In late January 2015, the website of the French-speaking Radio Canada, announced the discovery of a bust of Hannibal that belonged to Napoleon Bonaparte in the collection of the antiquities museum of the University of Saskatchewan, the English-speaking province located in west-central Canada. This was quite an intriguing piece of news! As we await the publication of more details concerning the research that has allowed the curators to reach this conclusion, here is an update on this exceptional artwork with insight from the museum specialists from the University of Saskatchewan.
[...]
The bust of Hannibal owned by the University of Saskatchewan The article by Radio Canada which appeared in late January 2015, which sparked off our little investigation, already gives valuable information about the object in the collection of the Canadian Museum of Antiquities: – The bust dates from the seventeenth century; – It was sold at auction in New York for about $70 in 1939; – It was discovered in the collection of the museum in 1988, with no idea of how it got there. – The curators on site were able to establish its possession by Napoleon thanks to references to bust found in a document written by Napoleon's
posted
LOL, Lioness you should admit that Swenet won this one, Im just saying he's provided you with everything you're asking for, at this point it seems you are just being willfully ignorant.
quote:Originally posted by Swenet: Answered as well. You should have also come across the answer to your question during the supposedly several times you read Márquez-Grant.
quote:The most complete skull from a Phoenician sample from Israel (Smith et al., 1990) provided a ‘Black male’ result with high probability but low typicality. Probabilities ranging between 0.600 and 1.000 in the category ‘Black’, with typicalities mainly under 0.400 were present in Punic skulls from Carthage (Bertholon and Chantre, 1913), Neolithic and proto-historic skulls from Sahara and sub-Saharan Africa (data collected by Chamla, 1968), and in modern African skulls measured by Barras de Aragón (1911).
The answer from looking at all the evidence is African Americans or some other population that includes equatorial African + European-like + hybrid/intermediate phenotypes. And it should be noted that European-like does not necessarily mean European because this is what some of the so-called 'white' Carthaginians would have looked like:
quote:Facial reconstruction of a Punic skull from Puig des Molins (PM01/UE52). Drawing by Simon Lygo and anthropological study by N. Márquez-Grant. This skull has been studied elsewhere (Márquez-Grant, in press) and resulted in a ‘White Male’ with a posterior probability of .841 and a typicality OF .669.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Elephants were the tanks of ancient Mediterranean warfare, commonly used for trampling and intimidating enemies. Yet there was only one battle in which African elephants and their Asian cousins are known to have met—the Battle of Raphia, in Gaza, in 217 B.C. According to the historian Polybius, it wasn’t even a contest. He writes that the African pachyderms, under the command of the Ptolemaic pharaoh of Egypt, panicked and tried to flee at the sight of the larger Asian elephants of the Seleucid army. Yet African savannah elephants are typically bigger and stronger than Asian ones. Had Polybius gotten it wrong? Modern writers have speculated that the Egyptians had African forest elephants, a smaller species than the savannah variety. Later Roman and Carthaginian armies, including Hannibal’s forces, might also have used forest elephants.
That idea has crept into modern accounts, depictions, and even video games such as Age of Empires, in which war elephants have the rounded ears and dwarfish proportions of the forest dwellers. Now geneticists have found that the species of elephant that the Egyptians had access to came from modern-day Eritrea in East Africa, and share no genetic markers with forest elephants. “The idea that they used forest elephants was not based on evidence, but it got repeated over and over,” says geneticist Alfred Roca of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “It makes no sense. Forest elephants lived in the Congo basin, thousands of miles from the Mediterranean.” The matter of Polybius’ account remains unsettled."
posted
That's a good one Ish Gebor, I'd read about it but forgot the details.
Congo forest elephants are likely not dwarfed, they just never attained the larger size of the African savanna elephants. Similarly, the Congo okapi forest giraffe is smaller than savanna giraffes, and Congo pygmy people are smaller than savanna peoples.
An opposite situation is that the Congo giant forest hog is (I think) larger than savanna warthogs.
posted
The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed.
Also interesting is Polybius testimony on the matter. Eritrean Elephants are still as big if not bigger than asian elephants, they're African savanna elephants.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed.
Also interesting is Polybius testimony on the matter. Eritrean Elephants are still as big if not bigger than asian elephants, they're African savanna elephants.
posted
I know its unusual, but for the lack of a better source. It's reasonable.
Roman bronze elephant Staatliche Antikensammlungen SL 50
Roman bronze elephant Staatliche Antikensammlungen SL 50
Piazzale delle Corporazioni Ostia Antica
Mosaic with an elephant. Part of Statio 14 (for Sabratha office) of the Piazzale delle Corporazioni, Ostia Antica, Latium, Italy.
quote: The North African elephant (Loxodonta africana pharaoensis) was the subspecies of the African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana), or possibly a separate elephant species, that existed in North Africa north of the Sahara until becoming extinct in Ancient Roman times. These were the famous war elephants used by Carthage in the Punic Wars, their conflict with the Roman Republic. Although the subspecies has been formally described,[1][2] it has not been widely recognized by taxonomists. Other names for this animal include the North African forest elephant, Carthaginian elephant, and Atlas elephant. Originally, its natural range probably extended across North Africa and down to the present Sudanese and Eritrean coasts.
posted
I recall reading somewhere that the ancient Greeks and Romans tended to assume everything was bigger in India, as if it were like Texas. If so, that might account for Polybius's claim that Indian elephants had to be bigger than their African brethren. Regardless, I always found the identification of North African elephants as forest elephants rather nonsensical. If any elephants in Africa could thrive in the deserts and scrublands of North Africa, it'd be the bush elephants, not those adapted to living in humid jungles.
posted
Elmaestro: "The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed."
That is very unlikely. Rather, savanna elephants likely enlarged.
A parallel example: Modern Horse/Zebra (grass-grazers) ancestors were rainforest leaf-browsers of small size (dog-like). Those that adapted to a grassland became larger. The plausible reason for giant forest hogs is that they are omnivorous, so have weaker selection for shrinkage.
Technically, a dwarf has short limbs and normal frame size.
Note: Both the North African elephants and Sirenian seacows (close kin, including manatees and dugongs) had formerly lived around the Mediterranean, then went extinct during classic Rome times, perhaps due to the excellent roadways constructed then allowing easier transportation of game and trade.
All of the classical depictions and descriptions gives me the hint that the North African subspecies was of the forest variety. If you take into account the (un)likelihood of a North African Elep. being a subspecies of the Savanna Elep. but resembling the neighboring forest elephant and going extinct, it should make you question the authenticity of the claim that the north Africans at the time retrieved their Elephants from east Africa.
For something like the dwarfing of a species to happen there have to be selective pressure or breeding... however, there is no evidence of breeding and the north African subgroup is extinct which weakens the argument of selective pressure..
Modern Forest elephants stretch as far as Guinea. The western variety of the forest elephant are and were undergoing rapid population decline mostly due to the deforestation of the region. The elephants said to have roamed West African areas of Morocco could have been a subspecies or even a sibling of the forest elephant driven to extinction due to the aridification and deforestation of the Sahara.
I want to know where exactly the Ptolemis got their elephants from though, because if they were in fact from east africa, they're most like not of the same variety of the proposed atlas elephant. And Polybius was probably trippin'
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DD'eDeN: Elmaestro: "The common ancestor of the Congo forest elephants those of the savanna are bigger than both modern species. The forest elephants selected for a smaller size, they dwarfed."
That is very unlikely. Rather, savanna elephants likely enlarged.
A parallel example: Modern Horse/Zebra (grass-grazers) ancestors were rainforest leaf-browsers of small size (dog-like). Those that adapted to a grassland became larger. The plausible reason for giant forest hogs is that they are omnivorous, so have weaker selection for shrinkage.
Technically, a dwarf has short limbs and normal frame size.
Note: Both the North African elephants and Sirenian seacows (close kin, including manatees and dugongs) had formerly lived around the Mediterranean, then went extinct during classic Rome times, perhaps due to the excellent roadways constructed then allowing easier transportation of game and trade.
IDK about that, being that selection pressure drove the OOA species to a smaller size as well, the phylochart I posted above correlated with an at least intermediate (Asian elephant sized) common ancestor for the Afro elephants.
Evolutionary zoology isn't as clear cut as you would think, you have to think probability as opposed to design, Adaptation doesn't drive evolution, death does... Parallel causalities/origins cannot be drawn between two species even though they parallel in relative morphology and fitness.
Also is there anything I can read about the Mediterranean-elephants you speak of?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nodnarb: I recall reading somewhere that the ancient Greeks and Romans tended to assume everything was bigger in India, as if it were like Texas. If so, that might account for Polybius's claim that Indian elephants had to be bigger than their African brethren. Regardless, I always found the identification of North African elephants as forest elephants rather nonsensical. If any elephants in Africa could thrive in the deserts and scrublands of North Africa, it'd be the bush elephants, not those adapted to living in humid jungles.
Yes I remember that too, that was by Martin Bernal.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: Wow, this is incredibly interesting..
All of the classical depictions and descriptions gives me the hint that the North African subspecies was of the forest variety. If you take into account the (un)likelihood of a North African Elep. being a subspecies of the Savanna Elep. but resembling the neighboring forest elephant and going extinct, it should make you question the authenticity of the claim that the north Africans at the time retrieved their Elephants from east Africa.
For something like the dwarfing of a species to happen there have to be selective pressure or breeding... however, there is no evidence of breeding and the north African subgroup is extinct which weakens the argument of selective pressure..
Modern Forest elephants stretch as far as Guinea. The western variety of the forest elephant are and were undergoing rapid population decline mostly due to the deforestation of the region. The elephants said to have roamed West African areas of Morocco could have been a subspecies or even a sibling of the forest elephant driven to extinction due to the aridification and deforestation of the Sahara.
I want to know where exactly the Ptolemis got their elephants from though, because if they were in fact from east africa, they're most like not of the same variety of the proposed atlas elephant. And Polybius was probably trippin'
Eritrean elephants pulling heavy artillery into Ethiopia, October 1935.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlessedbyHorus: Has anyone seen this coin of Hannibal?
It looks than this one.
^^^^ this is Hannibal Hannibal spent 16 years of his generalship in Italy
we should expect to see evidence of him in Italy rather than Spain or Africa
the elephant on the coin is an Asiatic elephant because Hannibal's favorite elephant was from Syria (surus) (Hannibal employed Indian mahouts to conduct his elephants thus giving evidence for his elephants being originally from Asia rather than Africa) 7)τῶν δὲ θηρίων εἰθισμένων τοῖς Ἰνδοῖς μέχρι μὲν πρὸς τὸ ὑγρὸν ἀεὶπειθαρχεῖν, εἰς δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐμβαίνειν οὐδαμῶς ἔτι τολμώντων, ἦγον διὰ τοῦχώματος δύο προθέμενοι θηλείας, πειθαρχούντων αὐταῖς τῶν θηρίων 3.46.11 polybius
The idea that Hannibal was black comes from J.A. Rogers who said the Phoenicians were Negroid, the same amateur historian who wrote a book on there being five Negro U.S. presidents.
So the standard by which these five U.S, presidents were black can also be applied to the Phoenicians
that is highly incorrect
Hannibal being black is old
"great in his way was Hannibal, the Carthaginian; and great in his, the great African poet Terence, the friend and associate of Hannibal's conqueror. science, learning, religion, war, poetry have here their negro representatives" pg 94 God's Image in Ebony: Being a Series of Biographical Sketches, Facts ... By Frederick William Chesson, Wilson Armistead 1854
"Hanno, the father of hamilcar and the grandfather of hannibal, was a negro" pg 33 Black Man By William Wells Brow
"that even hannibal, who in his youth was very handsome for a black man"Bible Defence of Slavery: To which is Added a Faithful Exposition of that ... By Josiah Priest pg 197-198
posted
During the 2nd Punic wars neither the Romans nor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins.
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
it was discovered at lake trasimene where Hannibal had his famous battle
coins only depict gods and celebrities
so far no roman or Etruscan god looks like this man on the coin and the only celebrity that distinguish themself at lake trasimene was Hannibal
So, Hannibal stopped in the aftermath of the battle to issue a new coinage? That's not very convincing. Why shouldn't it have belonged to an African soldier?
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: During the 2nd Punic wars neither the Romans nor the Carthagenians used images of actual persons on their coins.
Carthage did not have coins
the Greeks however did depict actual people on coins
quote:Originally posted by capra: How does anyone know that that coin, or any other coin, depicts Hannibal?
it was discovered at lake trasimene where Hannibal had his famous battle
coins only depict gods and celebrities
so far no roman or Etruscan god looks like this man on the coin and the only celebrity that distinguish themself at lake trasimene was Hannibal
So, Hannibal stopped in the aftermath of the battle to issue a new coinage? That's not very convincing. Why shouldn't it have belonged to an African soldier?
the battle of lake trasimene gave Hannibal mastery of all northern Italy
no where in history have coins ever been struck in honor of a random soldier
no other African warrior ever distinguish himself more at trasimene than Hannibal
posted
Not a picture of a random African soldier, a coin carried by an African soldier. Depicting an African god or hero.
The coin being found at Lake Trasimene doesn't imply that the image it bears has anything to do with Lake Trasimene. Coins move around, that's what they're for.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: Not a picture of a random African soldier, an African coin left there by an African soldier. Depicting an African god or hero.
which African soldier?
Hannibal?
Hannibal was the only African soldier that could strike his own coin at that time in that location
posted
Why on earth are you assuming the coin was struck at that time in that location? There were tens of thousands of soldiers there in the pay of Carthage, assuming the coin is even contemporary with the battle.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capra: The coin being found at Lake Trasimene doesn't imply that the image it bears has anything to do with Lake Trasimene. Coins move around, that's what they're for.
show me this coin in another location that is far away from lake trasimene
whats wrong with Hannibal being black? do you think black people are inferior?
quote:Originally posted by capra: Why on earth are you assuming the coin was struck at that time in that location? There were tens of thousands of soldiers there in the pay of Carthage, assuming the coin is even contemporary with the battle.
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant personally)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
recall another time where an African is riding an Syrian elephant at lake trasimene
the only man that fits this description is Hannibal (Hannibal rode this elephant himself)
what is wrong with Hannibal being black? what do you have against black people?
there is nothing wrong with Hannibal being black but apart from this coin why do you think he was?
he was called a Carthaginian, Afer, and libyan
these people were described as fuscus, piceis and aquilus
What was the ethnic background of Carthage and who founded it?
Carthage was founded by Phoenicians
similar to how New York city was founded by English men
the inhabitants of Carthage were made up of libyphoenicians (mixture of Africans and Phoenicians)though mainly African they could trace their linage to one Phoenician ancestor
the Phoenicians according to Strabo were called Ethiopians
posted
if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal but since he is black they both try to deny it being Hannibal
this is obvious unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant that distinguish himself at lake trasimene i must disagree
im convinced as a honest historian that the man on the coin is no other than Hannibal
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal but since he is black they both try to deny it being Hannibal
this is obvious unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant that distinguish himself at lake trasimene i must disagree
im convinced as a honest historian that the man on the coin is no other than Hannibal
Shoulda said it like this from the jump, I was reading the convo with the wocka flocka meme face... Um, so we don't use Occam's razor anymore? Btw, what was written in the previous 5 pages of this thread? Did anyone revisit or peek and see?
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Every coin mentioned you said was not that of a real person but instead a God or Goddess.
But what you didn't realize is that like the Egyptians, sometimes these rulers depicted themselves as the personification of Gods. That is why you will see Tutankhamun depicted dark brown but then as the personification of Osiris depicted jet black. Similarly European rulers sometimes depict themselves with Greek wreaths or as personifying a God
Every coin mentioned you said was not that of a real person but instead a God or Goddess.
But what you didn't realize is that like the Egyptians, sometimes these rulers depicted themselves as the personification of Gods. That is why you will see Tutankhamun depicted dark brown but then as the personification of Osiris depicted jet black. Similarly European rulers sometimes depict themselves with Greek wreaths or as personifying a God
show me an ancient Egyptian pharaoh depicted in the form of a foreign god
the Carthaginians had their own gods
^^^^the coins above depict portraits of Hercules and a Sicilian king
Hannibal did not have a African elephant as his main elephant nor did he fight with a club
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal
No, I would think he is some unidentified white dude rather than some unidentified black dude.
quote:unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
Supposing North Africans at that time were black, that would not tell us that this particular black dude was Hannibal.
quote:unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
We don't have to prove shit, we are saying it is *unidentified*. Your claim about setting up a mint in a sea of corpses is fantastical, the subject of the portrait remains unidentified.
quote:unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant
If you can actually identify the elephant as Hannibal's personal elephant, then obviously that would be evidence that the image is of Hannibal. Naturally I am skeptical of this claim also.
Posts: 660 | From: Canada | Registered: Mar 2017
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: if the man on the coin was white both capra and the lioness would agree the man on the coin is Hannibal
No, I would think he is some unidentified white dude rather than some unidentified black dude.
quote:unless you both have historical evidence that proves the Carthaginians or Hannibal was white or tawny i must disagree
Supposing North Africans at that time were black, that would not tell us that this particular black dude was Hannibal.
quote:unless you can prove the man on the coin is a god or fictional hero rather than Hannibal i must disagree
We don't have to prove shit, we are saying it is *unidentified*. Your claim about setting up a mint in a sea of corpses is fantastical, the subject of the portrait remains unidentified.
quote:unless you can prove that there was another African warrior with an Asiatic elephant
If you can actually identify the elephant as Hannibal's personal elephant, then obviously that would be evidence that the image is of Hannibal. Naturally I am skeptical of this claim also.
posted
bottom line im not convinced that the man on the coin is some random African
this boils down to a matter of belief
you don't want to believe that the man is Hannibal because he is black
unless you have a better argument proving that the coin is not his image than please share
i believe it is his because 1. it was located at lake trasimene
2. Hannibal's favorite elephant was named surus (the Syrian) thus making him an Asiatic elephant (Hannibal's mahouts were from India further proving his elephants were from Asia)
3. the man on the coin looks the proper age around 25-28 which Hannibal was during that time
4. During the battle of trasimene Hannibal only had one elephant left and that was the one he rode
5. Hannibal was called an Afer which Virgil describes as being woolly haired, dark complexioned, and thick lips
6. nobody else man or god distinguish themselves at lake trasimene but Hannibal
so im convinced i rest my case on the image of the coin
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic