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
Oh yeah, prove it tough guy. Where's your studies to back that? I just said the wood bust looks more Indian to me than African. I didn't say he was Indian. As far as looks go, you think anybody with a medium brown skin tone looks "black". O.k. fine. Looks is not necessarily ancestry. But you're saying there is a genetic tie. based on what, big man? you made it up?
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| 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
Oh yeah, prove it tough guy. Where's your studies to back that? I just said the wood bust looks more Indian to me than African. I didn't say he was Indian. As far as looks go, you think anybody with a medium brown skin tone looks "black". O.k. fine. Looks is not necessarily ancestry. But you're saying there is a genetic tie. based on what, big man? you made it up?
Dont speak to me as if you know what you are talking about and I dont. Like i said: K2 or Y-DNA T-M70 possible has an origin IN North East Africa or West Asia and is found in the Nile Valley, sub Saharan Africa including the Horn, Central Africa, Southern Europe, West Asia, INDIA etc. As you see on the map Below. But this lineages is NOT an indigenous lineage of INDIANS nor does it track INDIAN ancestry in Egypt (its possibly quite the opposite).
If you are looking for a particular study then you can see those that are sited on the bottom of the Wiki page:
Alternatively the specific lineages that come from Sub Saharan Africa (East AND West - Read "BLACK") are found in abundance in Egypt and some of them represent actually what it MEANS to be "Egyptian" from a genetic standpoint at least. But i understand what you are looking for when you say this:
quote: As far as looks go, you think anybody with a medium brown skin tone looks "black". O.k. fine. Looks is not necessarily ancestry. But you're saying there is a genetic tie. based on what, big man? you made it up?
Of course they can look somewhat similar to Sub Saharans but if there is no genetic tie then i guess you are correct, that similar look could just be parallel adaption or sheer coincidence between 2 "Brown Skinned populations". But what if that is NOT THE CASE and they are genetically related:
NOW what refuge of excuses can you run to? Answer 1, 2, and 3 from the previous post. What you must explain is why some populations that have brown skin and this high frequency of a "M78" genetic lineage "Are Black" while others that have the same skin and genetic lineage are "Not Black".
The ball is in your court "Lady"...........Explain: Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Why on earth should I deal w/a nitwit who thinks "African" exclusively implies Black? Why?
Strawman Argument...I clearly took a multifaceted approach that includes GEOGRAPHY and other things ALONG with tropical adapted skin color. Dont try to simplify my argument because you are a simpleton.
"2. What people are indigenous toAfrica, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned but ARE NOT "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities."
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GiganticDumbass: Why on earth should I deal w/a nitwit who thinks "African" exclusively implies Black? Why?
And who in here ever made that claim-- that African necessarily means black?? Although you should be aware that blacks are the indigenous population of the African continent! Also what about the reverse?-- Non-African does not exclusively mean non-black either as there are plenty of black populations in Eurasia, dummy.
Better yet why should I deal with a nitwit who denies that these Egyptian royals below are not black??
Posts: 26390 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey asten, I doubt 'Lioness' will give up her erroneous obsession even if an actual person from India slaps her face and tells her that Tut and his people were blacks of Africa.
Posts: 26390 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And who in here ever made that claim-- that African necessarily means black??
Here are your words: "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."
What the scholarship actually says:
"In the 19th century, as an application of scientific racism, the "Hamitic race" became a sub-group of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race, grouping the non-Semitic populations native to North Africa, the Horn of Africa and South Arabia, including the Ancient Egyptians. The Hamitic theory suggested that this "Hamite race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa."
Jewish scholars say that Ham was African but not Black African as you are errantly suggesting.
Now eat your own turd and die already!
Posts: 2025 | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And who in here ever made that claim-- that African necessarily means black??
Here are your words: "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."
What the scholarship actually says:
"In the 19th century, as an application of scientific racism, the "Hamitic race" became a sub-group of the Caucasian race, alongside the Semitic race, grouping the non-Semitic populations native to North Africa, the Horn of Africa and South Arabia, including the Ancient Egyptians. The Hamitic theory suggested that this "Hamite race" was superior to or more advanced than Negroid populations of Sub-Saharan Africa."
Jewish scholars say that Ham was African but not Black African as you are errantly suggesting.
Now eat your own turd and die already!
LOL That quote of outdated scholarship has NOTHING to do with Jewish tradition. Jewish tradition simply states that Hamites were black people and the label Ham was applied to *ALL* blacks of Africa. It was silly 19th century racist scholars who corrupted the term Hamite to mean "caucasian" even though these peoples were black. They invented the concept of a Hamitic race which were really just black-skinned caca-soids! The quote you cite explains it exactly, but apparently you are too illiterate or too stupid to realize your quote DEBUNKS you!
Here is the rest of the source you conveniently left out:
The term Hamitic originally referred to the peoples believed to have been descended from the biblical Ham, one of the Sons of Noah. When Ham dishonors his father, Noah pronounces a curse on him, stating that the descendents of his son Canaan will be "servants of servants". Of Ham's four sons, Canaan fathered the Canaanites, while Mizraim fathered the Egyptians, Cush the Cushites and Phut the Libyans.[1]
During the Middle Ages, this was interpreted to define Ham as the ancestor of all Africans. The curse was regularly interpreted as having created visible racial characteristics in Ham's offspring, notably black skin. According to Bernard Lewis, the sixth-century Babylonian Talmud states that "the descendants of Ham are cursed by being Black and are sinful with a degenerate progeny."[2] Both Arab and later European and American slave traders used this story to justify African slavery.[3][4]
In fact, the Bible restricts the curse to the offspring of Ham's son Canaan, who occupied the Levant, not to his other sons who are supposed to have populated Africa. According to Edith Sanders, this restriction was increasingly emphasised by 19th century theologians, who rejected the curse as a justification for slavery.
LMAO For someone who claims to be "knowledgeable" about Biblical or ancient Middle Eastern writings, you would know that "caca-soid" or "cockasian" as a concept never even existed in ancient times and that 'Hamite' in its original meaning simply meant black.
What a dumbass you are!
ROTFLMAO Posts: 26390 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
astenb: 1. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned, and ARE "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
lioness: some of the Egyptians and Libyans
astenb: 2. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned but ARE NOT "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
lioness: some of the Egyptians and Libyans
astenb: 3. WHY?
some came from the South others came from the North, going back before dynastic Egypt
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This has got to be one of the most foolish comments you have made in this forum.
You believe that there is people in Africa that speak an African Language, Have African Genes, are brown skinned but are not Black Africans??? Bahahahahhhaha you have got to be joking.
What do you gain from this senseless Mixed Egypt nonsense?? Do you take what you say serious, or are you just trying to get a kick out of who posts to refute your ideas?
The FACTS is that ALL people that can be described like that ARE related and ARE Black Africans. Sadly I got word from another poster that you don't think that East Africans are really "Black" and you should not compare them to Ancient Egypt. Taking away majority of people that can fit into Egypt and look like Tut.
Really Girl, this is getting annoying. Your arguement is just weaksauce and was refuted already, why keep it going?
Peace
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
This has got to be one of the most foolish comments you have made in this forum.
You believe that there is people in Africa that speak an African Language, Have African Genes, are brown skinned but are not Black Africans??? Bahahahahhhaha you have got to be joking.
What do you gain from this senseless Mixed Egypt nonsense?? Do you take what you say serious, or are you just trying to get a kick out of who posts to refute your ideas?
The FACTS is that ALL people that can be described like that ARE related and ARE Black Africans. Sadly I got word from another poster that you don't think that East Africans are really "Black" and you should not compare them to Ancient Egypt. Taking away majority of people that can fit into Egypt and look like Tut.
Really Girl, this is getting annoying. Your arguement is just weaksauce and was refuted already, why keep it going?
Peace
the thing is some of the Egyptians weren't indigenous Africans so that whole question set up doesn't apply. It's based on setting up an artificial boundary between Egypt and the Middle East that did not exist. The question is loaded. To the the North of Egypt is a bottleneck to Asia. The question is a set up. Name people in Africa who are not in Africa.
How about name people who lived nearby to Egypt.
That's simple enough
Kushites, Libyans, Syrians a little further south, Ethiopians.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: astenb: 1. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned, and ARE "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
lioness: some of the Egyptians and Libyans
astenb: 2. What people are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned but ARE NOT "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities.
lioness: some of the Egyptians and Libyans
astenb: 3. WHY?
some came from the South others came from the North, going back before dynastic Egypt
EPIC FAIL. Here are the reasons:
"Came from the North"
1 & 2 - If "North" = Africa then It wouldn't matter WHERE they came FROM. They are still bio genetically, and culturally AFRICAN. I will beat you to the punch "Africa doesnt mean Black"...........But we are not talking about "WHITE Africans" we are talking about "Black Africans." A black African IS STILL a black African, it doesn't matter if he or she is IN Senegal, Northern Egypt or Zimbabwe. It is not WHERE you are its WHAT you are. Nigerians dont cease being "Black" because they happen to live in London do they?
If "North" means external to Africa then you have to explain EXACTLY WHICH populations live OUTSIDE of Africa, "but are indigenous to Africa, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned" - This would not be Libyans NOR would it be Egyptians.
If a MINORITY group of NON BLACK NON AFRICANS are ABSORBED by a BLACK AFRICAN MAJORITY what you would have left over is still a BLACK MAJORITY "going back before dynastic Egypt". Furthermore you STILL are making a dumb conclusion. How can both your answers be exactly the same when the questions are mutually exclusive of each other? And if they came from the North (Think Levant) then they probably wouldn't be that black then would they?
quote: the thing is some of the Egyptians weren't indigenous Africans so that whole question set up
The question is NOT a setup DUMMY, we are not TALKING about those non indigenous peoples of Egypt! We are speaking on the indigenous BROWN Majority. I could care less about the minor influx of Non Africans, that is NOT what we are focused on. In any case
ALL Bolded AFRICAN countries below show Bidirectional gene-flow TO and FROM Egypt. Even the sub Saharan ones........YES the Congo, YES Nigeria and YES Tanzania.
Zaire
Nigeria China Mauritania Ukraine Tanzania
quote: Haplotype IV is characteristic of sub-Saharan populations in Africa, where its geographical distribution can be an indication of Bantu expansion: for example, in Central Africa the frequency of haplotype IV is 55.2% in Cameroon, and reaches 80.3% in Congo and up to 83.9% in the Central African Republic.
Zaire=Congo....Every-time you open your mouth you:
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, why do you cats CONSTANTLY get caught up in trying to convince lying ass whites that this or that person was black or African? If history has indeed proven one reality, it is that Whites will create a LIE even when there is no need. They are Psychotic and compulsive liars. Every native peoples who have encountered them describe them as such, without exception.
Sheesh, it's a serious waste of time going around in circles with these habitual liars as if you are going to somehow change 1000s of years of lying, deceit, and dishonesty. It's clear that these fools couldn't think their way out of anything constructive and their only skill is lying and creating worthless Ponzi schemes.
My suggestion is you ignore these racial saboteurs and get back to doing some solid research NOT motivated by the insane rants of the CULT of racists, thieves, and liars.
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: LOL, why do you cats CONSTANTLY get caught up in trying to convince lying ass whites that this or that person was black or African? If history has indeed proven one reality, it is that Whites will create a LIE even when there is no need. They are Psychotic and compulsive liars. Every native peoples who have encountered them describe them as such, without exception.
Sheesh, it's a serious waste of time going around in circles with these habitual liars as if you are going to somehow change 1000s of years of lying, deceit, and dishonesty. It's clear that these fools couldn't think their way out of anything constructive and their only skill is lying and creating worthless Ponzi schemes.
My suggestion is you ignore these racial saboteurs and get back to doing some solid research NOT motivated by the insane rants of the CULT of racists, thieves, and liars.
Seriously..lol
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Lioness is as dumb as Gigantic-Dummy who cited a quote that DEBUNKS himself. The Egyptians were known historically and traditionally as 'Hamites'. Hamites, Biblically speaking, meant black peoples especially of Africa. It was 19th century white racists that made up the ridiculous notion that the blacks of Egypt and east Africa who created advanced culture were somehow unrelated to the other "negro" populaces of Sub-Sahara and were caca-soid. Such a belief was exploded long ago, yet we have idiots still desperate to claim the people below as Indian, 'caucasian', anything but what they really are BLACK AFRICANS.
Posts: 26390 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by astenb: "2. What people are indigenous toAfrica, speak African languages, have African genes, are brown skinned but ARE NOT "Black Africans" - Name Ethnicities."
Hamites: dark skinned Caucasians. LOL Thats where lioness wants to go really, but she's too embarrassed by it being totally discredited today even by the mainstream.
quote:Originally posted by Gigantic: Only one bust depicts a Negroid looking Tut. The others reflect a non-Negro man.
Good grief.
quote:It's based on setting up an artificial boundary between Egypt and the Middle East that did not exist.
Yeah cuz the A.Egyptians didn't talk about "Asiatics" and there weren't periodic xenophobia against said Asiatics. Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Yeah cuz the A.Egyptians didn't talk about "Asiatics" and there weren't periodic xenophobia against said Asiatics. [/qb]
the Egyptians didn't have a racist view against Namu because some of them came from the region. They were referring to nations of the region that they were in conflict with, not racial type.
Kamose Inscription
'Let me understand what this strength of mine is for! (One) prince is in Avaris, another is in Ethiopia, and (here) I sit associated with an Asiatic and a Nubian! Each man has his slice of this Egypt, dividing up the land with me . . . .
Pritchard, James B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. Princeton, 1969., pp.232-233. Carnarvon Tablet I. See also, Ancient Near Eastern Texts., pp. 554-555.
____________________________________
he sits in the middle, a nation in between Nubia and the Levant
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try. Never said it was a racial conflict. Remember there were blacks among Levantines, see Zaharan posts you are too lazy to read. Unless you are stupid enough to think "xenophobia" equals racism. And there were periodic bouts of xenophobia against said Asiatics.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Nice try. Never said it was a racial conflict. Remember there were blacks among Levantines, see Zaharan posts you are too lazy to read. Unless you are stupid enough to think "xenophobia" equals racism. And there were periodic bouts of xenophobia against said Asiatics.
LOL, Isnt it funny that the same folks who rant and rave about "Not All Africans are Black" are the same folks that say "Asiatic" as if not black populations were found in the Middle East...So All African are not black but All Populations(Asiatics, Europeans, Indians, Mesoamericans) are not black.
Its a double Standard.
Notice the Michelle the Lyin-Ass in one breath says if folks saw Obama on the steet he would be black but says that Tut who is darker than Obama on his Bust and has the same features is "Indian"...LOL. And these poor fools fall for her trap everytime...lol
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ like your contradictions re Hebrews and thier debt to Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari:
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: Nice try. Never said it was a racial conflict. Remember there were blacks among Levantines, see Zaharan posts you are too lazy to read. Unless you are stupid enough to think "xenophobia" equals racism. And there were periodic bouts of xenophobia against said Asiatics.
LOL, Isnt it funny that the same folks who rant and rave about "Not All Africans are Black" are the same folks that say "Asiatic" as if not black populations were found in the Middle East...
Yes, this is just one of her many contradictions. The other is labeling ancient Egypt as a mixed rainbow society but she is not sure about ancient Greece.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ LOL Nobody is trapped but lyingass in her own ignorance!
Honestly Lying-ass is one of the best quality of Troll we have gotten. She is good at Spin tactics hence her posting the most Asian looking Indians and saying "These People if they were in africa would be black"...but notice she avoids the Darker Indians who look like many African people.
Lying-ass has no real credibility nor is it here for academic discussion...its only here to play games, so why not play it at its own game...Fight Fire with Fire.
If Tut is Indian...Obama is White
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
As for Tut the below this is the most realistic sculpture I've seen of him. It doesn't appear to be stylized.
while the wood bust Tut looks Indian or Mesopotamian other sculptures of Tut look different like different people. And if you can't see that there's no hope for you.
Some look black others look Mesopotamian or Asian. The above eyes look slightly oriental. Now you are screaming like bitches, "now she's saying he's Chinese" No dimwit I'm telling you how these sculptures look from a trained artistic eye not their ancestry. But that's not completely unrelated to ancestry either. Getting back to how this statue here looks- The nose is somewhat small, not wide, looks like a cross between white and Asian. The lips are somewhat negro looking like our people. In conclusion, I'm sorry but he doesn't fit neatly into any racial category.
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: My husband is half cracker, I admit it
quote:As for Tut the below this is the most realistic sculpture I've seen of him.
Most realistic in your admittedly uninformed view.
quote:while the wood bust Tut looks Indian or Mesopotamian
Meaning that he looks like what we would call "black" today?
quote: Some look black others look Mesopotamian or Asian.
The idiocy of this statement is only made clear when we consider that there were people who would be called "black" today in ancient Mesopotamia (which is "Asia" btw). The dichotomy between "black" and "Mesopotamia" is false and silly.
quote:No dimwit I'm telling you how these sculptures look from a trained artistic eye not their ancestry.
"Trained artistic eye"....LMAO!
quote:The lips are somewhat negro looking like our people.
"Somewhat Negro looking like our people"...LMAO!
No hope for you troll...
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
while the wood bust Tut looks Indian or Mesopotamian other sculptures of Tut look different like different people. And if you can't see that there's no hope for you. LOL, there are Egyptian Children who look just like that Bust but I guess you forgot about Egyptians and Nubian people who actually are of the same blood as Tut in you search for Indian Children.
Some look black others look Mesopotamian or Asian. According to Lyin-ass Blacks can't be found in Asia or Mesopotamia they exist only in one part of the Earth but Egypt was full of Chinese, Indians and Mulattos..
Now you are screaming like bitches, "now she's saying he's Chinese" No dimwit I'm telling you how these sculptures look from a trained artistic eye not their ancestry. Your Trained Artistic Eye is not asked for no one but you sees a Chinaman when looking at Tut.
Getting back to how this statue here looks- The nose is somewhat small, not wide, looks like a cross between white and Asian. The lips are somewhat negro looking like our people. In conclusion, I'm sorry but he doesn't fit neatly into any racial category.
LOL, NEGRO LIKE OUR PEOPLE...The Dumbest statement yet from Lyin-ass I guess M.K was right about Hammer posing as a black woman under the moniker "The Lyin-ass"...Only someone of Hammer intellect would say such a statement.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| 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...
although the beautiful Tamron Hall has her mouth open, which is what she's paid to do, if you were to put the royal crown on her head, she would look exactly like this Ancient Egyptian artist's rendition of the African king... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| 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...
although the beautiful Tamron Hall has her mouth open, which is what she's paid to do, if you were to put the royal crown on her head, she would look exactly like this Ancient Egyptian artist's rendition of the African king...
The reason that Tamron Hall does not look like the wood Tut bust for three main reasons:
1) she has a prognathous jaw (protruding)as I do while the wood Tut bust does not.
2) If you look at Tameron Hall with her mouth closed her mouth opening is still wider proportionately and breaks a triangle which one could draw extending down from the angles of the sides of the nose.
3) her eye shape is roundish. Wood Tut bust's eye shape is more almond like
also the distance between Tameron Hall's nose to her mouth is proportionately longer than the same distance in wood Tut bust.
she's 40 years old and a woman. Their noses are somewhat similar with slight differences
The wood Tut bust does not look feminine to me. it looks like a male teenager.
The following boys look similar to the wood Tut bust in my opinion although younger but not vastly different in age as is the beautiful Tamron Hall
Here is my challenge. There are hundreds of pictures of black African boys and and teenage boys on the internet.
Find me one or more that look more like the wood Tut bust than the ones I posted.
Keep in mind the wood Tut bust:
1) does not have a prognathous jaw
( does not have a jaw that protrudes in such a way that area around the mouth area bulges a bit) wood Tut bust doesn't have this.
2) does not have a relatively wide mouth opening
(this means if you extend a triangle down from the angle of the sides if the nose the slit of the mouth opening does not go beyond this boundary. Wood Tut bust does not have a relatively wide mouth opening
3) the skin tone should not be much lighter or darker than wood Tut bust. A little o.k.
4) the nose cannot be relatively wide or have relatively wide nostrils. The nose of the wood Tut bust is not wide and the nostrils are not relatively large like my nostrils which are proportionally larger to the rest of my face. Tameron Hall's nose shape is similar but 8% smaller in proportion to her face and skull.-not a huge difference
5)the lid opening of the eyes should be slightly almond shaped. Tameron Hall's eyelid opening is more roundish than wood Tut bust.
I'm just trying to sharpen your eye by pointing out these details.You can skip over this if you want to but just show me some black African boys who look more like the wood Tut bust than what I posted
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| 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...
although the beautiful Tamron Hall has her mouth open, which is what she's paid to do, if you were to put the royal crown on her head, she would look exactly like this Ancient Egyptian artist's rendition of the African king...
The reason that Tamron Hall does not look like the wood Tut bust for three main reasons:
1) she has a prognathous jaw (protruding)as I do while the wood Tut bust does not.
2) If you look at Tameron Hall with her mouth closed her mouth opening is still wider proportionately and breaks a triangle which one could draw extending down from the angles of the sides of the nose.
3) her eye shape is roundish. Wood Tut bust's eye shape is more almond like
also the distance between Tameron Hall's nose to her mouth is proportionately longer than the same distance in wood Tut bust.
she's 40 years old and a woman. Their noses are somewhat similar with slight differences
The wood Tut bust does not look feminine to me. it looks like a male teenager.
The following boys look similar to the wood Tut bust in my opinion although younger but not vastly different in age as is the beautiful Tamron Hall
Here is my challenge. There are hundreds of pictures of black African boys and and teenage boys on the internet.
Find me one or more that look more like the wood Tut bust than the ones I posted.
Keep in mind the wood Tut bust:
1) does not have a prognathous jaw
( does not have a jaw that protrudes in such a way that area around the mouth area bulges a bit) wood Tut bust doesn't have this.
2) does not have a relatively wide mouth opening
(this means if you extend a triangle down from the angle of the sides if the nose the slit of the mouth opening does not go beyond this boundary. Wood Tut bust does not have a relatively wide mouth opening
3) the skin tone should not be much lighter or darker than wood Tut bust. A little o.k.
4) the nose cannot be relatively wide or have relatively wide nostrils. The nose of the wood Tut bust is not wide and the nostrils are not relatively large like my nostrils which are proportionally larger to the rest of my face. Tameron Hall's nose shape is similar but 8% smaller in proportion to her face and skull.-not a huge difference
5)the lid opening of the eyes should be slightly almond shaped. Tameron Hall's eyelid opening is more roundish than wood Tut bust.
I'm just trying to sharpen your eye by pointing out these details.You can skip over this if you want to but just show me some black African boys who look more like the wood Tut bust than what I posted
First off why should we do your job for you. The fact that africans have to fit a mold is your problem not ours.
Second do you really think you are slick. From one Artist to another your eye sucks. First off the Indian kid is WAY more lighter in skin than king Tutankhamun. If we consider that Armana art was more realistic and that Tut being Royalty lived indoors than his Skin color is Med. to Dark Brown natuarally. The Indian kid is too light. This is why you tried to find a faded pic to give more creedence to your nonsense.
Second, the Light skinned Indian kids Eyes are too narrow, his nose is more round and his mouth is too wide.
The Darker Indian kid as far as he goes has too many things, Mouth, Eyes, Cheek bones all are off.
So to begin with your Indian portrait is off and is not helping your case.
Third this is a Sudanese boy
Too bad for you even so called Indain feautres are found in Africa lol.
This Ethiopian boy look like an older Tut..
The Nose, Eye brows, lips, cheek bones, eyes and even ears match perfectly with Tut even though he is older.
The Perfect Match would be this Siwa Egyptian Berber..
I don't even need to say anything.
No need to hunt Chinese or Indians when Tut's blood relatives are still in the Nile Troll.
BTW, you keep talking about Egypt not being your people..
posted
Jari, I heard one of your eyes are crooked and this bears that out. For a Christian you certain do seem to love these Pagan commandment originators. I digress The wood Tut bust photo at the beginning of this thread is perfectly legit. It was shot in daylight conditions. The other one is shot in a dark gallery with a spotlight above and you can see the shine. My photo is in more natural conditions. Besides, even if you compare the darker photo of the wood Tut bust to the two boys you posted you find that they are both darker than the wood Tut bust and less reddish in tone. Then you go and post the little girl who is near in tone to my little Indian boy #1, you jarhead jari. You ignored the second Indian boy I posted who is darker and does have some of those reddish tones. The little girl doesn't count anyway, females don't count here. Her nose doesn't match anyway and she's probably a few years younger than even my Indian boy #1 who was young for Tut to begin with. The first boy you posted has little resemblance to wood Tut bust. The Ethiopian boy you posted is an o.k. match. He's a little darker than wood Tut bust. He has a little reddish tone but not as much however skin tone is the most variable. His mouth and jaw fit wood Tut bust because he does not have a a prognathous jaw, and his mouth opening is not wide. His eyes are a bit small in proportion to his head even given that he's older. but not too bad. His nose is the biggest difference. It's quite a bit fleshier and has a bone protrusion in the middle. It looks swollen compared to wood Tut bust, of course normal for the boy himself. Tamron Hall's nose is closer to wood Tut bust. But her mouth is less of a fit. Not a bad attempt for a jarhead. Most AA's do not look like this Ethiopian kid. Most AA's are descended form slaves who were taken from the Guinea coast. AA's who look like this Ethiopian kid by and large are recent immigrants direct from Africa, most not descended from slaves from West and Central, few from Ethiopia, true that is irrelevant he's African all the same. You get one gold lioness star
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
King's Tut Mother "Anthropologist Ivan Van Sertima refers to queen Tiye as "the Negroid mother of Tutankhamen;"32 and historian Alexander von Wuthenau states that Tiye was of "pure black stock."
King's Tut Father "Egyptologists Cyril Aldred and A.T. Sandison note that Akhenaton's "face is shown to be elongated with a prominent prognathous or progeniac jaw, large full lips, a coarse nose, large ears, and oblique eyes."35
Another Egyptologist, William Osburn, observes that the pharaoh's "dusky complexion, high cheekbones, projecting jaws and thick lips, call forcibly to mind the features of the true Negro."
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
King's Tut Mother "Anthropologist Ivan Van Sertima refers to queen Tiye as "the Negroid mother of Tutankhamen;"32 and historian Alexander von Wuthenau states that Tiye was of "pure black stock."
King's Tut Father "Egyptologists Cyril Aldred and A.T. Sandison note that Akhenaton's "face is shown to be elongated with a prominent prognathous or progeniac jaw, large full lips, a coarse nose, large ears, and oblique eyes."35
Another Egyptologist, William Osburn, observes that the pharaoh's "dusky complexion, high cheekbones, projecting jaws and thick lips, call forcibly to mind the features of the true Negro."
You can't go by sculptures like this obviously it's highly stylized, no person actually looks like this, the narrow head:
_____________________________________________
But a person could look like this:
Akhenaten with blue crown
__________________________________________
The wood bust of Tut is not as realistic as this stone sculpture:
Luxor museum/tutankhamun
-actually he looks higher percentage black here than in the wood bust. That wood bust doesn't look like a black person apart from the skin tone. Overall, with all the images I've seen Tut looks part black to me.
___________________________________________
u think I look like this Tiye chick?
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't go by sculptures like this obviously it's highly stylized, no person actually looks like this, the narrow head
So, I'll put it in quotes for you. This is the last time I'll do homework for you. You are only here to TROLL. You don't seek the truth.
"Rogers states that Akhenaton's "skull… is what some scientists call that of a typical Negro. The jaw is exceedingly prognathous."
Posts: 342 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: You can't go by sculptures like this obviously it's highly stylized, no person actually looks like this, the narrow head
So, I'll put it in quotes for you. This is the ro last time I'll do homework for you. You are only here to TROLL. You don't seek the truth.
"Rogers states that Akhenaton's "skull… is what some scientists call that of a typical Negro. The jaw is exceedingly prognathous."
J.A. Rogers died in 1966 and was not an anthropologist, nor did he have a degree in any science. Until you provide a current trained anthropologist or foresic expert (of the past 20 years) who did analysis of the skull (uncertain identity) thought to be Akhenaton it will be you who is wearing the troll outfit and clown nose
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I have seen an Egyptian that looks JUST like this statue, he was only a tad lighter than me and was "Black"
People ignorant of African diversity thinks he was a "Black Puerto Rican"
futhermore my Wife and her father have an elongated face / nose / lips shape just like this statue.
Quit trolling, and stop posting images of Indians. If images of Tut look like both Indians and Black sub Saharans why dont you simply eliminate the group that has NO KNOWN ANCESTRY and infiltration into the Nile Valley at no time during Modern or Ancient history??
Cause your a troll. Here is an IQ test question for you:
-You believe Population "B" looks like Populations "A" and "C".
-population "B" has VERY little if any bio-genetic or geographical history with population "C"
-Population "B" has a VERY high genetic affinity and geographical history with population "A". In fact population "B" primarily COMES FROM population "A".
What Ancestry would depictions of population "B" best represent? "A" or "C"
Why?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL! Jari you fell for it. The troll asked you to fetch a picture that would convince it that it looks like Tut. How naive can you be?!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
astenb ,some people have "long faces" but no human being has a narrow skull shape like that, look at his neck it's far too long to human. Why not show a realistic portrait? I keep telling you knuckleheads when I say the wood Tut bust looks Indian that doesn't prove ancestry. The Tut sculpture I posted is more realistic and semi black African looking to be. The wood Tut bust looks Indian. Some Indian people have a crossover look with Arabs and Levant people. That's next door to Egypt if you want closer.
The stone bust looks more African. And also has non African features. Could be any combination of near to Egypt. Kush, Caanan, Libya
Why do you think Gigantic made this thread? Because as soon as you look at wood Tut bust he doesn't look like a black African. He looks Mesopotamian or Indian. Why do people post it all the time? Because it is a painted sculpture and it shows the complexion they are looking for. They get so obsessed with that they don't even realize his features don't look "black" in that particular bust. Some of this stone stuff is more realistic and better crafted anyway.
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: LOL! Jari you fell for it. The troll asked you to fetch a picture that would convince it that it looks like Tut. How naive can you be?!
posted
Jari and astenb, certainly you all see whats going on by now. This troll is just resurrecting the "looks like an Indian" argument. I recall this very same line before.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: LOL! Jari you fell for it. The troll asked you to fetch a picture that would convince it that it looks like Tut. How naive can you be?!
You are right in a way, but Truth be told I posted to prove that the Egyptian people resemble Tut more..Anyone with a brain realzes Tut looks like an Egyptian Berber(Siwan). and I have Genetics and Language on my side.
King Tut's look like a Siwan Berber..
and Anthropology proves Egyptians were a mix of these Berber types and the Sahran populations coming from the south.
Honestly Dude I don't give a Damn what it thinks, I was not proving to her but to the general audience...... anyone with a brain can put the Siwan Berber Girl I posted and Put the Indian and see who looks more like Tut.
Posts: 8812 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a silly, childish discussion revolving around an ancient African artist's bust.
Hell, there's a bust of a Pharaoh (or noble?) that looks just like Mao Tse Tung! But, there were no Chinese in the Ancient Egyptian royal family or nobility, just as there were no Indians, Mesopotamians...although these Amu ladies certainly graced the king's harem...
But, again, there's (because I have a "tv crush on") Tamron Hall who could have easily been accepted as a member of the royal Amarna family dynasty... Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
-not saying the other Siwan Berbers posted are not Siwan Berbers. The Berber population originating with Nomads is highly varied
Posts: 43024 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-not saying the other Siwan Berbers posted are not Siwan Berbers. The Berber population originating with Nomads is highly varied
if that is the case why did you post the picture..??
One of the main historical references we have on the Siwa Oasis is called the "Siwan Manuscript" which was written during the middle ages and serves as a local history book. It tells us of a benevolent man who arrived in the Oasis and planted an orchard. Afterward, he went to Mecca and brought back thirsty Arabs and Berbers to live in the Oasis, where he established himself, along with his followers in the western part of Shali.
Unfortunately, there seems to have almost immediately been problems between the original inhabitants, who were later known as the Easterners, and the new families western families who to this day are proud to be described as "The Thirty".
The mitochondrial DNA variation of 295 Berber-speakers from Morocco (Asni, Bouhria and Figuig) and the Egyptian oasis of Siwa was evaluated by sequencing a portion of the control region (including HVS-I and part of HVS-II) and surveying haplogroup-specific coding region markers. Our findings show that the Berber mitochondrial pool is characterized by an overall high frequency of Western Eurasian haplogroups, a somehow lower frequency of sub-Saharan L lineages, and a significant (but differential) presence of North African haplogroups U6 and M1, thus occupying an intermediate position between European and sub-Saharan populations in PCA analysis. A clear and significant genetic differentiation between the Berbers from Maghreb and Egyptian Berbers was also observed. The first are related to European populations as shown by haplogroup H1 and V frequencies, whereas the latter share more affinities with East African and Nile Valley populations as indicated by the high frequency of M1 and the presence of L0a1, L3i, L4*, and L4b2 lineages. Moreover, haplogroup U6 was not observed in Siwa. We conclude that the origins and maternal diversity of Berber populations are old and complex, and these communities bear genetic characteristics resulting from various events of gene flow with surrounding and migrating populations.
From dark skinned Indians to fair skinned Berbers. Jesus troll you do know how to carry a debate far and wide! LOL!
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic