Ancient Egypt not only experienced a golden age but had an interesting relationship with other nations mainly during the 4th dynastic period. The life size portrait heads represent servants, mercenaries, courtiers, guards, workmen, and even spouses all which are members of the royal family who witnessed the work of the pyramid buildings and the sphinx in lower Egypt.
During the pyramid building age olive oil, servants, cedar products, hard stones such as diorite were acquired either by military expeditions or trade with confederacies in the Near East. Most possibly, these heads not only exist to represent the deceased but to show particular political relations Egypt had with less sophisticated foreign confederacies from Palestine, Aegean and possibly even as far as the Asia minor during the period.
As of now, just over 30 reserve heads have been found with some lost or not found.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Here are some:
Reserve Head of a Man. (Prince?) Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551–2528 B.C.E.).
From Giza, tomb G 4440
This one was originally identified as the Nubian/Negroid wife of the tomb owner. Recent study, however, suggests that it probably represents the male owner of the tomb. Although the face has affinities with later depictions of Nubians, it also bears a striking resemblance to statues of Fourth Dynasty kings and undoubtedly represents an Egyptian. The variations among reserve heads probably reflect the diversity in Egypt's population. - Metmuseum
Reserve head of an official? wife? Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551–2528 B.C.E.).
From Giza, tomb G 4440
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head of a woman. Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551–2528 B.C.E.).
White limestone portrait of a woman with delicate and refined features marked by deep set eyes and a sharply pointed nose; Ears broken, both nostrils chipped. Otherwise perfect.
From Giza, tomb G 4540 A.
Reserve Head of a official?. Giza; Egyptian, Old Kingdom, 2630–2524 B.C.
Limestone reserve head of an official. It is apparently unfinished. It is chipped at the bridge of the nose. There is a large mass of plaster (?) adhering to the left cheek. It is scored down the back of the head and battered. The head has an elongated shape.
From Giza cemetery, G. 4940, B.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head - Egyptian, Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4, probably reign of Khufu, 2551–2528 B.C.
Portrait head of a man, splashed with dark spots. The hair is cut close to the scalp, like a tight-fitting cap. Both of his ears are broken. There is a bruise on the right side of the face, near the eye.
From Giza, tomb G 4140.
Reserve Head of Nofer?. Giza; Dyn. 4, late reign of Khufu to mid-, 2551–2494 B.C.
We may not know exactly what Nofer looked like, but we can be sure that he had a large aquiline nose. This aspect is featured prominently on the north doorjamb from his chapel as well as on the reserve head found at the bottom of the tomb's shaft. The scale with which Nofer is represented on the walls - three times bigger than other figures - and the fourteen different offices enumerated there demonstrate that he was a prominent official in Dynasty 4. Among his titles, both real and honorary, were overseer of the treasury, overseer of the king's regalia, overseer of the arsenal, secretary of all the secrets of the king, estate manager, and royal scribe.
From Giza, tomb G 2110.
Posted by Vansertimavindicated (Member # 20281) on :
As many of you have already figured out, this entire board consists of ONE sick degenerate that has created ficticious names to talk to itself in. Just a few of these fake names include CLYDE WINTERS, MIKE111,Egmond Codfried, Djehuti, NAMERTHOTH and THE LIONESS. These are just a FEW of the fake names that spend all day talking to itself because the ENTIRE site is comprised of this same ONE sick degenerate that has created fake names to talk to itself ALL DAY LONG! The only REAL and legitimate poster on this site is MYSELF and the rest cannot be trusted! DO NOT CLICK ON ANY OF THE LINKS OR BANNERS ON THIS SITE, unless they are links that I provide for you! There is NOONE on this site that can be trusted but me. The only links on this site that can be trusted are the ones that I provide for you! Here is a link that you can use as a resource and can be trusted! http://www.raceandhistory.com/
When you have finished reading this post check out this site to learn the truth about history and ALL civilzations. Do NOT be fooled by the real history link that the filthy monkey created using the race and history link as a guide. This is the ONLY site that can be trusted http://www.raceandhistory.com/
Isnt it funny how this one little link destroys all of the charts, graphs and pics that the filthy monkey lies to us with? You now understand why the filthy monkey continues to spam the board with photos of modern day populations that had absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient Egypt
The next time one of these degenerates tries to tell you a lie just refer the moonkey to the latest DNA analysis on the ancient Egyptians, and then tell the faggot to crawl back in its cave!
The pig just keeps showing us why these crackers should not exist! They have genetically recessive genes and ion 50 years they will be the minority in BRITAIN!! THAT ALONE SHOULD TELL YOU THAT THEY WILL EVENTUALLY DIE OUT LIKE THE UNATURAL ABOMINATIONS THAT THEY ARE!
Look at the low IQ monkey with its charts and pictures LOL tHE dna analysis does not matter to this monkey, because it lives in a world of fantasy! lol
Folks, the monkey performs at my commend. I am this monkeys master!But then again all one needs to do is take a cursury look at this monkeys youtube page to understand the tenuous grip on reality that this monkey has! LOL http://www.youtube.com/user/phoenician7
When the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians what does a low IQ monkey do???
The low IQ monkey shows pictures and charts and munbles on and on about haplogroups while completely ignoring what the DNA analysis of the ancient Egyptians actually says LOL
the DNA analysis irrefutably shows that the modern day populations of South Africa, West Africa anmd central Africa are the ancestors of the ancient Egyptians. Thats what the DNA says, thats what the science says. This monkey in all of its fake names is very pathetic isnt it?
Head of a woman (Princess Iabtet) - Egyptian, Old Kingdom, Dyn. 4
The reserve head is shown without a wig, revealing a smooth haircut which has been clearly delineated. The hairline disappears above the ears. The hairline on the forehead has been reworked with light cuts of an adze in order to change an original male type of straight hairline into the female cut which is parted in the middle. Despite the damage inflicted to the left side of the head, its traits are well-preserved. The long, narrow face with its severe, straight mouth has its eyes placed high in the skull. - Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim
Mastaba G 4650.
Reserve Head of unknown man?. Giza; late Dyn. 4
A reserve-head of a male was found in the debris at bottom of shaft A. Professor E Smith considers the head to represent a foreigner due to the distinctive un-Egyptian type of skulls from the cemetery where this head was found.
From Giza, G 4340 - Cairo Museum JE 46218.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head of unknown man?. Giza; late Dyn. 4
A reserve-head of a male was found in shaft A. Professor E Smith considers this head to also represent a foreigner due to the distinctive un-Egyptian type of skulls from the cemetery where this head was found.
From Giza, G 4640 - Cairo Museum JE 46216.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head found in the tomb of Kanofer. Giza; late Dyn. 4
Head was previously thought to represent the actual owner of the tomb Kanofer. Now this head is believed to be female and most likely represents Kanofer's wife.
From Giza, Tomb of Kanofer (G 1203) - Phoebe A Hearst Museum, Berkeley
Reserve Head of a man? Dynasty 4, ca. 2500 B.C.
From Giza, Mastaba 4350 Discovered by H. Junker, 1914. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head of a unknown female Giza; mid - late Dyn. 4
A female reserve-head was found in the burial chamber.
From Giza, (G 4560) - Cairo Museum JE 44974
Reserve Head of a unknown man? Egyptian, Old Kingdom, dynasty 4, 2575–2465 B.C.
From Giza, G 7560 B - Museum of Botson
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Unidentified Reserve Head, old kingdom Dyn, 4, reign of Khufu or Khafre ca. 2551–2528 B.C
Giza Eastern Cemetery 7000, Mastaba 7560 B
Reserve Head of a unknown man - 4th or 5th Dynasty, 2680-2420 B.C.
No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
With the exception of two of the heads, look at how narrow the noses are, and compare the heads with pictures of Europeans or any other group who are known to have narrow averages in nasal index. You won't find them consistently tall and narrow like on most of these heads.
^Male and female German athletes
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head of an unknown man from unidentified mastaba - old kingdom Dyn, 4 or 5
Giza Eastern Cemetery - Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 37832
Reserve Head of Kahotep found at Abusir - 5th Dynasty 2450 BC.
Altes Museum, Berlin.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
With the exception of two of the heads, look at how narrow the noses are, and compare the heads with pictures of Europeans or any other group who are known to have narrow averages in nasal index. You won't find them consistently tall and narrow like on most of these heads.
What I observe is that the reserve heads seem to have longer and narrower faces than the majority of Egyptian sculptures. Most other Egyptian statues have short, rounded faces with high cheekbones rather like Sudanese people. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the reserve heads are fake, but they do seem phenotypically different from most ancient Egyptians. I'd wager a lot of them are of non-Egyptian ethnic extraction.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
With the exception of two of the heads, look at how narrow the noses are, and compare the heads with pictures of Europeans or any other group who are known to have narrow averages in nasal index. You won't find them consistently tall and narrow like on most of these heads.
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): Most possibly, these heads not only exist to represent the deceased but to show particular political relations Egypt had with less sophisticated foreign confederacies from Palestine, Aegean and possibly even as far as the Asia minor during the period.
Djehuti I can't believe what I'm hearing, way out of line Basically your pals here are saying that the reserve heads don't fit into a"True Negro" expectation. You have got to step in and correct these brothers, they seem to be "slippin' "
next thing you know they will be saying these aren't represantive of the AE's
Sesostris I
Userkaf
Ranofer
Ramesses
Tanwetamani
Menkaure
Rameses
Khafre
^^^^ surely some of them could pass for reerve heads !
.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
This thread is for provenance or contributing discussion of the reserve heads dating to the pyramid building age, not Pharaohs who you believe pass for some reserve heads. If your purpose is to disrupt or say nothing relevant to on topic thread discussion then please observe thread only or post at your own thread.
- Thanks.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
There's a lot of fake arts in Ancient Egyptian archeology. Either "ancient" fakes (aka later Egyptian dynasty including foreign ones like Romans, Assyrians, Greeks, or modern fakes). Also later foreign Egyptian dynasty (and non-foreign obviously) often modified past Egyptian art piece. Both are common phenomena. I'm not sure of their provenance, but those relics looks very Roman to me.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head of man found in the tomb of Snefruseneb 4th - 5th Dynasty
Snefruseneb?
Snefruseneb?
Giza - G 4240 A- Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 46215
Anonymous female? Reserve Head from Giza - 4th-5th Dynasty
From G 5020-Annex (perhaps originally from G 4240 A tomb of Snefruseneb?)
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: There's a lot of fake arts in Ancient Egyptian archeology. Either "ancient" fakes (aka later Egyptian dynasty including foreign ones like Romans, Assyrians, Greeks, or modern fakes). Also later foreign Egyptian dynasty (and non-foreign obviously) often modified past Egyptian art piece. Both are common phenomena. I'm not sure of their provenance, but those relics looks very Roman to me.
This is true, many fakes or alterations to Ancient Egyptian archeology has been done for mainly political purposes. Albeit, i do not think these Reserve Heads can be considered fake being that on many of these portraits touches of paint has been found dating to the period they were created. I do believe foreign elements are responsible for the appearance of these heads.
Professor E Smith stated skulls inconsistent with the royal family of khufu, khafre etc have been found buried in mastabas at the royal cemetery along with members of the royal family. Does this indicate most of these people the heads represent worked for the royal court or became members of the royal family through marriage (miscegenation)?
Interestingly, Archeologists have found other non Egyptian artifacts and objects such as pottery, inscriptions, and even jewelry from Palestine to even as far as the Asia minor from where a lot of these heads have been found.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
Reserve Head of a Man. (Prince?) Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551–2528 B.C.E.).
From Giza, tomb G 4440
and here is Amenhotep III looking similar in a photo with better lighting:
^^^^ Why do we see this so frequently on Egyptsearch? Because he looks remarkably like a West African.
In fact this reserve head and wall painting of Amenhotep stand out because they are not the most typical looking ancient Egyptians, who are we kidding?
______^^^^ look at the shape of this contour carefully. You don't see that exact shape that much. Menes (?)
^^^^ tell me honestly how many statues of Pharoahs look like this. - Exclude Amenhotep, we just covered him and exclude statues with the nose broken off. There are some but I would say not most. .
. Troll Patrol, show them the Beja and Somalis, they be slippin
^^^ Djehuti, tell these bitches, African diversity right here
. Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
ATTENTION ALL INTELLIGENT POSTERS!
Unless Lioness et al is contributing to on-topic discussion and info of the portrait heads please do not respond to her with claims which will only serve as an instrument in taking this thread off the course.
Note: If you must respond, please respond to trolls by posting to your own thread Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I'm on topic and I think Djehuti and zarahan would agree, the Reserve heads fall within the realm of African diversity, as Swenet teaches the only thing that is not African is the concave facial profile:
Djehuti take over....
lioness productions all day
peace out
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Actually I agree with Swenet. While I don't discount the existence of concave faces among Africans, Swenet is correct that such facial types are vastly more common among Europeans just as prognathic faces are vastly more common among Africans. Of course you are just playing 'Afroloon' advocate by suggesting the Cretan concave face as African. We all know you are just a disingenuous troll.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: What I observe is that the reserve heads seem to have longer and narrower faces than the majority of Egyptian sculptures. Most other Egyptian statues have short, rounded faces with high cheekbones rather like Sudanese people. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the reserve heads are fake, but they do seem phenotypically different from most ancient Egyptians. I'd wager a lot of them are of non-Egyptian ethnic extraction.
What's really funny about your wager Truth, is the fact that these heads very heads you call non-Egyptian are the ones that have been held up as quintessentially Egyptian for a long while now in academia and are displayed in museums for everyone to see. In the meantime, there is a large set of the reserve heads which because of their obvious "negroid" features, have been dubbed 'The Foreign Heads'. These foreign heads have been kept in storage in the closets of museums.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
If these Africans' heads were sculpted, would you count them as non-African foreigners?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually I agree with Swenet. While I don't discount the existence of concave faces among Africans, Swenet is correct that such facial types are vastly more common among Europeans just as prognathic faces are vastly more common among Africans. Of course you are just playing 'Afroloon' advocate by suggesting the Cretan concave face as African. We all know you are just a disingenuous troll.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: What I observe is that the reserve heads seem to have longer and narrower faces than the majority of Egyptian sculptures. Most other Egyptian statues have short, rounded faces with high cheekbones rather like Sudanese people. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the reserve heads are fake, but they do seem phenotypically different from most ancient Egyptians. I'd wager a lot of them are of non-Egyptian ethnic extraction.
What's really funny about your wager Truth, is the fact that these heads very heads you call non-Egyptian are the ones that have been held up as quintessentially Egyptian for a long while now in academia and are displayed in museums for everyone to see. In the meantime, there is a large set of the reserve heads which because of their obvious "negroid" features, have been dubbed 'The Foreign Heads'. These foreign heads have been kept in storage in the closets of museums.
The point about concave facial profiles was an aside, remarks Swenet made about the Minona fisherman.
This thread is about the reserve heads and none of them have concave facial profiles
In fact in this thraed Swenet talks about narrow noses rather than concave facial profiles
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
With the exception of two of the heads, look at how narrow the noses are, and compare the heads with pictures of Europeans or any other group who are known to have narrow averages in nasal index. You won't find them consistently tall and narrow like on most of these heads.
do you agree with this new Swenet narrow noses are lacking in Africaness theory? where's zarahan?
look at this: a)
b)
^^^^^ which looks more like these:
Tanwetamani
Ramesses
Hateshepsut
Amenemhat II
Swenet how does this narrow nose theory of yours apply to Ramesses, Hateshepsut, many others?
I know you can put up many Pharoahs who had wider noses, but deal with these please^^^^^
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You have a point especially when considering 25th dynasty (Nubian) portraits like this:
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ You have a point especially when considering 25th dynasty (Nubian) portraits like this:
Kushite King Tanwetamani 664-656 B.C., 25th Dynasty Egypt
KingTaharqa (?) Reign 690–664 BCE, 25th dynasty
this seems strange, both 25th Dynasty Kushites, but look of entirely different stock
.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
With the exception of two of the heads, look at how narrow the noses are, and compare the heads with pictures of Europeans or any other group who are known to have narrow averages in nasal index. You won't find them consistently tall and narrow like on most of these heads.
^Male and female German athletes
It seems my post has been misinterpreted by our household liar. What I meant to say was that the reserve heads that have come to my attention so far have, as an average, seemingly taller and narrower noses than some other populations who are commonly seen as having a narrow nasal index, such as Europeans, or certain Arab groups, even though we know from the skeletal record that Ancient Egyptians had nasal indices that fell between medium and broad, depending on whether you're looking at Predynastic or Dynastic Egyptians.
^This Ancient Egyptian sample, of which I do not know the provenance, falls in the meso, i.e., Medium range.
EDIT: Actually, the Egyptian sample is modern. Only the black marks are ancient populations.
If the assumption is made that these heads represent realistically depicted random Ancient Egyptians, its kind of peculiar that the noses on the reserve heads should come out taller and narrower than, seemingly, even modern Europeans, who exceeded AE in the frequencies of narrow noses.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If the assumption is made that these heads represent realistically depicted random Ancient Egyptians, its kind of peculiar that the noses on the reserve heads should come out taller and narrower than, seemingly, even modern Europeans, who exceeded AE in the frequencies of narrow noses. [/QB]
^^^ what about this Darod guy's nose? pretty long top to bottom
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: There's a lot of fake arts in Ancient Egyptian archeology. Either "ancient" fakes (aka later Egyptian dynasty including foreign ones like Romans, Assyrians, Greeks, or modern fakes). Also later foreign Egyptian dynasty (and non-foreign obviously) often modified past Egyptian art piece. Both are common phenomena. I'm not sure of their provenance, but those relics looks very Roman to me.
This is true, many fakes or alterations to Ancient Egyptian archeology has been done for mainly political purposes. Albeit, i do not think these Reserve Heads can be considered fake being that on many of these portraits touches of paint has been found dating to the period they were created.
Beside stylistic analysis and other archeological guesswork there's no datation system that can pinpoint with certainty which dynastic period paints from Ancient Egyptians comes from (as far as I know). Is carbone dating possible or precise enough? Was it performed? Even then foreign (Hyksos) element in Ancient Egypt date from relatively early in Ancient Egypt history.
quote: I do believe foreign elements are responsible for the appearance of these heads.
I believe so too.
quote: Interestingly, Archeologists have found other non Egyptian artifacts and objects such as pottery, inscriptions, and even jewelry from Palestine to even as far as the Asia minor from where a lot of these heads have been found.
We can't know for sure the circumstances that brought them there. Were they brought by an expanding Ancient Kemite empire (spoils of wars, gifts, taxes) or from foreign occupiers of Ancient Egypt?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ You have a point especially when considering 25th dynasty (Nubian) portraits like this:
Kushite King Tanwetamani 664-656 B.C., 25th Dynasty Egypt
KingTaharqa (?) Reign 690–664 BCE, 25th dynasty
this seems strange, both 25th Dynasty Kushites, but look of entirely different stock
.
Ancient Kemite art, like most African art, are not made to be realistic but more abstract. The majority of African art pieces are more about symbolism than realism. Often displaying youthfulness and vitality, respect to artistic tradition and convention. We can't look at an art piece and say:"those people looks like this". They are only an artistic depictions of those people and their environment.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ You have a point especially when considering 25th dynasty (Nubian) portraits like this:
this seems strange, both 25th Dynasty Kushites, but look of entirely different stock
.
Ancient Kemite art, like most African art, are not made to be realistic but more abstract. The majority of African art pieces are more about symbolism than realism. Often displaying youthfulness and vitality, respect to artistic tradition and convention. We can't look at an art piece and say:"those people looks like this". They are only an artistic depictions of those people and their environment.
But people here are speculating that the reserve heads might be foreigners.
As per Kush, Swenet had posted a thread showing highly varied hair types in ancient remains:
if one believes that all of these hair types were indigenous to Africa is one thing but to have all these hair types in one region is very odd. This is actually physical evidence that ancient Nubia was not homogeneous. Is seems like that some of them may have not had long term ancestry in Nubia but were still found at the same site. This doesn't necessarily mean they had ancestry form outside Africa. It seems to suggest they had at least had ancestry from different parts of Africa but came together in Nubian settlements as a nationality. Likewise the statues look different
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ You have a point especially when considering 25th dynasty (Nubian) portraits like this:
this seems strange, both 25th Dynasty Kushites, but look of entirely different stock
. ]
Ancient Kemite art, like most African art, are not made to be realistic but more abstract. The majority of African art pieces are more about symbolism than realism. Often displaying youthfulness and vitality, respect to artistic tradition and convention. We can't look at an art piece and say:"those people looks like this". They are only an artistic depictions of those people and their environment.
But people here are speculating that the reserve heads might be foreigners.
I was replying to your post about the Kushite/Nubian statue of Tanwetamani and Nubian statues in general which exhibit a few different artistic styles. I don't know why you bring back to subject to the foreign reserve heads in your reply to my post which was not about that aspect but about the Kushite figures you posted.
Tanwetamani is the nephew of Taharqa btw.
quote: Likewise the statues look different
Having statues looking different doesn't tell much about the ethnicity since often statues OF THE SAME PERSON look different from each other in Ancient Kemites and Kushites art . As I said, imo, it's about different artistic styles not ethnicity (beside fakes and statues that were modified by following Kings obviously).
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Anonymous Battered Reserve Head - Mid - Late 4th Dynasty
from G 7560
Anonymous Battered Reserve Head - Most of face missing, Mid - Late 4th Dynasty
From Giza, Street G 7500 East of Mastaba G 7530-7540; G 7530 Room A. -Boston Museum
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Reserve Head attributed to Princess Meretites, Mid - Late 4th Dynasty
From Giza (G 4140) Tomb of Meretites - Wife: Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 46217
Unknown Reserve Head - Old Kingdom, Mid Dynasty 4 - Early Dynasty 5, ca. 2589-2475 B.C.E
From Giza, East Cemetery - San Antonio Museum of Art
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
Unknown Reserve Head - Old Kingdom, Dynasty 4-5
Head from a limestone statue; eyes originally inlaid; nose lost; remains of a back-pillar. -British Museum
Excavated at Giza by Giovanni Battista Caviglia now resides in the British Museum.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Ancient Kemite art, like most African art, are not made to be realistic but more abstract. The majority of African art pieces are more about symbolism than realism. Often displaying youthfulness and vitality, respect to artistic tradition and convention. We can't look at an art piece and say: "those people looks like this". They are only an artistic depictions of those people and their environment.
Yet even idealistic portrayals are based on reality which is why even if the features don't exactly match those of the actual person that doesn't mean such features in and of themselves are not realistic.
I'm not saying these reserve heads are exact likenesses of the persons they portray, but it's not like their features are somehow unrealistic.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: Ancient Kemite art, like most African art, are not made to be realistic but more abstract. The majority of African art pieces are more about symbolism than realism. Often displaying youthfulness and vitality, respect to artistic tradition and convention. We can't look at an art piece and say: "those people looks like this". They are only an artistic depictions of those people and their environment.
Yet even idealistic portrayals are based on reality which is why even if the features don't exactly match those of the actual person that doesn't mean such features in and of themselves are not realistic.
I'm not saying these reserve heads are exact likenesses of the persons they portray, but it's not like their features are somehow unrealistic.
What you call "idealistic" portrayals is not the only artistic style available and actually done by Ancient Kemites or other African artists.
For example, I don't think this figure is meant to be a realistic or an idealistic portrayal of people or someone:
For example, one of the principle they used is making someone in the form of another (either in the form of a God, animal, Kings - when the person portrayed is not a King). A bit like this with the Na'vi (from the movie Avatar) representation of Angelina Jolie.: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/tutorials/ext//4bcec4d331e37.jpg This does not really looks like Angelina Jolie but we can see the principle behind it. We can see it more easily here: http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/18062/image000.jpg
They do this for abstract, symbolic and traditional purpose.
But I understand your point that Ancient Kemites representation of people like the Na'vi representations above share some similarities with the person they try to portray. That much is evident.
What do you make of Ancient Egyptian art representation of the same person which looks different?
I see 3 possible reasons: 1) One of the representation is fake (and badly copied or copy without knowledge or something). 2) One representation was modified by a later Dynasty. 3) They are 2 representations of the same person but with different artistic styles.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Amun-Ra The Ultimate, in different Eygptian time periods there have been stylistic trends where people get portrayed as a smiliar type. Coffins tend to be like this. However in looking at the reserve heads we find several different types. Some examples:
^^^ this leads one to believe that the reserve heads were not a stylized idealistic type, each one looks different. like an individual They are considered to be some the earliest examples of portrait sculptures
Below are some intersting items, not a reserve heads it is a plaster cast of an actual human face, like what would later become known in European traditions as the death mask:
Modeled plaster cast of a face, 5th-6th dynasty 2513-2191 BCE Giza, West cemetery, shaft 344/346, from the 1912/13 Excavations by H. Junker Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Another:
Plaster death mask, from Giza. 6th dynasty. Gypsum. H 28.5 cm. IN 2386. Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What you call "idealistic" portrayals is not the only artistic style available and actually done by Ancient Kemites or other African artists.
For example, I don't think this figure is meant to be a realistic or an idealistic portrayal of people or someone:
I never said realistic portrayals are the only styles used by Egyptians or even Africans as a whole. My point is that the reserve heads to portray realistic features.
quote:For example, one of the principle they used is making someone in the form of another (either in the form of a God, animal, Kings - when the person portrayed is not a King). A bit like this with the Na'vi (from the movie Avatar) representation of Angelina Jolie.: http://www.pxleyes.com/images/tutorials/ext//4bcec4d331e37.jpg This does not really looks like Angelina Jolie but we can see the principle behind it. We can see it more easily here: http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/18062/image000.jpg
They do this for abstract, symbolic and traditional purpose.
But I understand your point that Ancient Kemites representation of people like the Na'vi representations above share some similarities with the person they try to portray. That much is evident.
What do you make of Ancient Egyptian art representation of the same person which looks different?
I see 3 possible reasons: 1) One of the representation is fake (and badly copied or copy without knowledge or something). 2) One representation was modified by a later Dynasty. 3) They are 2 representations of the same person but with different artistic styles.
I agree with the last (3), though I get your point about artistic symbolism.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: If these Africans' heads were sculpted, would you count them as non-African foreigners?
Side-profile views of the men?
Why Liya Kebede? She is slightly prognathous, has a flat nose and a short round face. Reserve Heads are stereotypically portrayed as orthognathous with long narrow heads and average high narrow nasal indexes. Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population, including the Pharaohs (khufu,khafre,etc) at the period these heads were made.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
What do you make of Ancient Egyptian art representation of the same person which looks different?
I see 3 possible reasons: 1) One of the representation is fake (and badly copied or copy without knowledge or something). 2) One representation was modified by a later Dynasty. 3) They are 2 representations of the same person but with different artistic styles.
I agree with the last (3), though I get your point about artistic symbolism.
All three are well known to be true in mainstream egyptology. In egyptology there's a lot of fake arts either built by later dynasty or post-dynastic people. There's also many statues and such modified by later dynasty (and post dynastic people) to give themselves some ancestrality when they conquered Ancient Kemet. Sometime past vestiges were simply destroyed (robbed) all together, even replaced with others. And there's different artistic styles (and purpose of art) in Ancient Kemet which can attest for the physical difference of some statue even representing the same King. This is all well known in mainstream egyptology.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
Why Liya Kebede? She is slightly prognathous, has a flat nose and a short round face. Reserve Heads are stereotypically portrayed as orthognathous with long narrow heads and average high narrow nasal indexes. Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population, including the Pharaohs (khufu,khafre,etc) at the period these heads were made. [/QB]
Long narrow heads are common to Horn Africans what you sayin?
Look at the reserve heads below (additional related but not reserve heads added) To me there is no sterotypical reserve head they all look different.
Anyway, I ask you, if any of the below were foreigners what might be possible foreign nations that they would be from?
Please indicate on each picture below
A)
B)
C)
D) Plaster death mask, from Giza. 6th dynasty. Gypsum. H 28.5 cm. IN 2386. Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum
with reserve heads we are speaking of the 4th dynasty
this is the most famous, most realistic sculpture of Khafre:
^^^ look at how long and narrow the nose is. **Question: which reserve head including any you posted looks most like Khafre? B) for example in my opinion has no resemblance
below is the only known sculpture of believed by some to be Khufu. It is a 3 inch tall statuette in very poor condition and the proprotion of the head to the body is impossibly too big
^^^ whoever it is this statuette believed by some to be Khufu does not resemble Khafre in the least
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
.
Other 4th dynasty art to compare with the reserve heads:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
Why Liya Kebede? She is slightly prognathous, has a flat nose and a short round face. Reserve Heads are stereotypically portrayed as orthognathous with long narrow heads and average high narrow nasal indexes. Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population, including the Pharaohs (khufu,khafre,etc) at the period these heads were made.
Are you blind or something? Liya shows no prognathism at all but is orthognathous at least judging by the picture above. Her nose is not that flat but is wide at the base (which is typical of Egyptians), her face is actually longer and ovoid.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
@Lioness,
quote:Anyway, I ask you, if any of the below were foreigners what might be possible foreign nations that they would be from?
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians. All apart from B and D i suspect have ancestral ties to the region of western Asia.
A) (Nefer), i believe is an Aamu man judging by his unique characteristics, most likely from the eastern part of the Syrian desert. His ancestry could belong to one of the confederates in Mesopotamia. Appointed as an executive assistant to the king Khafre of the 4th dynasty.
C) (anonymous head?) Extensive information regarding the tomb from where this head was discovered is lost. I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean.
quote: **Question: which reserve head including any you posted looks most like Khafre? B) for example in my opinion has no resemblance
From the frontal view I can see notable resemblances. Despite the different artistic forms.
..
quote:^^^ whoever it is this statuette believed by some to be Khufu does not resemble Khafre in the least
The conditions and sizes of both statues are dissimilar. I dont understand how you can make such a comparison. What accepted resemblances are you looking for with regard to the statues of Khafre and Khufu artistically speaking?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): The conditions and sizes of both statues are dissimilar. I dont understand how you can make such a comparison. What accepted resemblances are you looking for with regard to the statues of Khafre and Khufu artistically speaking?
.
you made the comparison:
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): Reserve Heads are stereotypically portrayed as orthognathous with long narrow heads and average high narrow nasal indexes. Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population, including the Pharaohs (khufu,khafre,etc) at the period these heads were made.
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians.
A) (Nefer), i believe is an Aamu man judging by his unique characteristics, most likely from the eastern part of the Syrian desert. His ancestry could belong to one of the confederates in Mesopotamia. Appointed as an executive assistant to the king Khafre of the 4th dynasty.
C) (anonymous head?) Extensive information regarding the tomb from where this head was discovered is lost. I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean.
^^^ you are making the argument that in the 4th dynasty the people of Egypt included people with foreign ancestry yet at the same time had said: " Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population" So are they represenative of " B.population" of ancient Egypt? keeping in mind Nefer had a prominent position, executive assistant to the king Khafre and that the reserve heads are supposed to represent people close to the royal family if not members
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah): All apart from B and D i suspect have ancestral ties to the region of western Asia.
B) may be a brother of Snefrusonb
D) Plaster death mask, from Giza. 6th dynasty. Gypsum. H 28.5 cm. IN 2386. Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum
How about the below people do they look foreign to you?
Amenemhat II ( I ?)
Seated scribe
.
. ^^^^also if this is what typical Egyptians looked like they looked more like West Africans than Beja or other NA/Horn types.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
@Djehuti
quote: Are you blind or something? Liya shows no prognathism at all but is orthognathous at least judging by the picture above.
Maybe its all in the angle.
From this angle she looks prognathic (slightly). I could be wrong.
quote:Her nose is not that flat but is wide at the base (which is typical of Egyptians)
I'm positively sure her nose is short and flat. Not high / tall and narrow as visibly seen on the Reserve Heads.
quote:her face is actually longer and ovoid
..
Her face looks roundish to me. Could be the angle or maybe because she put on weight lol. I can see what you are saying though. Perhaps me seeing her on tv recently could be the explanation as to why i said what i said.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
@Lioness What are you saying? You just made comparisons between two Pharaohs alone (- Khufu and Khafre) when I was comparing Reserve Heads to each other and the Pharaohs of their time.
quote:you are making the argument that in the 4th dynasty the people of Egypt included people with foreign ancestry, yet at the same time had said: " Clearly not representative of the A.Egyptian population"
Yes and I stand by my statement. The features of the portrait heads are not typical or common of the A.Egypt population dating to their time.
quote:keeping in mind Nefer had a prominent position, executive assistant to the king Khafre and that the reserve heads are supposed to represent people close to the royal family if not members
Nefer's connection with the royal family happened when he was employed and given the position as a prominent official of the King in all places. I do not believe he was a member of the royal family.
quote:^^^^also if this is what typical Egyptians looked like they looked more like West Africans than Beja or other NA/Horn types.
The head represents a North East African, not a West African. Im sure the features of the head is common or similar to millions of those of African descent - north, east, south and west.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Sahel (Siptah),
Do these particular sculptures look like foreign people to you?
Amenemhat II ( I ?)
Seated scribe
Rameses .
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Sahel (Siptah),
Do these particular sculptures look like foreign people to you?
Amenemhat II ( I ?)
Seated scribe
Rameses .
Pretty obvious they are foreigners.
Just consider the Assyrians, when they invaded and conquer people in the middle eastern regions (like Palestine) they usually destroyed everything in sight in term of statues and even get people to leave their village to divide and conquer. They didn't become afro scuptures lovers when they arrived in Ancient Kemet. They destroyed, destroyed, destroyed.
It was a common Modus operandi for them when they conquered other people (obviously mostly from Near Eastern). Other conquerors used to do the same obviously. Then they build stuff, like statue, in their images.
The seated scribe looks fake though (post Dynastic time), not sure about the others.
Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
Amunra the ultimate is right later Abyssinian, Somalian immigrant and invader like the mulato/black Greek and Roman reworked or modified the Ancient Egyptian pharaoh and queen statue that look Igbo and West African to look like them .I have a picture of Suten Menkaura from shenoc.com were he look very West African with round face and round nose .This is in contradiction with most of the statue of Menkaura that look Somalian/Abyssinian.There is a famous head of Suten Touthmosis iii in the British museum were he look West African with round face and round nose .This is in conflict with most of Touthmosis iii statue in Egypt were he have long face,long nose and thin lips like a Tutsi and Somalian .
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Amunra the ultimate is right later Abyssinian, Somalian immigrant and invader like the mulato/black Greek and Roman reworked or modified the Ancient Egyptian pharaoh and queen statue that look Igbo and West African to look like them .I have a picture of Suten Menkaura from shenoc.com were he look very West African with round face and round nose .This is in contradiction with most of the statue of Menkaura that look Somalian/Abyssinian.There is a famous head of Suten Touthmosis iii in the British museum were he look West African with round face and round nose .This is in conflict with most of Touthmosis iii statue in Egypt were he have long face,long nose and thin lips like a Tutsi and Somalian .
There's still hundreds of Egyptians arts figures that are made and were not modified by later dynasty or foreign invaders. I posted many on this site. Like in this thread:
I'm sure there's many more still to be found as 70% of Ancient Egyptian artifacts is still unearthed (obviously some of it can be destroyed, modified or fakes).
Even Egyptians dynasties between themselves sometimes destroyed and modified past sculptures and artifacts. Sometimes it was even out of respect somehow. To claim ancestral legitimacy. It is just things humans do, especially in those times.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by mena7: Amunra the ultimate is right later Abyssinian, Somalian immigrant and invader like the mulato/black Greek and Roman reworked or modified the Ancient Egyptian pharaoh and queen statue that look Igbo and West African to look like them .I have a picture of Suten Menkaura from shenoc.com were he look very West African with round face and round nose .This is in contradiction with most of the statue of Menkaura that look Somalian/Abyssinian.There is a famous head of Suten Touthmosis iii in the British museum were he look West African with round face and round nose .This is in conflict with most of Touthmosis iii statue in Egypt were he have long face,long nose and thin lips like a Tutsi and Somalian .
You can say anything you don't like is "modified" or "reworked". But anybody can say anything. Where is the proof ?
this is the most famous sculpture of Thutmosis III. The head is round not long:
others:
BRITISH MUSEUM
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can say anything you don't like is "modified" or "reworked". But anybody can say anything. Where is the proof ?
That's true. At any point, we must try to apply scientific methods and be intellectually fair. We can see that geographically, genetically, culturally, linguistically, religiously, historically, anthropologically Ancient Kemites are pure Africans.
For example, the latest genetic DNA analysis of the DNA of the 18th Dynasty mummies clearly demonstrate Ancient Egyptians to be Africans:
If you choose to ignore it, it is your own decision. But I wouldn't call that being intellectually fair.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
If you choose to ignore it, it is your own decision. But I wouldn't call that being intellectually fair. [/QB]
I don't ignore this. I place it under serious consideration until peer reviewed in a scientific journal and SNPs are run for the Amarna (one family). This report came as a surprise to even veteran Egypt was black posters who had been speculating for years that the ancient Egyptians were closer to North Africans and Horners rather than South Africans, Great Lakes and West Africans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
This thread is suppose to be about the Reserve Heads of Giza NOT about ancient Egyptian statuary in general! Plus, aquiline noses and other so-called "caucasian" features need NOT be due to 'admixture' or forgery since such features are just as native to Africa!!
You guys need to get a grip and not allow some lyinass troll to lead this topic. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
In other words don't look at the Egyptians with the same eye you looked at the reserve heads with, double the standard
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This thread is suppose to be about the Reserve Heads of Giza NOT about ancient Egyptian statuary in general! Plus, aquiline noses and other so-called "caucasian" features need NOT be due to 'admixture' or forgery since such features are just as native to Africa!!
You guys need to get a grip and not allow some lyinass troll to lead this topic.
I agree that Africans got a wide range of physical features but let's not push it. Those images below are NOT of native/ethnic/unadmixed African people (or a representation of them):
Nobody in their right mind would classify those as black/native African people.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
Nobody in their right mind would classify those as black/native African people.
which of the below is more similar in features to the above reserve head?
Reserve Head of a Man. (Prince?) Giza; Fourth Dynasty, probably reign of Khufu (ca. 2551–2528 B.C.E.).
Kushite King Tanwetamani 664-656 B.C., 25th Dynasty Egypt Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: which of the below is more similar in features to the above reserve head?
Why are you asking the question? Who cares? Is it the type of circular discussion that bring us nowhere?
Sure in my reply above I made sure to picked representation that couldn't possibly be of Africans (or even a symbolic/distorted/non-realistic artistic representation of an African) to make a point that some of those reserve head don't look African at all. Are those fakes, made to look like foreigners, brought up there by foreign occupiers of Kemet or even post dynastic time. I don't know and frankly, don't really care.
I guess its possible to find "borderline" representation, but those bring nothing definitive to the discussion. It just show us that African artists got a multitude of artistic styles, aim, goal or lead to question the integrity or provenance of the art work.
Still I think it's important to note for example that sometimes the representation of the same person (or people from the same family like the Kushites/Nubians above) looks different. I think that's something that often happens in Ancient Egyptians art works. I gave some possible explanations of why above in this thread.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
Nobody seems to be stating the obvious. Based on all the latest evidence we have these two reserve heads.....if accurate, are only representing TWO OF THE MANY distinct African "TYPES" that were in Egypt. One looks like the modern Nilotic African that was dominant on the middle Nile at one time and came from the Sahara. These are the early cattle pastoralists. The other bust represents more facial aquiline types probably from the Horn of Africa via the Red Sea. One type was very successful with agriculture and simply out populated the other. The Nilotic Bust, is actually said to be the owner of the tomb. And this is not different from earlier cases of Elite graves IN EGYPT having skeletons that are more similar to population in SUDAN. SOURCE
Refer back to the Ancient DNA of Acient Nubians where A3b2 is dominant in the Neolithc while it is reduced as time goes on in favor of M35 and M89 lineages.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
This is a food production map that supposedly represents 3500 BC as per Ehret. Notice the presence of Nilo_saharan all in Southern Egypt. Its is highly possible that Some Dynasties and some Egyptians were of the Earlier Nilotic / Saharan type .
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
Nobody seems to be stating the obvious. Based on all the latest evidence we have these two reserve heads.....if accurate, are only representing TWO OF THE MANY distinct African "TYPES" that were in Egypt. One looks like the modern Nilotic African that was dominant on the middle Nile at one time and came from the Sahara. These are the early cattle pastoralists. The other bust represents more facial aquiline types probably from the Horn of Africa via the Red Sea. One type was very successful with agriculture and simply out populated the other. The Nilotic Bust, is actually said to be the owner of the tomb. And this is not different from earlier cases of Elite graves IN EGYPT having skeletons that are more similar to population in SUDAN. SOURCE
Refer back to the Ancient DNA of Acient Nubians where A3b2 is dominant in the Neolithc while it is reduced as time goes on in favor of M35 and M89 lineages.
what about this head?
.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
Nobody seems to be stating the obvious. Based on all the latest evidence we have these two reserve heads.....if accurate, are only representing TWO OF THE MANY distinct African "TYPES" that were in Egypt.
This figure doesn't look like an African/Ancient Egyptian type at all. That's stating the obvious. I don't know if it's the artistic depiction of a foreigner, made by some foreigners (Hyksos, Romans, imported, etc), fake from later or post-dynastic time, or something like that.
This one below too. Doesn't look like the African type at all:
When an artist make something, he doesn't have to make it looks like realistic at all. But I can't imagine those 2 sculptures above to be meant as representing the Ancient Egyptian/African type.
Those 2 below on the other hand are like Ancient Egyptians/African type:
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ you can't be serious the nose is entirely broken off
Look at this for example
Amenemhat III
now I break off the nose in photoshop:
now you can't tell a damn thing
So this:
(who is this btw?)
could mean this
or this
or this
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
I understand what you mean There's some subjective aspect to it. The situation is even more difficult since most African arts are not meant to be realistic. They are symbolic arts, impressionist arts, religious arts or whatever name you want to give them.
For example, like those Kushites/Nubians images already posted in this thread. It may be hard to believe for the top one but both those people are Nubians (a bit less hard to believe when you are used to their artistic style). And from the same family.
It is probably just different artistic styles but it is always possible that some modification occurred. What we know is that they are both Nubians/Kushites from the same family.
You can't use artistic representation (what the representation looks like) as the only criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the people depicted. You must combined it with geographic, historic, linguistic, genetic, etc knowledge.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the same family can undergo 50% changes when marrying
Did all Nubians have afros? Were they homogeneous?
.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
It doesn't matter. Sometimes, even the same person is made to look different. For example, I could post many representations of King Taharqa, the Kushite King, who wouldn't look very similar to each others. Sometime the exact ethnicity would be hard to determine without prior knowledge. Some look even like the top Kushite picture I posted above. Although, most of the time, you can still recognize the Nubian artistic style.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Poppin' euro bubbles.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ Troll Patrol, in your opinion is this an African or non-African?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
What about this one lioness?
In your opinion, African or non-African?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^ Troll Patrol, in your opinion is this an African or non-African?
It's hard to tell from a sculpture solely, without having additional information.
It could be, but doesn't have to.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry? Maybe Yes there are features sometimes that crossover the "races". The mouth here is not wide nor the nose and the jaw and head squarish shaped, looking like an older version of Superman (Zakrzewski, 2002)
another image of Tanwetamani (Tantamani) ^^^^^ medium reddish brown skin tone, the painting of Tantamani appears to have similar features in the profile painting as with the sculpture up top.
Interestingly the above does not conform in features or color to this tomb of Ramesses III faience tile going back to the 20th dynasty ___________________________________________
chronological list of 25th dyn kings (some pictured, others not) (there are many many more, in the later Meroe period)
1st Phase:
Pharaoh Piye (Piankhi) 752 BCE-721 BCE
Pharaoh Shabaka 721 BCE-707 BCE/706 BCE
Pharaoh Shebitku 707 BCE/706 BCE-690 BCE
__________Pharaoh Taharqa 690 BCE-664 BCE________
^^^^ here, in the famous sculpture Tahrqua looks just like Tanwetamani (but he looks different in the smaller shawbti figures)
,
Pharaoh Tantamani 664 BCE-653 BCE (at top of thread, sculpture and painting)
(Queen Malakaye, reign of Tanwetamani, 664-653 BC )
__________ Second Phase:
King Atlanersa 653 BCE-640 BCE
King Senkamanisken 640 BCE-620 BCE
King Anlamani 620 BCE-600 BCE looks similar to Tanwetamani but with wider nose
King Aspelta 600 BCE-580 BCE
King Aramatle-qo 568 BCE-555 BCE
King Malonaqen 555 BCE-542 BCE
____________________________________________
Prince Arikankharer son of King Natekamani (53rd king and in the Third period of Meroe) Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
I didn't get to read the footnotes yet, there are so many they are like a second article
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry? Maybe Yes there are features sometimes that crossover the "races". The mouth here is not wide nor the nose and the jaw and head squarish shaped, looking like an older version of Superman (Zakrzewski, 2002)
another image of Tanwetamani (Tantamani)
medium reddish brown skin tone, the painting of Tantamani appears to have similar features in the profile painting as with the sculpture up top.
Interestingly the above does not conform in features or color to this tomb of Ramesses III faience tile going back to the 20th dynasty ___________________________________________
chronological list of 25th dyn kings (some pictured, others not) (there are many many more, in the later Meroe period)
1st Phase:
Pharaoh Piye (Piankhi) 752 BCE-721 BCE
Pharaoh Shabaka 721 BCE-707 BCE/706 BCE
Pharaoh Shebitku 707 BCE/706 BCE-690 BCE
__________Pharaoh Taharqa 690 BCE-664 BCE________
^^^^ here, in the famous sculpture Tahrqua looks just like Tanwetamani (but he looks different in the smaller shawbti figures)
,
Pharaoh Tantamani 664 BCE-653 BCE (at top of thread, sculpture and painting)
(Queen Malakaye, reign of Tanwetamani, 664-653 BC )
__________ Second Phase:
King Atlanersa 653 BCE-640 BCE
King Senkamanisken 640 BCE-620 BCE
King Anlamani 620 BCE-600 BCE looks similar to Tanwetamani but with wider nose
King Aspelta 600 BCE-580 BCE
King Aramatle-qo 568 BCE-555 BCE
King Malonaqen 555 BCE-542 BCE
Thanks for making my case for me. All the pictures you posted are Nubians/Kushites. As I said, those artistic depiction of Kushites and Kemites are not meant to be a realistic depiction of people. I don't know why people think that we do many non-realistic representation of humans ourselves. That's why even the same person often got many DIFFERENT representation of himself. African art is almost always symbolic, religious, abstract (give it the name you want). I could find African art where the ethnicity of the face is not clear either. It's just how things are.
For example, we all know I think that the reddish skin tone is entirely symbolic. That's why even the Nubian you posted above got reddish tone. Woman are often depicted yellow. The Deity Osiris depicted black. Obviously the afterlife is something viewed as something really positive in Ancient Egyptian as well as traditional African culture. Something that influence the living a lot.
There's also the real known phenomena of re-carving in Ancient Kemet done by late foreign (and non-foreign of course) dynasty of Ancient Egypt to give themselves some kind of ancestral legitimacy. It's more common than people on this forum think. You have to try to view the world in the religious and "superstitious" matter Ancient people like Kemites and Kushites did (as well as people who invaded them).
Here's what the Brooklyn Museum says about it:
quote:Why did the Egyptians re-carve reliefs and statues? It was somewhat common for ancient Egyptian artists to re-carve inscriptions and, sometimes, even features of reliefs and full statues. The name inscribed on a statue was a more important identifier than a subject’s face. A king sometimes appropriated earlier works for his own use, changing a figure’s pose or altering the inscriptions. Changing the name changed the figure’s identity and the object’s meaning, an indication of the power of words and images in ancient Egyptian culture. By directly identifying themselves on a work of art, Egyptians believed they would benefit from its power.
There's also the well known phenomena of modern fakes or statues done by late dynasty (including foreign ones). Which I don't need to describe.
You can't use artistic representation (what the representation looks like) as the only criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the people depicted. You must combined it with other geographic, historic, linguistic, genetic scientific knowledge.
Here's a picture of a Facing Head (also known as Full Face Head) part of a typical Medu Neter (Hieroglyphic in ancient greek language) writing: Ipet-Isut temples complex single stone (Ipet-Isut also known as Karnak in ? language)
Relief Fragment , "hr" hieroglyph Dynasty 18, Probably Joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III, Metropolitan Museum
Hatshepsut Temple
As you know the Medu Neter are seldom facing us. Ancient Egyptian always depict people on the side. But those facing hieroglyphic are always representing people with clear African facial features. Maybe since they represent nobody in particular (they are the Ideogram for the word Hr “face.” Phonogram Hr) nobody bothered to re-carved them. Why would a non-African nation use an African face to represent the word 'face'. It's impossible. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry?
looooooooool.
Weirdo, you are just dumb and a complete waste of time and space.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry?
looooooooool.
Weirdo, you are just dumb and a complete waste of time and space.
It's true that lioness is pushing the euronut mentality a bit far, but it's ok to ask questions. Even myself, was wondering about the ethnic identity of Ancient Egyptians before. I don't want to claim an ancient civilization 'African' if it's not an African one. Many statues do look neutral, childish or possibly European in facial features and in the medias we are always served those European looking depictions. Like this one:
Or that one:
Clearly, two non-African artistic depictions. Most probably fakes.
Why not show people this:
or that one:
Or that one:
Although, we are often shown that one. But there's little choice there: Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: As I said, those artistic depiction of Kushites and Kemites are not meant to be a realistic depiction of people.....
African art is almost always symbolic, religious, abstract (give it the name you want). I could find African art where the ethnicity of the face is not clear either. It's just how things are.....
There's also the real known phenomena of re-carving in Ancient Kemet done by late foreign (and non-foreign of course) dynasty of Ancient Egypt to give themselves some kind of ancestral legitimacy.....
You can't use artistic representation (what the representation looks like) as the only criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the people depicted.
^^^^ you make this argument, but ignore it in the below comments
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians...
I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean....
But those facing hieroglyphic are always representing people with clear African facial features.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry?
looooooooool.
Weirdo, you are just dumb and a complete waste of time and space.
^^^^Somebody could make the argument that European features and head shape look like certain indigenous Africans, that Africans had all the features associated with Europeans first and that Eueopans have no unique features. If that is true than the above Tanwetamani looks African or European. To deny that and say the above does not look European is simply to be dishonest
.
One thing that can be said is that thin lips and straight hair are uncommon in Africans. You can go and post some random photos of people that live in Africa. That does not mean they have pure Afican ancestry or that such features are common in Africans. You can't tell a person's genetic background just by posting a picture of them
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
Most possibly, these heads not only exist to represent the deceased but to show particular political relations Egypt had with less sophisticated foreign confederacies from Palestine, Aegean and possibly even as far as the Asia minor during the period.
As of now, just over 30 reserve heads have been found with some lost or not found.
A reserve-head of a male was found in shaft A. Professor E Smith considers this head to also represent a foreigner due to the distinctive un-Egyptian type of skulls from the cemetery where this head was found
quote:Originally posted by Swenet:
If the assumption is made that these heads represent realistically depicted random Ancient Egyptians, its kind of peculiar that the noses on the reserve heads should come out taller and narrower than, seemingly, even modern Europeans, who exceeded AE in the frequencies of narrow noses....
No one is going to tell me those reserve heads depict a snapshot of random Ancient Egyptian diversity. Either the heads are non-realistic, or they represent a select group of Egyptians that weren't representative of the general population.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: My point is that the reserve heads portray realistic features.
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I wouldn't go so far as to suggest the reserve heads are fake, but they do seem phenotypically different from most ancient Egyptians. I'd wager a lot of them are of non-Egyptian ethnic extraction.
quote:Originally posted by Sahel (Siptah):
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians. All apart from B and D I suspect have ancestral ties to the region of western Asia.
(Nefer), i believe is an Aamu man judging by his unique characteristics, most likely from the eastern part of the Syrian desert. His ancestry could belong to one of the confederates in Mesopotamia. Appointed as an executive assistant to the king Khafre of the 4th dynasty....
C) (anonymous head?) Extensive information regarding the tomb from where this head was discovered is lost. I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean.
.
^^^Troll Patty, you can call me dumb but listen to what a lot of your fellow posters have been saying
.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: As I said, those artistic depiction of Kushites and Kemites are not meant to be a realistic depiction of people.....
African art is almost always symbolic, religious, abstract (give it the name you want). I could find African art where the ethnicity of the face is not clear either. It's just how things are.....
There's also the real known phenomena of re-carving in Ancient Kemet done by late foreign (and non-foreign of course) dynasty of Ancient Egypt to give themselves some kind of ancestral legitimacy.....
You can't use artistic representation (what the representation looks like) as the only criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the people depicted.
^^^^ you make this argument, but ignore it in the below comments
quote:Originally posted by [NOT]Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians...
I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean....
But those facing hieroglyphic are always representing people with clear African facial features.
There's no link or contradiction between the top quotes or the quotes below. Also the quote below is not even from me. The first two sentences are not from me. Only the third one about the Facing Hieroglyphs (Medu Neter) is from me!
As I said you must always derived the ethnicity of any artistic depiction in the world by comparing with other geographic, historic, anthropological, linguistic, genetic knowledge.
You didn't answer my question: Why would a non-African nation use an African face to represent the word 'face'? It's impossible. Are you saying those are re-carved or fakes?
At one point or another we must use our judgment and common sense.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: As I said, those artistic depiction of Kushites and Kemites are not meant to be a realistic depiction of people.....
African art is almost always symbolic, religious, abstract (give it the name you want). I could find African art where the ethnicity of the face is not clear either. It's just how things are.....
There's also the real known phenomena of re-carving in Ancient Kemet done by late foreign (and non-foreign of course) dynasty of Ancient Egypt to give themselves some kind of ancestral legitimacy.....
You can't use artistic representation (what the representation looks like) as the only criteria to assess the ethnic identity of the people depicted.
^^^^ you make this argument, but ignore it in the below comments
quote:Originally posted by [NOT]Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
I can only conjecture at this point. I do believe most of the heads represent those who became nationalized Egyptians...
I suspect the ancestry of the represented individual is from the Eastern Mediterranean....
But those facing hieroglyphic are always representing people with clear African facial features.
There's no link or contradiction between the top quotes or the quotes below. Also the quote below is not even from me. The first two sentences are not from me. Only the third one about the Facing Hieroglyphs (Medu Neter) is from me!
As I said you must always derived the ethnicity of any artistic depiction in the world by comparing with other geographic, historic, anthropological, linguistic, genetic knowledge.
You didn't answer my question: Why would a non-African nation use an African face to represent the word 'face'? It's impossible. Are you saying those are re-carved or fakes?
At one point or another we must use our judgment and common sense.
all the quotes are yours
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
( POST # 25)
As I said, those artistic depiction of Kushites and Kemites are not meant to be a realistic depiction of people.....
African art is almost always symbolic, religious, abstract (give it the name you want).
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: all the quotes are yours
No, they aren't just search the page with your browser Find or Search function if you want.
Why don't you just answer my question?
Why would a non-African nation use an African face to represent the word 'face'? Are you saying those are re-carved or fakes? TP was right about you.
Posted by Swenet (Member # 17303) on :
Amenemhat III......................................................................................................Amenemhat III
Amenemhat III....................................................................................................Amenemhat III
It doesn't matter how many times people tell liarness that 'narrow features' on AE statues aren't always reliable, since its common for Pharao's with full facial features that dominate in certain parts of Africa, to be depicted with narrow nose, face, thin lips, etc. The troll just doesn't know when to stop.
Of course, that's exactly what she's hired for by ES management; reiterating the obvious, so as to keep ES from running out of spectacle and controversy.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
Toothless lioness, don't make me laugh.
You simply don't know what the hell you are talking about, like so many of you white pathetic fools. Who's history is at the caucuses mountains, where your anscestry crawled on all fours, will living with dogs in caves. Why hide it, or be ashamed of it? You have no knowledge on Africa and her people's. This is why you get stomped in the face all the time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Getting back to the reserve heads...
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This thread is suppose to be about the Reserve Heads of Giza NOT about ancient Egyptian statuary in general! Plus, aquiline noses and other so-called "caucasian" features need NOT be due to 'admixture' or forgery since such features are just as native to Africa!!
You guys need to get a grip and not allow some lyinass troll to lead this topic.
I agree that Africans got a wide range of physical features but let's not push it. Those images below are NOT of native/ethnic/unadmixed African people (or a representation of them):
Nobody in their right mind would classify those as black/native African people.
And what is your basis that these people are mixed??
Here are more 'Sub-Saharans' that would fit the variation of the reserve heads.
What of these women?
If these people are mixed, what exactly are they mixed with?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^ indeed we always get some weird obscure claims. Never do they pinpoint, what, when or how!
Especially when certain traits can be found in othe parts of Africa.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the toothless lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: [qb] What about this one lioness?
King Tanwetamani, 25th dynasty
In your opinion, African or non-African?
^^^^ I'm not sure he looks very European here and as I posted earlier there are some hair samples from varoius periods including pre-dynastic ancient Nubia with straight hair. Does this mean some partial non-African ancestry?
looooooooool.
Weirdo, you are just dumb and a complete waste of time and space.
^^
I don't know how you got so goddamn dumb. And all you got left is excuses...which have been debunked over and over again.
But let me repeat it once again. Those traits aren't unusual to the region, now as it was during ancient times. Ancient Egyptians came from the South, Sahara/ Sahel. Not from cold eurasia. Countless studies stated they have always remained the same people. And ancient Egyptians disliked Asiatics badly. Go figure!
Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 121, Issue 3, pages 219–229, July 2003
Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2003.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 132:501–509 (2007)
Population Continuity or Population Change: Formation of the Ancient Egyptian State
Sonia R. Zakrzewski*
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
The origins of the ancient Egyptian state and its formation have received much attention through analysis of mortuary contexts, skeletal material, and trade. Genetic diversity was analyzed by studying craniometric variation within a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the evidence for migration over the period of the development of social hierarchy and the Egyptian state. Craniometric variation, based upon 16 measurements, was assessed through principal components analysis, discriminant function analysis, and Mahalanobis D2 matrix computation. Spatial and temporal relationships were assessed by Mantel and Partial Mantel tests. The results indicate overall population continuity over the Predynastic and early Dynastic, and high levels of genetic heterogeneity, thereby suggesting that state formation occurred as a mainly indigenous process.
Conclusions
The analyses of the crania studied suggest that genetic continuity occurs over the Egyptian Predynastic and EDyn periods. The study also indicates that a relatively high level of genetic differentiation was sustained over this time period. This evidence suggests that the process of state formation itself may have been mainly an indigenous process, but that it may have occurred in association with inmigration to the Abydos region of the Nile Valley. This potential inmigration may have occurred particularly during the EDyn and OK. A possible explanation is that the Egyptian state formed through increasing control of trade and raw materials, or due to military actions, potentially associated with the use of the Nile Valley as a corridor for prolonged small scale movements through the desert environment.
Using Mahalanobis D2 values as a proxy for genetic or phenetic distance, significant genetic distances were found between time period groups and between cemetery groups. No conclusive linear relationship was found from any of the regressions of genetic distance on temporal distance (for the pooled time period groups), genetic distance on temporal distance (controlling for spatial distance), or genetic distance on spatial distance (controlling for time) for the cemetery groups. These results indicate that the biological patterning of the Egyptian population varied across time, but that no simple and consistent temporal or spatial trends could be discerned.
The Badarian is shown to be a genetically homogeneous sample, characterized by short cranial vaults and significant subnasal prognathism. The homogeneity of the Badarian mirrors previous cranial (Stoessiger, 1927; Morant, 1935; Strouhal, 1971; Gaballah et al., 1972) and post- ranial studies (Zakrzewski, 2003). Due to their placement in all sectors of Figure 2, later groups are shown as being more phenotypically heterogeneous. Furthermore, as a result of its long broad vaults and broad faces, the EDyn sample appears morphologically distinct relative to EDyn sample appears morphologically distinct relative to the other temporal groups.
Due to the relatively small sample sizes arising from the fragmentary nature of some of the crania and the lack of skeletal material that cross-cuts all social ranks within each time period, these results must remain provisional and indicative. Further research on recently excavated material, especially from the Delta area, is therefore required in order to further address the issues raised.
Omo I Homo sapiens remain from Ethiopia 190,000 years ago
Poppin' euro bubbles.loooooooool
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Oh yeah, I forgot.
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: Ranofer
Same exact features.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Getting back to the reserve heads...
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: This thread is suppose to be about the Reserve Heads of Giza NOT about ancient Egyptian statuary in general! Plus, aquiline noses and other so-called "caucasian" features need NOT be due to 'admixture' or forgery since such features are just as native to Africa!!
You guys need to get a grip and not allow some lyinass troll to lead this topic.
I agree that Africans got a wide range of physical features but let's not push it. Those images below are NOT of native/ethnic/unadmixed African people (or a representation of them):
Nobody in their right mind would classify those as black/native African people.
And what is your basis that these people are mixed??
If these people are mixed, what exactly are they mixed with?
I'm not sure where does this lead. But I still maintain that the 2 reserve heads and the modern person picture are NOT ethnic/black Africans. I won't try to guess who's mixed or not from a picture. The reserve head I posted don't look mixed, they straight up look like depictions of foreigners (no matter what is the source of those reserve heads). They represent an extreme case IMO. I'm not the only having this opinion in this thread. They are unlike other Ancient Kemite art works. They also look more realistic than common Kemites art. It's a judgment call.
We know modern Egyptians people are not the same as Ancient Egyptians people. They don't have the same ethnic composition even if some African groups still live (mostly) in the South. They now form a minority. I'm sure even in Somalia they got some whites, Yemenites or Arabs among their population (and vice versa). It's common around the world to have some foreigners among the population. Those people must admix sometimes with the local majority ("pure" East Africans).
Here's a protest crowd in Somalia:
I agree that those people have a wide range of physical features as any African population. They are closely genetically related to all African population. Maybe a very small minority of people in the photo are relatively recent (post "out of Africa" movement) foreign migrants. Migrants mostly from neighboring Yemen and Saudi Arabia at the very least (although separated by sea and desert). Who knows for sure? That's something you must admit as a possibility. In fact, it's something we know for sure (as anywhere in the world). So I guess if you pick a random Somalian picture, you have a little chance to fall on a picture of a recent migrant, on a very recent migrant or someone with some level of admixture with one.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The guy in the picture with the hat and cloth on his head is NOT Somali but Ethiopian!! I don't know which ethnic group exactly but likely Abyssinian as many Abyssinians have his complexion and features. I as for Yemenis, there are Yemenis who also share the same features and complexion which again speaks of indigenous Arabians, especially southern Arabians', relationship with Africans. I don't know what's so hard to accept that Africans can have such features without admixture and that even Eurasians themselves are mixed as Arabia and the Levant are right next door to Africa. You think the indigenous peoples would somehow be radically different from the blacks next door?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm not sure where does this lead. But I still maintain that the 2 reserve heads and the modern person picture are NOT ethnic/black Africans. I won't try to guess who's mixed or not from a picture. The reserve head I posted don't look mixed, they straight up look like depictions of foreigners (no matter what is the source of those reserve heads).
^^^^Amun-Ra, we see the above man paosted over and over again on Egyptsearch.
What is your opinion that this man proves that the below reserve head might be an indigenous African?
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the Toothless lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm not sure where does this lead. But I still maintain that the 2 reserve heads and the modern person picture are NOT ethnic/black Africans. I won't try to guess who's mixed or not from a picture. The reserve head I posted don't look mixed, they straight up look like depictions of foreigners (no matter what is the source of those reserve heads).
^^^^Amun-Ra, we see the above man paosted over and over again on Egyptsearch.
What is your opinion that this man proves that the below reserve head might be an indigenous African?
It's not known. Not by a pseudo like you, nor by experts on this.
You can sit here fantasizing about white civilizations all day. However,....the facts remain.
There are millions upon millions of people like those above.
Remember that!
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the Toothless lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm not sure where does this lead. But I still maintain that the 2 reserve heads and the modern person picture are NOT ethnic/black Africans. I won't try to guess who's mixed or not from a picture. The reserve head I posted don't look mixed, they straight up look like depictions of foreigners (no matter what is the source of those reserve heads).
^^^^Amun-Ra, we see the above man paosted over and over again on Egyptsearch.
What is your opinion that this man proves that the below reserve head might be an indigenous African?
It's not known. Not by a pseudo like you, nor by experts on this.
You can sit here fantasizing about white civilizations all day. However,....the facts remain.
There are millions upon millions of people like those above.
Remember that!
I don't know about lioness but many racists people would be happy to say that Ancient Egyptians are like those people and are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
And all that is left for the white racist, is to try to take them out of the African context.
Even though countless studies show that ancient Egyptians were tropical adapted in limb portions, close to people from the South, Sahara /Sahel type. Though distinct in their own African characteristics. Looked at by old anthropology as mixed race people. Then they go and say, they've always been like this!!!!
Recent studies show a stable continuation. Not foreign, from Europe or the Middle East.
Ancient Egyptians even speak of the South TA SETI. And Kem in the South to where returned to do rituals.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
African Population SNP Admixture
4th Dynasty Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
If you understand the concept of ancient Egyptians and modern. You will understand that multiple groups migrated in, from the South. Making them distinct from others, yet homogeneous within Northeast Africa. You will find a wide variety of facial features.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
African Population SNP Admixture
What interest me is those DNA results taken from Ancient Egyptians mummies not those of modern people:
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^ NORTH AFRICAN 6.55
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
If you understand the concept of ancient Egyptians and modern. You will understand that multiple groups migrated in, from the South. Making them distinct from others, yet homogeneous within Northeast Africa. You will find a wide variety of facial features.
That's the hamitic myth. An ethnic group different from the rest of African people. Not closely genetically, linguistically, historically, culturally closely related to the rest of African people.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^ NORTH AFRICAN 6.55
It could mean that modern North African got some black African genes. It's also possible that some foreigners lived in Ancient Egypt. I don't really know for sure but there must have been a couple of foreigners living there. I called them foreigners, as did Ancient Kemites, because they are foreign to Ancient Kemet, but many of those people actually lived in North Africa since a long time ago. A product of a back to Africa movement that predates the Ancient Kemite civilization (and postdates the out of Africa movement). Both scenarios are a possibility. Obviously we should concentrate on the high values.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
NUBIAN HAIR, originally posted by Sweetnet
^^^^ apparently many ancient Nubian Males had straight hair as well as females
However the DNA Tribes report is true the ancient Egyptians were minimally North African and much more South African/Great Lakes/West African although Sweetnet dismissed that DNATribes report and said their ancestry was still more likely North African
ain't the whole thing confusing as hell?
Also in looking at limb ratios, the comparisions we see are between U.S. whites studied by Terry who recorded limb ratios. Those are primarily English, Irish, German, Dutch, etc North West European However there have not been comparisons made to Southern Europeans limb ratios who are a much smaller percentage of European Americans
Not enough Human remains have been found and examined to make a more comprehensive assessment of ancient Egypt But if you look at the Egyptian art, it is obvious there is a significant black African component
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
NUBIAN HAIR, originally posted by Sweetnet
^^^^ apparently many ancient Nubian Males had straight hair as well as females
However the DNA Tribes report is true the ancient Egyptians were minimally North African and much more South African/Great Lakes/West African although Sweetnet dismissed that DNATribes report and said their ancestry was still more likely North African
ain't the whole thing confusing as hell?
Also in looking at limb ratios, the comparisions we see are between U.S. whites studied by Terry who recorded limb ratios. Those are primarily English, Irish, German, Dutch, etc North West European However there have not been comparisons made to Southern Europeans limb ratios who are a much smaller percentage of European Americans
Not enough Human remains have been found and examined to make a more comprehensive assessment of ancient Egypt But if you look at the Egyptian art, it is obvious there is a significant black African component
I won't comment every images found on the web. Some people, some author (especially from the 20th century, beginning of the 21st) would like to make any black African civilizations like Ancient Kemet and Great Zimbabwe, non-African. Even modern Africans (as well as Africans traditionally) do many things with their hair.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
African Population SNP Admixture
What interest me is those DNA results taken from Ancient Egyptians mummies not those of modern people:
One should understand that the North of Egypt has absorbed a lot of foreign populations, some are not even related at all, but simply immigrants. These Northern Egyptians too show intermediate in body portions. And historically this is acknowledged too. So yes, if they tested people from the North this logically be the outcome.
quote: Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans
"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.
The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60 Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
If you understand the concept of ancient Egyptians and modern. You will understand that multiple groups migrated in, from the South. Making them distinct from others, yet homogeneous within Northeast Africa. You will find a wide variety of facial features.
That's the hamitic myth. An ethnic group different from the rest of African people. Not closely genetically, linguistically, historically, culturally closely related to the rest of African people.
So what do you mean be not closely genetically? Let's spare the rest.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^^ NORTH AFRICAN 6.55
It could mean that modern North African got some black African genes. It's also possible that some foreigners lived in Ancient Egypt. I don't really know for sure but there must have been a couple of foreigners living there. I called them foreigners, as did Ancient Kemites, because they are foreign to Ancient Kemet, but many of those people actually lived in North Africa since a long time ago. A product of a back to Africa movement that predates the Ancient Kemite civilization (and postdates the out of Africa movement). Both scenarios are a possibility. Obviously we should concentrate on the high values.
So who do you suggest these people were, who "mass-migrated" into AFRICA/ EGYPT? I like for you to pinpoint exactly!
TA SETI
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: The Archological Survey of Nubia: Report For 1907-1908 -G. Elliot Smith,F. Wood Jones
Crania Ægyptiaca, or, Observations on Egyptian ethnography -Samuel George Morton
NUBIAN HAIR, originally posted by Sweetnet
^^^^ apparently many ancient Nubian Males had straight hair as well as females
However the DNA Tribes report is true the ancient Egyptians were minimally North African and much more South African/Great Lakes/West African although Sweetnet dismissed that DNATribes report and said their ancestry was still more likely North African
ain't the whole thing confusing as hell?
Also in looking at limb ratios, the comparisions we see are between U.S. whites studied by Terry who recorded limb ratios. Those are primarily English, Irish, German, Dutch, etc North West European However there have not been comparisons made to Southern Europeans limb ratios who are a much smaller percentage of European Americans
Not enough Human remains have been found and examined to make a more comprehensive assessment of ancient Egypt But if you look at the Egyptian art, it is obvious there is a significant black African component
I won't comment every images found on the web. Some people, some author (especially from the 20th century, beginning of the 21st) would like to make any black African civilizations like Ancient Kemet and Great Zimbabwe, non-African. Even modern Africans (as well as Africans traditionally) do many things with their hair.
It fits well like a piece in a puzzle.
Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation.
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners. (Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia. (Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
However, still parts Egypt has cold nightly temperatures and cold winters. In some parts it can get very cold during the night and early morning, like °F 37.4 sometimes lower. As the temperature rises slow during 6-am and 10-am to °F 60.8. Then rises quickly up to °F 77 and higher to during the middle of the day, till it reacher its hot peak. In the afternoon is lowers again by 22:00 PM it has dropped dramatically, already. Hence semi-Tropical zone.
Stratigraphy and sedimentology at BirSahara, Egypt: Environments, climate change and the Middle Paleolithic
quote: The most thorough studies on the prehistory of North Africa come from the land included within the present borders of Egypt and northern Sudan. The Nile river and the Sahara desert have alternatively affected each other on both cultural and environmental levels and Eastern Saharan populations have acted as intermediaries between central Saharans and Nilotic peoples in both east–west and west–east directions. The Eastern Sahara is often referred to as the Western Desert, as it is located west of the Nile river. However, the Eastern Sahara proper extends east of the Nile river, as well. This article regards the most relevant events of past human populations in the area. Main topics include: the spread of early anatomically modern humans (e.g., at Kurkur Oasis, Bir Tarfawi, BirSahara); the reoccupation of the Sahara after 10 000 years ago; the earliest herders (e.g., at Bir Kiseiba and Nabta Playa); the earliest production and the spread of pottery (e.g., at Nabta Playa, Bir Kiseiba, Gilf Kebir, Great Sand Sea); caprine herding (e.g., at Sodmein Cave, Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa); the origins of farming (e.g., at Farafra Oasis); and the development of sedentism (e.g., at Dakhleh Oasis, Nabta Playa).
AFRICA, NORTH Sahara, Eastern, Elena A.A. Garcea et al.
Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 Years of Holocene Population and Environmental Change
I don't know why you guys are arguing about hair again. What the hell does hair have to do with the Reserve Heads who show NO hair?! If you want to discuss hair, I suggest you do so in threads on that topic like here, here, or here, and not allow lyinass to shift the topic or lead you guys by the noses.
Even Britannica admits that wavy hair occurs among East Africans.
East African local race, a subgroup, roughly corresponding to a breeding isolate in genetics, of the Negroid (African) geographic race, comprising the populations of East Africa and The Sudan. The physical type of the East African local race is primarily one of adaptation to a hot, dry climate; it is marked by long, thin body build, long, narrow face and nose, and moderate to heavy skin pigmentation. The Sudanese peoples are dark-skinned and extremely tall and thin (linear) in build. The other East African populations are also more or less linear in build and somewhat lighter skinned than the Sudanese. All have dark eyes and dark hair, wavy to frizzy in texture. Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 4
I'm not even going to cite the Strouhal study showing the trichometric index of Badarians to be very much "negroid" despite the wavy form!
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
without bothering to make a sculpture of this man, just being aware of the SNPs for Egypt and just looking at the above photo one could make estimate that the chances that he has significant non-African ancestry is very good
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
without bothering to make a sculpture of this man, just being aware of the SNPs for Egypt and just looking at the above photo one could make estimate that the chances that he has significant non-African ancestry is very good
lol do you care for any explanation and elaboration, when you post your rant? lol
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis.
Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
From about 20,000 BCE, there are further refinements in stone technology. Very specialized tools appeared, including arrowheads, fishhooks, grindstones, and awls. These most refined of stone implements have the generic name 'microlithic.' This era of the late Paleolithic also saw the development of complex composite tools such as bows and arrows. As well, fishing equipment, including boats, and even pottery appeared in some environmental niches. As tools became more specialized and finely made, local variations, including stylistic ones, became more and more the rule...
From the standpoint of African history the most important development of the late Stone Age was the emergence of more settled ('sedentary') societies. These probably developed first along the banks of the Upper Nile in the Cataracts region, in modern day southern Egypt and northern Sudan (ancient Nubia). Evidence of barley harvesting there dates from as early as 16,000 BCE. The ability to make greater use of abundant wild grains, probably coupled with greater exploitation of aquatic resources, led to a more settled existence for some people. These more sedentary peoples were a part of what is now known collectively as the African Aquatic Culture/ Tradition. This way of life spread from the Upper Nile into a much larger area of Africa during the last great wet phase of African climate history, which began about 9,000 and peaked about 7,000 BCE. The higher rainfall levels of the period created numerous very large shallow lakes across what are now the arid southern borderlands of the Sahara desert. Inhabitants of shore communities crafted microlithic tools to exploit a marine environment: fishing and trapping aquatic animals. This provided abundant food supplies, particularly high in protein and supported the earliest known permanent settlements. Culturally and linguistically related peoples ancestral to modern Black Africans established settlements throughout this vast, ancient great lakes area. It is theorized that they spoke the mother Nilo-Saharan tongue. Sophisticated water-related technologies supported not only the development of settled communities, but also the invention of things like pottery, which were formerly thought to be associated exclusively with the Food Production Revolution of the later New Stone Age, or Neolithic. While the African aquatic tradition itself lasted only until the beginning of the modern drier period, around 3,000 BCE, its legacy has been felt ever since.
Basil Davidson, Africa in History (1975)
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
without bothering to make a sculpture of this man, just being aware of the SNPs for Egypt and just looking at the above photo one could make estimate that the chances that he has significant non-African ancestry is very good
PLoS One. 2008 Aug 14;3(8):e2995.
Lakeside cemeteries in the Sahara: 5000 years of holocene population and environmental change.
Sereno PC et al.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Approximately two hundred human burials were discovered on the edge of a paleolake in Niger that provide a uniquely preserved record of human occupation in the Sahara during the Holocene ( approximately 8000 B.C.E. to the present). Called Gobero, this suite of closely spaced sites chronicles the rapid pace of biosocial change in the southern Sahara in response to severe climatic fluctuation.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:
Two main occupational phases are identified that correspond with humid intervals in the early and mid-Holocene, based on 78 direct AMS radiocarbon dates on human remains, fauna and artifacts, as well as 9 OSL dates on paleodune sand. The older occupants have craniofacial dimensions that demonstrate similarities with mid-Holocene occupants of the southern Sahara and Late Pleistocene to early Holocene inhabitants of the Maghreb. Their hyperflexed burials compose the earliest cemetery in the Sahara dating to approximately 7500 B.C.E. These early occupants abandon the area under arid conditions and, when humid conditions return approximately 4600 B.C.E., are replaced by a more gracile people with elaborated grave goods including animal bone and ivory ornaments.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE:
The principal significance of Gobero lies in its extraordinary human, faunal, and archaeological record, from which we conclude the following: The early Holocene occupants at Gobero (7700-6200 B.C.E.) were largely sedentary hunter-fisher-gatherers with lakeside funerary sites that include the earliest recorded cemetery in the Sahara.Principal components analysis of craniometric variables closely allies the early Holocene occupants at Gobero with a skeletally robust, trans-Saharan assemblage of Late Pleistocene to mid-Holocene human populations from the Maghreb and southern Sahara.Gobero was abandoned during a period of severe aridification possibly as long as one millennium (6200-5200 B.C.E). More gracile humans arrived in the mid-Holocene (5200-2500 B.C.E.) employing a diversified subsistence economy based on clams, fish, and savanna vertebrates as well as some cattle husbandry.Population replacement after a harsh arid hiatus is the most likely explanation for the occupational sequence at Gobero.We are just beginning to understand the anatomical and cultural diversity that existed within the Sahara during the Holocene.
Dorky idiot, with multiple accounts, its called an anthropological site-scene. Unlike your pseudo wiki rubbish. This is actual research. It doesn't get realer than this.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ Troll Patty, you're off topic trying to show off pictures again.
Besides, I covered the Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara study back in January:
Dorky idiot, with multiple accounts, its called an anthropological site-scene. Unlike your pseudo wiki rubbish. This is actual research.
asshole, it's a study ABOUT an anthropological site-scene
AND I POSTED IT BEFORE YOU BACK IN JANUARY, I GET THE CREDIT NOT YOU as the above link PROVES
(can't trust it anyway, it's white people's research)
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
The first link you post show only images while the second link can't be read on the web. So there's no way to assess it. There's no way to know if it's a good table and how they assessed the hair of the people of it's legit. Does hair follicle kept intact after so many years in a tomb? If legit did they use hair follicle size/shape? They way the descriptions goes it doesn't seem to. We don't know nothing because we don't have access to the source of the information. If you have it post a link to it. Never heard of any similar study, so there's probably something wrong with the table you posted. Tried to google it, found nothing (beside one study that says hair follicles were too damaged by time to be analyzed. It's only skin). It also contradict what we know of Nubians. Which is a hint that there's something phony about your post.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
If you understand the concept of ancient Egyptians and modern. You will understand that multiple groups migrated in, from the South. Making them distinct from others, yet homogeneous within Northeast Africa. You will find a wide variety of facial features.
That's the hamitic myth. An ethnic group different from the rest of African people. Not closely genetically, linguistically, historically, culturally closely related to the rest of African people.
No it is not. You are making a mockery of Afrocentric research under the Eurocentric guise that ALL Africans must look a certain way in order to be "Real" Africans. That sounds pretty familiar . There is skeletal material found in Egypt that goes back 30-35 THOUSAND years. There is good reason to believe that whatever continuity that existed in Egypt would have developed under ITS OWN evolutionary context. I have seen some of those Busts with my OWN EYES. Although they are unpainted there are specks of brown paint on most of the busts...which means regardless of the facial features you assume to be Non-African they would still be brown skinned. You are not even describing the Hamitic myth correctly. Are you saying modern Egyptians have no relation to Ancient Egyptians?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ Troll Patty, you're off topic trying to show off pictures again.
Besides, I covered the Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara study back in January:
This subject was was posted August 15th 2008 by a member known as "Apocalypse" in reference to a New York Times article that was release that morning. I then chimed in with the full text a few days later. Every time you think you are posting something New it is old stuff that's been dissected here YEARS AGO.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^They are actually Northeast African. That's the clue here.
Still they are not black Africans like Eastern, Western, Central and Southern Africans. So saying those modern people are what Ancient Egyptians looks like is like saying Ancient Kemites weren't black Africans. They aren't genetically, culturally, linguistically or historically closely related to the rest of Africa. To the rest of African people. Another version of the Hamitic myth.
If you understand the concept of ancient Egyptians and modern. You will understand that multiple groups migrated in, from the South. Making them distinct from others, yet homogeneous within Northeast Africa. You will find a wide variety of facial features.
That's the hamitic myth. An ethnic group different from the rest of African people. Not closely genetically, linguistically, historically, culturally closely related to the rest of African people.
No it is not. You are making a mockery of Afrocentric research under the Eurocentric guise that ALL Africans must look a certain way in order to be "Real" Africans. That sounds pretty familiar . There is skeletal material found in Egypt that goes back 30-35 THOUSAND years. There is good reason to believe that whatever continuity that existed in Egypt would have developed under ITS OWN evolutionary context. I have seen some of those Busts with my OWN EYES. Although they are unpainted there are specks of brown paint on most of the busts...which means regardless of the facial features you assume to be Non-African they would still be brown skinned. You are not even describing the Hamitic myth correctly. Are you saying modern Egyptians have no relation to Ancient Egyptians?
First, as I said countless time, it is true that "black" (a misnomer) Africans (for example, from West Africa, Eastern Africa, Central region, Southern Africa) have a wide range of physical features. From thin to full lips, small to big eyes, small to big frame, straight to coily hair, pale to dark skin tone etc etc etc. I just gave my **opinion*** that some of the pictures posted as well as the reserve heads were NOT depictions of African people. They were not depictions (or pictures) of black Africans. Too borderline for me. I could find pictures of black Africans (in fact TP often post them) who look more closely like the reserve heads (although it doesn't make those reserve heads depictions of Kemite/African people). I admit it's a judgment call.
I think Ancient Egyptians looked exactly alike all black African population from North Africa to South Africa. They are in fact genetically closely related to them. So, for me Ancient Egyptians are not some isolated groups of African who developed through time and isolation, or under their own evolutionary context, special physical traits that makes them different from other Africans aka a new variation of the Hamitic myth.
They are Africans genetically (historically, geographically, culturally, linguistically, etc) closely related to all black Africans from North Africa (mostly south of Egypt, north of Sudan, South of Libya or some indigenous black town in the north,etc etc) to South Africa. In every way similar to them. They left paintings in the Tassili sahara desert when it was greener and moved to Egypt from there when it was getting dryer as well as toward the north along the Nile to ultimately create the Kemet civilization (as well as the Kushite/Nubian one). Joining the 2 lands.
No way in hell is the current modern Egypt ethnic composition is similar to the one of Ancient Egypt. The country has been invaded many times from Assyrians to British passing by muslim Arabs and the invaders multiplied as much as Americans did in North America. Making native Americans only a marginal minority now. This is a known fact. African groups like the Nubian in the south may represent the people closest to Ancient Kemites in that country now.
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ You fail right off the bat here:
quote: "black" (a misnomer) Africans (for example, from West Africa, Eastern Africa, Central region, Southern Africa)
You leave out North Africa, there are Blacks in North Africa too. That is the point you fail to get.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: ^ You fail right off the bat here:
quote: "black" (a misnomer) Africans (for example, from West Africa, Eastern Africa, Central region, Southern Africa)
You leave out North Africa, there are Blacks in North Africa too. That is the point you fail to get.
I leave them out because that's my point. Just read the rest of the text to see I also include renments of black African population still living in modern Egypt and the rest of North Africa (usually more toward the south). Black Africans who left their mark in the Tassili desert when the Sahara was greener for example.
I said:
quote: I think Ancient Egyptians looked exactly alike all black African population from North Africa to South Africa.
But nice way to avoid touching my other points and trying to make me say something I didn't say.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
LOL @ the Lyinass squirming like the worm she is!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
without bothering to make a sculpture of this man, just being aware of the SNPs for Egypt and just looking at the above photo one could make estimate that the chances that he has significant non-African ancestry is very good
And exactly what do the SNP studies by DNA Tribes have to do with the particular man above? Are you saying he is one of the people sampled who show non-African ancestry??! What makes you think he has foreign ancestry?? Is it because of his facial form, even though BOTH his facial form and and his skin color are like that of the Ramasside dynasty??
Lyinass productions are being flushed down the toilet. Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
E-V68
quote:Originally posted by beyoku:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ Troll Patty, you're off topic trying to show off pictures again.
Besides, I covered the Lakeside Cemeteries in the Sahara study back in January:
This subject was was posted August 15th 2008 by a member known as "Apocalypse" in reference to a New York Times article that was release that morning. I then chimed in with the full text a few days later. Every time you think you are posting something New it is old stuff that's been dissected here YEARS AGO.
Umph!!!
Next,
quote: Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2003.
Comparisons of linear body proportions of Old Kingdom and non-Old Kingdom period individuals, and workers and high officials in our sample found no statistically significant differences among them. Zakrzewski (2003) also found little evidence for differences in linear body proportions of Egyptians over a wider temporal range.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: E-V68
Is there a lot of E-V68 among Southern Africans and African Great Lakes people like in the Ancient Egyptian mummies?
Posted by beyoku (Member # 14524) on :
^ Yes. There are also lineages showing other common ancestry
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^^if this guy had his DNA tested and it said he was half Arab
were the anceint Egyptians also half Arab? Maybe
this is what Troll Patrol implies when he posts all of these modern Egyptians, that maybe like many of them, have Arabian ancestry mixed with African
What about DNATribes? ^^^ does this guy look primarily South African?
Did the ancient Egyptians?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: LOL @ the Lyinass squirming like the worm she is!
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Now back to the topic!..
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
without bothering to make a sculpture of this man, just being aware of the SNPs for Egypt and just looking at the above photo one could make estimate that the chances that he has significant non-African ancestry is very good
And exactly what do the SNP studies by DNA Tribes have to do with the particular man above? Are you saying he is one of the people sampled who show non-African ancestry??! What makes you think he has foreign ancestry?? Is it because of his facial form, even though BOTH his facial form and and his skin color are like that of the Ramasside dynasty??
Lyinass productions are being flushed down the toilet.
No I just told you what it is because of.
It is because modern Egyptians are heavily admixted with Middle Eastern people. Therefore chances are high the above man MIGHT have significant Middle Eastern ancestry -and you don't even have to look at the picture
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
E-V68
Let me repeat the FACTS for you again. Northern Egyptians mostly admixture, they absorbed foreigners into them, especially the at Delta have more admixture and are at times completely foreign/ immigrants...Middle Egypt is lesser on the South is practically nil. As ENDOGAMY PLAYS A BIG ROLE WITHIN THE TRADITION AND CULTURE!!!!!! THEY ARE XENOPHOBIC!!!
The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
Meredith F. Small* et al.
quote:
Morphological variation of the skeletal remains of ancient Nubia has been traditionally explained as a product of multiple migrations into the Nile Valley. In contrast, various researchers have noted a continuity in craniofacial variation from Mesolithic through Neolithic times. This apparent continuity could be explained by in situ cultural evolution producing shifts in selective pressures which may act on teeth, the facial complex, and the cranial vault.
A series of 13 Mesolithic skulls from Wadi Halfa, Sudan, are compared to Nubian Neolithic remains by means of extended canonical analysis. Results support recent research which suggests consistent trends of facial reduction and cranial vault expansion from Mesolithic through Neolithic times.
quote: Northern Egypt near the Mediterranean shows the same pattern- limb length data puts its peoples closer to tropically adapted Africans that cold climate Europeans
"...sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine.
The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans."
Barry Kemp, "Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
^^^^if this guy had his DNA tested and it said he was half Arab
were the anceint Egyptians also half Arab? Maybe
this is what Troll Patrol implies when he posts all of these modern Egyptians, that maybe like many of them, have Arabian ancestry mixed with African
What about DNATribes? ^^^ does this guy look primarily South African?
Did the ancient Egyptians?
Origins of dental crowding and malocclusions: an anthropological perspective.
Rose JC, Roblee RD.PT
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009 Jun;30(5):292-300.
The study of ancient Egyptian skeletons from Amarna, Egypt reveals extensive tooth wear but very little dental crowding, unlike in modern Americans. In the early 20th century, Percy Raymond Begg focused his research on extreme tooth wear coincident with traditional diets to justify teeth removal during orthodontic treatment. Anthropologists studying skeletons that were excavated along the Nile Valley in Egypt and the Sudan have demonstrated reductions in tooth size and changes in the face, including decreased robustness associated with the development of agriculture, but without any increase in the frequency of dental crowding and malocclusion. For thousands of years, facial and dental reduction stayed in step, more or less. These analyses suggest it was not the reduction in tooth wear that increased crowding and malocclusion, but rather the tremendous reduction in the forces of mastication, which produced this extreme tooth wear and the subsequent reduced jaw involvement. Thus, as modern food preparation techniques spread throughout the world during the 19th century, so did dental crowding. This research provides support for the development of orthodontic therapies that increase jaw dimensions rather than the use of tooth removal to relieve crowding.
-"Despite the difference, Gebel Ramlah [the Western Desert- Saharan region] is closest to predynastic and early dynastic samples from Abydos, Hierakonpolis, and Badari.."
-..the Badarians were a "good representative of what the common ancestor to all later predynastic and dynastic Egyptian peoples would be like"...
-"A comparison of Badari to the Naqada and Hierakonpolis samples .. contradicts the idea of a foreign origin for the Naqada (Petrie, 1939; Baumgartel, 1970)"
-Evidence in favor of continuity is also demonstrated by comparison of individual samples. "Naqada and especially Hierakonpolis share close affinities with First-Second Dynasty Abydos..
-These findings do not support the concept of a foreign dynastic ''race''
-"Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well."
(Joel D. Irish (2006). Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Apr;129(4):529-43.)
Africans have the highest dental diversity
"Previous research by the first author revealed that, relative to other modern peoples, sub-Saharan Africans exhibit the highest frequencies of ancestral (or plesiomorphic) dental traits... The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model." (Irish JD, Guatelli-Steinberg D.(2003) Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples. Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44.)
The pattern is always the same. Moving from the South up to the North.
From the House of Pain productions!!!!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
^^^ the problem is you are posting information about ancient Egyptians and then randomly posting modern Egyptians
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ^^^ the problem is you are posting information about ancient Egyptians and then randomly posting modern Egyptians
I AM POSTING PEOPLE FROM THE SOUTH AND SOMETIMES FROM MIDDLE AND FROM THE NORTH!!!!
Studies put modern Southern Egyptians closest to the ancient Egyptians. Southerners/ Nubians are ENDOGAMOUS AND XENOPHOBIC!!!!
The problem is. YOU ARE A DUMBO!!!!! As we are repeating the same thing everyday, for years!!!!!!!!!lol
Overall, these studies can be interpreted as suggesting that the Egyptian Nile Valley's indigenous population had a craniofacial pattern that evolved and emerged in northeastern Africa, whose geography in relationship to climate largely explains the variation.
semi-tropical/arid tropic zones, show clear limb proportion characteristics of tropically adapted people, and MORE closely resemble other tropically adapted Africans on the continent, than Europeans or Middle Easterners. (Raxter and Ruff 2008, Zakrewski 2003, 2007; Holliday et al, 2003, Kemp, 2005) 3) Undermining claims of cold-climate or skin color primacy for civilization, the great ancient Nile Valley civilization arose from the 'darker' more tropical south, NOT the cold climate or cool climate Mediterranean, Europe or Asia. (Clark, 1982; Shaw 1976, 2003; Bard, 2004; Vogel, 1997; Kemp 2005)
African peoples are the most diverse in the world whether analyzed by DNA or skeletal or cranial methods. The peoples of the Nile Valley vary but they are still related. The people most related ethnically to the ancient Egyptians are other Africans like Nubians not cold-climate/light skinned Europeans or Asiatics. (Keita 1996; Rethelford, 2001; Bianchi 2004, Yurco 1989; Godde 2009)
From the House of Pain productions!!!!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Let me repeat the FACTS for you again. Northern Egyptians mostly admixture, especially the Delta have more admixture and are at times completely foreign... Middle Egypt is lesser on the South is practically nil. As ENDOGAMY PLAYS A BIG ROLE WITHIN THE TRADITION AND CULTURE!!!!!! THEY ARE XENOPHOBIC!!!
ok, ok, you win
.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass: No I just told you what it is because of.
It is because modern Egyptians are heavily admixed with Middle Eastern people. Therefore chances are high the above man MIGHT have significant Middle Eastern ancestry -and you don't even have to look at the picture
Keyword: MIGHT
Also, the foreign admixture is only 'heavy' in certain regions and areas of Egypt. The north i.e. the Delta area has the heaviest admixture compared to the valley in the south which has minimal admixture. Even areas within these regions vary. Urban areas tend to have more foreign influence than rural areas, the latter is where the Giza man I posted is from.
Mexico has heavy European admixture also, does this mean every Mexican is European mixed?? Although appearances can be deceiving and one can never know by looking, as I said, the Giza man displays a phenotype that very much fits in with dynastic Egypt in particular the Rammesides.
So quit squirming, you lying worm.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
[/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: foreign admixture is only 'heavy' in certain regions and areas of Egypt. The north i.e. the Delta area has the heaviest admixture compared to the valley in the south which has minimal admixture. Even areas within these regions vary. Urban areas tend to have more foreign influence than rural areas, the latter is where the Giza man I posted is from.
Although appearances can be deceiving and one can never know by looking, as I said, the Giza man displays a phenotype that very much fits in with dynastic Egypt in particular the Rammesides.
So quit squirming, you lying worm.
I would like to know how this all adds up. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Let me repeat the FACTS for you again. Northern Egyptians mostly admixture, they absorbed foreigners into them, especially the at Delta have more admixture and are at times completely foreign/ immigrants...Middle Egypt is lesser on the South is practically nil. As ENDOGAMY PLAYS A BIG ROLE WITHIN THE TRADITION AND CULTURE!!!!!! THEY ARE XENOPHOBIC!!!
This makes much sense to me. People in the South of Egypt are more representative of the past population living there. Although no matter how much endogamic and xenophobic you are, when you get conquered, you get conquered. The admixture may be force upon you. Some villages/oasis taken against your will. With people you may not necessarily like being self designated "king" over your land. We're talking about ancient and past centuries time here.
quote: The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
The pattern is always the same. Moving from the South up to the North. [/QB]
Yes that pattern is obvious to anybody studying Ancient Kemites and Nubian history. Not even denied by mainstream egyptology.
The Prophecy of Neferti is very clear about this:
quote:Extract from the Prophecy of Neferti :
Then a king will come from the South ,
Ameny, the justified, by name [Ameny, nickname for Amenemhat I] Son of a woman of Ta-Seti , child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown, He will wear the red crown; He will join the Two Mighty Ones.. Rejoice, O people of his time, The son of man will make his name for all eternity! ..
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him.
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt
The 12th Dynasty was well respected in Ancient and modern time.
We can see trace of xenophobia you were talking probably related to Hyksos and other foreigners incursions from Asia and the north. Talking about building a wall and such.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Refief of King Amenemhat I (Metropolitan museum)
King Amenemhat I (British Museum)
Head of Amenemhat I as a Sphinx (Metropolitan Museum)
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: foreign admixture is only 'heavy' in certain regions and areas of Egypt. The north i.e. the Delta area has the heaviest admixture compared to the valley in the south which has minimal admixture. Even areas within these regions vary. Urban areas tend to have more foreign influence than rural areas, the latter is where the Giza man I posted is from.
Although appearances can be deceiving and one can never know by looking, as I said, the Giza man displays a phenotype that very much fits in with dynastic Egypt in particular the Rammesides.
So quit squirming, you lying worm.
I would like to know how this all adds up. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner [/QB]
How so, twit? Mexico has foreign admixture also. But if I were to show you a picture of a Mexican who from a rural area and looks no different from an ancient Mayan or Aztec, would you question his ancestry?
What about Europeans?! I notice you have this bad habit of question the lineage of Africans but NEVER your European kin despite their admixture!
Here is a photo of Zahi Hawass.
Of course your lyinass would never question whether he has indigenous/pharaonic ancestry, even though he comes from the Islamic colonial city of Damietta.
Begone, worm.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
Senusret I (son of Amenhemhat I) 12th Dyn
Senusret I (son of Amenhemhat I) 12th Dyn
White Chapel build by Senusret I (son of Amenhemhat I)
White Chapel build by Senusret I (son of Amenhemhat I)
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
below are two sculptures of Senusret I
just pick the one you are most comfortable with
Senusret I (also Sesostris I and Senwosret I) second pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt. This statue is one of ten which were found in almost perfect condition at El-Lisht Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
.
This is a rare and unique Osiride pillar statue of pharaoh Senusret I of the Middle Kingdom (Senusret presonifying Osiris) Made out of limestone, its catalogue number is Luxor J174. It is currently located in the Luxor Museum. Osiride pillars appear to also have originated in the Middle Kingdom, and and take the form of a statue of the god Osiris on the pillar's front surface.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: [QB] below are two sculptures of Senusret I
just pick the one you are most comfortable with
Senusret I (also Sesostris I and Senwosret I) second pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt. This statue is one of ten which were found in almost perfect condition at El-Lisht Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
If I were you I would be suspicious of a 12th Dynasty statue found in almost perfect condition.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
this is a statue of King Menkaure of the 4th dynsaty
are you suspicicous of this sculpture?
why?
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
this is a statue of King Menkaure of the 4th dynsaty
are you suspicicous of this sculpture?
why?
What do you mean 'why'? There's a high level of theft, destruction, modification, usurpation, etc in Ancient Egypt. From each successive dynasty to modern time. In Egypt now, there's a lot of large and beautiful temples completely destroyed with nothing or almost nothing left. Sometimes it was destroyed then rebuilt over it! Theft, destruction, modification of tombs and temples is not an exception but the rule.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol:
Let me repeat the FACTS for you again. Northern Egyptians mostly admixture, they absorbed foreigners into them, especially the at Delta have more admixture and are at times completely foreign/ immigrants...Middle Egypt is lesser on the South is practically nil. As ENDOGAMY PLAYS A BIG ROLE WITHIN THE TRADITION AND CULTURE!!!!!! THEY ARE XENOPHOBIC!!!
This makes much sense to me. People in the South of Egypt are more representative of the past population living there. Although no matter how much endogamic and xenophobic you are, when you get conquered, you get conquered. The admixture may be force upon you. Some villages/oasis taken against your will. With people you may not necessarily like being self designated "king" over your land. We're talking about ancient and past centuries time here.
quote: The nubian mesolithic: A consideration of the Wadi Halfa remains
The pattern is always the same. Moving from the South up to the North.
Yes that pattern is obvious to anybody studying Ancient Kemites and Nubian history. Not even denied by mainstream egyptology.
The Prophecy of Neferti is very clear about this:
quote:Extract from the Prophecy of Neferti :
Then a king will come from the South ,
Ameny, the justified, by name [Ameny, nickname for Amenemhat I] Son of a woman of Ta-Seti , child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown, He will wear the red crown; He will join the Two Mighty Ones.. Rejoice, O people of his time, The son of man will make his name for all eternity! ..
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him.
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt
The 12th Dynasty was well respected in Ancient and modern time.
We can see trace of xenophobia you were talking probably related to Hyksos and other foreigners incursions from Asia and the north. Talking about building a wall and such. [/QB]
Yeah, but the key to this is that the conquering aspect did not play a really large role in the South. Since that region would be hard to access by any chance. In fact from the South they restored the culture as they moved up North kickingout the foreigners.
Then a king will come from the South, Ameny, the justified, my name, Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt, He will take the white crown, he willjoin the Two Mighty Ones (the two crowns)
Asiatics will fall to his sword, Libyans will fall to his flame, Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might, As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him, One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler, To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt..
Second to that, the limb portions never have shown a sudden change. Except, when they became even "more tropical in body plan."
This I suspect could mean input from for example the Armana mummies.
I noticed the lyinass worm hasn't responded to my last post. It's okay, for we know how she squirms.
I don't know how this topic shifted away from the reserve heads and into Egyptian art in general.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: below are two sculptures of Senusret I
just pick the one you are most comfortable with
Senusret I (also Sesostris I and Senwosret I) second pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt. This statue is one of ten which were found in almost perfect condition at El-Lisht Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
.
This is a rare and unique Osiride pillar statue of pharaoh Senusret I of the Middle Kingdom (Senusret presonifying Osiris) Made out of limestone, its catalogue number is Luxor J174. It is currently located in the Luxor Museum. Osiride pillars appear to also have originated in the Middle Kingdom, and and take the form of a statue of the god Osiris on the pillar's front surface.
For your information. MOST of the artifact at Cairo, come from the South. It was stated not too long ago, up to a million pieces!!!
It's taken to the North, so it becomes more appealing to tourists to go there. Otherwise??? lol
Despite of one statue showing a somewhat wider nose and the other a somewhat smaller nose, they still fall within the spectrum. WE don't know the artists. Or at least I don't know.
However, there is nothing weird or mysterious going on.
From the House of Pain productions!!!!!
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I noticed the lyinass worm hasn't responded to my last post. It's okay, for we know how she squirms.
I don't know how this topic shifted away from the reserve heads and into Egyptian art in general.
I did because some people automatically associate them, foreigners. This agenda is usually pushed by euronuts. In order to correct it, you have to give them clear cut examples and some historic background, backed up by peer reviewed anthropological research. With some picture spam of locals. These ingredients help to wash away their grandeur delusional bacterias.
I read somewhere that these heads (usually) don't have EARS. From what I see here "some of them" do and others don't.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyinass:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
If the head of this Giza man below were made in statue form, some of you still argue that he is of foreign ancestry??
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: foreign admixture is only 'heavy' in certain regions and areas of Egypt. The north i.e. the Delta area has the heaviest admixture compared to the valley in the south which has minimal admixture. Even areas within these regions vary. Urban areas tend to have more foreign influence than rural areas, the latter is where the Giza man I posted is from.
Although appearances can be deceiving and one can never know by looking, as I said, the Giza man displays a phenotype that very much fits in with dynastic Egypt in particular the Rammesides.
So quit squirming, you lying worm.
I would like to know how this all adds up. You seem to have painted yourself into a corner
How so, twit? Mexico has foreign admixture also. But if I were to show you a picture of a Mexican who from a rural area and looks no different from an ancient Mayan or Aztec, would you question his ancestry?
What about Europeans?! I notice you have this bad habit of question the lineage of Africans but NEVER your European kin despite their admixture!
Here is a photo of Zahi Hawass.
Of course your lyinass would never question whether he has indigenous/pharaonic ancestry, even though he comes from the Islamic colonial city of Damietta.
Begone, worm. [/QB]
According to him its not known who the ancient Egyptians were? lol
According to all the anthro-work it however is known. Think about it, why would he say such a thing? lol
^ What I find hilarious about that-- Euronuts associating the 'caucasian' looking heads to be foreigners-- is that not too long ago it was the opposite. That is, Eurocentric academia identified such heads as native whereas the heads that looked 'negro' were the foreign ones.
By the way...
Do you notice the very faint traces of dark paint on the Nefertiti bust? My contention has always been that the bust has lost it's original dark paint.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What I find hilarious about that-- Euronuts associating the 'caucasian' looking heads to be foreigners-- is that not too long ago it was the opposite. That is, Eurocentric academia identified such heads as native whereas the heads that looked 'negro' were the foreign ones.
By the way...
Do you notice the very faint traces of dark paint on the Nefertiti bust? My contention has always been that the bust has lost it's original dark paint.
Despite of everything, Armana locals...Middle Egypt.
More on Middle Egypt
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: Despite of one statue showing a somewhat wider nose and the other a somewhat smaller nose, they still fall within the spectrum. WE don't know the artists. Or at least I don't know.
Forget about the spectrum. It's 2 statues of the same guy and they don't even look alike!
We know Amenhemhat I, the founder of the 12th Dynasty, is from Ta-Seti (Nubia), a black African man. We saw some pictures of him, with clear common black African traits. It comes to the reason his child Senusret I (also known as Sesostris I and Senwosret I) will exhibit similar black African traits. Which of course he does in the Osiride statue, on the Berlin Neues Museum Statue as well as on the White Chapel carvings (the one on the left with the white crown in the example above), many times over. It's easy to imagine what Senusret I must have look alike in reality. There's only one true spectrum. A fully black African one. One which happens to have wide nose and full lips. We just need to look at the three pictures above and know his father is from Ta-Seti. Ta-Seti (Land of the bow) is Nome 1 on the White Chapel's "Nomes directory". The first Nome of KMT.
Posted by Troll Patrol (Member # 18264) on :
^, Not to be rude but it's late over here. I am off to bed.
-When I say spectrum, I mean the traits that can be found in the local population.
-If you look at the Armana depictions at Middle Egypt, I've posted them prior to this post. They tell a clear story.
Posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate (Member # 20039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol: ^, Not to be rude but it's late over here. I am off to bed.
-When I say spectrum, I mean the traits that can be found in the local population.
I agree with you about the black African/Ancient Kemite population in general but here we are talking about the same person(s) Amenemhat I and his son Senusret I.
Posted by Sahel (Siptah) (Member # 17601) on :
@Lioness, so are you most comfortable with senusret I looking like this?
quote: Senusret I (also Sesostris I and Senwosret I) second pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt. This statue is one of ten which were found in almost perfect condition at El-Lisht Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
upon looking at this statue what type of people come to your mind?
quote:This is a rare and unique Osiride pillar statue of pharaoh Senusret I of the Middle Kingdom (Senusret presonifying Osiris) Made out of limestone, its catalogue number is Luxor J174. It is currently located in the Luxor Museum. Osiride pillars appear to also have originated in the Middle Kingdom, and and take the form of a statue of the god Osiris on the pillar's front surface.
there are many similar statues, what makes this particular one a rare / unique osiride pillar to you?
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
.. 
.. 
This is a food production map that supposedly represents 3500 BC as per Ehret. Notice the presence of Nilo_saharan all in Southern Egypt. Its is highly possible that Some Dynasties and some Egyptians were of the Earlier Nilotic / Saharan type .
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. There is skeletal material found in Egypt that goes back 30-35 THOUSAND years. There is good reason to believe that whatever continuity that existed in Egypt would have developed under ITS OWN evolutionary context. I have seen some of those Busts with my OWN EYES. Although they are unpainted there are specks of brown paint on most of the busts...which means regardless of the facial features you assume to be Non-African they would still be brown skinned. You are not even describing the Hamitic myth correctly. Are you saying modern Egyptians have no relation to Ancient Egyptians?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
lol
