posted
Why is this image of Taharqa very different in phenotype from some of the other images of so-called kushites.
Taharga looks no different than the other Egyptian statues, he looks very northern sudanese/southern egyptian.
He actually looks like the great Mahdi of Sudan
But i can't say the same about thees "kushites" below.
So, does Taharqa represent how the kushites looked like or did they look more like these captives above? We know that Taharqa's statue is supported by the accounts of that time. But what does the inscriptions of these captives say, are there any at all or is this only the modern (egyptologists) interpretation of kushites?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
The modern nation of sudan is a british construction, infact northern sudanese didn't even know the existance of southern sudanese untill recently. southern sudanese are culturally more closer to ugandans than they are to northern sudanese. Did you know that Sudan is almost the same size as the whole western europe?
I actually (unlike khartoum) support an independent nation of southern sudanese (and also darfur), they should enjoy their enormous natural wealth without being bullied by the military regime of khartoum, the americans and europeans should also take care of their book keeping, just for security reasons.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptians knew stereotypes, considering they were at war with the Kushites they did this often. It's no different than how the Japanese were depicted by Americans during the world war.
However, based on what we know of Kushites and even on the more "casual" images of Kushites done by the Egyptians themselves, it would seem both their skin color and penotypes were within a range that was even identical to the Egyptians themselves.
Posts: 105 | From: Japan | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:alTakruri wrote: AQuit trying to distract us away from the issue. So, again, in so sizeable an area what do you mean by they should all be of one phenotype?
ofcourse they would not be of one phenotype. But i think their should be some kind of average as in egypt. But those depictions of kushites are conflicting.
Just because the Egyptians depicted "Negroid" looking captives, shouldn't mean they were all automatically kushites, don't you agree? They lived afterall on the african continent.
That is unless you think all people around them who were dark/negroid (whatever description you like) were kushites while other prisoners of Egyptians were ethnically as diverse and had flashy names as ,"hyksos" "hebrews", "falestins", "hittites", etc. If you are defensive of your "blackness" then i can understand it due to your recent racial circumstances. But don't You think that this redicoulas grouping of "blacks" (or whatever you might call them) as one single entity (only united by colour or looks) during antiquity as "kushites" is worth of further exploration in relation to what the egyptologists intepretatation/opinion of what is kushite and what is so-called real Egyptian?
Seriously No one will ever respect afrocentricts as long as they are reactive and don't produce added-value/new thoughts/ethnicities and examine what is real more in depth? Since Eurocentricts atleast create diversity in ethnicity when it comes to their focal point( which is Greece) but afrocentricts only mimic eurocentricts at their own focal point (which is Egypt) and produce nothing further from this position:
Egypt is obviously the afrocentric central position, but why is it that their is no ´wealth of ethnicities other than kushites connected to this position on the afrocentric camp considering that Egypt is on the african continent and they /AE)kinda leaft a wealth of information relating to their surrounding?
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
We could say the same for all African nations. Or regions within all African countries.
Just more inane babble from you in an excuse to use crackpot racial terms. Simply put he's trying to use African diversity in order to immerse not only himself but this forum with race loon excrement. You had an accident when you used the word "Negroid", didn't you?
quote: But i think their should be some kind of average as in egypt
What you call average is itself just a stereotype.
In a way your question is a good one, though I think not in the way you intend.
What you observed is that so-called Nubian statue of Tarharka does not meet and extreme -negro- stereotype that would help to distinguish it from what you call *average* Egyptian which itself is nothing but a phony stereotype.
Meanwhile the reality is that the people who have lived in what is now Southern Egypt and Northern Sudan have for thousands of years most closely resembled..... one another.
It is not about conflicting images, the conflict is between reality, and stereotype.
Free your mind of stereotypes, and the conflict is resolved.
But, can you do this? ? ?
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Why is this image of Taharqa very different in phenotype from some of the other images of so-called kushites.
Taharga looks no different than the other Egyptian statues, he looks very northern sudanese/southern egyptian.
He actually looks like the great Mahdi of Sudan
But i can't say the same about thees "kushites" below.
So, does Taharqa represent how the kushites looked like or did they look more like these captives above? We know that Taharqa's statue is supported by the accounts of that time. But what does the inscriptions of these captives say, are there any at all or is this only the modern (egyptologists) interpretation of kushites?
in the book the kingdom of kush the derek wesbly mentions taharqa look look reeally like this.let's remember kushite royal family marry thier sisters so there feature would be basically the same.kushite kings are describe has having broad heads,flat noses and thick lips.this has been confirmed already so no need to guess what taharqa looked like for real,it ha been confirmed already.
here are some more realistic images of taharqa.remember the that statue of taharqa was made in egypt and done in a more egyptian style.REMEMBER EGYPTAIN ART ON AVERAGE WAS IDEALIZED,BUT NOT ALL SINCE SOME ART OF EGYPT SHOWED MORE REALISTIC ART TOO.the kushite art below will SHOW more realistic images. SO showing taharqa below is realistic and what he looked like .kushite art was idealized more or less but on average it showed more realistic images of folks than egypt.
now let us look at some kushite art instead.
kushite art below from kush shows a realistic taharqa.
taharqa-
the second picture above is a drawing from the u.s. i think and the mahdi picture still does not look like the first taharqa pic shown above.the head looks round and short etc. Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
if you want to see another realistc image of taharqa,take a look at this.if you read the article no need to read again just go to the quiz part and answer questions so you could see pics or look at other pics inside link.
posted
As usual, the problem is stereotypes and some peoples inablities to get their minds away from such stereotypes.
We already have problems with 'Nubians' being the same or grouped together as one people, must one also extend this to certain kingdoms like Kush may may or may not consist of more than one group and even it it is one group of people must individuals of that group all look the same?
Mind you that while most sources and media tend to show Kushite or other Nubian captives as having stereotypical "negroid" features, there are depictions that have the opposite features albeit just as dark in complexion.
And should we forget about the famous (or infamous) depiction in Ramses tomb of an Egyptian who constantly mistaken as 'Nubian' despite his Mdu-neter designation as Rtnarmt (Egyptian)??
^ Indeed even variation exists as to how a more recent Islamic African figure is portrayed.
Posts: 26320 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What the fuq? U lost me. Haven't the slightest of where you're going or even what u r talking about. U have no disposition U r just rambling and ranting.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2:
quote:alTakruri wrote: AQuit trying to distract us away from the issue. So, again, in so sizeable an area what do you mean by they should all be of one phenotype?
ofcourse they would not be of one phenotype. But i think their should be some kind of average as in egypt. But those depictions of kushites are conflicting.
Just because the Egyptians depicted "Negroid" looking captives, shouldn't mean they were all automatically kushites, don't you agree? They lived afterall on the african continent.
That is unless you think all people around them who were dark/negroid (whatever description you like) were kushites while other prisoners of Egyptians were ethnically as diverse and had flashy names as ,"hyksos" "hebrews", "falestins", "hittites", etc. If you are defensive of your "blackness" then i can understand it due to your recent racial circumstances. But don't You think that this redicoulas grouping of "blacks" (or whatever you might call them) as one single entity (only united by colour or looks) during antiquity as "kushites" is worth of further exploration in relation to what the egyptologists intepretatation/opinion of what is kushite and what is so-called real Egyptian?
Seriously No one will ever respect afrocentricts as long as they are reactive and don't produce added-value/new thoughts/ethnicities and examine what is real more in depth? Since Eurocentricts atleast create diversity in ethnicity when it comes to their focal point( which is Greece) but afrocentricts only mimic eurocentricts at their own focal point (which is Egypt) and produce nothing further from this position:
Egypt is obviously the afrocentric central position, but why is it that their is no ´wealth of ethnicities other than kushites connected to this position on the afrocentric camp considering that Egypt is on the african continent and they /AE)kinda leaft a wealth of information relating to their surrounding?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
^ Notice many of their features such as long pointy noses and thin lips. Very "un-negroid" etc.
There are various more depictions of Kushites similar to that but what about Egyptians?
Egyptian depictions:
Notice that these statues display stereotypically broad or "negroid" features and that the statue of Sahura directly above looks no different from the depictions of Taharka that Kenndo posted.
Of course Egyptians despite their features were usually depicted in dark brown.
But of the two dark-skinned black men, which one below is Egyptian and which is 'Nubian'??..
Posts: 26320 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
this image yonis is in my book and it shows clearly these kushites with thick lips and flat noses.not as clear the above images i posted but is is there.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ That just reminds me, from what other studies upon which Keita confirms that 25th dynasty crania bear close affinities to those of Giza crania?
Posts: 26320 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i got this from another site but the site below shows it too along with the ones i posted.it is in some of my books and other areas.you could say it is one of the images of taharqa since kushite historians talk about the kushite royal family having thick lips and flat noses i was showing one of these images.
posted
this is a good reading on the subject of what the scholars call a classic kushite fold
Egypt: Child of Africa By Ivan Van Sertima of
if link does not work,copy and paste in address box
By Ivan Van Sertima quote- but king taharka is man of many faces,whether in relief;as a sphinx(amon temple at kawa);as a colossi(gerbel barkhal);on temple shrines (kawa) or a fresco (quasm ibrim).those elements of his facial features which define him as a african man are unmistakable.and at last,there is tanwetamani(in relief and on fresco)who succeeded taharka
scholars treatment on the image of taharka requires comment.while his image occures on many extant statues,reliefs,stele,frescoes and shrines,the image of him which have received the greatest attention and praise are those which do not reflect the characteristic kushite bulbous nose,the prominent fold around the nose,the large lips,round head and short neck.some scholars,leclant for example,describe as unflattering those portraits of takarka which depicts him with prominent nose,thick lips and drooping eyes
From Gebel Barkal, head from Temple B 500, body from B 904 Harvard University-MFA Boston Expedition, April 1916, field no. 16-4-32 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 23.731
With the retreat of the Kushite kings from Egypt, the art of the Napatan empire gains a new dimension. Its characteristic fashion of representing the human form and face were already visible in the works of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. But they were toned down through direct contact with the tradition-bound art of Egypt, failing to come to full fruition. Once freed, however, from the restrictions of the pharaonic legacy, a style develops in the Napatan dynasty that brings the more "African" components to the fore. Many colossal statue fragments from the original inventory of the great Amun Temple at Gebel Barkal were unearthed in a cache north of the first pylon. This statue of Senkamanisken was one of them. All of the stylistic tendencies of the preceding era come to light here, enhanced and expanded. The forcefully striding legs have become more massive, the feet larger. The arms end in balled fists that bespeak raw power; the musculature is strongly emphasized. The head rests heavy on the short neck, thickset in profile view. The southern facial type is characterized by the full lips, broad nose, the widely spaced, slightly bulging eyes, and the low brow. The double uraeus at the forehead is completely preserved—in the Napatan homeland the statues were spared the persecutions wrought by the succeeding dynasty in Egypt. The Kushite cap closely conforms to the round skull. Around the neck hangs the cord with three ram's heads. Surface areas left rough for gilding or silver plating include the jewelry bands on the upper arms, wrists, and ankles, the sandal straps, tripartite royal kilt, and the cap.
From the book Sudan: Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, Dietrich Wildung, 1997, p. 218 Funerary Figurine of King Senkamanisken
This shabti, or funerary figurine, is typical of the nearly 1300 figurines found in Senkamanisken's pyramid at Nuri, the royal necropolis in the Kushite capital of Napata.
Housed in the Brooklyn Museum add text.
The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization By László Török
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic