So if they claimed the pyramids - why didn't the earlier pharoahs who built cruder version - and those after them - take over the giza pyramids?

Why did the workers think they built the pyramids?

Why are the quarries filled with 4th dynasty rubble?

Also, technically the Egyptians are in Africa so they are Africans.

You had a lot in that statement so if you don't mind we'll cut it up into smaller chunks.

Originally posted by Hanslune
So if they claimed the pyramids - why didn't the earlier pharoahs who built cruder version - and those after them - take over the giza pyramids?

Why did the workers think they built the pyramids?

Why are the quarries filled with 4th dynasty rubble?

Also, technically the Egyptians are in Africa so they are Africans.

You had a lot in that statement so if you don't mind we'll cut it up into smaller chunks.

I cannot answer why they did what they did, but I do wonder why the pyramid builders near the beginning of the timeline are the most advanced. Earlier Pharoahs may have attempted to build their own versions, which failed to achieve similar results. I do not know what the workers thought they built, but the cartouches in the relieving chambers are the only reference to them I am aware of. Quarries that were abandoned in that age would have such rubble, but they may have been in use from a much earlier time. Perhaps the rubble was from the repairs done on structures on the plateau.
Technically African. Is that different than just plain old African.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket

The annals of Rameses II (1304-1237BC) specifically mention the Canaanites (Jews) settling at Goshen, although standard Bible chronology has the Exodus occurring in 1491BC. Since Genesis 47:11,Exodus 1:11 and Numbers 33:3 all refer to the land of Rameses, it seems that the alternative Egyptian reckoning is more accurate.

Ramses II was King Solomon

Originally posted by CosmicVegeta100

Originally posted by Flange Gasket

The annals of Rameses II (1304-1237BC) specifically mention the Canaanites (Jews) settling at Goshen, although standard Bible chronology has the Exodus occurring in 1491BC. Since Genesis 47:11,Exodus 1:11 and Numbers 33:3 all refer to the land of Rameses, it seems that the alternative Egyptian reckoning is more accurate.

Ramses II was King Solomon

King Solomon was the King of Jerusalem, and Ra-Moses was Egypts ruler. Since Abrahams time, the Egyptians were well known to the Hebrews, Moses even had an Egyptian name, Joseph was a Vizier, etcetera. Every Biblical reference to Egypt before Solomon refutes your claim. Akhnaten, the banished King, whose name was stricken from every stone wall in Egypt, and who was a monotheist, is a far better fit for being a Hebrew, but he most likely would have been Moses, not Solomon. Tutmoses is the same name as David-Moses. Maybe he was one of the Davids in the OT.
But there is little chance Solomon was Ramses, based on the Bible itself.

Howdy Blackguard

You seem to wrapped up in geography of Africa, as it was arbitrary named, I don't see your point. If you wish Europe and Africa are acutally part of the Asian continent.

So basically we have just two continents, The Americas and Asia. The history of the world simplified. LOL

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Blackguard

You seem to wrapped up in geography of Africa, as it was arbitrary named, I don't see your point. If you wish Europe and Africa are acutally part of the Asian continent.

So basically we have just two continents, The Americas and Asia. The history of the world simplified. LOL

The point is that few people seem to ponder the underlying reason why so many argue against racism as a major motivation for teaching the falsehood. The groups that we have grown up in have made us the way we are, mostly. Racist vitriole is my point. We are taught to be what we are. Everybody denies they are racist. We are all biased, but we all can teach our children to share a kinder, more accepting, humble, respectful, common point of view, I hope, though I do not see it happening soon.

Blue eyed blondes and redheads are not what the researchers have been finding most often. Many black African Pharoahs have been scientifically proven to have ruled, not surprisingly considering that the Sphinx itself has a black African facial structure, ie. prognathism and wide nose, etc.
Redheads I can see as possible, but what Scandinavians were doing ruling in ancient Africa is hard to imagine. Especially considering what northern Europe looked like at the time, mud huts, fire pits and all. Not that your theory is racist, it just appears to be.

