posted
Weird , many posters go on and on about how black the ancient Egyptians were, but faced with a question about how they looked like (with examples from a site about human phenotypes) it gets moved and locked.
Seems no one wants to exemplify how they think the ancient Egyptians really looked like (except Antalas who gave an honest answer) instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans, without really wanting to visualize how the people there looked like.
The phenotypes I posted all exist in the Nile valley and its surrounding.
posted
instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans,
Why just ADOS? You have Euros going out their way to make ancient Egyptians white in movie and history shows and some of the modern Egyptian being color conscious.
Continue reading the main story
UPSET BY 'SADAT,' EGYPT BARS COLUMBIA FILMS
By Judith Miller, Special To the New York Times Feb. 2, 1984
Credit...The New York Times Archives See the article in its original context from February 2, 1984, Section A, Page 1Buy Reprints New York Times subscribers* enjoy full access to TimesMachine—view over 150 years of New York Times journalism, as it originally appeared. SUBSCRIBE *Does not include Crossword-only or Cooking-only subscribers. About the Archive This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions. Egypt has banned all films produced or distributed by Columbia Pictures because of its objections to ''Sadat,'' a Columbia film about the life of Egypt's assassinated leader that appeared on American television.
Abdel Hamid Radwan, the Minister of Culture of Egypt, announced the decision last Thursday after he reviewed the film, which starred Louis Gossett Jr. as President Anwar el- Sadat. Mr. Radwan concluded that the 1983 film contained ''historical errors that distort the accomplishments of the Egyptian people,'' according to the Egyptian press accounts of his decision.
Martin Blau, the vice president for advertising and publicity of Columbia Pictures International, said in a telephone interview today from New York that ''in the non-Arab world, I would imagine this threat will have no effect.''
Objections to the film are complex. They range from resentment in some circles over the selection of a black to play Mr. Sadat, to often-cited objections concerning ''distortions'' of Egyptian leaders and life, to complaints of historical inaccuracies.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Sadat appeared particularly sensitive about his dark complexion, which prompted jokes and ridicule. The portrayal of Mr. Sadat by a black has revived the issue of race in Egypt, where it is usually deeply submerged.
The producers said they intended the film to be a tribute to Mr. Sadat's life and his courageous decision to make peace with Israel. Indeed, a small group of Westerners and Egyptians who viewed the three-and-a-half-hour film in an illegal showing at an office Tuesday found the portrait of Mr. Sadat glorified and at times almost obsequious.
While the ban in Egypt is not likely to have a significant effect on Columbia globally, film industry observers said it demonstrated the dangers that American film companies face when attempting to market overseas an American view of foreign leaders or heroes. Foreign sales of movies and television programs are an important source of income to American film companies. Countries such as Egypt have strict censorship rules and populations that are unaccustomed to seeing anything other than the government view of their leaders or heroes.
Egypt routinely refuses to let many foreign and domestic films be shown in theaters and on its state-run television. Before 1979, when Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, foreign actors, actresses and film companies that were prominent in their support of Israel were frequently banned in Egypt. Since the peace treaty, there has been no such blanket censorship that anyone here can recall.
Spokesmen for the Ministry of Culture have declined to explain the decision to ban all films produced or distributed by Columbia. One Western diplomat called the step ''a gross overreaction.''
Editors’ Picks 10 Insightful Tips From People Who Prove It’s Never Too Late A Fascinating Page-Turner Made From an Unlikely Subject: Federal Reserve Policy Cookies? Chips? Pizza? Here’s How to Own Your Cravings Continue reading the main story
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story
It was considered unlikely that other Arab governments would be interested in the film since it portrays Mr. Sadat in such a favorable light. Most Arab countries consider him a villain for having made peace with Israel.
A spokesman for the United States Embassy said that the dispute was ''between Columbia and the Egyptian Government,'' and that the embassy had not been involved.
The Israeli press, which has been following the ''Sadat'' controversy closely, views the Egyptian ban with alarm because Israel's relations with Egypt have been under considerable strain recently.
The film is a biography of Mr. Sadat that attempts to explain how and why he made peace with Israel, a decision that many believe cost him his life. The film covers about 40 years, charting Mr. Sadat's rise to power from relatively humble origins as a hot-headed young army officer and ending with his assassination in Cairo in 1981 after his historic trip to Jerusalem and the signing of the Camp David peace accords with Israel.
Seen on Cassettes
Although the film has not been shown in public, many Egyptians already have seen it on pirated video cassettes. Whether they detest or idolize Mr. Sadat, the reactions of those commenting about it are unusually hostile.
Egyptian commentators in the semi-official press have denounced the film, which was broadcast in two parts in the United States last October and November. Its American reviews were mixed. For example, in a review in The New York Times, John J. O'Connor described it as ''a thoroughly admiring portrait of Egypt's Anwar el-Sadat'' and as ''history as viewed by Sadat supporters.'' He added that Mr. Gossett, who won an Academy Award for his performance in ''An Officer and a Gentleman,'' ''commands unflagging attention'' and emerges from the film as ''an unqualified star,'' although ''some of the characterizations, most notably those of Nasser and of Leonid Brezhnev, border on caricature.''
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story Mussa Sabri, the editor in chief of Al Akhbar, a major Arabic-language daily newspaper, praised a decision by Egypt's Cinema Syndicate, a labor organization of film industry representatives, to try to file suit against Columbia for slander against the Egyptian people. The Cinema Syndicate was the group that pressured the Egyptian Government to take action against the film. The syndicate said it felt that the Egyptian people were being slandered because of the false representation of the nation's leaders and heroes.
The film ''Sadat,'' Mr. Sabri wrote in an editorial, was a plot by ''evil Zionist powers.''
Anis Monsour, the highly respected editor of the Arabic weekly magazine October and a close friend of President Sadat, called the film ''a cheap insult'' that made Egyptians appear ''ridiculous.''
At the same time, he blamed the Egyptian Government for the perceived distortions because it had turned away the film's original sponsor when he came to Cairo seeking help.
Daniel H. Blatt, who produced the film for Columbia, said in a telephone interview Tuesday from Los Angeles that the Egyptians disliked the film and banned it because ''the mood has changed in Egypt.''
''They no longer like Sadat and the peace that he made,'' he said. ''It's all political.''
Egyptians Express Outrage
At the private showing of the film on Tuesday that was attended by a small group of Egyptians and foreigners, reactions were divided by nationality. The foreigners said they found the film poorly made and distorted in parts, but they were more deeply distressed by the ban. The Egyptians present, none of whom wished to be identified because of the ban, expressed outrage about the film and support for the censorship.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story ''The film not only distorts Sadat's motives for making peace, it also ridicules King Farouk, Gamal Abdel Nasser, and others whom Egyptians still consider heroes,'' said a young professional.
''It's trash,'' said a Cairo office manager.
Far more troublesome, the Egyptians said, was the film's unfavorable portrayal of President Nasser, who still retains considerable respect and some devotion.
Egyptian viewers at the private showing took strong exception to what they said was the film's implication that President Sadat made peace with Israel primarily because he had been personally saddened by the death of his brother and because Menachem Begin, the former Prime Minister of Israel, had warned Mr. Sadat of an assassination plot. They said they felt that these segments trivialized an important national decision made by Mr. Sadat.
They also expressed discomfort with the portrayal of the close relationship between President Sadat and his wife, Jihan. Scenes that showed passionate embraces at their wedding and in other public places were hooted and ridiculed. A young Egyptian woman groaned when the film showed Colonel Nasser kissing Jihan on the cheek during a visit.
''These appear to be small items to you,'' she said. ''But they indicate that the producers never bothered to learn anything about Egyptian life, culture and social traditions. No Egyptian man would ever demonstrate that kind of affection in public.''
Some Events Omitted
American viewers observed the same inaccuracies, but with greater dispassion. Several who lived in Egypt during the post-Camp David era noted that the film did not show Mr. Sadat's sweeping crackdown on dissidents. The foreigners also said the film did not mention the widespread corruption tolerated by his regime that turned so many of his countrymen against him, despite their support for the peace accords.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story The film also did not discuss the controversy that surrounded Jihan Sadat, who was far more visible and prominent than any other woman in modern Egyptian history. Many Egyptians felt she should have been less visible in the country's political and public life.
Mr. Blatt, the film's producer, discounted such criticism.
''We did a lot of research,'' he said. ''We studied every detail, down to his clothes and his cane. The alleged inaccuracies are not the reason Egyptians don't like my film.''
Mr. Blatt said that he had never been to Egypt and that he decided not to make the $6 million film there because ''I feared for my safety and the crew's.''
He also said that accepting Egyptian help would have meant permitting Egyptian censorship, since all movies filmed on location in Egypt have censors attached to the productions.
Sandy Frank, a New York-based producer who still has the rights to Mr. Sadat's autobiography and who was initially involved in the project, said that the film was shot in Mexico, not Egypt, primarily for budgetary reasons. He said he dropped out of the project because he saw the script and was ''appalled.''
But Mr. Frank added that he came to Cairo in May 1982, seeking Egyptian help on the film, and got no response.
Hoda Sief-e-Din, an Egyptian and general manager of the Arab-American Film Company, said Tuesday in a telephone interview from her Los Angeles office that she had raised $20 million to make a ''genuine'' film about President Sadat's life that the Egyptian Government and Mrs. Sadat would like.
ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story Special offer. Subscribe for $4.25 $1 a week.
posted
If you really must know my answer to your question...
I imagine that #5 on your list, the "Ethiopid" type, comes the closest to what the people who laid the foundations of pharaonic civilization in predynastic Upper Egypt would have looked like (as would their neighbors in Lower Nubia). For that matter, proto-Afroasiatic-speaking people, in general, must have approximated that website's "Ethiopid" type better than any other physical type it portrays. Not that it would have necessarily been a perfect 1:1 match (Northeast Africans have mixed with both Eurasian and other African populations to substantial degrees over the last few millennia), but if we must force prehistoric North Africans into categories based on modern phenotypic variation, "Ethiopid" seems to be the closest approximation.
It's not even that you can't find Egyptians today who look like that.
That said, nobody should deny that, as the ancient Egyptian empire expanded and attracted immigrants from afar, they would have incorporated people of West Asian, Mediterranean, and Upper Nilotic heritage into their population. You know, people like those represented in these AE depictions of foreigners.
And, of course, people in the northern part of the country (Lower Egypt) would probably always have been lighter than people in the south (Upper Egypt). So I would not characterize the AE population as homogenously looking one way or the other.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weird , many posters go on and on about how black the ancient Egyptians were, but faced with a question about how they looked like (with examples from a site about human phenotypes) it gets moved and locked.
Seems no one wants to exemplify how they think the ancient Egyptians really looked like (except Antalas who gave an honest answer) instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans, without really wanting to visualize how the people there looked like.
The phenotypes I posted all exist in the Nile valley and its surrounding.
stop calling people "negro" this is 2022 and black people have considered that term to be insulting for decades now
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Best bet would be to look at metric studies which analyses things that can be measured, such as nasal index, degree of prognathism, facial index etc...
A lot of features analysed in metric studies are external so they can work as an indication as to what a people looked like.
AFAIK Early ancient Egyptians in metric studies usually cluster with Afro Asiatic speakers in the Horn such as Somalis and Tigres, Egyptians also depicted themselves as very similar to the people of Punt, so I would expect early ancient Egyptians to look like Semitic speaking Eritreans/North Ethiopians and Somalis in terms of facial features, hair texture would have been looser though, wavy hair and loose curls seem to be the dominant hair types in ancient Egypt. It's hard to say what their skin colour would be, but I'd expect all the complexions you posted to be represented in early Egypt, average skin tone would have been somewhere in between 4 and 5 IMO.
Posts: 161 | From: England | Registered: May 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weird, many posters go on and on about how black the ancient Egyptians were, but faced with a question about how they looked like (with examples from a site about human phenotypes) it gets moved and locked.
I disagree with your thread being locked as well. I understand it being moved to another section since there are too many racial debate threads as there is on here.
quote:Seems no one wants to exemplify how they think the ancient Egyptians really looked like (except Antalas who gave an honest answer) instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans, without really wanting to visualize how the people there looked like.
You obviously missed how I debunked Antalas on several threads using his own sources, such as on Didyme and cranial nonmetrics. Ever since, he fled to the other sections of the forum. The guy is obviously a troll but at least I addressed his claims.
quote:The phenotypes I posted all exist in the Nile valley and its surrounding.
The phenotypes of modern Egyptians are much more heterogeneous than in ancient times sans all the foreign invasions. This would be like using modern day Mexicans especially from Mexico City as examples of ancient Aztecs. Even Antalas cites the Abusir mummy study showing an increase in Sub-Saharan genes since the pharaonic period. I already started a thread on the Baladi (ethnic non-Arab) Egyptians who tend to be the most pristine here yet strangely Antalas and other naysayers just ignore it.
But to answer the question of your OP as to which of the 7 ladies looks most like the ancient Egyptians, I guess my answer is the same as Brandon-- #5 the 'Ethiopid' type. However, I should remind you that the Human Phenotypes website you cite only gives approximations for the average phenotype of a specific region in modern times. Their Ethiopid phenotype is one endemic to Sub-Saharan East Africa. This isn't to say that such phenotype didn't exist in ancient Egypt, however Egypt and Nubia had their own local phenotypes.
By the way, the concept of a 'black' Egypt is something that is supported by a lot of evidence and is something that's not merely a fantasy of black Americans. Brandon is white and acknowledges this and I myself am Asian and do so as well. The view of Egypt as 'white' or "caucasian" is something that needs to be revised especially since the same bio-anthropological evidence shows Nubians to be closely related to Egyptians and as I pointed out to Antalas via his own sources, if Egyptians are 'caucasian' then so too are Nubians, but when shown this Antalas as well as other Eurocentrics then suffer cognitive dissonance.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, I should remind you that the Human Phenotypes website you cite only gives approximations for the average phenotype of a specific region in modern times. Their Ethiopid phenotype is one endemic to Sub-Saharan East Africa. This isn't to say that such phenotype didn't exist in ancient Egypt, however Egypt and Nubia had their own local phenotypes.
That is my caveat too. I also believe that, the further back in time you go, the less people alive back then will resemble any population today. How would someone like the below (a Mesolithic Western European) fit into that website's schema?
posted
^ I still don't buy Cheddar Man (the Mesolithic Britishman) being that dark in complexion. Considering that he lived that high in latitude during the Ice Age, which reminds me I'm planning to make a thread on that issue as well.
One problem I have with some Afrocentrics is that just because the Egyptians and their Nubian kin are black that somehow means they resemble modern West Africans. There is internal diversity among indigenous 'black' Africans and even more so in ancient times so this view that the pharaohs looked Nigerian or 'Bantu' is also incorrect as them looking like modern 'Arabs' from Palestine or Syria.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I still don't buy Cheddar Man (the Mesolithic Britishman) being that dark in complexion. Considering that he lived that high in latitude during the Ice Age, which reminds me I'm planning to make a thread on that issue as well.
One problem I have with some Afrocentrics is that just because the Egyptians and their Nubian kin are black that somehow means they resemble modern West Africans. There is internal diversity among indigenous 'black' Africans and even more so in ancient times so this view that the pharaohs looked Nigerian or 'Bantu' is also incorrect as them looking like modern 'Arabs' from Palestine or Syria.
There were some broad-trend ancient Egyptians, namely Badarians. Keita's studies revealed this. Its incorrect to say there were no broad trend AEs, although they may not have been the majority.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I never said there were no "broad" featured Egyptians but then again how "broad" are we talking? We know that even the Badarians metrically do not resemble West Africans or most Bantu except perhaps the Teita. Definitely not nonmetrically. This is exactly what I mean by local variation.
That said, I do find it funny that Greek caricatures of Egyptians happen to be strikingly similar to modern day "negro" caricatures. Even Antalas claimed that such portrayals were "to emphasize their otherness". LOL Yeah more like their blackness!
janiform kantharos depicting Herakles and his foe the Egyptian king Busiris (guess which is which)
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zulu and Khamet used the same cowhide shields
You even have the Zulu depicted with the Narmer smiting mace's.
Royal Mace
There seem to have been two forms of mace or club, the Ames (or Amesh) and the Hedj. Originally a functional weapon, over time it became primarily symbolic. It symbolised the might of the pharaoh, crushing his enemies, and was believed to confer invincibility on the bearer.
It was usually made of wood, alabaster, clay, or gold and great pride was taken in being the craftsman who made this sceptre. One of the titles recorded in the tomb of Prince Ramose is “Great Prophet of Heliopolis, unique one of festival, Craftsman of the Ames Scepter.”
Thutmose III claimed that “It was my mace which felled the Asiatics, it was my Ames scepter that struck the Nine Bows” (the traditional enemies of Egypt) and the mace is depicted in numerous “smiting” scenes. The Pyramid Texts in the pyramid of Unas pairs the Ames with the Lotus scepter to give dominion over the living and dead…
“Sit on the throne of Osiris, your Ames Scepter in your hand, so that you give orders to the living, your Lotus Scepter in your other hand, so that you give orders to those whose seats are hidden (the dead).”
The reddish brown skin tone of the Zulu warriors matches the skin tone of the ancient Khametic soldiers.
The bulls tail found on the back of Narmer's waist on the Narmer Palette is still used by the Zulu to this day;
This is why non Black people in this discussion is one of the pathetic things that you could ever see. A Black person like me is standing on the fact that my people come from the Ausarian worshipping Bantu people who dominated the early Nile Valley. You non Black on the other hand are here to gaslight Blacks into denying our legacies. In essence you have little no purpose here.
posted
It is always easy to single out Egyptian portraits and images which look like the people you want it to look like and then claim the ancients looked this or that way.
It seems they varied over time and place and that more studies ought to be done to get a more detailed picture of how they looked like. It is like todays Egyptians, they vary in their phenotypes, and it is hard to pinpoint exactly how an Egyptian looks like.
If one looks around a bit one can even get some ancient Egyptian imagery to look Chinese
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. They were originally Black then they were overwhelmed by Asiatic and then European mulatto hoards.
See it went from Black to non Black.
Then the Black people left
Now this looks BAD on non Black, and particularly White people. Therefore White people like to lie about this entire situation.
quote: It is like todays Egyptians, they vary in their phenotypes, and it is hard to pinpoint exactly how an Egyptian looks like.
No there is no evidence to suggest that. If Egypt was mixed then WHERE... are the light skinned people in the army to defend the civilization? The army has been shown above, and look IDENTICAL to modern Zulu warriors in features AND tradition. Where are the light skinned people in Kemet that YOU claimed were there in large numbers from inception too cowardly to fight, or did they feel that the Blacks were more superior in fighting abilities to join the army?
quote:If one look around a bit one can even get some ancient Egyptian imagery to look Chinese
No you can't. You cannot handle the images of clear Negro rulership in Khamet that I just presented. You and people who do what you do verify my every thought about this situation in our ordeals with you...
posted
Look at the people in this thread trying their damnedest to make the African element of ancient Kemet out to be an East African (meaning ANYTHING BUT BANTU) type. This is why y'all look stupid;
Show me this among the Somalis
Show me this tradition among the Habesha
Show me this tradition among the Berbers;
Show me this Tradition among the modern invaders of the land known as Egypt today;
Show me this tradition among the modern non Nilotic "Pure Sudanese" ;
Show me where the Tigre do this;
Which cultures today practice this form of wrestling? We know from the Sengalese to the Sudanese to the Oromo in Africa still have this tradition. The Indians also do which is why they call their version of this wrestling "Kushti".
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Yep. They were originally Black then they were overwhelmed by Asiatic and then European mulatto hoards.
Hmmm, the language you use are not especially scientific and do not further your cause. Hard to take such a rant seriously. Try to write that in an article and send it to any serious scientific journal and see if they would publish it
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Archeo If I'm not mistaken,some ancient Egyptian had a Khoisan like appearance hence a certain Mongoloid look about the statues. Also the image is rather small and not positioned with face flush with the camera.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
They looked pretty much like modern egyptians throughout most of their history with all it implies in terms of inner diversity but people like Djehuti are well aware of this and it bothers them that's why you see them focusing on pre-dynastic remains and the southernmost regions of Egypt + cherrypicking the most west african looking fellah they can.
He claims he's objective, admit AEs probably looked like upper egyptians and copts but then proceed to post a dinka-looking mythological king named "busiris". In his world only "white-skinned folks" are foreigners, nubians moving to Egypt is either not possible or they should be seen as egyptians...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @Archeo If I'm not mistaken,some ancient Egyptian had a Khoisan like appearance hence a certain Mongoloid look about the statues. Also the image is rather small and not positioned with face flush with the camera.
I do not claim that the ancient Egyptians were Chinese or Mongoloid, I just wanted to illustrate that by choosing certain kinds of imagery from ancient art one can "prove" nearly anything. Lookership is not always so reliable as a tool to characterize ancient peoples.
If one likes to continue playing with art one can also find imagery which looks like Caucasians, and probably other peoples too.
It seems that ancient Egyptian art is so varied in it´s depictions of humans that one can always find some images which look like ones own preferred people.
By the way the "Chinese" looking image is from the 18th dynasty and you can see it in a larger version here
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: Yep. They were originally Black then they were overwhelmed by Asiatic and then European mulatto hoards.
Hmmm, the language you use are not especially scientific and do not further your cause. Hard to take such a rant seriously. Try to write that in an article and send it to any serious scientific journal and see if they would publish it
I don't believe that this is necessary to reveal a truth.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] They looked pretty much like modern egyptians throughout most of their history with all it implies in terms of inner diversity
No they didn't. The phenetic continuity had an abrupt end around the late Dynastic period;
"Previous analyses of cranial variation found the Badari and Early Predynastic Egyptians to be more similar to other African groups than to Mediterranean or European populations (Keita, 1990; Zakrzewski, 2002). In addition, the Badarians have been described as near the centroid of cranial and dental variation among Predynastic and Dynastic populations studied (Irish, 2006; Zakrzewski, 2007). This suggests that, at least through the Early Dynastic period, the inhabitants of the Nile valley were a continuous population of local origin, and no major migration or replacement events occurred during this time.
Studies of cranial morphology also support the use of a Nubian (Kerma) population for a comparison of the Dynastic period, as this group is likely to be more closely genetically related to the early Nile valley inhabitants than would be the Late Dynastic Egyptians, who likely experienced significant mixing with other Mediterranean populations (Zakrzewski, 2002). A craniometric study found the Naqada and Kerma populations to be morphologically similar (Keita, 1990) . Given these and other prior studies suggesting continuity (Berry et al., 1967; Berry and Berry, 1972), and the lack of archaeological evidence of major migration or population replacement during the Neolithic transition in the Nile valley, we may cautiously interpret the dental health changes over time as primarily due to ecological, subsistence, and demographic changes experienced throughout the Nile valley region."
-- AP Starling, JT Stock. (2007). Dental Indicators of Health and Stress in Early Egyptian and Nubian Agriculturalists: A Difficult Transition and Gradual Recovery. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY 134:520–528
See the ancient Khamites were originally Black Africans, and later invading Asiatic hoards and Europeans crept in to destroy the culture, and thus the civilization. Think of how White people and non Blacks are destroying Hip Hop today. The 90's is the height of Hip hop, and notice how there were no white people. Hip Hop begins to degrade as outside elements began to infuse into it against the will of the ethnicity of the original creators of the art. Now today we have whole heap of talentless foreigners into our culture, and promotion of denigration to the point that we have a guy named Lil Nas X (hand picked by white Liberals who own every single record distribution label and social media platforms) against the will of the original ethnic group portraying. This is a modern example of what happened in ancient Kemet. White people tend to not want to accept that they are a cancer to every culture that they forcibly enter, and especially with hip hop today.
quote: but people like Djehuti are well aware of this and it bothers them that's why you see them focusing on pre-dynastic remains and the southernmost regions of Egypt + cherrypicking the most west african looking fellah they can.
HOW IN THE HELL ARE THEY ABLE TO FIND SO MANY STATUES OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE WEST AFRICANS TO PRESENT SUCH A NARRATIVE IF THAT TYPE WAS NOT IN ANCIENT KEMET....Do you see why you sound dumb in your argument? WHY IS THERE SO MUCH ART THAT LOOKS LIKE "WEST AFRICAN"/STEROETYPICAL NC SPEAKERS?
You can play with him/her like that then. Ok. That person wants to keep tip toeing around this Bantu thing to keep your weak azz in the game. I'm not that person. I will humiliate you, in every way in this debate. I find it insulting that you would try to deny my people our history, and will take it personally.
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @Archeo If I'm not mistaken,some ancient Egyptian had a Khoisan like appearance hence a certain Mongoloid look about the statues. Also the image is rather small and not positioned with face flush with the camera.
I do not claim that the ancient Egyptians were Chinese or Mongoloid, I just wanted to illustrate that by choosing certain kinds of imagery from ancient art one can "prove" nearly anything. Lookership is not always so reliable as a tool to characterize ancient peoples.
If one likes to continue playing with art one can also find imagery which looks like Caucasians, and probably other peoples too.
It seems that ancient Egyptian art is so varied in it´s depictions of humans that one can always find some images which look like ones own preferred people.
By the way the "Chinese" looking image is from the 18th dynasty and you can see it in a larger version here
Show me "Chinese" people with "Super Negroid Body plans".
quote:Show me "Chinese" people with "Super Negroid Body plans".
As I already explained, I do not claim the Egyptians to be Chinese (did you read that?), I just pointed out that some people only go by lookership when concerning ancient art and it´s similarities with certain peoples. It is easy to cherry pick, everyone can do that.
Some people just see what they want to see, not because of overwhelming evidence but by ideological conviction.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: You can play with him/her like that then. Ok. That person wants to keep tip toeing around this Bantu thing to keep your weak azz in the game. I'm not that person. I will humiliate you, in every way in this debate. I find it insulting that you would try to deny my people our history, and will take it personally.
So you discuss ancient history just in order to humiliate people with another view, instead of finding out the truth or try to forward knowledge?
I can see you would never fit into any university courses with such attitude, or publish any articles in any serious scientific journals. Seem your standpoint is more ideological than scientific.
By the way, you talk about YOUR people. Are you an Egytian? Were you born and/or raised in Egypt, or do you have any family ties to Egypt?
Just curious.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: You can play with him/her like that then. Ok. That person wants to keep tip toeing around this Bantu thing to keep your weak azz in the game. I'm not that person. I will humiliate you, in every way in this debate. I find it insulting that you would try to deny my people our history, and will take it personally.
So you discuss ancient history just in order to humiliate people with another view, instead of finding out the truth or try to forward knowledge?
I can see you would never fit into any university courses with such attitude, or publish any articles in any serious scientific journals. Seem your standpoint is more ideological than scientific.
By the way, you talk about YOUR people. Are you an Egytian? Were you born and/or raised in Egypt, or do you have any family ties to Egypt?
Just curious.
Your ass wouldn't exist without African people. Stay in your lane.
Posts: 45 | From: U.S | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Show me "Chinese" people with "Super Negroid Body plans".
It is easy to cherry pick, everyone can do that.
No it's not! If it's easy then create comparisons with another group as people just as convincing as what I can present. Present modern Egyptians doing these ancient Khametic rituals the same as we see the Black Africans of various families throughout Africa. You can't! That's why you sound stupid..
quote:Originally posted by Big O: You can play with him/her like that then. Ok. That person wants to keep tip toeing around this Bantu thing to keep your weak azz in the game. I'm not that person. I will humiliate you, in every way in this debate. I find it insulting that you would try to deny my people our history, and will take it personally.
So you discuss ancient history just in order to humiliate people with another view, instead of finding out the truth or try to forward knowledge?
I can see you would never fit into any university courses with such attitude, or publish any articles in any serious scientific journals. Seem your standpoint is more ideological than scientific.
By the way, you talk about YOUR people. Are you an Egytian? Were you born and/or raised in Egypt, or do you have any family ties to Egypt?
Just curious.
My people are KEMET...The ancient civilization of Kemet....IT WAS MY PEOPLE WHO BUILT IT, MAINTAINED IT AND HOLD ON TO THE LEGACY OF THE CIVILIZATION TODAY. YES...MY ANCESTORS with NO DOUBT!
quote:Your ass wouldn't exist without African people. Stay in your lane.
So what? You would not be writing on a phone or computer without European people. So all people of all colors have contributed to human development.
You do not sound like an academic either. [/QB]
We taught y'all how to talk. lol. Remember y'all lived in CAVES...until some Black people decided to show so you all some vital things.
Remember African Americans created over 80% of the World's most advanced nation's practical inventions! From the LIGHT BULB... to your cell phone to your video game...to your AC...to your refrigerator. All Black people. We don't nor neve ever ever need other peoples besides our own.
Europeans running loose in the World over the last 2,500 years is the equivalent of Planet of the Apes.
posted
Seems meaningless to discuss with you. You have no clue about how one evaluates evidence or about archaeological and historical methodology.
Real archaeologists and historians do not sit and cherry pick pictures from different time epochs, different geographical places and different cultural contexts just to find some superficial similarities.
If you do not believe me try to forward your ideas to any serious academic journal. Good luck.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Big O: My people are KEMET...The ancient civilization of Kemet....IT WAS MY PEOPLE WHO BUILT IT, MAINTAINED IT AND HOLD ON TO THE LEGACY OF THE CIVILIZATION TODAY. YES...MY ANCESTORS with NO DOUBT! [/QB]
So you mean you are born and raised in Egypt? Or have relatives there? Otherwise it was not YOUR people who built the ancient Egypt.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They looked pretty much like modern egyptians throughout most of their history with all it implies in terms of inner diversity but people like Djehuti are well aware of this and it bothers them that's why you see them focusing on pre-dynastic remains and the southernmost regions of Egypt + cherrypicking the most west african looking fellah they can.
Wow! You really can't stop yourself from lying, can you??! It is truly a psycho-pathological problem for you.
I'm the one who posts pictures of modern Baladi (non-Arab ethnic Egyptians) as proof that they continue the ancient (black) phenotype of their ancestors, but because of their black appearance you make the false allegation that they are Nubians of recent Sub-Saharan descent, while YOU post cherrypicked photos of fair-skinned Egyptians of Arab or European ancestry.
I post studies showing the African traits of dynastic Egyptians not just predyanstic ones while YOU post studies that support MY claims while misrepresenting and distorting them to fit your claims.
quote:He claims he's objective, admit AEs probably looked like upper egyptians and copts but then proceed to post a dinka-looking mythological king named "busiris". In his world only "white-skinned folks" are foreigners, nubians moving to Egypt is either not possible or they should be seen as egyptians...
What I posted was a vase made by Classical Greeks themselves! I never said that it was an accurate portrait of Busiris (assuming he existed), but if you have a problem with that portrait take it up with them, not me! LOL And yes white skin IS foreign to the African continent which is what no doubt bothers you as a white Berber, sorry!
Meanwhile here are Baladi Egyptians from Giza (Lower Egypt):
Here is a study of dynastic Egyptians from the New Kingdom:
"Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues"
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Abstract During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids. Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.
Skin Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed. To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining
I know you hate to see reality for what it is, but that's too bad.
I advise you to seek psychiatric help.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems meaningless to discuss with you. You have no clue about how one evaluates evidence or about archaeological and historical methodology.
Real archaeologists and historians do not sit and cherry pick pictures from different time epochs, different geographical places and different cultural contexts just to find some superficial similarities.
If you do not believe me try to forward your ideas to any serious academic journal. Good luck.
White academia is a collective glorified lying manipulative THEIVES. White academia got it's asses kicked in 1974 on this issue, and it almost literally said that in the conclusions of UNESCO...You lost the debate, and pulled an "I'M WHITE AND I SAY SO". That meant that despite loosing in every single category against those arguing for a pan Africanist diffusionist model of ancient Khemet and Africa you would claim that non African/non Black people with no evidence somehow had a presence in this culture/civilization.
So no I don't care what you think... Kemet was a pan African civilization with Bantu's in the center of it. White people were banned from Kemet, and were the opposite of the Ausarian religion. The ancient Greek writers make very clear that they were not received well in ancient Khemet when a certain phenotype was shown. Rich White people take all of this information when first excavated and hoard the essential knowledge of the civilization in private museums and viewings.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: My people are KEMET...The ancient civilization of Kemet....IT WAS MY PEOPLE WHO BUILT IT, MAINTAINED IT AND HOLD ON TO THE LEGACY OF THE CIVILIZATION TODAY. YES...MY ANCESTORS with NO DOUBT!
So you mean you are born and raised in Egypt? Or have relatives there? Otherwise it was not YOUR people who built the ancient Egypt. [/QB]
Notice how they keep playing word games. White people know that the word "Egypt" refers to a time when Europeans and Asians ruled the land formerly known as Kemet, so they in their tricknology use the term Egypt rather than Kemet. Kemet refers to a specific place IN TIME that was Black owned and operated.
quote:Originally posted by Big O: White academia is a collective glorified lying manipulative THEIVES. White academia got it's asses kicked in 1974 on this issue, and it almost literally said that in the conclusions of UNESCO...You lost the debate, and pulled an "I'M WHITE AND I SAY SO". That meant that despite loosing in every single category against those arguing for a pan Africanist diffusionist model of ancient Khemet and Africa you would claim that non African/non Black people with no evidence somehow had a presence in this culture/civilization.
So no I don't care what you think... Kemet was a pan African civilization with Bantu's in the center of it. White people were banned from Kemet, and were the opposite of the Ausarian religion. The ancient Greek writers make very clear that they were not received well in ancient Khemet when a certain phenotype was shown. Rich White people take all of this information when first excavated and hoard the essential knowledge of the civilization in private museums and viewings.
So you think academia is just a big lie. Well that proves you never sat your foot in a university. Seems you just have a lot of prejudice. And F Y I today people of all colors and races work in academia, as historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, art historians and more, but still they would not accept some silly cherry picking of unrelated images, based on superficial similarities. It takes more than that.
You can claim ancient Egypt as much as you like, but still the people who actually live there have much more right to claim it. I understand that many Egyptians today get tired of both black and white foreigners trying to claim their history and cultural heritage. Maybe time to decolonize Egyptian history and give it back to the Egyptians.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Wow! You really can't stop yourself from lying, can you??! It is truly a psycho-pathological problem for you.
I'm the one who posts pictures of modern Baladi (non-Arab ethnic Egyptians) as proof that they continue the ancient (black) phenotype of their ancestors, but because of their black appearance you make the false allegation that they are Nubians of recent Sub-Saharan descent, while YOU post cherrypicked photos of fair-skinned Egyptians of Arab or European ancestry.
There is nothing "black" about baladis or ancient egyptians. Black would be the way ancient egyptians portrayed Nubians from the land of Kush (proper black skin + negroid features) :
I said your example (you only posted one example) probably has recent black ancestry because he doesn't look like your regular baladi. Proper baladi who look exactly like how ancient egyptians used to portray themselves :
but anyway egyptians from the delta were probably much lighter than this. These people have nothing to do with 99% of sub-saharan ethnicities let alone afro-americans.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I post studies showing the African traits of dynastic Egyptians not just predyanstic ones while YOU post studies that support MY claims while misrepresenting and distorting them to fit your claims.
Not a single paper support your claim, the only element that could have supported your claim was some SSA affinities for predynastic remains but as I showed you many times that's already the case of modern upper egyptians and yes modern upper egyptians already show affinities with east africans.
You try to pass "affinity" for "black african people" with such logic I'm black. The same way you interpret the dental datas as "intermediate" while no paper imply this. I probably myself have these ssa affinities does it mean I'm black ? Or "intermediate ? No.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: What I posted was a vase made by Classical Greeks themselves! I never said that it was an accurate portrait of Busiris (assuming he existed), but if you have a problem with that portrait take it up with them, not me! LOL And yes white skin IS foreign to the African continent which is what no doubt bothers you as a white Berber, sorry!
I already showed you what historians have to say about it and it was made by "classical greeks" who had no clue about how egyptians looked like. Anyway what's the point of focusing on it if you know egyptians didn't look like dinka people ? Thanks.
White skin, straight hair, caucasoid morphological features are indeed foreign to the african continent but are present since at least the Upper Paleolithic in Africa. Moreover black skin is not adapted to climates of North Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Here is a study of dynastic Egyptians from the New Kingdom:
"Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues"
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren Department of Biology I, Biodiversity Research/Anthropology1and Department of Veterinary Anatomy II2, Ludwig-Maximilians University Munich, Germany Submitted January 8, 2002; revised May 4, 2004; accepted August 12, 2004 Abstract During an excavation headed by the German Institute for Archaeology, Cairo, at the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt, three types of tissues from different mummies were sampled to compare 13 well known rehydration methods for mummified tissue with three newly developed methods. Furthermore, three fixatives were tested with each of the rehydration fluids. Meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and a placenta were used for this study. The rehydration and fixation procedures were uniform for all methods.
Skin Skin sections showed particularly good tissue preservation, although cellular outlines were never distinct. Although much of the epidermis had already separated from the dermis, the remaining epidermis often was preserved well (Fig. 1). The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin. In the dermis, the hair follicles, hair, and sebaceous and sweat glands were readily apparent (Fig. 2). Blood vessels, but no red blood cells, and small peripheral nerves were identified unambiguously (Fig. 3). The subcutaneous layer showed loose connective tissue fibers attached to the dermis, and fat cell remnants were observed. To evaluate the influence of postmortum tissue decay by micro-organisms, the samples were tested for the presence of fungi using silver staining.
I know you hate to see reality for what it is, but that's too bad.
I advise you to seek psychiatric help. [/QB]
That's from Thebes only therefore not representative of all of Egypt + you can test modern people from Upper Egypt and I'm ready to bet anything they'll reach the same conclusions. Moreover doesn't SSA show a variety in skin color ? That's right thanks.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Posting carefully selected pictures doesn't mean jack crap. This little charade is old and played out, seen it so many times in here since 2003.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: There is nothing "black" about baladis or ancient egyptians. Black would be the way ancient egyptians portrayed Nubians from the land of Kush (proper black skin + negroid features):
No! That is YOUR narrow definition of "black". The majority of people who use the descriptive label 'black' do not narrow it down to ebony black skin or negroid features, anymore than the label "white" being applied to milk white skin and blonde hair. Your statement is not only a straw doll but a false dichotomy. By the way your false dichotomy argument is typical of Euronuts and has been busted too many times on this forum with selective pictures contrasting Egyptians from southern Sudanese who are NOT ethnic Nubians but rather living under the hegemony of the Nubian-Kushite empire.
Here are ethnic Nubians:
^ Notice they have the same features as ethnic Egyptians with the only difference being their darker/blacker complexions.
This is supported by Irish's findings which YOU brought up yourself:
By the way, the Egyptian word for 'black' is kem which they used for themselves i.e. kememu or kemetawi!
I also like how your examples of Egyptians in your pics are an unpainted portrait of Ramses II and below him the one image of Sennedjem with faded paint! LOL one can just google Sennedjem to see that he is much darker.
quote:I said your example (you only posted one example) probably has recent black ancestry because he doesn't look like your regular baladi. Proper baladi who look exactly like how ancient egyptians used to portray themselves:
What are you talking about?! I posted 3 pictures of Baladi Egyptians. So if an Egyptian has dark skin that means his mixed with Sub-Saharan, whereas a fair-skinned Egyptian is pristine?!! LOL
quote:
Of your pictures above, the top man and the bottom child are the ones who obviously foreign admixed especially their light skin. But according to you it's the reverse right?
quote:but anyway egyptians from the delta were probably much lighter than this...
Based on what, your own fictitious beliefs?
quote:These people have nothing to do with 99% of sub-saharan ethnicities let alone afro-americans.
Again, your evidence? Egyptians have been shown to have metric affinities to Ethiopians and Haddow et al. 2012 shows they cluster non-metrically. And yes while there are differences between North Africans and Sub-Saharans there are still African commonalities between them both like skeletal morphology, dark (black) skin, and genetically like paternal E-M215, Benin HBS, shall I go on??
quote:Not a single paper support your claim, the only element that could have supported your claim was some SSA affinities for predynastic remains but as I showed you many times that's already the case of modern upper egyptians and yes modern upper egyptians already show affinities with east africans.
Not just predynastic, dummy. And yeah my reply right above this!
quote:You try to pass "affinity" for "black african people" with such logic I'm black. The same way you interpret the dental datas as "intermediate" while no paper imply this. I probably myself have these ssa affinities does it mean I'm black ? Or "intermediate ? No.
No! "Black" is a reference to skin color, moron. Egyptians are black because of their skin color and as Africans they share other features in common with Africans even Sub-Saharans. I already told you the dental data groups North Africans with West Eurasians but they are intermediate in that share certain features with Sbu-Saharans that other West Eurasians do not! What's so hard to understand?
quote:I already showed you what historians have to say about it and it was made by "classical greeks" who had no clue about how egyptians looked like. Anyway what's the point of focusing on it if you know egyptians didn't look like dinka people ? Thanks.
My point of posting that vase is one that YOU are making for me! LOL If the Greeks who made that vase had as you say "no clue about how Egyptians looked like", then what pray tell gave them the idea that they looked like that?? You mean to tell me the makers of that vase couldn't get information from Greeks who actually traveled to Egypt?!
quote:White skin, straight hair, caucasoid morphological features are indeed foreign to the african continent but are present since at least the Upper Paleolithic in Africa. Moreover black skin is not adapted to climates of North Africa.
Wrong again! I said only "white skin" is. What evidence do you have that loose hair or even so-called "caucasoid" morphology is?? Are you aware that the earliest "caucasoid" morphology was found in Sub-Sahara--Gamble's Cave Kenya?! Also, while 'white' or pale skin is foreign to Africa, that doesn't mean light skin in general. The Khoisan aboriginals of Southern Africa have light yellowish brown skin yet their environment is also Mediterranean.
quote:That's from Thebes only therefore not representative of all of Egypt + you can test modern people from Upper Egypt and I'm ready to bet anything they'll reach the same conclusions.
When did I say they represent all ancient Egyptians? Also, you realize Thebes or the 'Thebald' as Egyptologists called it was the capital and nexus of Upper Egyptian populace. The study just proves my point of Egyptians having dark/black skin!
quote:Moreover doesn't SSA show a variety in skin color? That's right thanks.
Yes among other features. I just gave the Khoisan as an example. Again, I have debunked your dumb ass multiple times but you are too delusional to realize it.
Please go get psychiatric help.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] Some people are just in denial to the point of delusion.
To Archeopteryx, who of these modern Egyptians resembles ancient Egyptians the most:
According to ancient art all of them could be ancient Egyptians. But best ask them for a DNA test, then one would know more. I do not believe all ancient Egyptians looked the same, not concerning the geographical position of Egypt with contacts in all directions. Also it can have varied over time, and where in Egypt one would have looked.
But perhaps the middle one most looked like at least the ones in the southern parts of Egypt.
Maybe there was a cline already in ancient times with the more light skinned in North and the darkest in South (even if there were some mobility amongst them).
And still, I believe that todays Egyptians generally are more related to the Ancient Egyptians than any Europeans or African Americans. So it is really up to them to define their ancestors.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Weird , many posters go on and on about how black the ancient Egyptians were, but faced with a question about how they looked like (with examples from a site about human phenotypes) it gets moved and locked.
Seems no one wants to exemplify how they think the ancient Egyptians really looked like (except Antalas who gave an honest answer) instead of fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans, without really wanting to visualize how the people there looked like.
The phenotypes I posted all exist in the Nile valley and its surrounding.
Have you ever been to Egypt and looked at the murals?
quote: "Many of the sites reveal evidence of important interactions between Nilotic and Saharan groups during the formative phases of the Egyptian Predynastic Period (e.g. Wadi el-Hôl, Rayayna, Nuq’ Menih, Kurkur Oasis). Other sites preserve important information regarding the use of the desert routes during the Protodynastic and Pharaonic Periods, particularly during periods of political and military turmoil in the Nile Valley (e.g. Gebel Tjauti, Wadi el-Hôl)."
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Seems not even the ancient Egyptians agreed to in what color they should depict themselves. It seems to have varied.
But I´m sure they would have been a bit amused about all people who quarrel about it some thousands of years later
You seem not to have too many images form ancient Egypt, so you always have to show the same set and recycle them. However, that is not what the majority of ancient Egyptian art looked like, and I mean over 90%:
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: That's from Thebes only therefore not representative of all of Egypt + you can test modern people from Upper Egypt and I'm ready to bet anything they'll reach the same conclusions. Moreover doesn't SSA show a variety in skin color ? That's right thanks.
Are you aware of the importance of Thebes? You try hard, but seem to fail each time…
quote: Thebes, ancient Egyptian Wase or Wo’se or (from c. 21st century BCE) Nowe or Nuwe, one of the famed cities of antiquity, the capital of the ancient Egyptian empire at its heyday.
quote:Ancient Thebes was home to some of the greatest monuments of the ancient world—built to honor the living, the dead, and the divine. The city, known as Waset to ancient Egyptians and as Luxor today, was the capital of Egypt during parts of the Middle Kingdom (2040 to 1750 B.C.) and the New Kingdom (circa 1550 to 1070 B.C.).
Thebes was the city of Amun, whose devotees elevated him among the ranks of ancient deities. Once a relatively local Theban god, he was merged with the god Re and perched atop the entire Egyptian pantheon.
quote: Napata and its Amun sanctuary remained the kingdom’s chief religious center and the premier site of all royal coronations. Well into the Common era, Jebel Barkal was thought to be the main Nubian seat of the god Amun, who conferred kingship upon the rulers of Kush – a kingship believed by its possessors to have descended, in that place, directly from the sun god Re at the beginning of time.
quote:III. A. The Nature of Amun and the Mysteries of Jebel Barkal.(Amen)
It is clear from a complex surviving iconographic and textual record that from early Dynasty 18 the Egyptians assigned Jebel Barkal an outsized religious and political significance because of its peculiar shape. It is perhaps the unique Egyptian religious site that allows us to perceive how Egyptian religious beliefs were influenced by the natural landscape. The isolated hill evoked in the Egyptian mind the Primeval Mound of popular myth, on which Creation was thought to have taken place. “Proof” of the presence here of Amun as Creator was evident to ancient onlookers in the towering, statue-like pinnacle on its south corner (fig. 23), which, when viewed from different angles at different times of the day, suggested to them the forms of many different divine beings or aspects, all of which combined to confirm the presence and protean nature of the god, whose very name meant “Hidden.”
quote: "The earliest certain link with Egypt is 664 B.C., the date of the Assyrian sack of the Egyptian capital at Thebes. Although it is often possible to locate earlier events quite precisely relative to each other, neither surviving contemporary documents nor scientific dating methods such as carbon 14, dendrochronology, thermoluminescence, and archaeoastronomy are able to provide the required accuracy to fix these events absolutely in time."
quote: During three seasons of research (in 2000, 2001 and 2003) carried out by the Combined Prehistoric Expedition at Gebel Ramlah in the southern part of the Egyptian Western Desert, three separate Final Neolithic cemeteries were discovered and excavated. Skeletal remains of 67 individuals, comprising both primary and secondary interments, were recovered from 32 discrete burial pits. Numerous grave goods were found, including lithics, pottery and ground stone objects, as well as items of personal adornment, pigments, shells and sheets of mica. Imports from distant areas prove far-reaching contacts. Analysis of the finds sheds important light on the burial rituals and social conditions of the Final Neolithic cattle keepers inhabiting Ramlah Playa. This community, dated to the mid-fifth millennium B.C. (calibrated), was composed of a phenotypically diverse population derived from both North and sub-Saharan Africa. There were no indications of social differentiation. The deteriorating climatic conditions probably forced these people to migrate toward the Nile Valley where they undoubtedly contributed to the birth of ancient Egyptian civilization.
quote: Post-Pleistocene climatic improvement in the Northern Hemisphere after ca. 9550 BC allowed human populations to recolonize large parts of North Africa in what is today the Sahara Desert. In the Egyptian Western Desert, the beginnings of human occupation date as early as ca. 9300 BC. Occupation continued until the middle of the third millennium BC when final desertification of the area no longer afforded human occupation. The settlement of the Neolithic cattle and sheep/goat herders developed along with the rhythm of alternating wet and dry climatic oscillations. One of the areas occupied intensively during the early and middle Holocene was Gebel Ramlah. Pastoral populations established their settlements around the shores of a paleo-lake adjacent to a rocky massif, to exploit the local savannah environment. During most of the Neolithic, they buried their dead dispersed outside of their settlements. Only during the Final Neolithic (after ca. 4600 BC) did they place them exclusively in cemeteries. Of six Final Neolithic cemeteries investigated at Gebel Ramlah to date, one is entirely unprecedented, not only in North Africa but also globally at such an early date. For just under 200 years (ca. 4500–4300 BC), it served exclusively for the inhumation of infants who died around (perinate) or shortly after the time of birth (neonate). Thirty-two
burial pits contained skeletal remains of 39 individuals, not only infants but also at least two adult females accompanied by perinates/neonates. Older children (> 3 years) were interred at a nearby cemetery that primarily comprised adults.
[…]
The area around Gebel Ramlah was settled since the beginning of the Early Neolithic, and the density of settlement reached its maximum during the El Jerar phase (climatic optimum of the Holocene). Traces from the Middle, Late, and Final Neolithic are less intensive and random. In fact, for the Final Neolithic, we have more information on mortuary behavior than for the settlement pattern and subsistence. Between 4500 and 4300 BC, south-western fringes of the Gebel Ramlah lake served as an extended burial ground for different populations. Different ancestry and relationships of these populations can be followed on the basis of archaeological and, partially, bioarchaeological arguments. Some groups (using cemeteries E-01-2, E-03-1, E-03-2, and E-09-4) show some affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans, readable in the pottery assemblage and other grave goods, as well as some morphological features (Irish 2010; Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 2010; Czekaj-Zastawny and Kabaciński 2015). These people were certainly mobile, perhaps spending only a few months per year at Gebel Ramlah. The E-09-02 cemeteries for neonates and adults belonged to another, more sedentary group with limited mobility; however, we cannot trace their origins based on the available record. An almost complete lack of grave goods does not allow comparative analyses. On the other hand, peculiar characters of the skeletal remains at these cemeteries—numerous neonatal/perinatal individuals and poorly preserved subadults/adults—do not allow reliable studies based on craniometric or dental data. But, qualitatively, there are no obvious differences among all populations from Gebel Ramlah at the beginning of the Final Neolithic. Thus, the two groups, culturally different, were likely not much different biologically, possibly deriving from the same region of Africa.
[…]
Ethnographic data offer support by showing how radically different children are treated in various African societies (Gottlieb 2004a, b; Pawlik 2004; Kabaciński et al. 2018).
(Agnieszka Czekaj-Zastawny & Tomasz Goslar & Joel D. Irish & Jacek Kabaciński, Gebel Ramlah—a Unique Newborns’ Cemetery of the Neolithic Sahara, African Archaeological Review volume 35, pages393–405(2018))
(Joel D Irish, Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental Affinities Among Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples, Apr 2006 · American Journal of Physical Anthropology)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You seem not to have too many images form ancient Egypt, so you always have to show the same set and recycle them. However, that is not what the majority of ancient Egyptian art looked like, and I mean over 90%: [/QB]
I just do not see it necessary to post a lot of pics, spamming the thread. Others do that so well. I just posted two pics to show how Egyptian art can vary.
Have you seen all Egyptian art so you know how it all looks? I doubt you seen 90% of it. I have been in several museums and seen Egyptian art and it varies, even if a reddish brown is rather common conccerning paintings, but it varies.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that some people are hellbent to invent a monolithic negro ancient Egypt, just for the sake of ideology, not caring about the diversity that was in ancient Egypt both concerning art, and physical variation.
Seems the Egyptians have to fight both black and white foreigners who want to define them and tell them how their ancestors looked like.
Time to decolonize Egyptian history and let the Egyptians themselves define their ancestors, not white or black extremists from foreign countries.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Geber: You seem not to have too many images form ancient Egypt, so you always have to show the same set and recycle them. However, that is not what the majority of ancient Egyptian art looked like, and I mean over 90%:
I just do not see it necessary to post a lot of pics, spamming the thread. Others do that so well. I just posted two pics to show how Egyptian art can vary.
Have you seen all Egyptian art so you know how it all looks? I doubt you seen 90% of it. I have been in several museums and seen Egyptian art and it varies, even if a reddish brown is rather common conccerning paintings, but it varies.
It's not about picture spam, it's about showing the same cycle of pictures as a representation of ancient Egypt. You clearly are delusional and have no clue what ancient Egyptian murals looked like.
That site you posted was outdated B.S. as well, since African diversity is complex.
At least 90% of ancient Egyptian murals look like these:
quote: “To the south of Egypt, the Kushites had expanded into Lower Nubia between the first and second cataracts during the period of Persian rule. In 275–274 B.C., Ptolemy II drove back the Kushites and annexed the area, which was then developed as a sort of trade corridor between Egypt and the lands ruled by the Kushites, who had recentered at Meroë.”
quote:Now the inhabitants of the marches are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians.
quote: "For in the correspondingly situated places on our side of the equator, that is those on the Summer Tropic, people do not yet have the color of the Aithiopians, and there are no rhinoceros and elephants; but in places not much to the south of these, moderately black people are to be found, such as those who live in the "Thirty Schoinoi" [region in lower Nubia] outside of Soene. Of the same type, too, are the people of Garame, whom Marinos also says (and indeed, for this very reason) live neither right on the Summer Tropic nor to the north, but entirely to the south of it. But in places around Meroe people are already quite black in color, and are at last pure Aithiopians, and the habitat of the elephants and more wonderful animals is there."
(Ptolemy, J. Lennart Berggren, Alexander Jones, Ptolemy's Geography: An Annotated Translation of the Theoretical Chapters, Pg7p)
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It seems that some people are hellbent to invent a monolithic negro ancient Egypt, just for the sake of ideology, not caring about the diversity that was in ancient Egypt both concerning art, and physical variation.
Seems the Egyptians have to fight both black and white foreigners who want to define them and tell them how their ancestors looked like.
Time to decolonize Egyptian history and let the Egyptians themselves define their ancestors, not white or black extremists from foreign countries.
Tell, who came up with racial categorizations? And why is it we find murals like these all over Egypt, going back the the earliest dynasties.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some people are just in denial to the point of delusion.
To Archeopteryx, who of these modern Egyptians resembles ancient Egyptians the most:
According to ancient art all of them could be ancient Egyptians. But best ask them for a DNA test, then one would know more. I do not believe all ancient Egyptians looked the same, not concerning the geographical position of Egypt with contacts in all directions. Also it can have varied over time, and where in Egypt one would have looked.
But perhaps the middle one most looked like at least the ones in the southern parts of Egypt.
Maybe there was a cline already in ancient times with the more light skinned in North and the darkest in South (even if there were some mobility amongst them).
And still, I believe that todays Egyptians generally are more related to the Ancient Egyptians than any Europeans or African Americans. So it is really up to them to define their ancestors.
In terms of situ development that makes no sense.
quote: The process of the peopling of the Nile Valley likely shaped the population structure and early biological similarity of Egyptians and Nubians. As others have noted, affinity among Nilotic populations was due to an aggregation of events, including environmental, linguistic, and sociopolitical changes over a great deal of time. This study seeks to evaluate the relationships of Nubian and Egyptian groups in the context of the original peopling event. Cranial nonmetric traits from 18 Nubian and Egyptian samples, spanning Lower Egypt to Lower Nubia and approximately 7400 years, were analyzed using Mahalanobis D2 as a measure of biological distance. A principal coordinates analysis and spatial-temporal model were applied to these data. The results reveal temporal and spatial patterning consistent with documented events in Egyptian and Nubian population history. Moreover, the Mesolithic Nubian sample clustered with later Nubian and Egyptian samples, indicating that events prior to the Mesolithic were important in shaping the later genetic patterning of the Nubian population. Later contact through the establishment of the Egyptian fort at Buhen, Kerma’s position as a strategic trade center along the Nile, and Egyptian colonization at Tombos maintained genetic similarity among the populations”
(Godde K July 2018, A new analysis interpreting Nilotic relationships and peopling of the Nile Valley)
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yeah more like their blackness!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic