Forum

Skull of Tut, "Primarily Caucasoid"
In Response To: Re: Descended From Pharaohs ()

You are now calling me Chucky. That's good - lighten up a little, mister snow-white!

I did not say that Egyptians were Caucasoid, although I do believe that fair-skinned peoples/tribes (such as "Libyans" and perhaps even "Philistines") were settled in certain areas of ancient Egypt.

I did say that the rulers of Egypt were likely at least part Caucasoid. (Caucasian would have been a better choice of words.) And even this is not my own opinion. The scientists that were hand-picked by Zahi Hawass concluded that the skull of King Tut was "primarily Caucasoid". Of course this has caused a huge uproar. It is not what many people wanted to hear, especially those of the Afro-centric persuasion.

I recently went through an exercise, even at your prompting, of re-interpreting the Genesis account of Noah and his "sons". We, or at least I, came to the surprising conclusion that it was the male line of Japheth/Put that actually carried on kingship after the Flood and that he was not a biological son of Ham/Horus.

Was Japheth Caucasian or partly Caucasian by the modern definition? That is the common belief, but again we don't know that with any more certainty than whether or not Ham was a black man. Yet, I think we need to prepare ourselves to accept reality, whatever that might have been, and hopefully realize that it is not the big issue it is made out to be.

Responses To This Message

(There are no responses to this message.)