Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
You are in error. Manu Ampim is correct.
You have the tail wagging the dog.
The sacred religious afterlife text is the principal thing.
You're acting like the text was meant to illustrate the painting.
Ludicrous.
We don't know why this Cattle of Ra scene is as it is. We don't know if mismatched by intent or error.
We do know in the Egyptian herd stand men looking for all the world like Kushites. We do know in the 'Asiatic' herd stand men looking for all the world like Tjemehu. We do know in the Libyan herd stand men looking for all the world like Assyrians.
Those are the three anomalies of Ramesses III Kings Valley tomb 11 Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra 5th Hour scene 30 wall painting.
Only in the rank reserved for the Nehesian herd stand men looking for all the world like we expect them to look.
AFRICANA STUDIES THE “TABLE OF NATIONS” SCENE IN THE TOMB OF RAMSES III
Prof. Manu Ampim
The one thing that is consistent about these scenes is that the *order* does not change
: the Egyptians are always shown as the *first group* on the far left next to the god Heru (Horus);
then the Aamw second;
the Nubians are always the third group from the left;
and the Tjhnw are the fourth group from the left.
Manu Ampim is wrong here. The statement here is about the order of the figures and he said
" The one thing that is consistent about these scenes is that the *order* does not change"
"scenes" is visual and in his article he shows the scene just like Diop put it on the cover of his book.
Yet when we look at the scene Libyans comes before Nubians. So it's messed up right there, they are supposed to be last " the order does not change" he said but in the scene (keyword scene as opposed to text the very example we are looking at the order did change.
He is so anxious to state that the " order does not change" with intent to show that the first figures are Egyptian that he completely ignores that the order is messed up already, before we even looked at the two sets of Nubian garbed figures!
this is not to say some of his critique of the other researchers is correct in that they avoid the reality of what is on that wall more than he does
but the thing is when you actually look at it is questionable in more ways than one - and that is what he avoids
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Trust me. I let the painting wag the text when I first looked into this 20 years ago too. So I argued with Manu Ampim about it on either Manansala's or Robin Walker's yahoogroup.
Then I buckled down and really studied. I studied to learn. I didn't study to prove a point.
It took weeks of researching through books in physical libraries as well as net sources.
I read the text on tomb walls. I read the text on various sarcophagi. I compared them for nuances.
The textual order never varied, nowhere, not once.
Whether in the running text or the caption the hieroglyphs order is
code:
TEXT CAPTION r-T rmT r-T rmT aAm rmT w aA-m w nH H-s rmT w nH-H-s w T-m-H rmT w T-mH w
We see these two incidents where the artist failed the scribe. KV11f and KV17j.
But no artist ever drew a red (Libyan, 'Asiatic') where a black (Nehesian, Egyptian) belonged. They only swapped one red for another or one black for both blacks.
Then too like you said, who's gonna see it? It's a sealed tomb not a temple promenade.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: [QB] You're not paying attention.
I told you the anomaly is in a different chamber.
Seti I's tomb replicates BG 4:5:30 twice, each in it's own chamber.
So when you said "This crew must've been in a big hurry! " you meant the Egyptian artisans crew making possible erros not a flaw in this facsimile illustration crew.
You are saying it doesn't match the photos I showed because it is the same scene done again in another chamber in the same tomb. I didn't realize that So I would like to see a photo of it but there may not be one online, if not very hard to find.
This thing, plus the text skipping thing it just raises more questions in my mind as to assuming that these Nubian garbed figures
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: ... is how ancient Egypt portrayed themselves,
or
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
i find it interesting that ancient Egyptians identified as ancient Ethiopians (Nubians)
^^ these assumptions disregard other possibilities
- and these other problems with Seti I, and wth the Asiatic and Libyan order switch at Rameses III only add more questionability to these assumptions and assumption stated again below
^^^ then why are these ancient Egyptians depicted the same way ancient Nubians are? It proves there is no difference between the dress of Egyptians and Nubians
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: the lioness please explain the "false dilemma" i supposedly presented
After I put a lot of work in suggesting that when an artist put in a figures dressed like a Nubians and with the same skin tone as the Nubians are commonly depicted in Egyptian art into the Egyptian text position in this scene it could have been a mistake
you then ask me "why are these ancient Egyptians depicted the same way ancient Nubians are? "
So your question assumes the figure is an Egyptian who happens to be dressed like a Nubian and you are speaking to me, someone who does not believe that is an Egyptian despite being labeled that way. That is a waste of time. If I believe the figure is not Egyptian then there is no need for me to explain why the figure is dressed like a Nubian
So if I were to answer the question about why the figure was dressed like a Nubian it would confirm that i think figure is an Egyptian and I just need to explain why the figure is dressed that way.
Let's say a person is accused of beating their child but the person said they didn't do it.
You then ask the person "was last Thursday the first time you beat your child?"
The person says "no" The question is a set up
The next question is "so when was the first time?"
Then the person said "there was no first time I never did that"
So the person asking the question is wasting the person's time with that question about Thursday. That is the false dilemma. The questioner already knows the person is claimng to have not beaten their child yet against logic they ask about Thursday
- they think if the person is lying they can use this trick them with the question to make them slip up and confess to beating the child and instead say something like "no it was on Sunday" oops
I don't have time for these rhetorical games and trick questions.
I already made argumentation why, right or wrong,an opinion why I don't think that is an Egyptian.
A legitimate question posed to me would be "how could that not be an Egyptian if it was labeled that way?"
The answer is a scribe could have laid out the text with gaps for the artist to come in later and put in the figures. But the artists confused the hieroglyphs and put the wrong figure next to them. That is one possibility
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
^^^ then why are these ancient Egyptians depicted the same way ancient Nubians are? It proves there is no difference between the dress of Egyptians and Nubians
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: the lioness please explain the "false dilemma" i supposedly presented
After I put a lot of work in suggesting that when an artist put in a figures dressed like a Nubians and with the same skin tone as the Nubians are commonly depicted in Egyptian art into the Egyptian text position in this scene it could have been a mistake
you then ask me "why are these ancient Egyptians depicted the same way ancient Nubians are? "
So your question assumes the figure is an Egyptian who happens to be dressed like a Nubian and you are speaking to me, someone who does not believe that is an Egyptian despite being labeled that way. That is a waste of time. If I believe the figure is not Egyptian then there is no need for me to explain why the figure is dressed like a Nubian
So if I were to answer the question about why the figure was dressed like a Nubian it would confirm that i think figure is an Egyptian and I just need to explain why the figure is dressed that way.
Let's say a person is accused of beating their child but the person said they didn't do it.
You then ask the person "was last Thursday the first time you beat your child?"
The person says "no" The question is a set up
The next question is "so when was the first time?"
Then the person said "there was no first time I never did that"
So the person asking the question is wasting the person's time with that question about Thursday. That is the false dilemma. The questioner already knows the person is claimng to have not beaten their child yet against logic they ask about Thursday
- they think if the person is lying they can use this trick them with the question to make them slip up and confess to beating the child and instead say something like "no it was on Sunday" oops
I don't have time for these rhetorical games and trick questions.
I already made argumentation why, right or wrong,an opinion why I don't think that is an Egyptian.
A legitimate question posed to me would be "how could that not be an Egyptian if it was labeled that way?"
The answer is a scribe could have laid out the text with gaps for the artist to come in later and put in the figures. But the artists confused the hieroglyphs and put the wrong figure next to them. That is one possibility
^^^ the above is the reason why i call you a troll
posted
you can continue to call something that is not trolling "trolling" and maybe if you say it enough times it will come true
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: by the appearance of these men, proves that the Egyptians identified with the physicality of the Ethiopians(kushites)
this is called circular logic another logic fallacy
and this item in this one tomb looked at in isolation and ignorance to the context is not proof
And it's a much bigger assumption than the one I make, that maybe something is a mistake by an artist. Compared to you who is trying to make a statement that this picture and text proves the Egyptians thought this thing you think they thought
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: you can continue to call something that is not trolling "trolling" and maybe if you say it enough times it will come true
quote:Originally posted by the questioner: by the appearance of these men, proves that the Egyptians identified with the physicality of the Ethiopians(kushites)
this is called circular logic another logic fallacy
and this item in this one tomb looked at in isolation and ignorance to the context is not proof
And it's a much bigger assumption than the one I make, that maybe something is a mistake by an artist. Compared to you who is trying to make a statement that this picture and text proves the Egyptians thought this thing you think they thought
you can call it "fallacy" all you want but i just stick to the facts
Are these men not indistinguishable from the Nubians?
by the appearance of these men, proves that the Egyptians identified with the physicality of the Ethiopians(kushites)
posted
Which was drawn first the text or the figures? Are there any images of Nehesi from the same tomb?
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
Idk man seems a bit too deliberate to be a mistake. Are there any more incidents of this labeling "mishap"? If there was info on how the Egyptians made the...murals(?), then it would be settled.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Idk man seems a bit too deliberate to be a mistake. Are there any more incidents of this labeling "mishap"? If there was info on how the Egyptians made the...murals(?), then it would be settled.
Perhaps Ramses III was trying to show racial or cultural solidarity to kush (Nubia) (my theory)
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Text.
The papyrus text of Book of Gates existed before any tomb anybody can find it in.
Again, it was also written on sargophagi (coffins).
Figures like we're talking about are meant to illustrate the text.
Artist couldn't just plop any people anywhere and a scribe come behind to label them.
Earlier I gave a link to a scribe listing his steps for decorating Ramesses IV tomb. And Romer shows how tomb decorating progressed from simple to full blown. How scribes became the boss.
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Which was drawn first the text or the figures? Are there any images of Nehesi from the same tomb?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
No.
Nehesi always follow Asiatic and precede Libyans. Why Tjemehu are painted where text dictates Aamu? Nobody alive knows. Why Assyrians are painted where text dictates Tjemehu? Nobody alive knows.
Nobody alive knows why Egyptians were painted looking like Nehesians. Mistake or intentional. If intentional, then yes. I agree with the Ramesses III's Nubian/Kushite affinities speculation.
There is no Indo-European breed/herd in the Cattle of Ra.
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Which was drawn first the text or the figures? Are there any images of Nehesi from the same tomb?
yes there are Nehesi images in the same tomb. The nehesi are mentioned right after the Tamahu
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
I sure wish there's a foto of this. At the very least, the complete text.
Reading Lepsius' Denkmaeler repro* text for the first time in years. Now that I'm not working from memory I can tell you. I can tell you there's potential here for another black-black switcheroo.
The text above the dark brown guy with Egyptian dress and 'du. That text introduces the Tjemehu. That means the last Nehesians should be pictured under it. Yet the caption reads [...]rmT |||
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
Another mistake, or anomaly, is a pastiche person, part TmHw and part aAmw. It's an earlier wted ethnic swap, or rather a conflation really.
In Seti I ?
Is there a photo of that?
* I can't call Denkmaeler illos facs anymore. They're not at facsimile level like Nina Davies art.
Nehesi always follow Asiatic and precede Libyans. Why Tjemehu are painted where text dictates Aamu? Nobody alive knows. Why Assyrians are painted where text dictates Tjemehu? Nobody alive knows.
Nobody alive knows why Egyptians were painted looking like Nehesians. Mistake or intentional. If intentional, then yes. I agree with the Ramesses III's Nubian/Kushite affinities speculation.
There is no Indo-European breed/herd in the Cattle of Ra.
quote:Originally posted by the questioner:
quote:Originally posted by AshaT: Which was drawn first the text or the figures? Are there any images of Nehesi from the same tomb?
yes there are Nehesi images in the same tomb. The nehesi are mentioned right after the Tamahu
^^^ Due to the fact that we do not have all of Ramses III's documents we must assume it was done intentional before we assume it was a mistake. Ramses III's artisans were probably trying to make some kind of point or statement.
The Ancient Egyptians had a great respect for dead kings, so i find it hard that they would disrespect him with a mistake.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Why are you trying to tell me what I created this thread for?
Deshret forum for if you just wanna talk black this black that.
I started this thread to discuss BG 4:5 scene 30 in KV11.
To learn about its anomalies. To learn its context. To learn about tomb decoration.
Do you want to know what that scene is an illustration of? Do you know what that scene's place is in The Gate of Teka Hra? Do you know chapter 4's place in the whole book. Do you know what set of literature BG belongs to?
This is the Egyptology forum where there's more to it than just the race issue. On the 5 race model Red Indians, Brown Malays, and Yellow Asians are out. That leaves Black Africans and White Europeans. By the 5 race model Black Africans created Egypt. White Europeans were a tiny minority then. The two merged. More whites immigrated and became nationalized.
Black scholarship never taught an all black Egypt. When presenting BG 4:5:30 nHs and rT rmT back in 1981 Doc Ben said: "Could there be any doubt that the ancient Egyptians of the reign of [pharaohs Ramesses2-6] were in every sense typical of their neighbors in Nubia after looking at the pictures/friezes above from Rameses III in the Valley of the Kings [...]! If so, then these pictures taken inside of the TOMB must change. And who can change them to what kind of evidence to the contrary? Certainly the ancient Egyptian/African artist and or scribes left no doubt who they meant when they painted AN EGYPTIAN from the pictures/friezes above. I am certain you too have realized that the "Egyptians" could have looked like anyone from "Africa, Asia" and/or "Europe" from at least 1675 BCE, at which time the Hyksos invaded and captured The indigenous Africans/Blacks who created the Nile Valley High cultures, Etc."
His caption for the rT rmT reads: Egyptians of Royal Status in Pharaoh Rameses' Family.
That's heavy speculation, but not unreasonable. We know Ramesses 3 was heavy into Nehesi peoples. Another theme for this thread, learning about the man who commissioned the tomb. 8 forensic autosome locations show him over half African. 75% of his alleles match today's Sudan and southern Egypt. He has a rainforest Biaka (pygmy) allele. San hold 17% of his highest frequency alleles.
Questioner, you can increase theknowledgebase and please help me out with some of the above themes. Other related themes of your own, them too, please.
Egyptians were just people like you and me. They got 'thirsty' too. Some were pious some weren't. The quarries and mines cross the Wadi Hammamat were worked by the condemned as well as 'professional' miners. They included villagers from the Valley of the Kings work Town.
posted
Yo, a movie or short film or wte with that Paneb guy would be lit! The audacity, lmao.
Thank you so much for the rec, Tukuler, this documentary is amazing! And sort of answers the question. These people were way too meticulous to make such a huge mistake.
Posts: 24 | From: Jamaica | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged |
My only issue is not so much the difference in physical appearance, but the difference in dress. Why is the attire of the presumed dark-skinned Egyptian not different from the Nhsy unless he is a Nhsy who became naturalized.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I noticed that too. The man's attire looks like a variation of NK Egypt.
Posts: 2508 | From: . | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
What is the purpose of scene 30 in the Gate of Teka Hra?
Why must each herd represent only its own biological breed?
Are any breeds of human cattle related to each other?
There were nationalized Libyans and Asiatics. Once an Asiatic descendant served as vizier, 2md to the king.
Yet where are Libyan or Asiatic stock or dress reps for rT rmT in the Book of Gates? Where are these reds repping for native rT rmT or even nationalized Kmtyw anywhere in even non-holy art?
This is not a table of nations. These are basic stocks of humankind by Nile relative geography.
The painting illumines the text. What does the text say? How do you talk about a picture in the scriptures (Bible, Baghavad Gita)? How can you know what it's about without reading the sacred never changing holy scripture it illustrates?
posted
Cheikh anta diop is absolutely not reliable and his works are extremely outdated. Also he never worked in egypt and he compared the ancient egyptian language to sub saharan african languages who were not even from the same linguistic family...And of course at his time genetic data were not yet available. He even said that he found an hieroglyph on a baobab lol ( I can provide the source if needed)
Posts: 218 | From: Europe | Registered: Jun 2019
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nassbean: Cheikh Anta Diop is absolutely not reliable and his works are extremely outdated. Also he never worked in egypt and he compared the ancient egyptian language to sub saharan african languages who were not even from the same linguistic family...And of course at his time genetic data were not yet available. He even said that he found an hieroglyph on a baobab lol ( I can provide the source if needed)
Cheikh Anta Diop is absolutely reliable, but his work is indeed outdated. Never the less, when tested it's still correct on a lot of points.
Now, can you explain, why they could not read the Stella for what it is? Why they had to do twists, flips, and changes to decode the hieroglyphs?
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic