...
EgyptSearch Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» EgyptSearch Forums » Deshret » Faience tiles from Medinet Habu - Help!

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Faience tiles from Medinet Habu - Help!
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am perplexed by a few things with these faience tiles from Medinet Habu. 1) Why are there two Nubian's, and why has the face of only one been gorged out. Additionally; though the costumes are similar, there are differences, could this be a depiction of two different people.

The others are identified as follows, (left to right).

Philistine, Amorite, Syrian, Mitani.

Here again, in the names assigned to these people, there is a problem. Philistine and Mitani are acceptable, but there was no Syria. The closest you could get to that current territory would be Arum, but the Amorite (of Arum) is already accounted for, so who is the Syrian.

These questions come into play, because we already know the well documented racism of the current Turkish "Possessors" of Egyptian property, such as Zahi Hawass and his European allies, note article below. I find it difficult to believe that a trained anthropologist would make these mistakes. Therefore every inconsistency must be investigated, there might be more to it than meets the eye.


 -


CAIRO (AFP) - Dr. Zahi Hawass secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, insisted Tuesday that Tutankhamun was not black despite calls by US black activists to recognise the boy king's dark skin colour.

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.

Hawass said he was responding to several demonstrations in Philadelphia after a lecture he gave there on September 6 where he defended his theory.

Protestors also claimed images of King Tut were altered to show him with lighter skin at the "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs" exhibit which leaves Philadelphia for London on September 30.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

I am perplexed by a few things with these faience tiles from Medinet Habu. 1) Why are there two Nubian's, and why has the face of only one been gorged out. Additionally; though the costumes are similar, there are differences, could this be a depiction of two different people.

Again, as was explained numerous times before 'Nubian' was a word never used by the Egyptians and that 'Nubians' consisted of various groups of people some allies and others enemies. So yes it is possible the two 'Nubians' could be different peoples or just members of the same group with different style dresses.

quote:
The others are identified as follows, (left to right).

Philistine, Amorite, Syrian, Mitani.

Here again, in the names assigned to these people, there is a problem. Philistine and Mitani are acceptable, but there was no Syria. The closest you could get to that current territory would be Arum, but the Amorite (of Arum) is already accounted for, so who is the Syrian.

The situation could be the same with the 'Nubians' in that different groups inhabited the region called 'Syria'. It is a good question as to whom the one labelled 'Syrian' represents. We've had previous discussions before regarding the identities of the various Asiatic peoples.

quote:
These questions come into play, because we already know the well documented racism of the current Turkish "Possessors" of Egyptian property, such as Zahi Hawass and his European allies, note article below. I find it difficult to believe that a trained anthropologist would make these mistakes. Therefore every inconsistency must be investigated, there might be more to it than meets the eye.
And again you have this fixation on 'Turks'. Not all the light-skinned peoples of modern Egypt are Turks but truly Arabs such as Zahi Hawass who is indeed an Arab from the Arab city of Damietta.

I don't believe there is any foul play or deceit involved, but rather just poor knowledge of the different ethnic groups or nationalities the Egyptians knew during those times.

quote:
CAIRO (AFP) - Dr. Zahi Hawass secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, insisted Tuesday that Tutankhamun was not black despite calls by US black activists to recognise the boy king's dark skin colour.

"Tutankhamun was not black, and the portrayal of ancient Egyptian civilisation as black has no element of truth to it," Hawass told reporters.

"Egyptians are not Arabs and are not Africans despite the fact that Egypt is in Africa," he said, quoted by the official MENA news agency.

Hawass said he was responding to several demonstrations in Philadelphia after a lecture he gave there on September 6 where he defended his theory.

Protestors also claimed images of King Tut were altered to show him with lighter skin at the "Tutankhamun and the Golden Age of the Pharaohs" exhibit which leaves Philadelphia for London on September 30.
[/QB]

Why even bother with what Hawass says on such matters when he is neither a physical anthropologist nor does any of his claims make any sense regarding what we know about Tut, his family, or his entire people.

 -

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti quote: I don't believe there is any foul play or deceit involved, but rather just poor knowledge of the different ethnic groups or nationalities the Egyptians knew during those times. Why even bother with what Hawass says on such matters when he is neither a physical anthropologist nor does any of his claims make any sense regarding what we know about Tut, his family, or his entire people.


Dr. Zahi Hawass orginally intend to become a lawyer, but then studied Greek and Roman archeology at Alexandria University, where he obtained a Bachelor's degree. He obtained a diploma in Egyptology at the University of Cairo. He proceeded his studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his Doctoral Degree (Ph.D) in 1987.

After 1988, he taught Egyptian archelogy, history and culture, most the American University of Cairo and the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1998, he was appointed secretary of state and director of the Giza Plateau. In 2002 he was appointed Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities.


Bull, he is not ignorant, he is just another lying racist.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Gee whiz. This is only a sample of Ramses III's
faience tiles. There are more. I don't know in
total how many distinct ethnies were portrayed.
There was more than one Nehesi ethny so there's
nothing unusual about more than one such tile.

Look at the painting in Huy's tomb. Three or four
NHHSW polities are named. Take a look at some of
conquest stelae recording exploits up south of
T3Wy. Dozens and dozens of different identifiers.

--------------------
Intellectual property of YYT al~Takruri © 2004 - 2017. All rights reserved.

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For over a century now, there has been considerable effort made to create an ancient middle-east and Egypt populated by Whites. But the facts and the artifacts will not support this bogus world, at least not without a great deal of fraud and deceit.

In the past, one of the favorite ways to accomplish this, was to use Greek statues from the Ptolemaic era and declare them Egyptians. The same was done with Roman statues from their era. I won't even mention how many beautiful Egyptian statues have had their noses and lips filed down. One of the most egregious examples is this statue of Karomama.

 -


Not being totally stupid, this people understood that there couldn't ONLY be Whites in Egypt, to make it believable there must also be Whites or near Whites, in other areas.

Thus the non-existent Empire of the Hittites was created. These people were supposed to have battled Ramesses II to a standstill at the battle of Kadesh. After years of complaints, historians finally backed down and admitted that there was no such thing as a Hittite Empire, (it was probably the Hattie or Mitanni).

It is interesting how this myth of a Hittite Empire started, and it gives insight into the minds of the perpetrators.

The term "Hittites" is taken from the King James Bible (first published in 1611), which is a translation of a translation etc. of the first Bible: The Greek Septuagint plus the Greek new Testament. The Hebrew words in question: translate as the "Children of Heth".

But this is a Canaanite group in the Bible. How did these people get transposed to Anatolia? During the 1800's, archaeologists who discovered "what appeared to be" ancient Caucasian artifacts in Anatolia; identified them with these King James Bible Hittites:

Historians now speculate that the so-called Hittite empire, is really a confusion with that of the Hattians, Phrygians, Chaldeans, Babylonians or whomever. And that is why neither ancient Greek or any other ancient historians ever mentioned it.

I bring up the Hittites to illustrate the point, because of this picture previously posted by Clyde Winters. As you can see the Mitanni was previously identified as a Hittite. (The fact that he was obviously a Black man seems to have escaped the annotator).
 -


In this Bogus plaque of tiles, alTakruri identifies them as Libyan; Nehesi; Syrian prince; Shasu Bedouin and Hittite. (I am sure he though the source authentic). But it does demonstrate the fluidity of these identifications. Which if legitimate, would be very strange indeed. How can you spend your life studying a subject, and not know who the people are?

 -

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Exactly where do you find me identifying any tile
as a representation of either a prince or a beduin?

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
... alTakruri identifies them as ... Syrian prince; Shasu Bedouin ... . (I am sure he though the source authentic).


Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
alTakruri - You are right, on closer inspection the first instance appears to have been made by Djehuti, I apologize. (From the "Asiatic" thread). I will edit my post.

I could not edit, time expired. Once again I apologize.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
S'alright.

--------------------
Intellectual property of YYT al~Takruri © 2004 - 2017. All rights reserved.

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Dr. Zahi Hawass orginally intend to become a lawyer, but then studied Greek and Roman archeology at Alexandria University, where he obtained a Bachelor's degree. He obtained a diploma in Egyptology at the University of Cairo. He proceeded his studies at the University of Pennsylvania, where he received his Doctoral Degree (Ph.D) in 1987.

After 1988, he taught Egyptian archelogy, history and culture, most the American University of Cairo and the University of California, Los Angeles. In 1998, he was appointed secretary of state and director of the Giza Plateau. In 2002 he was appointed Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities.


Bull, he is not ignorant, he is just another lying racist.

Okay. And?

What the identification of the captured enemies depicted on the faience tiles and what Hawass states on the identity of the Egyptians themselves are two different issues.

That fact that you cannot differentiate between the two but rant on them together further supports that you also have issues.

By the way, you have yet to prove how one set of tiles is "bogus" but the other similarl styled tiles are not. [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti quote: What the identification of the captured enemies depicted on the faience tiles and what Hawass states on the identity of the Egyptians themselves are two different issues.

No it's not, it all speaks to the same issue: falsification of race, with the intent to minimize Black involvement and interject a false White involvement.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Okay, and what does that have to do with the war captives on the faience tiles??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti quote: Okay, and what does that have to do with the war captives on the faience tiles??

The fact of ambiguity when there should be none, makes me wonder what racist game is being played. I am sure you have seen me post statues of what is obviously Black people, only to have someone respond with "There is no color associated with that person, lots of people look like that". Thought not a sincere comment, it is intended to create doubt in the minds of the ignorant. That is what Dr. Zahi Hawass was trying to do with Tut.

So what do they do when there IS intact color on the statue? Funny you should ask: The perfect example is with this statue of Nankhpepi.


 -


At the Egyptian Museum in Cairo website: The caption is simply:

“Standard funerary model of a servant”.

Which of course in their minds makes perfect sense: A Black man holding a basket; He must be a servant.

Whereas at that other bastion of Turkish racism: The Tour Egypt website, (it's located in Turkey). They at least have the decency to correctly identify Nankhpepi, but note how it is done.

Quote directly from the website:

Nankhpepi the Black
Nankhpepi the Black was "supervisor of Upper Egypt and chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt, a governor of the fourteenth nome of Upper Egypt under king Pepi I. His tomb was located near Qus.


Nankhpepi the Black??? Is there really doubt in your mind as to what they are up to, and have been for the last century and more!

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Yes, and I agree with all that but again what does any of that have to do with the faience tile depictions of prisoners of war??

Are you saying all the non-black prisoners are fake because they are non-black?? You do know that most of Egypt's enemies at that time are Asiatics.

Also, do you not realize that such depictions only prove wrong the Eurocentric racists claims that Egypt's enemies capture and enslaved were always blacks.

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti - You continue to miss the gist of my position: There were “NO” non-Blacks yet in the Middle East. So how could there be non-Black prisoners? At the time of Ramesses III, Whites had just begun to enter southern Europe, other than that, there were none, zip, nada. (If you plan to refute my assertion, please present a particular people or group). Please don’t just say that it’s not true, that gets us nowhere.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ Of course you believe such a thing. Why am I not surprised. You also believe there were not non-black peoples in Southeast Asia until 2,000 BC and no doubt you also believe there were no whites in Greece or any part of southern Europe.

I understand now. I can see my attempt in logical discussion with you is in vain. So you may continue your rants based on your fantasies. [Wink]

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although this has nothing to do with faience tiles
I do wonder about the statue's correct designation.

What objective evidence makes for it to be the man
himself or a servant for him?

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:



At the Egyptian Museum in Cairo website: The caption is simply:
“Standard funerary model of a servant”.

The Tour Egypt website, (it's located in Turkey). They at least have the decency to correctly identify Nankhpepi,


Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
alTakruri quote: What objective evidence makes for it to be the man
himself or a servant for him?

You misunderstand - His true identification is not at issue, his tomb, his statue. Generally speaking servants don't have their own tombs inscribed with their accomplishments. (If on the other hand, you are challenging his identification: Tour Egypt’s identification is consistent with everything that I have seen. If you have something to the contrary; please post it).

To continue: Rather, the issue is how each treated a situation where the race of the individual could not be disputed. The first one refused to identify him as a high Egyptian official, the second one identified him correctly, but added the caveat "Black", thus suggesting that the fact of his Blackness was very unusual for an Egyptian. We often think of virulent racism as a European condition, I think this demonstrates that the Turks are hand-in-hand with their European brethren.


Nankhpepi the Black
Nankhpepi the Black was "supervisor of Upper Egypt and chancellor of the king of Lower Egypt, a governor of the fourteenth nome of Upper Egypt under king Pepi I. His tomb was located near Qus.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry Djehuti, you're not getting off so easy, You know that I will post the arrival times of the Hellenes, Latins, and Slavs as documented by Encyclopedia authority. I already have done that, so that's not the issue. What is at issue is your nay saying, with nothing to back it up. Come-on find something!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't even believe that you believe every statue
or portrait in a person's tomb must be a rendering
of that person and that person only.

Why is a ranking official portrayed as what looks
to me like a porter?

If not a porter (I don't think porters wore collars)
what is the object he totes and what's it significance?
Can we find others of high rank represented like a
porter and if so what objects do they carry?

I'm looking beyond what any source (be it museum
or website) says. I'm looking for objective evidence
like an inscription on the statue, primary text
linking the action of the portrayed to something
Niankhpepi (Niakhepepi) did in life, etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:
... his tomb, his statue.


Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Splitting the old AE&E forum instead of creating
a new Egyptology forum has totally screwed not
only the internal search engine but also GOOGLE.

So I can't post the link to the Niankhpepi stuff
first posted by Myra in the thread Some Images
from Ancient Egyptian Art (page 1 post 34)
. .

Will try to find it and link it later via the index.

===

OK it was bumped up recently and easy to find
http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=15;t=000009;p=1#000034

A pic of the statue from two angles shows it's not
a collar but the strap of another piece being carried.
 -

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
alTakruri
Member
Member # 10195

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for alTakruri   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For a portrait of Niankhpepi Kem Sobekhotep Hepikem one need
only access catalog numbers A55/6, Cairo Museum JE 30796/7.

Full description coming up.

Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here is an interesting piece of tile (apparently a tile) depicting a Libyan: from the British Museum.


 -


This Libyan looks quite different from the one depicted on this plaque.


Libyan on the left.
 -


But is consistent with this Bust of Sheshong I

 -

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
^ That's because the Egyptians described more than one group of Libyans. The earliest Libyans were undoubtedly black people who looked no different from the Egyptians themselves. It was only by New Kingdom times that lighter-skinned Libyans appeared. The only question I have is to which group did the Libyan dynasty of Seshonk belong to. It is taken in many Western historical texts that he was of the 'white' group yet statues like the one you present show otherwise.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Sorry Djehuti, you're not getting off so easy, You know that I will post the arrival times of the Hellenes, Latins, and Slavs as documented by Encyclopedia authority. I already have done that, so that's not the issue. What is at issue is your nay saying, with nothing to back it up. Come-on find something!

I'm not getting off anything, but YOU apparently like to get away from the facts. All of those peoples you listed are ethnic groups yet their arrival in any area of Europe has nothing to do with the advent of white skin which is indigenous to Europe. This has been made clear in Marc's silly thread but apparently you nor Marc nor Xyz can comprehend that.

By the way Takruri, I agree with what you say. There are so many instances where scholars would assume any depiction in a persons tomb must somehow be of the tomb owner without any primary evidence saying such.

Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti quote: It is taken in many Western historical texts that he was of the 'white' group yet statues like the one you present show otherwise.

Ancient "White" Libyans? I have never heard of such a thing, please educate me as to who they were and when they got there, and what source says so.

Djehuti quote: white skin which is indigenous to Europe. This has been made clear in Marc's silly thread but apparently you nor Marc nor Xyz can comprehend that.

White skin which is indigenous to Europe?? Here again I am ignorant, certainly that is what the average ignorant White person thinks, but then again, they are ignorant. Learned people know that (Modern-man) White people, evolved in the Eurasian Plains side-by-side with the Mongols. Or are you correctly thinking of Neanderthal (The real) first White person.

Quote: Neanderthals were the first human group to survive in northern latitudes during the cold (glacial) phases of the Pleistocene. They had domesticated fire, as indicated by concentrations of charcoal and reddened earth in their sites. Yet, their hearths were simple and shallow and must have cooled off quickly, giving little warmth throughout the night. Not surprisingly, they exhibit anatomic adaptations to cold, especially in Europe, such as large body cores and relatively short limbs, which maximize heat production and minimize heat loss. The evidence of Neanderthal’s body adaptations to cold weather also makes it safe to assume that there was also a change in skin color from dark, with lots of melanin, to light (or white) with very little melanin.

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Eureka! I believe I have solved the mystery of what is apparently two Nubians in this set. The answer is that only one is a Nubian, the other is a Libyan.

 -


Noting the Headgear and the pleated garment on this Libyan.

 -


And this one, (second from left).

 -


And the appearance of Libyan King Input II

 -


It is clear that the subject is a Libyan. So now the Nubians and Libyans have been accounted for. But where are Egypt's other enemy of the immediate area, the Habiru/Hebrews: Where are their tiles?

Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Djehuti
Member
Member # 6698

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Djehuti     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike111:

Ancient "White" Libyans? I have never heard of such a thing, please educate me as to who they were and when they got there, and what source says so.

These were depictions found in New Kingdom tombs and they may have a connection to white Berbers of the Maghreb. But judging from depictions the Libyan dynasty of Egypt apparently was not one of them.

quote:
White skin which is indigenous to Europe?? Here again I am ignorant, certainly that is what the average ignorant White person thinks, but then again, they are ignorant. Learned people know that (Modern-man) White people, evolved in the Eurasian Plains side-by-side with the Mongols. Or are you correctly thinking of Neanderthal (The real) first White person.
No. 'White' skin evolved in situ Europe as was explained on page of of this thread here.

Only deluded folks like Marc think whites are somehow "new" to Europe.

quote:
Quote: Neanderthals were the first human group to survive in northern latitudes during the cold (glacial) phases of the Pleistocene. They had domesticated fire, as indicated by concentrations of charcoal and reddened earth in their sites. Yet, their hearths were simple and shallow and must have cooled off quickly, giving little warmth throughout the night. Not surprisingly, they exhibit anatomic adaptations to cold, especially in Europe, such as large body cores and relatively short limbs, which maximize heat production and minimize heat loss. The evidence of Neanderthal’s body adaptations to cold weather also makes it safe to assume that there was also a change in skin color from dark, with lots of melanin, to light (or white) with very little melanin.
Correct. Neanderthals were the first cold-adapted homonid species. Homo sapiens of Europe were the second. They evolved white skin in Europe. And??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mike111
Banned
Member # 9361

Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Mike111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Djehuti - Would you mind posting the relevant parts.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | EgyptSearch!

(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3