quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Gaya's posts don't surprise me, given that this isn't the first time we've had an [presumably] Amazigh poster, forwarding the ideology that their 'kind' were the initial settlers of North Africa, and hence, the need to incorporate the Nile Valley into this. To do so, the ancient Nile Valley inhabitants have to be painted in the image of 'light-skin' coastal Berber speaking groups, like the Kabyles, with substantial maternal European ancestry. In the process, all facts on the patterns of the peopling of North Africa, have to be ignored to uphold this political ideology.
On point as usual.
Linguistics shows that Berber originated in East Africa among earlier derived Afrasan speakers.
Archeology shows that Afrasan speakers derived from the Saharo-Sudanese Neolithic.
Genetics shows that Berber male lineages spread from East Africa to NorthWest Africa since the Neolithic, and the Kabyle and some other Magrebian Berber have substantial and perhaps even predominant ancestry from European women in the historical era.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont know why Mr. Winters cant just stick to the idea that tropically adapted, "black" peoples of the ancient world built advanced civilizations in Africa, Asia, the pacific and Americas? Why dull the issue of Eurocentric historians trying to deny this fact, by adding extra garbage to the argument that isn't necessary? This only makes it much easier for Eurocentric scholars to DEFEND their position and gives them the upper hand. The key here is that the physical features of some Africans, Asians and Americans are such because they all inhabit the similar temperate zones, causing their bodies to adapt features to survive. Therefore, similar features amongst geographically separated peoples are not necessarily due to recent direct African migrations. This is a contradiction of biology and science.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The earliest archaeological records and skeletal records for the Magreb[North-western Africa] are the Metcha-Afalou,Taroflat,and later the Capsians. The Metcha-Afalou has been labeled by physical anthropologist everything from Khoisanoids to Cro-magnoids. The tool industry of these early populations of Magreb used something called Ibero-Marusian[sp]. The later tool industry was called Capsian after the Tunisan city Cafsa.
Anthropologist have long debated wheather the Capsian represented a back-migration to Northwestern Africa from Western Asia or simply an indigenous North-western African tool industry. According to Michael Brett and Elizabeth Fentress in the book entitled The Berbers the Capsian are simply an extension of the earlier Metch-Afalou people.
The Metcha-Afalou,Capsian,and Taroflat are distinct from the early Saharan dwellers and were mostly around the coastal areas of North-western Africa. Both Brett and Fentress acknowleadge this.
Just going off historical sources the ancient Egyptians themselves show two different Libyan groups:the Tehennu[shown with dark brown coloring and a penis sheath with a slight beard],and Tamahou[shown with fair skin coloring with the occasional light hair and eyes]. The Tehennu were before the Tamahou groups. The Tamahou appear around the early New Kingdom.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptians called population of neighboring Libya `Tehenu.' They were pictured with dark complexion and curly hair. Ahmed Fakhir, `Siwa Oasis', p. 75]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Missing mummy may be Ramses I Last Updated Mon Jan 14 18:31:22 2002 NIAGARA FALLS, ONT. - A centuries-old mystery of a missing mummy may soon be solved.
Scientists think they've found the mummy of the long-lost Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses I, and they're testing his DNA to prove his identity.
In 1860, the mummy went missing when it was stolen from its tomb in the Valley of the Kings. For 140 years, it was believed the mummy had been sold to a museum in Niagara Falls, Canada.
When the museum closed, the mummy became homeless until the private Canadian collector Bill Jamieson bought him and eight other old and leathery specimens.
Later Jamieson had to sell his collection. He wanted the mummies to stay in Canadian hands, but no Canadian institution or government could afford the $2 million asking price for the mummy collection.
"It needed at least another $2 or $3 million worth of conservation just to get them into shape to display," said Roberta Shaw of the Royal Ontario Museum's Egyptian collection.
The suspected Ramses mummy found a home at a museum affiliated with Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. Scientists there are comparing his DNA to that of other royals to see if he really is the famed king.
MORE SCIENCE NEWS from: cbc.ca/science
It may take months or years to find out.
If he turns out to be Ramses I, the Americans promise to send him back to Egypt. If not, he'll undergo maintenance and further study.
Written by CBC News Online staff
THEN LOOK WHAT HAWASS SAYS WHEN EMORY WHO AQUIRED THE DEAD BODY CLAIMED IT WAS RAMASES I.
Emory museum mummy doesn't belong to Ramses I Egypt, History, 1/8/2001
Giza Antiquities Director Zahi Hawas ruled out that one of the mummies in the Emory Museum in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States can not belong to King Ramses I or any of the l9th Dynasty Kings.
Some researchers at the Emory University in Georgia, USA, announced this week that they are using CAT scan to detect the secrets of some ancient mummies, and that after studying 10 mummies in the Emory Museum, it turned out that one of these mummies belongs to King Ramses I, founder of the 19th Dynasty, who ruled Egypt from 1292 to 1290 BC. Commenting, Hawas said reasons that led to such belief are not enough.
One of these reasons is that they found the mummy's arms crossed on the chest, which characterizes the royal system in general, pointing out that this shape could be imitated in later eras.
The strongest evidence that the mummy doesn't belong to Ramses I, is that it should have been inside the royal treasure trove found by an Egyptian family in Luxor in 1881, but it wasn't found, said Hawwas.
March 4, 2004 Last September—after a 140-odd-year run in a Niagara Falls, Canada, sideshow—the 3,000-year-old mummy of Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses I returned home. The celebration was one for the ages.
"When he arrived, no living king [had] ever had such a reception," said Zahi Hawass, an archaeologist and secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities.
The mummy's return to Egypt was facilitated by the Michael C. Carlos Museum at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. While the museum had obtained legal rights to own and display the mummy, museum officials decided that the pharaoh's proper place was in Egypt .
"It just seemed the right thing to do for a lot of reasons," said Peter Lacovara, the museum's curator of ancient Egyptian, Nubian, and Middle Eastern art.
Next we see Cheikh Anti Diop is denied the ability to do the Melanin Test: ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS by Cheikh Anta Diop Melanin Dosage Test
quote: In practice it is possible to determine directly the skin colour and hence the ethnic affiliations of the ancient Egyptians by microscopic analysis in the laboratory; I doubt if the sagacity of the researchers who have studied the question has overlooked the possibility. Melanin (eumelanin), the chemical body responsible for skin pigmentation, is, broadly speaking, insoluble and is preserved for millions of years in the skins of fossil animals.20 There is thus all the more reason for it to be readily recoverable in the skins of Egyptian mummies, despite a tenacious legend that the skin of mummies, tainted by the embalming material, is no longer susceptible of any analysis.21 Although the epidermis is the main site of the melanin, the melanocytes penetrating the derm at the boundary between it and the epidermis, even where the latter has mostly been destroyed by the embalming materials, show a melanin level which is non-existent in the white-skinned races. The samples I myself analyzed were taken in the physical anthropology laboratory of the Mus'ee de l'Homme in Paris off the mummies from the Marietta excavations in Egypt.22 The same method is perfectly suitable for use on the royal mummies of Thutmoses III, Seti I and Ramses II in the Cairo Museum, which are in an excel state of preservation. For two years past I have been vainly begging the curator of the Cairo Museum for similar samples to analyze. No more than a few square millimetres of skin would be required to mount a specimen, the preparations being a few um in thickness and lightened with ethyl benzoate . They can be studied by natural light or with ultra-violet lighting which renders the melanin grains fluorescent. Either way let us simply say that the evaluation of melanin level by microscopic examination is a laboratory method which enables us to classify the ancient Egyptians unquestionably among the black races
Why did they deny Diop the Melanin Test?
Why did you know who Reject Rameses I and then turn around and except him later?
I am not suprised that Rameses II so called Mummy is steeped in mystery and being widely used by the numerous RACIST groups to claim Eurocentric Egypt. The Drama unfolds when the DNA evidence of the New Kingdom Mummies are released to the public we will see because we Know from the above article that it is no mystery of what the DNA of the New Kindom royal families were.
quote: rasol We also know the Berber langauge and people originated in East Africa, and only migrated to NorthWest Africa in the Neolithic.
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: What evidence indicates that the Berbers came from East Africa.
“The speakers of the earliest Afrasan languages, according to recent studies, were a set of peoples whose lands between 15,000 and 13,000 B.C. stretched from Nubia in the West to far northern SOMALIA in the east.” - C. Ehret, 1996
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This entire thread is based on an apparently innocent question...
quote: gaya's post... Hello all This is my first post and i begin with a question. I saw that the subject has been debated and i would like to get more of it... Ramses II was an African but he altso was white. It...dah, dah, dah
From the beginning of Pharaonic Egyptian history up until the time it lost its sovereignty, there was never such an absurd thing as a white Dynasty; which is what you would need in order to have a white Pharaoh.
Dynasty 1) a sequence of powerful leaders in the same family wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
2) A dynasty is a family or extended family which retains political power across generations, or more generally, any organization which extends dominance in its field even as its particular members change. See also: family dictatorship. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty
The Ramessid Dynasty Rameses I was appointed Pharaoh by General Horemhab, following the general's political coup against the 18th dynasty royals (Ikhnaton/Tutankhamen/Ay). In fact, the Ramessids were a Lower Egyptian mercenary family that had gained favor with the general. Rameses' wife's name was Satrê and there seems to be some evidence that she was, like the wives of his successors, a member of the same mercenary clan from which Rameses sprang.
There's still far too little information on the women who legitimized the throne of Egypt...
The bottom line, however, is that in order to achieve legitimacy, both in terms of Egyptian law and tradition, and in the eyes of the people, it was necessary to have as the Queen Mother, a woman from the south. This was a constant throughout Pharaonic Egyptian civilization...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Article: Unravelling the mummy mystery - using DNA
COMPILED BY TONY HIGH
With the advances in science technology, there is now a new "weapon" that can help Egyptologists in their quest to construct the definitive chronology of Egyptian kings, namely DNA testing. The process involves taking minute amounts of tissue samples from a donor that can be broken down into their constituent parts, allowing the identification of individuals, by comparisons to other none samples.
First developed and used as an identification technique in 1985 [xvii]. DNA testing underwent further refining until in 1991, a process known as Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) was developed; whereby DNA can be cloned to produce multiple copies of specific regions of human DNA. These regions can then be examined to see if they are linked genetically to other individuals.
Although DNA testing could and may be able to provide answers to the chronology and genealogy of Egypt's mummies, DNA has been termed as the "genetic fingerprint" of each individual, passing genetic information from one generation to the next by making exact replicas of its self. Therefore, the closer a genetic sequence match is, the higher the probability that the donors share a common ancestry. Furthermore, an individual's genetic fingerprint is influenced by ones parents' genes; each contributing half of their genes to their offspring. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited from the mother, whilst Nuclear DNA is derived from both parents and is much harder to obtain for study.
However, DNA testing is not without its limitations and is not the panacea as is often widely believed.
DNA Replicated. This shows DNA samples decoded into its polymerase chain reaction (PCR) identity. By comparing a test sample E (vs) (shown bottom) against donor samples, it is evident that there is a match with the sample labelled S2.
[xvii] Encarta encyclopaedia 2004
THE LIMITATIONS OF DNA
One of the problems of trying to harvest ancient DNA is that it is one of the first things to undergo decomposition, breaking the strands of DNA into fragments, resulting in the danger of false sequencing.
However, far and away the biggest threat in using DNA is the fear of cross contamination. If a single modern cell contaminates the sample under analysis, it becomes worthless. Therefore, it is imperative that any samples harvested are carried out under the most practically stringent conditions possible.
Through the advent of experimentation, it has been found that teeth are the best source of harvesting "clean" DNA. The outer layer is vigorously cleaned, then the tooth is drilled to gain access to the inner un-contaminated pulp, which is then pulverised and used for DNA testing.
Since mtDNA is maternally inherited, one obvious limitation is in an instance when a mother bears no daughters. Her mtDNA effectively comes to a screeching halt. Later generations will not have a trace of the former generation's mtDNA in this case.
Autosomal (nuclear) DNA is inherited from both a mother and father (50/50), which makes it more reliable to track, as it recombines. In addition to certain mtDNA becoming extinct due to the lack of daughters, we must also consider new mtDNA showing up due to new groups being introduced to a given population. This can also significantly skew any results.
Moreover, the difficulty in harvesting the father’s DNA to prove paternity, limits the value of genetic testing. Dr Hawass of the SCA has always been sceptical of using DNA citing "From what I understand, it is not always accurate and it cannot always be done with complete success when dealing with mummies. Until we know for sure that it is accurate, we will not use it in our research" [xviii].
[xviii] Interview with al-Ahram issue 512
USING DNA
Back in 1993-94 Professor Scott Woodward, a microbiologist from Brigham Young University (USA) was asked to demonstrate the usefulness of DNA, testing on six mummies from the Old Kingdom period, with the aim of providing clues to their sexing and possible genealogies. Woodward was able to determine that two of the mummies had been [accidentally?] placed inside the wrong coffins. Following his success, Woodward was invited to the Cairo Museum sometime during the mid 90’s to examine and harvest tissue samples from 27 royal mummies from the New Kingdom Period, during their removal to a new display room. From the 27 mummies, only 7 yielded successful DNA sequences. However, from his results he was able to determine that Ahmose I had married his full sister Seknet-re and that Amenhotep I's mtDNA was different from Ahmose I, making it highly likely that Ahmose – Nefertari was in actual fact Amenhotep I's mother. Furthermore, according to his DNA evidence, it is highly probable that Amenhotep I was Thutmosis I's father, which opposes conventional wisdom, stating that the 18th dynasty revealed "a very narrow gene pool" [xix].
However Woodward does agree with Wente and Harris on the identity of Thutmose III stating "Thutmose III is identified with a high degree of certainty".
Tutankhamun Amenhotep III
The "Holy Grail" of DNA testing, would without a doubt be the comparison between Tutankhamun, Amenhotep III and Akhenaten's DNA sequences. This dream almost became a reality on December 12th, 2000, when a joint team from Waseda University in Japan and Cairo's Ein Shams University were given permission to take tissue samples.
Unfortunately, the Egyptian Government withdrew permission at the last moment. The SCA rejected the request on the grounds that it represented a threat to the mummy's fragile condition and would, in any case, prove futile.
Hawass again said DNA analysis was out of the question because it would not lead to anything [xx]. Then in 2003, Woodward was approached and given permission by the Egyptian government to harvest tissue samples from Tutankhamun. But once again, the Egyptian Government rescinded, citing reasons of "national security".
Hassan Bassiouni, a genetic researcher at Al-Azhar University, argued that it might prove impossible to establish Tut's lineage by examining the DNA samples because all cells had died many years ago and that they were probably contaminated by liquids and materials used in mummification, as well as natural erosion factors. Nasry Iskander, an Egyptian scientist who has done extensive work on mummies, says Tutankhamun's mummy was in too poor a condition for X-rays to yield any conclusive answers.
He says that in the future, DNA analysis of tissue material might help solve the mystery [xxi]. However, the Egyptian Government did grant permission for Woodward to harvest and sequence mtDNA and Nuclear DNA from Tutankhamun's eldest foetus [xxii] – to date, the results have not been published.
In conclusion, it is apparent that no single individual system for determining a definitive chronology works. But, by combining all the known scientific fields together, including the newest member, CT scanning, perhaps and only then, will the fields of science and Egyptology be able to finally unravel the mystery of the mummies.
Note: At the time of writing this article (Jan 2005), the SCA, took a momentous decision and had the body of Tutankhamun removed from his tomb, in order for it to be CT scanned. It is believed that a DNA sample would be taken, whilst given the opportunity. It is hoped from the results, to finally prove whether the boy king was murdered and with the DNA samples determine his lineage.
*Does anyone have any DNA evidence towards the mummies of the PHAROAH's?
posted
Here is a quote from Balout translated by myself:
quote: Ramesses II was anthropologically a true Mediterranean, a White man, at least a Berber. His white skin has been totally acknowledged by his mummy's melanin, which has been analyzed in Paris.
In addition to what I've said earlier in this thread, I would point out that AE did borrow many things from the Hyksos and kept using them after driving them out because they found them useful regardless of their origin.
Posts: 203 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis: Here is a quote from Balout translated by myself:
quote: Ramesses II was anthropologically a true Mediterranean, a White man, at least a Berber. His white skin has been totally acknowledged by his mummy's melanin, which has been analyzed in Paris.
In addition to what I've said earlier in this thread, I would point out that AE did borrow many things from the Hyksos and kept using them after driving them out because they found them useful regardless of their origin.
How does Balout define "Berber" and a "Mediterranean"? What bearings does this have on what cranial analysis indicate?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I personally hold to Rameses II having some kind of Aamw strain from his mother's father, this quote from Balout leaves enough space for ballroom dancing. And he does waltz all over the floor from "true Mediterranean" (is that like "true Negro?), to unspecified "white man", finally guessing "at least Berber."
Sergi, inventor of the Mediterranean race, recognized nearly the full spectrum of African and southern European skin tones among the "true Mediterraneans." As a Mediterranean, Sergi craniofacially ranked Ramses II with king Mtesa of Uganda.
Gnawa do consider Imazighen white but not white like the European. Time and time again posters here have presented the fact of Berber phenotypical heterogeneity. White like the Harratine? White like the south Sahara Tuareg kels? White like the Moroccans of the Sous and the Adrar? Oh, no no! Only the overly European mothers type of Kabyle or Riffian is supposed to spring in mind at the mention of Berber. But this is Balout begging to save the last dance for the least measure of whiteness, that is, except for melanin tests.
But what's pertinent, as to skin colour, is the raw data reported in the Paris melanin analysis and how it was arrived at.
Can you share that with us, please? Thank you.
quote:Originally posted by Pax Dahomensis: Here is a quote from Balout translated by myself:
quote: Ramesses II was anthropologically a true Mediterranean, a White man, at least a Berber. His white skin has been totally acknowledged by his mummy's melanin, which has been analyzed in Paris.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes I sure would like to see the melanin dosage test results as well, especially since this is the first I ever heard of such tests being done on Ramses. It seems odd that after all the furor of Diop's investigation, it seems that this test was done with little or no publicity.
Do we know who RamsesII's mother's father was or is this speculation based on dna?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everything is a challenge here. How can somebody challenge something before first independently investigating it?
What does your research tell you the name of Ramses II maternal grandfather is? Did you ignore the name and occupation I gave out and their similarity to an earlier personage or do you just dispute them and the possibility they suggest?
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
Do we know who RamsesII's mother's father was or is this speculation based on dna?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. My question was an honest one and not meant to be a challenge to you per se. However, you did mention:
quote: While I personally hold to Rameses II having some kind of Aamw strain from his mother's father,
Which sparked my curiosity since I have never seen anything definitive on who RamessesII's mother's father was outside a few statues and maybe some passages in heiroglyphics. So there must some substantial ancient Egyptian data on it in the form of heiroglyphs or artwork and there may even be some dna results somewhere in the mix. Because most of what I have seen, including that on Myra's webpage, is not enough to get any sort of details about RamsessII's mother or mother's father. Therefore, the evidence for the ancestry of RamessesII's mother's father would still be based on speculation since we dont have his mummy that I know of, or that of his daughter (RamsesII's mother). Make sense? So I was basically aksing what you are basing your opinion on. That's all. Don't you agree that the hypothesis based purely on a person's name is a form of speculation? Especially since an Egyptian royal could have many names and titles?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it doesn't make sense. The names of Rameses II's mother and father are known and the names of his mother's mother and father are neither speculative or elusive.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...the evidence for the ancestry of RamessesII's mother's father would still be based on speculation since we dont have his mummy that I know of, or that of his mother. Make sense?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I really don't agree and if it were deemed by you as evidence in your favor neither would you. Anything goes to win an argument. We can begin to postulate that everything is speculative. One can always gather doubts about anything easily enough, I mean without paternity and maternity tests do we realy know who anyone's parents really are? And then who's really the father, the guy himself, one of his brothers, the father of them all, or their granddaddy?
Again the names in themselves aren't proof but are suggestive. If you flat out reject the suggestion or just find it weak then fine with me. But don't say we don't know the names. We do know the names.
In any event the names and the occupation raise certain flags for me. The thing to do is launder those flags and see how well they hold their color. Maybe not too well but then well enough to fly.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Don't you agree that the hypothesis based purely on a person's name is a form of speculation? Especially since an Egyptian royal could have many names and titles?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course you know that at one point Egyptologists actually created the term "Mediterranean Race" to describe people who were dark skinned with so-called "white" features. This is obviously a bunch of nonsense and is no longer considered scientifically valid. There are NO features that are unique to a skin color. All features of human beings are PURELY a result of environment. People in Egypt from ancient times were tropically adapted, meaning adapted to the subtropical environment in which Egypt sits. Therefore, they would have had dark skin, which is the SAME reason the MOST Africans have had dark skin. The ONLY time you get extreme differences between populations in Africa is due to the influx of people from more non temperate climates, like northern Europe and Asia.
Actually, the term Mediterranean as a racial term was coined by a anthropologist named Guilselpi Sergi to describe everybody from southern Europeans,Dravidians,Eastern Africans,Nubians,and ancient Egyptians. Many times its simply used as an euphanism for Africans with very dark skin but what is considered more narrow features. I recommend you read the article by Wyatt McGaffey entitled 1966 Concepts of Race in the Historiography of. Northeast Africa. Journal of African History. VII, 1:1-17
I have this article if anyone would like it emailed to them.
I have not read this, could you send it to Myra to perhaps add to her website?
can someone please give me the address of Myra's website.
Thank you...
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: No I really don't agree and if it were deemed by you as evidence in your favor neither would you. Anything goes to win an argument. We can begin to postulate that everything is speculative. One can always gather doubts about anything easily enough, I mean without paternity and maternity tests do we realy know who anyone's parents really are? And then who's really the father, the guy himself, one of his brothers, the father of them all, or their granddaddy?
Again the names in themselves aren't proof but are suggestive. If you flat out reject the suggestion or just find it weak then fine with me. But don't say we don't know the names. We do know the names.
In any event the names and the occupation raise certain flags for me. The thing to do is launder those flags and see how well they hold their color. Maybe not too well but then well enough to fly.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Don't you agree that the hypothesis based purely on a person's name is a form of speculation? Especially since an Egyptian royal could have many names and titles?
Maybe I was misunderstood, I agree we may know the names of RamsesII's mother and mother's father, but we dont know a whole lot more than that, especially about ethnicity or tribal and clan affiliations. Thats what I was trying to get at. While names are very suggestive, I am just saying that outside of dna or physical evidence, it is mostly speculation, since we dont have a lot of "concrete" evidence about these two people. So it is not slight against you, per se, just an acknowledgement of the lack of data with which to base a conclusion....IMO.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that Ramses I had enough black blood to be considered black BUT all the other Ramses would not be considered black by African standards...screw what whites say..Rameside era was an asiatic(non-royal) dyansty the Royal blood line ran out with king Tut hence the fetises found. Just because the Ramseside dynasty was asiatic by race does not mean they were not Egyptian...if you were Egyptian you were Egyptian, Egypt was not like America today where they still subjegate non whites even if they have been in the u.s.a for 100's of years. I think it would help in this forum if people were very concise about the difference between "race(phenotypes by white standards), true race(by haplotypes), nationality(country) and continental(continent) I've observed some posts on the issue of race and I think that discerning these 4 categories will be very helpful in articulating certain points i.e Ramses II by race=Asiatic by true race=mixed (Asiatic with some Africoid), nationality=Egyptian, Continental= African
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: [QB] I believe that Ramses I had enough black blood to be considered black BUT all the other Ramses would not be considered black by African standards
...and this claim is based on what, and what are African standards of being "black"?
quote:Senkhemdjed: ...screw what whites say..Rameside era was an asiatic(non-royal) dyansty the Royal blood line ran out with king Tut hence the fetises found. Just because the Ramseside dynasty was asiatic by race does not mean they were not Egyptian..
Again, based on what? Linguistics, nationality, bio-anthropology? It is interesting that 'objective' data already provided, goes ignored, while claims to the contrary without any 'objective' data, takes precedence.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on lineage they were asiatics this was an asiatic dynasty BUT they were Egyptians what ist the big deal? There were asiatic dynasties in egypt you know
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL These are not speculations you should research the Rameside era...asiatics were in egypt as early as the 6th dynasty and many came in the 12th dynasty hell that was over a thousand years before the time of Ramses or Horemheb so how is it so hard to understand many asiatics werei n Egypt? Ramses were not royals and were a military family and the earlier post was right Horemheb chose the Ramses to rule because of so many foreigners.
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rameside era was not an era of asiatics. I dont know what Senkhemdjed is talking about. What proof is their that The Ramses era was asiatic. People need to show why they think that The ramses era was asiatic. Not just say that it was asiatic. I am having a hard time thinking of Ramses as asiatics.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: LOL These are not speculations you should research the Rameside era
So why the stalling. Where is that easily available 'objective' substantiation, if it is as obvious as you are pretending it to be?
I've done my research, and the results don't agree with your claims. I suggest you look back into the thread, and see, if you can address the data I provided earlier.
quote:Senkhemdjed: ...asiatics were in egypt as early as the 6th dynasty and many came in the 12th dynasty hell that was over a thousand years before the time of Ramses or Horemheb so how is it so hard to understand many asiatics werei n Egypt?
What has the Hyksos or the Persians have to do with the Rameses family? Those groups in fact, had their own Gods, and even maintained some of the cultural elements they had come with, even as they tried to assimilate into the Egyptian culture. Dare say the same with the Rameses!
quote:Senkhemdjed: Ramses were not royals and were a military family and the earlier post was right Horemheb chose the Ramses to rule because of so many foreigners.
Now of course you know that none of this nonesense has any bearings on the substantiations that are still required of you, concerning these questionable claims of yours.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of Egyptian Asiatic do you not understand? Ramses II was not Black if that makes you understand it better I don't know how to articulate any better bro..I'm trying to honestly..not all of the egyptians were blacks I'm sure you knew that and the Rameside era of pharoahs(to say specifically) were not black just because they had some black in them thats all I'm saying.
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: What part of Egyptian Asiatic do you not understand?
What part of "substantiation for your questionable" claims, do you not understand?
quote:Senkhemdjed: Ramses II was not Black if that makes you understand it better I don't know how to articulate any better bro..
Based on what parameters bro, aside from your speculations...yet again?
quote:Senkhemdjed: I'm trying to honestly...
...to accomplish nothing. I agree with this.
quote:Senkhemdjed: not all of the egyptians were blacks I'm sure you knew that
Non-sequitur. Next...
quote:Senkhemdjed: and the Rameside era of pharoahs(to say specifically) were not black just because they had some black in them thats all I'm saying.
What you are saying is nonesensical. Unless you can clarify your claims with 'specifics', and coherently with objective SUBSTANTIATION, you aren't really accomplishing anything here, but expressing wishful thinking. Nobody cares for personal wishful thinking of any poster. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok wait I am not a white person trying to make egypt white but at the same time I think you are going a little overboard trying to make it black..I know the lineage from books I am looking for a link for the lineage and it is hard to find but when I find it for you I will post it. There is no need for silly attacks and insults though I'm not some negro dork trying to debate here lol this is a forum for christ sake calm down.
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: Ok wait I am not a white person trying to make egypt white but at the same time I think you are going a little overboard trying to make it black..
Rubbish! Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
quote:Senkhemdjed I know the lineage from books I am looking for a link for the lineage and it is hard to find but when I find it for you I will post it.
Good, because anything short of objective analysis, which means also backing claims with 'objective' substantiation, is unacceptable.
quote:Senkhemdjed: There is no need for silly attacks and insults though I'm not some negro dork trying to debate here lol this is a forum for christ sake calm down.
You are the only one responsible for attacking or insulting...no one else's intelligence, but your own. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you have the situation reversed. If anything the 19th dynasty was northeast African with a little Levantine in them.
As for black and white it's unlikely they were white in the sense of modern day Greeks or Turks, or "white" in the sense of modern day Syrians or Lebanese who do have levels of European whiteness from Circassian and Slavic slave mothers, Crusader invasion fathers, and French colonial laisans of various sorts.
Considering the Aamw of New Kingdom times its instructive for ALL to examine the art to notice there were Aamw of, (excuse me), "negro" facial features.
See for instance:
Donald B. Redford Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992 plate 21
Cyril Aldred The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art Vol. 3 London: Alec Tiranti, 1965 plates 144 & 148
Carel J. Du Ry Art of the Near and Middle East New York: Harry N. Abrams, page 234
Benjamin Mazar, Ph.D. Views of the Biblical World Vol. 4 Jerusalem: International Publishing Co., 1961 page 275
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: ... the Rameside era of pharoahs(to say specifically) were not black just because they had some black in them thats all I'm saying.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senkhemdjed, I ask that you please refrain from name calling. Supercar, did not call you a name so I ask for you to refrain from name calling. Let's keep debates civil. Nothing wrong with debate but please make it civil.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing supports the weak claim of the Rameside family being Asiatics, much less a dynasty of foreigners like say, the "Hyksos", Greeks, Persians, or "Libyans"; not linguistics, not history, not culture, and certainly, not bio-anthropology!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Of course you know that at one point Egyptologists actually created the term "Mediterranean Race" to describe people who were dark skinned with so-called "white" features. This is obviously a bunch of nonsense and is no longer considered scientifically valid. There are NO features that are unique to a skin color. All features of human beings are PURELY a result of environment. People in Egypt from ancient times were tropically adapted, meaning adapted to the subtropical environment in which Egypt sits. Therefore, they would have had dark skin, which is the SAME reason the MOST Africans have had dark skin. The ONLY time you get extreme differences between populations in Africa is due to the influx of people from more non temperate climates, like northern Europe and Asia.
Actually, the term Mediterranean as a racial term was coined by a anthropologist named Guilselpi Sergi to describe everybody from southern Europeans,Dravidians,Eastern Africans,Nubians,and ancient Egyptians. Many times its simply used as an euphanism for Africans with very dark skin but what is considered more narrow features. I recommend you read the article by Wyatt McGaffey entitled 1966 Concepts of Race in the Historiography of. Northeast Africa. Journal of African History. VII, 1:1-17
I have this article if anyone would like it emailed to them.
It's amazing they even considered putting east africans including early nubians in the(meditterranean race) narrow featured area,some(NOT MOST)nubians today have the narrow features more or less and still are black ,but early ones (EXCEPT SOME IN LOWER NUBIA IN DIFFERENT TIME PERIODS AND EGYPT),what non-sense,even most early egyptians LIKE the nubians could not fit in that area like most other africans AND THE ONLY thing narrow about most early egyptians was the head,not the noses and most early nubians had/have broad heads and noses and in kush proper including southern nubia all have broad noses,you could see it in the art if it is not really idealized. most kushite art show more or less the true features even if some of it is more idealized.
These so-called researchers on africa even at one time put the songhay,bantu,mande in that area,few still today would say most africans would fit in that area and would say most africans are not even from africa. Just more non-sense and game playing.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's amazing they even considered putting east africans including early nubians in the(meditterranean race)
I agree with you Kenndo. This is why we must not fall for the non-scientific Eurocentric ruse of dividing Africans into so called mixed and un-mixed.
Europeans are not divided into mixed versus unmixed regardless of any amount of data showing their history of diverse native european, southwest asian, east asian and african ancestry, and diverse phenotyes.
Yet Eurocentrists try very hard to keep other peoples divided along such racialist lines.
Some call this 'lumping' vs. 'splitting'. But it is a scam as Europeans 'lump' themselves, 'split' others, and then attempt to catagorise others in terms of mixture into European race typology - regardless of the lack of any actual European ancestry.
This is not accidental, it's tactical, and hypocritical - a form of psychological warfare.
This brings me to...
Eurocentrists and the loony need for "white" Km.t..
This discussion of Ramses is and example of this scam.
Stating that the Ramses are 'white' is as LUDICROUS as stating that Cleopatra is black.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's amazing they even considered putting east africans including early nubians in the(meditterranean race)
I agree with you Kenndo. This is why we must not fall for the non-scientific Eurocentric ruse of dividing Africans into so called mixed and un-mixed.
Europeans are not divided into mixed versus unmixed regardless of any amount of data showing their history of diverse native european, southwest asian, east asian and african ancestry, and diverse phenotyes.
Yet Eurocentrists try very hard to keep other peoples divided along such racialist lines.
Some call this 'lumping' vs. 'splitting'. But it is a scam as Europeans 'lump' themselves, 'split' others, and then attempt to catagorise others in terms of mixture into European race typology - regardless of the lack of any actual European ancestry.
This is not accidental, it's tactical, and hypocritical - a form of psychological warfare.
This brings me to...
Eurocentrists and the loony need for "white" Km.t..
This discussion of Ramses is and example of this scam.
Stating that the Ramses are 'white' is as LUDICROUS as stating that Cleopatra is black.
There is nothing loony about it. It is well planned, thought out and has a very distinct purpose. Europeans "must" have a white kmt. To them, it is the center of their existence and cause, since it represents the pinnacle of human conscious achievement and the unified force of the all knowing, all powerful, manifest will of god. Therefore, no matter what we say here on Egyptsearch or what new research is done to the contrary, the Egyptological establishment will continue to push Egypt as a "white" culture. This is because it legitimizes their power and control over the minds of the people as well as reinforces their opinion of themselves as the "masters" of the world. Therefore, they must keep Egypt as a "white" civilization, since that is one of the keys to civilization itself.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, an advocate for the so-called 'white' Kmt in this day and age, is asking to be ridiculed and not taken seriously in the arena of debate, and for lettered scholars, credibility is on the line. Dedicated fact-seekers will NOT be stopped from spreading facts and the realities of African heritages, as done here and elsewhere, no matter what any establishment says to the contrary. In fact, it only underlies the reality that there are many voiceless and vociferous folks out there, who have control over their minds, and will not tolerate the handing out of that authority to some other; this is no small crowd by any means. The key here is not to make a distorter to openly acknowledge facts, which the distorter already knows to be the case, but to continue to expose the fragility of the base with which the distorter operates his/her ideology from. For instance, what so-called 'serious' scholar will risk coming here, advancing the silly notion of a 'white' kmt? That so-called scholar is sure to have his/her case, swiftly obliterated, precisely because overwhelming facts to the contrary, are available within the scholarly community. The various sources and findings put forth both here and elsewhere on a daily basis, are from actual experts of respective fields, and hence, shows that the facts are readily available within scholarly circles. So, no so-called serious scholar can come here, and act as though the facts disseminated, are just the narrow ideas of a small clique; the shocking reality of that delusion, will sink in quite rapidly.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got a message from a guy named "neal" if he is here he can tell you about the ramside era I can't find a website for the geneology but I'm still looking. I dont see why the lack of prognethis in the jaw and hook nose doesn't give this simple thing away lol from just the mummy alone but oh well I'm still looking
-------------------- Oderint dum metuant!
"Let them hate as long as they fear!" Posts: 33 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: I got a message from a guy named "neal" if he is here he can tell you about the ramside era I can't find a website for the geneology but I'm still looking. I dont see why the lack of prognethis in the jaw and hook nose doesn't give this simple thing away lol from just the mummy alone but oh well I'm still looking
Have you considered the possibility that there is NO substantial data for RamsesII's genealogy and that the idea of him being asiatic is based PURELY on speculation? For example, "his family was from the north, so he MUST have had some "asiatic" blood...... therefore he was white". That is all based on an a-priori argument that northern Egyptians in the dynastic era were MOSTLY mixed with asiatic and levantine populations. That a-priori notion is false and since we dont know a WHOLE lot about RamsesI or his parents and where they came from, it is all speculation. One of the ways that many egyptologists use to introduce "asiatic" or "white" features into a particular period or pharoah is the family history. Since there are many missing mummies and data for various periods and the families of various pharoahs, many times these "gaps" are automatically filled with "lost" asiatic bloodlines either from harems, diplomatic marriages, mercenaries, migrations or any thing else they can use to justify the arbitrary insertion of asiatic, near eastern or "white" blood. The point is that they use the absence of family data to automatically introduce foreign blood into the Egyptian royal line, contradicting the tons of data showing how close knit most dynasties were, with much intermarriage and therefore making the possibility of foreign blood on the throne highly unlikely (this goes for any monarchy, ancient or modern). As a matter of fact, they introduce asiatic features even when the family data IS available, but it is still based mostly on speculation. So this shows the lengths some will go through to prove near eastern or eurasian connections to Egyptian pharoahs, even if there is NO direct data to support it. Then they try and act as if their speculations are hard evidence and proven facts.....
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Senkhemdjed: I dont see why the lack of prognethis in the jaw and hook nose doesn't give this simple thing a away
You can determine skin color by prognethism and curved nose?
Do you have scientific data to this effect?
Also, does this mean that the prognathisms and lack of a hook nose in other KM.t such as "King Tut" would too give them away?
How about prognathisms, curly hair, darker skin in Romans, Italians, Spaniards, Greeks, Jews and Arabs? Does this "give them away?" If not, why not?
We must apply equal and logical standards objectively - otherwise we are merely rationalising poorly formulated bias, and trying to 'lol' it off.
This thread has presented no evidence whatsoever that Rameses II was actually "white".
Without a doubt! Senkhemdjeb comes up with more pseudo-scholarship, while it is clear that he/she is unable to address, or perhaps even understand the earlier studies I provided on the cranial remains. Findings therein, belie Senkhemdjeb's not so thought-through claims above.
Talking about the so-called hook nose; what does that prove?
There are a number of Africans, including in East Africa, whose cranial forms will conform to Senkhemdjed's trivial claims...
...these folks sport varying degrees of 'hooked' noses. This means that they must be "Asiatic", right!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's amazing they even considered putting east africans including early nubians in the(meditterranean race)
I agree with you Kenndo. This is why we must not fall for the non-scientific Eurocentric ruse of dividing Africans into so called mixed and un-mixed.
Europeans are not divided into mixed versus unmixed regardless of any amount of data showing their history of diverse native european, southwest asian, east asian and african ancestry, and diverse phenotyes.
Yet Eurocentrists try very hard to keep other peoples divided along such racialist lines.
Some call this 'lumping' vs. 'splitting'. But it is a scam as Europeans 'lump' themselves, 'split' others, and then attempt to catagorise others in terms of mixture into European race typology - regardless of the lack of any actual European ancestry.
This is not accidental, it's tactical, and hypocritical - a form of psychological warfare.
This brings me to...
Eurocentrists and the loony need for "white" Km.t..
This discussion of Ramses is and example of this scam.
Stating that the Ramses are 'white' is as LUDICROUS as stating that Cleopatra is black.
There is nothing loony about it. It is well planned, thought out and has a very distinct purpose. Europeans "must" have a white kmt. To them, it is the center of their existence and cause, since it represents the pinnacle of human conscious achievement and the unified force of the all knowing, all powerful, manifest will of god. Therefore, no matter what we say here on Egyptsearch or what new research is done to the contrary, the Egyptological establishment will continue to push Egypt as a "white" culture. This is because it legitimizes their power and control over the minds of the people as well as reinforces their opinion of themselves as the "masters" of the world. Therefore, they must keep Egypt as a "white" civilization, since that is one of the keys to civilization itself.
Not just whites are trying to rewrite history of egypt but some arabs like hawass and others and now they know nubia was the mother of egypt and now they know it too reach the highest point(a greater highest point than even egypt) of human achievment,couscious and the other stuff you have mention as well they have to attack the mother now as well. I do not know what they are teaching some kids in egypt now but lately i have seen some rewritting of incorrect history of egypt and nubia from some modern egyptians themselves and this might be a growing problem. I WONDER if ausar could show some light on what is being taught even in egypt.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: I dont see why the lack of prognethis in the jaw and hook nose doesn't give this simple thing away lol from just the mummy alone but oh well I'm still looking
...so says reactionary websites, where reactionaries will have us believe that a dried up mummy is a good indicator of "race"...you know, the "blond hair", the "hook nose"; not much different from the claim above. Crackpot scholarship aside, lets deal with real objective material based on Harris' and Wente's 'X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies' , which in any case, makes a mockery of the above claim...
"The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians.According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
----
...but hey, I'm waiting on your material, that is supposedly more objective than these findings. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Another 10 yr old reminder for Mikey The last two sources have maroon Mesopotamians and Dura Europos, also Hazael.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I think you have the situation reversed. If anything the 19th dynasty was northeast African with a little Levantine in them.
As for black and white it's unlikely they were white in the sense of modern day Greeks or Turks, or "white" in the sense of modern day Syrians or Lebanese who do have levels of European whiteness from Circassian and Slavic slave mothers, Crusader invasion fathers, and French colonial laisans of various sorts.
Considering the Aamw of New Kingdom times its instructive for ALL to examine the art to notice there were Aamw of, (excuse me), "negro" facial features.
See for instance:
Donald B. Redford Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992 plate 21
Cyril Aldred The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art Vol. 3 London: Alec Tiranti, 1965 plates 144 & 148
Carel J. Du Ry Art of the Near and Middle East New York: Harry N. Abrams, page 234
Benjamin Mazar, Ph.D. Views of the Biblical World Vol. 4 Jerusalem: International Publishing Co., 1961 page 275
quote:Originally posted by Senkhemdjed: [qb] ... the Rameside era of pharoahs(to say specifically) were not black just because they had some black in them thats all I'm saying.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anwar Sadat was a Nubian so of course he would look similar to The Ancient Egyptians. That's because The Nubians are The Ancient Egyptians themselves
Posts: 371 | From: Queens,NY | Registered: Feb 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Reject Rameses I and then turn around and except him later?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Everything is a challenge here. How can somebody challenge something
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic