quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: The Hyksos took over part of Egypt around 1640 B.C. for about 100 years.
Tutankhamun's reign started 400 years later 1332 BC but prior to the late period invasions beginning much later with the Assyrians in 671 BC. Therefore those later nvasions are irrelevant to Tutankhmun
There is no historical evidence Tutankhamun was of Hyksos descent or partial Hyksos descent.
"Even before the [Hyksos] migration, Amenemhat III carried out extensive building works and mining, and Gae Callender notes that "the large intake of Asiatics, which seems to have occurred partly in order to subsidize the extensive building work, may have encouraged the so-called Hyksos to settle in the Delta, thus leading eventually to the collapse of native Egyptian rule." - Callender, Gae, "The Middle Kingdom Renaissance," in Ian Shaw, ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2003. p. 157.
It looks like a couple of centuries before the Hyksos invasion, large numbers of Asiatics had already settled into the north-eastern Nile Delta region. [/QB]
1) That doesn't prove Tutankhmun was related to the Hyksos or tha the average Egyptian had Hyksos admixture
2) The origin of the Hyksos is not even known
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lol. I'm having a hard time integrating all this "European Tut" stuff into a coherent picture. There is no new blood in Tut other than the blood that was in his line two/three generations before him; all his alleles were inherited from Amenhotep III, Thuya and Yuya (respectively, grandparent and great grandparents). In other words, his mother and father have the same parents (there is no new source of genes from his mother or father that wasn't already in his line), which means that Tut is Amenhotep III+Tiye, genetically speaking, just like his mother and father.
That means no leeway for a "mysterious European" ancestor in his immediate tree that would justify separating Tut from his immediate dolichocephalic ancestors, some of whom were listed by your own source as being dolichocephalic (i.e. Yuya reportedly had a CI of 70.3).
quote:Originally posted by Gor: There is no recorded African population with a mean brachycephalic CI index, it would also be very rare to find a living African individual with Tut's CI (83.9).
quote:Originally posted by Gor: KV55's post-cranial measurements have been known for some time:
"If the brachial (radio-humeral) and crural (tibio-femoral) indices are calculated for these remains, they are found to measure 75.1 and 82.6 respectively. These values, and the lengths of the humerus and femur, agree very closely with data presented for male American whites by Krogman in 1955." (Harrison, 1966) [/QB]
See table 1. It is only Tut and KV55 who have most of the pathologies in combination pointing to Loeys-Dietz syndrome.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
Upon looking at the documents again, the authors (Harris and Wente) either employ a definition of cranial index I've never heard of, or the definition they provide suffers from a typo. Not sure which, but until the CIs I listed can be shown to be reproducible, I'm viewing all New Kingdom CI data as suspect, including Hawass'.
The reports are all over the place:
quote:The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty. What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has examined.
It turns out, having looked at Grafton Elliot Smith's data, those statistics must be for the cranial-height-length index. Yea, they made a mistake calling this "cranial index".
They're mostly mesocephalic to brachycephalic. However this idiot doesn't provide the actual source from Smith, so this could be wrong also.
I think he also + 1 to each grade because the mummies have flesh on them, so dolichocephalic is 76 and not 75 as it normally would be on a skull (for the living it is usually + 2). However the +1 just further complicates.
Yes, someone for certain needs to dig up better sources on all these.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^I was just about to post that. A potential explanation for these disparate findings is that the dolichocephalic camp (e.g. Harris et al) never took measurements but just observed the general shape of their heads. Support for this can be seen in the fact that most ancient Egyptian brachycephals aren't short headed. Early researchers noted that there was a change between the predynastic and the early dynastic in cranial breadth alone, but not cranial length, and that this increased CI. Logically, this would increase CI, without affecting the shape of their heads in lateral view.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You people make me dizzy,you constantly contradict yourselves ,okay i will wait for you to play catch up,after making this last post, 1) THE HYKSOS WERE NOT WEST-ASIAN SEMITES OR INDO-EUROPIANS,THE HYKSOS WERE BANTU BLACK CANAANITES. These bantu black canaanites entered egypt escaping semitic expansion from canaan.The expanding semites were edomites(modern palestinians&lebanese),moabites&ammonites(modern jordanians),ishmaelites&midianites(saudi arabians)and later hebrews coming from egypt.All these semitic nations came from syria.All bantus came from canaan,that is why bantus have dog totems,crocodile totems and snake totems.ancient canaanite basket and pottery is similar to bantu pottery&baskets,ancient canaanite walls,e.g wall of jericho and wall of jerusalem,is similar to bantu walls e.g benin wall and great zimbabwe.sickle cell anaemia(benin type)which is a bantu desease is also found in jordanians,labanese and palestians,WHY?Because they used to border these bantu canaanites and evantually cast them out of their land.Older clades of y Haplogroup E,e.g E1 and E2 which is also associated with bantus, is also found in low frequency outside africa,especially in jordanians,lebanese,syrians,palestians WHY?because in ancient times they used to border these bantu canaanites. 2)RAMASES HAD HYKSOS(BANTU ANCESTRY) BUT NOT KING TUT,TUTANKAMUN HAD A SOUTH NILOTIC(WASETIAN/THEBAN) ANCESTRY. Pharaoh ramases and and pentawere had hyksos ancestry,thats why both of their names sound bantu.Also they had bantu Y DNA E3a(E1b1a).BUT I can bet all i have,if they are willing to conduct a DNA test on TUT,that his Y DNA will turn up south nilotic either B2a(B-M160)or E-V68 or E-M78(v12). All egyptian queen mothers and official queens e.g queen tiye had wasetian ancestry and came from nekhen or thebes.queen tiye,hatshepsut were south nilotic but other other queens like nefertiti had south bantu ancestry.queen NEFERTITI,her name in bantu is pronounced NIFURA-TITI or NIFURAHA-TITI meaning 'exceeding joy' or ;joyful breasts'.The mtDNA of queen tiye is most probably south nilotic i.e mtDNA L3x or LOa.The mtDNA of Queen nefertiti is most likely mtDNA L3e or L2a,a southern bantu woman. I don't give a ****,if all of you self contradicting retards take me serious or not,somewhere in the future,truth will come out and i will be like'i told you so'.i speak 15 african languages,most of my research is rooted in linguistics.i will wait for YOU dumb asses to play catch up.see you all AFTER TWO YEARS.Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
ONE LAST thing,ramases father was of hyksos ancestry,that is why he was called SETI 1,we all these bantu hyksos adopted egyptian dog deity SET,The name SETI means'he of seti).modern egyptologists make me sick.The egyptian term TA-SETI does not mean 9 bows,TA-SETI means 'she-of seti',and it is an egyptian term for hyksos bantus who settled in aswan area(syene) and who worshiped SETI(SETH).'TA' is a proto-kalenjin,proto-egyptian term used to denote tribe or large groups who of people/nation.e.g The hyksos who were of Amorite extract were known as TA-MERU and not TA-MERI,the term TA-MERU means 'she-of AMERU'.AMERU=AMORITES.That is why studies need to be conducted on kenyan MERU people who claim migration from ancient MEROE(MERU),after escaping colonisation from red people who wore red clothes(romans).The difference between hyksos bantus ta-seti and hyksos bantu ta-meru,is that Ta-meru were allied to egyptians(proto-kalenjin Rmt)and worshiped proto-kalenjin deities e.g RA (Ruwa),ISIS(Asiis),HATHOR(yator/teta),AMUN(AMONI/AMANI/IMANA).ON the other hand TA-SETI bantus were allied to Kushites(western nilotes).
Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
A group of Asiatic peoples (perhaps the future Hyksos) depicted entering Egypt c.1900 BC from the tomb of a 12th Dynasty official Khnumhotep II under pharaoh Senusret II at Beni Hasan.
Builders reused this painted relief block in the foundation of Ramesses IV's mortuary temple, subsequently excavated by the Metropolitan Museum. In the relief, western Asian soldiers are shown being trampled under the horses that pull the royal chariot, signaling the foreigners' defeat in battle by the might of the Egyptian pharaoh. When the piece was excavated, this and another fragment of a battle scene (13.180.22) were dated to the reign of Ramesses II. A recent study of their stylistic and iconographic features, however, has caused scholars to redate them earlier, probably to the reign of Amenhotep II. This redating indicates that by the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty, monumental battle scenes had become part of the decorative scheme of a temple's exterior walls.
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
i am talking about these black bantu canaanites that entered egypt as hyksos.
Those pictures you posted are not of HYKSOS,which is pronounced as KESWET in proto-egyptian/proto-kalenjin cursive meaning 'abandoned house'.their term for 'refugee'. Those pictures you posted are of AAMU(semites),most probably desert dwelling Ishmaelites and midianites who traded with egypt,or edomites,or maybe TA-SHEMU(hebrews),TA-SHEMU means in kalenjin 'she-of shem'.Thats how jews were called in egypt.
Both hyksos(bantus) and SEA-PEOPLE(Amhara hittites)were black people. i made my point see you after two years.probably by then truth will be out.
Posts: 306 | From: Kenya | Registered: Dec 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I also noticed the problem with the CI noted in the X-Ray atlas. I tried contacting Edward Wente early this year at the Oriental Institute to see if he could clarify, but no joy. He apparently left in the mid-90's.
Looking at Cass's source, I'm surprised that, at 76.5%, Thutmosis III isn't, technically speaking, dolichocephlic.
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by LEDAMA: i am talking about these black bantu canaanites that entered egypt as hyksos.
Both hyksos(bantus) and SEA-PEOPLE(Amhara hittites)were black people. i made my point see you after two years.probably by then truth will be out.
Why would the Hyksos be bantu specifcially?
So who are the Egyptians then? Not bantu?
Are they Nilotic?
Stop being arrogant like you know everything. You say the bible is the key to history, pride is one of the sins. It's only your interpretation that certain things in the bible match artifacts. You can't prove those connections they are guesses of yours.
^^ You put this up but didn't indicate the first one is not Asiatic, it's Kushite. Did you know that?
Second head is a Syro-Palestinian
Third and fourth have the headband and hair drawn back, possibly Shasu bedouin Zero evidence they are Caananites in particular Fragment of painted plaster from the tomb of Sebekhotep From Thebes, Egypt 18th Dynasty, around 1400 BC Syrians presenting exotic vessels and tribute
Fragment of painted plaster from the tomb of Sebekhotep From Thebes, Egypt 18th Dynasty, around 1400 BC An Asiatic with horses
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Based on the physical characters of the skull, I concluded that this was the skull of a male older than 15 but less than 21, and likely in the 18-20 year range and of African ancestry
But then, rather unfortunately, added:
quote: possibly north african. The possibly north african came mostly from the shape of the face including the narrow nose opening, that is not entirely consistent with an 'African' designation.
Huh??
quote:Tut's head was a bit of a conundrum, but, as you note, there is a huge range of variation in modern humans from any area, so for me the skull overall, including aspects of the face, spoke fairly strongly of his African origins
But again:
quote: - the nose was a bit unusual.
Then, with reference to skin tone, which was apparently based on a modern Egyptian average:
quote:I think,however, it would have been as accurate to have had the same facial reconstruction with either a lighter tone or a darker tone to the skin.
That's quite strange given that Keita quote:
"Cosmopolitan northern Egypt is less likely to have a population representative of the core indigenous population of the most ancient times."
Anyway, the main point to take away is that:
quote:the skull overall, including aspects of the face spoke fairly strongly of his African origins
posted
You can make that North African and Sub-Saharan divide on Tut based on the mean frequency of certain cranial dimensions or traits. You could take this further and then split Sub-Sahara up and so on. But there is no real "African" in any skeletal sense, because as noted you could have North Africa vs. Sub-Saharan African. As Brace wrote in 1995: "region does not mean race".
There's a lot of hypocrisy on this forum from posters like Zaharan who think there is some sort of "African" morphological cluster but who criticize the old Caucasoid-Negroid-Mongoloid typology. Neither are correct. Populations exist with different frequencies of traits, which infer different geographical ('racial') ancestry. But you can have any regions. This is why Hierneux opted to study small populations such as tribes.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: So when Anton used the term 'African' (making the distinction with 'North African' based on his nose)what do you think she meant?
What do you think she's trying to get across with use of the term 'African'?
By 'African' I presume they mean Sub-Saharan (since they are contrasting to North-African).
This divide is no more real though than putting them together. The idea of them together is rooted in political Pan-Africanism, which mostly seems to come from African-American posters (most the crowd at ES-reloaded) with serious issues. This even shows sometimes in Keita with his "Africanoid" agenda.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
By 'African' I presume they mean Sub-Saharan (since they are contrasting to North-African).
Yeah, that would be it.
quote: This divide is no more real though than putting them together. The idea of them together is rooted in political Pan-Africanism, which mostly seems to come from African-American posters (most the crowd at ES-reloaded) with serious issues. This even shows sometimes in Keita with his "Africanoid" agenda.
Following on from Anton's conclusion that "the skull overall, including aspects of the face spoke fairly strongly of his African origins", what do you think ideas of a white/Caucasian Tutankhamun are rooted in?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
Which limb studies state that Ramses II does not match with other Africans? Also in your link the argument they suggest is that Ramses like other Egyptians(and Africans) dyed his hair red via henna. But more importantly Ramses having natural red hair has been debunked numerous times. But more importantly a widely known X-Ray study done on both 19th Dynasty(Ramses II dynasty) and 20th Dynasty:
quote:The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty.
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.
James Harris from Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980)
So I'm curious to know which study states Ramses II and his dynasty does not match with other Africans?
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
Further evidence that dismiss Ramses having natural red hair(which the gene would not had been suitable for such environment), but instead dyed it red:
quote:SOME GENETIC FEATURES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
As part of research conducted by the Cairo University in collaboration with the Higher Council of Antiquities, it has been possible to achieve the anthropological characteristics of the Pharaohs.
According to preliminary indications, we reached a number of traits of the Pharaohs. It was possible to identify genes for size, color and eye color and hair of the king in the Pharaonic era in which samples were collected. They were placed on mummies in sarcophagi. A group of researchers has been able to separate those genes that have proven that the ancient Egyptians were not taller as previously thought. Their size was rather average, with the exception of Ramses II, whose analysis of genes has proven to be cut.
It has also been demonstrated that his skin was brown and his hair was black, not red. The color red has been found on his mummy is due to a dye (probably henna). His eyes were black with a slight tinge of brown.
Amenhotep III was short of stature, the color of his skin was a light brown. His eyes and his hair was black dark. These features show that the kings were related. All the kings at that time had a common origin in the family tree of the royal family. It is possible to determine a precise dates and times in the future. This research will confirm certain anthropological traits that have been studied before on the Pharaonic mummies. This will give preliminary indications about the traits, diseases and characteristics of the Pharaohs.
Letter from Cairo
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
LEDAMA "Those pictures you posted are not of HYKSOS,which is pronounced as KESWET in proto-egyptian/proto-kalenjin cursive meaning 'abandoned house'.their term for 'refugee'. Those pictures you posted are of AAMU(semites),most probably desert dwelling Ishmaelites and midianites who traded with egypt,or edomites,or maybe TA-SHEMU(hebrews),TA-SHEMU means in kalenjin 'she-of shem'.Thats how jews were called in egypt.
Both hyksos(bantus) and SEA-PEOPLE(Amhara hittites)were black people. i made my point see you after two years.probably by then truth will be out. "
Very interesting. Thanks LEDAMA.
Posts: 2021 | From: Miami | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: [QB] @Gor
Further evidence that dismiss Ramses having natural red hair(which the gene would not had been suitable for such environment), but instead dyed it red: [QUOTE]SOME GENETIC FEATURES OF ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
As part of research conducted by the Cairo University in collaboration with the Higher Council of Antiquities, it has been possible to achieve the anthropological characteristics of the Pharaohs.
Dans le cadre des recherches effectuées par l’Université du Caire en collaboration avec le Conseil Supérieur des Antiquités, il a été possible de parvenir aux caractéristiques anthropologiques des Pharaons.
Selon les indices préliminaires, on est parvenu à un certain nombre de traits génétiques des Pharaons. Il a été possible de déterminer les gènes de la taille, de la couleur de la peau et de la couleur des yeux et des cheveux du roi à l’époque pharaonique dont des échantillons ont été prélevés.
English:
Letter from Cairo
No. 58 From 25/4 at 1/5/2000
SOME GENETIC TRAITS OF ANCIENT EGYPTIANS
As part of research conducted by the University of Cairo in collaboration with the Supreme Council of Antiquities, it was possible to achieve the anthropological characteristics of the Pharaohs.
According to preliminary indications, we reached a number of genetic traits of the Pharaohs. It was possible to identify the genes for size, skin color and eye color and hair of the king in the Pharaonic era from which samples were taken....
The problem is is that there seems to be no record that such genetic research was conducted in 2000 at Cairo University
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Which limb studies state that Ramses II does not match with other Africans?
Robins and Shute, 1983: "It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."
Ramesses II however was not the single exception; Akhenaten's radio-humeral and tibio-femoral indices also align him with 'White Americans':
""If the brachial (radio-humeral) and crural (tibio-femoral) indices are calculated for these remains, they are found to measure 75.1 and 82.6 respectively. These values, and the lengths of the humerus and femur, agree very closely with data presented for male American whites by Krogman in 1955." (Harrison, 1966)
The reason the 1983 study missed this was because KV55 was only identified with Akhenaten in 2010, so they probably excluded him from their study.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Following on from Anton's conclusion that "the skull overall, including aspects of the face spoke fairly strongly of his African origins", what do you think ideas of a white/Caucasian Tutankhamun are rooted in?
I'll explain -
Excluding Ramesses II and Akhenaten, all the other radio-humeral and tibio-femoral indices of New Kingdom royal mummies align with Africans. In this instance, we can talk about "Africans" monocentrically in regards to these two indices. But for virtually all the others we can not...
It is largely neutral evolution that accounts for the estimated 5-10%* of inter-regional differentiation in the frequency of craniometric variation i.e. the mean cranial measurements forensic scientists use to identify geographical ancestry ('race') of a skeleton.
What exactly are "African" cranial features?
There are none, unless you perhaps consider the cephalic index (where virtually all living African populations have a mean dolichocephalic cephalic index). But the populations in Africa vary in their frequency of other traits. For this reason, most, if not all, of the New Kingdom ancient Egyptian royals I would say are non-'Negroid'. They would be instead the "elongated" African morph which Hierneux described, perhaps with some Saharan differences (see Krantz). But we don't have their pigmentation (although it can be inferred by latitude).
As far as I can tell, Keita understands all the above. But unfortunately I think he is trying sometimes in his work to sink all the inter-regional mean statistical cranial complexes within Africa ("Negroid","elongated African" and so on) into a "Africanoid" race or African cluster.
* It is considered 90-95% of cranial variation is intra-regional i.e. the majority is found between individuals not populations.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: They would be instead the "elongated" African morph which Hierneux described, perhaps with some Saharan differences (see Krantz). But we don't have their pigmentation (although it can be inferred by latitude ).
So the question remains, what do you think ideas of a white/Caucasian Tutankhamun are rooted in?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
quote: They would be instead the "elongated" African morph which Hierneux described, perhaps with some Saharan differences (see Krantz). But we don't have their pigmentation (although it can be inferred by latitude ).
So the question remains, what do you think ideas of a white/Caucasian Tutankhamun are rooted in?
The fact the "elongated" African morph is visually perceived by many as Caucasoid, or at least part Caucasoid (usually by focusing on the nasal-region, ignoring other traits, and this even shows in your source above). If someone sees a skull with narrow or narrowish nasal aperture, they consider it Caucasoid. A good example of this is Kennewick Man, which multivariate studies instead aligned with Ainu.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fact the "elongated" African morph is visually perceived by many as Caucasoid, or at least part Caucasoid (usually by focusing on the nasal-region, ignoring other traits, and this even shows in your source above). If someone sees a skull with narrow or narrowish nasal aperture, they consider it Caucasoid.
quote:Originally posted by Gor: Robins and Shute, 1983: "It is shown that the limbs of the pharaohs, like those of other Ancient Egyptians, had negroid characteristics, in that the distal segments were relatively long in comparison with the proximal segments. An exception was Ramesses II, who appears to have had short legs below the knees."
And how doe this prove he was not of African type? All it states is his characteristics and not affinity. He could have had "elongated" characteristic like some Africans. Which is not taboo.
quote:Originally posted by Gor: ""If the brachial (radio-humeral) and crural (tibio-femoral) indices are calculated for these remains, they are found to measure 75.1 and 82.6 respectively. These values, and the lengths of the humerus and femur, agree very closely with data presented for male American whites by Krogman in 1955." (Harrison, 1966)
The reason the 1983 study missed this was because KV55 was only identified with Akhenaten in 2010, so they probably excluded him from their study. [/QB]
No offense but this study appears to be brutally dated compared to the one I posted which showed Ramses having "Negroid" characteristics.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: And they would be wrong, wouldn't they?
quote: The fact the "elongated" African morph is visually perceived by many as Caucasoid, or at least part Caucasoid (usually by focusing on the nasal-region, ignoring other traits, and this even shows in your source above). If someone sees a skull with narrow or narrowish nasal aperture, they consider it Caucasoid.
And this is why I said his study was dated. I remember an old study on remains in a Kenyan cave which tried to say the remains were "Caucasoid".
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Presumably you weren't here when it was originally posted, but I recall that folks in the thread in which it initially appeared, discussed (in real-time) that the report was removed from the museum's site. In other words, one moment it was on the site and the other moment it was removed as people where commenting in the thread in question. I believe it was Wally's thread. Whoever created the thread, it was originally posted by a reputable ES member. That's my two cents on the article.
If you doubt it's authenticity, though, there are ways of resolving that, that don't involve making a priori claims it being a fabricated document.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Presumably you weren't here when it was originally posted, but I recall that the thread in which it initially appeared discussed (in real-time) that the report was removed from the museum's site. In other words, one moment it was on the site and the other moment it was removed as people where commenting in the thread in question. I believe it was Wally's thread. Whoever created the thread, it was originally posted by a reputable ES member. That's my two cents on the article.
If you doubt it's authenticity, though, there are ways of resolving that, that don't involve making a priori claims it being a fabricated document.
Wrong, no study had been posted. Is there an authors name, a journal? It's no more real than the Willie Lynch letter
There isn't even a link to Wally's post. That is not the proper way of doing things. So an unqualified rumor with no link is credible until someone disproves it? How about I go and write five phony articles with no links and pretend they real. Now an anthropology forum is supposed to assume they are true until disproved? "Trust in Wally" -is not enough
I researched this thoroughly on various sites and iin the original French and it leads nowhere I researched it . The poster and you did not, You simply regurgitated.
quote: According to preliminary indications, we reached a number of genetic traits of the Pharaohs. It was possible to identify the genes for size, skin color and eye color and hair of the king in the Pharaonic era from which samples were taken....
^^^ And you bought this?
So what happened they identified genes in "the Pharaohs" but then they decided to cover up the whole study and pretend it never happened ?
So it was up on the museum website yet no media recorded this? They did a gentic study of the Pahroahs yet there was no press reslease, just a little article on ther website
Stop the shoddy amatuer scholoarship
It is the burden of the poster to present properly sourced material not have people chasing ghost cliams that it was up on the Museum's website but the they took it down
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptology articles from the site (sis.gov.eg) generally follow the same, shall we say, "thin" sourced format of the article in question (the format of the article also resembles articles from that site in other respects) and the Egyptian antiquities has a long record of non-existent transparency and blurting out claims of genetic tests without conforming to any of the criteria you're now using to call this document fake. Of course, that doesn't mean the document's authenticity is proven, but it does mean that your criteria for calling it fake mean nothing in a place where the idea of academic transparency and the publishing of all obtained data for peer review are systematically eschewed and where data is deliberately withheld from the public. It also means that the document fits perfectly in the MO of the Egyptian antiquities for all these reasons.
quote:I researched it
No, you merely googled it because you were too lazy and partial to do some serious legwork. In fact, you googled it more than six months after the fact and you were told the document was no longer online by that time.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: [QB] And they would be wrong, wouldn't they?
Yes. But i'm also pointing out that there are different inter-regional population means for (standard forensic) craniometrics in Africa. So there is no "African" cluster. I really think the papers from Alain Froment on this subject are excellent:
Froment, A. (1991a). "Origine et évolution de l'homme dans la pensée de Cheikh Anta Diop". Cahiers d'études africaines. XXXI, 121-122: 29-64. Froment, A. (1991b). "Morphological affinities of Ancient Egyptians : a worldwide multivariate comparative analysis" Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Associations. International Congress of Human Genetics. LXVI: 403-404. Froment, A. (1992). "Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie". Archéo-Nil. 2:79-98. Froment, A. (1994). "Race et Histoire: La recomposition ideologique de l'image des Egyptiens anciens. Journal des Africanistes. 64:37-64.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"[Black] populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." - Froment, A. (1992). "Origines du Peuplement de l'Egypte Ancienne: l'Apport de l'anthropobiologie". Archéo-Nil. 2:79-98.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what's with the white/Caucasian King Tut reconstructions?
Anton concluded that Tut's cranial morphology "spoke fairly strongly of his African origins" and also, despite her gaff with the nose, said "I personally don't find that term [caucasoid] all that useful and so I don't use it."
The Science Museum reconstruction is based on a cast of his skull. Regardless of whether the face is an accurate portrayal, those involved with assigning the skull, it would seem, identified an individual that had sub-Saharan affinities- as apparent in the virtual reconstruction:
You've also pointed out that "They [Royal Mummies]would be...the "elongated" African morph which Hierneux described, perhaps with some Saharan differences (see Krantz)."
What I don't get, is, if Susan Anton, the people behind the Science Museum reconstruction and you recognise that Tut was cranially/phenotypically sub-Saharan/Horner African, why does the latest reconstruction, which I think is scheduled to be shown on the BBC tonight, still show a Caucasian-looking individual.
What do you think impedes their understanding of African diversity, something which is based on scientific research, and which laypeople and autodidacts here on ES have assimilated?
Posts: 805 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2013
| IP: Logged |
You didn't post a study, you posted fake bullshit that never happened [/QB][/QUOTE]
I wasn't only talking about the Cairo letter but mostly the X-ray Atlas of the Royal study Mummies which clearly showed Ramses had "Negroid" features and did not cluster away from Africans. So how about you get lost?
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: [Presumably you weren't here when it was originally posted, but I recall that folks in the thread in which it initially appeared, discussed (in real-time) that the report was removed from the museum's site. In other words, one moment it was on the site and the other moment it was removed as people where commenting in the thread in question. I believe it was Wally's thread. Whoever created the thread, it was originally posted by a reputable ES member. That's my two cents on the article.
If you doubt it's authenticity, though, there are ways of resolving that, that don't involve making a priori claims it being a fabricated document.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
No offense but this study appears to be brutally dated compared to the one I posted which showed Ramses having "Negroid" characteristics.
Their size was rather average, with the exception of Ramses II, whose analysis of genes has proven to be cut.
It has also been demonstrated that his skin was brown and his hair was black, not red. The color red has been found on his mummy is due to a dye (probably henna). His eyes were black with a slight tinge of brown.
--Nobody et al, 2000
quote:Originally posted by Swenet
.. the Egyptian antiquities has a long record of non-existent transparency and blurting out claims of genetic tests without conforming to any of the criteria you're now using to call this document fake.
So they lack trasperancy but at the same time they blurt out stuff
stuff that even if you could prove that it was up on their site the information itself lacks credibility, has no named author, does not conform to research standards and if they claimed to have done a genetic test that itself is a suspect claim. And this type of thing (which there isn't even proof of having had been up on their site, no proof it's not a French hoax) , this we claim makes Robins and Shute obsolete
quote:
The hair of an eighty-year old such as Ramses would have turned white; however traces of the hair's original color remain in the roots even in advanced age. Examined microscopically, Ramses' hair proved to have once been red.
Bob Brier, Egyptian Mummies: Unravelling the Secrets of an Ancient Art, William Morrow & Co. Inc, New York. 1994. p.153
Brugsch, Émile: photo Mummy of Ramses II
Posts: 42924 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Lioness Character seems really salty since I posted that Cairo. And also using passive agressive tactics against when (when before I was being civil). Seriously what is his/her agenda?
Ramses being red hair or not, he had "Negroid" characteristic and common sense would tell us he wasn't no walking ginger.
He even tries to claim not only the Italians, but also Egyptians, Arabs and even Ghengis Khan were all Nordic!!!!! Posts: 1891 | From: NY | Registered: Sep 2014
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't only talking about the Cairo letter but mostly the X-ray Atlas of the Royal study Mummies which clearly showed Ramses had "Negroid" features and did not cluster away from Africans. So how about you get lost?
Do you have a link and quote or do you do everything improperly and on a "just trust me" basis ?
My agenda is look at things objectively and with properly referenced documentation even if the truth makes you uncomfortable. and not rumour and hearsay and whatIwanttohearism
Case in point, the BBC is portraying Tutankhamun as pale skinned when all depictions in the art show him as dark brown skinned. They did not look at that objectively they made him the skin tone they felt comfortable with That is why I started this thread
From: the Ramesseum, Thebes, Egypt Date: 19th Dynasty, about 1250 BC
This is a colossal bust of the pharaoh Ramesses II ‘the great’. At the start of his reign he did a lot of fighting in order to keep his empire together. In 1274 BC he lead a huge army of 20,000 men northwards towards the Hittite Empire. The Hittite king Muwatalli II tricked Ramesses into thinking that his army were far away, then sprung an ambush. The resulting Battle of Kadesh was probably the largest battle of ancient times, involving up to 6000 chariots.
The result of the battle was not a clear win for either side, and both armies lost many men. However, after returning to Egypt Ramesses was quick to claim victory, saying that the Hittites had fled across the river ‘swimming as fast as any crocodile’.
posted
I have to agree with Horus that at least part of lioness' reservations around this document comes from her long noted anxiety towards any empirical data that threatens her "Mulatto Egypt" fairy tale. Lioness has had this exact same attitude towards similar data, which, despite being completely uncontroversial, was still subjected by her to thread pages long of what can only be described as dogmatic denial. Case in point: Diop's melanin dosage test, which is uncontroversial among academics, but she has tried to fight it with tooth and nail for a long time. Thing is, she's sort of cleaned up her act so the new guys aren't on to this side of her, which will routinely get offended by empirical findings and then hide behind a façade of justified skepticism.
For whatever it's worth: Apparently there was a flurry of published egyptological articles on the sis.gov.eg site on 20 July 2009, months before Wally's posting of the disputed article; at least one of these articles was partly genetic in nature. Note the similar vagueness in any specifics other than the bare announcement itself and the institutions that were involved (also note the similarities in layout between the disputed report and the article I just linked to).
quote:stuff that even if you could prove that it was up on their site the information itself lacks credibility, has no named author, does not conform to research standards and if they claimed to have done a genetic test that itself is a suspect claim.
Blablabla. The real question is, was your "research" into the specifics of the report complemented by an email or phone call to the Cairo university and/or Egyptian antiquities? Anything less is just hot air.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tropicals redacted: So what's with the white/Caucasian King Tut reconstructions?
Anton concluded that Tut's cranial morphology "spoke fairly strongly of his African origins" and also, despite her gaff with the nose, said "I personally don't find that term [caucasoid] all that useful and so I don't use it."
The Science Museum reconstruction is based on a cast of his skull. Regardless of whether the face is an accurate portrayal, those involved with assigning the skull, it would seem, identified an individual that had sub-Saharan affinities- as apparent in the virtual reconstruction:
You've also pointed out that "They [Royal Mummies]would be...the "elongated" African morph which Hierneux described, perhaps with some Saharan differences (see Krantz)."
What I don't get, is, if Susan Anton, the people behind the Science Museum reconstruction and you recognise that Tut was cranially/phenotypically sub-Saharan/Horner African, why does the latest reconstruction, which I think is scheduled to be shown on the BBC tonight, still show a Caucasian-looking individual.
What do you think impedes their understanding of African diversity, something which is based on scientific research, and which laypeople and autodidacts here on ES have assimilated?
No one has made skull measurements except the cranial index, at least that is the only one I see in these studies. So I don't know how there are digital reconstructions of the face in the first place - they are equivalent to armchair anthropology. Even when I was into typology, I criticized this, e.g. its the sort of thing you find on a lowbrow anthro-forum where individuals upload their photo and are labelled up to 10 or more different oids. So this statement on the other page is totally false:
quote:What makes the above reconstruction unique is that I believe it was the ONLY one done by scientists who were double-blinded and therefore unbiased. Their conclusions were that the skull belonged to someone of African descent though I still think they were biased in that they gave him a wider nose tip under the stereotype that Africans have wide noses.
And bias works both ways. There may indeed be biased ethnocentric European scientists, but data is also manipulated or distorted by those with other agendas. This was shown with the Oase 2 (Peștera cu Oase) skull - a false/inaccurate reconstruction appeared which Clyde Winters loves to spam around.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
^The various reconstructions of Tut on the internet were probably mostly based on measurements taken from radiographs (see the values for Tut). It explains why only Hawass et al and Elliot Smith were able to publish CIs for these royal individuals (they had access to the skeletal remains). Like I said earlier, unlike brachycephaly in many parts of Eurasia, the brachycephalic condition, when found in Upper Egypt often isn't accompanied by short skulls, which explains why all the forensic artists called attention to the elongated head shape of these NK pharaohs, and mistook them for being dolichocephalic per se.
Also, the cranial index data from Harris and Wente, despite being oddly defined (probably also owing to the fact that they were working with radiographs), still demonstrate that the pharaohs had long (but not necessarily narrow) calvaria as you wouldn't get such low values (e.g. 69%) for cranial height/cranial length if their heads were short and spherical like in many brachycephalic Armenians and East Asians.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
Case in point, the BBC is portraying Tutankhamun as pale skinned when all depictions in the art show him as dark brown skinned.
The painted statue you posted is very different in photos [depending on the background lightening and so on]. Is his skin shade really a painted dark brown? It looks more a light brown-reddish in most I see on google images of the same statue. Also google Rahotep and you get loads of different shades of the same statue.
Posts: 504 | From: No longer here | Registered: Aug 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
,okay i will wait for you to play catch up,after making this last post,
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic