In this thread I'm going to post images that I took on a recent visit to the British Museum and hopefully give some insight to those who haven't been there yet:
The entrance:
The British Museum wastes no time setting the scene with its bullshit. This image of Antinous of Rome is at the very entrance. The obvious motive here is to associate Egypt with Western civilisations. The inscription reads: Antinous as Osiris Antinous was the lover of Roman Emperor Hadrian (reigned AD 117-138). In AD130 Hadrian and his imperial army were touring egypt when Antinous drowned in mysterious circumstances. The tragic evnet happened the same day the locals were commemorating the death, by drowning in the Nile, of the Egyptian God Osiris. Antinous shown here as Osiris, suggesting that he too was reborn as a god from the waters of the Nile. The stance, headdress and loincloth resemble Egyptian statues, but have been slightly altered in a classical, naturalistic and subtly eroticised style. The statue was discoved in 1738-39 near what we now know as a spectacular memorial to Antinous at Hadrian's villa.
Perhaps someone could tell me what exactly is Osirian about this statue? Isn't that just a normal pharonic headdress? Don't know, you tell me.
Africa
This Benin Bronze head is from 12th Century Nigeria. This artwork is one of several African pieces hauled up in the British Museum (made me kind of angry ). I just wonder if this artwork would fall under the warped classification of negroid? Nothing overtly broad about his nose or lips, but clearly Nigerian, no?
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
At the very entrance, you're faced with these 2 huge monolithic heads:
Quartzite head of the Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep III. Eigteenth Dynasty, about 1400BC from Thebes. This head of the King wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt is a companion piece (apparently). The style is typical of sculpture of Amenhotep III, especially treatment of the eyes, and foreshadows the artistic mannerisms of the Armana period at the End of the Eigteenth Dynasty.
The funny thing that you'll notice is that Amenhotep III, according to the British Museum has 100 different faces (and apparently Egyptian sculptors were pretty crappy!). I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
One of the saddest things you'll behold in the Museum is the undoubtedly deliberate sabotage that has destroyed so much of the artwork. The sabotage is a testimony of the hatred and desperation Europens must have felt upon seeing the NON European (Caucasoid) faces of Egyptians.
The damage to these Neteru is SO obviously deliberate that one would think the British Museum would feel a degree of embarassment putting these on display.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It gets worse... the next one will make your blood really boil....
Remodelling
This statue of the Goddess Mut (A Goddess whom Dr Ben Jochannan has revealed was inherited from Kush) has had its nose shamelessly remodelled. As you can see the entire statue is showing clear signs of cracking and has a rough surface. The nose, however, has been remodelled with new plaster (a clear colour and texture mismatch), in an attempt to europeanise it! Its smooth and shiny and entirely inconsistent with the statue. What's more infuriating is the fact that the transcript fails to make mention of any of this. A deliberate falsification of Artwork in an attempt to shape opinion....
Transcript reads:
Limestone bust of a godess Eighteenth Dynasty - 1400BC from Thebes The female figure wearing the divine tripartite wig surmounted by a modius may well represent the godess Mut. Its is said to have been found in the vecinity of mortuary temple of Amenophis III and probably dates from his reign.
Notice: Now they are using the name Amenophis III as opposed to Amenhotep III to cause further confusion....
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
In this thread I'm going to post images that I took on a recent visit to the British Museum and hopefully give some insight to those who haven't been there yet:
The entrance:
The British Museum wastes no time setting the scene with its bullshit. This image of Antinous of Rome is at the very entrance. The obvious motive here is to associate Egypt with Western civilisations. The inscription reads: Antinous as Osiris Antinous was the lover of Roman Emperor Hadrian (reigned AD 117-138). In AD130 Hadrian and his imperial army were touring egypt when Antinous drowned in mysterious circumstances. The tragic evnet happened the same day the locals were commemorating the death, by drowning in the Nile, of the Egyptian God Osiris. Antinous shown here as Osiris, suggesting that he too was reborn as a god from the waters of the Nile. The stance, headdress and loincloth resemble Egyptian statues, but have been slightly altered in a classical, naturalistic and subtly eroticised style. The statue was discoved in 1738-39 near what we now know as a spectacular memorial to Antinous at Hadrian's villa.
