Europe?  I doubt it and I'm guessing that there was some more mingling of genes.  It also stands to reason, much like here in the states, that the further south you are the better tan you get.  Hmm, probably some of the ancient Egyptians were darker than others. Lets look to science for an answer:  Man is much like a cat in the fact that there is no subspecies.  The very idea of Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid is farce and holds no scientific weight. When you fight with a racist you yourself become one You have no knowledge of science and you have no wise words.  Keep reading, and in five years try again.

<snip Katherine Griffis-Greenberg Member, American Research Center in Egypt                International Association of Egyptologists University of Alabama at Birmingham Special Studies http://www.griffis-consulting.com Considering your post to me in the last three days, I hope you don't use this opportunity to misrepresent my views or attribute statements to me that I haven't made, like you've done on another thread. Osiris Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Why is everyone here pandering to idiots?  We don't really know what the ancient Egyptian looked like... sorry. We can guess and that's it.  They are of course going to be darker than a Celt but by how much and what part of Egypt are we talking about? Look at Libyans and other Arab countries,  well tanned group wouldn't you say but I wouldn't call them black .  What is black ?  I've never seen it.  I've seen shades of cream all the way through to ebony.  And what on earth is white?  I myself am a peachy/ beige.  Keep in mind that throughout these last two or three centuries that Egypt was invaded by how many nations?<snip for brevity   Thank you m'am/sir.  That is exactly what I've been trying to tell this Afrocentic idiot (ROSA DENERO) for two weeks now.   Cal Snead

These are not elaborate hair_style_s.  They are all very simple, especially the man, and show naturally frizzy/wooly hair.   To the contrary...you're first example states beneath: She wears an elegant, braided hair_style_ that was quite fashionable in the early 100s A.D., and she is fully accessorized wearing a gold hair pin, gold and pearl earrings, and three necklaces heavy with gold and jewels. At the time of her burial, the wreath in her hair and the diamond pattern around the edge of the portrait were added in gold leaf. Fully accessorized? Elegant? Fashionable? But not elaborate? I'd have to conclude that anyone posing for such a painting would go to great lengths to look their best. To fall short by wearing a very simple hair _style_ is contradictory. I'd believe they would have spent much time setting their hair for the painting. The Faiyum portrait of the man however also states: Similar to preserving the body, the features of the deceased were drawn to allow the spirits to recognize its bodies. This would tend to prevent extreme characterization in portraiture and instead lean toward a most accurate depiction. Overt characterization would therefore be mimimal. The text with the Faiyum man goes on: These portraits show different persons in their best clothes and jewelry. Again, depicted accurately in their Sunday Best so to speak, with _style_d hair, but not overdone to allow the spirits to recognize its bodies . In the funerary portrait of a young girl the process of adding a portrait to the mummy is discussed: After death, they were cut down to size and wrapped over the head of the mummy, at which time the gold jewelry and other details were applied. Some of the original red paint can be seen here under the gilded lips. Apparent here is that the portrait painted during the owner' lifetime was unadorned, after death the portrait was enhanced with gold jewelry and gilded lips over the original red paint. This procedure is still practiced in modern funerary practice today....the body is presented with makeup and in dress reflecting the deceased in healthful vigor and fine clothes. Interestingly, the gilded wreaths in the portraits of two of the women would certainly qualify as more than very simple adornment or _style_. In summary, it seems evident that the people depicted may have had portraits with _style_d hair to enhance wavy or curly hair, and are presented in gilded and fashionable accessories....hardly simple and not elaborate . It is hard to conclude that these portraits depict frizzy/wooly hair. In my opinion, several of these people have a decidedly meditteranean appearance to them. bill otten

<snip Sorry red_sea, but I have no intention on debating with you whether the Egyptians were blue black, black, brown, caramel, mocha, yellow, olive, tan, off-white, white, milky white or any other designation we might be able to create.  For you must have discerned by now that a discussion of that sort would lead you nowhere but to the conclusion that they were comprised of all of the skin tones that I just mentioned. Having said that,  I will comment on your claim that the Romany would have resembled the Egyptians.  I have travelled all over Europe and seen Romany in many places, but have never seen any with frizzy/wooly hair.  The only resemblence would have been possibly in skin color (especially to some Lower Egyptians).  So this doesn't really answer my question. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.