quote: The ‘Two Brothers’ were first unwrapped at the Museum in 1908, a year after they were discovered by the great Egyptologist Flinders Petrie and his team, and have been on show there ever since.
Actual shot of Khnum-Nakht torso and crania below:
Actual skull of Nekht-Ankh below
Why lioness and her kinfolk should refrain from imposing their sick ideologies on EA art!!
Art is not REAL, but subjective. And so are the opinions and paradigms of the artist when they made their art And so are our opinions about the paradigms the artist himself held in high regard when he made his art And so are OUR opinions of what the artist depicted (African, Indian, nordic etc) And so are OUR opinions on what the artist meant when he depicted what he depicted (simple illustration of whats out there in the world, actual ancient Egyptian, Nubian)
Unless something is stated by the artis himself or there is actual reasoning that justifies any claim, you're just exposing your own bias
Stop drooling over king Tuts small mouth and his large brows and get a life!
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
To make matters even worst for Eurocentric art droolers, the first coffin that contained Khnum-Nakht, that is the one with lighter painted coffin, held the body that was considered negroid, while the second coffin, the one with the pitch black painted face, held the remains of what was taught of as ''caucasian'' when early researchers found them:
quote: The report into the anatomical finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to convince oneself that they belong to the same race, far less to the same family.
Of course, now that we have the reconstructions, we can see that both crania had broad facial features, while displaying the cranial features that are typical of Eastern Africans.
The slight build of Nekht-Ankh, the so-called less negroid of the two, further substatiates that he belonged to gracile Africans of whom the EA were a variant:
quote: On first inspection of the bones at this skeleton the writer was much struck with their slimness, delicate moulding, and the faintness of the muscular impressions; indeed, their female character proved to be so pronounced that at first it was difficult to be sure that the skeleton was really that of a male. The pelvis was reunited and proved to have all the characteristics of a male".
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Kalonji
Nice Post. What can be said but that people should stop thinking since a Coffin of an egyptian is painted lighter, does not mean that is really how they Looked. It's like the statue of Tut that is painted jet black. There maybe some other reason for the painted coffin.
Peace
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
Very enlightening - those faces look very Hausa and Cameroonian.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^^ It's about time the drooling over so called non-African features in art stopped.
Some people just don't progress. Instead of moving forward, they go backward. They drool over King Tuts bust and start imagining away about ''possible indian ancestry'' (WTF??) when we have anthropology. Where do they do that at?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Questionable reconstruction drawing of Nesyamuns coffin by a European below:
The REAL coffin below:
The skull/face of Nesyamun below:
The reconstruction of Nesyamuns skull/face below:
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^This is not to say that all ancient Egyptians had broad facial features, or that those who didn't have them were not Africans.
This is just to contrast the depictions in art, and the reconstructions of the same persons. And to refrain from unschooled opinionating based on artwork.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Both statues/coffins below belong to Sekhemre Herwhormaat, who is the same entity as Intef VIII of the 17th dynasty:
quote: Intef VIII (or Antef) Sekhemreheruhirmaat was an Egyptian king of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, who ruled during the Second Intermediate Period, when Egypt was divided between the Theban based 17th Dynasty in Upper Egypt and the Hyksos 15th Dynasty who controlled Lower and part of Middle Egypt.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Ka-aper statue below:
Ka-aper Mural depiction below:
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Coffin of Bakt Hor Nekht below:
X-ray Bakt Hor Nekht inside her coffin below:
^The degree of dissimilarity is staggering
Bakt Hor Nekht face/skull below:
Bakt Hor Nekht face/skull in profile below:
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
X ray of a person with African morphology inside a coffin with an ortochnathous profile below:
Another X ray of a person with African morphology inside a coffin with an ortochnathous profile below:
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
The coffin of Meresamun, a singer-priestess in Thebes:
iCT scan of the coffin & Cranium of Meresamun below:
Closeup iCT scan of the coffin & Cranium of Meresamun below:
^Notice the nice visible contrast between the ortochnathous coffin, and the prognathous cranium Notice the protruding chin on the coffin, but the receding chin on the cranium
The frontal view of Meresamun below:
quote: Meresamun’s identity is unclear. Her name, shown in an inscription on the casket, means “She Lives for Amun” (an Egyptian god).
quote: She was an attractive woman with wide-set eyes, a symmetrical face, prominent cheekbones and a long neck.
quote: According to the inscription she served as a “Singer in the Interior of the Temple of Amun”, one of a number of priestess-musicians who performed during rituals dedicated to the god.
quote: Meresamun was one of the higher ranking “interior” singers, some of whom served members of the Egyptian ruling family
quote: The scans suggest she was about five foot five inches tall and aged in her late 20s or early 30s when she died.
quote:The team started with the wrapped mummy of Harwa, an artisan who is thought to have lived sometime between 945 and 715 B.C. The mummy was found in the early 1900s in Egypt's Valley of the Queens by Italian Egyptologist Ernesto Schiaparelli, and brought to the Egyptian Museum in Turin.
quote:Based on the virtual reconstruction, the researchers said Harwa was about 45 years old when he died. "The teeth are in poor condition, and no other evidence of disease can be seen," they said.
Posted by Truthcentric (Member # 3735) on :
I too have noticed that, when you look at the mummified remains of ancient Egyptians from the dynastic period, they often seem a little prognathous. Not quite as prognathous as West or Central Africans, maybe, but certainly more prognathous than what you'd expect from "Caucasoids". Of course, that's just my layman's eyeballing; someone should really do an anthropometric study on how common prognathism is in dynastic Egyptian mummies.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Ka-aper statue below:
Ka-aper Mural depiction below:
Wow - this is something that would drive the average Stormfronter up a wall. Eurocentric academics always liked to show the top sculpture in books, of course neglecting to mention the brown paint still found on other parts of his body as is the same with some of the other Old Kingdom scribes.
Lyin'ess where are you. Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Pure_Egyptian
Whats wrong with you? You think that Cameroonians are spear chuckers? Why do you have to be so ignorant and racist? If you can refute what Kalonji has posted then do so.
Your opinion does not hold much merit. AE IS Linked with other Africans Read these studies then take a breather and come back and communicate with respect. No need for racism, Now read these studies that were done on AE:
Ancient Egyptian as an African Language, Egypt as an African Culture
Christopher Ehret Professor of History, African Studies Chair University of California at Los Angeles
Ancient Egyptian civilization was, in ways and to an extent usually not recognized, fundamentally African. The evidence of both language and culture reveals these African roots.
The origins of Egyptian ethnicity lay in the areas south of Egypt.
Sir Alan Gardiner: These were long-headed-dolicocephalic is the learned term-and below even medium stature, but Negroid features are often to be observed. Whatever may be said of the northerners, it is safe to describe the dwellers in Upper Egypt as of essentially African stock , a character always retained despite alien influences brought to bear on them from time to time." (pg. 392; Egypt of the Pharaohs 1966)
X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980).
Courtesy of James Harris and Edward Wente:
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.
The people who bear the greatest resemblence to the ancient Egyptians, at present, are the Nubians; and next are the Abyssinians; page 530
Edward Lane Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians
The period when sub-Saharan Africa was most influential in Egypt was a time when neither Egypt, as we understand it culturally, nor the Sahara, as we understand it geographically, existed. Populations and cultures now found south of the desert roamed far to the north. The culture of Upper Egypt, which became dynastic Egyptian civilization, could fairly be called a Sudanese transplant. Encyclopedia of Precolonial Africa, by Joseph O. Vogel, AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California (1997), pp. 465-472
Determination of optimal rehydration, fixation and staining methods for histological and immunohistochemical analysis of mummified soft tissues
A-M Mekota1, M Vermehren2
Biotechnic & Histochemistry 2005, 80(1): 7_/13
"Materials and methods In 1997, the German Institute for Archaeology headed an excavation of the tombs of the nobles in Thebes-West, Upper Egypt. At this time, three types of tissues were sampled from different mummies: meniscus (fibrocartilage), skin, and placenta. Archaeological findings suggest that the mummies dated from the New Kingdom (approximately 1550_/1080 BC)..... The basal epithelial cells were packed with melanin as expected for specimens of Negroid origin."
"There is now a sufficient body of evidence from modern studies of skeletal remains to indicate that the ancient Egyptians, especially southern Egyptians, exhibited physical characteristics that are within the range of variation for ancient and modern indigenous peoples of the Sahara and tropical Africa. In general, the inhabitants of Upper Egypt and Nubia had the greatest biological affinity to people of the Sahara and more southerly areas." (Nancy C. Lovell, " Egyptians, physical anthropology of," in Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, ed. Kathryn A. Bard and Steven Blake Shubert, ( London and New York Routledge, 1999) pp 328-332)
The nature of the body plan was also investigated by comparing the intermembral, brachial, and crural indices for these samples with values obtained from the literature. No significant differences were found in either index through time for either sex. The raw values in Table 6 suggest that Egyptians had the “super-Negroid” body plan described by Robins (1983). Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
"On the Origin of the Egyptians. Recent work on skeletons and DNA suggests that the people who settled in the Nile valley, like all of humankind, came from somewhere south of the Sahara; they were not (as some nineteenth-century scholars had supposed) invaders from the North." Mary Lefkowitz
"Black populations of the Horn of Africa (Tigré and Somalia) fit well into Egyptian variations." (Froment, Alain, Origines du peuplement de l’Égypte ancienne: l’apport de l’anthropobiologie, Archéo-Nil 2 (Octobre 1992), 79-98)
I hope you "Overstand" what is being said in these studies.
Peace
Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
First off,I am no rascist, Mr. King. Secondly, Egyptians have always from what i've read is that Egyptian we're either a Mixed race, or just caucasoid in race, i've never heard of them being of the Negroid standard.. I never said there we're no blacks in Egypt, there we're and there still are, they are just not the majority of the population, like today where Egyptians currently are the majority, you can still defrenciate the Nubians over the Egyptians, it's not being rascist its telling the truth, You can tell the Sa3eedis from the Nubians too, and Nubia isn't to far from some parts of Upper Egypt, but i'm still going to disagree because theres evidence that Aegyptians were Rascist of Nubians, and why would they be rascist of themselves by enslaving the "charcoal" nubian, I do not care for "skeletal" studies because people of Africa come in many different shapes and sizes, so just because one man had an "African" skeleton type does not mean the whole population was African, i also believe that Egyptians in general are probably related to the Ethiopians/Somalis, due to the fact that those people can have us to 50-60% semetic ancestry in them, which is why genetic tests prove that they are close to them. Also it has been proven that Egyptians, even today, have more African Ancestry then Ethipians/Somalis, how could they have more African ancestry then the people they came from. Notice: I did not say "Black" ancestry i used African ancestry, due to the fact that Northern Africans are culturely different and racially different from their "Black" African counterparts, but they are just as native as say someone from any other part of Africa. I know what i'm talking about, I am Egyptian Fellaheen, the descendant of the people who farmed the land, and if you first saw me you would not think i was black, maybe mixed ancestry, but you would probably think i was Southern European or Middle Eastern, and i can trace my family back generations I have almost NILL Arab/Turkish ancestry.
Best regards
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ So why the name change Skeptical??
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: but you would probably think i was Southern European
You realize the Southern Europeans(Greeks) made a difference between you and them...Wanna take a guess what they called you....GUESS.. Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
I don't know, surprise me? I am Tan with curly hair.. seems pretty mediteranean to me...
Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
If you mean they would call me the N word, Here are some pics of my son to prove that we ARE egyptians, and not arabs or turkish, the greek def would not of called us the "N" word. I would post pics of my self but i do not feel like uploading them from the camera.
Looks pretty Egyptian to me..
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: I don't know, surprise me? I am Tan with curly hair.. seems pretty mediteranean to me...
Aww come on brother, I thought you were a Southern European?? Whats wrong?? BTW, Southern Europeans don't even consider themselves "Mediteranian" as it is according to them a sea, they consider themselves usually White Europeans. I think you are an American Imposter or maybe an Arab.
Second on your claims of being a Fallahin..
Also we know Bedoins and Arabs were placed with the Fellahin in Upper Egypt..
Upper Egypt comprises the country's eight southernmost governorates. ... the region's history is one of isolated removal from the center of national life. The local relationships resulting from this centuries-old condition gave Upper Egypt an identity of its own within the modern Egyptian state. Alongside the even more ancient presence of Copts, tribal groupings dating from the Arab conquest combined to form a hierarchical order that placed two [minority] groups, the ashraf and the Arab, in dominating positions. These were followed by lesser tribes, with the [Egyptian] fellah at the bottom of the social scale(28) [...] Religion was central to the development of Upper Egyptian society. The ashraf claimed indirect descent from the Prophet, while the Arabs traced their lineage to a group of tribes from Arabia. On the other hand, the status of the fellahin rested on the belief that they descended from Egypt's pre-Islamic community and had converted to Islam, a history that placed them inescapably beneath both the Ashraf and Arabs. [...] In Muslim as well as Christian communities, and particularly at the lower socio-economic levels, religious practices are strongly imbued with non-orthodox folk elements, some of pharaonic origin.[11]
More Fellahin
Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
I just posted pics of my son when he was in egypt, the photos may not be the best, but just to prove that we are egyptians.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Pure Egyptian can you please Edit the large photo.. photo we can go to another thread to respect the OP of this thread...I don't want to derail..Please thanks..
Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
And so what you showed me photos of my people, and who said i was from Upper egypt, yes i do have some ancestry there, but most of my ancestry lays in the lower egypt area...
Posted by Pure_Egyptian (Member # 17995) on :
Yes im goin to take the large one off, just wanted to prove that i was egyptian, seems like now you believe im egyptian
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
I do belive you are Egyptian not an imposter but I still think we should continue here..
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
Pure Egyptian I'm interested in what you make of this image. In case you don't know, the population ''Naqada'' on the image below represents the people that layed the foundation for most things we associate with ancient Egypt. What populations are closest the to ''Naqada''?
Posted by lamin (Member # 5777) on :
Obviously the guy is one of those settler descendants who border-busted into Egypt during the post-pharaonic era. Maybe he is mongrelized with the degenerate genes of Arabs [with their silly third hand worship-cult] and others who swarmed into Egypt in the post-pharonic era too.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ For the record, I doubt 'Pure Egyptian' is even Egyptian at all but rather another white racist dummy from America. If he is Egyptian, he is most likely of the Afrangi (white-wannabe) elite since I have never heard of even Arab Egyptians using such phrases as "spear chuckers".
Speaking of which, I guess ancient Egyptian warriors were "spear chuckers" as well.
To Kalonji, excellent insightful writing! Too bad it is useless to the trolls here who are not of sound or logical mind. Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Yeah DJ dude got the script flipped these guys were the ones using Bows the Kemites were the ones chucking spears in this case Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Art is not REAL, but subjective. And so are the opinions and paradigms of the artist when they made their art And so are our opinions about the paradigms the artist himself held in high regard when he made his art And so are OUR opinions of what the artist depicted (African, Indian, nordic etc) And so are OUR opinions on what the artist meant when he depicted what he depicted (simple illustration of whats out there in the world, actual ancient Egyptian, Nubian)
Unless something is stated by the artis himself or there is actual reasoning that justifies any claim, you're just exposing your own bias
Stop drooling over king Tuts small mouth and his large brows and get a life!
Indeed. Not only is art subjective but to make things more complicated, Egyptian art tends to be very symbolic especially with things like color. I can't help but notice every time a portrait, usually a small figurine or coffin is painted in a light color or most commonly left unpainted showing the light color of the wood, they (the Euronuts) assume it to be the actual skin color of the person yet when it is painted in black, they automatically say it is "symbolic". What's interesting is that in another thread we find that some Egyptian coffins were painted in a yellowish or golden color symbolic of the radiant sun and heavenly deities.
quote:To make matters even worst for Eurocentric art droolers, the first coffin that contained Khnum-Nakht, that is the one with lighter painted coffin, held the body that was considered negroid, while the second coffin, the one with the pitch black painted face, held the remains of what was taught of as ''caucasian'' when early researchers found them:
The report into the anatomical finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to convince oneself that they belong to the same race, far less to the same family.
Of course, now that we have the reconstructions, we can see that both crania had broad facial features, while displaying the cranial features that are typical of Eastern Africans.
The reported findings are stupid. Anyone with eyes can see from the reconstructions that the ONLY difference between the brothers is that one is prognathous while the other orthognathous. Other than that, they both have the same shape nose and full lips. As if prognathy or orgnathy among one sibling but not the other is doesn't happen within black families of African descent, let alone black populations in Africa! What's interesting is that the so-called "negroid" brother has the longer length face more commonly associated with "caucasians" whereas the "caucasian" brother has a short length face commonly associated with "negroids". Again, BOTH have wide noses and thick lips as well as heavy brow ridges.
quote:The slight build of Nekht-Ankh, the so-called less negroid of the two, further substatiates that he belonged to gracile Africans of whom the EA were a variant:
"On first inspection of the bones at this skeleton the writer was much struck with their slimness, delicate moulding, and the faintness of the muscular impressions; indeed, their female character proved to be so pronounced that at first it was difficult to be sure that the skeleton was really that of a male. The pelvis was reunited and proved to have all the characteristics of a male"."
Okay. So the skeletal build of the so-called "caucasian" brother was very slender and gracile. The question is was it tropically adapted? Did it have elongated limb proportions associated with black peoples? I'm willing to bet yes.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
I see a lot of faces from Armenia, Greece, Lebanon Turkey, and Central Asia in northern Egypt. Wonder what happened to these people that have inundated Egypt during the last 1000 years.
Go back to your Klan meeting.!
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Yeah. That "I am an egyptian" is getting old. It is easy to see through their BS.
The fugker would probably never want to be seen even with a "Turks" Egyptian. Ha! Ha! Ha!
=== Quote: Go back to your Klan meeting.! -
===
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Lets stop with the insults people. Ausar traced his IP and he IS an Egyptian.
That is still no excuse for his behavior though.
In case people don't understand the implications of the image above... The Naqada crania are in shape not only nearly identical to Nubians and Somali's, they are also nearly identical to Khoisan (Hottentot R).
It also shows that not the Somali, but the Masai are (from the living africans represented) cranially the furthest away from ''true Negro''. Rendering the ''elongated because gene flow'' concept even more bogus.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Truthcentric: I too have noticed that, when you look at the mummified remains of ancient Egyptians from the dynastic period, they often seem a little prognathous. Not quite as prognathous as West or Central Africans, maybe, but certainly more prognathous than what you'd expect from "Caucasoids". Of course, that's just my layman's eyeballing; someone should really do an anthropometric study on how common prognathism is in dynastic Egyptian mummies.
It's an easy method to distinguish mummies from Europeans, because unlike mummy flesh like nose and lips and hair, its impossible for incisors and jaws to morph and give false impressions about the mummies as a whole.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Art is not REAL, but subjective. And so are the opinions and paradigms of the artist when they made their art And so are our opinions about the paradigms the artist himself held in high regard when he made his art And so are OUR opinions of what the artist depicted (African, Indian, nordic etc) And so are OUR opinions on what the artist meant when he depicted what he depicted (simple illustration of whats out there in the world, actual ancient Egyptian, Nubian)
Unless something is stated by the artis himself or there is actual reasoning that justifies any claim, you're just exposing your own bias
Stop drooling over king Tuts small mouth and his large brows and get a life!
Indeed. Not only is art subjective but to make things more complicated, Egyptian art tends to be very symbolic especially with things like color. I can't help but notice every time a portrait, usually a small figurine or coffin is painted in a light color or most commonly left unpainted showing the light color of the wood, they (the Euronuts) assume it to be the actual skin color of the person yet when it is painted in black, they automatically say it is "symbolic". What's interesting is that in another thread we find that some Egyptian coffins were painted in a yellowish or golden color symbolic of the radiant sun and heavenly deities.
quote:To make matters even worst for Eurocentric art droolers, the first coffin that contained Khnum-Nakht, that is the one with lighter painted coffin, held the body that was considered negroid, while the second coffin, the one with the pitch black painted face, held the remains of what was taught of as ''caucasian'' when early researchers found them:
The report into the anatomical finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to convince oneself that they belong to the same race, far less to the same family.
Of course, now that we have the reconstructions, we can see that both crania had broad facial features, while displaying the cranial features that are typical of Eastern Africans.
The reported findings are stupid. Anyone with eyes can see from the reconstructions that the ONLY difference between the brothers is that one is prognathous while the other orthognathous. Other than that, they both have the same shape nose and full lips. As if prognathy or orgnathy among one sibling but not the other is doesn't happen within black families of African descent, let alone black populations in Africa! What's interesting is that the so-called "negroid" brother has the longer length face more commonly associated with "caucasians" whereas the "caucasian" brother has a short length face commonly associated with "negroids". Again, BOTH have wide noses and thick lips as well as heavy brow ridges.
quote:The slight build of Nekht-Ankh, the so-called less negroid of the two, further substatiates that he belonged to gracile Africans of whom the EA were a variant:
"On first inspection of the bones at this skeleton the writer was much struck with their slimness, delicate moulding, and the faintness of the muscular impressions; indeed, their female character proved to be so pronounced that at first it was difficult to be sure that the skeleton was really that of a male. The pelvis was reunited and proved to have all the characteristics of a male"."
Okay. So the skeletal build of the so-called "caucasian" brother was very slender and gracile. The question is was it tropically adapted? Did it have elongated limb proportions associated with black peoples? I'm willing to bet yes.
Good point with the morphology DJ. Tbere is no doubt in my mind that Nekht-Ankh is African. Their whole writing just reeks of ''true negro'' approach. Just like the rift valley specimens once regarded as foreigners, trust me, if he had short limbs, it would have been the first line of reasoning they would have used. But of course they couldn't find such preferred proportions, hence the focus on the cranium, just like they did with Nekth-Ankh.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, and by 'Rift Valley' foreigners, I take it you mean the prehistoric remains found in the Rift Valley region of Kenya and Tanzania which were mistakenly called "caucasoid". Our M.I.A. veteran Rasol was so right to point out how racial polemics persists because of false concepts as "true negro" and all one has to do is examine such faulty concepts in order for the polemics to fall apart. Notice of course there is never a concept of "true caucasian" which is why Eurocentric scholars of past managed to classify any peoples from Africa to the Pacific as "caucasian".
But again getting back to what you said about artwork I must point out that more often than not, instead of many of these portraits being painted a lighter color, the dark paint has faded.
We can clearly see this in the coffin of Nesyamun.
^ The residue of original complexion now looks like dirt on the face.
If you look close enough you can probably see very faint traces of original dark paint around the peeled off areas of Khnum-Nakht around the eyes, cheek, mouth, and neck.
The question is whether such paint erosion is natural or artificial even deliberate.
Remember the seated scribe touted by Euronuts...
and how it originally looked.
Art is subjective, but it is also alterable!
quote:^Lets stop with the insults people. Ausar traced his IP and he IS an Egyptian.
That is still no excuse for his behavior though.
True. His nationality matters not. Though as I said, just because someone's nationality is Egyptian does not mean he has if any native Egyptian ancestry going back to pharaonic times and that ancestry only.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Lets stop with the insults people. Ausar traced his IP and he IS an Egyptian
An IP address can determine ethnicity/nationality?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Lets stop with the insults people. Ausar traced his IP and he IS an Egyptian
An IP address can determine ethnicity/nationality?
Akoben using his trademark again. Got anything to add to this topic? That goes for anyone by the way, feel free to add.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, and by 'Rift Valley' foreigners, I take it you mean the prehistoric remains found in the Rift Valley region of Kenya and Tanzania which were mistakenly called "caucasoid". Our M.I.A. veteran Rasol was so right to point out how racial polemics persists because of false concepts as "true negro" and all one has to do is examine such faulty concepts in order for the polemics to fall apart. Notice of course there is never a concept of "true caucasian" which is why Eurocentric scholars of past managed to classify any peoples from Africa to the Pacific as "caucasian".
But again getting back to what you said about artwork I must point out that more often than not, instead of many of these portraits being painted a lighter color, the dark paint has faded.
We can clearly see this in the coffin of Nesyamun.
^ The residue of original complexion now looks like dirt on the face.
If you look close enough you can probably see very faint traces of original dark paint around the peeled off areas of Khnum-Nakht around the eyes, cheek, mouth, and neck.
The question is whether such paint erosion is natural or artificial even deliberate.
Remember the seated scribe touted by Euronuts...
and how it originally looked.
Art is subjective, but it is also alterable!
quote:^Lets stop with the insults people. Ausar traced his IP and he IS an Egyptian.
That is still no excuse for his behavior though.
True. His nationality matters not. Though as I said, just because someone's nationality is Egyptian does not mean he has if any native Egyptian ancestry going back to pharaonic times and that ancestry only.
On point as usual Good contribution with the pictures of the seated scribe.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
this thread was a nice attempt by Kalonji. (Nigella sativa)
However lot of these wood coffins are inferior in realism compared to stone sculpture and plaster.
Some of the plaster heads are very realistic especially if uncolored and unadorned. These can be similar looking to European plaster death masks of the middle ages which were cast from the actual dead person's head. Some of the stone sculptures are finely crafted important larger sculptures and others are not as well crafted smaller less significant sculptures. In the finer works there are realistic pieces that look like accurate human being's heads and there are other fine pieces where the proportions are artistically stylized as with some of the famous sculptures of Akhenaten where the head and neck are elongated in impossible proportions. If you compare this to the plaster heads of Akhenaten and members of his court the plaster heads are in realistic proportions.
_________________________________________
Problems with facial reconstruction
There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction. The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.
A second problem is the lack of a methodological standardization in approximating facial features. A single, official method for reconstructing the face has yet to be recognized. This also presents major setback in facial approximation because facial features like the eyes and nose and individuating characteristics like hairstyle - the features most likely to be recalled by witnesses - lack a standard way of being reconstructed. Recent research on computer-assisted methods, which take advantage of digital image processing, pattern recognition, promises to overcome current limitations in facial reconstruction and linkage.
Reconstructions only reveal the type of face a person may have exhibited because of artistic subjectivity. The position and general shape of the main facial features are mostly accurate because they are greatly determined by the skull.
Given these problems if you are comparing a realistic stone sculpture or plaster head to a modern facial reconstruction at least it can be said that in many cases the sculpture was produced by artisans who had actually studied the person in the flesh.
Look at the seated scribe posted by Dehooti It doesn't matter which film version the orangey or the brown, most definitely looks like some thinned lipped Indian bro File this with the Tut bust under Why do Afrocentrists pass off this sculpture as Negro?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:However lot of these wood coffins are inferior in realism compared to stone sculpture and plaster.
You don’t know whether it is realism or not, you’re just talking out of your neck. There was very limited freedom of artistic expression in AE. Almost every step had to follow some kind of rigid rule or tradition. This is exactly why a break from pre-Amarna artistic rules in the Amarna period was so noticeable. There is no consistent realism in ancient Egyptian art, and they certainly weren’t guided by what is today known as realism. They WERE keen observers, and they were very sharp when it came to depicting unique accessories and apparel in foreigners, but to jump from that, to believing that ‘’this statue is lifelike, so it must be an exact representation of ‘’the’’ or ‘’a’’ living person’’ is not based on anything other than your wishes.
Also, inferior how exactly? You make no sense. One could argue, if there would be a time to depict someone the way he/she looked in real life, it would be in imagery surrounding someone’s death. But if they weren’t motivated to do so in said critical moments, what makes you think realistic art played a large role outside of funerary depictions?
quote:Some of the plaster heads are very realistic especially if uncolored and unadorned.
LOL @ ‘’especially if uncolored’’ It would make it a hell of a lot easier if you can look past the dark skin eh..?
What you have to answer to is ''realistic'' concerning what? It can't be about Tuts real morphology because none of us has seen Tut. And as you said yourself, artistic depictions of the same persons diverge, showing how contradictory and fragile your own assertions are. But even if we neglect your own conceding, the question still remains: realistic, concerning what..? I’m sure you are familiar with the visuals of movies like Avatar. These scenes are very realistic, but they are NOT intended to depict any REAL flora and fauna. If we refrain from doing this ‘’mind-reading’’ with present day art, why insist that the opposite must be true when dealing with Egyptian art, when there is no evidence suggesting that there is a justification for doing so
quote:These can be similar looking to European plaster death masks of the middle ages which were cast from the actual dead person's head.
Talk about Europeans is inane, since the AE had a worldview that was derived/spun off from their African cultural substratum. That means Egyptians and Europeans have a fundamental different way of viewing things. This means that your comparison, sir, has just been reduced to rubble.
quote:Some of the stone sculptures are finely crafted important larger sculptures and others are not as well crafted smaller less significant sculptures.
Don’t know what your point was supposed to be, but well crafted doesn’t equal accurateness. Poorly crafted doesn’t mean that it is less accurate than the ‘’well crafted’’ depiction. Art is not science. And this (what I’m educating you on) is not rocket science.
quote: In the finer works there are realistic pieces that look like accurate human being's heads and there are other fine pieces where the proportions are artistically stylized as with some of the famous sculptures of Akhenaten where the head and neck are elongated in impossible proportions. If you compare this to the plaster heads of Akhenaten and members of his court the plaster heads are in realistic proportions.
No S**t, Sherlock. Your logic stinks. The depictions ‘’you’’ (with emphasis on YOU) deem realistic don’t equal ‘’accurate’’ more than the stylistic ones. See, stylistic can extend into the ‘’weird’’ end of the spectrum, as well as the ‘’pretty’’ end of the spectrum. In other words, just because an artistic depiction isn’t weird or deviant doesn’t mean that it’s more accurate in terms of presenting likeness to the person it was intended to represent. There is an easy way to test this:
^Even the plaster heads diverge enough to be considered different individuals. Now what?
quote:There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction. The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.
^Yeah, why don’t we all neglect AE crania and jump on the art eyeball bandwagon.. Right? You think that garbage reasoning works with me? The primary purpose of the reconstructions is to show the diverging tendencies of EA art from the morphology of AE crania in general. This means your disgruntled position toward the obvious African morphology of the facial reconstructions has no relevance to anything posted in this thread. The purpose, which is: showing the incompatibility of EA art with modern day pre-conceived notions (as exemplified by your posts), is obtained with or without the reconstructions, as the skulls (where the reconstructions are based on, in case you aint noticed) show it too.
quote:Given these problems if you are comparing a realistic stone sculpture or plaster head to a modern facial reconstruction at least it can be said that in many cases the sculpture was produced by artisans who had actually studied the person in the flesh.
Yeah, and judging by the divergence of several depictions, they were not very successful, were they? Either that, or it wasn’t their intention to have accurateness in higher priority than convention. Pick one.
quote: Look at the seated scribe posted by Dehooti It doesn't matter which film version the orangey or the brown
Exactly, it doesn’t matter, because it is art. Pat on the back for noticing that
quote:File this with the Tut bust under Why do Afrocentrists pass off this sculpture as Negro?
Whether or not the bust was a ‘’Negro’’, is just a distraction that I’m not going to indulge myself in. It isn’t about who or what the bust was supposed to represent, it is about who the makers were.
I’ve noticed this is a pattern with you. You always cling on to irrelevant matters when the root, which is decisive in the end, is left unmentioned for obvious reasons. -You try to refute facial reconstructions, when the skulls that were presented in tandem are neglected while they show the same African morphology. LOL -You talk about Indian roots based on Tuts bust, but you neglect the fact that there was no known external geneflow in between Tuts grandmother and grandfather, and Tut himself. Tuts genetics are unaltered after Queen Tiye and Amenhotep III, since the offspring of these two individuals didn’t marry outside of their siblings to produce Tut. -You talk about the seated scribe and his features, when it is already known with what populations the makers of said artistic depiction had affinity. -You post pictures of a coffin of what appears an Asiatic, when migration of foreigners should be expected!
STOP FOCUSING ON DEAD ENDS I CHALLENGE YOU TO TALK ABOUT THE **ROOT** -The root of their culture -The root of their language -How the bulk of the ancient Egyptians ended up there (Sahara and Nubia) -The African characteristics of their religion Etc.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: You don’t know ... you’re just talking out of your neck.
Tell me about it. Thats all it does. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Kalonji at least you're not posting crappy wood coffins this time. At least these plaster heads are worth taking seriously. They are realistic and not stylized. Are they all certain to be Akenhaten? No, they are not sure about the Thutmose workshop ones. But anyway having said that the Akenhatens you posted look similar if not only slightly different. It's hard to tell a nose on the one where it's broken off. I don't know the source of that one. Look at how finely done that last (stone) one with the blue hat is. Very realistic. Not the most attractive looking man. Look at the ear, look at the neck tendon showing, the artist was excellent as per realism.
Angelina before her lip reduction:
Kalonji before you try a judo flip using art works use better art works not the cartoonish or stylized ish.
Like look at this brother:
or this one:
oh lordy lordy how "diverse"
as long as the skin tone wasn't too light it's all good.
(tans don't count)
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
and check out this beautiful Tut piece:
^^this is probably how the boy King actually looked,
let's hope his skin tone was the one we want
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ no facts or substance, just trolling.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
As expected, even more silly talk about art, showing a complete and utter incapability to absorb information and/or refute the points given throughout this thread.
Imbibing information is the burden of the student, not the teacher(s). I and others have provided you with the means to re-think you flawed approach, and still you choose to continue this voluntary mental impediment.
Go 'head then, be willfully ignorant and misguided
But while you're at it, see if you can try your analysing antics on things that are not so open to interpretation:
Trying to categorise Tuts global morphology (Cranial and post cranial) under the Mixed ''header'' just doesn't add up. But it doesn't have to, right? There is always more room for interpretation if we selectively pick out one of the many artistic representations, decide which one is stylistic and which one is ''realistic'', and let the diverging nature of the many depictions fly over our head in the process.
You are dismissed Go back to the drawing board to revise your strategy and take your ''based on pnothing'' interpretations with you. Come back when you're capable of adressing and refuting my points, or when you're man/woman enough to admit defeat. Good luck
quote:Whether or not the bust was a ‘’Negro’’, is just a distraction that I’m not going to indulge myself in. It isn’t about who or what the bust was supposed to represent, it is about who the makers were.
quote:The depictions ‘’you’’ (with emphasis on YOU) deem realistic don’t equal ‘’accurate’’ more than the stylistic ones. See, stylistic can extend into the ‘’weird’’ end of the spectrum, as well as the ‘’pretty’’ end of the spectrum. In other words, just because an artistic depiction isn’t weird or deviant doesn’t mean that it’s more accurate in terms of presenting likeness to the person it was intended to represent.
quote:Talk about Europeans is inane, since the AE had a worldview that was derived/spun off from their African cultural substratum. That means Egyptians and Europeans have a fundamental different way of viewing things. This means that your comparison, sir, has just been reduced to rubble.
quote:One could argue, if there would be a time to depict someone the way he/she looked in real life, it would be in imagery surrounding someone’s death. But if they weren’t motivated to do so in said critical moments, what makes you think realistic art played a large role outside of funerary depictions?
quote:There was very limited freedom of artistic expression in AE. Almost every step had to follow some kind of rigid rule or tradition. This is exactly why a break from pre-Amarna artistic rules in the Amarna period was so noticeable. There is no consistent realism in ancient Egyptian art, and they certainly weren’t guided by what is today known as realism.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
^The African morphology of King Tut beside his Hawass reconstruction. Notice the post bregmatic depression, which occurs more often in Sub-Saharan Africans
yeah look at that African nose, well you got me on that one
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Problems with facial reconstruction
There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction. The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.
A second problem is the lack of a methodological standardization in approximating facial features. A single, official method for reconstructing the face has yet to be recognized. This also presents major setback in facial approximation because facial features like the eyes and nose and individuating characteristics like hairstyle - the features most likely to be recalled by witnesses - lack a standard way of being reconstructed.
^That is what you posted before, concerning facial reconstructions, you flip flopping two faced turd. You talk so much smack in your desperate angst to disprove an African origin of the AE, that you're willing to use everything. Even if it means using methodology that you had problems with before when the reconstructions turned out to match the African morphology of the skulls above.
Kind of like Hammer who was fighting with all his energy against the notion that the Greeks had black ancestry even though they had substantial E-M78 Y chromosomal input. He told us genetics was useless when trying to figure out populations history and that we weren't conducting any ''real'' research. We had to cite five independant Greek historians in order to convince him about a migration of E-M78 carrying immigrants.
This is what you're doing. First you're talking smack about how reconstructions in general are heavily flawed, when it wasn't even my purpose to present life-like reconstructions. If you would have read the name of this thread you would've known that, LOL. And now all of a sudden, you're trying to use a reconstruction against me, when I was posting the picture for the skull it contained. What happened to your criticism of reconstructions?
Again, You are dismissed. And don't think I'm not noticing your short post. Your wack responses are sucker substitutes for REAL refutations. Dumb ass amature. Can't even write a point to point refutation. Thinks she/he can just grab the easiest thing and run with it and ignore all the inconvenient points.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/images/071023-king-tut_big.jpg ^His long limbs and slim physique are absolutely nothing like Europeans in general. You know this, as you've been schooled on this already.
Trying to categorise Tuts global morphology (Cranial and post cranial) under the Mixed ''header'' just doesn't add up. But it doesn't have to, right? There is always more room for interpretation if we selectively pick out one of the many artistic representations, decide which one is stylistic and which one is ''realistic'', and let the diverging nature of the many depictions fly over our head in the process.
You are dismissed Go back to the drawing board to revise your strategy and take your ''based on pnothing'' interpretations with you. Come back when you're capable of adressing and refuting my points, or when you're man/woman enough to admit defeat. Good luck
quote:Whether or not the bust was a ‘’Negro’’, is just a distraction that I’m not going to indulge myself in. It isn’t about who or what the bust was supposed to represent, it is about who the makers were.
quote:The depictions ‘’you’’ (with emphasis on YOU) deem realistic don’t equal ‘’accurate’’ more than the stylistic ones. See, stylistic can extend into the ‘’weird’’ end of the spectrum, as well as the ‘’pretty’’ end of the spectrum. In other words, just because an artistic depiction isn’t weird or deviant doesn’t mean that it’s more accurate in terms of presenting likeness to the person it was intended to represent.
quote:Talk about Europeans is inane, since the AE had a worldview that was derived/spun off from their African cultural substratum. That means Egyptians and Europeans have a fundamental different way of viewing things. This means that your comparison, sir, has just been reduced to rubble.
quote:One could argue, if there would be a time to depict someone the way he/she looked in real life, it would be in imagery surrounding someone’s death. But if they weren’t motivated to do so in said critical moments, what makes you think realistic art played a large role outside of funerary depictions?
quote:There was very limited freedom of artistic expression in AE. Almost every step had to follow some kind of rigid rule or tradition. This is exactly why a break from pre-Amarna artistic rules in the Amarna period was so noticeable. There is no consistent realism in ancient Egyptian art, and they certainly weren’t guided by what is today known as realism.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
bump
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: [QB]
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: Problems with facial reconstruction
There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction. The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.
A second problem is the lack of a methodological standardization in approximating facial features. A single, official method for reconstructing the face has yet to be recognized. This also presents major setback in facial approximation because facial features like the eyes and nose and individuating characteristics like hairstyle - the features most likely to be recalled by witnesses - lack a standard way of being reconstructed.
^That is what you posted before, concerning facial reconstructions, you flip flopping two faced turd. You talk so much smack in your desperate angst to disprove an African origin of the AE, that you're willing to use everything. Even if it means using methodology that you had problems with before when the reconstructions turned out to match the African morphology of the skulls above.
This is what you're doing. First you're talking smack about how reconstructions in general are heavily flawed, when it wasn't even my purpose to present life-like reconstructions.
it's hard to argue that now. Your strategy in the initial thread was obvious. You posted what you thought were life-like reconstructions to refute the coffins. There's no getting around it.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
If you would have read the name of this thread you would've known that, LOL. And now all of a sudden, you're trying to use a reconstruction against me, when I was posting the picture for the skull it contained. What happened to your criticism of reconstructions?
this is getting really funny. Even when I accept your presentation as valid for the sake of argument it doesn't even hold up. your floor just caved in
And don't think I'm not noticing your long winded desperate posts.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^That is what you posted before, concerning facial reconstructions, you flip flopping two faced turd. You talk so much smack in your desperate angst to disprove an African origin of the AE, that you're willing to use everything. Even if it means using methodology that you had problems with before when the reconstructions turned out to match the African morphology of the skulls above
he he he
lioness and "her" peculiar methodology exposed again.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^''It'' is done at this point, and ''it'' knows it.
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: it's hard to argue that now. Your strategy in the initial thread was obvious. You posted what you thought were life-like reconstructions to refute the coffins. There's no getting around it.
^Lol @ this is an obvious attempt to derail this thread by using false accusations. If I didn’t enjoy verbally spanking you to the point of making you swallow your own criticisms, I would’ve ignored you by now.
This (below) was my first response to you Lioness, before I could have a motive to deny that your accusation was true. Note that I didn’t argue against your false pretence ass, pseudo refutation of the reconstructions, but instead reinstated the purpose of this thread. You know, the purpose you accuse me of feigning as a result of some sort of ''caved in'' predicament that I'm supposed to be in. C’mon son, as if your intellectual capabilities require ANYONE to retreat. If someone decides to retreats from a discussion that involves you it is because they don’t like to kick a dog when its down. LOL… she must think she is some kind of intellectual phenomenon or something.
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: There are multiple outstanding problems associated with forensic facial reconstruction. The most pressing issue relates to the data used to average facial tissue thickness. The data available to forensic artists are still very limited in ranges of ages, sexes, and body builds. This disparity greatly affects the accuracy of reconstructions. Until this data is expanded, the likelihood of producing the most accurate reconstruction possible is largely limited.
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Yeah, why don’t we all neglect AE crania and jump on the art eyeball bandwagon.. Right? You think that garbage reasoning works with me? The primary purpose of the reconstructions is to show the diverging tendencies of EA art from the morphology of AE crania in general. This means your disgruntled position toward the obvious African morphology of the facial reconstructions has no relevance to anything posted in this thread. The purpose, which is: showing the incompatibility of EA art with modern day pre-conceived notions (as exemplified by your posts), is obtained with or without the reconstructions, as the skulls (where the reconstructions are based on, in case you aint noticed) show it too.
^ lol. Where exactly is my quote or implication that you were wrong for saying that there are problems with reconstructions? It is clearly visible from the last sentence: **With or without the reconstructions** that I am indifferent to how precise the reconstructions are. The reconstructions are needed to be able to contrast between the crania and the art depictions. Because aside from noting the general differences between the two, you can hardly compare depicted facial features with a flesh deprived skull, at least I can’t. But who knows, maybe you can teach me one of your angst driven antics.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Kalonji you're talking real white now, I can't understand half of it. Egypt includes a small bottleneck portion of land at Sinai, the bridge to Asia. At that time there was no concept of the whole continent Asia and the whole continent of Africa. The Egyptians had knowledge by and large, as recorded by their own scribes, about peoples one or two states or territories away rather than places remote to them like West and South Africa. If not across the land bridge others came the short distance across the Mediterranean in boats and vice versa. People since predynastic times were going back and forth, people from what we now call Africa and now call Asia, at the Levant were coming and going across the Sinai. Naturally the influence was ping ponging from all four directions. No racial purist from either camp can claim it. Look at the homogeneity in most Hellenistic Greek art. Now look at the diversity in Egyptian art. It's a real racial mish mash. Can you dig it?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Egypt includes a small bottleneck portion of land at Sinai, the bridge to Asia. At that time there was no concept of the whole continent Asia and the whole continent of Africa. The Egyptians had knowledge by and large, as recorded by their own scribes, about peoples one or two states or territories away rather than places remote to them like West and South Africa.
Dude.. What the hell are you rambling about? Migratonal patterns have zero to do with the fact that your dumbass shouldn't use art to make generalising statements about the demographics of AE. End of story. If you want to tell others your opinions about migrational patterns go talk somewhere else. As a matter of fact, you can go talk somewhere else right now, since you have proven to be unable to refute even one single point in this thread. Yet you still choose to remain willfully ignorant and say things like:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Look at the homogeneity in most Hellenistic Greek art. Now look at the diversity in Egyptian art. It's a real racial mish mash.
She still doesn't GET IT.
Get the hell off my thread.. You have nothing to add but your own unsubstantiated opinions.
Bye
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
Its down to recycling its debunked talking points. The "influence was ping ponging from all four directions" argument is in keeping with her mulatto civilization theory. This is in keeping with its troll identity. Dont waste your time on it.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Exactly
Patuamenap, who was Prophet and Chief Lector Priest during the 26th Dynasty, sporting physique that could remind one of an Amerindian tribal chief below:
The same character looking totally different on a wall in his tomb:
The same character, obviously with a whole nother appearance, in particular his lips.
quote:It (his tomb) is larger than most of the more famous pharaohs tombs of the necropolis. It is composed of twenty-two rooms connected by long corridors and distributed on three levels up to twenty meters below the level of the ground.
The tomb owner served one or more pharaohs during the 25th to 26th dynasty time period, and amassed enough wealth and power to built a labyrinthine tomb covered with hundreds of meters of frescoes and hieroglyphics.
The tomb was and still remains the largest non-royal site in the necropolis as of 2008. TT33 consists of multiple rooms, reached by flights of steps, ramps and vertical shafts. The tomb, deemed to be of interest since Egyptologists uncovered it in the 19th century, is located near the Nile river on the site of Deir el-Bahari (Theban Necropolis), and is larger in size than those of the famous Pharaohs of the Necropolis.
has all the characteristics of the art of the transitional period of the 25th and 26th Dynasties. An archaic profile, individualised by large eyes with very marked eyebrows and by a thick-lipped mouth, is in particularly representative of it.
Like I said, AE art was heavily influenced by alternating conventions that are reliable and consistent enough that experts can generally assign a time periods to AE art, by simply looking at it.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Note that even Hawass doesn't believe AE art was meant to be an exact copy of a living person. Skip to 00:50.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Notice how the facial features of this Mew Kingdom head (Patuamenap), who is as demonstrated, depicted in brown skin and thick lips as well, could easily fit between the Old Kingdom reserve heads that are frequently paraded by detractors like Lioness:
It is much more likely that these Old Kingdom reserve heads had nothing to do with what we call ''realistic art'' today, and that they were native Egyptians depicted abstractly just like their kings were.
The only king that I can recall that has a single consistant look when depicted is Pharao Menkaura, and even his depictions osscilate betweed broad and medium facial morphology. Others have several distinct looks that are replicated multiple times, for example, Akhenaten has multiple distinct looks, and each of them are found more than once, proving that this was not accidental.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Notice how the facial features of this Mew Kingdom head (Patuamenap), who is as demonstrated, depicted in brown skin and thick lips as well, could easily fit between the Old Kingdom reserve heads that are frequently paraded by detractors like Lioness:
It is much more likely that these Old Kingdom reserve heads had nothing to do with what we call ''realistic art'' today, and that they were native Egyptians depicted abstractly just like their kings were.
The only king that I can recall that has a single consistant look when depicted is Pharao Menkaura, and even his depictions osscilate betweed broad and medium facial morphology. Others have several distinct looks that are replicated multiple times, for example, Akhenaten has multiple distinct looks, and each of them are found more than once, proving that this was not accidental.
GREAT WORK!! Lyin'ass is getting her ass destroyed here too..
LMAO..Keep up the good work!!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Patuamenap
Kalonji, both of these renditions look similar. The painting is not as good. One example, the eye is drawn in a front view but the head is in profile. The lips on the painting only slightly larger. For some reason you propose, that on a sculpture that takes a lot longer to make, that the artist said "hey let me make the lips a little thinner". right Kalonji. What's wrong with you there are many big lipped sculptures with big Mick Jagger like lips. Yet you go for the slit lipped guy. His lips only slightly bigger in the painting. The painting looks like the same person, his nose is long on the up and down axis and his forehead slopes back. His chin is small. They look pretty similar. Your failing again Kalongy. The skin tone could be a Negroid or tanned Causasoid. Or Mongoloid could be anybody as per skin tone.
Look at this Patuamenap dude. He looks less black than even this guy:
what are you a double agent of some kind? Patuamenap's one of the least African looking Egyptians I ever saw.
You used the term "African morphology" when showed a head. What are the characteristics of a head that would make it have a non-African morphology?
.....I'll wait
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
This turds whole terminology just broadcasts how birdbrained it is.
quote: ''He looks less black than even this guy''
It doesn't even grasp the concept of how outdated ''True Negro'' is, or why this is the case. This is one of the first things someone interested in African anthropology should understand, and it is at the same time, the one understanding every person who rejects an African origin of AE lacks.
Go study the basics
For everyone who is familiar with AE art, I would be surprised if they would've picked Patuamenap's statue out of a set of statues from different extra-African artistic traditions. The same can't be said about the mural depiction of Patuamenap's which shows a protruding jaw, brown skin, and other characteristics that would be identified as ''Ancient Egyptian'' among extra-African art in a second.
Now piss off obnoxious insect
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Kalonji, both of these renditions look similar. The painting is not as good. One example, the eye is drawn in a front view but the head is in profile.
LOL, obnoxious insect is so ignorant about ancient Egyptian art that she makes Hammer look like an Egyptologist. The mural it calls ''not as good'' is perfectly Egyptian, and almost ALL mural depictions are drawn like this.
''The painting is not as good'' The audacity and total ignorance..! Posted by MindoverMatter718 (Member # 15400) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: It doesn't even grasp the concept of how outdated ''True Negro'' is, or why this is the case. This is one of the first things someone interested in African anthropology should understand, and it is at the same time, the one understanding every person who rejects an African origin of AE lacks.
Ahha indeed. Been down this road with "the lyiness" before.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
this is what I call the switcheroo (aka the two step)
the intent is "black" or "negro"
but Kalongie, little prince innocent, attempts to conceal it as "African morphology".
When asked which characteristics of a person's head do fit into an "African morphology" and which characteristics do not fit into an "African morphology" there is silence. As predicted, there's no hand there, a non-African morphology as per a person's head never gets defined, therefore any thing and everything could be an "African morphology"
stop the wackness
Posted by NeferKemet (Member # 17109) on :
You are kidding, right?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: At that time there was no concept of the whole continent Asia and the whole continent of Africa. The Egyptians had knowledge by and large, as recorded by their own scribes, about peoples one or two states or territories away rather than places remote to them like West and South Africa.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
my sick ideology: I don't reject the African origin of the AE's I see them as possibly multiple origin. It's not like they are in the middle of Africa. Syria, Arabia, Jordan and Israel are closer to Cairo than Sudan, Chad or Ethopia. Instead of seeing the place as a cosmopolitan bridge between cultures you seek to exclude a Northern influence in order to preserve what you have been brainwashed by racialism to see as a near racially pure nation. By switching the word African in place of black thinking no one would notice. Africa and Asia are concepts introduced by the Greeks and Romans. The "Asiatic" enemies described by the Egyptians were particular tribes and civilizations to the neighboring North of Egypt. Calling them "Asiatic" was applying a later Western continental concept referring to the entire continent. The Greeks themselves of whom the word "Asia" originates only had limited information about far from them areas in Asia far North and East or comprehensive mapping. So the distinction between "Asia" and "Africa" was not made by the Egyptians. What we call "Asiatics just meant people to the immediate North, the Levant and lower Central Asia. An attempt is made to use this to divide along racial lines yet there is not even a sea barrier between Egypt and the Levant, you can walk there freely. Look at the complexion depicted by the Egyptians of the Libyans compared to the Asiatics or Syrians. The Libyans of Africa are shown with lighter skin than the Asiatics of Asia. There goes your subliminal Africa vs. Asia exclusiveness concept.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Epic fail, you are destroyed. No more talk about art, only pitiful distractions after your first post, and even that one wasn't pertinent to this thread. This is what people do when they got they azz spanked. ''If we can't beat them, let us try to distract them''.
^Note that even Hawass doesn't believe AE art was meant to be an exact copy of a living person. Skip to 00:50.
Just read the blacked out parts below:
quote:From the global Egyptian museum This beautiful limestone fragment of relief comes from Tomb 33 at El-Assassif, belonging to Petamenophis. The portrait of this priest of modest rank, who owned one of the larger tombs of the Theban necropolis, has all the characteristics of the art of the transitional period of the 25th and 26th Dynasties. An archaic profile, individualised by large eyes with very marked eyebrows and by a thick-lipped mouth, is in particularly representative of it.
^Indeed, as stated before, the AE were not driven by what Lioness, as birdbrained as it is, interprets as European style realism, but by conventions that were peculiar and specific to a given time period. The obvious implication of this fact, is that all of Lioness's attempts to attribute its deranged and ''do it yourself scholarship'' qualities to ancient African art, were nothing more than ramblings produced by someone who is talking out of its neck. LOL.
What you need to understand, birdbrain, is that those art pieces you directed your ignorace at in front of everyone, belonged to a culture that you, as demonstrated by the following post, have absolutely zero understanding of:
quote: Originally posted by Lioness: Kalonji, both of these renditions look similar. The painting is not as good. One example, the eye is drawn in a front view but the head is in profile.
^And then it thinks it has any credibility left to demand answers and request what features fall under ''African morphology''. This is especially laughable when you note that it has demonstrated time after time again that she has a learning impediment, and is unable to absorb even the basics of antropology and Egyptology.
So now it isn't even about art no more, its about how can I maneuvre everyones attention away from the fact that I just got my ass handed to me.
Sorry, noh work. Capisce?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Ankh Hor
Mind you, both of these coffins belong to the same person!!
Ankh Hor's X-rays
I will post the picture of the complete mummy as a clickable link, because it is too wide. Click on the picture to see it enlarged:
^Note the typical slight build, time after time again, which is unusual for Europeans
quote:Mummy of a man named Ankh Hor who was a priest of Amun. His name Ankh Hor means life to/of the god Horus. He was important so his mummy is of good quality. The mummy cases are also well made. His face appears tanned because of the way the wood has been used to make the outer case. The body is encased in cartonnage. The outer coffin is made of painted wood, showing the weighing of the heart. Underneath is part of the negative confession. The cartonnage has been painted and gilded. The writing and pictures tell us that the gods were helping Ankh Hor through his journey to the next world. Egyptologists thought that the mummy was untouched but when it was xrayed recently, lots of modern pins and clips were found. The mummy must have been opened. Experts re-examined the cartonnage very carefully after it had been xrayed. They were able to see that it had been cut and then re-sealed and painted over, but no one knows why.
The auther appears conflicted/biased, as he seems to think the darks skin equals a ''tan'', (If I understand it correctly) he attributes it (the dark color) to the natural dark color of wood. But then he goes on to say that the outer coffin was painted. Or maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
Either way, both depictions are of the same native Egyptian, and the cartonage can give a misleading impression of the appearance of the person inside.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Queen Nodjmet
21st dynasty Queen Nodjmet in the traditional color for women, beside her man Herihor depicted below:
Queen Nodjmet's outer coffin below:
Queen Nodjmet's face below:
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: my sick ideology: I don't reject the African origin of the AE's I see them as possibly multiple origin. It's not like they are in the middle of Africa. Syria, Arabia, Jordan and Israel are closer to Cairo than Sudan, Chad or Ethopia. Instead of seeing the place as a cosmopolitan bridge between cultures you seek to exclude a Northern influence in order to preserve what you have been brainwashed by racialism to see as a near racially pure nation. By switching the word African in place of black thinking no one would notice. Africa and Asia are concepts introduced by the Greeks and Romans. The "Asiatic" enemies described by the Egyptians were particular tribes and civilizations to the neighboring North of Egypt. Calling them "Asiatic" was applying a later Western continental concept referring to the entire continent. The Greeks themselves of whom the word "Asia" originates only had limited information about far from them areas in Asia far North and East or comprehensive mapping. So the distinction between "Asia" and "Africa" was not made by the Egyptians. What we call "Asiatics just meant people to the immediate North, the Levant and lower Central Asia. An attempt is made to use this to divide along racial lines yet there is not even a sea barrier between Egypt and the Levant, you can walk there freely. Look at the complexion depicted by the Egyptians of the Libyans compared to the Asiatics or Syrians. The Libyans of Africa are shown with lighter skin than the Asiatics of Asia. There goes your subliminal Africa vs. Asia exclusiveness concept.
recycled.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
ROTFLMAOH @ Lyingass getting destroyed!
Not only has Lyingass not been able to refute a single word but it has been decimated in just one page.
It should have kept quiet if it knew what was good for it but oh well!
By the way, there's little left for me to say since Kalonji said most of it already but...
quote:Originally posted by the lyin-ass: Look at the seated scribe posted by Dehooti It doesn't matter which film version the orangey or the brown, most definitely looks like some thinned lipped Indian bro...
LOL Hey idiot, it's not that the films are different versions, it is the STATUE itself! Did you not read my post or are you too illiterate to understand that the statue has been ALTERED by having the remaining dark paint brushed or scrubbed off.
And as far as "Indian" think again!
The Somali man in the green shirt above has the exact same features as the seated scribe. Of course he is AFRICAN not Indian. And if the scribe had all of his dark chocolate colored paint left in tact he would've looked exactly like the Somali man! You need to stop with this ridiculous obsession with Indians. Egypt is in Africa NOT Asia and is far from the Indian subcontinent, you twit!
quote:
Angelina before her lip reduction:
Kalonji before you try a judo flip using art works use better art works not the cartoonish or stylized ish.
LOL No, but before you try flipping yourself over with contradictions, try and pay attention before you write. Why is it when Egyptians portraits showing thick lips are shown you are quick to compare them with thick lipped whites but when ones with thin lips are shown you automatically associate them with non Africans like comparing the thin-lipped scribe to an Indian?! Your hypocrisy is as glaring as your non-logic and stupidity.
quote:Kalonji you're talking real white now, I can't understand half of it...
Now I know you're a white idiot posing as black person!
quote:Egypt includes a small bottleneck portion of land at Sinai, the bridge to Asia...
Modern Egypt does NOT ancient Kemet. Kemet only consisted of the Delta and Nile Valley--all within Africa.
quote:At that time there was no concept of the whole continent Asia and the whole continent of Africa. The Egyptians had knowledge by and large, as recorded by their own scribes, about peoples one or two states or territories away rather than places remote to them like West and South Africa.
Stupid strawman. Nobody said anything about West and South Africa and although the Egyptians had no concept of 'continent' as we know it today, they did acknowledge the basic and common sense knowledge that their land was continuous with the region we know today as Africa. By the way their evidence that the Egyptians had contacts as far away as Central Africa (Punt) and even Chad via ancient highways. Sorry but such highways did not connect them to India!
quote:If not across the land bridge others came the short distance across the Mediterranean in boats and vice versa. People since predynastic times were going back and forth, people from what we now call Africa and now call Asia, at the Levant were coming and going across the Sinai. Naturally the influence was ping ponging from all four directions.
Sorry but dynastic Egypt was NOT the result of mass migrations from outside Africa. All the archaeology shows that Egypt developed from indigenous cultures in the Nile Valley i.e. Africa from the Western deserts of the Sahara, the Eastern deserts, and from Nubian cultures in the south such as Nabta Playa. The Delta while having trade contacts with Asia was also indigenous.
"..sample populations available from northern Egypt from before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." Barry Kemp, Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation. (2005) Routledge. p. 52-60
You are right about back and forth migrations through the Sinai though since many modern day Egyptians have Syrian, Iraqi, Circassian, and Turkish ancestry from Asia via migrations through the Sinai in the past millennia but NOT in dynastic or predynastic times; there is also evidence of Mesolithic remains in the Levant (Natufians) displaying "negroid" morphology, this not to mention the presence of African types in Arabia meant Africans crossing over into Asia first before the other way around.
quote:No racial purist from either camp can claim it...
Your Indio-mulatto dreams aside, nobody here even claims the existence of "race" let alone 'racial purity'.
quote:Look at the homogeneity in most Hellenistic Greek art. Now look at the diversity in Egyptian art. It's a real racial mish mash. Can you dig it?
Yes, it's funny you should mention the Greeks since there is WAY more evidence showing the ancient Greeks to be mixed than ancient Egyptians. For example while Egyptian culture can be shown to be definitively African, Greek culture on the other hand is definitively derived from the Near East in particular Asia Minor via historical and legendary accounts as well as archaeology. Genetics verifies this as well including African ancestry from the south. I find it interesting you are so keen to make Egypt a mixed melting-pot when all evidence counters you but not Greece.
quote: this is what I call the switcheroo (aka the two step)
the intent is "black" or "negro"
And this is what I call retarded. 'Black' is a label describing skin color nothing more. Of course the ancient Egyptians would be labeled as 'black'.
quote:but Kalongie, little prince innocent, attempts to conceal it as "African morphology".
When asked which characteristics of a person's head do fit into an "African morphology" and which characteristics do not fit into an "African morphology" there is silence. As predicted, there's no hand there, a non-African morphology as per a person's head never gets defined, therefore any thing and everything could be an "African morphology"
Incorrect. Kalonji just gave ONE example of a morphological trait associated with Africans-- bregmatic depression. There are others of course like ANB measurements of 5.5 to 4.3, occipital buns, mesolocephaly to extreme dolichocephaly, prognathism of some kind. It is specific features such as these which help to identify African ancestry as opposed to more generalized features like nose shape and lip width do not count since Africans even those in Sub-Sahara are too diverse.
"In sub-Saharan Africa, many anthropological characters show a wide range of population means or frequencies. In some of them, the whole world range is covered in the sub-continent. Here live the shortest and the tallest human populations, the one with the highest and the one with the lowest nose, the one with the thickest and the one with the thinnest lips in the world. In this area, the range of the average nose widths covers 92 per cent of the world range:
only a narrow range of extremely low means are absent from the African record. Means for head diameters cover about 80 per cent of the world range; 60 per cent is the corresponding value for a variable once cherished by physical anthropologists, the cephalic index, or ratio of the head width to head length expressed as a percentage....."
Jean Hiernaux, The People of Africa 1975
So what is YOUR basis of "negro" or "non-negro" features??
quote:stop the wackness
Indeed. Stop YOUR wackness, dummy!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Just call me Jari: GREAT WORK!! Lyin'ass is getting her ass destroyed here too..
LMAO What a loser!
Posted by Men Kheper Ra (Member # 4547) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
You do realize that the ancient Egyptian fought with spears just like the ancient Arabs who invade and took of Egypt.
Some of the foolishness you will find from the invaders
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Indeed. It is the descendants of Egypt's invaders that are the most foolish and most ignorant of their own so-called history that they claim. Luckily Egyptians like Ausar are not only intelligent but very well versed in his history.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Janus
This mummy is dated to 600 bc, and he resides in Holland. They say he used to be a cop, or a high officer. Don't know what they're basing this on though.
Too bad I can't find artwork to compare his reconstruction with. I will post the reconstruction and skeleton anyway.
^That is the 1st reconstruction
^A 2nd reconstruction. Don't know why they made his complexion pinkish though or why it is depicted like a mask with a head behind it.
^The third reconstructon, which was made in england
^The link above leads to a 3min vid where they talk about him. It is in Dutch, but you can skip to 01:08 to see his flesh reconstructed, and his skeleton in a 3d simulation.
Skip to 01:55 to see his live reconstructions. The first reconstruction that starts @ that time frame corresponds to the third, english reconstruction I've posted above. The second is a new one, completed by an artist who was given the assignment to study ancient Egypt, including their ahum ''race'' and their costums.
Notice how even the random mummies, from 600 bc, that somehow reached Northwestern Europe show African features.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
anybody who thinks the below persons look negro are insane
Kalongie, what's wrong with you. You keep posting coffins made of wood. They are often very generic and everybody looks the same a lot of time. I suppose you are suggesting the actual people were thick lipped and wide nosed but the coffins makers tried to make them look more white for some reason. Let's not get into it. If you want to bust me find a good realistic looking stone sculpture, in good condition and not too small, from the Old to the late Intermediate period and then use your comparative mummy technique.
Look at Patuamenap above. His head does not look like a lot of other Egyptian heads. He does not look like he fits into typical looking types you find in tombs. So it's hard to argue that he looks stylized. He looks like a unique looking individual.
Let's all face it Kalonji, Djehuti, Jari the man was in no form or fashion a Negro.
What is the conclusion then, about him being in Egypt?
Same thing with the seated figure. Your eyes are not that good. You try to argue that anyone with thin slit lips like that looks Somalian or Ethiopian because some of them have smaller lips and straight noses. Was it from out from Asian back migration? It doesn't matter if it was or it wasn't the guy does not have the narrow head that that type of Somali or Ethiopian has. His nose doesn't look like theirs either, Their noses are longer and more pointing down at the tip. You act like Somali and Ethiopian covers anybody under the sun who has thin lips. In fact he has a wide head and wide cheek bones. He doesn't have the more pointed chins they have. He doesn't look Ethiopian or Somali whatsoever.
If you think this seated figure is a Negro then that means you could make a sculpture of any white or non-African person, paint it with a brown or deep tanned skin tone and call it Negro. That's all you're doing. And you're all double agents because you provided the evidence.
Let's all face it Kalonji, Djehuti, Jari the seated figure was in no form or fashion a Negro.
What is the conclusion then, about him being in Egypt?
Face reality already, they weren't all Negros you showed and proved it
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: anybody who thinks the below persons look negro are insane
Kalongie, what's wrong with you. You keep posting coffins made of wood. They are often very generic and everybody looks the same a lot of time. I suppose you are suggesting the actual people were thick lipped and wide nosed but the coffins makers tried to make them look more white for some reason. Let's not get into it. If you want to bust me find a good realistic looking stone sculpture, in good condition and not tou small, from Old to the Intermediate period and then use your comparative mummy technique.
Look at Patuamenap above. His head does not look like a lot of other Egyptian heads. He does not look like he fits into typical looking types you find in tombs. So it's hard to argue that he looks stylized. He looks like a unique looking individual.
Let's all face it Kalonji, Djehuti, Jari the man was in no form or fashion a Negro.
What is the conclusion then, about him being in Egypt?
Same thing with the seated figure. Your eyes are not that good. You try to argue that anyone with thin slit lips like that looks Somalian or Ethiopian because some of them have smaller lips and straight noses. Was it from out from Asian back migration? It doesn't matter if it was or it wasn't the guy does not have the narrow head that that type of Somali or Ethiopian has. His nose doesn't look like theirs either, Their noses are longer and more pointing down at the tip. You act like Somali and Ethiopian covers anybody under the sun who has thin lips. In fact he has a wide head and wide cheek bones. He doesn't have the more pointed chins they have. He doesn't look Ethiopian or Somali whatsoever.
If you think this seated figure is a Negro then that means you could make a sculpture of any white or non-African person, paint it with a brown or deep tanned skin tone and call it Negro. That's all you're doing. And you're all double agents because you provided the evidence.
Let's all face it Kalonji, Djehuti, Jari the seated figure was in no form or fashion a Negro.
What is the conclusion then, about him being in Egypt?
Face reality already, they weren't all Negros you showed and proved it
Lioness no one is arguing "They were all Negros" Come on with that old used up strawman. We realize that there were "Asiatic" looking Egyptian esp. in the Delta Areas.(Ill bet that Scribe hails from the Delta). The fact is Egypt was populated and founded by people who came from more southerly regions, be they Negro, Black, Ethiopid whatever. What you want to do is say Egypt was Mulatto Rainbow society and that influence arived Via the Middle East which there is little support of. Egypt was African made, African Founded and African Ruled.
LET THE MADNESS STOP!!
Fact is that Asiatic Scribe worshiped black Kings like them, also how hypocritical, in one breath King Tut looks like a Indian, Not a Egyptian Berber, Ethiopian or East African but a population thousands of miles away, but you take an issie with people saying Thin lipped statues look like Ethiopians. Honestly the head of Patuamenap looks like an Ethiopian or East African and his Wall Relief has him Dark Brown in color.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I've tried to be reasonable, but because of the constant ''Negro'' strawmen, over-reliance art, thick headed-ness and unwillingness to learn, I'm going to give it the silent treatment from now on.
I don't like to repeat myself and end up in long 20 page threads rehashing the same information over and over to convince someone who is either *****ng with us, or has a serious learning impediment.
I would appreciate it if you all stopped replying to this person in this thread. Just ignore it.
Thanx
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Its sad that the Egyptians who created Egypt don't get their credit, People bitch and whine about Afrocentics stealing Egypt, But no one wants to give the Dark Egyptians, the Egyptians who no one talks about THEIR RIGHTFUL spot light...
Let the Madness stop!!
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
KAlonji this thread is a fresh air man..Good work on finding Reconstructions I know how hard that is...keep going man, don't let the Detractors derail this thread.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Thnx I'm not stopping with this thread, just gonna stop responding to Lioness. I got a couple more reconstructions that I will post the coming days.
F**k it, I'm gonna do one more in a minute just to spite that birdbrain.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Thnx I'm not stopping with this thread, just gonna stop responding to Lioness. I got a couple more reconstructions that I will post the coming days.
F**k it, I'm gonna do one more in a minute just to spite that birdbrain.
a good technique for this is to put your finger in your ears and hum at the same time.
Who needs you. I've got Wally
_______________BLACK POWER__________________
the queen has spoken
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Nesperennub
quote:Nesperennub was alive around 800 BC and died aged approximately forty years, possibly due to illness. His body was discovered by local diggers at Luxor (the site of ancient Thebes) in the 1890s. The exact location of Nesperennub's tomb is unknown but the excellent preservation of his coffins indicates that it was probably among the 'tombs of the nobles'. These were already five, six or seven centuries old by the time he died, but burials there are generally better preserved than the newer tombs along the edge of the Nile floodplain.
^Nesperennub's outer coffin
^His cartonnage (inner coffin) above^
Nesperennub's cranium from the front. Note the wide nasal aperture, the somewhat wide zygomatic arches and the depression on his temples where the muscles of the jaws attach, very visible. All traits frequently visible in Africans.
^Nesperennub's cranium in profile. Alveolar prognathism, lack of prominent chin, distinguising him from the majority of Euros
^Nesperennub's skeleton inside the coffin
Despite all these features, and build, they still reconstructed his face like this:
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
I think something went wrong from this point, were he still looks like what he SHOULD be IMO, despite the incongruent narrow nose:
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Keep up the good work Kalonji. It matters not if idiots like lyinass continues to ignore the FACTS. She sure as hell ignored all mine with her incessant talk of "negro" features, even though I and others have explained there is no such thing as a stereotypical "negroid" morphology!
By the way Kalonji, no offense but I see that you like lyinass missed my point about the scribe. There is NO evidence whatsoever to indicate that the scribe was Asiatic or of any ancestry other than African!
^ You can see quite clearly the remnants of very dark paint such as on his knees and legs that was his original BLACK complexion.
As for his features like narrow nose and very thin lips. Again such is not uncommon among blacks of East Africa
The Somali man in the green shirt has such features, and so does the Somali president Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed below.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Kalonji
Good job showing the mummies and reconstruction.
Keep posting the TRUTH and don't let anyone derail you from what you are doing.
As For the Scribe, He looks like any other Fine Featured East African. And as Djehuti said his color has been wiped off by people who don't want to show that he was rather very Dark Skinned. Really there is nothing Asiatic about him.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think something went wrong from this point,
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
^ You lose again dummy.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
the lioness
Whats your point? Are you trying to say the African man does not look like the reconstruction?
Or are you just reposting what Kalonji posted just to pad your posts. Really there is no way you can argue the point made by Kalonji at all
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: the lioness
Whats your point? Are you trying to say the African man does not look like the reconstruction?
Or are you just reposting what Kalonji posted just to pad your posts. Really there is no way you can argue the point made by Kalonji at all
Peace
He looks somewhat like some of the pictures posted. He looks similar to a lot of people. He could look somewhat like some select Somali or some person from the Levant. Somalia is quite a bit further away from Egypt than the Levant. Draw a circle a few thousand miles around Egypt. There's your answer
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Who was Neskhons ?
the wife of Pinudjem II,
has on her coffin- (and is described as)
'first chief of the concubines of Amen-Re, King of the Gods, majordomo of the house of Mut the great, lady of Ashru; prophetess of Anhur-Shu the son of Re; prophetess of Min, Horus, and Isis in Ipu; prophetess of Horus, lord of Diuef; god's mother of Khons the child, first one of Amen-Re, King of Gods; and chief of the noble ladies'
Her mummy is one the finest examples of the art of mummification in the 21st Dynasty, the packing of the body and limbs is to a perfect level and shows none of the over packing usually seen in other mummies dating from this period.
While her coffins form a set and show all the same design of decoration, they were usurped from an individual called Isiemkheb.
first coffin length 2.06 metres
second coffin - length 1.86 metres
coffin board - length 1.78 metres
Extract of a papyrus found in the tomb:
'Has spoken Amen-Re, King of the Gods, the great mighty god who was the first to come into being: I will deify Neskhons, the daughter of Thendhout, in the West, I will deify her in the necropolis; I will cause her to receive water of the West, I will cause her to receive offerings in the necropolis....
'I will turn the heart of Neskhons, the daughter of Thendhout, and she shall not do any evil thing to Pinudjem, the child of Isemkheb; I will turn her heart, and will not allow her to curtail his life; I will turn her heart, and will not allow her to cause to be done to him anything which is detrimental to the heart of a living man'.
Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think something went wrong from this point,
Is this some sort of pathetic attempt at distortion?
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think something went wrong from this point, were he still looks like what he SHOULD be IMO, despite the incongruent narrow nose:
^ Again Kalonji's original quote in context! From this point of the reconstruction with musculature attached to the skull, the Egyptian looks no different in features from the black man. It was only when the skin was applied that all of a sudden this was the end result.
But of course you are quick to go with reconstructions when they fit your preconceptions even when you yourself cited the faults with reconstructions!
Indeed, your attempt at spinning Kalonji's findings is abject FAILURE. LOL
And of course you have no response for what I posted on the scribe. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I think something went wrong from this point, were he still looks like what he SHOULD be IMO, despite the incongruent narrow nose:
^ Again Kalonji's original quote in context! From this point of the reconstruction with musculature attached to the skull, the Egyptian looks no different in features from the black man. It was only when the skin was applied that all of a sudden this was the end result.
Indeed, your attempt at spinning Kalonji's findings is abject FAILURE. LOL
And of course you have no response for what I posted on the scribe. [/QB]
Djhooti,
this is all very anecdotal and arbitrary . To prove anything you would have to show how a Caucasoid musculature has characteristics, out of all the different types of Caucasoids and their "morphologies", how they could not also fit into that musculature.
You are on to non sequitur at this point
thg lfe
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ ROTFLMAO
Actually the only thing arbitrary and anecdotal is your belief in racial types! You do realize that there is no such thing as 'race' or racial types like "caucasoid"! Are you even aware that "caucasoid" morphology is based on nothing more than arbitrary and subjective features like narrow noses and thin lips?! As such, typology based on concepts like "caucasoid", "negroid", "mongoloid" etc are invalid and void.
This is why you still fail to explain the reconstruction in its musculature phase as showing no difference to the black man and why if the forensic artists were give that black man's skull and told it was an ancient Egyptian their biased and preconceived "caucasoid" notions would still come up with the same results! This is also why the scribe looks no different from the Somali men with thin lips and thin noses.
So rather it is YOU who is on a non-sequitor as well as a strawman argument. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ ROTFLMAO
Actually the only thing arbitrary and anecdotal is your belief in racial types! You do realize that there is no such thing as 'race' or racial types like "caucasoid"! Are you even aware that "caucasoid" morphology is based on nothing more than arbitrary and subjective features like narrow noses and thin lips?! As such, typology based on concepts like "caucasoid", "negroid", "mongoloid" etc are invalid and void.
This is why you still fail to explain the reconstruction in its musculature phase as showing no difference to the black man and why if the forensic artists were give that black man's skull and told it was an ancient Egyptian their biased and preconceived "caucasoid" notions would still come up with the same results! This is also why the scribe looks no different from the Somali men with thin lips and thin noses.
So rather it is YOU who is on a non-sequitor as well as a strawman argument.
sorry, I'll have to start using the term "African morphology" vs. ""Middle Eastern morphology" etc.
and we'll all know what is really being talked right? wink,wink
?
stone, not wood next time thanks
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Queen Nodjmet
____________________________________________________ The Elder Lady mummy from KV35 Amenophis II's tomb believed to by Queen Tiye
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I've tried to be reasonable, but because of the constant ''Negro'' strawmen, over-reliance art, thick headed-ness and unwillingness to learn, I'm going to give it the silent treatment from now on.
I don't like to repeat myself and end up in long 20 page threads rehashing the same information over and over to convince someone who is either *****ng with us, or has a serious learning impediment.
I would appreciate it if you all stopped replying to this person in this thread. Just ignore it.
Thanx
Like I said, don't do it You'll fogg this thread up by obscuring the on-topic points with her non-sensicle rambling. Every good post is followed by five of her shitty ones, and now people will have to wade through all her digressions to read the good stuff.
Notice how this topic clearly shows why one should stop relying on art, and what does the birdbrained nutcase do? It still relies on art, insisting they couldn't have been ''negroes''. When it is never claimed **In this thread** that this was the case.
As Anguish has remarked, it basically has two tricks it can do -Nitpicking the art depictions where a black origin is the least discernable and bombarding it with ignorance, like why it can't be ''negroid'' -Talking about migrational patterns, and using distance as the ultimate decisive principle when ascertaining the most likely population sources. But when statues are inmistacably black (Tuts bust), one can always seek it as far as India and Mesopotamia. All of a sudden her distance logic can be broken, on basis of nitpicked art. LOL.
According to that line of thinking, Madagascar should've been swarming with Arabs, and Austronesian speakers would've been absent. Australia would've been shared with Indonesians, heck, why not Amerindians? The Maldives should have been peopled by Dravidian speakers, since they domninate in the south. I could go on and on.
It has already proven to be a birdbrain, just let her dwell in her ignorance and ''I can do it myself anthropology''. It is free to do so.
^Birdbrain: Who needs liguistics, archeology, physical anthropology and genetics? We have art, don't we?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Let us not forget the rediculous conclusions people came up with when they relied on AE art. Mind you, this diversity is substantiated by absolutely no sub discipline of Anthropology
quote: In Petrie's study of the Egyptian race we are introduced to a possible classification element in great abundance which cannot fail to surprise the reader.
Petrie . . . published a study of the races of Egypt in the Pre-Dynastic and Proto-Dynastic periods working only on portrayals of them. Apart from the steatopygian race, he distinguishes six separate types: an aquiline type representative of a whiteskinned Libyan race; a 'plaited beard' type belonging to an invading race coming perhaps from the shores of the Red Sea, a 'sharp-nosed' type almost certainly from the Arabian Desert: a 'tilted-nose' type from Middle Egypt; a 'jutting beard' type from Lower Egypt; and a 'narrow-nose' type from Upper Egypt. Going on the images, there would thus have been seven different racial types in Egypt during the epochs we are considering. In the pages which follow we shall see that study of the skeletons seems to provide little authority for these conclusions. (p.391)
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^it is especially laughable when you note that the same person (Petrie) came to the following conclusion when he studied the remains:
quote: "this dynasty, the first to give Egyptian civilization its almost definitive form and expression, was of Sudanese Nubian origin. The equally Negro's features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the Negro's features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves. It was Petrie's conviction that there was "a peaceful", if not a united, rule all over Egypt and Nubia [Sudan] during the entire pre-dynastic period." The Making of Egypt, 1939, William Petrie.
Yes, he was talking about the dynasty that was contemporary with these reserve heads:
^But hey, Let us forget what the makers looked like, what their kings looked like, and let us speculate away based on nitpicked art
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
... good stuff...
Notice how this topic clearly shows why one should stop relying on art...
why...
As Anguish has remarked....
a black origin....
-Talking about migrational patterns, and using distance as the ultimate decisive principle when ascertaining the most likely population sources. But when statues are inmistacably black (Tuts bust), one can always seek it as far as India and Mesopotamia. All of a sudden her distance logic can be broken, on basis of nitpicked art. LOL.
basketballhead this is getting funny,
you're talking to yourself now and it's a little loopy
It's noticeable when you don't like the point being made you say referring to art is worthless but when types like Dehooti do it you lay silent like a sleeping panda.
And then with the scientific terminology: "black origin" and "statues are inmistacably black" (lol-"inmistacably")
And you knowledge of geography is lacking describing Mesopotamia as "far off". Mesopotamia and the Levant are both closer to Lower Egypt than Sudan and Ethiopia, come on son
and trying to get famous off the lioness' brand name, shame
note: you will not be able to provide any extension of the quote you refered to:
"In the pages which follow we shall see that study of the skeletons seems to provide little authority for these conclusions. (p.391) "
nor can you produce the title from which the quote is supposed to be from
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: "this dynasty, the first to give Egyptian civilization its almost definitive form and expression, was of Sudanese Nubian origin. The equally Negro's features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the Negro's features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves. It was Petrie's conviction that there was "a peaceful", if not a united, rule all over Egypt and Nubia [Sudan] during the entire pre-dynastic period." The Making of Egypt, 1939, William Petrie.
Of course, these 4th dynasty kings were not of Sudanese origin, and if they were, it wasn't from their features that they deduced it, since AE and several Nubian tribes were indistinguishable. It was just their way of admitting what was an absolute shock to them. When you say they are of Sudanese origin, you don't have to extend all that ''Africanness'' to the general population.
The following quote shows how common these features were to not only Nubia, but to the general population, and particularly pre-dynastic and old kingdom Egypt:
quote:James E. Harris, Kent R. Weeks, X-raying the Pharaohs, 1973.
Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination".
Yes, the same old kingdom, 4th dynasty Giza people that made these heads. Obviously, they weren't depicting themselves, and if they did, it was abstract art.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Yes, the same old kingdom, 4th dynasty Giza people that made these heads. Obviously, they weren't depicting themselves, and if they did, it was abstract art.
REALISTIC SCULPTURE
Userkaf was the founder of the Fifth dynasty
______________________________________
STYLIZED FIGURATIVE SCULPTURE
________________________________________
ABSTRACT SCULPTURE
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
As a result of your trolling you have become an art critic of sorts, yes? lol
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Her critique is nothing more than stupidity.
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: sorry, I'll have to start using the term "African morphology" vs. ""Middle Eastern morphology" etc.
Don't get mad because your notions of "caucasoid" and "negroid" are debunked garbage. African morphology is specific to African populations. There's no such thing as "Middle Eastern" morphology because populations of the Middle East are diverse and are of various origins including some from Africa.
quote:and we'll all know what is really being talked right? wink,wink
stone, not wood next time thanks
You moron, this is stone also...
yet you reject it simply because it does not conform to your caca-zoid notions.
Even then, your caca-zoid notions FAIL you!
quote: Queen Nodjmet
____________________________________________________ The Elder Lady mummy from KV35 Amenophis II's tomb believed to by Queen Tiye
And your point? I hope you are not going to rehash the ridiculous theory that she was not black based on her hair. It's been beaten to death that wavy hair form is not uncommon among some Africans AND that embalming chemicals used in mummification.
"First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism...
..The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians."
Drs. James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980).
Here's a painted bust of Tiye
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: I've tried to be reasonable, but because of the constant ''Negro'' strawmen, over-reliance art, thick headed-ness and unwillingness to learn, I'm going to give it the silent treatment from now on.
I don't like to repeat myself and end up in long 20 page threads rehashing the same information over and over to convince someone who is either *****ng with us, or has a serious learning impediment.
I would appreciate it if you all stopped replying to this person in this thread. Just ignore it.
Thanx
quote:Like I said, don't do it You'll fogg this thread up by obscuring the on-topic points with her non-sensicle rambling. Every good post is followed by five of her shitty ones, and now people will have to wade through all her digressions to read the good stuff.
Notice how this topic clearly shows why one should stop relying on art, and what does the birdbrained nutcase do? It still relies on art, insisting they couldn't have been ''negroes''. When it is never claimed **In this thread** that this was the case.
As Anguish has remarked, it basically has two tricks it can do -Nitpicking the art depictions where a black origin is the least discernable and bombarding it with ignorance, like why it can't be ''negroid'' -Talking about migrational patterns, and using distance as the ultimate decisive principle when ascertaining the most likely population sources. But when statues are inmistacably black (Tuts bust), one can always seek it as far as India and Mesopotamia. All of a sudden her distance logic can be broken, on basis of nitpicked art. LOL.
According to that line of thinking, Madagascar should've been swarming with Arabs, and Austronesian speakers would've been absent. Australia would've been shared with Indonesians, heck, why not Amerindians? The Maldives should have been peopled by Dravidian speakers, since they domninate in the south. I could go on and on.
It has already proven to be a birdbrain, just let her dwell in her ignorance and ''I can do it myself anthropology''. It is free to do so.
^Birdbrain: Who needs liguistics, archeology, physical anthropology and genetics? We have art, don't we? [/QB]
Sorry. I didn't read the above until recently. I agree; arguing with the nincompoop troll is futile and gets one nowhere. So she is on the ignore list.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: "this dynasty, the first to give Egyptian civilization its almost definitive form and expression, was of Sudanese Nubian origin. The equally Negro's features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the Negro's features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves. It was Petrie's conviction that there was "a peaceful", if not a united, rule all over Egypt and Nubia [Sudan] during the entire pre-dynastic period." The Making of Egypt, 1939, William Petrie.
Of course, these 4th dynasty kings were not of Sudanese origin, and if they were, it wasn't from their features that they deduced it, since AE and several Nubian tribes were indistinguishable. It was just their way of admitting what was an absolute shock to them. When you say they are of Sudanese origin, you don't have to extend all that ''Africanness'' to the general population.
The following quote shows how common these features were to not only Nubia, but to the general population, and particularly pre-dynastic and old kingdom Egypt:
quote:James E. Harris, Kent R. Weeks, X-raying the Pharaohs, 1973.
Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination".
Yes, the same old kingdom, 4th dynasty Giza people that made these heads. Obviously, they weren't depicting themselves, and if they did, it was abstract art.
We have to remember that "Nubians" themselves were diverse in features. If you recall Bronze Age Nubian skulls were once classified by Brace along with Somalis into a more "caucasian" cline due to features like small narrow noses etc. There are even books and articles which describe the inhabitants of Lower Nubia to be "caucasoid" like the Egyptians whereas those of Upper Nubia were "negroid". Then again, Western writings described skulls as far south as Kenya and Tanzania as "caucasoid" as well, which why the use of such racial labels is INVALID and USELESS. Unfortunately some people (and trolls) are slow to catch on.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
The Elder Lady mummy from KV35 Amenophis II's tomb believed to by Queen Tiye to Mesolithic Nubians.[/i]"
Drs. James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980).
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We have to remember that "Nubians" themselves were diverse in features.
Although not as diverse enough to match those of black American actors like Will Smith. lol
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: "this dynasty, the first to give Egyptian civilization its almost definitive form and expression, was of Sudanese Nubian origin. The equally Negro's features of the protodynastic face of Tera Neter and those of the the first king to unify the valley, also prove that this is the only valid hypothesis. Similarly, the Negro's features of the Fourth Dynasty Pharaohs, the builders of the great pyramids, confirm this." Petrie the founder of pre-dynastic Nile Valley archaeology, excavated at Nagada and Ballas in Upper Egypt nearly 100 years ago, unearth nearly 1200 pre-dynastic graves. It was Petrie's conviction that there was "a peaceful", if not a united, rule all over Egypt and Nubia [Sudan] during the entire pre-dynastic period." The Making of Egypt, 1939, William Petrie.
Of course, these 4th dynasty kings were not of Sudanese origin, and if they were, it wasn't from their features that they deduced it, since AE and several Nubian tribes were indistinguishable. It was just their way of admitting what was an absolute shock to them. When you say they are of Sudanese origin, you don't have to extend all that ''Africanness'' to the general population.
The following quote shows how common these features were to not only Nubia, but to the general population, and particularly pre-dynastic and old kingdom Egypt:
quote:James E. Harris, Kent R. Weeks, X-raying the Pharaohs, 1973.
Seqenenra Tao: "His entire lower facial complex, in fact, is so different from other pharaohs that he could be fitted more easily into the series of Nubian and Old Kingdom Giza skulls than into that of later Egyptian kings. Various scholars in the past have proposed a Nubian--that is, non-Egyptian--origin for Seqenenra and his family, and his facial features suggest this might indeed be true. If it is, the history of the family that reputedly drove the Hyksos from Egypt, and the history of the Seventeenth Dynasty, stand in need of considerable re-examination".
Yes, the same old kingdom, 4th dynasty Giza people that made these heads. Obviously, they weren't depicting themselves, and if they did, it was abstract art.
We have to remember that "Nubians" themselves were diverse in features. If you recall Bronze Age Nubian skulls were once classified by Brace along with Somalis into a more "caucasian" cline due to features like small narrow noses etc. There are even books and articles which describe the inhabitants of Lower Nubia to be "caucasoid" like the Egyptians whereas those of Upper Nubia were "negroid". Then again, Western writings described skulls as far south as Kenya and Tanzania as "caucasoid" as well, which why the use of such racial labels is INVALID and USELESS. Unfortunately some people (and trolls) are slow to catch on.
I agree, hence why I said ''several Nubian tribes were indistinguishable''. The impression the quote gave me though, was that the old Giza material in question were of the more broad featured morphology. Like, Knumn Nakth broad. Because medium or slightly broad wouldn't have distinguished Toa II, we have all seen the 18th dy xrays. Then again, the region on his skull that was so extraordinary for his time may have just been restricted to his mandible, as the quote does specify that region. Whatever the case was, both scenarios would have made the old kingdom Giza samples too African-like, to have only one broad featured face among the reserve heads, IMO.
To me that either means they were loosely based on actual ancient Egyptians, but modified to fit a standard, that the reserve heads were based on foreigners, or that they were made off the top, based on no one.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Man the beatdown on lioness continues. What can be said but that really Artwork is a loose way of finding out how the AE looked like. There is all other disciplines that prove the African foundation of AE.
As for the reserve heads if it really is done for foreigners then I can see why they look the way the look.
BUT
I will also state that there is plenty of East Africans who would look like the reserve heads if they were made into statues. Keep on Keeping On.
Peace
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Yeah my thoughts too There is just something that makes me uncomfortable about them. But maybe it is just me.
Thnx for respecting my request DJ and the others who stopped replying to her in this thread.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: 'Falkenburger reopened the anthropological study of the Egyptian population in a recent work in which he discusses 1,787 male skulls varying in date from the old, Pre-Dynastic to our own day. He distinguishes four main groups' (p. 421). The sorting of the predynastic skulls into these four groups gives the following results for the whole predynastic period: "36% negroid, 33% Mediterranean, 11% Cro-Magnoid and 20% of individuals not falling in any of these groups but approximating either to the Cro-Magnoid or to the negroid'.
^ Ignoring the outdated typological approach, and using it for whatever relevance it has for this thread, one should be able to say that if AE artwork was truly representative, it should NOT be ethnically ambiguous, even without paint, in at least 36% of all artwork. After seeing alot of AE art, I am positive this is not the case, but I can't prove it. What I CAN prove, and what is visible, is that for the Giza reserve heads, this is most definitely NOT true.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Djehuti you are using the term “African morphology” please define that and compare it to an example of a “non-African morphology” Then we can be clear what is meant by that term. If all morphologies are African then there would be not point in saying “African morphology” just “human morphology” , When I said post stone (or plaster heads) I wasn’t referring to Patuamenap which is obviously in stone. I was referring to the continued posting, after that, of wood coffins. These coffins are generally stylized and generic and don’t capture unique likenesses. Sometimes the coffins originally made for one king is used for a different king (or even queen as someone pointed out ) . Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed is a fair match Patuamenap but he is not really slit lipped like both the sculpture of Patuamenap and the seated figure we have been talking about. What is the amount of Eurasian admixture in modern Somalis and Ethiopians such as he? As well what is amount of Eurasian admixture of ancient Libyan and Algerian Berbers, people on the same longitudinal parallel as Egyptian? . The man in the green shirt is a fairly good match for the seated figure. Does that necessarily mean they are of the same lineage? I don’t know. What is the man’s genetic ancestry? Probably no one here has that information.
Djehuti how can you be in harmony with Kalonji? You constantly post art to try to prove an ideological race oriented point, the same several pieces over and over again in numerous threads. Yet Kalonji makes no protest of it and you do this as much or more than I do. (why is that?)
Look at the mummy believed to by Queen Tiye. It does not have the prognosticating jaw as does the wood bust people so often like to post to prove a black (er,, I mean an "African morphology") Egypt, again, this bust, art (which violates the Kalongy rule book) The Tiyre mummy also does not have the prognosticating jaw that Queen Nodjmet has. Look at how the mouth area protrudes on Queen Nodjmet and how her chin draws back. Now look at Tiyre, her mouth does not protrude and her chin does not draw back. I am considering not using art to prove morphological points about Egypt on the condition that Djehuti agrees to do the same and not keep posting those same seven or so art works that you post in ever other comment you make. Also Kaslongi would have to not post reconstructions because that too is made by an artist. One who speculates on the fleshy parts of the face which are uncertain to estimate and, no doubt, speculating hair type and skin color. Unlike Djehuti least I vary the art. Kalongi is hypocritical in using art, both coffins and forensic art to try to prove one shouldn't use art. People who had never seen the person when they were alive he implies are more credible artists who just have a skull or mummy to work with.
Anyway we have this photo of an elder Sudanese woman posted by dana of which there is no genetic background information. She is a fairly good match for the Queen Tiye mummy. She has the right hair, her lips are thin and she does not have the prognosticating jaw/mouth just like the mummy believed to be Queen Tiye does not have the prognosticating jaw.
All of this is arbitrary and anecdotal. Look at what is being done. You go on a photo search to match modern people to mummies or sculpture. You limit it to people South of Egypt never North as a possibility (bias). You find a person somewhat of a match and figure the case is closed, the person has dark skin so it's all good. Yet I can go just as close to Egypt, the near North to the Levant/Mediterranean, much closer in fact than Somalia to Egypt photos of people who have medium brown skin which are just as good as matches yet you would never consider that as being possible. My position is more flexible. I say the people could be of “stock” similar to countries near to Egypt in any direction including your Sudanese, Ethiopians (also Libyans ! - , West of Egypt , another area you exclude as being similar in morphology to Egypt). If everybody on this site were white supremacists I would be posting some of the photos you are posting. Not as proof but just as possibility in a range of possibilities.
Dejhuti, you are one of the worst offenders on violating Kalongy’s law against over reliance on art. You have been doing it longer than I have and more repetitiously and for some reason Kalongy, hypocritically gives you and many others a pass for it.
Setting that aside and chilling for a moment (breathe) Kalongy made an interesting, seemingly unsupported speculative comment I wonder if you agree with it:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Yes, the same old kingdom, 4th dynasty Giza people that made these heads. Obviously, they weren't depicting themselves
as to the original skin tone of either head on both it could be anything light to dark and whatever the skin tone it doesn’t really prove much. Some Mediterranean Greeks or Palestinians may have the same skin tone as Egyptians- or SSA's. The majority of the heads were discovered by the American Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner, who excavated a number of mastaba tombs to the west of the Great Pyramid of Giza. He identified these mastabas as belonging to royal family members of the pharaoh Khafra
4th Dynasty
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty "First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors,receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism...
..The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians."
Drs. James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980).
LOL Djehuty, I'm telling you man. Certain people in this thread are so much in denial that it's just debasing.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by Djehuty "First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors,receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism...
..The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians."
Drs. James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980).
LOL Djehuty, I'm telling you man. Certain people in this thread are so much in denial that it's just debasing.
Occipital bun
A morphological term used to describe a prominent bulge, or projection, of the occipital bone at the back of the skull is called an Occipital bun. The term is most often used in connection with scientific descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. While common among many of mankind's ancestors, primarily robust relatives rather than gracile, the protrusion is relatively rare in modern Homo sapiens.There are still many human populations which often exhibit occipital buns. A greater proportion of early modern Europeans had them, but prominent occipital buns even among Europeans are now relatively infrequent.
this is hilarious AlTakruri is over in the - was Cleo black thread , about to post, as he says:
"To follow, time permitting, every supposed Cleo ancient art work"
doing a reverse Kalonji, putting up art to dismiss the modern reconstruction, lol Is Kalonji going to complain? hell no
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingdumbass:
Occipital bun
A morphological term used to describe a prominent bulge, or projection, of the occipital bone at the back of the skull is called an Occipital bun. The term is most often used in connection with scientific descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. While common among many of mankind's ancestors, primarily robust relatives rather than gracile, the protrusion is relatively rare in modern Homo sapiens. There are still many human populations which often exhibit occipital buns. A greater proportion of early modern Europeans had them, but prominent occipital buns even among Europeans are now relatively infrequent.[/qb]
Neanderthal aside, since that was a different species altogether. You do realize that the earliest modern Europeans i.e. the first humans to enter Europe still looked no different from Sub-Saharan Africans??
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China" Chris Stringer and Robin McKie
The above is not all surprising since modern humans originate from AFRICA.
Of course occipital bun is just ONE characterstic, what about the rounded forhead, narrow skull, ANB plane measurements, and prognathism all associated with black Africans. And please do not bring up PALEOLITHIC populations who look like Africans! LOL
By the way Neanderthal as the first European adapted species had cold adapted short limbs in contrast to the modern humans whose limbs were longer and definitely not like the Egyptians and other Africans whose extra long limbs were described by anthropologists as "super-negroid"!
quote:doing a reverse Kalonji, putting up art to dismiss the modern reconstruction, lol Is Kalonji going to complain? hell no
I think you are confused with yourself. Oh great confused one. Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: LOL Djehuty, I'm telling you man. Certain people in this thread are so much in denial that it's just debasing.
It sure it! Though I'm not one to complain.
By the way, I have another explanation for the Giza reserve heads with 'fine' features. I just remembered Batrawi's studies of predynastic skulls, where those of Lower Egypt tend to have lower nasal indices less prognathism compared to those of Upper Egyptians. Thus, one can say that the reserve heads showing more so-called "cockazian" features must represent Lower Egyptians while the more so-called "negroid" ones are those of Upper Egyptians. By the way, recall that there is actually a large collection of reserve heads with "negroid" features, however these were once labled as 'Heads of Foreigners'. In all likely hood, such head actually represented not only native Egyptians but those from the south who unified Egypt.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course occipital bun is just ONE characterstic, what about the rounded forhead, narrow skull, ANB plane measurements, and prognathism all associated with black Africans. And please do not bring up PALEOLITHIC populations who look like Africans! LOL
what prognathism? Why bother talking about features associated with black Africans? If I show a person without such features you'll just say they must have been Somalian. All bases covered.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by the lyingdumbass:
Occipital bun
A morphological term used to describe a prominent bulge, or projection, of the occipital bone at the back of the skull is called an Occipital bun. The term is most often used in connection with scientific descriptions of classic Neanderthal crania. While common among many of mankind's ancestors, primarily robust relatives rather than gracile, the protrusion is relatively rare in modern Homo sapiens. There are still many human populations which often exhibit occipital buns. A greater proportion of early modern Europeans had them, but prominent occipital buns even among Europeans are now relatively infrequent.
Neanderthal aside, since that was a different species altogether. You do realize that the earliest modern Europeans i.e. the first humans to enter Europe still looked no different from Sub-Saharan Africans??
"Nor does the picture get any clearer when we move on to the Cro-Magnons, the presumed ancestors of Modern Europeans. Some were more like present-day Australians or Africans, judged by objective anatomical categorizations, as is the case with some early modern skulls from the Upper Cave at Zhoukoudian in China" Chris Stringer and Robin McKie
The above is not all surprising since modern humans originate from AFRICA.
Of course occipital bun is just ONE characterstic, what about the rounded forhead, narrow skull, ANB plane measurements, and prognathism all associated with black Africans. And please do not bring up PALEOLITHIC populations who look like Africans! LOL
By the way Neanderthal as the first European adapted species had cold adapted short limbs in contrast to the modern humans whose limbs were longer and definitely not like the Egyptians and other Africans whose extra long limbs were described by anthropologists as "super-negroid"!
quote:doing a reverse Kalonji, putting up art to dismiss the modern reconstruction, lol Is Kalonji going to complain? hell no
I think you are confused with yourself. Oh great confused one. [/QB]
You explain yourself for no reason Since it is not just noted that her crania had a prominent occiputal region. It was noted that it was reminiscent of Nubians LOL. The comparison with Europeans was TOTALLLY out of the blue. FAIL.
..The Elder Lady possesses an occipital bun comparable to Mesolithic Nubians."
You don't achieve anything by arguing with the likes of them, as they reply selectively, and no matter how many times they fail and get refuted, they'll just find another segue into making claims again, making you look stupid for biting everytime. Don't know if you've noticed, but this is Lioness vs MOM all over again.
A wise man told me don't argue with fools. Cause people from a distance can't tell who is who
Notice how it will segue into something irrelevant any minute now, but no acknowledgement of it's mistakes regarding the marxillary prognatism, receeding chin and protruding incisors of Tiye, three things it all denied.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ ROTFLMAOH
Indeed, it is beyond me how someone could be so STUPID!
quote:Originally posted by the lyingdumbass:
what prognathism? Why bother talking about features associated with black Africans? If I show a person without such features you'll just say they must have been Somalian. All bases covered.
Oh my God! Are you illiterate or are you just f*cking stupid?! I already cited a study of the Elder Lady mummy above!
"The Elder Lady First identified as Queen Tiye The occipital bun is reminiscent of Mesolithic Nubians (see below). Sagittal plateau, rounded forehead with moderately projecting glabella; globular cranium with high vault. Protrusion of incisors, receding chin and steep mandible. Very vertical zygomatic arches and pronounced maxillary prognathism..." Drs. James Harris & Edward Wente, X-ray Atlas of the Royal Mummies (1980).
You should kill yourself for being so stupid! Your death will only ensure humanity's collective IQ will go up by about 100 points. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
maxillary prognathism
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: We have to remember that "Nubians" themselves were diverse in features.
Although not as diverse enough to match those of black American actors like Will Smith. lol
But apparently diverse enought to match those of black American actors like Pam Grier.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: maxillary prognathism
Maxillary prognathism.
Why didn't you put all this other photo on google for "maxillary prognathism" - Your Lyin'_ss.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Of course occipital bun is just ONE characterstic, what about the rounded forhead, narrow skull, ANB plane measurements, and prognathism all associated with black Africans. And please do not bring up PALEOLITHIC populations who look like Africans! LOL
Woman from Sudan
what prognathism? Why bother talking about features associated with black Africans? If I show a person without such features you'll just say they must have been Somalian. All bases covered.
No we don't have to go all the way to Somalia just to Nubia and Sudan.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: maxillary prognathism
Maxillary prognathism.
Why didn't you put all this other photo on google for "maxillary prognathism" - Your Lyin'_ss.
^ he he he
caught again.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Lyin' - I think its about time you change your name to "badger", because that's just what you've become or should I say you've been. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Amenhotep III, husband of Queen Tiye, black king of the Eighteenth Dynasty
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
Woman from Sudan
dana, what do you guess the background of this woman is? Looks unusual to me. Post some other elder Sudanese women. Is her hair typical?
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: maxillary prognathism
Maxillary prognathism.
Why didn't you put all this other photo on google for "maxillary prognathism" - Your Lyin'_ss.
^ he he he
caught again.
how can you say caught when the situation is the reverse.
You have posted two pictures of maxillary prognathism. The conclusion: maxillary prognathism does not indicate race and the occipital bun tends toward European but could also be South African.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
LOLOLOLOLOL Absolute stupidity, and total ignorance are rearing up their ugly head again!
Directed to everyone else who does not know Features that predominate in a given population may manifest secludedly in a ANY given population. This is no secret, the question of the matter is, how often does this occur? And accompanied by what other features?
For one, the fat white kid lacks the steep jaw, protruding incisors, rounded forehead, receeding chin etc. On all counts, his features go in the opposite direction!!!
Total epic fail,
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
and lioness still doesnt get it. he he he
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: LOLOLOLOLOL Absolute stupidity, and total ignorance are rearing up their ugly head again!
Directed to everyone else who does not know Features that predominate in a given population may manifest secludedly in a ANY given population. This is no secret, the question of the matter is, how often does this occur? And accompanied by what other features?
For one, the fat white kid lacks the steep jaw, protruding incisors, rounded forehead, receeding chin etc. On all counts, his features go in the opposite direction!!!
Total epic fail,
Of course. Such faulty logic is not surprising from the Lyingdumbass who was already caught lying when she said the Elder Lady mummy had no prognathism when scientists who examined her skull said she does! What other stupidity can the dummy offer?
quote:Originally posted by the lyingassDUMMY:
how can you say caught when the situation is the reverse.
You have posted two pictures of maxillary prognathism. The conclusion: maxillary prognathism does not indicate race and the occipital bun tends toward European but could also be South African.
Again you make no sense! Your argument is strawman since nobody ever said prognathism indicates 'race' as nobody but YOU even believes in the debunked notion of 'race'. Maxillary prognathism like many forms of prognathism occurs among many populations in the world but mostly those indigenous to the tropics i.e. BLACK peoples and though it may occur among Europeans it is NOT at all common enough to be associated with Europeans, you idiot. Why else do you think prognathism was associated with so called "negroids" and blacks in the first place, stupid?? Also, occipital bun does NOT even occur nowhere near prognathism among Europeans as your own source states the only Europeans it occurred in was early Europeans of Paleolithic times which I showed looked like Africans, you dumbass!
That is why you are caught red handed with your panties down LYING your ass off! LOL Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^ Uh huh Let's get back on topic for more material as promised.
Tjenmutengebtiu (Jeni from now on)
A complete series of cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) scans were obtained of a mummy of an Egyptian priestess, Tjenmutengebtiu, (Jeni), who lived in the twenty-second Dynasty (c. 945-715 BC). The purpose of this joint British Museum and St. Thomas’ Hospital project was effectively to ‘unwrap’ a mummy using crosssectional X-rays. Jeni is encased in a beautifully decorated anthropomorphic cartonnage coffin.
Jeni's coffin below, ready to get rayed:
The insides of Jeni's Coffin below:
The insides of Jeni's Coffin below:
Jeni's face below:
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Amenhotep III, husband of Queen Tiye, black king of the Eighteenth Dynasty
no sarcasm intended
happy now?
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
LOL After seeing my last post, someones self imposed ''Berlin wall'' is starting to show cracks!
Posted by King_Scorpion (Member # 4818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
You are either lying through your teeth...or you don't know what your own people living in Egypt look like. Robert Bauval commented on Red Ice Radio that there are Beduoin people living in Egypt today who are PURE Black! Not Sudanese, not East African slaves (as Middle Easterners like to play down the Blacks amongst them), they are NATIVE Egyptians. To be fair, Bauval also said there are very light-skinned people born in Egypt too (he himself was born & raised there) but that Black Egyptians represent what he called an "original strain." Since you're supposedly Egyptian...do you deny your Black brothers and sisters currently exist? How about we ask our very own Ausar who is also Egyptian and dark-skinned. He'll tell you about the rural folk...since you apparently believe in the myth that all modern Egyptians look the same which is nothing more than a lie perpetuated by Zahi Hawass and the media.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Amenhotep III, husband of Queen Tiye, black king of the Eighteenth Dynasty
no sarcasm intended
happy now?
No one is happy when idiotic statements like "black king" in a black African country appear. Sarcasm intended.
And by the way - thab black face is also typically Egyptian. Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: LOL After seeing my last post, someones self imposed ''Berlin wall'' is starting to show cracks!
that's ironic.
I keep telling you in my perspective there was no wall or dividing line in ancient time between what in later times is called Africa and Asia.
I say if you want to estimate likely similarities between Egyptians and other people look at the people nearby.
You and others do this all the time.
Yet you and others place an artificial wall between "Africa" and "Asia".
Yet you would go as far as Somalia, three times further away to make comparisons, no problem
the wall you refer to is your own
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Hey moron, who here made any comparisons to Somalis??! Almost ALL of our comparisons are made with Nubians which if you forgot, inhabited the southern areas of what is today modern day Egypt. Even Dana's pictures of Beja people are people who live in Egypt. All of these peoples are BLACK Africans and all live in Egypt since Egypt is IN Africa! Yet YOU on the other hand go out of your way to compare Egyptians to people of INDIA!! What the f*ck is that?!
So apparently you are a hypocrite as well as a liar.
Oh, and of course there was no wall dividing Africa from Asia which is how the modern humans were able to leave Africa to populate Asia in the first place, and even after the initial OOA migrations Africans were still leaving the continent into Asia hence the Natufians in the Levant and Semitic languages, dummy!
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: LOL After seeing my last post, someones self imposed ''Berlin wall'' is starting to show cracks!
that's ironic.
I keep telling you in my perspective there was no wall or dividing line in ancient time between what in later times is called Africa and Asia.
I say if you want to estimate likely similarities between Egyptians and other people look at the people nearby.
You and others do this all the time.
Yet you and others place an artificial wall between "Africa" and "Asia"....
Is that like the wall you put between Africa and Arabia - snaky?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ I believe that in lyingass snake's case, there was a wall separating Africa and Asia but that wall had plenty of gates that opened one way-- for Asians to enter Africa but not the other way around. Posted by Just call me Jari (Member # 14451) on :
quote:Originally posted by King_Scorpion:
quote:Originally posted by Pure_Egyptian: Wow, i am an egyptian myself, and you can find all those faces in Egypt and Egypt only, AE and Modern Egyptian are of the same stock, AE are not black, and how dare you guys compare my people to those spear chuckers in cameroon and other west/central african countries like that
You are either lying through your teeth...or you don't know what your own people living in Egypt look like. Robert Bauval commented on Red Ice Radio that there are Beduoin people living in Egypt today who are PURE Black! Not Sudanese, not East African slaves (as Middle Easterners like to play down the Blacks amongst them), they are NATIVE Egyptians. To be fair, Bauval also said there are very light-skinned people born in Egypt too (he himself was born & raised there) but that Black Egyptians represent what he called an "original strain." Since you're supposedly Egyptian...do you deny your Black brothers and sisters currently exist? How about we ask our very own Ausar who is also Egyptian and dark-skinned. He'll tell you about the rural folk...since you apparently believe in the myth that all modern Egyptians look the same which is nothing more than a lie perpetuated by Zahi Hawass and the media.
Come on Scorpion we all know Upper Egyptians look like this..
Trust me, Skeptic says he goes to Egypt all the time, you belive me right..LMAO
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I believe that in lyingass snake's case, there was a wall separating Africa and Asia but that wall had plenty of gates that opened one way-- for Asians to enter Africa but not the other way around.
That was a bull's eye!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I believe that in lyingass snake's case, there was a wall separating Africa and Asia but that wall had plenty of gates that opened one way-- for Asians to enter Africa but not the other way around.
That was a bull's eye!
you have an eye for bull
Posted by gaoyan (Member # 18047) on :
the anatomical gucci finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the louis vuitton features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to chanel convince oneself
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
the above is not a clever satire. It is a new type of spam from China in which a segment of text is copied from an earlier page in the same thread and some of the nouns are relaced with direct marketing links.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And gaoyan's comments are about as nonsensical as YOU are. It is not our fault if you do not accept the truth lyingass.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by gaoyan: the anatomical gucci finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the louis vuitton features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to chanel convince oneself
LOL.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
folks like the lionessand few trolls her would feel at home at this sick website i just found out about with their incorrect comments wrong comment.
i try posting there to correct the sickness and incorrect comments there,but of course they are taking there time to post my comments.of course they may never do it and i may get ban.really does not matter any,because any normal person would read what they had to say and say these guys are sick and spread lies.
Posted by dana marniche (Member # 13149) on :
quote:Originally posted by kenndo: folks like the lionessand few trolls her would feel at home at this sick website i just found out about with their incorrect comments wrong comment.
i try posting there to correct the sickness and incorrect comments there,but of course they are taking there time to post my comments.of course they may never do it and i may get ban.really does not matter any,because any normal person would read what they had to say and say these guys are sick and spread lies.
Actually that page is the perfect representation and combination of extreme jealousy, envy and delusional psychosis. LOL!
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
.
"hell no the sphinx don't look like no damn white lookin Khafra bitch"
.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
khafra most likely look more like that sphinx. remember egyptian art was idealized more or less,and khafra broke that tradition for a short time.even when egyptian art was idealized there many other images that show what look like .
some egyptian art was more highly idealized then others.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Vivant Denon etched the image of the Sphinx of Giza around 1798, prior to its defacement. This image and written account (a part of Dr. Freeman's collection) is from the 1803 issue of Universal Magazine. From that same magazine, here is the written account in Denon's own words, "...Though its proportions are colossal, the outline is pure and graceful; the expression of the head is mild, gracious, and tranquil; the character is African, but the mouth, and lips of which are thick, has a softness and delicacy of execution truly admirable; it seems real life and flesh. Art must have been at a high pitch when this monument was executed; for, if the head wants what is called style, that is the say, the straight and bold lines which give expression to the figures under which the Greeks have designated their deities, yet sufficient justice has been rendered to the fine simplicity and character of nature which is displayed in this figure...". The Sphinx of Giza image is from the Joel A. Freeman Black History Collection. Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
scientific racism in world his-story
Lies That Won’t Go Away Three Falsehoods in the National Geographic “Black Pharaohs” article By Anthony T. Browder
Dr. Carter G. Woodson established Negro History Week in 1926 in an effort to tell the history of a people who had consistently been written out of the “respectable commentary of human history” by some of the most revered historians and historical institutions in the United States. Woodson’s magnus opus, “The Mis-Education of the Negro” documented the deliberate falsification of black history. It is a book that is more relevant today than when it was first published in 1933.
Were Dr. Woodson alive today, and were he to read the February 2008 cover story of National Geographic, “The Black Pharaohs: Conquerors of Ancient Egypt” Woodson would realize that the history of black people is still being grossly distorted and the process of mis-education continues unabated.
To the average “mis-educated” American who saw the National Geographic magazine on the newsstand, its cover would incline them to believe that the issue was a timely tribute to the national celebration of Black History Month. Were they to read the magazine, they would be amazed to discover that, “For 75 years Nubian kings ruled over ancient Egypt, reunifying the country and building an empire.” Many would be shocked upon discovering this “chapter of history lost in the shadows,” and wonder how much more Black History there is waiting to be revealed.
But to a formerly “Mis-educated Negro,” one who discovered in 1977 that the Egyptians were black, I read the “Black Pharaohs” article and found it to be guilty of deliberate acts of omission and commission. I reached this conclusion not because I am a black radical who believes that white men are devils not to be trusted. On the contrary, my life’s experience has taught me that I should believe in someone until I have reason to believe otherwise.
I believed Harry Truman when he stated that, “There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.” I believed Malcolm X when he said, “History is best qualified to reward all research.” I believed my own eyes when I made my first study tour to Egypt in 1980 and saw the physical evidence of what black Africans had accomplished when they ruled Egypt thousands of years before the arrival of European and Arab invaders.
I grew to understand the power of mis-education when I realized that the true history of ancient Egypt had been withheld from me throughout my formal education and only came into my awareness when I sought it. I came to believe in Dr. Woodson’s antidote to mis-education when he stated that:
Philosophers have long conceded that every man has two educations: "that which is given to him, and the other that which he gives himself. Of the two kinds the latter is by far the more desirable. Indeed all that is most worthy in man he must work out and conquer for himself. It is that which constitutes our real and best nourishment. What we are merely taught seldom nourishes the mind like that which we teach ourselves."
In 1977, upon discovering that the ancient Egyptians were “black” Africans, I began a process of “re-education” which, since 1980, has resulted in my making 40 trips to Egypt; writing and publishing 5 books on ancient Egyptian history and culture; and lecturing on Egypt on every continent except Australia. As an autodidact, I am qualified to critique the National Geographic cover story, written by Robert Draper, and will do so by illuminating three major falsehoods in his article. Before I begin my critique I must acknowledge that the article is well written and quite informative. It is also filled with wonderful photographs (as one would expect from National Geographic) and there are two beautiful paintings that are reminiscent of the “Great Kings and Queens of Africa” posters popularized by Budweiser many decades ago. Unfortunately, the beauty of the article dissipates when one reads it with a deeper understanding of Ancient Egyptian history and an awareness of the countless efforts that have been made to separate Egypt from Africa, and African people from the legacy of their ancestors.
