[ 27. June 2006, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: ausar ]
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
You cannot tell hair color by the color of the hair found on the mummy alone. Most of the time the embalming material turns or salts in the Sahara bleach the hair to unatural colors. To establish the original hair color you need electron miscroscopic analysis. The only published report I saw on the original hair color of Rameses II was by a group of French scientist. According to the results his hair was red. All the depictions of Rameses II show him with reddish-brown skin.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Plenty of Africans in the horn and elsewhere have red hair. There is NOTHING that stops Africans from having red hair.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
well actually they can now tell the hair color and Ramses II did have red hair, as did Queen Tiye. In fact hers was described as reddish - blonde. I posted the article on this board some time ago. Many of the forensic medicine advances of the past few years have been very helpful in looking at ancient remains.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote: well actually they can now tell the hair color and Ramses II did have red hair, as did Queen Tiye. In fact hers was described as reddish - blonde. I posted the article on this board some time ago. Many of the forensic medicine advances of the past few years have been very helpful in looking at ancient remains.
How can they tell Rameses II and Queen Tiye had red hair? Can you describe the methdology used in determining this?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Yeah, they have an x-ray system that looks at the hair at its most basic level. It was developed a few years ago to examine hair on dead bodies that were involved in crimes. I posted the data here a year or so ago. If I remember correctly it goes much further than anything we have had in the past.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote: Yeah, they have an x-ray system that looks at the hair at its most basic level. It was developed a few years ago to examine hair on dead bodies that were involved in crimes. I posted the data here a year or so ago. If I remember correctly it goes much further than anything we have had in the past.
You have never posted either a link,journal or any publication detailing the methdology. What I asked you for was a direct reference on either Rameses II or Queen Tiye and confirmation of their supposed original hair coloring. If you don't have knowleadge of the methdology then I would prefer you remain silent or otherwise you make yourself look foolish and arrogant.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
quote: First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
How about supplying the reference and naming the Egyptologist know? How about describing the methdology used in such test?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Its in the archives. I'll look around at the house, I'm sure I still have it. Point is Ausar, the technology is ALL OVER the hair forensic web sites.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
That's a non-sequitir. The question is wheather this was used on any ancient Egyptian remains.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
The reddish tone to Rameses mummy hair, can likely be attributed to the the reaction of Rameses' hair to the chemicals used in the embalming process. But it does no harm re-examining the said documentation for the explanation given for the "red hair", which proves what again?
Posted by IIla (Member # 10772) on :
quote:Originally posted by J Howzer:
quote:Originally posted by ausar:
quote: First of all, I am neither foolish nor arrogant. Secondly, you and I had a converstion in which I gave you the information on the test as it applied to queen Tiye specifically. I even gave you the name of the Egyptologist who used the technology.
How about supplying the reference and naming the Egyptologist know? How about describing the methdology used in such test?
How about not deleting the evidence. I just posted the whole article that shows the proof for what the Professor said. Why not let people judge for themselves?
You've got to be kidding...first of all, it sounded like Hore was was saying that RECENT forensic science had definitively discovered that Ramses has redish-blond hair. What you have posted is an article about the original tests done more than 30 years ago by the French team.
The conclusion was that even the French team acknowledged that the hair had been dyed red with henna, but after examining the roots of Ramses hair....they discovered TRACES (which is defined as a very small amount) of red hair (No mention of Hore's Nordic blond fantasy ), and based their final conclusion on his physical features alone. I am not aware of any new data confirming these results, and if you were truthful you would know that too.
Posted by ankhenaten2 (Member # 10810) on :
"After having achieved this immense work, an important scientific conclusion remains to be drawn: the anthropological study and the microscopic analysis of hair, carried out by four laboratories: Judiciary Medecine (Professor Ceccaldi), Société L’Oréal, Atomic Energy Commission, and Institut Textile de France showed that Ramses II was a ’leucoderm’, that is a fair-skinned man, near to the Prehistoric and Antiquity Mediterraneans, or briefly, of the Berber of Africa." [Balout, et al. (1985) 383.]
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Examination of the said documentation:
quote: Microscopic examinations proved that the hair roots contained traces of natural red pigments, and that therefore, during his youth, Ramses II had been red-haired.
Why "traces"; why not consistency? Have DNA, for instance, MCR1, been detected, so as to reach a solid conclusion?
quote: It was concluded that these red pigments did not result from the hair somehow fading, or otherwise altering post-mortem, but did indeed represent Ramses’ natural hair colour.
If they had faded, we wouldn't be seeing "red hair" coloration of the mummy, now would we? Still doesn't discount or disprove the reaction of the hair to embalming chemicals.
quote: Ceccaldi also studied a cross-section of the hairs, and he determined from their oval shape, that Ramesses had been "cymotrich" (wavy-haired). Finally, he stated that such a combination of features showed that Ramesses had been a "leucoderm" (white-skinned person). [Balout, et al. (1985) 254-257.]
The hair could well be wavy, and?
Moreover, cranio-metric analysis reveals that the Rameses line could indicate miscegenation between "indigenous" Nile Valley groups [like the Mesolithic "Nubian" groups] and later Levantine groups [not the Natufian types]. So, even if we were to "assume" that this is where Rameses got his "wavy" hair trait from, how does this suddenly make Rameses any less indigenous, or dissolve his ties to his inner African roots? The ball is now in your court. Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Not going to waste much time reitterating the obvious, but grasping at red hairs in the 4 thousand year old corpse of a man who was 80 years old when he died, evidences a sad combination of debate desparation and necrophilia.....
At least use living red haired Africans: Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
No doubt, Rasol. Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Actually, Rasol's point is well taken. It is you, who has yet to prove anything by grasping at the straws of the notion of "red hair" or "wavy hair". Rameses will not be akin to a European any day soon. Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
The point is that hair samples alone do NOT confirm ethnicity or phenotype. Red hair and reddish blonde hair is NOT limited to pale skinned individuals. THAT is a fact and therefore, trying to say that red hair ALONE makes one pale skinned is a DISTORTION of the facts. In order to prove such a theory CONCLUSIVELY, you would have to combine craniofacial studies, mtdna studies (if allowed) AND hair sample data TOGETHER to reach a conclusion. This point should be obvious. Therefore, no matter HOW MANY institutes did the hair samples, it STILL doesnt change the fact that HAIR alone is not enough to determine PHENOTYPE. What this sounds like is someone trying to work AROUND other facts, such as the craniofacial data, in order to use some OBSCURE data as some sort of OVERWHELMING proof of something, when it isnt. The results of the hair studies should NOT be paraded around as CONCLUSIVE of anything other than the POSSIBILITY that he had some red tint at the ROOT of the hair follicle. Hairs are NOT always consistently ONE color. NOte how the African man above only has red hair in certain spots.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote: NOte how the African man above only has red hair in certain spots.
That's because it's dyed.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Would have to get a Somali input or somebody from that region, if men have the habit of dying their hair.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Dudes, just look at this page and that is ENOUGH to show that this is PURE Eurocentric crap....
The conclusion here being that the pharonic Egyptians were NORDIC types, which goes 100% AGAINST the mural of the races they HAVE on the site. They then try to make the god Set, patron diety of the Ramessids, somehow a "Nordic" God, because he was associated with red hair? Set worship came from the SOUTH of Egypt, around the city of Nubt, from predynastic times and has NOTHING to do with Nordics.
Anyway, Mr. Howzer is doing nothing but parroting the USELESS B.S. from this web page which is OBVIOUSLY full of Euroecentric nonsense. Why would NORDICS go through ALL THE TROUBLE of leaving Europe, specifically the NORTHERNMOST reaches of Europe to travel to Egypt and build a civilization? Why didn't they BUILD that civilization AT HOME? NONSENSE is NONSENSE and we should realize by now that Eurocentrics will TWIST any EVIDENCE they find to JUSTIFY their Eurocentric views. "You know, the sky is blue today.... yep Bob, therefore the Egyptians MUST have been Nordic Blonde Haired Europeans".
Bottom line, red hair is NOT a trait absent from Africa or dark skin Africans. Red hair does NOT prove phenotype or skin color. It is only useful to compare the craniofacial features of Ramesses to OTHER populations in Egypt NOW and in the past. Why compare such features with people from THOUSANDS of miles AWAY? THAT in itself is PURE bull****. If a LARGE part of the population of Egypt at the time had similar craniofacial features, then HOW are they somehow NOT Egyptian ethnically? THEREFORE, craniofacial studies have to be presented in CONTEXT of the populations from which they come, in order to draw ACCURATE conclusions about appearance and phenotype. The same for hair color, IF the tests are CERTIFIED as accurate, then how many OTHER Egyptians of the time had reddish hair and HOW does that change the FACT that these people were NOT Nordics? Reddish brown hair is NOT a UNIQUE trait to Nordics, if it is found in a population thousands of MILES from the center of Nordic people and culture then it DOES NOT prove that these people were NORDICS. It proves that RED HAIR is NOT unique to Nordics, but can be found in populations ALL OVER THE PLANET who are NOT NORDICS. But that is the OBVIOUS conclusion that SHOULD be reached. Likewise, how can one IGNORE the fact that Africans in the horn and elsewhere STILL dye their hair henna BROWN to this DAY? Doesnt THAT show that red brown hair is NOT a sign of NORDICS? Why would you look THOUSANDS of miles away to explain such cultural practices, when the ORIGIN of such practices are RIGHT THERE, amongst people MUCH CLOSER, physically and culturally TO Egypt? Why is it that there are NO traces of such cultural traits among NORDIC or Near Eastern peoples, but A PLETHORA among AFRICAN peoples, especially BLACK Africans? Things like hair braiding, dyeing, weaving, sidelocks (the Egyptian sidelock), etc? WHY would ANYONE drawn ANYTHING but the OBVIOUS conclusion that such traits would MAINLY have theref ore been practiced by BLACK AFRICANS, since these traits were not PREDOMINENT among NON BLACK Africans.
Finally, HOW on earth would the Egyptians be so SILLY as to portray these so-called NORDIC pharoahs as DARK BROWN SKINNED in the VAST majority of the painted reliefs left to us? It boggles the imagination how they would NOT be proud of WHO THEY WERE enough to depict themselves as NORDICS as opposed to BLACK AFRICANS. No amount of symbolism can explain away the fact that BROWN SKIN was a KEY SYMBOL of Egyptian people and ethnicity and therefore THE PREDOMINANT color used in portrait painting. Even if ALL Egyptians were not exactly brown skinned it STILL says something about the REVERENCE and IMPORTANCE of brown skin, when the portrait painters would USE such colors EVEN when the people did NOT posses such features, like during Greek/Roman times. Either way, at SOME point you would HAVE to admit that either BROWN SKINNED people were the FOREFATHERS of the Egyptian civilization, with BROWN skin bieng SYMBOLIC of this fact, OR the people were just BROWN skinned. Take your pick. No amount of HAIR SAMPLES will change those facts.
But even though the site tries to paint Ramesses as a "Nordic" there are other parts of the site that DO provide more accurate and timely historical facts:
From here we see that the "sea peoples" were an IMPORTANT factor in the shaping of (even though it isnt said directly) North AFrica AND the NEar East. HOw easy therefore is it to imagine that the more "pale" skinned populations partially are a result of these invasions, as clearly mentioned by the author? It also points out how Psamtek II , a Babylonian provincial governor, was more concerned about Kush and its relationship to the SOUTHERN Theban priesthood, than any Asiatic empires....... interesting. Prophecy of Neferti all over again. Once again SHOWING how some people can CHOOSE what FACTS to accept and IGNORE others that are JUST as significant.
quote: ...... There is a great hope for a deep, consistent, and permanent involvement of America in Africa. Several American scholars rejected the Europeano-centric, colonial dogma of History. They focused on the Afro-Asiatic origins of the Classical world, and more is to be expected from this direction. This reassessment of the Orientalism, the Classical Studies, and the Humanities in general finds its parallel in the multicultural practices of the free American society. If these societal practices are exported to Africa, along with a strong political support, new classes that must be formed, and with a resolute financial involvement in terms of either direct investment or outsourcing (why Brazil and Argentine are more preferable in this regard than Senegal, Morocco, and Oromo for US companies outsourcing?), the overall change will be the beginning of the end of the Colonial Darkness.
- VF: Have you thought about being called intruder into the affairs of the so-called sovereign states?
- Prof: In what sense? How? Shall we agree on letting states decide on anything, especially by violating historical data, and by altering History? Where would this lead? And what if a sovereign state is a tyrannical state, where the language of the majority is not accepted as the official language? What if the so-called sovereign state exercises a methodic ethnic cleansing? Were the European and American democratic intellectuals, who fought against Franco in the Civil War of Spain in the mid 30’s, simple ‘intruders’? Don’t you think that it is rather high time for all the historians and the specialists to denounce some states that are truly and perilously ‘intruders’ in the field of History?
As a conclusion, I call the present state of the so-called ‘Ethiopia’ an intruder into the domain of History; the real name of that country is ‘Abyssinia’, not ‘Ethiopia’. Abyssinia, Habashat, is the name of the Yemenite - not Arabic, don’t confuse - tribe that immigrated to Africa, and consists in the real ancestors of the present day Amhara and Tigray, who rule Abyssinia. Ethiopia is a completely different name, does not refer either to that Yemenite tribe and its descendants or to the surface of Abyssinia at all, it is the Ancient Greek name that describes the state, the nation and the country at the immediate southern border of Egypt, which is the present day Sudan. Usurping the name of Ethiopia makes of the Amhara/Tigray government of Abyssinia a real intruder within the domain of History. I totally deplore and denounce the event and the practice. Persistence in this regard proves automatically that there is a hidden agenda, and that the intruding regime intends to carry out dangerous policies that need to be based on an intended falsification of History and on a shameful, deliberate, usurpation of a historical national name that does not belong to them. I think it’s time for them just to renounce the use of that name, and to accept what specialists and historians certify, namely that the name Aithiopia (Ethiopia) can be used either by present day Sudan, or by the modern descendants of the Kushitic - Meroitic populations of the Ancient Ethiopia.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
You know Doug, if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:You know Doug, if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
...because the live version of Ramses II would confirm "radical Afrocentric points of view"...unfortunately for you.
Ramses II Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
I guess we had a blonde haired African, huh underpants.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote:if we could bring Ramses II back from the dead to confirm the obvious you would hold fast to the same extreme radical Afrocentric point of view .
Agreed.
Doug, There are red-haired africans but that is because they suffer from malnutrition, I don't think there is such a thing a natural redhead in Africa.
quote:The conclusion here being that the pharonic Egyptians were NORDIC types, which goes 100% AGAINST the mural of the races they HAVE on the site.
I don't think any serious minded egyptiologist would think that. At least I hope not.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:I guess we had a blonde haired African, huh underpants.
I know of no blond hair on Ramses II, only some alleged red hair.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The red hair is not "alleged." That has been common knowledge for quite some time as his study indicates.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
It doesn't matter much to me if the old man's hair was red or not. Likewise for Tiye. Neither were leucoderm. Nor was red hair a prevalent feature. Then we have to wonder why Greek authors invented the tale of Egyptians murdering strawberry blonds on sight.
The question I have is why do we have not a single pictorial representation of Ramesses II or Tiye with red hair (or any other native Egyptian for that matter)?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Takruri, I am not all that concerned with using works of art to make these kinds of determinations. You can find those to support any position you wish. Nor do I think that looking at these constantly posted photos of modern Africans proves anything at all. Its also interesting to read what the Greeks and Romans, and others as well had to say if the correct interpretation of what they said is made. As you know one of the criticisms coming from Greek scholars concerning Afrocentrism is that they lack the knowledge to make the proper interpretations of these comments. In the end the only valid view of the subject comes from examining the bodies of the people themselves. Ramses hair and his Syrian looking nose makes it very unlikely that he was black.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Tap dancing cockroaches aside, anyone have graphic or textual evidence from the ancient world of a strawberry blond Rameses II or Queen Tiye or any native Egyptians at all?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
x
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Well, you are trying to be cute so you do not have to deal with the issues. Its clear that the prepondrence of evidence, from the body, indicates that Ramses was not black. Is it possible he was black, I suppose, its possible that he was green but based on what we have to study and look at he was not black.
Posted by IIla (Member # 10772) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Tap dancing cockroaches aside, anyone have graphic or textual evidence from the ancient world of a strawberry blond Rameses II or Queen Tiye or any native Egyptians at all?
No such evidence exists.
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
Some here needs to stop trolling the forums
The ancient Pharaohs who rule Kemet(Black) were Africans
Masonic, None of this is valid evidence. I think we were discussing info obtained directly from Ramses body.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
Hair color alone according to Dr. Pruner-Bey is not significant factor in determining the ''race'' of an individual. This characteristic is not confined to any ethnic group.
The other reference is about hair color on ancient Egyptian remains. The material used in embalming and also sometimes salts in the Sahara bleaches hair color from their natural color.
On Human Hair as a Race Character, Dr Pruner-Bey Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Vol 6 (1877) p71-
The red hair, on the contrary, seems represented, at least by some individuals, in all known races, whether equatorial or boreal... From what precedes, we arrive at the conclusion that the colour of the hair alone is insufficient to characterise a race... p73-4
The Hair of Earlier Peoples, Don Brothwell and Richard Spearman p427-436 in Science in Archaeology, eds. D Brothwell and E Higgs 1963
Hair is largely made up of the fibrous protein keratin. This substance is extremely resistant to decomposition and enzymatic digestion, mainly owing to the presence of disulphide cross linkages of the amino acid cystine. These join together the long polypeptide chains of the molecule. If the crosslinkages are broken by reduction or oxidation, altered keratin is readily attacked by proteolytic enzymes. This resistance of keratin explains durability of hair in ancient burials...These changes can occur on the living animal; thus atmospheric weathering of the fleece of sheep results in loss of cystine from the exposed tips of the fibres. Permanent waving alters keratin cross linkages, and these changes have been detected using florescence microscopy. It is probable that if the preparations employed during mummification contained reducing or oxidizing agents or alkaline substances the hair keratin would be damaged... Normal human hair had a bluish-green florescence with acridine orange but permanently waved hair had a reddish florescence with associated fractures of the fibres...Hair bleached with hydrogen peroxide also showed this change due to oxidation of the keratin... in some samples such as predynastic Egyptian hair the whole hair was altered in this way.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
So far we've only analyzed Rameses hair and skull. What happens when we compare the rest of his skeleton to other Africans?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
However, the whole story has not yet been told...
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Possibly
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
Let Me Put it in Big letters for You
Quote:
HAIR COLOR ALONE ACCORDING TO DR. PRUNER-BEY IS NOT SIGHIFICANT FACTOR IN DETERMINING THE "RACE" OF AN INDIVIDUAL. THIS CHARACTERISTIC IS NOT CONFINED TO ANY ETHNIC GROUP .
I think we agree on that masonic. My statement was that the hair, combined with his facial features make it unlikely that he was black. One of them may not make the case, both of them together does.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Evidence is evidence Nay Sayer. The preponderance of evidence we have now has to lead us to the conclusion that he was not black. If it were only the hair, or only his facial features it would be more difficult. The two of them together make a compelling case.
HOW HOre? Finding traces of red hair on a mummy DOES NOT mean that Ramesses II was a "strawberry blond". Second, red hair is NOT an indicator of RACE, it is an indicator of a random genetic pattern that is found on ALL people, including those from AFrica and is NOT caused by malnutrition. Also, there are many BLACK people in the world AND Africa who have BLONDE hair. So BLONDE hair is NOT a trait unique to Europeans OR light skinned people. Therefore, using HAIR does not change the fact that Ramesses II was an ETHNIC Egyptian and was recognized as such by his OWN people. Egyptians were NOT Nordics, nor were they North African caucasians. The point of the mural of the races is that the Egyptians RECOGNIZED that some Northern Africans WERE caucasian, but the Egyptians NEVER identified themselves as being THE SAME as these Libyans. THEREFORE, the EVIDENCE is AGAINST the Egyptians being like North African caucasians. They also NEVER identified themselves as being LIKE asiatics, who were ALSO light skinned. So when you say the facts are facts, the FACTS say that the EGYPTIANS viewed THEMSELVES as UNLIKE any of these two groups and therefore, PROPOSING that Ramesses was caucasian, like the LIbyans or Asiatics is BLATANT nonsense, especially if ALL you are going to do is base it on the severely damaged remnants of hair on a mummy. Secondly, craniofacial features are NOT an indicator of SKIN COLOR. If you compare Ramesses' craniofacial features with those of MODERN Egyptians, including DARKER skinned Egyptians, you will find that there is NOTHING about his features that is unique and bear markers that say "caucasian". There are Egyptians all over Egypt today that have the exact same craniofacial features and are DARK SKINNED. Therefore, to try and present this so-called EVIDENCE as absolute PROOF of skin color is absolutely a distortion of the FACTS. Ramesses was an ethnic Egyptian and his craniofacial features show similarities with "Nubian" features from the neolithic, which underlies the fact that Egyptians originally descended from the SAME people we call "Nubians" today. THOSE are FACTS that you like to DISMISS, since SOME of us want to PICK and CHOOSE the facts we want to ACCEPT. Bottom line, NONE of the FACTS presented so far CHANGES the fact that Ramesses was an Egyptian and that MOST dynastic Egyptians were darker skinned due to deriving from OTHER darker skinned Africans in the predynastic to dynastic era. Egypt was NEVER fond of Asiatics or LIbyans and OFTEN turned to the South for KINGS to repel such FOREIGN invaders. Almost ALL resistence to Near Eastern and European invaders came from the SOUTH even to the point of including Kush as a important ALLY in the resistance. Ramesses was such a King, who was selected after a period of diplomatic weakness to STRENGTHEN Egypt's borders and KEEP OUT Asiatics, Libyans and OTHER foreigners. Therefore, for him to BE an asiatic or libyan type (representing the INFILTRATION of such FOREIGN blood into the royal line) and be AGAINST such incursions makes no sense. THOSE are the facts, but of course we all know everyone is trying to make RAMESSES such a great Asiatic or Libyan NON EGYPTIAN pharoah, when he was NOT.
Picking and choosing FEATURES as the basis of determining phenotype is INVALID unless you compare it to the rest of the population at large. Therefore comparing Ramesses craniofacial features to European types and not comparing them to OTHER Africans both in and around Egypt ONLY shows that you are DISTORTING the facts. Until someone shows me how the hair samples and craniofacial from Ramesses mummy compares to OTHER AFricans from Egypt, the Sudan, Libya and Ethiopia, I would consider such analysis as biased. Because ONLY such comparisons can show whether such traits are NOT common or present in other Africans and therefore, indicative of NON AFRICAN heredity. You cant say that such traits are indicative of European/Near Eastern heredity if you dont have the data showing how prevalent the same features are in NON European/Near Eastern African populations.
Likewise, the POINT of Ramesses crown is to show that there are SIMILARITIES culturally to OTHER NEARBY African communities, which would give us some understanding of the ORIGIN and PURPOSE for such a crown. If EUROPEAN/Near Eastern cultures dont BEAR such cultural traits, the HOW could they be the basis for it, especially compared to African cultures that DO posses such traits. So many people talk about FACTS and EVIDENCE but are so QUICK to dismiss and ignore KEY FACT and EVIDENCE and want to seem UNBIASED.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Doug, That is why I said it was UNLIKELY, not a slam dunk fact. His skull and facial features, plus the research on his hair indicate that he was not black. What the Egyptians thought of Libyans or others has nothing to do with Ramses actual physical body.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: Doug, That is why I said it was UNLIKELY, not a slam dunk fact. His skull and facial features, plus the research on his hair indicate that he was not black. What the Egyptians thought of Libyans or others has nothing to do with Ramses actual physical body.
If that is the case then why do you keep saying he was not black? How do you know then? OBVIOUSLY you are USING the evidence AS a slam dunk to support the idea of him NOT being black. HOw ELSE would you explain your position. Dont straddle the fence.
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
A wise Quote:
Not going to waste much time reitterating the obvious, but grasping at red hairs in the 4 thousand year old corpse of a man who was 80 years old when he died, evidences a sad combination of debate desparation and necrophilia.....
Moving On Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The issue of Ramses II's ethnic composition was raised here 3 months ago where it was generally acknowledged he had a slight AAMW strain from his mother's father. Supercar presented the results of X-ray examination.
For those who just want to go on and on and on about black and white, in the end there was nothing to suggest that Ramses II was white in any sense of a USA racial meaning. It's unlikely AAMW were white in the sense of modern day Greeks or Turks, or "white" in the sense of modern day Syrians or Lebanese who do have levels of European whiteness from Circassian and Slavic slave mothers, Crusader invasion fathers, and French colonial laisans of various sorts.
Besides that, Ramses II was not AAMW, just one of his four grandparents possibly was. As for African affinity, Sergi craniofacially ranked Ramses II with king Mtesa of Uganda. Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Go back and read what I said again. I said the preponderance of evidence indicates that he was not black. That term simply indicates the way the evidence 'leans.' Doug, there are not many things we can say about ancient history that are sure. the problem is often not what we know but rather what we 'don't know.' Actually we know very little about ancient civilizations. We get a kernel here and a grain there and try to put it together in some coherent form but its always risky business. I am now reading Ernest Furgurson's book, 'Chancellorsville 1863.' That battle was fought 150 years ago, not 3,500 and still historians have many views as to what happened and why and often disagree.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
How was Rameses depicted in AE art?
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
The art varied, besides you can't use art to make a determination like that.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer: How was Rameses depicted in AE art?
Not as a blonde, because he wasn't.
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
No, but he apparently was red headed.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: The art varied,
Can you elaborate?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:No, but he apparently was red headed.
^ No, but apparently the 3000 year old corpse of a man who died at at least 78 years of age, did have some red hairs, that's all that can be said without applying wishful thinking.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
Doesn't anyone here do a search to see if a topic hasn't already been discussed previously?
When Rameses died, he was well over the age of 90. So whatever the color of his hair when he was 19 years old, it most likely wasn't the same color as when the brother was old. Maspero's observation seems the more plausible (he was the first to see the mummy unwrapped). White hair that was chemically dyed (on purpose or not).
Sir Gaston Maspero who unwrapped the mummy of Rameses II, one of the first to see the face of the Pharaoh writes:
quote: "on the temples there are a few sparse hairs, but at the poll the hair is quite thick, forming smooth, straight locks about five centimeters in length. White at the time of death, they have been dyed a light yellow by the spices used in the embalm-ment...the moustache and beard are thin...The hairs are white, like those of the head and eyebrows...the skin is of earthy brown, splotched with black...the face of the mummy gives a fair idea of the face of the living king." Valley of the Kings by John Romer, Castle Books, p184
-The Ancient Egyptians used a variety of methods to eliminate Gray hair. Henna dyed the natural black hair an auburn color, while turning the unpigmented gray hairs a bright orange. Hair would sometimes be dyed after death. Rameses II is an example. Examine this photo of the Afar elder... http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/people.html Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Wally, The hair was examined in Paris below the scalp with the latest technology.
Wishful thinking rasol is ignoring every piece of logical evidence that interferes with preconcieved notions. He may have been black but based on what we have that is highly unlikely.
Nay-Sayer- varied means that not all of his art looked like the same person.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Well, people forget quickly; so to help jog our memory...
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
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.
So, putting information on bone morphology together with the various microscopic tests done on the hair, preponderance of evidence clearly reveals, that Rameses couldn’t be a Nordics cousin by any stretch of imagination. This says it all:
**Mesolithic-Holocene NUBIANS, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties.**
But then again, we might find Greeks who look like "Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians", and then, extrapolate that these folks could have been blonde "whites". LOL.
Posted by ankhenaten2 (Member # 10810) on :
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Well, people forget quickly; so to help jog our memory...
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
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.
So, putting information on bone morphology together with the various microscopic tests done on the hair, preponderance of evidence clearly reveals, that Rameses couldn’t be a Nordics cousin by any stretch of imagination. This says it all:
**Mesolithic-Holocene NUBIANS, as with the XVIV and XX dynasties.**
But then again, we might find Greeks who look like "Mesolithic-Holocene Nubians", and then, extrapolate that these folks could have been blonde "whites". LOL.
bravo!!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: well actually they can now tell the hair color and Ramses II did have red hair, as did Queen Tiye. In fact hers was described as reddish - blonde. I posted the article on this board some time ago...
Considering the physical appearances of both Ramases and especially Tiye, this really isn't the case.
Why?
quote:Ausar says:
You cannot tell hair color by the color of the hair found on the mummy alone. Most of the time the embalming material turns or salts in the Sahara bleach the hair to unatural colors. To establish the original hair color you need electron miscroscopic analysis. The only published report I saw on the original hair color of Rameses II was by a group of French scientist. According to the results his hair was red. All the depictions of Rameses II show him with reddish-brown skin.
Correct.
quote:Hore:
..Many of the forensic medicine advances of the past few years have been very helpful in looking at ancient remains.
...We are informed by Afro Hair - A Salon Book, that chemicals for bleaching, penning and straightening hair must reach the cortex to be effective. For hair to be permed or straightened the disulphide bonds in the cortex must be broken. The anthropologist Daniel Hardy writing in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, tells us that keratin is stable owing to disulphide bonds. However, when hair is exposed to harsh conditions it can lead to oxidation of protein molecules in the cortex, which leads to the alteration of hair texture, such as straightening.
Two British anthropologists, Brothwell and Spearman, have found evidence of cortex keratin oxidation in ancient Egyptian hair. They held that the mummification process was responsible, because of the strong alkaline substance used. This resulted in the yellowing and browning of hair as well as the straightening effect. This means that visual appearance of the hair on mummies cannot disguise their racial affinities.
The presence of blonde and brown hair on ancient Egyptian mummies has nothing to do with their racial identity and everything to do with mummification and the passage of time. As the studies have shown, when you put the evidence under a microscope the truth comes out... Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: No, but apparently the 3000 year old corpse of a man who died at at least 78 years of age, did have some red hairs, that's all that can be said without applying wishful thinking.
And why is this??
Because the Egyptians, like many Northeast Africans practiced the custom of dyeing their gray hairs red, especially during old age.
Afar elder with henna dyed hair
Somali elder with henna dyed beard
Many people mistakenly get the impression that this reddish color is their natural color; it is NOT.
Again, the dyeing of gray hair is a widespread custom in Northeast Africa and I may also add that henna is a very strong dye that may take weeks to wash off. With constant application, the color may be permanent.
Ramases was 78 when he died, not just old but extremely old considering the life expectancy during that time.
You do the math! Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
Why are we posting pictures of modern africans when the subject at hand is an ancient Egyptian?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^ You apparently read nothing I said, did you? And if you did read what I said, your bias selective amnesia must have set in.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
We post pictures of Modern Africans because they and upper egyptians are close to what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. So people know that the Ancient Egyptians were Africans and not like people from the Near East. Hope this helps Also Africans are the people who dye their hair with reddish dye.
Peace
Posted by Horemheb (Member # 3361) on :
I read it Dhehuti but is was so misguided that I decided to comment on the pictures. Why do we have modern pictures on a board that deals with people who lived 3000 or more years ago? Again, I would ask, why do we have an entire board dedicated to defending a position if you were sure of it? i think that you are not sure of it and thats why we have 5000 threads that go on forever defending this so called 'black' Egyptian point of view. What I will not get is a rational answer to this question.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
I don't think Horemheb is saying that Ramses II was Nordic, he is just saying he wasn't black(probably mixed).
His nose is very similar to that of yuya(who was a foreigner) but the rest of him is egyptian(skin,skull size ....).
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Horemheb: I read it Dhehuti but is was so misguided that I decided to comment on the pictures...
And would you care to explain what was so "misguided" about it?!!
quote:Why do we have modern pictures on a board that deals with people who lived 3000 or more years ago?
Those pictures were examples of an ancient Egyptian(actually African) custom that is still in practice and which proves my point.
quote:Again, I would ask, why do we have an entire board dedicated to defending a position if you were sure of it?
To educate ignorant folk like you.
quote: i think that you are not sure of it and thats why we have 5000 threads that go on forever defending this so called 'black' Egyptian point of view.
Nope. I'm pretty sure! Again, we repeat this stuff to educate the new members and/or visitors to this board.
quote:What I will not get is a rational answer to this question.
LOL All you have been getting from I and others is rational answers, but it is not our fault that you refuse to accept them! Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: We post pictures of Modern Africans because they and upper egyptians are close to what the Ancient Egyptians looked like. So people know that the Ancient Egyptians were Africans and not like people from the Near East. Hope this helps Also Africans are the people who dye their hair with reddish dye.
Peace
Even a kid like King understands. Sad that a grown man claiming to be a professor can't.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Every time the forum is rolling either some newbie or Blatella Germanica comes along and railroads folk into race dee-bait. Then it has the audacity to ask why.
Posted by ausar (Member # 1797) on :
I wonder if Rameses II's nose shape has anything to do with the pepper corns or a boner being used to prop up his nose?
Most people fail to mention this. See the following details:
Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
Ramses II?s nose was propped up with a bone to enhance his kingly profile and filled with peppercorns, to reawaken his sense of smell. Both of these tidbits of information was revealed via x-rays of his head and are very visible in the accompanying photographs.
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: I don't think Horemheb is saying that Ramses II was Nordic,..
uhh, you are new here and don't know Hore very well; so let me tell you that that is exactly what the guy is saying!
quote:he is just saying he wasn't black(probably mixed).
So you consider folks of mixed black ancestry to not be black?? Better yet, do you consider this to be the case with all Egyptians even though the evidence speaks the contrary??
quote: His nose is very similar to that of yuya(who was a foreigner) but the rest of him is egyptian(skin,skull size ....).
Tutsi man with hooked nose, but the rest appear to be Egyptian. I suppose he is also "mixed" with foreign ancestry??
Posted by Masonic Rebel (Member # 9549) on :
Quote:
I don't think Horemheb is saying that Ramses II was Nordic, he is just saying he wasn't black(probably mixed).
In other words Horemheb is in denial or not very bright Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote: Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
I take back my comments if this is the case.
quote:Tutsi man with hooked nose, but the rest appear to be Egyptian. I suppose he is also "mixed" with foreign ancestry??
Interesting.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I wonder if Rameses II's nose shape has anything to do with the pepper corns or a boner being used to prop up his nose?
Most people fail to mention this. See the following details:
Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
Ramses II?s nose was propped up with a bone to enhance his kingly profile and filled with peppercorns, to reawaken his sense of smell. Both of these tidbits of information was revealed via x-rays of his head and are very visible in the accompanying photographs.
quote:Nay-Sayer asks: How was Rameses depicted in AE art?
Like this:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec:
quote: Peppercorns were placed in his broken nose to restore its shape and his sense of smell in the after life. His nose may have been broken during the mummification process when his brain was removed through his nose
I take back my comments if this is the case.
quote:Tutsi man with hooked nose, but the rest appear to be Egyptian. I suppose he is also "mixed" with foreign ancestry??
Interesting.
There is nothing "interesting" about it. You need to get your head out of the sand of ignorance, Mike.
All of this attributing Egyptians to foreign admixture is nonsense. Why can't you accept the fact that they were just African and that indigenous Africans come in a diversity of features??
I'm sure you accept that whites or "caucasians" of Europe vary in features also but you never think twice about Europeans having any "mixture", even though this does seem to be the case with southern Europeans!!
quote:All of this attributing Egyptians to foreign admixture is nonsense
This is why we can't be terrified into silence/or fibbing, when it comes to the topic of African ancestry in Europeans.
"Europeans show a genetic mixture of 2/3rds Asian, 1/3 African". - Cavelli Sforza.
Thus Europeans *cannot* be allowed to continue the charade of setting themselves up as template from which to measure "mixture" in other peoples.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote:There is nothing "interesting" about it. You need to get your head out of the sand of ignorance, Mike.
You misunderstood me. I said "interesting" because I learnt something new. I'm not as closed minded as you may think, until a few months ago I thought the ruling class of meroe was caucasoid, but then I was proved wrong. I didn't go into a state of denial, I was given the proof and I believed it.
quote:I think we agree on that masonic. My statement was that the hair, combined with his facial features make it unlikely that he was black.One of them may not make the case, both of them together does.
Very well put.
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
Hi, I am new here and have been reading the forums for about a month before I wanted to post a message and I hope that I can share some Ancient Egyptian/African thought/wisdom/info aswell as learn. One thing that I have noticed that I like about this forum is the genetic discussions which I have always been interested in learning and if some of you could help me with that I would be much appreciative. Now on this particular subject I have to say that Rameses II was in no way white/nordic or southern European, but I will agree with the white racists on this site that he was more asiatic than anything(sorry brothas lol). This in turn says nothing against the racial complexion of Ancient Egypt being black Africans so I don't see what the big fuss is about. Altakuri is correct in the fact that red haired people were killed on sight..why? Because red was considered an evil color to the Egyptians. Now if Ramses hair was naturally red I seriously doubt he wouldn't have died it another color, but if he died it red then he probably did this to put fear in other Egyptians considering his dynasty was a bunch of "set/baal" worshipers. Ramses II was NOT a royal by blood although he had a royal "seat", but considering his daughter's name was Bint-Anath(which is a canaanite name) I'm sure his dynasty of the akhmin(which went through her line) were more asiatic than black AFTER Ramses I in which WAS a royal by blood and mostly black so I guess both the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics on this forum are incorrect . btw the one drop USA rule that I see on this forum shouldn't be used in determining race because it is rediculous white racism and has nothing to do with Egypt. If ancient Egypt is African then you should look at this from an African perspective..but considering most Afrocentrics are African American(who aren't the least bit African lol) they are still living their lives in whitey/massa's eyes lol. Unscholarly to say the least.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^^You are correct that the Egyptians feared natural red hair which they associated with Set. But as you know there are many Africans who artifically dye their hair red. Henna is just one example. There are many peoples who use ochre to dye their hair red.
Ramses's origins have been discussed in this board numerous times already. And while there is doubt about whether or not he was a native because of ascension through military ranks, anthropology as well as artistic depictions put all of these doubts to rest.
Welcome to the forum, by the way! Posted by ChImPs_REVENGING (Member # 10093) on :
man ur up against a goodone here ...kool dude>>
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
quote:
You are correct that the Egyptians feared natural red hair which they associated with Set. But as you know there are many Africans who artifically dye their hair red. Henna is just one example. There are many peoples who use ochre to dye their hair red.
Ramses's origins have been discussed in this board numerous times already. And while there is doubt about whether or not he was a native because of ascension through military ranks, anthropology as well as artistic depictions put all of these doubts to rest.
Welcome to the forum, by the way!
quote:
Well, I don't see how anthropology has put anything to rest about Rameses II and his dynasty being black and I am not trying to be contrary I'm totally sincere.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
The image of Tutsi person, is of course just an example; if this person's skull were to be examined, i.e. minus skin, its nasal bone structure would give an impression similar to that claimed to be of Rameses II, the rest would simply be an extrapolation, since soft parts cannot be accurately reproduced, as we have seen in the case of the nose tip of the recent Tutankhamun facial reconstruction.
Ausar's point about the nose stuffing is taken, but would x-ray inspection not be able to detect this?
Bottom line: "Hooked" nose doesn't equal/prove 'whiteness'
Now on this particular subject I have to say that Rameses II was in no way white/nordic or southern European, but I will agree with the white racists on this site that he was more asiatic than anything(sorry brothas lol).
What qualifiers do you use to define "Asiatic", and how do you determine what quantifies being "Asiatic" more than "African"? I am interested in knowing, because the personality you are referring to was not an "Asiatic", but an Egyptian.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
This in turn says nothing against the racial complexion of Ancient Egypt being black Africans so I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Of course it doesn't. The "fuss" is about setting facts straight. Nothing has been presented to suggest that Rameses II stood out from Nile Valley inhabitants, physically or culturally.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Ramses II was NOT a royal by blood although he had a royal "seat",
He was a royalty by blood. His father was the person who got the "royal seat".
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
but considering his daughter's name was Bint-Anath(which is a canaanite name) I'm sure his dynasty of the akhmin(which went through her line) were more asiatic than black AFTER Ramses I in which WAS a royal by blood and mostly black
Not sure what you are getting at here, but just to clarify: would "Bint-Anath" be Rameses II's daughter or Rameses I's daughter?
Even if "Bint-Anath" were the daughter of either, and the name sounds "Asiatic", how does this make Rameses II more "Asiatic" than "black"? Rameses era wouldn't mark the first time Egyptian royalty have taken foreign females from their eastern neighbours, even though heir to the throne in such cases, would not come from the "foreign" mother's end, but based on the offspring's ties to the father who has the royal seat.
Posted by Nay Sayer (Member # 9886) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Nay-Sayer asks: How was Rameses depicted in AE art?
Like this:
Well, I guess that answers the question. No need to speculate about red or blond hair any further...
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert: Hi, I am new here and have been reading the forums for about a month before I wanted to post a message and I hope that I can share some Ancient Egyptian/African thought/wisdom/info aswell as learn. One thing that I have noticed that I like about this forum is the genetic discussions which I have always been interested in learning and if some of you could help me with that I would be much appreciative. Now on this particular subject I have to say that Rameses II was in no way white/nordic or southern European, but I will agree with the white racists on this site that he was more asiatic than anything(sorry brothas lol). This in turn says nothing against the racial complexion of Ancient Egypt being black Africans so I don't see what the big fuss is about. Altakuri is correct in the fact that red haired people were killed on sight..why? Because red was considered an evil color to the Egyptians. Now if Ramses hair was naturally red I seriously doubt he wouldn't have died it another color, but if he died it red then he probably did this to put fear in other Egyptians considering his dynasty was a bunch of "set/baal" worshipers. Ramses II was NOT a royal by blood although he had a royal "seat", but considering his daughter's name was Bint-Anath(which is a canaanite name) I'm sure his dynasty of the akhmin(which went through her line) were more asiatic than black AFTER Ramses I in which WAS a royal by blood and mostly black so I guess both the Afrocentrics and Eurocentrics on this forum are incorrect . btw the one drop USA rule that I see on this forum shouldn't be used in determining race because it is rediculous white racism and has nothing to do with Egypt. If ancient Egypt is African then you should look at this from an African perspective..but considering most Afrocentrics are African American(who aren't the least bit African lol) they are still living their lives in whitey/massa's eyes lol. Unscholarly to say the least.
Sorry, wrong. Set worship ORIGINATED in the SOUTH of Egypt at the town called Nubt("Golden City"), hint: "Nubian". Set is OFTEN referred to as being a Nubti hint:"Nubian". The association with Baal and Set came AFTER the expansions and various incursions of Asiatics into Egypt, when they saw the attributes of Set and linked them with their gods. This does NOT, however, make RAMESSES a Asiatic because he worshipped Set. Set is one of THE ORIGINAL gods of ancient Kmt. Therefore, it is only FITTING that Set worship would be a sign of KINGSHIP, since it traces to the SOUTH where Egyptian culture and civilization CAME from. It is funny how people get HALF the facts and then TWIST them to make their theories SOUND good. HOw about telling the WHOLE story and not PART of it. Ramesses and his dynasty staged many campaigns in foreign lands and as part of his worship of Set it was easy to extend his alliances with certain near eastern neigbors because of their previous associations of set with local dieties. HOWEVER, one should NOT see this as saying that Ramesses HIMSELF was a foreigner. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ramesses, the great king AGAINST the incursion of foreign blood INTO the ancient Egyptian bloodline to BE a person of FOREIGN blood. That would be like an american president BARRING Mexicans from entering the U.S. and BEING a Mexican. Either way, what people are DOING is taking history of Set worship, separating it from its ROOTS in the South of Egypt and then trying to present it as some sort of "foreign" god, when it WASNT. Any associations with foreigners came during the first and second intermediate periods when FOREIGNERS (canaanites, etc) were in control. But that does NOT make Set worship by the Ramessids the worship of a FOREIGN god, since SEt is one of the OLDEST dieties in Egypt and the ORIGINAL contender in mysteries of Heru. Therefore, to say that the Ramessids are celebrating FOREIGN influence, by worshipping set, is to speak PURE NONSENSE, especially since the Ramessid dynasty was the LAST of the NATIVE Egyptian dynasties to RESIST foreign invasions. Therefore, you should look at Set worship by the RAMESSIDS as celebrating the ROOTS of their culture in the south and the TRIUMPH of NATIVE Egyptian bloodlines, over FOREIGN enemies who were becoming increasingly powerful. Anything else is a PURE distortion of facts.
Here is a perfect example of how the story of Set and his origins get twisted:
Note how they START by trying to REINFORCE Set as some kind of "foreign" diety.
quote: Set (Seth, Setekh, Sut, Sutekh, Suty) was one of ancient Egypt's earliest gods, a god of chaos, confusion, storms, wind, the desert and foreign lands
Then they say this:
quote: He was also believed to have white skin and red hair, with the Egyptians comparing his hair to the pelt of a donkey. Due to his association with red (dshrr dshr - adding a t makes the word for desert, dshrrtdesert determinative dshrt), red animals and even people with red hair were thought to be his followers. These animals were sometimes sacrificed, while the link between Set and red-heads - usually foreigners - gave him godhood over foreign lands. With the relationship to foreign peoples, Set was also a god of overseas trade of oils, wood and metals from over the sea and through desert routes. He was given lordship over western Asia because of this.
But all of this association of Set with foreigners and the desert only appeared LATER, LONG AFTER the predynastic period when SET and HERU worship and the MYSTERIES of the contendings of Set and Horus were ORIGINATED. But they conveniently overlook THAT point in order to reinforce Set as somehow being associated with Desert dwellers. How is that when he was BORN in the city of Nubt, in the SOUTH and associated with people from Nubt, in other words "Nubians"? See how they twist the story to make it seem that Set was some kinda FOREIGN god and symbolic of "white" people. NO. Set was a GOLDEN god, like ALL other gods, especially with his association with NUBT (the city of GOLD), ie a NUBIAN "GOLDEN ONE". Like I said the fear of red heads and the association of set with the desert storms all came AFTER the disastrous events of the FIRST and SECOND intermediate periods when CHAOS ruled Egypt, due to the INVASIONS of FOREIGNERS into Egypt.
NOTE how they CONVENIENTLY leave that IMPORTANT fact to the very end, downplaying the ORIGINS of Set worship as a POSITIVE and GOLDEN diety of the SOUTH (Upper Egypt), after the Hyksos took over.
quote: It is likely that the cult of Horus overtook the cult of Set in ancient times, and started to remove his positive sides to give the god Horus more status. The two gods, Horus the Elder and Horus the son of Osiris and Isis were confused, so Set changed from being an equal to his brother, Horus the Elder, to the enemy of Isis's son. It was only after the Hyksos took Set as their main god, after the Egyptians god rid of the foreigners, he stopped symbolizing Lower Egypt and his name was erased and his statues destroyed.
See how they TWIST the story and take what happened AFTER the Hyksos and replace what was a symbol of UPPER EGYPT and twist it into a symbol of FOREIGNERS. In my opinion the Ramessids worship of Set had more to do with going back to the SOUTH and RESTORING the ancient ROOTS of Set worship and TIES to the SOUTH, which was the TRADITIONAL home of LEGITIMATE Egyptian royalty, especially in the times of TROUBLE from ASIATICS. Look at the papyrus of Neferti and you will see that. But of course, if you want to TWIST the facts to suit your own BIASED opinions you will see what you WANT to see.
Just remember that Set was TRANSFORMED in Egypt, and he was GOOD or BAD depending on what DYNASTY he was associated with. THerefore as a DIETY of a FORIEGN DYNASTY and the age of CHAOS, he would be a DIETY Of destruction and BAD things "a symbol of FOREIGNERS". HOwever, under a NATIVE dynasty in PROSPEROUS times, he was a GOOD diety, a symbol of POWER and STRENGTH, a symbol of UPPER Egypt and THE ORIGINAL FOUNDING BLOODLINE from the SOUTH.
quote: The Egyptian deity Set is traditionally held to be an all-round 'baddie' who was the evil murderer of his brother Osiris and was, at one time, blamed for every misfortune that occurred. This study comprises a series of articles written by the late Billie Walker John, which together form a detailed study of Set, his origins, characteristics and his role in the Mysteries of the Shadows. Known as the ruling deity of Nubt in Upper Egypt and associated with a beast that took a number of different forms, Set was at one time the chosen god for the common people of Egypt who perhaps understood rather than feared his dark powers. 107p, b/w illus (Ignotus 2003)
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:dshrr dshr - adding a t makes the word for desert
Adding on to what Doug correctly notes....
Dshr is red, but adding a .t, per se, only makes the word into a noun - Red [noun = person, place or thing]
As such it referred to red lands - "deserts" when used with the land determinative.
Otherwise it might refer to any number of different red things.
For example, the crown of lower Egypt - the Red Crown is called the Dshr.t in mdw ntr.
What is 'red is the crown itself' - literally:
The red crown, or deshret, may very well have originated in Upper Egypt, although it eventually became associated as the symbol of Lower Egypt. A sherd from a large vessel dated to late Naqada I, near the town of Nubt, the city of Set, has a representation in relief of the red crown, and on both the Narmer palette (one side) and macehead the king’s figure is shown wearing the red crown. - touregypt.net
.
Deshr.t[u] - red people is a euphemism for the Aamu asiatics. Red here is and ethnic reference. When the Km.t complained of Deshretu over-running the delta - they are not referencing red land, they are not referencing the red crown - obviously - they are referencing the red people.
Beyound that, red and black were a part of Kemetian color dialectics in which black symbolised 'good' and red symbolised 'evil'.
Note, the modern English language may have derived much from this.
Red as desert.
Red devil.
Set as symbolized by red.
Set as Satan.
Satan as red.
And so on.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
Kadesh battle scene, restored to its original colors:
Ramessid dynasty:
Note the non asiatic portraits of these pharoahs (which makes sense since they were NATIVE Egyptians):
What qualifiers do you use to define "Asiatic", and how do you determine what quantifies being "Asiatic" more than "African"? I am interested in knowing, because the personality you are referring to was not an "Asiatic", but an Egyptian.
Features, family lines, history and names. As far as you saying he was not Asiatic because he fought them; that would be the same argument that whites use to say Nubians and Egyptians aren't black because they fought lol<--slow down cowboy. Ramses II was an Asiatic Egyptian and that is no different than an African American fighting Somali's in the early 90's being in the U.S military.
quote:
Of course it doesn't. The "fuss" is about setting facts straight. Nothing has been presented to suggest that Rameses II stood out from Nile Valley inhabitants, physically or culturally.
Who said anything about Ramses II standing out? Egypt didn't have a racist culture like the United States only a CLASS culture so stop applying your lowly African American perspective to Ancient Egypt. There were tons of Asiatic with high official authority in Egypt btw even thought that might hurt your feelings but it's true. *shrugs* Maybe you should learn from Egyptians to not be as racist as the people who have been racist to you....those emotions tend to rub off ya know
quote:
He was a royalty by blood. His father was the person who got the "royal seat".
He was a royal seat descendant but he was NOT a royal by blood. I think you should investigate what I mean by the difference between "blood" royal and "seat" royal. Horemheb gave Ramses I the royal seat indeed but Ramses II was not royal by blood and neither was Horemheb. The royals of the eighteenth dynasty went through "Ahmose nefertari"...the female side not the male so if he is continuing in a later dynasty right after the 18th it would still apply considering Horemheb is the one that appointed his father. Now here is something you probably don't know, but alot of Egyptians who are listed as fathers or mothers are not their real father or mother but rather appointed to them(adopted)...I know this makes things more difficult, but it's just how their culture was. The Jews carried on this tradition of adoption by the way.
quote:
Not sure what you are getting at here, but just to clarify: would "Bint-Anath" be Rameses II's daughter or Rameses I's daughter?
Ramses II's daughter I already stated that Ramses I was black just not the rest of them I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
quote:
Even if "Bint-Anath" were the daughter of either, and the name sounds "Asiatic", how does this make Rameses II more "Asiatic" than "black"? Rameses era wouldn't mark the first time Egyptian royalty have taken foreign females from their eastern neighbours, even though heir to the throne in such cases, would not come from the "foreign" mother's end, but based on the offspring's ties to the father who has the royal seat
Why would a black Egyptian name their daughter a canaanite name lol? Especially after your reasoning of Ramses being so ANTI ASIATIC lol!!That's really all I have to say about that bro. The "AKHMIN" was an asiatic line and he came from this. *shrugs* This is no different then 3000 years from now white people questioning whether or not Condelisa Rice was black because she had such a high postiion in white America and has a "primarily cuacasoid" skull LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
quote:
Sorry, wrong. Set worship ORIGINATED in the SOUTH of Egypt at the town called Nubt("Golden City"), hint: "Nubian". Set is OFTEN referred to as being a Nubti hint:"Nubian". The association with Baal and Set came AFTER the expansions and various incursions of Asiatics into Egypt, when they saw the attributes of Set and linked them with their gods. This does NOT, however, make RAMESSES a Asiatic because he worshipped Set. Set is one of THE ORIGINAL gods of ancient Kmt. Therefore, it is only FITTING that Set worship would be a sign of KINGSHIP, since it traces to the SOUTH where Egyptian culture and civilization CAME from. It is funny how people get HALF the facts and then TWIST them to make their theories SOUND good. HOw about telling the WHOLE story and not PART of it. Ramesses and his dynasty staged many campaigns in foreign lands and as part of his worship of Set it was easy to extend his alliances with certain near eastern neigbors because of their previous associations of set with local dieties. HOWEVER, one should NOT see this as saying that Ramesses HIMSELF was a foreigner. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for Ramesses, the great king AGAINST the incursion of foreign blood INTO the ancient Egyptian bloodline to BE a person of FOREIGN blood. That would be like an american president BARRING Mexicans from entering the U.S. and BEING a Mexican. Either way, what people are DOING is taking history of Set worship, separating it from its ROOTS in the South of Egypt and then trying to present it as some sort of "foreign" god, when it WASNT. Any associations with foreigners came during the first and second intermediate periods when FOREIGNERS (canaanites, etc) were in control. But that does NOT make Set worship by the Ramessids the worship of a FOREIGN god, since SEt is one of the OLDEST dieties in Egypt and the ORIGINAL contender in mysteries of Heru. Therefore, to say that the Ramessids are celebrating FOREIGN influence, by worshipping set, is to speak PURE NONSENSE, especially since the Ramessid dynasty was the LAST of the NATIVE Egyptian dynasties to RESIST foreign invasions. Therefore, you should look at Set worship by the RAMESSIDS as celebrating the ROOTS of their culture in the south and the TRIUMPH of NATIVE Egyptian bloodlines, over FOREIGN enemies who were becoming increasingly powerful. Anything else is a PURE distortion of facts.
quote:
That was a rather nice post, but it was quite a waste of time considering that by me saying that Ramses dynasty worshiping Set is not the sole reason for me saying they were asiatic. Also, saying Set originated in the South means nothing!! Set's cult was well established in the north during the Rameside era *sigh* and most of the worshipers of Set/baal were Asiatic. You are the one claiming that I am calling Ramses a FOREIGNER I have never made that claim. An African American is not a FOREIGNER and neither is an Asiatic Egyptian like Ramses II Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Doug is correct that the god Set was Egyptian and in fact originates from the south.
Evidence strongly shows that Set was associated with the desert and thus a god of the deserts and desert wilderness. Many scholars agree that the evidence points to Set most likely being a patron god of desert nomads who were ancestors of the Egyptians, and the struggle with his brother Useri (Osiris) makes perfect sense considering that Useri was patron god of settled agriculturalists who also were ancestral to the Egyptians. What's interesting is that the Egyptian icon of leadership-- the was scepter is modeled after the Set animal with head of the scepter in the shape of his head and the bottom in the shape of his forked tail. The was scepter is also found among desert nomads in East Africa as far as Ethiopia and Somalia!
Doug is correct, that many Asiatics who settled in the Delta identified Set with their own patron gods who presided over the desert and nomads. That Set is depicted with red hair has nothing to do with 'race' or Tamahu (white Libyans). The red color merely represented dshrt (desert). As we all know, in the struggle between the cults of Set and his brother Osiris, Osiris ends up being dominated. And as with many cults who lose out Set became somewhat demonized. With Osiris and his representation of settled agricultural life being favored and idealized as harmony and order, Set represented not only the deserts and nomads but of chaos and any threat to the ideals of Osiris. This along with the identification of Set with Asiatic gods made it easy to associate Set with foreigners also.
For a while now, many people have associated Ramases with foreigners because of his hair color and his nose. But considering what we now know of his so-called hair color as well as the unreliability of so-called 'hooked-nose', adding all this together with craniological studies done on Kent Weeks, and we can get the picture that if Ramses was really a foreigner he was one of African descent. Considering his association with Set it wouldn't be surprising if he descended from one of the desert nomad groups like the Medjay or the Antawy. But Bible Expert is correct that among those included in Ramses many children were from Asiatic women in his harem whom he gained through political marriage, which would explain princesses with the name of 'Bint' which is the Semitic common word for 'daughter'.
Posted by ankhenaten2 (Member # 10810) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: I don't think Horemheb is saying that Ramses II was Nordic,..
uhh, you are new here and don't know Hore very well; so let me tell you that that is exactly what the guy is saying!
quote:he is just saying he wasn't black(probably mixed).
So you consider folks of mixed black ancestry to not be black?? Better yet, do you consider this to be the case with all Egyptians even though the evidence speaks the contrary??
quote: His nose is very similar to that of yuya(who was a foreigner) but the rest of him is egyptian(skin,skull size ....).
Tutsi man with hooked nose, but the rest appear to be Egyptian. I suppose he is also "mixed" with foreign ancestry??
all i can say is: the mummy many speculate to be of ramses 2 even while it was not found in the ramses 2 tomb ......has a very.......very......low sloping frontal lobe!
no way in a hot antartic day.......is the mummy caucasoid.........
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert:
Features, family lines, history and names.
What are those features that are so unique to "Asiatics" and absent in indigenous Nile Valley inhabitants?
Tell us more about the history and family lines, that speaks of what you are implying.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
As far as you saying he was not Asiatic because he fought them; that would be the same argument that whites use to say Nubians and Egyptians aren't black because they fought lol<--slow down cowboy.
Please provide the citation you claim I had said the above, cowboy.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Ramses II was an Asiatic Egyptian and that is no different than an African American fighting Somali's in the early 90's being in the U.S military.
...based on what? You have yet to still clarify that issue, cowboy.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Who said anything about Ramses II standing out?
You implied so, when you said that the man was "more Asiatic than African", which would undoubtedly imply he stood out from an African. As such, we would like to know how, cowboy.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Egypt didn't have a racist culture like the United States only a CLASS culture so stop applying your lowly African American perspective to Ancient Egypt.
Has no bearings on the point that physically or culturally, Rameses II was not out of place in the Nile Valley. Matter of fact, I had provided info from the "an x-ray Atlas of mummies" that tells us how so. I would like to see your objective scientific source, that tells us to the contrary, and what qualifiers the responsible author(s) use do to so.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
There were tons of Asiatic with high official authority in Egypt btw even thought that might hurt your feelings but it's true.
...and that has anything to do with Rameses II being an indigenous Egyptian how? Nothing untrue hurts my feelings, not even lame attempts of psycho analysis, unless you feel that like Miss Cleo, you can get a way with it - see where that attitude got her.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
*shrugs* Maybe you should learn from Egyptians to not be as racist as the people who have been racist to you....those emotions tend to rub off ya know
Nothing in my post speaks of "racism", other than getting at the bottom of what you base your assertions on, which at this point, seems to be nothing. Your language tells us that the frustrated fool here, is actually yourself.
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
He was a royal seat descendant but he was NOT a royal by blood.
...and how do you become royalty by "blood", if not by becoming heir to the throne, because your ancestor had the throne? LOL.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
I think you should investigate what I mean by the difference between "blood" royal and "seat" royal.
What do you think I'm doing. See post above.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Horemheb gave Ramses I the royal seat indeed but Ramses II was not royal by blood and neither was Horemheb.
This is got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yes, Rameses was given the seat, and hence, got the throne to rulership. Rameses II is the inheritor of that throne; why should Rameses not be considered "royalty by blood" then? Apparently, the ancient Egyptians had disagreed with your point of view, as the Rameses line was "legitimized".
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
The royals of the eighteenth dynasty went through "Ahmose nefertari"...the female side not the male so if he is continuing in a later dynasty right after the 18th it would still apply considering Horemheb is the one that appointed his father. Now here is something you probably don't know, but alot of Egyptians who are listed as fathers or mothers are not their real father or mother but rather appointed to them(adopted)...
...and you wonder why it might be in your best interest to search the archives, to see what we've already discussed, so that you can realize what you are bringing up, is no newsflash to anyone but yourself?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
...I know this makes things more difficult, but it's just how their culture was. The Jews carried on this tradition of adoption by the way.
Only thing I can see difficult here, is getting answers from you, and sensible ones at that.
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
Ramses II's daughter I already stated that Ramses I was black just not the rest of them I am sorry if I did not make that clear.
Interesting; Rameses I was "black", but his "son" is somehow supposed to be more "Asiatic than African". So, does this mean that "black" and "African" here are separated; moreover, how does this play out with "Asiatic"?
quote: African_Bible_Expert: Why would a black Egyptian name their daughter a canaanite name lol?
Why would any Egyptian royalty take in an "Asiatic" woman? Not that it is of anything significant to warrent the yet to be founded idea that Rameses was more "Asiatic than African", but what source tells us that his daughter's name was "canaanite" in origin, or the said personality is his daughter to begin with?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Especially after your reasoning of Ramses being so ANTI ASIATIC lol!!
What is clear, is that your reasonings seem to be ANTI INTELLECT, because you never provide basis for your claims. With that said, please provide a citation for what you are crediting me for here, if you can handle it.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
That's really all I have to say about that bro.
So you don't have much to say then, bro?!
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
I always stress the importance of understanding what terms mean.
leucoderm - from leuco - milky - white, and derm - skin, a white or pale skinned person.
ex: leucoderma -a skin abnormality that is characterized by a usually congenital lack of pigment in spots or bands and produces a patchy whiteness.
antonym/opposite:
melanoderm: an individual with a dark skin; specifically : a black-skinned or brown-skinned person
source/websters-dictionary.
If you understand the meanings of these terms then we can say that by the textual evidence Ramses II was melanoderm.
Most important, we understand that the attempt to make Rameses into a leucoderm by referencing a hooked nose [broken and reset or not], or red hairs [dyed and faded with age, or not]...is a total non-sequitur and in fact quite ridiculous.
To repeat: Anyone who disagrees, feel free to produce the following relevant evidence:
* test results showing a lack of melanin in Rameses II corpse and so falsifying the existing melanodermic iconographic evidence.
* a BELIEVABLE explanation of why Rameses is consistently portrayed by the Kemetians as melanoderm - *not* leucoderm.
quote:
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Bible Expert is moving to fast he has not provided anything new that has not been discussed about Ramses. Rasol makes a good point all of what we know about Ramses shows him as melanoderm. Dark Skinned. I wish people would stop coming on this forum pretending like they are saying something new when in fact they are not saying anything new. I ask what valid proof is their that Ramses was a leucoderm. Bible Expert show us valid proof so we can discuss.
Peace
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Another reason that Ramessu is said to be foreign is because he and his family were Lower Egyptians.
There are plenty of indigenous Lower Egyptians today like the man below:
(notice the shape of his nose)
I'm sure there were even more back then. He and his family were said to be from Avaris which had a substantial Asiatic community but again, this doesn't mean that Ramessu's family was part of this community.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Another reason that Ramessu is said to be foreign is because he and his family were Lower Egyptians.
There are plenty of indigenous Lower Egyptians today like the man below:
(notice the shape of his nose)
I'm sure there were even more back then. He and his family were said to be from Avaris which had a substantial Asiatic community but again, this doesn't mean that Ramessu's family was part of this community.
I was looking for this particular image; it was also in a link posted in our 2004 discussion of Rameses's "red hair" much like this one. The link was on a forensic facial reconstruction of Rameses II, where Rameses was shown in dark tone, much like this fellow here. This person is not "leucoderm" by any stretch of the imagination, though his skull minus skin, would lead Eurocentrists to make such deductions.
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
quote:
What are those features that are so unique to "Asiatics" and absent in indigenous Nile Valley inhabitants?
quote:
Nose, cheeks, facial structure..if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you. If a statue looked like George Clooney in Egypt you would say they were black and no different than Nile valley people lol. You have an Agenda so there is no need for me to get into that with you I would prefer to talk to people like Rasol or Aktruri they seem to be more mature and more intelligent sorry . It really makes no sense for someone to get so upset about a culture that has nothing to do with them especially when we are talking about one man and one man only lol.
quote:
Tell us more about the history and family lines, that speaks of what you are implying.
quote:
What I mean by this is that I agree with the people on this site about multiple disciplines in studying ancient Egypt..genetics, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and most importantly their own history(family lines etc.)
quote:
Please provide the citation you claim I had said the above, cowboy
quote:
When you made the statement about the personality is very "Egyptian" and not "Asiatic" maybe you need to clarify what you mean by that statement because that is what I was refering to.
quote:
based on what? You have yet to still clarify that issue, cowboy
quote:
Based on my testimony!!! This is all egyptology is man, it's more guess work than anything, nothing is in STONE and your claims are no more valid than anyone elses mr. PHD professor lol. Why don't you make a time machine since you are so brilliant and we can all go see for ourselves.
quote:
You implied so, when you said that the man was "more Asiatic than African", which would undoubtedly imply he stood out from an African. As such, we would like to know how, cowboy.
quote:
I don't see how me saying he is an Asiatic Egyptian = "he stands out from other Egyptians" especially in the north. Now I am a Bible and Quran expert and even though I know the books are full of crap there is still some truth to it and when it says that the isrealites looked like "mizrayim" that means they looked like "northern egyptians"(the delta) so I'm sure there wasn't much difference between levant Asiatics and northern Egyptians in appearance(at a glance).
quote:
Has no bearings on the point that physically or culturally, Rameses II was not out of place in the Nile Valley. Matter of fact, I had provided info from the "an x-ray Atlas of mummies" that tells us how so. I would like to see your objective scientific source, that tells us to the contrary, and what qualifiers the responsible author(s) use do to so.
quote:
Again what is YOUR qualifier for being "out of place" was "Bey" out of place? Was "Yuya" out of place? What on earth do you mean by this?!?!? Again you are applying your lowly African American standards in the U.S to Egypt by assuming an Asiatic Egyptian stands out from others just because racism in America makes African Americans stand out. That rationale doesn't work here dude. Keep that negro American crap in negro America and not in ancient Egypt, have some freekin' respect!
quote:
and that has anything to do with Rameses II being an indigenous Egyptian how? Nothing untrue hurts my feelings, not even lame attempts of psycho analysis, unless you feel that like Miss Cleo, you can get a way with it - see where that attitude got her
quote:
I already said Ramses was an Asiatic "Egyptian" There is no telling how long his family line has been in Egypt so as far as using the word "indigenous" that would be a relative term that YOU would need to define and not I. I mean African Americans have been in the U.S.A for up to 400 years...are they indigenous?
quote:
Nothing in my post speaks of "racism", other than getting at the bottom of what you base your assertions on, which at this point, seems to be nothing. Your language tells us that the frustrated fool here, is actually yourself.
quote:
Yes you are VERY racist and most racists never see it which is the whole point of racism in the first place *shrugs*.
quote:
and how do you become royalty by "blood", if not by becoming heir to the throne, because your ancestor had the throne? LOL.
quote:
Example...Abraham Lincoln was not apart of the royal lineage of Euro-American blood lines that control America and he became president after many attempts because of this and then was of course shot!! lol
quote:
This is got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yes, Rameses was given the seat, and hence, got the throne to rulership. Rameses II is the inheritor of that throne; why should Rameses not be considered "royalty by blood" then? Apparently, the ancient Egyptians had disagreed with your point of view, as the Rameses line was "legitimized".
quote:
This is even dumber than what you claim is dumb lol basically you are saying you can only rule Egypt if you are a royal..so I guess the Greeks, Romans and Persians were Egyptian royals huh smfh lmao!!!!!!!!
quote:
and you wonder why it might be in your best interest to search the archives, to see what we've already discussed, so that you can realize what you are bringing up, is no newsflash to anyone but yourself?
quote:
If it is no newsflash then GREAT!!
quote:
Interesting; Rameses I was "black", but his "son" is somehow supposed to be more "Asiatic than African". So, does this mean that "black" and "African" here are separated; moreover, how does this play out with "Asiatic"?
quote:
Prove to me that Ramses I was Ramses II's "biological" father and not appointed(adopted) father. And when you come back with "prove to me that Ramses I was not Ramses II's "biological" father I will say "see; now you are using your head" lol which proves my point in that nothing is in stone in Egyptology, BUT being as though Ramses I had no Asiatic named offspring and Ramses II did that's a very good reason for my claim of him being Asiatic and I am not the only one saying this and in actuality others have brought this to my attention because of course I like you ASSUMED that Ramses II and the Rameside era were blacks too *shrugs*.
quote:
Why would any Egyptian royalty take in an "Asiatic" woman? Not that it is of anything significant to warrent the yet to be founded idea that Rameses was more "Asiatic than African", but what source tells us that his daughter's name was "canaanite" in origin, or the said personality is his daughter to begin with?
quote:
Umm "Bint-Anath" is canaanite dude lol. This is like me saying what source tells us that Heru/hor the elder is an Egyptian name lmao!!!!!! And speaking of Heru/hor why the hell didn't he name his daughter "daughter" "SITHOR" considering HOR/Heru is the correspondant god of ANATH in Canaan!!!!!!!!! jeeez lol think man think
quote:
What is clear, is that your reasonings seem to be ANTI INTELLECT, because you never provide basis for your claims. With that said, please provide a citation for what you are crediting me for here, if you can handle it.
quote:
I have provided my basis you just choose to not accept them which is FINE and the whole point of discussion *shrugs*
Even though this has been fun I will have to ask you not to respond supercar you are too emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you and I would rather speak to people like Rasol and Aktruri on this. I assume they don't agree with what I say, but they are much more knowledgable about Egypt than you are and much more intelligent, mature and less emotional. So good luck bro no hard feelings.
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
To King
I have already stated that Ramses II was in no way white/nordic/souther european so why do you say I say he was a "leucoderm"? Is Saddam Hussein a "leudoderm"..no..is he black..NO!!! Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Contrary to A.B.E.'s claim I don't postulate Kmtyw applied lynch law to strawberry blondes or whichever kind of red heads they encountered. My precise wording:
quote: Then we have to wonder why Greek authors invented the tale of Egyptians murdering strawberry blonds on sight.
By that its clear I feel that reports of anti-redhead lynching are fantasy without basis unlike what A.B.E. thinks I was saying:
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert: Altakuri is correct in the fact that red haired people were killed on sight ...
When, where, and by whom did this myth arise? Well I was wrong to lay it at the feet of the Greeks. It appears in many books that assume it was a Greek observation. The fact appears that Montesquieu (Spirit of Laws XV.5, 1748) fabricates "they put to death all the red-haired men who fell into their hands" without citing any reference, and this has been repeated and amplified ever since.
But what do we actually have from the Greco-Latin authors? Nothing backing that ALL redheads were lynched on sight nor that ALL redheads in KM.t were put to death.
quote: "Now Osiris and Isis changed from good minor deities into gods. But the power of Typhon, weakened and crushed, but still fighting and struggling against extinction, they try to console and mollify by certain sacrifices; but again there are times when, at certain festivals, they humiliate and insult him by assailing red-headed men with jeering, and by throwing an ass over the edge of a precipice, as the people of Kopto do, because Typhon had red hair and in color resembled an ass"
. . . .
The fact is that in the city of Elethya they used to burn men alive, as Manetho has recorded; they called them Typhonians, and by means of winnowing fans they dissipated and scattered their ashes. But this was performed publicly and at a special time in the dog-days.
Plutarch De Iside et Osiride, § 30 & 73
quote: Men also, if they were the same colour as Typhon, were sacrificed, they say, in ancient times by the kings at the tomb of Osiris; however only a few Egyptians are now found red in colour, but the majority of such are non-Egyptians.
Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheke 1.88.5
These are as about as primary a source as can be found on the practice of dispatching reds in KM.t. Instead of any notion of redheads' immediate lynching in the streets, patient persistent research reveals the possibility of regulated occasional sacrifice of the particularly ruddy and strawberry blond elements among the Reds (and these may have probably been condemned criminals). No racist inspired lawlessness as in the USA not so very long ago.
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
I wasn't implying such an extreme racially motivated "lynching" of redheads man lol so I apologize if you took that the wrong way all I was trying to say is that I have seen the same claim that you did about the redheads thats all man.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote:Nose, cheeks, facial structure..if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you.
This is exactly where it all comes down too, there is no real definition of a black person according to some here. He may have a sharp nose, a hooked nose, a flat nose he may have any type of skull , lips , hair ,his skin ranges from tan - dark, they don't have to consider themselves black, they may even dispise blacks yet according to some here they are in denial . I know africa was the cradle of civilization but to state that all these people are black regardless of facial features else is pure bullshit.
Yes you could argue Europeans are mixed but we share genes , culture and history. This is what makes us a real race, unlike your imaginary no boundry black race.
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:He may have a sharp nose, a hooked nose, a flat nose he may have any type of skull , lips , hair ,his skin ranges from tan - dark, they don't have to consider themselves black, they may even dispise blacks yet according to some here they are in denial . I know africa was the cradle of civilization but to state that all these people are black regardless of facial features else is pure bullshit.
Most folks here use black to mean "tropically adapted, brown-skinned African".
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert:
quote:
What are those features that are so unique to "Asiatics" and absent in indigenous Nile Valley inhabitants?
quote:
Nose, cheeks, facial structure..if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you. If a statue looked like George Clooney in Egypt you would say they were black and no different than Nile valley people lol. You have an Agenda so there is no need for me to get into that with you I would prefer to talk to people like Rasol or Aktruri they seem to be more mature and more intelligent sorry . It really makes no sense for someone to get so upset about a culture that has nothing to do with them especially when we are talking about one man and one man only lol.
quote:
Tell us more about the history and family lines, that speaks of what you are implying.
quote:
What I mean by this is that I agree with the people on this site about multiple disciplines in studying ancient Egypt..genetics, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and most importantly their own history(family lines etc.)
quote:
Please provide the citation you claim I had said the above, cowboy
quote:
When you made the statement about the personality is very "Egyptian" and not "Asiatic" maybe you need to clarify what you mean by that statement because that is what I was refering to.
quote:
based on what? You have yet to still clarify that issue, cowboy
quote:
Based on my testimony!!! This is all egyptology is man, it's more guess work than anything, nothing is in STONE and your claims are no more valid than anyone elses mr. PHD professor lol. Why don't you make a time machine since you are so brilliant and we can all go see for ourselves.
quote:
You implied so, when you said that the man was "more Asiatic than African", which would undoubtedly imply he stood out from an African. As such, we would like to know how, cowboy.
quote:
I don't see how me saying he is an Asiatic Egyptian = "he stands out from other Egyptians" especially in the north. Now I am a Bible and Quran expert and even though I know the books are full of crap there is still some truth to it and when it says that the isrealites looked like "mizrayim" that means they looked like "northern egyptians"(the delta) so I'm sure there wasn't much difference between levant Asiatics and northern Egyptians in appearance(at a glance).
quote:
Has no bearings on the point that physically or culturally, Rameses II was not out of place in the Nile Valley. Matter of fact, I had provided info from the "an x-ray Atlas of mummies" that tells us how so. I would like to see your objective scientific source, that tells us to the contrary, and what qualifiers the responsible author(s) use do to so.
quote:
Again what is YOUR qualifier for being "out of place" was "Bey" out of place? Was "Yuya" out of place? What on earth do you mean by this?!?!? Again you are applying your lowly African American standards in the U.S to Egypt by assuming an Asiatic Egyptian stands out from others just because racism in America makes African Americans stand out. That rationale doesn't work here dude. Keep that negro American crap in negro America and not in ancient Egypt, have some freekin' respect!
quote:
and that has anything to do with Rameses II being an indigenous Egyptian how? Nothing untrue hurts my feelings, not even lame attempts of psycho analysis, unless you feel that like Miss Cleo, you can get a way with it - see where that attitude got her
quote:
I already said Ramses was an Asiatic "Egyptian" There is no telling how long his family line has been in Egypt so as far as using the word "indigenous" that would be a relative term that YOU would need to define and not I. I mean African Americans have been in the U.S.A for up to 400 years...are they indigenous?
quote:
Nothing in my post speaks of "racism", other than getting at the bottom of what you base your assertions on, which at this point, seems to be nothing. Your language tells us that the frustrated fool here, is actually yourself.
quote:
Yes you are VERY racist and most racists never see it which is the whole point of racism in the first place *shrugs*.
quote:
and how do you become royalty by "blood", if not by becoming heir to the throne, because your ancestor had the throne? LOL.
quote:
Example...Abraham Lincoln was not apart of the royal lineage of Euro-American blood lines that control America and he became president after many attempts because of this and then was of course shot!! lol
quote:
This is got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Yes, Rameses was given the seat, and hence, got the throne to rulership. Rameses II is the inheritor of that throne; why should Rameses not be considered "royalty by blood" then? Apparently, the ancient Egyptians had disagreed with your point of view, as the Rameses line was "legitimized".
quote:
This is even dumber than what you claim is dumb lol basically you are saying you can only rule Egypt if you are a royal..so I guess the Greeks, Romans and Persians were Egyptian royals huh smfh lmao!!!!!!!!
quote:
and you wonder why it might be in your best interest to search the archives, to see what we've already discussed, so that you can realize what you are bringing up, is no newsflash to anyone but yourself?
quote:
If it is no newsflash then GREAT!!
quote:
Interesting; Rameses I was "black", but his "son" is somehow supposed to be more "Asiatic than African". So, does this mean that "black" and "African" here are separated; moreover, how does this play out with "Asiatic"?
quote:
Prove to me that Ramses I was Ramses II's "biological" father and not appointed(adopted) father. And when you come back with "prove to me that Ramses I was not Ramses II's "biological" father I will say "see; now you are using your head" lol which proves my point in that nothing is in stone in Egyptology, BUT being as though Ramses I had no Asiatic named offspring and Ramses II did that's a very good reason for my claim of him being Asiatic and I am not the only one saying this and in actuality others have brought this to my attention because of course I like you ASSUMED that Ramses II and the Rameside era were blacks too *shrugs*.
quote:
Why would any Egyptian royalty take in an "Asiatic" woman? Not that it is of anything significant to warrent the yet to be founded idea that Rameses was more "Asiatic than African", but what source tells us that his daughter's name was "canaanite" in origin, or the said personality is his daughter to begin with?
quote:
Umm "Bint-Anath" is canaanite dude lol. This is like me saying what source tells us that Heru/hor the elder is an Egyptian name lmao!!!!!! And speaking of Heru/hor why the hell didn't he name his daughter "daughter" "SITHOR" considering HOR/Heru is the correspondant god of ANATH in Canaan!!!!!!!!! jeeez lol think man think
quote:
What is clear, is that your reasonings seem to be ANTI INTELLECT, because you never provide basis for your claims. With that said, please provide a citation for what you are crediting me for here, if you can handle it.
quote:
I have provided my basis you just choose to not accept them which is FINE and the whole point of discussion *shrugs*
Even though this has been fun I will have to ask you not to respond supercar you are too emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you and I would rather speak to people like Rasol and Aktruri on this. I assume they don't agree with what I say, but they are much more knowledgable about Egypt than you are and much more intelligent, mature and less emotional. So good luck bro no hard feelings.
Bottom line what WE are saying:
The Ramessid dynasty was STARTED as a result of the WEAK foreign relations of the late 18th dynasty (Akhenaten). Prominent generals chose Ramesses I to be king, to STRENGTHEN Egypt AGAINST the foreign incursions of the Asiatics, Libyans and even Kushites. The FOREIGNERS represented CHAOS, and THAT was why the Egyptians identified Set with the FOREIGNERS. However, the ORIGINAL worhship of Set had NOTHING to do with desert dwellers, it was a BALANCING FORCE in nature. Set vs Horus was a MYSTERY cult and by the early dynastic period was FULL of very deep symbolic meaning. Set and Horus are like YIN AND YANG, the twin opposites of good and evil, order and chaos. Horus represented man on a journey to identify with his HIGHER self (Eye of Manu/Eye of Ra), set represented the COUNTER (equal and opposite force-- the dark side) AGAINST such a union. But even beyond that, there was a deeper meaning, in that Set also represented POWERFUL FORCES of the desert, similar to the forces seen in the BIBLE, like the desert sandstorms or the "dust devils" and tornadoes who drove away the ENEMIES of the Isrealites. Therefore, if you want to be ACCURATE, you would look at Set being worhipped in THIS WAY, as a POWERFUL force being used to slay the ENEMIES order and peace in the land of Ra, in other words, the OLD ORIGINAL, NON FOREIGN version of Seth as a powerful protector of the Egyptian state, order and divine harmony (maat) and THEREFORE KINGSHIP and the ROYAL BLOODLINE which COME FROM RA.
Idiots KILL me when they twist the TRUE meaning and purpose of Set worship to make the Egyptians SEEM to be worshipping foreign gods. The ONLY reason the Egyptians came to DESPISE Set was because he was ADOPTED by FOREIGN invaders like the HYKSOS as THEIR patron deity and everyone knows that Egypt was in CHAOS during these times (the first intermediate period). THAT is when Set began to be identified more with EVIL and the FORCES of CHAOS, which makes PERFECT SENSE. This is not a worship of FOREIGNERS, it is a POWERFUL reminder of why FOREIGNERS need to be kept at bay and why the NATIVE BLOOD of the KING was SO IMPORTANT to maintaining ORDER in EGYPT. Therefore, the evil undertones of Set worship would be seen as being SYMBOLIC of the EVIL CHAOS that would reign if ASIATICS and LIBYANS were EVER to overcome the FORCES OF ORDER and MAAT represented by the PHAROAH and his BLOOD RELATIONSHIP to RA and the GODS (from the South). THAT is why the PHAROAH was always seen in the processions of the gods, this is SAYING that he is their SON and ONE OF THEM and PROTECTOR of all that is GOOD and RIGHT.
Therefore, the RAMESSID dynasty represented the REBIRTH and RESSURECTION of Egyptian culture, by RECONNECTING with the TRUE GODS OLD, the GODS of the FOUNDERS and the FORCES OF MAAT. So if the FOREIGNERS represented CHAOS, of COURSE Ramesses II could NOT be seen AS a foreigner. His BLOODLINE HAD to be traced to RA and MAAT and THE OLD GODS (including Set), which COME FROM THE SOUTH, NOT from the ASIATICS! The ASIATICS were the ENEMIES!
Listen to how some others like to TWIST the history of Set worship for their own purposes. http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=2685&sid=9508be65d9c54148150a6e18407f7655 ACCORDING to THESE guys, ALL Gods seem to TRACE to FOREIGN lands, when in reality this ONLY occured during PERIODS of FOREIGN OCCUPATION. The OLD GODS ALWAYS were there and DID NOT ORIGINATE amongst FOREIGNERS. More importantly, MOST originated in the SOUTH of Egypt. So dont let others TWIST the history of Egypt into some GLORIFICATION of FOREIGNERS, especially by the Ramessids, when they were SO BUSY AT WAR WITH THEM, THEIR GODS, THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR CULTURE! I have even heard some go so far as to say that Ramesses was WORHIPPING or celebrating TIES to the HYKSOS by briefly moving the capital city of Egypt to the NORTH. If THAT doesnt show how far some will go to distort the truth, then I dont know what does. The capital was moved to the north for symbolic, political and military purposes, to show that RAMESSES THE GREAT was on guard READY to SMITE the ENEMIES of RA and MAAT (traditionally the role of Set as protector of Ra and slayer of Apep (chaos the ORIGINAL dragon serpent)). He was ON GUARD and to PREVENT another period of CHAOS, like that during the FIP, caused by foreigners like the HYKSOS.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike what are you talking about. Black Africans vary their is not just one look of a black African. Most of the posters on this forum don't use Black like how you are making out to be used. What makes you think of this no boundary black people? just does not make sense. Don't you know that their are some black people who don't consider themselves black? Does not change the fact that they belong to the black race. Whats your point.
Peace
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec:
quote:Nose, cheeks, facial structure..if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you.
This is exactly where it all comes down too, there is no real definition of a black person according to some here. He may have a sharp nose, a hooked nose, a flat nose he may have any type of skull , lips , hair ,his skin ranges from tan - dark, they don't have to consider themselves black, they may even dispise blacks yet according to some here they are in denial . I know africa was the cradle of civilization but to state that all these people are black regardless of facial features else is pure bullshit.
Yes you could argue Europeans are mixed but we share genes , culture and history. This is what makes us a real race, unlike your imaginary no boundry black race.
No we are talking about the FACT that the EGYPTIANS identified THEMSELVES as DARK BROWN, NOT TAN and that MOST portraits of RAMESSES and OTHER RAMESSIDS attest to that FACT. The Egyptians NEVER identified their features, culture or people as BEING ASSOCIATED WITH ASIATICS or ANY OTHER LIGHT SKINNED PEOPLE. Therefore, it is YOU who are DISTORTING things by trying to say we are CREATING a black race in order to LUMP everyone together as black, yet however, you have no problem LUMPING Egyptians with people of LIGHTER complexions, even though the Egyptians themselves NEVER did. So WHO is DISTORTING the facts?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert:
Nose, cheeks, facial structure..
What about the nose; the "hooked"-like figure, I suppose?
What about the cheeks, how "uniquely" Asiatic are they; and this, goes with the facial structure?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you.
Retarded strawmen aren't going to save you. Where can I find a citation for this, that belongs to me?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
If a statue looked like George Clooney in Egypt you would say they were black and no different than Nile valley people lol.
You'll make a good clown at comedy central; I give you that much.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
You have an Agenda so there is no need for me to get into that with you I would prefer to talk to people like Rasol or Aktruri they seem to be more mature and more intelligent sorry .
What agenda would that be Miss Cleo ? But if you feel that Rasol or alTakruri can get you out of the pit you've fallen into, by providing something that supports what you are alledging, I'll be happy to examine the material.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
It really makes no sense for someone to get so upset about a culture that has nothing to do with them especially when we are talking about one man and one man only lol.
I agree cowboy, don't let facts contrary to your delusions, get the best you.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
What I mean by this is that I agree with the people on this site about multiple disciplines in studying ancient Egypt..genetics, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and most importantly their own history(family lines etc.)
...a multidiscipline that you haven't produced a shred of. LOL.
Blowing hot air, isn't scholarship. Lol.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
When you made the statement about the personality is very "Egyptian" and not "Asiatic" maybe you need to clarify what you mean by that statement because that is what I was refering to.
Cowboy, surely you are not saying that your claim of Rameses II being more "Asiatic than African" equates with my saying that Rameses II was "Egyptian"; you are not that dense, are you? LOL.
Come on, tell us then, what you meant.
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
Based on my testimony!!!
Please tell me that this has got to be one of your petty jokes - right?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
This is all egyptology is man, it's more guess work than anything, nothing is in STONE and your claims are no more valid than anyone elses mr. PHD professor lol.
I certainly back my claims via reputable and objective sources. Where are your "mutidisciplinary" sources, that you bragged about earlier, Mr. cowboy?
If you don't have that bro, then surely you aren't delusional enough to think that we are on the same level here, do you?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Why don't you make a time machine since you are so brilliant and we can all go see for ourselves.
Have you lost it altogether, or is this supposed to have some bearing on the discussion at hand? LOL.
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
I don't see how me saying he is an Asiatic Egyptian = "he stands out from other Egyptians" especially in the north.
So, you don't see how saying Rameses was more "Asiatic than African", supposed to imply he stood out from 'indigenous' Nile Valley inhabitants?
So, is it safe to say that you don't know that "indigenous" Nile Valley inhabitants are "Africans"? But should you claim to be aware that these folks were "African", but that the "Asiatics" didn't stand out from them, is it safe to then say that, you were not in your right mind, when you claimed that Rameses II was more "Asiatic than African" - since you haven't been able to discern the two for us here?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Now I am a Bible and Quran expert and even though I know the books are full of crap there is still some truth to it and when it says that the isrealites looked like "mizrayim" that means they looked like "northern egyptians"(the delta) so I'm sure there wasn't much difference between levant Asiatics and northern Egyptians in appearance(at a glance).
Well, Bible dude, see my post above. If you can't dilineate the two, what basis do you have for your earlier claim?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Again what is YOUR qualifier for being "out of place" was "Bey" out of place?
Makes no sense, Bible dude, since it was you who made the claim that Rameses II was more "Asiatic than African", and yet not able to demonstrate this with any sense of coherency.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Was "Yuya" out of place? What on earth do you mean by this?!?!?
You tell me, since this is your strawman - the relevance of which, has yet to be determined, as far as your obligation in substantiating your bizarre claims about Rameses II are concerned.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Again you are applying your lowly African American standards in the U.S to Egypt by assuming an Asiatic Egyptian stands out from others just because racism in America makes African Americans stand out.
Well, "CIA expert", your intell gathering is making a big fool out of you, since apparently, you have no clue who I am, much less where I am from. Your lowly brain isn't doing you much good, now is it?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
That rationale doesn't work here dude. Keep that negro American crap in negro America and not in ancient Egypt, have some freekin' respect!
What rationale of yours has made any sense here? Keep "supernatural" superstitution baloney within your crack pot circles, and have some "freekin' respect', man. Such doesn't substitute for "scholarship".
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
I already said Ramses was an Asiatic "Egyptian" There is no telling how long his family line has been in Egypt so as far as using the word "indigenous" that would be a relative term that YOU would need to define and not I.
I use "indigenous" in terms of, being a product of the "original" Nile Valley inhabitants, as supported by cranial analysis. See, I have a clear and concise direction for my thoughts. Now, let us see material in support of your claim that Rameses was more "Asiatic than African".
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
I mean African Americans have been in the U.S.A for up to 400 years...are they indigenous?
You tell me? and also what bearings this has on our discussion on Rameses, bible dude"!
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Yes you are VERY racist and most racists never see it which is the whole point of racism in the first place *shrugs*.
...and yes, you are a TRUE classic troll. Trolls like you seem to think that they have a sense of direction - they just don't get it that, their futile diversion antics only fool themselves and no one else. LOL.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Example...Abraham Lincoln was not apart of the royal lineage of Euro-American blood lines that control America and he became president after many attempts because of this and then was of course shot!! lol
Have lost your marbles? What has any of this senseless jabbering to do with the issue at hand, and your obligation to support your fantastic claims about Rameses II?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
This is even dumber than what you claim is dumb lol
Demonstrate this to us, as you haven't done so.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
basically you are saying you can only rule Egypt if you are a royal..so I guess the Greeks, Romans and Persians were Egyptian royals huh smfh lmao!!!!!!!!
A citation of where I made that claim please! Thank you.
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
Prove to me that Ramses I was Ramses II's "biological" father and not appointed(adopted) father.
Where have you mentally been, when cranial data on the Rameses line was provided?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
And when you come back with "prove to me that Ramses I was not Ramses II's "biological" father I will say "see; now you are using your head" lol which proves my point in that nothing is in stone in Egyptology, BUT being as though Ramses I had no Asiatic named offspring and Ramses II did that's a very good reason for my claim of him being Asiatic and I am not the only one saying this and in actuality others have brought this to my attention because of course I like you ASSUMED that Ramses II and the Rameside era were blacks too *shrugs*.
Where is documentation of Rameses II's daughter being "Asiatic"?
I leave that art of making "assumptions" to you; but more importantly, I'd like to substantiation for any of your claims, which you have produced none at this point.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Umm "Bint-Anath" is canaanite dude lol. This is like me saying what source tells us that Heru/hor the elder is an Egyptian name lmao!!!!!! And speaking of Heru/hor why the hell didn't he name his daughter "daughter" "SITHOR" considering HOR/Heru is the correspondant god of ANATH in Canaan!!!!!!!!! jeeez lol think man think
Supposing that "Bint-Anath" is "canaanite", how does this support fantastic claim about Rameses II being more "Asiatic than African"?
quote: African_Bible_Expert:
I have provided my basis you just choose to not accept them which is FINE and the whole point of discussion *shrugs*
which was...?
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
Even though this has been fun I will have to ask you not to respond supercar you are too emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you and I would rather speak to people like Rasol and Aktruri on this.
Hey, if asking you simple questions for which you have no answers, sounds "emotional", then so be it.
I suppose you think that Rasol or alTakruri will produce material for your comical claims, or turn a blind eye to it. Like I said, if either of them have material that supports your position, that you couldn't materially uphold yourself, I will be more than happy to examine that material.
quote:African_Bible_Expert:
I assume they don't agree with what I say, but they are much more knowledgable about Egypt than you are and much more intelligent, mature and less emotional. So good luck bro no hard feelings.
...why, because they didn't bother to call you out on your comical claims as I have done?
"School-girl" cheerleading and emotional rantings aside, I look forward to your yet to be seen "scholarly", and not your "superstitious" rationale to the issue at hand, substantiation to your bizarre claims. Remember, you will be treated at the intellectual level you present yourself. If you feel that I'm being less mature to you, that is because this is how you are projecting yourself. No hard feelings, bro. Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
quote:
Bottom line what WE are saying:
The Ramessid dynasty was STARTED as a result of the WEAK foreign relations of the late 18th dynasty (Akhenaten). Prominent generals chose Ramesses I to be king, to STRENGTHEN Egypt AGAINST the foreign incursions of the Asiatics, Libyans and even Kushites. The FOREIGNERS represented CHAOS, and THAT was why the Egyptians identified Set with the FOREIGNERS. However, the ORIGINAL worhship of Set had NOTHING to do with desert dwellers, it was a BALANCING FORCE in nature. Set vs Horus was a MYSTERY cult and by the early dynastic period was FULL of very deep symbolic meaning. Set and Horus are like YIN AND YANG, the twin opposites of good and evil, order and chaos. Horus represented man on a journey to identify with his HIGHER self (Eye of Manu/Eye of Ra), set represented the COUNTER (equal and opposite force-- the dark side) AGAINST such a union. But even beyond that, there was a deeper meaning, in that Set also represented POWERFUL FORCES of the desert, similar to the forces seen in the BIBLE, like the desert sandstorms or the "dust devils" and tornadoes who drove away the ENEMIES of the Isrealites. Therefore, if you want to be ACCURATE, you would look at Set being worhipped in THIS WAY, as a POWERFUL force being used to slay the ENEMIES order and peace in the land of Ra, in other words, the OLD ORIGINAL, NON FOREIGN version of Seth as a powerful protector of the Egyptian state, order and divine harmony (maat) and THEREFORE KINGSHIP and the ROYAL BLOODLINE which COME FROM RA.
Idiots KILL me when they twist the TRUE meaning and purpose of Set worship to make the Egyptians SEEM to be worshipping foreign gods. The ONLY reason the Egyptians came to DESPISE Set was because he was ADOPTED by FOREIGN invaders like the HYKSOS as THEIR patron deity and everyone knows that Egypt was in CHAOS during these times (the first intermediate period). THAT is when Set began to be identified more with EVIL and the FORCES of CHAOS, which makes PERFECT SENSE. This is not a worship of FOREIGNERS, it is a POWERFUL reminder of why FOREIGNERS need to be kept at bay and why the NATIVE BLOOD of the KING was SO IMPORTANT to maintaining ORDER in EGYPT. Therefore, the evil undertones of Set worship would be seen as being SYMBOLIC of the EVIL CHAOS that would reign if ASIATICS and LIBYANS were EVER to overcome the FORCES OF ORDER and MAAT represented by the PHAROAH and his BLOOD RELATIONSHIP to RA and the GODS (from the South). THAT is why the PHAROAH was always seen in the processions of the gods, this is SAYING that he is their SON and ONE OF THEM and PROTECTOR of all that is GOOD and RIGHT.
Therefore, the RAMESSID dynasty represented the REBIRTH and RESSURECTION of Egyptian culture, by RECONNECTING with the TRUE GODS OLD, the GODS of the FOUNDERS and the FORCES OF MAAT. So if the FOREIGNERS represented CHAOS, of COURSE Ramesses II could NOT be seen AS a foreigner. His BLOODLINE HAD to be traced to RA and MAAT and THE OLD GODS (including Set), which COME FROM THE SOUTH, NOT from the ASIATICS! The ASIATICS were the ENEMIES!
Listen to how some others like to TWIST the history of Set worship for their own purposes. http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=2685&sid=9508be65d9c54148150a6e18407f7655 ACCORDING to THESE guys, ALL Gods seem to TRACE to FOREIGN lands, when in reality this ONLY occured during PERIODS of FOREIGN OCCUPATION. The OLD GODS ALWAYS were there and DID NOT ORIGINATE amongst FOREIGNERS. More importantly, MOST originated in the SOUTH of Egypt. So dont let others TWIST the history of Egypt into some GLORIFICATION of FOREIGNERS, especially by the Ramessids, when they were SO BUSY AT WAR WITH THEM, THEIR GODS, THEIR PEOPLE AND THEIR CULTURE! I have even heard some go so far as to say that Ramesses was WORHIPPING or celebrating TIES to the HYKSOS by briefly moving the capital city of Egypt to the NORTH. If THAT doesnt show how far some will go to distort the truth, then I dont know what does. The capital was moved to the north for symbolic, political and military purposes, to show that RAMESSES THE GREAT was on guard READY to SMITE the ENEMIES of RA and MAAT (traditionally the role of Set as protector of Ra and slayer of Apep (chaos the ORIGINAL dragon serpent)). He was ON GUARD and to PREVENT another period of CHAOS, like that during the FIP, caused by foreigners like the HYKSOS.
quote:
Again, this long drawn out post has nothing to do with what I am talking about man lol so relax
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike if this is all about Ancient Egypt then yes you can say they were Black. They did not depict themselves like Libyans or Asiatics. dark/reddish brown is considered black. I hope this was what you were talking about because what you said about Black People made no sense.
Peace
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert:
What about the nose; the "hooked"-like figure, I suppose? What about the cheeks, how "uniquely" Asiatic are they; and this, goes with the facial structure?
if you want to make everyone "possibly" black then there is no way for me to stop you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retarded strawmen aren't going to save you. Where can I find a citation for this, that belongs to me?
If a statue looked like George Clooney in Egypt you would say they were black and no different than Nile valley people lol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll make a good clown at comedy central; I give you that much.
You have an Agenda so there is no need for me to get into that with you I would prefer to talk to people like Rasol or Aktruri they seem to be more mature and more intelligent sorry . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What agenda would that be Miss Cleo ? But if you feel that Rasol or alTakruri can get you out of the pit you've fallen into, by providing something that supports what you are alledging, I'll be happy to examine the material.
It really makes no sense for someone to get so upset about a culture that has nothing to do with them especially when we are talking about one man and one man only lol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree cowboy, don't let facts contrary to your delusions, get the best you.
What I mean by this is that I agree with the people on this site about multiple disciplines in studying ancient Egypt..genetics, anthropology, linguistics, archeology and most importantly their own history(family lines etc.) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...a multidiscipline that you haven't produced a shred of. LOL.
When you made the statement about the personality is very "Egyptian" and not "Asiatic" maybe you need to clarify what you mean by that statement because that is what I was refering to. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cowboy, surely you are not saying that your claim of Rameses II being more "Asiatic than African" equates with my saying that Rameses II was "Egyptian"; you are not that dense, are you? LOL.
This is all egyptology is man, it's more guess work than anything, nothing is in STONE and your claims are no more valid than anyone elses mr. PHD professor lol. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certainly back my claims via reputable and objective sources. Where are your "mutidisciplinary" sources, that you bragged about earlier, Mr. cowboy?
If you don't have that bro, then surely you aren't delusional enough to think that we are on the same level here, do you?
Why don't you make a time machine since you are so brilliant and we can all go see for ourselves. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you lost it altogether, or is this supposed to have some bearing on the discussion at hand? LOL.
I don't see how me saying he is an Asiatic Egyptian = "he stands out from other Egyptians" especially in the north. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you don't see how saying Rameses was more "Asiatic than African", supposed to imply he stood out from 'indigenous' Nile Valley inhabitants?
So, is it safe to say that you don't know that "indigenous" Nile Valley inhabitants are "Africans"? But should you claim to be aware that these folks were "African", but that the "Asiatics" didn't stand out from them, is it safe to then say that, you were not in your right mind, when you claimed that Rameses II was more "Asiatic than African" - since you haven't been able to discern the two for us here?
Now I am a Bible and Quran expert and even though I know the books are full of crap there is still some truth to it and when it says that the isrealites looked like "mizrayim" that means they looked like "northern egyptians"(the delta) so I'm sure there wasn't much difference between levant Asiatics and northern Egyptians in appearance(at a glance). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, Bible dude, see my post above. If you can't dilineate the two, what basis do you have for your earlier claim?
Again what is YOUR qualifier for being "out of place" was "Bey" out of place? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes no sense, Bible dude, since it was you who made the claim that Rameses II was more "Asiatic than African", and yet not able to demonstrate this with any sense of coherency.
Was "Yuya" out of place? What on earth do you mean by this?!?!? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me, since this is your strawman - the relevance of which, has yet to be determined, as far as your obligation in substantiating your bizzare claims about Rameses II are concerned.
Again you are applying your lowly African American standards in the U.S to Egypt by assuming an Asiatic Egyptian stands out from others just because racism in America makes African Americans stand out. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, "CIA expert", your intell gathering is making a big fool out of you, since apparently, you have no clue who I am, much less where I am from. Your lowly brain isn't doing you much good, now is it?
That rationale doesn't work here dude. Keep that negro American crap in negro America and not in ancient Egypt, have some freekin' respect! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What rationale of yours has made any sense here? Keep "supernatural" superstitution baloney within your crack pot circles, and have some "freekin' respect', man. Such doesn't substitute for "scholarship".
I already said Ramses was an Asiatic "Egyptian" There is no telling how long his family line has been in Egypt so as far as using the word "indigenous" that would be a relative term that YOU would need to define and not I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use "indigenous" in terms of, being a product of the "original" Nile Valley inhabitants, as supported by cranial analysis. See, I have a clear and concise direction for my thoughts. Now, let us see material in support of your claim that Rameses was more "Asiatic than African".
I mean African Americans have been in the U.S.A for up to 400 years...are they indigenous? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me? and also what bearings this has on our discussion on Rameses, bible dude"!
Yes you are VERY racist and most racists never see it which is the whole point of racism in the first place *shrugs*. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and yes, you are a TRUE classic troll. Trolls like you seem to think that they have a sense of direction - they just don't get it that, their futile diversion antics only fool themselves and no one else. LOL.
Example...Abraham Lincoln was not apart of the royal lineage of Euro-American blood lines that control America and he became president after many attempts because of this and then was of course shot!! lol --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have lost your marbles? What has any of this senseless jabbering to do with the issue at hand, and your obligation to support your fantastic claims about Rameses II?
basically you are saying you can only rule Egypt if you are a royal..so I guess the Greeks, Romans and Persians were Egyptian royals huh smfh lmao!!!!!!!! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A citation of where I made that claim please! Thank you.
Prove to me that Ramses I was Ramses II's "biological" father and not appointed(adopted) father. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where have you mentally been, when cranial data on the Rameses line was provided?
And when you come back with "prove to me that Ramses I was not Ramses II's "biological" father I will say "see; now you are using your head" lol which proves my point in that nothing is in stone in Egyptology, BUT being as though Ramses I had no Asiatic named offspring and Ramses II did that's a very good reason for my claim of him being Asiatic and I am not the only one saying this and in actuality others have brought this to my attention because of course I like you ASSUMED that Ramses II and the Rameside era were blacks too *shrugs*. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where is documentation of Rameses II's daughter being "Asiatic"?
I leave that art of making "assumptions" to you; but more importantly, I'd like to substantiation for any of your claims, which you have produced none at this point.
Umm "Bint-Anath" is canaanite dude lol. This is like me saying what source tells us that Heru/hor the elder is an Egyptian name lmao!!!!!! And speaking of Heru/hor why the hell didn't he name his daughter "daughter" "SITHOR" considering HOR/Heru is the correspondant god of ANATH in Canaan!!!!!!!!! jeeez lol think man think --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supposing that "Bint-Anath" is "canaanite", how does this support fantastic claim about Rameses II being more "Asiatic than African"?
I have provided my basis you just choose to not accept them which is FINE and the whole point of discussion *shrugs* --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though this has been fun I will have to ask you not to respond supercar you are too emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you and I would rather speak to people like Rasol and Aktruri on this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, if asking you simple questions for which you have no answers, sounds "emotional", then so be it.
I suppose you think that Rasol or alTakruri will produce material for your comical claims, or turn a blind eye to it. Like I said, if either of them have material that supports your position, that you couldn't materially uphold yourself, I will be more than happy to examine that material.
I assume they don't agree with what I say, but they are much more knowledgable about Egypt than you are and much more intelligent, mature and less emotional. So good luck bro no hard feelings. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...why, because they didn't bother to call you out on your comical claims as I have done?
"School-girl" cheerleading and emotional rantings aside, I look forward to your yet to be seen "scholarly", and not your "superstitious" rationale to the issue at hand, to your bizzare claims. Remember, you will be treated at the intellectual level you present yourself. If you feel that I'm being less mature to you, that is because this is how you are projecting yourself. No hard feelings, bro.
quote:
MAAAAN!!!! lmao look at how crazy this clown is. Like I said dude case in point you are TOO emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you all based on one little issue about the race of one MAN!! smh and you obviously don't comprehend well I told you that I will discuss this with more mature educated and less emotional people i.e Rasol and Aktruri..DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT RESPOND!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec: This is exactly where it all comes down too, there is no real definition of a black person according to some here. He may have a sharp nose, a hooked nose, a flat nose he may have any type of skull , lips , hair ,his skin ranges from tan -dark,...
Actually there is a real definition of a 'black person'. 'Black' is in reference to skin color, specifically very dark skin coloring. The complexions may vary but they are usually found among peoples living in tropical to subtropical climates (and such populations are NOT confined to Africa).
As far as other features are concerned, they have no relevance to 'black'. But ironically we understand your skepticism since 'whites'/Europeans have done the EXACT SAME thing with regards to their imaginary and very loose definition of "caucasoid" race. It wasn't enough to say that Europeans or those around the Caucasus area were "caucasians" but they included practically everyone in the world with long narrow faces and long narrow noses. This meant everyone from Middle Easterners to Africans, to Indians, to Polynesians, and Native Americans etc.
Indigenous 'black' peoples do in fact span the globe again mostly around the tropical latitudes, but nobody said all blacks were Africans. Ancient Egyptians like Nubians were/are indigenous (black) Africans', plain and simple.
quote:...they don't have to consider themselves black, they may even dispise blacks yet according to some here they are in denial
So you are saying that psychopathic, Arab-wannabe, northern Sudanese who have jet-black complexions and are much darker than the average 'black' Westerner, are somehow not black?!!
I don't know who's in more denial, they or YOU??
quote:I know africa was the cradle of civilization but to state that all these people are black regardless of facial features else is pure bullshit.
You keep forgetting that Africa wasn't just the cradle of civilization, it was the cradle of HUMANITY itself!
That said, I don't know why it is so hard for you to believe that indigenous (BLACK) Africans can vary greatly in facial features--- YOU, the same person who pleads that he does not stereotype Africans "into one phenotype"!!
So what do you call these Africans who somehow fall outside the "range" of features that you're used to; white?!!
I suppose this Egyptian man below isn't really 'black' but a white guy with a very baked looking tan?!!
*sigh*
quote:Yes you could argue Europeans are mixed but we share genes , culture and history. This is what makes us a real race, unlike your imaginary no boundry black race.
All indigenous Africans share genes also as denoted by the PN2 cladistic family in the Y-chromosome, mtDNA cladistic family, and various automsomal DNA.
Although the cultures of Africa are much greater and diverse than Europe, there is a commonality to them with common themes and features. A perfect example would be Egypt itself! Egypt has tons more in common culturally to Nigeria than to Mesopotamia, despite the distance between them!!
As far as history, all Africans share a prehistoric biological and cultural history and a more recent written historical connection through European domination and imperialism.
Does this answer your queries??!!
Feel free to ask any specifics about the above and we will be glad to enlighten you and do away with any ignorant misperceptions and misconceptions you have.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by African_Bible_Expert:
MAAAAN!!!! lmao look at how crazy this clown is. Like I said dude case in point you are TOO emotional about a culture that has nothing to do with you all based on one little issue about the race of one MAN!! smh and you obviously don't comprehend well I told you that I will discuss this with more mature educated and less emotional people i.e Rasol and Aktruri..DO NOT I REPEAT DO NOT RESPOND!
bible clown, where are your answers to the simple questions, concerning your bizarre claim about Rameses II? If someone here can recue you, by providing material for you, I'll be happy to confront it. There is no need to continue with these cowardly school-girl cheerleading antics; take off your skirt, and be a man! Trolling just adds more injury to sub-intelligence - don't continue to punish yourself like this. Lol.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
African Bible Expert you just came to this forum and already your making a bad name for yourself. If you can prove what you say I don't see why you don't answer Supercars questions. If Ramses 2 was Asiatic like you say then it should be easy to prove this. So far you have not proven nothing. Ramses 2 was an indeginous African who worshipped Set He was not a Asiatic.
Peace
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
If Ramses 2 was Asiatic like you say then it should be easy to prove this. So far you have not proven nothing.
...but cry like a little school girl, and hope that we will feel sorry enough to let her off the hook.
Posted by MichaelFromQuebec (Member # 10907) on :
quote: Mike if this is all about Ancient Egypt then yes you can say they were Black. They did not depict themselves like Libyans or Asiatics. dark/reddish brown is considered black . I hope this was what you were talking about because what you said about Black People made no sense.
The Egyptians also clearly depicted themselves different from the nubians.
This is why I think the egyptians may be a breed between asiatics and nubians.
Are you really trying to convince me this person is black?
Is this one black too?
quote:So you are saying that psychopathic, Arab-wannabe, northern Sudanese who have jet-black complexions and are much darker than the average 'black' Westerner, are somehow not black?!!
Since when do Northern Sudanese have jet black skin? It may not be ovious to you but given their ancestors were black as tar they must be mixed.
quote: That said, I don't know why it is so hard for you to believe that indigenous (BLACK) Africans can vary greatly in facial features--- YOU, the same person who pleads that he does not stereotype Africans "into one phenotype"!!
So what do you call these Africans who somehow fall outside the "range" of features that you're used to; white?!!
Since when is the world black and white?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by MichaelFromQuebec:
This is why I think the egyptians may be a breed between asiatics and nubians.
And this is why I think you are not in a position to make that statement:
Real thing....
Repro...
quote:MichaelFromQuebec:
Are you really trying to convince me this person is black?
The aim I believe, is not to "convince" you, but for your eyes to "see" what you can't "internally" deny. Both you and I know that this guy far too removed from being a "leucoderm", i.e. "White".
quote: Is this one black too?
Good try with the strawman. Now, let's get back to the issue at hand.
quote:MichaelFromQuebec:
Since when do Northern Sudanese have jet black skin? It may not be ovious to you but given their ancestors were black as tar they must be mixed.
...which is based on a scientific source...?...which also states that, there was a homogenous group living in the upper Nile Valley?
quote:MichaelFromQuebec:
Since when is the world black and white?
...ever since levels of melanin determined it! You probably don't have to be retold that "Leucoderms" have little melanin, while "melanoderms" show visible amounts, do you? With that said, what is your basis for creating a "single race" out of Europeans, despite apparent variations physically, genetically and culturally?
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
To king
I told this psycho not to respond to me anymore he is too immature what part of that do you not understand..I will be glad to discuss this with anyone else that is sensable and mature, but not that idiot. It's not that serious, but the guy really has racial issues.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Mike
Thanks for answering but I think your wrong about Egyptians. They were not a blend of Nubians and Asiatics. The Ancient Egyptians were like the Nubians indeginous Nile Valley people. They did not look like Asiatics they looked like Black Africans. And also not all Nubians were depicted as different. Some of the Nubian groups were depicted as similar like these people.
As you can see some of the Nubian groups are depicted with the same Reddish Brown color like the Egyptians. Their is also times when the Egyptians painted other Africans the same color as them like the people from Punt.:
So you can see that the Egyptians were an Indeginous African people who did not make themselves to look like Asiatics. They depicted themselves like other Africans
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
African Bible Expert
Calling people names is not going to change the fact that you have not answered even one of Supercar's question. Does this mean you don't have anything to offer up. You said that Ramses 2 was a Asiatic, I would like to see what info you have that would prove what Supercar said wrong. Also why does Supercar have to be an Idiot he has proven himself in every debate he has been in. Your the new person to this forum you have not proven nothing. You made a statement and you should back it up.
Peace
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
Calling people names is not going to change the fact that you have not answered even one of Supercar's question.
Indeed King. The guy was given an oppurtunity to come up with sensible feedbacks for the questions which were "legitimately" posed to him/her based on his/her assertions, at a high standard of discourse, i.e. without attacking his/her person; instead he/she comes right back at his/her questioner with extremely uneducated vagabond/street-wanderer like name calling antics, only to then have the audacity to ask that he/she be treated like a grown up, much less an intelligent being.
I have erased my last comment, simply because I hate to see the thread being wasted on his/her last sub-intelligent remarks against me - but make no mistake, as much as I think it is pathetic, if pushed, I will have to deal with this character at the lowest possible intellectual level, according to our first impression of this newbie.
Posted by African_Bible_Expert (Member # 10953) on :
To king
What does supercunt have to do with you? If you want to ask you can just ask me man I have no problem talking to you about it. I have him igged because I read this forum for over a month before I posted and I see this slave descendant nigger's nature and have exposed him for the racist he is. At any rate here is my reasoning for Ramses II being an Asiatic Egyptian
1. He was from the akhmin military family and many of those positions were held by asiatics especially in the north due to the proximaty of the north to the levant.
2. He has many statues in Egypt and he look just as Asiatic as many Hyksos statues/relics during their era and it's not just the hooked nose it's everything.
3. He was a Set worshiper which during his time was associated with people of the desert and or foreigners.(and no I am not I repeat not saying he was a foreigner)
4. HIs daughter had a canaanite(asiatic) name
5. He was not a Royal by blood
6. What better person to defeat Asiatics and other foreigners than an Asiatic(think intelligence the same way the southern Egyptians were usually the ones defeating and defending against Nubians again think: Military intelligence)
7. There were many Asiatics with high positions in Egypt and he seemed to be the best one to take the next step into ruling as an Asiatic Egyptian.
This is my testimony for my position@king which is all anyone studying Ancient Egypt is going to have. As far as all that cutting and pasting this source or that source..when it all comes down to it that doesn't matter because we are not in court and people like Horemheb have proven that we can DENY anything we want to regardless of what someone thinks is "evidence" or a "credible source". So, intellect and reasoning is the methodology, but don't get me wrong, references and sources are needed for discernment, but alot of times people use it like the Bible no pun intended lol and we ALL know that Europeans have the upper hand in "references and sources" so by default, positivism, numbers, interest and MIGHT the Europeans would win outright and therefore Egypt would be white as snow. Do you understand me better king?
Posted by Underpants Man (Member # 3735) on :
quote:What does supercunt have to do with you? If you want to ask you can just ask me man I have no problem talking to you about it. I have him igged because I read this forum for over a month before I posted and I see this slave descendant nigger's nature and have exposed him for the racist he is.
For someone who accuses supercar of racism, you have few qualms about using racist slurs, don't you?
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
A.B.E.
It is nice of you to provide "facts", but these facts need proving:
1. Where is the proof? I hear people say this ALL the time, but NO proof. HOw come MOST of the NOBLE and ELITE tombs of military and other officials from the 19th dynasty do NOT look ASIATIC? Why does one have to be ASIATIC to be an officer in a NATIVE Egyptian dynasty. There were periods and DYNASTIES where foreigners did invade, conquer and take KEY positions of leadership in Egypt. HOwever, that does NOT mean you can make BLANKET statements like, ALL or MOST, or MANY positions in the NOrth were populated by ASIATICS. It is DOGMA to make such claims, especially with NO PROOF. Name 1 general, high official, steward OR ANYTHING from the late 18th dynasty who was an ASIATIC.
HOremheb and AYE were the two most powerful military men in Egypt in the late 18th dynasty. I said earlier, that they chose to select a NEW KING because of the WEAKNESS that had come about in foreign affairs during Akhenaten's reign. They therefore needed to find someone who would be STRONG and represent MAAT as the slayer of the enemies of Ra (chaos) (THE ORIGINAL ROLE AND SYMBOL OF SET). Therefore, why would HOremheb or Aye choose NON EGYPTIANS to lead a new dynasty? Especially to try and RESTORE the glory of the Egyptian kingdom, to the status of the OLD Egyptian kingdoms, kingdoms PRIOR to the chaos of the time when Egypt was ruled by ASIATICS? Therefore, you must understand that Egypt as a whole and politically, at the time of the beginning of the Ramessids, was very much looking at the Asiatics as a THREAT and ENEMY that MUST be stopped at all costs. Stories like the Prophecy of Neferti tell the story of where the Egyptians TRADITIONALLY looked for leadership in times of crisis. Therefore, if you are going to go by Egyptian tradition and culture, it would be FITTING that they would choose someone from the SOUTH or blood from the South, the traditional home and origin of the "glorious" bloodlines of old, the gods and Egyptian culture. Blanket statements about ASIATICS are nothing more than strawman arguments that contradict the fact that Egyptians were FIERCELY proud of their ETHNICITY and HERITAGE and would NOT have so EASILY allowed an ASIATIC to be king, ESPECIALLY at a time when ASIATICS were seen as a threat.
On top of that, the GARRISONS in the NORTH were manned by the MEDJAY! The Egyptians themselves, in the year 400 stela, a document that traces the familial history of the early Ramessid dynasty, says POINT BLANK that the Ramessids were associated with the SOUTH and were NOT asiatics. It explicitly states that Ramesses I was "champion of the MEDJAY" and "a NUBTI" (person from Nubt, in the South the home of predynastic Set worship). Therefore, to make arguments like "We all know that ASIATICS were often..." is garbage. How about using the FACTS of the time to make any "guesses" about the past. You are making guesses based on hollow facts with NOTHING to back it up. All of the scenes representing battles during the Ramessid dynasty depict Egyptians in the DARK BROWN color that were ALWAYS used to represent Egyptians. Prior to that there were no GENERALS or high officials in the late 18th dynasty that were KNOWN to be ASIATIC.
Generals from the late 18th dynasty: Aye
Horemheb
Ramesses I:
Seti I:
(Ramesses IIs father)
Now other than the fact that Ramesses IIs tomb is SEVERELY damaged as well as MOST of his images, it is not easy to find FULLY painted scenes depicting him. HOWEVER, NOTHING from the time either in the late 18th dynasty or early 19th dynasty, would support the idea of the Ramessids being anything other than PURE Egyptians and NOT asiatics.
quote: Year 400, the fourth month of the season of Shammu, the fourth day of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, Seth-Great-of-valor, son of Re whom he loves, Nubti [11], beloved by Re-Hor-akhty, may he live for ever.
The Regent came, the mayor of the town, the vizier, the fanbearer on the right hand of the King [7], the leader of the bowmen, the chief of the archers, the governor of the fortress of Tjarw [8], the great of Medjay [9], the royal scribe, the administrative officer of the chariotry
This is the stela that has been OFTEN quoted that provides the basis of our knowledge of the Early 19th dynasty. Note how there is NOTHING that references ANYTHING in Ramesses I, Seti I or Ramesses II being affiliated with ASIATICS. In fact it CLEARLY associates them with NUBIANS (the Nubti "man from the GOLDEN CITY", a NUBIAN). Set worship was CLEARLY associated with NUBIANS. Set worship originated in the SOUTH of Egypt in the town of NUBT in predynastic times. Therefore, to talk about Set worship being "FOREIGN" to Egypt or only worshipped by people with FOREIGN blood is PURE NONSENSE. The Ramessids were about as PURE Egyptian as you could get, worshipping one of the ORIGINAL dieties that sprang from the South of Egypt, the HOME of the "great shining ones", great god kings of old. The year 400 stela ITSELF says that. Therefore, you cannot STATE that the Ramessid dynasty is ASIATIC, since there is NO PROOF of it. THOSE are facts backed up by EVIDENCE and THOSE are the KINDS of things you NEED to show to proove the ASIATIC heritage of the 19th dynasty. There IS no evidence to that effect.
I feel that it is ODD how there are NO SURVIVING painted reliefs of the GREATEST pharoah in Egyptian history to have survived, when ALL THE OTHERS around him did. Either way, none of his OTHER BLOOD relatives were depicted as ASIATICS, so HOW does Ramesses II become an ASIATIC?
Therefore, all that other stuff you posted is PURE speculation, but BIASED, since it GOES AGAINST the available EVIDENCE to make an ASSERTION that CONTRADICTS HISTORY, especially during the time of the Ramessids. Indeed, ASIATICS did become PREEMINENT in various roles later in the New Kingdom, and WHAT HAPPENED? Egypt COLLAPSED, fell into another period of CHAOS (the third intermediate period) and was overrun by foreigners. THEREFORE, ASIATICS were NOT REPRESENTATIVES of MAAT and NOT the protectors of Re (as Set worshippers) and therefore NOT connected to the GODS and therefore NOT LEGITIMATE RULERS OF EGYPT. How come you OVERLOOK what happened to Egypt when run by ASIATICS but instead CHOOSE to GLORIFY their presence, when it was THAT PRESENCE that caused Egypts downfall? THAT is what I mean by GOING AGAINST history to make and ASSERTION.
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
As much as I would like to play little name calling games with the low-life form, out of respect for other posters, I'll refrain from such. Of course, this won't change the fact that the troll has offered nothing of substance for the comical claim that Rameses is more "Asiatic than African". Why waste time with an insignificant troll - it is not worth it. Posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE (Member # 9831) on :
african bible expert is not an african! but a fake
he uses the ''hey i'm african 2'' card as an excuse to take ramses II away from black africa and give it to the asiatics
then he tries to play divide and conquer by praising 2 respectable posters and dissing another respectable poster with his trolling
he still hasn't delivered any evidence to back up his claims other than pathetic insults and racial slurs
''the red hair thing''
i've seen two interesting explainations
one
that he might like many africans died his hair with henna
second
that when they were doing test on him the chemicals they were using might have change his original hair colour
the people who disagreed with these two points still haven't shown any evidence to refute it
saying he was a nordic european is a joke
when i look at the images that were presented of ramses II wooping asiatic butt he clearly looks like his african brothers from Punt
only the people who have strong negative feelings towards africans will do everything they can to deny africans their glorieus past
if there were only more non africans egyptologists with the same frame of mind as djehuti!
ps supercar just ignore his racial slurs and insults and keep presenting evidence he's the one who's looking like a clown!
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^^That African/Black American hating atheistic nauseatingly slimy lowlife microbial scum of fecal matter I was referring to earlier, once posted here under the username "Senkhemdjed":
Look at its posting in this thread:
"basically you are saying you can only rule Egypt if you are a royal..so I guess the Greeks, Romans and Persians were Egyptian royals huh smfh lmao!!!!!!!!"
And...
"If you want to ask you can just ask me man I have no problem talking to you about it. I have him igged because I read this forum for over a month before I posted and I see this slave descendant nigger's nature and have exposed him for the racist he is. At any rate here is my reasoning for Ramses II being an Asiatic Egyptian"
Now compare with this...
This forum is horrible smh you nigroids know nothing about Egypt!!!!!! The greatest pharoah would have to be between Narmer-meni, Khasekhemwy, Pepi I, but probably Senusret III(who ruled the whole fucking world!!) jeeeez smh the New kingdom of Egypt fell lets not forget. Hell Shabaka would rank over those losers you mentioned...Akenaton was a **** up..Ramses II was an arab liar, Thutmose III was pretty good though.
And this...
NOPE lol no isrealites(meaning the characters in the bible maybe I should have been more clear excuse me) existed sir I am very well informed on the Bible and Quran to help stupid African American slave descendant niggers get out of these horrible religions that kill and enslave them with foreign spirits/god concepts sorry if you are one of the slaves and are HURT by this realization but merenptah is only mentioning a group of people of that area which is certainly NOT A FREAKIN KINGDOM THAT RULED FROM THE NILE TO EUPHRATES AS THE BIBLE PURPORTS!!!!!!!!
NO WONDER WE SOLD YOU LOSERS FOR BEADS!!! Wow a silly typical stupid African American slave descendant who so called studies Egypt says a phrase like "false idols" Are you crazy?!?!?!?!?!? This is by far the greatest psuedo Egyptian forum I've ever been to...all this stuff about race and bullshit but nothing about the religion and culture. Egyptians are SOOOO black but they worship false idols as do ALL AFRICANS?!?!?!?! No wonder you nigroids are such losers you make absolutely NO SENSE!!!!! You wanna make all these Afrocentric claims about African civilizations just because whites make fun of you not having any, yet you condemn African religion/spirituality that predates all Abrahamic white/jew/arab bullshit MADNESS. By the way you African Americans DO come from mudhuts lol so maybe thats why you latch on to civilizations that would fit white standards since whites are your masters still. HOW dare you AKATAS. I'm glad you suffer everyday with your white and arab lords. NO, Moses did not exist you damn clown..is there any record in this Egypt that you so called study?! Hell no..oh and by the way your silly Yahweh/Jehovah comes from Amen in Egypt lol but I'm sure you'll say Egyptians are WHITE now since you wouldn't like that FACT. Freak!! This is like a person that wants to be a veteranarian but is allergic to cats and dogs...makes no damn sense.
And this...
"African Americans are crack heads..they just want to feel good for a 2 hour insignificant movie and then go home and be losers all over again. Racial discriptions of Egyptians in movies are inconsequential..if they did a movie of Egyptians with all Indians it would be more accurate than any African American casting(no pun intended lol) pipe dream."
And this...
"Sorry you can see the date I joined if you like I am not a cloner I don't fear idiots like yourself. Keep believing your silly bible but don't bring that fake bible crap in an Egyptian forum you will get smoked sir and your feelings hurt LOSER *snickering* "
And yet this...
NOPE lol no isrealites(meaning the characters in the bible maybe I should have been more clear excuse me) existed sir I am very well informed on the Bible and Quran to help stupid African American slave descendant niggers get out of these horrible religions that kill and enslave them with foreign spirits/god concepts sorry if you are one of the slaves and are HURT by this realization but merenptah is only mentioning a group of people of that area which is certainly NOT A FREAKIN KINGDOM THAT RULED FROM THE NILE TO EUPHRATES AS THE BIBLE PURPORTS!!!!!!!!
----
Take one look at at this miserable fecal matter scum's username here in this thread, its braggings about being familiar with the religious texts, obsession with Rameses' supposed hooked nose [a matter which we've discussed before with this worthless ho] and with the poster "Horemheb", and so forth. Does any of this ring a bell? I sure hope so.
Posted by QUEEN OF THE THE UNIVERSE (Member # 9831) on :
busted busted busted!!
i knew it from the point he was agreeing with horemheb and started name calling
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Doesn't anyone here do a search to see if a topic hasn't already been discussed previously?![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
I suppose this Egyptian man below isn't really 'black' but a white guy with a very baked looking tan?!!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)