Perhaps someone could tell me what exactly is Osirian about this statue? Isn't that just a normal pharonic headdress? Don't know, you tell me.
Nothing visually.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
Ancient Egypt
At the very entrance, you're faced with these 2 huge monolithic heads:
Quartzite head of the Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep III. Eigteenth Dynasty, about 1400BC from Thebes. This head of the King wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt is a companion piece (apparently). The style is typical of sculpture of Amenhotep III, especially treatment of the eyes, and foreshadows the artistic mannerisms of the Armana period at the End of the Eigteenth Dynasty.
The funny thing that you'll notice is that Amenhotep III, according to the British Museum has 100 different faces (and apparently Egyptian sculptors were pretty crappy!). I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case...
Don't know about other examples, pending revisionary visual aid inspection, but the two examples presented here, look facially similar.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Narmer Menes. More evidence of how far whites will go to cover up the truth. Sad thing is there are some foolish people (some on this forum) that believe whites are incapable of such things as foul play in regard to doctoring AE antiquities. Cowards is what they really are. There once was a member who's name escapes me that said the obvious man-made destruction of the nose and lips on AE antiquities was the result of "erosion". If you present factual evidence to these agents which contradicts their premise you're pegged as being some conspiracy theorist. These are the same saboteurs who claim they're unbiased "scholars" in search of the truth. However they often have an assortment of baseless excuses for any and everything that blows holes or flies in the face of "mainstream" Egyptology and/or history, no matter how much hard evidence you present. Anything which demonstrates how the white establishment is culpable in the continuation of distorting history, and the wretched manipulation of the system, agents on this forum develop a complex to rationalize these actions at all coast. These people will never amount to anything because their foremost priority is not offending their white peers rather than uncovering the truth and seeking justice.
Btw, this discussion brings to mind an article I recently read regarding Henry Louis Gates. I instinctively recalled an old interview from Gates which he said, and I'm paraphrasing, "we know the ancient Nubians were black people but we don't know what race the ancient Egyptians were." Gates knows what race the ancient Egyptians were. This BS from Gates amplifies my point: he's more concerned about perception and kissing the @ss of his white peers at Harvard rather than truth. Gates is a fraud. And so are those on this forum who maintain the status quo despite the evidence which contradicts their thesis.
Posts: 148 | From: Sirius | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
More evidence of how far whites will go to cover up the truth. Sad thing is there are some foolish people (some on this forum) that believe whites are incapable of such things as foul play in regard to doctoring AE antiquities. Cowards is what they really are. There once was a member who's name escapes me that said the obvious man-made destruction of the nose and lips on AE antiquities was the result of "erosion". If you present factual evidence to these agents which contradicts their premise you're pegged as being some conspiracy theorist. These are the same saboteurs who claim they're unbiased "scholars" in search of the truth.
Then count me among those "truth-searching mavericks"...
In this thread I'm going to post images that I took on a recent visit to the British Museum and hopefully give some insight to those who haven't been there yet:
The entrance:
The British Museum wastes no time setting the scene with its bullshit. This image of Antinous of Rome is at the very entrance. The obvious motive here is to associate Egypt with Western civilisations. The inscription reads: Antinous as Osiris Antinous was the lover of Roman Emperor Hadrian (reigned AD 117-138). In AD130 Hadrian and his imperial army were touring egypt when Antinous drowned in mysterious circumstances. The tragic evnet happened the same day the locals were commemorating the death, by drowning in the Nile, of the Egyptian God Osiris. Antinous shown here as Osiris, suggesting that he too was reborn as a god from the waters of the Nile. The stance, headdress and loincloth resemble Egyptian statues, but have been slightly altered in a classical, naturalistic and subtly eroticised style. The statue was discoved in 1738-39 near what we now know as a spectacular memorial to Antinous at Hadrian's villa.
Perhaps someone could tell me what exactly is Osirian about this statue? Isn't that just a normal pharonic headdress? Don't know, you tell me.
Nothing visually.
quote:Originally posted by Narmer Menes:
Ancient Egypt
At the very entrance, you're faced with these 2 huge monolithic heads:
Quartzite head of the Egyptian Pharoah Amenhotep III. Eigteenth Dynasty, about 1400BC from Thebes. This head of the King wearing the Red Crown of Lower Egypt is a companion piece (apparently). The style is typical of sculpture of Amenhotep III, especially treatment of the eyes, and foreshadows the artistic mannerisms of the Armana period at the End of the Eigteenth Dynasty.
The funny thing that you'll notice is that Amenhotep III, according to the British Museum has 100 different faces (and apparently Egyptian sculptors were pretty crappy!). I'll let you draw your own conclusions as to why this is the case...
Don't know about other examples, pending revisionary visual aid inspection, but the two examples presented here, look facially similar.
Definately, know doubt that these 2 are the same person. I haven't posted the others yet... This thread has got a lot more on the way, just takes a little time to publish it all...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Upper part of colossal statue of Amenhotep III Eighteenth Dynasty about 1370 BC From Thebes
This fine sculpture stood in the King's mortuary temple to the west of the Nile at Thebes. It was part of a range of architectural sculpture which adorned this temple.
As you can see, this statue is facially very different from the first 2. Amenhotep III is once again being used, as opposed to Amenophis III. This statue resembles other confirmed artworks of Amenhotep III. Once again, the nose is missing, completely but you can see the breadth differs from the earlier shown images, the face is also broader.
I forgot to photograph the inscription of this pharoah, but the pose and style reminds me of the statue of Mentuhotep III. So I would assume its 17th Dynasty, but I could be wrong. Feel free to fill me in if you recognise this....
Four black granite figures of Goddess Sakhmet Eighteenth Dynasty, about 1400BC From Thebes, Temple of Mut
Sakhmet was a lionine Goddess who was regarded by the Egyptians as a bringer of destruction to the enemies of sun-god Re. She appears to be an object of special veneration to the King Amenophis III(back to Amenophis, again), who caused an enormous number of statues of her to be erected in his mortuary temple in western Thebes and in the Temple of Mut at Karnak. Nearly six-hundred of these statues have now been accounted for, the british museum containing the largest collection them outside Egypt. The four here exhibited, two standing and two seated, come from the temple of Mut, where a considerable number of the original group can still be seen in situ today. In all four, the head of the goddess is surmounted by the solar disk, and she clasps the symbol of life in one of here hands. The standing figures, in addition, hold a papyriform sceptre. One of the seated statues is inscribed on the throne front with the kings names and a dedication to Sakhmet, who smites the Nubians.
The funny thing about the British Museum, is that they jump at any opportunity to fabricate an ongoing emnity between the 'Nubian's' and the Egyptians, in a carry forward of racist eurocentic ideologies. Funnily enough, we all know the term Nubian is a misnomer when discoursing AE because it didn't exist. Without the ability to read the glyphs, nor the ability to find the mentioned inscription, the make it impossible for one to discover what actually was inscribed! And more than likely, its more than a misquote and taken well out of context, as Mut was a goddess inherited from the South. The contradictions and misrepresentations would be funny if they weren't so obvious and desperate.
Also of note, notice how perfectly preserved the faces of these neter are!!! No chips scratches or missing nose, because animal faces aren't a threat to Eurocentrism.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I always think its a worthwhile exercise to take photos of bas reliefs as much as possible. Reproductions and artists always have a habit of 'sharpening' the features, whereas, as you will see from my photo's of the originals, the Egyptians themselves took painstaking effort to be as accurate as possible reproducing their full lips and rounded noses.
By the way, I have lots of photo's of glyphs at high resolution, that I can share if people are particularly interested at running their own translations. I haven't picked up my copy of Budge's Metu Neter yet, hopefully, soon.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
My photo of the transcription linked to this Upper Egypt pharoah unfortunately was desperately out of focus, so once again, any input would be appreciated. I think I can make out something about Thutmosis... but it's not clear...
Red granite head from a collossal figure of a king. Eighteenth Dynasty, about 1390BC From Thebes, Temple of Mut
This enormous head wearing the double crown... belongs to a collossal standing figure, one of a pair, set up before the Temple of Khonspekhrod in the precincts of the Temple of Mut. The torso of the statue is still in situ. It once bore on its rear an inscription, but this was completely destroyed in Ancient times. The identity of the king here represented is disputed. Recent opinion favours Amenophis III.
Of all the statues at the British Empire, this is the largest and most impressive. I was under the impression that this figure was largely regarded to be Thutmose III. I also am dubious about the inscriptions on the rear being destroyed in ancient times. No civilisations prior to the recent racist Eurocentrists had a motive to attempt to erase/falsify Egyptian heritage other than the Europeans. Also notice to get around the fact that they are attributing ANOTHER statue with different features to the same king, they are using the name Amenophis III, as opposed to the Amenhotep III used on the other 3 statues.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JMT: There once was a member who's name escapes me that said the obvious man-made destruction of the nose and lips on AE antiquities was the result of "erosion". If you present factual evidence to these agents which contradicts their premise you're pegged as being some conspiracy theorist.
Well that idiot is going to have a hard time explaining the 3 statues of SenusretIII that are made out of GRANITE which doesn't erode in that manner. You can actually see the cracks in the statue caused by the impact of the blow to remove the noses.... watch this space.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I have lots of photo's of glyphs at high resolution, that I can share if people are particularly interested at running their own translations.
Go ahead; lay 'em down.
I meant via email, if posted on the web you wont be able to view the glyphs, but the originals are 10MP so should show up fine... PM me if you're interested...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why don't you write an editorial letter to British newspapers. The Guardian news paper has an online blogger [Comment is free] where they invite even Bishops or Heads of states. Even regular bloggers from blogger community mainly because they are popular. Also, your writing is superb and you seem someone who does not lose your temperament and eager to have the last word like a famous commentator on ES.
Anyway, we live in a post Obama era, right? Let's test the waterfront and see if the Eurocentricsts are ready for a challenge.
Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh Please. If all we have to do is claim a conspiracy every time we see something that we do not like we can promote any goofey idea.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narmer Menes, on a photographic note do you mind telling me what camera you used. Your photos are well done and evenly lit. Obviously most were made using natural light. Good frame-filling stuff.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Why don't you write an editorial letter to British newspapers. The Guardian news paper has an online blogger [Comment is free] where they invite even Bishops or Heads of states. Even regular bloggers from blogger community mainly because they are popular. Also, your writing is superb and you seem someone who does not lose your temperament and eager to have the last word like a famous commentator on ES.
Anyway, we live in a post Obama era, right? Let's test the waterfront and see if the Eurocentricsts are ready for a challenge.
Thanks Arwa, I'm really glad you like the photos.
In regards to challenging Eurocentrics, as you can see, much like AP, trying to get them to see sense is like trying to convert a committed Christian to Islam, or vice versa.... Most have so much personally invested in the whiteness of the Ancient Egyptians that its not so much a question of truth as it is protecting their beliefs. That's why, as you may have noticed, I'm more interested in sharing this knowledge with the general public, and more importantly, people of African decent. The way I see it, our history has been so falsified that in the end, we'll have to have our version, and they can have theirs... that's why I'm keen on people on this board setting up their own websites and publications. But I will check it out.... thanks for the heads up...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Grumman: Narmer Menes, on a photographic note do you mind telling me what camera you used. Your photos are well done and evenly lit. Obviously most were made using natural light. Good frame-filling stuff.
Nikon D200 Lens: Sigma EX 30mm F1.4
I paid a bucketload for the lens.... its great for natural light photography...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
This close up shows how deliberate the sabotage to Egyptian artwork is. The nose of this 17th Dynasty Pharaoh has been swept clean off. The more telling factor of this image is that you can see that the nose of this statue was very broad by observing the marked area...
Transcript reads: Red Granite figure of Sobkemsaf I Seventeenth Dynasty, about 1630BC
This is one of the few royal statues surviving from the Seventeenth Dyansty. The Kings name is inscribed on the throne front and an apotropaic motif with figures of the goddess Ipi decorate the rear. There are dowel holes in the eyebrow for the fixing of applied overlay and for the securing of inlays in the eye sockets.
If you consider this statue and the other surviving statues of the 17th Dyansty, such as the Mentuhoteps, it becomes understandable why so few have survived. The 17th Dynasty artwork was overtly African, and hard to pass off as anything else....
More deliberate sabotage - Senusret III
a)
b)
c)
d) Side by side:
e)
For those that doubt the deliberate sabotage of Egyptian artwork, all three of these statues of Senusret III have 'miraculously' suffered the same nasal corrosion!
I took close up's proving that this sabotage is deliberate, look at images a, c, and e. The cracking on these images proves that: 1. the noses were definately smashed off 2. the point of impact of the cracks is at the nose, the largest cracks are on the nose and they reduce as they get further away. The only conclusion for the missing noses on all three of these statues is deliberate sabotage. Anyone who knows anything about Granite or Quartzite can tell you that that assertion is ridiculous.
I saw somewhere on the net that there is only one surviving depiction of Senusret III's nose, and guess what, its broad and flat. I can't find the image at the moment, but I'm sure someone else will and can post it here...
Transcript reads:
Three Black Granite Statues of Sesotris III Twelfth Dynasty, about 1850BC From Deir el Bahri
These three statues exhibit the fine portrait quality of Egyptian sculptures during the late 12th Dyansty. The faces are excellently worked, although the ears over large, in common with statues of the period
Notice there is no mention of why the 3 statues exhibit the deliberate damage in the centre of the face, also, the statement regarding the size of the ears is pure assumption, from what I can see Ancient Egyptians in general had quite large ears... why this is viewed as an artistic expression.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Seated statue of Amenemhat Basalt, Twelfth Dynasty, about 1850BC Provenance unknown
Texts on the side of the cube seat suggest that the statue was set up in or near a temple, perhaps in Abydos, Upper Egypt.
Granidiorite figure of an Official Twelfth Dynasty, about 1900BC
A private figure carved in a conventional pose in a particularly hard material.
Statues like this make me wonder where people get this notion of 'narrow' faced, caucasoid Egypt from. There are a plethora of surviving sculptures like this. Especially from the Middle and Old Kingdom.
Limestone statue of the steward, Meri Eleventh Dynasty, about 2050BC
This statue is produced by craftsmen for Meri's tomb. He wears the Shendjyt kilt.
Notice, once again, deliberate chiseled nose, with the rest of the statue in tact.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
I paid a bucketload for the lens.... its great for natural light photography...''
The big ''N'' I see.
I kind of suspected you were above the point and shoot folks; not that they can't shoot interesting pictures of course. But I had to ask anyway. And yes, the f1.4 will do the trick.
Yup, you pay for that fast glass don't you.
Good photos.
Posts: 2118 | From: midwest, USA | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
As you can see, the nose of this Sphinx has been rubbed down to a mere nub. Note the description:
Gneiss Sphinx inscribed for Ammenemes IV The face of this Sphinx was reworked during the Roman Period. In the middle of the back is a circular hole, probably used to support a shade above the image
Given the reputation of the early European colonists towards Egypt, one wonder's whether the Roman's were really responsible for this reworking. Also, for the sake of consistency, why mention the reworking on this statue and fail to mention the obvious reworking on the statue of Mut posted earlier?
A close up of this stele reveal the broad (unsharp) features of the Egyptians that are favoured in reproductions and educational texts. This, from my observation, is a consistently falsification used to give the general public the false image of 'pointy nosed' Egypt, which really doesn't exist.
Transcript reads: Limestone stela of Sensebek Twelfth Dynasty about 1850BC
The deceased shown with his wife before an offering table. The text is a hymn to Wepwapet and Osiris.
Granite head from the statue of an official Twelfth Dynasty about 1850BC
The portraiture of this piece is similar to that of Royal Sculptures of the Middle Kingdom, such as the statues of King Sesostris III in this gallery
It certainly is! Same chisel to the nose treatment. Well, at least they're consistent.
Here's one for the hard headed. Please explain, using the theory of corrosion, or the theory of accidental 'spillage', exactly how it is possible to simultaneously dislodge the nose of these 2 entities and leave the rest of the statue in tact?
Transcript reads: Statue of Senenmut and Neferura Eighteenth Dynasty, about 1480BC From Thebes, Temple of Karnak
This seated statue shows the steward Senenmut holding the princess Neferura, daughter of Hatshepsut. Both figures are enveloped by an ankle length cloak. The princesses sidelock and gesture of placing the forefinger of her right hand to her mouth are iconographic features indicative of childhood. The statue is inscribed on the legs and the blockseat.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Egyptians did have pointed nones, for the most part. You might want to take a look at the mummies of Ramses II and the others. They had pointed noses because caucasian people often have them. Noses on statues break easily for obvious reasons, they are an appendage and stick out.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Egyptians did have pointed nones, for the most part. You might want to take a look at the mummies of Ramses II and the others. They had pointed noses because caucasian people often have them. Noses on statues break easily for obvious reasons, they are an appendage and stick out.
You better stay posted for picture of Ramses II then!!!
Wait, no need to wait...
Here's one...
And another....
And heres the mother!! This ones colossal...
erm.... try again Professor.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Egyptians did have pointed nones, for the most part. You might want to take a look at the mummies of Ramses II and the others. They had pointed noses because caucasian people often have them. Noses on statues break easily for obvious reasons, they are an appendage and stick out.
Please point out the caucasion features as you stated on one of the 3 images of Ramses II...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you seen the actual mummies Narmer? The pieces you posted look like ancient Syrians which is not a surprise.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Have you seen the actual mummies Narmer? The pieces you posted look like ancient Syrians which is not a surprise.
Are you serious?
These are new kingdom pieces... I could post the dates of every last one... which one looks Syrian, and how can you justify that assertion. Also, you may not have noticed, but 3000-4000 odd years off mummification might cause the moisture to evaporate... mummies were dehydrated prior to embalming...
Does that look like a good representation of what this person looked like alive? Essentially, absorb the moisture from any human being and they will look 'caucasoid'. Shriveled lips = thin lips, shriveled nose = thin nose. Stop being so desperate, you will ignore 4 statues of a broad featured pharaoh in favour of your weak pointed nose hypothesis than rests on nothing but the misinterpretation of a 4000 year old body and the hope that the sculptors of the colossal statue were Afrocentrics....
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
well yes the mummies are altered but not enoughto make Ramses look negroid. His mummy looks like Shinebein the Jewish cobbler. I do not hope anything. Egyptians were north African caucasians and much more closely related to the Syrians than to any black negroids from below the desert.
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Nothing posted here has the beady eyes and long, almost hooked nose of Yaser Arafat.
Black people in northern Sudan/southern Egypt still have these "negroid" features found on all these statues. To use a 4,000 year old mummy for your base is pathetic. Dead/mummified people look harldy NOTHING like they did when alive. Especially the soft tissue features. How ignorant can a person be?
Secondly, if a black African has "caucasoid" features (rediculous to even type), then does that mean they are not pure "black" Africans?
Posts: 100 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, rather than wasting a perfectly good question,
quote:Originally posted by nomorelies: if a black African has "caucasoid" features (rediculous to even type), then does that mean they are not pure "black" Africans?
I'd like to answer with a question:
Since the member your querying has in previous posts expressed that North Africa is "cauncaZoid territory" than would that make these caucasians:
?
The first two are of Tunisians and the last, of an Egyptian ethny.
Keep in mind, sometimes the k-zoid territory doesn't end at Southernmost Sudan, but continues as far as Kenya and further.
The real question is, what does that cause caucasian to mean, but nothing (as far as features or ancestry go) other than a pathetic attempt to intrude into turf that the *caucasus* is irrelevant to?
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: They had noses
All three of the statues posted in the original post with the one above look 98+ % - 100 % pure tropical brand negro to me though. It just seems you'd probably care to know.
quote:You might want to take a look at the mummies of Ramses II and the others.
Are we to believe mummies like this to be identical to their former (living) "selves"? If so, this would be indicative of their skin color as well.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Have you seen the actual mummies Narmer? The pieces you posted look like ancient Syrians which is not a surprise.
Are you serious?
These are new kingdom pieces... I could post the dates of every last one... which one looks Syrian, and how can you justify that assertion. Also, you may not have noticed, but 3000-4000 odd years off mummification might cause the moisture to evaporate... mummies were dehydrated prior to embalming...
Does that look like a good representation of what this person looked like alive? Essentially, absorb the moisture from any human being and they will look 'caucasoid'. Shriveled lips = thin lips, shriveled nose = thin nose. Stop being so desperate, you will ignore 4 statues of a broad featured pharaoh in favour of your weak pointed nose hypothesis than rests on nothing but the misinterpretation of a 4000 year old body and the hope that the sculptors of the colossal statue were Afrocentrics....
What is the provenance of that Mummy? Is it ancient Egyptian?
Posts: 8893 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Have you seen the actual mummies Narmer? The pieces you posted look like ancient Syrians which is not a surprise.
Are you serious?
These are new kingdom pieces... I could post the dates of every last one... which one looks Syrian, and how can you justify that assertion. Also, you may not have noticed, but 3000-4000 odd years off mummification might cause the moisture to evaporate... mummies were dehydrated prior to embalming...
Does that look like a good representation of what this person looked like alive? Essentially, absorb the moisture from any human being and they will look 'caucasoid'. Shriveled lips = thin lips, shriveled nose = thin nose. Stop being so desperate, you will ignore 4 statues of a broad featured pharaoh in favour of your weak pointed nose hypothesis than rests on nothing but the misinterpretation of a 4000 year old body and the hope that the sculptors of the colossal statue were Afrocentrics....
What is the provenance of that Mummy? Is it ancient Egyptian?
No idea, to be honest, I just posted it as an example of how redundant his argument was... if I can find it again, I'll let you know.
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
The attempt to chisel the nose and lips of this Kemetic official (?) have done nothing to mute the thick nose and lips that apparently posed an threat for whoever the saboteur was.
Transcript reads:
Statue of Senenmut Eighteenth Dynasty about 1480BC
The text that covers the cloaked form of Senenmut and continues on the base contains the traditional offering formula and a list of titles and lauditory epithets. The text body stresses Senenmut relationship with Thutmose III, while in the inscriptions on the base, Hatshepsut dominates. Senenmuts body contours are slightly indicated, the elbows protrude from the matrix, and the forearms and hands are indicated in very low relief on the top of the cube.Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The attempt to chisel the nose and lips of this Kemetic official (?) have done nothing to mute the thick nose and lips that apparently posed an threat for whoever the saboteur was.
You are well on your way to scholarship but do not get carried away by emotions.
I like to visit the Egyptian wing of the Louvre in Paris, and was moved to tears when I saw all those desecrated fine, black faces. But talking to the young, black, dreadlocked watchman, and from reading I understood that the defacing of statues was most likely practised by the old Egyptians themselves. This I also concluded when recent findings of cache’s, from the classical era, contained already defaced statues and busts. Nobody said these Egyptians were angels or that blacks are above reproach.
Your discussion would be more in focus if we start to define who or what black is, and what makes a ‘black civilisation.’ I feel there should be a black identity in the elite to make a black civilisation. Then the actual shades of skin colour and facial features are of less importance. Especially as the portraits are artistic renditions. Eurocentrism is always vague about these things. First they present an establishing fake image which shows a white Egyptian, and then people should understand that Egypt was white civilisation. No matter how black some images look. It was perhaps the British themselves who went and built the pyramids!
To me, most of these images are idealised to look like all the types of people who lived in the Egyptian empire. Anybody could look at pharaoh’s face in stone and see himself represented. As in the case of Ramses II we can see that his mummy shows a hook-nosed fellow, which we never see in any of his virile and handsome images.
From my own research after blacks and coloureds in Europe through the ages (1500-1789) I conclude that the whole b.s of ‘African Caucasians’ was invented to hide that Europe once was ruled by a black and coloured race, who were the original Europeans. There is talk of ‘True Negroes’ and as long as one does not produce a black European king or noble with blatant, prognastic thick lips and a broad nose, they will say he is not black. When I read some postings I feel that some people really believe that ‘Classical African’ looks belong to a creature and imparts traits thar are almost not human. This is so stupid, as even among the so-called ‘African Caucasians’ we find ‘Classical African’ types. So one narrow nosed, narrow lipped person might have parents or brothers etc who are not ‘Nilotic.’ Then the ‘Nilotic’ ones are also found in West Africa, where the ‘True negroes’ are supposed to live. The Caucasian type is just a variation among the Africans, and one even finds light-skinned blacks without admixture with white Europeans all over Africa too.
PS I have noted that our con-artist in residence Djehuti/Doug M/ JMT takes great interest in your postings and has already used three or four of his nicks in this one thread. You might be aware of this when he will contact you directly to deceive you in one way or another.
Posts: 5454 | From: Holland | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The attempt to chisel the nose and lips of this Kemetic official (?) have done nothing to mute the thick nose and lips that apparently posed an threat for whoever the saboteur was.
You are well on your way to scholarship but do not get carried away by emotions.
I like to visit the Egyptian wing of the Louvre in Paris, and was moved to tears when I saw all those desecrated fine, black faces. But talking to the young, black, dreadlocked watchman, and from reading I understood that the defacing of statues was most likely practised by the old Egyptians themselves. This I also concluded when recent findings of cache’s, from the classical era, contained already defaced statues and busts. Nobody said these Egyptians were angels or that blacks are above reproach.
Your discussion would be more in focus if we start to define who or what black is, and what makes a ‘black civilisation.’ I feel there should be a black identity in the elite to make a black civilisation. Then the actual shades of skin colour and facial features are of less importance. Especially as the portraits are artistic renditions. Eurocentrism is always vague about these things. First they present an establishing fake image which shows a white Egyptian, and then people should understand that Egypt was white civilisation. No matter how black some images look. It was perhaps the British themselves who went and built the pyramids!
To me, most of these images are idealised to look like all the types of people who lived in the Egyptian empire. Anybody could look at pharaoh’s face in stone and see himself represented. As in the case of Ramses II we can see that his mummy shows a hook-nosed fellow, which we never see in any of his virile and handsome images.
From my own research after blacks and coloureds in Europe through the ages (1500-1789) I conclude that the whole b.s of ‘African Caucasians’ was invented to hide that Europe once was ruled by a black and coloured race, who were the original Europeans. There is talk of ‘True Negroes’ and as long as one does not produce a black European king or noble with blatant, prognastic thick lips and a broad nose, they will say he is not black. When I read some postings I feel that some people really believe that ‘Classical African’ looks belong to a creature and imparts traits thar are almost not human. This is so stupid, as even among the so-called ‘African Caucasians’ we find ‘Classical African’ types. So one narrow nosed, narrow lipped person might have parents or brothers etc who are not ‘Nilotic.’ Then the ‘Nilotic’ ones are also found in West Africa, where the ‘True negroes’ are supposed to live. The Caucasian type is just a variation among the Africans, and one even finds light-skinned blacks without admixture with white Europeans all over Africa too.
PS I have noted that our con-artist in residence Djehuti/Doug M/ JMT takes great interest in your postings and has already used three or four of his nicks in this one thread. You might be aware of this when he will contact you directly to deceive you in one way or another.
Hi Egmond, Thank you for this posting. I agree with most of what you have posted, and other area's I dont know enough about to have a qualitative input about, but I have been following some of your posts with interest and learning a lot.
I am a little dissappointed that this thread gives the impression that I buy into that 'true negro' premise, espcially since my extended family is a picture of what Eurocentrics would call ''caucasoid'' features, but we are all fully 'black' as far as we can trace back, and of African descent. Either directly via West Africa, or indirectly via the Carribean.
My hope behind these postings is that it may help people to understand, a) the perception that the British Museum puts forward. b) the artwork that they carefully select for display, and transcripts they post with the artwork that often is deliberately decieving. c) the EUROCENTRIC belief that in destroying overtly tropical features from the artwork of the Egyptians, they could erase Egypt's link with the rest of tropical Africa. d) the variation of Egyptian artwork on display in the British Museum...
Obviously, you, I and most other posters on this board are aware of the phenotypic diversity of African's, and know that the narrow/elongated statues are every bit as African as the more prognathous broad-featured Africans. But I didn't feel the need to explain that, given that it has been discoursed so intensively on this board already.
Also, I dont doubt that some Egyptian statue's had likely been defaced in earlier times, but what motivation would an egyptian have at cutting off only the nose of 6 statues of SenwosretIII in near identical fashion, yet the rest of the statue remaining in tact. I think in some cases that the deliberate sabotage of 'tropical' African features is obvious. Having seen the damage to the statues of SenwosretIII I can confirm the damage is indeed recent (in terms of centuries), there is little in the way of smoothing or corrosion in the damaged area, and had it been old damage the smaller chipped areas caused by the cracking would have fallen away, but they appear to have been fastened back into place with a form of adhesive.
I have more on the way, but I'll bare your post in mind and tighten up the analysis a little... keep posted, much more to come...
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
Why is the remodelled image considered to be of the widely revered Mut, and the other considered to be a Kushite Queen? Notice the identical apparel being donned by both. It is quite possible, prior to the remodelling that these artworks would have looked nearly identical!
Posts: 365 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
). I just wonder if this artwork would fall under the warped classification of negroid? Nothing overtly broad about his nose or lips, but clearly Nigerian, no?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic