Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The real skinny on blue eyes of Egyptian statues pt 1
For those interested in Old Kingdom statuary rock crystal inlaid eyes. Let me emphatically state, Egypt from the Badarian down to today displays obvious phenotypic diversity.
Indigenous dark skinned African phenotypes were the overwhelming majority. The other, minority, phenotypes can be Egyptian too. Their types range from indigenous lighter skinned coastal Africans to very dark skinned middle Nile Valley, Horn, and Saharo-Sahel Africans to Arabian plate and overseas naturalized foreigners dressed in Egyptian style and visiting foreigners sporting home fashion who are not Egyptian.
The foreign skin colour scale swings from very dark to very light and everything in between. Egypt since the pre-dynastic attracted people looking for opportunities. All contributed to make the cosmopolitan first world power, Egypt, founded by indigenous lower Nile Valley Africans.
Non-brown inlaid eye irises are production faults. When eye coloring brown resin doesn't perfectly contact the crystal the result is partial to fully grey eyes. Crystal to resin contact can change with time. The eye color we see now may or may not be the eye color the sculptor intended.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The real skinny on blue eyes of Egyptian statues pt 2
From a standard reference on AE materials and industry we learn the crystal was transparent having no color and that the intended eye color was brown effected by resin.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
The real skinny on blue eyes of Egyptian statues pt 5
It's about the rock crystal, brown resin, and their degree of contact.
All inlaid clear rock crystal eyes were backed with a brown resin disk to impart eye color. Where contact is not perfect or where the resin has shrunk the intended eye color is lost and what's left is a more or less greyish eye color.
This is a perfect example of the effects of imperfect brown resin disk contact. Anyone can detect where the resin is not sealed completely intact to the crystal mat by the grey color. Likewise intact perfectly sealed disk onto crystal is revealed by the brown areas.
It's all precisely explained in the technical reference.
Any alternative speculations backed by citation to technical sources about inlaid rock crystal eyes in Egyptian statuary?
posted
More about looks. It is interesting to see that curling ones hair (or wig) is a rather old concept.
quote: For pretty much as long as people have had hair they have looked for ways to change it. Inventions such as curling tongs feel relatively modern but they have actually been around for centuries.
We only have to look at paintings and carvings from the ancient world to see that having curls was a fashion that crossed many cultures. Babylonian and Assyrian men dyed their hair and square beards black, then crimped and curled them with basic curling irons. Persian and Greek nobles also used rods of iron or bronze heated over a fire to produce impressive hairstyles which would highlight their wealth and beauty. Egyptian nobles often cropped their hair close or shaved their heads but on ceremonial occasions, for protection from the sun, they wore wigs. The wigs would be long and full of curls or braids, which were styled with tools like this one.
Bronze hair curling tongs and trimmer, Egypt, 1575-1194 BCE Credit: Science Museum Group Collection.
These bronze curling tongs are combined with a hair trimmer and would have been heated up on a fire before pieces of hair were curled around them.
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 fantasizing 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.
If the topic of this thread is about phenotype then there has NEVER been a debate or dispute regarding the phenotype, that is physical appearance, of the Egyptians; rather the controversy has been about their ‘race’, which is their population genetic relations. I’ve already cited Greco-Roman sources describing the Egyptian phenotype here and in other threads. Their writings (as well as the Hebrew and Syriac descriptions) are clear and concise which is why Euronuts either avoid them like the plague or those like Antalas have no choice but to distort and twist the meanings of their terms. The Greek and later Roman sources agree that the general appearance of the Egyptians is that they have very dark i.e. ‘black’ (Greek: melanchro) or ‘near black’ (Latin: atrati) skin with thicker ‘woolly’ hair similar to sheep hair, with thicker lips and wider noses, and physiques that are slender/skinny or otherwise voluptuous. Mind you, this is the general view or stereotype of Egyptian physical appearance and such a view was held from ‘Classical’ times through Hellenistic and Roman periods all through the Middle Ages and throughout the Renaissance. It was only in the so-called ‘Enlightenment’ Period (17th-18th centuries) with the advent of modern conceptions of race and evolutionary theory that views were somewhat modified to emphasize similarities whereas the earlier classical views emphasized the differences in looks.
During the late 18th to early 19th century occupation of Egypt by Napoleonic France which lead to the beginnings of Egyptology, French scientists and scholars generally described the Egyptian natives and their ancient ancestors as either outright “negroes” or in the very least “negroid” in appearance. The most famous example of this being Constantin François de Chassebœuf, comte de Volney who stated, "the Copts are the proper representatives of the Ancient Egyptians" due to their "jaundiced and fumed skin, which is neither Grecian nor Arabian, their puffed faces, their swollen eyes, their flattened noses, and their thick lips...the ancient Egyptians were true negroes of the same type as all native born Africans", and that ancient portraits gave him the clue as to why Copts “have a bloated face, puffed-up eyes, flat nose, thick lips – in a word, the true face of the mulatto”. Upon visiting the Sphinx he famously remarked "seeing that head, typically negro in all its features", he concluded "the Copts were "true negroes" of the same stock as all the autochthonous peoples of Africa" and they "after some centuries of mixing..., must have lost the full blackness of its original color."
Napoleon’s Chief Physician Jean François Xavier Pugnet categorizes the Copts into two divisions—one group who is mixed with foreign ancestry especially Greco-Roman, and another that is more pristinely Egyptian. He gives the general description of the Copts as follows: “To the feeble and miserable exterior of the former [the Arabs] they oppose an air of majesty and power; to the rudeness of their traits, a sustained affability; at first look worried and concerned, a very full-bodied figure.” Of the Copts whom he supposes are the unmixed or least mixed descendants of Pharaonic Egyptians he remarks: “The Egyptians are generally above the average height, their forms are vigorously pronounced, the color of their skin is of a dark red; they have broad foreheads; rounded chin; moderately full cheeks; straight noses with strongly sinuous nasal wings; the eyes large and brown; mouth slightly cleft; thick lips; white teeth; high and very loose ears; finally, the extremely black eyebrows and beard” Of the Pharaonic Egyptians themselves based on their portraits he states: “Their forms are vigorously pronounced, the color of their skin is of an obscure red; they have large foreheads, round chins, jaws moderately full, straight noses, the nasal ailes strongly sinuous, eyes large and brown, mouth a little apart, thick lips, white teeth, high and very detached ears, eyelashes and beards extremely black.”
Baron Dominique Vivant Dénon, a French diplomat in Egypt made the following observation of the natives: “Instead of the sharp features, the keen, animated, and restless visages, the lean and active figures of the Arabian, in the land of the Pharaohs, full but delicate and voluptuous forms; countenances sedate and placid; round and soft features; with eyes long, almond-shaped, half-shut and languishing, and turned up at the outer angles, as it habitually fatigued by the light and heat of the sun; thick lips, full and prominent; mouths large but cheerful and smiling; complexions dark, ruddy, and coppery; and the whole aspect displaying, as one of the most graphic delineators among modern travelers has observed, the genuine African character, of which the negro is the exaggerated and extreme representation.” Dénon said he was struck by the resemblance of the Copts to the ancient portraits which he characterized by, “flat foreheads; eyes half closed, and raised up at the angles; high cheek-bones; a broad, flat nose, very short; a large flattened mouth, placed at considerable distance from the nose; thick lips; little beard; a shapeless body; crooked legs, without any expression in the contour; and long flat feet.”
A few years later Jean-François Champollion the French ‘Father of Egyptology’ who deciphered the Rosetta Stone, disagreed with Volney, Dénon, and the like and wrote: “The first tribes that inhabited Egypt that is, the Nile Valley between the Syene cataracts and the sea, came from Abyssinia to Sennar. The ancient Egyptians belonged to a race quite similar to the Kennous or Barabras, present inhabitants of Nubia. In the Copts of Egypt we do not find any of the characteristic features of the ancient Egyptian population. The Copts are the result of crossbreeding with all the nations that have successively dominated Egypt. It is wrong to seek in them the principal features of the old race.”
Champollion’s older brother Jacques Joseph Champollion-Figeac went further to disassociate “negroes” from both the ancient Egyptians and modern Copts claiming that though Classical authors’ descriptions were accurate it was a “misunderstanding” to interpret what they saw as “negroes” since, "the two physical traits of black skin and wooly hair are not enough to stamp a race as negro". In Champollion-Figeac’s racial scheme the African continent was inhabited by three main races: ‘Negroes proper’, the Kaffirs, and the Moors. The Egyptians and other northeast Africans belonged to the last category which he described as similar to Europeans and West Asians in feature and form but with much darker skin color approaching the Kaffirs but fairer than Negroes and with longer straighter hair though he admits the hair is relatively more thick and crisp and the lips fuller than Europeans. Champollion-Figeac cites Baron Dominique Jean Larrey, Chief Surgeon to the French Imperial Guard: “Dr. Larrey investigated this problem in Egypt; he examined a large number of mummies, studied their skulls, recognized the principle characteristics, tried to identify them in the various races living in Egypt, and succeeded in doing so. The Abyssinian seemed to him to combine them all, except for the black race (Negroes). The Abyssinian has large eyes, an agreeable glance, prominent cheekbones; the cheeks form a regular triangle with prominent angles of the jawbone and chin; the lips are thick without being everted as in Blacks; the teeth are fine, just slightly protruding; finally, the complexion is merely copper-colored: such are the Abyssinians observed by Dr. Larrey generally known as Berbers or Barabras, present-day inhabitants of Nubia.”
Baron Larrey also concurs that while the Modern Egyptians or Copts are not identical to their ancient predecessors, they still comprise the same Abyssinian branch as them albeit with more “negroid” features. According to him the Copts have a “yellow, dusky complexion, like that of the Abyssinians. Their countenance is full, without being puffed; their eyes are beautiful, clear, almond-shaped, languishing; their cheek-bones are projecting; their noses nearly straight, rounded at the point; their nostrils dilated; mouth of moderate size; their lips thick; their teeth white, regular, and scarcely projecting; their beard and hair black and crisp.” In all these characters, the Egyptians both ancient and modern, according to Larrey correspond with the Abyssinians and are distinguished from the Negroes which he explains, “Indeed the African Negroes have larger, more advanced teeth, more extensive and more pronounced alveolar areas, thicker, everted lips, and a wider mouth: they also have less prominent cheekbones, smaller cheeks, and eyes duller and rounder, and their hair is stiff.” Both Champollion-Figeac and Baron Larrey were clearly subscribing to the new school of ‘race theory’ that was emerging from Germany which was based on a combination of Darwinian evolution with Biblical legends of Noah’s descent, as well as European standards of human phenotype and beauty.
The 18th century German physician and anatomist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach who is known as the ‘Father of Western physical anthropology’ and the person who first invented the racial terms we use today such as “Caucasian” and “Caucasoid” had traveled to Egypt where he examined many mummies and reviewed ancient portraiture. Blumenbach came to the conclusion that ancient Egyptians displayed three varieties of physiognomy which he lists as “Ethiopian, Indian, and Berberine”. “The first coincides with the descriptions given of the Egyptians by the ancients: it is chiefly distinguished by prominent jaws, turgid lips, a wide flat nose, and protruding eye-balls. The second is considerably different from the first; its characters are a long narrow nose; long and thin eyelids, which turn upwards from the bridge of the nose towards the temples; ears placed high on the head; a short and thin bodily structure, and very long shanks. The third sort of Egyptian figures partakes something of both the formers. It is characterized by a peculiar turgid habit, flabby cheeks, a short chin, large prominent eyes, and a plump form of body.” The last type, according to Blumenbach was the predominant type generally shown in portraits and was standardized to be the “national physiognomy”, which Blumenbach asserts is closest in resemblance to the modern Barábra or Berberine people of Lower Nubia. “This people [Barábras], like the Egyptians, have a reddish brown skin, but of a much darker tint. The characteristic features of the pure Barábras are oval and somewhat long faces, with aquiline noses, very well formed and slightly rounded towards the point, lips thick without being protruding, a receding chin, thin beard, animated eyes, very curly but never frizzled hair, a body perfectly in proportion and usually of the middle height, and lastly a bronze-coloured skin”.
According to Blumenbach’s scheme, the Ethiopian types originate from the far south, the Indian type from the far north and the Berberine being predominant everywhere else, with the latter and the Indian type being “Caucasian” while the Ethiopian type forming a kinship with the Negroes.
British archaeologist Reginald Stuart Poole follows the academic view of his time, claiming the Egyptians to be a “dark red-brown race marked by their small beard and moustache, and their abundant crisp black hair”, and “identical to the Copts”. Poole goes further to say that the peoples closest related to Egyptians are the non-Semite Cushite peoples who inhabit the Red Sea coasts both in Africa and in Arabia especially in Abyssinia and Yemen.
British explorer Sir Richard Francis Burton wrote: “Debauched women prefer Negroes on account of the size of their parts. I measured one man in Somali-land who, when quiescent, numbered nearly six inches. This is a characteristic of the Negro race and of African animals; [. . .] whereas the pure Arab, man and beast, is below the average of Europe; one of the best proofs by and by, that the Egyptian is not an Asiatic, but a Negro partially whitewashed...” [sic]
Though American explorer John Ledyard who traveled to Egypt stated: “I suspect the Copts to have been the origin of the Negro race; the nose and lips correspond with those of the Negro. The hair, wherever I can see it among the people here, is curled, not like that of the Negroes, but like the Mulattoes.”
All in all it becomes clear that the laymen who don’t follow the schools of thought on anthropology take a direct approach in describing the Egyptian phenotype as being similar to ‘Negroes’ or approaching that of Negroid type, whereas the academics go a roundabout way with distinct classifications of “Brown” or “Caucasoid” race while still admitting this includes other Africans further south to Ethiopia. So the whole notion of a 'black' Egypt is obviously not some "Afrocentric fantasy" unless you consider all the European explorers and academics above as "Afrocentric".
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It´s really an interesting phenomena, not only here on ES but on sites like Quora and many other places on internet, the question of the phenotype (or race) of ancient Egyptians has in some way become an ideological battlefield between people who think they were relatively light skinned and those who want to declare them as black. One can wonder why their skin color and outer appearance mean so much for a lot of people who do not live in Egypt or have any relatives there, or any other connections. Why do people who are not Egyptians care?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it is also a matter of how similar todays Egyptians are to the ancient ones? And how related. Sometimes I get the feeling that some debaters want to disconnect todays Egyptians from their own past.
But to just connect to the op question:
Would this Egyptian boy be within the variation you could expect to see in ancient Egypt? Here he is compared with a portrait of Tutankhamun.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Maybe it is also a matter of how similar todays Egyptians are to the ancient ones? And how related. Sometimes I get the feeling that some debaters want to disconnect todays Egyptians from their own past.
But to just connect to the op question:
Would this Egyptian boy be within the variation you could expect to see in ancient Egypt? Here he is compared with a portrait of Tutankhamun.
Come on dude. Why did you use that picture of Tut and not his facemask? Like seriously. Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense. The most famous and well known image of Tut is is golden face mask and you picked that image to do a comparison.
And honestly most of us here know that that the artwork from the ancients is in various states of preservation with a range of colors due to fading, soot, etc. You can find any 'example' of whatever phenotype you want to find if you just want to cherry pick images ancient or modern. But if someone is serious they would be looking at all the images across a large range of tombs and temples and not simply cherry pick images.
Case in point those flower girls you posted are from the tomb of Menna, a very famous tomb from he ancient Nile. The full tomb is here, with other images of females like below:
posted
I honestly find this question strange and dishonest. If the complain was that people are obsessing over Egypt simply because of skin color would be one thing, but the fact is that for 100s of years Egypt was and has been presented as the creation of non Africans who conquered the natives and created a high culture. There are actual AAs who are making a serious stride into studying Ancient Egypt and Nubia within its historical African context.
Its not even just about skin color, because it takes a combination of miltiple disciplines to understand a cultures proper understanding, not just History and art, but archeology and anthropology and genetics.
This whole notion of "Not being related to" such and such people is so dishonest its almost not worth mentioning. Should a white historian who dedicate his life to studying Ancient China, even learning Mandarin not be allowed to do so because he isn't ethnically/genetically Chinese
One of my professors at Uni was a PHD in Ancient India who learned Hindi and lived in India for a number of years. She was a white Anglo American, should she be not allowed to do so based on ethnicity and closeness to said people?
You complain when African actors are selected to represent not only Swedes but other Europeans such as the Greeks who you are not related to. This is a small sample of what has been happening and still is happening to African cultures esp. A. Egypt. People to this day are saying that Egypt was a Levantine, Mesopotamian and Middle Eastern Civilization DESPITE the evidence to the contrary.
And don't try to use a Genetics study to pretend this supports some Dynastic Race ideology, we all know how Genetics can be twisted to paint any sort of narriative. Until someone can post anything of substance in "Eurasia" that led to the creation of Dynastic Egyptian culture surpassing what is found in Africa.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It´s really an interesting phenomena, not only here on ES but on sites like Quora and many other places on internet, the question of the phenotype (or race) of ancient Egyptians has in some way become an ideological battlefield between people who think they were relatively light skinned and those who want to declare them as black. One can wonder why their skin color and outer appearance mean so much for a lot of people who do not live in Egypt or have any relatives there, or any other connections. Why do people who are not Egyptians care?
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Come on dude. Why did you use that picture of Tut and not his facemask? Like seriously. Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense. The most famous and well known image of Tut is is golden face mask and you picked that image to do a comparison.
So you can not answer the question? If the boy would fall into the variation of ancient Egyptian phenotypes? It is not really relevant what picture of Tutankhamon I would post. I could have posted only the boy.
Maybe you just don´t know?
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Come on dude. Why did you use that picture of Tut and not his facemask? Like seriously. Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense. The most famous and well known image of Tut is is golden face mask and you picked that image to do a comparison.
So you can not answer the question? If the boy would fall into the variation of ancient Egyptian phenotypes? It is not really relevant what picture of Tutankhamon I would post. I could have posted only the boy.
Maybe you just don´t know?
It does matter because you are using Tutankhamun as an example, so you want to get the best image representing what he looked like do you not? All images of Tut don't look the same and this is common in AE art where even in the same tomb you have different shades or colors for the same person. So either you are going to use the most "representative" version of what the ancient person looked like or basically you are just using random variation in paint color and sculpture preservation to compare against which doesn't make sense. The phenotype of the ancient Nile Valley isn't "art" or random paint color from a tomb is the point. By that logic every shade and feature of human phenotype is in AE art and then what? That doesn't tell you what the common phenotype was among the population at any time because you are using paint color and sculptures in isolation (cherry picking) to base your comparisons on. And the only one here being dishonest is you because you know this very well because you made sure to cherry pick the images you wanted to match the phenotype you want to use to represent the ancient population. So actually you are engaging in the same obsession with phenotype that you claim is only done by others.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I honestly find this question strange and dishonest.
Nothing strange with the question. For years now I have seen people obsessing over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians on social media and different history fora. I seen people quarreling for hours and days about if the AEs were light brown or dark brown, if they had curly or straight hair, or if different artwork give a true picture of how they looked like. All this suggests that the interest for some people are more than purely academic.
Yes, people can be interested in different cultures than their own, or of different ancient peoples than their own ancestors, but these endless discussions about if the ancient Egyptians were black or not goes beyond most of that, and it seems to engage a lot of people who are not academics in the fields of AE history and archaeology.
Curiosity and interest is one thing, but all these aggressive discussions about AEs being BLACK or not is another thing. It is more obsession than curiosity.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It does matter because you are using Tutankhamun as an example, so you want to get the best image representing what he looked like do you not? All images of Tut don't look the same and this is common in AE art where even in the same tomb you have different shades or colors for the same person. So either you are going to use the most "representative" version of what the ancient person looked like or basically you are just using random variation in paint color and sculpture preservation to compare against which doesn't make sense. The phenotype of the ancient Nile Valley isn't "art" or random paint color from a tomb is the point. By that logic every shade and feature of human phenotype is in AE art and then what? That doesn't tell you what the common phenotype was among the population at any time because you are using paint color and sculptures in isolation (cherry picking) to base your comparisons on. And the only one here being dishonest is you because you know this very well because you made sure to cherry pick the images you wanted to match the phenotype you want to use to represent the ancient population. So actually you are engaging in the same obsession with phenotype that you claim is only done by others.
It does only matter for querulous people who are obsessed with the color and appearance of ancient Egyptians. I could have posted a picture of the boy alone, but you would probably still find something to complain about instead of just giving an honest answer to the question.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, then I agree that the question on simple skin color is pretty pointless at the end of the day. The same can be said about other disciplines if they are used and only viewed in isolation, while excluding other approaches and evidence, even DNA/Genetics. A multi-disciplinary approach is always much more effective and more historically relevant than obsessing over one aspect of approach...at least IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
I honestly find this question strange and dishonest.
Nothing strange with the question. For years now I have seen people obsessing over the skin color of the ancient Egyptians on social media and different history fora. I seen people quarreling for hours and days about if the AEs were light brown or dark brown, if they had curly or straight hair, or if different artwork give a true picture of how they looked like. All this suggests that the interest for some people are more than purely academic.
Yes, people can be interested in different cultures than their own, or of different ancient peoples than their own ancestors, but these endless discussions about if the ancient Egyptians were black or not goes beyond most of that, and it seems to engage a lot of people who are not academics in the fields of AE history and archaeology.
Curiosity and interest is one thing, but all these aggressive discussions about AEs being BLACK or not is another thing. It is more obsession than curiosity.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: It does matter because you are using Tutankhamun as an example, so you want to get the best image representing what he looked like do you not? All images of Tut don't look the same and this is common in AE art where even in the same tomb you have different shades or colors for the same person. So either you are going to use the most "representative" version of what the ancient person looked like or basically you are just using random variation in paint color and sculpture preservation to compare against which doesn't make sense. The phenotype of the ancient Nile Valley isn't "art" or random paint color from a tomb is the point. By that logic every shade and feature of human phenotype is in AE art and then what? That doesn't tell you what the common phenotype was among the population at any time because you are using paint color and sculptures in isolation (cherry picking) to base your comparisons on. And the only one here being dishonest is you because you know this very well because you made sure to cherry pick the images you wanted to match the phenotype you want to use to represent the ancient population. So actually you are engaging in the same obsession with phenotype that you claim is only done by others.
It does only matter for querulous people who are obsessed with the color and appearance of ancient Egyptians. I could have posted a picture of the boy alone, but you would probably still find something to complain about instead of just giving an honest answer to the question.
Who created this thread? It was you was it not? So what are you saying? That you came tell us what is and isn't obsession about skin color when you are sitting here obsessing over it? You are being hypocritical is the point. This site has had hundreds of threads discussing this topic and yet you created a new one as if you are discussing something new. And you wonder why threads get locked because folks want to keep on beating a dead horse. According to you cherry picking images from ancient art is not obsessing over skin color and why not? You seem to want to pretend that you haven't seen the full scope of ancient art of the Nile Valley with different features and complexions. So how are you going to argue that somehow only certain hand picked images represent the full expression of phenotype on the ancient or modern Nile? And when someone calls you out on your nonsense you claim that they are obsessed using ad hominem arguments? Obviously you have no clue what on earth you are talking about how actual study of anthropology works and how diversity works.
Since you want to play stupid, are you arguing that the image of King Tut that you cherry picked is the best image of the phenotype he had in life? Simple question. And why did you not use the face mask from his burial shroud or any of the other many representations of Tut that exist. Are you arguing that this one image is the best most detailed image you could find for King Tut? And you just picked it randomly for no reason and it just happened to be used by coincidence. You can sit here and complain all you want but you are the one being dishonest here and nobody else.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I created this thread as a reaction to many other threads where phenotype and skin color were discussed. I just wanted a clearer image of how some members here really thought the ancient Egyptians looked like, more tangible than just exclamations of color. So I posted some photos. But not so many answered directly but led the discussion into a lot of different directions (and many of the answers were more ideological than factual). With this post I tried just to return to the original question. But I see you are unwilling to answer, instead you come with a lot of objections. But maybe someone else are willing to answer.
My question was if the boy on the picture would fit into the phenotypic variation of ancient Egypt. The Tutankhamun statue has similarities with the boy so I posted it too.
And I did not say that he would be representative for every ancient Egyptian, I was just curious about if someone thinks that one could have met a person like that in AE.
If we post pictures of ancient art, or persons it is always a selection, we can hardly post all ancient artwork, or all modern Egyptians.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I created this thread as a reaction to many other threads where phenotype and skin color were discussed. I just wanted a clearer image of how some members here really thought the ancient Egyptians looked like, more tangible than just exclamations of color. So I posted some photos. But not so many answered directly but led the discussion into a lot of different directions (and many of the answers were fore ideoogical than factual). With this post I tried just to return to the original question. But I see you are unwilling to answer, instead you come with a lot of objections. But maybe someone else are willing to answer.
My question was if the boy on the picture would fit into the phenotypic variation of ancient Egypt. The Tutankhamun statue has similarities with the boy so I posted it too.
But I see you have not actually answered the question.
And I did not say that he would be representative for every ancient Egyptian, I was just curious about if you think that one could have met a person like that in AE.
If we post pictures of ancient art, or persons it is always a selection, we can hardly post all ancient artwork, or all modern Egyptians.
So you admit you came here to discuss something that has been discussed thousands of times on this site: skin color. And yet you claim this is somehow a "new" discussion? GTFOH with that nonsense. You obviously want to discuss skin color and pheontype yet you claim it is somebody else who is obsessing over it. There are hundreds of threads on this topic and there is no new information that you are bringing to the table. And that is why your threads get locked. So you are being dishonest.
You posted a picture of Tut that you obviously knew could be used to represent a certain kind of phenotype. You knew it when you picked it. So obviously you were cherry picking. Obviously modern Egypt has variations in phenotype, so why are you ASKING somebody about it when you can see it for yourself. But all of that variation does not match what King Tut looked like because he had a specific look and features and that cannot be changed. But the artwork of King Tut can vary so how do you distinguish between art and reality was my point. Again you know this but decided to pretend to be introducing something new to this forum when it has been discussed to death. And your question has been answered numerous times but you don't listen because you are being dishonest. You can find in the various surviving artwork any number of variations of features, even for the same person, and match it to someone in modern Egypt. So why are you asking us about it? That is obvious from the start, but that doesn't mean that this is valid anthropology or a valid way to understand phenotype in the ancient Nile.
All of these are art of King Tut and all are slightly different. So which of these represent what he actually looked like?
posted
I came to get some clarification of how people really thought ancient Egyptians looked like, compared with some photos I posted. But it seems some people do not like that, they just want to complain.
Seems like some people just get triggered if someone posts a picture depicting an Egyptian person, or artwork, with somewhat light complexion. That seems a bit obsessive. I do not jump on every picture of dark skinned Egyptians that people post. They do not trigger me.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I came to get some clarification of how people really thought ancient Egyptians looked like, compared with some photos I posted. But it seems some people do not like that, they just want to complain.
Seems like some people just get triggered if someone posts a picture depicting an Egyptian person, or artwork, with somewhat light complexion. That seems a bit obsessive. I do not jump on every picture of dark skinned Egyptians that people post. They do not trigger me.
You came to get something that has been discussed on this forum to death. So how are you acting like you couldn't already get an answer? And what does it matter what "we" think? Why do you care? I thought you said we were obsessing over skin color so why are you asking our opinion on anything? Obviously that is not what you were doing because obviously the information you want is already on the forum and doesn't need a new thread for you to understand it. Everybody on this forum has various views and yes it boils down to skin color and other features which have been discussed to death here and elsewhere so you are just acting like this is a different discussion when it isn't.
You asked a question did not want an honest answer and got upset because somebody called you out on your BS and now you are mad about it. Because if you wanted an honest answer you would agree that what I said above is an honest answer but that isn't what you want so that is why your threads get locked.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I asked a question and got a lot of complaint and meaningless drivel from you. If you do not like a question you do not have to answer.
No you didn't ask me anything. I just called you out for being dishonest as an answer to why your threads get locked on the topic.
This topic has been discussed to death and you just wanted to discuss it some more because YOU are obsessed with it.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked if that boy could have fit into ancient Egyptian variation. You did not answer but started to complain about my choice of pictures. So why answer at all if you had no interest in trying to answer?
Are you to decide which topics are discussed? No one forces you participate in a discussion you do not like.
I´m sure that if I had posted a pitch black person and a black statue you would not have complained.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on dude. Why did you use that picture of Tut and not his facemask? Like seriously. Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense. The most famous and well known image of Tut is is golden face mask and you picked that image to do a comparison.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
All of these are art of King Tut and all are slightly different. So which of these represent what he actually looked like?
Doug you are giving mixed messages here. You are saying "which of these represent what he actually looked like?" and at the same time suggesting the gold face mask is the best representation of how he actually looked
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
Would this Egyptian boy be within the variation you could expect to see in ancient Egypt? Here he is compared with a portrait of Tutankhamun.
I think this is a reasonable question, that can have a yes or no answer
and then if "yes" adding something like "in comparison to that particular sculpture of Tutankhamun (in context of variations in the art depicting him)"
Or it could be "no, they do not look similar"
etc
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Come on dude. Why did you use that picture of Tut and not his facemask? Like seriously. Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense. The most famous and well known image of Tut is is golden face mask and you picked that image to do a comparison.
____________________________Not that big of a difference in my opinion________________________
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
even if you look at actual photos of people they can look different depending on the angle of the photo, lighting variations and other factors
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: It´s really an interesting phenomena, not only here on ES but on sites like Quora and many other places on internet, the question of the phenotype (or race) of ancient Egyptians has in some way become an ideological battlefield between people who think they were relatively light skinned and those who want to declare them as black. One can wonder why their skin color and outer appearance mean so much for a lot of people who do not live in Egypt or have any relatives there, or any other connections. Why do people who are not Egyptians care?
I told you there was no "question" regarding the issue of phenotype which is physical appearance. I already provided multiple accounts from 18th and 19th century Europeans explicitly describing the Egyptians as an African (BLACK) looking people. Rather the debate has been and apparently still is on "race" which is grouping or categorization of population. Mind you it was Europeans who first made race an issue, when they attempted to divorce Egypt from the rest of Africa and try to include it with their racialized grouping of "Caucasoid", "Mediterranean", "Near-Eastern", or what have you. Recent scholars and academics have realized this fallacy and are embarrassed by it but other people still cling to the outdated racial ideology.
I myself am Asian so I don't really have a personal stake in the matter; however, what I do have is the principle of scientific honesty. Then again perhaps I do have a little personal beef because in the past my people (Filipinos and other Pacific Islanders) were also classified as "Mediterranean Caucasoids". So yeah!
quote: Maybe it is also a matter of how similar todays Egyptians are to the ancient ones? And how related. Sometimes I get the feeling that some debaters want to disconnect todays Egyptians from their own past.
But to just connect to the op question:
Would this Egyptian boy be within the variation you could expect to see in ancient Egypt? Here he is compared with a portrait of Tutankhamun.
Nobody's trying to disconnect modern Egyptians from their ancient predecessors, however it would be foolish to say modern Egyptians are the same as the ancients. This is like saying today's Mexicans are the same as the ancient Aztecs and Maya and thus ignoring the historical invasions and migrations that have taken place.
As I've explained many times today's Egyptians are ethnically diverse with various ethnic groups residing in the country to the point that 'Egyptian' is more of a nationality than an actual ethnicity. The dominant ethnic group in Egypt today are the Arabs, but then you have others like the Greeks who largely reside in Alexandria, the Turks, Circassians, and even Nubians who largely reside in Aswan. The true ethnic Egyptians who are descended from the ancients are the Baladi which in Coptic means 'Native'. Everyone else the Baladi call khawaga meaning 'foreign'.
I don't know why you keep posting that cherry-picked light-skinned boy who may very well be of foreign ancestry to compare to Tut's child bust when you have plenty of Baladi children who much better look the part.
adult Tut Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: I asked if that boy could have fit into ancient Egyptian variation. You did not answer but started to complain about my choice of pictures. So why answer at all if you had no interest in trying to answer?
Are you to decide which topics are discussed? No one forces you participate in a discussion you do not like.
I´m sure that if I had posted a pitch black person and a black statue you would not have complained.
The only one here complaining is you because you opened the the thread complaining about other people having other views on the topic on ancient phenotype in the Nile Valley.
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.
Literally you said that nobody wants to talk about how the ancient people really looked when there have been many threads about this exact topic on this forum. So you are being DISHONEST because you know how people view this topic and yet it goes along the lines of skin color with different posters having different views. So you claiming that somehow you cannot find these views from people on this forum, many of whom have been here for years, is the part that is dishonest. That is what I am calling out and you keep running away from. There threads here going back over 10 years discussing this topic to death, so to sit here and complain that somehow there isn't enough information on this topic in this forum is what is hilarious.
You just want to debate skin color, but are trying to play dumb like you didn't know that this information was already available on this forum.
Like I said, if you were serious you would have responded to what I said about the different versions of King Tut in the ancient artwork which is just one example and there are many others as well. So you are being dishonest, you want to sit here and play stupid like somehow you have more objective facts that somehow we are missing or are ignoring when that is obviously false. Yet objectively you ignore the best examples of phenotype from King Tut which is is mummy.... imagine that.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you no better things to do than complain over a picture I posted? I asked a questions and you are not willing to answer it, instead you talk a lot of hogwash about other things.
Give it up
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what makes you think that is an Egyptian boy?
I can not prove it is an Egyptian boy. But when I once saved the pic it said in the caption that he was Egyptian. Already then the picture was paired together with the picture of the Tutankhamun statue.
But it is hardly unreasonable to think that he could be Egyptian. People in Egypt vary in their looks, and he is well within such variety.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seems no one is willing to answer, could someone in ancient Egypt have looked like this boy? Why is that an impossible question to ask, or answer?
I do not need long lectures about people who looked differently. A simple yes or no would do.
It seems some ideological hickup that makes some posters unwilling to answer.
Seems that the picture of this boy triggers some emotions, especially if he is compared with Tutankhamon.
Funny so many non Egyptians seems sensitive about how ancient Egyptians looked like.
If this boy is Egyptian he still is more related to the ancient Egyptians than most African Americans or other foreigners.
No wonder that some Egyptians are a bit irritated on all those foreigners who try to define their ancestors.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what makes you think that is an Egyptian boy?
I can not prove it is an Egyptian boy. But when I once saved the pic it said in the caption that he was Egyptian.
what's the link? It is better to have confirmed legitimates sources proving the boy is Egyptian before saying so (this goes for other posters too who don't show links to their various photos to verify source)
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archaeopteryx: 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.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: I don't know why you keep posting that cherry-picked light-skinned boy who may very well be of foreign ancestry to compare to Tut's child bust when you have plenty of Baladi children who much better look the part.
adult Tut
FWIW, the boy whose picture Archaeopteryx keeps posting looks a bit lighter-skinned than the bust of Tut to me. I don't necessarily have a problem with some people in Lower Egypt looking like the boy in ancient times (since the region probably always did attract migrants from the Levant, such as the Hyksos), but I wouldn't go so far as to pass his phenotype off as typical for the whole country back then (especially not in earlier periods).
quote:Originally posted by Archaeopteryx: 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
^^ well had you posted these in your OP as Egyptian phenotypes, this thread would have progressed differently
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the original seven females, I mistook my OP for some other post, maybe in another fora.
Here are the ladies.
I try to list the "ethnicities": 1 Mediterranid, 2 Egyptid, 3 Libyid, 4 Orientalid, 5 Ethiopid, 6 Sudanid and 7 is Nilotid. I use the terminology from the Website
the order is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
After checking out the link, I have to say it is pretty shady for the "Treasures of Ancient Egypt" FB page to pass off a picture of a Turkish kid as Egyptian and then compare it to Tut. Almost like the people who claim to be defending modern Egyptians from foreign appropriators aren't always the good guys either.
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.
It got moved to Deshret forum and there it was also locked I don't recall if it was me the locked it. It's possible but I just don't remember
On looking at the thread now. I don't think it was worth of being locked
However in the OP of this thread we are in now you say
"fantasising about a dreamt negro ancient Egypt. Maybe they prefer Egypt to be a wet dream for African Americans"
that I find offensive
Egypt is n Africa and is a along a river which emanates from the Great Lakes region to the South. Naturally Africans will be proud of the Egyptian and similar Nubian civilization as many Europeans are for Greece and Rome
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
After checking out the link, I have to say it is pretty shady for the "Treasures of Ancient Egypt" FB page to pass off a picture of a Turkish kid as Egyptian and then compare it to Tut. Almost like the people who claim to be defending modern Egyptians from foreign appropriators aren't always the good guys either.
Also I think I seen it on Quora and some other websites.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
The best results are from Yandex and Bing third place Google (sorry Google)
If you have 2 images next to each other you may have to snip out one separately and search for it by itself the algorithms are not always smart enough to do it on their own
I recommend when using photos add a proper caption and original source URL because what happens on the web is that people copy the photos to many different sites. This helps to prevent people unknowing repeating possible false representation of the photo
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic