posted
This bust looks nothing like your classic Negro head. I have seen nutcase Afrocentrists on this board use this head to claim AEians looked "Black." Huh?
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: This bust looks nothing like your classic Negro head. I have seen nutcase Afrocentrists on this board use this head to claim AEians looked "Black." Huh?
My friends, This Gigantic Stormfronter idiot, who actually in his self induced insanity, probably caused by an acute fear of the dark, can't see that this is a representation of a Black African...Jeez
...Other images of Tutankhamen
...and the modern family to which he belongs...
Gigantic idiot wants to make these folks, since they created Civilization, into White folks, European farmers...it is to laugh Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ who said anything about "white?" It just goes to show you how Afronuts think in twos; it is either you are black or white. If you are not white than you must be Black. And if you aint Black you must be White. What a damn joke you are.
Posts: 1340 | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GiganticAss: This bust looks nothing like your classic Negro head. I have seen nutcase Afrocentrists on this board use this head to claim AEians looked "Black." Huh?
There is no such thing as a "classic Negro" or any "Negro race" as there is a "Cockasian race".
The bust obviously depicts a black person. which is obviously why you're so riled up. So how about you take your dumbass back to the troll ghetto known as 'Ancient Egypt' with your race-bait crap.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Confirmed Idiot: ^ who said anything about "white?" It just goes to show you how Afronuts think in twos; it is either you are black or white. If you are not white than you must be Black. And if you aint Black you must be White. What a damn joke you are.
The only joke here besides Gigantic-Ass is YOU.
Of course there are other types of people besides 'black' and 'white', but you are just as deranged as Gigantic-Fool if you think Tut is not black.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason why Ancient Egypt is such an enigma is that when you look at different renditions of even the same King in the same tomb they look different. My guess is this comes out of who was crafting the sculpture. They probably varied themselves these craftsmen and changed the look slightly to reflect themselves whichever individual artisan was doing the sculpture. Things that are ornate tend to be stylized more.
When looking at King Tutankhamen you see sculptures which look like different people:
Here the King has broad lips and a wide mouth opening. He looks black here.
________________________________________
But below he looks like a whole different person
the only thing that looks black about him is that he doesn't have light skin. Is it a tan? I don't know it may be his natural skin color. His mouth opening is definitely not as wide nor are his lips as broad. You can easily see his nose and lips are at a smaller proportion to his head than the burial mask. He doesn't look black to me. On a subtle level he doesn't even look Ethiopian of Somali to me. He looks Indian or Mesopotamian/Semite to me. What's more accurate of the two sculptures? I don't know.
_____________________________________
here's another one:
Again looking like a third different person with somewhat broad lips just a touch smaller than in the burial mask but now he's looking a little Asian with a smaller nose. Could even pass for "oriental" here. I'm not saying he is. There are some crossover features that people from entirely different regions share as Keita points out, looking similar but not necessarily have common ancestry (but in some cases, yes)
_____________________________________________
Above we have The head of Tutankhamun's Coffinette. Now he's looking similar to wood bust. The mouth is not wide. Anyone can see the proportion of the lips is different than in the burial mask at the top of this post. Well maybe he's like contemporary Somalis. Maybe. Maybe he's like people in the Levant. Who can be sure, both places are close to Egypt. He doesn't look Somali or Ethiopian to me here. He looks more Mesopotamian to me here but not quite exactly like any of them. His eyes are very large here, like a young child's proportion but the rest of the head teenage.
_____________________________________
Now we have what is supposed to be a scientific reconstruction based on the mummy. If we darken the complexion does that mean he's black?
Is every person who has dark skin black?
In this rendition he has full lips but they don't look like a West or Central African. They look like a white person injected with silicone. Angelina Jolie or Mick Jaggers type lips. The nose doesn't look African to me. I don't take too much stock in this reconstruction because it's very weird looking and ugly. Maybe he was this ugly but it's hard to imagine a real person looking like that. Maybe Boy George with lip implants. It is very hard to estimate the fleshy portions of the face based on a skull or a mummy head this shrunken.
________________________________
Here's another one, he's getting that Asian look again. also looks a little like late MJ.
conclusion = who knows, nobody here now was there then.
The honest thing to do is show several of the Tuts and not skip over anything that is a large or important tomb piece. I would need to show a couple more, but I think you are getting the point. People talk about diversity as an argument but they don't show the diversity in the artifacts.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is better photograph with unedited coloring to showing Tut's bust in a more accurate complexion:
Now here is Tut's family below:
Parents
Akhentaten
KV35 Younger Lady (full sister of Akhentaten)
Grandparents (parents of BOTH Akhenaten and Tut's mother)
Tiye
Amenhotep III
Only someone suffering from full blown psychotic delusion would think any of the people above are anything but black!
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the cowardly-lioness: The reason why Ancient Egypt is such an enigma is that when you look at different renditions of even the same King in the same tomb they look different. My guess is this comes out of who was crafting the sculpture. They probably varied themselves these craftsmen and changed the look slightly to reflect themselves whichever individual artisan was doing the sculpture. Things that are ornate tend to be stylized more.
When looking at King Tutankhamen you see sculptures which look like different people:
Here the King has broad lips and a wide mouth opening. He looks black here.
________________________________________
But here he looks like a whole different person
It does NOT matter. Despite whatever variations in portraits and artwork, ancient Egyptian art almost always depicts BLACK people!
quote:the only thing that looks black about him is that he doesn't have light skin. Is it a tan? I don't know it may be his natural skin color. His mouth opening is definitely not as wide nor are his lips as broad. You can easily see his nose and lips are at a smaller proportion to his head than the burial mask. He doesn't look black to me. On a subtle level he doesn't even look Ethiopian of Somali to me. He looks Indian or Mesopotamian/Semite to me. What's more accurate of the two sculptures? I don't know.
You are either being disingenuous or you're just dumb. That bust is too dark to be a "tan" is such a complexion is obviously included in the category of 'black'. Also, that photo is inaccurate. I just posted a more accurate photo of the bust as follows
^ Chocolate dark complexion = BLACK.
Also black peoples range in many features and not just broad noses and broad lips. And even though there are black peoples native to India and Mesopotamia. Egypt is in AFRICA and the ancient Egyptians peoples have been shown countless times to be indigenous AFRICANS!
quote:here's another one:
Again looking like a third different person with somewhat broad lips just a touch smaller than in the burial mask but now he's looking a little Asian with a smaller nose. Could even pass for "oriental" here. I'm not saying he is. There are some crossover features that people from entirely different regions share as Keita points out, looking similar but not necessarily have common ancestry (but in some cases, yes)
_____________________________________________
Above we have The head of Tutankhamun's Coffinette. Now he's looking similar to wood bust. The mouth is not wide. Anyone can see the proportion of the lips is different than in the burial mask at the top of this post. Well maybe he's like contemporary Somalis. Maybe. Maybe he's like people in the Levant. Who can be sure, both places are close to Egypt. He doesn't look Somali or Ethiopian to me here. He looks more Mesopotamian to me here but not quite exactly like any of them. His eyes are very large here, like a young child's proportion but the rest of the head teenage.
And maybe you are just stupid, period. Again for the hundredth time black Africans possess among the most diverse features. What you call "oriental" features are common to many Africans. I have even seen many southern Sudanese with features especially eyes like Chinese yet jet black in color. The evidence is clear Tut and his people are AFRICAN.
quote:
Now we have what is supposed to be a scientific reconstruction based on the mummy. If we darken the complexion does that mean he's black?
Is every person who has dark skin black?
In this rendition he has full lips but they don't look like a West or Central African. They look like a white person injected with silicone. Angelina Jolie or Mick Jaggers type lips. The nose doesn't look African to me. I don't take too much stock in this reconstruction because it's very weird looking and ugly. Maybe he was this ugly but it's hard to imagine a real person looking like that. Maybe Boy George with lip implants. It is very hard to estimate the fleshy portions of the face based on a skull or a mummy head this shrunken.
The Tut reconstruction is biased. The French team who made it purposely tried to make Tut as European as they could. You are aware that there have been other reconstructions making a total of 7! Discovery Channel hired a team of forensics to make one not knowing the skull belonged to Tut and they came up with this.
Here's another one, he's getting that Asian look again. also looks a little like late MJ.
conclusion = who knows, nobody here now was there then. [/QUOTE]What is "asian" about the look?? It's official you are an black-phobic dummy.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: But below he looks like a whole different person
the only thing that looks black about him is that he doesn't have light skin. Is it a tan? He doesn't look black to me. On a subtle level he doesn't even look Ethiopian of Somali to me. He looks Indian or Mesopotamian/Semite to me. What's more accurate of the two sculptures? I don't know.
No surprise here. To you, Nubians with straight noses [as oppose to broad "black noses"] are some sort of anomaly. Ancient Egypt is an enigma only to stupid mulatto-seeking [willful] ignoramuses like you.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: But below he looks like a whole different person
the only thing that looks black about him is that he doesn't have light skin. Is it a tan? He doesn't look black to me. On a subtle level he doesn't even look Ethiopian of Somali to me. He looks Indian or Mesopotamian/Semite to me. What's more accurate of the two sculptures? I don't know.
No surprise here. To you, Nubians with straight noses [as oppose to broad "black noses"] are some sort of anomaly. Ancient Egypt is an enigma only to stupid mulatto-seeking [willful] ignoramuses like you.
LOL..Michelle is comedic...Why does Djhuti take her serious?? LMAO Yeah King Tut was Japanese...LOOOL Guess Mike is right about Black Japan..Tut Ruled Japan from the Nile...Only in the World of Michelle..
Just Call her Michelle the Lyin-ass.com
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
both the Tut wood bust pictures are legit. The one one you posted is more altered as per the half white half black background. The original picture you showed was taken in a dark exhibition gallery with a spotlight on it. You can see the shining highlight gleams on the face. The left side of the background was made white to make the picture look more graphic. The other picture of the bust was made in lit conditions. That is why there is no shine on the face, it wasn't made in under the dramatic lighting conditions of a dimmed gallery with spotlights. Don't get paranoid. Go ahead keep posting this wood bust either picture is fine. It actually hurts your own case. It simply does not look like a black person. Unless you think anybody who has the skin tone looks "black".
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: anybody who has this complexion:
Unless you think anybody who has the skin tone looks "black".
Just call her Lyin-ass.com...
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
You think that the Busts of Tut shows a guy with a Tan?? Bahahahahahahha Pure Jokes.
Your obsession of making Egypt into a Mixed Civilization is getting to you. This is the first time I have seen someone after seeing the Busts of Tut claim that it looks non-black. What world do you live in? I know it's not the racist and corrupt world we live in now....wait a min, You are living in this world. Hence the non-Black Tut busts, bahahhahahahaha. Thats just pathetic.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King the primary reason the wood Tut head does not look black and Gigantic has pointed it out too.
The nose and nostrils are not very wide is one thing. Look at all the noses of contemporary black people that Wally posted. They are relatively wide and the sides are straight or bulging out slightly. In the wood Tut the sides of the nose curve in and it's not at all wide. Most black people do not have noses that curve in like that. The primary thing that does not look "black" is the size proportion of the lips and width of the mouth in proportion to the nose and eyes.
Now you're flipping out, but he's medium dark skin ,he lives in Africa, he must be black. Now your scrambling for the contemporary Somali pictures to try to find the exceptions. Then we can go off into a tiresome debate about if certain haplotypes of North Africans have Eurasian markers. But why bother? I can't prove that Tut was black or not.
100% honestly, apart from his complexion he does not look black to me.
This reminds me of the collective illusion Jari was pointing out in that Glen Ford piece. I'm just as shocked that you do think that wood bust looks black. Look at some black teenagers they don't look like that.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: King the primary reason the wood Tut head does not look black and Gigantic has pointed it out too.
The nose and nostrils are not very wide is one thing. Look at all the noses of contemporary black people that Wally posted. They are relatively wide and the sides are straight or bulging out slightly.
Wally feel into your [Gigantic ass] trap by posting African Americans, and a Bajan, adults to prove a point. The bust of Tut looks like typical E.African child.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
there was no trap. Wally already had a whole thread devoted to linking AA's with the Egyptians.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Whatever Wally posts about West Africa is for him to know the reason.
Moving on
The Busts of Tut looks like any East African youngsta like Akoben said. What baffles me is that you actually think you have a arguing point in this bust. Sorry but even harden racists have a hard time stomaching the Busts of Tut.
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the shameless-Lyingness: Djehuti I showed the variety.
You showed very selected items that fit your preconceived conclusion. It's dishonest
Do you have a mental affliction or what?! What you call "variety" is nothing more than 4 other pictures including a flawed reconstruction and an unpainted wooden figure!
But even then, in no way have you refuted the FACT that Tut was black.
Tut's painted bust
another bust of Tut as a child
Tut's throne image with wife
From wallpaintings Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the dumb-lioness: anybody who has this complexion:
and lived in Africa is black
o.k. guys.....
Last time I checked I don't think ANY human being had such a complexion of whatever color that is. What is that? Diluted blood??
Nope. I don't see any of Tut's portrait having that bizarre pale red color.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the most noticeable aspects of Amarna art is the feminization of the male portraits and the masculization of the female portraits; it was, after all, a social revolution... The wood bust presented here (in order to posit some looney notion, which we should no longer indulge) is clearly a feminized version of the young African king (the portraits of Ikhnaton, who led this revolution, are more emphatic on this point.)
In fact, when I first saw this artwork, I thought that I was looking at a female royal; no beard, no masculinity...reminded me of these, their descendants...
'Course no one here wants to talk about the Amarna Revolution, let alone Egyptology...Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
-his mouth is wide. Notice how if you make a triangle extending down from bridge of the nose downward to a large triangle that his mouth opening is wide enough to break that triangle. The wood Tut bust does not.
stop drooling. then take notice her mouth opening is not extending widely like the man above but her lips are much fuller and thicker proportionally to the wood Tut bust.
More East Africans. The lips are full. Look at the noses. The girl on the left's nose is wide. Obviously the nostril area is wider. But also look at the upper nose it's straight. Tut wood bust's nose has those swooping curves inward at the side of the noes. Sort of pinched in at the middle.
look at this white devil lady. See how the curve from the eyebrow swoops like a big letter "C" into the middle of the nose and continues along the outside of the nostril to flow along the bottom of the cheek. I'm not saying the boy King is of her stock but his nose is more similar than the previous East Africans. Her lips are relatively full and wide mouthed for a devil. probably a lil black in her.
You can see that inner swoop, the sides of th nose even more on this bust. Look at how thin the nose is in the middle. Some Ethiopians have thin noses but they are very straight they don't have that inner curve. Look at him he looks like an Indian child. I'm not saying his ancestry is Indian but he looks Indian or like some of the less oriental looking Nepalis. _______________________________
here's an Ethiopian honey:
Her lips are about the same as the white lady above. But look at that nose, no inner swoop. The upper part of it is straight.
Look back at wood Tut bust. He's got the swoop. Make a triangle from the nose extending down. His mouth opening doesn't even go far enough to hit that line. They are in a bit, not a wide mouth opening. That's tending toward Eurasian.
____________________________________________
This kid below is close to looking like the wood Tut bust. He's smiling more than the bust so his mouth is stretched out a little more than the relaxed position. He's younger so his nose and face and general is a little softer, a little more baby fat, less bone structure showing at this younger stage but he has a strong resemblance.
posted
^ You obviously suffer from a mental disorder if you nitpick at certain features as if black Africans come in only one set of features. And again with that Indian boy! How many times must we tell you Tut was NOT Indian but AFRICAN and obviously BLACK!
You are a lunatic pure and simple.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: One of the most noticeable aspects of Amarna art is the feminization of the male portraits and the masculization of the female portraits; it was, after all, a social revolution... The wood bust presented here (in order to posit some looney notion, which we should no longer indulge) is clearly a feminized version of the young African king (the portraits of Ikhnaton, who led this revolution, are more emphatic on this point.)
In fact, when I first saw this artwork, I thought that I was looking at a female royal; no beard, no masculinity...reminded me of these, their descendants...
'Course no one here wants to talk about the Amarna Revolution, let alone Egyptology...
posted
You see anyone can look like someone else now stop clowning and deal with the fact that Kmt is an east African KULTCHA!! Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: One of the most noticeable aspects of Amarna art is the feminization of the male portraits and the masculization of the female portraits; it was, after all, a social revolution... The wood bust presented here (in order to posit some looney notion, which we should no longer indulge) is clearly a feminized version of the young African king (the portraits of Ikhnaton, who led this revolution, are more emphatic on this point.)
Wally I made a post called "What was the Amarna Revolution all about?" and nobody bit.
Anyway what you are saying about feminization in that period may have been true but in my opinion there is nothing feminized looking about that wood Tut bust above. It just looks like a teenage boy. However the below does look feminized to me, he's really flaming in this one:
Here's a couple of other Tut sculptures, not feminine looking. The first one seems very realistic looking.
With the Amarna revolution there was a chance to unify the nation under one religion. It could have made Egypt more powerful had it worked but Akhenaten went overboard, destroying temples and created a backlash. Had he phased it in more gradually it may have stuck. He also neglected other affairs state. Egypt needed this unifying innovation because it was already coasting and somewhat stagnating. Ramesses had some great building projects to follow but the unity they could have had under one religion finally resulted in a fragmentation and outside invaders who had become more finally ended the empire with a series of invasions and occupations.
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: You see anyone can look like someone else now stop clowning and deal with the fact that Kmt is an east African KULTCHA!!
And who are those 2 people?
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Lioness. I love your impartial approach to the art. What you present is very unbiased and very balanced. I think it is safe to say that he was definitely NOT Negro. Only one bust depicts a Negroid looking Tut. The others reflect a non-Negro man. In the depictions of Tut, there are more eyewitness artisans reflecting a non-Negro man than those sculpting a Negro looking man. I will side with the predominant artwork.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Djehuti I showed the variety.
You showed very selected items that fit your preconceived conclusion. It's dishonest
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Look at him he looks like an Indian child. I'm not saying his ancestry is Indian but he looks Indian or like some of the less oriental looking Nepalis.
quote:Originally posted by the lion: No sane person would call Barack Hussein Obama white. Anybody who saw him on the street with no foreknowledge would say that he's black.
Just call her Lyin-ass.com
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic-Ass: Thank you Lioness. I love your impartial approach to the art. What you present is very unbiased and very balanced. I think it is safe to say that he was definitely NOT Negro. Only one bust depicts a Negroid looking Tut. The others reflect a non-Negro man. In the depictions of Tut, there are more eyewitness artisans reflecting a non-Negro man than those sculpting a Negro looking man. I will side with the predominant artwork.
Impartial approach my-ass! Lyingness showed nothing new. I just showed all the painted portraits which depict a BLACK person.
What exactly is non-black about these unpainted statues? NOTHING of course more talk out of your gigantic-ass.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Dejehuti, then explain why is it when I showed these artworks to non-blacks (I work with Orientals, whites and middle-easterners) at my job and asked them what ethnicity they resembled the most they all said semitic/Arab? Are you telling me all these people except your little coon clique are wrong? Go jump off a cliff dude. I aint subscribing to your fringe non-sense.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Why are u older vets wasting time arguing with the tranny lion
You're right. Arguing with these psychos is like arguing with a blind person that grass is green.
They are upset because no matter what variance in portraiture, ALL of the depictions don't show Tut as anything else BUT a black person.
quote:KULTCHA!! PEOPLE KULTCHA!!! else you end-up like a dwaag chasing it's
You're right. It's better to talk about Egypt's African culture, since trolls know NOTHING about it and therefore don't have any crazy sh|t to say on the matter.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GiganticAss: Dejehuti, then explain why is it when I showed these artworks to non-blacks (I work with Orientals, whites and middle-easterners) at my job and asked them what ethnicity they resembled the most they all said semitic/Arab? Are you telling me all these people except your little coon clique are wrong? Go jump off a cliff dude. I aint subscribing to your fringe non-sense.
LOL Either you are lying (as usual) or these people are as crazy as you. I work with peoples of different backgrounds too and I know that if I were to show them these pictures, especially the painted ones NOBODY would say they are not black! There is nothing "fringe" about it. Egypt is in AFRICA the Egyptians were indigenous AFRICANS so therefore BLACK. You are definitely lying about the Semitic peoples from the Middle East because unlike you simple and close-minded whites, they KNOW that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Both Hebrew-Jewish texts as well as Arab-Islamic texts state emphatically that Mizraim/Misr was a nation of black Africans! So obviously it is the former-- you're LYING. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Either you are lying (as usual) or these people are as crazy as you.
Dude, I seriously think you are caught up in the reality you created to the point you don't even realize the sentiment on AE outside Afrocentrism. People identify ancient Egyptian relics as a representation of Asiatique people. I did not even have to ask my co-workers. I could have easily cited what museums remark about these reliefs. You are delusional if you think outside your fringe clique people hold to your view.
quote: I work with peoples of different backgrounds too and I know that if I were to show them these pictures, especially the painted ones NOBODY would say they are not black!
Try the test as I did and get back to us with the results. This will be interesting.
quote: There is nothing "fringe" about it. Egypt is in AFRICA the Egyptians were indigenous AFRICANS so therefore BLACK.
Then why don't Egyptologists hold to that view (they were Black)? You are really delusional buddy. YOU ARE A FRINGE.
quote: they KNOW that the ancient Egyptians were black Africans. Both Hebrew-Jewish texts as well as Arab-Islamic texts state emphatically that Mizraim/Misr was a nation of black Africans! So obviously it is the former-- you're LYING.
No it does not. I read hebrew fluently and my background is in the Biblical text. It does not say "Black African" you fvcking liar. Also, not a single University in the middle east teaches that the ancient Egyptians were Black. Dude, you are delusional. I'm sure your fellow nutcase brothers will tell you that mainstream academia does not teach a "Black" ancient Egypt.
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic-Ass: Dude, I seriously think you are caught up in the reality you created to the point you don't even realize the sentiment on AE outside Afrocentrism. People identify ancient Egyptian relics as a representation of Asiatique people. I did not even have to ask my co-workers. I could have easily cited what museums remark about these reliefs. You are delusional if you think outside your fringe clique people hold to your view.
'Dude', I don't give a damn what you or your "coworkers" have to say on the matter. The FACT is academia including modern science has already spoken on the issue. Ancient Egyptians were not Asiatics but indigenous Africans. This is supported by archaeology, comparative culture, linguistics, physical anthropology including genetics, you name it, etc. The only one delusional is YOU and others like you. I am not Afrocentric. I am not even black, yet I and many other non-blacks also hold these views simply because it is TRUTH.
quote:Try the test as I did and get back to us with the results. This will be interesting.
There is no "test" about it. The portraits of Tut are of a black man. And again I don't believe a word you say about your imaginary coworkers who agree with your nonsense.
quote:Then why don't Egyptologists hold to that view (they were Black)? You are really delusional buddy. YOU ARE A FRINGE.
LMAO You obviously haven't read the works of many Egyptologists then. Experts like Frank Yurco, Ian Shaw, Michael Rice, Toby Wilkinson, Barbara Lesko, Kent Weeks, and Egyptian Egyptologists like Ahmed Saleh and Ossama Alsaadawi as well as many others have accepted the FACT of Egypt's African identity. You are too stupid to realize loons like YOU who haven't accepted FACT are the ones that are fringe!
quote:No it does not. I read hebrew fluently and my background is in the Biblical text. It does not say "Black African" you fvcking liar. Also, not a single University in the middle east teaches that the ancient Egyptians were Black. Dude, you are delusional. I'm sure your fellow nutcase brothers will tell you that mainstream academia does not teach a "Black" ancient Egypt.
YOU are the liar. Hebrew texts specifically identify Mizraim (Egypt) as one of the nations of Ham i.e. BLACK peoples along with Kush, Phut, and Cannan. All Biblical scholars and Jewish scholars agree on the black identity of Egypt. That you are caught in your lies shows through your frustration and why your are f*cking cussing. LOL
How about citing one Biblical scholar who supports your claims then?
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do you keep showing this brown skinned Indian?
What genetic ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians?
What Linguistic ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians?
What Cultural ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians?
What Geographic ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians?
They actually DO have a minor genetic tie but I am sure you dont even know about it...And YES, all brown skinned people IN AFRICA - Are "Black". Remember we are talking about AFRICANS with Brown and Black skin....not various other ethnicities in south East asia, the Middle East or the Pacific.
I just added a Genome request of an Egyptian on 23andme Her Maternal Marker as follows. What do you notice?
What is the frequency of this lineage in India? This is just ONE of the MANY Sub Saharan lineages that have a pan African or regional African distribution which are included in the genome of Egyptians.........and have absolutely nothing to do with India.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by astenb: What Geographic ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians? They actually DO have a minor genetic tie
I never said he was Indian, just that he looks Indian in the wood busts, also even more so in the bald wood bust. Definitely more Indian looking in these particular bust than black African.
astenb, given the fact that the Egyptians had no concept that what we now call "Africa" is now regarded as a separate continent from "Asia" draw a 3000 mile radius centering in Egypt. Are all brown people within this radius "black"?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
All this is so amusing. I think that your confusion about the African physiognomy has to do with the fact that both of you--obviously whites--have not visited Africa yet. Why not take a tour?
In any case, a few pictures are worth a thousand endless lying eyes debates.
So just google Buganda[Uganda] boy king images and compare with Tut.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: GIGANTIC and LIONESS,
All this is so amusing. I think that your confusion about the African physiognomy has to do with the fact that both of you--obviously whites--have not visited Africa yet. Why not take a tour?
In any case, a few pictures are worth a thousand endless lying eyes debates.
So just google Buganda[Uganda] boy king images and compare with Tut.
posted
From a photographer some years ago who tried to find look a like matches of famous peoples in 'different races"
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Kemites knew where the mountains of the moons were.. they knew where god's land and lands of the ancestors were.. after-all there visited there often enough, to pick-up the fragrance of the gods and the Twa to do the dances of the gods.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by astenb: What Geographic ties do Egyptians, Ancient and Modern have with South East Indians? They actually DO have a minor genetic tie
I never said he was Indian, just that he looks Indian in the wood busts, also even more so in the bald wood bust. Definitely more Indian looking in these particular bust than black African.
astenb, given the fact that the Egyptians had no concept that what we now call "Africa" is now regarded as a separate continent from "Asia" draw a 3000 mile radius centering in Egypt. Are all brown people within this radius "black"?
But this makes no sense. Your argument is stepping into "Crazy Town". There is no NEED to go through all of these "Hypotheticals" to get to the truth that is right in front of your face.
Within that 3000 mile radius of what is now called "Egypt" tell me from which direction did the majority of "Brown" people that ultimately populated Egypt come from? Sure there were a few that came from the Levant but MOST came from the Areas SOUTH of Egypt....Virtually NIL came from India so why are you showing INDIANS? Tut does not LOOK "Indian" he looks like an Egyptian. This depiction in Features is what you get when you cross African Ethnicities including but DEFINITELY not limited to: Nilotic folks from the great lakes region, Horn Africans and Saharans.
Your problems is you are limiting "Black Africans" to one specific spectrum of a phenotype. You are going "True Negro" on us. And this is most certainly the case or else you wouldnt be able to make Oxymoron statements like this:
quote: Definitely more Indian looking in these particular bust than black African.
How does he look more Indian than "Black African" if his particular look IS one of "Black Africans" be cause he himself IS a "Black African"?
What you must do in order to prove you case is state:
1. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned, and ARE "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
In Contrast with:
2. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned but ARE NOT "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
3. WHY
You are trying to divide in conquer but you cannot get down to the specifics because when you try NO DIVISION EXISTS. You then have to come to the realization that BOTH groups are "Black People". From that realization you must come to the conclusion that many Egyptians, Modern AND Ancient as a basic observable FACT fit into that Category of Africans we call "Black Africans".
But go ahead give it a shot and answer 1 2 and 3. You seem to talk alot but i guess this is where I make one of those "Thread Killer" responses and you flee the scene. Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lion: The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans
Doctoris Scientia's analysis follows
Originally published in Science Express on 30 April 2009 Science 22 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5930, pp. 1035 - 1044
Sarah A. Tishkoff,1,2,* Floyd A. Reed,1,{dagger},{ddagger} Françoise R. Friedlaender,3,{ddagger} Christopher Ehret,4 Alessia Ranciaro,1,2,5,§ Alain Froment,6,§ Jibril B. Hirbo,1,2 Agnes A. Awomoyi,1,|| Jean-Marie Bodo,7 Ogobara Doumbo,8 Muntaser Ibrahim,9 Abdalla T. Juma,9 Maritha J. Kotze,10 Godfrey Lema,11 Jason H. Moore,12 Holly Mortensen,1,¶ Thomas B. Nyambo,11 Sabah A. Omar,13 Kweli Powell,1,# Gideon S. Pretorius,14 Michael W. Smith,15 Mahamadou A. Thera,8 Charles Wambebe,16 James L. Weber,17 Scott M. Williams
quote:Originally posted by Doctoris Scientia: The Mozambite, unlike what some posters have stated, are a very good repersentation for the general North African population, being predomiantely African with a significant Eursian component, clustering between the two extremes.lineages found among Europeans and Southwest Asians due to AFRICAN gene-flow in particular Neolithic gene-flow, which are therefor shared between these non-Africans and some Africans. The other Africans who possessed large amounts of "blue" were the Dogon and the Mozabite. The Dogon's case is identical to that of the Beja, while the "blue" found among the Mozabite is likely that of both direct European admixture and them carrying "ancestral" lineages. In the Beja "direct non-African" admixture is less than 5%, even lower among the Dogon.
In regards to colour? no, but they do indicate the general amount of both blue's found in Africa. With the African ancestral "Saharan/Dogon" being the most prominent, even among the light skin, "typical" Northern Saharan/Coastal North African Mozabite. The Mozabite according to the study are predominantly African. Even if you discarded blue being both ancestral African and "European"... the Mozabite would have had been typical "mulattos" genetically, i.e. 49% being non-"Saharan/Dogon" African. Out of the 51% labeled as "Saharan/Dogon"... most of it's African. Mozabite are therefore about 80% African. Northern Algerian Mozabite are therefore 80% African and 20% Eurasian.
(pictures below also provided by Doctoris Scientia):
quote:Originally posted by astenb: But this makes no sense. Your argument is stepping into "Crazy Town". There is no NEED to go through all of these "Hypotheticals"
Its her/his signature method. A troll through and through.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic