THE EVOLVEMENT OF KING TUTANKHAMEN

1327 BC - AD 2008

Why has the Euro-American System or scheme had an overriding need to change the color of history? The first civilization has been replaced and substituted with foreign images. You can believe it was done for political, economic, religious, entertainment, labor, law and justice, war, imperialistic and genetic survival. It was done to replace the originals with ones that continue a perpetuation of an alternative history in the minds of each and every one (Ekowa, 2005).  Even with the black resin that was used in mummification, there is no way the profiles are the same.

This is a statue of the boy King Tut,  found in his tomb, among many of his treasures in Egypt, during an archaeological excavation in 1922.	Tut's Mummy October 2007

King Tut's Mummy - Unveiled October 2007 Is that why the Europeans knocked off the noses of a large number of Egyptian artifacts and why his nose is still flat? Take the tar away!  His nose is flat!	Science and Nature Magazine 2007

Bust found at the entry to Tutankhamun's Tomb Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation	Life Size Wooden Statue of King Tut Found in Tomb Picture:  Tour Egypt Museum	Tutankhamun from the back of his gold throne

The Egyptian team’s  reconstruction	The French team’s  reconstruction The Americans refused to assign King Tut a skin color because it could not be historically known. King Tut - BBC - 2005	King Tut 2008

Compare this profile to the next profile!	Are the profiles the same? Yes, you  might say if you're looking through those lie'n eyes!

It makes a difference of "Who’s Who" on Bible pages; just as it makes a difference of "Who’s Who" in the tombs of the Pyramids, and just as it makes a difference everywhere else. It always has made a difference; otherwise there would have been a need to change the images or the story.  Again, if it didn’t, it would not have been necessary for Europeans to obliterate the geographical, cultural and ethnographical truths from real history, in order to construct an alternative history, made in European image and likeness.

Readers who are loyal to the Stormfront White Nationalist Website write and say the Egyptian Pharaohs are Negro in appearance because Egypt conquered Lower Nubia about 1950 B C and retained it until about 1700.  They go on to say that in the Early and Middle Kingdoms the pharaohs were definitely White.  BUT WAIT!  Even White Archaeologists and Egyptologists like Gerald Massey have found evidence that Nubian Pharaohs pre-date the first Egyptian Dynasties by at least 300 years.  The Semitic language spoken by the early pharaohs belongs to an Afro-Asiatic parent language was spread by Black African people as they migrated north.  US National news programs say that King Tut was covered in black resin, and that accounts for his blackness in color.  What they have failed to mention is the African features with the flat nose and Negroid profile.

With the Roman world in turmoil around AD 300, and Meroe in decline, a people from east of the Nile known to the Greeks as Blemmyes and to the Arabs as Bedja, rapidly overran much of Egypt and Lower Nubia. Although expelled from Egypt, they were able to establish themselves in the region of Nubia just south of Aswan. Although they continued the religion of the pharaohs, their rulers used the Greek forms of contemporary Roman Imperial titles.

King Tut's original name was Tutu Ankoma (Asante name--Akan People)
 

Things are not always as they seem.  Judge for yourself!

(Why is there a need to reconstruct his face when his Black face appears on the walls of his tomb?)

There had even been intellectually specious claims that ancient Egypt was in fact an European civilization. But because of the work of more honest early European Egyptologist and writers, such as Gerald Massey, Godfrey Higgins, Count C.F. Volney and others, the truth about who the Egyptian were, was acknowledged. More recently, white writers such as, Richard Poe ("Black Spark White Fire"), Michael Hoffman ("Egypt Before the Pharaohs") and Martin Bernal ("Black Athena"), have contributed research proving an African origin to ancient Egypt. The face of the Sphinx does not lie. But there is still much white denial.
 
 

Additionally, many scholars and Egyptologist of African descent have come forth to defend ancient Egypt's African origin. People like Dr. Cheik Anta Diop, Dr. Joseph Ben-Jochanan, Dr. Theophile Obenga, Dr. Molefe Asante, John Henrik Clarke, John G. Jackson, St. Claire Drake, Wayne Chancellor, Runoko Rashidi, Legrand Clegg, Ashra Kweisi, and a host of others, have all made significant contributions toward substantiating this fact. And of course there are those voices from antiquity, certainly far more reliable than than those of us just arriving on the scene:
 
"The Ethiopians say that the Egyptians were one of their colonies which was brought into Egypt by the deity Osiris. The Greek writer Herodotus repeatedly referred to the Egyptians as being dark-skinned people with woolly hair. "They," he says, "have the same tint of skin which approaches that of the Ethiopians." The opinion of the ancient writers on the Egyptians is more or less summed up by Gaston Maspero (1846–1916) when he says, "By the almost unanimous testimony of ancient historians, they [the Egyptians] belong to an African race which first settled in Ethiopia on the Middle Nile: following the course of the river they gradually reached the sea.
 
Many of the leading antiquarians of the time, based largely on the strength of what the classical authors, particularly Diodorus Siculus and Stephanus of Byzantium, had to say on the matter, were exponents of the view that the ancient Ethiopians, or at any rate, the Black people of remote antiquity were the earliest of all civilized peoples and that the first civilized inhabitants of ancient Egypt were members of what is refereed to as the Black race who entered the country as emigrants from Ethiopia." (1)
 
There is no mystery here as to who ancients Egyptian were. Why this continued dilemma for white historians and Egyptologists and this includes Arabs like Zawi Hawass. As one writer on Egypt suggests, "If Egypt is a dilemma in Western historiography, it is a created dilemma." (1)
 
The main point that I want to make is this. That if in fact this upcoming King Tut Exhibit will in be accompanied by this racist depiction of Pharaoh Tutankhamen, then I promise, that those of us of African descent, not just in Los Angeles but across this country, will not accept it and will make sure that this Exhibit will not be well received. We will make our voices heard loud and clear even before this Exhibit arrives.

Further Proof

Physical Anthropology:  The skeletons and skulls of the Ancient Egyptians clearly reflect that they were a Negroid people with features very similar to those of modern Black Nubians and other people of the Upper Nile and of East Africa.

Osteological Evidence: "Lepsius canon," which distinguishes the bodily proportions of various racial group categories the "ideal Egyptian" as "short-armed and of Negroid or Negrito physical type."

Blood Type:  Even after hundreds of years of inter-mixture with foreign invaders, the blood type of modern Egyptians is the "same group B as the populations of western Africa on the Atlantic seaboard and not the A2 Group characteristic of the white race prior to any crossbreeding."

Linguistics:  Ancient Egyptian, modern Coptic of Egypt and Walaf of West Africa are related, with the latter two having their origin in the former.  Egyptians spoke proto-Afroasiatic, an extinct language spoken in Ethiopia before 10,000 BC.

Classical Greek and Roman Authors:  Virtually all of the early Latin eyewitnesses described the Ancient Egyptians as Black skinned with wooly hair.