Article from National Geographic website: Posted Jan 14, 2008
I’ll never forget attending opening night of the King Tut exhibit in Los Angeles in June 2005. As I approached the exhibit entrance with Elisabeth Daynes, the French sculptor who created a likeness of King Tut for the cover of National Geographic magazine, we passed a patch of animated demonstrators whose placards read “King Tut’s Back and He’s Still Black.” A few steps further I was informed by other National Geographic staff attending the event that Dayne’s sculpture, which she had traveled from Paris to see on display, was out of the show.
I was disappointed, but not surprised. Every time the magazine’s art department attempted to depict ancient Egyptians, we received letters complaining about their appearance. This was despite every effort of talented artists and hard-working researchers to be accurate and fair. For the King Tut reconstruction we went to the extreme of commissioning a second model by a team that was not informed of the identity of the skull cast we provided. Their results confirmed that the cover image was as reasonable as forensic reconstructions of individuals can be. One can quibble about the shape of Tut’s nose and ears, and the color of his eyes and skin, but hard bone determined his general appearance. Judging from the demonstrators outside the exhibit in Los Angeles, we were once again unable to please everyone.
The reasons for this dissatisfaction are complex. Confusing notions about ‘race’ and a concern that scholars ignore Africa’s contribution to civilization seem to be at the heart of it. There is still some debate about the skin color of ancient Egyptians, but most experts agree that, from Alexandria in the north to the Sudanese border, ancient Egyptians would have looked much as they do today.
Our story about ancient Egypt’s 25th dynasty in the February issue of National Geographic provides an opportunity to look again at questions about the appearance of ancient Egyptians and whether Egypt’s, ergo Africa’s, contribution to civilization has been ignored. If you’d like to comment on our story or this topic, here’s the place.
Before you respond on the skin color issue, I recommend that you review how scientists currently view race at http://www.understandingrace.org
posted
Booo.... Nat Geo., still falling back, and trying to regroup, spin, and perpetrate.
Color is anybody's guess, but they whitewash their "version" of Tut with respect to his darkskinned iconography, for reasons which... "anybody could correctly guess".
No one with any sense buys their excuses.
This magazine has a long history of anthropological racism which they try to sweep under the rug.
Their strategic retreat continues.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed. DENIAL seems to be the problem with Nat Geo...
They have all of these authentic ancient depictions of him and all they can say is "color is anyone's guess"?! LMAO @ these idiots!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
National Geographic will continue to distort because they will face no serious repercussions. A few bold African Americans standing up for truth pales in comparison to the thousands of people who will enjoy the racial masturbation in National Geographic’s paragraphs. Stating that his color is a mystery, allows the readers to imagine him and other Ancient Egyptians in images closer of themselves.
(Aside) There is a solution to this problem with racist and supremacists. Unfortunately, modern people (particularly Africans and their descendents) are unwilling to initiate the solution. WE remain as elder parents who continue to reach out in discussion with children who are hateful and delusional sociopaths.
I once had the disturbing experience of having met a sociopath. He was young and enjoyed burning cats in shopping carts and milk carton containers.
Reasoning and discussion about the sick behavior did not dissuade him from wanting to feel mighty by burning kittens. Logic failed, appeals to simple compassion failed. Only force worked...restraints, isolation, and group reprobation.
Allowing such people free reign in the community only poisoned the community.
That is the lesson every decent person should take from history of the last few thousand years. Our permissiveness has brought us to where we currently stand. The solution is available, if we dare take it.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately, modern people (particularly Africans and their descendents) are unwilling to initiate the solution.
I'm not that pessimistic.
I see a great deal of progress being made.
You have to view the battle for truth as never-ending, not as something you can win and force liars to stop ever lying again.
After all - Ancient Egypt was Black by self declaration during it's own history, by acknolwedgement of the contemporary Greek and Hebrew, and by European until the Ancient Model [as pinned by Bernal] was replaced by the Aryan model [of Eurocentrism].
Kemet was recognized as Black for 5,000 years, and was only claimed by Eurocentrists to be non-Black, within the last 300 years.
The Aryan model of history is dying.
Nat Geo is simply bearing painful witness to it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Kemet was recognized as Black for 5,000 years, and was only claimed by Eurocentrists to be non-Black, within the last 300 years.
The Aryan model of history is dying.
Nat Geo is simply bearing painful witness to it.
Photos and text from National Geographic
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You are being too emotional! You talk about made up name(s) and made up history but National Geographics has the raw data results, the representations, the CT scan, etc and that is positive. The problem is human interpretation (socio-cultural alien constructs-usually non African) laying their conclusions on an impressionable audience!
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The author "knows" not feels he is talking to an ignorant audience.
even around the AfroOriented ones- they believe that there were two lands.
So Novel - Maybe I missed it, but, what is the solution again?!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
This new alledged reconstruction of King Tut is even worst than the other one. What a pity, some people will do anything to white Blacks out of history.
posted
^ That's a curious statement, since you are the one who *praised* National Geo's condescending tribute to US Black History Month, to begin with.
quote:This new alledged reconstruction of King Tut is even worst than the other one.
I think it's the same one, shot from a different angle to make it look less ridiculous.
Two things noted before are to be emphasized.
Once again - it's soft features more than skeletal features that denote ethnic appearance.
This is why it's easy to give a skeletan a completely different ethnic look in a reconstruction.
This particular image does two curious things.
Whereas Tut [both his skeletan and authentic portrait] has a portruding mouth [aveolar prognathism], and and extremely long 'back of' head, a very typical [but not exclusive] African feature.
The reconstruction suppresses his mouth by extending the flesh part of his nose. [the nose comes out in a way that hides the portrusion of the mouth]. Meanwhile they lighten his skin by several shades over his iconography - and use the simple rationale that you can find people of that skin tone in Egypt today [you can find people of -any- skin tone in most any country today].
This makes him look ethnically ambiguous.
Actually there are very few skeletan that you can not reconstruct as either African or European looking, or even East Asian looking.
Skull based race catagories are bogus.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Astute observation Rasol. I've wondered why they made that reconstruction with such a long nose, but now that I realize it it does downplay the prognathism.
And you're correct that soft tissue goes a long way in judging someone's ethnic appearance.
By the way, I just realized that this fiasco from Nat Geo is some sort of condescending tribute to black history month! LOL
Of course the folks at Nat Geo don't find anything condescending about it, since most political racists are blind to their own racism.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Myra, I assumed you scanned these images. I have the magazine but I don't have time to scan any pics though. Can you scan the few other photos like the Medjay archers and the predynastic seated Nubian female?
Notice the non-black Egyptians. Kenndo once hypothesized they could be 'Libyans', but I've seen enough Nat Geo depictions of Egyptians to know that those definitely are Egyptians. LOL
Nothing typically "negroid" about these images but look much like Egyptian depictions.
And they make this assumption on what? Her afro style hair? They apparently don't realize many Egyptians have such hairstyles. Also notice Kawit's face is no different from the Egyptian hairdresser.
Ah yes, Tiye. Of course her undeniably black looking face must be put in consideration of 'Nubian ancestry'. And what about her grandson Tut? If Tiye as Tut's grandmother was the only one in his family of Nubian ancestry then why does he still look so black-- assuming everyone else in his family was Egyptian??
Better yet, where are pictures of Tut's bust?!
Another one of my pet-peeves is how the media (not to mention Nat Geo) would always show Nefertiti's painted bust and only recently show Tiye's but never that of Tut is the most famous of all ancient Egyptian figures!! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually it is retardedly funny how the only thing that they can do is rely on a handful of images of Nefertiti an unpainted images of Akhenaten to buttress their argument. However, when the colored black African images from the tombs of the 18th dynasty and the royal family are shown, including the talatat that have whole scenes of Egyptians in the traditional dark brown color, they claim it is symbolic. Symbolic of what? Soil? Well do-se-do, if we don't have the prize. If it is symbolic of soil and the nation was called KMT in homage to the BLACK soil, then that makes it symbolic of being BLACK don't it?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Correction. They would first point out that the Egyptians painted themselves as 'red' or reddish-brown as proof they weren't black making especial note of the images where the paint is faded. It is only when you point out to them the vast majority of preserved dark brown tones do they say that it was 'symbolic'.
Really, the more I look at Egyptian art, the more astounded I am that they were able to get away with white-washing Egypt! It's ridiculous!
This would be the same as trying to paint Classical Greeks as black (although some on this forum believe that) and make up all kinds of ridiculous excuses as to why most Greek iconography doesn't look black. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And they make this assumption on what? Her afro style hair? They apparently don't realize many Egyptians have such hairstyles. Also notice Kawit's face is no different from the Egyptian hairdresser.
Nothing typically "negroid" about these images but look much like Egyptian depictions.
National Geographic is probably comparing these images of her.
(2nd picture): This picture is a carved panel from the tomb of Queen Kawit, consort of 11th Dynasty King Mentuhotep II. In this picture, a servant offers her a cup of something to start her day as she undergoes her morning toilette. Housed at the Egyptian Museum; Room 48
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Myra, I assumed you scanned these images. I have the magazine but I don't have time to scan any pics though. Can you scan the few other photos like the Medjay archers and the predynastic seated Nubian female?
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: National Geographic is probably comparing these images of her.
(2nd picture): This picture is a carved panel from the tomb of Queen Kawit, consort of 11th Dynasty King Mentuhotep II. In this picture, a servant offers her a cup of something to start her day as she undergoes her morning toilette. Housed at the Egyptian Museum; Room 48
.
But I thought the painted picture on the right is of princess Kemsit. Unless they are the same person (?)
quote:
Yes and compare with this Egyptian batallion here:
By the way, I forgot to mention, that painted figure from the tomb of Niankh-Pepi carrying stuff who some of us always thought was the tomb owner but Takruri suggests might be a servant is now considered a 'Nubian' servant by Nat Geo! LOL
Even if he is a servant which I am now considering due to the manual labor he performs, how is he a 'Nubian'? He obviously has the appearance of an ordinary Egyptian.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: So Kemsit and Kawite are both of her names? I did not know that.
No. It's not the same person.
Seven women belonging to the royal circle: Neferu II, Tem, Ashayt, Henhenet, Sadhe, Kawit, Kemsit.
This is another royal lady:
Sarcophagus of Princess Ashayt; The princesses of the court of Mentuhoptep II were buried in elegant limestone sarcophaguses near the temple of pharaoh at Deir el-Bahari. The scenes are framed by hieroglyphic texts that list the goods offered to the ladies and wish them eternal well-being. Short inscriptions by each figure state the words said by the servants to the noble ladies of the court. Housed at the Metropolitan Museum.
.
Posts: 1549 | From: California, USA | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Fake drawings, fake names, fake history.... make up whatever you want.
To Appease and Amaze, thrill the black man on this February, cosmetically of course, was the game plan.
I see if they could just produce a tribute to Kush, and the 'nubian phaorohs' aswell, but no.
Of course, it's black history month, the one time of year blacks are appreciated in a sgnif level; black history is relegated to this month - negroes don't complain!
posted
Almost ALL of the women surrounding Mentuhotep were depicted as JET BLACK.
Now why is that?
It represented REPLENTISHMENT or the REBIRTH of the black nation from the South, with blackness referring to the fertile soil of the Nile that flows from THE SOUTH and the sacred mound of creation. Hence the BLACK WOMAN is symbolic and literal representation of the WOMB of the earth and represents the MOTHER of the SEED of the earth which comes forth from the gods and spread across the earth. It is from the black seed that arose the black nation KM.T and the nation is symbolized by the King as the risen seed and awakened conscious of the earth and the Queen, the mother of the nation who suckles and nurtures the new seed with her milk and provides new life for the black nation. All of this symbolism is seen in the various temples of ancient Egypt with the sacred mound and trinity of man, woman and child being the central feature of the holy of holies or inner sanctum of the temple. It is not only biological, cosmological and historical but it is also a KEY component of the national conscious of the people.
As I posted elsewhere
quote: Out of all the Queens and consorts of Mentuhotep, many have been labelled, by Europeans, as being "Nubian" because of being portrayed in a black complexion. They most likely were just Southern women, either from Egypt or maybe even further south. One notable example is Ashait, who is even labeled as an Ethiopian. So he seems to have surrounded himself with women from the south to renew the royal line.
The problem now is that the black nation has no inspired leadership (risen King on the mountaintop) who reflects the strength and power of the seed (black manhood, X) who can battle the forces of chaos, disease and destruction that are destroying the black nation (the family) and restore balance, peace and prosperity for the black nation.
quote:
Ashait 11th Dynasty Ashait was the wife of Mentuhotpe II who ruled during the 11th Dynasty. They were buried together in his very elaborate complex at Deir el-Bahri at Thebes. Reliefs in her tomb apparently show that she was Ethiopian of Negress. In her coffin, a hymn was found about the four winds which come from the four corners of the earth and are brought to Egypt by mythical maidens.
quote: Neferukhayet: She was the wife of Inyotef II. Aoh: She was a consort of Inyotef III. The mother of Mentuhotpe II. She was depicted with her royal son on a stela. Henite:She was the wife of Inyotef III. Henhenit: She was the wife of Mentuhotpe II and was buried in a vast mortuary complex of the King at Deir El-Bahri. Neferu: She was the Chief wife of Mentuhotpe II. Kawit: She was a royal companion of Mentuhotpe II. Her royal tomb contains beautiful and elaborate scenes of her toilet rituals! Her sarcophagus describes her as the "Sole Favorite of the King". Tem: She was a wife of Mentuhotpe II and believed to be the mother of Mentuhotpe III. Her tomb is one of the largest female grave sites ever found.The sarcophagus in her burial chamber was made of alabaster and sandstone. Sadek:She was a lesser wife of Mentuhotpe II. Ashait: She was a wife of Mentuhotpe II. She was buried with the King in his eleborate mortuary complex at Deir El-Bahri. Her tomb reliefs identify her as an Ethiopian. On her coffin, there was a beautiful hymn inscribed about the four winds which were brought to Egypt by mythical maidens. Nubkhas: She was a consort of Mentuhotpe II. Her tomb was discovered at Deir El-Bahri enclosed by boulders and rubble, probably the result of a landslide in ancient times. Kemsit: She was a royal companion of Mentuhotpe II. She was buried in the Kings' mortuary complex and was described on her sarcophagus as 'Sole Favorite of the King" she shared this title with many other consorts that were buried there. Neferukayt: She was a wife of Mentuhotpe II and the daughter of Princess Nebt who was the heiress of the Elephantine (an island in the Aswan). She was a highly educated woman and kept and extensive library of papyri and artworks in a huge museum.Imi:In some records, she is called Yem. She was a wife of Mentuhotpe III and the mother of his son, Mentuhotpe IV. Amunet: In some records she is also called Amuniet. She was a consort of Mentuhotpe II, and was buried in his royal mortuary complex at Deir El-Bahri
All of these women are noted also as being priestesses of Hathor, which signifies motherhood and nurturing.
Again, this symbolism of black skin color of the wives and Mentuhotep himself can only mean renewal, from the south and the production of children.
Hence we see Mentuhotep as a child colored in black suckling on the goddess, symbolic of the renewal of the line and the rebirth of the seed and victory over chaos, from the fertile black madonna, mother of the earth:
posted
You must keep in mind that more than likely servants or any type of guards were probably in the sun quite a bit and were, therefore, going to be darker than they may normally be. Even the images and statues of the pharaohs which seem to be dark don't explain it thoroughly but to assume all were light skinned or dark skinned is fruitless. In truth, there was probably quite a bit of mixture even to the extent that National Geographic may not know fully.
-------------------- MEOW Posts: 412 | From: protectress of Lower Egypt | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You must keep in mind that more than likely servants or any type of guards were probably in the sun quite a bit and were, therefore, going to be darker than they may normally be.
This statement is what is known as and apolegitic - > containing an apology or excuse for a fault, failure, insult, injury
The Ancient Egyptians were Blacks. It is not a fault, failure, or insult, and therefore your excuse is unnecessary, illogical, and worthless.
A single picture falsifies your apologia: Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't an insult or meant to be anything other than common sense. When we are in the sun we get darker, that's a biological fact. How many artistic impressions of the servants or slaves who worked outdoors do you see as being lighter skinned? Egyptian sun is hot, we are constantly shielding ourselves. The photo you showed above certainly projects a darker skinned figure being served by the lighter but that isn't always the case. I'm not saying that is the exact reason but you cannot overlook the possibility that it exists. Even today's lighter skinned Egyptians can get quite dark when outdoors in the summer quite a bit. Are they black necessarily because their skin darkened? No. But I do believe that many in high positions were, in fact, black. But to claim that all were is, in itself, proposterous.
-------------------- MEOW Posts: 412 | From: protectress of Lower Egypt | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that being in the sun does not turn you jet black as a tan. The jet black color of the wives of Mentuhotep were meant to symbolize the BLACK soil, BLACK women from the south and the BLACK MOTHER of the new BLACK DYNASTY of Egypt, which was to result in the RESTORATION and RENEWAL of the BLACK NATION. Period. Being indoors/outdoors has nothing to do with it.
However, I agree that all ancient Egyptians weren't very dark, but the colors used in ancient Egyptian art has nothing to do with sun tans or being indoors. Women are painted yellow/black symbolizing mother nature (the sun and sky) or the black mound and womb of creation IN INNER AFRICA. This symbolism of women as yellow stems from the cosmology. Geb is the earth and he is depicted as a man with an erection having intercourse with the sky goddess Nut. Nut is the wind that takes the seed of Geb and spreads it to the four corners of the globe, taking it to the female reproductive system where it pollinates and produces new life. Ausar and Auset follow the same symbolism. Ausar is the risen earth or seed and Auset comes down and takes the seed from Ausar as a bird, after which she goes forth and pollinates the earth with the seed and brings forth new life. Therefore women represent mother nature and the womb, while men represent the earth and the seed. Therefore, men are painted medium to dark brown symboling the flesh of the earth and women are painted yellow symbolizing the sky, female reproduction and mother nature. The color of the men and the symbolic association with the people of Egypt and the FERTILITY of the soil which flowed from the sacred mound of creation in INNER AFRICA was established in the name of the country itself: KMT. BLACK. And all of this reflects the FLOW of creation, the FLOW of the Nile and FLOW of life for the country which COMES FROM THE SOUTH and brings FERTILE BLACK SOIL and FERTILE BLACK PEOPLE from the SOURCE OF CREATION MANKIND, INNER AFRICA.
And servants and rulers were BOTH portrayed in the same colors. Men were medium to dark brown and women yellow, whether they were servants or not.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It isn't an insult or meant to be anything other than common sense.
You stated that servants are shown as dark and their masters as light.
In Kemet [Ancient Egypt] this is not true.
Here it is the queen who is dark and her Asiatic servants who are light... ^ In Ancient Kemet, Asiatics were servant classes - even *in their own mythology( [Hebrew mythology], they were *lighter skinned* servant or slaves to the Black Egyptians - again according to *their own* mythology.
This is so to the degree that the term Aamu which means Asiatic in mdw ntr Ancient Egyptian also meant servant.
quote: The photo you showed above certainly projects a darker skinned figure being served by the lighter but that isn't always the case.
It is you who claimed the case was the opposite, and offered the excuse of tanning.
The image shown falsifies your statement, which was in fact, and apologia, or and attempt to find a pathetic illogical excuse for all the dark iconography of Km.t..
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Egyptian sun is hot, we are constantly shielding ourselves.
Hence: "the original population of the sahara was Black" - Cavelli Sforza/History and Geography of Human Genes.
" The basal epithelial cells [of Egyptian mummies] were packed with melanin" - 1997, German institute for archeology.
This is exactly why *all native peoples* of ancient Egypt are melanoderms, ie - Blacks - and so adapted to the saharan climate.
Like this:
The reason there are so many non-Blacks in Egypt TODAY is that they are descendant from "Asiatics" and not "Ancient Egyptians".
This fact, may be politically unacceptable for someone like Hawass who claims that he does not think the Ancient Egyptians *were Africans*, precisely because he cannot emotionally deal with the fact that they were Black.
This is the *real issue* you are trying to explain, which requires your false-apologia for Ancient Egypt being Black.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Ancient Kemet, Asiatics were servant classes - even *in their own mythology( [Hebrew mythology], they were *lighter skinned* servant or slaves to the Black Egyptians - again according to *their own* mythology.
Here is what a critic [Raymond Mauny] of Diop's African origin of civilisation wrote [Bulletin de I'I FAN ], in response to Diop citing references to Egytpians as Blacks by their contemporaries - Ancient Greeks and Hebrew-:
Were not the Greeks, the Hebrews had the same reaction, inclined to call the Egyptians "Blacks" because the latter were darker than they, which is true?
posted
Wow, there sure is a lot of color phobia here. Sorry I did not realize it was so prevelant, I meant nothing offensive. I never said ALL of the servants were dark while those they served were WHITE, I was trying to point out that it COULD BE true that in ART they could be portrayed as dark but this could be from the sun, the same would go with those in ruling positions. I could care less who was white/black/brown, I am merely speaking generalities here. Ancient art does not always portray things as they were EXACTLY.
-------------------- MEOW Posts: 412 | From: protectress of Lower Egypt | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^lol this is just typical projection.
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Typical - delusion attachment. Like some of the EuroAmericans claiming America as theirs. Since they occupied it for the last 300 years. Forgetting that the Native Indians/Mexican Indians have been owned the land for the last 10,000years. Now they have to climb over fences and are illegals in their own land.
That's why i told my brother to DNA test his kids grandparents. Which came back MtDNA Haplo group-A. Now they have genetic proof that part of their ancestory are the TRUE AMERICANS. Their ancestors occupied this land thousands of years before the Euros.
Bastet*Loves*Ptah - "we egytians" don't like the sun. Oh brother.
quote:Originally posted by Bastet*Loves*Ptah: It isn't an insult or meant to be anything other than common sense. When we are in the sun we get darker, that's a biological fact. How many artistic impressions of the servants or slaves who worked outdoors do you see as being lighter skinned? Egyptian sun is hot, we are constantly shielding ourselves. The photo you showed above certainly projects a darker skinned figure being served by the lighter but that isn't always the case. I'm not saying that is the exact reason but you cannot overlook the possibility that it exists. Even today's lighter skinned Egyptians can get quite dark when outdoors in the summer quite a bit. Are they black necessarily because their skin darkened? No. But I do believe that many in high positions were, in fact, black. But to claim that all were is, in itself, proposterous.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said we do not like the sun, here is excessively hot and so we avoid it for that reason. How many of you are actually Egyptian or have ever even been to Egypt? Or do you simply come to ES to spew your color-agenda here? I see why so many avoid this section of this forum, they are right, I'm sure you will resolve your color issues one day. Posts: 412 | From: protectress of Lower Egypt | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep missing the premise. Simpley put - Being born in Egypt does not make you of AE "lineage".
How is that DJ? Think I got it now. HE HE HE.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bastet*Loves*Ptah: I never said we do not like the sun, here is excessively hot and so we avoid it for that reason. How many of you are actually Egyptian or have ever even been to Egypt? Or do you simply come to ES to spew your color-agenda here? I see why so many avoid this section of this forum, they are right, I'm sure you will resolve your color issues one day.
The point is that the ancient Nile Valley Africans did not have to avoid the sun because they were born in that environment and adapted to live in it. Dark skin is an adaptation to strong UV radiation and the ancient Egyptians had this trait as they were derived from populations aboriginal to this region. Light skin is not adapted to high UV radiation, hence lighter skinned populations are not adapted to it, which indicates that they are NOT aboriginal to this region. The aboriginal people of this region are dark because they are biologically adapted to the conditions of the environment and have been that way for thousands and thousands of years. In fact this trait goes back to the first humans of Africa and the only way such a trait would be lost is due to extremely LOW UV environments that do not exist in Africa. Therefore, very light skin is not a trait that is aboriginal or indigenous to Africa.
The reason the AE portrayed themselves as dark brown is because that is how they looked and it wasn't due to tanning. This statement is no slight against any modern Egyptian as the ancient Egyptians in question are people that lived over 2500 years ago. There is no need to pretend that all people in Egypt today are exactly the same as the ancient Egyptians. That is not to say that ancient Egypt wasn't diverse, but modern Egypt is also diverse and includes both dark skinned and lighter skinned people. And it is absurd to suggest that this dark skinned element of the population is somehow foreign or a recent arrival to the Nile Valley. That is ridiculous.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bastet*Loves*Ptah: Wow, there sure is a lot of color phobia here. I meant nothing offensive
The only thing offensive about you, is your inability to address facts or present any. Now you are trying to argue by ridicule, which is lame.
quote:I never said ALL of the servants were dark
Boooo..... you were never accussed of saying all servants were dark. All you are doing now is backtracking. This happens when you make remarks that you cannot evidence.
quote:I was trying to point out that it COULD BE true that in ART they could be portrayed as dark but this could be from the sun
This is ridiculous for reasons already pointed out, and related to you in two anthropological studies, which you fail to address.
quote:The same would go with those in ruling positions.
You originally stated that servants were dark because they worked in the sun, and rulers were not, because they did not.
All you are doing now is backpeddling, because your excuses, like National Geographics articles, make no sense.
All *we* are doing, is pointing out where you aren't making any sense.
quote:Ancient art does not always portray things as they were EXACTLY.
Irrelevant, as your remarks are falsified by both anthropology and ancient art.
The bottom line is, your remarks are BASELESS.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Young H*O*R*U*S: ^lol this is just typical projection.
Of course. Right down to the classic "I could care less", denial, of why they are here in this thread, making up ridiculous excuses for the dark color of Ancient Egyptians to begin with.
I think there should be a formal sub-catagory of Kemophobic neurosis known as - black soil fetish. - the need to deny the existence of Black people by creating oxymoronic excuses [the soil was dark, the sun was hot, etc..] Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bastet*Loves*Ptah: It isn't an insult or meant to be anything other than common sense. When we are in the sun we get darker, that's a biological fact.
Yes, but tanning has nothing to do with the very dark (black) complexions you see in these ancient depictions.
quote:How many artistic impressions of the servants or slaves who worked outdoors do you see as being lighter skinned?
Actually quite alot considering as how most servants and slaves were Asiatics, as Rasol has explained.
quote:Egyptian sun is hot, we are constantly shielding ourselves.
Of course the sun in Egypt, as it is in any part of Africa. You modern Egyptians may constantly shield yoursleves but the ancient Egyptians did not. Men went topless and sometimes women did as well or wear simple thin linen gowns. The women did not wear hijab or anything to cover themselves but like the men dress 'scantily' compared to Egyptians today. The sun did not bother their dark skins as it does to lighter skinned foreigners.
quote:The photo you showed above certainly projects a darker skinned figure being served by the lighter but that isn't always the case. I'm not saying that is the exact reason but you cannot overlook the possibility that it exists.
No one ever said it was always the case. But it has nothing to do with the point or fact made in this thread.
quote:Even today's lighter skinned Egyptians can get quite dark when outdoors in the summer quite a bit. Are they black necessarily because their skin darkened? No. But I do believe that many in high positions were, in fact, black. But to claim that all were is, in itself, proposterous.
Modern Egypt is NOT ancient Egypt. Ancient Egypt was as entirely a black African nation. Modern Egypt is obviously not.
quote: Wow, there sure is a lot of color phobia here. Sorry I did not realize it was so prevelant,...
You mean like your country of modern Egypt today, where the women use skin lighteners and bleach their hair?!
LOLPosts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
What I said is correct no matter what Eurocentrics do to distort the facts. The name of the country reflected the color of the population. This population had a cosmology that also associated the color black with fertility and creation and people from the south. The blacks of Egypt were therefore tied to Southerners and the first humans created IN AFRICA, via the Nile, which carries both the life giving silt AND THE BLACK PEOPLE, from the mound of creation keeping the nation REPLENISHED (bloodlines, ancestry) and connected to the gods of creation.
quote: The color of the men and the symbolic association with the people of Egypt and the FERTILITY of the soil which flowed from the sacred mound of creation in INNER AFRICA was established in the name of the country itself: KMT. BLACK. And all of this reflects the FLOW of creation, the FLOW of the Nile and FLOW of life for the country which COMES FROM THE SOUTH and brings FERTILE BLACK SOIL and FERTILE BLACK PEOPLE from the SOURCE OF CREATION MANKIND, INNER AFRICA.
quote:What I said is correct no matter what Eurocentrics do to distort the facts. The name of the country reflected the color of the population.
Yes.
That's literally true and attested in the mdw ntr:
1) the people are referred to as being Black -> Km.t Rm.t [Black People]
2) their skin is specifically referenced as Black -> Kem Ho [Black Face]
3) it is the skin of the people that is shown as Black.....
quote: This population had a cosmology that also associated the color black with fertility and creation and people from the south.
I partly agree.
The Kemetians definitely regarded themselves as originating from the South, this is attested in the mdw ntr as well, and in many ways.
For example the title of the Pharoah is Nsu Biti - He who comes from the South.
quote: The blacks of Egypt were therefore tied to Southerners
Kemetians originate in the south, yes. [repettition]
quote: and the first humans created IN AFRICA
This is mixture of anthropology and mdw ntr, and is the beginning of where I disagree with you.
It's true that the 1st humans originate in Africa, over 100 thousand years ago, but Kemetic mythology does not know this, nor relate it. They can only relate their own origins.
The distinction is important because its the difference between reading the mdw ntr and reading things into it based upon what you think, or know. [like all humans originating in africa]
quote:the Nile, which carries both the life giving silt AND THE BLACK PEOPLE, from the mound of creation keeping the nation REPLENISHED (bloodlines, ancestry) and connected to the gods of creation.
This part is almost all *you*.
This is your intepretation, and not found in the iconography you are referencing, or the primary textg.
Here's a straighforward question, show me where in the primary text, I can read about how these pictures reference 'black soil' symbolically?
I can see that the Kemetic skin is painted Black.
I can read that they are called Blacks.
I can read that their faces are Black.
Where can I read about the connection between
Note: I'm not saying your interpretations are not interesting, and even elegant, they are.
But you are still putting your words in the Km.t Rm.t *Black Peoples* mouths, and not actually relating what they themselves said.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Here are some further reasons why I can't quite agree with you Doug.
* One of the problems with trying to make the Black Gods of Egypt into *soil symbol/fertility symbol* is that virtually -all the Gods- of Egypt are Black.
Moreover virtually all Kemetic Pharaoh are painted symbolically as pitch-Black when they are Gods, or revered or powerful or sacred.
Jet Black Tut.
Now, Eurocentrists have tried to "deal" with this, by making the opposite argument.... that Black symbolises *death*.
But this is also provably wrong, because of the living images of Kemetians who are nontheless painted Jet Black. And, in the Terra Heka reliefs showing 4 ethnic groups in the After-life - they are *all dead*, but the "Egyptian and Sudanese" are shown and referred to as Blacks, whereas Libyan and Levantine are shown and referred to as Reds.
So we see, that being dead, being a 'spirit' so to speak, does not make you Black.
Asiatics, in the above, dead and ready for Osirian ressurection as they are - are nontheless just as pale complicated as they are shown in life, thus exploding the Black = death hypothesis.
I think Wally has the best understanding of symbolic color in Kemetic iconography:
Egyptian male (dark) Egyptian brown skin.....masculine, strong Black skin.....................powerful, reborn White skin....................recently deceased
Old Egyptian male (light) Yellow skin....................weak, frail
Egyptian female (light) Yellow skin....................feminine, weak Egyptian brown skin.....equal of men (Amarna period) Black skin.....................powerful, reborn
Egyptian gods Gold skin......................flesh of the gods Blue skin......................the cosmic waters, the firmament Green skin...................life (i.e., plants) Black skin.....................resurrection, sacred, holy, benevolent http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/coco_hues.html
Of what i've read, his is the most directly evidenced from the primary text, the least internally contradictory, and the most logically inferred, with a minimum of superimpositions.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah and likewise no explanation for why the eye whites didn't darken. They also said the madonnas darken from candle smoke, or, and get to this, absorbing the sins of the adoring worshippers!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
You mean like your country of modern Egypt today, where the women use skin lighteners and bleach their hair?!
Printer-friendly view of this topic