Black Egyptians

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Unbreakable, you seem to be under the assumption that we are rejecting all your evidence - we are not. The issue is your interpretation of it.

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

When I said that, "If there is an African element to Egyptian history and this has been overlooked then that should be corrected." I was not disputing an African element, I was making a point that omissions should be corrected without regard to the original source of the omission, other than to note it in the correction.

Hammering past scholars is not edifying, especially given that many of them were clever (not more right) than the current generation.

Beyond that, if proponents of a "Black" Egypt wish to be taken seriously they must address those in their camp who make absurd claims about figures like Cleopatra - because not doing so is evidence of sloppy scholarship.

I will look up the quote from Herodotus tomorrow.

Now, if you want me to engage with you on a deeper level I am going to need to look up the full bibliographical citations, that will take time.

The main point though, is that this doesn't really matter all that much, making Egyptians "Black" rather than a mixed people is in no way edifying to black people today, nor does it detract from "white" achievements.

Even if some Egyptians are depicted as "Black" you STILL have to account for all those well known examples, several of which you have posted, which depict a fairer people more in common with modern North Africans, a hard "black£ explanation simply fails to do this.

[The Unbreakable]

Unbreakable, you seem to be under the assumption that we are rejecting all your evidence - we are not. The issue is your interpretation of it.

I'm just wondering because you appear to completely ignore every peer reviewed study that has accompanied my stance, and yet continue to make statements which are completely contrary to what they indicate. Now you are also saying that I might be misinterpreting some of these studies, but as stated you aren't even acknowledging them. I have a hard time believing that anyone can seriously obfuscate the implications of the studies findings that the skeletal remains of these ancient Africans on the African continent having "Negroid" cranial morphologies and tropical limb proportions like the Africans further to the south. What else could these findings possibly implicate if not that the general Egyptian populace was "black"?

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

I don't recall labeling anyone "racist". I cited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (an authoritative source) who acknowledges not only that based on consistent anthropological data that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black", but also that early Egyptologist outright refused to even consider that ancient Egypt was a product of black Africans. Instead they viewed ancient Egypt as the product of either Europeans or a mixture Hamites (in-migrating southwest Asians) and blacks. He (Donald Redford) stated that this view was racist (which any logical person IMO should have no problem with agreeing upon) not me.

Hammering past scholars is not edifying, especially given that many of them were clever (not more right) than the current generation.

As stated earlier by two modern scholars cited, past scholars (including the famed Frank Yurco) have been reluctant (to say the least) in acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was founded by the black Africans of the ancient Sahara. There always had to be some sort of "unknown" race of people (who weren't black) who were major contributors to the creation of ancient Egypt, according to many of them. Then again there are some scholars who will simply call them "African", yet refuse to examine the evidence which specifies what kind of "Africans" they were. It is according to them "Afrocentric" for anyone to read passages like this from reputed biologist:

Archaeological evidence suggests that the ancient Egyptian Nile Valley was peopled in large part by immigrants from the Sahara and more southern areas, who brought neolithic traits there (Hassan, 1988). Some movement from the Levant is also postulated. Possibly the earliest indigenous African full neolithic tradition (called Saharo-Sudanese or Saharan) is found in the Western (Nubian) Desert of Egypt, near the Sudanese border (Wendorf and Schild, 1980; Hassan, 1988) and is dated to the seventh millinneum BC. Common core cultural traits are noted in the Saharan neolithic and Nile Valley predynastic sites, with some Near Eastern influence in the north (Arkell and Ucko, 1965; Hassan, 1988). Predynastic Egyptian culture is most parsimoniously explained by a fusion of Saharan and Nilotic peoples (Hassan, 1988>. The predynastic cultural sequence of southern Egypt is accepted as leading directly to the dynastic culture.

link

Whose findings confirm a Nilotic African basis for the civilizations of the Nile and conclude that these people were black Africans. Why is that? The evidence is not shaky, but sound. As the Nytimes article that I posted had stated, "Our own Western prejudices" (no need in denying that they still exist) are the root of why some refuse to consider ancient Egypt in it's proper black African context. Basil Davidson noted this in his famed documentary:



The continuation of this early Egyptian culture is seen modern day Nilotic peoples of the Upper Nile:

Beyond that, if proponents of a "Black" Egypt wish to be taken seriously they must address those in their camp who make absurd claims about figures like Cleopatra - because not doing so is evidence of sloppy scholarship.

Well firstly who decides if what should be taken seriously, actual scholars or layman interpreters? Last time I checked the Manchester, Cambridge (and all institutes associated with them including Oxford and Fitzwilliam) were as mainstream as academia gets. They all seem to be on board with the clear biological and cultural implications of the origins of ancient Egypt. The only problem seems to come layman interpreters who not wish to accept what is clearly implicated.

This statement is also quite silly, in that it implies that there is some uniform opinion amongst a broad group of people. I am not responsible for some guy in Harlem going around claiming the if Cleopatra was black or not. Rather than attribute such an irrelevant straw man such as that to my argument, why not address what I'm actually putting forward. Interestingly another scholar from Manchester actually seems to suggest that Cleopatra (like her sister) had African (Egyptians) ancestry and was mixed race. Here is her lecture . Also note how she (an actual scholar) laughingly dismisses the negative comments that she received (for showcasing Cleopatra as a mulatto in a discovery channel documentary) on the daily mail website as silly western rubbish.

Now, if you want me to engage with you on a deeper level I am going to need to look up the full bibliographical citations, that will take time.

That's fine, and I would like to offer this for you to read.

The main point though, is that this doesn't really matter all that much, making Egyptians "Black" rather than a mixed people is in no way edifying to black people today, nor does it detract from "white" achievements.

What do any of ancient Africa's civilizations:





Nubia







Mali





On-Nigeria





Loango



Ancient Ghana









(and so forth) have to do with the current state of Africans and Whites? Should they or the accomplishments of these civilizations somehow not be mentioned, because it won't change anything today? Likewise why can't we acknowledge the fact that ancient Egypt was also a black African civilization?

Even if some Egyptians are depicted as "Black" you STILL have to account for all those well known examples, several of which you have posted, which depict a fairer people more in common with modern North Africans, a hard "black£ explanation simply fails to do this.

Who ever denied the presence of non black people in Egypt? What I am stating is that the general native Egyptian populace all the way up until to the New Kingdom was black African, and I think that I have provided more than enough biological evidence and contextualization of this evidence to support my view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm just wondering because you appear to completely ignore every peer reviewed study that has accompanied my stance, and yet continue to make statements which are completely contrary to what they indicate. Now you are also saying that I might be misinterpreting some of these studies, but as stated you aren't even acknowledging them. I have a hard time believing that anyone can seriously obfuscate the implications of the studies findings that the skeletal remains of these ancient Africans on the African continent having "Negroid" cranial morphologies and tropical limb proportions like the Africans further to the south. What else could these findings possibly implicate if not that the general Egyptian populace was "black"?

I don't recall labeling anyone "racist". I cited the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (an authoritative source) who acknowledges not only that based on consistent anthropological data that the ancient Egyptians would be considered "black", but also that early Egyptologist outright refused to even consider that ancient Egypt was a product of black Africans. Instead they viewed ancient Egypt as the product of either Europeans or a mixture Hamites (in-migrating southwest Asians) and blacks. He (Donald Redford) stated that this view was racist (which any logical person IMO should have no problem with agreeing upon) not me.

As stated earlier by two modern scholars cited, past scholars (including the famed Frank Yurco) have been reluctant (to say the least) in acknowledging the fact that ancient Egypt was founded by the black Africans of the ancient Sahara. There always had to be some sort of "unknown" race of people (who weren't black) who were major contributors to the creation of ancient Egypt, according to many of them. Then again there are some scholars who will simply call them "African", yet refuse to examine the evidence which specifies what kind of "Africans" they were. It is according to them "Afrocentric" for anyone to read passages like this from reputed biologist:

You reffered to a racist coverup and the "lie" of a "white" Egypt.

You may think I am dismissing the studies I have prevented, but as I am away from the library and you have only provided quotes I have not yet had the oppertunity to read them.

The fact is that genetic studies and morphological studies can prove a Sub-Saharan element or they can prove parrael adaptation (in the case of morphology). You still have to account for the conflicting evidence, those images that differentiate between Egyptians and Sub-Saharans, not just in skin colour put hair style as well.

You also have serious problems explaining the very non-Sub-Saharan facial features of some of the Middle Kingdom rulers, and you also have to acknowledge that the New Kingdom (which is the period most often represented) depicts the fewest Sub-Saharans.

When you look at someone like Nefertiti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti her facial features are considered "perfect" which is usually indicative of varied ancestry, and her ambiguous appearence is therefore a knock on objection to a "Black King Tut".

If you reject the claim that the Egyptian people were more mixed and varied than a purely Sub-Saharan population then you are arguing for a Dynastic race.

[The Unbreakable]

You reffered to a racist coverup and the "lie" of a "white" Egypt.

Well I mean this is a historical fact, and as to why you would somehow take offensive to this truth being pointed out is beyond me. Many early Western scholars had to essentially dehumanize and belittle black people in all aspects in a twisted way to justify their mistreatment, is that really a secret? As I cited the words of renown Egyptologist Donald Redford, who stated that there was in fact a racist cover up of the true racial identity of the original black ancient Egyptians. Once again:

"The race and origins of the Ancient Egyptians have been a source of considerable debate. Scholars in the late and early 20th centuries rejected any considerations of the Egyptians as black Africans by defining the Egyptians either as non-African (i.e Near Easterners or Indo-Aryan), or as members of a separate brown (as opposed to a black) race, or as a mixture of lighter-skinned peoples with black Africans. In the later half of the 20th century, Afrocentric scholars have countered this Eurocentric and often racist perspective by characterizing the Egyptians as black and African...Source: Donald Redford (2001) The Oxford encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press. p. 27-28

As you read above modern scholarship acknowledges that there was in fact a "racist" cover up to hide to true racial identity of the ancient Egyptians, which is no secret to anyone who has studied the topic. Early Egyptologist (during the beginning of the 19th century) were a product of their time. Many openly that Egypt could not have been "black" because "Negroes" were incapable of creating civilization. If you watch the segment from Basil Davidson that I just provided you in my previous reply then you would note that he also says the exact same thing in regards to wide spread thoughts of early Western scholars. The source then goes on to state that based on consistent anthropological evidence (the physical remains of the ancient Egyptians) their appearance was consistent with that which considered "black". When I initially cited this source provided a direct link enabling you to view the full encyclopedia, and it is still there if you feel that you want to see this for yourself. Even through the mist of Western prejudice, some early scholars stated the truth in regards to ancient Egypt:

"Just think," de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

"In other words the ancient Egyptians were true Negroes of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa and from the datum one sees how their race, after some centuries of mixing with the blood of Romans and Greeks, must have lost the full blackness of its original color but retained the impress of its original mould."

M. Constantine de Volney, Travels through Syria and Egypt in the Years 1783, 1784, and 1785 (London: 1787), p. 80-83.

Once again note, that this man (who lived during colonial times) Constatine De Volney acknowledges the backwards racist ideas of the late 18th century (which persisted for over two centuries later) and through his objectivity even makes a biological inference about Egypt's population history which has been validated by modern contemporary research (just think about that for a minute). I earlier provided you with a link to a study which systematically debunked the clearly racist ideological points attempted to be made by early scholarship on the issue of the race of the ancient Egyptians. When you read it please give us feed back on it.

You may think I am dismissing the studies I have prevented, but as I am away from the library and you have only provided quotes I have not yet had the oppertunity to read them.

The thing is though I have provided links for many if not most of the quotes that I have cited (if the full articles weren't already posted in their entirety). All you seem to be doing is completely ignoring them as though there is absolutely no way that I my interpretations of them (which are darn near impossible to misinterpret) are accurate. Just from my observations it appears as though you are the one out of everyone else on here who doesn't want to accept their implications, but I want to here how you justify your persistent skepticism after you have assessed these studies.

The fact is that genetic studies and morphological studies can prove a Sub-Saharan element or they can prove parrael adaptation (in the case of morphology).

True, very true! The problem with anthropological (bone analysis) is that it isn't the best indicator of actual intra-population relationship, but rather it is an indicator of phenotype (which shows the AE's to be consistent in phenotype with black people). Genetics is a much better indicator of population relationships, and I have provided two genetic studies in my first post showing that the Nilotic element of the Nile Valley is what dominated during the creation of these civilizations (Egypt and Nubia). This is consistent with anthropological evidence, archaeological evidence (showing that they came from Nilotic communities of the ancient Sahara), linguistic evidence and of course cultural evidence which persist to this very day amongst Nilotic peoples further up the Nile. No logical person IMO can dodge the logical conclusion from all of this evidence.

You still have to account for the conflicting evidence, those images that differentiate between Egyptians and Sub-Saharans,

There is conflicting evidence to almost every theory, including the Out of Africa theory. None the less it does not negate the fact that one theory is most supported by contemporary scholarship. You say that Egyptians differentiated themselves in their artwork from other black Africans, so tell me how many direct comparisons have you seen with Egyptians and black Africans? Correct if I'm wrong, but these look like a common variation of black Africans:

not just in skin colour put hair style as well.

Tell me then what is "the" black African hairstyle:





Attachment 6046

You also have serious problems explaining the very non-Sub-Saharan facial features of some of the Middle Kingdom rulers, and you also have to acknowledge that the New Kingdom (which is the period most often represented) depicts the fewest Sub-Saharans.

No dude you have a serious problem with understand indigenous African physical variation. In case you didn't know "black Africa" has the most indigenous physical and genetic variation then any other region on Earth:

"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range: only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
- Jean Hiernaux, "The People of Africa" 1975 p.53, 54

Which has been validated by more recent research:

"Estimates of genetic diversity in major geographic regions are frequently made by pooling all individuals into regional aggregates. This method can potentially bias results if there are differences in population substructure within regions, since increased variation among local populations could inflate regional diversity. A preferred method of estimating regional diversity is to compute the mean diversity within local populations. Both methods are applied to a global sample of craniometric data consisting of 57 measurements taken on 1734 crania from 18 local populations in six geographic regions: sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, East Asia, Australasia, Polynesia, and the Americas. Each region is represented by three local populations.

Both methods for estimating regional diversity show sub-Saharan Africa to have the highest levels of phenotypic variation, consistent with many genetic studies."
(Relethford, John "Global Analysis of Regional Differences in Craniometric Diversity and Population Substructure". Human Biology - Volume 73, Number 5, October 2001, pp. 629-636)

This should be common knowledge for anyone debating this subject.

When you look at someone like Nefertiti: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nefertiti her facial features are considered "perfect" which is usually indicative of varied ancestry,

You do know that aside from the bust of her that was remake by Nazi German scientist there are other depictions of her aren't you?









Notice how in everyone of her depictions above she consistently has full lips. Here's the Discovery Channel reconstruction of her:



Here's her daughter also:

If you reject the claim that the Egyptian people were more mixed and varied than a purely Sub-Saharan population then you are arguing for a Dynastic race.

No I don't! The Dynastic race theory was that which said that a sudden wave of non African people swept into Egypt from the north making their way south, and imposed Dynastic culture onto the local "Negroid" population (the pre-dynastic people) already in place. That fact that Egyptian civilization was later found to have originated in the south and made it's way north was the one hitter quitter for that silly theory. Dynastic culture was the product of the peoples of southern Egypt and no serious scholar would risk their reputation arguing against this proven fact:

"From Petrie onwards, it was regularly suggested that despite the evidence of Predynastic cultures, Egyptian civilization of the 1st Dynasty appeared suddenly and must therefore have been introduced by an invading foreign 'race'. Since the 1970s however, excavations at Abydos and Hierakonpolis have clearly demonstrated the indigenous, Upper Egyptian roots of early civilization in Egypt. (Ian Shaw ed. (2003) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt By Ian Shaw. Oxford University Press, page 40-63)

In the periods following after Dynastic culture was founded prolonged small scale migration did occur from the Middle East, but was rather insigificant until around the Late New Kingdom period. Also

[Levito]

Unbreakable, you seem to be under the assumption that we are rejecting all your evidence - we are not. The issue is your interpretation of it.

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

This.

Dude clearly has an agenda.

[The Unbreakable]

This.

Dude clearly has an agenda.

You've got to be kidding me! An agenda would suggest that someone (me) is telling lies or half truths, and so far none of two people who are opposing this view have addressed my crucial evidence. Ask yourself who has provided peer reviewed evidence from numerous reputed contemporary scholars and institutes to support their stance and who has ignored all that evidence and it's implications, while simultaneously providing no evidence of their own? You tell me which side seems ore mlogical in their analysis, and which side appears to have a hidden "agenda".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Spamming more images and writing ten lines of text to my every one is not helpful, it makes you incredibly difficult to respond to, atomising my own posts is also not helpful.

I have already said I will respond to you in time.

If I wished to dismiss you I would have just said:

"I don't dispute a Sub-Saharan element in Egypt, but to be honest most depictions of Egyptians from the New Kingdom, and some from the Middle Kingdom, look much more lik "Coloured" people than "Black" people."

And left it at that.

Nefertiti presents as someone of mixed ancestry, which is how Discovery depicted her, she doesn't present as "black" any more than "white" or "semetic". You are, I presume, aware that the Amarna period did not depict the Royal family realistically in carvings, so a direct comparison with the bust is not possible because the bust is naturalistic. Whether it is a fake or not has never been proven, but from reading today the "Nazi fake" theory is less popular than the "Imperial fake" one. The limestone should be dated to be sure. Even so, the bust has quite full lips.

You've talked a lot about the "Lower Kingdom" being of Sub-Saharan origin, but I wonder about the Upper Kingdom and the mixing between the two.

Don't throw another article at me on this, you've already done that, they have been noted. If you want a serious considered reply to anything at this point you will need to give me the time to actually read and process the articles you have linked and get a grasp of the actors involved in the current debate.

[The Unbreakable]

^^ Ok that's fine. Please take your time and read through all my sources (including the links where they provided) and watch all of the videos that I have posted. Post your own counter evidence if you feel the need to. After you do this then please give your opinion on what you feel is the most likely appearance of the ancient Egyptians.

[Ibrahim]

^^ Ok that's fine. Please take your time and read through all my sources (including the links where they provided) and watch all of the videos that I have posted. Post your own counter evidence if you feel the need to. After you do this then please give your opinion on what you feel is the most likely appearance of the ancient Egyptians.

ooh, goody! I can haz free practice on critiquing hypotheses!

before I begin, let me point out that what I'm about to say doesn't really address what the Egyptians looked like (and I really don't care: think what you want, I personally find it unimportant). however, I do have a few things to say on the methodology--from my perspective as a paleontology and geology student. (so kind of a layman--not totally so)

this is not a complete refutation either: i'm not about to sit down and watch a few hours worth of bad quality YT clips (the video distortions give me headaches--nothing personal).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

1-being peer reviewed on its own means nothing. let me explain: there is a paper from Ruben and Quick, 2009, that is peer reviewed: well illustrated, detailed, multiple reviewers, good journal. the author Ruben--John Ruben, has even been published in Science and nature, all on Avian evolution. yet, most Paleontologists in the field of Avian evolution, and students like me, think he's a complete jag-off, and full of it. I could waste a post on why, but the point is, it's not just whether it's peer reviewed, but the actual arguments in it, and in your/everyone's case, how you interpret it(underlined part is to me the issue here).


2-where does that lead us with the papers you did cite? well, I don't know--not completely. but those parts I do know, I have to put a question mark on: one example is that paper you cite about Egyptians having genes matching sub-saharan Africans (the DNA tribes digest article). now, I will not dispute that finding--in fact I'm not really surprised. but I must ask: does the genetic test isolate the nature of the skin color genes (if any)? and was this uniform? that is, is it confined only to Pharaoh's family, or is spread among the larger population of Egypt? This is especially, as having read it, that the authors make this caveat:

These regional matches do not necessarily indicate an exclusively African ancestry for the Amarna pharaonic family. However, results indicate these ancient individuals inherited some alleles that today are more frequent in populations of Africa than in other parts of the world (such as D18S51=19 and
D21S11=34).

this, combined with the very table you posted here, points to the test being a generic DNA test, where affinities were arrived at using a statistical method, for a small group of people in a single family. these clearly match African populations best, but at the same time, they don't really say much more: That small European part may actually be the part responsible for looks for all I know. to further ruin your day with that particular paper, I looked into the methods of the paper (and journal), where I found this:

Q: Do DNA Tribes results correspond to physical appearance?

A: Our analysis uses neutral genetic markers not associated with physical appearance. Neutral genetic markers
are locations within a person’s DNA not associated with phenotype (appearance) and not subject to natural
selection. Genes (alleles) that determine hair or eye color are not neutral, but neutral markers can silently convey
genetic information not visible on the surface. For instance, a person might have light hair and eye pigmentation
while still retaining some neutral genetic links to the Sub-Saharan world region passed down from an African
grandparent.

in short, the source you cite is completely and utterly irrelevant to your whole point,

then there is this: http://etd2.uofk.edu/view_etd.php?etd_details=4312 (which you cited Btw). This one I know for a fact has even less to do with "race", as it tests mtDNA, and Y-chromosome DNA: the former is the DNA of the mitochondria, which is related to metabolism of a cell, not appearance of a full person, and Y-chromosome largely causes one to grow testicles and a penis when an embryo (i.e. It's the chromosome that makes males males). And again, it doesn't really say much about what Ancient Egyptians looked like.

finally, the pictures you post really don't mean anything--not on their own. I could show you a whole bunch (more than what you have, actually) of pictures of Arabs like me who have fair skin and blond hair, and tell you "Arabs are European! see!", and it would have the same meaning: none at all. what you need to do instead, is put these into context: do a survey of randomly selected pictures the Egyptians made of themselves, and see what the norm is. preferably, ones that are painted, and not just unpainted stone/carvings, since you never know for sure otherwise.

in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

[The Unbreakable]

in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

Well no hurt feeling there. Perhaps you could enlighten me on a better way to present my views on this subject, rather than backing them sources. Can you also give your opinion on this analysis of the same topic. I personally think that's it's brilliant and well sourced. Did he use too many sources?

[Ironduke]

Originally Posted by Ibrahim
in short: you could probably be absolutely right for all I know: Egyptians were generally "black". but your methodology here is, at least by my standards and training, complete garbage. and frankly, I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here.

I cared enough, I suppose, to start this topic. It interests me and I wanted to read peoples comments, hopefully well informed comments. I’m totally ignorant on this issue and have obtained, free of charge, the names of historians, a few video links, and book titles which I can turn to and learn from. What I never understood is why people join threads that don't interest them only to insincerely ask the question "who cares, why do you care?"

[Gaius Sempronius Gracchus]

"I'm not really sure why you care about this, or anyone here."

This seems to me a strange 'argument'. Given that the original intention of EB was to present a more historically accurate representation of the period depicted in R:TW, and by extension that historical accuracy might be something worthwhile attaining I think it is important, valid and a very interesting subject.

Whether we like to admit it or not, there is an attitude that prevails, more within some circles that within others, that Africa (and Africans) are/were somehow less culturally developed, and that can spill over into a view that Africans are/were in some way incapable of being as culturally deveoped as our own civilisations. I know this is a delicate subject and so will state that I am not, in any way, accusing anybody here of racism.

It should be noted that any accusation of racism was not necessarily directed at modern proponents, but rather that the initial prevailing attitude (during a time when slavery - in particular the enslavement of black people - was still acceptable in many parts) has somehow stuck (and let's not forget that appartheid was still in force within some of our lifetimes....). What damages the arguments put forth here by The Unbreakable is an imagined link with the madmen who would argue that, for eg, King Henry VIII was black (yes, I have seen those nutters). Any connection is mistaken, imo. The arguments that have been put against the more holistic approach put forward (by The Unbreakable) seem to be piecemeal. It isn't just morphology, or genetics, but also cultural, religious and archaeological, which all together make for a pretty compelling proposition.

I, for one, do care, and am interested, in the historical accuracy of our depictions of the ancient world.

[Levito]

An agenda would suggest that someone (me) is telling lies or half truths, and so far none of two people who are opposing this view have addressed my crucial evidence.

You are not applying a critical filter to the evidence, and your continued attempts to paint modern scholars as essentially racist is offensive.

^ I can repeat this more slowly for you if it will help.

[moonburn]

I PREFER CREATIVE criticism to constructive criticism anyway :\