quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Dead: I missed this:
quote:I'm not trying to say that East African are the same as West Africans or cluster/pool together in any racialist sort of way, I'm only saying that dark-brown skinned people however you want to classify or group them have a history and Ancient Egyptian civilization is part of that history.
This is total nonsense. So someone who trivially has dark brown skin, but has no close ancestral ties to Egypt (like African-Americans), can consider ancient Egypt part of their history?
And in regards to Baker vs. Rushton. I treat them separate. Baker was a biologist and although his racial views are outdated now and shown to be wrong, some of his stuff is still useful. Rushton was never a biologist. He was a psychologist and his theories about race were total pseudo-science from the start.
You do have a point there, same as it counts for ancient Greece/ Rome, connecting it to white skin. Just as creasy, but it happens anyway. I have always wondered about this double standard.
Here is the difference. African Americans are Africans and Africans are black, so in that sense, the brown skin of African Americans connects them to Africa as much as the brown skin of the Egyptians. And that is what white folks have a problem with. They don't want black people anywhere to have pride in what black people can do and Egypt is just one example where it is undeniable that black people built it. But the whites have no problem twisting logic and history claiming that these black people were more closer to THEM than to African Americans, which is false. This isn't even an issue of cultural ties, West Africa versus East Africa or anything else. It all boils down to propaganda against black people. Period. White people love Greece because Greece was built by white folks and that is all that counts. Whether they were closely tied to North West Europe or not is irrelevant. It is propaganda that allows them to stand on the idea of white intellectual and cultural superiority and why you must bow down and accept it as non whites. And they need to claim ancient Egypt for the same reasons, because they know having ancient Egypt identified as black inspires pride and confidence in black people word wide to stand against them.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by Dead: I missed this:
quote:I'm not trying to say that East African are the same as West Africans or cluster/pool together in any racialist sort of way, I'm only saying that dark-brown skinned people however you want to classify or group them have a history and Ancient Egyptian civilization is part of that history.
This is total nonsense. So someone who trivially has dark brown skin, but has no close ancestral ties to Egypt (like African-Americans), can consider ancient Egypt part of their history?
And in regards to Baker vs. Rushton. I treat them separate. Baker was a biologist and although his racial views are outdated now and shown to be wrong, some of his stuff is still useful. Rushton was never a biologist. He was a psychologist and his theories about race were total pseudo-science from the start.
You do have a point there, same as it counts for ancient Greece/ Rome, connecting it to white skin. Just as creasy, but it happens anyway. I have always wondered about this double standard.
Here is the difference. African Americans are Africans and Africans are black, so in that sense, the brown skin of African Americans connects them to Africa as much as the brown skin of the Egyptians. And that is what white folks have a problem with. They don't want black people anywhere to have pride in what black people can do and Egypt is just one example where it is undeniable that black people built it. But the whites have no problem twisting logic and history claiming that these black people were more closer to THEM than to African Americans, which is false. This isn't even an issue of cultural ties, West Africa versus East Africa or anything else. It all boils down to propaganda against black people. Period. White people love Greece because Greece was built by white folks and that is all that counts. Whether they were closely tied to North West Europe or not is irrelevant. It is propaganda that allows them to stand on the idea of white intellectual and cultural superiority and why you must bow down and accept it as non whites. And they need to claim ancient Egypt for the same reasons, because they know having ancient Egypt identified as black inspires pride and confidence in black people word wide to stand against them.
Yes, I have noticed this fear by whites. And nowhere else do we see Greek temples in the rest of Europe during the same time span.
quote: Iwo Eleru's place among Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene populations of North and East Africa
LOL @ this supposed African American woman. Which we all know is pure B.S. and bigotry.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Why would that guy fall in the brown zone when he's not brown? He has the same level of pigmentation as the people who fall under the ecological regime that the map assigns to Turkey, Greece and Iberia. Does he look brown to you?
"As to the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians, both iconographie and written evidence differentiated between the physical traits of Egyptians and the populations south of Egypt. The art of ancient Egypt frequently painted Egyptian men as reddish brown, women as yellow, and people to the south as black. Ancient Egyptians, like their modern descendants, varied in complexion from a light Mediterranean type, to a light brown in Middle Egypt, to a darker brown in southern Egypt. (Snowden, 1997)
I would only substitute "light Mediterranean type" with "light brown" and "light brown in Middle Egypt" with "moderate brown". Yurco (1989) basically agrees. The "Mediterranean type", olive skin would perhaps be found though on the northern coast in places like Alexandria.
And I regard that man to be light brown.
Also this is a pretty good write up on the movie controversy:>
"There are hundreds such documents – even thousands. Just imagine a stack of such texts from ancient Rome or Athens – the whole world would be all over it! A similar project was undertaken for the documents found on the island of Elephantine in southernmost Egypt (B. Porten ed., The Elephantine Papyri in English, 1996), so why not for Alexandria on the other, Mediterranean, end?"
If the average ancient Egyptian was that dark the Great Hymn to Aten would not have bothered to distinguish the (darker) Nubian colour. The Nubians were black, not Egyptians.
I think that the Ancient Egyptian artwork is far more reliable an indicator of their actual skin color than a translation of the Hymn to Aten (which doesn't say anything about Nubian skin color) or the view points of a Classicist like Frank Snowden. The Ancient Egyptians consistently showed themselves to be darker than Asiatics and slightly lighter than Nubians as well as much darker than pale-skinned Libyans.
According to Keita if you want scientific evidence of the Ancient Egyptians' skin color you need to do a histological analysis of mummy skin.
One study did just that. Here is their result:
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.
Source: Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7-13
All that tells us is that ancient Egyptians were not leukoderms which no one has ever claimed.
"Moving on to softer tissues than bone, one histological study on Egyptian mummies (Mekota and Vermehren 2005) noted in passing that the skin cells were packed with melanin (the pigment that determines human skin color) as expected for people “of Negroid [African] origin”, although they neither specified the exact density nor went into depth." - African Origin of the Ancient Egyptians (this is an essay Truthcentric wrote which I think he submitted to his university as a course module)
"Packed with melanin" is rather ambiguous. People at subtropical latitude have considerable levels of melanin, but are not dark brown/black. [/QB]
Well the place where these mummies were found is called the Valley of the Kings, this is in Upper Egypt/ Southern Egypt. By now we know what Southern Egyptians look like. Therefore we can use simple logic.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CelticWarrioress: Dead, so you've become an Anti-White then? Even going as far as somewhat Nordicist denying S.Europeans as being part of the European family (IE White). Shame on you.
There is a term, called being objective. You also have mediate and natural.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
So you are saying any major Pharoah before the late period of whom there are paintings and Will Smith, are not dark enough to be considered black in skin tone?
Mention any major pharoah before the late period of whom there are paintings and Hollywood has consistantly portrayed them as much lighter than the paintings. That is racist
.
Excluding this debate about skin, why should Will Smith (or other male African-Americans) take those movie roles when their craniofacial features and hair texture poorly match the ancient Egyptians? Is that not then racism by the same standards?
If we go along with Egyptians = black, then only Somalis or some other Horner populations should take the roles, not African-Americans or West/Central Africans. [/QB]
West Africa is a diverse place when it comes to ethnography. There are certainly ethnic groups that fit the ancient Egyptian profile. Certainly considering Central Saharans were the progenitors for the Nile Valley Culture. All these ethnic groups have been in place for the last 5-10Kya, at least.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: According to Dead. there's actually no black people posting in this thread or elsewhere on Egyptsearch.
Either you resemble a piece of chacoal or you don't /close thared
Google football teams by country.
Nigerian:
Congo:
Ethiopian:
Eritrean:
These Sub-Saharan African populations are all shades of dark brown (black). North Africans however are not and are moderate - light brown.
Egypt:
Why is this so complicated?
These countries have a history, of course.
And these countries also have ethnogroupings. This is not going to be reflexed in a soccer team.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The DEAD fool does not want to acknowledge that after Egypt fell and after 3,000 years of an impressive civilisation the place was invaded by myriad ruffians and rapists from West Asia and then Greece and then Rome.
The gene pool was eventually rubbished and polluted by savage degenerates from West Asia and Turkey in the form of Islamic invaders. That's what that football photo of occupied Egypt shows--a place rotting and infected under the colonial language of Arabic and its barbaric camel, goat and tent religion of Islam.
And that's Egypt today: weak in sports and weak in intellect. Great Egypt has become a compost pit these days.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Do you just ignore all these? How "objective" of you.
What do they look like to you? To me they look like statues with faded paint and facial features that easily fit within East African variation.
[...]
We know the paint is faded because in earlier pictures you can see remnants of the dark brown paint which have since faded or been wiped off.
Take note of what Keita has to say about this evidence:
Art objects are not generally used by biological anthropologists. They are suspect as data and their interpretation highly dependent on stereotyped thinking. However, because art has often been used to comment on the physiognomies of ancient Egyptians, a few remarks are in order. A review of literature and the sculpture indicates characteristics that also can be found in the Horn of (East) Africa (see, e.g., Petrie 1939; Drake 1987; Keita 1993). Old and Middle Kingdom statuary shows a range of characteristics; many, if not most, individuals depicted in the art have variations on the narrow-nosed, narrow-faced morphology also seen in various East Africans. This East African anatomy, once seen as being the result of a mixture of different "races," is better understood as being part of the range of indigenous African variation.
Source: The Geographical Origins and Population Relationships of Early Ancient Egyptians
quote: Almost everyone has seen this image of the Seated Scribe. Located on the upper floor of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities, this is the most famous of unknown figures. We know nothing about the person portrayed: neither his name, nor title, nor even the exact period during which he lived. Nevertheless, this statue never fails to impress visitors discovering it for the first time.
A specific posture
The Louvre's scribe, known as the "Seated Scribe", is indeed sitting cross-legged, his right leg crossed in front of his left. The white kilt, stretched over his knees, serves as a support. He is holding a partially rolled papyrus scroll in his left hand. His right hand must have held a brush, now missing. The most striking aspect of this sculpture is the face, particularly the elaborately inlaid eyes: they consist of a piece of red-veined white magnesite, in which a piece of slightly truncated rock crystal was placed. The front part of the crystal was carefully polished. The back side was covered with a layer of organic material, creating the color of the iris and also probably serving as an adhesive. The entire eye was then held in the socket by two large copper clips welded on the back. A line of black paint defines the eyebrows. The hands, fingers, and fingernails are sculpted with a remarkable delicacy. His chest is broad and the nipples are marked by two wooden dowels. The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy.
An unknown figure
The semicircular base on which the figure sits must have originally fit into a larger base that carried his name and titles, such as the base for the statue of Prince Setka, exhibited in room 22 of the Louvre. This base is missing, and the context of the discovery does not provide any additional information. According to the archeologist Auguste Mariette, who found the work, the statue of the scribe was apparently discovered in Saqqara on 19 November 1850, to the north of the Serapeum's line of sphinxes. But the precise location is not known; unfortunately, the documents concerning these excavations were published posthumously, the excavation journals had been lost, and the archives were scattered between France and Egypt. Furthermore, the site had been pillaged and ransacked, and no information concerning the figure's identity could be provided. Some historians have tried to link it to one of the owners of the statues discovered at the same time. The most convincing of these associates the scribe to Pehernefer. Certain stylistic criteria, such as the thin lips, which was unusual, the form of the torso, and the broad chest could support this theory. The statue of Pehernefer dates from the 4th Dynasty. This is an additional argument in favor of an earlier dating for this statue, which has sometimes been dated to the 6th Dynasty. Another argument supporting this date is that "writing" scribes were mostly created in the 4th and early 5th Dynasties; after this period, most scribes were portrayed in "reading" poses.
A scribe at work
The scribe is portrayed at work, which is unusual in Egyptian statuary. Although no king was ever portrayed in this pose, it seems that it was originally used for members of the royal family, such as the king's sons or grandsons, as was the case for the sons of Didufri (4th Dynasty), who were represented in this position.
Bibliography
Bouquillon Anne, "La couleur et les pigments", in Techne 4, 1996, p. 55, fig. 6.
Catalogue, L'Art égyptien au temps des pyramides, Paris, 1999, pp. 383-384.
Ziegler Christiane, Le Scribe "accroupi", collection solo (21), Paris, 2002.
Ziegler Christiane, Musée du Louvre, Département des Antiquités égyptiennes, Les Statues égyptiennes de l'Ancien Empire, Paris 1997, n 58, pp. 204-208.
posted
According to the website, march of the titans: this scribe as a white man.
He too is unknown, or at least I have not found any vilid source telling about him.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Next we have: Scribe Statue of Amunhotep, Son of Nebiry.
The Egyptians valued learning and literacy above all other skills, including physical strength and military prowess. Egyptian men who mastered reading and writing were frequently represented as scribes: sitting cross-legged with inscribed papyrus rolls in their laps. Some examples, such as this one, show the subject with his head gently inclined as if reading the papyrus.
So-called scribe statues were first produced in Dynasty 4 (circa 2625–2500 B.C.). Originally only princes were permitted to appear in this form, but as access to schooling increased over time, scribe statues became relatively common. The subject of this sculpture, a man named Amunhotep, held several priestly and administrative offices.
Medium: Limestone
Place Made: Thebes, Egypt Dates: ca. 1426-1400 B.C.E. Dynasty: XVIII Dynasty Period: New Kingdom Dimensions: 26 x 13 3/16 x 14 13/16 in. (66 x 33.5 x 37.6 cm) (show scale)
Collections:Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art Museum Location: This item is on view in Egypt Reborn: Art for Eternity, Egyptian Orientation Gallery, 3rd Floor
Exhibitions:
Egypt Reborn: Art for Eternity (On view since April 12, 2003) Accession Number: 37.29E
Credit Line: Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund Rights Statement: Creative Commons-BY
Caption: Scribe Statue of Amunhotep, Son of Nebiry, ca. 1426-1400 B.C.E. Limestone, 26 x 13 3/16 x 14 13/16 in. (66 x 33.5 x 37.6 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.29E. Creative Commons-BY
Image: front, 37.29E_front_SL1.jpg. Brooklyn Museum photograph
Catalogue Description: Pale cream-colored limestone squatting sread more...
quote:Seated Statuette of Si-Hathor This statuette combines the seated image of the deceased with the base where the inscription would normally be carved. Here, the artist carved the offering prayer directly onto Si-Hathor’s garment, a solution that saved on the amount of stone to be purchased.
Medium: Limestone, painted Reportedly From: Thebes, Egypt Dates: ca. 1818-1630 B.C.E. Dynasty: late XII Dynasty-early XIII Dynasty Period: Middle Kingdom
Dimensions: 10 1/4 x 6 x 7 5/8 in. (26 x 15.2 x 19.4 cm) (show scale)
Collections:Egyptian, Classical, Ancient Near Eastern Art Museum Location: This item is on view in Egypt Reborn: Art for Eternity, Old Kingdom to 18th Dynasty, Egyptian Galleries, 3rd Floor
Exhibitions:
To Live Forever: Art and the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (February 12, 2010 through May 2, 2010) Egypt Reborn: Art for Eternity (On view since April 12, 2003) Accession Number: 37.97E Credit Line: Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund Rights Statement: Creative Commons-BY Caption: Seated Statuette of Si-Hathor, ca. 1818-1630 B.C.E. Limestone, painted, 10 1/4 x 6 x 7 5/8 in. (26 x 15.2 x 19.4 cm). Brooklyn Museum, Charles Edwin Wilbour Fund, 37.97E. Creative Commons-BY
Image: front, 37.97E_front_PS2.jpg. Brooklyn Museum photograph, 2006
Catalogue Description: Limestone statue of a man named Sa-Hathor represented squatting, on a round-backed base. He wears a long skirt which envelops his legs. This statue has been described as a “scribe” statue. On the portion of the skirt covering the lap and between the two hands which rest palms down on the thighs is an inscription. The figure wears a heavy wig once painted black. Black also are the base and the details of the eyes; the skin is reddish brown; the garment is white. Within the plain-incised signs of the inscription are the remains of blue frit inlays. The eyebrows are modelled and not in relief; the eyebrows are also somewhat arched, and the eyes are heavily outlined in black. The nipples are executed in relief. The head is titled slightly upwards. Inscription on Skirt: Ns’w di htp Skr-Ws;r ntr ‘; nb ;bdw di.f prt-hrw t hnkt ihw ;pdw n k; n im;hy S;-Hthr iri n ‘nhw msi n ddt-nbw Condition: Base chipped on right side; superficial chips from body and hands. Paint well-preserved on entire body except top of wig and left arm. Record Completeness: Best (92%)
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic