quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken
I think Tishkoff et al are still considering the southern African point of origin. But it's true that researchers are split between southern Africa and East Africa. Now North Africa has been added to the mix with the 300ky AMH remains found there. But the point is not really where exactly in Africa L started to migrate. (I could argue that it was closer to southern Africa than to East Africa, but that would not be necessary right now). The point is that African ancestry is situated along that cline. Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies , but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline. The recent Moroccan aDNA (IAM) is also on that cline, and the ancestors of that population likely got 'off the bus' very late, just like Eurasians, causing them to be more related to Eurasians than any African sample we know about outside of the Maghreb. Although they're not really close to any population outside of the Maghreb.
This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.
Damn. I really 'revealed' myself. You really got me there. Definitely didn't see that coming. Not after all those times I said Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beyoku: I swear folks that registered like 2 months ago nd [b]just dipping their feet into Bio/anthro/history always trying to school folks that have been studying 10+ years.[]/b
Crazy, right? Remember when Amun Ra was trying to argue against E-M35 being Afro-Asiatic ancestry because it shows up in Nilo-Saharan speakers. Then in the next conversation he was an expert on E-M35 being Afroasiatic ancestry all of a sudden. They have this weird thing going where they want to debate you adamantly on very basic things and then parrot what you say the next week. Shits mad weird.
Posts: 8785 | From: Discovery Channel's Mythbusters | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: that chart assumes a South African origin for L, Tishkoff said East Africa, if I'm not mistaken
I think Tishkoff et al are still considering the southern African point of origin. But it's true that researchers are split between southern Africa and East Africa. Now North Africa has been added to the mix with the 300ky AMH remains found there. But the point is not really where exactly in Africa L started to migrate. (I could argue that it was closer to southern Africa than to East Africa, but that would not be necessary right now). The point is that African ancestry is situated along that cline. Africans aren't a meta-population as the racial use of "black African" implies , but many different meta populations, each having a position along that cline. The recent Moroccan aDNA (IAM) is also on that cline, and the ancestors of that population likely got 'off the bus' very late, just like Eurasians, causing them to be more related to Eurasians than any African sample we know about outside of the Maghreb. Although they're not really close to any population outside of the Maghreb.
This statement reeks of desperation to separate east Africans (horners) from Bantus. lol... you have revealed yourself. Didn't Tiskoff say, Mende ancestors were Panmemetic? Does not Europe and Asia have meta populations? Is a Tamil from South Asian completely different from the Saami in Sweden ? But they are all still Eurasian? Eurocentric bias much? This is why a true scientist won't let Eurocentric biased science to continue to define terms and set rules.
Damn. I really 'revealed' myself. You really got me there. Definitely didn't see that coming. Not after all those times I said Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA
Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
what Swenet is trying to say is that the people in the right hand circle are more related to each other than the people in the left hand circle are to Egypt
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: So why do you keep bringing it up then as something random Afrocentrics should b "shook" about "concerned" about or "worried" about? I mean you keep beating on this argument but then say that these are all Africans anyway. And why do you keep putting me in this? I already said what my concern is about CLARITY IN TERMINOLOGY. I don't think there should be a disagreement on that. I personally am not concerned about a cline within Africa, but you keep addressing this to random Afrocentrics and that is not me.
Nobody talked about you, Doug. Lioness mentioned your name as a joke, but that's about it. Lol. SMH.
Let's just stop this conversation because half the time I don't see a coherence in how your comments relate to what I said. And as I said from the beginning, I'm trying to wrap this up. So I don't know where you get it from that I'm dragging you in this.
Still the point stands and lets be clear, your DNA cline between West and East Africa does not make ancient East Africans into Eurasians. It also does not make African populations who were ancestral to OOA into Non Africans or Non Blacks.
I am curious why you keep avoiding confirming or denying what I just said.
If you agree then fine and if not then fine, but hiding behind genetic terminology and avoiding actually saying what your mean does not reflect a grasp on genetics.
Thats what I mean and this is what i meant before but of course you keep trying to pretend that you aren't aware of that. This isn't a new conversation between you and me.
Genetics does not disprove black African as a viable biological concept.
Yet you keep throwing up clinal charts in THIS thread as if it proves something. Proves what? How does it disprove that ancient Nile Valley and Horner Africans were mostly black to begin with?
Not understanding the relevance of that clinal chart or African clines to this discussion or how Afrocentrics somehow don't understand what African genetic diversity is or are confused about it or shook by it as if it disproves that these folks weren't black to begin with.
Not to mention if using the term black is so bad and unscientific then where is the outrage at National Geographic for using it?
If it is valid in the 25th dynasty it is valid anywhere else the evidence supports it. Yet folks are more worried about attacking "Afrocentrics" then they are dealing with that double standard and inconsistency in the institutions they claim are so objective.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Relief of Ramses II, ca. 1279-1213 B.C.E. Limestone
Swenet, this is real simple
Doug says dark skin = black
Accordingly every depiction of Ramses shows him with dark skin. Therefore he was black and haplogroups are irrelevant. The only thing relevant to blackness genetics wise are pigmentation genes
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: RAMESSES II
Relief of Ramses II, ca. 1279-1213 B.C.E. Limestone
Swenet, this is real simple
Doug says dark skin = black
Accordingly every depiction of Ramses shows him with dark skin. Therefore he was black and haplogroups are irrelevant. The only thing relevant to blackness genetics wise are pigmentation genes
So to you, "black" is a euphemism for West African? What else do you consider relevant to blackness besides skin? Do tell???
Which one of these children is black? but they are twins, notice the blond on the left...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.
He's talking about the people who want all "black" Africans, AE and Kushites included, to cluster with one another into a single "Negroid" meta-population to the exclusion of anyone outside of Africa. You can see how obsolete racial models have an influence on this thinking. Truth is, not even the Africans who live south of the Sahara qualify as one meta-population.
quote:The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans).
This, BTW, doesn't necessarily make native North Africans not "black" by all definitions of the word. As been pointed out many times before, people have used "black" as phenotypic rather than genetic descriptors. Our own Djehuti, for instance, tends to use "black" for all dark-skinned populations around the world, even total OOA ones like Negritos or Melanesians. It does, however, throw a monkey wrench into the concept of a monophyletic "black race" that influences the thinking of certain "Afrocentric" activists.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Which Afrocentrics don't like that part of OOA? Be specific. Qoutes and links are helpful.
He's talking about the people who want all "black" Africans, AE and Kushites included, to cluster with one another into a single "Negroid" meta-population to the exclusion of anyone outside of Africa. You can see how obsolete racial models have an influence on this thinking. Truth is, not even the Africans who live south of the Sahara qualify as one meta-population.
quote:The pattern of DNA diversity is one of nested subsets, such that the diversity in non-Sub-Saharan African populations is essentially a subset of the diversity found in Sub-Saharan African populations. The actual pattern of DNA diversity creates some unsettling problems for using race as meaningful genetic categories. For example, the pattern of DNA diversity implies that some populations belong to more than one race (e.g., Europeans), whereas other populations do not belong to any race at all (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africans). Source:Human DNA sequences: more variation and less race
This, BTW, doesn't necessarily make native North Africans not "black" by all definitions of the word. As been pointed out many times before, people have used "black" as phenotypic rather than genetic descriptors. Our own Djehuti, for instance, tends to use "black" for all dark-skinned populations around the world, even total OOA ones like Negritos or Melanesians. It does, however, throw a monkey wrench into the concept of a monophyletic "black race" that influences the thinking of certain "Afrocentric" activists.
Again which afrocentric activists are those? Are "they" academically published? Published at all?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: So to you, "black" is a euphemism for West African? What else do you consider relevant to blackness besides skin? Do tell???
In that post my opinion is irrelevant.
It was a comment on Doug vs Swenet.
Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him. From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.
In other words was the person dark skinned or not, nothing else.
The only thing relevant in that context genetically would be if skin pigmentation genes were analyzed
Diop's position was similar that phenotype is most important, genotype less important
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him. From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.
Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.
Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.
If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.
If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.
Which nationalist agenda? Which Afrocentrics?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.
If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.
before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.
If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.
before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism
You can't even get "people" to decide what "black" is... lol, you can't have nationalism without a nation. So there is not such thing as black nationalism and you will be hard pressed to find an academic who may at times uses Afrocentrism as a polemic who advocates such a "thing"
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Well the recent DNA results is proving you and folks like Sara-Suten Seti wrong, not only are those Europid/Turkish Egyptians legit, some of their ancestry dates back to dynastic Kemet. Keita tried to warn yall, now you guys are in the same league as Storm Front and the Nordic Egypt folks.
Neither I or someone making a flippant generalization like calling pale Arabs invaders deny that some of their ancestry is old, so again its a strawman argument. Don't associate me with Storm Front.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism
I'm not a nationalist I'm a powerist. Nationality without power is exploitation waiting to happen. I know many black nationalist are interested in power so I'll defend them in the context that I did. I am not interested or qualified in defining or promoting black nationalism with the current power vacuum. Ask me about black power and I can give you a well researched answer.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him. From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.
Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.
Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: before you get into a back and forth everybody should agree on a definition of black nationalism
I'm not a nationalist I'm a powerist. Nationality without power is exploitation waiting to happen. I know many black nationalist are interested in power so I'll defend them in the context that I did. I am not interested or qualified in defining or promoting black nationalism with the current power vacuum. Ask me about black power and I can give you a well researched answer.
It doesn't matter what you are in regard to the below. The term "black nationalist" was used. You both made comments about it. Therefore it's meaning should be agreed upon before going further in my opinion
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: Certainly, that's a nobler goal than the nationalist agendas many of the "Afrocentrics" we've been criticizing are working with.
If you are defining a nationalist agenda as ignoble then you are the racism that needs to be challenged.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: It doesn't matter what you are in regard to the below. The term "black nationalist" was used. You both made comments about it. Therefore it's meaning should be agreed upon before going further in my opinion
I partially defined it as people with some shared interest in black power. I'll let Tyrannohotep take from there since he brought it up.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chedda Mon might be as black as me. I don't know if phenotype predictors are updated. They tend to error on the side of predicting that people with this complexion
Have darker skin with lighter eyes and/or hair.
Haplogroup frequency in Europe: check Doesn't have albino pigment genes that would cluster with people classified as white: check Disliked by racist: check
Cheda Mon and all but one of the Arman's are blacker than me.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him. From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.
Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians. Also, ask him if he's blacker than Denzel Washington. You have to make it real for him with specific examples that hit close to home.
Then grab your popcorn, sit back and watch the tapdancing exhibition.
Well obviously the people of National Geographic are saying that there were Blacks in Ancient Egypt. And since nobody is debating the usage of the term in that context since this is a thread about THAT specific topic, I will assume some folks just like to contradict themselves and not be consistent..... But anyway.
Another recent article talking about "black culture" in Africa in Sudan (separate from Egypt which obviously wasn't black). The point being nobody is accusing these people of DNA clustering when they say black. But I have to hear that nonsense when I use the word.
quote: The archaeological site of Sedeinga is located in Sudan, a hundred kilometers to the north of the third cataract of the Nile, on the river's western shore. Known especially for being home to the ruins of the Egyptian temple of Queen Tiye, the royal wife of Amenhotep III, the site also includes a large necropolis containing sepulchers dating from the kingdoms of Napata and Meroe (seventh century BCE–fourth century CE), a civilization1 mixing local traditions and Egyptian influences. Tombs, steles, and lintels have just been unearthed by an international team led by researchers from the CNRS and Sorbonne Université as part of the French Section of Sudan's Directorate of Antiquities, co-funded by the CNRS and the Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.2 They represent one of the largest collections of Meroitic inscriptions, the oldest language of black Africa currently known.
The point again is that these people do not believe that there were blacks in AE other than servants and maybe mercenaries. Otherwise AE was a white Eurasian culture.
But of course no debate here from these folks about that. Gotta go find some "evil Afrocentrics" to argue with I guess.
Because these "objective" folks would like to pretend that Keita was not saying the AE were also black because as a scientist that kind of language must be below his intellect....... Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ So what is your evaluation of Cheddar Man, Doug? Does he count as "black" to you?
What does it matter? Obviously the scientific community does not assign Ancient Egypt to the "black" category, whether you mean DNA, Skin color or whatever else.
That is the only point I am talking about.
Obviously Cheddar Man was not cluster with the AE so it is really not relevant to the point of the thread.
At the end of the day either AE was a black culture and the facts support it or the facts don't and it wasn't. There is nothing "in between" about it. We know where Europe stands on the issue concerning their own historical writings on the issue and we know where modern science stands on the issue. There is no need to play games with semantics, we all understand what they mean and what is being said.
They know what black means and have no problem using it when they see fit and they aren't waiting for any of us on this forum to guide them on how when and where to use it. So to sit here and pretend that there is some "official standard" of usage that folks must follow to use it is garbage. Nobody is looking at you guys or Keita for rules on when to use language in any respect. So stop kidding yourself. They will call someone black whether they are coal black or light brown whenever they see fit. THey are under no "egyptsearch restrictions" on using that term..... You are using THEIR dictionary they are not using yours.
This isn't some "Afrocentric conspiracy".
Funny enough the fact is no matter how much "research" done on this forum these guys aren't really going to change their opinions or what they publish anyway. So sitting here pontificating about 'science' isn't going to change the facts of who runs the academy and who pays the checks and who makes the decision on whats what. And this is what Keita found out. But play along with whatever delusions you may think you have of being "in the know" about how science works. At the end of the day to many folks Dr. Keita is seen as "Afrocentric". And they see him that way because he tells the truth or more of the truth than they are willing to admit to publicly or openly. Which shows that "playing the game" only gets you so far and no matter what they are going to make the rules and play their way regardless.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Assuming the statuette was intentionally changed what would the reason be for removing the side lock hair ?
My guess is, they know very well that most of the people who happen to pass this figure at the museum, isn't going to remember every detail of what they saw. More likely than not, most people forget half the things they see and what they do remember fades with time. Knowing this, choosing to alter the figure is not going to raise eyebrows, even to those who did see it in person because it just wouldn't be something that sticks. Just in case someone might recognize the original, the hair is cut off to dupe those who might just remember a little brown girl with the hair on the side.
We aren't sure if the picture of the brown little girl is an official picture, or if someone else just so happened to take the photo. Its possible that the people who chose to alter it did not know there was an photo of it. Either way, even if someone were to notice, they could easily say the alteration is a part of the revitalization process, and that the dark brown paint is only there due to age.
I mean, they've been getting away with it for awhile. Its the same as this statue. You have pictures before the "revitalization" process, which didn't stop them from lighting it up.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
quote: Assuming the statuette was intentionally changed what would the reason be for removing the side lock hair ?
My guess is, they know very well that most of the people who happen to pass this figure at the museum, isn't going to remember every detail of what they saw. More likely than not, most people forget half the things they see and what they do remember fades with time. Knowing this, choosing to alter the figure is not going to raise eyebrows, even to those who did see it in person because it just wouldn't be something that sticks. Just in case someone might recognize the original, the hair is cut off to dupe those who might just remember a little brown girl with the hair on the side.
Can you copy and paste the text of this article at this link please, I have a problem with my browser where I cant' read it, thanks
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
The seated scribe had a coating of wax on it out there by the Egyptians. That had accumulated dirt and they cleaned it off. It is debate whether they should or should not have done that.
quote: The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Doug says "black" is solely defined as dark skinned. Therefore Swenet should understand that in interacting with him. From Doug's perspective haplogroups or other traits are irrelevant.
Not really. That is just what he wants you to believe so you can't pin him down. But when you ask the right questions you can still test if he's being truthful. For instance, ask Doug if the prehistoric European man below is just as 'black' as Egyptians.
Tyrannohotep asked if Cheddar Man as depicted in the reconstruction counts as black but he said it doesn't matter. I guess he doesn't want to answer that. Point to Swenet
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
That is definitely brown paint covering it.
Here is another photo of it.
Also, revitalization has been happening to a lot of Ancient Egyptian artworks. There are photos of people repainting the walls in Egypt. They call it "restoration". Even said so in the link I recently posted in another thread.
quote: Can you copy and paste the text of this article at this link please, I have a problem with my browser where I cant' read it, thanks
Here:
A young black woman stands in a delicately swaying posture, holding a large lidded jar balanced on her hip. Her distinctively African facial features are represented with great skill and sensitivity, and her eyes are realistically painted in black and white. This seemingly subtle touch, together with her naturalistic stance, imparts a captivating sense of life to her figure. The vibrant effect is perhaps surprising, given the small scale of the figure, only several inches high. Variously described as a dancer or a servant, the girl is naked except for a golden girdle spanning her hips and an amulet around her neck, incised and painted black. Her figure is carved from boxwood, an exceptionally dense and fine-grained material. The naturally light color of the wood seems to have been meticulously stained a brownish red to approximate the rich hue of a dark-skinned person. Most scholars characterize her as Nubian — that is, a native of a land extending from southern Egypt far into the African interior. The minimal dress of the serving girl may seem surprising to the modern observer but was quite in keeping with female attendant figures of the time, especially adolescent girls. Her shaved head and plaited side lock are also typically Egyptian, while the amulet of the popular god Bes worn around her neck indicates a more distant provenance. The appeal to Bes for divine protection against all manner of evil influences became extremely popular among the Egyptian people during the New Kingdom, a vibrant period of cultural renewal and territorial expansion. The uniquely frontal representation of the deity, as well as its odd combination of physical characteristics, has always been considered of foreign origin, perhaps lying well within sub-Saharan Africa. This captivating figure was excavated during the 19th century in a funerary district on the west bank of the Nile River near the priestly center of Thebes in central Egypt. The girl seems part of the burial goods of Meryptah, the chief priest of Amun under Pharaoh Amenhotep III (circa 1390-1352 B.C.). Among the scanty survivals was another statuette of an Asiatic servant, meaning a native of the Middle East. These figures, and perhaps others, were deposited in the tomb to care for their master in death as their actual counterparts had in life. Attractive as ornament, this elegant figure also serves a practical purpose as a cosmetic vessel. The outsized jar she supports once held some type of prized makeup material, most likely kohl, a kind of mascara, or an unguent made of powdered color suspended in animal fat. The lid protected the contents and pivots outward to permit access. Recipes for these ancient concoctions survive, testimony to the importance of personal adornment in the upper levels of society in ancient Egypt. Many of the surviving cosmetic jars and utensils feature representations of figures atypical of Egyptian society. In addition to this example and its companion, there is a jar held by a black man, and another carried by a dwarf. It seems that the act of pampered service represented by these figured vessels was intentionally coupled with the obligatory, comprehensive subservience of the other. A more concise statement of the layered authority and social structure of the New Kingdom Egyptian state is hard to imagine. There had often existed some degree of accommodation, both cultural and ethnic, between the people of Nubia and Egypt. Even during periods of Egyptian dominance, Nubia retained a considerable ability to negotiate relations with its powerful northern neighbor. In addition to Nubia being a source of valuable raw materials, gold and its famed archers, politically motivated unions were often formed between the Nubian elite and their Egyptian counterparts. In many cases, Nubian women became part of the royal family itself and produced heirs to the throne. Tiye, one of the wives of Amenhotep III, may have been Nubian. Among her children was the well-known reformer pharaoh Akhenaton. One of the most tangible results of these intercultural marriages, and of population dynamics in general, manifested itself in the progressively darker complexion of people living in the southern area of Egypt between Thebes and the first cataract of the Nile. The girl with the unguent jar therefore was not an ethnically isolated presence in the household of Meryptah. She may have been technically free, with the status of the baket, or servant, but may also have been a slave. Interestingly, one ancient Egyptian word for slave was hem, a term derived from the word for "body," and sometimes also used to refer to statuettes buried with the dead to serve them in the afterlife. Despite this girl's humble status, upward mobility may still have been possible through adoption into her owner's family. If a female slave became a concubine of the male head of household, she might even have provided heirs in the more exalted manner of Tiye. The young woman seen here serves as a vivid intermediary between two great civilizations whose relationship, at times quite contentious, ultimately resulted in a mutually beneficial exchange of culture and identity. The nature of ancient Egyptian civilization, too often seen in isolation from its neighbors, would not have been as vibrant or authentic without the many contributions of this fabled land to the south.Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
Yea, like others said: Look at the sitting scribe's legs. Interestingly, they are much darker.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [qb] ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
That is definitely brown paint covering it.
Here is another photo of it.
I just showed the quote form the museum. It had a layer of wax, wax accumulates dirt and they took off the wax
quote: The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy. --Louvre Museum
quote:Originally posted by Tyrannohotep: [qb] ^ Do you think part of the apparent changes of coloration for these artifacts could be the result of different lighting for the photos? I do think that statuette of the serving girl has been tampered with, as indicated by her sidelock having broken off. But it'd be very strange if museums were tampering with the appearance of the artifacts they have on display. "Cleaning them up" like that would be ruining their authenticity in my opinion.
That is definitely brown paint covering it.
Here is another photo of it.
I just showed the quote form the museum. It had a layer of wax, wax accumulates dirt and they took off the wax
quote: The statue was cleaned in 1998, although the process merely reduced the wax overpainting. This restoration brought out the well-conserved ancient polychromy. --Louvre Museum
Um, wax overpainting? That doesn't make any sense. The statue was originally painted brown, but some parts of it obviously chipped off and faded away through time. Hence why the original looks so patchy. You still see the brown paint that covered majority of the statue. They "restored" it by wiping away the original paint job.
If they get their hands on this, they will "restore" the statue to its original white surface.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
A young black woman stands in a delicately swaying posture, holding a large lidded jar balanced on her hip. Her distinctively African facial features are represented with great skill and sensitivity, and her eyes are realistically painted in black and white. This seemingly subtle touch, together with her naturalistic stance, imparts a captivating sense of life to her figure. The vibrant effect is perhaps surprising, given the small scale of the figure, only several inches high. Variously described as a dancer or a servant, the girl is naked except for a golden girdle spanning her hips and an amulet around her neck, incised and painted black. Her figure is carved from boxwood, an exceptionally dense and fine-grained material. The naturally light color of the wood seems to have been meticulously stained a brownish red to approximate the rich hue of a dark-skinned person. Most scholars characterize her as Nubian — that is, a native of a land extending from southern Egypt far into the African interior. The minimal dress of the serving girl may seem surprising to the modern observer but was quite in keeping with female attendant figures of the time, especially adolescent girls. Her shaved head and plaited side lock are also typically Egyptian, while the amulet of the popular god Bes worn around her neck indicates a more distant provenance. The appeal to Bes for divine protection against all manner of evil influences became extremely popular among the Egyptian people during the New Kingdom, a vibrant period of cultural renewal and territorial expansion. The uniquely frontal representation of the deity, as well as its odd combination of physical characteristics, has always been considered of foreign origin, perhaps lying well within sub-Saharan Africa. This captivating figure was excavated during the 19th century in a funerary district on the west bank of the Nile River near the priestly center of Thebes in central Egypt. The girl seems part of the burial goods of Meryptah, the chief priest of Amun under Pharaoh Amenhotep III (circa 1390-1352 B.C.). Among the scanty survivals was another statuette of an Asiatic servant, meaning a native of the Middle East. These figures, and perhaps others, were deposited in the tomb to care for their master in death as their actual counterparts had in life. Attractive as ornament, this elegant figure also serves a practical purpose as a cosmetic vessel. The outsized jar she supports once held some type of prized makeup material, most likely kohl, a kind of mascara, or an unguent made of powdered color suspended in animal fat. The lid protected the contents and pivots outward to permit access. Recipes for these ancient concoctions survive, testimony to the importance of personal adornment in the upper levels of society in ancient Egypt. Many of the surviving cosmetic jars and utensils feature representations of figures atypical of Egyptian society. In addition to this example and its companion, there is a jar held by a black man, and another carried by a dwarf. It seems that the act of pampered service represented by these figured vessels was intentionally coupled with the obligatory, comprehensive subservience of the other. A more concise statement of the layered authority and social structure of the New Kingdom Egyptian state is hard to imagine. There had often existed some degree of accommodation, both cultural and ethnic, between the people of Nubia and Egypt. Even during periods of Egyptian dominance, Nubia retained a considerable ability to negotiate relations with its powerful northern neighbor. In addition to Nubia being a source of valuable raw materials, gold and its famed archers, politically motivated unions were often formed between the Nubian elite and their Egyptian counterparts. In many cases, Nubian women became part of the royal family itself and produced heirs to the throne. Tiye, one of the wives of Amenhotep III, may have been Nubian. Among her children was the well-known reformer pharaoh Akhenaton. One of the most tangible results of these intercultural marriages, and of population dynamics in general, manifested itself in the progressively darker complexion of people living in the southern area of Egypt between Thebes and the first cataract of the Nile. The girl with the unguent jar therefore was not an ethnically isolated presence in the household of Meryptah. She may have been technically free, with the status of the baket, or servant, but may also have been a slave. Interestingly, one ancient Egyptian word for slave was hem, a term derived from the word for "body," and sometimes also used to refer to statuettes buried with the dead to serve them in the afterlife. Despite this girl's humble status, upward mobility may still have been possible through adoption into her owner's family. If a female slave became a concubine of the male head of household, she might even have provided heirs in the more exalted manner of Tiye. The young woman seen here serves as a vivid intermediary between two great civilizations whose relationship, at times quite contentious, ultimately resulted in a mutually beneficial exchange of culture and identity. The nature of ancient Egyptian civilization, too often seen in isolation from its neighbors, would not have been as vibrant or authentic without the many contributions of this fabled land to the south. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.
So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.
ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.
ETA Also notice they aren't calling her the little Nubian servant girl anymore, just servant girl. Just what I expected.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: Thanks Lioness.
Noted:
quote: The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.
So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.
ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.
what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Statue of Metjetji late 5th Dynasty 2375-2345 BCE Wood Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, Missouri. Wood and gesso with paint, copper, alabaster and obsidian Dimensions: 31 5/8 x 6 3/8 x 15 5/16 inches (80.33 x 16.19 x 38.89 cm)
quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: Thanks Lioness.
Noted:
quote: The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.
So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.
ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.
what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood
Which was originally painted dark brown. Just like the Scribe statue. Whipping away the paint and exposing the material underneath is an odd way to "restore" an item. Why not take the Mona Lisa, wipe away the paint, and just show the canvas underneath? Why alter an ancient artifact like that? Why not preserve what is found?
Again, whipping away the original paint to expose the surface underneath is not restoration. Its an agenda.
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by HabariTess: Thanks Lioness.
Noted:
quote: The girl wears only a Bes-figure amulet on a string around her neck and a gilded girdle around her hips. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. Her left ear is pierced with a tiny earring hole and there are socket holes on both sides of the head to hold a wig, which has been lost. The jar on the girl’s hip is actually a cosmetic container. The statuette is believed to have been part of the burial equipment of Meryptah, high priest of Amun under Amenhotep III. A statue of Meryptah himself can be seen on display in the ‘Statues and Stelae’ case in this gallery.
So they "lost" her hair and ear, and her original skin color as well. Wow.
ETA My guess is, in their attempts to lighten this girl, they permanently damaged the hair and earring.
what is in the museum currently is the natural color of the boxwood
Which was originally painted dark brown. Just like the Scribe statue. Whipping away the paint and exposing the material underneath is an odd way to "restore" an item. Why not take the Mona Lisa, wipe away the paint, and just show the canvas underneath? Why alter an ancient artifact like that? Why not preserve what is found?
Again, whipping away the original paint to expose the surface underneath is not restoration. Its an agenda.
posted
You dont see the difference in color between the wood and the coating over it in the before pic?
Posts: 116 | From: Birmingham, AL | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic