quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Calabozo rebuilding soft tissue is fine for other featueres, and there are common flesh-thicknesses on cheeks and foreheads etc. But it is still guesswork reconstructing shapes and thicknesses of lips, shapes and sixes of ears, size and curvature of nostrils and shape of nasal tip. They can't magically know these things! FFS!
Do you realize that reconstructions use the same bedrock (the skull, and its dimensions, duhh), as cranial analysis, to approximate what an individual/population would have looked like?
Do you realise that you went on record passing the use of three cranial measurements as acceptable for reconstructing what Naqada II people looked like (ie your non existent Armenoids), yet you expect to be taken serious with your petty complaints when reconstructions based on global cranial morphology independently confirm what all population studies say (Egyptians resembled Northeast Africans)?
The likelihood of classifying in African groups is based on Cranial measurements, and it does NOT depend on the presence of fleshy tissue. Therefore, the accuracy of fleshy tissue is a minor concern in the overall picture, and more relevant to those interested in seeing lifelike resemblances than it is to us, who are more interested in what his origin was, biologically speaking. Alternatives applications of fleshy tissue would have little bearing on that end result; a broad nasal aperture will result in a broad nose, larger inter obital space will result in exactly that and the same goes for protruding teeth and all the other cranial regions under examination.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bishop: @Kalonji will you PLEASE COME BACK to the "Hebrews and black women" thread so i can finishing giving you a real History lesson on black people!
Don't run over here now. What? Hmmm... your scared of this a$$ wippin LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how to read time without someone holding your hand and helping you to read it? You can't tell from the time indication on the top of that post that that post was made way before you engaged me?
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti why have you bumped this 2010 thread? Is there something I said recently about Egyptian art that you disagree with?
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Art is not REAL, but subjective. And so are the opinions and paradigms of the artist when they made their art And so are our opinions about the paradigms the artist himself held in high regard when he made his art And so are OUR opinions of what the artist depicted (African, Indian, nordic etc) And so are OUR opinions on what the artist meant when he depicted what he depicted (simple illustration of whats out there in the world, actual ancient Egyptian, Nubian)
Unless something is stated by the artis himself or there is actual reasoning that justifies any claim, you're just exposing your own bias
Stop drooling over king Tuts small mouth and his large brows and get a life!
Indeed. Not only is art subjective but to make things more complicated, Egyptian art tends to be very symbolic especially with things like color. I can't help but notice every time a portrait, usually a small figurine or coffin is painted in a light color or most commonly left unpainted showing the light color of the wood, they (the Euronuts) assume it to be the actual skin color of the person yet when it is painted in black, they automatically say it is "symbolic". What's interesting is that in another thread we find that some Egyptian coffins were painted in a yellowish or golden color symbolic of the radiant sun and heavenly deities.
quote:To make matters even worst for Eurocentric art droolers, the first coffin that contained Khnum-Nakht, that is the one with lighter painted coffin, held the body that was considered negroid, while the second coffin, the one with the pitch black painted face, held the remains of what was taught of as ''caucasian'' when early researchers found them:
The report into the anatomical finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to convince oneself that they belong to the same race, far less to the same family.
Of course, now that we have the reconstructions, we can see that both crania had broad facial features, while displaying the cranial features that are typical of Eastern Africans.
The reported findings are stupid. Anyone with eyes can see from the reconstructions that the ONLY difference between the brothers is that one is prognathous while the other orthognathous. Other than that, they both have the same shape nose and full lips. As if prognathy or orgnathy among one sibling but not the other is doesn't happen within black families of African descent, let alone black populations in Africa! What's interesting is that the so-called "negroid" brother has the longer length face more commonly associated with "caucasians" whereas the "caucasian" brother has a short length face commonly associated with "negroids". Again, BOTH have wide noses and thick lips as well as heavy brow ridges.
quote:The slight build of Nekht-Ankh, the so-called less negroid of the two, further substatiates that he belonged to gracile Africans of whom the EA were a variant:
"On first inspection of the bones at this skeleton the writer was much struck with their slimness, delicate moulding, and the faintness of the muscular impressions; indeed, their female character proved to be so pronounced that at first it was difficult to be sure that the skeleton was really that of a male. The pelvis was reunited and proved to have all the characteristics of a male"."
Okay. So the skeletal build of the so-called "caucasian" brother was very slender and gracile. The question is was it tropically adapted? Did it have elongated limb proportions associated with black peoples? I'm willing to bet yes.
lioness may have disagreed with your instruction and schooling on this..
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why this thread from 2010 has been bumped by Djehuti which hasn't been active in 7 years
Of course it has nothing to do with some random thing in the thread like you just posted. IF it was about the two brothers he would have commented on that now in 2021, insteade of just posting three dots "..."
I see you're trying to throw in some distractions. Let's hear from Djehuti why he bumped this thread
Posts: 42922 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Don't get your panties in a bunch because of the thread's title. I actually didn't mean to bump it up but just copy something and link to it regarding your Amenhotep I thread. You can ignore this thread if you want.
Posts: 26246 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic