The Moors re-civilized Europe after the fall of Rome

[gendao]

Egyptians, who were sub-Saharan African despite all attempts to show otherwise ... then some at least of this knowledge is African in origin.

Isn't there a lot of prevailing evidence otherwise and up for debate at the least? Or are you claiming that these Egyptian mummies and depictions are all sub-Saharan?

Fairly recently, a very well qualified lady called Joann Fletcher carried out a very thorough study of just about all the mummy hair found in Egyptian tombs.

 

The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the site were cynotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard through dynastic times . . .

Libya to the Egyptians and Greeks meant all of North Africa.

Foreign prisoners of Ramesses III: Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, Shasu Bedouin, and Hittite (The Hittites were an Indo-European people from Turkey).

A Libyan and a Nubian on king Tutankhamun’s staff.

To simplfy this for you, three waves of Eurasian colonists entered Africa priro to 7k ago.

From Turkey, into North Africa via the near East. Quite a lot of Eurasian Y chr show a Neolithic entry into North Africa. Thier Y chr trace the path of Afroasiatic into the lake Chad region.

Basic farmers really, with some rather crappy pottery and near eastern sickles. There’s not much left of them, so it’s hard to tell.

Egyptians are Africans they just aren’t black.

Well, many people lived in Egypt, including "Nubian Blacks" and those mixed with "Black" ancestry. Obviously, as well as Europeans, Arabs, etc too...

 

But the REAL QUESTION here that people want to know and "racial draft" is (of everyone who was in Egypt) who (when and how) originally built the Pyramids at Giza (and other global stone megaliths)??? Nobody really cares about all the subsequent occupiers, who weren't really all that advanced on their own (other than with residual hand–me–down technology and culture preserved or borrowed from others), correct?

Eastern Europeans were building cities before Southern Egypt had agriculture, and Egypt first earned metallurgy from the Asians 2,000 years after it was in use in the Balkans. So that was a very misleading little statement you meant- trying to make Egyptians look like world technology leaders or precociously developed in writing and culture. They were neither, they were just very grand at what they did. Most of their farm animals, crops and tech showed an origin in Asia and SE Europe.

So fact is, hasn't the secret, "exotic," stonemason technology used to build all of these megalithic sites long been lost...even to the known cultures (falsely?) credited for them? If so, then by whom, when and HOW were they originally built???

 

Atlantean theorists have proposed that Atlantis might have existed from ~18,000 BC to ~10,540-9500 BC. If so, who were those people??

Isn't THAT the REAL million-dollar question here?

Edited April 23, 2014 by vortex

[Apech]

Isn't there a lot of prevailing evidence otherwise and up for debate at the least? Or are you claiming that these Egyptian mummies and depictions are all sub-Saharan?

 

I'm talking about the origin of the Egyptians. By the time of those mummies there were Libyans and so on living in Egypt. It was a mix particularly in Lower Egypt.

 

Well, many people lived in Egypt, including "Nubian Blacks" and those with "Black" ancestry. Obviously, as well as Europeans, Arabs, etc too...

 

But the REAL QUESTION here that people want to know and "racial draft" is (of everyone who was in Egypt) who (when and how) originally built the Pyramids at Giza (and other global stone megaliths)??? Nobody really cares about all the subsequent occupiers, who weren't really all that advanced on their own (other than with residual hand–me–down technology and culture preserved or borrowed from others), correct?

So fact is, hasn't the secret stonemason technology used to build all of these megalithic sites long been lost...even to the known cultures (falsely?) credited for them? If so, then by whom, when and HOW were they originally built???

 

I think probably built after the end of last Ice Age and in this period there was general migration because of climate change. The so called 'race' of these people is irrelevant.

 

Atlantean theorists have proposed that Atlantis might have existed from ~18,000 BC to ~10,540-9500 BC. If so, who were those people??

 

Isn't THAT the REAL million-dollar question here?

 

 

They were us ... Homo Sapiens ...

[Nungali]

Interesting how the problem gets more and more complex the more one looks to 'race' instead of culture.

 

The concept of 'Egyptians' for some is set on one area and often one locality; often it is Ramses II and Giza. Ramses II (I think it was) was a redhead, various sources seem to be able to justify a strong proto-Indo-European component.

 

(Note; one of the things that distinguishes a 'caucasian' is the wide range of eye, skin and hair colour ... not just white skin and light hair.)

 

After the first 'invasion' of the 'Sea People' things were different in Egypt. We know little of the Old Kingdom and less about the first farmers of the area. Look at the map, what is to stop people from the north and east coming into the Nile Delta ... even before the end of the ice age ... was there a glacier between Suez and the Mediterranean ?

 

People came out of Africa, what was to stop them going back in to Egypt or the wet Sahara? 'Egypt' has a loooong history of people from the east moving into the area during drought and other times, why would this not have happened in the past ?

 

Like all people, they were a mix. They dont seem like 'black Africans' as there was a large component in the mix that wasn't black Africans.

 

Originally ... ? "Originally' ; according to Out of Africa theory we are all 'originally' sub-Saharan Africans.

 

'Originally ' there were only one type of Australians - the Australian Aboriginals. Thats the general view, but there have been at least 3 different waves of migration into Australia by at least 3 different types of 'Australoid' resulting in over 600 'original' language-culture-social Aboriginal groups. But that took time ... 'originally' there may have been 23 ... and before that 'originally' - 1. (And as I have said before, there are some types of Aboriginals here with light skin, blondish hair and green eyes - before white Europeans arrived.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Nungali

[gendao]

I'm talking about the origin of the Egyptians. By the time of those mummies there were Libyans and so on living in Egypt. It was a mix particularly in Lower Egypt.

So, who all were the "Libyans" and when did they first spread over to Egypt?

The concept of 'Egyptians' for some is set on one area and often one locality; often it is Ramses II and Giza. Ramses II (I think it was) was a redhead, various sources seem to be able to justify a strong proto-Indo-European component.

Well, according to L’Oréal’s advanced research laboratory...

First, a study of the melanin grains revealed that the pharaoh was naturally blond and that he used a coloring agent (probably henna) to give his hair red highlights.

An electron microscope showed that his hair was quite damaged, not only because of poor conservation conditions, but also as a result of tinting. The hair’s elliptical shape confirmed that Ramses II was Caucasian. All this information came from one lock of hair, 3000 years after his death!

In both analyses the main feature of the genetic landscape in northern Africa is an east-west pattern of variation pointing to the differentiation between the Berber and Arab population groups of the northwest and the populations of Libya and Egypt. Moreover, Libya and Egypt show the smallest genetic distances with the European populations, including the Iberian Peninsula.

 

But again, all of this may actually be irrelevant to most concerned...depending upon who actually built the Giza Pyramids... Which I don't think has been firmly established, by any stretch yet! And was certainly not Ramesses II anyways, even per conventional dogma.

Edited April 23, 2014 by vortex

[Nungali]

I was taught that an elliptical or oval hair cross profile made the hair 'coily' and was a sign of the negrito types, where the other straighter type hair came from a circular hair cross section. More confused .

[Apech]

Interesting how the problem gets more and more complex the more one looks to 'race' instead of culture.

 

Yes race is a false concept as far as I can see.

 

The concept of 'Egyptians' for some is set on one area and often one locality; often it is Ramses II and Giza. Ramses II (I think it was) was a redhead, various sources seem to be able to justify a strong proto-Indo-European component.

 

(Note; one of the things that distinguishes a 'caucasian' is the wide range of eye, skin and hair colour ... not just white skin and light hair.)

 

After the first 'invasion' of the 'Sea People' things were different in Egypt. We know little of the Old Kingdom and less about the first farmers of the area. Look at the map, what is to stop people from the north and east coming into the Nile Delta ... even before the end of the ice age ... was there a glacier between Suez and the Mediterranean ?

Ram II was around the beginning of the 19th Dynasty so that's after the Amarnan period and during the great empire building phase of the New Kingdom and so yes plenty of 'foreign' influence by then. That would include many people from neighbouring areas including the Lebanon with which there were strong trading links ... there were Jews in Egypt also by then.

 

The invasion of the Sea People came even later in 1200 BC under Ram III who defeated them and sent them on their way ... so not much influence there (they were supposed to be from the area of Sardinia. You may mean the Hyksos who invaded in the 2nd Intermediate period and were overcome by Ahmose from Thebes at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty.

 

No its perfectly possible for migration from the Levant into the Nile Valley in the early period ... this is true but the oldest ppart of Egyptian culture comes from the Saharan migration. When looking at Egypt you have to remember it had a long period of cultural integrity ... maybe 4000 years by modern dating but more like 10,000 according to their own records.

 

People came out of Africa, what was to stop them going back in to Egypt or the wet Sahara? 'Egypt' has a loooong history of people from the east moving into the area during drought and other times, why would this not have happened in the past ?

 

Like all people, they were a mix. They dont seem like 'black Africans' as there was a large component in the mix that wasn't black Africans.

 

Many of the statues and painting from the Old Kingdom show people with what we would call black features.

 

Originally ... ? "Originally' ; according to Out of Africa theory we are all 'originally' sub-Saharan Africans.

 

'Originally ' there were only one type of Australians - the Australian Aboriginals. Thats the general view, but there have been at least 3 different waves of migration into Australia by at least 3 different types of 'Australoid' resulting in over 600 'original' language-culture-social Aboriginal groups. But that took time ... 'originally' there may have been 23 ... and before that 'originally' - 1. (And as I have said before, there are some types of Aboriginals here with light skin, blondish hair and green eyes - before white Europeans arrived.

 

 

Sure that's true and that's why its non-productive to look at history interms of race.

[gendao]

I was taught that an elliptical or oval hair cross profile made the hair 'coily' and was a sign of the negrito types, where the other straighter type hair came from a circular hair cross section. More confused .

There's sort of a gradient from round (straight) to flatter (curlier), but the 3 main hair cross-sections are:

Leiotrichous: the thick, round hair shaft causes hair to be straight. Usually seen in Asians

Cynotrichous: a slender, elliptical, and often curved shaft with medium thickness. Most often seen in Caucasian hair

Heliotrichous: a ribbon-like, slightly flattened, medium thick, wavy, curly or kinky shaft. Most often seen in the hair shaft of Blacks.

 

[Apech]

So, who all were the "Libyans" and when did they first spread over to Egypt?

 

Libyans as one of the neighbouring countries were traditional enemies of Egypt. there was a Libyan period but that was not until the 22/23 Dynasties ... but before that there was inter marriage and in particular it is thought possible that Akhenaten's mother may have been Libyan.

 

Well, according to L’Oréal’s advanced research laboratory...

 

 

 

But again, all of this may actually be irrelevant to most concerned...depending upon who actually built the Giza Pyramids... Which I don't think has been firmly established, by any stretch! And was certainly not Ramesses II anyways, even per conventional dogma.

 

 

The Giza Pyramids even by conventional conservative dating are built around 2500 BC while Ram 2 was about 1300 BC. so clearly he didn't build them ... and indeed he would have to look back as far as we would to 814 AD for a comparable time period. So this is when the Vikings were raiding the coast of England and fighting the Saxons ... it would be comparitively that old to him if you see what I mean. If you take non-standard ideas then its an even bigger gap back to 10,500 BC or so ... such timescales are difficult to imagine to be honest ... especially for Americans who think 1776 is ancient history LOL.

[GrandmasterP]

Where did you get this idea from?

 

Persia maybe?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

The pyramids are said to have started with Imhotep (circa 2600 BC). Also credited with many temple buildings is Mentuhotep II, pictured below, who reigned 2046 BC – 1995 BC:

 

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Another quote from this article:

 

"The freeing of slaves is recommended both for the expiation of sins (IV:92; V:92; LVIII:3) and as an act of simple benevolence (II:177; XXIV:33; XC:13). It exhorts masters to allow slaves to earn or purchase their own freedom. An important change from pagan, though not from Jewish or Christian, practices is that in the strictly religious sense, the believing slave is now the brother of the freeman in Islam and before God, and the superior of the free pagan or idolator (II:221)."

[Nungali]

Yes race is a false concept as far as I can see.

 

Ram II was around the beginning of the 19th Dynasty so that's after the Amarnan period and during the great empire building phase of the New Kingdom and so yes plenty of 'foreign' influence by then.

 

I cited him as its usually seen as 'The Golden Age' IMO the Old Kingdom is more interesting.

 

That would include many people from neighbouring areas including the Lebanon with which there were strong trading links ... there were Jews in Egypt also by then.

 

The invasion of the Sea People came even later in 1200 BC under Ram III who defeated them and sent them on their way ... so not much influence there (they were supposed to be from the area of Sardinia. You may mean the Hyksos who invaded in the 2nd Intermediate period and were overcome by Ahmose from Thebes at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty.

 

No ... not the Hyksos ... before them. I thought there was some contact (who I thought were the Sea People) with .... ? before the Hyksos ... that helped to bring about the first intermediate period ?

No its perfectly possible for migration from the Levant into the Nile Valley in the early period ... this is true but the oldest ppart of Egyptian culture comes from the Saharan migration. When looking at Egypt you have to remember it had a long period of cultural integrity ... maybe 4000 years by modern dating but more like 10,000 according to their own records.

 

'Cultural integrity' ... not ethnic integrity. . But lets say relative ethnic integrity (within Africa I mean) from the first farmers to the first invasion (Hyksos or whoever) or influx. Yes, that is a long period. What was the rest of the world doing so that no one came into Egypt from the east? ... I guess no one knows.

 

Many of the statues and painting from the Old Kingdom show people with what we would call black features.

 

Sure. I dont dispute black kings ... even had them right up until Pianky, who - if one believes Christian Jacq was a fairly decent fellow.

 

I am suggesting sections of the early proto Indo-European culture migrated there (or even into the wet Sahara) and that was instrumental to the type of civilisation they bought. And yes, the southern African, away from this influence developed their own type of civilisation.

 

Let's not forget that these people, in their movements and migrations did the same in India and Persia / Iran. Remember the Vedic and Persian Empires ? They bought great change to the areas they influenced. - usually interbred with the residents and shared culture.

 

The thing with Egypt is, it DID have a strong cultural identity; people even adopted it when they had little idea what it actually was .... even latter Egyptians.

 

http://www.academia.edu/357726/Several_Ancient_Egyptian_numerals_are_cognates_of_Indo_European_or_Proto_Indo_European_equivalents

 

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi53.htm

 

Errrmmm I am talking mostly about Northern Egypt here .... I think the south has a much larger input of Negroid Influence.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Nungali

[Nungali]

There's sort of a gradient from round (straight) to flatter (curlier), but the 3 main hair cross-sections are:

 

Thanks ..... I forgot about Chinese hair being very straight ... makes sense it would be MORE circular .

[Harmonious Emptiness]

In regards to hair, see King Thutmose IV

 

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/60-royal-mummies-discovered-egypts-valley-kings/

 

[Apech]

I cited him as its usually seen as 'The Golden Age' IMO the Old Kingdom is more interesting.

 

 

No ... not the Hyksos ... before them. I thought there was some contact (who I thought were the Sea People) with .... ? before the Hyksos ... that helped to bring about the first intermediate period ?

The main cause of the First Intermediate period was climate change ... failure of the Nile to rise regularly and a resulting economic and social collapse. But there were probably some migrant peoples in the delta. Not the Hyksos though they came in the 2nd Intermediate period.

 

'Cultural integrity' ... not ethnic integrity. . But lets say relative ethnic integrity (within Africa I mean) from the first farmers to the first invasion (Hyksos or whoever) or influx. Yes, that is a long period. What was the rest of the world doing so that no one came into Egypt from the east? ... I guess no one knows.

I think we can safely say there was some influx of people from the north east in the Middle Kingdom as Egypt was less isolated.

 

Sure. I dont dispute black kings ... even had them right up until Pianky, who - if one believes Christian Jacq was a fairly decent fellow.

Christian Jacq ... I don't think he's the best source of info to be honest.

 

I am suggesting sections of the early proto Indo-European culture migrated there (or even into the wet Sahara) and that was instrumental to the type of civilisation they bought. And yes, the southern African, away from this influence developed their own type of civilisation.

 

Let's not forget that these people, in their movements and migrations did the same in India and Persia / Iran. Remember the Vedic and Persian Empires ? They bought great change to the areas they influenced. - usually interbred with the residents and shared culture.

Is this the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory ... much discredited?

 

The thing with Egypt is, it DID have a strong cultural identity; people even adopted it when they had little idea what it actually was .... even latter Egyptians.

 

http://www.academia.edu/357726/Several_Ancient_Egyptian_numerals_are_cognates_of_Indo_European_or_Proto_Indo_European_equivalents

 

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi53.htm

 

Errrmmm I am talking mostly about Northern Egypt here .... I think the south has a much larger input of Negroid Influence.

 

Do you mean Nubian influence? A neighbouring similar culture ... I don't know what you mean by negroid influence ... it has no meaning ... what kind of influence? Sounds just like more race based history to me ... which is of course rubbish.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

In regards to hair, see King Thutmose IV

 

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/60-royal-mummies-discovered-egypts-valley-kings/

 

 

If you can quote obviously Afro-Centric sources, I can quote obviously Euro-Centric ones:

 

Now compare these supposedly “African” or if you like “Semitic” mummies to that of Nubian nobleman who was in Egypt most likely during the reign of Thutmose IV, Maiherpri:

 

 

Now, as the Wikipedia article claims, his hair was a wig: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiherpri – As he was living in Egypt and ethnic Egyptians customarily wore black wigs this is not so strange. One cannot ignore the more African facial structure, however, or the skin that unlike the others has not somehow magically got pale with age. (Of course the famous bog mummy of Scandinavia is black, but I am sure someone can tell me that this is the result of it being preserved in a bog, not like other mummies) (On the Egyptian Race, Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

In quoting the above I wish to make clear that I do not endorse it, its arguments or conclusions, but rather wish to show that the matter is not without controversy and probably never will be the source of anything but divisive propaganda and counter-propaganda about race and also wish to emphasize that as far as I am concerned race is an utterly worthless concept for evaluating Human Beings.

 

I find this whole topic disgusting, which is why I am so loath to contribute anything more to it than I already have.

[Apech]

 

If you can quote obviously Afro-Centric sources, I can quote obviously Euro-Centric ones:

 

 

In quoting the above I wish to make clear that I do not endorse it, its arguments or conclusions, but rather wish to show that the matter is not without controversy and probably never will be the source of anything but divisive propaganda and counter-propaganda about race and also wish to emphasize that as far as I am concerned race is an utterly worthless concept for evaluating Human Beings.

 

I find this whole topic disgusting, which is why I am so loath to contribute anything more to it than I already have.

 

This!!!! "race is an utterly worthless concept for evaluating Human Beings."

 

This is what we need to say ... just this and nothing more.

[gendao]

In regards to hair, see King Thutmose IV

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/60-royal-mummies-discovered-egypts-valley-kings/

I believe that is Maiherpri, who is variously described as a "Nubian" nobleman, fan bearer, high official and/or warrior buried wearing his wig...

He likely served under Thutmose "Thoth bore him" IV, who by contrast looked like this:

This!!!! "race is an utterly worthless concept for evaluating Human Beings."

This is what we need to say ... just this and nothing more.

I think the OP would disagree with you, lol?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Race is an utterly useless concept. Unfortunately, this is not the view of most likely the majority of people in the world due to the false mythology that Black people's history goes back to jungles and slavery. What I am trying to help bring to this community is the fact that the tables were turned in the past in order to squash any conceivable argument that common race theory has any truth to it. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I am a white man. I'm not an Afro-centrist. I simply accept the reality of history. It doesn't make me feel inferior, as a white man, to know this stuff.

 

The link provided by vortex shows a number of other artifacts showing the dark skin and afro hair of Ancient Egyptians. For those who are interested, I suggest checking them out.

 

I don't see why any of this has to suggest superiority of one race over another.

 

Admittedly, the title of the thread was provocative, but one paragraph into the topic and that should have been overlooked.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Nungali]

The main cause of the First Intermediate period was climate change ... failure of the Nile to rise regularly and a resulting economic and social collapse. But there were probably some migrant peoples in the delta. Not the Hyksos though they came in the 2nd Intermediate period.

 

Thanks .... yes, that sounds right.

 

I think we can safely say there was some influx of people from the north east in the Middle Kingdom as Egypt was less isolated.

 

Christian Jacq ... I don't think he's the best source of info to be honest.

 

... hence my added

 

 

Is this the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory ... much discredited?

 

Ohhh ... we have a thread for that already. I find it curious about the expansion of certain 'Empires' , architecture, 'sciences' , culture ... at their inception ... one view sees similarities and central influence (like the 'Out of Africa' theory) and another view sees the possibility of things developing on their own in different locations ;

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans

 

 

Centralised theory ( O of A ) seems currently pop and accepted for human development but non- regional theory ( Out of .... somewhere ? ) seems currently pop and accepted for development of human 'civilisation'. ?

 

Do you mean Nubian influence? A neighbouring similar culture ... I don't know what you mean by negroid influence ... it has no meaning ... what kind of influence? Sounds just like more race based history to me ... which is of course rubbish.

 

Yeah ... well I already agreed about that so yes I do mean Nubian. ... oooooops I guess I mean the type of people that the OP seems to referring to.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

"People of colour" would apply, at the very least.

 

Again, I'm not saying anything about people who are not of African descent, just that advanced knowledge proliferated amongst and was spread by people "of colour" from Northern Africa, in "The Black Land" Khemet, before Greece; and it later proliferated amongst and was spread by descendants of military generals and soldiers who were respected as deserving all rights given to any other Muslim, at a time when the descendants of many Americans were clueless of science and maths and medicine and somehow even hygiene.

 

 

Say it, I'm white and I'm... not ashamed that my ancestors may have been taught how to wash themselves by Black Muslims.

[Nungali]

wow ... spinner .... pre Greek Egypt to Muslim generals in one sentence ... and now, to add to the mix, which religion is the best at teaching personal hygiene ?

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Seriously though, why do you guys have to get offended just because it wasn't your race who brought this stuff to the foray?

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Seriously though, why do you guys have to get offended just because it wasn't your race who brought this stuff to the foray? (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Seriously, whoever did it and whatever superficial aspects are used as 'racial' identifiers, it is my race, the human race.

 

But seriously, that is not what is at issue, what is at issue is history and in that history certain superficial aspects used as 'racial' identifiers have become more of an issue than then should be.

 

Race is an utterly useless concept. Unfortunately, this is not the view of most likely the majority of people in the world due to the false mythology that Black people's history goes back to jungles and slavery. What I am trying to help bring to this community is the fact that the tables were turned in the past in order to squash any conceivable argument that common race theory has any truth to it. I said it before and I'll say it again -- I am a white man. I'm not an Afro-centrist. I simply accept the reality of history. It doesn't make me feel inferior, as a white man, to know this stuff. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

Seriously, whatever your race and whether you are an 'Afro-centrist' or not, you put forward claims about history from 'Afro-centric' sources as being unquestionable the truth.

 

Now let us look at one of the claims from an 'Afro-centric' source:

 

In regards to hair, see King Thutmose IV

 

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/60-royal-mummies-discovered-egypts-valley-kings/

 

 

(Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

This source identifies the pictured mummy as Thutmose IV, other sources identify it as a noble of the court named Maiherpri.

 

Now, in the link which Vortex posted and you chose to re-emphasize:

 

The link provided by vortex shows a number of other artifacts showing the dark skin and afro hair of Ancient Egyptians. For those who are interested, I suggest checking them out.

 

there is a long and, dare I say it, divisive, rhetorical battle about hair, but at no point is the identity of the mummy as Maiherpri questioned. Did you notice that? Or were you just looking for whatever would support your own ideas?

 

At the time I made my post here:

 

Thutmose IV or Maiherpri

 

I had not had a chance to review anything about the matter. I only did a search on Thutmose IV and then opened the images section and followed the only black image that I found, which took me to the Blog location that I posted. I then posted the obvious suggestion that at the very least such matters were controversial, which at least to a person accustomed to critical thought and concerned about historical truth would mean that more information was required.

 

When I went to look for more information, such as here:

 

Wikipedia on Maiherpri

 

I found the evidence rather convincing, including a papyrus page identifying him as Maiherpri:

 

 

that this was indeed Maiherpri, and not Thutmose IV.

 

So seriously, I have to ask you, do you still believe that the mummy whose picture you posted is the mummy of Thutmose IV and if so why?

[Apech]

Here's another race for you to talk about ... and it really is another species too

 

 

The Neanderthals lived roughly between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago, their populations spreading from Portugal in the west to the Altai mountains in central Asia in the east. They vanished from the fossil record when modern humans arrived in Europe.

The reasons for the demise of the Neanderthals have long been debated in the scientific community, but many explanations assume that modern humans had a cognitive edge that manifested itself in more cooperative hunting, better weaponry and innovation, a broader diet, or other major advantages.

Roebroeks and his colleague, Dr Paola Villa at the University of Colorado Museum in Boulder, trawled through the archaeological records to look for evidence of modern human superiority that underpinned nearly a dozen theories about the Neanderthals' demise and found that none of them stood up.

"The explanations make good stories, but the only problem is that there is noarchaeology to back them up," said Roebroeks.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/apr/30/neanderthals-not-less-intelligent-humans-scientists