Queries & Comments

012

Cheers for Temple Mount Article

I want to be the first among the many who will write in to say, “Superb! Unparalleled! Absolutely first-rate!”

I’m speaking, of course, about “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer. It is without doubt the best thing BAR has yet presented. What a gem of an issue.

Please keep up the outstanding work. You are a treasure.

The report by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer of their thorough reconstruction of Herod’s Temple Mount must surely rank among the prize-winning reports of all scientific treatises.

The exquisite drawings, the splendid photographs confirming all investigative assumptions and the lucid text place this report of superb research among the classic presentations of all time.

Well done!

Thanks for the enchanting article on the Temple Mount—“Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer. It held me totally captivated.

I am a long-time subscriber to BAR and one of its backers and cheerers! I’m presently marveling over your exceptionally fine BAR 15:06 issue, especially “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer.

I have spent much time in the Old City. I have traveled to Jerusalem both to study at the École Biblique Française (with Roland de Vaux, O.P.) and to lead tourists through my favorite haunts! So you can understand my enthusiasm for the Ritmeyers’ very fine article.

P.S. I participated in the City of David excavation with Professor Yigal Shiloh, who is very much missed.

I want to thank BAR for one of the best articles on old Jerusalem I’ve ever had the pleasure to read. I’m referring, of course, to “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer.

Unfortunately, I can’t go to the digs except through your format.

I read with great interest every word of the Ritmeyers’ four articles about the Temple Mount excavation and reconstruction: “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” “A Pilgrim’s Journey,” “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount” and “Reconstructing the Triple Gate,” BAR 15:06. What a joy to read! The photos, drawings and text were so well labeled and cross-referenced that I was never in doubt about what they meant. I feel as if I just took a walking tour of the Temple Mount of 2,000 years ago.

What can you do for an encore?

Barclay—of Barclay’s Gate Fame—Was an American Who Once Owned Monticello

“Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer, is a very impressive article, but it is not correct in identifying James T. Barclay, discoverer of Barclay’s Gate, as a “British architect.” Barclay was a Virginia medical doctor turned preacher who left the Scottsville, Va., Church of Christ in 1850 for missionary work in Jerusalem. Earlier, Barclay had owned Monticello, Thomas Jefferson’s home, and had lived there for several years in the 1830s. Barclay’s explorations in Jerusalem overshadow his missionary work. Biblical Archaeologist (Sept. 1988) had an article by Jack Lewis describing Barclay’s discoveries, including Barclay’s Gate and Solomon’s Quarries.

Thanks to Dr. Humble and the many other readers who caught this error.—Ed.

How Many Football Fields and Tennis Courts on the Temple Mount?

The Ritmeyers state (“Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06) that it would take “approximately five football fields to fill it from north to south and three from west to east.” Actually, considering that football fields are 120 yards long, including end zones, and 50 yards wide, the plaza would have held four fields laid end to end, south to north, and six fields side by side, east to west. Thus a total of 24 football fields could have been accommodated on the Temple Mount with 116 feet left over on the northern end.

This remaining unoccupied area running the full width of the plaza would have held 39 tennis courts laid out for doubles play.

Therefore, a good seat on the Antonia Tower would have provided a clear view of 24 football games and 39 doubles tennis matches, or a total of 684 athletes competing at one time.

Thanks to the Ritmeyers for their excellent article. And congratulations to this brilliant couple for their understanding that an American comprehends magnitude when explained in sports terminology.

014

Where Did the Kemetic People Come From?

Mr. Yurco’s article (“Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?” BAR 15:05) attempts to shed some light on the ethnicity of the ancient Kemetic¹ (Egyptian) people. Unfortunately, he further confuses the issue.

He, like many of the readers who offered comments on the question, suffers from what I call the Elizabeth Taylor Illusions of Grandeur Syndrome. Elizabeth Taylor and Hollywood did a tremendous disservice to history when she portrayed Cleopatra in the 1960s movie of the same name. When racism was at one of its all-time highs, Taylor perpetuated the myth among European descendants that the ancient Kemetic people were their distant ancestors with dark tans. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Yurco’s statement connecting the ancient Kemetic people with the modern-day Egyptians is surprising given his knowledge of Nile Valley history. The present majority populace of Egypt is descended from Persian invaders who conquered Kemet in 640 A.D. You have a similar situation here in the United States, where European invaders, through repression, war and exploitation, have supplanted the indigenous people as the majority group.

Mr. Yurco confuses readers even further when he states that, “Among the foreigners, the Nubians were closest ethnically to the Egyptians.” If Nubians, Libyans, Asians, Persians, etc., were foreigners to Kemet, where did the original stock of people come from that these foreigners integrated with? The indigenous people who established the Nile Valley civilization in Kemet simply came from “up-south,” from Central Africa, following the path of least resistance, the flow of the River Nile “down-north.”

The ancient Kemetic people during their time of initial greatness, during the founding of civilization in the so-called Old Kingdom, were an African people, the same people that are called black today. Anthropological, archaeological, linguistic and cultural data support this position. I refer Mr. Yurco to the work of his colleague at the University of Chicago, Dr. Bruce Williams. Dr. Williams investigated archaeological materials taken from an ancient Nubian site called Ta-Seti, now at the bottom of Lake Nasser, along with other key archaeological sites that would provide us with some critical insight on the origins of the ancient Kemetic civilization and its people. Dr. Williams discovered several artifacts that predate the unification of ancient Kemet (in about 3100 B.C.) by about two centuries. These artifacts show conclusively that the flow of ancient technology and information was from the south, not west or north, and that ancient Nubia and Ethiopia heavily influenced later Kemetic concepts of governance and religion.²

The linguistic data also show an African origin of the ancient Kemetic people. Dr. Chiekh Anta Diop has done exhaustive research in this area and found correlations in verb forms and phonetic correspondences between the West African language of Wolof and the ancient Kemetic language of Mdw Ntr (Medew Neter).³ There is a whole host of cultural data that suggest an influence from the south on ancient Kemet. Possibly the strongest of this data is the practice of circumcision, which is known to be of African origin.

Hellenistic writers saw the ancient Kemetic people as an African, or black, people. Herodotus, the so-called Father of History, identified Kemet as a land of the blacks and ethnic characteristics such as dark skin, thick lips and kinky hair.⁴ Strabo, Diogenes Laertius, Diodorus of Sicily, Apollodorus, Aeschylus and Aristotle all made references in their various writings to the ancient Kemetic people as a black and/or African people.⁵

In the Hu-nefer Text of the Book of Coming Forth by Day (the so-called Book of the Dead), there is a passage that addresses the question of the origins of his people. In this text, written about 1300 B.C., is a section concerning the ancestry of the ancient Kemetic people. It translates, “We come from where the god Hapi dwells, from the foothills of the Mountain of the Moon.” This text is a reference to the source of the River Nile, which the ancient Kemetic people associated with the god Hapi, in the foothills of the mountains of Central Africa.

It cannot be denied that history books have been written to distort, mislead and altogether omit the awesome significance of Africa in world history. These books are still in use in classrooms across America. If we are sincere in presenting a true picture of history based squarely on available data, the task of educating our youth and ourselves to appreciate cultural diversity will be much easier.

And, lastly, Egypt is still in Africa.

Frank Yurco replies:

Egypt is the name given to the country Kamau Anderson quite correctly indicates had as one of its ancient names Kemet (in vocalized form). Kemet, in pharaonic-Coptic Egyptian means Black Land and refers to the dark, rich alluvial soil of the river valley and delta. This was contrasted with Deshret, “Red Land,” which referred to the infertile, hostile deserts that surround the Nile Valley Rather than the term “Egypt” being a misnomer, it is the convention of the last 2,000 years or so in referring to the country. As an Egyptologist, I have no objection to calling pharaonic Egypt “Kemet.” The main difficulty is, how many readers not familiar with ancient Egyptian language and history would recognize the term “Kemet” and at once identify it as Egypt?

To turn to the more substantive issues raised by Mr. Anderson: The majority of present-day Egyptians are not descended from the Arab invaders (the invaders were Arab, not Persian) of 641–642 C.E. It is a major error to mistake the conversion of the majority of the indigenous people to Islam as a replacement of the population by Arab settlers. The Arabs were but one more foreign group that migrated to Egypt in small numbers and settled in the country. Egypt’s history is replete with such immigrations in limited numbers, ranging from Nubians and Medja (Bedja) tribespeople to Asiatics, Sea Peoples, Libyans, Persians, Jews, Greeks and Romans, to name only those of antiquity from the time of the political unification of Egypt, about 3100 B.C.E. Among these, the Libyans and Nubians came most often and in greatest numbers, but as they were already ethnically close to the Egyptians, they didn’t have a major impact on the genetic pool. As the careful anthropological research of Dr. el-Batrawi, followed by more recent researchers, shows, the modern Egyptian population is not significantly different from the pre-Dynastic population, or the Old Kingdom population for that matter.⁶

In discussing Nubians, Libyans and Asiatics as foreigners, of course this refers to the situation in the Dynastic pharaonic state, founded about 3100 B.C.E. This was the world’s earliest nation-state, and once cognizant of their nationhood, the ancient Egyptians themselves proclaimed these neighboring 064peoples as foreigners, something readily seen in their own texts.⁷

In the pre-Dynastic period, the situation differed; the Upper Egyptian culture, called Naqadan I and II, or Amratian and Gerzean, spread from its Badarian ancestors in Upper and Middle Egypt south into the region of Ta-Sety, between the first and second Nile cataracts, and northward to the Giza-Fayum region. Around 3300 B.C.E., increasing social stratification and the growth of an elite class led to the emergence of the first pharaonic-style kings at Qustul, in Ta-Sety, and from there to Hierakonopolis, Naqada-Abydos and, ultimately, on to Memphis-Saqqara at the political unification.⁸ The Qustul monarchs developed out of the Naqadan culture of Ta-Sety and not, as some maintain, from somewhere farther south.⁹

South of the second Nile cataract, which formed a formidable barrier to navigation, the culture was different from the Naqadan culture, and is called Khartoum Neolithic.¹⁰ Naqadan culture developed out of the Badarian culture of Upper and Middle Egypt, and thus is distinctly Egyptian.

There is, at present, no evidence that the Naqadan culture had its origin from anywhere in the Sudan, let alone farther south in central Africa. Neither language nor archaeology nor the pharaonic tradition support that view. Nonetheless, the Naqadan culture and the pharaonic state that arose from it were African, with distinctly African traditions in kingship and in religion, and in the funerary cult and belief in the ancestors.

Ethiopia, like Egypt, is a Greco-Roman name. Ethiopia is applied to the African kingdoms of Nubia and the Sudan. More accurately, these were known as Kush (attested in the Bible as Cush, and in Egyptian hieroglyphic records), as Napata (the Kushite XXVth Dynasty kings) and also as Meroe in the late first millennium. Further, these Nubian kingdoms may also trace their royal tradition to Qustul in Ta-Sety.¹¹

Linguistically, the Naqadan and pharaonic cultures spoke and wrote pharaonic-Coptic, a language of the Afro-Asiatic family. This language family also includes Chadic, Berber, Nubian, Cushitic, Omotic and the Semitic languages, as well as Wolof,¹² and perhaps other West Atlantic languages. These are the languages of northern Africa, the Nile Valley of the Sudan, Ethiopia and Arabia. The speakers of these languages are now dispersed over a wide geographic area, but they probably originated from what is now the Sahara Desert, a region that has witnessed dramatic climatic changes over the last ten thousand years. In the period after 10,000 B.C.E., this region had several extended pluvial, or wet, periods, when rainfall transformed the desert into savanna-type country filled with a wide array of African game.¹³ An African population also appeared here, first as hunters and gatherers, but around 6000 B.C.E. domesticating cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, as well as developing farming of crops and making pottery. Extensive series of rock drawings and archaeological finds attest to their presence and their transition from hunter-gatherers to a settled Neolithic population.¹⁴

Around 5500 B.C.E., the region began to desiccate as climate patterns shifted yet once more and rainfall decreased. The human population began to migrate, and they went west, south, east and southeast along the Nile Valley. In the Nile Valley, they found only small populations of hunter-gatherers, for the Nile River floods in the pluvial period had been too erratic to allow settlement and the development of agriculture.

The Saharans brought their culture and economic activities with them, and probably became ancestors of the Badarians, the Fayum A people and the people of Merimde in the western delta, all of which are attested at about 5000 B.C.E. These earliest settled Egyptian cultures farmed barley, wheat and flax, and also reared cattle, sheep, goats and pigs; they also made pottery. They used flint tools, but at first only surface-gathered flints; only in the Naqada I (Amratian) period did they begin to extract fresh flint from the limestone cliffs lining their Nile Valley home.¹⁵

All of this suggests that the ancestors of the Badarians and the Fayum and delta cultures came from the west.

Is it then surprising that overwhelmingly, the later pharaonic culture looked to the west as the land of the ancestors and the place where their afterlife was centered.¹⁶ Also, these Saharans were probably ancestral to the speakers of the Afro-Asiatic languages today, as some of the people remained in the more tolerable parts of the Sahara and were ancestors of the modern-day Berber and Tuareg peoples who still speak Afro-Asiatic languages and live in what are now Libya, Morocco and Algeria.

So far as the creation of humans is concerned, Egyptian tradition states that the sun god created them, in his image and likeness.¹⁷

As for Hapy being connected with the Mountains of the Moon, this is not an Egyptian tradition. Hapy was localized around the first Nile cataract,¹⁸ and further, Hapy is the Inundation of the Nile, not the river itself. The passage cited by Mr. Anderson, “We come from where the God Hapy dwells … ” is not typical phrasing of the Book of Coming Forth by Day.

I should like to know the source for Mr. Anderson s citation from the papyrus of 065Hu-nefer. The creation, of both Hapy and of mankind, was in Egyptian religion done by the sun god.

It is no surprise that the Greco-Roman authors described Egyptians as brown or black with thick lips and kinky hair. Some Egyptians, even today, show such features and so also do some ancient mummies and pre-Dynastic bodies. The Egyptians were, and still are, an African people of the Nile Valley. Their closest relatives in language and proximity were the Nubians and Libyans and, more distantly, other peoples of the Afro-Asiatic language family. Since the unification about 3100 B.C.E., foreigners have migrated to Egypt, some as workers, some as prisoners of war, some seeking refuge and some coming as conquerors, but never in such numbers as to alter significantly the basic Egyptian genetic pool. We do a great disservice to history and insult the modern Egyptians when we take culturally loaded words like “white” and “black” and apply them arbitrarily to this wonderful ancient African culture.

015

Moslem Archaeologists Should Investigate the Temple Mount

I enjoyed the article “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount in Jerusalem,” BAR 15:06, by the Ritmeyers. They briefly raised the problem of archaeological investigation of the Temple Mount. Has anyone thought of having a group of Moslem archaeologists use the Subsurface Interface Radar (SIR) unit to do a survey of the site.

The location of cisterns and tunnels might be ascertained, as was described in the article “Hi-Tech Archaeology: Ground Penetrating Radar,” BAR 14:01, by Dan Cole. The SIR unit might even be able to explain the source of the water seepage under the Dome of the Rock. This technology could be used to provide additional information without being offensive to the different religious authorities at the site.

We know of no Moslem archaeologists who would be interested in and able to do this kind of work. If there are such, we would be pleased to hear from them. It is doubtful, however, that the Moslem authorities would permit even this nonintrusive archaeological investigation on the Temple Mount.—Ed.

It’s B.A.R., Eight to the BAR

After reading “How Are ‘BAR’ and ‘BR’ Pronounced?” BAR 15:06, I wrote the following poem:

Well, “beat me, Daddy, eight to the BAR”
You stars at BAR have gone too far!
“Boss” and “Bass” both sound too base
For a journal so first-place.
Since you’re no pub or candy BAR,
To me you’re always B.A.R.

Some People Would Like to Call Me “Hiss”

I don’t like or use BAR or BR! (“How Are ‘BAR’ and ‘BR’ Pronounced?” BAR 15:06).

When I discuss articles in your excellent magazines, I always say “Biblical Archaeology Review” and “Bible Review.”

Would you like people to call you “hiss” for H.S.? I would not care for “der”—D.R.!!

We have enough shortcuts in this world that often lead to misunderstanding. Let us use the full name—in print and in public.

Dear D.R.: You’re right. Sincerely, H.S.

No Pop Pronunciations

As one of your earliest contributors,^a and a subscriber from Vol. I, No. 1, may I, although an octogenarian whose voice and status no longer carry any influence, be permitted to add my 10 cents worth of opinion to your editor’s call for assistance in deciding on the “officially accepted” pronunciation of the acronym BAR.

Precisely because a “pop” vocalization of BAR suggests a place of refreshment, I am strongly in favor of a purist pronunciation of the initials—bee-ay-are. The prestigious London weekly, The Times Literary Supplement has always been affectionately referred to as “tee-ell-ess,” with a “the” added or nor according to taste.

The USA’s effective and formidable 062wartime intelligence setup, the OSS, was never referred to as “The Oss,” but always by its alphabetical “spell-out”! Let BAR unashamedly support the purist and not encourage the sloppiness of “pop” abbreviations.

May Bee-Ay-Are have a Bountiful New Year.

A Tongue-Twister

The only solution to your name problem is a combination of all three acronyms. Then we can all cry out to our bookseller, “Give us BAR-BR-BAS!”

Bar-Br Gives a Clean Shave

I was tremendously pleased with the BAR 15:06 issue, which I just finished! My wife has discovered that on the day that the latest issue of BAR arrives, I am lost for the evening until I read it cover-to-cover. I rarely write letters to the editor, but this issue was so well done that it inspired one despite the lateness of the hour!

Kathleen and Leen Ritmeyer’s articles on Herod’s Temple (“Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount,” BAR 15:06, “A Pilgrim’s Journey,” BAR 15:06, “Quarrying and Transporting Stones for Herod’s Temple Mount,” BAR 15:06, and “Reconstructing the Triple Gate,” BAR 15:06) deserve a kudos, or perhaps two or three kudeµ/kudoses, for their magnificent presentation (and thank you Dr. Arbeitman [“No Kudoses (ouch!) for BAR Writer,” Queries & Comments, BAR 15:06], for delivering me from my ignorance). I want to ask, however, what the prospects are of excavating the Temple area in the future.

Likewise, I found the article on lice by Dr. Mumcuoglu and Joseph Zias to be excellent. As a graduate student in biochemistry at Ohio State University, I was wondering how much biochemical work (particularly molecular biology, which is my specialty) can he done on archaeological remains. In particular, can any further examinations of the lice be done to study differences between lice then and now? Are there remains at Palestinian sites that can be subjected to analysis of the type carried out a few years ago on the Egyptian mummies’ DNA?

Lastly, I pronounce the names “bee-ay-are” and “bee-ay-ess” in a slurred fashion. If BAR wishes to become Bar-Br, I recommend using an old-fashioned straight razor as a symbol because your magazine cuts through the technical fog of research to present to the layperson a clear, clean, smooth discussion of Biblical issues, archaeological and otherwise.

Joseph Zias replies:

Following publication of our BAR article, the editors of Scientific American called from New York and asked permission to excerpt portions of the article. During the interview, we brought up the issue of cloning the DNA.

Here’s what Scientific American reported in their January 1990 issue in an item called “Nit Picker”:

“Zias says he is looking for someone sufficiently versed in microsurgery to open the gut of one of the ancient lice and extract any human blood it may contain. He says the nucleus from even a single leukocyte (white blood cell) might furnish geneticists with enough DNA to compare its ancient donor with modern populations. Such comparisons might gauge the genetic link between ancient and modern Jews and perhaps suggest ancestral ties with other 064peoples around the world. Such findings would supplement the chronological study of human genetics that began with experiments conducted on Egyptian and South American mummies.

“‘Or we could try to clone the human louse itself,’ Zias says. ‘Morphologically it has not changed, but who knows about its molecular biology.’ Indeed, with its generations measured in weeks rather than decades, the lowly louse will have experienced far more evolutionary time than humans have over the past 2,000 years.”

Can We Make a Difference?

I fully share your viewpoint on the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I wish to extend thanks for your strong voice in advocating progress.

The challenge really must continue, for I fear that competition and intellectual snobbery may be part of the mud the scrolls are stuck in. Human nature being what it is, pettiness alone could withhold this magnificent opportunity to gain knowledge of our past, while the scrolls literally crumble and slip through our fingers.

Mr. Shanks, I have long admired your boldness in Biblical Archaeology Review. If anyone makes a difference in the Dead Sea Scrolls issue, I have every confidence it will be you.

Add Her Name

I just heard your interview about the Dead Sea Scrolls on Dr. James Kennedy’s radio program, “Truths That Transform.” Please add my name to the list of persons who would like to see the Dead Sea Scrolls published.

The Saga of Dead Sea Scroll Incompetence

The saga of the unpublished scrolls unfolds further. Joseph Baumgarten of Baltimore Hebrew University, who was reassigned J. T. Milik’s unpublished fragments of the Damascus, or Zadokite, Document, rejected another request from Professor Philip R. Davies last month for access to these materials [see “Dead Sea Scroll Variation on ‘Show and Tell’—It’s Called ‘Tell, But No Show,’” in this issue]. These fragments, last described by Milik in 1959, were transferred, characteristically without informing anyone, to third parties some three or four months after our first request to see them (March 20, 1989—see “Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal,” BAR 15:04).

065

Baumgarten in his reply to Davies (Oct. 29) sees his task as being to “place them (the fragments) in some perspective from the viewpoint of halacha” (i.e., Jewish law, or, as he elsewhere says, “rabbinic studies”—our concerns were historical, literary/text critical and chronological). Furthermore he asserts that it is clear “from the invaluable philological work which Milik had already done” that they (the fragments) add “very little that is new” to nonlegal sections of the work. Does this mean that these fragments reached Professor Baumgarten in an already edited form? If so, then, not only is the 30-year delay in their publication unforgivable, but the decision now to inflict a further delay in order to produce an unnecessary commentary to accompany the text (we already have another version together with several commentaries) is outrageous.

Another point of serious concern is the manner in which the Israel Department of Antiquities is proposing to carry out another suggestion of ours (May 5, 1989) that they employ new methods of AMS carbon-14 testing on the Dead Sea Scroll fragments under their custodianship (see Jerusalem Post, October 14, which incorrectly reported that we had asked to do these tests ourselves!). It now seems that the selection of fragments for testing is to be left to one scholar, John Strugnell, and only one set of tests will be carried out. As in the case of the Shroud of Turin, where six different labs were asked to participate, there needs to be strict supervision both inside and outside, and independent verification.

Unless some change of plan is adopted, and scholars with opposing views are also brought into the process and their concerns 067addressed, we may discover that pieces of the scrolls have been wasted in an effort that will not put an end to the dispute about the historical context of the scrolls, and we can add yet one more bungle to the saga of incompetence and lack of openness that constitutes the sordid history of the scrolls’ nonpublication over the last 30 years.

Nefertiti Was Black

We support the letter of Ms. Joan P. Wilson of Georgia (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:03) [claiming Nefertiti and ancient Egyptians were of the black race]. Frank Yurco’s article (“Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?” BAR 15:05) seems to us to be an attack on black history, culture and scholarship.

First, as Mr. Yurco’s article mentions, the Laws of Pharaoh provide equality and social equity for women. This reflects the matriarchal tendency of Afrocentric thought, which manifested itself in the Laws of the Land. This is in strong contrast to Eurocentric patriarchal family structure, which at that time (18th Dynasty) had yet to mature.

From the time of the first emperor of the world (Aha, Menes, Narmer—uniter of Upper and Lower Egypt—whose regime redirected the course of the Nile and built the city that Western civilization later called Memphis), and through the 25th Dynasty, all foundations for the liberal arts were set into place as mysteries. The families who absorbed the greater of these mysteries, manifesting them into the glorious reality of the great pyramids (doing so before the close of the 6th Dynasty), were all indigenous Africans—all of this “before Europeans walked in shoes or had houses with windows” (c. 2800 B.C.)! The families of Seneferu, Khufu, Khafra and Men-Ka-Ra were responsible for the most profound building project known to mankind: The pyramid complex.

At the passing of the 6th Dynasty, great scientific achievements and theory were manifested and in play. At that time, the art of medicine and the sciences of theology and architecture were crystallized for mankind through the work of the multi-genius Imhotep. This indigenous black African was worshipped as the god of medicine by the Greeks, who called him 070Asclepius, and also by the Romans as Aesculapius some 2,300 years after his death. The Hippocratic Oath bears this great black African’s name as a tenet and guide for ethical practice.

Miscegenation began to show its negative effect in history (especially its effect in Kemet) with the invasion of the Hyksos (1750–1552 B.C.).

The Hyksos were expelled by black Africans from the south, and the third golden age of Kemet began and continued culturally until the 25th Dynasty.

The 18th and 19th Dynasties of Kemet are earmarked by such names as Ramoses II, Amonophis, the ever-popular Tutan-Dhamon-Aten and, of course, Nefertiti. We know very little of the existence of Nefertiti, the consort of Akhenaten, but the painted limestone statue at the Louvre Museum in Paris shows little resemblance (other than the headdress) to the Nefertiti bust in Berlin, which you printed with your article. Upon the discovery of that particular bust (in what appears to many to be a totally arbitrary decision), the name Nefertiti was given to it. No evidence (such as a cartouche, mummy, etc.) was given—just an all-German team [that originally found it] and a bad decision. Researchers (such as John H. Clark and Dr. Ben Jochannon) state that there was absolutely no evidence that any of the busts found at that site (Tell el-Amarna) could be identified as Nefertiti. However, the other two heads that were found with the so-called Nefertiti bust had negroid features and resembled more closely the likeness that is seen in Paris at the Louvre in the limestone carvings and where other images of Nefertiti are displayed. There has never been any written history of Nefertiti’s family before her arrival at the court. Her mysterious disappearance before the death of the king has never been explained. In fact, the milky white bust that BAR and most of the Western world call Nefertiti has all the earmarks of the Piltdown Phenomena—European scientists lying about history.

Since most of the so-called Egyptologists, with the exception of a very few, were educated and indoctrinated in the European cultural scheme, their standard operating practice has been, upon discovering ancient artifacts (especially in Africa), to try to identify these articles and personages as other than black indigenous Africans and then to weave them into the fabric of the continent (which is obviously black). This is perhaps the greatest compliment that Eurocentric scholars have directed toward the African cultural reality to possess it totally in their view.

Nefertiti, Ramoses, Tut, Queen Ty, the 18th and 19th Dynasties, all were enclosed and elevated in a nation with a black cultural history that experts say reaches back as far as 26,000 B.C.—that is 26 thousand years B.C.!

Racism in America and elsewhere is strengthened daily by ignorance, false history, God-saying, bad research and plain old lying … for gain so-called.

Fallen angels indeed.

Frank Yurco replies:

The identity of the famed Berlin head of Nefertiti that has generated all this controversy is not based upon inscriptions, for it has none; the identity is based on the very distinctive caplike blue crown that the queen wears. This same caplike crown is worn by her in reliefs of the period that are securely identified by her cartouches.¹⁹ No other queen or princess of this period, nor of other periods, wears this type of headdress. So, the Berlin head is securely identified as Nefertiti.

Second, scholars are acutely aware that the art of Akhenaten’s reign went through several stylistic phases.²⁰ These were inspired by the pharaoh himself, who personally instructed the chief sculptor, Bek, at the outset of his reign.²¹ This situation accounts adequately for the different styles used to represent Nefertiti and other personalities of the age, and it should 072also be a caution against basing ethnic arguments on these sculptures and reliefs!

Despite these uncertainties, Nefertiti’s Berlin head was excavated in situ at Amarna, in the house of the sculptor Thutmose; this head cannot be swept arbitrarily under the scholarly rug, and it is ludicrous to compare its authenticity to the Piltdown forgery. Excavated, authenticated evidence cannot thus be disposed of simply because it does not agree with some peoples’ theories. That is not how sound scholarly research is done. Rather, the head should be compared and contrasted with other sculptures and reliefs of the queen. From such comparison it is soon clear that stylistic distinctions account for the differences.

There is no evidence that can date Egyptian civilization back to 26,000 B.C.E. As my detailed response to Kamau Anderson’s letter indicates, Badarian culture is the earliest definable as Egyptian in the pharonic tradition, and it dates, at earliest, to about 5,000 B.C.E., as established by radiocarbon-14 and thermoluminescent dating.

Finally, to touch on the issue of Imhotep, he was indeed a remarkable personality. A minister to Pharaoh Djoser (c. 2735–2716 B.C.E.), he was not only responsible for the wonderful step pyramid complex at Saqqara, but was also a skilled scribe, administrator and physician. Often, he has been described as the earliest example of what is known as a Renaissance personality. When the Greeks settled in Egypt, starting in the Saite period (664–525 B.C.E.) and later, the identified Imhotep with their god of healing, Asclepius. Further, it is clear from documents such as the Edwin Smith Papyrus and the Ebers Papyrus that ancient Egyptian medical knowledge was highly advanced. Egyptian physicians were renowned in antiquity and much in demand outside of Egypt. As the Greeks acknowledged, they acquired much of their medical knowledge from Egypt, so that certainly the Hippocratic oath taken by modern physicians does reflect originally Egyptian traditions.

Let me close with a remark shared with me by scholarly associates about the ancient Egyptians’ ethnicity. If someone like Amenhotep III or Tutankhamun or Senwosret II had entered an American cafe in the South in the 1940s–’50s, they would have been refused service on racial grounds. Thus the racial problem belongs with the Americans, and not with the Egyptians. As I have stated in my initial article and in all subsequent comments, the pharonic Egyptians were Africans. And now, one may add the growing evidence of blood group studies that have been done on the modern Egyptian populations and are being done on mummies.²²

Did Herodotus Say the Egyptians Were Black?

Herodotus is frequently cited [see, for example, letter of Kamau Anderson] as evidence for the proposition that the ancient Egyptians were black. Herodotus makes no such claim, however.

The passage relied on reads as follows:

“It is plain to see that the Colchians [a people living near the east end of the Black Sea, just south of the Caucasus mountains] are Egyptians; and this that I say I myself noted before I heard it from others. When I began to think on this matter, I inquired of both peoples … the Egyptians said that they held the Colchians to be part of Sesostris’ army. I myself guessed it to be so, partly 073because they are dark-skinned [melagchroes] and woolly-haired [oulotriches]; though that indeed goes for nothing, seeing that other peoples, too, are such [emphasis mine]; but my better proof was that the Colchians and Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only nations that have from the first practiced circumcision.”

Herodotus 2.104

Trans. A.D. Godley (1966), pp. 391–393

Those who cite this passage in support of their claim that Herodotus regarded the ancient Egyptians as black translate melagchroes as black, rather than dark skinned. And they use the term as the equivalent of “black” or “Negro” in 20th-century usage. Such usage, however, is contradicted by Herodotus himself as well as by copious evidence from other classical authors.

By the time of Herodotus (fifth century B.C.), Greeks, who were well acquainted with the facial features of the African blacks, called them Ethiopians. Greeks and Romans differentiated between the various gradations in the color of Mediterranean peoples darker than themselves, and made it clear that only some of the dark- or black-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa were Ethiopians (Aithiopes, Aethiopes), a term the Greeks and Romans used regularly to designate peoples with black or dark skin, flat noses, woolly or tightly curled hair, thick lips and variations thereof. In other words, when ancient authors meant Negro or black in 20th-century usage, they used the word “Ethiopian.”²³ The physical traits regularly associated with the classical word “Ethiopian” are in general the same characteristics included in modern anthropological classifications of Negroes: “dark pigmentation, … a broad, low-bridged nose, thick everted lips and kinky or curly hair.”²⁴ Indeed, the clarity of classical authors in their descriptions of the African blacks they called Ethiopians provides a model for many modern commentators who are imprecise and often inaccurate in their use of the terms Negro, black and African as applied to populations of the ancient world. Ethiopians, the blackest of all peoples, were also the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others.

In the passage quoted above, Herodotus expresses the belief that the Colchians were of Egyptian origin, descendants of an army of Sesostris, based on the fact that the Colchians are dark skinned and woolly haired. But the historian adds in the very next sentence that this fact certainly amounts to nothing since several other peoples are also. In comparing the hair of Colchians and Egyptians, Herodotus does not describe the hair of either one of these peoples as the woolliest, or the curliest, of all mankind—a unique feature of African Ethiopians which the historian underlines elsewhere. And as to Herodotus’ mention of the dark color of Egyptians and Colchians, the historian was following a standard classical practice in describing the color of peoples darker than themselves—a practice which did not mean that the peoples so described were Ethiopians, i.e., Negroes. Herodotus rules out color and hair and says that they amount to nothing in this instance, because like other Greeks and Romans, he knew (a) that the same adjectives for color and hair were often applied to several non-Ethiopian (i.e., non-Negroid) peoples darker than themselves (e.g., Indians, Egyptians and Moors) and (b) that there were among populations gradations in color and type of hair.

The Greeks generally used melas (in a few instances kelainos) to designate dark skin, but it is clear that melas was a relative term that embraced the various gradations which the Greeks and later the Romans carefully noted. For the same purpose the Romans used most often niger and fuscus, the latter usually indicating a lighter hue than niger, and thus had at their disposal at least two common words to indicate gradations of color.

In the description of the Ethiopians’ hair the Greeks used generally only one word, oulos. This term, though usually translated as “woolly,” apparently referred also to the tightly curled hair of Ethiopians, a meaning also conveyed in the application of the word to plants, when it is often translated as “twisted, twined or curly.” But oulos could also describe the hair of a Greek, when curled. Homer does so in his description of the hair of Odysseus which Athena made crisp and curly like a hyacinth flower. Hence, in the passage quoted above from Herodotus, the historian is no doubt referring to curly, “less than straight” hair of Egyptians. In the same way that the Ethiopians’ color became the yardstick by which classical antiquity measured colored peoples, a similar normative use was made of the Ethiopians’ hair—their hair was the woolliest, or most tightly curled, known in the classical world. In another passage Herodotus calls their hair “the woolliest of all mankind.”

In fact, the hair of the Negro, according to some modern specialists, is more characteristic than is the color of the Negro’s skin, for other races such as East Indians are as dark as Negroes, but no race other than the Negro or one intermixed therewith has woolly, or kinky, hair as a stable feature.

It is particularly significant, therefore, 074that Herodotus does not say in his statement about the Colchians that they were extremely black with very or unusually woolly hair, as he would have stated if he had had Ethiopians in mind in his comparison. Rather, he dismisses the usefulness of hair and color in this instance as criteria for proving the Egyptian origin of the Colchians.

In short, this passage from Herodotus comparing Egyptians to Colchians is not useful as evidence for the identification of Egyptians with Ethiopians, i.e., Negroes or blacks.

A letter to BAR (Glenn White, Queries & Comments, BAR 15:01; see also letter of Kamau Anderson) refers to the work of Cheikh Anta Diop in support of the contention that the ancient Egyptians were black. They fail to point out, however, the objections to Diop’s opinion such as those that appear in the UNESCO volume on the general history of Africa.²⁵ Diop not only distorts his classical sources, he omits those Greek and Roman authors who clearly distinguish between the Egyptians and Ethiopians. Further most of the passages Diop cites do not support his statement that “the Egyptians were negroes, thick-lipped, kinky-haired and thin-legged,”²⁶ and do not even mention lips or hair, but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts were used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans—a practice which by no means indicated that persons so described were Ethiopians, i.e., Negroes.

Some recent books²⁷ claim people like Cleopatra and Hannibal were black Africans. Nonsense. Cleopatra is well-attested on coins that depict the Ptolemaic queen as white. Similarly, portraits of Hannibal’s family on coinage of the Barcids portray these Carthaginians without Negroid traits.

The Greeks and Romans had an accurate knowledge of the differences between Egyptians and Ethiopians (the classical equivalent of Negroes). They were also well aware of the presence of a mixed black-white element in the populations of Egypt and northwest Africa. Flavius Philostratus [c. 170 A.D.], for example, observed that the region of the Egyptian-Ethiopian boundary was inhabited by peoples who were not completely black, but half-breeds in the matter of color, some not as black as Ethiopians but others darker than Egyptians. There is insufficient evidence, however, to estimate precisely the amount of black-white racial mixture.

The realistic portrayals of ancient artists vividly illustrate the physical traits of the populations of ancient Africans and provide dramatic confirmation of descriptions in classical texts. Some blacks appear in Egyptian art from the Old Kingdom onward, but not in large numbers until the New Kingdom. The evidence of Egyptian artists as a whole, however, suggests that blacks were not representative of the total population in Egypt.

In summary, there is in classical sources no justification for equating “black,” as used by Herodotus or any other Greek author, with peoples designated in classical texts as Ethiopians (i.e., Negroes). Those who wish to pursue this further may refer to my article entitled, “Bernal’s ‘Blacks,’ Herodotus, and Other Classical Evidence,” in the special issue of Arethusa (Fall, 1989).

If You’ve Got Some African Ancestry, Are You White or Black?

Perhaps Mrs. Wilson (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:03) is using the standard American criterion to determine whether a person is black. In America, if any of your near (or sometimes far) ancestors are of African ancestry, then you are “black” whether or not you could “pass” for white.

This criterion is not applied at all to Egyptian peoples by the detractors of Mrs. Wilson. Thus, “white” blacks in America are “black,” but “white” blacks in Egypt are “white.”

To summarize my point: Either call the Egyptians “black” for the same reason American blacks who appear white are called “black,” or call American blacks who appear white “white” for the same reason Egyptian blacks are called “white.”

By the way, the article by Frank J. Yurco (“Were the Ancient Egyptians Black or White?” BAR 15:05) was the most objective, intelligent, comprehensive piece I have ever read on the subject.

075

Rating BAR Articles G, PG, R and X

In response to those who find BAR pornographic (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:06), perhaps you should rate each article G, PG, R and X. This way discriminating folks would be duly informed.

In all seriousness, if your critics were to read the Bible from cover to cover they would find many stories that wouldn’t be fit to read to a child (for bedtime or in Sunday School). Maybe one of the things scripture and history are telling us is that mankind is sinful and is in great need of the Savior.

I love BAR! Keep up the good work.

A.D. Is Not “After Death”

I have no problem granting the authors of individual articles their own preference for B.C./A.D. or B.C.E./C.E., but don’t further the ignorance proposed by a letter writer in your November/December issue. Ms. Conlee (Queries & Comments, BAR 15:06) defined “B.C.” as “Before Christ,” and “A.D.” as “After Death.” Please remind her that A.D. is Latin for Anno Domini, which means “In the year of our Lord,” and is calculated from Christ’s birth and not his death.

Tosefta and Gemara

In “Reconstructing Herod’s Temple Mount,” BAR 15:06, you cite Tosefta as part of the Talmud. As you know, the Tosefta is not part of the Talmud, but is the nonauthoritative supplement or parallel to the Mishnah. In the footnote, you define the Gemara as “a commentary on the Mishnah.” This is misleading. Gemara is much more than a commentary. “Elaboration” is more accurate.

As a sometime scrolls person (I wrote my dissertation on the Qumran priesthood), I support you and others in the campaign to get all of the material fully available as soon as possible.

Praise for BAR’s Guide in Turkey

Avner Goren, the lecturer-guide on the BAS tour of Turkey, was incomparable! Both intellectually and professionally outstanding in his own field of archaeology, he supplemented that with his astounding knowledge of the geology, history, geography, topography, culture and Biblical relationships of the various sites—yet, he was always gracious, unperturbed, humble, helpful and caring—a mark of true greatness. We dearly loved him. (I had been to Turkey on eight previous occasions and had excellent guides, but none could compare with Avner.)

Avner Goren, an archaeologist with the Department of Antiquities in Israel, will be the guide for the BAS Tour to the Second International Congress on Biblical Archaeology in Jerusalem, June 20–July 7, 1990, and for the next BAS tour of Turkey, October 5–24, 1990.