Aamu Direct Deposit: Fill & Download for Free

Original Question: Herodotus called the Ancient Egyptians Melanchores which means ruddy skin. He used the same word in Homeros to describe Odysseus in the Odysee, isn’t this enough proof melanchroes doesn't black?It is likely that a lot of people are about to get offended at what I am about to write, but it is the truth and needs to be said. The Greek word used by Herodotus to speak of “ruddy” coloration actually is πυρρός, which refers to “flame-colored, or yellowish-red,” and also can refer to hair coloration. He uses the term in relation to the Budini, a nomadic people (whoever they were) in the same regions as the Scythian people.The other Greek word in the question actually means “swarthy.” In the online edition of Liddell, Scott and Jones, over at the Perseus site, we see the following entry:μελάγχρους¹ χρόαswarthy, Plut., etc.; a heterocl. nom. pl. μελάγχροες, Hdt.¹ μελάγχρους, ουνUnfortunately, that term is a relative term that doesn’t say a whole lot (although many people want to insist that it does, for more or less unworthy reasons). If I put myself (after I have had exposure to a lot of sun) next to one of my daughters (who often eschews sunlight), in comparison to her I would be “swarthy.” Nothing more nor less significant is meant by the term as Herodotus and others made use of it. It is rather meaningless, so far as my actual racial phenotype goes.Another example is to be seen in the Afrocentrist misuse of Song of Solomon (aka Song of songs, or, The Song of songs, or, Songs, or, Canticles, etc.). They misquote the reference of Songs 1:5–6 as applicable to Solomon, and also to Christ, claiming that this somehow “proves” that Jesus and Solomon both were Black! But in so doing most all of them are completely unaware of the syntax of the Hebrew that shows their understanding of the verses to be in error. These verses, in fact, do nothing of the kind as they falsely claim (counting on the misleading nature of English translation). But the Hebrew makes very clear that a male is not speaking in those verses; it rather is a female speaking to a male shepherd whom she loves greatly!And worse for those making false claims about the passage, we can see from the Hebrew that verses 2–7 are spoken by a female to a male, whereas it is a male who starts to speak to the female in his reply, in verse 8 of the first chapter. How do we know this? In Hebrew, when one addresses a male, one does so with this suffix (ךָ), and when one addresses a female, one uses this suffix (ךְ). Then, one looks at the genders of key words in conjunction with the above suffixes (the woman uses the feminine word form for “keeper,” for example, to refer to her new job title), and also looks closely at the context in the verses previous and after. That is how we know that a male begins speaking with said female in the eighth verse of the first chapter.Fact is, this woman states that she is “black” (meaning that she has darkened skin, or is “swarthy”; a related Greek word used in the Septuagint being μεμελανωμένη, which is from μελανόομαι, which is a neologism meaning “I am black,” or, “to be black.”), not because she was born that way (and thus not truly “Black”) but “because the sun has looked upon [her]” while she was “keeper of vineyard” (to which job she had been appointed under Solomon). In other words, she had a deep suntan from working outside a lot under the sun!She also states that the king had put her in the king’s chamber (likely as part of his harem; but she really was in love with the shepherd, with whom she was speaking, and with whom she wanted to run away). Thus, since it is a woman, it has no reference to Solomon or to Christ as various people have tried to interpret into these verses, and others like them, such as at 8:5 (which also is a woman speaking of another woman to a man, and who is starting to get jealous after their previous encounter together under the apple tree). It is, after all, an ancient love poem/song!Likewise, it seems like everyone is trying to make of the Egyptians what they want them to be, even though Egypt has long been a veritable “melting pot” of individuals for thousands of years, and alternately ruled over by Libyans, Nubians, Persians, and Greeks, and so forth. But frequently people want to ignore what the Egyptians thought of themselves. They did not think of themselves as Black or White.They thought of themselves as “the men,” par excellence. And the rest of mankind, as they knew of mankind at the time, were divided into three other categories (for a total of four), those of Ꜥamu [or, as Budge transliterates it, Āamu] (Asiatics), Themeḥu (Libyans), and Neḥesu (all the black races to the south of Egypt). These divisions are mentioned in the Book of Gates. They also are depicted in various ways in tomb inscriptions. One of the standard ways of depicting the four races of men in the Duat can be seen in the following accurate restoration of a damaged inscription from the Book of Gates found in the tomb of Seti I.The “four races” portrayed there, from right to left and top to bottom, are “Libyans”, “Nubians”, “Asiatics”, and “men” (meaning “Egyptians”), standing beside Horus, regarded as their creator. This is the correct order, but intended to be read from left to right. But then there are art conventions to be considered as well, which sometimes changed over time. Egyptians had a tendency to represent men with reddish-brown tones and women with yellowish tones. On occasion, we also are greeted with tomb inscriptions like the following, taken from tomb TT277 (image credits: Osirisnet).First, we present the context of a tomb painting in the tomb of Ameneminet, a priest who worked in the Amenophium (which was a funeral complex and mortuary temple that was created near the end of the reign of Amenhotep III and his wife Tiye). After he died, this mortuary temple complex continued its work while Tiye yet was alive, and then, after her death, continued dynasties later. The Amenophium, while it existed, very highly likely was filled with inscriptions and paintings commissioned by people who knew and saw Tiye personally, and under the direction of both her and her husband. With that in mind, consider the following.It also is very likely that the later artwork above was borrowed from images actually found in the Amenophium, which had been painted while Tiye was still alive. Why is this situation important? It is because Afrocentrists will display the following bust of Tiye in her older age, and make the claim that she therefore must have been Black.The above artifact (photo credit: Pinterest) actually was overlaid with gold and other materials while the bare wood underneath was a dark brown in color. It had even been modified after it was originally made, too. But people often omit such details.But then they have to contend with the following tomb painting, and make claims that it is faked, or, a “cartoon,” or, that it is too late to have been valid in spite of the fact that the Amenophium was in existence while Tiye was still alive, and that the priest who commissioned the above worked there and would have seen what was there pertaining to Tiye. Remember the context photo above? Well following is the specific inscription, part of the above context, that gives a great many Afrocentrists theological/racial heartburn. From the leftmost panel of the tomb painting above, seen face-on, we find the following depiction of Tiye, standing behind Amenophis III (Amenhotep III).We know it is a depiction of Tiye because the inscription in front of her states her name and identity: “Lady of the two lands, Tiye.” This tomb painting also is quite authentic. It certainly does not fit the Afrocentric narrative that Egyptians were all Black, and always portrayed so, now does it? And so that is why Afrocentrists want to dispose of this tomb painting while trying to push others, and other artifacts, upon us that frequently are divested from their context! But I have provided context above.This painting was made during a time when conventions regarding proportion started to become less important. This would continue to change afterward, which we also see fully manifest during the Amarna Period. During the Early to Mid Amarna Period, people were made to look downright alien in their appearances. And, sometimes, inscriptions were usurped and mistakes were made in both inscriptions and tomb art—both before and after that time. And that, precisely, is why it is dangerous and ignorant to make claims about Egyptians based on tomb paintings and artifacts, and why it is that some photos are faked and/or are removed from their contexts (which would reveal such errors if the entire contexts could be seen by those who can read the inscriptions that accompany such tomb paintings).They also try to invoke DNA in the mix. They say that because mtDNA or yDNA originated from somewhere in Africa in mummies like Ramses III it must mean that he was Black, conveniently ignoring the fact that many fair-skinned Europeans also bear the same mtDNA and yDNA lineages! They will even go so far as to post out-of-context photographs of Ramses III, or even confuse photos from the tomb of Amenhotep III with that of Ramses III, in so doing and making said claims. But neither of the above forms of DNA have connection with either skin or eye coloration! Rather, only genes found in chromosomes 15, 19, and others, in nuclear DNA (nDNA) or Autosomal DNA (atDNA) actually have anything to do with eye-color and skin color.So, then, they will make the claim that eight markers are like those seen in some or another part of Africa, so that must mean likewise as claimed! But many people all over the world will have the same or similar markers. It is important to see a lot more context before making various claims about this. Much, much more work remains to be done before we start jumping on one bandwagon or another, or creating some artificial construct or quasi-religion regarding the ancient Egyptians.However, one would think in this day and age of identity politics one would allow the Egyptians to speak for themselves rather than to try to identify them as one thing or another. Rather, modern people, it would seem, prefer to contradict themselves and want the ancient Egyptians to be one thing or another. But the Egyptians themselves would not have cooperated with such identity politics of our modern times. And certain terms were not in ancient times used in ways we would expect them to be used. The Egyptians saw themselves created from the tears of the eye of Horus (representing the sun), Asiatics (direct creations of Sekhmet), and Themeḥu as the creations of Sekhmet (via tears from Horus’ lost eye, representing the moon), but the Neḥesu as the product of Horus running around masturbating himself all over the place! To quote from the Book of Gates (in English translation, derived from Budge but without his intrusive parentheses):Magical protection be over you, O creatures of Ra, who have come into being from the Great One who is at the head of heaven. Let there be breath to your nostrils, and let your linen wrappings be loosened. You are the tears of the Eye of my splendour in your name of Reth. Mighty of issue you have come into being in your name of Aamu; Sekhmet has created them, and it is she who delivers their souls. I masturbated, and I was content with the hundreds of thousands who came forth from me in your name of Nehesu; Horus made them to come into being, and it is he who avengeth their souls. I sought out mine Eye, and you came into being in your name of Themenu; Sakhmet has created them, and she avenges their souls.It is thus highly suspect to believe that they initially would claim that they and the Neḥesu were the same or identical, in any way, at the time of the composition of the Book of Gates. And that is one reason why context often is omitted from inscriptions like the ones in the tombs of Seti I and Ramses III, among other reasons. In text above the inscription in the tomb of Ramses III, we see that the text refers to somethings (a class of men) “of the Egyptians” or “belonging to the Egyptians,” whereas the word meaning “among” or “in the state of being” would be the ‘owl’ or other character of the same meaning of ‘m’ prefixed to the word, which isn’t what we see below.Unfortunately, the word in the pertinent columns speaking of these men can only be tentatively understood because the actual meaning of the word at the top of the narrative column on the right still is unknown (although it may have something to do with workmen or somethings “made”). But the ‘water’ character above the word for “Egyptians” in the column on the left of the above most definitely expresses the genitive relationship mentioned above. These columns of text also differ from the content of the ones in the Book of Gates and in the tomb of Seti I, and in other places. As a result of additional information I have obtained since writing this answer, I now know from the fuller context that the above inscription is written retrograde, and that makes a bit of difference. This means that the text is written to be read from left to right, but with the characters still facing to the right. Normally, one would read the characters “into the faces” of the characters (and that was what I was doing while I had no access to the rest of the inscription to know otherwise). But not so in a text written retrograde! Now knowing this, it becomes clear that the genitive speaks of the name belonging to the “Egyptians.” Laid out for printed publication, it would be as follows.The above Egyptian phrase is: “in your name of ‘men’ or ‘Egyptians.’” The rightmost set of characters in the photo of the part of the inscription just above this last one thus actually is part of a phrase that should say “great is the water of the one who caused to be created.” But it is misspelled in the above color photo of the two columns of text, with the preposition omitted. Following is the correct spelling, as seen in the tomb of Seti I, but as laid out for printed publication.But also unfortunate is that to this date no one among Afrocentrists has been able to provide the complete tomb inscription when asked for the full context! More columns can be seen than the above but ones to the right are omitted, as also with the entire rightmost panels in said tomb of Ramses III. Now why would such important context be omitted in such controversial discussions? Would it become more obvious that the tomb painting of Ramses III contains errors? It certainly isn’t arranged the same way as in the tomb of Seti I or in the Book of Gates! Might it say something other than what some would want us to see, that might change the meaning, or how we might understand the inscription in context? Sure seems that way to me!And now, as mentioned briefly above, I have a further update for the above preceding paragraph. Most involved in such discussions as mentioned still refuse to provide any context to the above inscription. After much prodding, I managed to get one Afrocentrist to provide me with a little more context from an Alamy Stock photo, but still not the entire inscription in question. Definitely two sets of differing individuals drawn almost exactly the same. After considerable effort, however, I actually managed to get connected with high-resolution photographs of the entire register of the tomb painting as well as the entire inscription connected therewith (by the team of archaeologists, Egyptologists, and so forth, directly involved with the conservation and publication efforts with respect to the tomb of the assassinated Pharaoh, Ramses III). I would post those here but I am bound under legal obligation not to publish the photos, in whole or in part, in any format, including online.But their gracious gift for my own personal research allowed me to see the entire inscription, in all its context. These photos are so good it is almost like being there. Wish I could share them but I legally cannot. But I now have confirmed that the entire inscription is riddled with errors. There are omissions. There are misspellings. And, even the painting itself was painted erroneously! The order of identifying texts is given in the correct order, as expected for the Book of Gates. But it is the order of the painted, standing figures that is messed up, and partially duplicated. A close look at the tomb painting appears to show two individuals may have worked on the painting. One of them appears to have messed up the order of his part, and rather than fix it by tearing it all out and restarting, the other guy added his standing figures out of sequence and then just put in the labels in the correct order. Ramses III would not have minded. By then he already was dead from the coup attempt made by members of the Royal Family. But the inscription is messed up enough that it almost also looks deliberate. There was no getting past the Fifth Hour in the Duat for Ramses III!The correct sequence for the Book of Gates tomb painting (as well as the inscription itself) is, from left to right, Horus, “Egyptians,” “Asiatics,” “Nubians,” and “Libyans,” as seen in the above painting found in the tomb of Seti I. But that isn’t the sequence of persons seen in the tomb painting of Ramses III! In the tomb of Ramses III, Nubians are depicted twice, and Egyptians left out. The tomb painting of Seti I shows how Egyptians were depicted by the Egyptians, as does the context of the other registers of the tomb of Ramses III itself. Somebody came in and painted the section depicting the Nubians and Libyans next to Horus by mistake (where they don’t belong). Looking at the inscription, I can see that they are depicted in their proper order for their two parts, individually (but out of proper sequence for the entire painting as a whole). So the next guy comes in and simply puts Nubians in their proper location (thus creating a duplication), and, seeing that Libyans already are depicted, put the Asiatics there in place of the Libyans and labeled them as Libyans, per convention!So, the long and short of it is that this inscription in the tomb of Ramses III does not, I repeat not, support what the Afrocentrists have been claiming with regard to its depiction of persons therein. The inscription is not a custom depiction like those seen in a number of other texts. It really is laden with errors, and does not match the description of the order of persons properly listed in the Book of Gates text in all its other iterations.So-called “Europeans” also need to stop trying to make the ancient Egyptians White (though some Egyptians were fair-skinned, as the forensic results of a 1987 study of the mummy of Ramses II showed that he was “a real red-head” and had “white skin, like Berbers—and not black skin, like Nubians”, as translation of the actual wording in the report states), and Afrocentrists need to stop trying to make all Egyptians Black (some definitely and unquestionably were, like the Nubian dynasties of Egypt, for example). They weren’t either (with some exceptions, of course). And people need to stop using fake pictures and photographs of inscriptions taken out of context to try to make and support their claims. Most Egyptians never would have seen themselves that way at all.The rabid identity politicking regarding the racial identity or origins of the ancient Egyptians needs to stop! Let the Egyptians identify themselves. Where they are silent we should remain silent. People need to stop faking photographs, need to stop taking photos of Egyptian artwork and artifacts out of context, need to stop comparing ancient artwork with modern photographs of modern peoples, and need to stop ignoring what the Egyptians actually have written about themselves and others!And, for heaven’s sake! Leave Budge in the dustbin (or, if one cannot do that because one cannot read German to use better, more accurate sources, at least use Budge with care and check up on his sources before using his materials) because the word “Kammȧu” in Budge’s An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary isn’t real! It is a mistake that Budge picked up from Revillout that has since been corrected on comparison with the original text that Budge apparently did not himself consult. The Egyptians never called themselves that! It’s actually a word (kmm.t) that refers to “darkness.” For a more detailed discussion of Budge’s inaccuracy on the above, see: D. Charles Pyle's answer to Is E.A. Wallis Budge's Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary reliable?But when the Egyptians referred to the “Black Lands” they also rather were referencing the coloration of the rich soils along the Nile (and deposited yearly by the Nile floods) from which they named their lands and people—not with any respect to the coloration of their skins.Herodotus also did not write any of Homer’s works, though he did reference them on occasion. But it is true that the term refers to a relative darkness or “swarthiness” of color when compared to another group or person. However, it doesn’t always literally mean “Black.” In that you are correct. Herodotus does use a like word to speak of a people who lived in the lands of what now is Georgia, in the region of the Caucasus Mountains. It is clear that by it he does not mean “Black” as we understand the term today, the same as with the above mentioned passage from the Song of Solomon.{Note: It is likely that a number of people will hate this Answer so much that they will down-vote it into oblivion to collapse it, or false-flag it to get it censored and deleted, but the above needed to be said, no matter how triggered a person might become over its blunt statements and matter-of-fact content. Also now updated to include new information recently obtained.}