The point is that few people seem to ponder the underlying reason why so many argue against racism as a major motivation for teaching the falsehood. The groups that we have grown up in have made us the way we are, mostly. Racist vitriole is my point. We are taught to be what we are. Everybody denies they are racist. We are all biased, but we all can teach our children to share a kinder, more accepting, humble, respectful, common point of view, I hope, though I do not see it happening soon.

I have no idea what you are talking about BG, or what that had to do with my comments.

I have no idea what you are talking about BG, or what that had to do with my comments. Hanslune

Pay no attention to me when I get grumpy. Hopefully I will do a better job of conveying my point in the future. In short, my point is that I have issues with the historical treatment of certain subjects, events, motives, and peoples. It bothers me sometimes when I see past wrongs being defended, explained, and dismissed as unimportant when the fallout from them still exists, and the attitudes behind them have not disappeared. But, I try not to react negatively.

Originally posted by OhZone
Blackguard, I am not disputing that there were Nubian rulers in Egypt both before and after the Hyksos. Before the Hyksos left some of the Pharoahs were mixed.
Now as to "racist" - tell me - If I had said that all the pharoahs were black, would that have looked racist to you?

I have a curiosity about hstory that includes wanting to know what the people looked like, don't you?

The fact remains that there are blonde and red haired mummies, not only in Egypt, but all over the world. That is simply a statment of fact, which I think is pretty interesting considering that we have all thought that other races and only these others were always in certain areas.

There is a difference, to me, saying they were black, since although that is racist too, it is not as bad, considering the historical biases.
I agree with the rest of your post. Curiosity is a valuable quality to me.
Racism, though, is also a fact of life. It was a force behind past injustices, and is still a force behind commentaries on those events.

So let me make a wild stab in the dark

BG13 do you want to have Egypt's civilization included in "African" history so that the other "lesser" cultures of Africa don't seem so insignificant when compare to others? Kinda the way Europe take on the culture of Greece?

Originally posted by contraa
I've seen one too many dissertations on numbers, measurements, and their intrinsic meanings. The formations at Cydonia on mars come to mind, especially with the talk of pyramids.

If you play with numbers long enough, you will come up with whatever you want. Likewise, if you look through the bible long enough, you can support any view that you want to take.

Bull, basically you are as superstitious as a wild-eyed believer.
Like you I saw one too many unabashed desertifications on numbers. I saw it here.
I also saw one too many wild claims distorting the laws of probability about playing with numbers to arrive to whatever you want and make it look good. Don't you realize that it is mathematically impossible?
I invite you to check my exact recreation of the layout of the three big Giza pyramids. You will see that my solution has a lot of muscle, which other solutions lack.
Once you see it, you will have indeed seen one too many. The final solution. But wait, you enjoy beating up little kids, figuratively speaking, by choosing to comment or attack that which is defenseless and the most pitiable, but stay away from a theory, which you would break your teeth on. You must have seen my thread, so why didn't you save some of your venom ( your mathematical acumen) for my theory? I love reasonable discussion, and having my solution dissected detail by detail.

Originally posted by Hanslune
So let me make a wild stab in the dark

BG13 do you want to have Egypt's civilization included in "African" history so that the other "lesser" cultures of Africa don't seem so insignificant when compare to others? Kinda the way Europe take on the culture of Greece?

Whether we like it or I want that or not, Africa is where Egypt is located, so it is part of African history. We just have to accept it since no one can change that. The other cultures you call lesser and say seem so insignificant have nothing to do with it. And you can see for yourself in many books that many of the ancient Greeks themselves admit they knew what they knew because they studied in Egypt. So, no, your wild stab in the dark is incorrect.

But who decided that "Africa" was any more than a made up name for a region? It has no meaning in itself. Each civililzation should stand on its merits and not be lumped together with those associated to it by loose geographic association.

You seem to be trying to bring up Black Athena and Martin Bernal stuff. If you are you can find people well able to go into that in greater depth at the Hall of Ma'at.