Since following the Ancestral Cult blogs (since their creation, basically), I have broadened my understanding greatly of our rich culture in realizing how closely relates both racially and culturally Egyptians and Sumerians were. I have always been fascinated by Ancient Egypt, along with the Roman Empire the history of Egypt was what first got me really interested in history. When I thought about why some more I suppose I just dismissed it as a fascination with the “exotic”, similar to my interest in Japanese culture, but it was of course deeper than this (similarly the interest in traditional Japanese culture would also be because of the shared Neanderthal heritage, I expect.)
It is very important for us to highlight what the Ancient Egyptians really were. A great, powerful pioneering civilization, fundamental not only in our understanding in Mediterranean history but more broadly European and Asian history as well. Politically correct “historians”, writers and TV presenters and producers desperately try to relate the Egyptians to modern Egyptians or even more ludicrously to black Africans, but they most certainly were not black, and modern “Egyptians” are, unlike Iranians for example, exclusively Arabic and African and have nothing in common with Ancient Egyptians whatsoever. To discuss this I feel three main topics need to be discussed: mummies, the religion, and the art. Perhaps discussion of the language origins is relevant too, but I am ignorant on this subject.
We see a pattern of various typed of stone (or mud brick) structures throughout Ancient post-Neanderthal cultures, and differing uses have been claimed for these, some called “temple complexes”, others recognized as burial mounds. As Varg Vikernes’ Sorcery and Religion in Ancient Scandinavia and articles on this on Thulean Perspective clearly show, this “temple ritual” and rituals regarding death and rebirth were essentially the same thing, in other words all have the same roots, and one could speculate on how rooted in this cycle of life and death, of rebirth, these cultures were even as they entered ages of civilization and had been grounded in God-rituals as opposed to spirit-rituals for a long time. Some comparisons of original ancient “pyramids” and stone mounds from ancient cultures (I am not sure how much the Greek one would have been influenced by Egyptian or Asian ones):
The only pyramids worth mentioning that were not built by the Neanderthal races are the Nubian pyramids. Aside from obviously being derivative of Egyptian pyramids, given the close contact the Ancient Egyptians had with Nubians, they apparently were not built as well, hence why at least two had to be reconstructed (so did much of the Ziggurat but this was made with mud bricks is I am not mistaken so this is understandable). Such mounds, large and small, clearly played a huge role on these post-Neanderthal communities across Europe, Asia and even America. We can also see the connection in the pyramid or cone shaped ancient Buddhist structures, and we of course know hoe central beliefs about death and reincarnation are to Buddhist ritual and belief. Logically, the more important those being buried, the larger the mounds – this applies to kings and chieftains in Scandinavia, and evidently the pharoahs of Egypt. They were also buried in a very similar fashion – with goods, talismans, pets, servants. Prayers and rituals were crucial in these rituals, just as they were in Scandinavia and the emphasis placed on songs and wisdom one would learn when entering the tomb of one’s ancestors.
Likewise, just as the Viking attitude towards death and Ragnarok has been gravely misunderstood and Christianized, the wrong assumptions have clearly been made about Egyptians, and their belief in an “afterlife”. Note how just as Scandinavians were buried with their possessions that served them well on Earth, so were the Pharaohs. The Egyptians of course went even further, immaculately preserving their corpses that are still with us after millennia. Why go to the effort to arrange and preserve things so well on Earth if the afterlife in another world or dimension is what matters most, what they aspire to most? We can also of course see the parallels between the Greek/Roman belief in the fields or meadows of Elysium as a “paradise”, and the Egyptian belief in fields of papyrus as the same. These are fertile, rich places, prime examples of nature’s cycle and, given that these were civilized cultures, deeply tied in with the cycle of agriculture. Death and rebirth, not a one way journey into death and some fictional afterlife. Like the Vikings, the Egyptians were extremely intelligent and therefore, despite what many think, firmly rooted in the real world, our world. We can also see this in the worship of the Sun, the knew it rose and set each day, that it “died” and returned, and the Valley of the Kings parallels the fertile life-giving Nile in relation to this, it seems fair to assume. Just as the sacred burial mounds – left fenced for plant life to grow on freely – were as much about growth, birth and rebirth as they were about death.
Of course this is good evidence for how incredibly advanced the Ancient Egyptians were. Just as how the common ignoramus will mock ancients for being “illiterate and stupid before Christianity”, when aside from being more literate than Europe was in medieval and even early modern Christian Europe, we did not really need to be anyway, due to our tragically now dead oral traditions – we remembered everything, “up there”, in our heads. Likewise even with our advanced technology and tools today we cannot come close to making anything on par with the great pyramid at Giza. The Egyptians would laugh (or cry) themselves to death if they were to see what passes as architecture and engineering today.
Aside from this there are numerous parallels in the religion of course – Horus loses an eye, like Odin, and this eye is then associated with wisdom and one of the most important symbols of Egyptian art. Seth shares many similarities with both Odin and Loki, Osiris returns from the dead like both Odin and Baldur. What is also perhaps “unique” about Egyptian mythology also, within the broad Indo-Aryan mythology group at least, is the association of the aspects of humanity and of nature with the faces of animals with which they are familiar, rather than human faces. This arguably suggests a more ancient form of religion somewhere between true polytheism and more ancient “animism” or focus on the spirits rather than the gods.
Much attention has been given to Ancient Egyptian art in determining what race they were. Many look at wall and scroll paintings for this reason, from both sides of the argument, but this approach is problematic for a number of reasons. There are painted depictions of “white” Egyptians:
The first of these pictures looks quite unusual, as Egyptians are usually portrayed as having black hair. In this more common case we need to remember that it was normal for Egyptians to wear (scented) wigs, presumably so they had the option of escaping from the heat. As wigs were presumably made from animals hair, or captured Nubians perhaps, it makes sense that it is almost invariably black as depicted in paintings. A crucial thing to remember when looking at any of these paintings however is that they are obviously highly stylized, unlike a lot of consciously realistic statues, so aside from artistic and at times inconsistent use of colour, this also raises a big question regarding the pharaoh’s head dress. It is easy to assume that they wore a lot of gold because of wealth and because of the abundance of gold in Africa, and we do indeed see common depictions of gold bracelets and anklets. But why wear this heavy golden headdress? To emphasis that the purest, the most divine of the Egyptians naturally had golden hair? Are these even real headdresses or just a stylistic representation of the hairstyle that blonde-haired pharaohs had? Or perhaps the headdress is real, and was itself originally a stylized representation of long, golden hair.
The first of these three pictures is from the tomb of Seti I, and depicts from left to right a Libyan, Nubian, Asiatic and Egyptian. This could of course lead to speculation about them being “somewhere inbetween” the black Africans and white Sumerians further away from the Mediterranean, and lead some to assume that even Semites were whiter than Egyptians. One thing is for sure though, and we can prove this further by comparing mummies as I will discuss later, is that they were not “black”. The second picture shows Tutankhamun trampling over Nubians, his supposed “fellow Africans”. He is indeed tanned, though obviously not as black as those Nubians. But as DNA tests have proven, much to the dismay of politically correct “historians” I am sure, Tutankhamun was European:
This refers to his paternal DNA, but DNA tests have also confirmed that Tutankhamun was the product of incest, so it seems fair to assume that little if any race mixing occurred in his case. As said the use of colours is stylistic anyway, as a new documentary on the BBC claims, this use of colour was to signify vitality, vibrance, life, but perhaps it also did actually portray accurately tanned Egyptians. Europeans after all do often tan reasonably well, and those who don’t and just burn are often red-haired. This is also interesting, as many mummies have red hair as I will discuss later, but perhaps even red-haired Egyptians adapted to the blazing African sun over time.
Perhaps more reliable art sources are sculptures. Here are some sculptures of Egyptians that depict clearly European facial features:
On such statues we see not only crystal-clear evidence such as blu eyes but also other vidence such as European noses. They don’t look very Semitic, do they? Also note how pale the particularly realistic Nefertiti bust is.
As if all of this is not evidence enough of what the Egyptians really were, of what broader culture and race they really belonged to, we can see some rather compelling evidence in mummies which are almost invariably clearly of European origin:
I find the Ramses II one especially relevant. Aside from having clearly European hair, he seems to have a rather prominent upper nose bone as well. I am far from an expert on skeletons and comparison between different races’ skeletons, but this does remind me of Marie Cachet’s observation about the differences between Neanderthal (and therefore European, in this case) and African facial structures, including the nose:
His skull even has a rather sloped forehead, and to me a relatively “long” cranium as well, as better seen in this image:
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)
I intend to write more on Egypt in future, after reading in detail more, but wanted to get started on it at least with this post.