posted
You cannot tell hair color by the color of the hair found on the mummy alone. Most of the time the embalming material turns or salts in the Sahara bleach the hair to unatural colors. To establish the original hair color you need electron miscroscopic analysis. The only published report I saw on the original hair color of Rameses II was by a group of French scientist. According to the results his hair was red. All the depictions of Rameses II show him with reddish-brown skin.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plenty of Africans in the horn and elsewhere have red hair. There is NOTHING that stops Africans from having red hair.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
well actually they can now tell the hair color and Ramses II did have red hair, as did Queen Tiye. In fact hers was described as reddish - blonde. I posted the article on this board some time ago. Many of the forensic medicine advances of the past few years have been very helpful in looking at ancient remains.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: well actually they can now tell the hair color and Ramses II did have red hair, as did Queen Tiye. In fact hers was described as reddish - blonde. I posted the article on this board some time ago. Many of the forensic medicine advances of the past few years have been very helpful in looking at ancient remains.
How can they tell Rameses II and Queen Tiye had red hair? Can you describe the methdology used in determining this?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, they have an x-ray system that looks at the hair at its most basic level. It was developed a few years ago to examine hair on dead bodies that were involved in crimes. I posted the data here a year or so ago. If I remember correctly it goes much further than anything we have had in the past.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, they have an x-ray system that looks at the hair at its most basic level. It was developed a few years ago to examine hair on dead bodies that were involved in crimes. I posted the data here a year or so ago. If I remember correctly it goes much further than anything we have had in the past.
You have never posted either a link,journal or any publication detailing the methdology. What I asked you for was a direct reference on either Rameses II or Queen Tiye and confirmation of their supposed original hair coloring. If you don't have knowleadge of the methdology then I would prefer you remain silent or otherwise you make yourself look foolish and arrogant.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
How about supplying the reference and naming the Egyptologist know? How about describing the methdology used in such test?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its in the archives. I'll look around at the house, I'm sure I still have it. Point is Ausar, the technology is ALL OVER the hair forensic web sites.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a non-sequitir. The question is wheather this was used on any ancient Egyptian remains.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reddish tone to Rameses mummy hair, can likely be attributed to the the reaction of Rameses' hair to the chemicals used in the embalming process. But it does no harm re-examining the said documentation for the explanation given for the "red hair", which proves what again?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
How about supplying the reference and naming the Egyptologist know? How about describing the methdology used in such test?
How about not deleting the evidence. I just posted the whole article that shows the proof for what the Professor said. Why not let people judge for themselves?
You've got to be kidding...first of all, it sounded like Hore was was saying that RECENT forensic science had definitively discovered that Ramses has redish-blond hair. What you have posted is an article about the original tests done more than 30 years ago by the French team.
The conclusion was that even the French team acknowledged that the hair had been dyed red with henna, but after examining the roots of Ramses hair....they discovered TRACES (which is defined as a very small amount) of red hair (No mention of Hore's Nordic blond fantasy ), and based their final conclusion on his physical features alone. I am not aware of any new data confirming these results, and if you were truthful you would know that too.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a ’leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa." [Balout, et al. (1985) 383.]
Posts: 35 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Microscopic examinations proved that the hair roots contained traces of natural red pigments, and that therefore, during his youth, Ramses II had been red-haired.
Why "traces"; why not consistency? Have DNA, for instance, MCR1, been detected, so as to reach a solid conclusion?
quote: It was concluded that these red pigments did not result from the hair somehow fading, or otherwise altering post-mortem, but did indeed represent Ramses’ natural hair colour.
If they had faded, we wouldn't be seeing "red hair" coloration of the mummy, now would we? Still doesn't discount or disprove the reaction of the hair to embalming chemicals.
quote: Ceccaldi also studied a cross-section of the hairs, and he determined from their oval shape, that Ramesses had been "cymotrich" (wavy-haired). Finally, he stated that such a combination of features showed that Ramesses had been a "leucoderm" (white-skinned person). [Balout, et al. (1985) 254-257.]
The hair could well be wavy, and?
Moreover, cranio-metric analysis reveals that the Rameses line could indicate miscegenation between "indigenous" Nile Valley groups [like the Mesolithic "Nubian" groups] and later Levantine groups [not the Natufian types]. So, even if we were to "assume" that this is where Rameses got his "wavy" hair trait from, how does this suddenly make Rameses any less indigenous, or dissolve his ties to his inner African roots? The ball is now in your court. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not going to waste much time reitterating the obvious, but grasping at red hairs in the 4 thousand year old corpse of a man who was 80 years old when he died, evidences a sad combination of debate desparation and necrophilia.....
At least use living red haired Africans: Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Rasol's point is well taken. It is you, who has yet to prove anything by grasping at the straws of the notion of "red hair" or "wavy hair". Rameses will not be akin to a European any day soon.
-------------------- Truth - a liar penetrating device! Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The point is that hair samples alone do NOT confirm ethnicity or phenotype. Red hair and reddish blonde hair is NOT limited to pale skinned individuals. THAT is a fact and therefore, trying to say that red hair ALONE makes one pale skinned is a DISTORTION of the facts. In order to prove such a theory CONCLUSIVELY, you would have to combine craniofacial studies, mtdna studies (if allowed) AND hair sample data TOGETHER to reach a conclusion. This point should be obvious. Therefore, no matter HOW MANY institutes did the hair samples, it STILL doesnt change the fact that HAIR alone is not enough to determine PHENOTYPE. What this sounds like is someone trying to work AROUND other facts, such as the craniofacial data, in order to use some OBSCURE data as some sort of OVERWHELMING proof of something, when it isnt. The results of the hair studies should NOT be paraded around as CONCLUSIVE of anything other than the POSSIBILITY that he had some red tint at the ROOT of the hair follicle. Hairs are NOT always consistently ONE color. NOte how the African man above only has red hair in certain spots.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The conclusion here being that the pharonic Egyptians were NORDIC types, which goes 100% AGAINST the mural of the races they HAVE on the site. They then try to make the god Set, patron diety of the Ramessids, somehow a "Nordic" God, because he was associated with red hair? Set worship came from the SOUTH of Egypt, around the city of Nubt, from predynastic times and has NOTHING to do with Nordics.
Anyway, Mr. Howzer is doing nothing but parroting the USELESS B.S. from this web page which is OBVIOUSLY full of Euroecentric nonsense. Why would NORDICS go through ALL THE TROUBLE of leaving Europe, specifically the NORTHERNMOST reaches of Europe to travel to Egypt and build a civilization? Why didn't they BUILD that civilization AT HOME? NONSENSE is NONSENSE and we should realize by now that Eurocentrics will TWIST any EVIDENCE they find to JUSTIFY their Eurocentric views. "You know, the sky is blue today.... yep Bob, therefore the Egyptians MUST have been Nordic Blonde Haired Europeans".
Bottom line, red hair is NOT a trait absent from Africa or dark skin Africans. Red hair does NOT prove phenotype or skin color. It is only useful to compare the craniofacial features of Ramesses to OTHER populations in Egypt NOW and in the past. Why compare such features with people from THOUSANDS of miles AWAY? THAT in itself is PURE bull****. If a LARGE part of the population of Egypt at the time had similar craniofacial features, then HOW are they somehow NOT Egyptian ethnically? THEREFORE, craniofacial studies have to be presented in CONTEXT of the populations from which they come, in order to draw ACCURATE conclusions about appearance and phenotype. The same for hair color, IF the tests are CERTIFIED as accurate, then how many OTHER Egyptians of the time had reddish hair and HOW does that change the FACT that these people were NOT Nordics? Reddish brown hair is NOT a UNIQUE trait to Nordics, if it is found in a population thousands of MILES from the center of Nordic people and culture then it DOES NOT prove that these people were NORDICS. It proves that RED HAIR is NOT unique to Nordics, but can be found in populations ALL OVER THE PLANET who are NOT NORDICS. But that is the OBVIOUS conclusion that SHOULD be reached. Likewise, how can one IGNORE the fact that Africans in the horn and elsewhere STILL dye their hair henna BROWN to this DAY? Doesnt THAT show that red brown hair is NOT a sign of NORDICS? Why would you look THOUSANDS of miles away to explain such cultural practices, when the ORIGIN of such practices are RIGHT THERE, amongst people MUCH CLOSER, physically and culturally TO Egypt? Why is it that there are NO traces of such cultural traits among NORDIC or Near Eastern peoples, but A PLETHORA among AFRICAN peoples, especially BLACK Africans? Things like hair braiding, dyeing, weaving, sidelocks (the Egyptian sidelock), etc? WHY would ANYONE drawn ANYTHING but the OBVIOUS conclusion that such traits would MAINLY have theref ore been practiced by BLACK AFRICANS, since these traits were not PREDOMINENT among NON BLACK Africans.
Finally, HOW on earth would the Egyptians be so SILLY as to portray these so-called NORDIC pharoahs as DARK BROWN SKINNED in the VAST majority of the painted reliefs left to us? It boggles the imagination how they would NOT be proud of WHO THEY WERE enough to depict themselves as NORDICS as opposed to BLACK AFRICANS. No amount of symbolism can explain away the fact that BROWN SKIN was a KEY SYMBOL of Egyptian people and ethnicity and therefore THE PREDOMINANT color used in portrait painting. Even if ALL Egyptians were not exactly brown skinned it STILL says something about the REVERENCE and IMPORTANCE of brown skin, when the portrait painters would USE such colors EVEN when the people did NOT posses such features, like during Greek/Roman times. Either way, at SOME point you would HAVE to admit that either BROWN SKINNED people were the FOREFATHERS of the Egyptian civilization, with BROWN skin bieng SYMBOLIC of this fact, OR the people were just BROWN skinned. Take your pick. No amount of HAIR SAMPLES will change those facts.
But even though the site tries to paint Ramesses as a "Nordic" there are other parts of the site that DO provide more accurate and timely historical facts:
From here we see that the "sea peoples" were an IMPORTANT factor in the shaping of (even though it isnt said directly) North AFrica AND the NEar East. HOw easy therefore is it to imagine that the more "pale" skinned populations partially are a result of these invasions, as clearly mentioned by the author? It also points out how Psamtek II , a Babylonian provincial governor, was more concerned about Kush and its relationship to the SOUTHERN Theban priesthood, than any Asiatic empires....... interesting. Prophecy of Neferti all over again. Once again SHOWING how some people can CHOOSE what FACTS to accept and IGNORE others that are JUST as significant.
quote: ...... There is a great hope for a deep, consistent, and permanent involvement of America in Africa. Several American scholars rejected the Europeano-centric, colonial dogma of History. They focused on the Afro-Asiatic origins of the Classical world, and more is to be expected from this direction. This reassessment of the Orientalism, the Classical Studies, and the Humanities in general finds its parallel in the multicultural practices of the free American society. If these societal practices are exported to Africa, along with a strong political support, new classes that must be formed, and with a resolute financial involvement in terms of either direct investment or outsourcing (why Brazil and Argentine are more preferable in this regard than Senegal, Morocco, and Oromo for US companies outsourcing?), the overall change will be the beginning of the end of the Colonial Darkness.
- VF: Have you thought about being called intruder into the affairs of the so-called sovereign states?
- Prof: In what sense? How? Shall we agree on letting states decide on anything, especially by violating historical data, and by altering History? Where would this lead? And what if a sovereign state is a tyrannical state, where the language of the majority is not accepted as the official language? What if the so-called sovereign state exercises a methodic ethnic cleansing? Were the European and American democratic intellectuals, who fought against Franco in the Civil War of Spain in the mid 30’s, simple ‘intruders’? Don’t you think that it is rather high time for all the historians and the specialists to denounce some states that are truly and perilously ‘intruders’ in the field of History?
As a conclusion, I call the present state of the so-called ‘Ethiopia’ an intruder into the domain of History; the real name of that country is ‘Abyssinia’, not ‘Ethiopia’. Abyssinia, Habashat, is the name of the Yemenite - not Arabic, don’t confuse - tribe that immigrated to Africa, and consists in the real ancestors of the present day Amhara and Tigray, who rule Abyssinia. Ethiopia is a completely different name, does not refer either to that Yemenite tribe and its descendants or to the surface of Abyssinia at all, it is the Ancient Greek name that describes the state, the nation and the country at the immediate southern border of Egypt, which is the present day Sudan. Usurping the name of Ethiopia makes of the Amhara/Tigray government of Abyssinia a real intruder within the domain of History. I totally deplore and denounce the event and the practice. Persistence in this regard proves automatically that there is a hidden agenda, and that the intruding regime intends to carry out dangerous policies that need to be based on an intended falsification of History and on a shameful, deliberate, usurpation of a historical national name that does not belong to them. I think it’s time for them just to renounce the use of that name, and to accept what specialists and historians certify, namely that the name Aithiopia (Ethiopia) can be used either by present day Sudan, or by the modern descendants of the Kushitic - Meroitic populations of the Ancient Ethiopia.
posted
You know Doug, if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know Doug, if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
...because the live version of Ramses II would confirm "radical Afrocentric points of view"...unfortunately for you.
Ramses II Posts: 7080 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
Agreed.
Doug, There are red-haired africans but that is because they suffer from malnutrition, I don't think there is such a thing a natural redhead in Africa.
quote:The conclusion here being that the pharonic Egyptians were NORDIC types, which goes 100% AGAINST the mural of the races they HAVE on the site.
I don't think any serious minded egyptiologist would think that. At least I hope not.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't matter much to me if the old man's hair was red or not. Likewise for Tiye. Neither were leucoderm. Nor was red hair a prevalent feature. Then we have to wonder why Greek authors invented the tale of Egyptians murdering strawberry blonds on sight.
The question I have is why do we have not a single pictorial representation of Ramesses II or Tiye with red hair (or any other native Egyptian for that matter)?
posted
Takruri, I am not all that concerned with using works of art to make these kinds of determinations. You can find those to support any position you wish. Nor do I think that looking at these constantly posted photos of modern Africans proves anything at all. Its also interesting to read what the Greeks and Romans, and others as well had to say if the correct interpretation of what they said is made. As you know one of the criticisms coming from Greek scholars concerning Afrocentrism is that they lack the knowledge to make the proper interpretations of these comments. In the end the only valid view of the subject comes from examining the bodies of the people themselves. Ramses hair and his Syrian looking nose makes it very unlikely that he was black.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tap dancing cockroaches aside, anyone have graphic or textual evidence from the ancient world of a strawberry blond Rameses II or Queen Tiye or any native Egyptians at all?
posted
Well, you are trying to be cute so you do not have to deal with the issues. Its clear that the prepondrence of evidence, from the body, indicates that Ramses was not black. Is it possible he was black, I suppose, its possible that he was green but based on what we have to study and look at he was not black.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Tap dancing cockroaches aside, anyone have graphic or textual evidence from the ancient world of a strawberry blond Rameses II or Queen Tiye or any native Egyptians at all?
No such evidence exists.
Posts: 72 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hair color alone according to Dr. Pruner-Bey is not significant factor in determining the ''race'' of an individual. This characteristic is not confined to any ethnic group.
The other reference is about hair color on ancient Egyptian remains. The material used in embalming and also sometimes salts in the Sahara bleaches hair color from their natural color.
On Human Hair as a Race Character, Dr Pruner-Bey Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol 6 (1877) p71-
The red hair, on the contrary, seems represented, at least by some individuals, in all known races, whether equatorial or boreal... From what precedes, we arrive at the conclusion that the colour of the hair alone is insufficient to characterise a race... p73-4
The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963
Hair is largely made up of the fibrous protein keratin. This substance is extremely resistant to decomposition and enzymatic digestion, mainly owing to the presence of disulphide cross linkages of the amino acid cystine. These join together the long polypeptide chains of the molecule. If the crosslinkages are broken by reduction or oxidation, altered keratin is readily attacked by proteolytic enzymes. This resistance of keratin explains durability of hair in ancient burials...These changes can occur on the living animal; thus atmospheric weathering of the fleece of sheep results in loss of cystine from the exposed tips of the fibres. Permanent waving alters keratin cross linkages, and these changes have been detected using florescence microscopy. It is probable that if the preparations employed during mummification contained reducing or oxidizing agents or alkaline substances the hair keratin would be damaged... Normal human hair had a bluish-green florescence with acridine orange but permanently waved hair had a reddish florescence with associated fractures of the fibres...Hair bleached with hydrogen peroxide also showed this change due to oxidation of the keratin... in some samples such as predynastic Egyptian hair the whole hair was altered in this way.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far we've only analyzed Rameses hair and skull. What happens when we compare the rest of his skeleton to other Africans?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
However, the whole story has not yet been told...
Posts: 262 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
HAIR COLOR ALONE ACCORDING TO DR. PRUNER-BEY IS NOT SIGHIFICANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE "RACE" OF AN INDIVIDUAL. THIS CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT CONFINED TO ANY ETHNIC GROUP .
posted
I think we agree on that masonic. My statement was that the hair, combined with his facial features make it unlikely that he was black. One of them may not make the case, both of them together does.
-------------------- God Bless President Bush Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
HOW HOre? Finding traces of red hair on a mummy DOES NOT mean that Ramesses II was a "strawberry blond". Second, red hair is NOT an indicator of RACE, it is an indicator of a random genetic pattern that is found on ALL people, including those from AFrica and is NOT caused by malnutrition. Also, there are many BLACK people in the world AND Africa who have BLONDE hair. So BLONDE hair is NOT a trait unique to Europeans OR light skinned people. Therefore, using HAIR does not change the fact that Ramesses II was an ETHNIC Egyptian and was recognized as such by his OWN people. Egyptians were NOT Nordics, nor were they North African caucasians. The point of the mural of the races is that the Egyptians RECOGNIZED that some Northern Africans WERE caucasian, but the Egyptians NEVER identified themselves as being THE SAME as these Libyans. THEREFORE, the EVIDENCE is AGAINST the Egyptians being like North African caucasians. They also NEVER identified themselves as being LIKE asiatics, who were ALSO light skinned. So when you say the facts are facts, the FACTS say that the EGYPTIANS viewed THEMSELVES as UNLIKE any of these two groups and therefore, PROPOSING that Ramesses was caucasian, like the LIbyans or Asiatics is BLATANT nonsense, especially if ALL you are going to do is base it on the severely damaged remnants of hair on a mummy. Secondly, craniofacial features are NOT an indicator of SKIN COLOR. If you compare Ramesses' craniofacial features with those of MODERN Egyptians, including DARKER skinned Egyptians, you will find that there is NOTHING about his features that is unique and bear markers that say "caucasian". There are Egyptians all over Egypt today that have the exact same craniofacial features and are DARK SKINNED. Therefore, to try and present this so-called EVIDENCE as absolute PROOF of skin color is absolutely a distortion of the FACTS. Ramesses was an ethnic Egyptian and his craniofacial features show similarities with "Nubian" features from the neolithic, which underlies the fact that Egyptians originally descended from the SAME people we call "Nubians" today. THOSE are FACTS that you like to DISMISS, since SOME of us want to PICK and CHOOSE the facts we want to ACCEPT. Bottom line, NONE of the FACTS presented so far CHANGES the fact that Ramesses was an Egyptian and that MOST dynastic Egyptians were darker skinned due to deriving from OTHER darker skinned Africans in the predynastic to dynastic era. Egypt was NEVER fond of Asiatics or LIbyans and OFTEN turned to the South for KINGS to repel such FOREIGN invaders. Almost ALL resistence to Near Eastern and European invaders came from the SOUTH even to the point of including Kush as a important ALLY in the resistance. Ramesses was such a King, who was selected after a period of diplomatic weakness to STRENGTHEN Egypt's borders and KEEP OUT Asiatics, Libyans and OTHER foreigners. Therefore, for him to BE an asiatic or libyan type (representing the INFILTRATION of such FOREIGN blood into the royal line) and be AGAINST such incursions makes no sense. THOSE are the facts, but of course we all know everyone is trying to make RAMESSES such a great Asiatic or Libyan NON EGYPTIAN pharoah, when he was NOT.
Picking and choosing FEATURES as the basis of determining phenotype is INVALID unless you compare it to the rest of the population at large. Therefore comparing Ramesses craniofacial features to European types and not comparing them to OTHER Africans both in and around Egypt ONLY shows that you are DISTORTING the facts. Until someone shows me how the hair samples and craniofacial from Ramesses mummy compares to OTHER AFricans from Egypt, the Sudan, Libya and Ethiopia, I would consider such analysis as biased. Because ONLY such comparisons can show whether such traits are NOT common or present in other Africans and therefore, indicative of NON AFRICAN heredity. You cant say that such traits are indicative of European/Near Eastern heredity if you dont have the data showing how prevalent the same features are in NON European/Near Eastern African populations.
Likewise, the POINT of Ramesses crown is to show that there are SIMILARITIES culturally to OTHER NEARBY African communities, which would give us some understanding of the ORIGIN and PURPOSE for such a crown. If EUROPEAN/Near Eastern cultures dont BEAR such cultural traits, the HOW could they be the basis for it, especially compared to African cultures that DO posses such traits. So many people talk about FACTS and EVIDENCE but are so QUICK to dismiss and ignore KEY FACT and EVIDENCE and want to seem UNBIASED.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doug, That is why I said it was UNLIKELY, not a slam dunk fact. His skull and facial features, plus the research on his hair indicate that he was not black. What the Egyptians thought of Libyans or others has nothing to do with Ramses actual physical body.
Posts: 5822 | From: USA | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Doug, That is why I said it was UNLIKELY, not a slam dunk fact. His skull and facial features, plus the research on his hair indicate that he was not black. What the Egyptians thought of Libyans or others has nothing to do with Ramses actual physical body.
If that is the case then why do you keep saying he was not black? How do you know then? OBVIOUSLY you are USING the evidence AS a slam dunk to support the idea of him NOT being black. HOw ELSE would you explain your position. Dont straddle the fence.
Posts: 8895 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Not going to waste much time reitterating the obvious, but grasping at red hairs in the 4 thousand year old corpse of a man who was 80 years old when he died, evidences a sad combination of debate desparation and necrophilia.....
Moving On Posts: 567 | From: USA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue of Ramses II's ethnic composition was raised here 3 months ago where it was generally acknowledged he had a slight AAMW strain from his mother's father. Supercar presented the results of X-ray examination.
For those who just want to go on and on and on about black and white, in the end there was nothing to suggest that Ramses II was white in any sense of a USA racial meaning. It's unlikely AAMW were white in the sense of modern day Greeks or Turks, or "white" in the sense of modern day Syrians or Lebanese who do have levels of European whiteness from Circassian and Slavic slave mothers, Crusader invasion fathers, and French colonial laisans of various sorts.
Besides that, Ramses II was not AAMW, just one of his four grandparents possibly was. As for African affinity, Sergi craniofacially ranked Ramses II with king Mtesa of Uganda.Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic