves don't reference skin color he simply supplanted an unknown word for Negro to make a racialist proclamation.

Meanwhile, the translation I provided remains in use. How do you describe that? You cannot just handwave things away like that because you do not like it. That is just not how the way this works.

In use by who? Stormfront? Stormfront's White-History page is the only place I know of who even makes the argument today that Breasted's translations are reliable evidence that the Ancient Egyptians views the Nubians as racially separate from themselves. I haven't heard any modern Egyptologists make that argument. Can you name any?

These quotes are even less reliable than the Greek text

Really.....:

To support his theory, Diop cited the writings of several Greek and Latin writers who had described the ancient Egyptians.

The Greek historian Herodotus, for example, described the Colchians of the Black Sea shores as "Egyptians by race" and pointed out they had "black skins and kinky hair."

Apollodorus, the Greek philosopher, described Egypt as "the country of the black-footed ones" and the Latin historian Ammianus Marcellinus said "the men of Egypt are mostly brown or black with a skinny desiccated look."

So you trust a guy who uses (in your opinion) unreliable Greek writers....except for when he seems to follow your line of thought? Or is Diop wrong? If he is right and greek sources are suddenly to be trusted, then why disagree with the greek sources that the Egyptians were not black? Or do you engage in cherrypicking to claim things the greek sources actually do not say?

Diop got some things right and some things wrong. A great deal of his work has been superseded by modern scholarship and alot of the racial issues aren't brought up any more so I did have to go all the way back to Diop to point out the bias and unreliability of Breasted's scholarship. Surely you can understand that the race of the Ancient Egyptians is not widely discussed among Egyptologists today. You will not find a single modern Egyptologist who has printed work arguing against the Blackness of the Ancient Egyptians by quoting translations by Breasted.

Okay. You will know show us both the hieroglyphs and the superior translation. Do it now.

Ask nicely. I don't reply to bullying. You should get my point however by now. Breasted's translations are severely outdated and unreliable. As far as I know he is the only scholar to have published the translations of those particular text but the point is that you cannot make a credible argument for Nahasi meaning "Negro" or being a reference to skin color. Breasted offers no scholarly justification for this and all indication suggests that Egyptologists don't actually know what it means.

If you pointlessly slander one of the greatest Egyptologists who ever lived then you better have some concrete evidence which you will provide right now.

Yeah...you don't intimidate me buddy. If you want to ban me for being uncooperative that is your call but it only makes you look foolish to threaten and ban someone who has made every attempt to be civil and engage in a productive discussion. I've provided a reference for Breasted's White Supremacist opinions and provided criticism from other scholars against the reliability of his translation. All you have done is call Diop names.

Because so far all you got is insinuation instead of solid proof. Name racist thoughts and things she personally endorses. Do it now.

DO IT NOW! DO IT NOW!

What is your problem? All you have to do is ask, I'm not jumping when you say jump. That is really immature dude.

She personally endorses racialism. That much is very clear from her own "about me" page. Mathilda is very careful with her language like many racialists because she would not be taken seriously if she went off on racist tangents. However you can tell by her attitude, arguments and associations that she has a racist agenda. I'm sorry if it bothers you that you quote racist sources. Anyone who is sensible can plainly see Mathilda for what she is. A propagandist with a fixation on denying that the Ancient Egyptians were Black.

And while you are at it, try and retort with something better than "they are all a vast conspiracy of racists".

Whether you acknowledge it or not there are alot of agenda driven racists on the internet and bloggers are some of the most widely cited.

Oh, btw, you still have not replied to my post regarding your idiocy with the greek writers.

Which post was that?

[PharaohMentuhotep]

And consider the following: the Beinlich wordlist disagrees with you with regards to your fictional terminology. Is Beinlich a racist? Is the entire German Egyptology community which uses the wordlist racist?

And I just love the thought process here. Hundreds of years of Greek scholarship is....wrong. Why? Because they can't be right.
Thousands of years of Egpytian writers are wrong....because every single one of them is mistranslated by RACISTS.
Meanwhile, an afrocentrist physicist with no history degree is supposed to be the definite authority on this subject, over hundreds of trained egyptologists who all have no issue with using this translation.

If this wasn't so sad I'd die of laughter.

Maybe you will do better with the anthropological evidence because the ancient texts are weak sauce.

The only people who seem to take Breasted's translations seriously any more are White Nationalists who reference him on Stormfront to debunk a Black African Egypt.

There is infact alot of Eurocentric bias in Western scholarship concerning this topic which is acknowledged by many modern scholars. I quoted Diop because he is the only scholar I know on record to challenge Breasted on this issue.

I don't know many scholars today who take seriously this idea of the Ancient Egyptians practicing ancient racism against their Southern neighbors.

You yourself tried to modernize the text to use less offensive language which shows how archaic it is.

[Serafina]

You yourself tried to modernize the text to use less offensive language which shows how archaic it is.

Just a quick note on that:
That means pretty much nothing. "Nigger", "Negro" and similar words were just common, descriptive usage back then (pretty much meaning black, that was their linguistic origin). They were used by racists and non-racists alike - Charles Darwin used the term, and he was as firmly against racism as possible in his day.
The usage of those terms back in those days did not make one racist. Your statement here is therefore pretty much irrelevant.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

You yourself tried to modernize the text to use less offensive language which shows how archaic it is.

Just a quick note on that:
That means pretty much nothing. "Nigger", "Negro" and similar words were just common, descriptive usage back then (pretty much meaning black, that was their linguistic origin). They were used by racists and non-racists alike - Charles Darwin used the term, and he was as firmly against racism as possible in his day.
The usage of those terms back in those days did not make one racist. Your statement here is therefore pretty much irrelevant.

It's not my contention that the use of "Negro" makes one racist but that we should consider the time period. Racial Supremacy was very much alive during the time that Breasted wrote these translations. Why did he even write these translations? So they could compliment poetry books on Ancient Egyptian text or did he have a racist agenda for doing so?

We know that there are published writings where he professed a belief that Blacks had created no civilization and that Whites were a master race. It isn't slander to suggest that Breasted was a man of his time who was effected by racial biases. It's not like I called the man an advocate of eugenics or a Klansmen. He was biased and for all of Diop's shortcomings it is clear that he was interested in refuting alot of that racial biases about ancient African history held by the men of his time which typically held Eurocentric views. Breasted was not immune to that.

[Thanas]

I flip it around and ask for anyone to provide a source for a modern Egyptologist with an expertise in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs supporting Breasted's assertion that Nahasi was a reference to skin color.

I did provide such a source - the Beinlich wordlist.

The handlist of Ancient Egyptian words known to Egyptologists as the "Beinlich Wordlist" was announced by Horst Beinlich and Friedhelm Hoffmann in Göttinger Miszellen 140 (1994), 101-3.

Are Beinlich and Hoffmann racists?

I maintain that Diop's argument is reasonable and translations by early 20th century Egyptologists are superseded by actual scientific evidence for the Ancient Egyptian's skin color and biological affinities.

On your say so.

Her page has been edited several times so I must have overlooked this gibberish.

Bull. That version is unchanged and has remained unchanged.

This isn't a scholarly debate.

..says the guy who claims that he wanted to have precisely such a debate.

It's a message board. Scholars do not engage in bullying tactics the way you are beginning to do. I promised to support my arguments and so far I have done so. I don't appreciate the insults and aggressive demands that I debate the way you want me to. I understand that you guys have rules around here that allows this debate style but I'm not walking on eggshells for you. I will answer every argument and sensible request in the interest in furthering discussion. If it isn't done to your liking then you do what you have to do.

Oh yes, poor you. My heart weeps for you.

Mr. Draper neglected to mention the racist opinions of James Breasted, the founder of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and regarded as one of America’s foremost Egyptologists. In a 1935 publication entitled Ancient Times Breasted described the Egyptians as, “...members of a race of white men, who have been well called the Great White Race.” Breasted also referred to “The Negro peoples of Africa” as having no “influence on the development of earlier civilization.”

And now you will demonstrate how that translation is incorrect and how restating the opinio communis of his time makes him a racist.

There is no known direct translation for the word Nahasi into English. I know of know modern Egyptologists who have even inquired on the subject because race has been given far less importance in Egyptology than it had in Breasted's day.

Funny how the Beinlich list, compiled by Egyptologist for Egyptologists, has no such problems, eh?

He argued that they are wrong because the proper word for black in the Ancient Egyptian language was Khem. The word for Nahasi is unknown. It is suggested by Diop that the word meant "savage" or "barbarian" given that there is a similar word in Wolof for that meaning. The fact is that Breasted's translations themselves don't reference skin color he simply supplanted an unknown word for Negro to make a racialist proclamation.

Yeah, right.

Diop got some things right and some things wrong. A great deal of his work has been superseded by modern scholarship and alot of the racial issues aren't brought up any more so I did have to go all the way back to Diop to point out the bias and unreliability of Breasted's scholarship. Surely you can understand that the race of the Ancient Egyptians is not widely discussed among Egyptologists today. You will not find a single modern Egyptologist who has printed work arguing against the Blackness of the Ancient Egyptians by quoting translations by Breasted.

You will also find no egpytologyst who reall cares about the afrocentrist view or has any trouble with the beinlich list and its translation.

Yeah...you don't intimidate me buddy. If you want to ban me for being uncooperative that is your call but it only makes you look foolish to threaten and ban someone who has made every attempt to be civil and engage in a productive discussion. I've provided a reference for Breasted's White Supremacist opinions and provided criticism from other scholars against the reliability of his translation. All you have done is call Diop names.

Oh, I see, I am being mean to you.

She personally endorses racialism. That much is very clear from her own "about me" page. Mathilda is very careful with her language like many racialists because she would not be taken seriously if she went off on racist tangents. However you can tell by her attitude, arguments and associations that she has a racist agenda. I'm sorry if it bothers you that you quote racist sources. Anyone who is sensible can plainly see Mathilda for what she is. A propagandist with a fixation on denying that the Ancient Egyptians were Black.

I haver never met a white racist who holds the opinion that the Egyptians were a mixture of Nubians, Levantine and indigenous cultures, with the indigenous cultures being the majority. I also never met a white racist who claims that the Egyptians were brown people and helped colonize the Levant, and I have never met any white racist who idolizes the Berbers.

And once again, you cannot name any specific examples. You know what? Even if you were right, as long as she sources her statements her personal political views do not matter.

Which post was that?

Yeah, keep playing that game.

There is infact alot of Eurocentric bias in Western scholarship concerning this topic which is acknowledged by many modern scholars. I quoted Diop because he is the only scholar I know on record to challenge Breasted on this issue.

And he is not a scholar. At best he is an amateur in the subject. He has no degree in egyptology. He is a physicist.

I don't know many scholars today who take seriously this idea of the Ancient Egyptians practicing ancient racism against their Southern neighbors.

Really? The Egyptians were certainly not above thinking themselves higher than any other kingdom, as evidenced by their refusal to marry off princesses into foreign houses because it would be unthinkable for an Egyptian Princess to do so. What's that, you say? No racism? Just politics? How is this any different then?

You yourself tried to modernize the text to use less offensive language which shows how archaic it is.

Yeah, because god forbid that an attempt to not use negatively connotated terms might be perceived as anything other than good manners.



Oh, and I still await your reveal of a peer-reviewed and published article by a reputed Egyptologist that the translation by Breasted should no longer be used.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Why don't you carry on with your summary, Thanas?

All of this bickering is not productive.

[Edi]

If you think I'm going to take your word for it that the only word for black in ancient Egyptian was "khem", you're deluded.

There are at least three words in my own language, not counting dialects. For various shades of dark, there are more. English has a lot of words for the same colors as well. I don't expect ancient Egyptian to have been any different and if you want to claim otherwise, then produce something from a respectable source. Your say-so doesn't cut it.

I flip it around and ask for anyone to provide a source for a modern Egyptologist with an expertise in Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs supporting Breasted's assertion that Nahasi was a reference to skin color.

I'm going to defer to Thanas here, because he actually has a history degree and access to all the databases and other similar resources of the university history department where he works. It should say something that the translation is included in the 1994 compilation of ancient Egyptian words (the Beinlich wordlist), which can be considered modern egyptology.

Or was there an unstated requirement that I have to find an afrocentrist source for you?

I maintain that Diop's argument is reasonable and translations by early 20th century Egyptologists are superseded by actual scientific evidence for the Ancient Egyptian's skin color and biological affinities.

Oh, that's going to be addressed and it's got nothing to do with the texts of ancient Egypt, but with all kinds of other things. Diop's writings were from a time when DNA analysis and other similar techniques were either unknown or just being developed, so considering his arguments (such as they are) reasonable just marks you as another credulous fool who doesn't have a clue of what's he's doing and is charging a fortified machine gun nest armed with a letter opener. The results are going to be roughly similar.

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you just happen to scroll past her post on the same page, or are you too dishonest?

Technically I support the ‘weak Eden’ theory, which means mostly Out of Africa, but with a bit of archaic human like Neanderthal and Erectus mixed in. Also, not at all recent. Anyone who quotes 40k as the exit date from Africa needs to read up a lot, it was probably over 100k ago.

Her page has been edited several times so I must have overlooked this gibberish.

So, when was the last time you read that? It was there when I checked it the first time and has probably been there for a long while.

So want to try more character assassination? How about you freaking do what you promised to do and try to engage in a scholarly debate?

This isn't a scholarly debate. It's a message board.

Newsflash: You're debating an actual historian who specializes in ancient history (if not Egypt primarily), works in an actual university history department and who has an actual factual fucking academic degree on the subject and you're making all kinds of claims about his field. So yes it very well is a scholarly debate, like it or not.

Remember what I said about machine gun nests above?

Scholars do not engage in bullying tactics the way you are beginning to do.

Have you ever tried to debate a professional in any field that you yourself know almost nothing about and constantly telling him he is wrong? That's what you're doing right now. Making ridiculous arguments invites ridicule.

I promised to support my arguments and so far I have done so.

Where? All I have seen is insinuations without a shred of reliable evidence to back it up. And at this point unless you provide academically credited sources to back you up, you're up shit creek without a paddle, because your credibility is that nonexistent.

I don't appreciate the insults and aggressive demands that I debate the way you want me to. I understand that you guys have rules around here that allows this debate style but I'm not walking on eggshells for you. I will answer every argument and sensible request in the interest in furthering discussion. If it isn't done to your liking then you do what you have to do.

Undoubtedly we will.

The problem here is that take any goddamn analogy you please, a beginner martial artist who has just got his yellow belt in judo trying to tell a black belt jujutsu sensei he's doing it all wrong, or a civilian trying telling a military veteran about how combat on the battlefield works or a layman who's never opened a computer case trying to instruct a computer technician on how to install a motherboard and processor.

Any and all of them apply to you and you seem to be too goddamn stubborn to even acknowledge the possibility, let alone admit anything.

Okay. You will know show us both the hieroglyphs and the superior translation. Do it now.

Ask nicely. I don't reply to bullying. You should get my point however by now. Breasted's translations are severely outdated and unreliable. As far as I know he is the only scholar to have published the translations of those particular text but the point is that you cannot make a credible argument for Nahasi meaning "Negro" or being a reference to skin color. Breasted offers no scholarly justification for this and all indication suggests that Egyptologists don't actually know what it means.

"As far as I know" meaning you don't have a clue and are in effect conceding this

If you pointlessly slander one of the greatest Egyptologists who ever lived then you better have some concrete evidence which you will provide right now.

Yeah...you don't intimidate me buddy. If you want to ban me for being uncooperative that is your call but it only makes you look foolish to threaten and ban someone who has made every attempt to be civil and engage in a productive discussion. I've provided a reference for Breasted's White Supremacist opinions and provided criticism from other scholars against the reliability of his translation. All you have done is call Diop names.

Are you going to pull the "Waah! You're being mean!" card now? That's not going to get you very far.

And while you are at it, try and retort with something better than "they are all a vast conspiracy of racists".

Whether you acknowledge it or not there are alot of agenda driven racists on the internet and bloggers are some of the most widely cited.

Those agenda driven racists apparently also include you, since you absolutely refuse to consider that the professionally accepted translations such as the Beinlich list may in fact be correct and the only visible reason is because that list does not say what you want it to say.

Here's a hint: If any new evidence surfaces or there is reason to suspect that some earlier work was shoddy, it's reexamined and even though history is not my field, I know this has happened a goddamn lot with regard to ancient Egyptian history. It must be one of the most thoroughly researched areas of ancient history (in addition to Roman history) there is.


*****

And consider the following: the Beinlich wordlist disagrees with you with regards to your fictional terminology. Is Beinlich a racist? Is the entire German Egyptology community which uses the wordlist racist?

And I just love the thought process here. Hundreds of years of Greek scholarship is....wrong. Why? Because they can't be right.
Thousands of years of Egpytian writers are wrong....because every single one of them is mistranslated by RACISTS.
Meanwhile, an afrocentrist physicist with no history degree is supposed to be the definite authority on this subject, over hundreds of trained egyptologists who all have no issue with using this translation.

If this wasn't so sad I'd die of laughter.

Maybe you will do better with the anthropological evidence because the ancient texts are weak sauce.

Oh, the ancient texts are weak sauce now that you don't have an argument, but there was no problem referencing them when you cherry-picked them to support your argument?

The only people who seem to take Breasted's translations seriously any more are White Nationalists who reference him on Stormfront to debunk a Black African Egypt.

This has got to be the stupidest argument I've seen in a good long while. Are you actually trying to use guilt by association to dismiss Breasted when a racist group later used his arguments because they fit?

By the same token, everything ever written by Diop can be dismissed in its entirety for the afrocentric agenda.

Seriously, Stormfront is a hotbed of seething scum with no redeeming features at all, but that does not mean that the blind chicken doesn't occasionally find a grain, like now. The main body of evidence for the soundness of Breasted's work is that it has stood the test of later reviews and is still in use and it is corroborated by the professionals who actually know what they're talking about.

[Edi]

Why don't you carry on with your summary, Thanas?

All of this bickering is not productive.

Whoops, didn't see that.

Yes, perhaps it would be best...


EDIT to clarify: Meaning that I didn't see it before I had posted that humongous post above, just in case there was any confusion. Sorry about that.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Yes, I look forward to the rest of the summary because the scientific evidence is what I feel is the most reliable for this discussion. It will be especially interesting if Thanas is going to challenge Keita.

As far as Breasted's translations are concerned I cannot find any critical review in print other than that of Diop. Noone seems to be supporting and defending the translation or regarding them as not being credible so maybe it would help discussion to email a professional Egyptologist who specializes in translating Egyptian hieroglyphics.

[Thanas]

It is accepted by professional Egyptologists who specialize in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs. It is written in Faulkner's Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, it is included in the Beinlich list. Another authoritative dictionary is the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, which I admittedly have not checked so far but you are certainly welcome to try.

And newsflash - if nobody is disputing the translation then that is a sign that it is generally accepted in the field. Especially on such important publications which are (or at least were) used on a daily basis for decades.

I'll try and have the next post up by tomorrow or sunday.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

It is accepted by professional Egyptologists who specialize in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs. It is written in Faulkner's Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, it is included in the Beinlich list. Another authoritative dictionary is the Thesaurus Linguae Aegyptiae, which I admittedly have not checked so far but you are certainly welcome to try.

And newsflash - if nobody is disputing the translation then that is a sign that it is generally accepted in the field. Especially on such important publications which are (or at least were) used on a daily basis for decades.

I'll try and have the next post up by tomorrow or sunday.

I'm going to look for a qualified Egyptologist who specializes in translating Egyptian hieroglyphics to ask them about the matter. A critical analysis of these specific texts would be helpful. If I get a reply I will post a screenshot.

[PharaohMentuhotep]

Thanas,

For the record I just looked back at the discussion and noticed a post I had not read before. It occurred before this post:

EDIT: In case I was not clear about it, everybody is free to discuss and comment btw.

When I saw that page the first time this is the post the followed immediately after my post. I don't know how its possible that that the other post was not visible to me but I swear when I looked at the page it was not there.

I certainly would have replied to it if I had seen it. This is probably the post you were accusing me of ignoring. I honestly had no idea what you were talking about at the time.

If you would like I can address that post before you continue your summary however it seems that we have moved in a different direction since then.

[Thanas]

Feel free to do what you think best.

[Big Triece]

The sub saharan african region runs acrooss th country of Sudan. It's not a surprise if there is some overlap. Hence 'especially'

You just stated that because these people and most others in that nation and region do not reside within the confines of that geographic sub region that they were somehow not "blacK", with no regards to any overlap.

To demonstrate that the logic that dark skin = 'black' is flawed when you were presenting a video of someone claiming to be black.

Dark skin that is accompanied with African ancestry is what has ALWAYS, been considered "black" in one of the handful of nations that uses the term regularly. The southern Egyptian man was dark skinned, much darker than say:

The woman who is considered by many to be the mother of the Civil Rights movements:



She in turn is much lighter and likely less Africans in ancestry than these southern Egyptian children below:



Yet her "blackness" has never came into question.

[Edi]

Weren't you going on and on about how it was the Nubians and other dark-skinned blacks establishing Egypt and arguing vociferously against any idea about lighter skin tones being evident among the population earlier in the thread?

So why the hell are you now bringing up Rosa Parks and American racial issues? If you try to derail this thread on that tangent, those posts are going to go straight to HoS. You have a far bigger fish to fry in this thread, so you'd best get to that.