posted
From the infancy of Pharaonic Egyptian Civilization to the time of Psammetichus (26th Kememou dynasty), the land of Kemet had been ruled by the indigenous Blacks of the Ancient Nile valley (there was, of course, the interim period, where the Hyksos had maintained a colony in the Delta.) --
quote: "An enormous mistake of Pharaoh Psammetichus was to commit the defense of Egypt to foreign troops and to introduce various colonies made up of the dregs of the nations." {endnote 14: Cornelius de Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois. Berlin, 1773, II, 337.}
quote: Psammetichus I, Twenty-sixth Dynasty, was considered by the people as a usurper who delivered Egypt "to the dregs of the nations," to foreigners, by facilitating their installation. In particular, he surrounded himself by Greek mercenaries and conferred upon them the highest civil and military posts in the court. That was when the garrisons of the National Egyptian army, out of frustration and as legitimists (this was a part of the army composed of loyal citizens), went to place themselves at the disposal of the king of Nubia (Khartoum, Sudan). They numbered 200,000 and were assigned to the region between Bahr-el-Azrek and Bahr-el-Abyad. They multiplied and became the automates mentioned by Herodotus.
The long millenniums of Black rule, of the Black Pharaohs stretching from before the time of Mena (pre-dynastic) to the time of Psammetichus I (26th dynasty), there would gradually emerge the domination of Kemet - The Black nation - by a succession of White 'Pharaohs'; Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Frenchmen, Britishers...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Name the French and british pharaos? Btw Seti and the rest of Ramsedins were most likely descendants of migrants who were of Syrian/palestinian origin.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: From the infancy of Pharaonic Egyptian Civilization to the time of Psammetichus (26th Kememou dynasty), the land of Kemet had been ruled by the indigenous Blacks of the Ancient Nile valley (there was, of course, the interim period, where the Hyksos had maintained a colony in the Delta.) --
quote: "An enormous mistake of Pharaoh Psammetichus was to commit the defense of Egypt to foreign troops and to introduce various colonies made up of the dregs of the nations." {endnote 14: Cornelius de Pauw, Recherches philosophiques sur les Egyptiens et les Chinois. Berlin, 1773, II, 337.}
quote: Psammetichus I, Twenty-sixth Dynasty, was considered by the people as a usurper who delivered Egypt "to the dregs of the nations," to foreigners, by facilitating their installation. In particular, he surrounded himself by Greek mercenaries and conferred upon them the highest civil and military posts in the court. That was when the garrisons of the National Egyptian army, out of frustration and as legitimists (this was a part of the army composed of loyal citizens), went to place themselves at the disposal of the king of Nubia (Khartoum, Sudan). They numbered 200,000 and were assigned to the region between Bahr-el-Azrek and Bahr-el-Abyad. They multiplied and became the automates mentioned by Herodotus.
The long millenniums of Black rule, of the Black Pharaohs stretching from before the time of Mena (pre-dynastic) to the time of Psammetichus I (26th dynasty), there would gradually emerge the domination of Kemet - The Black nation - by a succession of White 'Pharaohs'; Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Frenchmen, Britishers...
This is indeed the case.
And here is what anthropology has to tell us about the 26th - 30th dynasty remains - known as Gizeh E series:
Howells data set [E series]....CANNOT BE CONSIDERED to be a typical Egyptian series. - Dr. Sonia Zakrzewski
^ Of course they can't, because they're not Egyptian to begin with.
Thus anthropology concords with the historical record.
This is important to understand because Gizeh E series via Brace '92 skeletal study is the most oft. cited 'evidence' of Eurocentrists.
Nile Valley Civilistion is a holistic entity.
The 25th Dynasty is correctly conceptualised as Kushitic, yes, but also the last *Native Nile Valley* Dynasty.
The Eurocentrist paradigm of Egypt vs. Nubia, suppresses this understanding.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ I couldn't agree more. I was about to say that myself-- that the Gizeh E series is a perfect example of anthropology confirming historical records and that those remains do not represent native Egyptians.
To Yonis, I take it you have seen the various depictions of Ramses and his family on this forum, as well as all the info we have on them have you not? What gives for this association of Ramses with Asiatics??
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
All around the mulberry bush the monkeys chase the weasels.
Whew, am I dizzy just from looking in on them!
Hopefully there'll be a breakthrough or freshair soon.
Meantime we're stuck re-presenting the same old facts while others elsewhere continue to make progress.
How easy for know-betters to instigate know-nothings to keep us stuck in a rut tied down to race fettered from expanding to topics about what really makes T3 MRY great.
Take this thread over to Ancient Egypt where it belongs.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another compelling evidence is that during the 19th dynasty the asiatic military operations were intensified, this is not a coincidence since that dynasty had strong connections to the levant region. Ramses I spent more time invading asiatic regions than focusing on domestic issues unlike his predeccesors. He also got the throne from Horemheb who was a general employed by the 18th dynasty and probably of asiatic origin aswell.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course no one can say definitively since these mummies are devoid of color, however, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why these mummies in question fall out of the range of phenotypical variation seen among dark skinned ("black") inhabitants and indigenes of northeast Africa.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darkskin is not the issue anyone can be darkskinned, it's about the features, and these are typical levantine, one has to be blind if this is not apparent. Even Zahi hawass has less refined "asiatic" features than the pharaos of this dynasty. And we all know that Zahi Hawass is mocked as descendent of invading arabs by many at this site.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wally: The long millenniums of Black rule, of the Black Pharaohs stretching from before the time of Mena (pre-dynastic) to the time of Psammetichus I (26th dynasty), there would gradually emerge the domination of Kemet - The Black nation - by a succession of White 'Pharaohs'; Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Frenchmen, Britishers...
White Persians and Arabs??? Get a grip!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Wally references white here in the Kemetic sense of the term Red. So I understand what he is saying.
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Darkskin is not the issue anyone can be darkskinned
Dark pigmentation is exactly what you are implying when you state *Black*.
quote:it's about the features, and these are typical levantine, one has to be blind if this is not apparent.
That is a circular argument, not a proof.
It's also funny, because it's exactly the form of nonsense you tease Marc Washington about when he discovers *obviously Black, Eskimo, and Japanese, and Siberians* based upon -features-.
Can you not see that your argument is every bit as ridiculous as his?
In pure *objective* anthropological terms - can you tell us exactly what the difference is between the skeletal remains you showed, and this central African President: (?)
Paul Kagme, President Rwanda.
^ You also say than skin color is irrelevant to being *black*, and can make you Levantine, and so not black?
posted
You still have not identified what "features" are Levantine for the Ramessids.
Here is a scientific observation on the facts:
quote: James Harris and Edward Wente conducted an x-ray analysis of the New Kingdom royal mummies with the results published in their book X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980). Included in the work were cephalograms of Pharaohs of the XVII-XX Dynasties and their queens.
The angular measurements presented in tabular form in pp. 358-363 will be used here to compare the Pharaohs in craniofacial terms to tropical African types such as the Nubians. We will analyze all the data of the New Kingdom Pharaohs in terms of ANB (A point-nasion-basion) and SN - Mand. Pl. (sella-nasion/gonion-menton).
Also, the three images available on Edward Wente's website, Who was Who among the Royal Mummies, will be analyzed in more details for their correspondence with Africans to the south.
Harris and Wente note the prevalence of dental prognathism among Nubians. Often this is combined with malocclusion. Similar incidence can be found in other African peoples. For example, one study found that a sample taken from the Kenya showed 61.3% of Maasai had diastema; 84% of Kikuyu had overbite and 99% had overjet; and 24% of Kalenjin had anterior open bite. (J. Hassanali, GP Pokhariyal, "Anterior tooth relations in Kenyan Africans, Archives of Oral Biology 38 [Apr 1993] 337-42). Although these dental traits can often be acquired through habits like thumb-sucking, as noted by Harris and Wente, the high frequency in the royal mummies indicates a genetic origin as found in Africans.
Studies have shown that persons of African descent tend to have greater projection of the alveolar region as compared to the lower mouth. The difference in projection measured as ANB (A point-nasion-B point) and research on persons of African descent has shown ranges from 5.5 to 4.3. In comparison with Caucasians, the values were from about 1.5 to 2 times greater (see Alexander et al., 1978; Downs,1948; Fonseca et al.,1978; Steiner, 1959).
After studying all the data, particularly after analyzing the computerized ethcings, one can certainly see that the royal mummies displayed high frequencies of African traits shared with most Africans. Thus, the royal mummies display a strong southern affinity just like other ancient Egyptians of all classes studied by Cheikh Anta Diop, Larry Angel and Shomarqa Keita.
See the links below for the tables of data and results, or click on the detailed analysis of the three images from Who was Who among the Royal
SN-Mandibular Plane Subject SN-Mandibular Plane
Seqenenre Tao 34 Ahmose I 27.2 Amenhotep I 33.7 Thutmose I 34 Thutmose II 37.4 Thutmose III 43.1 Amenhotep II 38.4 Thutmose IV 26.2 Amenhotep III 28 Smenkhkare 37.33 Seti I 32.22 Ramesses II 31.9 Merenptah 33.4 Seti II 41.9 Siptah 49 Ramesses III 28.9 Ramesses IV 31.8 Ramesses V 28.6 Ramesses IX (XI) 33.4
In the study of Alexander and Hitchcock of Alabama populations, the AA norm for SN-Mand. was 34.4 compared to 32.0 for Caucasians. The average for the Pharaohs is 34.23. If one includes the New Kingdom Queens the mean is 35.83! (Alexander TL, Hitchcock HP. Cephalometric standards for American Negro children. Am J Orthod 1978;74:298-304)
ANB Values (A point-Nasion-B point) Subject ANB (°)
Seqenenre Tao 6.22 Ahmose I 7.5 Amenhotep I 5.56 Thutmose I 10.46 Thutmose II 3.41 Thutmose III 6.1 Amenhotep II 5.5 Thutmose IV 5.84 Amenhotep III 6 Smenkhkare 5.41 Seti I 5.49 Ramesses II 6.94 Merenptah 7.5 Seti II 3.7 Siptah -- Ramesses III 7.2 Ramesses IV 6.26 Ramesses V 3.14 Ramesses IX (XI) 4.74
The values here are almost all very high. The mean is 5.9428, which exceeds the means obtained for persons of African descent in previous studies and far exceeds the means obtained for Caucasians. (Downs WB. Variations in facial relationships: Their significance in treatment and prognosis. Am J Orthod 1948;34:812-840; Fonseca RJ, Klein WD. A cephalometric evaluation of American Negro women. Am J Orthod 1978;73:152-160; Steiner CC. Cephalometrics in clinical practice. Angle Orthod 1959;29:8-29).
quote: The XVIV Dynasty is higher in ANB and SN-M Plane than the XX Dynasty. Ramesses IV is the only one in these two dynasties with strong alveolar prognathism, at least, as indicated by SNA. However, dental alveolar prognathism is quite common in both dynasties. Also, both have ANB and SN- M Plane at mean angles higher than even African Americans.
In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
posted
^ One of the points made by Harris and Weeks is that you cannot causally identify the enthnic appearance of the skeletan simply by looking at it.
Most of what people subjectively view as ethnic appearance is actually found in soft features, and not skulls.
This is why the famous fordisc computer program that attempts to subjectively classify peoples into race based on their skull has produced such laughable results.
[a cemetary of skeletal remains from related peoples from a small town in 14th century spain is found to be filled with zulu, and japanese; ancient rift valley africa, is supposed by the same program to be filled with south american indians from peru, etc.]
- Black is just a social reference. In history it references color, as is implied, it does not reference skeletal features.
- Black can be accesses in anthropology directly *melanin testing*, indirectly *genetic analysis*, and inferentially, by examining skeletan for signs of corollary tropical adaptive traits [such as limb length].
Ramses could have Levantine ancestry, or not.
But you cannot *obviously tell* by his remains.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
So as your source states above, Seti and most likely Ramses I, didn't posses these features associated with other northeast africans and Ramses II inherited this observed feature from his mother who was most likely native Egyptian... So basically you've proved nothing in conflict of what i said.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yonis, [new breed poster] trademark is to open with indefensible remarks [Ramses is Asiaticc], and then back track [his mother was African].
Fact is, Doug debunked you with scientific sources, and your best effort rebuttal is a mere back-track.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: In pure *objective* anthropological terms - can you tell us exactly what the difference is between the skeletal remains you showed, and this central African President: (?)
So according to you Paul Kagme is not Black?
According to you Paul Kagme is Levantine?
Com'n stop being redicoulas, Paul kagame looks nothing remotly close to the Ramseddins let alone like a levantine. If anything his mummy would have probably ended up looking like the mummy of Maihirpre Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Com'n stop being redicoulas, Paul kagame looks nothing remotly close to the ramseddins
^ What is the difference? Be specific. List the differences in skeletal features.
I'll even supply you with a 'form'.
a)
b)
c)
d)
..... please fill it in.
quote:If anything his mummy would have probably ended up looking like the mummy of Maihirpre
This is provably wrong. The skeletan of Maihirpre shows prognathism of the jaw and receding chin.
Kagme has virtually no prognathism and a portruding chin.
Additionally, what Kagme, Ramses and many other Africans have in common is long skulls. [portruding back of the skull, compare Kagme and Ramses to US president Bush]
^ The reason you can never objectify your views Yonis, is that you base them on stereotypes and preconceived notions.
You only see what you were taught to expect to see.
If you were told that the Emperor has clothes, then that is what you swear you see....naked though he may be. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: [Ramses is Asiaticc], and then back track [his mother was African].
I didn't say Ramses was asiatic, i said he was descendant of asiatic migrants. Ramses was a military comrad of Horemheb (general of the Amarna pharaos)and when horemheb usurped AY who was the last regent of the 18th dynasty he gave the throne to his closest man, Ramses. The 18th dynasty employed asiatics as chariot overlords and military leaders. Yuya was another example of an `Overseer of the King's Horses'.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Of course Coon was a racist and anti-African. He tried to claim that the Tutsi [Kagme's ethnene] came from Arabia, [which genetics would later completely disprove] however Coon was trying to *explain* African features in Ramses II's skeletal remains.
As a scientist Coon had to deal with objective information.
As a racist, of course, he would then try anddistort it.
Yonis you tend to see thru blinders, [repeat Eurocentric fallacy] and never get even to the level of making critical assessment of objective data.
This is what I'm asking you to start doing.
Sometimes it appears as if you repeat every single Eurocentric lie ever told, never stopping to think for yourself about whether or not it makes any sense.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: Yonis you tend to see thru blinders, [repeat Eurocentric fallacy] and never get even to the level of making critical assessment of objective data.
That's exactly what I'm doing, making critical assesment and personal observations, you're the one who can't even make the simplest judgment without relying on second-hand data (ironically from the same institutions you call eurocentric), LOL
quote:rasol wrote: At which point Doug debunked you.
Actually Doug M only managed to prove my point. Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: ^ What is the difference? Be specific. List the differences in skeletal features.
if you can't see the difference between Ramses II and kagame then i'm sorry i can't help you, the only advice i can give is that you go and check your eyes. The closest type Ramses II would look like today would probably be former prime minister of Algeria, Boudafi.
Comparing Ramses II to Kagame is so far-fetched and redicoulas that it makes me question the quality of your eyes or your mental condition.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey yonis - Here are two Africans with "long" faces. Cameroon and Sudan. Not your so called "round face bantu" features.
I wonder what their mummy will look like. Since I started on this forum I started looking at West Africans more closely. And I realize that about half DO NOT have these so called round face bantu features. And a lot have "straight nose", of course not the Euro straight. Of course my sample size may not be the best.
We got to get away from the stereotypes we were taught.
Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yonis2: Doug M: Thanks for proving my point.
quote: Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
So as your source states above, Seti and most likely Ramses I, didn't posses these features associated with other northeast africans and Ramses II inherited this observed feature from his mother who was most likely native Egyptian... So basically you've proved nothing in conflict of what i said.
What on earth are you talking about? You take one sentence and all of a sudden you are contradicting the conclusion of the report. Seti I was Ramses II's father. Seti I was black, so of course Ramses was black. That is some of the most illogical reasoning that I have ever heard.
You just simply ignored this statement:
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
Please, learn to read and stop making stuff up. The authors wrote this report in 1980. This was prior to any sort of Afrocentrism. They are both white. They also state clearly that the skulls of the Egyptian pharaohs are North East African, including the 19th and 20th dynasties. You are just talking nonsense.
Therefore you are proving my point, which is you have no clue what you are talking about and are making up connections using eyeball anthropology, which means absolutely nothing.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:rasol wrote: ^ What is the difference? Be specific. List the differences in skeletal features.
if you can't see the difference between Ramses II and kagame then i'm sorry i can't help you, the only advice i can give is that you go and check your eyes. The closest type Ramses II would look like today would probably be former prime minister of Algeria, Boudafi.
Comparing Ramses II to Kagame is so far-fetched and redicoulas that it makes me question the quality of your eyes or your mental condition.
Again more nonsense Eyeball anthropology. The mummy of Ramses is not in a natural position. The neck is craned back in an unnatural bend. This makes his nose seem to rise up higher than it would have in life. On top of that, the nose is mashed in from the mummification process. Therefore, any comparison this portrait to persons living or dead with so called similar features, which result from the unnatural pose of the mummy is ridiculous. Of course none of this has anything to do with his skin color, as it is obvious that the flesh of the mummy is dark brown, just like that of Seti I. In fact, when the mummy of Seti I was unwrapped, those unwrapping it even STATED how the color was brown and life like.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
interesting.i wonder if there are any studies on the web dealing modern nubians outside of the nile valley,like those in the nuba hill(hill nubians)or those in darfur and if there are in any recent ones on dealing with arabized nubians as well.
Mesolithic Nubians had low, sloping foreheads and robust features evolving into a globular cranium with high vault.
craniofacial analysis, reconstruction, and identification. [editors Mehmet Yasar Iscan and Richard P. Helmer]. (New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss, 1993)
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no such thing as an ancient Nubian. Nubas are not Nubians. They are Sudanese. There was never a country, land, political entity or culture called Nubia in ancient times. It is a fabricated entity created by foreigners to describe the inhabitants of the Southern Regions of Egypt. A more relevant question would be whether there have been any studies dealing with ancient Sudanese peoples outside of the Nile Valley, like the Nubas, Dinkas, Nuers and others. Of course there have been.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i know nubas are not nubian.i have to tell some folks that too.i know hill nubians in the noba hills are and i was talking about modern times.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seti I was black, so of course Ramses was black.
Define "black"? If it means dark skin colour, then ofcourse seti might have been "black", who cares he might have had green teeth too for all i care.
But if it means features, then i'm sorry he was a levantine type or at the very least coastal north african type, like coastal berbers.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
Cut the crap!!!! Just cut it!!!! You know damn well those soccer players are mixed with caucasoids. Therefore they can be classified as either intermediates or caucasoids.
30,000 Arabs conquered 97% of Africa and admixed with whole populations. Then later the whites did the same. The Negro men were cut out completely from their women to the point that only 5 out of every 100 Negro men managed to produce a child with a Negro woman.
Hence the caucasoid traits of those Africans.
Posts: 3085 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
this is getting of topic but i just wanted post this. ancient nubia by david o'conner quote -
nubia and nubian for the periods covered in this book refer only to geographical locations,not to ethnicity or language of the peoples involved.nubia is a word of uncertain origin.by 1400 b.c. egypt was already known as aigyptos to greek speakers,and as misr(it's modern arabic name)to the semitic world;but nubia,as a country's name does not occur before the third century b.c.
recent study book- daily life of the nubians
nubia and the the nubians. quote:I am using nubians and nubia when referring to black african peoples and their homeland throughout the book.the nouns are imprecise but appropriate because the ancients used these nouns themselves. The word nubia appears relatively late in the region's history,appearing in the ancient lexicon in the third century b.c.e. Its ETYMOLOGY is disputed.The popular notion linking it with an ancient egyptian noun nebu,meaning "gold," is based more on current cultural matters than solid research.a more plausible explanation for the noun nubia argues that the word is more related to and derived from "noubai," a nubian people who appear rather late in the history of africa. be that as it may,nubian and nubia primarily convey the geographic location of a people rather than thier ethnic background or makeup.one should be aware of the facts that there are thriving communites of individuals who refer to themselves as nubians still resident in egypt,and who,although possessed of egyptian citizenship,neverthless consider themselves heirs to the ancient nubians discussed hererin.
my comment on this recent study,those who called nubian today live in the sudan as well and some other places as well as arabized nubians.that's all i will say on this because it's getting off topic.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: xyyman wrote:
quote:
Cut the crap!!!! Just cut it!!!! You know damn well those soccer players are mixed with caucasoids. Therefore they can be classified as either intermediates or caucasoids.
The Arabs conquered 97% of Africa and admixed with whole populations. Then later the whites did the same. The Negro men were cut out completely from their women to the point that only 5 out of every 100 Negro men managed to produce a child with a Negro woman.
Hence the caucasoid traits of those Africans.
correction arabs did not conqured most of africa and did not mixed with whole populations.whites did conqure most of africa but did not mixed with whole populations either.in fact recent whites that conqured most of africa intermarried less with africans.in fact in nigeria whites did not settle there and any whites that lived there was very small compared to the massive population snd did not mingle with them.in fact the brits. used local rulers to rule for them while most whites stayed away.the climate was too harsh in most of africa for them anyway to settle.most whites any others that did settle in massive number was in northern africa along the coast or near it.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seti I was black, so of course Ramses was black.
Define "black"? If it means dark skin colour, then ofcourse seti might have been "black", who cares he might have had green teeth too for all i care.
But if it means features, then i'm sorry he was a levantine type or at the very least coastal north african type, like coastal berbers.
The point is Yonis that your observations on what is and isn't Levantine are meaningless. I have already shown you scientific observations that state unequivocally that the mummies in question are North East African. Therefore, you are making assertions with no scientific facts or evidence to back it up, just your own opinions. Your opinions don't mean jack. The features of all Egyptian mummies and people vary across the board. There is no one single Egyptian type. There is a Nile Valley or North African type and these mummies fit within that range of types, as has been noted by many scientists and scholars. Therefore, what you are saying means nothing, without scientific facts and evidence to back it up. Do you not agree? What you are saying therefore, does not constitute any challenge to the findings already presented and therefore cannot be taken as anything more than pure conjecture on your part.
Again, here is the scientific conclusion about these mummies:
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
Please present your scientific facts and evidence that refutes the above conclusion.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: this is getting of topic but i just wanted post this. ancient nubia by david o'conner quote -
nubia and nubian for the periods covered in this book refer only to geographical locations,not to ethnicity or language of the peoples involved.nubia is a word of uncertain origin.by 1400 b.c. egypt was already known as aigyptos to greek speakers,and as misr(it's modern arabic name)to the semitic world;but nubia,as a country's name does not occur before the third century b.c.
recent study book- daily life of the nubians
nubia and the the nubians. quote:I am using nubians and nubia when referring to black african peoples and their homeland throughout the book.the nouns are imprecise but appropriate because the ancients used these nouns themselves. The word nubia appears relatively late in the region's history,appearing in the ancient lexicon in the third century b.c.e. Its ETYMOLOGY is disputed.The popular notion linking it with an ancient egyptian noun nebu,meaning "gold," is based more on current cultural matters than solid research.a more plausible explanation for the noun nubia argues that the word is more related to and derived from "noubai," a nubian people who appear rather late in the history of africa. be that as it may,nubian and nubia primarily convey the geographic location of a people rather than thier ethnic background or makeup.one should be aware of the facts that there are thriving communites of individuals who refer to themselves as nubians still resident in egypt,and who,although possessed of egyptian citizenship,neverthless consider themselves heirs to the ancient nubians discussed hererin.
my comment on this recent study,those who called nubian today live in the sudan as well and some other places as well as arabized nubians.
As you stated, "Nubia" was a word invented long after the demise of ancient Egypt to be a euphemism for black Africans. It is a FOREIGN WORD invented by FOREIGNERS. Most Africans ARE BLACK, so why do you need a SPECIAL WORD for blacks in Africa? On top of that Sudan means LAND OF THE BLACKS, so why would you need ANOTHER WORD for blacks inside the LAND OF THE BLACKS? Makes no sense right? That is exactly the point. Egypt was nothing but an ancient civilization built by indigenous Nile Valley Africans. There is no other type of aboriginal indigenous Nile Valley African other than black. Nubia is a non entity that never existed and only reflects the racist partitioning of the Nile Valley into those they want to consider as black Africans versus those they do not. But they were all black, so such a distinction is ludicrous.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
yes the name nubia comes in later ancient times .
robert bianchi quote- a more plausible explanation for the noun nubia argues that the word is more related to and derived from "noubai," a nubian people who appear rather late in the history of africa.
now back on topic.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seti I was black, so of course Ramses was black.
Define "black"? If it means dark skin colour, then ofcourse seti might have been "black", who cares he might have had green teeth too for all i care.
But if it means features, then i'm sorry he was a levantine type or at the very least coastal north african type, like coastal berbers.
The point is Yonis that your observations on what is and isn't Levantine are meaningless. I have already shown you scientific observations that state unequivocally that the mummies in question are North East African. Therefore, you are making assertions with no scientific facts or evidence to back it up, just your own opinions. Your opinions don't mean jack. The features of all Egyptian mummies and people vary across the board. There is no one single Egyptian type. There is a Nile Valley or North African type and these mummies fit within that range of types, as has been noted by many scientists and scholars. Therefore, what you are saying means nothing, without scientific facts and evidence to back it up. Do you not agree? What you are saying therefore, does not constitute any challenge to the findings already presented and therefore cannot be taken as anything more than pure conjecture on your part.
Again, here is the scientific conclusion about these mummies:
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
The XVIV and XX dynasty heads do not have steep foreheads, receding zygomatic arches or prominent chins. Generally, both glabella and occiput are rounded and projecting to varying degrees. The sagittal contour is usually flattened, at least to some degree, although this sometimes begins before the bregma rather than in post-bregmatic position. The whole mandible is rarely squarish, although the body sometimes has a wavy edge. The latter feature, though, is very common in both ancient and modern Nubians. According to Gill (1986), an undulating mandible is a characteristic of Negroids.
Please present your scientific facts and evidence that refutes the above conclusion.
quote:this is getting of topic but i just wanted post this. ancient nubia by david o'conner quote -
I don't know why you are always promoting O-Conner's *nubia propaganda*.
quote:O'Conner: nubia and nubian for the periods covered in this book refer only to geographical locations,not to ethnicity or language of the peoples involved.
This is a disclaimer.
Disclaimer's often occur in false advertising in fine print.
Dis = deny, claim.
You officially deny your own claims so as to avoid being tagged as and outright liar.
quote:O'Conner: Nubia is a word of unknown origin
This is false. O'Conner knows etymological origin of Nubia but prefers not to discuss it.
The word is of Kemetic ["ancient egyptian"] in origin. It is acually not of cushitic [ancient sudanese] origin, and has no known etymology in any other language other than mdw ntr.
^ Likely O'Conner doesn't want to discuss it, because it would lead the reader towards the truth, and away from his thesis.
quote:Doug wrote: As you stated, "Nubia" was a word invented long after the demise of ancient Egypt to be a euphemism for black Africans. It is a FOREIGN WORD invented by FOREIGNERS.
Yes, Conner uses the term precisely to lead his readers astray, and in Kenndo's case, his cynical strategy has worked flawlessly. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote; Please present your scientific facts and evidence that refutes the above conclusion.
What are you blind? Your own source supports exactly what i said.
Again, here let me repost it
quote:In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
"Seti I does not possess this feature", this is quite obvious and not surprising since Seti's father Ramses was a general of asiatic descent employed by the Amarna family along his partner Horemheb who eventually gave Ramses the Egyptian throne after ousting AY as the last (real) ruler of 18th dynasty.
Now get that through your thick skull.
But what can i expect from someone who thinks that these two below (adam clayton powell and whoopi goldberg) are the same type of people belonging to the same "black" ethnicity.
You are brainwashed to the core and i pitty you.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is getting of topic but i just wanted post this. ancient nubia by david o'conner quote -
I don't know why you are always promoting O-Conner's *nubia propaganda*.
quote:O'Conner: nubia and nubian for the periods covered in this book refer only to geographical locations,not to ethnicity or language of the peoples involved.
This is a disclaimer.
Disclaimer's often occur in false advertising in fine print.
Dis = deny, claim.
You officially deny your own claims so as to avoid being tagged as and outright liar.
quote:O'Conner: Nubia is a word of unknown origin
This is false. O'Conner knows etymological origin of Nubia but prefers not to discuss it.
The word is of Kemetic ["ancient egyptian"] in origin. It is acually not of cushitic [ancient sudanese] origin, and has no known etymology in any other language other than mdw ntr.
^ Likely O'Conner doesn't want to discuss it, because it would lead the reader towards the truth, and away from his thesis.
quote:Doug wrote: As you stated, "Nubia" was a word invented long after the demise of ancient Egypt to be a euphemism for black Africans. It is a FOREIGN WORD invented by FOREIGNERS.
Yes, Conner uses the term precisely to lead his readers astray, and in Kenndo's case, his cynical strategy has worked flawlessly.
the more update second comment was from robert bianchi he wrote recently a book about the history of the region he had some more updated info on the word in one of his chapters ,i will just leave at that rasol.
i will leave now since i know where this will go again . Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yonis, the only one who is truly pitied is YOU (I stopped pitying gargoyle a long time ago). I was going add a few cents (sense) to correct your nonsense but of course the other knowledgeable posteres in here especially Doug and Rasol have done that.
You are only humiliating yourself further and further.
Mind you if Somalis with the typical so-called by whites "fine" features were to be mummified, I wonder if they would be called Levantine also.
Where is 'AFRICA I' when you need him??! This looks like a job for him also whenever African features are brought up. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote; Please present your scientific facts and evidence that refutes the above conclusion.
What are you blind? Your own source supports exactly what i said.
Again, here let me repost it
quote:In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
"Seti I does not possess this feature", this is quite obvious and not surprising since Seti's father Ramses was a general of asiatic descent employed by the Amarna family along his partner Horemheb who eventually gave Ramses the Egyptian throne after ousting AY as the last (real) ruler of 18th dynasty.
Now get that through your thick skull.
But what can i expect from someone who thinks that these two below (adam clayton powell and whoopi goldberg) are the same type of people belonging to the same "black" ethnicity.
You are brainwashed to the core and i pitty you.
Simply put, you cannot read.
The paragraph begins with:
quote: In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads.
It says that the 19th and 20th dynasties had heaad shapes similar to Mesolithic Sudanese.
The paragraph goes on to describe some of the various features that are found among some of these mummies.
Then it says:
quote: Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy.
So what? That one sentence is not contradicting what was said at the beginning of the paragraph and nowhere does it mention anything about Levantines. So of course you are playing mind games with yourself and you aren't really providing anything for discussion, because anyone who can read will see that the conclusion of the report stands as is and is not altered by your attempts to mis-read it for your own purposes. The sentence does not support what you are saying as it does not say that such mandibles are a sign of Levantine influence. YOU said that. It says nothing about Levantines, which means any statement that you highlight as signifying Levantine mixture is your OWN attempts to insert stuff into the document that is not there. Period.
The people who wrote the report observed the differences of the various pharoahs and based on their observations they concluded that the 19th and 20th dynasties had features similar to other North East Africans.
Seti I and Ramses are from the 19th dynasty.
Now, if you REALLY want to prove your thesis, why don't you find a report that REALLY says what you keep trying to put into this one, because it does not agree with what you are saying.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Djehuti wrote: Yonis, the only one who is truly pitied is YOU (I stopped pitying gargoyle a long time ago). I was going add a few cents (sense) to correct your nonsense but of course the other knowledgeable posteres in here especially Doug and Rasol have done that.
Who the hell are you? buzz off, you think i care what you think, now go and continue attacking the "trolls" and agreeing with everything your "role models" or whoever says. LOL
You can't even have an opinion here without distraction by the elves protecting the opinion of santa clause and repeating same old sh/t as a broken record.
Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what? That one sentence is not contradicting what was said at the beginning of the paragraph and nowhere does it mention anything about Levantines. So of course you are playing mind games with yourself and you aren't really providing anything for discussion, because anyone who can read will see that the conclusion of the report stands as is and is not altered by your attempts to mis-read it for your own purposes.
Yes it does, the two mummies i posted are of seti and Ramses II both are described in that paragraph as having less affinities with early nubian skulls in comparison to their descendant. Which supports the assertion i made of Ramses I being descendant of asiatic migrants. Posts: 1554 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doug M wrote; Please present your scientific facts and evidence that refutes the above conclusion.
What are you blind? Your own source supports exactly what i said.
Again, here let me repost it
quote:In terms of head shape, the XVIV and XX dynasties look more like the early Nubian skulls from the mesolithic with low vaults and sloping, curved foreheads. The XVII and XVIII dynasty skulls are shaped more like modern Nubians with globular skulls and high vaults. Merenptah, Siptah and Ramesses V all have pronounced glabellae. Ramesses IV has a bulging occiput similar to the "Elder Lady." Ramesses II and his son, Merenptah, both have rather weakly inclined mandibles with long ramus. Ramesses II's father, Seti I, does not possess this feature, though, suggesting that this was inherited from Ramesses II's mother, Queen Mut-Tuy. The gonial angle of Seti I is 116.3 compared to 107.9 and 109 for Ramesses II and Merenptah respectively.
"Seti I does not possess this feature", this is quite obvious and not surprising since Seti's father Ramses was a general of asiatic descent employed by the Amarna family along his partner Horemheb who eventually gave Ramses the Egyptian throne after ousting AY as the last (real) ruler of 18th dynasty.
Now get that through your thick skull.
But what can i expect from someone who thinks that these two below (adam clayton powell and whoopi goldberg) are the same type of people belonging to the same "black" ethnicity.
You are brainwashed to the core and i pitty you.
This is the same type of new breed type poster trolling I'm talking about. Don't bring anti-African American posts into this thread you created.
Now lets back things up, where is your peer-reviewed, well researched evidence that Ramses II was Asiatic and or a descendant of Asiatics? Quit tapdancing and spinning around the question and just plain give a damn answer.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So what? That one sentence is not contradicting what was said at the beginning of the paragraph and nowhere does it mention anything about Levantines. So of course you are playing mind games with yourself and you aren't really providing anything for discussion, because anyone who can read will see that the conclusion of the report stands as is and is not altered by your attempts to mis-read it for your own purposes.
Yes it does, the two mummies i posted are of seti and Ramses II both are described in that paragraph as having less affinities with early nubian skulls in comparison to their descendant. Which supports the assertion i made of Ramses I being descendant of asiatic migrants.
No it doesn't. You are making stuff up as usual. The conclusion of the paper is that the 19th dynasty, which includes Ramses and Seti had cranial similarities to other North East Africans. It says nothing about Levantines or anyone else.
Feel free to quote where the paper says
"The skull of Ramses and Seti are more similar to Levantines because of Levantine ancestry in the Mother of Ramses..."
You can't because it isn't there.
If you were honest you would at least try and show how the mandibular differences you pointed out signify Levantine ancestry. But you can't because you don't know how what types of mandibles signify Levantine ancestry. So you just keep believing you are pointing out evidence of Levantine ancestry, when you aren't. You are pointing out your own imagined evidence from this paper, which does not agree with anything you are saying.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic