-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you getting at? I'm sure the images are stylized and not super realistic in profile.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You mean to tell me that all the years you've been posting in an Egyptology forum, and you didn't know that even within the same dynasty there are different paternal lineages much less between dynasties??
Perhaps you should read up more that topic or better yet lay out here.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
By the way, if you're going to do a more realistic comparison you might as well use their mummies instead of idealized portraits.
for argument's sake if that panting is accurate to his facial features (except eye) do you think structurally, it closely resembles this skull? tell me what you think before reading what other researchers think
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The skull has not a single ssa trait and is perfectly caucasoid
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
resembles that painting, stereotypic African features
This leads me to believe that this skull might not be Amenhotep III although he may still may be part of the Amenhotep lineage. The identification of this mummy has been historically disputed although recent DNA extraction has proved kinship
However I am not completely certain the features of that painting could not correspond to that skull
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
resembles that painting, stereotypic African features
This leads me to believe that this skull might not be Amenhotep III although he may still may be part of the Amenhotep lineage. The identification of this mummy has been historically disputed although recent DNA extraction has proved kinship
However I am not completely certain the features of that painting could not correspond to that skull
Yes the depiction look somewhat sub-saharan so he might have had nubian ancestors but the skull itself shows no evident ssa traits so either these depictions are misleading or that's not his skull.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The skull has not a single ssa trait and is perfectly caucasoid
First off you can't make conjectures about what traits a skull has or doesn't have just on a view of a profile picture.
Second, that you use outdated racial notions like "caucasoid" and the Sub-Saharan fallacy is another reason why you are not taken seriously.
About one-third of Sub-Saharans would also fall into the "caucasoid" category based on your outdated premises as noted by Yatunde-Lisa's example of the Mhima man. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: for argument's sake if that panting is accurate to his facial features (except eye) do you think structurally, it closely resembles this skull? tell me what you think before reading what other researchers think
I thought you learned from before that portraits are idealistic than they are realistic. How accurate a portrait is depends on the provenance of the manufacturer as well as owner. Custom made portraits were actually quite expensive and usually the elites especially royals had the privilege of accurate portraits. Even then, the royal portraits were idealized versions of themselves and not necessarily photographically realistic.
The more consistent portrayals are, the more likely they had basis on reality. Amenhotep III and Tiye are good examples of this. In regards to Amenhotep III, I don't think his portraits are 100% but they have some accuracy to them.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: for argument's sake if that panting is accurate to his facial features (except eye) do you think structurally, it closely resembles this skull? tell me what you think before reading what other researchers think
I thought you learned from before that portraits are idealistic than they are realistic. How accurate a portrait is depends on the provenance of the manufacturer as well as owner. Custom made portraits were actually quite expensive and usually the elites especially royals had the privilege of accurate portraits. Even then, the royal portraits were idealized versions of themselves and not necessarily photographically realistic.
The more consistent portrayals are, the more likely they had basis on reality. Amenhotep III and Tiye are good examples of this. In regards to Amenhotep III, I don't think his portraits are 100% but they have some accuracy to them.
Disregarding the eye, if that painting was a phono of someone we are looking at a profile realistic in human proportions Do you believe such a profile could derive from that skull?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
a) the art is stylized, not close to what he actually looked like
b) that might be an 18th dynasty royal but it's NOT Amenhotep III's skull
My view is that that painting is typical of renditions of Amenhotep including some colossal sculptures but I would not call it generic 18th dynasty. I get the feeling he looked somewhat like that painting ___________________________________________
..When the craniofacial skeleton of first degree relatives (father, mother, brother, sister) is recorded by a cephalogram, traced and measured, the resulting variables should approach a 0.5 correlation. These same variables when measured between non-related individuals should approach 0. This was shown to be true in the study of a large series of nuclear families included in clinical studies at the University of Michigan. It must be emphasized here that soft tissue features such as shape and size of nose, lips and ears may well be inherited as sex-linked, recessive, dominant characters or traits.
Where Smith made expert scholarly judgements of similarity-dissimilarity between members of the Egyptian Royal Family, our approach utilized quantification and statistical analysis of the shape and position of the components of the craniofacial skeleton. Specifically, the mandible, maxilla, dentition and cranial base were traced and measured for every mummy and then compared by computer-generated overlays (Figure I), angular measurements and ratios (Table 1) and cluster analyses (Figure 2). The overlays are particularly useful in visualizing similarities and differences in the shapes and position of the bones of the craniofacial skeleton of the royal mummies. At the same time the set of variables representing the craniofacial skeleton can be interpreted better by utilizing the overlays...
Discussion
For a group of investigators concerned with human craniofacial variation and malocclusion, the differences in the faces and skulls in the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens were especially intriguing. This was hardly a homogeneous sample, and there were great differences both within and between the dynastic periods. **The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty.** What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has examined. This study in fact will be limited to the XVIII dynasty (Table 2).
Some of these mummies were obviously different from their predecessors or their successors. Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people, i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I. Further X-rays reveal that the epiphyses of Thutmose I's knees are still patent, suggesting an individual not yet in his twenties. These biological parameters strongly contradict the identification of the mummy as Thutmose I. Further, the X-rays reveal that the arms of Amenhotep I were crossed at the time of burial, whereas the arms of Thutmose I are in a pudendal position, a question proposed by Elliot Smith to be solved by X-rays in 1912 and noted by Derry in 1932.4 Ahmose has little resemblance to either Seqenenre Tao II or Amenhotep I and is not circumcised, unusual for the XVIII dynasty. Amenhotep II has a long ovoid face compared with the very short face of Thutmose III. Thutmose IV has a very fine featured delicate face compared with that of Amenhotep III. Smith states that, "There is a most striking resemblance in face and cranial form between Amenthos II and Thutmosis IV, in spite of the fact that the general appearance of strength and decision of character in the face of the former are in marked contrast to the effeminate weakness of the latter. The shape of the head, with its curious sloping forehead and slender but prominent nose, is identical in these two pharaohs." In fact, Amenhotep III has a facial skeleton quite unlike all other Royal Mummies and resembles most closely that of the Statuary of Amenhotep IV. One of us (FH) has recorded that Amenhotep III's skull (maximum head length 195 mm) is two standard deviations too large for his body (slightly less than 5 ft or 149.64 cm).6
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: First off you can't make conjectures about what traits a skull has or doesn't have just on a view of a profile picture.
You actually can even though it's not perfectly reliable but you can quickly check things like nasal spine, alveolar prognathism, zygomatics, occipital bun, frontal profile, nasal bridge, etc etc
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Second, that you use outdated racial notions like "caucasoid" and the Sub-Saharan fallacy is another reason why you are not taken seriously.
These are not outdated "racial notions" but are still used in forensic anthropology. Moreover you don't see any problem when you labelled many of those skulls "negroid" or as having "negroid traits"
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: About one-third of Sub-Saharans would also fall into the "caucasoid" category based
one-third ? source ? And I already acknowledge the presence of caucasoid types in SSA especially in the Horn but that's because they have substantial amount of west eurasian ancestry.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
..When the craniofacial skeleton of first degree relatives (father, mother, brother, sister) is recorded by a cephalogram, traced and measured, the resulting variables should approach a 0.5 correlation. These same variables when measured between non-related individuals should approach 0. This was shown to be true in the study of a large series of nuclear families included in clinical studies at the University of Michigan. It must be emphasized here that soft tissue features such as shape and size of nose, lips and ears may well be inherited as sex-linked, recessive, dominant characters or traits.
Where Smith made expert scholarly judgements of similarity-dissimilarity between members of the Egyptian Royal Family, our approach utilized quantification and statistical analysis of the shape and position of the components of the craniofacial skeleton. Specifically, the mandible, maxilla, dentition and cranial base were traced and measured for every mummy and then compared by computer-generated overlays (Figure I), angular measurements and ratios (Table 1) and cluster analyses (Figure 2). The overlays are particularly useful in visualizing similarities and differences in the shapes and position of the bones of the craniofacial skeleton of the royal mummies. At the same time the set of variables representing the craniofacial skeleton can be interpreted better by utilizing the overlays...
Discussion
For a group of investigators concerned with human craniofacial variation and malocclusion, the differences in the faces and skulls in the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens were especially intriguing. This was hardly a homogeneous sample, and there were great differences both within and between the dynastic periods. **The most heterogeneous grouping was that of the XVIII dynasty.** What all of these mummies have in common is a tong head or cranium (dolichocephalic) and a relatively delicate face, compared with the mummies of the XIX and XX dynasties and Old Kingdom mummies that our group has examined. This study in fact will be limited to the XVIII dynasty (Table 2).
Some of these mummies were obviously different from their predecessors or their successors. Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people, i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I. Further X-rays reveal that the epiphyses of Thutmose I's knees are still patent, suggesting an individual not yet in his twenties. These biological parameters strongly contradict the identification of the mummy as Thutmose I. Further, the X-rays reveal that the arms of Amenhotep I were crossed at the time of burial, whereas the arms of Thutmose I are in a pudendal position, a question proposed by Elliot Smith to be solved by X-rays in 1912 and noted by Derry in 1932.4 Ahmose has little resemblance to either Seqenenre Tao II or Amenhotep I and is not circumcised, unusual for the XVIII dynasty. Amenhotep II has a long ovoid face compared with the very short face of Thutmose III. Thutmose IV has a very fine featured delicate face compared with that of Amenhotep III. Smith states that, "There is a most striking resemblance in face and cranial form between Amenthos II and Thutmosis IV, in spite of the fact that the general appearance of strength and decision of character in the face of the former are in marked contrast to the effeminate weakness of the latter. The shape of the head, with its curious sloping forehead and slender but prominent nose, is identical in these two pharaohs." In fact, Amenhotep III has a facial skeleton quite unlike all other Royal Mummies and resembles most closely that of the Statuary of Amenhotep IV. One of us (FH) has recorded that Amenhotep III's skull (maximum head length 195 mm) is two standard deviations too large for his body (slightly less than 5 ft or 149.64 cm).6
Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
from the same paper :
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth century which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: The skull has not a single ssa trait and is perfectly caucasoid
You are a complete nutcase.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. If I'm not mistaken,the dolichocephalic nature of the head looks more Africanand when it does occur in the Euros, it's established differently in most instances.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
The Mummy of King Ramses 1, Seti 1’s father below.
The completely Negro father of Seti 1 Ra messes
Stone head carving of Paramessu (Ramesses I), originally part of a statue depicting him as a scribe; on display at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston
Originally called Pa-ra-mes-su , Ramesses I was of non-royal birth, being born into a noble military family from the Nile Delta region, perhaps near the former Hyksos capital of Avaris. He was a son of a troop commander called Seti . His uncle Khaemwaset, an army officer, married Tamwadjesy, the matron of Tutankhamun's Harem of Amun, who was a relative of Huy, the viceroy of Kush, an important state post. This shows the high status of Ramesses' family. Ramesses I found favor with Horemheb, the last pharaoh of the tumultuous Eighteenth Dynasty, who appointed the former as his vizier. Ramesses also served as the High Priest of Set – as such, he would have played an important role in the restoration of the old religion following the Amarna heresy of a generation earlier, under Akhenaten.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
@yatunde stop with your childish comparisons and collages. I'm talking about more serious things which you don't know much about.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: @yatunde stop with your childish comparisons and collages. I'm talking about more serious things which you don't know much about.
What I don't know about? You obviously didn't know about Seti I's NEGRO Daddy did you?
Also, if you look at his eye orbits what shape would you deem them to be?
SETI I
Limb length is interesting
SETI I
Think Kevin Garnett..
Look at Hollywood WHITEWASHING this black pharaoh, John Tuturro... well at least he is Sicilian
The 10 Commandments version of Seti 1
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
They were not "negro" no data support this and these european actors are actually closer in look and genetically to these ancient pharaohs than AAs like you.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: They were not "negro" no data support this and these european actors are actually closer in look and genetically to these ancient pharaohs than AAs like you.
What you say means nothing. This argument is OVER. OVER.
Can't you see LIONESS has left the battlefield in this thread to go create a new one? Because She knows it's over
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
your mistake here inspired me to make on new thread, Rammeses I's mummy is rarely seen and the above is Seti II Somebody may have posted it but I don't remember seeing it on Egyptsearch. You seem to be angry, what's going on?
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok.. a little error... but that does not change that Ramses I was NEGROID..
So go ahead... deflect and distract.
Meanwhile...
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: You actually can even though it's not perfectly reliable but you can quickly check things like nasal spine, alveolar prognathism, zygomatics, occipital bun, frontal profile, nasal bridge, etc. etc.
Unfortunately for YOU, all these features were examined on the royal mummies and the conclusion is that they all display Africoid (negroid) features as explained here.
quote:These are not outdated "racial notions" but are still used in forensic anthropology. Moreover you don't see any problem when you labelled many of those skulls "negroid" or as having "negroid traits"
No surprise that you're obviously ignorant of the salient fact that while racial models are used in forensic anthropology, they are not entirely accurate and carry a margin of error. This is because any physical anthropologist worth his salt knows that racial models are based on typological stereotypes in which there are always exceptions.
Identification of Skeletal Remains (1958) RACE DETERMINATION One of the most interesting aspects of identification, to the anthropologist, is the determination of race. The features by which race is judged are almost all features of the skull, and particularly of the face; racial differences in the rest of the skeleton are few and uncertain. This means that racial features must be sought in the very area where individual variation is most rampant. Further, race mixture sometimes confuses the picture; and it is not all of recent origin, for it has been such a constant factor in the development of the human species that most anthropologists would hesitate to assert that pure races in the popular sense of the word have ever had a chance to develop. This means that few characteristics can be counted on to be entirely absent or universally present in any racial group, and only by the consideration of a number of indications can the race of the skull be judged. Occasionally, a physician without special training will endeavor to judge race of a skull by certain generalizations which were formerly (not often at the present time) given in small print in anatomy books. These generalizations, mostly expressed in terms of certain measurement and ratios, represent moderate differences in average values between different races, arrived at by study of the general trends of racial groups and of no value in assigning a single skull to a particular race. In general, measurements of the skull are of less value for judging race than are certain morphological (i.e. shape) differences which are not susceptible to exact measurement...
..The greatest difficulty in such diagnosis is the fact that the anthropologist's judgment of race may be adequate biologically but fail sociologically. We have all seen individuals with a very black skin, but with facial features showing few if any negroid contours. Conversely, blond individuals may sometimes reveal distinct Negro features to a careful examination; both individuals may have the same mixture of White and Negro, but one will be living as a Negro and the other as a white person. If the features of the skull indicate a mixture of White and Negro traits, we have to allow a wide leeway as regards the apparent race of the individual in life, since skin color and hair, which largely determine the lay diagnosis of race, are unknown.
This is why for decades Egyptians and other Africans have been classified as "Hamitc Caucasoids" that is black-skinned caucasoids, with their caucasoid status being based on certain traits they happen to share in common with Europeans while those traits they share with Sub-Saharans gets downplayed or ignored.
Even Blumenbach, the father of modern racial categories admitted regarding the varieties of mankind he called 'races', “varieties . . . run into one another by insensible degrees.”
The beautiful skull and Blumenbach’s errors: the birth of the scientific concept of race He gave examples of people fitting his five varieties. He stated that Turkish and Hindostan women were Caucasians but that people from Bengal and Esquimaux people were Mongolians. He identified New Zealanders (Maoris) as Malays. He thought that Egyptians could be Ethiopian, Indian, or a type with “short chin and prominent eyes.” He was surprised that other people attributed Egyptians to one type. Blumenbach recognised the heterogeneity within populations in one land or nation, something that was overlooked in his time, as it often is now.
quote:one-third? source? And I already acknowledge the presence of caucasoid types in SSA especially in the Horn but that's because they have substantial amount of west Eurasian ancestry.
LOL You ask me for a source but then make a baseless claim of your own! We already have evidence showing that Eurasian ancestry not only in the Horn but other parts of Africa where they have "caucasoid" features is negligible to none, yet you keep pushing the debunked Eurasian excuse (Hamitic hypothesis) as the reason!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: my point is the heterogeneity of the kings, and they are only one dynasty apart
As DJ pointed out, the 19th dynasty originated from a different region of Egypt than the preceding one. The 18th dynasty developed in Waset (aka Thebes or Luxor) in Upper Egypt whereas Ramses I, the founder of the 19th, came from the Nile Delta in Lower Egypt. So a phenotypic difference between members of the two dynasties would make sense. Although simple individual variation is also possible.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: my point is the heterogeneity of the kings, and they are only one dynasty apart
As DJ pointed out, the 19th dynasty originated from a different region of Egypt than the preceding one. The 18th dynasty developed in Waset (aka Thebes or Luxor) in Upper Egypt whereas Ramses I, the founder of the 19th, came from the Nile Delta in Lower Egypt. So a phenotypic difference between members of the two dynasties would make sense.
What is the phenotypic difference between Rameses I and Amenhotep III exactly?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ The differences can be seen here: Conclusions
SO Keita and others have stated that there was a strong trend toward hybridization from the early dynasties through the New Kingdom period. The predynastic and early dynastic Egyptians showed strong southern affinity.
The New Kingdom royal mummies suggest that the Pharaohs were continuing to intermix, both with people from the north and the south.
The late XVII Dynasty and XVIII Dynasty royal mummies display the strongest Nubian affinities. In terms of maxillary protrusion as measured by SNA, the mean value for these Pharaohs is 84.21 comparable to that of African Americans. They exceed the latter in terms of ANB and SN-M Plane, but are closer to Caucasians in regards to SNB. However, the ability of SNA and SNB to predict maxillary and mandibular protrusion respectively has been questioned. Some studies suggest that measuring prognathism from the Frankfort horizontal would produce more reliable results (See RM Ricketts, RJ Schulhof, L Bagha. Orientation-sella-nasion or Frankfort horizontal. Am J Orthod 1976 Jun;69(6):648-654; also JW Moore. Variation of the sella-nasion plane and its effect on SNA and SNB. J Oral Surg. 1976 Jan; 34(1): 24-26).
In regards to head shape, the late XVII and XVIII dynasty mummies are very close to Nubian samples intermediate between the Mesolithic and Christian periods. The zygomatic arches are almost always vertical or forward and not receding.
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.
The difference between late XVII and XVIII dynasty royal mummies and contemporary Nubians is slight. During the XVIV and XX dynasties we see possibly some mixing between a Nubian element that is more similar to Mesolithic Nubians (low vaults, sloping frontal bone, etc.), with an orthognathous population. Since the Ramessides were of northern extraction, this could represent miscegenation with modern Mediterraneans of Levantine type. The projecting zygomatic arches of Seti I suggest remnants of the old Natufian/Tasian types of the Holocene period.
If the heads of Queens Nodjme and Esemkhebe are any indication, there may have been a new influx of southern blood during the XXI Dynasty.
In summation, the New Kingdom Pharaohs and Queens whose mummies have been recovered bear strong similarity to either contemporary Nubians, as with the XVII and XVIII dynasties, or with Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties. The former dynasties seem to have a strong southern affinity, while the latter possessed evidence of mixing with modern Mediterranean types and also, possibly, with remnants of the old Tasian and Natufian populations. From the few sample available from the XXI Dynasty, there may have been a new infusion from the south at this period.Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Unfortunately, Antalas considers such "caucasoid" features to be the result of "Eurasian" ancestry. In other words, he subscribes to the debunked 'Hamitic Theory' of Africans.
Too bad genetics has refuted this decades ago.
Yatunde, I recommend P. K. Manansala's Short Primer on Physical Anthropology. It exposes the fallacy of racial stereotypes which is something that physical anthropology has shown decades ago from Blumenbach to Boaz etc. etc.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
This is a common presumption but can you offer any proof that while this dynasty is comprised of different lineages that is from different families, that these lineages are somehow Nubian?
Also didn't you in another thread say Nubians are not black? LOL
quote:from the same paper:
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth *dynasty* which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
LOL You obviously don't know that so-called "Nubian" features were present among Egyptian dynasties well before the 18th dynasty going back to the Middle Kingdom, Old Kingdom, and even earlier!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26236 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
This is a common presumption but can you offer any proof that while this dynasty is comprised of different lineages that is from different families, that these lineages are somehow Nubian?
Also didn't you in another thread say Nubians are not black? LOL
quote:from the same paper:
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth *dynasty* which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
LOL You obviously don't know that so-called "Nubian" features were present among Egyptian dynasties well before the 18th dynasty going back to the Middle Kingdom, Old Kingdom, and even earlier!
Interesting that Antalas said that Seti I was a perfect "Caucasian specimen"
But, I thought he was a proud north African? and the ancient Egyptians were north African as opposed to sub Saharan African...
Now which is it... is Seti I a perfect North African specimen or Caucasian specimen? Because he surely cannot be both.
I tell you the Freudian slips that Antalas gives are so so telling.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
It depends on who Nassa is debating on which position he takes, He'll go on endlessly that Nubians are not black but turn around and use them as the black true negoid slaves of the Egyptians when it suits him.
He tries to equate Egyptians with his Coastal NA Berber ancestors(despite the fact that the A. Egyptians clearly distinguished them as being lighter skinned than them) and DNA as tactic to impose a Neo-Hamite classification on African people.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
This is a common presumption but can you offer any proof that while this dynasty is comprised of different lineages that is from different families, that these lineages are somehow Nubian?
Also didn't you in another thread say Nubians are not black? LOL
quote:from the same paper:
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth *dynasty* which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
LOL You obviously don't know that so-called "Nubian" features were present among Egyptian dynasties well before the 18th dynasty going back to the Middle Kingdom, Old Kingdom, and even earlier!
Posts: 8804 | 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-: It depends on who Nassa is debating on which position he takes, He'll go on endlessly that Nubians are not black but turn around and use them as the black true negoid slaves of the Egyptians when it suits him.
He tries to equate Egyptians with his Coastal NA Berber ancestors(despite the fact that the A. Egyptians clearly distinguished them as being lighter skinned than them) and DNA as tactic to impose a Neo-Hamite classification on African people.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
This is a common presumption but can you offer any proof that while this dynasty is comprised of different lineages that is from different families, that these lineages are somehow Nubian?
Also didn't you in another thread say Nubians are not black? LOL
quote:from the same paper:
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth *dynasty* which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
LOL You obviously don't know that so-called "Nubian" features were present among Egyptian dynasties well before the 18th dynasty going back to the Middle Kingdom, Old Kingdom, and even earlier!
He isn't really flip flopping because he actually believes that ancient "North Africans" were always Eurasian looking going back 20,000 years and therefore could be considered caucasian.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: [QB] It depends on who Nassa is debating on which position he takes, He'll go on endlessly that Nubians are not black but turn around and use them as the black true negoid slaves of the Egyptians when it suits him.
He tries to equate Egyptians with his Coastal NA Berber ancestors(despite the fact that the A. Egyptians clearly distinguished them as being lighter skinned than them) and DNA as tactic to impose a Neo-Hamite classification on African people.
Are you implying that nubians were not already diverse and depicted differently ? Are you implying that the nubians of Kush and Wawat were depicted the same way ? Lower nubians had eurasian ancestry and were roughly similar to upper egyptians meanwhile further south nubians have always been depicted as similar to modern day dinkas.
Of course I will not answer to the mad claims of djehuti denying eurasian admixture in the Horn but it's now pretty much settled that lower nubians had eurasian ancestry ; here one example :
quote:We find that the Kulubnarti Nubians were admixed with ~43% Nilotic-related ancestry on average (individual proportions varied between ~36-54%) and the remaining ancestry reflecting a West Eurasian-related gene pool likely introduced into Nubia through Egypt, but ultimately deriving from an ancestry pool like that found in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant.
Moreover why are you making assumption about me ? I never tried to equate egyptians with coastal NA berbers (even though anthropology showed that lower egyptians were the closest people to berbers when it comes to craniometry) and even said many times that we don't have much to do with egyptians. They were and are actually closer to people in the Middle east whether culturally or genetically.
Also make up your mind at one point libyans were lighter skinned but on the other you don't have any problem with posting very dark skinned modern berbers and try to pass them as representative of all the ancient ones...
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa: Interesting that Antalas said that Seti I was a perfect "Caucasian specimen"
But, I thought he was a proud north African? and the ancient Egyptians were north African as opposed to sub Saharan African...
Now which is it... is Seti I a perfect North African specimen or Caucasian specimen? Because he surely cannot be both.
I tell you the Freudian slips that Antalas gives are so so telling. [/QB]
wtf ? I said perfectly caucasoid not your american "caucasian". You thought I implied Seti I was european or what ? XD
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] [Are you implying that nubians were not already diverse and depicted differently ? Are you implying that the nubians of Kush and Wawat were depicted the same way ? Lower nubians had eurasian ancestry and were roughly similar to upper egyptians meanwhile further south nubians have always been depicted as similar to modern day dinkas.
Mr. Toomy please, you should know by now that you can't play your smoke and mirror games with me. We both know you have (Still)use Nubian interchagibly from a True Nigro to a Mixed Tolken Black Abid for your "Perfectly Caca-Zoid NAs" when it suits you.
You trying to lecture ME on Wa-Wat, After I called out and schooled you on the NA Genetics Test Thread when you tried to play the straight from Stormfront/Authur Kemp "LoOk ThE EgYpTiAnS ArE TrAmPlInG ThE True _N-gger Negroids" tactic on a War Scene from a temple in Wa-Wat...
Seriously.
Boy sit down before you hurt yourself.
quote:They were and are actually closer to people in the Middle east whether culturally or genetically.
Lower Egyptians maybe, but Upper Egypt had closer ties to those Blubbery Lipped True Negros in Nubia.
Your lot can post every DNA study under the sun, you can post every "Ca-Ca-Zoid" statue and quote every racialist Bio-diversity scholar you want... You can spam We Wuz Kangs and Call people Hoteps all you want
It WONT EVER
E V E R
Change the Historical FACT that Egyptian Culture stemmed from Africans further South, and that BLACK skinned what you all call Nubians In Ta Seti were incorporated as Egyptians as Early as the 1st Dynasty, Produced Sutens as early as 4-5th( Definitive by 12th), Were the Aristocracy/Kings Sons of Kush through Middle and New Kingdom and were the last to write Mdu-Ntr on the Temple walls of Kmt.
They were there 3,000 year history of Dynastic Egyptian history and are still there today...
You'll Never take that away from them, you can hide it and pretend its not real, but you can't take that away.
quote:Also make up your mind at one point libyans were lighter skinned but on the other you don't have any problem with posting very dark skinned modern berbers and try to pass them as representative of all the ancient ones...
Produce one quote of mine Post 2019 where I claim that the Saharan berbers represent all Berbers.
How many times do I have to agree with you?
Then again Mr. Toomy gonna do Mr. Toomy things.. Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its really just a matter of Neo-True Negro anthropology, which to be fair to Nassa, the modern day Bio-diversity movement/Anti-Afrocentrism is really all about. So its no just Nassa, he really can't help himself.
To them anything below the Barrier of SSA is a black, every thing above that line can be called anything under the sun.
If a person whose ancestry stems from below that magical barrier dares to play anything above it in movies or historical re-enactments, watch out all hell breaks loose. Anything above that barrier can do what or play what/who he or she pleases even folks below their magical barrier....then they'll just post evidence of some infamous Afrocentris Cabal and say "Two WroNgS DoNt MaKe It RiGhT"
quote:Originally posted by Doug M:
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: It depends on who Nassa is debating on which position he takes, He'll go on endlessly that Nubians are not black but turn around and use them as the black true negoid slaves of the Egyptians when it suits him.
He tries to equate Egyptians with his Coastal NA Berber ancestors(despite the fact that the A. Egyptians clearly distinguished them as being lighter skinned than them) and DNA as tactic to impose a Neo-Hamite classification on African people.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: Interesting this further confirms my assumptions in regards to this dynasty and its mixed heritage.
This is a common presumption but can you offer any proof that while this dynasty is comprised of different lineages that is from different families, that these lineages are somehow Nubian?
Also didn't you in another thread say Nubians are not black? LOL
quote:from the same paper:
quote:Thutmose I has all those craniofacial characters common to the Nubian people , i.e. skeletal-dental-alveolar prognathism. X-ray cephalograms indicate for the first time that there is little craniofacial similarity between the still unwrapped mummy of Amenhotep I and Thutmose I
I knew that there was something strange about all these SSA looking depictions of the XVIIIth *dynasty* which contrast with what the preceding dynasties produced and I'm not talking about the art itself since I know amarnian art was quite unique but I'm talking about the realistic busts and so I suspected that this dynasty might have assimilated some nubians.
LOL You obviously don't know that so-called "Nubian" features were present among Egyptian dynasties well before the 18th dynasty going back to the Middle Kingdom, Old Kingdom, and even earlier!
He isn't really flip flopping because he actually believes that ancient "North Africans" were always Eurasian looking going back 20,000 years and therefore could be considered caucasian.
Posts: 8804 | 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] Its really just a matter of Neo-True Negro anthropology, which to be fair to Nassa, the modern day Bio-diversity movement/Anti-Afrocentrism is really all about. So its no just Nassa, he really can't help himself.
To them anything below the Barrier of SSA is a black, every thing above that line can be called anything under the sun.
If a person whose ancestry stems from below that magical barrier dares to play anything above it in movies or historical re-enactments, watch out all hell breaks loose. Anything above that barrier can do what or play what/who he or she pleases even folks below their magical barrier....then they'll just post evidence of some infamous Afrocentris Cabal and say "Two WroNgS DoNt MaKe It RiGhT"
hahaha I admit you made me laugh you seem to be a genuine good guy what a pity you fall into this pseudo-scientific afrocentrist mess but I suppose it's most likely due to deep rooted insecurities but I admit I partially understand it since growing up as north african in the west hasn't always been easy (even though I don't cry about it) but I still think it's more extreme among afro-americans which makes sense.
Obviously blacks playing european or north african figures would bother me more than any other people because they're the only one who constantly harass us and try to push their afrocentrist narrative. You don't see asians or europeans obsessing over my history or claiming our ancestors. How many times have they called us fake africans, invaders, arabs (in the sense of being a recent population), etc and you want me to accept this ? I will never tolerate this and I will defend my heritage and ancestors as any sane individual would.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Mr. Toomy please, you should know by now that you can't play your smoke and mirror games with me. We both know you have (Still)use Nubian interchagibly from a True Nigro to a Mixed Tolken Black Abid for your "Perfectly Caca-Zoid NAs" when it suits you.
Yes because both types are and were present in Sudan.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-:
Lower Egyptians maybe, but Upper Egypt had closer ties to those Blubbery Lipped True Negros in Nubia.
Your lot can post every DNA study under the sun, you can post every "Ca-Ca-Zoid" statue and quote every racialist Bio-diversity scholar you want... You can spam We Wuz Kangs and Call people Hoteps all you want
It WONT EVER
E V E R
Change the Historical FACT that Egyptian Culture stemmed from Africans further South, and that BLACK skinned what you all call Nubians In Ta Seti were incorporated as Egyptians as Early as the 1st Dynasty, Produced Sutens as early as 4-5th( Definitive by 12th), Were the Aristocracy/Kings Sons of Kush through Middle and New Kingdom and were the last to write Mdu-Ntr on the Temple walls of Kmt.
They were there 3,000 year history of Dynastic Egyptian history and are still there today...
You'll Never take that away from them, you can hide it and pretend its not real, but you can't take that away.
I don't see how that's an argument ? Did I deny any nubian presence in Egypt ? I literally said that nubians could and did acquire high positions in Egypt. Anyway it won't change anything of what I said ; Egypt as a whole still had more ties with the middle east than any other regions and the presence of levantines in the history of this region is also well attested and as old as the nubian one.
Nubians are nubians and were depicted as eternal ennemies of Egypt in the official iconography no matter how much they used to interact with Egypt they still are not egyptians.
stick to facts pls :
quote:Ancient Egypt was no exception, with state ideology portraying Nubians and other foreigners as barbaric, uncivilized, and likened to animals (see the text that follows, and also Loprieno 1988; Liverani 1990; Smith 2003).
A companion to Ethnicity in the ancient mediterranean, pp. 194-195
quote:The evidence clearly shows that those Greco-Roman authors who refer to skin color and other physical traits distinguish sharply between Ethiopians (Nubians) and Egyptians, and rarely do they refer to the Egyptians, even though they were described as darker than themselves. No Greek doubted that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks, but not as dark as black Africans
Shavit, Y. (2001). History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past. London: Frank Cass. p. 154.
I repeat myself : I never denied the presence of Nubians in Egypt nor their strong ties with it.
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: Produce one quote of mine Post 2019 where I claim that the Saharan berbers represent all Berbers.
How many times do I have to agree with you?
Then again Mr. Toomy gonna do Mr. Toomy things.. [/QB]
You literally used to post pictures of black tunisians and implied they were representative of the ancient ones.
Posts: 1779 | From: Somewhere In the Rif Mountains | Registered: Nov 2021
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] hahaha I admit you made me laugh you seem to be a genuine good guy what a pity you fall into this pseudo-scientific afrocentrist mess
What positions do I hold that are Afrocentrist? BTW I also think you're a good guy, you just have a chip on your shoulder. I get it but it makes you quick to fight where you don't need to.
but I suppose it's most likely due to deep rooted insecurities but I admit I partially understand it since growing up as north african in the west hasn't always been easy (even though I don't cry about it) but I still think it's more extreme among afro-americans which makes sense.[/quote]
quote:Obviously blacks playing european or north african figures would bother me more than any other people because they're the only one who constantly harass us and try to push their afrocentrist narrative. You don't see asians or europeans obsessing over my history or claiming our ancestors. How many times have they called us fake africans, invaders, arabs (in the sense of being a recent population), etc and you want me to accept this ? I will never tolerate this and I will defend my heritage and ancestors as any sane individual would.
Being upset by that is understandable, I've never promoted that kind of behavior except against Berbers who initiate disrespect to me, then the gloves are off and Im willing to roll in the mud with a fellow pig.
Ive always agreed that you and your people are native to Africa going back to the depictions on the walls of Kmt.(and beyond that obviously)
what I don't get is trying to pretend like there s only one type of "black" in the world. This is why I don't like arguing what is black because its subjective to ones culture and ultimately leads to no where. Africans are Africans, they come in many different looks.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Antalas: [QB] Anyway it won't change anything of what I said ; Egypt as a whole still had more ties with the middle east than any other regions and the presence of levantines in the history of this region is also well attested and as old as the nubian one.
So what, who cares? Every Egyptologist,
EVERY
SINGLE
ONE
Knows where the Dynastic Culture came from, they know were the people lived that pioneered what became Ancient Egypt.
The South, Upper Egypt, AFRICA etc.
Its not Afrocentrism, its 100% bonafied accepted fact because thats what the evidence shows.
Post 20 Sensationalist Dog Whistling DNA studies, Post 100, Post 1 Million
It will Never Ever change that established fact.
5,000 years from now Egyptology texts will still say Dynastic Egyptian culture came from the Nile Valley.
quote:Nubians are nubians and were depicted as eternal ennemies of Egypt in the official iconography no matter how much they used to interact with Egypt they still are not egyptians.
stick to facts pls :
There was not one mention of a single united entity called Nubia in 3,000 years of Dynastic Egypt.
People falling under your umbrella of Nubians were incorporated by 1sy Dynasty as Egyptians, while some kept Neheshy names they still played a vital role within Egypt for all its Dynastic history and beyond, No other ethnicity can claim that, esp. any Middle Eastern one.
quote:The evidence clearly shows that those Greco-Roman authors who refer to skin color and other physical traits distinguish sharply between Ethiopians (Nubians) and Egyptians, and rarely do they refer to the Egyptians, even though they were described as darker than themselves. No Greek doubted that the Egyptians were darker than the Greeks, but not as dark as black Africans
Shavit, Y. (2001). History in Black: African-Americans in Search of an Ancient Past. London: Frank Cass. p. 154.[/quote]
What is the point of this quote?
quote:You literally used to post pictures of black tunisians and implied they were representative of the ancient ones.
I posted those images to show there's a such thing as a black Tunisian, not that they're the only type of Tunisian there is.
Posts: 8804 | 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-: Its really just a matter of Neo-True Negro anthropology, which to be fair to Nassa, the modern day Bio-diversity movement/Anti-Afrocentrism is really all about. So its no just Nassa, he really can't help himself.
To them anything below the Barrier of SSA is a black, every thing above that line can be called anything under the sun.
If a person whose ancestry stems from below that magical barrier dares to play anything above it in movies or historical re-enactments, watch out all hell breaks loose. Anything above that barrier can do what or play what/who he or she pleases even folks below their magical barrier....then they'll just post evidence of some infamous Afrocentris Cabal and say "Two WroNgS DoNt MaKe It RiGhT"
I personally believe all of it is simply anti African historiography that evolved out of colonial European expansion. They have had to create a doctrine of African inferiority to justify their subjugation. And this desire to separate the history of North Africa from the rest of Africa is simply one aspect of it. If they had no problem stealing African bodies from the continent then of course they have no problem stealing everything else, including the history.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic