It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

King tut was Black

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Article
THE EVOLVEMENT OF KING TUTANKHAMEN



1327 BC - AD 2006





Why has the Euro-American System or scheme had an overriding need to change the color of history? The first civilization has been replaced and substituted with foreign images. You can believe it was done for political, economic, religious, entertainment, labor, law and justice, war, imperialistic and genetic survival. It was done to replace the originals with ones that continue a perpetuation of an alternative history in the minds of each and every one (Ekowa, 2005).


It makes a difference of "Who’s Who" on Bible pages; just as it makes a difference of "Who’s Who" in the tombs of the Pyramids, and just as it makes a difference everywhere else. It always has made a difference; otherwise there would have been a need to change the images or the story. Again, if it didn’t, it would not have been necessary for Europeans to obliterate the geographical, cultural and ethnographical truths from real history, in order to construct an alternative history, made in European image and likeness.



Readers who are loyal to the Stormfront White Nationalist Website write and say the Egyptian Pharaohs are Negro in appearance because Egypt conquered Lower Nubia about 1950 B C and retained it until about 1700. They go on to say that in the Early and Middle Kingdoms the pharaohs were definitely White. BUT WAIT! Even White Archaeologists and Egyptologists like Gerald Massey have found evidence that Nubian Pharaohs pre-date the first Egyptian Dynasties by at least 300 years. The Semitic language spoken by the early pharaohs belongs to an Afro-Asiatic parent language was spread by Black African people as they migrated north.



With the Roman world in turmoil around AD 300, and Meroe in decline, a people from east of the Nile known to the Greeks as Blemmyes and to the Arabs as Bedja, rapidly overran much of Egypt and Lower Nubia. Although expelled from Egypt, they were able to establish themselves in the region of Nubia just south of Aswan. Although they continued the religion of the pharaohs, their rulers used the Greek forms of contemporary Roman Imperial titles.



King Tut's original name was Tutu Ankoma (Asante name--Akan People)
Things are not always as they seem. Judge for yourself!



(Why is there a need to reconstruct his face when his Black face appears on the walls of his tomb?)



There had even been intellectually specious claims that ancient Egypt was in fact an European civilization. But because of the work of more honest early European Egyptologist and writers, such as Gerald Massey, Godfrey Higgins, Count C.F. Volney and others, the truth about who the Egyptian were, was acknowledged. More recently, white writers such as, Richard Poe ("Black Spark White Fire"), Michael Hoffman ("Egypt Before the Pharaohs") and Martin Bernal ("Black Athena"), have contributed research proving an African origin to ancient Egypt. The face of the Sphinx does not lie. But there is still much white denial.


One of a pair of life sized statues of Tutankhamun
found either side of the entrance to the burial chamber.

Additionally, many scholars and Egyptologist of African descent have come forth to defend ancient Egypt's African origin. People like Dr. Cheik Anta Diop, Dr. Joseph Ben-Jochanan, Dr. Theophile Obenga, Dr. Molefe Asante, John Henrik Clarke, John G. Jackson, St. Claire Drake, Wayne Chancellor, Runoko Rashidi, Legrand Clegg, Ashra Kweisi, and a host of others, have all made significant contributions toward substantiating this fact. And of course there are those voices from antiquity, certainly far more reliable than than those of us just arriving on the scene:

"The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians were one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by the deity Osiris. The Greek writer Herodotus repeatedly referred to the Egyptians as being dark-skinned people with woolly hair. "They," he says, "have the same tint of skin which approaches that of the Ethiopians." The opinion of the ancient writers on the Egyptians is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846–1916) when he says, "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they [the Egyptians] belong to an African race which first settled in Ethiopia on the Middle Nile: following the course of the river they gradually reached the sea.

Many of the leading antiquarians of the time, based largely on the strength of what the classical authors, particularly Diodorus Siculus and Stephanus of Byzantium, had to say on the matter, were exponents of the view that the ancient Ethiopians, or at any rate, the Black people of remote antiquity were the earliest of all civilized peoples and that the first civilized inhabitants of ancient Egypt were members of what is refereed to as the Black race who entered the country as emigrants from Ethiopia." (1)

There is no mystery here as to who ancients Egyptian were. Why this continued dilemma for white historians and Egyptologists and this includes Arabs like Zawi Hawass. As one writer on Egypt suggests, "If Egypt is a dilemma in Western historiography, it is a created dilemma." (1)

The main point that I want to make is this. That if in fact this upcoming King Tut Exhibit will in be accompanied by this racist depiction of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, then I promise, that those of us of African descent, not just in Los Angeles but across this country, will not accept it and will make sure that this Exhibit will not be well received. We will make our voices heard loud and clear even before this Exhibit arrives.




posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
King Tut reigned from 1361 - 1352 BC. The Romans and Greeks did not invade Egypt until 332 BC--What's up with the dates???? Whites did not come on the scene until 332 BC! The Hyksos (Semitic People) came on the scene 1750 - 1675 BC.



The Hyksos were basically a Semitic people who were able to wrestle control of Egypt from the early Second Intermediate rulers of the 13th Dynasty, inaugurating the 15th Dynasty. Their names mostly come from the West Semitic languages, and earlier suggestions that some of these people were Hurrian or even Hittite have not been confirmed. Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus. The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a.



Further Proof



Physical Anthropology: The skeletons and skulls of the Ancient Egyptians clearly reflect that they were a Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and of East Africa.



Osteological Evidence: "Lepsius canon," which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial group categories the "ideal Egyptian" as "short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type."



Blood Type: Even after hundreds of years of inter-mixture with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the "same group B as the populations of western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 Group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding."



Linguistics: Ancient Egyptian, modern Coptic of Egypt and Walaf of West Africa are related, with the latter two having their origin in the former. Egyptians spoke proto-Afroasiatic, an extinct language spoken in Ethiopia before 10,000 BC.



Classical Greek and Roman Authors: Virtually all of the early Latin eyewitnesses described the Ancient Egyptians as Black skinned with wooly hair.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The book, 'Black Spark, White Fire' by Richard Poe is a great resource for information on the 'Africanness' of the ancient Egyptians. He saw the Tut exhibit as a child, and asked his mom, 'Why are they painted black?'. She said, 'Maybe they were black.' Although he is white, his book goes about giving all the evidence supporting that they were black. It goes even further than that, and is a great read. Have you read it Marvin?



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Greetings Marvinwillis



You may be interested in the following thread:


www.belowtopsecret.com...



And yeah, the works of Godfrey Higgins are excellent.

I've mentioned them many times in these forums.


IMO, his works are very valuable for students of the Gnosis of Samael Aun Weor, and of Theosophy(as Manly P. Hall, H.P. Blavatsky and H.S. Olcott have mentioned the value of Godfrey Higgin's works).




Regards



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I got some sad news for anyone who thinks they're white, you're actually lightskinned Africans. Give your descendents 400 generations and they will darken or lighten up quite nicely. There's less genetic difference between all the races of man then there are in a troop of chimpanzees in Africa. Race is human artifice not a natural difference.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Before you go crusading about this, you might want to stop and look at the actual mummy itself (which shows skin that's coppery in color but is not dark):
news.nationalgeographic.com...

His pedigree is well known, and there are many depictions of his parents by the artists of their time. All these artists who worked for the Pharoah and his family showed the family as being copper-skinned.

Finally, there's the art that was on the pieces in Tutankhamen's tomb. On the chest, he is clearly painted as copper skinned and leading a group of black-skinned warriors:
news.nationalgeographic.com...

Two ceremonial figures from the tomb ARE black skinned, but other representations of him from the painted walls and other objects (and statues) indicate he was copper skinned: homepage.powerup.com.au...

So... if you're going to stage a protest, your protest should be against the Egyptians of that century.

Scholars and museums are simply showing Tut as the ancient Egyptians depicted him... a way that's also consistant with the skin color on the mummy.



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
I got some sad news for anyone who thinks they're white, you're actually lightskinned Africans. Give your descendents 400 generations and they will darken or lighten up quite nicely. There's less genetic difference between all the races of man then there are in a troop of chimpanzees in Africa. Race is human artifice not a natural difference.


Well I think Darwin may disagree with you there.....

"Man has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species. "

Descent of Man - Charles Darwin

you heard it from the horses mouth.....the proposer of the theory of evolution considers the races of man to be "sub-species".

I also would like to point out that if the egyptians were full blooded africans why were they not depicted by their own artisans as being so?

If you look at the coffins, statues and other artifacts depicting the pharoahs you will see that, though they are dark, they have distinctively caucasian or european features...(long angular noses, thin lips etc.)

if you look to the masks made deeper in africa there is no doubt as who those are intended to represent.

www.developments.org.uk...

artfiles.art.com...


you can clearly see the difference.....



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
I got some sad news for anyone who thinks they're white, you're actually lightskinned Africans. Give your descendents 400 generations and they will darken or lighten up quite nicely. There's less genetic difference between all the races of man then there are in a troop of chimpanzees in Africa. Race is human artifice not a natural difference.


Well I think Darwin may disagree with you there.....

"Man has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species. Some of these, such as the Negro and the European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered as good and true species. "

Descent of Man - Charles Darwin

you heard it from the horses mouth.....the proposer of the theory of evolution considers the races of man to be "sub-species".

I also would like to point out that if the egyptians were full blooded africans why were they not depicted by their own artisans as being so?

If you look at the coffins, statues and other artifacts depicting the pharoahs you will see that, though they are dark, they have distinctively caucasian or european features...(long angular noses, thin lips etc.)

if you look to the masks made deeper in africa there is no doubt as who those are intended to represent.

www.developments.org.uk...

artfiles.art.com...


you can clearly see the difference.....

My personal theory is that they were probably some sort of mixture of greek and african or berber or arabian.

[edit on 14-9-2006 by XphilesPhan]



posted on Sep, 14 2006 @ 11:59 PM
link   
If you knew jack about African history instead of just Egyptian history, you would realize there are more then one race of Africans, and that the middle eastern men dominated the region of Egypt, and that the majority of DARK skined Africans lived below the sahara desert. Egypt was inhabited by a Middle Eastern/Hebrew/Black mix. What makes you think African slavery was indipendant to just Euros and not ME's?

As the guy above me points out the facial features point to a dark skined ME/Hebrew man, along with the remains it proves that Egypt was probably dominated by the same people who live there now.....



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
The book, 'Black Spark, White Fire' by Richard Poe is a great resource for information on the 'Africanness' of the ancient Egyptians. He saw the Tut exhibit as a child, and asked his mom, 'Why are they painted black?'. She said, 'Maybe they were black.' Although he is white, his book goes about giving all the evidence supporting that they were black. It goes even further than that, and is a great read. Have you read it Marvin?


Nope im going to pick it up soon, sounds great.



posted on Sep, 15 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by crgintx
Race is human artifice not a natural difference.


I must agree here. The common ideas of race are social constructions. We have learned much since the time in which Darwin wrote. Genetic research has now attained a level in which the science has proven that there is very little difference in the "races." Although we can certainly see ethnic differences in people, we are nearly indistiguishable genetically. Ethnicity is still valid, race not so valid.

Unfortunately we still use the idea of race to subjugate others. Maybe someday we, as members of the human race, will rise above this.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
All eygyptians are dark in color so what's the big deal. Did anyone say he wasn't?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Oh Geez, listen.

North Africans are not black! They are a mixture of indigenous North African called BERBER, and Arab, from the Arabian Muslim conquest of North Africa.

This applies to Egypt as well, and even southward to Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia. I term these countries "Eastern Africa". Eastern Africans are a mixture of indigenous Berbers & Arabs, and even "black" Ethiopians/Somalians/Sudanese do not look like the black people in America & the U.K., they have different facial features that look more middle-eastern or caucasian.

The Sahara Desert seperates classical "black people" which live below it, from the many mixed ethnic groups of North and Northeast Africa, which are above it. This is where the term sub-saharan comes from, it means to live below the sahara.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by runetang
Oh Geez, listen.

North Africans are not black! They are a mixture of indigenous North African called BERBER, and Arab, from the Arabian Muslim conquest of North Africa.

This applies to Egypt as well, and even southward to Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia. I term these countries "Eastern Africa". Eastern Africans are a mixture of indigenous Berbers & Arabs, and even "black" Ethiopians/Somalians/Sudanese do not look like the black people in America & the U.K., they have different facial features that look more middle-eastern or caucasian.

The Sahara Desert seperates classical "black people" which live below it, from the many mixed ethnic groups of North and Northeast Africa, which are above it. This is where the term sub-saharan comes from, it means to live below the sahara.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by runetang]

Have you studied the history of Nubian/Egyptian relations? How about the border they shared? The next thing I wonder is what do you think a Nubian looks like?
Here's something to check into. Did Nubians ever become powerful within the Egyptian area? Do you know if any 'black' Africans ever ruled Egypt?
I agree, North Africa is lighter skinned. But I wonder at why you are so adamant about it. If some Egyptian Pharoahs were 'black', is that a problem? I say they likely were at one time or another. It is a short hop over the border from Nubia to Egypt, and I'd be shocked if they weren't living in Egypt all along.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I'm not adamant about it, I'm just saying most people think all Africans are black and its not true, well alot of Americans i should say. So its a bi-factor of ignorance.

But, Nubia is where present day Sudan, Ethiopia etc is and thus they fall into the Eastern African category and aren't geneticly the same as say, someone from the Niger delta region in Nigeria. They might be dark skinned, but their facial features are not the same; they have unique facial structures, almost as if they are arabs who have been darkened, as silly as that sounds.

But i could really care less about any of it to be honest, it's not my homeland and it's just more irrelevant knowledge I have in my lump.

PS - I find the slightly increasing changes seen among people's appearance when starting in say, Tunisia and ending in Indonesia to be incredibly fascinating. It boggles my mind how there are so many different skin tones and "ethnicities" on this 1 small planet where the climate variation is so small in the perspective of things.

[edit on 16-9-2006 by runetang]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Blackguard if anything you appear to be very adament on an egyptian being black?

What makes you think that racism was not around in the days of the egyptians? Do you think a populace of Arab/Berber/Mediteranian people want to be ruled by a black family? Because that is what it was, a family, a dynasty, one black pharoe means a full line of them, and that is a clash of the local ethnicity. Why do you want the Egyptians to be known as black so badly?



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Oh Geez, listen.

North Africans are not black!

Originally posted by runetang
I'm not adamant about it, I'm just saying most people think all Africans are black and its not true, well alot of Americans i should say. But, Nubia is where present day Sudan, Ethiopia etc is and thus they fall into the Eastern African category and aren't geneticly the same as say, someone from the Niger delta region in Nigeria. They might be dark skinned, but their facial features are not the same; they have unique facial structures, almost as if they are arabs who have been darkened, as silly as that sounds.
But i could really care less about any of it to be honest, it's not my homeland and it's just more irrelevant knowledge I have in my lump.

I find it also true that Westerners often try to explain, defend, or just proclaim that Egypt is somehow not African. I was quite shocked the first time I heard it. I said I couldn't believe they were serious, look at an atlas, its in Africa. But I heard it again and again, in different words, like 'Well, its in Africa, but not of Africa.' Huh? What are they trying to say? I dated a women whose features are more like Nigerian, and is almost surely sub-saharan African for the most part. For five years I learned about how these 'darker' Africans were somehow not possibly involved in the great wonders that were built in ancient Egypt. It is an interesting and puzzling assertion. Maybe they were not. But it is something that is likely hard to prove for sure, and is also something that is easily possible, and to me, probable. My ex, who I was with five years went to Ghana and said that she looked alot like the people there. These sub saharan, dark skinned Africans, genetically different as they may be, as you assert, are sometimes offended when they are told that it is impossible for 'black' Africans to have ruled Egypt. I can see why. First of all, they very well may have, and second of all, why are people going around saying they weren't? What is their point? They feel it is important to make that clear.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Calling Tut black is also quite racist. You assume that because he is Egyptian, and therefore African, he must be black.

Byrd swooped in and pointed out the obvious. He isn't black.
He is a bronzy-coppery colour and he has been portrayed as being consistently that colour.

I don't think I have ever heard of Tut being portrayed as anything other than coppery until now. I was never taught that he was white, or black. I was taught that he was Egyptian, and a boy prince.

Race is a human artifice, but it is a neccessary one. It adds to our individuality and makes each and every one of us so magnificently different. I am two thirds white (English and Irish) and one third black (Jamaican). I am me. Because of my heritage there is no one else like me. Because of my personal identity, and that of the public who view me, I am unique.
All of this 'politically correct' nonsense that is flowing around is absurd. Why have a multicultural society if you aren't allowed to actually identify another culture?

Colour and race and religion are all ways which shape our individuality. WHy does it matter what colour Tut was? He was a young king who ruled well considering his relative inexperience. The fact that you are so bothered about his colour rather than his achievements shows you do not really appreciate him.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Blackguard if anything you appear to be very adament on an egyptian being black?

What makes you think that racism was not around in the days of the egyptians? Do you think a populace of Arab/Berber/Mediteranian people want to be ruled by a black family? Because that is what it was, a family, a dynasty, one black pharoe means a full line of them, and that is a clash of the local ethnicity. Why do you want the Egyptians to be known as black so badly?
Because it is possible, and everyone seems to be explaining all the reasons it is not.
They might not have.
But what I see is a group of people bent on making it clear that 'black' Africans didn't build the pyramids, etc.
I don't know if they did anything like that, but I don't see the proof that they were not there. On the contrary, I see proof that they were. So why is it being spread around that they clearly weren't? Why? Thats all I ask. It is possible, and looking at the evidence, I say it is probable. So what is important about making it clear that they were not? What is the motive? I don't see many, and I certainly have my favourites, or best bets as to why. But I don't know. I don't get your point about being ruled by a black family. What's the problem? What about a white one, yellow or red one? Is there any difference? It is worth repeating that we are talking about Africa here.



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I will admitt it is possible, but that the possibility is more unlikely then the already stated facts.

FACTS my friend, solid theories as to what happend when, why and who did it.

If history was written "King Tut was Egyptian, though he may have been Black because he lived in Africa, or he could have been an Itallian who sailed on over from Europe."

You disregard facts to fit your own vision of what you think Egypt was like. Why say Tut was black, why not say Ramsee was black? Why not say Chleopatra was black, why an insignificant boy-king?

I am sorry, there have been other African empires, kingdoms, we have little history from the continent because Africans did not keep good records. We do know Egyptians did, and consistantly it points to them being Egyptian, almost a race in itself, they look Arab, and that is a fact.

Just because you live in Africa does not mean you all look the same, for instance, Blacks in America are tall and big, why? Because when we went to Africa for slaves we got them from the western/centeral portions of the continent.

Had we gone further eastward, more southward, the Africans are completely different and are much shorter, much smaller body frames, and there is ethnic strife between the two ethnicities.

To put it in another way, Anglo-Saxons look different from Scandinvians, both look different then Slavs, and all three look different then Italian, and all four of those look much different then Spainards.

In Asia, North Japanese look different then the main - island Japanese, who look different then Indonesians, who look different then Mongolians, who look different then then current day Kazahkistanian region, an Asian Arab mixed populace.

Just because a race lives in one place, does not mean there are not different.

Egyptians where light skinned, they where not your "average" black Affrican, and I think you need to come to terms that just because you think a certain way, though you have not studied anything on the topic, it does not change what is a fact, or a strong theory.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join