quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately, most of what you see in museums for many periods is either unpainted, faded or damaged and therefore not able to show the full detail as originally intended.
The only museum exhibit on ancient Egypt I've been to is the Brooklyn Museum exhibit in NYC. I found most of the artifacts extremely well-preserved. The museum is pretty well-stocked with items from the Old Kingdom, and Middle Kingdom. They also had quite a few pieces from the late and Roman periods.
Against the rules of the museum I took some pictures of the pieces which I will repost here
posted
Masreyya where is your evidence that studies of skeletal remains show a difference between northern and southern Egyptians?I now believe that their was a gradation pattern in Egypt and the nile valley also. Thanks to Djehuti I see that their was egyptians from light brown to dark brown and the more you go up the nile the darker the people get. I would like to see these studies that you have seen Masreyya. These studies could be evidence to help you convince people about your arguement. I am still not convinced that the color of women was anything but symbolic. Djehuti showed me that the more you go up the nile the darker people get and I agree with him. So if these studies exist lets see them. Thanks in advance Masreyya.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Unfortunately, most of what you see in museums for many periods is either unpainted, faded or damaged and therefore not able to show the full detail as originally intended.
The only museum exhibit on ancient Egypt I've been to is the Brooklyn Museum exhibit in NYC. I found most of the artifacts extremely well-preserved. The museum is pretty well-stocked with items from the Old Kingdom, and Middle Kingdom. They also had quite a few pieces from the late and Roman periods.
Against the rules of the museum I took some pictures of the pieces which I will repost here
New Kingdom
Old Kingdom
Senworset III
Senworset III
You are kidding right? Or are you just debating me out of spite?
A statue with no arms, black and white photos of 2 statues with much paint missing and a bunch of unpainted granite statues with no paint and a bunch more unpainted fragments in the background. In addition 1 painting of a woman (of course painted yellow). I am sure you are not trying to put these forward as pristine examples of Egyptian art in all their original glory......
I wish museums would show more of the "good stuff" and not so much of the garbage discarded from some millionaires private collection..... I also wish that the museums would showcase more large high definition photos of the tomb art and temples that do have the paint still intact. It is better than having to travel all the way to Egypt and off the beaten tourist track to see these images. Who knows how long these treasures will last, so why not take photos and present more than a couple statues from the large trove of artwork from a given period..... But I guess museums being museums, they want to show off their collections and not pictures, per se. However, now that Egypt has clamped down on the stealing of artifacts, pictures are an excellent way of preserving the past.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Given however that the reddish brown color is a very common modern Egyptian trait, it's all the indication I need.
Reddish brown color is not a very common modern Egyptian trait in terms of what we see in the media.
This is what we see as the norm for Egyptians in the media:
It is rare to see Reddish Brown Egyptians in the media such as this:
Black and White are both social constructs that have meaning primarily in the society that defined them as meaningful. So of course you are right that this is a political struggle between factions of a society. However, as Rasol and several others have pointed out, one can go beyond the politics and look at lineage and climate to ascertain a better definition. That better definition is Tropically Adapated East Africans primarily originating in Sub-Saharan Africa in the Somalian/Kenyan/Ethiopian area and probably from plains of Borana.
Simply, it is not sad to say that the Ethiopians became a more diversed people over time. This is the historical facts and the logical result of the location of Egypt. As Ethiopian/Somalian E3b carriers travelled Northward up the Nile they came in contact with various other groups. The point Afrocentrics make is that the primary cultural influence was indigenously African (language, religion, politics) and more specifically: Ethiopian.
Regardless of phenotype, Ethiopians are seen as socially Black people and science suggests that they are the founder group for the Egyptian civilization. Now, many Ethiopians claim not to be Black so your point is well taken: trying to label Ancient Egypt as Black or White is futile since it is a matter of social subjectivity.
Leaving the sociopolitical labeling out, we can be objective about the origins of the language, politics and lineage of the Ancient Egyptians....
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The point Afrocentrics make is that the primary cultural influence was indigenously African (language, religion, politics) and more specifically: Ethiopian.
Ethiopia is a modern political contruct.
From an anthropological view a more precise term would be Saharo-tropical variants.
You were correct when you said that much of Ancient Egypt's culture such as language is derived from the south around what is now Eritrea/Somalia/Ethiopia and that the evidence indicates that they came from this region down the Nile to settle and establish the Dynastic era but I don't see the point in putting a political label like Ethiopian on an ancient people.
Posts: 1203 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by walklikeanegyptian: i have also seen pictures of Beja in Egypt and Sudan with light hazel eyes. so i don't know if it's solely based on race. i used Tyra as an example because people say i look like her and i immediately knew she has similiar eyes as me.
I am sure you are attractive, so why the need to constantly compare yourself to others?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sanaag, I am well accustomed to these typological terms and the fact that they are pseudoscience.
Arabs are not considered to be socially White and if anything considering one group of African to be "True African" is very disrespectful to all the other Africans.
If West and Central Africans are true Africans then what are Horn Africans like Somalis, fake Africans?
Slow your role buddy, when did I say anything about us not being true africans?
When I say that you're being disrespectfull to true africans I mean ALL people who are from an African Country. Excluding new world blacks.
You guys have a way of twisting words. This pathetic "argument" started over me using the term "black" to describe people of sub-saharan descent.. next thing you know I have the fake prophet on my back saying how it is wrong ´to use such terms since black is not a race LOL. whether the term is right or wrong is not the issue here.. it is still used i todays society.
Posts: 280 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Like I said Djehuti, I agree that Africans have a range of skin colors. However, I disagree with you in the following ways: 1) You say this image is indicative of the way the ancient Egyptians depicted northern Egyptians at Saqqara.
Handpicked statues in museum from Saqqara: or this one
2) I disagree. This is the way northern Egyptians were portrayed at Saqquara(note how many times darker these are than the statues you keep trying to pass off as the normal color used for northern Egyptians)
You seem to have a hard time paying attention Doug! I NEVER claimed those two statues (Rahotep and the scribe) to be examplar of Lower Egytpians. When I posted those two statues, I did so to show the anomalies!! The common one is that the paint is faded! Despite these anomalies, both statues still retained African features.
These statues are the best preserved painted depictions of what Lower Egyptians looked like:
Constrast with the darker complexion of this Upper Egyptian:
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tomb of Ti in Saqqara: (note the fading from dark brown to red in left to right on this one)
3) Theban tomb images, note there is no difference in color from the Saqqara tomb except the Saqqarra tombs are a bit more faded from age and restorations (it is older). I have no doubt that, when originally painted, these images would have used the same colorsas those in Saqqara.
Tomb of Menna Valley of Kings: Tomb of Nakht
The ONLY difference I see between the tomb art of Saqqara and the tomb art in the valley of the kings is that the Saqqara art is in much WORSE condition than many of the tombs from later periods in the south. So, I would NOT try and OVER emphasize differences between the two which are subtle and more due to age and decay than an attempt by ancient artists to depict northern Egyptians different from southern Egyptians. Those statues from the museum are hand picked, extremely light versions of the artwork from Saqqara and are not representative samples of the way the Egyptians portrayed themselves in their art at Saqqara and therefore cannot be used to justify comments like the northern Egyptians depicted themselves as lighter than the Egyptians in the south. This, as a general statement, is nonsense. I do agree that there may have been variation in the Egyptian population, but not as much as today and the original artwork at Saqqara is NOT different than that of Thebes if you take into account age and decay.
It is hard to see it when looking at the tomb paintings from far away, but Saqqara paintings ARE lighter upon closer inspection! Again, your own examples that you have provided show this!! You need to look closely at them.
Even Ausar agrees that Lower Egyptians tended to be lighter brown while Upper Egyptians were of a richer, darker brown. If you agree that Africans vary in certain features like complexion, then why do you have a problem with this?!!
The Egyptians were not all homogenous in the sense that their looks were all the same with no differences. You should know that even in a small corner of Africa, the populations' looks may vary.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: It is hard to see it when looking at the tomb paintings from far away, but Saqqara paintings ARE lighter upon closer inspection! Again, your own examples that you have provided show this!! You need to look closely at them.
Even Ausar agrees that Lower Egyptians tended to be lighter brown while Upper Egyptians were of a richer, darker brown. If you agree that Africans vary in certain features like complexion, then why do you have a problem with this?!!
The Egyptians were not all homogenous in the sense that their looks were all the same with no differences. You should know that even in a small corner of Africa, the populations' looks may vary.
Now that is a good one! I think you are missing my point completely. Egyptian artists produced tomb art and temple art according to a pretty much established system somewhat akin to a modern conveyor belt. Even as far back as the old kingdom, the conventions for portrayals of men, women, dieties and scenes of everyday life were pretty much standardized. While various dynasties may have had their own particular styles, this was pretty much the rule throughout ancient Egypt's history. Therefore, what I am saying is that the color palette used by Egyptian artists in ancient Egypt was pretty much standardized and did not vary by region as you try and indicate. My personal opinion is that the tomb art of the old kingdom in Saqqara followed the same conventions as tomb art in Thebes in the New Kingdom, except maybe certain cosmetic changes in dress, hairstyle, etc. This is the basis of my argument and REALLY has nothing to do with whether the ancients PHYSICALLY had a variation in skin color from north to south, subtle or otherwise. Ausar, being an Egyptian, may be able to comment on the physical characteristics of modern Egyptians, but I am talking about using art to make broad generalizations, when that is all we have as evidence. With this in mind, I do not see enough of a difference in the pictures of tomb art from the valley of the kings to tomb art from Saqqara to justify saying that the ancient Egyptians were "breaking convention" (or following it conversely) in order to depict northern Egyptians as slightly lighter than their southern counterparts. It would make more sense to depict northerners as substantially different, in order to go through the effort to mix the colors in such a way to produce a very subtle difference from north in south artistically. This difference is so subtle as to be negligable, since all artwork from Egypt's ancient period varies in color, even in the Theban tombs! So you cannot say that the brown in Saqqara is somehow outside the range of colors seen in Thebes, when you will see, after looking at many tombs from Thebes and many tombs from Saqqara that they ALL fall in the same stylistic convention established in the earliest days of the Egyptian dynastic system. As a matter of fact there are some tombs in Thebes where the colors are lighter than those at Saqqara, so what does that mean?
For us to even begin to get down to the kinds of analysis you are hinting at would require far more than mere photographs from the web. It would require chemical analysis and physical inspection. None of which I think is justified for such a SMALL difference that you seem to indicate. Otherwise, we are stuck with the fact that all of these photos, whether of Theban tomb art or Saqqaran tomb art can be seen in different shades depending on the lighting and cameras used to take the picture. My point is that brown is brown and the Egyptians painted themselves as brown, within a range of shades that was consistent across all regions and time periods. No matter what camera, lighting or how close you look, I believe they all were painted using the same pallete of colors and not distinguishing northerners from southerners purely based on any color code.
My main point was and still is that museums and other institutions of Egyptology present the most blatant distortion of the facts of ancient Egypt, in that they consistently rely on unpainted or handpicked statues and items from every period of Egyptian art in order to portray Egyptians as lighter skinned or even European looking. They purposely try and make "afrocentric" or more dark brown African looking portraits from ancient Egypt the exception, rather than the rule. However, if you look at the tomb art from every period of Egyptian history and temples that still have the original paint remaining, you will see that the "afrocentric" style was the RULE not the exception. THIS is what I am against.
This is why I rarely used one or two statues from any period of time in Egypt to "typify" an ancient Egyptian from any period. One or two or even ten statues are not enough to be definitive in any way. Therefore, I go to the tombs or temples, because, in most cases you will have hundreds of images in one tomb alone to analyze, versus one or two statues that really dont say ANYTHING by themselves, in terms of broad ideas about stylistic conventions for a certain period or how the population looked and dressed. One or two statues are not enough to give a complete picture of what the ancients were trying to convey. That is why they covered their temples and tombs top to bottom and front to back with images in full color so you could see the FULL picture. Therefore, that is what I use as a reference, not one or two statues in bad condition, which is like trying to take one or two words from a paragraph and characterizing a whole chapter. SEE what I am saying Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Now that is a good one! I think you are missing my point completely. Egyptian artists produced tomb art and temple art according to a pretty much established system somewhat akin to a modern conveyor belt. Even as far back as the old kingdom, the conventions for portrayals of men, women, dieties and scenes of everyday life were pretty much standardized. While various dynasties may have had their own particular styles, this was pretty much the rule throughout ancient Egypt's history. Therefore, what I am saying is that the color palette used by Egyptian artists in ancient Egypt was pretty much standardized and did not vary by region as you try and indicate. My personal opinion is that the tomb art of the old kingdom in Saqqara followed the same conventions as tomb art in Thebes in the New Kingdom, except maybe certain cosmetic changes in dress, hairstyle, etc. This is the basis of my argument and REALLY has nothing to do with whether the ancients PHYSICALLY had a variation in skin color from north to south, subtle or otherwise. Ausar, being an Egyptian, may be able to comment on the physical characteristics of modern Egyptians, but I am talking about using art to make broad generalizations, when that is all we have as evidence. With this in mind, I do not see enough of a difference in the pictures of tomb art from the valley of the kings to tomb art from Saqqara to justify saying that the ancient Egyptians were "breaking convention" (or following it conversely) in order to depict northern Egyptians as slightly lighter than their southern counterparts. It would make more sense to depict northerners as substantially different, in order to go through the effort to mix the colors in such a way to produce a very subtle difference from north in south artistically. This difference is so subtle as to be negligable, since all artwork from Egypt's ancient period varies in color, even in the Theban tombs! So you cannot say that the brown in Saqqara is somehow outside the range of colors seen in Thebes, when you will see, after looking at many tombs from Thebes and many tombs from Saqqara that they ALL fall in the same stylistic convention established in the earliest days of the Egyptian dynastic system. As a matter of fact there are some tombs in Thebes where the colors are lighter than those at Saqqara, so what does that mean?
For us to even begin to get down to the kinds of analysis you are hinting at would require far more than mere photographs from the web. It would require chemical analysis and physical inspection. None of which I think is justified for such a SMALL difference that you seem to indicate. Otherwise, we are stuck with the fact that all of these photos, whether of Theban tomb art or Saqqaran tomb art can be seen in different shades depending on the lighting and cameras used to take the picture. My point is that brown is brown and the Egyptians painted themselves as brown, within a range of shades that was consistent across all regions and time periods. No matter what camera, lighting or how close you look, I believe they all were painted using the same pallete of colors and not distinguishing northerners from southerners purely based on any color code.
My main point was and still is that museums and other institutions of Egyptology present the most blatant distortion of the facts of ancient Egypt, in that they consistently rely on unpainted or handpicked statues and items from every period of Egyptian art in order to portray Egyptians as lighter skinned or even European looking. They purposely try and make "afrocentric" or more dark brown African looking portraits from ancient Egypt the exception, rather than the rule. However, if you look at the tomb art from every period of Egyptian history and temples that still have the original paint remaining, you will see that the "afrocentric" style was the RULE not the exception. THIS is what I am against.
This is why I rarely used one or two statues from any period of time in Egypt to "typify" an ancient Egyptian from any period. One or two or even ten statues are not enough to be definitive in any way. Therefore, I go to the tombs, because, in most cases you will have hundreds of images in one tomb alone to analyze, versus one or two statues that really dont say ANYTHING by themselves, in terms of broad ideas about stylistic conventions for a certain period or how the population looked and dressed. One or two statues are not enough to give a complete picture of what the ancients were trying to convey. That is why they covered their temples and tombs top to bottom and front to back with images in full color so you could see the FULL picture. Therefore, that is what I use as a reference, not one or two images, which is like trying to take one or two words from a paragraph and characterizing a whole chapter. SEE what I am saying
I already know that the Egyptians followed a certain convention in terms of artistic convention, and that all the artwork from different parts of Egypt is very similar no doubt.
What I am saying is that the art does show that men in Lower Egypt do in fact tend to be lighter than men in Upper Egypt. I am NOT "handpicking" anything. Almost all the painted depictions in Lower Egypt are a tad lighter than those in Upper Egypt. This can even be seen in statues where the paint has been whetered away but you can still make it out.
I posted a picture of the 2 men from Lower Egypt and my point is that the majority of statues from that area have the same complexion which is different from the dark brown painted statues of Luxor. Why you deny this is a mystery to me.
Ausar has said this and even Egyptologist Frank Yurco, who accepts that Egyptians are indigenous Africans says this. As you go down the Nile, the populations become lighter.
The Nubians of Ta-Seti are related to the Egyptians of Ta-Shemu (Upper Egypt) yet they are portrayed as considerably darker.
Again, why the insistance that people of a certain area have to have a uniform look, especially a region in Africa?!
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not insisting on anything other than the following:
There is no way I can verify what you say about the two statues being "typical" of Egyptian artwork from upper Egypt. I DO NOT rely on one or two statues to base an opinion on A WHOLE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN ART.Therefore, in order to get a FULL UNDERSTANDING of what differences there MAY be between images from upper Egypt versus lower Egypt would require SERIOUS research BEYOND mere posts on this board.
I have not seen anything to change my opioion in this regard. Yes, the statues may be lighter that you posted, however, does that make them typical of all or most images at Saqqara and atypical of all or most images at Thebes? My answer is no, but since I only have access to the net and pictures there, you can take it or leave it.
Do not take anything above as a statement about the physical character of ancient or modern Egyptians in the sense that I am DENYING any possiblity. Egyptian art in itself was a GENERALIZATION and therefore it is quite likely that most people physcially varied in many ways from the actual artwork. So there most likely was much variation in the population. This I am not trying to deny.
HOwever, I still disagree with saying that 2 or 3 or 10 statues from Saqqara and the old kingdom, which lasted about 800 years is enough to TYPIFY the way how ancient portraits were painted. This is what I am talking about and nothing else, whether the point is to say they were pink, brown, tan, polka dot or purple, a handful of statues is not enough to cover such a large period of time and so many pieces of artwork to be representative enough to make such a statement. This is where I disagree with your attempts to PROVE your point.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the blue eyes are a touch-up, or maybe the man portrayed here had arcus senilus (an eye condition in older men which could make dark eyes look "blue"; come to think of it, that would probably explain a lot of the blue-eyed Egyptians Nordicists love to mention).
Hey, ever notice that while Nordicists enjoy pointing out "blue eyes" in old paintings, they rarely find green or hazel eyes? Either blue or black, apparently.
Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
I wonder if the blue eyes are a touch-up, or maybe the man portrayed here had arcus senilus (an eye condition in older men which could make dark eyes look "blue"; come to think of it, that would probably explain a lot of the blue-eyed Egyptians Nordicists love to mention).
Hey, ever notice that while Nordicists enjoy pointing out "blue eyes" in old paintings, they rarely find green or hazel eyes? Either blue or black, apparently.
Quite puzzling. I don't see how Blue Eyes could be found amongst these people. Even stranger is that one eye apparently is not blue.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...There is no way I can verify what you say about the two statues being "typical" of Egyptian artwork from upper Egypt...
I didn't say they were typical of Upper Egypt but of LOWER Egypt.
quote:...I DO NOT rely on one or two statues to base an opinion on A WHOLE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN ART.Therefore, in order to get a FULL UNDERSTANDING of what differences there MAY be between images from upper Egypt versus lower Egypt would require SERIOUS research BEYOND mere posts on this board..
LOL I dont rely on one or two statues either! I rely on a myriad of painted statues as well as tomb paintings. In fact, some of the examples YOU provided proved my point.
quote:I have not seen anything to change my opioion in this regard. Yes, the statues may be lighter that you posted, however, does that make them typical of all or most images at Saqqara and atypical of all or most images at Thebes? My answer is no, but since I only have access to the net and pictures there, you can take it or leave it.
Then I suggest you do more research on Egyptian art and make the comparison between paintings in Saqqara and those from Thebes. I have seen most of the artwork myself NOT just one or two statues as you claim but statues and wall paintings from just about every tomb that has ever been excavated or discovered. Egyptologists like Frank Yurco and others have noticed the difference also.
quote:Do not take anything above as a statement about the physical character of ancient or modern Egyptians in the sense that I am DENYING any possiblity. Egyptian art in itself was a GENERALIZATION and therefore it is quite likely that most people physcially varied in many ways from the actual artwork. So there most likely was much variation in the population. This I am not trying to deny.
If you agree that Egyptian art was a generalization, then I don't understand why you refuse to accept that there are differences in gereralization between Egyptians from different areas of the country??
quote:HOwever, I still disagree with saying that 2 or 3 or 10 statues from Saqqara and the old kingdom, which lasted about 800 years is enough to TYPIFY the way how ancient portraits were painted. This is what I am talking about and nothing else, whether the point is to say they were pink, brown, tan, polka dot or purple, a handful of statues is not enough to cover such a large period of time and so many pieces of artwork to be representative enough to make such a statement. This is where I disagree with your attempts to PROVE your point.
LOL My observations are based on a lot more than just 10, a dozen, or even a score of statues. As I said, I have seen countless Egyptian painted depictions and almost all of them point to the same conclusion.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: ...There is no way I can verify what you say about the two statues being "typical" of Egyptian artwork from upper Egypt...
I didn't say they were typical of Upper Egypt but of LOWER Egypt.
quote:...I DO NOT rely on one or two statues to base an opinion on A WHOLE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN ART.Therefore, in order to get a FULL UNDERSTANDING of what differences there MAY be between images from upper Egypt versus lower Egypt would require SERIOUS research BEYOND mere posts on this board..
LOL I dont rely on one or two statues either! I rely on a myriad of painted statues as well as tomb paintings. In fact, some of the examples YOU provided proved my point.
quote:I have not seen anything to change my opioion in this regard. Yes, the statues may be lighter that you posted, however, does that make them typical of all or most images at Saqqara and atypical of all or most images at Thebes? My answer is no, but since I only have access to the net and pictures there, you can take it or leave it.
Then I suggest you do more research on Egyptian art and make the comparison between paintings in Saqqara and those from Thebes. I have seen most of the artwork myself NOT just one or two statues as you claim but statues and wall paintings from just about every tomb that has ever been excavated or discovered. Egyptologists like Frank Yurco and others have noticed the difference also.
quote:Do not take anything above as a statement about the physical character of ancient or modern Egyptians in the sense that I am DENYING any possiblity. Egyptian art in itself was a GENERALIZATION and therefore it is quite likely that most people physcially varied in many ways from the actual artwork. So there most likely was much variation in the population. This I am not trying to deny.
If you agree that Egyptian art was a generalization, then I don't understand why you refuse to accept that there are differences in gereralization between Egyptians from different areas of the country??
quote:HOwever, I still disagree with saying that 2 or 3 or 10 statues from Saqqara and the old kingdom, which lasted about 800 years is enough to TYPIFY the way how ancient portraits were painted. This is what I am talking about and nothing else, whether the point is to say they were pink, brown, tan, polka dot or purple, a handful of statues is not enough to cover such a large period of time and so many pieces of artwork to be representative enough to make such a statement. This is where I disagree with your attempts to PROVE your point.
LOL My observations are based on a lot more than just 10, a dozen, or even a score of statues. As I said, I have seen countless Egyptian painted depictions and almost all of them point to the same conclusion.
No problem man. I still dont agree. I wont agree until I can see more images for myself. That is all I am saying. YOU may have seen this, but I haven't. When I see it with my OWN eyes then I will believe it. What I HAVE seen with my own eyes does not change my opinion. Of course there are tombs and art work in Saqqara that have images that may be considered lighter than those elsewhere, but there are also images there that are just as dark as any other. Just as there are images from the Thebes that also fall into the same range of colors, some light some darker. I am just arguing against saying that all or MOST of them in the north were lighter purely because they were from the north, when there are a GREAT many tombs you would have to go in and study before you could make such a statement. Even then you are still dealing with a small fragment of what was originally created. The saqqara necropolis spans 3000+ years of Egyptian history and I don't see it served by any mere 10-20 statues from one museum or one or two tombs to be "typical" of all artwork of the region.
Oh, and let me be clear, we are debating whether the MOST of the portraits painted in the Saqqara region were lighter than portraits painted in Thebes. Like I said, there are a LOT of images in Saqqara and Thebes and to PROVE your point, you need to do more than post images of a handful of statues. So, I consider this a useless argument as I certainly cannot do it and until someone can show me a LARGE amount of artwork relatively undamaged or faded and free of camera and lighting distortions that does, I still will hold to my point of view.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The so-called blue eyes in sculpture is more an illusion than reality,for the sculptors during the Old kingdom often used lapis Lazuli to represent youthfulness in sculpture. Many of the eyes are made out of rock crystals that in the light it does appear that the eyes are a light bluish color instead of a blackish color as most sculptures show.
See the following:
Lapis lazuli,a semi precious stone imported from other sources that was extremely popular with the Ancient Egyptians.Opaque,dark,or greenish blue,often flecked with gold,lapis lazuli was used extensively in jewerly and to a lesser extent for small sculptures,scarbs,and amulets. The Egyptian name for the stone was Khesbedj,and in sculpture it represented youthfulness. The godess Het-Hor was sometimes called ''The mistress of Lapis Lazuli.''
page 144
The Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Bunson, Margaret
Djehuti, I would be cautious quoting me as an authority in physical/biological anthropology. What I guy by is the modern apperance as is in modern day Egypt. Frank J Yurco is also a great source but note he is not a physical anthropologist either,but a Egyptologist. Indeed in modern Egypt a gradient from a lightish brown color down to a medium color in Middle Egypt to a deep dark brown in Southern Upper Egypt but even in Lower Egypt there are exceptions to this rule. As in parts of Middle Egypt there are lighter populations than the norm[maily in areas like Faiyum,Minya and Assuit]. Past these regions most people are a dark brownish color.
In terms of the ancient population of Lower Egypt probably deviated and became slightly different from Upper Egypt post-pharoanic times with the incursions of Western Asians that were reported in Egyptian texts. Yet more study of Lower Egyptian remains needs to be studied to confirm this.
The settlements of Lower Egypt were all started by Upper Egyptians from the area around Abydos. Areas like Saqqara would have most likely been meeting points for Lower and Upper Egypt. The one sculpture around Saqqara that stands out is Sheikh el Beled. Named Sheikh el Beled after the local village headmen who the diggers throught represented.
The 4th dyansty originated around modern day Middle Egypt. 5th and 6th originated in Men-nefer [although Manetho says they came from Swene[modern day Aswan]. The monarchs of the 6th dyansty intermarried with the local elite rulers from Abydos.
Know I am still of the belief that sculpture should not be used as 100% as a replacement for anthropological or forensic studies.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti may think I am blind, but I KNOW what he is talking about.
Tomb of Mereruka Saqqara: and
But as you can see these are SEVERELY FADED and I cannot begin to tell how rich the original colors may have looked. Also note the fading from light to dark brown on the last one.
Tomb of Ptahhotep at Saqqara: (Note how each row seems to have a different shade for the colors of the workers).
A lot of variation indeed, but also a lot of fading and decay. Even in a single tomb you can see fading, decay and the actuall variation of colors actually used by the artists. Based on the state of these tombs, it is hard to get a good picture of the exact nature they may have looked like when first painted.
So to say the least, we are still talking about a small fraction of the images painted in Saqqara during the old kingdom. I find it hard to get a grip on the "typical" colors used during this period, since there are many different issues that affect our observations, such as age and decay.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: Masreyya where is your evidence that studies of skeletal remains show a difference between northern and southern Egyptians?... if these studies exist lets see them. Thanks in advance Masreyya.
They do and I've actually discussed this topic extensively before. If you want the details directly from the studies I suggest looking into the older threads, but here is a rundown.
The differences basically lie in certain craniometric and dental trends, among others, which help bioarchaeologists ascertain population affinities. Among the first scientists to suggest a clinal pattern between northern and southern Egypt were Morant and Batrawi who noted these differences, while maintaining that the two populations were nonetheless related (i.e., they would still cluster together than to other more divergent populations). They studied Lower Egyptian remains as early as the 1st Dynasty (1947). Since then, more studies have been conducted using updated and more advanced techniques, e.g. Hassan, Keita, and Brace et al., but the results have not changed much. The terms "cline" and "cluster" to describe the differences were used by Brace et al. 1993.
Keita's two-part study on North African crania (1990, 1992) is quite detailed. It suggests that Lower Egypt and the Maghreb have historically been inhabited primarily by an indigenous people who generally have a craniometric phenotype "intermediate" to tropical Africans and northern Europeans. He examines Lower/Middle Egyptian remains as well as material from 1st Dynasty royal tombs in Abydos. It appears that the Abydos remains, while primarily of southern affiliation (like the Badarian), they also contain skeletal material of northern phenotypic pattern. Delta Egyptian names actually appear in the southern royal tombs. He describes the Abydos series as having a "heterogeneous appearance", despite being of a southerly affiliation overall (1992).
Dynastic Egypt from this point onwards reveals a trend of intermixture between north and south, whereby it's not always possible to differentiate northern and southern patterns regardless of the location. This suggests that the Egyptians progressively became more indistinguishable and therefore "homogeneous" in this sense (Berry et al. 1967; Berry and Berry 1972; Brace et al. 1993; Irish 2006), though the variation may have been maintained to some degree. Keita uses the terms "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" to describe the pattern common to Lower/Middle Egypt more generally, versus "Africoid" or tropical African variant in the southern part of the country.
Another study (Zakrzewski et al. 2003) further shows that while most Egyptian samples cluster together, the population in Egypt was significantly impacted by foreign migration during and just after the late predynastic period, resulting in cranial "morphological heterogeneity". This is attributed to "the appearance of a new population". The likely point of origin of this foreign intrusion would have been Southwest Asia. It's possible however that these people came from the predynastic settlements of the Delta and Lower Egypt, though there are no biological studies of which I'm aware on skeletal material from the predynastic Delta to elaborate on their background. Poor bone preservation in the Delta hinders such research from being undertaken.
Nevertheless, Near Eastern influences can be attested in the Delta since the predynastic era through an abundance of archaeological features, ecofacts and artifacts of Levantine/Sumerian origin. Zakrzewski et al. do show there was a biological impact of a population not indigenous to Egypt or Africa in the late predynastic period, which is consistent with the hypothesis of a demic diffusion of Near Eastern peoples from the Levant or directly from the Delta who were absorbed into the expanding dynastic Egyptian culture. More studies in the future will hopefully shed more light on this particular point.
Finally, the last study I looked at was conducted by Joel Irish (2006) on ancient Egyptian dental morphology. It too establishes homogeneity, and thus continuity, from the predynastic through the postdynastic period but with a few exceptions ("outliers"). With respect to dynastic Egyptians, Irish says, "phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD Ľ 0.050), 11-12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time." (my emphasis).
Phonetic distances therefore appear to have been small and varying throughout dynastic Egypt, suggesting a lack of specific trend from Early to Late Dynastic periods. "Thus, despite increasing foreign influence after the Second Intermediate Period, not only did Egyptian culture remain intact (Lloyd, 2000a), but the people themselves, as represented by the dental samples, appear biologically constant as well," says Irish (my emphasis).
A sample from Lower Egypt (Fayum/Hawara), dated to A.D. 50-120 at the threshold of the Christian period, was found by Irish to be virtually identical to the Badarian series (which even I find spectacular). In fact, most of the Roman/Byzantine period samples cluster closely with earlier ones. This means that continuity in Lower Egypt was not broken after the Graeco-Roman period. Egyptians look like this during that time.
The four Egyptian samples classified by Irish as outliers all but one come from Lower Egypt, the first being the famous 4th Dynasty Saqqara royal tomb series. The divergence is attributed to dental traits more characteristic of West Asian and European populations. The Saharan sample from Gabal Ramlah in Lower Nubia that was included for comparison purposes was divergent in nearly all respects, with only mild similarities to some Upper Egyptian samples.
Taking all the evidence into consideration, Lower Egypt appears comparatively marked by a greater degree of appreciable heterogeneity throughout its history, resulting in a gradient north to south. I'm sure as studies on predynastic Lower Egyptian samples become possible, scientists will be able to determine the extent of the differences before the unification and north-south admixture.
Works Cited
Batrawi A. 1945. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part I. J Roy Anthropol Inst 75:81-102.
Batrawi A. 1946. The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, Part II. J Roy Anthropol Inst 76:131-156.
Batrawi A, Morant M. 1947. A study of a first dynasty series of Egyptian skulls from Sakkara and of an eleventh dynasty series from Thebes. Biometrika 34:18-27.
Berry AC, Berry RJ. 1972. Origins and relationships of the ancient Egyptians: based on a study of non-metrical variations in the skull. J Hum Evol 1:199–208.
Berry AC, Berry RJ, Ucko PJ. 1967. Genetical change in ancient Egypt. Man 2:551–568.
Brace CL, Tracer DP, Yaroch LA, Robb J, Brandt K, Nelson AR. 1993. Clines and clusters versus "race:" a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 36:1–31.
Hassan FA. 1988. The predynastic of Egypt. J World Prehist 2:135–185.
Irish JD. 2006. Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples. Am J Ph Anthropol. Early View.
Keita SOY. 1990. Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa. Am J Phys Anthropol 83:35–48.
Keita SOY. 1992. Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from First Dynasty Egyptian tombs. Am J Phys Anthropol 87:245–254.
Zakrzewski SR, Foley RA, Lahr MM. 2003. "Change and continuity over the predynastic and early dynastic periods of ancient Egypt." Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century: Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Egyptologists. Vol 2. Cairo: AUC. 587-595.
Posts: 100 | From: Egypt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Reddish brown color is not a very common modern Egyptian trait in terms of what we see in the media.
Try again! Try looking at people in the Egyptian media and the picture you posted a little better. These are notable figures instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with the Egyptian media or arts:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is rare to see Reddish Brown Egyptians in the media such as this: [Sadat]
That would be expected considering that most Egyptians are not of a mixed Sudanese-Egyptian heritage. I like to post pictures representative of cross-sections of Egyptian society. It would be disingenuous of me to post a picture of someone known to have immediate non-Egyptian ancestry, whether Sudanese or Turkish, or of people from one specific location in Egypt such as only the southernmost part to generalize about Egyptians, as it would be unrepresentative of the bulk of the Egyptian population.
quote:Try looking harder at people in the Egyptian media, and try looking at the picture you posted a little better
I agree with you....partly.
Dark skinned Egyptians who resemble AE are not at all uncommon in Upper Egypt.
These peoples are the closest to the AE in every physical respect.
However.....they ARE NOT COMMON in the modern Egyptian media, which tries hard to whitewash Egypt.
Witness what you yourself acknowledged as the fiasco of the Tut reconstruction which was lighter in color than both Tut's own iconography and the modern southern Egyptian workers shown in the article about the reconstruction.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what is absolutely funny, the European archaelogical establishment thinks the average ancient Egyptian is even lighter than Hawass..... with a tan! LOL! Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion:
That would be expected considering that most Egyptians are not of a mixed Sudanese-Egyptian heritage.
And which Egyptians are you posting that are NON-Mixed?
I don't want to come across as contentious but what on Earth are you talking about? Mixed Sudanese and Egyptian means what exactly to you? Sadat's features are common amongst Egyptians so I am confused by your claiming him to me less Egyptian than most!
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nay,but the Red Ones spread abroad throughout the country. The homes are destoyed . The strange people from without are come into Egypt.
Nay,but the entire Delta is no [longer] hidden. The confidence of the North Land is [now] a trodden land.
What is one to do? _ Men say:''Cursed [?] be inaccessible place! Behold,it belongeth now[?] as much to them that know it not,as to them that know it, and strangers are versed in the crafts of the Delta.*
* The natural protection of the Delta affored by its swampsand lakes is no longer of any avail, the foreigners enter it in bands and pratice its crafts themselves.
quote:Originally posted by Ayazid: BTW, this pick is from el Minya, not from Delta. Only a little correction
Actually, I put it under Coastal Mediterranean and it is in fact of a school in Abu2ir just east of Alexandria, but I'm sure you already know where Abu2ir is since you seem to have an eerie familiarity with us.
quote:Originally posted by KING: Masreyya where is your evidence that studies of skeletal remains show a difference between northern and southern Egyptians?... if these studies exist lets see them. Thanks in advance Masreyya.
They do and I've actually discussed this topic extensively before. If you want the details directly from the studies I suggest looking into the older threads, but here is a rundown.
The differences lie in certain craniometric and dental trends which help bioarchaeologists ascertain population affinities. The first scientists to suggest a clinal pattern between northern and southern Egypt were Morant and Batrawi who noted these differences, while maintaining that the two populations were nonetheless related (i.e., they would still cluster together than to other more divergent populations). They studied Lower Egyptian remains as early as the 1st Dynasty. Since then, more studies have been conducted using updated and more advanced techniques, e.g. Hassan, Trigger, Keita, and Brace et al., but the results have not changed much. The terms "cline" and "cluster" to describe the differences were used by Brace et al. 1993.
Keita's two-part study on North African crania (1990, 1992) is quite detailed. It suggests that Lower Egypt and the Maghreb have historically been inhabited primarily by an indigenous people who generally have a craniometric phenotype "intermediate" to tropical Africans and northern Europeans. He uses Lower/Middle Egyptian remains as well as material from 1st Dynasty royal tombs in Abydos. It appears that the Abydos remains, while primarily of southern affiliation (like the Badarian), they also contain skeletal material of northern phenotypic pattern. Delta Egyptian names actually appear in the southern royal tombs. He describes the Abydos series as having a "heterogeneous appearance", despite being of a southerly affiliation overall.
Dynastic Egypt from this point onwards displays this trend of intermixture between north and south, whereby it's not always possible to distinguish between northern and southern patterns regardless of the location. This suggests that the Egyptians progressively became more indistinguishable and therefore "homogenous" in this sense (Berry, Berry, and Ucko 1967; Berry and Berry 1972), but the variation appears to have been maintained to varying degrees. Keita uses the terms "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" to describe the pattern common to Lower/Middle Egypt more generally, versus "Africoid" or tropical African variant in the southern part of the country.
One study conducted by Zakrzewski et al. 2003 further shows that while most Egyptian samples cluster together, the population in Egypt was significantly impacted by foreign migration during and just after the late predynastic period, resulting in cranial "morphological heterogeneity". This is attributed to "the appearance of a new population". The likely point of origin of this foreign intrusion would have been Southwest Asia. It's possible however that these people always lived in the Delta, though there are no studies of which I'm aware on skeletal material from the predynastic Delta. Near Eastern influences can be attested in the Delta since the predynastic era through an abundance of archaeological features, ecofacts and artifacts of Levantine/Sumerian origin and influence. Zakrzewski et al. do show there was a substantial biological impact of a population not indigenous to Africa, but more studies in the future will hopefully shed more light on this particular point.
Finally, the last study I looked at was conducted by Joel Irish on ancient Egyptian dental morphology, which establishes continuity from the predynastic through the postdynastic period, with a few exceptions ("outliers"). The latest sample from Lower Egypt is dated to A.D. 50-120, at the threshold of the Christian period, and was found to be virtually identical to the Badarian series (which even I find spectacular). In fact, most of the Roman/Byzantine period samples clustered closely with earlier ones. This means that continuity in Lower Egypt was not broken after the Graeco-Roman period. Egyptians look like this during that time.
With regard to the dynastic period, he says, "phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD Ľ 0.050), 11-12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time." (my emphasis). Therefore, phonetic distances varied throughout dynastic Egypt suggesting a lack of specific trend from Early to Late Dynastic periods.
The Egyptian samples classified by Irish as outliers all but one come from Lower Egypt, the first being the famous 4th Dynasty Saqqara royal tomb series. The divergence is attributed to dental traits more characteristic of Southwest Asian and European populations. Taking all the evidence into consideration, Lower Egypt appears comparatively marked by a greater degree of appreciable heterogeneity throughout its history, which would be expected given its geographical location, resulting in a clear clinal pattern or gradient north to south. I'm sure as studies on predynastic Lower Egyptian samples become possible, scientists will be able to determine the extent of the differences before the unification and north-south intermixture.
Nice post. Did you paste this together from different places, write this yourself or paraphrase someone else? If you did get this from somewhere, where did you get it?
I have never denied that there was variation in ancient Egypt, in all parts of it. My problem is with trying to make distinctions on how typical one variation was in one part of Egypt versus another at any given time and how typical the variations were in ancient times, versus the typical variations seen in modern Egypt. I also think that museums do not properly portray the variation of the population in Egyptian art, since they mostly focus on a handful of statues and reliefs which are in no way presented in context and can often give a distorted interperetation of the facts. For example, some might think that ALL Egyptians in the north of Egypt were extremely light, when that is not the case, even today. The north, as you posted, was more MIXED than the south, but to say that the typical Egyptian of the North was more like Zahi Hawass is not necessarily true either. There are a range of features and characteristics between Zahi and other Egyptians in general and therefore it is impossible to accurately come up with exact composition of the ancient population. Egyptian artwork is no better, since it only generalizes, in that even with the variation in Egyptian art, it is hard to get a precise understanding of the features present in the ancient populations.
It must also be remembered that no matter how much variation we see in these images, the western Egyptological establishment will STILL put forward images that portray the typical Egyptian like the French version of the Tut reconstruction. This is what has to change. It is indicative of the LACK of control of Egyptian history and the image of Egypt in the world that such distortions still allowed to be created. Therefore, most people in the world, will see the images of the tut along with other Eurocentric images and reconstructions, as well as the distorted selection of Egyptian relics in the museums and Eurocentric Egyptological writings from the past 200 years and STILL think that the average ancient Egyptian looked like a Northern European. And this image of Tut, even with all the opposition to it, will TOUR WORLDWIDE and REMAIN PROMINENTLY in books for YEARS TO COME, no matter how many times it has been proven to be inaccurate and biased by many all over the world. This thread, is more informative that MOST of the junk put forward by the Egyptological establishment, even if there is an Egyptian figurehead, Hawass, who is SUPPOSEDLY in charge. If anything Hawass is a perfect example of the self denial served in the interests of European Imperial power than anything else, since most of the "official" images that he supports DONT EVEN LOOK LIKE HIM.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Djehuti may think I am blind, but I KNOW what he is talking about.
Tomb of Mereruka Saqqara: and
But as you can see these are SEVERELY FADED and I cannot begin to tell how rich the original colors may have looked. Also note the fading from light to dark brown on the last one.
Tomb of Ptahhotep at Saqqara: (Note how each row seems to have a different shade for the colors of the workers).
A lot of variation indeed, but also a lot of fading and decay. Even in a single tomb you can see fading, decay and the actuall variation of colors actually used by the artists. Based on the state of these tombs, it is hard to get a good picture of the exact nature they may have looked like when first painted.
So to say the least, we are still talking about a small fraction of the images painted in Saqqara during the old kingdom. I find it hard to get a grip on the "typical" colors used during this period, since there are many different issues that affect our observations, such as age and decay.
Okay, I'm tired of debating this for now, but I have already seen the pics above and they still prove me right. The reddish brown color is a convention yes, but there are plenty of portraits with more realistic colors like the ones I posted and it does show color variation existed throughout Egypt.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: The so-called blue eyes in sculpture is more an illusion than reality,for the sculptors during the Old kingdom often used lapis Lazuli to represent youthfulness in sculpture. Many of the eyes are made out of rock crystals that in the light it does appear that the eyes are a light bluish color instead of a blackish color as most sculptures show...
I knew there was an explanation for the so-called 'blue eyes'!
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: They do and I've actually discussed this topic extensively before. If you want the details directly from the studies I suggest looking into the older threads, but here is a rundown.
The differences lie in certain craniometric and dental trends which help bioarchaeologists ascertain population affinities. The first scientists to suggest a clinal pattern between northern and southern Egypt were Morant and Batrawi who noted these differences, while maintaining that the two populations were nonetheless related (i.e., they would still cluster together than to other more divergent populations). They studied Lower Egyptian remains as early as the 1st Dynasty. Since then, more studies have been conducted using updated and more advanced techniques, e.g. Hassan, Trigger, Keita, and Brace et al., but the results have not changed much. The terms "cline" and "cluster" to describe the differences were used by Brace et al. 1993.
And?.. There is craniometric variation within certain European countries as well. In Italy for instance, cephalic index differences follow a south-north clinal pattern. Then again, genetics has shown Europe has recieved waves of immigrations around the Mediterranean during prehistoric times so these heterogenous aspects of Mediterranean Europe is not surprising.
There is craniometric variation within populations in certain East Asian countries as well, but more importantly there is a wide array of craniometric differences within countries of Africa. A perfect example would be Ethiopia. But regardless the heterogeneity in Africa almost all of these populations are indigenous to the continent.
quote:Keita's two-part study on North African crania (1990, 1992) is quite detailed. It suggests that Lower Egypt and the Maghreb have historically been inhabited primarily by an indigenous people who generally have a craniometric phenotype "intermediate" to tropical Africans and northern Europeans. He uses Lower/Middle Egyptian remains as well as material from 1st Dynasty royal tombs in Abydos. It appears that the Abydos remains, while primarily of southern affiliation (like the Badarian), they also contain skeletal material of northern phenotypic pattern. Delta Egyptian names actually appear in the southern royal tombs. He describes the Abydos series as having a "heterogeneous appearance", despite being of a southerly affiliation overall.
And?.. What is the nature of this "intermediacy"?? Many African in the Horn area also display craniometric features that are "intermediate" between other Sub-Saharans and Europeans, yet by and large they have no European or Asian ancestry!
Also there are peoples in the Pacific like Melanesians whose craniometric features group them together with Sub-Saharan West Africans!! Does this mean they are closely related?..
quote:Dynastic Egypt from this point onwards displays this trend of intermixture between north and south, whereby it's not always possible to distinguish between northern and southern patterns regardless of the location. This suggests that the Egyptians progressively became more indistinguishable and therefore "homogenous" in this sense (Berry, Berry, and Ucko 1967; Berry and Berry 1972), but the variation appears to have been maintained to varying degrees. Keita uses the terms "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" to describe the pattern common to Lower/Middle Egypt more generally, versus "Africoid" or tropical African variant in the southern part of the country.
Nobody denies this. Of course Lower Egypt and Upper Egypt gradually began to intermingle when the two lands were united, but the question is do we deny that Lower Egypt had any close affinties with tropical/Sub-Saharan Africa?? I don't see why not.
quote:One study conducted by Zakrzewski et al. 2003 further shows that while most Egyptian samples cluster together, the population in Egypt was significantly impacted by foreign migration during and just after the late predynastic period, resulting in cranial "morphological heterogeneity". This is attributed to "the appearance of a new population". The likely point of origin of this foreign intrusion would have been Southwest Asia. It's possible however that these people always lived in the Delta, though there are no studies of which I'm aware on skeletal material from the predynastic Delta. Near Eastern influences can be attested in the Delta since the predynastic era through an abundance of archaeological features, ecofacts and artifacts of Levantine/Sumerian origin and influence. Zakrzewski et al. do show there was a substantial biological impact of a population not indigenous to Africa, but more studies in the future will hopefully shed more light on this particular point.
Correct. And there is no doubt that further incursions from the Persian, Greco-Roman, and especially Arab-Islamic periods have further drastically altered the population, especially that of Lower Egypt. Do you disagree?
quote:Finally, the last study I looked at was conducted by Joel Irish on ancient Egyptian dental morphology, which establishes continuity from the predynastic through the postdynastic period, with a few exceptions ("outliers"). The latest sample from Lower Egypt is dated to A.D. 50-120, at the threshold of the Christian period, and was found to be virtually identical to the Badarian series (which even I find spectacular). In fact, most of the Roman/Byzantine period samples clustered closely with earlier ones. This means that continuity in Lower Egypt was not broken after the Graeco-Roman period. Egyptians look like this during that time.
With regard to the dynastic period, he says, "phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD Ľ 0.050), 11-12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time." (Irish 2005 - my emphasis). Therefore, phonetic distances varied throughout dynastic Egypt suggesting a lack of specific trend from Early to Late Dynastic periods.
The Egyptian samples classified by Irish as outliers all but one come from Lower Egypt, the first being the famous 4th Dynasty Saqqara royal tomb series. The divergence is attributed to dental traits more characteristic of Southwest Asian and European populations. Taking all the evidence into consideration, Lower Egypt appears comparatively marked by a greater degree of appreciable heterogeneity throughout its history, which would be expected given its geographical location, resulting in a clear clinal pattern or gradient north to south. I'm sure as studies on predynastic Lower Egyptian samples become possible, scientists will be able to determine the extent of the differences before the unification and north-south intermixture.
Perhaps, maybe. But you should be made aware that the source of these migrations-- Western Asia, particularly the Levant as well as other areas of the Eastern Mediterranean like in the Aegean also show heterogeneity in early ancient and prehistoric times. Studies by Brace et al. show that the Natufians of the Levant possess close affinities with Sub-Saharan Africans and earlier studies by Angel et al. show the same thing for Neolithic Greeks!! It seems the migration worked in both ways, and black Africans migrated into the Middle-East before Middle-Easterners migrated into Egypt. This would also explain why the major language group of the Middle-East today--Semitic, is closely related to languages in Africa.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: Try looking harder at people in the Egyptian media, and try looking at the picture you posted a little better. The man on the left (I don't know who the other one is) is the no. 1 box office actor in Egypt. This is him with the notorious Yehia Mohamed:
Other notable figures instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with the Egyptian arts or media:
... ... ... ... ...
Using the media to represent populations in any country, let alone Egypt is a joke.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: That would be expected considering that most Egyptians are not of a mixed Sudanese-Egyptian heritage. I like to post pictures representative of cross-sections of Egyptian society. It would be disingenuous of me to post a picture of someone known to have immediate non-Egyptian ancestry, whether Sudanese or Turkish, or of people from one specific location in Egypt such as only the southernmost part to generalize about Egyptians, as it would be unrepresentative of the bulk of the Egyptian population.
And anyway, these are MODERN Egyptians. Alot has changed since dynastic times.
Posts: 26258 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ghandi: Great work Ms. Masreyya!
Your Lucid summation is a Breath of Fresh Air, in comparison to the twisted logic of the other side and their weighted presentations. I'm begining to be convinced that the variety of people of Ancient Egypt was equal to its Modern counterpart, if not even greater.
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya:
quote:Originally posted by KING: Masreyya where is your evidence that studies of skeletal remains show a difference between northern and southern Egyptians?... if these studies exist lets see them. Thanks in advance Masreyya.
They do and I've actually discussed this topic extensively before. If you want the details directly from the studies I suggest looking into the older threads, but here is a rundown.
The differences lie in certain craniometric and dental trends which help bioarchaeologists ascertain population affinities. The first scientists to suggest a clinal pattern between northern and southern Egypt were Morant and Batrawi who noted these differences, while maintaining that the two populations were nonetheless related (i.e., they would still cluster together than to other more divergent populations). They studied Lower Egyptian remains as early as the 1st Dynasty. Since then, more studies have been conducted using updated and more advanced techniques, e.g. Hassan, Trigger, Keita, and Brace et al., but the results have not changed much. The terms "cline" and "cluster" to describe the differences were used by Brace et al. 1993.
Keita's two-part study on North African crania (1990, 1992) is quite detailed. It suggests that Lower Egypt and the Maghreb have historically been inhabited primarily by an indigenous people who generally have a craniometric phenotype "intermediate" to tropical Africans and northern Europeans. He uses Lower/Middle Egyptian remains as well as material from 1st Dynasty royal tombs in Abydos. It appears that the Abydos remains, while primarily of southern affiliation (like the Badarian), they also contain skeletal material of northern phenotypic pattern. Delta Egyptian names actually appear in the southern royal tombs. He describes the Abydos series as having a "heterogeneous appearance", despite being of a southerly affiliation overall.
Dynastic Egypt from this point onwards displays this trend of intermixture between north and south, whereby it's not always possible to distinguish between northern and southern patterns regardless of the location. This suggests that the Egyptians progressively became more indistinguishable and therefore "homogenous" in this sense (Berry, Berry, and Ucko 1967; Berry and Berry 1972), but the variation appears to have been maintained to varying degrees. Keita uses the terms "northern-Egyptian-Maghreb" to describe the pattern common to Lower/Middle Egypt more generally, versus "Africoid" or tropical African variant in the southern part of the country.
One study conducted by Zakrzewski et al. 2003 further shows that while most Egyptian samples cluster together, the population in Egypt was significantly impacted by foreign migration during and just after the late predynastic period, resulting in cranial "morphological heterogeneity". This is attributed to "the appearance of a new population". The likely point of origin of this foreign intrusion would have been Southwest Asia. It's possible however that these people always lived in the Delta, though there are no studies of which I'm aware on skeletal material from the predynastic Delta. Near Eastern influences can be attested in the Delta since the predynastic era through an abundance of archaeological features, ecofacts and artifacts of Levantine/Sumerian origin and influence. Zakrzewski et al. do show there was a substantial biological impact of a population not indigenous to Africa, but more studies in the future will hopefully shed more light on this particular point.
Finally, the last study I looked at was conducted by Joel Irish on ancient Egyptian dental morphology, which establishes continuity from the predynastic through the postdynastic period, with a few exceptions ("outliers"). The latest sample from Lower Egypt is dated to A.D. 50-120, at the threshold of the Christian period, and was found to be virtually identical to the Badarian series (which even I find spectacular). In fact, most of the Roman/Byzantine period samples clustered closely with earlier ones. This means that continuity in Lower Egypt was not broken after the Graeco-Roman period. Egyptians look like this during that time.
With regard to the dynastic period, he says, "phenetic distances between First-Second Dynasty Abydos and samples from Fourth Dynasty Saqqara (MMD Ľ 0.050), 11-12th Dynasty Thebes (0.000), 12th Dynasty Lisht (0.072), 19th Dynasty Qurneh (0.053), and 26th–30th Dynasty Giza (0.027) do not exhibit a directional increase through time." (my emphasis). Therefore, phonetic distances varied throughout dynastic Egypt suggesting a lack of specific trend from Early to Late Dynastic periods.
The Egyptian samples classified by Irish as outliers all but one come from Lower Egypt, the first being the famous 4th Dynasty Saqqara royal tomb series. The divergence is attributed to dental traits more characteristic of Southwest Asian and European populations. Taking all the evidence into consideration, Lower Egypt appears comparatively marked by a greater degree of appreciable heterogeneity throughout its history, which would be expected given its geographical location, resulting in a clear clinal pattern or gradient north to south. I'm sure as studies on predynastic Lower Egyptian samples become possible, scientists will be able to determine the extent of the differences before the unification and north-south intermixture.
It was indeed a good balanced post.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: That would be expected considering that most Egyptians are not of a mixed Sudanese-Egyptian heritage. I like to post pictures representative of cross-sections of Egyptian society. It would be disingenuous of me to post a picture of someone known to have immediate non-Egyptian ancestry, whether Sudanese or Turkish, or of people from one specific location in Egypt such as only the southernmost part to generalize about Egyptians, as it would be unrepresentative of the bulk of the Egyptian population.
And anyway, these are MODERN Egyptians. Alot has changed since dynastic times.
Even if these modern Egyptians are at the extreme light side of the spectrum for either modern or ancient Egyptians, it is good to note how NONE of them look like the Europeans that the western world and its media likes to conjure up for us. In that sense, it is good to see that even withing the variations of modern day Egyptians, the northern European model is not a ACCURATE representation of a mixed Egyptian, modern or ancient.
Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: It is rare to see Reddish Brown Egyptians in the media such as this: [Sadat]
That would be expected considering that most Egyptians are not of a mixed Sudanese-Egyptian heritage.
Actually my picture spamming served only to distract you from the core issue I was presenting.
Clearly you believe that AE was brought about due to the culmination of a composite of two groups of people: Eurasian and African. Not a very popular statement to make here, though clearly the idea of a 100% isolated Egyptian civilization is clearly idealistic if not outright delusional.
My arguement against the import of the civilization from the Levant, regardless of my weak use of picture spamming, was that the culture (language, religion, politics) and even much of the Y-Haplogroups of the AE seems to be derived from the Cushitic speaking people (Ethiopian/Kenyan/Somalian). Please focus on that discussion rather than my choice of who I think best represent Egyptians.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The post by Masreyya was very good. I just think that ancient lower egyptians were indigenous to Egypt. It is good to see another side of viewing ancient egyptians but I still think that Lower egyptians were still black african. I learned alot from Masreyya's post and hope she continues to post more info. I like hearing both sides of an arguement. As for Ghandi what twisted logic does the other side use. All I see is people putting down facts. It is not like what these guys say is made up. The logic that most of the posters on egyptsearch use is facts. If you don't agree with the facts then refute what is said. What about what Djehuti said about the craniometric features do you Masreyya have an answer to what Djehuti has said? The intermediate found in lower egypt is like the intermediate found in the horn of africa. If this is the case should this not be proof that lower egyptians were also Black African and not of some other race. This has been a good debate.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the likely point of origin of this foreign intrusion would have been Southwest Asia. It's possible however that these people always lived in the Delta, though there are no studies of which I'm aware on skeletal material from the predynastic Delta
of course this is because the delta as we know it today did not exist in the predynastic.
modern Egypt is not km.t.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Nice post. Did you paste this together from different places, write this yourself or paraphrase someone else? If you did get this from somewhere, where did you get it?
Doug, cheap shot if you're being coy and implying I plagiarized my previous post on the skeletal evidence. I did write it and if you'd paid attention to what I wrote in the past, you'd see that I discussed these studies at far greater length then.
I don't disagree regarding the persistent Eurocentric trends in Egyptology, which I hope to see end along with Afrocentric "neo-egyptology".
quote:Originally posted by osirion: My arguement against the import of the civilization from the Levant, regardless of my weak use of picture spamming, was that the culture (language, religion, politics) and even much of the Y-Haplogroups of the AE seems to be derived from the Cushitic speaking people (Ethiopian/Kenyan/Somalian). Please focus on that discussion
Osirion, I don't believe in an "import of civilization" either. Egyptians were responsible for Egyptian civilization. Egyptians and East Africans indeed share an ancient prehistoric ancestry, but Egyptian language and culture are Nile Valley developments that share general features with other African cultures and Afro-Asiatic languages. Egyptian for example displays an affinity to a specific Cushitic-like language such as Beja, although linguists today classify Beja separately from Cushitic. But Egyptian is far more similar to Semitic and Berber than to any other language in the Cushitic family.
Posts: 100 | From: Egypt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KING: What about what Djehuti said about the craniometric features do you Masreyya have an answer to what Djehuti has said?
I actually don't respond to "I-just-want-to-pick-an-argument" type of non-responses.
quote:The intermediate found in lower egypt is like the intermediate found in the horn of africa. If this is the case should this not be proof that lower egyptians were also Black African
No, because the "intermediate" found in the Horn would be more similar to the Badarian series, which is what Keita found when he compared it to East African crania. Keita describes the southern pattern as tropical African or Africoid versus the northern-Egyptian phenotype which is intermediate to that pattern and northern European. Here is Keita again:
"This northern modal pattern, which can be called coastal northern African, is noted in general terms to be intermediate, by the centroid scores of Function I, to equatorial African and northern European phenotypes.... The 'European' metrics of some of the [1st Dynasty] crania clearly emphasize the contrasts found in the tombs. This may denote the range of variation encompassed by the coastal northern pattern, given its intermediate position, or reflect the presence of middle easterners."
"The centroid values of the various upper Egyptian series viewed collectively are seen to vary over time. The general trend from Badari to Nakada times, and then from the Nakadan to the First Dynasty epochs demonstrate change toward the northern-Egyptian centroid value on Function I with similar values on Function 11. This might represent an average change from an Africoid (Keita, 1990) to a northern-Egyptian-Maghreb modal pattern." (1992 - my emphasis).
North-South integration:
"If neolithic/predynastic northern Egyptian populations were characterized at one time by higher frequencies of VII and VIII (from Near Eastern migration), then immigration from Saharan sources could have brought more V and XI in the later northern neolithic.... [After the unification,] there is evidence from skeletal biology that upper Egypt in large towns at least, was possibly becoming more diverse over time due to immigration from northerners, as the sociocultural unity proceeded during the predynastic, at least in some major centers (Keita 1992, 1996). This could indicate that the south had been impacted by northerners with haplotypes V, VII, and VIII, thus altering southern populations with higher than now observed levels of IV and XI..." - Keita SOY. 2005. Egypt, Genetics, and History. History in Africa 32:221-246.
Posts: 100 | From: Egypt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Nice post. Did you paste this together from different places, write this yourself or paraphrase someone else? If you did get this from somewhere, where did you get it?
Doug, cheap shot if you're being coy and implying I plagiarized my previous post. I did write it and if you read what I wrote in the past, you'd see that I discussed these studies at far greater length then.
I don't disagree regarding the persistent Eurocentric trends in Egyptology, which I hope to see end along with Afrocentric "neo-egyptology".
The only reason I asked is because I wanted to know if this was a summary you wrote, based on different references or a summary that you quoted directly from someone else's (not from Egyptsearch) scientific work. Either way I would like the references that you used. You don't have to rehash prior arguments to note the references. Posts: 8896 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason I asked is because I wanted to know if this was a summary you wrote, based on different references or a summary that you quoted directly from someone else's (not from Egyptsearch) scientific work. Either way I would like the references that you used.
To reiterate, *I* wrote it in its entirety myself. I also just edited it to include a list of references.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The only reason I asked is because I wanted to know if this was a summary you wrote, based on different references or a summary that you quoted directly from someone else's (not from Egyptsearch) scientific work. Either way I would like the references that you used.
To reiterate, *I* wrote the brief in its entirety myself.... I also just edited it to include a list of references.
Take it as a compliment that Doug doesn't accept that you wrote it on your own. Its a testament to your well educated position an your intelligence. However, even though you are well educated in your position and there are many truths in what you said, the fact that the modern day Egyptian is undeniably a mixture of foreign and indigenous elements makes your point rather undefensible.
Unless of course you can show that foreign admixture is insignificant in Egypt?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: ...even though you are well educated in your position and there are many truths in what you said, the fact that the modern day Egyptian is undeniably a mixture of foreign and indigenous elements makes your point rather undefensible. Unless of course you can show that foreign admixture is insignificant in Egypt?
This claim has always rested on two fundamental weaknesses: 1. it's an a priori assumption, presented with no attempt to substantiate it with evidence that tested the claim (and why I normally wouldn't address it); and 2. it also presumes that Egypt should be regarded as totally unique compared to other regions. Similar population interactions have taken place all over Africa (hence 'Afrique francophone', for example) and the rest of the world but with little biological effect, so saying that Egypt came into contact with other peoples is actually saying very little. This argument is further weakened by the racist nature of the assumption (not yours) that dynastic Egypt came to an end because the people were supposedly "biologically diluted" by waves of invasions, which is why it's a favorite among White/Black supremacists who focus on Egypt.
On the other hand, legitimate scientists starting with Batrawi have tested the hypothesis that in spite of some changes, overall biological continuity is demonstrated from Neolithic to modern times through an examination of Egyptians in the past as well as the present, and have been able to confirm it. Joel Irish as I just mentioned has also shown that overall continuity in the Egyptian Nile Valley until at least the Byzantine period was maintained, and we have a very clear idea of what Egyptians looked like then from their paintings.
The continuity is summed up in these words in one study:
"...Egyptians have been in place since back in the Pleistocene and have been largely unaffected by either invasions or migrations. As others have noted, Egyptians are Egyptians, and they were so in the past as well." - Brace et al. 1993; repr. 2005. Am J Phys Anthropol 36:1-31; my emphasis.
When asked, Brace agrees with Keita that one form of change which has occurred is in the manner northern Egyptians impacted southern Egypt in the early dynastic period. He says, "There is no evidence for change in northern Egypt through time. Southern Egypt, however, clearly sees a reduction in the strength of 'Tropical' elements, and one can suspect the increasing influence of northern Egypt on southern Egyptians." - 2005; personal communication.
That's physical anthropology. Geneticists who studied Egyptians have made this time estimate of the current genetic pattern of Egypt's population (Egyptian samples were included in this study as well. Haplogroup frequencies of Egyptian and North African populations). They indicate that the paternal lineages of Egyptians is largely of Neolithic origins and earlier:
"Early Neolithic sites are documented in the eastern part of North Africa and later ones in the west, which would be compatible with an east-to-west movement at this time, and this is also the case for the Arab expansion. Historical records of the Arab conquest, however, suggest that its demographic impact must have been limited (McEvedy 1980)... we propose that the Y-chromosomal genetic structure observed in North Africa is mainly the result of an expansion of early food-producing societies... These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans." - Arredi et al. 2004
"The presence of the G and J lineages in Egypt probably represents a southern branch of the Neolithic agricultural diffusion, which may have returned some E3b-M35 chromosomes as well." - Luis et al. 2004
The Egyptian genetic profile reveals these distances in comparison to those of other populations:
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion: ...even though you are well educated in your position and there are many truths in what you said, the fact that the modern day Egyptian is undeniably a mixture of foreign and indigenous elements makes your point rather undefensible. Unless of course you can show that foreign admixture is insignificant in Egypt?
quote:This claim has always rested on two fundamental weaknesses: 1. it's an a priori assumption presented with no attempt to substantiate it with evidence that tested the claim (and why I normally wouldn't address it)
Untrue.
You have always been TRYING to address it - it is the singular theme you are obsessed with on Egyptsearch. No point in pretending to be dismissive of it then.
And, no it is not an a-priori assumption.
It is a fact of history that the delta consists of a combination of Native Nile valley Africans, and Asiatic immigrants, a mixture of foreign and indigenous elements. This fact can be supported by every discipline of biohistory, linguistics, genetics, anthropology, etc..
In fact, you ignore the evidence presented because you can't refute, and then engage in grandstanding and excuse for not addressing it, which is what you are doing now.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: it also presumes that Egypt should be regarded as totally unique compared to other regions. Similar population interactions have taken place all over Africa
You mean interactions between native African and foreign elements? For example Arabs and Berbers?
Correct.
But how does this help you, since you are denying this has happened in the delta?
Moreover, you claim it is a'priori?
Then you turn around and admit this 'apriori' as fact?
quote:Geneticists have made similar conclusions regarding the time estimate of the current genetic profile of the Egyptian population (Egyptian samples were included in this study as well), which by the way shows these distances in comparison to other population profiles:
Are you denying the spread and expansion of foreign genetic lineages into the Nile Valley from the levant in post dynastic Egypt?
Genetic Evidence for the Expansion of Arabian Tribes into the Southern Levant and North Africa
This unified Arab-Islamic community engaged in a large movement of expansion, the Fertile Crescent and Egypt being the first areas to have been conquered. Egypt was the primary base for raids further west into the Maghrib.
`Our recent findings, suggest that the majority of Eu10 [haplotype J] chromosomes in NW Africa are due to recent gene flow caused by the migration of Arabian tribes in the first millennium of the Common Era (CE).
Semino, 2004 “Distinct histories of J-M267* lineages are suggested: an expansion from the Middle East toward East Africa and Europe and a more RECENT diffusion (marked by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif) of Arab people from the southern part of the Middle East toward North Africa.”
These results are consistent with theproposal that this haplotype was diffused in recent time by Arabs who, mainly from the 7th century A.D., expanded to northern Africa (Nebel et al. 2002) Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Masreyya: [QUOTE]Originally posted by osirion:
So Egyptians are more like Ethiopians than other North Africans? Not sure how this map is supporting your position. Sounds like it supports my position: Cushitic origins of the Egyptian civilization.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: So Egyptians are more like Ethiopians than other North Africans? Not sure how this map is supporting your position. Sounds like it supports my position: Cushitic origins of the Egyptian civilization.
Interesting how you automatically correlate Ethiopia with "Cushitic"! The scaling analysis shows that Egyptian mtDNA is closest to that of the Tigrai who are Ethio-Semitic speakers.
Posts: 100 | From: Egypt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: So Egyptians are more like Ethiopians than other North Africans? Not sure how this map is supporting your position. Sounds like it supports my position: Cushitic origins of the Egyptian civilization.
Interesting how you automatically correlate Ethiopia with "Cushitic"! The scaling analysis shows that Egyptian mtDNA is closest to that of the Tigrai who are Ethio-Semitic speakers.
Quite a good distance from NW Africa which you previously said the Egyptian people were the closest to. Also, the similarities between the Tigrai and modern Egyptians still does not support your position. The Tigrai are the result of admixture with Southern Arabians which many contend that the modern day Egyptians are as well.
Again, I respect your postings and I am interested in hearing more from you.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
New Kingdom
Old Kingdom
Senworset III
Senworset III
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
... 
... 
... 
... 
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
.. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic