Herodotus, a Greek historian, wrote a history of the known world 2,440 years ago. It is the oldest book we have where a person we would call White talks at length about black-skinned people.
Three things set him apart from the way Whites talk about Blacks in our time:
- He did not divide the world by race. He divided it by continent – Europe, Asia and Libya (Africa) – and by language – Greek and barbarian – but not by race. He talks about people with black skin, but not about “black people” as if they were one of the main kinds of humans. He applies the term “Ethiopian” to some black-skinned people, but not to all.
- Egyptians were black. He saw Egyptians as having black skin and woolly hair (Herodotus, 2.104). He visited Egypt 75 years after the Persians had taken over but before the Greeks, Romans and Arabs had. He travelled the whole length of the country from north to south.
- No colourism. In his time, people with black skin, like Egyptians and Ethiopians, were more civilized than some with white skin, like Scythians and Celts. Lighter-skinned Greeks got much of their civilization from darker-skinned Egyptians. White-skinned people were not even the most beautiful:
“The Ethiopians to whom Cambyses sent these gifts are reputed to be the tallest and most beautiful of all peoples.” (3.20)
The incomplete list of people with black skin in Herodotus:
- Egyptians – seen as having the most ancient civilization, way older than Greece.
- Ethiopians (Nubians, etc) – live south of Egypt. Meroe is their mother city (2.29). Civilized but not as civilized as Egypt (2.30). They once ruled Egypt (2.100, 137-139). Herodotus seems to apply the term “Ethiopian” to more than just Nubians: he also talks about long-lived Ethiopians (3.17-26, 97) and cave-dwelling Ethiopians (4.183). Most of them would have been Nilo-Saharans.
- Asian Ethiopians (Dravidians?) – look just like Ethiopians but their hair is straight instead of woolly. They serve in the Persian army in their own divisions as part of the Indian contingent (7.70).
- Colchians – live on the eastern shore of the Black Sea. Because they have black skin, woolly hair and practise circumcision, Herodotus says they are clearly Egyptian (2.104).
- short men (Pygmies?) – live along what is probably the Niger River (2.32-33) and somewhere on the west coast of Africa (4.43). They live in cities. Those along the Niger practise sorcery. Those on the coast, called dwarfs, wear clothes made of palm leaves.
Other Africans: Herodotus talks about the people who live along the coast between Egypt and Carthage (4.168-180) and along the caravan route that goes west across the Sahara (4.181-199). He does not bring up their skin colour, but remarks on the long hair of those who live along the coast. Most of them would have been Berbers.
In Africa, Herodotus visited Egypt and, just to the west, Cyrene. The rest he knows about from asking questions, particularly in Egypt.
Cicero called Herodotus the “Father of History”. Plutarch called him the “father of lies”. Herodotus felt his duty was to report what he had seen and heard. He expresses doubts about some of what he reports, but puts it out there to let readers come to their own conclusions.
Source: Herodotus, “History” (425 BC). See above for book and section numbers.
See also:
- Herodotus
- Racism before 1400
- Africa, the last 13,000 years – Nilo-Saharans and such
- Black people according to:
- colourism
- How black was Ancient Egypt?
- Cheikh Anta Diop
- What to unlearn to learn African history
- My favourite Greek books
Based on the appearance of Egyptian art depicting its people, I’d have to say Egyptians were most likely East Africans mainly from the Horn in race. Ethiopian, Somalian, Eritrean…. Why is it so hard for people to comprehend this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Works for me.
My favorite line in ‘I Claudius’ was about the Brits, who at the time were painting themselves blue, sacrificing virgins to the Thames. It was one of the last places the Romans conquered and even then it was controversial since the opinion was that there was nothing of value there, and the people were too stupid to be slaves. I’m assuming there was documentation behind that. Maybe even some IQ tests, ya’ think?
The richness of the English language doesn’t reflect all the countries England later colonized. It’s the result of all the countries that colonized and enslaved the Brits. I guess after awhile they got better at it and were more in demand as such.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All this tells me is that the worm turns for everybody. That in every period in History, certain people believed themselves to be the pinnacle of civilization and that their position would be forever. People who simply couldn’t conceive of never being at the top.
In another 2 to 5 hundred years, who will be ascendant, I wonder? And most certainly, they will believe themselves to be the most civilized people who ever lived, while they commit atrocities against others, and that their reign will be forever.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lkeke35lkeke35
In another 2 to 5 hundred years, who will be ascendant, I wonder?
—————————————————————————————–
Homosexuals and transvestites?
LikeLike
“Based on the appearance of Egyptian art depicting its people, I’d have to say Egyptians were most likely East Africans mainly from the Horn in race. Ethiopian, Somalian, Eritrean….” That conclusion fits the facts best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It makes sense about who the dark skinned Egyptians being Ethiopians and Eritreans. The Horn of Africa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Kiwi,
ditto!
LikeLike
I’m not an Egyptologist. But one thing seems plain, 90% of the people left to us by the Egyptian visual record (frescos, pottery, sculpture, mosaic) appear to fit within the American definition of “Blackness.” And it can’t be accidental, because when they portrayed the Semites, they were painted much lighter in skin color. I’m not saying that the Egyptians would flanker everyone’s definition of “Black” but certainly there were people depicted in the record who would.
And yet it would surely seem that as time went on, the cumulative effect of mixing with lighter-skinned people would make the common hue of the Egyptian population successively lighter as well. So it’s no surprise that todays Egyptians look markedly less Black and more Middle Eastern/Mediterranean.
On the other hand, as many of the Egyptian artifacts were first being unearthed, Europeans were advancing a worldview that violently disagreed with much of what the archeologist’s spade was revealing. Bear in mind that Egypt was seen as the first major human civilization on Earth.
– The Egyptian world was multi-racial, with many races working as equals
– In the Egyptian world, the lighter-skinned Semites were slaves
– There were clearly some Black Pharaohs who ruled Egypt
These clearly flew in the face of the White supremacist assumptions of the time. It would therefore be necessary to interpret the evidence differently. Any time a darker person was depicted you would assume he/she was a slave. The lighter skin tones of modern Egyptians had to be imposed upon Egypt’s past, right back into antiquity
So that you end up with this
http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1394220/ridley-scotts-upcoming-film-exodus-gods-kings-has-been-slammed-whitewashing-ancient.jpg?w=720&h=405&l=50&t=40
instead of this
LikeLiked by 1 person
It frustrates me that there’s so little mention of the desertification of the Sahara. It makes complete sense that modern Egyptians would be more Semitic, since the Sahara became a horribly impenetrable obstacle that cut the rest of Africa off from the rest of the world, so contact with them by Egyptians would naturally diminish and their dealings would be restricted mostly with people to the east.
I was into Egyptology in the 70’s and the reports I saw about mummy research were saying that people in the same families went from one extreme to another ‘racially’ but it was clearly no more significant than if someone’s got blue eyes or green eyes now. Uncle Tutmos might be phenotypically sub-Saharan but it was clear from his burial that he was rich Uncle Tutmos and you were lucky to get your a$$ into his family vault.
I had an idea for a Twilight Zone script back then. Some young brother is the night watchman at the Field Museum and he becomes obsessed with an unwrapped mummy with an exquisite burial mask. The spirit of this dazzling beauty from the Second Dynasty then seduces him into the Nether world. His supervisors never investigate his disappearance since they just figure he was a flake. The last scene ends with them walking off, commenting, “Yeah, you know how those people are,” while the young couple in all their finery look on and have the last laugh.
LikeLike
@ King
@ Kiwi
According to cultural historian and archaeologist Anthony T. Browder, ancient Egypt became a multiracial state-nation in the 4th century BCE. The invasions of the Persians and Greeks played a major role in Kemet’s multiracial society.
According to cultural historian Ashra Kwesi, interracial marriages of native Egyptian kings and foreigner/Semitic women produced the beginning of what became a multiracial state-nation.
Unlike ancient Egypt, ancient Greece and Rome were multiracial city-states before, during and after their golden age.
LikeLike
“For example, neither one selectively chose blacks as slaves.”
Actually, the Romans preferred their slaves to be Slavic. That’s where the word ‘slave’ comes from. They’d need people to work their wheat plantations so they’d stage some raids to the east and bring back some Slavs, I mean, slaves, to do the work. The word Slav actually means, ‘The Glorious People,” for obvious reasons. LOL. Clearly more intelligent than those Brits.
LikeLike
Thank you guys for all the info. It seems as if Egypt began rathe Black, and got more mixed as time went on. Nice TZ script Linda!
Does anyone know when and why the Sahara went dry?
LikeLike
I’m not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians were any darker than Egyptians today. I don’t know the specific context of the Egyptian art, but pre-modern depictions of humans can have pitfalls and are not always to be taken at face-value.
Also I don’t see why Egyptians should have become lighter in the last two millenia. There was certainly a lot of migration from the North to Egypt in that period, but probably from the South as well. To see the Sahara as a barrier is problematic in general, but it becomes less convincing the further east one goes.
LikeLike
@kartoffel. How do you explain the dna test of the one pharaoh that they released it for Ramses iii, which proved he was subsaharan? Also please explain why Dominicans and Puerto Ricans are so mixed after only 500 yearsof ccolonization.
LikeLike
Kartoffel, compare and contrast the profiles of Nasser and the Sphinx in this picture: http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19630329,00.html.
If you ran into a modern Egyptian on the street who looked like Nasser, would you say he was white? If your answer is yes or no what’s the reason for your answer?
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
The most obvious reason that immigration from the north would be greater than from the south would be the Sahara Desert. Also, we have the record of centuries of waves of invasion from the north, by Greeks, Romans and Arabs. And as I said above, when the Egyptian artists painted Jews, they were light-skinned, as were the Greeks, And the Egyptians paint themselves in varying hues of brown from dark to medium in early work and later added lighter skinned Egyptians.
No, I think it’s clear that they were a much darker population in the ancient past. There is no sensible reason, given that they left us a visual record through their art, to assume otherwise. It conforms to basic logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not familiar with the Ramses III case, but as far as I understand these dna comparisons it just means that he shares a lot of dna traits with people from sub-saharan Africa today. A number of explanations are possible for that, including that some of his recent ancestors had migrated northwards. But that can hardly be generalized, especially because members of the ruling class have always been more mobile. For example we have some reports of Arab rulers having blue-eyes. Does that mean that Arabs were Northern Europeans? Of course not.
I think it’s safe to assume that the migration of Old World people to the Americas is the historical exception, not the rule. First because of the gigantic number of migrants and second because the indigenious population was pretty thoroughly exterminated. We can’t know if something like that has happened ever before because numbers in the pre-modern era are hard to come by, but in the case of Egypt nothing warrants such a theory.
LikeLike
The Post above was directed at Phillygirl.
@ gro jo
I cannot answer that question. If Nasser would walk through Germany today he would probably be seen as a “Südländer” (literally “someone from southern lands”, translated best with “mediterranean”). As what he would be seen in the US I have no idea.
@ King
On the issue of migrations
I think we generally tend to overestimate the demographic importance of the historically recorded migrations like conquests. We see the introduction of Greek as a language in Egypt after the Macedonian conquest. That could be due to a large scale migration, but also to other processes. If one considers how many more people lived in Egypt than in Greece or the Higaz it’s hard to imagine that the invasion of Arabs or the Greek significantly changed the appearence of the average Egyptian.
At first glance their human depictions indicate that th Ancient Egyptians were “black” (by our standard), I just caution against to take them at face value. The interpretation of such depictions can be very tricky, because the drawer might have had other intentions than just to draw reality, symbolism, beauty ideals etc.
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
It is not the initial conquest itself that makes for the totality of demographic differences. The point is that once there is no longer a military impediment, commerce and trade begin. Then after the language and customs are unified, migration becomes much more easy, safe, and attractive to a larger number of people. Then multiply that cumulative effect over centuries and then millennia. Do you have any idea how long a period we would be talking about, if we counted from the Greek conquest through the Roman Empire to the Muslim expansion, to the European colonization? We are not talking about what might occur following a short war and military occupation.
As for the interpretations of art, you have to use logic and judgement. After all, how do I know that the Lansdowne Portrait of George Washington is not somehow ‘symbolic’ and that the REAL General was not half-Chinese?? It’s not as if the Egyptians only had brown paint and were forced to make everyone Black. They painted dark-skinned Egyptians and lighter-skinned Semites on the very same walls.
These weren’t religious cave paintings where a lot of interpretation of complex symbolism is needed. Rather, the Egyptians depicted everyday tasks being performed by every level of society upon thousands of pieces of art. Add to that, the ancient historians clearly describe the Egyptians as dark-skinned as compared to Mediterranean peoples.
How is it possible to look at THIS much direct evidence and yet ignore the rather obvious and straightforward implications of it? ESPECIALLY when it’s clear that those implications would have severely undermined the primary assumptions of colonial European society at the time when these discoveries were unearthed?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It seems clear that in Egyptian art, different peoples were depicted based other observable phenotypical traits. tHe Nubians were darker (like many Sudanese today) and the Mediterranean people were lighter.
LikeLike
@ King
I agree, the migration during peace time probably was much more significant than the “historically recorded ones”. I just don’t see why more people should have come from the North than from the South to Egypt. The contact along the East Coast to the Horn of Africa has to my knowledge never been lost.
I’m assuming the dark people int the first picture and the people in the second depict Egyptians? This two pictures alone show the problem, The people in the first look significantly darker than the ones in the second. The skin tone in the second picture is pretty similiar to that of Egyptians I have met (admitted, only very few).
But if art historians have ruled that we can take these depictions as indications of the Ancient Egyptian’s skin colour, than of course I accept it. I didn’t research the subject myself, but only extrapolated of my knowledge of the problems of human depiction.
“After all, how do I know that the Lansdowne Portrait of George Washington is not somehow ‘symbolic’ and that the REAL General was not half-Chinese?”
We know because Washington’s portraitist was part of a society with very strong ideas about race. Changing the skin tone or the facial features would have enormous implications in the eyes of the viewer. That is not necessarily true for a society without those racial ideas. Also portraits of the era have (to some degree) the ideal of depicting the person accurately. That is not true for any human depiction. For example we have know idea how mediaval European rulers looked like, though we have pictures of them. Simply because the drawer wasn’t interested an accurate depiction.
LikeLike
@ Kiwi
Haha!! Six-pack Greeks! Wow, those Spartans spent a lot of time in the gymnasium doing crunches!
LikeLike
King
It seems clear that in Egyptian art, different peoples were depicted based other observable phenotypical traits.
————————————————————————————————
How can you be sure artwork is the age you are told it is?
Aren’t archeologists/paleontologists whose work is funded by governments and universities under pressure to “discover” something?
How long will you be paid to dig around in the desert without finding anything?
LikeLike
Thwak, are you talking about direct counterfeiting, or do you mean that things may get misdated?
LikeLike
@Kiwi
Yeah, but what really peeves me about the Sword&Sandal genre is that the Greeks and Romans speak with Anglo-British accents.
LikeLike
Well, war changes a lot of things. What if Canada was suddenly annexed by Russia? Would Americans still be crossing the borders in the same numbers? Or would border crossing drop dramatically? How about 50 years later, when the national language of Canada was now Russian? How easy would it be for an english-speaking American to get a job there? The close proximity and long shared border would still exist. The “connection” wouldn’t be lost, but clearly migration patterns would be dramatically effected.
No the people in the first painting are all Egyptians, while the people in the second painting show several nationalities, including an Egyptian.
LikeLike
Kartoffel, I’m perplexed by your refusal to evaluate the profiles of an ancient Egyptian and a modern one. I didn’t ask you what someone in the USA would call Nasser, so bringing that in the conversation is besides the point. Here’s the picture of another “Südländer” named Bunche, tell me what the big difference is between him and Nasser? http://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/explorer/peoplehistorical/170240.htm. How about Adam clayton Powell Jr. and Nasser? http://history.house.gov/HistoricalHighlight/Search?subject=Powell%2C+Adam+Clayton%2C+Jr. As far as I can tell, Bunche, Powell Jr. and Nasser would fit your “Südländer” category as well as the American one for Blacks. If I’m wrong please show me where I went astray.
LikeLike
King
Thwak, are you talking about direct counterfeiting, or do you mean that things may get misdated?
———————————————–
Both.
Whatever/whichever it takes for supply to subdue demand.
LikeLike
@ gro jo
So, what’s your question? Obviously the “Südländer” catergory is just as arbitrary as all racial categories. It’s not just about skin tone, generally all (Southern) Italians, Greek , Spnish, Portugese, People from the Balkans, Arabs, Turks are grouped in. Sometimes even Iranians and Afghans.
LikeLike
Indeed Kiwi; Ive heard the really good stuff is skimmed off by private collectors, the Vatican…
Many antique shops have “contacts” in thrift stores who alert them when something good gets donated.
LikeLike
Kartoffel, My question is: Why do you refuse to state whether or not the profile of the Sphinx is a Negroid profile? Why do you assume that a modern Egyptian like Nasser couldn’t have ancestors who would be described as Negroes, given the fact that people like Powell Jr. and Bunche look just like Nasser? Are my questions explicit enough for you? Will you deign to answer them?
LikeLike
@ thwack
King asked: Direct counterfeiting, or misdated?
thwack anwered: Both
It certainly happens yes. It’s not nearly as easy to counterfeit as it is to misdate, of course, because so many other sciences are involved.
– what kind of materials were used
– where it was found, and how deep
– what artistic style was used
Most counterfeits *if exposed to enough scrutiny* can be debunked in time. But they may be believed for decades before that, and many don’t get the kind of close scrutiny that we often would assume. As for misdating things… well, carbon 14 dating does not work with that kind of close precision for dating modern artifacts. So I can agree that things can get misdated. But it is easier to misdate them than to get them out of continuous sequence (no doubt you see the distinction).
Lies about near-history have to be pretty well-researched in order to work. I’d say there are a few rules that help cut through the crap though.
1) The artifact has to fit within the existing system. So if it is a lie, it also has to conform to all the other accepted lies that have been told about it. Otherwise, there is a breakdown in the entire system, as multiple contradictions emerge. That is why it is such a hard thing to do, because it becomes necessary to maintain a “Cannon of Untruth” (a record of the entire deception) in order to maintain ‘internal logic’ within the scope of the broader lie. THAT GETS COMPLICATED, and complexity within the conspiracy is the enemy of maintaining a successful deception. Complexity outside of the conspiracy is good (because it keeps investigators confused and off track) but the liars themselves can’t afford complexity or confusion.
2) The resulting theories must pass the propaganda test To me, when scholarship happens to back up the ideas of the same powers that are uncovering them, then they must be much more thoroughly scrutinized. If German Kulturkreis research uncovers one artifact after another that supports their pre-existing theories on an Aryan-centric national prehistory, then I would be immediately more suspicious. The burdens of truth immediately become more stringent. But if the research rather seriously challenged or revised preconceived ideas, then it is much more likely to be true.
3) Agreement among rivals Another way that truth can be verified as much more likely is if multiple groups with several competing agendas study it and come to the same conclusions over time. If the German Army, and later the Allies, then the African Antiquities Commission, and then an independent Chinese research team, all come to the same conclusions, despite their competing agendas, a truth is much more probable.
So, in the case of ancient early Egypt as phenotypically Black (as we use the term today in America) it seems far more likely that European researchers did not invent thousands of little brown figures on fresco walls and unearthed shards of broken pottery. PARTICULARLY because doing so would have made their own race mythology more difficult to maintain. It would be much easier to manufacture more Arabic looking figures, or even White looking figures (even better!) And Blacks with their own racial agendas would not have had the access, nor the wealth, nor the power needed to execute such a broad deception. It doesn’t make it a 100% settled issue, but I would say that the evidence leans more strongly toward a “Black” Ancient Egypt than not.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ King
“Does anyone know when and why the Sahara went dry?
According to geologists and archaeologists, the Sahara went dry about a couple of millennia after the Earth’s last glacial period (20,000-11,000 BCE). Since the 20th century AD, archaeologists have unearthed plenty of Saharan prehistoric rock artwork with herbivore animals, which indicated that the Sahara Desert was once a fertile grassland or savanna.
The planet Earth can attest that glaciers have affected its northern hemisphere. The northern parts of Europe and Asia (i.e., northern Eurasia) were hit the hardest by thick glaciers and thus causing sea level to lower. Lowered sea level exposed land brides, which the “Beringa” is the most famous of them all.
While North America, northern Europe and Asia were covered with sheets of ice northern Africa (or the entire Saharan region) was covered with vegetation. In other words, what was an “ice age” in Europe, America and Asia was a pleasant “wet age” in Africa.
My knowledge of the Sahara becoming a dry land is due to intense heat in dry seasons, which causes air to rise, enormously. When air rises, it creates a low pressure and the rising moisture liquefy in clouds that descend or fall back as rain. This type of chemistry is seen in equatorial rainforests. Isn’t Africa’s equatorial rainforests south of the Sahara?
LikeLike
Thank you Micheal, I was just doing a bit of digging on my own as well and found this article.
http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/how-earths-orbital-shift-shaped-the-sahara/
It seems to present a more recent timeline
6000 to 1100 years ago would make the transition gradual but still comparatively recent. What are the implications, I wonder?
LikeLike
@ gro jo
“Why do you assume that a modern Egyptian like Nasser couldn’t have ancestors who would be described as Negroes, given the fact that people like Powell Jr. and Bunche look just like Nasser?”
On the contrary, I would assume Nasser had a lot of ancestors in the last two millenia who would be considered “black” today. I just don’t see why the average contemporary Egyptian should have a lot more “white” ancestors than “black”. That’s why I’m not convinced that the Ancient Egyptians were significantly darker then the contemporary Egyptians (Though that is certainly possible).
Does the Sphinx have “negroid” features? Some people have interpreted it that way, but it doesn’t specifically remind me of the black people I have seen, so I will obstain from an opinion.
@ Kiwi
“To get an idea of how large-scale human migration is not a recent phenomenon, you can simply look to the Migration Period of Germanic tribes that was the bane of the Roman Empire.”
I would say that is evedince to the contrary. It is estimated that the Germanic migration involved rather 10,000s than 100,000s of people. Certainly a significant part of the Germani at the time, but relativly few compared to the millions of inhabitants of the Western Roman Empire. If I recall correctly for Gallia it’s estimated that only 1-3% of the inhabitants were Franks during the Merovingian rule.
LikeLike
@abagond
“It is the oldest book we have where a person we would call White ”
I disagree that we (i.e., people in the West) would call Herodotus white. Although there’s no way to definitively prove whether he was “white” or something else, there’s probably more evidence (e.g., Egyptian colonisation of Greece, d to suggest that he was not white.
“Most of them would have been Berbers.”
What is a Berber? That didn’t exist in Herodotus’ era.
@King
Why are all your images of Egyptian cartoons? You couldn’t find a photograph of a real artefact? I say that because these cartoons are not accurate, especially the races of man cartoon, which has no artefact of similarity (yet people actually take it as fact). It’s deceptive.
LikeLike
Kartoffel, Thank you for your prompt answer.
LikeLike
Does the Sphinx have “negroid” features? Some people have interpreted it that way, but it doesn’t specifically remind me of the black people I have seen, so I will obstain from an opinion.
———————————————————————————————
check out the size of the fail on that one?
Somebody call the Smithsonian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ resw77 I used some of those because they were easier to see and were supposed to recreate the colors they found painted on the rocks. but yes, an original from the British Museum looks more like this:
The early Egyptians all looked Black though (by todays standards) to me.
LikeLike
If there was a race war today ancient Egyptians get hung from trees.
LikeLike
Actually, Nasser and the Sphinx don’t look ‘racially’ the same to me. Even if the Sphinx’s schnoz was as long and pointy as Nasser’s, where the bottom lip would intersect with a line drawn from the tip of his nose to his chin would be much closer than Nasser’s. People who had the bad, cold weather in the Ice Age have ‘flatter’ profiles than people who had the good weather. It’s an adaptation to the cold, the longer and skinnier your schnoz is, the better it can warm the air before it hits your lungs. The flatter your profile is the longer and skinnier your schnoz gets. That gives a bit of protection from pneumonia, that over time will be selected for.
They certainly have the same chin, but I’d say Nasser’s got a lot more ancestors who were Cold Weather Primates shivering through the Ice Age than the Sphinx, whose peeps were out sunbathing in the same time frame. (Primates are critters with opposable thumbs. All us humans are primates.)
LikeLike
Don’t forget, it could be a black woman?
especially if it is much older than we have been led to believe?
LikeLike
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Genesis-Prehistoric-Origins-Ancient/dp/159143114X
LikeLike
Martin Bernal is another white man who stepped off the academic white supremacy plantation and “spilled the beans” on the long standing European practice of “whitewashing” the historical record of black and semitic influences; before releasing it to the general public.
He wrote Black Athen; taught and lectured on how and why Western civilization tried to purge itself of evidence of its black and semitic origins…
LikeLike
@ Kartoffel
Me thinks that the later Intermediary periods and the wake of conquest by Persians, Romans, et al., spurred the displacement of Ancient Egyptians/KMTians into the Sahel and deeper into Africa.
I think the most poignant thing to consider is the linguistics in the name. Modern Egyptians refer to the land as Masr, and call themselves Masri. This suggests that they are mostly colonists of a sort. A name is a name in any language; there is no reason that they would cease to call their land KMT, or some derivative thereof, simply because of the acceptance of the Islam and Arabization. This leads me to believe that Egypt is currently heavily peopled by East-Asian Semitic migrants, not the Nile River denisens of antiquity.
LikeLike
Interesting. Bernal was exploring his bit of Jewish ancestry when he discovered the Hebrew language was mutually intelligible with the Phoenician, and later observed commonalities with the Greek language. His first volume with published in ’87.
Anybody remember Ashley Montagus’ “Fallacy of Race?” It’s in its sixth edition. I think that’s where I learned the long, skinny nose theory. The real physicality of race just boils down to small talk about the weather 10,000 years ago. All the rest is social construct. Stupid social construct. I think it was in that book where he describes the old plantation ‘scientists’ observation that, on average, Black people’s arms are slightly longer relative to torso length and that was because God had designed them to pick cotton.
I was still in high school when I read that book, 46 years ago. It’s unbelievable all this is still up for debate.
LikeLike
Further considerations for my hypothesis:
There are five viable routes out of the KMTian Nile River Valley, that is routes that aren’t suicide. First, one could board a ship on the delta and sail elsewhere in the Mediterranean. Second, they could board a ship on a Red Sea port and migrate to Asia. These routes would most likely be all but exclusive to the most privileged denisens of KMT. Third, they could walk or ride along the northern African coast into Libya and beyond. Fourth, they could cross the Sinai bridge into Asia, which is unlikely and almost suicidal. Finally, they could migrate south along the Upper Nile into Nubia and beyond. Considering their familiarity and spiritual & cultural connection to the Nile, it stands to reason they’d be reluctant to leave it altogether. Also considering that in times of crisis, people draw upon their culture and mythical history, and the mythical origin of KMTIAN civilization is the Upper Nile, and you have a recipe for waves of southward migrations of people “Returning to Their Roots”.
LikeLike
Correction:
LikeLike
“taleoflions @ his leads me to believe that Egypt is currently heavily peopled by East-Asian Semitic migrants, not the Nile River denisens of antiquity.”
Linda says,
taleoflions
Even though I don’t really like this anthropologist for her “racist” leanings, she did, at times, attempt to be honest and factual. (until she put her own spin on the data)
She stated she did this analysis because of ” some irritation at modern Egyptians being incessantly called ‘thieving Arabs’ by on-line Afrocentrists.”
and with her irritation, she managed to acknowledge that Egyptians are mixed-race Africans, who carry black African genes like the rest of their brethren to the south.
According to Y-DNA analysis she put forth, modern day Egyptians are “not” Arabs –they are mixed with it, but this depends on location.
for the people of lower Egypt (northern Egypt), they are more mixed (African, Semitic, European):
“Northern Egyptians are a bit more cosmopolitan in their ancestry 64.8% indigenous African. About 20% of the Y chrom0somes are near Eastern in origin, and 10.5 % are R Y chromosomes.
However, some of these near eastern and European Y chromosomes show an ancient entry to Africa (G, K2, R1, R1b are 8,000 BP and older)”
for the people of upper Egypt (southern Egypt), they are 80% indigenous to Africa:
“Southern Egyptians Y Chromomses are mainly native to Africa, both sub and supra Saharan. This makes a grand total of 80.3% definitively African non-Arab ancestry in the upper Egypt region.”
LikeLike
If we all are going to be honest about Egypt and Africa
as people constantly state: Africans have a wide and Diverse gene pool and they have over 1000s ethnicities– therefore,
There is no One look that represents Africa
Africans go from black skin tones/tight coiled hair, to brown skin, to light skin tones/loose-straight hair.
That’s why the Europeans had no business and were wrong to bring their disgusting racist classifications to Africa,
to divide the continent based on skin tone and appropriate north African/ Egyptian history into western European history while omitting that it was black and brown skinned skinned Africans that taught their celebrated “Greek” ancestors.
Ethiopians are genetically closer to Egyptians than Algerians are to Egyptians,
so why are modern day Egyptians called “white” and Ethiopians “black” racially, absolute nonsense, they are both Africans who carry Semitic genes.
Photo of some modern day Egyptians:
LikeLike
@Linda
Yes, you’re correct. I’ve gotten rusty at this sort of thing lately.
Still, that they’d forgoten or abandoned their own name and took on the label that semitic civilizations placed on them (misr) suggests a radical distruction of Egyptian culture in the past. While they are of largely African origin, it seems they’ve been culturally colonized to a far greater degree by Arabs than the World has been colonized by the West. Even the “Natives”, the colonized that have subjected to near-extinction, still remember the names of their people and the names of their lands.
Maybe the invention of race circa 1500 has also made PoC more resistant to cultural colonialization. . . .
LikeLike
“taleoflions,
Still, that they’d forgoten or abandoned their own name and took on the label that semitic civilizations placed on them (misr) suggests a radical distruction of Egyptian culture in the past.”
Linda says,
I would also be interested to learn why the modern day Egypt have abandoned their African identity in favor of an Arab one.
I don’t think that this mindset is homogenous through out the country though, because from several things I’ve read, the southern Egyptians do acknowledge their African identity.
I remember somewhere reading that of the Mohammed Morsi of the now-defunct Muslim Brotherhood, had Nubian roots and that he received overwhelming support from them.
if I get time, I will try to research on the when’s and why’s of the Arabization of the Egyptian culture.
LikeLike
Great Post Abagond. Keep it up for February.
LikeLike
I’m interested in American Egyptians, like Hota Kotb. Anybody know her story?
LikeLike
To call the Greeks or the Romans white is just absurd, these people did not think of themselves as “white people” that would be more fitting for those who inhabited the regions north of the Mediterranean. Simply because these peoples are portrayed as Northern Europeans in movies does not mean that they were/are “white”(which is already a meaningless word).
LikeLike
Reblogged this on TALES OF URBAN HORROR.
LikeLike
When was the first time that the reference to a White person was recorded. Is it possible that color was not a consideration in the period of Egypt’s reign.
Also many individuals who came to the United States had to go to the Courts to prove that they were White, because there was much confusion about which people were White when they came from the Middle East.
LikeLike
Ancient Egypt was well known to be a place where black people lived. Even the name Kemet/Kamit means “black land” though some would claim refers to the dirt itself. I probably mentioned before that the letters ‘chem’ in ‘alchemy’ (here the ‘al’ is from Arabic ‘the’) and ‘chemistry’ both come from that Ancient Egyptian root (k[e]m) meaning black. Ethiopian essentially means “negro” as it said to come from a Greek term meaning “burned of face”. Who do people think were living in Africa milliennia ago? Why wouldn’t the Greeks report what they saw? Why should it be surprising?
Furthermore, Ancient Egypt fits right in with much of the rest of Africa in terms of how they viewed the universe and life, spirituality etc. That put any controversy to rest for me. This is why it seems so very mysterious to some Europeans studying it. Once viewed in its context as an “outwardly impressive” African civillization it is not that mysterious at all. Once I started to do a bit of reading on Odinani and Yoruba I saw where Ancient Egyptian spirituality fit right in.
Eg. I’ll just quote from Wikipedia and leave verification to the reader:
Yoruba
“According to Kola Abimbola, the Yorùbá have evolved a robust cosmology.In brief, it holds that all human beings possess what is known as “Àyànmô” (destiny, fate) and are expected to eventually become one in spirit with Olódùmarè (Olòrún, the divine creator and source of all energy). Furthermore, the thoughts and actions of each person in Ayé (the physical realm) interact with all other living things, including the Earth itself.”
Odinani (Igbo):
“In Ọdịnala, every individual is assigned a personal providence; Chi. The mathematics here is very simple. Depending on the number of people living presently on Earth (Uwa), as many as possible number of Chis may exist. A person’s Chi is his right in the main source that is Chukwu. Chi as a spiritual being, takes care of any mmadu (human being) assigned to him in the lower World. The overall Chi that indirectly takes care of everything (visible and invisible) is therefore, called ‘Chi Ukwu’ or Chukwu, the Supreme Being.”
Ancient Egyptians:
“Ancient Egyptians believed that death occurs when a person’s ka [vital force] leaves the body. Ceremonies conducted by priests after death, including the “opening of the mouth (wp r)”, aimed not only to restore a person’s physical abilities in death, but also to release a Ba’s [transcendent personality] attachment to the body. This allowed the Ba to be united with the Ka in the afterlife, creating an entity known as an “Akh”
The Dogon of Mali (Nommo)
“The Nommo are mythological ancestral spirits (sometimes referred to as deities) worshipped by the Dogon tribe of Mali. The Nommos are usually described as amphibious, hermaphroditic, fish-like creatures. Folk art depictions of the Nommos show creatures with humanoid upper torsos, legs/feet, and a fish-like lower torso and tail. Dogon mythology says that Nommo was the first living creature created by the sky god Amma. Shortly after his creation, Nommo underwent a transformation and multiplied into four pairs of twins. One of the twins rebelled against the universal order created by Amma”
Ancient Egyptians (Ogdoad, which is a Greek term)
“In Egyptian mythology, the Ogdoad (Greek the eightfold) were eight deities. The concept of an Ogdoad also appears in Gnostic systems of the EARLY CHRISTIAN ERA. The eight deities were arranged in four male-female pairs. The males were associated with frogs and females were associated with snakes. Essentially, each pair represents the male and female aspect of one of four concepts, namely the primordial waters (Nu and Naunet), air or invisibility (Amun and Amaunet), darkness (Kuk and Kauket), and eternity or infinity (Huh and Hauhet). Together the four concepts represent the primal, fundamental state of the beginning, they are what always was. In the myth, however, their interaction ultimately proved to be unbalanced, resulting in the arising of a new entity
[These fish-creatues etc. are metaphors, btw. Even the Bible has stuff like this. See the lion/man/eagle/bull faced Seraphim of Ezekiel and Revelation]
Obviously one could write a whole book on this and I’m not going to but I believe the whitewashing of Ancient Egypt is just another manifestation of racism. The role it played in “civilization” is undeniable. A number of the “great Greeks” studied there. So given the racism of whites today it is totally unacceptable to consider that Ancient Egypt was a civilizaation originated by black Africans.
LikeLike
Btw, a depiction of an important deity (ptah). If they were trying to show a white man they definitely failed.
LikeLike
@ linda
What has the desertification of the
the northern plains and grassfields of africa got to do with the fact that
the ancient egyptians were black
and described as such by all the
non africans who saw them? did the
desertification of the kalahari region in southern africa change
the race of its inhabitants? No
Your Argument is frivolous and fallacious, to say the least, and go from the idea that ancient egyptians and
ancient Africans were not from the same race, confusing nation and race.
If you knew a little bit about the formation of egypt, you
would know that, that region actually slowly emerged after the
desertification where a substantial part of the older civiliation, that lived
on the saharan plains moved east, to intermix with the population that was already
living there,to this came a another wave coming from the south where most ancient egyptians
where originally from anynway and from where they inherited the bulk of their culture/civilization ( as explained by the greek writers).
so Africa was never cut off from egypt since egyptians were AFRICANS and
were living among other africans living on their: westside ( what is now called
libya, where the first mentions of the people living there, clearly show
other “ethiopans” but that will gradually change with the invasions
of asians and mostly maditerranean area europeans like greeks), and on their
southside – nubians, puntite etc…
And that Argument of desert speak against your eastern tropism,because
egypt till this day is separated from asia not only a desert but a chain of mountains.
That´s why they were relatively at peace at the early stages of their empire
and the early invasions from eurasiatics came through the sea.
I´m saying all this because i sense the racist misconceptions spread by
white ideologues, who couldn´t bear the fact that egyptians were africans
and tried to severe that part of africa, that would cripple their racist
theories.
there are those ridiculous claims that ancient egyptians were mixed, which
are a manipulation , because it doesn´t say exactly when that mixing
took place. This happened way after the civiliation was already milleniums old and had been
invaded an incredible number of times, the most terrible and massive invasions being:
-the hyksos
-the persians
– the assyrians
– the greeks
-the romans
– the arabs
– the turks
So what do you expect after all of this?
Just look at america after just 500 years.
But nobody would take the people living in america today or anywhere in
te americas for that matter, to have an idea about the early
inhabitants of that regions.
That´s why ancient egyptians left so many paintings and texts about who
they were and that has been confirmed by the genetic, which say exactly
to what people they belong to.
LikeLike
Leo, there are 2 “linda’s” on the board, so please make it clear who you are talking to, so that the correct person can respond to you
I believe you are referring to Linda Keres Carter
because after reading what you wrote, I had to ask myself “Linda” (with no other names attached) “desertification? what is he talking about”,
then I scrolled up and realized you were responding to Linda Keres Carter’s comment:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/black-people-according-to-herodotus/#comment-277265
LikeLike
@ abagond
I think there is a misconception here, ethiopians doesn´t refer to certain types of blacks , but means burnt skin, burnt face, which was the generic term that ancient greeks used to describe black people at that time. Hence, egyptians were indeed Ethiopians just like nubians, puntite etc…herodotus could find them in asia too. The focus was placed on egyptians because at that time egyptians were the most successful of the ethiopians , hence the special attention.
And there is also a misconception about the skin colors of nubians: even today the people of that region are among the darkest africans, but just like everywhere in africa you have the differents shades of “blackness” there. From the light brown to the darkest brown. Yet you always see those tendencious representations where ancient egyptians are represented as lighter and te nubians as jet black and as representatives of the whole rest of africa, as to imply that ancient egyptians were from a different race, you know those white people with black skin , who left germany to build the pyramids. Totally ridiculous! They leave out the egyptians who were jet black and want to imply that, if i go to central or southern africa and take one of those yellow brown blacks and compare them to jet black south Sudanese, i could argue that they are from a different race…the genius of white people lol. SMH
LikeLike
yeah i meant Linda Keres Carter. Thx for the reminding
LikeLike
By the way, Egypt is also a Greek-derived term. Ancient Egyptians weren’t even “Egyptians” just as Native “Americans” did not name themselves after Amerigo Vespucci. The name America stuck after other people took over.
LikeLike
@ Leo
Herodotus saw Egyptians as black-skinned, but so far as I know he never calls them Ethiopians. If you know of an example where he does, please let me know.
LikeLike
Asian Ethiopians (Dravidians?) – look just like Ethiopians but their hair is straight instead of woolly. They serve in the Persian army in their own divisions as part of the Indian contingent (7.70). < is not correct at all Dravidians are Canaanites not East Ethiopians .
LikeLike
Well since I consider White people to be primarily north European I do not believe any serious reading of history of 2400 years BC had any real bearing on race, color or any of your wild imagination.
Egypt and Ethiopia are in Africa and even if the people are not considered to be of the same race as Sub Saharan African the complexion of their skin was probably dark and there would have been no shortage of variations in hair style.
We need to stop going back into antiquity to find racial separation. Any study of history will show the subjection of one person by another for one reason or another.
The strong will control the weak, and strength is not just physical but mental.
Enjoy!
LikeLike
This discussion is quite interesting. Has anyone read Herodotus’ description of the Ancient Egyptians? It is quite clear. Let me know what you think about this.
LikeLike
“Ethiopians are genetically closer to Egyptians than Algerians are to Egyptians,”
There are too many ignorant posts to respond to them all but this one is completely retarded. GENETICALLY, “Ethiopians” are mixed Semitic parentage with a considerable percentage being Y DNA Haplogroup J. Hence, you get “Ethiopian Jews”. and “Lemba Jews”. They are from Semite parentage.
However, the largest percentage of Ethiopian and ALGERIAN Y DNA is Haplogroup E1b1b.
EGYPT was NOT a 5000 year old, monolithic homogeneous empire, rule or race. It went through tremendous religious, cultural, governmental changes in its history with war and slavery, including that of BLACK people. King Tut’s shoes and walking sticks were adorned with bound BLACK people as well as Persians.
Africa does NOT have a varied gene pool which is WHY they have retained tribal phenotype differences.
Which is WHY at the time,Herodotus wrote his observations, he divided people by NATIONS or GEOGRAPHY.
LAST BUT NOT LEAST, it takes about TWO Generations for one’s phenotype to completely change. GENETICALLY, the Y DNA and Mitrochondrial DNA do NOT change.
The fact that an individual is White, black or brown today have ZERO correlation with the phenotype of their ancestors 2500 years ago.
What does have a connection to today is Kek+Heh, Khemnu and Khnum
The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Pistis Sophia and the Famine Text of Shehel.
Imhotep was a Semite named “Me Ho Kek” In Semitic speak it is “Me Ho Ses”
As a reward for his visions, he gave Khnum a new wife called “Satis” (Satan, Sarah) at the isle of Abu.
What is important is the power to drive back the Ha-Nebu who are GENETICALLY, “Nubian” like the “Babylonian king Nebu-chad-nezzar ”
Nabu is the God of the Nubian, the Nebu.
GENETICALLY, 99.999999% of US were NOT Kings. 99.9999% of us are closer to being “kings” and “queens” today than ANY period in history.
It is straight retardedness to claim a history based on your phenotype.
It is complete retardedness to claim a “genetic” x-ray vision capability.
GENETICALLY, Adolph Hitler, Albert Einstein, the Wright Brothers, Nicholas Cage, Napoleon were ALL “Ancient Egyptian/Nebu” Y DNA E1b1b
Unfortunately, Modern “Egyptians” (A Nation/Nationality) are NOT majority Y DNA E1b1b except for the Southern part. Morocco 80%, Algeria 70%, Ethiopian/Somalian 60-80% Worldwide “Hebrews” 30-40%
LikeLike
Give it a rest. The post is about what Herodotus saw and wrote about not ‘genetics’. Genetics were ‘invented’ during those times. A strawman at best.
LikeLike
The Bible proves that the indigenous Egyptians were descendants of HAM, who was the progenitor of the black ethnic group (Genesis 10:6). Case closed.
LikeLike
@John Doe
Right, and the world was created by the almighty Creator in seven days, but then came the snake with that apple– 🙂
LikeLike
This subject keeps popping up like it makes a difference. All mankind comes from Africa. Until we can find some other source for the development of mankind we have to agree that as time went by and the people spread out changes were made. As long as we believe that mankind started 3 or 4 thousand years ago we are going to keep this conversation going.
The truth we do not know; however, at the present time it is a matter of the environment where people lived that changed them. As of this year the oldest known bones are in Southern Africa. Keep digging and stop separating people by the color of the skin, texture of the hair or how their lips look.
DNA is good but to new to be able to go back millions of years.
This could be a good subject if people did not use the term race as a means of defining and separating people.
LikeLike
Thank from Waylon Dilleshaw
LikeLike
Whatever skin colour fourth dynasty Egyptians were, they built the Giza Pyramids using “Rack & Pinion Mechanics” with “Positive Displacement” and with a Mechanical Advantage of 2.8 (MA=2.8)
My work is still unknown or avoided by many and requires study …
The Documented Ancient Construction Method of The Great Pyramid
Читайте больше на http://www.pravdareport.com/science/142069-great_pyramid/
Google: haitheory … for more information and inform others.
LikeLike