When I see photos of the gold mask of King
Tut, I notice very pronounced Negro features.
Nothing I read in encyclopedias mentions
whether the Pharaohs were black or white.
Well, if the pigments they used in their murals were accurate, most Egyptians had a skin tone similar to the people who live there now. Your basic Mediterranean olive, possibly a bit more on the reddish side. Definately not as light as a Northern European, nor as dark as a sub-Saharan African.
Why do you feel the skin colour of an ancient people is significant?
There is a book out there that argues that the Ancient Egyptians were black. But I agree with the 2nd post, based on murals, they appear to the same as the current Egyptians.
I believe that the ancient Egyptian language was Semitic, related to modern-day Arabic and Hebrew. This would seem to imply that the Egyptians were Semites as well, and therefore technically Caucasian. However, they had trade and other contact with Hamites and Nilo-Saharans and other African peoples, so substantial Negroid traits probably were to be found in the Egyptian gene-pool as well. So, the answer to that question would probably be “A little of both”.
The “theory” going around that Cleopatra was also black is, of course, 100% horse hockey. She was Macedonian.
An infinite number of rednecks in an infinite number of pickup trucks shooting an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will eventually produce all the world’s great works of literature in Braille.
Since when does it have to be either one?
neuro’s right about Cleopatra though. http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcleopatra.html
We gladly devour those who would subdue us.
In some of the paintings the women were painted a lighter color than the men. Might have been more manly for men to be darker, tanned because of outdoor work or play.
And that could just be one of their artistic conventions.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Warning ! I am about to turn this thread into a different and possibly dangerous direction, but I do so out of curiosity. The topic discussed here has lead me to wonder . . . what color was Jesus’ skin ? We have seen the westernized version of Him as a white man with long brownish-blonde hair, i have also seen a painting of him as a black man in some churches (where admittedly the congregation was almost all that color as well). Isn’t the truth somewhere in between ? And if so, why the need to make Him look like us ? No matter who “us” is ?
“Solos Dios basta”
i think it’s pretty much assumed that jesus was arabic, or some what Mediterranean looking, but there’s also a theory that says he was black…but i’m almost positive he didn’t look Asian or Scandinavian.
i think somewhere in the archives there’s a thread that covers it
I think it’s pretty much established that He was Jewish (cf the Was Jesus Jewish? thread). In other words, probably dark-haired and with a darker complexion than Northern Europeans.
BTW, I believe that “Arabic” refers to the language and “Arab” to the people.
Gabriel, I may be able to empathise with your motivation, but the subject of your hijack is a close personal friend of mine and I don’t believe He needs to be dragged into every conversation on this board.
If you want to talk about how He has been depicted in art over the years and in different countries, perhaps you could start another thread. Personally, I don’t feel it is an important question. If He has a problem with being painted in all the colours that His brothers come in, then He is a much more petty and vain person than I have been led to believe.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
I agree that ancient Egyptians were probably similar to those of today. In the artwork I have seen, there seems to be a pretty broad range of skin tones. The bust of Nefertiti is positively pink, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, I have seen murals which depict at least some Egyptians as having skin that is quite dark. (And you’re right, lamb81, about Tutankhamen’s features, in my opinion.)
There has been a movement afoot in recent years to “ethnicize” the Egyptians if that’s the right word. In shops owned by and catering to African Americans, for example, I have seen reproductions of the bust of Nefertiti with skin tone considerably darker than the original. It’s a pride thing, I suppose, but I don’t like to see history re-written that way.
I have no axe to grind, though. Black, white or purple, the accomplishments of the Egyptians are quite impressive.
I think Neuro-trrrash is right, here. The artistic convention of dark-skinned males and light-skinned females, however, is just an artistic convention (Note that the figures always stand facing the right and are 18 units high (with 2 uits from hairline to neck), too, until the post–Amarna when they are 23 units high)). There was likely some variation between lighter-dark and vary dark. It WAS a large kingdom and probably a bit cosmopolitan. I don’t see any reason to think that the egyptians were “white”, though, other than the survival of 19th C style eurocentrism. Similar to Semitic, perhaps, but not Swedish in any case.
MK makes the point: Egytians are and were Egyptian, that is, a crossroads for many diffrent types of people. Are Americans white or black? Well what Americans? Mexicans? Canadians? New Yorkers? I’m not sure what the intent of the OP’s question is, but maybe it needs to be more specific. Which Egyptians?
Besides, how can we ever know? Artistic representations are not 100% reliable. Even today, with photographs, colors don’t come out correct.
Actually, now that I reread the OP, there is no question, so never mind.
I do honestly agree with the Doc, although I do not feel he should have been rough with me. The truth is it does not matter if Jesus was white, black , red, blue, green, grey or purple. What He stood for was far more important. I was simply curious as to the physical representation of the man (?). We can all see what color Egyptians were by watching the History channel . . . but Jesus’ color has been quite disputed. I know that SD posters are intelligent and I simply wanted an opinion. Thats all.
Dr. Fidelius, why do you ask why he does he feel the skin colour of an ancient people is significant?
Yes, Gabriel: DrFidelius’ remarks have been inane so far in this thread (which is highly unlike the good doctor). The OP’s question about the skin color of the Egyptian ruling class and your question about the skin tone of Jesus are very valid, interesting questions.
To dismiss them for the sake of not offending those who have twisted priorities is preposterous.
If we believe the accuracy of most Egytian murals, and take into consideration the dulling of pigment over the millennia, a whole bunch of them were two-dimensional and bright red. Not very likely. Artists always take liberties.
Jesus clearly was not physically different from the other Semitic people of the area. Nothing of distinction was ever mentioned. We can infer from this that he was just about average in all of his attributes. Say, about 5’8" medium complexion with hearty tan, dark hair, possible beard, brown eyes.
Saying it “doesn’t matter” is ignorant and dangerous. What color were the dinosaurs? What language did the Nubians speak? How does the sunset look on Venus? Curiosity is essential to good science.
Hell is Other People.
I’m sure the good Dr is concerned that we may establish that she was in fact black, and then lamb81 will jump into his/her time machine and burn a cross in front of her palace.
You know, I’m getting a little annoyed when people question why you ask certain questions. Sometimes, when you ask about a person’s race or sexuality, it is just curiosity, and not a prelude to discrimination.
So I’m in a piss-poor mood.
Bite me.