This post pertains to a reaction video where Kuelmika and King’s monologue both react to Metatron’s response Link.
At 2:14:40 of the video One of Metatron’s pieces of evidence for a multi-ethnic (well more specifically multi racial) Egypt is this picture of what he states to be a tanned mediterranean woman.
King Mono’s counter argument to this is that the Egyptians wouldn’t overlap two people with the same skin tone (stated at 2:15:52). He also mentions that there’s a possibility that the “tanned woman” may have just been yellow boned.
Personally, while I am aware that Egyptian art often follows strict and specific conventions, and that yellow boned Africans do exist, I was wondering if there was any validity to Metaron’s claims. While, I don’t know the exact source, the tomb highlighted here seems to be during/post the 18th dynasty, so I was wondering if there any evidence of southern European/ White asiatic presence in Egypt in this time period?
Also, does anyone know which tomb is highlighted here? I would like to see the full mural.
Posted by Tehutimes (Member # 21712) on :
Are all Caucasians & Orientals the same complexion? Does Metatron know about the San & Khoi-Khoi folks of Namibia,Botswana, & South Africa with yellowish to yellowish brown complexions? Some Nigerians of the Igbo group are light brown while some Oromo & Amhara folks of Ethiopia light brown to yellowish brown also.Are all Europeans white toned as the clouds? Some Orientals are more pale toned than certain Europeans.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ One reason why I don't like to get involved with these social media bickerings is that they are so elementary when there is so much info out there that there shouldn't be any arguments about it.
Metatron is suppose to be a historical experts of some sorts. I don't know his credentials if he has a masters or doctorate but he is I think a school teacher and as an Italian he is very knowledgeable about his Italian/Roman heritage being fluent in Latin as well. This is why I find it somewhat disingenuous he makes these claims of Egypt being "multiracial" i.e. (a cop-out for not completely black) when the Romans like Greeks before them called the Egyptian people maure or atri (synonyms for black) NOT olive or tanned. LOL The Greeks called them melanchroi meaning black-skinned. All of this was discussed here: Colorlines in Classical North Africa
Of course Metatron's claim has truth to it but the devil is in the details. Egypt has experienced surges of immigration from Asia in different periods of its history. We know there was large scale immigration from at least the Middle Kingdom leading to Hyksos rule and most of these populations settled in the Delta but to then claim this makes the entire country multi-ethnic is not only disingenuous but hypocritical because we know for example that ancient Greece as a civilization or culture IS the product of Asiatic immigrants and these original founders of Helladic Culture that preceded the Greek speaking Achaeans were not Indo-European speakers but peoples with ties to Anatolia. Yet ALL histories call ancient Greek civilization 'European' and most people assume its inhabitants to be 'white' and not multi-racial despite the fact that since the Neolithic some of these Asiatics show African affinities. Yet when it comes to Egypt whose culture developed solely in Africa amongst speakers of African languages and people who biologically exhibit African traits including melanated skin, somehow are just 'multi-racial'.
I think Metatron's problem is that he does not want to give up the Romantic Western image of Egyptians as the off-white non-black (Asiatic?) people he has always imagined them to be.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
(note this is Userhat in Tomb TT 51 There is another entirely different person named Userhat of a nearby Theban tomb of the same period with it's own paintings, Tomb TT 56
Also note below some people of the same color overlapping. They don't always have an alternating different color (see especially, the painting detail on the lower right, not just the women sitting but also then men standing, it's two men not one, one in front of the other and both the same color -the separation is instead shown by the outline)
People see one artist using alternating color, then they speculate on the reason for it, then they act like it is a rule that can be applied to all other art. We now have more access than ever before to images of Egyptian art. I have seen a huge amount of it and I am always finding variations and exceptions to various speculation that there are certain "rules" that all the artists followed. So be very cautious about people who think they know about "rules" and also realize when somebody says "may have been" or "probably" or they mention one theory but then right after mention and entirely different theory or theories but don't point it out as contradictory, they are speculation. If you want to prove something was a rule you need a text that says it was and they haven't found any. Apart from that you would need to observe what a appeared to be a rule or convention very consistently, with few not many exceptions.
.
.
Unless the color is damaged in some way it looks like the woman on the left is lighter than the one on the right
On the bottom left we see overlapping men with color variations (easiest to notice in the legs)
Yet the men underneath in the same scene are also overlapping but are the same color
This is the same tomb of the video in the OP
color is not race
forget about about overlapping for a minute, obviously two people of what people perceive to be of two different races can be the same color
With humans we are dealing with various shades of brown, including "beige" which is a very light brown, with slight hint of yellowish
and throw the term "olive" away. Olives come in several different colors anyway from black to red to brown so it's an imprecise term. What is distinctive about them? Some of them may be green , others greenish brown, that is outside of human color, a good reason not to use the term "olive" for people. I find this term "olive" is used to imply that certain darker Southern Europeans are not some shade of brown like the rest of the world. I don't know if Melotron realizes this because people don't often question the word
Kuelmika says Ancient Egyptians could not have been this color because they would burn to easily, he shows an modern Egyptian man of this color in the video
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
The Roman Empire would be a good analogy. It would have had a diverse and multicultural population at its height, yet nobody denies that ethnic Latins from Italy (with some cultural influences from the Etruscans) laid the foundation for what we think of as Roman civilization. Can it not be said that pharaonic Egypt was a fundamentally African civilization that accrued a diverse population over time?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Art from the 18th and 5th dynasty
Historians might attempt to theorize but no one knows why the figures are different in color
You may see goddesses in the tombs painted yellow but that is believed to represent gold and they did not have gold paint
But above are the wives of Egyptian officials, not goddesses.
So people attempt various theories, such as these:
1. Men being outside and getting a tan was associated with masculinity, they were out doing physical things. Women not as much
2. The man does not have a tan, that is his natural color. If they stayed inside all the time they would not be color of the women here. This particular women might have Libyan or Syrian ancestry that's why they were lighter
3. The man does not have a tan, that is his natural color. If they stayed inside all the time they would not be color of the women here. This particular women is simply one of the diverse types of native Egyptians
4. Women were painted yellow for some unknown symbolic reason. In real life they were the same brown color as their husbands
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes we know Egyptian women were painted in a yellow hue unlike the much darker hue of the men indicating that such representations were symbolic than realistic. This is a basic fact of Egyptology that most laypeople are aware of so I think someone more educated like Metatron knows this too which is another reason why I find his claim disingenuous.
Note ancient Greeks and Romans also portrayed their women folk as lighter also but such women are depicted in pale complexions unlike the Egyptian yellow.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Egyptian women were painted in a yellow hue unlike the much darker hue of the men indicating that such representations were symbolic than realistic. This is a basic fact of Egyptology that most laypeople are aware
Symbolic of what??
It's not a basic fact.
Its a theory and cannot be proven
Also note I just showed a sculpture of Sennefer and Meryt of the 18th dynasty, depicting her much lighter and yellowish yet Ankhesenamun on Tutankhamun's throne is the same reddish brown he is and Hatshepsut is also depicted the same reddish brown. Nefertiti back to lighter.
That lack of consistency, as below and in many other examples, does not support a theory of female gender based symbolic convention
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Ibis (Member # 23674) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ One reason why I don't like to get involved with these social media bickerings is that they are so elementary when there is so much info out there that there shouldn't be any arguments about it.
Metatron is suppose to be a historical experts of some sorts. I don't know his credentials if he has a masters or doctorate but he is I think a school teacher and as an Italian he is very knowledgeable about his Italian/Roman heritage being fluent in Latin as well. This is why I find it somewhat disingenuous he makes these claims of Egypt being "multiracial" i.e. (a cop-out for not completely black) when the Romans like Greeks before them called the Egyptian people maure or atri (synonyms for black) NOT olive or tanned. LOL The Greeks called them melanchroi meaning black-skinned. All of this was discussed here: Colorlines in Classical North Africa
Of course Metatron's claim has truth to it but the devil is in the details. Egypt has experienced surges of immigration from Asia in different periods of its history. We know there was large scale immigration from at least the Middle Kingdom leading to Hyksos rule and most of these populations settled in the Delta but to then claim this makes the entire country multi-ethnic is not only disingenuous but hypocritical because we know for example that ancient Greece as a civilization or culture IS the product of Asiatic immigrants and these original founders of Helladic Culture that preceded the Greek speaking Achaeans were not Indo-European speakers but peoples with ties to Anatolia. Yet ALL histories call ancient Greek civilization 'European' and most people assume its inhabitants to be 'white' and not multi-racial despite the fact that since the Neolithic some of these Asiatics show African affinities. Yet when it comes to Egypt whose culture developed solely in Africa amongst speakers of African languages and people who biologically exhibit African traits including melanated skin, somehow are just 'multi-racial'.
I think Metatron's problem is that he does not want to give up the Romantic Western image of Egyptians as the off-white non-black (Asiatic?) people he has always imagined them to be.
I agree with you that the mult-racial argument highly fallacious and disingenuous, and I appreciate the link pertaining to ancient colorlines.
I know that during the middle kingdom there were asiatic migrations, but I believe that these populations would've been kicked out from Egypt thanks to the efforts of Ahmose I. With this in mind is there any evidence of southern European presence during the time period of this tomb?
Posted by Ibis (Member # 23674) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Close, 19th, Egyptian official Userhat (during Seti I}.
Thanks for identifying the original tomb. There's so many out there it can be like finding a needle in the haystack at times.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Close, 19th, Egyptian official Userhat (during Seti I}.
Thanks for identifying the original tomb. There's so many out there it can be like finding a needle in the haystack at times.
use reverse image search Also there was a wax headcone clue
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: is there any evidence of southern European presence during the time period of this tomb?
why are you asking that question if the Levant-Middle East is where Asiatics of the dynastic Egyptian period came from and there is also Libya, the Arabian peninsula and Mesopotamia, none of this Southern Europe
Posted by Firewall (Member # 20331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ One reason why I don't like to get involved with these social media bickerings is that they are so elementary when there is so much info out there that there shouldn't be any arguments about it.
Metatron is suppose to be a historical experts of some sorts. I don't know his credentials if he has a masters or doctorate but he is I think a school teacher and as an Italian he is very knowledgeable about his Italian/Roman heritage being fluent in Latin as well. This is why I find it somewhat disingenuous he makes these claims of Egypt being "multiracial" i.e. (a cop-out for not completely black) when the Romans like Greeks before them called the Egyptian people maure or atri (synonyms for black) NOT olive or tanned. LOL The Greeks called them melanchroi meaning black-skinned. All of this was discussed here: Colorlines in Classical North Africa
Of course Metatron's claim has truth to it but the devil is in the details. Egypt has experienced surges of immigration from Asia in different periods of its history. We know there was large scale immigration from at least the Middle Kingdom leading to Hyksos rule and most of these populations settled in the Delta but to then claim this makes the entire country multi-ethnic is not only disingenuous but hypocritical because we know for example that ancient Greece as a civilization or culture IS the product of Asiatic immigrants and these original founders of Helladic Culture that preceded the Greek speaking Achaeans were not Indo-European speakers but peoples with ties to Anatolia. Yet ALL histories call ancient Greek civilization 'European' and most people assume its inhabitants to be 'white' and not multi-racial despite the fact that since the Neolithic some of these Asiatics show African affinities. Yet when it comes to Egypt whose culture developed solely in Africa amongst speakers of African languages and people who biologically exhibit African traits including melanated skin, somehow are just 'multi-racial'.
I think Metatron's problem is that he does not want to give up the Romantic Western image of Egyptians as the off-white non-black (Asiatic?) people he has always imagined them to be.
I agree with you that the mult-racial argument highly fallacious and disingenuous, and I appreciate the link pertaining to ancient colorlines.
I know that during the middle kingdom there were asiatic migrations, but I believe that these populations would've been kicked out from Egypt thanks to the efforts of Ahmose I. With this in mind is there any evidence of southern European presence during the time period of this tomb?
The leaders who ruled lower egypt may have been kicked out but not asiatic population.
Posted by Ibis (Member # 23674) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Symbolic of what??
It's not a basic fact.
Its a theory and cannot be proven
Also note I just showed a sculpture of Sennefer and Meryt of the 18th dynasty, depicting her much lighter and yellowish yet Ankhesenamun on Tutankhamun's throne is the same reddish brown he is and Hatshepsut is also depicted the same reddish brown. Nefertiti back to lighter.
That lack of consistency, as below and in many other examples, does not support a theory of female gender based symbolic convention
[/QB]
Hmm I still suspect it's symbolic, based on ancient historians not mentioning the Egyptians supposed love of lighter skinned women during their documentation of their culture. In my opinion the best argument against the idea that the women were actually light skinned are the depictions of Queen Tiye.
In the below photo she's light skinned.
However in the below art her arm complexion matches that of her husband.
What logical deduction can be made here? That Amenhotep III had his wife work in the fields until her skin turned dark? The best explanation I can think of is that the complexion is linked to status. In the lighter skinned Tiye she's standing suggesting that she's of lower status and is subservient to the king. But in the dark skinned depiction they're both sitting, suggesting that they're of equal status (in the sense that they both serve as rulers of the state).
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: Hmm I still suspect it's symbolic, based on ancient historians not mentioning the Egyptians supposed love of lighter skinned women during their documentation of their culture.
Symbolic of what? That is a vague answer that could be applied to anything.
I put up the historical information that Thutmose is believed to have had 3 foreign wives
And if some of his foreign wives were noticeably lighter that doesn't mean he made them his wives dues to having a preference for lights skin
I have also shown a New Kingdom noble with a dark skinned and another in a tomb of the same area with a lighter wife
Therefore even if some noble did like a woman for her light skin that does not mean you can make a generalization about what Egyptian noble men liked.
Thus you would not expect historians making some broad statement mentioning the Egyptians had a love of lighter skinned women and you cannot make an argument for what the reason was for depicting some women this way based on something not being mentioned. You have have to base it on something they ARE mentioning, if not, admitting to not having a certain answer
Posted by Somner (Member # 22034) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Egyptian women were painted in a yellow hue unlike the much darker hue of the men indicating that such representations were symbolic than realistic. This is a basic fact of Egyptology that most laypeople are aware
Symbolic of what??
It's not a basic fact.
Its a theory and cannot be proven
Also note I just showed a sculpture of Sennefer and Meryt of the 18th dynasty, depicting her much lighter and yellowish yet Ankhesenamun on Tutankhamun's throne is the same reddish brown he is and Hatshepsut is also depicted the same reddish brown. Nefertiti back to lighter.
That lack of consistency, as below and in many other examples, does not support a theory of female gender based symbolic convention
I wonder if the lighter skin tone for some women at different stages could be symbolic of idealized femininity, age, marital status, being a mother (or not), etc? There are some cultures that distinguish between married/unmarried women or younger/older women symbolically, I wonder if this could have been the case for Ancient Egypt? I also remember seeing some depiction of an AE circumcision where the men performing the circumcision were dark in tone while the man undergoing the procedure was yellow/white, which led me to believe that his yellow/white tone indicated that he was not yet a man since he was not yet circumcised leading me to believe that yellow/white skin was associated with femininity in AE. But I'm not sure.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
In the tomb of some nobles are lighter skinned wives which one could not exclude the possibility that that was their real skin color and they resembled certain Berbers of today, or even like some of the lighter Khoisans as for skin tone
The above painting was made for the tomb a priest named Ameneminet (Tomb TT 277) The priest appears in his tomb paintings and it also has this picture of Amenhotep II and Tiye (the full scene has Ameneminet facing them in a hailing position) I think this was made about 300 years after Tiye died so this priest wasn't even alive when they were
My guess on her skin tone is that it is not realistic and doesn't have that yellowish light brown or beige tone like on other paintings It's more pinkish although it's hard to be certain how well preserved the color is
I think the proper thing to say about it is "it may not be realistic"
BUT I would not jump to the conclusion that her color is symbolic of something
I would not even speculate about color symbolism without even having a reasonable theory about what the symbolism was about without more information
they best we can say is "it may not be realistic"
and I can continue to demonstrate that in the 18th and 19th dynasty you cannot find a consistent pattern of how the females depicted light, some are just as brown as their husbands, others noticeably lighter
Sometimes people get distracted by goddesses in some of these tombs being depicted yellow, like in the tomb of Nefertari (but she is brown) In the case of those goddesses they are often even lighter and more yellow and I think it's reasonable to speculate that is supposed to be gold skin but they are goddess
One thing I have noticed is that it seems most Queens are depicted a typical medium brown like their husbands, like the wife of Seti I and Tutankhamen and many others
BUT the lighter wives seem to be more common with certain non-royal officials
(I exclude some of the kings multiple "queen consorts", "lesser" wives they had in addition to their main wives)
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somner:
I wonder if the lighter skin tone for some women at different stages could be symbolic of idealized femininity, age, marital status, being a mother (or not), etc? There are some cultures that distinguish between married/unmarried women or younger/older women symbolically, I wonder if this could have been the case for Ancient Egypt? I also remember seeing some depiction of an AE circumcision where the men performing the circumcision were dark in tone while the man undergoing the procedure was yellow/white, which led me to believe that his yellow/white tone indicated that he was not yet a man since he was not yet circumcised leading me to believe that yellow/white skin was associated with femininity in AE. But I'm not sure.
I don't wonder about these things because I the top I am looking at the wife of a noble name Meryt and she looks like Beyonce to me or a berber living today in North Africa
This other piece you are talking about with the circumcision you are talking about where the males on the receiving end are light. I would have to see some more references on that. I have seen a version of that which is a relief with no color at all on it. So if somebody has a version with these two colors for the giver and receiver of the procedure I would have to see some documentation that at some earlier point in time there was color left on that piece, maybe some old photo of it or written account I am not convinced yet that color was original
or add add keyword "painted' or in quotes "was painted"
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Symbolic of what??
It's not a basic fact.
It's a theory and cannot be proven.
It has to be symbolic because there cannot be a stark contrast in color between men and women of a homogeneous population. Also there are instances where a woman is portrayed yellow in some portraits while in others a darker more natural color.
Also there here hints that khenet (yellow) is symbolic of feminine vitality and power. In modern Afrasian speakers in Africa like Tuareg and other Saharan Berber tribes, as well as the Beja and some Ethiopian and Somalis, women in special occasions paint themselves with yellow makeup, and all these cultures associate yellow with fertility and female vitality. Do you think this is coincidence?
quote:Also note I just showed a sculpture of Sennefer and Meryt of the 18th dynasty, depicting her much lighter and yellowish yet Ankhesenamun on Tutankhamun's throne is the same reddish brown he is and Hatshepsut is also depicted the same reddish brown. Nefertiti back to lighter.
That lack of consistency, as below and in many other examples, does not support a theory of female gender based symbolic convention.
Throne image of Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenamun
exceptional case of Nebamun whose wife and daughter are darker than him Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
More to the original point of Metatron's argument, if Egyptians were Asiatics then why did Metatron's Roman ancestors depict the Egyptians as below??..
Roman mosaic dated to ca. 829-1200 A.D of native Ancient Egyptians who were prevalent in the country during Saint Mark’s era (ca. 1st century A.D), this is located in the Pentecost Cupola mosaic in St Mark’s Basilica in Venice, Italy.
These Afrocentric detractors just need to ask Metatron about the above portrait. What could he say that these weren't really Egyptians but black slaves of the Egyptians?? LOL Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: More to the original point of Metatron's argument, if Egyptians were Asiatics then why did Metatron's Roman ancestors depict the Egyptians as below??..
I doubt Metatron said "the Egyptians were Asiatics". To critique Metatron you would have to go to one of his videos and quote a complete sentence or more by him and time stamp it. Clicking "show transcript" at the bottom of the video's description box to copy and paste quotes if necessary He's a rookie to me and I don't like the term "olive skinned" and I'm not here to defend him but to critique him you need a verbatim sentence of his, not assume he said something
We have two New Kingdom Theban tombs here, 18th and 19th
One wife is lighter than her husband, the other the same as her husband
Thus you can't prove the lighter one is due to a gender based artistic convention where they artificially lightened her but did not do so with other wives in these dynasties
Since you there are many berbers with the skin tone she has (and Khosians) you can't exclude the possibility that Meryt may have looked like this
Although she might be artificially lightened for some unknown reason I think some people want that to be the case because they want the Egyptians to be against marrying lighter skinned people and wanted to be racially "pure"
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Anyway, I agree with DJ that a lot of the social media conversations on this topic are plain garbage due to how misinformed and often willfully delusional the commentators tend to be. This is true for both the Eurocentrics and many if not most of the Afrocentrics. It’s why I can’t stand most of these debates outside this forum.
As for Metatron, I don’t think he necessarily means to be racist, but he does seem to be a conservative type reacting against perceived “wokeness”, and he probably thinks African Egypt is an example of that. A lot of nerdy White guys like him, including even some supposed progressives as well as the anti-woke conservatives, aren’t used to the idea that Black people might be native to anywhere outside what we now call sub-Saharan Africa. They’re too used to historical illustrations and documentaries depicting ancient Egyptians and other North Africans as “Arab”-looking and have never thought to question them. Cultural conditioning can be powerful like that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
^ I don't know how those got made, but they're no worse than the many Eurocentric reconstructions of Tut that we've seen IMO.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
My guess on her skin tone is that it is not realistic and doesn't have that yellowish light brown or beige tone like on other paintings It's more pinkish although it's hard to be certain how well preserved the color is
I think the proper thing to say about it is "it may not be realistic"
BUT I would not jump to the conclusion that her color is symbolic of something
I would not even speculate about color symbolism without even having a reasonable theory about what the symbolism was about without more information
they best we can say is "it may not be realistic"
Okay, even though you don't agree with the symbolism argument, you still admit that the "yellow women" are a non-realistic stylized depiction of their actual skin tone. At the very least we can agree that the yellow depictions are stylized art.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:One thing I have noticed is that it seems most Queens are depicted a typical medium brown like their husbands, like the wife of Seti I and Tutankhamen and many others
BUT the lighter wives seem to be more common with certain non-royal officials
(I exclude some of the kings multiple "queen consorts", "lesser" wives they had in addition to their main wives)
This seems to support my deduction that the skin tones may be a symbol of status, wouldn't you say?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I'm not even sure what lioness's beef with the Tut reconstructions (either by King's Monologue or my own) is.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I'm not even sure what lioness's beef with the Tut reconstructions (either by King's Monologue or my own) is.
I have no beef with them, just showing them, the OP video is not a Metatron video. It's a a Kuelmika and King’s Monologue discussion video, and for reference those reconstructions show where they are coming from and your picture is similar. They and you changed the skin color as compared to that bust but I'm not commenting whether or not there is a reasonable justification for it or not, you can judge. KM's reconstructions are well crafted I will say.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: Okay, even though you don't agree with the symbolism argument, you still admit that the "yellow women" are a non-realistic stylized depiction of their actual skin tone. At the very least we can agree that the yellow depictions are stylized art.
No, each case is a separate case and I have already showed there is not a consistent pattern
You showed a painting or Tiye made 300 years after her death and it was pinkish not yellowish. It does not look believable to me and the level of finesse of the artist had depicting her face is in terms of realism, is cartoonish, near Simpsons level for depicting a realistic human. That lacking casts doubt to me also on the skin tone and keep in mind these artist could not go and look at a lot of the art depicting a Queen for reference, it was locked away in a sealed tomb.
Since a yellowish skin tone occurs in North African berbers and Khosians (even some Nigerians) (not pinkish like that painting of Tiye) I do not exclude the possibility that in a case like Meryt of the 18th dynasty, Nefertiti and others they may have had the skin tone as they are depicted, similar in skin tone to Beyonce and Rihanna
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: my deduction that the skin tones may be a symbol of status, wouldn't you say?
No, there is no evidence of that. Most of the Queens are depicted the same brown as their king husbands. Some of the non-royals official's wives are brown, others a noticeably light brown or beige, yellowish
If the light color showed status they would all have it but they don't, so that is just another random guess and hop that some of these women were not in real life lighter than others
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: This post pertains to a reaction video where Kuelmika and King’s monologue both react to Metatron’s response Link.
At 2:14:40 of the video One of Metatron’s pieces of evidence for a multi-ethnic (well more specifically multi racial) Egypt is this picture of what he states to be a tanned mediterranean woman.
King Mono’s counter argument to this is that the Egyptians wouldn’t overlap two people with the same skin tone (stated at 2:15:52). He also mentions that there’s a possibility that the “tanned woman” may have just been yellow boned.
Personally, while I am aware that Egyptian art often follows strict and specific conventions, and that yellow boned Africans do exist, I was wondering if there was any validity to Metaron’s claims. While, I don’t know the exact source, the tomb highlighted here seems to be during/post the 18th dynasty, so I was wondering if there any evidence of southern European/ White asiatic presence in Egypt in this time period?
Also, does anyone know which tomb is highlighted here? I would like to see the full mural.
Metatron doesn't have a point. He is just someone that has gotten into a social media debate between himself and some other African centered youtubers. And as social media goes, it just drives clicks basically, because honestly Metatron is no different than many of the Eurocentric trolls who have come through this forum over the years spewing nonsense.
As for the art, I don't know why you as a forum member who has been here for a while somehow don't know the artistic conventions of the nile valley itself. Alternating colors for men and women is consistent throughout the history of the Nile Valley and also has been used for groups of men and groups of women at various times. Obviously it is artistic, stylistic and symbolic based on an evolving canon of artistic representation.
It just so happens that they chose those particular tombs to try and promote a strawman to confuse people, when we have seen numerous times obviously dark skinned female mummies depicted as pale or yellow in tomb art especially.
Posted by Somner (Member # 22034) on :
[/QUOTE]If the light color showed status they would all have it but they don't, so that is just another random guess and hop that some of these women were not in real life lighter than others [/QB][/QUOTE]
That's assuming that all non-royal officials were of the same status or rank, it's likely that there were higher and lower ranking non-royal officials just like you see today. I definitely think it's possible that these women were simply lighter toned in real life, but it's curious that more of them tended to be married to non-royal officials.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Somner:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
If the light color showed status they would all have it but they don't, so that is just another random guess and hop that some of these women were not in real life lighter than others
That's assuming that all non-royal officials were of the same status or rank, it's likely that there were higher and lower ranking non-royal officials just like you see today. I definitely think it's possible that these women were simply lighter toned in real life, but it's curious that more of them tended to be married to non-royal officials.
If non-royals had differing levels of status that does not support a theory that I have never heard before an Egyptologist mention, that the lighter color was not their actual dark color because they were painted that way to indicate a status level
I don't think the theory should even be proposed without investigating some status level and then linking that to lighter depiction
^ This is the thread topic. I don't know if this is the exact image that Metatron used but the female in the back is colored orange-ish It seems to be this from the Metropolitan Museum
^^ this is a recent photo she doesn't look orange-ish, she looks light brown
Either in 1930 the color was more vibrant like that, orangish or Norman de Garis Davies guessed it looked liked that originally
But I would rather go by the light brown because that is a photo of the actual wall
On the right is the Goddess Nut. She is not depicted yellowish but instead a naturla looking beige-light brown color
To the left is Userhat, priest of the Temple of Thutmosis I.
quote: His wife and mother sit on chairs behind his, with their left hands resting on his shoulder and arm, whilst the cups in their right hands also accept the heavenly draught from Nut. Although Userhat isn't named in this scene, the two women are identified by the text written on their right forearms, which now has almost vanished (see Davies detail). They are thus seen to be: " (His) wife, house-mistress and chantress (of Amon), Hatshetsut" and " (His) mother, chantress (of) Amon, Ta-usert". It is unusual to find the mother and wife seated together. The unusual naturalness of the complexions of the two female's faces adds greatly to the quality of the imagery, Hatshepsut being presented as a deeper colour than the mother.
Assuming this is accurate, me having spent time researching this, now I can say that that light coloration of his mother, who according to this description, is in an unusual position seated together wife and is wife darker depicted wife, that lightness of his mother could be an artistic device. We can't be certain. His mother could still have been in actuality light and his father was darker than he was. So there is still no proof of anything But we should also look to other images in the tomb for context like I did earlier before trying to speculate that some un-natutal artistic device is being used:
In the second row we a group of middle brown, slightly yellowish females, to their right darker brown males
Below that some other stuff going on, lots of variation
It's a complex situation
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: With this in mind is there any evidence of southern European presence during the time period of this tomb?
At least in the 18th dynasty there are signs of contacts with Crete which is suggested by Minoan paintings in the Egyptian palace at Tell el-Dab‘a/‘Ezbet Helmi in the eastern Nile Delta.
Taureador frieze, Palace F Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Wall Tile Depicting an Asian Captive Period: New Kingdom, Ramesside Dynasty: Dynasty 20 Reign: reign of Ramesses III Date: ca. 1200–1085 B.C. Upper Egypt; Thebes, Medinet Habu Medium: Faience
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: No, there is no evidence of that. Most of the Queens are depicted the same brown as their king husbands. Some of the non-royals official's wives are brown, others a noticeably light brown or beige, yellowish
If the light color showed status they would all have it but they don't, so that is just another random guess and hop that some of these women were not in real life lighter than others
I haven't been able to find any evidence supporting my theory, so I'll concede for now.
Posted by Ibis (Member # 23674) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Ibis: With this in mind is there any evidence of southern European presence during the time period of this tomb?
At least in the 18th dynasty there are signs of contacts with Crete which is suggested by Minoan paintings in the Egyptian palace at Tell el-Dab‘a/‘Ezbet Helmi in the eastern Nile Delta.
Thank you for reminding me of this post. While this and the evidence of marriages of foreign Syrian princesses from Lioness is interesting, it doesn't seem to be enough to support Metatron's claim of a multi-racial Egypt existing at the period of the highlighted art.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Interestingly most documentation of intermarriage with foreign women is about kings while those on foreign men is about common women. As I've stated there have been communities of Asiatics in the Delta especially in the eastern part since the Middle Kingdom, but how does that make the entire country multiracial?? Rome had foreign communities especially in their port cities all around Italy does that make the Romans multiracial?? Again, pure hypocrisy.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Excluding foreigners how many races of native Africans are there?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Exactly what do you mean by 'races'?? Or is this a troll bait?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Exactly what do you mean by 'races'??
you used the word "multiracial" a couple of posts back so I'm asking you if, excluding foreigners, is Africa multiracial by your definition of "multiracial"
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I was referring to Metatron's use of "multiracial" which is code word for other peoples besides black Africans comprised Egypt. Does this mean other people besides white Europeans comprised Rome or Greece??
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I was referring to Metatron's use of "multiracial" which is code word for other peoples besides black Africans comprised Egypt. Does this mean other people besides white Europeans comprised Rome or Greece??
Always check the primary source, Metatron did not use the word race
He says "multicultural and multiethnic" (of the two in the three videos he is mainly using "multiethnic" )
My Response To KueliMika Channel On Black Egyptians 2023
2:27
"ancient Egypt was a multicultural and multiethnic civilization due to its geolocation connecting the Middle East Africa Asia and Europe a a strategic location on the crossroad of continents flourishing around the Nile river which was a cultural conduit of civilization therefore there is diversity on the skin of the Egyptians throughout time and location the ethnic percentages will vary depending on era and region according to the results of my research the majority of ancient Egyptians would have had an olive skin with a lower percentage of black individuals living mostly in the southern areas of Egypt and some white settlers and white ruling Elite during the later periods the ancient Egyptian were a multi-ethnic African civilization and their ethnicity was inextricably tied to the geographic location "
.
.
the following begins with a different youtuber, KueliMika and then Metatron replies (different more recent "definitive" Metatron video)
My DEFINITIVE Response on Black Egypt (KueliMika, Mr. Imotep, TKM) 2024
48:02
KueliMika:
my point of contention again was that the multi-ethnic argument makes it sound like all ethnicities that were there at some point contributed equally to the foundation of the civilization that's simply not the case by this logic Metatron should have no problem calling ancient Rome a multi-ethnic civilization since it was present in Africa and Asia too and that many people of different ethnicities were part of the Great Roman Empire but were they equal to the people from southern Europe who founded the civilization no so Rome should be classified as another multi-ethnic civilization and no one in particular should claim it or at least Africa Asia and Europe together should claim the creation and development of the Roman civilization but we all know this does not stand because the ones who built the foundational elements that made that Civilization what it was and were the primary group to have unified the other ethnicities under their empire fire was a southern European ethnic group and Metatron you make videos where you are not okay with Europeans trying to over highlight the multi-ethnic side of ancient Rome in those analysis you look at the foundational population to back your argument but for ancient Egypt you don't do so but I am not one to ignore that
Metatron: I do not think this example fits because in order to fit the parameters need to be similar you're removing a very important factor from this equation time let's go 5,000 years in the future the year is 7,024 assuming that we are still around as a species and we don't have technology so Advanced that we would know everything about the past and then we talk about whether they think America was multiethnic in its foundation or not a much more complicated task the reason why now it's very clear who founded America uh is because it's very recent so you can't put this question in the same Spectrum as who founded ancient Egypt which occurred 5,000 years ago it is the very fact that we are speaking about about something that happened so long ago that makes answering this question very tricky and multi-layered it's complicated so you seem to want to prove that there is a double standard of play because I'm not saying that America is multiethnic in its foundation or that Rome was multiethnic in its foundation but I do it with ancient Egypt yet even in the case of Rome the situation is much more documented and it's much more recent there is in fact a massive difference between when Rome was founded and when ancient Egypt was founded when it comes to time frame and you of course know that that in other words apples and pears
(listen to some of this in the video, I don't feel like doing the work to make the separations, where he reads some quotes from Egyptology articles
Posted by Ibis (Member # 23674) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Metatron did not use the word race
It doesn't really matter whether he used the word "race" or not. From his use of the word "multi-ethnic" it's clear that he's unable to differentiate ethnicity and race, and is actually trying to argue for a multi-racial Egypt. The light skinned women he highlights clearly is of the same ethnicity/culture of the darker skinned Egyptians we see of the art since her clothing matches these, so why would he use the art as evidence of for a "multi-ethnic" Egypt, when we only see one ethnicity being displayed in the art?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Metatron did not use the word race
It doesn't really matter whether he used the word "race" or not.
It matter a lot.
The proper ways to critique someone is to quote full sentences of them so we can be clear about what they said and what is the interpretation of what they are saying because we can see Djehuti said "
quote: I was referring to Metatron's use of "multiracial"
If someone critiques you don't you think it's fair for them for quote exactly what you said instead of them saying you used a word that you didn't
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
From his use of the word "multi-ethnic" it's clear that he's unable to differentiate ethnicity and race, and is actually trying to argue for a multi-racial Egypt. The light skinned women he highlights clearly is of the same ethnicity/culture of the darker skinned Egyptians we see of the art since her clothing matches these, so why would he use the art as evidence of for a "multi-ethnic" Egypt, when we only see one ethnicity being displayed in the art?
That is a fair point but I think that should have been in the OP. IF you read that it is clear he did not use the word multiracial You could still not have mentioned race here because you could have said "he is describing skin color difference as multiethnic and that is not ethnic refers to" ( some who thinks race is not real could have said it this way)
or if you do believe in race but still being clear could have said "he is describing skin color difference as multiethnic and that is not ethnic refers to, it implies a racial difference.
quote: Originally posted by Ibis: At 2:14:40 of the video One of Metatron’s pieces of evidence for a multi-ethnic (well more specifically multi racial)
^^ this is not clear it could be interpreted in different ways a) he said specifically "multiracial" b) he multiracial is a subset of multiethnic c) multiethnic is basically the same as multiracial
Now you have clarified but it is not clear in the OP so Djehuti thought he used the word multiracial.
It's better to quote exactly at least one full sentence of what the person said even if you do have a video link
Someone could say "I don't believe in race but I do believe different ethnic groups can have a typical particular skin color"
The definitions of "race" and "ethnicity" are often not agreed on
So if he uses the word "multiethnic" and started talking about ethnicity I would have begun by posting on or more definitions of ethnicity
And both of these words could have been avoided altogether with the question "Is the painting an example of varying skin color in Egypt or is one of the women painted a color that was not her true color but an artistic-symbolic device "
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
Metatron did not use the word race
It doesn't really matter whether he used the word "race" or not. From his use of the word "multi-ethnic" it's clear that he's unable to differentiate ethnicity and race, and is actually trying to argue for a multi-racial Egypt. The light skinned women he highlights clearly is of the same ethnicity/culture of the darker skinned Egyptians we see of the art since her clothing matches these, so why would he use the art as evidence of for a "multi-ethnic" Egypt, when we only see one ethnicity being displayed in the art?
Indeed, "multi-ethnic" is a more accurate way of saying multi-racial. But let's go with it. Was Greece multi-ethnic or multi-cultural?? What about Roman Italy?? I am curious to know what Metatron's answers to the above query is. But getting back to Egypt, It is a Nile Valley African culture neighboring related Nile Valley cultures to its south, Libyans cultures to its northwest, and Asiatic cultures to its northeast.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Was Greece multi-ethnic or multi-cultural?? What about Roman Italy?? I am curious to know what Metatron's answers to the above query is.
you must have missed it, it's in the quote from his video, 4 posts back Metatron addresses that (posted 05 July, 2024 04:01 AM )
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I don't have the time to watch the video but may you post his actual response?
I just find it hypocritical that we have more evidence of Greece being multiethnic (especially in the Neolithic) than Egypt yet nobody calls Greece a multiethnic civilization but simply a European (read white) one, despite the fact that culturally it had more in common with Asia.
Even Egyptologists from back in the day despite their racial claims of "Hamitic caucasians" say the roots of Egypt's culture lie totally in Africa and that it differed from anything seen in Asia or Europe. Egyptian culture was African down to its core and even the Co-Father of Egyptology E. A. Wallis Budge has shown that ancient Egypt had more in common with Sub-Saharan cultures than with the so-called Middle East. This forum has verified that countless times.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ I don't have the time to watch the video but may you post his actual response?
if you would simply look , the post has text from the transcript
post on the page we are on now:
[posted 05 July, 2024 04:01 AM]
(lower paragraph in post, also see Kulemika's question before it also for context )
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
Again, there is a difference between an ethnic group of people who looked a certain way founding a culture or civilization and that civilization acquiring citizens from other ethnic backgrounds over time. Imperial China would have been multi-ethnic across its various dynasties, yet we can identify its founders with a specific ethnic group (namely Han Chinese from northern China).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ If you're referring to the above reply about Rome's founding, I find it very weak as well as disingenuous. We have documented evidence, though not as elaborate, for Egypt's founding in Ta-Shemau (Upper Egypt) by kings of Naqada Culture. Perhaps a better comparison to Egypt would be Greece because it comes closer to his "cross-roads" claim. Egypt lies in the northeastern corner of Africa right next to Asia but it's still in Africa. Greece lies in the southeastern corner of Europe in the very tip of the Balkan Peninsula. We have evidence of Asiatic immigration to Greece associated with the spread of Neolithic culture. We don't see the same evidence for Egypt. Instead, indigenous Egyptians adopt some of the crops of the Neolithic Asiatics but their culture remains distinctly African.
Josef Eiwanger (1987) Orange: Cardial and Impressoceramics Brown: Neolithic Capsian tradition light green: Saharo-Sudanese cultures (Khartoum culture, Shaheinab culture) red: Neolithic of the Niger purple: Levant - Old Neolithic (Fayum Neolithic, Merimde) green: Upper Egyptian Neolithic (Badari)
^ The Neolithic Fayum Culture is often linked to Epipaleolithic Natufian of the Levant due to certain similarities yet both genetics and archaeology show that Natufians are derived from northern Egypt and not vice-versa. Interestingly by the late Neolithic we have these findings of human skeletal remains: ..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.
The above comes from Donald Redford in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001)
As far as cultural affinities Redford also stated: Archaeological evidence also strongly supports an African origin. A widespread northeastern African cultural assemblage, including distinctive multiple barbed harpoons and pottery decorated with dotted wavy line patterns, appears during the early Neolithic (also known as the Aqualithic, a reference to the mild climate of the Sahara at this time). Saharan and Sudanese rock art from this time resembles early Egyptian iconography. Strong connections between Nubian (Sudanese) and Egyptian material culture continue in later Neolithic Badarian culture of Upper Egypt. Similarities include black-topped wares, vessels with characteristic ripple-burnished surfaces, a special tulip-shaped vessel with incised and white-filled decoration, palettes, and harpoons...
Other ancient Egyptian practices show strong similarities to modern African cultures including divine kingship, the use of headrests, body art, circumcision, and male coming-of-age rituals, all suggesting an African substratum or foundation for Egyptian civilization..
CERVELLÓ AUTUORI, Joseph, 'Egypt, Africa and the Ancient World', in: Proceedings 7th Int. Congress of Egyptologists The traditional contextualisation of Egypt in the 'Mediterranean' or 'Near Eastern' world has been produced by a phenomenon of western historiography that we can classify as the 'forgotten Africa'. The reopening of the African question in Egyptology has proceeded from the pre- and protohistorians of the Nile Valley and of northern Africa in general. The inclusion of late prehistoric Egypt in Africa determines the essentially African nature of many of the central features of Pharaonic civilisation and explains the many parallels between ancient Egypt and both the ancient Saharan and modern black civilisations. The author discusses examples of the iconographic-symbolic parallels between Saharan rock art and Egyptian art, and the principal cultural characteristics shared by ancient Egypt and modern black Africa. The African nature of Egyptian civilisation can be seen most clearly in the institution of Pharaonic kingship. M.W.K.
'The African Foundations of Ancient Egyptian Civilization' by David Wengrow The integration of animals into mortuary rites - which was to become a lasting feature of ancient Egyptian and Sudanese culture - provides powerful testimony that, as in other parts of the Old World, the inception of a neolithic economy in the Nile Valley was experienced through both objective and subjective processes of transfromation....Sherratt has coined the term "primary horticultural community" to describe the outcome of this process in South West Asia and temperate Europe, where early neolithic soceities defined themselves, and their relations with the outside world, in terms of an ideal pattern of co-residence, embracing both living and the dead within the physical community of house and village. The term "primary pastoral community" might be introduced in order to highlight the distinct character of early neolithic society in the Nile Valley, with its distinct configuration of herding, mobility, mortuary rites and the body as frameworks of social experience and reproduction. Just as the social morphology of early farming communities in Egypt and the Sudan was generated outside the physical confines of a constructed environment, so the cultural idiom in which they defined their changing relationships with the non-human world is best characterized , not in terms of 'domestication', but as a process of embodiment.
Encyclopedia Britannica 1984 ed. Macropedia Article, Vol 6: "Egyptian Religion" , pg 506-508 A large number of gods go back to prehistoric times. The images of a cow and star goddess (Hathor), the falcon (Horus), and the human-shaped figures of the fertility god (Min) can be traced back to that period. Some rites, such as the "running of the Apis-bull," the "hoeing of the ground," and other fertility and hunting rites (e.g., the hippopotamus hunt) presumably date from early times.. Connections with the religions in southwest Asia cannot be traced with certainty. It is doubtful whether Osiris can be regarded as equal to Tammuz or Adonis, or whether Hathor is related to the "Great Mother." There are closer relations with northeast African religions. The numerous animal cults (especially bovine cults and panther gods) and details of ritual dresses (animal tails, masks, grass aprons, etc) probably are of African origin. The kinship in particular shows some African elements, such as the king as the head ritualist (i.e., medicine man), the limitations and renewal of the reign (jubilees, regicide), and the position of the king's mother (a matriarchal element). Some of them can be found among the Ethiopians in Napata and Meroe, others among the Prenilotic tribes (Shilluk).
All the above sources/scholars make it clear ancient Egyptian culture is NOT Asiatic nor European but clearly AFRICAN and the scholars who make these claims are not black nor Afrocentric by any means! That's why the whole "multicultural" argument is laughable and can be shot down quick by citing these sources to individuals like Metatron who make this claim.
As far as Metatron's claim of "olive" skin goes, again not only do we have the ancient artwork both in the form of murals and portraits showing the Egyptians to be dark enough to be called 'black', but we have tests done on mummy skin from Mekota & Vermehren study: Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
Of course when this study came out, it didn't get much attention for the obvious reasons and now we even have genetic results of mummies. Elmaestro ran the Egyptian samples from this study into his software and it shows them be 'very dark' (black) also.
Elmaestro or Brandon should post these results.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote: Elmaestro or Brandon should post these results.
I was going to wait until Elmaestro announced the results for the predynastic Egyptian sample’s ancestry before I posted those results publicly (before then, I was just sharing them in private emails or messages). But, since the cat is now out of the bag, I’ll share them once I get back home from errands.
UPDATE: Elmaestro requested I wait until he's done breaking down the predynastic genome in a few days. I will request my new thread be deleted.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Sounds right to me. Since it's Elmaestro who ran the results, we should wait for him to present them himself.
In the meantime, KueliMika and whoever else should remind Metatron that the Egyptians did not exactly portray themselves as "olive skin"...
and neither did his Roman/Italian ancestors.
Also, in terms of being 'multicultural' the Egyptians were a relatively a homogeneous culture since its unification in the 3rd millennium BC when the Naqada Culture kings of Ta-Shemau conquered Ta-Mehu of the Delta and unified the 2 Lands.
Meanwhile the region of Nubia to south was more multicultural with at least3 cultures:
This image is from Kuelmikas first video critiquing Metatron ^
.
.
^ this is what Kuelmika is calling olive skin, a section of the photo of the woman's forehead on the right enlarged I would not call this orangish-light brown color "olive skinned"
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Semantics. The traditional color scheme is that women were portrayed in yellow which we know is not their true color. The women like the men had skin tones that were much darker and what we call 'black'. The 'Classical' authors of Greece and Rome have said so, which again is why I find Metatron's claims incredulous. If Kuelmika and others were smart they would just cite the Greco-Roman writers' descriptions of the Egyptians to Metatron. He knows Latin and his Roman ancestors described the Egyptians skin complexion as 'adusti' and 'atri' and thus nowhere near "olive" LOL. I've seen some of Metatron's videos and when it comes to Roman or other European history and even Japanese Medieval history he's on point but when it comes to ancient Egypt's ethnic identity, he then fumbles completely.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Semantics. The traditional color scheme is that women were portrayed in yellow which we know is not their true color. The women like the men had skin tones that were much darker and what we call 'black'. The 'Classical' authors of Greece and Rome have said so, which again is why I find Metatron's claims incredulous. If Kuelmika and others were smart they would just cite the Greco-Roman writers' descriptions of the Egyptians to Metatron. He knows Latin and his Roman ancestors described the Egyptians skin complexion as 'adusti' and 'atri' and thus nowhere near "olive" LOL. I've seen some of Metatron's videos and when it comes to Roman or other European history and even Japanese Medieval history he's on point but when it comes to ancient Egypt's ethnic identity, he then fumbles completely.
you can't talk about olive skin without showing a photo of a person who is olive colored
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Nice try Lioness but when people use "olive" to refer to skin complexion they are talking about the stereotypical modern Mediterranean European of Arabesque complexion. Not green or red olives.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Nice try Lioness but when people use "olive" to refer to skin complexion they are talking about the stereotypical modern Mediterranean European of Arabesque complexion. Not green or red olives.
that's vague, you can't talk about olive skin without showing a photo of a person who is olive skinned, preferably male so the makeup factor is not in play
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
This conversation gets nowhere because you guys are always thinking of skin color in a sedentary context(modern day) so let me play devil's advocate. Your average person today spends the majority of their time indoors so their skin color would not be the same as their non-sedentary ancestors with a similar genetic makeup. The only exception to that would be populations that can't tan but we're of course talking about a region of the world were the ability to tan is *typical*. Me for example, I'm of West African descent. I'm lighter than the color Egyptians typically used to depict their men but with prolonged sun exposure I'm DARKER. In contrast, the current president of Egypt: Evidently, modern Egyptians are capable of tanning within the range depicted in Ancient Egyptian art so skin color can't exactly be used to discount genetic continuity. If we look at Ancient Egyptian text there’s little if any reference to any skin color as a beauty standard so the representation of skin color would likely be more accurate than in other Ancient Civilizations in the area who were known to idealize lighter skin. A tanning theory would also explain why lighter skin was more often associated with femininity in AE art (more time indoors). So where do we go from there? We have to discount that tans were being portrayed and if we can't do that, the argument is pointless.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Modern Egyptians are NOT the same as ancient Egyptians, and ironically the Schuenemann et al. study of the Abusir mummies and other samples show that modern Egyptians have more Sub-Saharan ancestry than ancient Egyptians. Also you assume that the dark complexions you see in the portraits are all "tans" as opposed to their actual complexions. Unless you want to say that chocolate dark tans are common.
But in case you missed it in the previous page here again is the 2005 Mekota1 and Vermehren finding of Middle Kingdom elite mummy skin: Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
We also have genetic data showing this is no mere "tan" and the same is true with Natufian and Epipaleolithic Maghrebi samples. This confirms the Classical authors' claims that black-skinned people bordered the Mediterranean Sea NOT the Sahara desert. LOL Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Egyptian President-elect Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took to television on Tuesday to address the nation. The gravity of his first speech since declaring victory could have, however, been hampered by what seemed to be a very dark tan boasted by the soon-to-be leader.
Twitter users took to social media to poke fun at not-so-TV-ready president-elect who won 96.9 percent of the votes.
Twitter user Ahmed al-Husseiny said “It’s been a long winter, everybody is pale white. Looks like it’s a job for [the] Tan Man. #Sisi to the rescue.”
Meanwhile, Farah Saafan tweeted “What the hell is wrong with Sisi’s complexion? I mean we know u’re excited but take it easy on the spray tan dude.”
Another user tweeted “The Jersey (Jowsee) tan looks o-some on you, Mr.Sisi.”
“Sisi is celebrating [with] a well-deserved tan,” tweeted one user.
In the television address, Sisi thanked the Egyptian people, judges and the media for their roles during the electoral process. He also thanked Sabahi, his sole rival, for taking part in the election.
Turnout in last week’s election was 47.45 percent of Egypt’s 54 million voters, the commission said - less than the 40 million votes, or 80 percent of the electorate, that Sisi had called for.
Not that we know for sure whether that's actually a spray tan Sisi has on in the image to the right, but IMO it's no more improbable than the mahogany-skinned figures in AE part representing suntanned "Mediterranean" types.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Modern Egyptians are NOT the same as ancient Egyptians, and ironically the Schuenemann et al. study of the Abusir mummies and other samples show that modern Egyptians have more Sub-Saharan ancestry than ancient Egyptians. Also you assume that the dark complexions you see in the portraits are all "tans" as opposed to their actual complexions. Unless you want to say that chocolate dark tans are common.
But in case you missed it in the previous page here again is the 2005 Mekota1 and Vermehren finding of Middle Kingdom elite mummy skin: Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
We also have genetic data showing this is no mere "tan" and the same is true with Natufian and Epipaleolithic Maghrebi samples. This confirms the Classical authors' claims that black-skinned people bordered the Mediterranean Sea NOT the Sahara desert. LOL
I didn't miss it. That's conjecture from the researcher, not a conclusion of the study. The way tans work is that sun exposure causes the skin to increase melanin production and from what I surmise, the study was not structured in a way to differentiate base melanin levels from a tan.
The average modern Egyptian is olive to brown so the ability to tan very dark would be typical, not uncommon. The relevant factors affecting that are lifestyle (sedentary vs non-sedentary), technology (modern sunscreen), and beauty standards (opting to stay out of the sun to maintain light skin). What we're tasked with doing is deducing how much those factors come into play.
and FYI, I'm not assuming so much as I'm pointing out a large hole in the argument you guys are overlooking. AE was a farming society in a desert environment where people wore little clothing and had far more sun exposure than most modern Egyptians do today. So, if you're not accounting for "tanning" in your argument, the argument isn't logically sound.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Ironically, the article Itoli's image comes from mentions a Twitter user clowning on President Sisi for possibly having a spray tan:
quote:Egyptian President-elect Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took to television on Tuesday to address the nation. The gravity of his first speech since declaring victory could have, however, been hampered by what seemed to be a very dark tan boasted by the soon-to-be leader.
Twitter users took to social media to poke fun at not-so-TV-ready president-elect who won 96.9 percent of the votes.
Twitter user Ahmed al-Husseiny said “It’s been a long winter, everybody is pale white. Looks like it’s a job for [the] Tan Man. #Sisi to the rescue.”
Meanwhile, Farah Saafan tweeted “What the hell is wrong with Sisi’s complexion? I mean we know u’re excited but take it easy on the spray tan dude.”
Another user tweeted “The Jersey (Jowsee) tan looks o-some on you, Mr.Sisi.”
“Sisi is celebrating [with] a well-deserved tan,” tweeted one user.
In the television address, Sisi thanked the Egyptian people, judges and the media for their roles during the electoral process. He also thanked Sabahi, his sole rival, for taking part in the election.
Turnout in last week’s election was 47.45 percent of Egypt’s 54 million voters, the commission said - less than the 40 million votes, or 80 percent of the electorate, that Sisi had called for.
Not that we know for sure whether that's actually a spray tan Sisi has on in the image to the right, but IMO it's no more improbable than the mahogany-skinned figures in AE part representing suntanned "Mediterranean" types.
I'm sorry, just for clarification, are you suggesting that Southern Mediterranean people with olive to brown skin having the ability to tan dark, is somehow as improbable as a baseless joke from a random netizen?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Ironically, the article Itoli's image comes from mentions a Twitter user clowning on President Sisi for possibly having a spray tan:
quote:Egyptian President-elect Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took to television on Tuesday to address the nation. The gravity of his first speech since declaring victory could have, however, been hampered by what seemed to be a very dark tan boasted by the soon-to-be leader.
Twitter users took to social media to poke fun at not-so-TV-ready president-elect who won 96.9 percent of the votes.
Twitter user Ahmed al-Husseiny said “It’s been a long winter, everybody is pale white. Looks like it’s a job for [the] Tan Man. #Sisi to the rescue.”
Meanwhile, Farah Saafan tweeted “What the hell is wrong with Sisi’s complexion? I mean we know u’re excited but take it easy on the spray tan dude.”
Another user tweeted “The Jersey (Jowsee) tan looks o-some on you, Mr.Sisi.”
“Sisi is celebrating [with] a well-deserved tan,” tweeted one user.
In the television address, Sisi thanked the Egyptian people, judges and the media for their roles during the electoral process. He also thanked Sabahi, his sole rival, for taking part in the election.
Turnout in last week’s election was 47.45 percent of Egypt’s 54 million voters, the commission said - less than the 40 million votes, or 80 percent of the electorate, that Sisi had called for.
Not that we know for sure whether that's actually a spray tan Sisi has on in the image to the right, but IMO it's no more improbable than the mahogany-skinned figures in AE part representing suntanned "Mediterranean" types.
^ Makes sense considering that the Afrangi elite who rule Egypt (of Arab, Turkish, Circassian, or other non indigenous descent) don't typically tan that dark. In fact Egypt like many countries where the indigenous people are very dark actually have a colorism problem so people especially women do the opposite and bleach their skins! Typically skin bleaching is a female issue.
Ironically, when Jada Smith produced her Netflix movie on Cleopatra it stirred controversy among the same Afrangi especially actors who had a problem with a black woman portraying an Egyptian queen even though the actress looked no different from Baladi women.
Ancient Egyptians vs. rural Baladi Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Ironically, the article Itoli's image comes from mentions a Twitter user clowning on President Sisi for possibly having a spray tan:
quote:Egyptian President-elect Abdel Fattah al-Sisi took to television on Tuesday to address the nation. The gravity of his first speech since declaring victory could have, however, been hampered by what seemed to be a very dark tan boasted by the soon-to-be leader.
Twitter users took to social media to poke fun at not-so-TV-ready president-elect who won 96.9 percent of the votes.
Twitter user Ahmed al-Husseiny said “It’s been a long winter, everybody is pale white. Looks like it’s a job for [the] Tan Man. #Sisi to the rescue.”
Meanwhile, Farah Saafan tweeted “What the hell is wrong with Sisi’s complexion? I mean we know u’re excited but take it easy on the spray tan dude.”
Another user tweeted “The Jersey (Jowsee) tan looks o-some on you, Mr.Sisi.”
“Sisi is celebrating [with] a well-deserved tan,” tweeted one user.
In the television address, Sisi thanked the Egyptian people, judges and the media for their roles during the electoral process. He also thanked Sabahi, his sole rival, for taking part in the election.
Turnout in last week’s election was 47.45 percent of Egypt’s 54 million voters, the commission said - less than the 40 million votes, or 80 percent of the electorate, that Sisi had called for.
Not that we know for sure whether that's actually a spray tan Sisi has on in the image to the right, but IMO it's no more improbable than the mahogany-skinned figures in AE part representing suntanned "Mediterranean" types.
^ Makes sense considering that the Afrangi elite who rule Egypt (of Arab, Turkish, Circassian, or other non indigenous descent) don't typically tan that dark. In fact Egypt like many countries where the indigenous people are very dark actually have a colorism problem so people especially women do the opposite and bleach their skins! Typically skin bleaching is a female issue.
Ironically, when Jada Smith produced her Netflix movie on Cleopatra it stirred controversy among the same Afrangi especially actors who had a problem with a black woman portraying an Egyptian queen even though the actress looked no different from Baladi women.
Ancient Egyptians vs. rural Baladi [IMG]https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-3fefc820240bec6edb24c7e0e5d5444e[IMG]
Arabs don't have the ability to tan dark?
[/qb]
Even Europeans who can tan can get fairly dark:
but we're playing incredulous about how dark MENA people can tan? hm, okay.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
dp
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ When did I say Arabs can't tan dark??! I said they don't tan that dark as in the complexion you see among Baladi! LOL Apparently you don't realize that Arab Egyptians are racist toward the Baladi (indigenous) Egyptians and criticize their dark skin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I didn't miss it. That's conjecture from the researcher, not a conclusion of the study. The way tans work is that sun exposure causes the skin to increase melanin production and from what I surmise, the study was not structured in a way to differentiate base melanin levels from a tan.
The average modern Egyptian is olive to brown so the ability to tan very dark would be typical, not uncommon. The relevant factors affecting that are lifestyle (sedentary vs non-sedentary), technology (modern sunscreen), and beauty standards (opting to stay out of the sun to maintain light skin). What we're tasked with doing is deducing how much those factors come into play.
and FYI, I'm not assuming so much as I'm pointing out a large hole in the argument you guys are overlooking. AE was a farming society in a desert environment where people wore little clothing and had far more sun exposure than most modern Egyptians do today. So, if you're not accounting for "tanning" in your argument, the argument isn't logically sound.
LOL If you're saying that these scientists can't tell the difference between a sun tan and skin that is "packed with melanin like specimens of Negroid origin", then I don't know what to tell you.
I suppose all these Egyptian royals were tanned too.
Egyptians vs. Nubians
Perhaps the Nubians were also tanned. LOL Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ When did I say Arabs can't tan dark??! I said they don't tan that dark as in the complexion you see among Baladi! LOL Apparently you don't realize that Arab Egyptians are racist toward the Baladi (indigenous) Egyptians and criticize their dark skin.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: I didn't miss it. That's conjecture from the researcher, not a conclusion of the study. The way tans work is that sun exposure causes the skin to increase melanin production and from what I surmise, the study was not structured in a way to differentiate base melanin levels from a tan.
The average modern Egyptian is olive to brown so the ability to tan very dark would be typical, not uncommon. The relevant factors affecting that are lifestyle (sedentary vs non-sedentary), technology (modern sunscreen), and beauty standards (opting to stay out of the sun to maintain light skin). What we're tasked with doing is deducing how much those factors come into play.
and FYI, I'm not assuming so much as I'm pointing out a large hole in the argument you guys are overlooking. AE was a farming society in a desert environment where people wore little clothing and had far more sun exposure than most modern Egyptians do today. So, if you're not accounting for "tanning" in your argument, the argument isn't logically sound.
LOL If you're saying that these scientists can't tell the difference between a sun tan and skin that is "packed with melanin like specimens of Negroid origin", then I don't know what to tell you.
I suppose all these Egyptian royals were tanned too.
Try not to devolve this into the usual out of context picture spamming and present an actual argument. Per the methodology where exactly did the researchers differentiate between base skin color and tans? If the study looked at melanin production or the ratio between eumelanin and pheomelanin (which I don't believe there's a single mummy in the world well enough preserved to do), then the study would be useful. Instead, the only thing they looked at was melanin *levels* in the skin, which doesn't tell us anything about the base skin tone.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What's out of context? I only posted a few of the countless portraits the Egyptians made of themselves. Even most Egyptologists will tell you they are representative of the typical ancient Egyptian skin color which is mahogany to chocolate in complexion. As for your query about the Mekota et al. skin histology study, it is a valid one yet you are the one making the assumption that their observation was made on "tanned" skin rather than base color. Perhaps you can contact the authors of that study since I merely cite the claims they make based on their observations.
I'm well aware that Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean can tan quite dark but why is it their ancient ancestors NEVER described the Egyptians as tanned but as out right black-- "melanchroi" or "mauri" by the Greeks or "atri" or "adusti" by the Romans?? The same authors often compared the Egyptians to their Nubian neighbors and often stressed their similarities rather than differences. So, what is left??
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's out of context? I only posted a few of the countless portraits the Egyptians made of themselves. Even most Egyptologists will tell you they are representative of the typical ancient Egyptian skin color which is mahogany to chocolate in complexion. As for your query about the Mekota et al. skin histology study, it is a valid one yet you are the one making the assumption that their observation was made on "tanned" skin rather than base color. Perhaps you can contact the authors of that study since I merely cite the claims they make based on their observations.
I'm well aware that Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean can tan quite dark but why is it their ancient ancestors NEVER described the Egyptians as tanned but as out right black-- "melanchroi" or "mauri" by the Greeks or "atri" or "adusti" by the Romans?? The same authors often compared the Egyptians to their Nubian neighbors and often stressed their similarities rather than differences. So, what is left??
Again, I'm not making any assumption, I'm pointing out the conjecture. The study you posted analyzed melanin levels, not melanin production, nor melanin type so what it proved was that the skin was dark, not WHY the skin was dark. In other words the statement made by the researcher speaks to their personal expectations and assumptions, not the actually finding of the study. Perhaps you don't understand how an evidence based argument works, but all possibilities need to be accounted for regardless of how INCONVENIENT it is for what we may want to believe.
Furthermore, your query operates on the presupposition that melanchros refers to black African skin, when the same sources you reference (the Greeks), use the same word to refer to West and South Asians, and use different descriptions to describe the skin color of verifiably black African groups further south (Aethiops). We don't know exactly what the word means, but in context, we can deduce it refers to people darker than the average greek, but lighter than the average sub-Saharan African.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
I love how its 2024, and we are still up here arguing basic semantics about a topic beaten to death...Weird how as far back as the 90s/2000s etc. when folks like Irish were saying there was a skin tone gradient and that there exists literal so called Black Egyptians in the South and so called Tan Egyptians in the North..Yall know the truth but let some dude on YT get people in a frenzy...
Here is how the Egyptians depicted a stereotypical Upper Egyptian
Nah, its just a Tan Arab dawg
Nah, the Egyptians mislabeled a Nubian
Nah, the Color is Symbolic
Nah they were More Eurasian and don't cluster with West Africans
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
All this talk about Tanning in regards to the study about Melanin levels depicted in some mummies is probably the biggest strawman/red herring, moving the goal post argument I have even seen.
Same song and dance, Bring up Tans and "Arabs"(as if not so called Arab people exists that don't have dark skin and africoid features because of course they don't only Massa White Arab can migrate to Africa, dumb N-Gger Horners to dumb to do the reverse)
Bring up Tanning as if one type of skin color/range exists for so called "Black people" and so called "Black People" can't tan, bring up "Average SSA" when the Nubian people who have been shown to be heavily Eurasian on par with Egyptians were the Token Blubbery Lipped True Negros depicted on the Walls of KM.T not the West Africans that are the default True Negros of Today's Biodiversity google scholarship..
Yeah DJ, don't spam the thread with images, We don't want to see how A. Egyptians depicted themselves and how they match the literal people descended from them, lets play little work games and talk about Tanned Arabs
At least stick to the DNA, way easier to Grift and promote true negroidism
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
To be fair here is the lower Egyptian from the same wall
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's out of context? I only posted a few of the countless portraits the Egyptians made of themselves. Even most Egyptologists will tell you they are representative of the typical ancient Egyptian skin color which is mahogany to chocolate in complexion. As for your query about the Mekota et al. skin histology study, it is a valid one yet you are the one making the assumption that their observation was made on "tanned" skin rather than base color. Perhaps you can contact the authors of that study since I merely cite the claims they make based on their observations.
I'm well aware that Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean can tan quite dark but why is it their ancient ancestors NEVER described the Egyptians as tanned but as out right black-- "melanchroi" or "mauri" by the Greeks or "atri" or "adusti" by the Romans?? The same authors often compared the Egyptians to their Nubian neighbors and often stressed their similarities rather than differences. So, what is left??
Again, I'm not making any assumption, I'm pointing out the conjecture. The study you posted analyzed melanin levels, not melanin production, nor melanin type so what it proved was that the skin was dark, not WHY the skin was dark. In other words the statement made by the researcher speaks to their personal expectations and assumptions, not the actually finding of the study. Perhaps you don't understand how an evidence based argument works, but all possibilities need to be accounted for regardless of how INCONVENIENT it is for what we may want to believe.
Furthermore, your query operates on the presupposition that melanchros refers to black African skin, when the same sources you reference (the Greeks), use the same word to refer to West and South Asians, and use different descriptions to describe the skin color of verifiably black African groups further south (Aethiops). We don't know exactly what the word means, but in context, we can deduce it refers to people darker than the average greek, but lighter than the average sub-Saharan African.
Itoli the Greeks often used the terms Aethiopia and India interchangeably, to the point where more modern scholars have written papers on the confusion. You obviously have not read these works or you would no that there was no distinction made, ie. these were all 'black' people.
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
Interesting I always thought the Eastern Ethiopians were Indians, but it seems he's making a distinction between Eastern(Straight Haired) Libyan (Wooly Hair) and Indians (But all 3 resemble each other except for hair and speech)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's out of context? I only posted a few of the countless portraits the Egyptians made of themselves. Even most Egyptologists will tell you they are representative of the typical ancient Egyptian skin color which is mahogany to chocolate in complexion. As for your query about the Mekota et al. skin histology study, it is a valid one yet you are the one making the assumption that their observation was made on "tanned" skin rather than base color. Perhaps you can contact the authors of that study since I merely cite the claims they make based on their observations.
I'm well aware that Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean can tan quite dark but why is it their ancient ancestors NEVER described the Egyptians as tanned but as out right black-- "melanchroi" or "mauri" by the Greeks or "atri" or "adusti" by the Romans?? The same authors often compared the Egyptians to their Nubian neighbors and often stressed their similarities rather than differences. So, what is left??
Again, I'm not making any assumption, I'm pointing out the conjecture. The study you posted analyzed melanin levels, not melanin production, nor melanin type so what it proved was that the skin was dark, not WHY the skin was dark. In other words the statement made by the researcher speaks to their personal expectations and assumptions, not the actually finding of the study. Perhaps you don't understand how an evidence based argument works, but all possibilities need to be accounted for regardless of how INCONVENIENT it is for what we may want to believe.
Furthermore, your query operates on the presupposition that melanchros refers to black African skin, when the same sources you reference (the Greeks), use the same word to refer to West and South Asians, and use different descriptions to describe the skin color of verifiably black African groups further south (Aethiops). We don't know exactly what the word means, but in context, we can deduce it refers to people darker than the average greek, but lighter than the average sub-Saharan African.
Itoli the Greeks often used the terms Aethiopia and India interchangeably, to the point where more modern scholars have written papers on the confusion. You obviously have not read these works or you would no that there was no distinction made, ie. these were all 'black' people.
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
Correct. More specifically, they likened southern indians to aethiopians.
"The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Aethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Aethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Aethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically."
Arrian, Indica 6.9
As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Modern Egyptians are NOT the same as ancient Egyptians, and ironically the Schuenemann et al. study of the Abusir mummies and other samples show that modern Egyptians have more Sub-Saharan ancestry than ancient Egyptians. Also you assume that the dark complexions you see in the portraits are all "tans" as opposed to their actual complexions. Unless you want to say that chocolate dark tans are common.
But in case you missed it in the previous page here again is the 2005 Mekota1 and Vermehren finding of Middle Kingdom elite mummy skin: Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed.
We also have genetic data showing this is no mere "tan" and the same is true with Natufian and Epipaleolithic Maghrebi samples. This confirms the Classical authors' claims that black-skinned people bordered the Mediterranean Sea NOT the Sahara desert. LOL
.
.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Schuenemann et al. study of the Abusir mummies and other samples show that modern Egyptians have more Sub-Saharan ancestry than ancient Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin.
Since "Sub-Saharan" is the politically correct way of saying "Negroid" The implication of this that the Egyptians were not Negroid except in color
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
^^^Basically the whole Biodiversity grift summed up, Also don't forget the Token True N*ggers of the Biovidesity grift, the "Nubians" were also Not Negroid since they are also heavily "Eurasian" lol
Posted by Elmaestro (Member # 22566) on :
This is like a religious talk. People believe what they want and it bleeds into their "analysis." I wonder why it's been so hard for people to accept people for what they were, what they themselves described themselves as and what people who seen them described them as?
-Ancient Egyptians in foundation weren't Arab... And they lightened over time with admixture. Common era philosophers seen a different Egypt classic authors.
-The old school people were right, and I have to agree with Jari, modern phys-anthro is a bit of a grift.
There were posters on this site who were right all along.
Posted by Sarapis (Member # 23852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This is like a religious talk. People believe what they want and it bleeds into their "analysis." I wonder why it's been so hard for people to accept people for what they were, what they themselves described themselves as and what people who seen them described them as?
-Ancient Egyptians in foundation weren't Arab... And they lightened over time with admixture. Common era philosophers seen a different Egypt classic authors.
-The old school people were right, and I have to agree with Jari, modern phys-anthro is a bit of a grift.
There were posters on this site who were right all along.
Indeed, I'm new here but it appears that some members have difficulty acknowledging that Egyptians, as a whole, differed from most black Africans, as indicated for instance by Irish 2010 :
"as can be seen, all egyptian samples cluster on the right half of the diagram; the pooled MED sample joins them. nubians, with the exception of the disparate late paleolithic Jebel sahaba sample (see Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2005 for explanation), cluster along the center. The pooled saf sample is isolated; although it is shown to be equidistant between Jebel sahaba and the post-Pleistocene Nubians, actual MMD distance values reveal a much closer afinity (roughly 3x closer) to the former than latter samples. lastly, Gebel ramlah appears intermediate to the egyptian and nubian clusters along the x-axis and, with the exception of one nubian sample, distinct from most others on the y-axis."
You're right to bring classical authors as they make it clear that egyptians were lighter than ethiopians and were not kinky-haired like them ( Snowden 1996) :
"Indeed, most of these passages do not even mention lips or hair but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts, though used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans, by no means indicate that persons so described were Ethiopians, that is, blacks or Negroes in the modern usage of such terms."
"Several classical authors specifically emphasized that Ethiopians were darker than Egyptians. Inhabitants of the area near the Ethiopian-nubian boundary were said by Flavius Philostratus (Life of Apollonius 6.2) to be not fully black, not as black as ethiopians, but blacker than egyptians. That the pigmentation of Egyptians was seen as lighter than that of Ethiopians is also attested by the adjective subfusculi ("somewhat dark") which Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16.23) chose to describe Egyptians. The people inhabiting the regions around Meroe, on the other hand were deeply black in color and were pure Ethiopians (Ptolemy Geography 1.9)"
"The pseudo-aristotelian Physiognomonica (812a, b) describes both egyptians and Ethiopians as melanes, but mentions only Ethiopians, not Egyptians, as having exceedingly woolly hair. In short, Ethiopians whose skin was the blackest and whose hair was the woolliest or most tightly curled of all mankind were the only people in classical texts who correspond roughly to the concept of blacks or negroes as generally understood in modern usage."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I love how its 2024, and we are still up here arguing basic semantics about a topic beaten to death...Weird how as far back as the 90s/2000s etc. when folks like Irish were saying there was a skin tone gradient and that there exists literal so called Black Egyptians in the South and so called Tan Egyptians in the North..Yall know the truth but let some dude on YT get people in a frenzy...
Here is how the Egyptians depicted a stereotypical Upper Egyptian
Nah, its just a Tan Arab dawg
Nah, the Egyptians mislabeled a Nubian
Nah, the Color is Symbolic
Nah they were More Eurasian and don't cluster with West Africans
Are we to believe the Egyptians typically depicted Upper Egyptians identical to Nubians and Upper Nubians identical to Asiatics?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ibis:
Topic: Did Metatron have a point here?: Mediterranean/Asiatic Immigration Evidence
Does do you have quote from Metatron talking about Mediterranean/Asiatic Immigration Evidence? ?
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: This is like a religious talk. People believe what they want and it bleeds into their "analysis." I wonder why it's been so hard for people to accept people for what they were, what they themselves described themselves as and what people who seen them described them as?
-Ancient Egyptians in foundation weren't Arab... And they lightened over time with admixture. Common era philosophers seen a different Egypt classic authors.
-The old school people were right, and I have to agree with Jari, modern phys-anthro is a bit of a grift.
There were posters on this site who were right all along.
I think Itoli may be arguing in good faith, but yeah, some people are just willful morons as I've taken to saying. Thankfully, time is on its way to running out for their credibility... Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Itoli the Greeks often used the terms Aethiopia and India interchangeably, to the point where more modern scholars have written papers on the confusion. You obviously have not read these works or you would no that there was no distinction made, ie. these were all 'black' people.
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
Herodotus did not use the word "black" in the entire Chapter 7 except to describe the Black River and a black colored rock
The description above is not interchangeable. It says the Eastern Ethiopians had straight hair and the African ones had woolly hair.
It's your personal definition that "black" means "any dark skinned person"
And since when are ancient Greeks and Romans the authority on these things?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Interesting I always thought the Eastern Ethiopians were Indians, but it seems he's making a distinction between Eastern(Straight Haired) Libyan (Wooly Hair) and Indians (But all 3 resemble each other except for hair and speech)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
It's not clear if Herodotus was describing two types of Indians and was calling the darker ones "Ethiopian" or if they were not Indians yet had straight hair
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sarapis: Indeed, I'm new here but it appears that some members have difficulty acknowledging that Egyptians, as a whole, differed from most black Africans, as indicated for instance by Irish 2010 :
"as can be seen, all Egyptian samples cluster on the right half of the diagram; the pooled MED sample joins them. Nubians, with the exception of the disparate late paleolithic Jebel Sahaba sample (see Irish and Turner, 1990; Irish, 1993, 1997, 2000, 2005 for explanation), cluster along the center. The pooled saf sample is isolated; although it is shown to be equidistant between Jebel Sahaba and the post-Pleistocene Nubians, actual MMD distance values reveal a much closer affinity (roughly 3x closer) to the former than latter samples. lastly, Gebel Ramlah appears intermediate to the Egyptian and Nubian clusters along the x-axis and, with the exception of one Nubian sample, distinct from most others on the y-axis."
You're obviously new here because we discuss the bioanthropological data of Egyptians and other Africans in this forum ALL the time. So yes, if by "most black Africans" you mean most 'Sub-Saharans' you are correct. Egyptians fall into a North African category but the same is true with Nubians. The Irish source you cite shows this and the graph below is what he is referring to.
^ Note that certain Upper Egyptian samples cluster closer to certain Nubian samples than with other Egyptian samples. Also note that the pooled modern Sub-Saharan samples (saf) is closer to the North Africans than the Mesolithic Jebel Sahaba (jsa) sample from Nubia.
For some better context here is a graph from Irish's 1998 study:
^ Mesolithic Nubia is the Jebel Sahaba sample and is an outlier due to its archaic traits amongst all the samples in Irish's 'Sub-Saharan African Dental Complex' (SSADC) or 'Afridonty' as he calls it. Irish stated: "Therefore, this suite of 11 traits, that is, the SSADC (Irish 1997), includes the highest occurrences of (1) UC Bushman canine, (2) two-rooted UP1, (3) UM1 Carabelli’s “trait” (i.e., the full range of expression from pit through large cusp on mesiolingual surface), (4) three-rooted UM2, (5) LM2 Y-groove pattern, (6) LM1 cusp 7, (7) LP1 Tome’s root, (8) two-rooted LM2, and (9) UM3 presence, along with the lowest frequencies of (10) UI1 double shoveling and (11) UM1 enamel extensions."
Irish says this about the North African dental complex: "Thus, I proposed (Irish, 1993b, 1998a) that the North African dental trait complex is one which parallels that of Europeans, yet displays higher frequencies of Bushman Canine, two-rooted UP1, three-rooted UM2, LM2 Y- groove, LM1 cusp 7, LP1 Tome's root, two-rooted LM2, and lower frequencies of UM1 enamel extension and peg/reduced or absent UM3. North Africans also exhibit a higher frequency of UM1 Carabelli's trait than sub-Saharan Africans or Europeans."
This is why North Africans in MMD analyses are intermediate between Sub-Saharans and West Eurasians like Europeans. The same can be said about other cranial traits. For example the reason why Egyptian and other North African crania have been classified as "caucasoid" is due to narrow features of the skull.
But many Eurocentrics like to emphasize the differences with Sub-Saharans and overlook or ignore the similarities.
"A comparison of the more reliable material shows that there is a considerable variation in calvarial measurements among Negro races: all the Egyptian series fall within the extremes of length, breadth and cephalic index shown by the Negro types. But certain other measurements--chiefly facial--apparently distinguish all Negro from all Egyptian types."-- G.M. Morant (1925)
"Miss Fawcett believes the Naqada crania to be sufficiently homogeneous to justify speaking of a Naqada race. By height of the skull, the auricular height, the height and width of the face, the height of the nose, the cephalic and facial indices, this race presents affinities with Negroes. By the nasal width, the height of the orbit, the length of the palate, and the nasal index, it presents affinities with Germans...." ---Dr. Emile Massoulard, Prehistoire et Protohistoire d'Egypt (1949)
That said, certain traits typically associated with Sub-Saharans such as wide nasal opening and prognathism are not uncommon among Egyptians and other North Africans. In fact, this anthropological division of Africans into 'North' vs. 'Sub-Sahara' is tenuous at best since the North African types also reside in Sub-Sahara such as the Horn of Africa with Ethiopians displaying the same dental and cranial traits as Egyptians. Meanwhile we have evidence of modern 'Sub-Saharan' or 'Negro' types being present in North Africa as far north as Fayum Egypt in the Mesolithic. See the thread The North African 'Negro' Paradox.
Then there is the post-cranial evidence that is skeletal body traits which there is NO difference between North African and Sub-Saharans.
The present indigenous inhabitants of sub-Saharan Africa fall into three groups: Negroid, Khoisan (Khoikhoin or 'Hottentots', and San or 'Bushmen'), and "Caucasoid" (Eastern Hamites)--[Ethiopian and Egyptian types]. These groups may be easily distinguished by external features such as skin color and hair form, but in skeletal features alone there is a good deal of overlap even today, when they have probably become increasingly divergent from their more generalized ancestors. From fragmentary fossil remains, therefore, it is difficult to distinguish among the different groups. Negroids, for instance, typically have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, but Eastern Hamites also tend to have a narrow skull and rounded forehead, and San also have a rounded forehead. A protruding upper jaw is characteristic of Negroids, but this part of the face is not always preserved in fossil remains.. 'Phylogenetic Affinities of African Fossils to Modern Man', The New Encyclopaedia Britannica Macropaedia Vol. 13, 15th ed (1990)
..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. --Donald Redford in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Volume 3. Oxford University Press (2001)
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
"Super-negroid" body plan means their skeletal proportions are no different from Africans like Sudanese.
quote:You're right to bring classical authors as they make it clear that Egyptians were lighter than Ethiopians and were not kinky-haired like them ( Snowden 1996) :
"Indeed, most of these passages do not even mention lips or hair but demonstrate only that adjectives denoting color in classical texts, though used to describe several peoples darker than Greeks and Romans, by no means indicate that persons so described were Ethiopians, that is, blacks or Negroes in the modern usage of such terms."
"Several classical authors specifically emphasized that Ethiopians were darker than Egyptians. Inhabitants of the area near the Ethiopian-nubian boundary were said by Flavius Philostratus (Life of Apollonius 6.2) to be not fully black, not as black as ethiopians, but blacker than egyptians. That the pigmentation of Egyptians was seen as lighter than that of Ethiopians is also attested by the adjective subfusculi ("somewhat dark") which Ammianus Marcellinus (22.16.23) chose to describe Egyptians. The people inhabiting the regions around Meroe, on the other hand were deeply black in color and were pure Ethiopians (Ptolemy Geography 1.9)"
"The pseudo-aristotelian Physiognomonica (812a, b) describes both Egyptians and Ethiopians as melanes, but mentions only Ethiopians, not Egyptians, as having exceedingly woolly hair. In short, Ethiopians whose skin was the blackest and whose hair was the woolliest or most tightly curled of all mankind were the only people in classical texts who correspond roughly to the concept of blacks or negroes as generally understood in modern usage."
That Egyptians were lighter in complexion from Ethiopians is a non-issue. Even in Sub-Sahara Pygmies are lighter in color than their neighbors and South African Khoisan are the lightest of all indigenous Africans that European many Afrikaaners and other European colonialists don't consider them to be 'black'. This is like saying south Europeans like Greeks are darker than other Europeans to their north.
The problem with Snowden is that he follows the experts of his time by identifying the ancient label of 'Ethiopian' with the modern racial label of 'Negro'. The problem is that ancient authors originally did not make that identification. Are you even aware the the Greek 'Aethiopia' was originally identified with areas in Asia, specifically the Levant, Arabia, and the Persian Gulf?? Are you aware that the Greeks divided the world into southern lands (notio chore) and northern lands (boreia chore) with Thalassa-- the Mediterranean separating them and that the indigenous inhabitants of the lands south of the Mediterranean were believed to be black because of the myth of Phaeton nearly crashing Helios' chariot (the sun) in that region which also turned the lands desert (North Africa, Arabia, Iran, and India)??
It was only later that 'Aethiopia' was identified with Nubia and we know the Nubians are anthropologically NORTH African closely related to the Egyptians not Sub-Saharans. Later on Roman authors identified Ethiopians with other peoples further south.
All of the sources above refute your racialized claims with the original context of what the Classical authors meant.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Interesting I always thought the Eastern Ethiopians were Indians, but it seems he's making a distinction between Eastern(Straight Haired) Libyan (Wooly Hair) and Indians (But all 3 resemble each other except for hair and speech)
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
I believe he is basically describing what Eurocentrics call "hamites", as in brown whites or black people with so-called " caucasoid features. And of course, the distinction to more modern racialist discourse is that those 'caucasoid hamites' aren't "true blacks" like the so-called "negoids" to the south, which is obviously arbitrary and made up nonsense.
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ What's out of context? I only posted a few of the countless portraits the Egyptians made of themselves. Even most Egyptologists will tell you they are representative of the typical ancient Egyptian skin color which is mahogany to chocolate in complexion. As for your query about the Mekota et al. skin histology study, it is a valid one yet you are the one making the assumption that their observation was made on "tanned" skin rather than base color. Perhaps you can contact the authors of that study since I merely cite the claims they make based on their observations.
I'm well aware that Europeans especially southern Europeans in the Mediterranean can tan quite dark but why is it their ancient ancestors NEVER described the Egyptians as tanned but as out right black-- "melanchroi" or "mauri" by the Greeks or "atri" or "adusti" by the Romans?? The same authors often compared the Egyptians to their Nubian neighbors and often stressed their similarities rather than differences. So, what is left??
Again, I'm not making any assumption, I'm pointing out the conjecture. The study you posted analyzed melanin levels, not melanin production, nor melanin type so what it proved was that the skin was dark, not WHY the skin was dark. In other words the statement made by the researcher speaks to their personal expectations and assumptions, not the actually finding of the study. Perhaps you don't understand how an evidence based argument works, but all possibilities need to be accounted for regardless of how INCONVENIENT it is for what we may want to believe.
Furthermore, your query operates on the presupposition that melanchros refers to black African skin, when the same sources you reference (the Greeks), use the same word to refer to West and South Asians, and use different descriptions to describe the skin color of verifiably black African groups further south (Aethiops). We don't know exactly what the word means, but in context, we can deduce it refers to people darker than the average greek, but lighter than the average sub-Saharan African.
Itoli the Greeks often used the terms Aethiopia and India interchangeably, to the point where more modern scholars have written papers on the confusion. You obviously have not read these works or you would no that there was no distinction made, ie. these were all 'black' people.
quote: The Ethiopians above Egypt and the Arabians had Arsames for commander, and the Ethiopians of the east (for there were two kinds of them in the army) served with the Indians; they differed nothing in appearance from the others, but only in speech and hair; for the Ethiopians from the east are straight-haired, but they of Libya have of all men the woolliest hair. These Ethiopians of Asia were for the most part armed like the Indians; but they wore on their heads the skins of horses' foreheads, stripped from the head with ears and mane; the mane served them for a crest, and they wore the horses' ears stiff and upright; for shields they had bucklers of cranes' skin.
Correct. More specifically, they likened southern indians to aethiopians.
"The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Aethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Aethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Aethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically."
Arrian, Indica 6.9
As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Strabo, Geography 15.1.13
What do you mean by "correct"? Those quotes of Herodatus are not the same as those from those Roman era authors you mentioned. Actual Greek texts from the Hellenistic era often used Aethiopia and India interchangeably. You picking out a few later Roman era authors as somehow proof otherwise shows you know this but are being dishonest. By the Roman era, many populations in the North of the Nile would have been lighter skinned due to mixture with Romans and Greeks before that. Somehow you don't understand that this proves the point these people are not the same as the indigenous populations of prior eras. This is why "debates" on this topic go nowhere because people like to ignore these kinds of simple facts. "Egypt" literally is not the same country as ancient KMT as one only came into existence after the Greek invasion and had its center of power in the North of the country. And as such, people using the term "Egypt" think they are being slick because according to that definition, Cleopatra, is as much Egyptian as Amenhotep III, but that is completely false. Because there was no "Egypt" before the Ptolemies and much of the Greek writing on Egypt comes from this era.
In fact, the text I linked to is a documentation of the Greco Persian war, showing all the various auxiliary forces under Xerxes, which included "Egypt" at that time. Some interesting things to note is that in that text it is said the Egyptian soldiers wore "plaited" helmets, which could be hair or could be a helmet made to look like hair.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:What do you mean by "correct"? Those quotes of Herodatus are not the same as those from those Roman era authors you mentioned. Actual Greek texts from the Hellenistic era often used Aethiopia and India interchangeably. You picking out a few later Roman era authors as somehow proof otherwise shows you know this but are being dishonest. By the Roman era, many populations in the North of the Nile would have been lighter skinned due to mixture with Romans and Greeks before that. Somehow you don't understand that this proves the point these people are not the same as the indigenous populations of prior eras. This is why "debates" on this topic go nowhere because people like to ignore these kinds of simple facts. "Egypt" literally is not the same country as ancient KMT as one only came into existence after the Greek invasion and had its center of power in the North of the country. And as such, people using the term "Egypt" think they are being slick because according to that definition, Cleopatra, is as much Egyptian as Amenhotep III, but that is completely false. Because there was no "Egypt" before the Ptolemies and much of the Greek writing on Egypt comes from this era.
In fact, the text I linked to is a documentation of the Greco Persian war, showing all the various auxiliary forces under Xerxes, which included "Egypt" at that time. Some interesting things to note is that in that text it is said the Egyptian soldiers wore "plaited" helmets, which could be hair or could be a helmet made to look like hair. [/qb]
I think your emotional attachment is causing you to forget what you were arguing 1 post ago. Your initial claim was that Indian and aethiopian was used interchangeably. The point of providing those quotes wasn't to litigate the race of the "original" Egyptians, but provide additional context in how the word "aethiopian" was used - to specifically refer to groups that are as dark as black Africans. Those quotes are useful because they are specific in what kinds of Indian is being referenced, whereas the quote you provided was vague.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
My Response To KueliMika Channel On Black Egyptians
quotes from Metatrons video that Kulemika was responding to as regarding Asia
quote:
regardless of all the attacks that I've received on my original video due to his response I have not disabled the comment section because freedom of speech but these are clear attempts at manipulation meant to shut down valid criticism or opposing views this is clearly out of his control so I encourage my subscribers to not retaliate to that skin tone does not matter let's attack arguments only and boy am I in Full Assault mode today this is what we are disagreeing about my point ancient Egypt was a multicultural and multiethnic civilization due to its geolocation connecting the Middle East Africa Asia and Europe a a strategic location on the crossroad of continents flourishing around the Nile river which was a cultural conduit of civilization therefore there is diversity on the skin of the Egyptians throughout time and location the ethnic percentages will vary depending on era and region according to the results of my research the majority of ancient Egyptians would have had an olive skin with a lower percentage of black individuals living mostly in the southern areas of Egypt and some white settlers and white ruling Elite during the later periods the ancient Egyptian were a multi-ethnic African civilization and their ethnicity was inextricably tied to the geographic location....
linguistically speaking ancient Egyptian is an afroasiatic language and it does not have for as much as we understand Southern African origins it's Hamito-Semitic, geographically Asia is physically connected to Africa which is something that people keep seem to forget...
you also seem to operate under the assumption that the word African just equals black that's incorrect...An African is a person born in Africa full stop African does not equate black you have loads of people Berber populations for example that have been living in Africa for thousands of years and they are not black but they are still African for example the Carthaginians we know were originally a Semitic people coming from the near Levant and then moving to the northern section of where Tunisia is, well they are Africans
Merenptah
How does Metraton knows these are tanned olive skinned people? He doesn't. "Olive skinned" in my estimation means light brown with a slight hint of yellow but this stuff is dark reddish
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Right! Exactly what data is Metatron's research based on??
From the countless examples of artwork alone, one can see that Egyptian skin color was much darker than "olive" tone.
Even old school Egyptologists who wouldn't label Egyptians as 'blacks' didn't say the Egyptians were 'olive' in complexion but admitted they were much darker! LOL Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Right! Exactly what data is Metatron's research based on??
From the countless examples of artwork alone, one can see that Egyptian skin color was much darker than "olive" tone.
Even old school Egyptologists who wouldn't label Egyptians as 'blacks' didn't say the Egyptians were 'olive' in complexion but admitted they were much darker! LOL
That ancient Egyptian artists habitually represented their own people as darker than West Asian peoples (including in the so-called "Table of Nations" sequences in the Book of Gates) was a major factor in my unlearning the common modern portrayal of the former as predominantly olive-skinned. To me, the olive-skinned people in those images are the Asiatics, not the Egyptians themselves. If Egyptians stereotyped themselves as darker than tan-skinned Middle Eastern or Mediterranean people but not quite as dark as the ebony-skinned Nubians, logic would dictate that a complexion in between tan and ebony, such as mahogany or sienna brown, was their norm. So basically like a lot of people living today in areas like Ethiopia, Eritrea, the northernmost Sudan, or hell, Upper Egypt itself.
Of course, there would have been blending and overlap between all the populations represented in the Egyptian "Table of Nations" due to factors like admixture and natural selection, but that seems to be the ancient Egyptians' generalization of themselves and their neighbors.
Posted by -Just Call Me Jari- (Member # 14451) on :
What, you did'nt get the memo DJ, Nubians are the Biodiversity scholar token true negro that they can use and claim to be Eurasian/True N*gger as they see fit depending on the argument...
(keep dropping knowledge though DJ, love it)
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So yes, if by "most black Africans" you mean most 'Sub-Saharans' you are correct. Egyptians fall into a North African category but the same is true with Nubians. ...
^ Note that certain Upper Egyptian samples cluster closer to certain Nubian samples than with other Egyptian samples.
.....
Also note that the pooled modern Sub-Saharan samples (saf) is closer to the North Africans than the Mesolithic Jebel Sahaba (jsa) sample from Nubia. ....
But many Eurocentrics like to emphasize the differences with Sub-Saharans and overlook or ignore the similarities.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
[/QUOTE]
The Egyptians here look like they have retained most of their color in the face of damage to the wall
I would not call the condition of Asiatic in the center position reliable. That one may one be halfway between original color and his comrades to either side that are completely washed out off color
One interesting thing about the figures at the top in the battle scene is that one is yellow but based on art I've seen Asiatic are that mainly reddish brown color although with some exceptions, this one has the exception in the same scene
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
Asaitics are interesting because their depictions don't really work to refute the theory that Egyptians portrayed tans. Asiatic elites were commonly depicted the same color as Egyptian women while workers and low level soldiers were commonly depicted a similar skin tone to Egyptian men as the photos above demonstrate. so either...
1.) The color is reflective of sun exposure, beauty standards, ethnic caricature, and the related symbolisms
2.) The color is reflective of Egyptians being dark skinned black Africans and every other Ancient Egyptian woman being asiatic or the same color as Asiatics
3.) Most non-elite Asiatics were dark skinned black Africans.
I know which scenario is the least ridiculous.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
dp
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
dp.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ The yellow color scheme for Egyptian women has been explained many times before. The choice of the single red-brown color to represent The Egyptian man rather than a more realistic range of shades should also be considered within a wider symbolic scheme that included the representations of foreigners. The foreign men to the north and west of Egypt were depicted by yellow skin[similar to that of traditional Egyptian women]; men to the south of Egypt were given black skin. Although undoubtedly some Egyptians' skin pigmentation differed little from that of Egypt's neighbors, in the Egyptian worldview foreigners had to be distinguished. Thus Egyptian men had to be marked by a common skin color that contrasted with the images of non-Egyptian men. That the Egyptian women shared their skin color with some foreign men scarcely mattered, since the Egyptian male is primary and formed the reference point in these two color schemes-- contrasting in one with non-Egyptian males and in the other with Egyptian females...
...Male and female skin colors were probably not uniform among the entire population of Egypt, with pigmentation being darker in the south[closer to Sub-Sahara Africans] and lighter in the north[closer to Mediterranean Near Easterners] A woman from the south would probably have had darker skin than a man from the North. Thus, the colorations used for skin tones in the art must have been schematic [or symbolic] rather than realistic; the clear gender distinction encoded in that scheme may have been based on elite ideals relating to male and female roles in which women's responsibilities kept them indoors, so that they spent less time in the sun than men. Nevertheless, the significance of the two colors may be even deeper, making some as yet unknown but fundamental difference between men and women in Egyptian worldview... 'A Guide to Egyptian Religion' by Gay Robins (Color Symbolism pages Page 57-61), The Ancient Gods Speak Ed. by Donald Redford.
Robins is correct about the yellow coloring of Egyptian women being purely symbolic but she is wrong about the women staying indoors since the same Egyptian art shows common women doing farm labor outdoors alongside their men folk just as elite women spend their leisure outdoors alongside their men folk doing fishing and fowling or riding in chariots.
Although we don't know exactly what the yellow color symbolizes, many scholars think it represents female fertility or vitality of some sort since the word for yellow-- khenet is phonetically similar to the word for female dancer. Also there is a common custom among Afroasiatic speaking African women-- from Saharan Berbers, to Cushitic speaking Beja and Ethiopians and Somalis-- in which they wear yellow coloring on their skin during special occasions.
All that said, there are many instances in which Egyptian women were portrayed in their actual skin tone and not the symbolic yellow.
Tiye
Tiye's grandchildren
other couples of the same complexion
Women entertainers and banqueters from the tomb of Nebamun
Nebamun whose wife and daughter are darker than him
Hatshepsut's bust happens to have the same complexion as the African American woman next to it Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: 3.) Most non-elite Asiatics were dark skinned black Africans.
Despite the generalizations of Asiatics as lighter than Egyptians in the Egyptian "Table of Nations" sequences, it's not impossible that some Asiatics back in the Bronze Age had darker skin closer to the Egyptians than others. We have plenty of threads on ES discussing darker-skinned peoples throughout Western Asia such as some Arabian groups. I notice that the darker Asiatics in one of the images lioness posted have different clothing from the lighter ones, which might suggest that they came from separate ethnic groups (although some of the other images posted earlier, for example the one from Beni Hasan, do show Asiatic commoners despite your assertion that they're all elites).
Similarly, some of Egypt's southern neighbors may also have been closer to them in terms of skin tone than others. I suppose you're going to play "devil's advocate" by suggesting that the mahogany-colored Nubians in the above two images are naturally yellow-brown people who acquired suntans too? Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Asiatics are interesting because their depictions don't really work to refute the theory that Egyptians portrayed tans.
why would someone come up with such a theory?
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Asiatic elites were commonly depicted the same color as Egyptian women while workers and low level soldiers were commonly depicted a similar skin tone to Egyptian men as the photos above demonstrate. so either...
If we look at the above battle scene, one might guess that the white shirted yellow skinned one is the leader but that is a guess. So if Asiatic elites were commonly depicted the same color as Egyptian women, what is your source for this claim?
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
1.) The color is reflective of sun exposure, beauty standards, ethnic caricature, and the related symbolisms
this is a hodgepodge list of disparate theories
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
2.) The color is reflective of Egyptians being dark skinned black Africans and every other Ancient Egyptian woman being asiatic or the same color as Asiatics
we see the color of Asiatics above, reddish brown
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
3.) Most non-elite Asiatics were dark skinned black Africans.
I know which scenario is the least ridiculous. [/QB]
Unidentified foreigner, possibly Bedouin or Asiatic
look at the lips on this guy
18th Dynasty, Tomb of Nebamun
'
some Egyptian females for color reference
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: [qb] 3.) Most non-elite Asiatics were dark skinned black Africans.
Despite the generalizations of Asiatics as lighter than Egyptians in the Egyptian "Table of Nations" sequences,
there are the illustrations and then there are the, in poor condition, original wall paintings
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Hatshepsut's bust happens to have the same complexion as the African American woman next to it [/QB]
another angle
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: 3.) Most non-elite Asiatics were dark skinned black Africans.
Despite the generalizations of Asiatics as lighter than Egyptians in the Egyptian "Table of Nations" sequences, it's not impossible that some Asiatics back in the Bronze Age had darker skin closer to the Egyptians than others. We have plenty of threads on ES discussing darker-skinned peoples throughout Western Asia such as some Arabian groups. I notice that the darker Asiatics in one of the images lioness posted have different clothing from the lighter ones, which might suggest that they came from separate ethnic groups (although some of the other images posted earlier, for example the one from Beni Hasan, do show Asiatic commoners despite your assertion that they're all elites).
Similarly, some of Egypt's southern neighbors may also have been closer to them in terms of skin tone than others. I suppose you're going to play "devil's advocate" by suggesting that the mahogany-colored Nubians in the above two images are naturally yellow-brown people who acquired suntans too?
Huh? that's not how tanning works,. You guys keep falling into this trap of thinking tanning as a modern leisure activity for pale people instead of the state of being it would have been in the past. To most ancient people their tanned state would have been THE natural state because that's how they would have looked most of their life. More to your point, dark skin tans as well (albeit not as readily). A lighter skinned person can tan to be a similar complexion to a darker skinned person before that darker skinned person even begins to tan. So the depictions of those brown skinned Nubians could very well portray people who would be lighter if they lived a a sedentary lifestyle, or it could portray people who aren't in a tanned state at all. My money is on them not being tanned, because the men and the women have the same color regardless of status.
Moreover, I did not say that all the light skinned asiatics were meant to be elites, nor that some Asiatics weren't darker skinned. An argument was made (likely by you) against the tanning theory by presenting asiatics as a foil. That foil does not work if there's a stratification in skin color between the more sedentary and less sedentary people. The asiatics with more intricate clothing (an indication of status) have a tendency to be portrayed as lighter. The same is true for the Libyans. Also, Asiatics are not a perfect comparison. I'm sure you noticed I keep referencing beauty standards, that's because a preference for light skin influences how cultures portray themselves, and also influences actions taken to maintain light skin. In aggregate Asiatics were portrayed lighter than Egyptians but that may simply be because their beauty standards cause them to maintain their natural skin tones and even aspire to be lighter, whereas in Egypt you don't find too many texts referencing any one skin color as more beautiful or healthy like you do in the ancient middle east/levant. Thus, cultural caricatures of Egyptians as darker and Asiatics as lighter. Is that definitely the case? Idk, take a stab at it.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Moreover, I did not say that all the light skinned asiatics were meant to be elites, nor that some Asiatics weren't darker skinned. An argument was made (likely by you) against the tanning theory by presenting asiatics as a foil. That foil does not work if there's a stratification in skin color between the more sedentary and less sedentary people.
"I didn't say lighter-skinned Asiatics were elite and less tanned, but lighter-skinned Asiatics could simply be more sedentary and less tanned due to stratification (in other words, more elite than the non-tanned ones)."
Seriously, I’m done with this. It’s clear to me you’re way too invested in this “devil’s advocate” of yours.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Moreover, I did not say that all the light skinned asiatics were meant to be elites, nor that some Asiatics weren't darker skinned. An argument was made (likely by you) against the tanning theory by presenting asiatics as a foil. That foil does not work if there's a stratification in skin color between the more sedentary and less sedentary people.
"I didn't say lighter-skinned Asiatics were elite and less tanned, but lighter-skinned Asiatics could simply be more sedentary and less tanned due to stratification (in other words, more elite than the non-tanned ones)."
Seriously, get back on your fucking meds. I'm done arguing with this willful stupidity of yours. I'll let DJ and the rest try to school you, even if it's unlikely to get through that self-thickened skull of yours.
Sir you're literally an autistic white man whose fixation is the race of the ancient Egyptians and drawing badly rendered and fetishtic images of black women - I won't use your condition as an insult but what I will say is that you should be the last one using being "medicated" and thick skulled as a dig.
Your bigger issue here is your illiteracy. You literally quoted what I said yet still chose to formulate a whole new damn sentence to misrepresent it. Having a tendency towards something =/= that thing being universal. If you can't wrap your head around that simple concept, then the discussion was lost on you regardless.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Sir you're literally an autistic white man whose fixation is the race of the ancient Egyptians and drawing badly rendered and fetishtic images of black women - I won't use your condition as an insult but what I will say is that you should be the last one using being "medicated" and thick skulled as a dig.
I actually had edited out the insults in my previous post out of guilt. But I guess that guilt was misplaced. Fuck you, Uncle Ruckus.
Posted by Itoli (Member # 22743) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Sir you're literally an autistic white man whose fixation is the race of the ancient Egyptians and drawing badly rendered and fetishtic images of black women - I won't use your condition as an insult but what I will say is that you should be the last one using being "medicated" and thick skulled as a dig.
I actually had edited out the insults in my previous post out of guilt. But I guess that guilt was misplaced. Fuck you, Uncle Ruckus.
I'm sure you were expecting me to care. I don't even know where you get off thinking you're any authority on self hatred in the black community as a white man but CLEARLY you're too comfortable. This is an interesting topic to pick my brain which is why I've argued on both sides of the coin. My worth as a black person is not linked to the race of the ancient Egyptians so my esteem will never be. The fact you think it would be, raises a series of questions about the negative biases you have towards black people. Benevolent racism is still racism, Brandon, and quite frankly, if you're not trying to debate you're not getting another response. You wasted enough of my time.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ As I've explained here, the Nubian kingdom of Kush was an EMPIRE that encompassed a very large area incorporating multiple kingdoms, polities, or tribal territories whose true limits are not known, but some propose their hegemony goes as far south as the Great Lakes area. A such many peoples under Kushite hegemony are often mistaken for Kushites or Nubians when they are not. It has been established by anthropologists since as far back as Morton that the Nubians proper including Kushites were North African types NOT Sub-Saharan or "negroid".
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: What, you didn't get the memo DJ, Nubians are the Biodiversity scholar token true negro that they can use and claim to be Eurasian/True N*gger as they see fit depending on the argument...
(keep dropping knowledge though DJ, love it)
Indeed, there is so much confusion in regards to Nubians.
Many Nubians are darker in complexion than Egyptians yet they may possess features that are more "caucasoid" than Egyptians with thinner lips and longer noses.
This has lead some people to speculate "Eurasian" admixture yet as Itoli has shown with the Irish study although Nubians cluster with Egyptians relatively speaking the former are closer in position to Sub-Saharans than Egyptians.
By the way, even in Sub-Sahara there are differences in complexion.
^ Note Tut's complexion is not only the same as his horse but some of the South Sudanese armies he battles.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Itoli:
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP:
quote:Originally posted by Itoli: Sir you're literally an autistic white man whose fixation is the race of the ancient Egyptians and drawing badly rendered and fetishtic images of black women - I won't use your condition as an insult but what I will say is that you should be the last one using being "medicated" and thick skulled as a dig.
I actually had edited out the insults in my previous post out of guilt. But I guess that guilt was misplaced. Fuck you, Uncle Ruckus.
I'm sure you were expecting me to care. I don't even know where you get off thinking you're any authority on self hatred in the black community as a white man but CLEARLY you're too comfortable. This is an interesting topic to pick my brain which is why I've argued on both sides of the coin. My worth as a black person is not linked to the race of the ancient Egyptians so my esteem will never be. The fact you think it would be, raises a series of questions about the negative biases you have towards black people. Benevolent racism is still racism, Brandon, and quite frankly, if you're not trying to debate you're not getting another response. You wasted enough of my time.
Posted by Askia_The_Great (Member # 22000) on :
Yea.. I'm locking this thread. Both parties have exhausted their points and instead are going in circles with no one even coming to an agreement. Also debates Ancient Egyptian skin tones and paintings are so kindergarten and OLD Egyptsearch. And as for this new phenotype data? If any of you wanna post it then post it in a new thread, whenever its ready because again this one is getting LOCKED.
[/QB]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[/qb]
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
'
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
