quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] You did'nt answer how your definition is more valid, How are SSA's "Black" but other populations who have similar and in many cases the same skin tones not, saying that SSA's having shared genetics justifies labeling them black is not valid, its subjective and based on your personal opinion no diferent than the Anglo-American/Afrocentric use of black.
You confuse "objective" with "valid". Your "black" label is imprecise and more confusing than mine when it comes to defining an objective biological reality hence why yours is less valid.
For example, regarding discussions on the biological affinities of Ancient Egyptians, your interpretation of "black" is highly misleading, as it creates the impression that these Egyptians were similar to what Americans consider "black," leading unrelated individuals to make inaccurate claims about their identity. On the contrary, my definition is more precise, offering a more accurate and insightful understanding of who the Ancient Egyptians truly were.
The same way I restrict "white" to Europeans instead of extending it to all "light" skinned west eurasians.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] You did'nt answer how your definition is more valid, How are SSA's "Black" but other populations who have similar and in many cases the same skin tones not, saying that SSA's having shared genetics justifies labeling them black is not valid, its subjective and based on your personal opinion no diferent than the Anglo-American/Afrocentric use of black.
You confuse "objective" with "valid". Your "black" label is imprecise and more confusing than mine when it comes to defining an objective biological reality hence why yours is less valid.
For example, regarding discussions on the biological affinities of Ancient Egyptians, your interpretation of "black" is highly misleading, as it creates the impression that these Egyptians were similar to what Americans consider "black," leading unrelated individuals to make inaccurate claims about their identity. On the contrary, my definition is more precise, offering a more accurate and insightful understanding of who the Ancient Egyptians truly were.
The same way I restrict "white" to Europeans instead of extending it to all "light" skinned west eurasians.
"black" and "white" are both imprecise and never agreed on
So it makes no sense to use them at all
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: ]NGL, it is kinda stupid to take a color term and demand that it only apply to a specific population cluster even if there are other populations with that exact same color(s). Why not just use something like "West/Central African"? [/QB]
It doesn't matter if you think it's stupid
In America the definition of black is a person of African ancestry and brown skin
This is the reality of how the word is used by most Americans
So stop pretending this is not the case
If you want this this be simplified into "white" and black" then you will have to indicate a cut off point
but you won't do that Djehuti won't do that and Doug won't do that
They don't want to really make it just about color, they want it vague on purpose so they can do as they feel at the moment and then switch arbitrarily This is a game
Science is about measurable standards not avoiding a standard for rhetorical flexibility and goal post moving
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
All of whom are black Africans from the Nile and North or North East Africa.
And there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about what black is referring to. Not culture, not language, not self identity but skin color. The racists and other colorists arguing against that know full well what they mean and this isn't about words, self identity or anything else. Anthropology boils down to looking at features including skin color, cranial shape, hair and other aspects of phenotype to compare them with other populations. But these racialists refuse to actually look at African populations on the Nile to use them as a reference of ancient Nile Valley populations. This is why they constantly jump all over the map, from Morocco to West Africa trying to cherry pick what is and isn't "African features" in Africa. It is totally non scientific because they say it themselves "they aren't African", which means that that excludes most of the history of the ancient Nile Valley which was primarily of African origin. There is no debate around this except them trying to rephrase their colorist and racist ideas to sound 'objective', by whining about words like black or white. When they know full well they use them every day.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im not even here to argue back and forth with you, your wrong and your stance is hypocritical. You already admitted that you do infact use black, while trying to lecture Kimbles.
I mean are you trying to front for Archeo?
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] You did'nt answer how your definition is more valid, How are SSA's "Black" but other populations who have similar and in many cases the same skin tones not, saying that SSA's having shared genetics justifies labeling them black is not valid, its subjective and based on your personal opinion no diferent than the Anglo-American/Afrocentric use of black.
You confuse "objective" with "valid". Your "black" label is imprecise and more confusing than mine when it comes to defining an objective biological reality hence why yours is less valid.
For example, regarding discussions on the biological affinities of Ancient Egyptians, your interpretation of "black" is highly misleading, as it creates the impression that these Egyptians were similar to what Americans consider "black," leading unrelated individuals to make inaccurate claims about their identity. On the contrary, my definition is more precise, offering a more accurate and insightful understanding of who the Ancient Egyptians truly were.
The same way I restrict "white" to Europeans instead of extending it to all "light" skinned west eurasians.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
Black is a skin color that is linked with the skin of Africans and Ancient egyptians and nubians etc.
It is a simple way of saying that these people are linked based on color and that is why people know that the nile valley people are linked together its also linked based on the face hieroglyph.:
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually the bottom line is that those saying that the Ramessids were black are saying that he looked closer to these people
All of whom are black Africans from the Nile and North or North East Africa.
And there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about what black is referring to. Not culture, not language, not self identity but skin color. The racists and other colorists arguing against that know full well what they mean and this isn't about words, self identity or anything else. Anthropology boils down to looking at features including skin color, cranial shape, hair and other aspects of phenotype to compare them with other populations. But these racialists refuse to actually look at African populations on the Nile to use them as a reference of ancient Nile Valley populations. This is why they constantly jump all over the map, from Morocco to West Africa trying to cherry pick what is and isn't "African features" in Africa. It is totally non scientific because they say it themselves "they aren't African", which means that that excludes most of the history of the ancient Nile Valley which was primarily of African origin. There is no debate around this except them trying to rephrase their colorist and racist ideas to sound 'objective', by whining about words like black or white. When they know full well they use them every day.
Why do you assume he was similar to those groups if he was from the eastern delta ? Why do you avoid the pigmentation analysis of his mummy ? Are you aware that some of the people you posted have recent arab admixture ? Are you aware those people are genetically closer to people in the Middle east than Afro-americans like yourself ? Also most men in the pictures you posted have afro type of hair which ramses II didn't have.
Just admit you choose them because they are from the Nile Valley and look "black" enough to you. However, I cannot take this seriously, so I will continue ignoring you. As I mentioned previously, promoting conspiracy theories or employing outdated racist ideas to support your afrocentrist viewpoint is not acceptable. No contemporary academics engage in the practices you are suggesting.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Im not even here to argue back and forth with you, your wrong and your stance is hypocritical. You already admitted that you do infact use black, while trying to lecture Kimbles.
I mean are you trying to front for Archeo?
Hypocritical ? That's literally how most people where I live use it (only difference is that they also consider horners as black). And yes I used "black" what's the problem ? You mean the way americans understand it ? It appears that you are making persistent efforts to oppose my viewpoint, but you consistently fall short, as my definition remains more valid, and deep down, you are aware of it.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually the bottom line is that those saying that the Ramessids were black are saying that he looked closer to these people
All of whom are black Africans from the Nile and North or North East Africa.
And there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about what black is referring to. Not culture, not language, not self identity but skin color. The racists and other colorists arguing against that know full well what they mean and this isn't about words, self identity or anything else. Anthropology boils down to looking at features including skin color, cranial shape, hair and other aspects of phenotype to compare them with other populations. But these racialists refuse to actually look at African populations on the Nile to use them as a reference of ancient Nile Valley populations. This is why they constantly jump all over the map, from Morocco to West Africa trying to cherry pick what is and isn't "African features" in Africa. It is totally non scientific because they say it themselves "they aren't African", which means that that excludes most of the history of the ancient Nile Valley which was primarily of African origin. There is no debate around this except them trying to rephrase their colorist and racist ideas to sound 'objective', by whining about words like black or white. When they know full well they use them every day.
Why do you assume he was similar to those groups if he was from the eastern delta ? Why do you avoid the pigmentation analysis of his mummy ? Are you aware that some of the people you posted have recent arab admixture ? Are you aware those people are genetically closer to people in the Middle east than Afro-americans like yourself ? Also most men in the pictures you posted have afro type of hair which ramses II didn't have.
Just admit you choose them because they are from the Nile Valley and look "black" enough to you. However, I cannot take this seriously, so I will continue ignoring you. As I mentioned previously, promoting conspiracy theories or employing outdated racist ideas to support your afrocentrist viewpoint is not acceptable. No contemporary academics engage in the practices you are suggesting.
all they have to do is run an epidermis test using chiekh diop melanin test and then they would know if they want to that Ramses the great is Black or not.
What we do have is that there is no pictures of Ramses from his lifetime of him being light skin. He is portrayed inside all his lifetime as Black skinned and why would people of modern times know more about ramses then the people who saw him inside his lifetime.
The fact is that the face hieroglyph shows that antalas and others like him are ignorant to the past and think they know more about the past then the past know about the past.
Antalas ignores the ancient scholars that show egypt as Black, and ignores that Egypt is inside Africa with hairstyles that are linked to other Africans.
antalas wants people to think this is deeper then skin color without saying what culture the Ancient Egyptians share with the middle east and levantine.
FACT:antalas is using Pseudo DNA to steal Black people from Africa and claim them as part of a light skinned race.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually the bottom line is that those saying that the Ramessids were black are saying that he looked closer to these people
All of whom are black Africans from the Nile and North or North East Africa.
And there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about what black is referring to. Not culture, not language, not self identity but skin color. The racists and other colorists arguing against that know full well what they mean and this isn't about words, self identity or anything else. Anthropology boils down to looking at features including skin color, cranial shape, hair and other aspects of phenotype to compare them with other populations. But these racialists refuse to actually look at African populations on the Nile to use them as a reference of ancient Nile Valley populations. This is why they constantly jump all over the map, from Morocco to West Africa trying to cherry pick what is and isn't "African features" in Africa. It is totally non scientific because they say it themselves "they aren't African", which means that that excludes most of the history of the ancient Nile Valley which was primarily of African origin. There is no debate around this except them trying to rephrase their colorist and racist ideas to sound 'objective', by whining about words like black or white. When they know full well they use them every day.
Why do you assume he was similar to those groups if he was from the eastern delta ? Why do you avoid the pigmentation analysis of his mummy ? Are you aware that some of the people you posted have recent arab admixture ? Are you aware those people are genetically closer to people in the Middle east than Afro-americans like yourself ? Also most men in the pictures you posted have afro type of hair which ramses II didn't have.
Just admit you choose them because they are from the Nile Valley and look "black" enough to you. However, I cannot take this seriously, so I will continue ignoring you. As I mentioned previously, promoting conspiracy theories or employing outdated racist ideas to support your afrocentrist viewpoint is not acceptable. No contemporary academics engage in the practices you are suggesting.
There is no hard proof that he is from the Eastern Delta. Most of that is speculation and I have mentioned this numerous times. The only texts we have about the ancestry of the Ramessids is the year 400 stela and it links the Ramessid line to Set worshippers from Nubt in the South of the country who were military men of the Medjay. The Medjay were the main core of the military and police in the Nile and many of them were of Southern origins, whether the Southern nomes or farther South. Meaning they were made up of black Africans similar to the people I posted and black Africans have always been indigenous to the Nile Valley. West Africa has nothing to do with it.
This isn't about evidence either, because this same debate is had over every single pharaoh no matter what period and it is always the same discussion.
So just be honest, you believe ancient North Africans, including the Nile Valley kingdom originated with Eurasians back migrating to Africa and therefore making them physically different from Africans. You have made this clear numerous times and anybody reading your posts should understand this by now. But the ancient Nile Valley is completely in Africa and the roots of that dynastic culture are in the South from Southern populations originating within Africa.
All these back and forth debates about words fundamentally have nothing to do with the core issue of whether the original ancient population of the Nile Valley came from Africa and was black skinned or came from Eurasia and was light skinned/white.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Circling back to Ramses II, did people not see this post of mine from earlier in the thread? It touches on whether mummies preserve all the melanin that they had in life.
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Robert Bianchi, in p. 64 of his Daily Life of the Nubians, has argued that the mummification process can sometimes remove traces of melanin:
quote:That [these Middle Kingdom mummies] may have been Nubians themselves is quite possible, although the process of mummification removes all traces of melanin by which their ethnicity may have been confirmed.
Does make you wonder about the Mekota et al study reporting finding substantial melanin "as expected for specimens of negroid origin" in New Kingdom Egyptian mummies though.
(I wonder what the source for Bianchi's claim that mummification can remove melanin from the epidermis is?)
posted
Im not trying to "oppose your viewpoint" just pointing out that you're trying to sit and lecture Kimbles and other posters while engaging in the same behavior...
The pot and the kettle, and all that.
but carry on...
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] Im not even here to argue back and forth with you, your wrong and your stance is hypocritical. You already admitted that you do infact use black, while trying to lecture Kimbles.
I mean are you trying to front for Archeo?
Hypocritical ? That's literally how most people where I live use it (only difference is that they also consider horners as black). And yes I used "black" what's the problem ? You mean the way americans understand it ? It appears that you are making persistent efforts to oppose my viewpoint, but you consistently fall short, as my definition remains more valid, and deep down, you are aware of it.
Bruh....
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: (only difference is that they also consider horners as black).
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Im not trying to "oppose your viewpoint" just pointing out that you're trying to sit and lecture Kimbles and other posters while engaging in the same behavior...
The pot and the kettle, and all that.
but carry on...
I don't see what you're referring to but ok...
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Bruh....
You're slow and it's becoming tedious, so let me clarify once more: Europeans and many people in the Old World only categorize dark-skinned Africans as "black". Similarly, I share this perspective, but I take a more nuanced approach due to my awareness of the genetic makeup and morphological features of individuals from the Horn of Africa. On the other hand, the average Afro-American tends to have a much broader and inclusive definition of "black," encompassing individuals of various racial backgrounds, such as mulattoes, quadroons, Indians, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, Amerindians, Dominicans, and so on. So no there isn't any contradiction you simply can't grasp what I repeatedly explained you.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
posted
Set worship originated in Kom Obmos and later became associated with Asiatic gods..
quote:The earliest representation of Set can be found on a carved ivory comb from the Amratian period (Naqada I, 4500BC – 35BC, orthodox dates) and he also appears on the famous Scorpion mace head. His worship seems to have originated in one of the most ancient settlements in the town of Nubt (Kom Ombo), in upper (southern) Egypt.
quote:At this point in history, Set was clearly associated with Upper Egypt and was a popular and esteemed god. However, by the Second Intermediate Period he was associated with the Hyksos (who probably saw a similarity between Set and Baal) and so he became seen as a force for evil. He was then “rehabilitated” by the Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs (notably Seti I whose name means “man of Set”) only to be recast as an evil deity by Greek, Roman, and Christian theologians.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Set worship originated in Kom Obmos and later became associated with Asiatic gods..
quote:The earliest representation of Set can be found on a carved ivory comb from the Amratian period (Naqada I, 4500BC – 35BC, orthodox dates) and he also appears on the famous Scorpion mace head. His worship seems to have originated in one of the most ancient settlements in the town of Nubt (Kom Ombo), in upper (southern) Egypt.
quote:At this point in history, Set was clearly associated with Upper Egypt and was a popular and esteemed god. However, by the Second Intermediate Period he was associated with the Hyksos (who probably saw a similarity between Set and Baal) and so he became seen as a force for evil. He was then “rehabilitated” by the Nineteenth Dynasty pharaohs (notably Seti I whose name means “man of Set”) only to be recast as an evil deity by Greek, Roman, and Christian theologians.
Your point ? the Ramessids lived well after the Second Intermediate period so them worshipping Seth will not provide any insights into their origin since the consensus already firmly establishes their Northern heritage.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:(only difference is that they also consider horners as black).
quote:Originally posted by Antalas:
You're slow and it's becoming tedious, so let me clarify once more: Europeans and many people in the Old World only categorize dark-skinned Africans as "black". Similarly, I share this perspective, but I take a more nuanced approach due to my awareness of the genetic makeup and morphological features of individuals from the Horn of Africa. On the other hand, the average Afro-American tends to have a much broader and inclusive definition of "black," encompassing individuals of various racial backgrounds, such as mulattoes, quadroons, Indians, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, Amerindians, Dominicans, and so on. So no there isn't any contradiction you simply can't grasp what I repeatedly explained you. [/QUOTE]
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: It's a historical consensus that his family originated from the eastern delta and Seth wasn't exclusively venerated in the South.
Historical consensus isn't historical fact. It is speculation.
The only direct information about the Ramessids and their ancestry is the year 400 stela, which states:
quote: he stela was unearthed in 1863 by Auguste Mariette, who was excavating within the great temple at Tanis. Mariette copied and then reburied the stela, which was rediscovered by Pierre Montet in 1933 and then moved in the Cairo Museum.
The incomplete stela was made during the reign of Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty; this pharaoh appears in the lunette while offering wine jars to Seth, whose name was erased when this deity was demonised in later times. Behind the pharaoh stands an official named Seti, the author of the stela.
The inscription on the lower register says that Seti, son of Paramessu and Tia, came to worship Seth and commemorate this event by issuing the granite stela; curiously, and with the approval of Ramesses II, Seti dated the stela to the “Year 400, fourth day of the fourth month of the Season of the Inundation” of a pharaoh named Aapehtiseth Nubti[(“Great is the strength of Seth, he of Ombos”):
Since the discovery it was obvious that the Year 400 of Nubti was not a regnal year, but rather a sort of anniversary. Giving the 400-years interval and the explicit references to the god Seth, Nubti was initially considered an othervise unattested Hyksos ruler. Thus, it was suggested that the 400th anniversary could refer to an important event such as the construction of a temple of Seth, or, more generally, to the beginning of a new era. The discovery also fueled the now-disproven hypothesis that Tanis had to be identified with the ancient Hyksos capital Avaris, and that the stela may have been a commemoration of the arrival of the Hyksos.
In more modern times, however, scholars realized that the official Seti is none other than Ramesses' father Seti I in his early career, and the earlier king Nubti was not a real king, but rather Seth himself provided with fictitious royal titles. Going 400 years back before the period suggested by the stela (most likely when Seti was an official under king Horemheb), gives a datation of the celebrated event of around 1730–1720 BCE.
All of the speculation on the origins of the Ramessids in the Eastern Delta come from the discovery of this Stela and the misinterpretation/mistranslation of it. So like I said, there is no 'hard' proof that they were from the Eastern Delta, it is all speculation...
But of course Egyptology keeps repeating it because that is what Egyptology does, repeat nonsensical fabrications of a historical narrative. The reason the Ramessids wee in the Delta was to defend against Asiatic invasions not to uphold themselves as "Asiatics" worshipping "Asiatic" gods. That doesn't even make any sense. The 19th dynasty was a renaissance of dynastic culture led by Southerners worshiping southern gods, just like previous dynasties before them.....
quote: Seti I, the second king of Egypt's 19th Dynasty, clearly signaled his ambition to restore Egypt's prestige of the earlier 18th Dynasty when he adopted the title, "Repeater of Birth" for his Horus name, which alluded to an inauguration of a new beginning of Egypt's greatness. He fought a number of campaigns of which three were in Canaan and Syria. Another one was against the Libyans and there seems to have also been a policing action in Nubia. For the first time, perhaps since the reign of Tuthmosisi IV, this pharaoh personally lead the army into Egypt's Asiatic possessions, serving notice that there had been a break with the policies of the Amarna period. In doing so, he laid the foundations for the great contest of arms between his son Ramesses II and the Hittites at Kadesh.
Much of what we know about Seti I's campaigns into Palestine and Syria come from the Exterior North Wall of the Great Hypostyle Hall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak, and from several victory stele discovered at Beth-Shan.
However, this information is sometimes fragmentary, and it should be noted that many scholars disagree, for example, on the extent of his first campaign, as well as the order and events of other military actions under Seti I. In addition, little or no information exists for many of the specific battles that must have taken place. The first campaign is a fine example. According to the Beth Shan Stela, there must have been any number of cities that were attacked, but we have details of only a few. Furthermore, though we may identify a number of place names referred to in various records left to us, others are problematic to say the least.
All of the speculation on the origins of the Ramessids in the Eastern Delta come from the discovery of this Stela and the misinterpretation/mistranslation of it.
Source ? All the contemporary sources I've checked agree on his northern origin.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M But of course Egyptology keeps repeating it because that is what Egyptology does, repeat nonsensical fabrications of a historical narrative. The reason the Ramessids wee in the Delta was to defend against Asiatic invasions not to uphold themselves as "Asiatics" worshipping "Asiatic" gods. That doesn't even make any sense. The 19th dynasty was a renaissance of dynastic culture led by Southerners worshiping southern gods, just like previous dynasties before them.....
Centuries before Ramses I was born, there were settlements of "Asiatics" in the region. Scholars point out the connections between the Egyptian deity and the Canaanite Ba'al, which might explain the veneration of this deity in an area that had seen Asiatic settlements long before Ramses I's time. However, your stela lacks evidence supporting the idea that the Ramessids originated from the South; you just made that up. Even if, hypothetically, they did come from the South, it does not necessarily mean they would have been similar to the sudanese you posted.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
All of the speculation on the origins of the Ramessids in the Eastern Delta come from the discovery of this Stela and the misinterpretation/mistranslation of it.
Source ? All the contemporary sources I've checked agree on his northern origin.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M But of course Egyptology keeps repeating it because that is what Egyptology does, repeat nonsensical fabrications of a historical narrative. The reason the Ramessids wee in the Delta was to defend against Asiatic invasions not to uphold themselves as "Asiatics" worshipping "Asiatic" gods. That doesn't even make any sense. The 19th dynasty was a renaissance of dynastic culture led by Southerners worshiping southern gods, just like previous dynasties before them.....
Centuries before Ramses I was born, there were settlements of "Asiatics" in the region. Scholars point out the connections between the Egyptian deity and the Canaanite Ba'al, which might explain the veneration of this deity in an area that had seen Asiatic settlements long before Ramses I's time. However, your stela lacks evidence supporting the idea that the Ramessids originated from the South; you just made that up. Even if, hypothetically, they did come from the South, it does not necessarily mean they would have been similar to the sudanese you posted.
I gave you the source. It is the year 400 stela that they claimed was a celebration of the Ramessid's Asiatic heritage via the Hyksos..... They even claimed Set Nubti (set of Nubt in upper Egypt where Set worship originated in the predynastic) was an Asiatic/Hyksos king.
Here is one blog discussing it:
quote: The Four Hundred Year Stela (mentioned in my last post) is such an interesting find that it calls for extended discussion. This object is a large slab of stone erected by Ramesses II to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the reign of the god “Seth, Great of Power, the Ombite”[1]. Originally this stela had been interpreted as referring to a Hyksos Pharaoh named Seth[2], but in interpreting the name as that of a god Kurt Sethe is clearly correct. Sethe also concluded that this anniversary did not occur during the reign of Ramesses II but rather somewhat earlier, during the reign of Horemhab[3]. If we count backwards four hundred years from the reign of Horemhab, we arrive at a point somewhere during the Second Intermediate Period.
This would place the founding of Avaris at about the time we would expect, provided that it could be proven that this stela referred to the foundation of Avaris. However, this stela does not mention Avaris at all (nor does it mention Tanis). Junker argues that the Hyksos built Avaris on an existing site[4] but points out that Manetho’s report contradicts itself by claiming first that the Hyksos founded Avaris and by then later claiming that they built their capital at a previously existing site[5]. Thus the Four Hundred Year Stela cannot be used to clear up Manetho’s contradiction as to whether or not the Hyksos founded Avaris. Nevertheless, Montet claimed that such an impressive and important stela must have been erected in the main cult center of Seth[6].
Some of this has been completely accepted by scholars over the course of time. Everyone, myself included, accepts that this stela was erected in a major cult center of Seth. But some scholars (and I am one of them) do not accept that the 400 Year Stela has anything at all to do with the founation of Avaris. For an interesting, if speculative, re-appraisal of the 400 Year Stela see: Hans Goedicke, "The 400 Year Stela Reconsidered", Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, Vol. 3, (1981).
Also, even though this stela was found at Tanis, that does not mean that Ramesess II originally had the stela erected there. I will have more to say about objects being moved to Tanis from other sites in future posts.
It is speculation, based on mistranslation of the year 400 stela and not hard fact. Yet Egyptology has no problem repeating this narrative even if they have no actual hard evidence. For example:
quote: As a leader, Horemheb was in many ways a mixture of the old and the new. He was a product of the 18th dynasty, closely aligned during his early, non-royal career with the post-Amarna Period rulers. Simultaneously, he was a military man from a somewhat unknown family in Northern Egypt. Later in his reign, it became clear that he would not be able to establish his own bloodline. Probably fearing a continuation of the succession chaos that occurred after the death of Akhenaten, Horemheb looked to his allies to ensure his legacy. His eyes fell on Paramessu, a fortress commander who served as one of his two viziers. Paramessu, like Horemheb, came from a northern family and was not part of the Theban elite. The vizier’s family seems to have had connections to the eastern Nile Delta and, in particular, the region around the old Hyksos capital of Avaris. More importantly, Paramessu already had a son: Seti.
In naming Paramessu as his successor, Horemheb secured a succession not just after his death, but also following the death of Paramessu himself. It is possible that Horemheb lived to see Seti have a son – the future Ramses II – further cementing the ascendant Ramesside dynasty. When Horemheb died, Paramessu succeeded him, taking the nomen ‘Re has birthed him’, Ra-mes-su, anglicized as Ramses I. Ramses however, did not rule long. He died most likely after less than two years, leaving his relatively young son to rule as Seti I.
The precise origins of Ramses I are difficult to discern. Most of the information about his family comes from the 400-Year Stela, an inscription at the Temple of Seth in Avaris during the reign of Ramses II. This inscription provides several titles held by Seti I during the reign of Horemheb and also lists Ramses I as Horemheb’s ‘Deputy in Upper and Lower Egypt.’ But researchers cannot rely entirely on the 400-Year Stela for its inherently political purpose: It was carved during the reign of Ramses II to legitimize his reign, so its inscription likely has a political agenda. Furthermore, the stela itself is damaged and the entire text has not been preserved.
They state that Horemheb was from a "northern family" but provide no actual evidence for that. Then they state Ramses I was also from the Eastern Delta but then say they don't know his precise origins. It is all speculation promoted as fact.
This is what other scholars say about Horemheb:
quote: It is largely agreed that Horemheb hailed from Hutnesut (Hansu, Hnes, or Herakleopolis). In his Coronation Decree he claimed that Horus of Hutnesut chose him to rule Egypt and dedicated a number of monuments to him once he was enthroned, but strangely there is no evidence that he undertook any building work at Hutnesut itself. His family background is similarly obscure. Dodson suggests he was of “provincial stock” and Gardiner noted that his Saqqara tomb contains “no mention of his parentage nor any likelihood that he was of high birth”.
Booth notes that he was probably from a middle class family as he was literate and that his father may have been a military scribe but this is simply conjecture as he does not name his father or mention his titles. We know very little about his early life. It is likely that he entered scribal training at the age of five and given his later titles he probably received military training. However, his early career may have been primarily administrative, as is implied by frequent depictions of Horemheb as a scribe and his continuing devotion to Thoth – although it is equally likely that this was simply a measure to reinforce his wisdom as a ruler.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Actually the bottom line is that those saying that the Ramessids were black are saying that he looked closer to these people
All of whom are black Africans from the Nile and North or North East Africa.
And there is nothing ambiguous or confusing about what black is referring to. Not culture, not language, not self identity but skin color. The racists and other colorists arguing against that know full well what they mean and this isn't about words, self identity or anything else. Anthropology boils down to looking at features including skin color, cranial shape, hair and other aspects of phenotype to compare them with other populations. But these racialists refuse to actually look at African populations on the Nile to use them as a reference of ancient Nile Valley populations. This is why they constantly jump all over the map, from Morocco to West Africa trying to cherry pick what is and isn't "African features" in Africa. It is totally non scientific because they say it themselves "they aren't African", which means that that excludes most of the history of the ancient Nile Valley which was primarily of African origin. There is no debate around this except them trying to rephrase their colorist and racist ideas to sound 'objective', by whining about words like black or white. When they know full well they use them every day.
Why do you assume he was similar to those groups if he was from the eastern delta ? Why do you avoid the pigmentation analysis of his mummy ? Are you aware that some of the people you posted have recent arab admixture ? Are you aware those people are genetically closer to people in the Middle east than Afro-americans like yourself ? Also most men in the pictures you posted have afro type of hair which ramses II didn't have.
Just admit you choose them because they are from the Nile Valley and look "black" enough to you. However, I cannot take this seriously, so I will continue ignoring you. As I mentioned previously, promoting conspiracy theories or employing outdated racist ideas to support your afrocentrist viewpoint is not acceptable. No contemporary academics engage in the practices you are suggesting.
So you're presented with pictures depicting native Nile Valley/and Northeast people with "stereotypical" features of "sub-Saharan" Africans(Afro-type hair) and then you go on to deny the fact that they would be considered "black" in your definition because they have Arabian admixture from hundreds of years ago. But Black Americans are considered Black to you because we have "sub-Saharan" ancestry even though we also have differing levels of admixture from Europeans. You're a hypocrite lmao.
quote:...men in the pictures you posted have afro type hair which ramses II didn't have.
Are we entirely sure about his hair texture? Wasn't it debunked that we had reddish hair? And the materials used in the mummification process would have straightened his hair, correct? its like Eurocentrics claiming that there were blonde haired mummies on men that would have been around 80-90 years old around their death. Like let's be realistic for a minute.
Btw, based on Ramses II statue here, he look pretty African to me...
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [qb] Im not trying to "oppose your viewpoint" just pointing out that you're trying to sit and lecture Kimbles and other posters while engaging in the same behavior...
The pot and the kettle, and all that.
but carry on...
I don't see what you're referring to but ok...
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Bruh....
You're slow and it's becoming tedious, so let me clarify once more: Europeans and many people in the Old World only categorize dark-skinned Africans as "black". Similarly, I share this perspective, but I take a more nuanced approach due to my awareness of the genetic makeup and morphological features of individuals from the Horn of Africa. On the other hand, the average Afro-American tends to have a much broader and inclusive definition of "black," encompassing individuals of various racial backgrounds, such as mulattoes, quadroons, Indians, Negritos, Papuans, Melanesians, Amerindians, Dominicans, and so on. So no there isn't any contradiction you simply can't grasp what I repeatedly explained you.
So you're sitting here contradicting yourself in one breath saying Europeans don't use skin color classifications for race, and then in another you are saying you and other Europeans use these racial classifications based on skin color(which is what I stated in my response to you). You not serious lmao.
Btw, there are many Black Dominicans... You do realize most slaves were transported to the Caribbean/Southern America so what are you talking about?
And it isn't black people that claim mixed race individuals. Blame white people for not acknowledging and forcing them within the "Black" racial category due to "racial purity" in Whiteness. Once again, let me explain to you that we did not create the rules regarding race. Any issues you see, take that up with your brethren that created it in the first place.
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I gave you the source. It is the year 400 stela that they claimed was a celebration of the Ramessid's Asiatic heritage via the Hyksos..... They even claimed Set Nubti (set of Nubt in upper Egypt where Set worship originated in the predynastic) was an Asiatic/Hyksos king.
No I asked you for a source that supports your statement about egyptologists relying solely on this stela to determine his origin. As far as I know you don't know if they use it for assessing his origin or if there are other supporting pieces of evidence indicating his northern origin.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Here is one blog discussing it:
quote: The Four Hundred Year Stela (mentioned in my last post) is such an interesting find that it calls for extended discussion. This object is a large slab of stone erected by Ramesses II to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the reign of the god “Seth, Great of Power, the Ombite”[1]. Originally this stela had been interpreted as referring to a Hyksos Pharaoh named Seth[2], but in interpreting the name as that of a god Kurt Sethe is clearly correct. Sethe also concluded that this anniversary did not occur during the reign of Ramesses II but rather somewhat earlier, during the reign of Horemhab[3]. If we count backwards four hundred years from the reign of Horemhab, we arrive at a point somewhere during the Second Intermediate Period.
This would place the founding of Avaris at about the time we would expect, provided that it could be proven that this stela referred to the foundation of Avaris. However, this stela does not mention Avaris at all (nor does it mention Tanis). Junker argues that the Hyksos built Avaris on an existing site[4] but points out that Manetho’s report contradicts itself by claiming first that the Hyksos founded Avaris and by then later claiming that they built their capital at a previously existing site[5]. Thus the Four Hundred Year Stela cannot be used to clear up Manetho’s contradiction as to whether or not the Hyksos founded Avaris. Nevertheless, Montet claimed that such an impressive and important stela must have been erected in the main cult center of Seth[6].
Some of this has been completely accepted by scholars over the course of time. Everyone, myself included, accepts that this stela was erected in a major cult center of Seth. But some scholars (and I am one of them) do not accept that the 400 Year Stela has anything at all to do with the founation of Avaris. For an interesting, if speculative, re-appraisal of the 400 Year Stela see: Hans Goedicke, "The 400 Year Stela Reconsidered", Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, Vol. 3, (1981).
Also, even though this stela was found at Tanis, that does not mean that Ramesess II originally had the stela erected there. I will have more to say about objects being moved to Tanis from other sites in future posts.
It is speculation, based on mistranslation of the year 400 stela and not hard fact. Yet Egyptology has no problem repeating this narrative even if they have no actual hard evidence. For example:
quote: As a leader, Horemheb was in many ways a mixture of the old and the new. He was a product of the 18th dynasty, closely aligned during his early, non-royal career with the post-Amarna Period rulers. Simultaneously, he was a military man from a somewhat unknown family in Northern Egypt. Later in his reign, it became clear that he would not be able to establish his own bloodline. Probably fearing a continuation of the succession chaos that occurred after the death of Akhenaten, Horemheb looked to his allies to ensure his legacy. His eyes fell on Paramessu, a fortress commander who served as one of his two viziers. Paramessu, like Horemheb, came from a northern family and was not part of the Theban elite. The vizier’s family seems to have had connections to the eastern Nile Delta and, in particular, the region around the old Hyksos capital of Avaris. More importantly, Paramessu already had a son: Seti.
In naming Paramessu as his successor, Horemheb secured a succession not just after his death, but also following the death of Paramessu himself. It is possible that Horemheb lived to see Seti have a son – the future Ramses II – further cementing the ascendant Ramesside dynasty. When Horemheb died, Paramessu succeeded him, taking the nomen ‘Re has birthed him’, Ra-mes-su, anglicized as Ramses I. Ramses however, did not rule long. He died most likely after less than two years, leaving his relatively young son to rule as Seti I.
The precise origins of Ramses I are difficult to discern. Most of the information about his family comes from the 400-Year Stela, an inscription at the Temple of Seth in Avaris during the reign of Ramses II. This inscription provides several titles held by Seti I during the reign of Horemheb and also lists Ramses I as Horemheb’s ‘Deputy in Upper and Lower Egypt.’ But researchers cannot rely entirely on the 400-Year Stela for its inherently political purpose: It was carved during the reign of Ramses II to legitimize his reign, so its inscription likely has a political agenda. Furthermore, the stela itself is damaged and the entire text has not been preserved.
They state that Horemheb was from a "northern family" but provide no actual evidence for that. Then they state Ramses I was also from the Eastern Delta but then say they don't know his precise origins. It is all speculation promoted as fact.
This is what other scholars say about Horemheb:
quote: It is largely agreed that Horemheb hailed from Hutnesut (Hansu, Hnes, or Herakleopolis). In his Coronation Decree he claimed that Horus of Hutnesut chose him to rule Egypt and dedicated a number of monuments to him once he was enthroned, but strangely there is no evidence that he undertook any building work at Hutnesut itself. His family background is similarly obscure. Dodson suggests he was of “provincial stock” and Gardiner noted that his Saqqara tomb contains “no mention of his parentage nor any likelihood that he was of high birth”.
Booth notes that he was probably from a middle class family as he was literate and that his father may have been a military scribe but this is simply conjecture as he does not name his father or mention his titles. We know very little about his early life. It is likely that he entered scribal training at the age of five and given his later titles he probably received military training. However, his early career may have been primarily administrative, as is implied by frequent depictions of Horemheb as a scribe and his continuing devotion to Thoth – although it is equally likely that this was simply a measure to reinforce his wisdom as a ruler.
The information you provided does not contradict the possibility of a northern origin, nor does it support your speculation about their southern origin.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: So you're presented with pictures depicting native Nile Valley/and Northeast people with "stereotypical" features of "sub-Saharan" Africans(Afro-type hair) and then you go on to deny the fact that they would be considered "black" in your definition because they have Arabian admixture from hundreds of years ago. But Black Americans are considered Black to you because we have "sub-Saharan" ancestry even though we also have differing levels of admixture from Europeans. You're a hypocrite lmao.
What are you talking about ? They don't plot closer to North Africans/Middle eastern folks because of their recent arab input but due to an additional and older eurasian component. On the other hand, Afro-Americans have a much smaller Eurasian component compared to them (40-60% vs. 20-25%), and it differs in its nature as well. That's why on a PCA plot, despite having recent NW european admixture, Afro-Americans still plot close to west africans albeit more eurasian shifted.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: Are we entirely sure about his hair texture? Wasn't it debunked that we had reddish hair? And the materials used in the mummification process would have straightened his hair, correct? its like Eurocentrics claiming that there were blonde haired mummies on men that would have been around 80-90 years old around their death. Like let's be realistic for a minute.
Btw, based on Ramses II statue here, he look pretty African to me...
[/QB]
Are you kidding me or what ? The hair :
No his reddish hair wasn't "debunked" but actually got confirmed by microscopic analysis :
I've seen desesperate afrocentrists claiming it was henna or posting pictures of east africans who dyed their hair with henna XD
This is not surprising as many analysis conducted on Hair in Ancient Egypt are clear about their nature :
quote:The vast majority of hair samples discovered at the Predynastic cemetery site HK43 (Hierakonpolis, Upper Egypt, c.3500 BC) were cymotrichous (Caucasian) in type as opposed to heliotrichous (Negroid), a feature which is standard throughout dynastic times. (…) Although most of the hair found is the natural dark brown color, natural red hair was also discovered [...] samples were examined microscopically
quote: Negroid hair is by nature heliotrichous, the tight frizzy curls proving difficult to work in comparison to the straight to wavy cymotrichous (Caucasian) hair of the Egyptians.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: So you're sitting here contradicting yourself in one breath saying Europeans don't use skin color classifications for race, and then in another you are saying you and other Europeans use these racial classifications based on skin color(which is what I stated in my response to you). You not serious lmao.
So now Horners don't have afro type of hair too ? If it was only about skin color why aren't indians considered black by europeans ? I already said many times that "black" in europe strictly refers to Black Africans unlike in the US.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: Btw, there are many Black Dominicans... You do realize most slaves were transported to the Caribbean/Southern America so what are you talking about?
They form a minority. Most dominicans are either mulattoes or predominantly european.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: And it isn't black people that claim mixed race individuals. Blame white people for not acknowledging and forcing them within the "Black" racial category due to "racial purity" in Whiteness. Once again, let me explain to you that we did not create the rules regarding race. Any issues you see, take that up with your brethren that created it in the first place.
I don't care about what "whites" did. I'm telling you that you have to respect how they self-identify and acknowledge their mixed heritage which is different from yours.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: I gave you the source. It is the year 400 stela that they claimed was a celebration of the Ramessid's Asiatic heritage via the Hyksos..... They even claimed Set Nubti (set of Nubt in upper Egypt where Set worship originated in the predynastic) was an Asiatic/Hyksos king.
No I asked you for a source that supports your statement about egyptologists relying solely on this stela to determine his origin. As far as I know you don't know if they use it for assessing his origin or if there are other supporting pieces of evidence indicating his northern origin.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Here is one blog discussing it:
quote: The Four Hundred Year Stela (mentioned in my last post) is such an interesting find that it calls for extended discussion. This object is a large slab of stone erected by Ramesses II to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the establishment of the reign of the god “Seth, Great of Power, the Ombite”[1]. Originally this stela had been interpreted as referring to a Hyksos Pharaoh named Seth[2], but in interpreting the name as that of a god Kurt Sethe is clearly correct. Sethe also concluded that this anniversary did not occur during the reign of Ramesses II but rather somewhat earlier, during the reign of Horemhab[3]. If we count backwards four hundred years from the reign of Horemhab, we arrive at a point somewhere during the Second Intermediate Period.
This would place the founding of Avaris at about the time we would expect, provided that it could be proven that this stela referred to the foundation of Avaris. However, this stela does not mention Avaris at all (nor does it mention Tanis). Junker argues that the Hyksos built Avaris on an existing site[4] but points out that Manetho’s report contradicts itself by claiming first that the Hyksos founded Avaris and by then later claiming that they built their capital at a previously existing site[5]. Thus the Four Hundred Year Stela cannot be used to clear up Manetho’s contradiction as to whether or not the Hyksos founded Avaris. Nevertheless, Montet claimed that such an impressive and important stela must have been erected in the main cult center of Seth[6].
Some of this has been completely accepted by scholars over the course of time. Everyone, myself included, accepts that this stela was erected in a major cult center of Seth. But some scholars (and I am one of them) do not accept that the 400 Year Stela has anything at all to do with the founation of Avaris. For an interesting, if speculative, re-appraisal of the 400 Year Stela see: Hans Goedicke, "The 400 Year Stela Reconsidered", Bulletin of the Egyptological Seminar, Vol. 3, (1981).
Also, even though this stela was found at Tanis, that does not mean that Ramesess II originally had the stela erected there. I will have more to say about objects being moved to Tanis from other sites in future posts.
It is speculation, based on mistranslation of the year 400 stela and not hard fact. Yet Egyptology has no problem repeating this narrative even if they have no actual hard evidence. For example:
quote: As a leader, Horemheb was in many ways a mixture of the old and the new. He was a product of the 18th dynasty, closely aligned during his early, non-royal career with the post-Amarna Period rulers. Simultaneously, he was a military man from a somewhat unknown family in Northern Egypt. Later in his reign, it became clear that he would not be able to establish his own bloodline. Probably fearing a continuation of the succession chaos that occurred after the death of Akhenaten, Horemheb looked to his allies to ensure his legacy. His eyes fell on Paramessu, a fortress commander who served as one of his two viziers. Paramessu, like Horemheb, came from a northern family and was not part of the Theban elite. The vizier’s family seems to have had connections to the eastern Nile Delta and, in particular, the region around the old Hyksos capital of Avaris. More importantly, Paramessu already had a son: Seti.
In naming Paramessu as his successor, Horemheb secured a succession not just after his death, but also following the death of Paramessu himself. It is possible that Horemheb lived to see Seti have a son – the future Ramses II – further cementing the ascendant Ramesside dynasty. When Horemheb died, Paramessu succeeded him, taking the nomen ‘Re has birthed him’, Ra-mes-su, anglicized as Ramses I. Ramses however, did not rule long. He died most likely after less than two years, leaving his relatively young son to rule as Seti I.
The precise origins of Ramses I are difficult to discern. Most of the information about his family comes from the 400-Year Stela, an inscription at the Temple of Seth in Avaris during the reign of Ramses II. This inscription provides several titles held by Seti I during the reign of Horemheb and also lists Ramses I as Horemheb’s ‘Deputy in Upper and Lower Egypt.’ But researchers cannot rely entirely on the 400-Year Stela for its inherently political purpose: It was carved during the reign of Ramses II to legitimize his reign, so its inscription likely has a political agenda. Furthermore, the stela itself is damaged and the entire text has not been preserved.
They state that Horemheb was from a "northern family" but provide no actual evidence for that. Then they state Ramses I was also from the Eastern Delta but then say they don't know his precise origins. It is all speculation promoted as fact.
This is what other scholars say about Horemheb:
quote: It is largely agreed that Horemheb hailed from Hutnesut (Hansu, Hnes, or Herakleopolis). In his Coronation Decree he claimed that Horus of Hutnesut chose him to rule Egypt and dedicated a number of monuments to him once he was enthroned, but strangely there is no evidence that he undertook any building work at Hutnesut itself. His family background is similarly obscure. Dodson suggests he was of “provincial stock” and Gardiner noted that his Saqqara tomb contains “no mention of his parentage nor any likelihood that he was of high birth”.
Booth notes that he was probably from a middle class family as he was literate and that his father may have been a military scribe but this is simply conjecture as he does not name his father or mention his titles. We know very little about his early life. It is likely that he entered scribal training at the age of five and given his later titles he probably received military training. However, his early career may have been primarily administrative, as is implied by frequent depictions of Horemheb as a scribe and his continuing devotion to Thoth – although it is equally likely that this was simply a measure to reinforce his wisdom as a ruler.
The information you provided does not contradict the possibility of a northern origin, nor does it support your speculation about their southern origin.
The year 400 stela is not speculation, it is the only ancient textual evidence on the origin of the dynasty.. I gave you numerous sources showing how they claimed it was proof of Hyksos asiatic origins for the dynasty, where they literally claimed Set Nubti was a Hyksos king based purely on speculation. And they assumed the year 400 was a centennial for the invasion of the Hyksos. Numerous scholars in the 1900s made these associations with the Ramessids and Asiatics based purely on that mistranslation of the text. There is no 'hard' evidence for this and you have provided none.
All consistently portrayed the same as all pharoahs before them as indigenous black skinned Nile Valley Africans.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The year 400 stela is not speculation, it is the only ancient textual evidence on the origin of the dynasty.. I gave you numerous sources showing how they claimed it was proof of Hyksos asiatic origins for the dynasty, where they literally claimed Set Nubti was a Hyksos king based purely on speculation. And they assumed the year 400 was a centennial for the invasion of the Hyksos. Numerous scholars in the 1900s made these associations with the Ramessids and Asiatics based purely on that mistranslation of the text. There is no 'hard' evidence for this and you have provided none.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion you're making. As your sources point out, the previous interpretation of the stela has been discarded for quite some time, and the quotes I provided are recent. Therefore, given that 21st-century Egyptologists assert that he hailed from the Eastern Delta, I have confidence in their findings, presuming they have well-founded reasons to make such a claim.
Moreover you didn't even pay attention to your own article. Here is what it says :
quote:He is depicted anthropomorphically with the dress and insignia of an Asiatic god (1). The particular type of royal figure, who is actually Seth-Baal , is first attested in the reign of Seti I and occurs several times in the reign of Ramesses II .
See ? Remember what I told you about the link with the asiatic Ba'al ?
Here again from your own article :
quote:While the collapse of the theory of Legrain and Sethe makes the origin of the XIXth Dynasty again obscure (3), we can trace a family of high officials supporting this dynasty through three generations. They undoubtedly were at home in the northeastern Delta and were actively engaged in the military policy of the time, attaining the highest position in the king’s service.
There is not a single shred of evidence that this family came from the south and you know it yet you stated it as if it was factual.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ramessids were indigenous to the Nile and related to black people of the Nile like this:
These people are black Africans of the Nile and North Africa and not descended from Eurasians.
Ramses I:
Seti I;
Ramses II:
All consistently portrayed the same as all pharoahs before them as indigenous black skinned Nile Valley Africans.
You lack any concrete evidence to support your claim, and what's even more concerning is that you imply a uniformity among the indigenous inhabitants of the Nile Valley, which contradicts the findings of bioanthropological research. There is no "black Africans" in the pictures you provided, and it appears that you might be misled by their dark skin or hair texture. Genetically and morphologically, these individuals bear greater resemblance to light-skinned North Africans or Middle Easterners than to what is typically referred to as "Black Africans." Additionally, your repetitive use of conventional art as evidence is misleading since it wasn't naturalistic and this reddish hues can literally be observed across modern Egypt.
Here are your black africans :
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
post darker if you want, this may have faded but with these facial features Those same type of lips, nose etc
There is people who look like Ramses the great, and they are still Black African.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: So you're sitting here contradicting yourself in one breath saying Europeans don't use skin color classifications for race, and then in another you are saying you and other Europeans use these racial classifications based on skin color(which is what I stated in my response to you). You not serious lmao.
So now Horners don't have afro type of hair too ? If it was only about skin color why aren't indians considered black by europeans ? I already said many times that "black" in europe strictly refers to Black Africans unlike in the US.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: Btw, there are many Black Dominicans... You do realize most slaves were transported to the Caribbean/Southern America so what are you talking about?
They form a minority. Most dominicans are either mulattoes or predominantly european.
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: And it isn't black people that claim mixed race individuals. Blame white people for not acknowledging and forcing them within the "Black" racial category due to "racial purity" in Whiteness. Once again, let me explain to you that we did not create the rules regarding race. Any issues you see, take that up with your brethren that created it in the first place.
I don't care about what "whites" did. I'm telling you that you have to respect how they self-identify and acknowledge their mixed heritage which is different from yours.
quote:So now Horners don't have afro type of hair too ?
What? Lol, that's how I know you are not serious. What are you even arguing against? Because I never made that claim. Don't put words in my mouth to create a false argument.
quote:why aren't indians considered black by europeans ?
Because Europeans created the classification of Black to mean Black Africans. Not Indians. You all created it, so ask yourselves that question.
quote: Most dominicans are either mulattoes or predominantly european.
Have you ever been to the Spanish Caribbean? Many Dominicans and Puerto Ricans look like Black people, many look mixed as well like you said. And there are White Puerto Ricans too, however, we are not saying mixed or White are black. The ones im talking about may not call themselves that, but they are phenotypically Black...
quote:I don't care about what "whites" did. I'm telling you that you have to respect how they self-identify and acknowledge their mixed heritage which is different from yours.
Well you should care, because they are the reason why people use color based classifications. I don't care how people choose to identify in these countries, I will call them whatever they wish to be called. You don't know enough about me to make any such claims. Fact is, if these people look similar to me, they will be classed as Black in the US/Europe regardless of what they call themselves. You said yourself, that you use the racial/color based term for Black. But then you went and lied saying you and Europeans didn't. You keep lying back and forth, its funny to see. But its also annoying...
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
Ms Lioness what are you saying here? That Africans can't have these types of facial features, wtf is this dishonesty? (So now African people cant have thin lips, or "thin" noses now?)
I posted pictures in another thread displaying the diversity of African phenotypes. So why do you think this photo shows a phenotype that is not displayed in Africans?
Posts: 80 | From: USA, America | Registered: May 2023
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kimbles: Ms Lioness what are you saying here? That Africans can't have these types of facial features, wtf is this dishonesty? (So now African people cant have thin lips, or "thin" noses now?)
I posted pictures in another thread displaying the diversity of African phenotypes. So why do you think this photo shows a phenotype that is not displayed in Africans? [/QB]
I didn't say that
I'm asking for people to post side-view photos of African people that look like that so we can shut down people who think they don't match
quote:Originally posted by KING:
(collage of KING's photos+Ramses)
Posts: 42935 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Actually the bottom line is that those saying that the Ramessids were black are saying that he looked closer to these people
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The year 400 stela is not speculation, it is the only ancient textual evidence on the origin of the dynasty.. I gave you numerous sources showing how they claimed it was proof of Hyksos asiatic origins for the dynasty, where they literally claimed Set Nubti was a Hyksos king based purely on speculation. And they assumed the year 400 was a centennial for the invasion of the Hyksos. Numerous scholars in the 1900s made these associations with the Ramessids and Asiatics based purely on that mistranslation of the text. There is no 'hard' evidence for this and you have provided none.
There is no evidence to support the suggestion you're making. As your sources point out, the previous interpretation of the stela has been discarded for quite some time, and the quotes I provided are recent. Therefore, given that 21st-century Egyptologists assert that he hailed from the Eastern Delta, I have confidence in their findings, presuming they have well-founded reasons to make such a claim.
The previous interpretation has not been discarded because the finding of this stela, where it was found and the interpretations of it are the literal basis of that theory that they came from the Eastern Delta. Other than that stela there is no text or any other evidence saying where Ramses I was born, who his parents were or anything else, other than this stela. So what you have confidence in and what can be actually proven are two different things.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Moreover you didn't even pay attention to your own article. Here is what it says :
quote:He is depicted anthropomorphically with the dress and insignia of an Asiatic god (1). The particular type of royal figure, who is actually Seth-Baal , is first attested in the reign of Seti I and occurs several times in the reign of Ramesses II .
See ? Remember what I told you about the link with the asiatic Ba'al ?
Here again from your own article :
quote:While the collapse of the theory of Legrain and Sethe makes the origin of the XIXth Dynasty again obscure (3), we can trace a family of high officials supporting this dynasty through three generations. They undoubtedly were at home in the northeastern Delta and were actively engaged in the military policy of the time, attaining the highest position in the king’s service.
Apparently you weren't paying attention because I posted it to show why they claimed it as proof of the Asiatic origins of the dynasty. The significance of the speculation of them being from the Eastern Delta is that this means they had Asiatic ancestry. Or are you not paying attention? Obviously you are or you wouldn't have pointed out this passage, while ignoring the part of the text that states point blank Set Nubti, meaning Set of Nubt. So it cannot be a reference to worshiping an Asiatic deity.
And none other than Flinders Petrie discovered the origins of Set worship in Nubt and documented in this publication "Naqada and Ballas".
quote: The work described in this volume was conducted partly by myself, and partly by Mr. Quibell ; but the whole of it lay within a few miles along the edge of the desert, between Ballas and Naqada. This district is about thirty miles north of Thebes, and on the western side of the Nile. The work of Mr. Quibell was in the northern part near Ballas ; mine lay in the southern part around the ancient town of Nubt — the centre of Set worship — and southward near Naqada. We were greatly assisted at both sites by the help of students who came to stay with us ; Mr. Hugh Price, who had worked for some time in Central America with Mr. Maudslay, was most energetic in the excavating ; and I had, for lack of time, to ask him to do the plans of the temple of Nubt, the south town, and neighbourhood.
So you are simply missing the point altogether that the South is the birthplace origin and cultural center of the ancient dynasties. Making the Ramessids origins there not unique or unusual at all and any suggestion otherwise, especially in association with Asiatics should have some actual proof to support it. And lets cut to the chase, you actually believe it otherwise you wouldn't be arguing about him not being black African.
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: There is not a single shred of evidence that this family came from the south and you know it yet you stated it as if it was factual.
The year 400 stela is the ONLY evidence that exists about the origins of the Ramessids and the text itself states many things that point to the South. Again, the whole point is that the entire 18th dynasty primarily ruled from the South and most dynasties before that. Somehow you have no concept of the actual history of the Nile. MOST pharaohs ruled from the South in Luxor or Thebes.....
quote: Thebes known to the ancient Egyptians as Waset, was an ancient Egyptian city located along the Nile about 800 kilometers (500 mi) south of the Mediterranean. Its ruins lie within the modern Egyptian city of Luxor. Thebes was the main city of the fourth Upper Egyptian nome (Sceptre nome) and was the capital of Egypt for long periods during the Middle Kingdom and New Kingdom eras. It was close to Nubia and the Eastern Desert, with its valuable mineral resources and trade routes. It was a cult center and the most venerated city during many periods of ancient Egyptian history.
And again, here is the text from another website which also states that the families origins were in Avaris:
quote:Year 400, the fourth month of the season of Shammu, the fourth day of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Seth-Great-of-valor, son of Re whom he loves, Nubti [11], beloved by Re-Hor-akhty, may he live for ever.
The Regent came, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the fanbearer on the right hand of the King [7], the leader of the bowmen, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw [8], the great of Medjay [9], the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry the lord master of the ceremonies of the Feast of the He-goat [10], the master of Smendes, the first prophet of Seth, the lector-priest of Wadjet-Opet-Tawy, the head of all priests of all the gods, Seti, right of voice, son of the Prince regent, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw, the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry, Paramesse [12], right of voice, born from the mistress of the house, the songstress of Re, Tiw, right of voice, he says :
Hail to thee, o Seth, son of Nut, great of strength in the boat of millions of years, in the bow of the ship of Re, the great screamer .... .. [ mayest thou ] give me a good time for following [13] your Ka and may I be lasting in ....
The stela was erected in the eastern Delta by Ramses II in honour of his father, Seti I. The origins of the family are in Avaris, former capital of the Hyksos. Seth was the main god of Avaris and was considered a forebear by the Ramessids.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Ramessids were indigenous to the Nile and related to black people of the Nile like this:
These people are black Africans of the Nile and North Africa and not descended from Eurasians.
Ramses I:
Seti I;
Ramses II:
All consistently portrayed the same as all pharoahs before them as indigenous black skinned Nile Valley Africans.
You lack any concrete evidence to support your claim, and what's even more concerning is that you imply a uniformity among the indigenous inhabitants of the Nile Valley, which contradicts the findings of bioanthropological research. There is no "black Africans" in the pictures you provided, and it appears that you might be misled by their dark skin or hair texture. Genetically and morphologically, these individuals bear greater resemblance to light-skinned North Africans or Middle Easterners than to what is typically referred to as "Black Africans." Additionally, your repetitive use of conventional art as evidence is misleading since it wasn't naturalistic and this reddish hues can literally be observed across modern Egypt.
Here are your black africans :
When I say black I am only talking about skin color, meaning that such skin color has always been indigenous to African people on the Nile. I never said anything about anything else and you are showing that you are desperate to do anything to downplay any indigenous Africans with black skin in North Africa and want to pretend everyone in North Africa is light skinned and Non African when they are not. The facts say otherwise, and your nonsensical rhetoric isn't changing those facts. And given that people like this have always been on the Nile and were the main population of people in the ancient dynastic kingdom, there is no reason the Ramessids did not look like this, unless you actually have hard proof otherwise, which you don't.
The point is your whole purpose on this forum is to obsess over skin color yet you sit here trying to pretend otherwise. The ancient populations of the Nile were not light skinned even though there were variations in complexions, especially as time went on, but the core population of the ancient Nile has always been black because they originated in Africa, not the Levant, Europe and Asia. All you do is sit here and argue that some mysterious ancient Eurasian populations arrived in Africa tens of thousands of years ago and replaced black people in North Africa with light skinned/white people with no evidence or proof. To the point you try and argue with people about what skin colors are indigenous to North Africa as if black skin hasn't always been present in Africa, because Africa straddles the equator and most Africans are tropically adapted, ie. black. There is no "science" other than that.
And you then use deception to try and 'prove' your argument posting images from two different tombs as if they go together when they don't. ONe is from the tomb of Huy and the other is from the tomb of Sennedjem.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say black I am only talking about skin color, meaning that such skin color has always been indigenous to African people on the Nile. I never said anything about anything else and you are showing that you are desperate to do anything to downplay any indigenous Africans with black skin in North Africa and want to pretend everyone in North Africa is light skinned and Non African when they are not. The facts say otherwise, and your nonsensical rhetoric isn't changing those facts. And given that people like this have always been on the Nile and were the main population of people in the ancient dynastic kingdom, there is no reason the Ramessids did not look like this, unless you actually have hard proof otherwise, which you don't.
The point is your whole purpose on this forum is to obsess over skin color yet you sit here trying to pretend otherwise. The ancient populations of the Nile were not light skinned even though there were variations in complexions, especially as time went on, but the core population of the ancient Nile has always been black because they originated in Africa, not the Levant, Europe and Asia. All you do is sit here and argue that some mysterious ancient Eurasian populations arrived in Africa tens of thousands of years ago and replaced black people in North Africa with light skinned/white people with no evidence or proof. To the point you try and argue with people about what skin colors are indigenous to North Africa as if black skin hasn't always been present in Africa, because Africa straddles the equator and most Africans are tropically adapted, ie. black. There is no "science" other than that. [/QB]
Determining the exact point at which "black" starts is highly subjective because it depends on individual perceptions and cultural contexts. Where do "black" start ? Considering the impact of tanning, the notion becomes even more absurd. Does one become "black" while in Africa and "white" while staying in Europe ? Smh... The shades of brown depicted in Egyptian art are similar to those found in modern Egypt. In ancient times, Greco-Romans already recognized a spectrum of skin tones in the Nile Valley, where Egyptians were lighter than lower Nubians, who, in turn, were lighter than upper Nubians. Therefore, generalizing the entire Nile Valley based on skin color is not appropriate.
It is essential to avoid suggesting that Africans cannot have light skin tones, as there is significant diversity among African populations, including variations in skin color. Skin color is not a determining factor in someone's African heritage.
And of course I do have hard proof that he was light skinned :
but also :
quote:Sometimes, the natural color of the skin can be distinguished in certain places, white for example, in Ramses II and an anonymous princely mummy, as reported by FOUQUET (1886), who opened their sarcophagus. However, most mummies have a charred black appearance; this color either comes from a slow organic combustion process or from a bitumen that considerably hinders their examination with the naked eye. This bitumen likely originated from Mesopotamia and Palestine (CONNAN 1991), just like the embalming resins, which were reserved for the wealthier, came from Lebanon (LÉCA 1976). The darkening effect of the "mineral oil" is mentioned in a Roman-era papyrus (N°AE/N5158 of the Louvre) cited by Connan.
The majority of modern Egyptians may not have light skin, but they are generally lighter-skinned than most SSAs. The key point here is that the ancient Nile Valley population (Egypt/northern Sudan), had significant Near Eastern ancestry, regardless of what you wish. And yes it's true that Eurasian populations migrated back to Africa and intermixed with local populations (btw I never said those prehistoric eurasians were light skinned except the early european farmers). North Africans evolved far from the equator and lived at more northern latitudes compared to your ancestors. There is no reason to assume they would have been as dark as equatorial africans that doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
And you then use deception to try and 'prove' your argument posting images from two different tombs as if they go together when they don't. ONe is from the tomb of Huy and the other is from the tomb of Sennedjem.
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: When I say black I am only talking about skin color, meaning that such skin color has always been indigenous to African people on the Nile. I never said anything about anything else and you are showing that you are desperate to do anything to downplay any indigenous Africans with black skin in North Africa and want to pretend everyone in North Africa is light skinned and Non African when they are not. The facts say otherwise, and your nonsensical rhetoric isn't changing those facts. And given that people like this have always been on the Nile and were the main population of people in the ancient dynastic kingdom, there is no reason the Ramessids did not look like this, unless you actually have hard proof otherwise, which you don't.
The point is your whole purpose on this forum is to obsess over skin color yet you sit here trying to pretend otherwise. The ancient populations of the Nile were not light skinned even though there were variations in complexions, especially as time went on, but the core population of the ancient Nile has always been black because they originated in Africa, not the Levant, Europe and Asia. All you do is sit here and argue that some mysterious ancient Eurasian populations arrived in Africa tens of thousands of years ago and replaced black people in North Africa with light skinned/white people with no evidence or proof. To the point you try and argue with people about what skin colors are indigenous to North Africa as if black skin hasn't always been present in Africa, because Africa straddles the equator and most Africans are tropically adapted, ie. black. There is no "science" other than that.
Determining the exact point at which "black" starts is highly subjective because it depends on individual perceptions and cultural contexts. Where do "black" start ? Considering the impact of tanning, the notion becomes even more absurd. Does one become "black" while in Africa and "white" while staying in Europe ? Smh... The shades of brown depicted in Egyptian art are similar to those found in modern Egypt. In ancient times, Greco-Romans already recognized a spectrum of skin tones in the Nile Valley, where Egyptians were lighter than lower Nubians, who, in turn, were lighter than upper Nubians. Therefore, generalizing the entire Nile Valley based on skin color is not appropriate.
It is essential to avoid suggesting that Africans cannot have light skin tones, as there is significant diversity among African populations, including variations in skin color. Skin color is not a determining factor in someone's African heritage.
And of course I do have hard proof that he was light skinned :
but also :
quote:Sometimes, the natural color of the skin can be distinguished in certain places, white for example, in Ramses II and an anonymous princely mummy, as reported by FOUQUET (1886), who opened their sarcophagus. However, most mummies have a charred black appearance; this color either comes from a slow organic combustion process or from a bitumen that considerably hinders their examination with the naked eye. This bitumen likely originated from Mesopotamia and Palestine (CONNAN 1991), just like the embalming resins, which were reserved for the wealthier, came from Lebanon (LÉCA 1976). The darkening effect of the "mineral oil" is mentioned in a Roman-era papyrus (N°AE/N5158 of the Louvre) cited by Connan.
The majority of modern Egyptians may not have light skin, but they are generally lighter-skinned than most SSAs. The key point here is that the ancient Nile Valley population (Egypt/northern Sudan), had significant Near Eastern ancestry, regardless of what you wish. And yes it's true that Eurasian populations migrated back to Africa and intermixed with local populations (btw I never said those prehistoric eurasians were light skinned except the early european farmers). North Africans evolved far from the equator and lived at more northern latitudes compared to your ancestors. There is no reason to assume they would have been as dark as equatorial africans that doesn't make any sense.
Don't change the subject with your gibberish. You tried to pass off the artwork of the ancient Nile as depicting the people of the dynastic era as light skin and got busted promoting a montage that is made up where the images are not from the same tomb. Now you are trying to continue on as if what you say makes any sense. This is about you denying the facts.
The tomb of Sennedjem has the owner and his family depicted generally with dark skin but there is variation in the exact shade in different depictions. And those depictions that are dark are no different than the skin tones of black Africans in any other part of Africa. But you know that which is why you cherry picked one of the lighter toned images to compare against the so called "Nubians" from the tomb of Huy. So your whole position is fake because it is based on deception and not facts. There is no proof that there was a magical color line barrier between North Africa and the rest of Africa on the Nile or anywhere else. It is just you making up facts to suit your own narrative. This is your whole obsession on this forum and you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
Point blank, if what you were saying was true and the ancient dynastic people saw themselves as light skinned, you wouldn't have to resort to such deception. You would just be able to pick a random fully decorated tomb and let the work speak for itself, but you can't. So you sit here and bounce around talking about irrelevant talking points when the issue is skin color and it is clear that these people saw themselves as having black skin in the majority of cases, even though we know everybody wasn't the same skin color and some were light skinned. But that is not what you are saying. All you are trying to say is that they were all light skinned/white and that is why you keep up these crazy antics trying to duck and dodge the fact that you are obsessed with skin color.
Posts: 8897 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic