Rise of the Black Pharaohs premieres Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014.
Preview/VID INSIDE LINK BELOW. Learn about the African Kushites who overthrew the ancient Egyptians
quote: About the Program
The Egypt of the Great Pyramids, the Sphinx, and the Valley of the Kings was an empire of indomitable might. Then, around 800 BC, the impossible happened. Kush, a subject kingdom from the south, rose up and conquered Egypt, enthroned its own Pharaohs, and ruled for nearly 100 years.
These were the mysterious Black Pharaohs of what is today Sudan—the Nubian kings—whose reign has become legendary among Africans and written off as heresy by early archaeologists who refused to believe that dark skinned Africans could have risen so high.
But now, in the heart of Sudan, exciting new archaeological finds are revealing the truth about the great Kush dynasty. A sacred mountain holds the key to the Kush kings’ spiritual claim on the Egyptian throne; stunning statues are providing details about the true color of their skin and their long and prosperous reign; and a long-hidden tomb complex is shedding light on the trappings of their royalty and the extent of their empire.
Rise of the Black Pharaohs Sneak Peek Recreation of Archeologist George Reisner writing in his famous diaries while on location in Sudan.
Recreation of Archeologist George Reisner uncovering Kush statues.
Archeologist Geoff Emberling takes a moment inside a previously undisturbed tomb of an unknown king at El Kurru.
Jebel Barkal or ‘Pure Mountain’, in the shadow of the Sudanese sun. The Kush and Egyptians saw the pinnacle as a sacred rearing cobra.
Re-creation of Piankhy’s army fighting with bows and arrows. The Egyptians even called the Kush ‘bow people’ because of their expertise in the field.
Egyptians recorded the Kush’s prowess for wrestling, which stills continues in Sudanese culture today.
The Egyptians even called the Kush ‘bow people’ because of their expertise in the field.
Climber Madeleine Cope scales Jebel Barkal, the sacred Kush mountain in Sudan.
To be continued below.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Rise of the Black Pharaohs premieres Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2014.
Rise of the Black Pharaohs Sneak Peek
quote:
iRobot’s 110 FirstLook robot used to help Geoff Emberling excavate parts of el Kurru that he and his team could not pass through.
Archeologist Tim Kendall walks through the sand dunes near Taharqa’s pyramid in Nuri.
A close up of the statue of Taharqa surrounded by sand.
Archeologists Geoff Emberling and Tim Kendell are at the heart of the Kushite revival. Emberling is digging his way into a royal pyramid/tomb at a site called El Kurru that he hopes will contain the bones of a Kushite king and the treasure he took with him into the afterlife. He’s following in the footsteps of famous archeologist George Reisner, who excavated most of the other major Kushite sites, but could never get past his racial myopia and accept that these dark-sinned African people had built such an advanced and powerful society. Fortunately, more enlightened archeologists are finally separating myth from fact and revealing the Kushites for who they really were.
Not far from El Kurru, archaeologist Tim Kendell has his sights set on a loftier prize. At a mountain called Jebel Barkal, he believes he’s found the key to the rise of the Kush—the underpinning for their belief that they were the true heirs to the spiritual traditions of the great pharaohs like Ramses II and Thutmose III. Both the Egyptians and the Kushites believed Jebel Barkal was home to Amun—Egypt’s supreme god-of-gods. So when the Kushites rose up, they believed they were doing so to put Egypt back on the right religious path—chosen as the true leaders born in the shadow of Amun’s mountain.
In an effort to decipher the Kushite’s story, Kendell sends professional climbers to the mountain’s spire, to photograph and analyze an ancient inscription commissioned by one of the great Kushite kings. Amid the evidence of a gold-encrusted mountaintop billboard, can the elusive inscription bring the truth to light?
Emberling, Kendell and others are turning legend into fact—at long last overturning racist misconceptions and giving the Black Kings the exposure and respect they deserve as one of the great civilizations of the ancient world.
Rise of the Black Pharaohs was produced by National Geographic Television for PBS.
posted
Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African.
Indeed.
Posts: 1135 | From: Top secret | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African.
For once, I agree with Djehuti. It's pretty obvious that by only assigning the black pharaoh label to the 25th Kushite dynasty is a way to say other Ancient Egyptian pharaohs were not black.
Not even the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001): "Thus, by modern American standards it is reasonable to characterize the Egyptians as 'black', while acknowledging the scientific evidence for the physical diversity of Africans.”
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African.
I agree whole heartily with Djehuti . I also commented on this program in another post here about ancient Nubia. I was told this has been aired before around the time of the release of National Geographic" Black Pharaohs ". Why now, & not during" Black History" month? I believe they are paving the way for the film" Gods & Kings" & want to placate, & quiet the backlash with airing this now before the release of this film( the big boys of media all stick together )
I say email your local PBS stations & let them know you are not part of the ignorant masses ! !
Posts: 135 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I agree with Tukuler, in that it's no use protesting or boycotting whatsoever. Unless one actually creates change by producing and using black actors to portray Egyptians instead of relying on the 'mainstream' I won't hold my breath to wait for some mainstream producers either from PBS, Discovery, let alone Nat Geo to give accurate portrayals of the Egyptians and not 'traditional' off-white portrayals.
In the meantime let's play a game. Who looks more "Caucasoid" below, Taharqa or Ramses?? LOL
Ramses has larger lips and nose yet we all know how he's classified.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Djehuti twice, its like Djehuti is reading my mind.
Djehuti: Not to take away from whatever information program has but as usual the title is inaccurate at best and racist at worst since it implies that only the Kushites were black whereas ethnic Egyptians were not. This has been discussed multiple times in regards to the book of the same name as well as Nat Geo article which they published on February (Black History Month) of 2008.
While the show will no doubt give good insight into the rise of the 25th dynasty it will still obfuscate and distort the fact that the Egyptians themselves are equally black and African
Djehuti: I agree with Tukuler, in that it's no use protesting or boycotting whatsoever. Unless one actually creates change by producing and using black actors to portray Egyptians instead of relying on the 'mainstream' I won't hold my breath to wait for some mainstream producers either from PBS, Discovery, let alone Nat Geo to give accurate portrayals of the Egyptians and not 'traditional' off-white portrayals.
In the meantime let's play a game. Who looks more "Caucasoid" below, Taharqa or Ramses?? LOL
The Egyptian Pharaoh looks like the Black Kushite Pharaoh because the Ancient Egyptians come from Kush.
Posts: 5374 | From: sepedat/sirius | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very funny because then you have another Taharqa statue with now bigger lips. It's like a yo-yo game of facial features:
This statue of Taharqa is from the British Museum.
By looking at various statues of various pharaohs and Kings, they are often physically very different. The same person, the same king can have very different eyes, noses, lips, head shapes from one statue to another.
So you often have statues of the same person, the same kings, who don't even look the same. Same person, different face.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with Tukuler, in that it's no use protesting or boycotting whatsoever. Unless one actually creates change by producing and using black actors to portray Egyptians instead of relying on the 'mainstream' I won't hold my breath to wait for some mainstream producers either from PBS, Discovery, let alone Nat Geo to give accurate portrayals of the Egyptians and not 'traditional' off-white portrayals.
In the meantime let's play a game. Who looks more "Caucasoid" below, Taharqa or Ramses?? LOL
Ramses has larger lips and nose yet we all know how he's classified.
Just curious, but what kind of African actors would you recommend for playing ancient Egyptians? All the recent talk about ancient substructure in the Nile Valley has made me question whether we'll ever find an extant African population whose phenotype perfectly matches the Egyptians, let alone one which has contributed a large number of A-list actors. Even the darker-skinned people in Upper Egypt today aren't all that pristine, and most modern Egyptian actors from what I've seen are not from that stock.
(Personally I wouldn't mind casting a wider net by hiring black actors who aren't necessarily Northeast African, in much the same way as someone might hire non-Scandinavian Europeans for a Viking movie. But I am curious as to what other people here would recommend.)
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: It's very funny because then you have another Taharqa statue with now bigger lips. It's like a yo-yo game of facial features:
This statue of Taharqa is from the British Museum.
By looking at various statues of various pharaohs and Kings, they are often physically very different. The same person, the same king can have very different eyes, noses, lips, head shapes from one statue to another.
So you often have statues of the same person, the same kings, who don't even look the same. Same person, different face.
Well guys if any of you watch this program,report back and tell us what you think.
I posted this in another thread
This was posted before about kushite art i found on this forum.
quote:Originally posted by: this is a good reading on the subject of what the scholars call a classic kushite fold
Egypt: Child of Africa By Ivan Van Sertima of
if link does not work,copy and paste in address box
By Ivan Van Sertima quote- but king taharka is man of many faces,whether in relief;as a sphinx(amon temple at kawa);as a colossi(gerbel barkhal);on temple shrines (kawa) or a fresco (quasm ibrim).those elements of his facial features which define him as a african man are unmistakable.and at last,there is tanwetamani(in relief and on fresco)who succeeded taharka
scholars treatment on the image of taharka requires comment.while his image occures on many extant statues,reliefs,stele,frescoes and shrines,the image of him which have received the greatest attention and praise are those which do not reflect the characteristic kushite bulbous nose,the prominent fold around the nose,the large lips,round head and short neck.some scholars,leclant for example,describe as unflattering those portraits of takarka which depicts him with prominent nose,thick lips and drooping eyes
From Gebel Barkal, head from Temple B 500, body from B 904 Harvard University-MFA Boston Expedition, April 1916, field no. 16-4-32 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, 23.731
With the retreat of the Kushite kings from Egypt, the art of the Napatan empire gains a new dimension. Its characteristic fashion of representing the human form and face were already visible in the works of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. But they were toned down through direct contact with the tradition-bound art of Egypt, failing to come to full fruition. Once freed, however, from the restrictions of the pharaonic legacy, a style develops in the Napatan dynasty that brings the more "African" components to the fore. Many colossal statue fragments from the original inventory of the great Amun Temple at Gebel Barkal were unearthed in a cache north of the first pylon. This statue of Senkamanisken was one of them. All of the stylistic tendencies of the preceding era come to light here, enhanced and expanded. The forcefully striding legs have become more massive, the feet larger. The arms end in balled fists that bespeak raw power; the musculature is strongly emphasized. The head rests heavy on the short neck, thickset in profile view. The southern facial type is characterized by the full lips, broad nose, the widely spaced, slightly bulging eyes, and the low brow. The double uraeus at the forehead is completely preserved—in the Napatan homeland the statues were spared the persecutions wrought by the succeeding dynasty in Egypt. The Kushite cap closely conforms to the round skull. Around the neck hangs the cord with three ram's heads. Surface areas left rough for gilding or silver plating include the jewelry bands on the upper arms, wrists, and ankles, the sandal straps, tripartite royal kilt, and the cap.
From the book Sudan: Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, Dietrich Wildung, 1997, p. 218 Funerary Figurine of King Senkamanisken
This shabti, or funerary figurine, is typical of the nearly 1300 figurines found in Senkamanisken's pyramid at Nuri, the royal necropolis in the Kushite capital of Napata.
Housed in the Brooklyn Museum add text.
The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization By László Török
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with Tukuler, in that it's no use protesting or boycotting whatsoever. Unless one actually creates change by producing and using black actors to portray Egyptians instead of relying on the 'mainstream' I won't hold my breath to wait for some mainstream producers either from PBS, Discovery, let alone Nat Geo to give accurate portrayals of the Egyptians and not 'traditional' off-white portrayals.
In the meantime let's play a game. Who looks more "Caucasoid" below, Taharqa or Ramses?? LOL
Ramses has larger lips and nose yet we all know how he's classified.
I'm not in agreement with your premises , I say let your voice be heard by emailing your local PBS station to let them know the ways of their errors with this programming. It a total cop- out to say lets wait until ! !
It's all part of a process this could be the first step in that process to let them know we are paying attention, you must start somewhere.
We raised our voices in the 90's don't you remember, or have you forgot the debate that was raging around Black Egypt & " Was Cleopatra Black" ? Which made head lines around America & started a dialogue with white America ? Are we to sit back & be passive, playing games on who's lips look larger on what given pharaohs statue ? The same energy it takes to write a post here could also be spent in letting your voices being heard to PBS. This is 2014 it's time to raise our voices & let the next step take care of it's self.
Posts: 135 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know what target audience PBS has in mind with this documentary. Most of the black people who would be interested in Nile Valley history probably believe Egyptians were also black, so they wouldn't take too kindly to limiting the title "Black Pharaohs" to the Kushite conquerors. I'm all for giving Nubia some spotlight attention, but this program's titular emphasis on their blackness---which almost certainly will come hand-in-hand with the orthodox whitewashing of Egypt---is doing Nubian studies more harm than good.
quote:Originally posted by Nebsen: I'm not in agreement with your premises , I say let your voice be heard by emailing your local PBS station to let them know the ways of their errors with this programming.
Why only the local PBS station? Surely there have to be higher-ups in the PBS hierarchy with greater power to change things or at least offer an official apology.
Though now that I remember it, a few years back I tried contacting the studio behind the upcoming Exodus: Gods & Kings, asking if they could cast African actors as the Egyptians and Middle Easterners as the Hebrews. The response my e-mail received was an automated message telling me that they didn't accept unsolicited inquiries from the general public. If this is part of a larger trend across the media industry, it looks like we outside the business are going to have a harder time influencing those within.
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I don't even know what target audience PBS has in mind with this documentary. Most of the black people who would be interested in Nile Valley history probably believe Egyptians were also black, so they wouldn't take too kindly to limiting the title "Black Pharaohs" to the Kushite conquerors. I'm all for giving Nubia some spotlight attention, but this program's titular emphasis on their blackness---which almost certainly will come hand-in-hand with the orthodox whitewashing of Egypt---is doing Nubian studies more harm than good.
quote:Originally posted by Nebsen: I'm not in agreement with your premises , I say let your voice be heard by emailing your local PBS station to let them know the ways of their errors with this programming.
Why only the local PBS station? Surely there have to be higher-ups in the PBS hierarchy with greater power to change things or at least offer an official apology.
Though now that I remember it, a few years back I tried contacting the studio behind the upcoming Exodus: Gods & Kings, asking if they could cast African actors as the Egyptians and Middle Easterners as the Hebrews. The response my e-mail received was an automated message telling me that they didn't accept unsolicited inquiries from the general public. If this is part of a larger trend across the media industry, it looks like we outside the business are going to have a harder time influencing those within.
It can be both . Your local PBS station & PBS. Sometimes they have a comment board connected to a certain program , if so comment ! If not send an email , sometimes the local stations are more responsive to the given community that they broadcast too, for they want your pledge dollars, & sometimes need feed back, to helps them shape their programming.
Posts: 135 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This doesn't really surprise me at all. National Geographic always had a Eurocentric mindset. Heck they already did something similar to this in the past called the "black pharaohs".
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
You joined us last month when many were questioning the registration process. Can you tell us how you got in I mean what steps you took? Tell us about it in the What's up w/t registration (link) thread?
Thanks.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just got through watching "Rise Of The Black Pharaohs," I'll say this , that the production value was very high. They must have said Black Africans referring to the Kushites 7 to 10 times, making for sure that the audience separated the ancient Egyptians from the Kushites as Africans. They also made a big deal of the Kushites being subjugated by the ancient Egyptians thus setting up this hierarchy structure as overlords & the colonized , which is part of their history, but much more complex than this simple narrative. They also used this trope of the" Wretched Kush" to hang their narrative on which has been refuted by Dr. Mario Beatty which can be seen on You-Tube.
On the positive side, they made visible the The culture & history of Kush- Nubia, which is little known by the masses & their rule of the 25th dynasty . Also they lade bare the little known history of Taharqa & the rescue of Jerusalem which is a first for a documentary of any kind to my knowledge, which might open up for a film later, who knows. Also they had 2 Sudanese archaeologist which was great to see among a sea of white archaeologist. It is well worth seeing & maybe even owning this National Geographic DVD production, which had many flaws ; which they need to be made aware of by us, the viewing public. What I did find very ironic was at the begging of this documentary, they gave the history of archeology in the Sudan starting with George Reisner & labeling him a " racist " when this documentary is doing the same, but on a different sophisticated level !
What do you think ?
Posts: 135 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ardo: BlessedbyHorus, welcome to ES!
You joined us last month when many were questioning the registration process. Can you tell us how you got in I mean what steps you took? Tell us about it in the What's up w/t registration (link) thread?
Thanks.
Thanks Ardo! I was having a hard time getting registered, I kept emailing the site owner until my account got approved.
I always knew about ES and the many members on here like Al, Djehuti, Beyoku, Swenet, Zahara, Lioness, Jari, Clyde Winters. Poster Son of Ra was the one who invited me on here aftet he saw my postings on Nairaland and Coli. I hope to contribute to this site.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
"The Egyptian representations of Kush, at least on an official level, tended to portray them as more tribal, more savage. So it was really was a kind of racial profiling."
quote:Originally posted by Nebsen: Just got through watching "Rise Of The Black Pharaohs," I'll say this , that the production value was very high. They must have said Black Africans referring to the Kushites 7 to 10 times, making for sure that the audience separated the ancient Egyptians from the Kushites as Africans. They also made a big deal of the Kushites being subjugated by the ancient Egyptians thus setting up this hierarchy structure as overlords & the colonized , which is part of their history, but much more complex than this simple narrative. They also used this trope of the" Wretched Kush" to hang their narrative on which has been refuted by Dr. Mario Beatty which can be seen on You-Tube.
On the positive side, they made visible the The culture & history of Kush- Nubia, which is little known by the masses & their rule of the 25th dynasty . Also they lade bare the little known history of Taharqa & the rescue of Jerusalem which is a first for a documentary of any kind to my knowledge, which might open up for a film later, who knows. Also they had 2 Sudanese archaeologist which was great to see among a sea of white archaeologist. It is well worth seeing & maybe even owning this National Geographic DVD production, which had many flaws ; which they need to be made aware of by us, the viewing public. What I did find very ironic was at the begging of this documentary, they gave the history of archeology in the Sudan starting with George Reisner & labeling him a " racist " when this documentary is doing the same, but on a different sophisticated level !
What do you think ?
Wow... They actually mentioned the Kush rescue of Jerusalem????
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
"The Egyptian representations of Kush, at least on an official level, tended to portray them as more tribal, more savage. So it was really was a kind of racial profiling."
The ancient Egyptians did this with all their enemies, be they Kushites, or Asians it's called propagandizing. But N. G. wants you to think they only did it with the Kushites because they were "Black Africans"
Posts: 135 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
Around 800 BC, Kush, a little-known subject state of Egypt, rose up and conquered Egypt, enthroned its own Pharaohs and ruled for nearly 100 years. This unlikely chapter of history has been buried by the Egyptians and was belittled by early archaeologists, who refused to believe that dark-skinned Africans could have risen so high. Now, in the heart of Sudan, archeologists are finding indisputable evidence of an advanced African society with powerful armies, vast reach and spiritually-driven imperial aspirations to rival the Egyptians.
First time I watch it I'm going to mute the sound and read the closed captions to judge the script/screenplay for what it says without pitch pause emphasis etc adding their meaning to the words. Bet I'll get two different impressions of the material.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story of the so-called "Black Pharaohs" is well known. But it is misleading in that there were ALWAYS "black pharaohs" in various dynasties. The "spin" with many is to try to "confine" them to the 25th Dynasty. It is the role of ES among other venues, to continue setting the record straight, and we don;t need "validation" from white anthro websites to do so.
What some also miss is that Kush did not suddenly assume importance only around the 25th Dynasty time. To the contrary, Kush almost destroyed a good slice of Egypt centuries earlier, a secret ancient Egyptian propagandists downplayed. Per Myra's site: ----------------------------------------------
The Times (London) July 28, 2003, Monday Byline: Dalya Alberge
Dalya Alberge reports on how details of crushing defeat by another Nile superpower were kept hidden.
Ancient Egyptians "airbrushed" out of history one of their most humiliating defeats in battle, academics believe.
In what the British Museum described as the discovery of a lifetime, a 3,500-year-old inscription shows that the Sudanese kingdom of Kush came close to destroying its northern neighbour.
The revelation is contained in 22 lines of sophisticated hieroglyphics deciphered by Egyptologists from the British Museum and Egypt after their discovery in February in a richly decorated tomb at El Kab, near Thebes, in Upper Egypt.
Vivian Davies, Keeper of the museum's Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, said: "In many ways this is the discovery of a lifetime, one that changes the textbooks. "We're absolutely staggered by it."
The inscription details previously unknown important battles unprecedented "since the time of the god" the beginning of time. Experts now believe that the humiliation of defeat was one that the Ancient Egyptians preferred to omit from their historical accounts. Contemporary Egyptian descriptions had led historians to assume that the kingdom of Kush was a weak and barbaric neighbouring state for hundreds of years, although it boasted a complex society with vast resources of gold dominating the principal trade routes into the heart of Africa. It did eventually conquer Egypt, in the 8th century BC.
Mr. Davies, who headed the joint British Museum and Egyptian archaeological team, said: "Now it is clear that Kush was a superpower which had the capacity to invade Egypt. It was a huge invasion, one that stirred up the entire region, a momentous event that is previously undocumented.
"They swept over the mountains, over the Nile, without limit. This is the first time we've got evidence. Far from Egypt being the supreme power of the Nile Valley, clearly Kush was at that time.
"Had they stayed to occupy Egypt, the Kushites might have eliminated it. That's how close Egypt came to extinction. But the Egyptians were resilient enough to survive, and shortly afterwards inaugurated the great imperial age known as the New Kingdom. The Kushites weren't interested in occupation. They went raiding for precious objects, a symbol of domination. They did a lot of damage."
The inscription was found between two internal chambers in a rock-cut tomb that was covered in soot and dirt. It appeared gradually as the grime was removed.
Mr. Davies said: "I thought it would be a religious text, but it turned out to be historical. Gradually, a real narrative emerged, a brand new text inscribed in red paint, reading from right to left."
The tomb belonged to Sobeknakht, a Governor of El Kab, an important provincial capital during the latter part of the 17th Dynasty (about 1575-1550 BC).
The inscription describes a ferocious invasion of Egypt by armies from Kush and its allies from the south, including the land of Punt, on the southern coast of the Red Sea. It says that vast territories were affected and describes Sobeknakht's heroic role in organising a counter-attack.
The text takes the form of an address to the living by Sobeknakht: "Listen you, who are alive upon earth . . . Kush came . . . aroused along his length, he having stirred up the tribes of Wawat . . . the land of Punt and the Medjaw . . ." It describes the decisive role played by "the might of the great one, Nekhbet", the vulture-goddess of El Kab, as "strong of heart against the Nubians, who were burnt through fire", while the "chief of the nomads fell through the blast of her flame".
The discovery explains why Egyptian treasures, including statues, stelae and an elegant alabaster vessel found in the royal tomb at Kerma, were buried in Kushite tombs: they were war trophies.
Mr. Davies said: "That has never been properly explained before. Now it makes sense. It's the key that unlocks the information. Now we know they were looted trophies, symbols of these kings' power over the Egyptians. Each of the four main kings of Kush brought back looted treasures."
The alabaster vessel is contemporary with the latter part of the 17th Dynasty. It bears a funerary text "for the spirit of the Governor, Hereditary Prince of Nekheb, Sobeknakht". Now it is clear that it was looted from Sobeknakht's tomb, or an associated workshop, by the Kushite forces and taken back to Kerma, where it was buried in the precincts of the tomb of the Kushite king who had led or inspired the invasion.
The El Kab tomb was looted long ago, probably in antiquity. There is more to investigate at the enormous site and the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt is now making such work a priority.
A 17th dynasty inscription found three months ago in Upper Egypt uncovered a critical and previously unknown Kushite attack on Egypt. Nevine El-Aref relates the discovery
Click to view caption A restorer cleaning the newly discovered inscription; a funerary scene of Elkabe's governor Sobeknakht
During the 19th century boom in Egyptian archaeology the tomb of Elkab's 17th-dynasty governor Sobeknakht was discovered. Though its whereabouts were published it was subsequently neglected. Until recently it continued to sit undisturbed upon the cliffs overlooking the Nile south of Luxor, accrued grime and soot obscuring many of its internal inscriptions. Only this year have the tomb's soiled walls been cleaned to reveal an inscription relating a hitherto unknown Kushite raid upon Egypt that has been abuzz with superlatives and speculation among Egyptologists.
Earlier this year a number of British and Egyptian conservators under the aegis of the British Museum began work at the tomb in response to concerns about its deteriorating condition. In the process of cleaning the walls between the tomb's inner and outer chambers they stumbled upon an inscription believed to be the first evidence of a huge attack from the south on Elkab and Egypt by the Kingdom of Kush and its allies from the land of Punt, during the 17th dynasty (1575-1525 BC). The newly discovered inscription is a biographical text painted in 22 horizontal red hieroglyphic lines that narrate the Kushite attack on Egypt and Sobeknakht's successful counter- attack that expelled the invaders. "It is a very important military and religious inscription that was previously unknown," Culture Minister Farouk Hosni told Al Ahram Weekly and asserted that it is the most significant piece to emerge about the 17th dynasty since the famous Kamose stella, now on display at the Luxor museum.
Though Egyptologists had known that tension existed between the Kingdom of Kush, which lay along the Nile in present-day southern Sudan, and Egypt during the period in question, they had no evidence of the kind of clash reported by the inscription.
"This is completely unparalleled," affirmed Vivian Davies, who headed the mission, in an interview from London with the Weekly. Davies initially assumed that the inscription was a religious text because it was near the burial shaft where the spirit of the dead rose to begin its spiritual life. However, as conservators continued to clean the inscription it was clear that it was not a routine funerary text but a biographical text chronicling events from the life of the tomb's owner Sobeknakht.
The text recounts his role in the crisis, from his command to strengthen the defences of Elkab to his mustering of a force to combat the Nubians to his successful counter-attack southwards which destroyed an enemy force through the aid of Elkab's vulture-goddess Nekhbet. The inscription ends with an account of celebration in the presence of the Egyptian king, who is not identified by name, and of the temple of Nekhbet's endowment with a sacred boat.
Evidence corroborating the general scheme of these events have also recently been found in Sudan, where archchaeologists discovered a vessel that was once in Sobeknakht's tomb. Davies stated that this vessel proves that during the invasion Sobeknakht's tomb was already prepared for the old governor's death. Relatedly, early studies on the inscription revealed that it was a late addition to the tomb, as it was painted in red on the outer chamber, which, according to the Ancient Egyptian taboo, made it untouchable. Davies added that as the tomb's decorations were completely finished by the time of the Kushite attack the corridor between the two chambers was the only space left to record such an event.
Davies is not alone in his feeling that the inscription forces a reconsideration of Egyptian history. Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the supreme council of antiquities (SCA), stated that it sheds new light on the extent of Egypt's vulnerability during that period, when the native Upper-Egyptian 17th dynasty centred in Thebes was engaged in a war of independence against the Lower-Egyptian Hyksos who were based in Avaris in the Nile Delta.
"It was a pincer movements on Egypt," Hawass told the Weekly. He said that success by either Kush or Hyksos would have changed the face of Egypt, even up to the present day. Mamdouh El-Damadi, the director general of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, also emphasised how important the inscription is for understanding Kushite ambitions in Egypt. Davies chimed in on this point in stating, "We always thought that the Hyksos were the greatest of Egypt's enemy but Kush was as well." The defeat of the Kush-led invasion represented in Sobeknakht's tomb may come to be interpreted a critical event in Egypt's subsequent defeat of the Hyksos and expansion of its nascent empire into Palestine and Sudan.
The dramatic nature of this discovery begs the question of what revived interest in a site that was catalogued over a century ago and then essentially ignored.
Two years ago, as part of the Egypt and Sudan Department of the British Museum's substantial archaeological programme covering Nile Valley sites and monuments threatened by modern development or in dire need of conservation, Sobeknakht's tomb was finally put on a scientific agenda. Its inclusion in this programme is due to its distressing material condition and its status as the only surviving tomb datable to this crucial transitional period in Egypt's history.
"For us the tomb was like a patient in dire need of urgent care," said Lameya El-Hadidi, one of two Egyptian conservators on the British Museum team. After difficulties finding a solution that would clean the walls without damaging the inscriptions, the team finally settled on small pieces of cotton dampened with distilled water as the best option. However, El-Hadidi explained that the tomb was suffering from not only the accumulation of grime and soot but also from bat waste and bee hives. Among the other obstacles to the tomb's conservation were poor lighting and ventilation, with the effect of the latter being that the conservators were forced to breathe foul air peppered with dust and bat excrement. However, the fruits harvested of this labour went beyond the discovery of the inscription discussed above.
El-Hadidi confirmed that, "what made us put behind our fatigue was the beautiful illustrations that appeared piece by piece while cleaning."
Scenes featuring Sobeknakht with his children and wife were among the iconic ornamentation found. A number of monkeys, some in symbolically erotic poses, are also engraved on the tomb's walls.
A particularly striking scene shows monkeys sitting on the offering table eating the deceased's food.
"It is a cheeky scene," Davies told the Weekly, suggesting that the tomb's artist had a unique sense of humour.
-------------------- 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
Ps. the PBS title is simply outrageous and ridiculous. What are they implying?
Chronology and:
The Khormusan: Evidence for an MSA East African industry in Nubia
quote:
There is clear evidence of lithic technological variability in Middle Paleolithic (MP) assemblages along the Nile valley and in adjacent desert areas. One of the identified variants is the Khormusan, the type-site of which, Site 1017, is located north of the Nile's Second Cataract. The industry has two distinctive characteristics that set it apart from other MP industries within its vicinity. One is the use of a wide variety of raw materials; the second is an apparent correlation between raw material and technology used, suggesting a cultural aspect to raw material management. Stratigraphically, site 1017 is situated within the Dibeira-Jer formation which represents an aggradation stage of the Nile and contains sediments originating from the Ethiopian Highlands. While it has previously been suggested that the site dates to sometime before 42.5 ka, the Dibeira-Jer formation can plausibly be correlated with Nile alluvial sediments in northern Sudan recently dated to 83 ± 24 ka (MIS 5a). This stage coincides with the 81 ka age of sapropel S3, indicating higher Nile flow and stronger monsoon rainfall at these times.
Other sites which reflect similar raw material variability and technological traditions are the BNS and KHS sites in the Omo Kibish Formation (Ethiopia) dated to ∼100 ka and ∼190 ka respectively. Based on a lithic comparative study conducted, it is suggested that site 1017 can be seen as representing behavioral patterns which are indicative of East African Middle Stone Age (MSA) technology, adding support to the hypothesis that the Nile Valley was an important dispersal route used by modern humans prior to the long cooling and dry trend beginning with the onset of MIS 4. Techo-typological comparison of the assemblages from the Khormusan sites with other Middle Paleolithic sites from Nubia and East Africa is used to assess the possibility of tracing the dispersal of technological traits across the landscape and through time.
--Mae Goder-Goldberger
Quaternary International 25 June 2013, Vol.300:182–194, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.11.031 The Middle Palaeolithic in the Desert
posted
Yeah where did they get this tanning nonsense from? I never even heard of it in none of the Ancient Egyptian books I read.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
the lioness, what is the source of this National Geographic modified/fake front page with the tanning thing?
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why r u ppl so gullible? u been had u been took Like you guys don't know tL's M.O. by now
None of them resemble the numerous AE renditions that all, more or less, have the same simultude.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is only one type of 'indigenous' Nile Valley African, both now and 3,000 years ago and that is the black Nile Valley African. Immigrants from Sumeria, the Levant and elsewhere are not 'indigenous' Nile Valley Africans and neither are their offspring. Therefore, if the Egyptians are equally indigenous Nile Valley Africans as were those populations to their immediate South, then how can one population be 'black' and the other 'not black'? Meaning how can they have such an extreme dichotomy in features, where one group represents some of the darkest people on earth, being literally jet black, while the other population is just the opposite but extremely light. But somehow we are supposed to believe that they are 'equally' indigenous? That is B.S.
It isn't even possible UNLESS you base it on a massive immigration of foreigners from elsewhere, which no biologist, anthropologist or archaeologist to date has been able to prove. But that means nothing, these clowns will still speak of the 'white pharoahs' as if it is a given fact, not bothering to explain how on earth this could happen in such a arid sub tropical environment, to which these people are 'natives'.
There are no facts to support this idea of the 'white pharoahs' so they just make up facts to suit their agenda, which is pretty much what Egyptology has been since the very beginning. At this point it is obvious that it is created to lie and distort as opposed to presenting facts and truth, primarily to a European audience no less. That is why most of these documentaries and reenactments and movies are all primarily for the European and American market, not Egyptian or Sudanese markets. Now how funny is that, when the natives of the area are not part of the market for this "history" whereas people thousands of miles away are the primary target. That right there proves the whole point.
Now consider that the oldest remains and oldest examples of human settlement in the Nile Valley are in the South of the Nile. Including the latest discovery of a 70,000 year old settlement in Sudan. So given all of that, where on earth did these 'white pharoahs' come from? Surely they didn't didn't originate in the South with these 'wretched negroes' that white European archaeologists like to talk about so much.
Not only does this again refute this idea of non African origins of Nile Valley populations, but the whole idea that the patterns of civilization based on the evolution of fixed human settlement patterns is 'foreign' to Africa.....
quote: Archaeologists from the 'Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology' in Poznań, unearthed the remains of a settlement provisionally estimated to be 70,000 years old. Previously it was believed that permanent structures were associated with the exodus from Africa and the consequent occupation of regions in Europe and Asia. The position of the site, lithic artefacts collected in 2003, freshness, refittings and dispersion of the artefacts all suggest that it was a late Middle Palaeolithic workshop used intermittently and for short periods.
All aspects of 'modern' human behavior originated in Africa from thinking, writing, math and everything else.
But of course leave it to the white Europeans to pretend otherwise even though 'white people' haven't been on earth more than 10,000 years while black Africans have been around for 200,000.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: There is only one type of 'indigenous' Nile Valley African, both now and 3,000 years ago and that is the black Nile Valley African. Immigrants from Sumeria, the Levant and elsewhere are not 'indigenous' Nile Valley Africans and neither are their offspring. Therefore, if the Egyptians are equally indigenous Nile Valley Africans as were those populations to their immediate South, then how can one population be 'black' and the other 'not black'? Meaning how can they have such an extreme dichotomy in features, where one group represents some of the darkest people on earth, being literally jet black, while the other population is just the opposite but extremely light. But somehow we are supposed to believe that they are 'equally' indigenous? That is B.S.
"white" and "black" are not current anthroplogically valid terms. They are social constucts as whites are not really white and most blacks are brown. Nevertheless lokking at these pharoahs below it makes one question your assumptions
a) "the Egyptians are equally indigenous Nile Valley Africans "
and
b) " There is only one type of 'indigenous' Nile Valley African, both now and 3,000 years ago "
And these statements are also a problem looking at modern populations
I mean look at the variation here>
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
It isn't even possible UNLESS you base it on a massive immigration of foreigners from elsewhere, which no biologist, anthropologist or archaeologist to date has been able to prove. But that means nothing, these clowns will still speak of the 'white pharoahs' as if it is a given fact, not bothering to explain how on earth this could happen in such a arid sub tropical environment, to which these people are 'natives'.
There are no facts to support this idea of the 'white pharoahs'
National Geographic doesn't use the term "white pharoahs". If you want to talk about somebody referring to the ancient Egyptians as "white" you need to have a quote of them saying that otherwise it's a straw man. When they came out calling the Nubians "Black" that doesn't mean the Egyptians were "white" because the world is not comprised of only "black" and "white". What they were saying is less specific. They were implying the pharoahs were not black, that doesn't necessarily mean "white". I'm not saying that is right or wrong. It's just that it's incorrect to say that the term "white pharoahs" is being promoted.
Neverthless I think the Nat Geo magazine cover "The Black Pharoahs" on Nubians is wrong because they haven't proven that all the Egyptian pharoahs the vast majority not Nubian were non-blacks.
I suppose their proposal is that either brown skinned people from the Middle East founded Egyptian civilization or that some indigenous Africans are not "black" Neither case is proven Again if you want to make a case against Nat Geo, you need quotes, I am assuming also here
Setting the case of African albinos aside, are there any indigenous Africans that aren't black? It's an interesting question to ponder (question open to Blacks only, thanks)
It can't be answered scientifically becuase the term is not scientifically valid The answer is mythological
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: "white" and "black" are not current anthroplogically valid terms. They are social constucts as whites are not really white and most blacks are brown...
Nobody ever said 'white' and 'black' were scientifically valid terms in the first place, so why bother with this idiotic straw man?? Even though such color labels are indeed social constructs, it obviously irks you that the ancient Egyptians would indeed be labeled as 'black' under modern Western definitions.
quote:Nevertheless looking at these pharoahs below it makes one question your assumptions
a) "the Egyptians are equally indigenous Nile Valley Africans "
and
b) " There is only one type of 'indigenous' Nile Valley African, both now and 3,000 years ago "
And these statements are also a problem looking at modern populations
I mean look at the variation here>
Judging by the pictures (as well as skeletal remains from the region), the only assumption by Doug that is questionable is the second one (b). As far as the first assumption (a) how do those pictures cast doubt on them being equally indigenous??! Even the more 'Caucasoid' looking Ramses II was shown to likely have E1b1a judging by the findings of his son Ramses III relating him to West Africans, and Seti I is Ramses II father as well! LOL
quote:National Geographic doesn't use the term "white pharoahs". If you want to talk about somebody referring to the ancient Egyptians as "white" you need to have a quote of them saying that otherwise it's a straw man. When they came out calling the Nubians "Black" that doesn't mean the Egyptians were "white" because the world is not comprised of only "black" and "white". What they were saying is less specific. They were implying the pharoahs were not black, that doesn't necessarily mean "white". I'm not saying that is right or wrong. It's just that it's incorrect to say that the term "white pharoahs" is being promoted.
Nat Geo does not need to use the term "white pharaohs" because it is implicitly understood by many (erroneously) that the ancient Egyptians were white! Hence the many illustrations or rather renditions of wall paintings depicting them as white even though the wall paintings show them to be much darker. You are obviously being disingenuous since everyone familiar with Nat Geo knows that they have integrity issues when it comes to the portrayal of the ancient Egyptians!
quote:Neverthless I think the Nat Geo magazine cover "The Black Pharoahs" on Nubians is wrong because they haven't proven that all the Egyptian pharoahs the vast majority not Nubian were non-blacks.
Whatever.
quote: I suppose their proposal is that either brown skinned people from the Middle East founded Egyptian civilization or that some indigenous Africans are not "black" Neither case is proven Again if you want to make a case against Nat Geo, you need quotes, I am assuming also here
Setting the case of African albinos aside, are there any indigenous Africans that aren't black? It's an interesting question to ponder
It can't be answered scientifically becuase the term is not scientifically valid The answer is mythological
I already answered about Nat Geo. The funny thing is that Nat Geo takes up the position of Hawass that the Egyptians were indigenous Africans but "different from" 'sub-Saharans' a.k.a. "true blacks". This is why Egyptsearch and all her daughter sites and blogs represent the ultimate threat to Nat Geo's reputation. I now agree with Explorer that ever since we vets in Egyptsearch began the attack on the false doctrine of Ancient Egypt's portrayal, Nat Geo has been back-tracking, tip-toeing, and spinning like silly, since they are being bombarded with the evidence we present here all the time!
Of course you are just a disingenuous troll/spy posing as black poster serving Mathilda or some other Euronut. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In light of the apparent high degree of variation in the appearance of the Pharaohs (excluding late periods) it seems that the diversity of indigenous Nile Valley Africans is not enough to account for it. The diversity of Africa is much greater than the diversity of Nile Valley Africans.
Ramesses II
Amenhotep II
^^^ these are both deep rooted indigenous Nile Valley Africans? How could there be that much variation in that one region?
posted
^ Because it's Africa, dummy!! Don't you know that Africans possess the greatest genetic diversity therefore it's not difficult for one region of Africa to have phenotypic diversity as well.
You realize that even in prehistoric Sudan there is a diversity of phenotypes yet NON have to do with Eurasian input. In fact, Swenet is discussing this in the Facebook Group.
Note that as far south as Tanzania, there are phenotypes that range from stereotypically "negro" to "Hamitic/Caucasoid" yet there is virtually no Eurasian lineages among them.
Of course you know all this but choose to act ignorance, for what reason I suppose to trick the novice and ignorant. Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I keep mistaking the King Usimara Ramses III of the 20th dynasty with Prince Ramses III of the 19th dynasty. My bad.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troll Patrol sez: Ps. the PBS title is simply outrageous and ridiculous. What are they implying? [Frown]
^^lol we know exactly what they are implying -- that "black" is somehow "foreign" to the Nile Valley. This is nonsense. Its like the title of D. Redford's book: "From Slave to Pharaoh: The Black Experience in Ancient Egypt."
Some of these Eurocentric scholars or media people may not be motivated by racial animus. Redford is a solid guy who has in some work given a fair shake to a more balanced picture of African bio-history. But too often even such are marred or are captive to dubious assumptions and easy, unspoken assumptions that distort, downplay and misrepresent the black heritage- so that any connection with advanced or more elaborate cultural developments is "spun" or implied as due to some "outside" force, or is "foreign."
But whether inadvertent, or deliberate, makes no diff. There is no need to talk about any "black experience" in Egypt- for blacks have been there since the beginning. "The Black Experience" is "the Egyptian experience."
And we don't need "permission" or "clearance" from today's Egyptians, or assorted Eurocentrics to embrace or study that.
Likewise the notion of a "rise of Black Pharaohs" is equally misleading. Black Pharaohs have been around from the early eras. They are nothing new. They don't need to "rise" to anywhere. They were ALREADY IN PLACE, in various eras.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Is no probs. Also your point with ES being a threat to Nat Geo is very true. ES has a VERY large influence than people know. Many sites know about ES and use its material on here. I can't tell you have many sites, because its so many.
This is why I love the information age.
Nat Geo can show/believe whatever they want. But uninformed laymen don't need them; if they are really vested they can educate themselves on the Ancient Egyptians with a single "click".
The internet in general is a threat to Nat Geo and Eurocentrism. They can't "contain" it. If it wasn't for the internet, I too would probably still think the Ancient Egyptians were wandering pale skinned Caucasoid.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything it is sensible students of Africa's Nile Valley that are doing justice to ALL the peoples of the Nile valley, not the selected, light-skinned ones anointed by modern Egyptians or the Euro establishment. It is they who have done justice to the oft airbrushed away, dark-skinned "sons of the soil." While such dark-skinned peoples are despised today in many Egyptian quarters, it is today's African students of the Nile Valley, who have maintained faith with them, showing a more balanced history, that includes, not excludes them.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Because it's Africa, dummy!! Don't you know that Africans possess the greatest genetic diversity therefore it's not difficult for one region of Africa to have phenotypic diversity as well.
You realize that even in prehistoric Sudan there is a diversity of phenotypes yet NON have to do with Eurasian input. In fact, Swenet is discussing this in the Facebook Group.
Note that as far south as Tanzania, there are phenotypes that range from stereotypically "negro" to "Hamitic/Caucasoid" yet there is virtually no Eurasian lineages among them.
Of course you know all this but choose to act ignorance, for what reason I suppose to trick the novice and ignorant. [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course you know all this but choose to act ignorance, for what reason I suppose to trick the novice and ignorant. [/QB]
I am not trying to trick anybody I am giving honest opinion
and unlike you I believe there ahould be diversity of opinion in the forum
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Because it's Africa, dummy!! Don't you know that Africans possess the greatest genetic diversity therefore it's not difficult for one region of Africa to have phenotypic diversity as well.
you need to go back and read what I said. I said the diversity of indigenous people in the Nile valley is not equivalent to the diversity of the whole of Africa and it is my honest opinion that the diversity in dynastic Egyptians is wider than Nile Valley diversity. And in saying this I didn't even mention Eurasia in my remarks. However there is any Eurasian input it is not clear how much. Brenna Henn, Joseph K. Pickrell and several other researchers in articles in recent years have been claiming to show evidence of back migration 3-12K or older into North and East Africa. I think that research is worth considering as possible. You think these people are Euronuts
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
You realize that even in prehistoric Sudan there is a diversity of phenotypes yet NON have to do with Eurasian input. In fact, Swenet is discussing this in the Facebook Group.
Note that as far south as Tanzania, there are phenotypes that range from stereotypically "negro" to "Hamitic/Caucasoid" yet there is virtually no Eurasian lineages among them
Again, in my previous post I had pointed out that I don't think the Nile Valley is as diverse in it's deeply rooted indigenous people as Africa is as a whole. You are the one you has brought up Eurasians and "Hamitic/caucsoid"
Every case mentioned of an ethnic group is a separte case. If there are Tanzanian groups with "Hamitic/Caucasoid" phenotypes but yet no significant Eurasin admixture you should be able to name them. If such groups exist in Tanzania or Sudan this does not mean one can make a blanket statement that there has been no significant Eurasian admixture in East or North Africa going back 3000 years or possibly further back 12K or further.
Changing to West Africa fo a minute, the presence of R1, the lineage V88 in Cameroon for instance is a mystery. To say that R1 originated in Africa does not seem reasonable since the dating doesn't seem to go back far enough. So if a researcher suggests that it may have been the result of a back migration does that mean they are a Euronut?
This is why I respect Amun Ra's opinion. If you read what he says he always leave room for doubt. He will say he believes something is probably true but there is a chance it might not be true. Other people take a dogmatic position. If not they will just remain silent on information that doesn't fit their agenda. On the other hand, like you he inflames people with name calling. Hopefully this can reduce under the new moderation
In my honest opinion the jury is still out on the ancestry of the dynastic Egyptians pending further more advanced DNA analysis as is being conducted on Tutankhamun and future analysis. At this point I see them, in the least, a large part indigenopus African. But it doesn't matter whta I or anybody else thinks. What matters is more thourogh genetic investigation.
Like I said the National Geographic title "Black Pharoahs" as only applied to Nubians is divisive and unfair. If I had been in charge the progam and magazine title would have been called the "Nubian Pharaohs" and the Tut reconstruction would have been of the complexion of the wood bust.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just curious, but what kind of African actors would you recommend for playing ancient Egyptians? All the recent talk about ancient substructure in the Nile Valley has made me question whether we'll ever find an extant African population whose phenotype perfectly matches the Egyptians, let alone one which has contributed a large number of A-list actors. Even the darker-skinned people in Upper Egypt today aren't all that pristine, and most modern Egyptian actors from what I've seen are not from that stock.
(Personally I wouldn't mind casting a wider net by hiring black actors who aren't necessarily Northeast African, in much the same way as someone might hire non-Scandinavian Europeans for a Viking movie. But I am curious as to what other people here would recommend.) [/QB]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: On the other hand, like you he inflames people with name calling. Hopefully this can reduce under the new moderation
Burying this here where I may not read, or even notice, it is counterproductive to your aim.
There are a slew of !sticky threads. One is especially designed to hi-lite abusive behaviors the group claims it wants to see no more of.
I say prove it. Broadcast it in the proper place where ES can know about it and I can then take care of it.
Trying to enjoy my festival. Don't have time to babysit.
Posts with name-calling, ONLY after the offended makes it plain to respect the name they're using, will be deleted.
Afaik, no one has disrespected me by continuing to name-call since I pleaded for it to cease last week, but as a reminder to all ↓ You put excellent on-topic material in such a post? Too bad, so sad. That won't get ya a free pass to sling hash nor save your entire post from the axe.
Respect moderation.
Better go now and repost it clean.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Ardo, is the Nile Valley forum still active?? I would like to post some new stuff there as well.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Something weird is going on there right now. GOOGLE caches are available but not the real pages.
To get to the pages for now you have to click the last down pointing little green triangle next line down from the normal link line.
I was just there Tuesday trimming trash and saw some of our newer ES members had joined. G-d bless them!! I will try to be more attentive to TNV but I am having problems with permissions and usergroups. TNV is set up to filter spam into the General folder but allow known responsible users to post everywhere.
Anytime we all decide to we can migrate to ESR (forgiving) and TNV (stringent) and still have the same crowd posting.
Although neither place is owned (meaning the server) by none of us there's no concern for axemen disrespecting your hard work.
There is no guarantee your stuff won't get axed here at ES. We all know and have felt that pain, even very recently.
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I just want to post some great info from research I've done. So long as I don't get flack for it, I don't care.
Posts: 26243 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
what's the story behind that one? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic