“They saw themselves different from their southern neighbors in the same manner that today’s Jamaicans would see themselves as different from Senegalese – even though many of those Jamaicans fore parents may have originated there.“

Of course they did. As they did not have any racial concept that we are aware of. The point is they never made a distinction in which their Southern neighbors were in any way closer than their Eastern or Western neighbors.

“Egyptians knew, as we do today, that they originated in the south, as Greek historians of the time noted, i.e. Diodorus of Sicily who wrote around 50 BC, “As historians relate, the Black peoples (note the use of “Black”) were the first of all men; and the proofs of this statement are manifest.”“

Diodorus would buy into any tall tale he heard as he also reported as factual the existence of the Amazon race in Libya. I would have to read the original transcript but in any case, he would have been influenced by Roman perception by this time. Romans had developed the concept of Nigris. When the Romans colonize northern Africa, there term for black was 'ater'. When in north Africa, they encounter the Berber Toureg people. In their language, they call the largest river in the area the Gher-n-gher or 'River of rivers". This is simplified to the Niger fluvius or Nigris. The people around this river where called the Nigritae. This was an ethno specific term. They were differentiated from other dark skinned peoples like the Aeithiops, and the Melanogaetulians. Because both the river and the people were dark colored, 'niger' would come to mean dark colored. That is the root of 'negro' that would be later translated as 'black.'

“Diodorus and other Greek historians of those times accepted what the Egyptians had told them: That “the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians (not Ethiopia as we know it today, but Africa in general south of Egypt) because what is now Egypt was not land but sea.” Over centuries, the Nile carried silt to the Delta and the land mass was built up. What Diodorus wrote is essentially what scientific research has now confirmed.“

The Nile Delta was there way before mankind. And the northern town of Fayum and its middle eastern influence is equal in time with the earliest of Southern Egypt and Nubia's findings. Furthermore, the civilizations of Uruk and Sumer predate the African civilizations and show contact with the early civilizations forming, so that claim is disputable. Just for the record the earliest city ever found is Catal Huyuk in Turkey, and the earliest settlement of any kind is Jericho. (This does not equate to human remains, which are Ethiopia.

“Genetics and bone structure both support the dominant black African makeup of ancient Egyptians. Also, genetic analysis is a lot more precise than you state, and can clearly delineate individuals of one “racial” group from another, particularly when reconstructing the human family tree.“

That is false. What they can do is trace one's ancestral lineage and compare it with other populations. Then based on whatever stereotype that population is called by they can claim a race. Same concept with bone structure analysis. All they are doing is looking at phenotype through bone. I have had prior discussions with both Mark Shriver a leader of the genetic ancestry studies and George Gill a forensic anthropologist claiming race as valid. Again, the stereotypes of what we call Black varies by region. In the USA one droppism allows for a stereotype that spans a very large degree of admixture. If one had applied Native one droppism or European one droppism (Puerto Rico almost does this and that is why 80% of their population claims White even though many are of noticeable African ancestry) then the stereotype parameters would be smaller. Even in Africa the parameters of what a 'Black' person varies. First the concept is an imposed one. Second, Africa has been mixing for millennia, even before transatlantic slavery. There even was a Vandal (Vikings) kingdom in North Africa for a century or so.

It is quite simple those who consider themselves Black, fine. It is as valid an ethnic term as any other. Those that consider themselves just African, fine as well. We have people that for all intents and purposes look 'white' but classify themselves as Black. That is a cultural definition, and they have every right to it if their ethnic ancestry makes them identify as such. Even if 90% of their genetic make up come s from Europe. But on the same token, If people don't identify as Black, and were not identified as Black in their time, then they weren't Black. Does it mean some people who call themselves Black can't claim them as ancestors? No. That is for genealogy and genetics to determine. Rick Kittles' Site is great for finding out parts of where each person's ancestors came from: [www.africanancestry.com]

“The most detailed human family tree so far available is one constructed over many years by Dr. Douglas C. Wallace and his colleagues at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta. It is based on mitochondrial DNA, tiny rings of genetic material that are passed on only by the egg cell and thus through the maternal line. “

Funny you should mention Douglas Wallace in a racial claim.

"Unfortunately for social harmony, the human brain is exquisitely attuned to difference in packaging details, prompting people to exaggerate the significance of what has come to be called race. The criteria that people use for race are based entirely on external features that we are programmed to recognize", said Dr. Douglas C. Wallace, a professor of molecular genetics at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

Douglas Wallace is stating that race is just based on visual cues. And different cultures have programmed themselves to different visual cues. To the Tutsis and Hutus, they are of different races. Same thing was the case between the Celts and the Jutes. They saw small differences and made it into racial claims.

“Wallace discovered that almost all American Indians have mitochondria that belong to lineages he named A, B, C and D. Europeans belong to a different set of lineages, which he designated H through K and T through X. In Asia there is an ancestral lineage known as M, with descendant branches E, F and G as well as the A through D lineages also found in the Americas. “

All this means is that certain genetic mutations occur during the growth of a family tree leaving genetic markers that only the descendants of the people with that mutation will have. This allows for people to trace ancestry to parts of the world. This does not mean race. Not all native Americans carry the genetic markers excusive to Native Americans for example.

“In Africa there is a single main lineage, known as L, which is divided into three branches. L3, the youngest branch, is common in East Africa and is believed to be the source of both the Asian and European lineages. (Thus, Ethiopians and other related east Africans do not have “white" features; instead, whites have Ethiopian features.) “

That is highly inaccurate. The oldest population in the world is in East Africa. The KhoiSan. (Which I suspect were the ones called Leukaethiops by the Greeks) Ethiopians are a hybrid population. They have admixture of KhoiSan, Arab, Bantu and Dravidian. The KhoiSan pre-date them.
And while you are on the Douglas Wallace kick, read his study on back migration to Africa from India.
[hpgl.stanford.edu]

“”Tut looked mulatto.” Listen to yourself. On Nefertiti you are missing (or ignoring) the point. It is not relevant whether the reconstruction looks male or female, but whether it looks black. “

No, the point you are missing is that the Tut reconstruction was done without prior artist preconceptions. Not so with Nefertiti which was done with a lot. Furthermore, there has never been a contention that people that would look like Black Americans existed and still exist in Egypt. But Nefertiti has been portrayed before and was not shown to have those features. And the mummy of a male "black looking" person does not refute that.

“For those who don’t know the details: York University archaeologist Joann Fletcher discovered the mummy and stands by her original assessment of the remains, claiming the pelvic bones and evidence of collapsed breasts from the skeleton showed the remains to be those of a woman. In addition, x-rays revealed skeletal features similar to Nefertiti's famous bust.”

What is not said, is that Fletcher was not an expert in human morphology but wigs of the period, and she refused to listen to experts in that specific area, who would rebut her pet theory.

“Her main detractor, Zahi Hawass, Egypt's leading Egyptologist conducted an autopsy and x-ray scans with American Egyptologist, Kent Weeks which indicated that the mummy was instead a 16-25 year old girl. Later, after an uncorroborated DNA test, he claimed the mummy was a man. (There appears to be be some personal and political stuff going on between them, but that is not our concern.) “

Hardly uncorroborated. Here is the test. Feel free to look up the doctor.


““And genetic claims have overridden forensic bone claims a few times. Then subsequently followed with:
“Sorry, but that is not what the bones of the workers of Giza show.
You have a predisposition for contradiction.”

Try again. BOTH the genetic and bone analysis of the remains at Giza have confirmed what many already knew that the native Egyptian population is virtually the same. Arab Bedouins were not that large a population and most Egyptians were converts to Islam, not a replacement population.

“We have: Cultural roots in Africa, Sudanese skulls (south Egypt & Kush), (black African) genetic continuity for thousands of years. “

Who is we? Some people have cultural roots there some don't. And some people have cultural roots in one part of Africa, but not another. I have cultural roots in West Africa, but none in Egypt that I know of. Not unless the myth that the Romani, popularly called Gypsies did actually all go through Egypt (There is still a Romani tribe in Egypt today). As far as South Egypt and Kush, they have skulls that are similar to Bantu peoples, yes. They also would be described as black in the USA. They wouldn't call themselves that. Nor are they the ancestors of most Blacks here, but some people might . Nor is there a gene that calls them Black. Just ancestry that determines they are African. No race evidence. Just phenotype and ancestry. And by the way, that does not mean Northern Egyptians looked like them. But can someone Black in the USA say "There were Egyptian pharaohs that looked just like me!"? Hell yeah they can.

Finding pride in a look that has been maligned makes perfect sense. it is when you try to make racial claims where there are none that you bump into problems. Because there are others, Egyptians of many shades, direct descendants of these people, who are now being claimed as false usurpers by Afrocentrics. And that is where I say, bullshit. I could care less what Europeans claim as far as Caucasian this or that. Caucasian is a bullshit label as well. And I know of no ethnicity that calls itself Caucasian, so that one can go to hell. But don't use the same methodology claimed by the racist who created the Caucasian category to now try to claim a Negroid race. The whole system is bogus.

“So what’s your issue? That they were black but did not have a black consciousness as we know it? Fine. But that does not change what they were. “

Correct. They were Egyptian. Period.
Looked like, could have been, etc. are just what ifs...

“I assume you are also considering the fact that the “infiltration into the Nile Valley from outside populations" after the middle kingdom included the most substantial non-black elements. Also, the Arabs who are so represented today did not begin to arrive en masse until around 639 AD – more than 1,000 years after black rule ended (in 525 BC after Assyria invaded). “

There were no Black elements. But if you are referring to dark skinned people, they were always there in the South (as were the lighter skinned KhoiSan). They have coexisted since the foundation of Egypt and Ta-Seti

But in the north, the people had more middle eastern features because that is where their roots were. There pottery at places like Faiyum indicates such ancestry. Furthermore, contact throughout North Africa all the way south to Nubia indicates strong contact with Middle Eastern cultures and trade. As there was no racial or ethnophobia that means so long as fealty to a lord was declared people could settle and become Egyptians. It was those that would not declare such fealty that were separated. And yes, once the two Egypts were unified under Narmer, there were other migrations as well.