Meet Ramesses II: Scientists reconstruct the 'handsome' face of ancient Egypt's most POWERFUL pharaoh for the first time in 3,200 years Scientists used a 3D model of Ramesses II's skull to rebuild his features They then turned back the clock to reveal his face at the height of his powers The result is the first 'scientific facial reconstruction' of the pharaoh based on a CT scan of his actual skull.....
I don't see why if there is art depicting Rameses II with this skin tone they don't use it for the reconstructions
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of these forensic artists when putting on the finishing touches like skin color are still affected by biased ideals as to how Egyptians looked.
Many of Ramses facial features are not that different from the alleged Nubian priestess Ta-Kush
By the way, why are they saying they reconstructed his face "for the first time" when there are several reconstructions of him already!
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Eight of Ramses III CODIS STRs were published years ago along with a son of his.
Who has R II's mummy? Europeans are afraid of ancient autosomal STRs and act like they are meaningless.
Even Gad refused to compare R III's available 8 loci CODIS STR profile against any modern geo-locations/populations. He preferred Y STRs to guesstimate a haplogroup though it takes Y SNPs to be certain about that.
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: Hopefully, we'll get autosomal DNA results of Ramesses II soon.
Doubt they'll release anything contradicting the presumptive Levantine proximate Eastern Delta/Lower Egypt 'commoners' represent all Egyptians through all time narrative.
They are loathe to the collorary that Amarna family STRs show Valley and inner Africans ruled the roost except for later Libyan and Eurasian conqueror dynasties.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Eight of Ramses III CODIS STRs were published years ago along with a son of his.
Who has R II's mummy? Europeans are afraid of ancient autosomal STRs and act like they are meaningless.
Yet they have no problem publishing the autosomal STRs of random Late Period mummies from a region and time period known to have significant foreign presence and hail their results as "ancient Egyptian genomics" par exemplar.
quote:Even Gad refused to compare R III's available 8 loci CODIS STR profile against any modern geo-locations/populations. He preferred Y STRs to guesstimate a haplogroup though it takes Y SNPs to be certain about that.
I find it sweetly ironic how this is the case with supposedly the "whitest" looking family of mummies-- the Ramesides.
The so-called "white" or rather "caucasoid" look being based largely on facial features like leptoprosopic (elongated) face which is also found in some Sub-Saharans as well as narrow nose, also found in Sub-Saharans..
including narrow noses that are prominent or projecting.
former French soccer player Kevin Constant (of Guinean stock)
quote: Doubt they'll release anything contradicting the presumptive Levantine proximate Eastern Delta/Lower Egypt 'commoners' represent all Egyptians through all time narrative.
They are loathe to the collorary that Amarna family STRs show Valley and inner Africans ruled the roost except for later Libyan and Eurasian conqueror dynasties.
Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and Neolithic Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2a1. Is that what they're really afraid of??
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that Hawass or the Egyptian authority blocked aDNA testing of Egyptian mummies. They had the concerns that Western scientists could manipulate AE samples to make them appear Jewish or Palestinian-like. It seems to me that the Egyptian authorities are a bit scared of unpleased results and surprises, especially when it comes to iconic figures such as Ramesses II or King Tut. In all fairness, although Hawass isn't particularly pro-black, he definitely gets triggered by the attempts to content Ancient Egyptians genetically or culturally to West Asians, Anatolians, etc. He believes that "Egyptians are Egyptians" and that Ancient Egypt was an autochthonous nation.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pics with the frontal portrait of the reconstructed Ramsesses II are gone. So, I'll repost them. Besides, the skin tone of the reconstruction is guess work and based likely on the average skin tone of present day Northern Africans. It appears that the scholars made Ramsesses a bit darker than King Tut.
[QUOTE][qb] Doubt they'll release anything contradicting the presumptive Levantine proximate Eastern Delta/Lower Egypt 'commoners' represent all Egyptians through all time narrative.
They are loathe to the collorary that Amarna family STRs show Valley and inner Africans ruled the roost except for later Libyan and Eurasian conqueror dynasties.
Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and ancient Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2b1. Is that what they're really afraid of??
I missed your reply. So, I remembered the "concerns" of Hawass correctly. Well, here's the thing, Hawass did release Ramesses III Y-DNA E1b1a. In contrast, he denied that the hg R1b belonged to King Tut before it was confirmed by Gad. I could be wrong, but I believe that Hawass dislikes the idea of Ancient Egyptians being West Asian/Palestine/Jewish-like as much as the idea of them being black.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that Hawass or the Egyptian authority blocked aDNA testing of Egyptian mummies. They had the concerns that Western scientists could manipulate AE samples to make them appear Jewish or Palestinian-like. It seems to me that the Egyptian authorities are a bit scared of unpleased results and surprises, especially when it comes to iconic figures such as Ramesses II or King Tut. In all fairness, although Hawass isn't particularly pro-black, he definitely gets triggered by the attempts to content Ancient Egyptians genetically or culturally to West Asians, Anatolians, etc. He believes that "Egyptians are Egyptians" and that Ancient Egypt was an autochthonous nation.
Hawass is a proponent of the outdated "North African Caucasoid" theory as he believes the Egyptians are indigenous to North Africa but they differ in appearance from Sub-Saharans or as he put it "the negro". Actually many North Africans suffer from the same identity crisis in which they don't want to be identified as "black" but they acknowledge that they are African, yet ironically when many of them go to Europe they get called the same racist slurs as Sub-Saharans! Go figure. In the case of Hawass, he calls the pharaohs his "ancestors" yet it's a known fact he comes from the city of Damietta in the eastern Delta which was an Arab colonial post. Even his surname 'Hawass' is Arabic and not Coptic. This is not to say that he has no Egyptian ancestry at all, but if he does have indigenoous ancestry it's not as much the non-Arab indigenous Baladi or rural Copts.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: many North Africans suffer from the same identity crisis in which they don't want to be identified as "black"
If you asked every American if the word black means "any person with dark skin" what percentage do you think would say yes and what percentage do you think would say "no, it means more than just anybody dark skinned"?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ 'Dark' is a relative term, which is why the definition is NOT just having "dark" skin. A tanned southern European can be called "dark" too, so please stop.
But just to show the hypocrisy. People of African ancestry with relatively light skin from Halle Berry to the recently released WNBA player Brittney Griner are considered 'black' but North Africans with the exact same complexions and features don't consider themselves as such?! Why is that??
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: many North Africans suffer from the same identity crisis in which they don't want to be identified as "black"
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
If you asked every American if the word black means "any person with dark skin" what percentage do you think would say yes and what percentage do you think would say "no, it means more than just anybody dark skinned"?
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ 'Dark' is a relative term, which is why the definition is NOT just having "dark" skin. A tanned southern European can be called "dark" too,
So if most Americans would say "black" means more than just a person with dark skin"
what would they say are the things that make somebody black beyond just skin color?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mightywolf: If my memory serves me right, I read somewhere that Hawass or the Egyptian authority blocked aDNA testing of Egyptian mummies. They had the concerns that Western scientists could manipulate AE samples to make them appear Jewish or Palestinian-like. It seems to me that the Egyptian authorities are a bit scared of unpleased results and surprises, especially when it comes to iconic figures such as Ramesses II or King Tut. In all fairness, although Hawass isn't particularly pro-black, he definitely gets triggered by the attempts to content Ancient Egyptians genetically or culturally to West Asians, Anatolians, etc. He believes that "Egyptians are Egyptians" and that Ancient Egypt was an autochthonous nation.
Hawass is a proponent of the outdated "North African Caucasoid" theory as he believes the Egyptians are indigenous to North Africa but they differ in appearance from Sub-Saharans or as he put it "the negro". Actually many North Africans suffer from the same identity crisis in which they don't want to be identified as "black" but they acknowledge that they are African, yet ironically when many of them go to Europe they get called the same racist slurs as Sub-Saharans! Go figure. In the case of Hawass, he calls the pharaohs his "ancestors" yet it's a known fact he comes from the city of Damietta in the eastern Delta which was an Arab colonial post. Even his surname 'Hawass' is Arabic and not Coptic. This is not to say that he has no Egyptian ancestry at all, but if he does have indigenoous ancestry it's not as much the non-Arab indigenous Baladi or rural Copts.
Well, I do agree with your opinion that Hawass rejects the idea of Ancient black Egypt. But my point is, that he doesn't like Ancient Egyptians to be associated with Anatolians or West Asians, either. For instance, Hawass was not happy about the Abusir paper. He commented on headlines that suggested Ancient Egyptians were closer to Europeans than to modern Egyptians, by saying that Europeans were incapable of building pyramids. The thing is, that Hawass has this weird view that Egyptians are their "own race" who differ from "SSAs" but also from “Asiatics”. There is no doubt that he isn't pro-black. However, he isn't a Eurocentric either. Just saying. Personally, I’m not a big fan of Hawass and my trust in him isn't really great.
Posts: 102 | From: private | Registered: Jul 2021
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
^^^^
Here we go again with the black doesn't mean black bollocks. Meanwhile not even implying that white doesn't mean white or neglecting the selfsame ambiguity of what white means while also brushing aside some Europeans eschew white as their label regardless they are all basically a pink skinned variant with relative orthognathy, thin lips, narrow noses, and loose wavy to straight hair.
Sheesh! How long will this bullshit go on? When will ES members stop falling for this okeydoke?
Won't be long now until Tamil type Indians, Andamans, SE Asian 'negritoes', New Guineas, Australians, and Melanesians cease being black. Don't believe me? Check out the new definition of black applied to people in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster which gloss over the time honored racial anthropology assignments of the blacks.
Well, I do agree with your opinion that Hawass rejects the idea of Ancient black Egypt. But my point is, that he doesn't like Ancient Egyptians to be associated with Anatolians or West Asians, either. For instance, Hawass was not happy about the Abusir paper. He commented on headlines that suggested Ancient Egyptians were closer to Europeans than to modern Egyptians, by saying that Europeans were incapable of building pyramids. The thing is, that Hawass has this weird view that Egyptians are their "own race" who differ from "SSAs" but also from “Asiatics”. There is no doubt that he isn't pro-black. However, he isn't a Eurocentric either. Just saying. Personally, I’m not a big fan of Hawass and my trust in him isn't really great.
The Egyptian census does not identify people according to color or ethnicity
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Here we go again with the black doesn't mean black bollocks. Meanwhile not even implying that white doesn't mean white or neglecting the selfsame ambiguity of what white means while also brushing aside some Europeans eschew white as their label regardless they are all basically a pink skinned variant with relative orthognathy, thin lips, narrow noses, and loose wavy to straight hair.
Sheesh! How long will this bullshit go on? When will ES members stop falling for this okeydoke?
Won't be long now until Tamil type Indians, Andamans, SE Asian 'negritoes', New Guineas, Australians, and Melanesians cease being black. Don't believe me? Check out the new definition of black applied to people in the Oxford or Merriam-Webster which gloss over the time honored racial anthropology assignments of the blacks.
Lioness is reverting back to her ridiculous vague straw doll tactics.
'Black' does not mean simply dark skin because 'dark' is a relative term just like 'light'. It's a matter how dark. The dictionary definition is quite clear since it does not include "dark" Mediterranean Euros or many off-white "dark" Arabs, north Indians, or Southeast Asians like myself.
But back to the hypocrisy even when it comes to African Americans who have light skin, why are they called black when North Africans who are as light or even darker are not?
I posed this question to Antalas to which he either talks about the mixed ancestry of African Americans which has no bearing on the question itself, or he ignores it completely.
Dutch model Imaan Hammam (half-Egyptian/half-Moroccan)
Even better examples that Ish Geber gave:
Sanaa Ismail Hamed (Egyptian beauty pageant contestant)
Sanaa Lathan (Black American Hollywood actress)
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Lioness is reverting back to her ridiculous vague straw doll tactics.
'Black' does not mean simply dark skin because 'dark' is a relative term just like 'light'.
No, I'm the one trying to get clarity. You are the one who wants to keep it vague Does "Black" mean someone has to have ancestry from specific locations?
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Djehuti
You're confusing black a color with negro a phenotype.
There are blacks, ie certain south Arabians and Negav beduin, who have no negro features as in the old saying 'black but not negro'.
And you may not like it because your people are racialist feeling superior to and making fun of their local blacks, an Ashkenazi friend married to a Filipina says he married black. Surprised me. Malaysians refused to join our multi-national Black Club back in high school while straight hair Indians did.
In the USA black applies to lineage or family culture as in ADOS folk some of whom are forensic blond and blue 'Caucasians'. Then there's the Markle types. Nothing negro about her except per society judgments. A case of partial lineage from enslaved Caribbeans.
posted
^ But objectively speaking 'black' refers to very dark i.e. heavy melanated skin. I understand that there is also a socio-cultural definition of 'black' as well, that definition is what I find to funny. Many North Africans who do not consider themselves 'black' (and academics would agree so as to white-wash North Africa) when they travel to Europe are then called "monkeys" and other black-racial slurs.
And yes I am aware that aboriginal blacks of not only the Philippines but Malaysia and Indonesia get ridiculed as well. This is no surprise since these lighter Asians doing the ridiculing are themselves ridiculed by the even lighter Asians from further north which is one reason why SE Asians are bleaching their skins too!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come on man seriously, the whole point is that "black" in regards to the concept of race and ethnicity in the modern world is about skin color. This aspect of phenotype is the primary basis of the racial models of human history that have become dominant in the world over the last 1000 years or more. As such, this reconstruction of Ramses is simply trying to push the narrative that the people of the Nile Valley were not as dark skinned as Africans to the South and more lighter skinned like Eurasians from outside Africa. This isn't a complex topic about the semantics because the name of the country in ancient times had "black" literally in it so obviously they did not have such a world view of black = bad while white/light = good.
Not to mention these people have always been trying to make Ramses into some kind of Levantine descended pharaoh using purely made up theories that don't reflect the facts on the ground. Literally in the ancient writing of his lineage and the origin of the dynasty it says point blank that it started with a man named Seti who worshipped set from Nubt (the golden city/gold trading center, now called Naqada) and was a leader of the Medjay. Obviously that would indicate the dynasties origins in the South among the indigenous Nile Valley people who have always been black skinned and were not Eurasian. Not only that, but he married a Southern woman, who may also have had some ancestry from groups between the first and second cataracts and built a monument to her at Abu Simbel acknowledging the Southern connections. And no this monument was not built to 'scare off' the so called "Nubians" because in it are scenes depicting the battle of Qadesh. Please. These people just like making up facts, using movies, random reconstructions and so forth to just constantly push their agenda.
posted
Would be very nice if the technology and data to make these reconstructions were available for the general public to use. Sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands…
quote:Originally posted by Punos_Rey: Caroline Wilkinson has a funny memory as she was also behind this reconstruction of Ramesses II
The same people were also behind a reconstruction of Tutankhamun but didn't color his skin. Interesting indeed.
The OP article says that someone named Sahar Saleem from Cairo University was the one who suggested the skin tone in the new reconstruction.
quote:Dr Wilkinson said: 'The difficult bit I guess for us is what happens after the shape; so all of that information about skin colour, and blemishes, and wrinkles, and hair and eye colour.
'In this case we got suggestion from Sahar and her team in relation to the most likely eye colour, hair colour and skin colour.'
Seems like modern Egyptian colorism could be a factor here. Ironically, quite a few of Sahar's own compatriots even today are darker than her preferred skin tone for Ramses II, as we on ES all know by now.
posted
I read that person and was not surprised one bit.
It is also extremely inappropriate to basically concoct measurements even using a nearest related population and you have the actual individual in question's remains.
Nonsense continues
--------------------
Meet on the Level, act upon the Plumb, part on the Square. Posts: 574 | From: Guinee | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, I've heard that was a recreation but I didn't know the story behind it. It always seemed real so I didn't question the color. Wiki has a bunch of primaries from that temple and Ramses II is close to the color in the recreations.
quote:Originally posted by Forty2Tribes: Thanks, I've heard that was a recreation but I didn't know the story behind it. It always seemed real so I didn't question the color. Wiki has a bunch of primaries from that temple and Ramses II is close to the color in the recreations.
the color was done based on Joseph Bonomi's notes but the original probably did have the peculiar looking 2 color depiction of the Nubians. The artistic advantage of having the two colors is that you can overlap the figures and still see the separation However in that photo of the Dinka men we see the variation. I think the reality was not like this half and half spilt in the painting. It would have had people in between, more stages not just 2
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Some of these forensic artists when putting on the finishing touches like skin color are still affected by biased ideals as to how Egyptians looked.
Many of Ramses facial features are not that different from the alleged Nubian priestess Ta-Kush
By the way, why are they saying they reconstructed his face "for the first time" when there are several reconstructions of him already!
There are a couple more but nowhere near as many as Tutankhamun!
I ran those this one
and the new one through https://starbyface.com/ And yeah the recreations where Ramses II looks like a black dude by today's standard produced mostly black actors by today's standard. The recreation were he looks like a white dude by today's standard produced mostly white actors by today's standard. Its not rocket science.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
Above different photos of the same painting which is a reproduction
Again, for like the hundredth time modern Southern Sudanese types like the Dinka and Nuer are NOT descended from the Kushites! If anything they descend from people who were under Kushite hegemony. Remember that Kush was an empire comprising a multi-national, multi-ethnic hegemon!
Even physical anthropology has shown that Kushites proper phenotypically resemble Egyptians craniofacially and even in non-metric features meaning they are closely related to Egyptians.
By the way, I think the main reason for the dual coloring of the southerly African fighters was for simple convenience as it would be harder to paint all the figures together with the same jet black coloration. Though I won't be surprised if there was such color distinctions among southerly Africans per the Shatiu depiction.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Eight of Ramses III CODIS STRs were published years ago along with a son of his.
Who has R II's mummy? Europeans are afraid of ancient autosomal STRs and act like they are meaningless.
Yet they have no problem publishing the autosomal STRs of random Late Period mummies from a region and time period known to have significant foreign presence and hail their results as "ancient Egyptian genomics" par exemplar.
quote:Even Gad refused to compare R III's available 8 loci CODIS STR profile against any modern geo-locations/populations. He preferred Y STRs to guesstimate a haplogroup though it takes Y SNPs to be certain about that.
I find it sweetly ironic how this is the case with supposedly the "whitest" looking family of mummies-- the Ramesides.
The so-called "white" or rather "caucasoid" look being based largely on facial features like leptoprosopic (elongated) face which is also found in some Sub-Saharans as well as narrow nose, also found in Sub-Saharans..
including narrow noses that are prominent or projecting.
former French soccer player Kevin Constant (of Guinean stock)
quote: Doubt they'll release anything contradicting the presumptive Levantine proximate Eastern Delta/Lower Egypt 'commoners' represent all Egyptians through all time narrative.
They are loathe to the collorary that Amarna family STRs show Valley and inner Africans ruled the roost except for later Libyan and Eurasian conqueror dynasties.
Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and Neolithic Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2a1. Is that what they're really afraid of??
^^^^^^ YES
But these reconstructions can match up to Fula & Fulbe people consistently, is fascinating. There is nothing unusual about the Ramseside dynasty at all.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and Neolithic Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2a1. Is that what they're really afraid of??
Saw an interview with Zahi Hawass on TV yesterday. He said he wanted to train more Egyptian archaeologists and decrease the foreign influence on Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology, or as they put it they want to decolonize Egyptology. A part of that is probably also to reserve the right to define who the ancient Egyptians were. If foreigners define it it will probably end up misconstrued, either are they declared Middle Easterners or Sub Saharan Africans, and people from all kind of places will claim Ancient Egypt. He maybe want the ancient Egyptians to "belong" to todays Egyptians.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
Meet Ramesses II: Scientists reconstruct the 'handsome' face of ancient Egypt's most POWERFUL pharaoh for the first time in 3,200 years Scientists used a 3D model of Ramesses II's skull to rebuild his features They then turned back the clock to reveal his face at the height of his powers The result is the first 'scientific facial reconstruction' of the pharaoh based on a CT scan of his actual skull.....
Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and Neolithic Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2a1. Is that what they're really afraid of??
Saw an interview with Zahi Hawass on TV yesterday. He said he wanted to train more Egyptian archaeologists and decrease the foreign influence on Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology, or as they put it they want to decolonize Egyptology. A part of that is probably also to reserve the right to define who the ancient Egyptians were. If foreigners define it it will probably end up misconstrued, either are they declared Middle Easterners or Sub Saharan Africans, and people from all kind of places will claim Ancient Egypt. He maybe want the ancient Egyptians to "belong" to todays Egyptians.
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Black Africans" are from all over the continent from the south to the north. Zahi knows that sounds like a Muslim/pro Arab smokescreen to steal Ancient Khemit from the Blacks of antiquity and the 21st Blacks/Africans wherever they may live. How about Sub Rhine, Sub Volgan, Sub Thames, & Sub Danube Europeans?
-------------------- Tehutimes Posts: 115 | From: north america | Registered: Jan 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Identity is a sensitive subject everywhere. I remember talking to some Greek guys who were upset of how other peoples than Greeks used the name "Macedonia".
So in Egypt some Egyptians of today feel that they are the rightful heirs of ancient Egypt, not people who live in other places and in many cases have not even sat their foot in Egypt.
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Identity is a sensitive subject everywhere. I remember talking to some Greek guys who were upset of how other peoples than Greeks used the name "Macedonia".
So in Egypt some Egyptians of today feel that they are the rightful heirs of ancient Egypt, not people who live in other places and in many cases have not even sat their foot in Egypt.
Nobody is the rightful "heirs" to any ancient civilization, its about high time that people with esteem issues stop looking to 6000 year old civilizations for pride when they had nothing to do with it.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
if you didn't know anything about this image and somebody asked where do you think he might be from. What would you say?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: Saw an interview with Zahi Hawass on TV yesterday. He said he wanted to train more Egyptian archaeologists and decrease the foreign influence on Egyptology and Egyptian archaeology, or as they put it they want to decolonize Egyptology. A part of that is probably also to reserve the right to define who the ancient Egyptians were. If foreigners define it it will probably end up misconstrued, either are they declared Middle Easterners or Sub Saharan Africans, and people from all kind of places will claim Ancient Egypt. He maybe want the ancient Egyptians to "belong" to todays Egyptians.
The problem is that Egypt today is under foreign domination being ruled by the Afrangi elite of Arab, Turkish, Circassian, and Greek ancestries.
This is similar to how Mexico is ruled by a Spanish elite, but the difference is that the Spaniards of Mexico are not claiming pre-Columbian civilizations as their own. Even Zahi Hawass as good as his intentions of nativism are, is himself of Arab ancestry from the Arab colonial city of Damietta.
quote: Identity is a sensitive subject everywhere. I remember talking to some Greek guys who were upset of how other peoples than Greeks used the name "Macedonia".
So in Egypt some Egyptians of today feel that they are the rightful heirs of ancient Egypt, not people who live in other places and in many cases have not even sat their foot in Egypt.
I agree with your assessment, however I find your statement about your experience with Greeks to be funny considering how their own ancient records and accounts of the Macedonians clearly distinguish the Macedonians as a non-Greek people! This is not to say that modern FYROM people are direct Macedonian descendants but this is like saying ancient Nubian Kushites were ethnic Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Elijah The Tishbite: Nobody is the rightful "heirs" to any ancient civilization, its about high time that people with esteem issues stop looking to 6000 year old civilizations for pride when they had nothing to do with it.
I disagree. If the people are descendants of that ancient civilization then they are its heirs, especially if the people still practice the culture of that civilization either entirely or in part. The rural Baladi of Egypt still practice many customs and traditions that go back to the time of the pharaohs and the Copts still speak the language so they are heirs of Egyptian civilization the same way modern Maya of the Yucatan are heirs of Mayan civilization since they speak the language and practice many Mayan customs today. They may not have built the civilizations themselves but they continue the legacies of those civilizations.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You've been on this forum for how many years in which we always discuss the pharaonic customs that survive in Baladi communities today but you still ask that question?!
Okay just a few examples would be Baladi funerary customs like women wailing with loose hair bowed low, leaving food and drink for the dead, writing letters to the dead or 'saints', having picnics in cemeteries especially during the Festival of the Beautiful Valley and even sleeping on graves. Belief in qarina or spirit partners that must be appeased through Zar ritual. Agricultural rituals like certain songs during sowing, harvesting, and threshing. The making of "corn dolls" that are later put into the Nile. Wedding customs like groomsmen dancing shirtless sometimes with sticks, grooms living near the brides parents (matrilocality) and as strange custom where on the wedding night the bride sits on the bed and the groom prostrates to her to ensure fertility. The wearing of certain amulets for good luck or ward away evil especially by pregnant women. The wearing of certain tattoos. Even certain forms of artwork like phallic statues. I could go on and on, and lot of this is documented by ethnological sources on Egyptian culture. Unfortunately many of these customs are endangered due to many youth leaving their communities for 'modern' education as well as pressure from Islamic clergy or even Christian clergy.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/03/28/stories/05281349.htm Islam has perhaps not penetrated into the consciousness of the Upper Egyptians as deeply as it has in other parts of the world because it is still in some ways considered an alien import. The people in these parts are most definitely African in their physiognomy and culture. Traces of other races are noticeable in physical features and Arabic is, of course, the sole spoken language. But for all that the pride in being African is unmistakable. At a factory producing alabaster figurines for sale to tourists a Saidi (as the denizens of Upper Egypt are called) points to three phallic figures of different sizes. "This is Egyptian", he says pointing to the largest one and then at the middle-sized one, "that is Nubian". (The Nubians are the African people who live in the stretch between the southern Egyptian town of Aswan and Sudan). Then pointing to the smallest- sized he says with a smirk, "And that is Arab".Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Recall how Zahi Hawass has admitted that they did DNA testing on Giza mummies back in the 90s, yet they still haven't released those results yet. His excuse is that because the results will be "misconstrued" and distorted for political purposes to say Egyptians have origins elsewhere, and then he strangely brought up Jews and Zionists!
This has never made any sense to me since if by Jews he meant ancient Judeans or Israelites, these are a Levantine people and yet this is exactly what the Abusir sample is showing-- Levantine affinities. However we also know that many modern Jews and Neolithic Levantines carry African paternal E1b1b and maternal L2a1. Is that what they're really afraid of?? [/QB]
That was Tutankhamun and the Amarna royals, results finally being released in 2020, Yehia Gad et al of the Hawass team
-a long fascinating article about the testing and politics of a potential Jewish element. Also a Japanese team tried to get access but was denied and the Mormon background of one of the early aDNA researchers, many interesting details
posted
^ Actually, my citation of Hawass's claims are not about Tut or the Amarna family but go back to the late 90s in regards to DNA tests on Old Kingdom Giza mummies which have yet to be released. Again he claims it's because the results are misconstrued to be "Jewish" but many have noted such to be a load of pigcrap based on the simple reason that there is no DNA specific to "Jews" per say other than those associated with Southwest Asia ( paternal hg J) or Africa (paternal hg E). They've released the results on the Amarna family (though not entirely) and the same with the Ramessides (but again not entirely). Yet they haven't released the Giza results at all. No STRs or SNPs not one.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic