I have no problems with the conclusions. I have no problem with Tut being black, but your post was not just a point a view. I think you fully intended to rile things up a bit. My first comments were just observations about what I see as some holes in your argument. There was no attack involved there. You played a large part in the “confrontation” (If you even want to call it that).

I do have a big problem with the methodology you use to reach your conclusions. In my opinion it's rather unscientific and does not stand up to scrutiny.
This is what I meant by : “you may be right, but not for the reasons you gave”.

I don't think we can really draw many conclusions as to what people looked like based on their depictions. Nefertiti is an excellent example. She is depicted in such a variety of ways that you cannot possibly draw any conclusions from her depictions. Her statue in Berlin is at one extreme. Some of the middle period Amarna is at the other extreme. That would prove to me that these depictions are extremely unreliable as a source of information.

Your comments about some of the terminology also leads me to believe you don't read other people's posts very carefully. I was trying to explain that the term "caucasoid" has different meanings in different areas of the world. By your responses you seem to be using the American Canadian definition which would say that the term is interchangeable with "white" and even European.
Most other countries and some science discipline have a broader definition including people from the near east and north Africa. The broader definition is not synonymous to "white". This later is most likely what Hawass used considering he’s not American.
I was trying to clarify that when I use the term caucasoid I would also include the north Africans in this group. This includes people like berbers for example. So I don't think anyone here has really claimed Tut was white or that he looked European. I would never draw that conclusion and from what others have said neither would they.

And your comment about someone thinking Ethiopian and Somalians were caucasoids is just showing you did not get that point at all. Of course they are not.

Your last comments about playing games again is a little childish and showing your attitude more than mine. I assume at least that was aimed at me? I was truly just sharing my favorite image because it is what she really looked like. I think it is amazing we can actually look at these people across some 3500 years. Her mummy is one of the better preserved ones qua facial features. The text was an attempt to change the topic. I have said before black, north African, it just doesn't matter to me. What I find interesting about for instance Tiye is the things I mentioned. She lead a fascinating life, and discussing her life also allows us to talk about the interesting people associated with her.

Honestly I think you're the closed minded one. You give me the impression don't really want to hear what others have to say. You have made up your mind more so than any of us have. You claim that you hope you have made people think. Well, I hope you will think about some ideas and comments too…

But I do agree with the sentiment expressed at the end. Namely that we should look towards some nice discussions (prefer those over debates myself). Ancient Egypt is a wonderful culture with an incredibly rich history.

And I hope you will share some of those other thoughts (not related to race) at some point.

I'll have to agree with you on that last post, Merytre-Hatshepsut.

"Caucasoid describes humans primarily from Europe, the Middle East (Western Asia), North Africa, the Indian subcontinent and parts of Central Asia..." (Wikipedia).

I would really appreciate it if everyone wouldn't go at each other's throats when an old topic is mentioned or revived. Yes, I know it brings back awful ancient memories, but I'm sure if we don't answer or just redirect them to an old topic, they'll go away or start a different discussion. I get irritated just as much as anyone else with these topics.

If it's that much of a problem, don't post unless you can keep it calm.

Thanks

Ramsekh

I agree with Osiris II and Merytre-Hatshepsut. Who cares what color the Ancient Egyptians were? The only people who waste time trying to belabor the point one way or another obviously have their own personal or political agendas to advance. For me, it's a non issue.

Regards,

Niankhkhnum

You can mail the money to ::
Gregory Piquet
2020 E. Maryland Ave.
Nampa, ID 83686


Well, people think it matters for some reason. I didn't care what Tutankhaten "looked like" (yeah, I know it was flawed because you can't reconstruct cartilage that isn't there; so therefore, the nose, lips, ears, etc. were just speculated in accruacy. It's common sense that has been said one too many times (honestly, once was once too many!)). Anyhoo, it's more of a curiosity thing. People just want to try to put an answer to things they do not understand, and if their speculation turns into a blind answer, without seeking facts, so be it. Just feel comfortable knowing that you are better, for you have not been duped into believing what anyone wants to tell you the "truth" really is.

Well, I am glad that is all cleared up. Again, I am all for healthy debate. I posted the topic because I was a bit dissapointed that nobody expressed the same 'racial' frustration at the "Tut was white" post that was directed to me, and I think that is a double standard. With that said, I must say I've learned alot on this message board and think it is an invaluable tool for people who are interested in the ancients. With that being said, I just want to address that it is obvious when people are throwing around the term 'Caucasian', that they are implying Tut wasn't' black'. Those archaic notions of race (ie Hamite, caucasoid North African) are gone. Race is completely a social construct. Using that type of terminolgy, most African Americans could be considered 'caucasoid'.

Anyway, no harm intended and I sincerely apologize if anyone got offended. I look forward to many great discussions!

I can understand your frustration, Guest. First of all, no serious historian or Egyptologist would refer to Tut as "white." I read back through the posts and did not see anyone here claiming Tut was white; feel free to correct if I'm wrong, and let me know who said it!

Tut was most certainly not white. Perish the thought. The first peoples to enter Egypt who one could call "white" were the Aegeans, from the islands southeast of Greece.

People such as I get upset with the Afrocentrist arguments not because of skin color but because of the painfully obvious lack of understanding of the most basic tenets of ancient Egyptian culture and art. What always sticks out in my mind is a photo of a protestor at the LA exhibit. This African-American gentleman had a protest sign in one hand and a photo in the other; the photo showed one of the famous guardian statues found within Tut's tomb. These two statues are spectacular, and the skin areas happened to have been painted black. But of course the coloration has nothing whatsoever to do with actual skin color but with Osirian cult symbolism. This is Egyptology 101.

I could go on and on; these protests are replete with such glaring errors. But I'll leave it at that.

If you want to be part of KTO, abandon the "Guest" thing and set up a profile. In an earlier post, Merytre-Hatshepsut (who addressed all of your arguments and then some) mentioned that you seemed just to want to blow in and rile things up, and that's how it has seemed, indeed. If you're serious about joining in this forum, sign up. You're more than welcomed to. You're definitely not some addled conspiracy nut and I suspect you have much to offer KTO.

A belated welcome to the board then.

What are your general areas of interest? (just out of curiosity).

Hmm..ktm_sesh, his name is Quest and he's already a member.

Actually, it is Quest, not guest (lol). I have always had a fascination with all ancient history, and obviously Egypt is the pillar of ancient civilization! It is quite remarkable that a country could literally be a world power for thousands of years! If you put that in context, America has been a power for about 200! My general interest is quite broad. Right now, I am very interested in learning more about the New Kingom dynasties, especially the 19th, with Ramses etc.

Hey buddy!

My humblest apologies. Honest, folks, I can read! I guess I haven't been around long enough to recognize who's who.

Sorry about that, Quest.

Thanks for setting me straight, Ramsekh.

Okay, who wants to step forward, then, and give me a good whipping? It may help me to remember.

Um....you mean beating! Whipping is a no-no on these board.

And we're also a civilized board and we don't believe in that kind of punishment, right? We believe in IP banning!

Beating it is, then!

I find that time period really fascinating myself.
I put together a page about the New Kingdom tombs in Saqqara. With links to some of the pages of the university of Leiden about the tombs of some of these individuals. You might enjoy reading some of the info.

New Kingdom Saqqara Tombs

Hey great stuff. Thanks! By the way, where can I find good information on the Ptolemic period?