Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Archaeology News Thread

The Lonious Monk said:
An archaeology thread will probably be a tough sell on this site. Interesting find though.
Click to expand...

I'm here for it. We had a few good convos in the past on the subject and how it relates to black people. Archeologists (or their benefactors) have historically been the stormtroopers of erasing or co-opting black history to promote white supremacy.

This particular story reinforces that because pretty much every artifact found at Saqqara that depicts people depict black people including the pharaoh Djoser. Saqqara also happens to be the site of the second pyramid built by Imhotep (the stepped pyramid) - he took one L before but got it right on his second attempt and went on to become revered as a god for at least 3000 years of history (much longer than Jesus and we actually know Imhotep existed and have evidence to prove it).

I could go on and on about this shit but going back to my original point about racism in archeology... look at how these crackas will say anything... literally anything as opposed to saying... yeah you guys got that off.

www.quora.com

Archaeology: Is it possible the pyramids were done way before the Egyptians, and the Egyptians just carved inside them?

Answer (1 of 28): Yes, it is very possible that the pyramids on the Giza plateau were built by a civilization that pre-date the Pharaohs. This would have been done by a group of “pre-dynastic” people. Pre Dynastic means before the establishment of the concept of successive Pharaohs and their reig...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
 
SneakDZA said:
I'm here for it. We had a few good convos in the past on the subject and how it relates to black people. Archeologists (or their benefactors) have historically been the stormtroopers of erasing or co-opting black history to promote white supremacy.

This particular story reinforces that because pretty much every artifact found at Saqqara that depicts people depict black people including the pharaoh Djoser. Saqqara also happens to be the site of the second pyramid built by Imhotep (the stepped pyramid) - he took one L before but got it right on his second attempt and went on to become revered as a god for at least 3000 years of history (much longer than Jesus and we actually know Imhotep existed and have evidence to prove it).

I could go on and on about this shit but going back to my original point about racism in archeology... look at how these crackas will say anything... literally anything as opposed to saying... yeah you guys got that off.

www.quora.com

Archaeology: Is it possible the pyramids were done way before the Egyptians, and the Egyptians just carved inside them?

Answer (1 of 28): Yes, it is very possible that the pyramids on the Giza plateau were built by a civilization that pre-date the Pharaohs. This would have been done by a group of “pre-dynastic” people. Pre Dynastic means before the establishment of the concept of successive Pharaohs and their reig...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
Click to expand...

lol @ you giving me the cap reaction. The thread has been here for like a whole day and has two responses. I didn't say no one on ABW is interested in this stuff, but it ain't going to get the puters putin' on this site.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
lol @ you giving me the cap reaction. The thread has been here for like a whole day and has two responses. I didn't say no one on ABW is interested in this stuff, but it ain't going to get the puters putin' on this site.
Click to expand...

Fair enough and in my defense I hate the fucking baseball cap. But back to the topic at hand, every now and then a real thread hits and I just didn't like the indictment on the site as a whole since we have had more than a few good convos on history and archeology. They might not pop off and explode in a day like a gossip thread but they're usually appreciated.

#bringbackthenosign
 
The Lonious Monk said:
True.

This was an interesting find from a couple years ago.

arstechnica.com

Archaeologists find “lost golden city” buried under sand for 3,400 years

It’s the “second most important archaeological discovery since the tomb of Tutankhamun.”…
arstechnica.com arstechnica.com
Click to expand...

I'm crazy suspicious of Zahi Hawass and anything that comes out of his tenure. This is totally unfounded though. But the fact that this dude has been turning up more discoveries since the 20s and also that he is an Arab from Egypt or KMT but got his degree in Egyptology from penn state is crazy to me. Dude is brilliant and knows his stuff but he has too much control and has had it for too long with very conflicting interests (consider he navigated through the whole arab spring and 2 regime changes with no negative effects).

His whole role as minister of antiquities or whatever he calls himself should be getting all their shit back that was stolen and put in museums in western countries
 
SneakDZA said:
I'm crazy suspicious of Zahi Hawass and anything that comes out of his tenure. This is totally unfounded though. But the fact that this dude has been turning up more discoveries since the 20s and also that he is an Arab from Egypt or KMT but got his degree in Egyptology from penn state is crazy to me. Dude is brilliant and knows his stuff but he has too much control and has had it for too long with very conflicting interests (consider he navigated through the whole arab spring and 2 regime changes with no negative effects).

His whole role as minister of antiquities or whatever he calls himself should be getting all their shit back that was stolen and put in museums in western countries
Click to expand...

Fair. He's the dude that said the Ancient Egyptians weren't black and then said they had black skin but weren't Negroes. They were basically dark-skinned white people. lol

So, his interpretations of history are definitely suspect, but I don't think he's fudging the Archaeology.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Fair. He's the dude that said the Ancient Egyptians weren't black and then said they had black skin but weren't Negroes. They were basically dark-skinned white people. lol

So, his interpretations of history are definitely suspect, but I don't think he's fudging the Archaeology.
Click to expand...

Yeah I heard that but never verified it. Conversely, early in his tenure he was saying the exact opposite and explaining how all the relics clearly depicted black people (which we know they do until the later dynasties). Something changed either with him or his messaging and that's what makes me suspicious of him.
 
SneakDZA said:
Yeah I heard that but never verified it. Conversely, early in his tenure he was saying the exact opposite and explaining how all the relics clearly depicted black people (which we know they do until the later dynasties). Something changed either with him or his messaging and that's what makes me suspicious of him.
Click to expand...

Probably pressure from the Egyptian government. They've really started fighting any narratives about the Ancient Egyptians being black. They recently barred the archaeology team from the Netherlands from doing in more research in Egypt because a Norwegian Museum did an exhibit about the influence of Egyptian culture on Hip Hop.
 
SneakDZA said:
I'm here for it. We had a few good convos in the past on the subject and how it relates to black people. Archeologists (or their benefactors) have historically been the stormtroopers of erasing or co-opting black history to promote white supremacy.

This particular story reinforces that because pretty much every artifact found at Saqqara that depicts people depict black people including the pharaoh Djoser. Saqqara also happens to be the site of the second pyramid built by Imhotep (the stepped pyramid) - he took one L before but got it right on his second attempt and went on to become revered as a god for at least 3000 years of history (much longer than Jesus and we actually know Imhotep existed and have evidence to prove it).

I could go on and on about this shit but going back to my original point about racism in archeology... look at how these crackas will say anything... literally anything as opposed to saying... yeah you guys got that off.

www.quora.com

Archaeology: Is it possible the pyramids were done way before the Egyptians, and the Egyptians just carved inside them?

Answer (1 of 28): Yes, it is very possible that the pyramids on the Giza plateau were built by a civilization that pre-date the Pharaohs. This would have been done by a group of “pre-dynastic” people. Pre Dynastic means before the establishment of the concept of successive Pharaohs and their reig...
www.quora.com www.quora.com
Click to expand...

Yet it's 2024. The cario symposium of 73 kind destroyed that. Black is a racialized term that doesn't have any bearing on ancient populations including our own ancestors. That some shit that white people came up with and has no biological root.

Now, Egyptian culture is definitely African and even though no one called the continent Africa let alone a thousand years ago, but it's just a designated term to use for the continent. On the African continent Egyptians from the north been mixing with more outsiders during proto dynastic time and those in the south more of inner continent Africans primarily Nubians. And since it's a state those in the north and south mix. Thus you get all kinds of variation, but ultimately Egyptians are north africans.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Fair. He's the dude that said the Ancient Egyptians weren't black and then said they had black skin but weren't Negroes. They were basically dark-skinned white people. lol

So, his interpretations of history are definitely suspect, but I don't think he's fudging the Archaeology.
Click to expand...

What he meant that the Egyptians are not West Africans and that's how the west views Africa. Khoi-San are not negroes either and the negro designation totally overlooks the genetic variation in West Africa which contains more genetic variation than some continents. So we have to ask ourselves what does black really mean just looking at our skin tone and if it's features too then it already failed. I remember looking at a study and white people just look at our skin and not our features that's what triggers them the most. So we can't use their point of view valid at all.

Hawass is correct and is a north African who is arabized and is culturally arab, but genetically North African.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
Probably pressure from the Egyptian government. They've really started fighting any narratives about the Ancient Egyptians being black. They recently barred the archaeology team from the Netherlands from doing in more research in Egypt because a Norwegian Museum did an exhibit about the influence of Egyptian culture on Hip Hop.
Click to expand...

Cause African Americans have been calling the modern population Arab invaders and claim it's their ancestors even though genetically modern Egyptians are closer to people in Northern parts of Africa than anywhere else and the closest genetically to the ancient egyptian population. That's why.
 
"
About 50,000 years ago, ancient humans in what is now West Africa apparently procreated with another group of ancient humans that scientists didn't know existed.

There aren't any bones or ancient DNA to prove it, but researchers say the evidence is in the genes of modern West Africans. They analyzed genetic material from hundreds of people from Nigeria and Sierra Leone and found signals of what they call "ghost" DNA from an unknown ancestor."

 
ajackson17 said:
What he meant that the Egyptians are not West Africans and that's how the west views Africa. Khoi-San are not negroes either and the negro designation totally overlooks the genetic variation in West Africa which contains more genetic variation than some continents. So we have to ask ourselves what does black really mean just looking at our skin tone and if it's features too then it already failed. I remember looking at a study and white people just look at our skin and not our features that's what triggers them the most. So we can't use their point of view valid at all.

Hawass is correct and is a north African who is arabized and is culturally arab, but genetically North African.
Click to expand...
Are West Africans the only people designated as negroes? Wasn’t Sara Bartman, aKhoi-San, classified as negro? Byzantines never existed but we all understand what it refers to, just as we understand what ‘Black‘ refers to in Ancient Egypt.

Which was a civilization lasting 5k years, it’s impossible to attribute one genetic stock to such a widely distributed peoples. Ramsees III, Cleopatra and Taharqa don’t come from the same place nor are they genetically related but are all Egyptians largely unrelated to modern populations.

This person is not closely related to modern North Africans but are ancient Egyptians.

hm_nd22_page_52_image_0001.jpg


Hawass exists solely to bolster some blanquimento rhetoric in the field of archeology. Even If they’re blaxk, they’re not black should let u know he’s P.T Barnum out there.
 
ajackson17 said:
What he meant that the Egyptians are not West Africans and that's how the west views Africa. Khoi-San are not negroes either and the negro designation totally overlooks the genetic variation in West Africa which contains more genetic variation than some continents. So we have to ask ourselves what does black really mean just looking at our skin tone and if it's features too then it already failed. I remember looking at a study and white people just look at our skin and not our features that's what triggers them the most. So we can't use their point of view valid at all.

Hawass is correct and is a north African who is arabized and is culturally arab, but genetically North African.
Click to expand...
ajackson17 said:
Cause African Americans have been calling the modern population Arab invaders and claim it's their ancestors even though genetically modern Egyptians are closer to people in Northern parts of Africa than anywhere else and the closest genetically to the ancient egyptian population. That's why.
Click to expand...

1) White people still consider East Africans to be black even though they don't have stereotypical Negro features. Here's an Ethiopian:

16c5cec32cf9dcc398b7af1e1953e321.jpg


Are you telling me that this chick wouldn't be considered Black in the West? Of course she would, and she has a similar skin tone and other phenotypic features to what we see in the depictions of ancient Egyptians that people try to claim prove that they weren't black.

2) Modern Egyptians have not been shown to be genetically closer to the Ancient Egyptians than anyone else. The studies that made that claim have been debunked.

 
NinetyFree said:
Are West Africans the only people designated as negroes? Wasn’t Sara Bartman, aKhoi-San, classified as negro? Byzantines never existed but we all understand what it refers to, just as we understand what ‘Black‘ refers to in Ancient Egypt.

Which was a civilization lasting 5k years, it’s impossible to attribute one genetic stock to such a widely distributed peoples. Ramsees III, Cleopatra and Taharqa don’t come from the same place nor are they genetically related but are all Egyptians largely unrelated to modern populations.

This person is not closely related to modern North Africans but are ancient Egyptians.

hm_nd22_page_52_image_0001.jpg


Hawass exists solely to bolster some blanquimento rhetoric in the field of archeology. Even If they’re blaxk, they’re not black should let u know he’s P.T Barnum out there.
Click to expand...

Idk but some would consider negroe, but it's such an ambiguous term and modern scholarship is leaving it alone.

What makes someone apart of the nationality of ancient egypt?

The designation of black is a Western European idea placed upon people that they conquered and enslaved. In my opinion in my years of learning and such it's a social/political terminology not a biological or anthropological use. This is an archeological thread and such use of it without proper reference is useless. The whole race theory is based on the three sons of Noah and biologically no human population dropped to three couples that's ridiculous and understanding bottlenecks not only in humans but tons of species we know that couldn't have happened and thus the weakness of the race theory lies in mythology.
 
The Lonious Monk said:
1) White people still consider East Africans to be black even though they don't have stereotypical Negro features. Here's an Ethiopian:

16c5cec32cf9dcc398b7af1e1953e321.jpg


Are you telling me that this chick wouldn't be considered Black in the West? Of course she would, and she has a similar skin tone and other phenotypic features to what we see in the depictions of ancient Egyptians that people try to claim prove that they weren't black.

2) Modern Egyptians have not been shown to be genetically closer to the Ancient Egyptians than anyone else. The studies that made that claim have been debunked.

Click to expand...


First I know what a ethiopian is and there are tons of ethnic groups in ethiopia. My ex is habesha. Black in reference to dark skin is meaningless and infantile.

I need actual genetic studies because there have been more than one study. Are you referring to 2017 and it has issues, but the issues that it has is more technical than actual results being false.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt suggests a genetic regional continuity in Northeastern Africa - PubMed

The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The paternal lineage is definitely north African and I don't deal with egyptomaniacs they are not trustworthy people same as black hebrew israelites and moors when it comes to their obsession's.
 
And ya'll proving my point that "White" people designating populations without their damn input. It's like your name is Jamal and they call you James and now you say your name is James. Like how can you not see this or you need things so simplified for you?
 
ajackson17 said:
First I know what a ethiopian is and there are tons of ethnic groups in ethiopia. My ex is habesha. Black in reference to dark skin is meaningless and infantile.

I need actual genetic studies because there have been more than one study. Are you referring to 2017 and it has issues, but the issues that it has is more technical than actual results being false.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Y-chromosome analysis in Egypt suggests a genetic regional continuity in Northeastern Africa - PubMed

The geographic location of Egypt, at the interface between North Africa, the Middle East, and southern Europe, prompted us to investigate the genetic diversity of this population and its relationship with neighboring populations. To assess the extent to which the modern Egyptian population...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The paternal lineage is definitely north African and I don't deal with egyptomaniacs they are not trustworthy people same as black hebrew israelites and moors when it comes to their obsession's.
Click to expand...

No, the issues for the 2017 are not simply technical. The study examined over 100 mummies, but only 3 of them were found to be fit for genetic analysis. Those three mummies came from the Late Period and the Ptolemaic dynasty, which means they most likely were not representative of native Ancient Egyptians. Not to mention that 3 mummies is not nearly a good enough sample size to try and determine genetic links for the population of an entire nation.

Most of the studies that show strong links between the "Ancient Egyptians" and Middle Eastern, Northern African, and European populations were conducted using mummies from late periods after Egypt had been conquered and reconquered by a variety of foreign peoples such as the Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans. I believe the 2017 study in particular used a mummy taken from a burial site that was known to be exclusive to Greeks living in Egypt at the time. So, yes the actual DNA analysis was correct, but it didn't really address the question of who were the Ancient Egyptians most closely related to.

This video addresses that study.



It's long and the narrator can be a bit annoying at times, but it's a good watch. He addresses that study and provides studies and researcher input discussing the problems with that study.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top