It's never safe to assume, especially in regards to a discipline that wants to be taken seriously as scientific, as Egyptology does
I'm not an Egyptologist, and neither are you. And you insisting on "scientific proof" that the monarch of an African nation would actually LOOK like an African means I am not really inclined to take you seriously either.
But more to the point, there is a diorite statue, said by Egyptologists to be of Khafra, but the provenance is suspect, (i.e. his name isnít written on it) so there is no certainty on the matter
You're referring to this one
Not to me it doesn't. But I suppose "Where's your scientific proof" is logically equivalent to looking at a statue and saying "Er... looks caucusoid to me."
Regardless to the overall point: it's a question of basic facial features an individual in a particular region is likely to have. Egypt BECAME a mixed culture later in its history after extensive contact and intermixing with the Berbers and other Mediterranean/middle eastern powers. But Khafra's reign would have been in the old Kingdom, way too early for that, and like most of the population would have had facial features more similar to those found in the southern portion of the continent than the northern/eastern regions they had yet to have any long term contact with. Even the Berbers -- the closest thing there was to a Caucusoid race in North Africa at the time -- never made it as far as the Nile Delta before the New Kindgom.
And again, to even have to explain and defend this is almost asinine. We may not know what the first emperor of China looked like, but it's a foregone conclusion that he probably looked Chinese
. The only reason -- and I do mean the ONLY reason -- this is not in dispute is because there's been no concerted effort to rewrite Chinese history to make it palatable to self-conscious westerners (Ergo, when artists do a rendering of Qin Shi Huang, they don't imagine that he looked like David Karadine.