Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closedquestion about the Egyptians..?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Topic: question about the Egyptians..?
    Posted: 30-Jan-2007 at 23:52
Originally posted by AfrikaJamaika

...
all nubians are not dark skinned.....And yes nubians and Khoisan(Bushmen) people do look dffierent but they are both of the same race though...
 
If you see at the map, in Nubia there is a cline, a gradual change of genetic frequencies from the Mediterranean to the Central African genotypes. Of course in between there are peoples that look like both extremes.
 
Now, I wouldn't say Bushmen are of the "same race" as Nubians, Bantues, Malgaches and other peoples of Africa, just because they share some skin colors. As the matter of fact the bushmen has been identified as the closest group alive to the common ancestors of all mankind. If you pay attention to them you will see that features associated with modern East Asians, Europeans and all the rest of peoples are already present in that group.
 
People forget that the genetical diversity inside Africa is greather than the one outside it.
 
Pinguin
 
 
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:07
Originally posted by viola76

 
then dark skinned italians greek portugese arent white compared to germans. tautology
 
And who cares about it? Everyone knows that southern europeans are a different people when compared with northern europeans. That's quite clear to me, no matter than thousand of years of admiture between north and south have erased and somehow blured those differences. Southern europeans (the stereotype) are short, brown skinned strongly build, very hairy, dark haired and eyed, have round chin, smaller noses, etc. Northern europeans are usually taller, have big feet, light hair and eyes, rose skin, etc. etc. So, the very idea to apply a single term to everyone of them (white) seem quite idiotic to me.
 
Originally posted by viola76

Egyptian culture is egyptian it dosent mean it isnt african .
 
Africa is a continent: a geographical locality. Egypt is a place located in the extreme north-east corner of Africa, right besides Arabia, the Levante and the Mediterranean sea. Places that have a lot in common with Egypt since the beginning of times, perhaps as much as with places a lot farther away down south
 
Moreover, Africa is the original name of Morroco and Algiers.
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
when i get time ill post the culture of egypt and its africaness.
Why am i a afrocentrist? is it because i think the ancient egypts were black african?
 
Well, you should define what is a black african first. I believe that's really a though job. You can easily say all mankind is black african because everyone of us came from ancestors that lived in Kenya 60.000 years ago. In the other hand, if you define "Black African" in a very limited way, it is probably you left Egypt outside.
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
are you a eurocentric.
 
No. I am Chilean. Actually I am more interested in the culture of Native Americans than in Europe.
 
 
Originally posted by viola76

 
pekau ill deal with the culture as i said above. the asiatics certainly didnt share egypts beliefs.
do you honestly think the egyptians from taseti and thebes were a differet colour then the so called nubians on ta_setis border?
 
Why it is so important the color of Egyptians, I wonder.
 
If this is a problem of identity I believe it is a waste of time. Egyptians are not related with modern Africans of the diaspora. The later are mainly of Western African ancestry which is no related at all with Egypt.
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 31-Jan-2007 at 00:08
Back to Top
AfrikaJamaika View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 26-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:21
Originally posted by pinguin


.
 
Now, I wouldn't say Bushmen are of the "same race" as Nubians, Bantues, Malgaches and other peoples of Africa, just because they share some skin colors. As the matter of fact the bushmen has been identified as the closest group alive to the common ancestors of all mankind.
  


Its more than just skin color Pinguin they dont have any caucasian features....Their noses are round and flat.....They have thick lips like todays africans not as  big though, and nappy hair so therefore they are black people.....They do look a lil asian in the eyes i agree on that much but mankind came from Africa as science has stated so obviously the asians came into existance because of the africans.....


Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:24
 
 the original question was is, was the a.e black. im answering what you are writing this is a forum. why is it if a black guy reckons the egyptians were black they have low self esteem and no identity. if a white guy reckon they were white or semetic no one on this board accuses him of stealing others history, he has self esteem issues etc. etc
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:31
To AfrikaJamaica:
 
The problem is, my friend, that any of the above defines a race. Curly hair, for example, is present in Europeans, Arabs and South Asians. Dark skin is also quite common in South East Asia and the pacific; actuallly, I believe that some people of Southern India are darker than the average Subsaharan African. There are blonds between Aboriguinal Australians and people of the Pacific. North East Asians are in average lighter than Europeans! Thick lips and prognatism is common both in the "Asian" and "African" peoples. etc.
And I have seen some Native Americans identical to Japaneses and others to Italians!
 
What I mean is that groups like white, black, yellow are just simplifications of mankind. The world is quite a lot more diverse that those pretty limited classifications. And I repeat, there are more genetical diversity INSIDE Africa than outside.
 
Consider, for example, the physical differences between Pigmeys and Zulues or between Somalians and Nigerians. Take for example the Malgaches. Do you know they are half Indonesians? Curious, isn't?
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 31-Jan-2007 at 00:36
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:50
Originally posted by viola76

 
 the original question was is, was the a.e black. im answering what you are writing this is a forum. why is it if a black guy reckons the egyptians were black they have low self esteem and no identity. if a white guy reckon they were white or semetic no one on this board accuses him of stealing others history, he has self esteem issues etc. etc
 
I don't think anybody seriously think Egyptians were Blacks (if by that mean a phenotype similar to the one of Congo or Nigeria). People really knows Egypt is located in Africa and that the ancient population had a varied phenotype that goes from Palestinean-like to Ethiopian-like. That's not something new at all, and it is not something very relevant for the topic either. People also knows (from the Bible and other sources) that in ancient times peoples crossed from Mesopotamia to the Levante and Egypt.... walking. Nothing similar happened between Egypt and Subsaharan Africa, that was really a world appart for most of history.
 
Egypt is important because it was ONE of the founding civilizations of Eurasia, together with Mesopotamia and the peoples of the Middle East.  And it is also important because Greeks admired them. Egypt is not the older civilization at all, because those other civilizations came first. But Egypt is recognized as the first solid country that existed in history, besides, Egypt seem more human than those oriental civilizations.
 
What people does not accept easily is the semantic game of changing the identity of ancient Egypt by a series of permutations, following some very twisted arguments. Saying that Egypt is the product of Black Africa, for example, seem artificial and biassed to more impartial observers.
 
That's all.
 
Pnguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 31-Jan-2007 at 00:50
Back to Top
AfrikaJamaika View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai


Joined: 26-Dec-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 132
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 00:54
Originally posted by pinguin

To AfrikaJamaica:
 
The problem is, my friend, that any of the above defines a race. Curly hair, for example, is present in Europeans, Arabs and South Asians.

 


Yes but Curly hair is very different, then nappy black people hair which the Bushmen clearly have just that(nappy black people hair).....
there is no caucasian, asian, or arab person i've ever seen with hair this nappy look at the man, and the boy's hair in this pictures it looks like lil twists all over his head thats a major trait in the black people race......The bushmen are black man......And i've never heard of the Malgaches i will look into it though.....


Edited by AfrikaJamaika - 31-Jan-2007 at 01:06
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:03
 
why do you keep on using this west central africa thing shades of black vary. most africans are not dark black.  ethiopia is subsaharan. what do you mean egypt  was one founding civilization of eurasia? define what the civilization of middle eastern and mesopotamia is. but the original egyptians were most likely black . they came from the south the first provence of egypt was ta seti, ta seti was the point of contact with the nubians. no mainstream source is really clear what the difference was between the nubians and the egyptians. do you know what the difference was?
 
where do you get your sources?
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:22
Originally posted by viola76

... but the original egyptians were most likely black . they came from the south the first provence of egypt was ta seti, ta seti was the point of contact with the nubians. 
 
Ah... Ta Seti; marvelous name. By the way, I was in a Ta-Seti forum  in internet once. In there that great phylosopher, Clyde Winters, used to exposse his theories. Like the one that explain Vikings were Blacks, for example LOL
 
Now, there is evidence of the influence in early Egypt of the Mesopotamian cultures. Besides, Jerico, in the Levante, is quite a lot older that any city in Egypt. The highest cultures worldwide were (at the time of the beginning of Egypt) in the Middle East, and not in Subsaharan Africa. Guess from were the influences came from.
 
Pinguin
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:25

Well, I believe in the theory that the origin of mankind were the Indo-Europeans... and they were once located around the Black Sea. See my Atlantis theory in the intellectual discussion.

Well, I am getting confused. Egyptian Empire advanced to the South once the splitted Egypt unified. It's possible that "black Africans" migrated from south since we have no clear evidence... but even so, that must have been several thousands of years before Egyptian Empire emerged as world power... and by then, their skin color may have altered due to new environment, as I have mentioned in my previous post.
 
I think I am also getting your point as well. Egyptians were originally black, and black people have small variation of color difference. Well, define black people. Really, I think calling anyone white or black is pointless because it's like varifying human beings male or female. For instance, Far East Asians are often called "brown or yellow people", but that's horrible generalization. Yes, most of us have relative brown skin... but many people living in similar condition as Western world have their skin color very close to being white since the man-made cities and environment control systems (ex. air conditioner) are slowly turning people to less brown and yellow as we used to be.
 
 
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:34
 
jericho is a wall or building.?
 
are you not hearing me. the culture came from the south all modern egyptology books will tell you this.
 
ian shaw. oxford history of egypt
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:40

 ok why dont we all post peer reviewed sources

 

The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
Professor S.O.Y. Keita
Department of Biological Anthropology
Oxford University

Professor A. J. Boyce
University Reader in Human Population
Oxford University

What was the primary geographical source for the peopling of the Egyptian Nile Valley? Were the creators of the fundamental culture of southern predynastic Egyptwhich led to the dynastic culturemigrants and colonists from Europe or the Near East? Or were they predominantly African variant populations?

These questions can be addressed using data from studies of biology and culture, and evolutionary interpretive models. Archaeological and linguistic data indicate an origin in Africa. Biological data from living Egyptians and from skeletons of ancient Egyptians may also shed light on these questions. It is important to keep in mind the long presence of humans in Africa, and that there should be a great range of biological variation in indigenous "authentic" Africans.

Scientists have been studying remains from the Egyptian Nile Valley for years. Analysis of crania is the traditional approach to assessing ancient population origins, relationships, and diversity. In studies based on anatomical traits and measurements of crania, similarities have been found between Nile Valley crania from 30,000, 20,000 and 12,000 years ago and various African remains from more recent times (see Thoma 1984; Brauer and Rimbach 1990; Angel and Kelley 1986; Keita 1993). Studies of crania from southern predynastic Egypt, from the formative period (4000-3100 B.C.), show them usually to be more similar to the crania of ancient Nubians, Kush*tes, Saharans, or modern groups from the Horn of Africa than to those of dynastic northern Egyptians or ancient or modern southern Europeans.

Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans.

Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.

The descriptions and terms of ancient Greek writers have sometimes been used to comment on Egyptian origins. This is problematic since the ancient writers were not doing population biology. However, we can examine one issue. The Greeks called all groups south of Egypt "Ethiopians." Were the Egyptians more related to any of these "Ethiopians" than to the Greeks? As noted, cranial and limb studies have indicated greater similarity to Somalis, Kush*tes and Nubians, all "Ethiopians" in ancient Greek terms.

There are few studies of ancient DNA from Egyptian remains and none so far of southern predynastic skeletons. A study of 12th Dynasty DNA shows that the remains evaluated had multiple lines of descent, including not surprisingly some from "sub-Saharan" Africa (Paabo and Di Rienzo 1993). The other lineages were not identified, but may be African in origin. More work is needed. In the future, early remains from the Nile Valley and the rest of Africa will have to be studied in this manner in order to establish the early baseline range of genetic variation of all Africa. The data are important to avoid stereotyped ideas about the DNA of African peoples.

The information from the living Egyptian population may not be as useful because historical records indicate substantial immigration into Egypt over the last several millennia, and it seems to have been far greater from the Near East and Europe than from areas far south of Egypt. "Substantial immigration" can actually mean a relatively small number of people in terms of population genetics theory. It has been determined that an average migration rate of one percent per generation into a region could result in a great change of the original gene frequencies in only several thousand years. (This assumes that all migrants marry natives and that all native-migrant offspring remain in the region.) It is obvious then that an ethnic group or nationality can change in average gene frequencies or physiognomy by intermarriage, unless social rules exclude the products of "mixed" unions from membership in the receiving group. More abstractly this means that geographically defined populations can undergo significant genetic change with a small percentage of steady assimilation of "foreign" genes. This is true even if natural selection does not favor the genes (and does not eliminate them).

Examples of regions that have biologically absorbed genetically different immigrants are Sicily, Portugal, and Greece, where the frequencies of various genetic markers (and historical records) indicate sub-Saharan and supra-Saharan African migrants.

This scenario is different from one in which a different population replaces another via colonization. Native Egyptians were variable. Foreigners added to this variability.

The genetic data on the recent Egyptian population is fairly sparse. There has not been systematic research on large samples from the numerous regions of Egypt. Taken collectively, the results of various analyses suggest that modern Egyptians have ties with various African regions, as well as with Near Easterners and Europeans. Egyptian gene frequencies are between those of Europeans and some sub-Saharan Africans. This is not surprising. The studies have used various kinds of data: standard blood groups and proteins, mitochondrial DNA, and the Y chromosome. The gene frequencies and variants of the "original" population, or of one of early high density, cannot be deduced without a theoretical model based on archaeological and "historical" data, including the aforementioned DNA from ancient skeletons. (It must be noted that it is not yet clear how useful ancient DNA will be in most historical genetic research.) It is not clear to what degree certain genetic systems usually interpreted as non-African may in fact be native to Africa. Much depends on how "African" is defined and the model of interpretation.

The various genetic studies usually suffer from what is called categorical thinking, specifically, racial thinking. Many investigators still think of "African" in a stereotyped, nonscientific (nonevolutionary) fashion, not acknowledging a range of genetic variants or traits as equally African. The definition of "African" that would be most appropriate should encompass variants that arose in Africa. Given that this is not the orientation of many scholars, who work from outmoded racial perspectives, the presence of "stereotypical" African genes so far from the "African heartland" is noteworthy. These genes have always been in the valley in any reasonable interpretation of the data. As a team of Egyptian geneticists stated recently, "During this long history and besides these Asiatic influences, Egypt maintained its African identity . . ." (Mahmoud et al. 1987). This statement is even more true in a wider evolutionary interpretation, since some of the "Asian" genes may be African in origin. Modern data and improved theoretical approaches extend and validate this conclusion.

In summary, various kinds of data and the evolutionary approach indicate that the Nile Valley populations had greater ties with other African populations in the early ancient period. Early Nile Valley populations were primarily coextensive with indigenous African populations. Linguistic and archaeological data provide key supporting evidence for a primarily African origin.


References Cited:

Angel, J. L., and J. O. Kelley, Description and comparison of the skeleton. In The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton: A Late Paleolithic
Burial from Southern Egypt
. E Wendorf and R. Schild. pp. 53-70. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. 1986

Brauer, G., and K. Rimbach, Late archaic and modern Homo sapiens from Europe, Africa, and Southwest Asia: Craniometric comparisons and phylogenetic implications, Journal of Human Evolution 19:789-807. 1990

Drake, St. C., Black Folk Here and There, vol 1. Los Angeles: University of California. 1987

Keita, S.O.Y., Studies and comments on ancient Egyptian biological relationships. History in Africa 20:129-154. 1993

Mahmoud, L. et. al, Human blood groups in Dakhlaya. Egypt. Annah of Human Biology. 14(6):487-493. 1987

Paabo, S., and A. Di Rienzo, A molecular approach to the study of Egyptian history. In Biological Anthropology and the Study
of Ancient Egypt
. V. Davies and R. Walker, eds. pp. 86-90. London: British Museum Press. 1993

Petrie, W.M., F. The Making of Egypt. London: Sheldon Press. 1984

Thoma, A., Morphology and affinities of the Nazlet Khaterman. Journal of Human Evolution 13:287-296. 1984

Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:43
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:44
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:46
here are some other top peer reviewed sources
 
Back to Top
pekau View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Atlantean Prophet

Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:46

What? Jericho is a wall or building? It's a building... but I don't see your point...

And Egyptian culture coming from South is merely among the hundreds of other theories with convincing evidence. Just because the book's published does not mean they are unquestionably right...
 
And you obviously did not read my theory. Indo European language are root of every early languages that we know so far... even if the cradle of life came from South of Africa.... its influence is simply minor until they went up and slowly changed to different race/civilization.
 
But even if you are right, the culture must have changed to adopt to the new environment. If so, then it's meaningless to argue whether Egyptians are black or not. They became a new unique people with their own culture, own physical characteristics, their beliefs and such. I mean, why is it so hard to accept that? So far, you have not presented convincing arguement.
     
   
Join us.
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:49
no mate the egyptians didnt speak a indo european language
 




Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture

Christopher Ehret
Professor of History, African Studies Chair
University of California at Los Angeles

Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.

The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt. The ancient Egyptian language belonged to the Afrasian family (also called Afroasiatic or, formerly, Hamito-Semitic). The speakers of the earliest Afrasian languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the west to far northern Somalia in the east. They supported themselves by gathering wild grains. The first elements of Egyptian culture were laid down two thousand years later, between 12,000 and 10,000 B.C., when some of these Afrasian communities expanded northward into Egypt, bringing with them a language directly ancestral to ancient Egyptian. They also introduced to Egypt the idea of using wild grains as food.

A new religion came with them as well. Its central tenet explains the often localized origins of later Egyptian gods: the earliest Afrasians were, properly speaking, neither monotheistic nor polytheistic. Instead, each local community, comprising a clan or a group of related clans, had its own distinct deity and centered its religious observances on that deity. This belief system persists today among several Afrasian peoples of far southwest Ethiopia. And as Biblical scholars have shown, Yahweh, god of the ancient Hebrews, an Afrasian people of the Semitic group, was originally also such a deity. The connection of many of Egypt's predynastic gods to particular localities is surely a modified version of this early Afrasian belief. Political unification in the late fourth millennium brought the Egyptian deities together in a new polytheistic system. But their local origins remain amply apparent in the records that have come down to us.

During the long era between about 10,000 and 6000 B.C., new kinds of southern influences diffused into Egypt. During these millennia, the Sahara had a wetter climate than it has today, with grassland or steppes in many areas that are now almost absolute desert. New wild animals, most notably the cow, spread widely in the eastern Sahara in this period.

One of the exciting archeological events of the past twenty years was the discovery that the peoples of the steppes and grasslands to the immediate south of Egypt domesticated these cattle, as early as 9000 to 8000 B.C. The societies involved in this momentous development included Afrasians and neighboring peoples whose languages belonged to a second major African language family, Nilo-Saharan (Wendorf, Schild, Close 1984; Wendorf, et al. 1982). The earliest domestic cattle came to Egypt apparently from these southern neighbors, probably before 6000 B.C., not, as we used to think, from the Middle East.

One major technological advance, pottery-making, was also initiated as early as 9000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharans and Afrasians who lived to the south of Egypt. Soon thereafter, pots spread to Egyptian sites, almost 2,000 years before the first pottery was made in the Middle East.

Very late in the same span of time, the cultivating of crops began in Egypt. Since most of Egypt belonged then to the Mediterranean climatic zone, many of the new food plants came from areas of similar climate in the Middle East. Two domestic animals of Middle Eastern origin, the sheep and the goat, also entered northeastern Africa from the north during this era.

But several notable early Egyptian crops came from Sudanic agriculture, independently invented between 7500 and 6000 B.C. by the Nilo-Saharan peoples (Ehret 1993:104-125). One such cultivated crop was the edible gourd. The botanical evidence is confirmed in this case by linguistics: Egyptian bdt, or "bed of gourds" (Late Egyptian bdt, "gourd; cucumber"), is a borrowing of the Nilo-Saharan word *bud, "edible gourd." Other early Egyptian crops of Sudanic origin included watermelons and castor beans. (To learn more on how historians use linguistic evidence, see note at end of this article.)

Between about 5000 and 3000 B.C. a new era of southern cultural influences took shape. Increasing aridity pushed more of the human population of the eastern Sahara into areas with good access to the waters of the Nile, and along the Nile the bottomlands were for the first time cleared and farmed. The Egyptian stretches of the river came to form the northern edge of a newly emergent Middle Nile Culture Area, which extended far south up the river, well into the middle of modern-day Sudan. Peoples speaking languages of the Eastern Sahelian branch of the Nilo-Saharan family inhabited the heartland of this region.

From the Middle Nile, Egypt gained new items of livelihood between 5000 and 3000 B.C. One of these was a kind of cattle pen: its Egyptian name, s3 (earlier *sr), can be derived from the Eastern Sahelian term *sar. Egyptian pg3, "bowl," (presumably from earlier pgr), a borrowing of Nilo-Saharan *poKur, "wooden bowl or trough," reveals still another adoption in material culture that most probably belongs to this era.

One key feature of classical Egyptian political culture, usually assumed to have begun in Egypt, also shows strong links to the southern influences of this period. We refer here to a particular kind of sacral chiefship that entailed, in its earliest versions, the sending of servants into the afterlife along with the deceased chief. The deep roots and wide occurrence of this custom among peoples who spoke Eastern Sahelian languages strongly imply that sacral chiefship began not as a specifically Egyptian invention, but instead as a widely shared development of the Middle Nile Culture Area.

After about 3500 B.C., however, Egypt would have started to take on a new role vis-a-vis the Middle Nile region, simply because of its greater concentration of population. Growing pressures on land and resources soon enhanced and transformed the political powers of sacral chiefs. Unification followed, and the local deities of predynastic times became gods in a new polytheism, while sacral chiefs gave way to a divine king. At the same time, Egypt passed from the wings to center stage in the unfolding human drama of northeastern Africa.

A Note on the Use of Linguistic Evidence for History

Languages provide a powerful set of tools for probing the cultural history of the peoples who spoke them. Determining the relationships between particular languages, such as the languages of the Afrasian or the Nilo-Saharan family, gives us an outline history of the societies that spoke those languages in the past. And because each word in a language has its own individual history, the vocabulary of every language forms a huge archive of documents. If we can trace a particular word back to the common ancestor language of a language family, then we know that the item of culture connoted by the word was known to the people who spoke the ancestral tongue. If the word underwent a meaning change between then and now, a corresponding change must have taken place in the cultural idea or practice referred to by the word. In contrast, if a word was borrowed from another language, it attests to a thing or development that passed from the one culture to the other. The English borrowing, for example, of castle, duke, parliament, and many other political and legal terms from Old Norman French are evidence of a Norman period of rule in England, a fact confirmed by documents.


References Cited:

Ehret, Christopher, Nilo-Saharans and the Saharo-Sahelian Neolithic. In African Archaeology: Food, Metals and Towns. T. Shaw, P Sinclair, B. Andah, and A. Okpoko, eds. pp. 104-125. London: Routledge. 1993

Ehret, Christopher, Reconstructing Proto-Afroasiatic (Proto-Afrasian): Vowels, Tone Consonants, and Vocabulary. Los Angeles: University of California Press, Berkeley. 1995

Wendorf, F., et al., Saharan Exploitation of Plants 8000 Years B.P. Nature 359:721-724. 1982

Wendorf, F., R. Schild, and A. Close, eds. Cattle-Keepers of the Eastern Sahara. Dallas: Southern Methodist University, Department of Anthropology. 1984

.

Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:51
Back to Top
viola76 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 30-Jan-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 01:55
a site what proves their were black pharoahs before the 26th dynasty
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 06:54
And what's the point? That Egyptians as a whole were Nigerians?
 
Or perhaps you want to prove that Egyptians were the ancestors of modern Black Americans?
 
Perhaps you should read this instead. It was written by a Black man that was upset of the way African Studies are distorting history :
 
Afrocentrism: Mythical Pasts and Imagined Homes
 
 
 
Afrocentrism, asserts Oxford historian Howe in this forceful scholarly critique, is a dogmatic ideology promoting a mythical vision of the past that involves an erroneous belief in fundamentally distinct African ways of knowing and feeling. Using archaeological and other studies, he refutes the claims of influential Afrocentrist Senegalese historian Cheikh Anta Diop, who held that ancient Egypt was a black African civilization and that a single cultural system unified the African continent. Howe deftly exposes the shaky underpinnings of Cornell historian Martin Bernal's popular tome, Black Athena, which claims that classical Greece was massively indebted to Egyptian and Semitic sources, and to Egyptian colonization. Tracing the evolution of Afrocentric views from 19th-century pamphleteers, romantic anthropologists, occultists and political activistsAboth black and whiteAthrough contemporary Black Muslim doctrine and what he considers the distortions of U.S. academics such as Leonard Jeffries, Ron Karenga and Molefi Asante, Howe finds that much Afrocentric writing "slips from ethnocentrism and neoconservatism into full-blown racism, sexism and homophobia." A major contribution to the debate, this dense study will appeal mostly to scholars. Photos not seen by PW.
Copyright 1998 Reed Business Information, Inc.
 
Regards,
 
Pinguin
 


Edited by pinguin - 31-Jan-2007 at 06:57
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.