Without an understanding of historiography (the history of researching and writing history) one can be easily mislead and conditioned to embrace unreasonable falsehoods as fundamental truths. History has clearly demonstrated that when falsehoods are repeated with conviction by “experts,” and popularized by the media (principally print, TV and film), an unsuspecting public will be incapable of recognizing truth when it is presented to them. When accustomed to being fed a steady diet of falsehoods this mentally malnourished population will become incapable or unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints which they have been conditioned to find impalatable.
What Dr. Woodson referred to as mis-education, social scientists now call “cognitive dissonance.” Both states of mind can be summed up in the declaration, “My mind is already made up…don’t confuse me with the facts.” These intellectually stifling states of un-consciousness can be minimized and overcome when one learns to recognize falsehoods and replace them with sound, factual data.
Thus, it is in the spirit of Dr. Woodson (and Black History Month) that I submit my assessment of the falsehoods imbedded within the National Geographic “Black History Month” cover story for your consideration.
Falsehood #1
“Piye was the first of the so-called black pharaohs—a series of Nubian kings who ruled over all of Egypt for three-quarters of a century as that country’s 25th dynasty. “ This statement is false, not because Piye wasn’t the first of a series of Nubian kings who ruled Egypt for 75 years but because Piye was not the first black pharaoh. The title of the article, “The Black Pharaohs: Conquerors of Ancient Egypt” is deceptive because it implies that “Black Pharaohs” conquered an Egypt which had previously been ruled by “non-black” Pharaohs.
Not all Egyptologists agree with the conventional interpretation of ancient Egyptian history. There is an opposing viewpoint that has long been suppressed by the establishment but is increasingly gaining acceptance within and without the discipline.
This viewpoint espouses, with sound factual data, that: • Ancient Egypt was an indigenous African civilization founded by “black” Africans who migrated northward, down the Nile, from Nubia and Ethiopia. • The leadership of Egypt always came from the south and that the rulers responsible for founding the culture that would sustain the nation for thousands of years were “black” Africans. • Egypt was subject to numerous foreign invasions and periods of instability, but stability was always restored by “black leaders” from the south (Upper Egypt and Nubia). • The ancient Egyptians made no racial distinctions between themselves and the Nubians but they acknowledged and depicted distinct differences between themselves and Libyans, Asiatics, Persians, Greeks and Romans. • When Egypt was invaded and subsequently conquered by non-Africans, the conquering armies added little of value to the country, and • After Egypt fell to foreign domination the conquering leaders often rewrote the history of the ancient past. This is consistent with the writing of history in general, which is often written by the victor in any struggle.
It is an unfortunate reality that most of what we know about Egypt and “Black Africa” has been written by whites after centuries of discoveries, conquests and colonization. The general public is unaware that most of the names of Egyptian people, places and things are non-African. Egypt is a Greek word, as are the words pyramid, hieroglyphics and sphinx. Pharaoh is a word of Asiatic origin. Modern Egyptian cities and towns have Arabic names as a result of the Arab conquest of Egypt in 640 AD.
The indigenous name for Egypt is Kemet, a word that is translated from medu netcher (hieroglyphics) which literally means, “the city, town or country of the blacks” and not the “black soil” as traditional Egyptologists maintain. Ancient paintings and carvings of the “Kemites” depict them as virtually indistinguishable from Nubians (ancient or modern). Paleontologists have found that the blood groupings and skeletal remains of mummies have more in common with ancient and modern Africans than their European or Asian counterparts.
Some of the strongest evidence documenting the African origins of the Kemites was presented by two African Egyptologists, Drs. Cheikh Anta Diop and Theophile Obenga, at the Cairo Symposium in 1974. This gathering of over 20 international Egyptologists was sponsored by UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and was held in Cairo, Egypt. One of the primary topics of discussion was the race of the ancient Egyptians. The presentations by Diop and Obenga provided 11 categories of evidence to support the thesis that the ancient Egyptians were indigenous “black” Africans. Their research showed that the language and cultural patterns of the ancient Kemites was consistent with that found in traditional societies in modern West Africa.
The general consensus reached at the Cairo Symposium was that there was no evidence that the ancient Egyptians were white and that it was peopled by people from “the Great Lakes region in inner-equatorial Africa.” Unfortunately, news of the symposium has been virtually ignored by academia and the media but its findings were chronicled by UNESCO in a 1978 publication entitled, Ancient Civilizations of Africa, Vol. II.
What accounts for this deafening silence? A report filed by an observer at the conference holds a clue. The observer wrote:
Although the preparatory working paper sent out by UNESCO gave particulars of what was desired, not all participants had prepared communications comparable with the painstakingly researched contributions of Professors Cheikh Anta Diop and Obenga. There was consequently a real lack of balance.
Dr. Diop was a Senegalese scholar who held degrees in Egyptology, physics, linguistics and anthropology. Relying on his scientific acumen, Diop developed a “melanin dosage test” which allowed him to prove, once and for all, the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians. This relatively simple test provided the means by which one could determine the phenotype of the royal mummies by examining the melanin content present within their skin. Although Dr. Diop had proven the viability of the Melanin Dosage Test, the Egyptian government has yet to authorize its use and so the issue of the “race” of the ancient Egyptians remains unresolved.
Falsehood #2
“Only after the European powers colonized Africa in the 19th century did Western scholars pay attention to the color of the Nubians’ skin, to uncharitable effect.”
Mr. Draper cites several examples of how racism infected the research of Egyptologists. He referenced Richard Lepsius, the Prussian archaeologist who coined the phrase “Book of the Dead” and said that the Kushites “belonged to the Caucasian race;” and Harvard Egyptologist George Reisner who believed that “Nubia’s leaders, including Piye, were light-skinned Egypto-Libyans who ruled over the primitive Africans.”
Mr. Draper neglected to mention the racist opinions of James Breasted, the founder of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and regarded as one of America’s foremost Egyptologists. In a 1935 publication entitled Ancient Times Breasted described the Egyptians as, “…members of a race of white men, who have been well called the Great White Race.” Breasted also referred to “The Negro peoples of Africa” as having no “influence on the development of earlier civilization.”
While Mr. Draper is “fair-minded” enough to acknowledge the racism of white historians of the past, he does not acknowledge the numerous examples of racist scholarship which exists today, nor does he discuss the impact of racism on generations of teachers, students and the general public. Draper would do well to read “The World and Africa” by W.E.B. Du Bois who wrote:
There can be but one explanation for this vagary of nineteenth century science. It was due to the slave trade and Negro slavery. It was due to the fact that the rise and support of capitalism called for rationalization based upon degrading and discrediting the Negroid peoples. It is especially significant that the science of Egyptology arose and flourished at the very time that the cotton kingdom reached its greatest power on the foundation of American Negro slavery.
Were Du Bois alive today he would not be too surprised to see that the science of Egyptology has matured significantly in the twenty first century but is still fundamentally racist. The June 2005 issue of National Geographic featured a cover story entitled, “The New Face of King Tut.” The cover showed the forensic reconstruction of the skull of “Tut” which depicted him as a white man. Let’s forget about the dozens of paintings and carvings of the boy king created by artists who saw him in the flesh and depicted him as a handsome black youth. Modern science has given us a more accurate image of someone who has been dead for over 3,000 years.
This new whitened image of King Tut was to accompany a national tour of his artifacts in the U.S. between 2005 and 2007. But these plans were short lived. When confronted by protesters led by Attorney LeGrand Clegg of Compton, California and members of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization (ASCAC), Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities, and the organizers of the Tut exhibit were forced to acknowledge the racial inaccuracies of the new face of King Tut and remove it from the exhibit.
As the exhibit made its way from Los Angeles to Florida to Chicago and Philadelphia, it was met with protests from the African American community which demanded that the racial identity of the Ancient Egyptians be accurately portrayed in the exhibit. How much media attention did these protests generate? None!
One would think that as we approach the end of the first decade of the twenty first century the world would be ready to embrace the fact that Egypt is in Africa and ancient Africans were capable of creating a civilization in their own homeland without the influence of foreigners. But history reminds us that five hundred years ago, negroes were not regarded as human beings, and less than two hundred years ago the Supreme Court’s Dread Scott case declared that negroes had no rights which the U.S. was bound to acknowledge. Negroes, coloreds and blacks have certainly come a long way, but if history is any judge of future events, African Americans still have a long way to go before our history is fully acknowledged and accurately taught.
Falsehood #3
Afrocentric Egyptologists… argue that all ancient Egyptians, from King Tut to Cleopatra, were black Africans…(and that) King Tut’s own grandmother, the 18th-dynasty Queen Tiye, is claimed by some to be of Nubian heritage).
What good Mr. Draper might have accomplished in his article was undone in the above comments. It appears that he is equating the racism of white Egyptologists with the socalled “faulty” logic of Afrocentric Egyptologists. History is replete with numerous examples of whites attempting to discredit any African American or African American movement which sought freedom from the clutches of institutional racism. In the 1960’s, Dr. Martin Luther King was labeled a communist and called the “most dangerous man in America” by the FBI. Today, African American scholars are labeled “Afrocentric revisionists” and are subjected to ridicule for attempting to tell our history through our own cultural lens.
The Civil Rights Movement of the 50’s led to the enactment of Civil Rights legislation which has since benefited all women and minorities in America. The Black Power Movement of the 60’s contributed to the rise of the Black Studies Movement which lead to the expansion of Negro History Week to Black History Month in 1976. These rights were not achieved because whites had a change of heart and suddenly decided to do the right thing. These rights were achieved after a long and protracted struggle. As Frederick Douglass said: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will.”
It is within this context that African Americans must examine the African Centered (or Afrocentric) Movement, independent of European American oversight. The African Centered Movement has one primary objective: to rescue and reconstruct the history, culture, science, philosophy, psychology, religion, literature and economics of African people (worldwide), and to view our experiences through our own eyes. But we must be fully aware that such acts of self-determination will be met with resistance by those who profit from the perpetuation of historical falsehoods masquerading as academic truths.
Mr. Draper falsely accuses “Afrocentric Egyptologists” of claiming that all Ancient Egyptians, from Tut to Cleopatra were black. Despite the claims of “Eurocentric Egyptologists,” the historical evidence (including that of the Cairo Symposium) strongly suggests that blacks ruled Kemet from Dynasties 1-12 (3150 until 1763 B.C.E.), Dynasties 18-20 (1550 until 1170 B.C.E.), Dynasty 25 (750 until 675 B.C.E), and Dynasty 30 (380 until 343 B.C.E.). Any competent historian would know that Egypt was conquered by the Greeks in 332 B.C.E. and Cleopatra VII (there were eight in total) was a descendent of Kemetic and Greek admixture and would probably have been classified as colored in the nineteenth century American south.
With the rise of the African Centered Movement in the late 1980’s, scholars such as Drs. Cheikh Anta Diop, Molefi Asante, Yosef ben Jochannan, John Henrik Clarke, John G. Jackson, Asa Hilliard, Theophile Obenga, Jacob Caruthers, Ivan van Sertima, Charles Finch and others forced Eurocentric Egyptologists to acknowledge the racist history of Egyptology. In the last two decades, mainstream Egyptologists have begun discussing the Nubian Dynasties and are slowly acknowledging the possibility that there were other black rulers of ancient Egypt.
I don’t expect Eurocentric Egyptologists to give up without a fight and, realistically, I don’t see the struggle being won in my lifetime, but the tide has turned and we are gaining ground. In their efforts to disparage African Centered scholars, Eurocentric Egyptologists are proving to enlightened minds just how desperate they are.
The last page of the “Black Pharaohs” article features a profile of the famous wooden bust of Queen Tiye, the wife of King Amenhotep III, mother of Amenhotep IV (aka Akhenaton) and the grandmother of King Tut. The picture is accompanied by a caption that asks if Queen Tiye had Nubian ancestry simply because it was, “made of wood that has darkened with age, (which) has inspired claims that she did.”
In a similar attack against the African Centered Movement that appeared in the February 4, 1990 issue of the New York Times in an article entitled, “Africa’s Claim to Egypt Grows More Insistent.” The article featured a photograph of a partial bust of Queen Tiye (with her eyes and nose removed) and a caption that read, “Sculpture believed to be the head of Queen Tiye…Revisionist historians argue that she is descendent of Black Africans.”
I find it interesting that National Geographic and the New York Times both sought to disprove “Africa’s Claim to Egypt” by using an image of Queen Tiye. I will prove them both wrong by using their own evidence to discredit them.
Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye ruled Kemet during the height of its military power during the Eighteenth Dynasty. Their descendents, Akhenaton and Tutankhaton, are two of the most controversial and well-known kings who ever lived. They were all one hundred percent African.
A frontal view of the wooden bust of Queen Tiye depicts a female who sports “60’s Afro” and ear rings with a pair of uraei (cobras) which was a symbol of rulership worn by Nubian Pharaohs during the Twenty Fifth Dynasty some 640 years later. All of the photos and paintings of Nubian kings in the article show them wearing the same symbol of rulership. Regarding Tiye’s appearance, Lestor Brooks, author of Great Civilizations of Ancient Africa, stated: “Any Sunday morning you may see her modern counterpart proudly entering America’s Negro churches across the land.”
The problem that Europeans and European Americans have accepting the historical reality that Africans living in the Nile Valley 6000 years ago created one of the most admired civilizations in history is theirs alone to grapple with. The destiny of African Americans will no longer be determined by the descendants of their former owners.
During our first 200 years in America we were forced to fight for our human rights. In the Twentieth Century we fought against the law of the land to attain our civil rights. Now, in the Twenty First Century, we are fighting for the right to determine our own consciousness. In the end, we shall be victorious.
This article is an excerpt from the forthcoming publication, Exploding the Myths Vol. II: The Rebirth of Nile Valley Civilization by Anthony T. B
' a man without knowledge of his past is like a tree without roots" marcus garvey"A people losing sight of their origins are dead, a people deaf to purposes are lost. Under fertile rain, in scorching sunshine there is no difference: their bodies are mere corpses, awaiting final burial." ~ Two Thousand Seasons by Ayi Kwei Armah
_____________________________________ I got this from this forum
^ There is no getting around it. Egypt is in Africa and its people and civilization were African and yes BLACK.
People who try to deny this obvious and irrefutable fact have serious psychological issues, that is all.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
note: definition of black
anybody who is darker than the above
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
kenndo
Great Article.
NatGeo is a foolish company whos books I refuse to buy. There Idea that Queen Tyies Bust as been created by darken wood is one of the biggest Jokes out. Hahahahah. They seem to not notice her eyes are white, why did her eyes not darken like the rest of her Bust.
Simple things like these show how sad is Eurocentric ideas. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Peace
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
Vivant Denon etched the image of the Sphinx of Giza around 1798, prior to its defacement. This image and written account (a part of Dr. Freeman's collection) is from the 1803 issue of Universal Magazine. From that same magazine, here is the written account in Denon's own words, "...Though its proportions are colossal, the outline is pure and graceful; the expression of the head is mild, gracious, and tranquil; the character is African, but the mouth, and lips of which are thick, has a softness and delicacy of execution truly admirable; it seems real life and flesh. Art must have been at a high pitch when this monument was executed; for, if the head wants what is called style, that is the say, the straight and bold lines which give expression to the figures under which the Greeks have designated their deities, yet sufficient justice has been rendered to the fine simplicity and character of nature which is displayed in this figure...". The Sphinx of Giza image is from the Joel A. Freeman Black History Collection.
this above 1798 item is garbage
Sketches of the Sphinx by Frederick Lewis Norden made in 1737 and published in 1755 illustrate the Sphinx without a nose.
by Frederik Ludwig Norden (1708-1742) from the book Voyage d’Egypte et de Nubie
And below an even earlier etching at least 127 tears prior to the above Etching of the pyramids and Great Sphinx, probably derived from a sketch made by George Sandys of his entourage, 1610.
Posted by anguishofbeing (Member # 16736) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
LOL I like this piece of shyt right here. Note the attempt to "refine" the features to fit the "Caucasian" ideal. LOL
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: LOL I like this piece of shyt right here. Note the attempt to "refine" the features to fit the "Caucasian" ideal. LOL [/QB]
LOL I like this piece of shyt right here. Note the attempt to discuss how the person rendered the monument, completely irrelevant to the point being made, that the nose was broken off prior to the date claimed.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ But why lie about how the Sphinx really looks like.
This is why Count Constatine de Volney claimed a "negro" character for the sphinx. There is no getting around the receding chin, and full lips, especially upper lips, round cheeks, and large eyes.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lyingass: note: definition of black
anybody who is darker than the above
Of course nobody in here has ever said that, but there is no denying that all these people blow would be considered black.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Of course nobody in here has ever said that, but there is no denying that all these people below would be considered black.
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This is why Count Constatine de Volney claimed a "negro" character for the sphinx. There is no getting around the receding chin, and full lips, especially upper lips, round cheeks, and large eyes. [/QB]
Djehuti
1) are you saying that an individual who didn't have a chin that recedes, did not have full lips, did not have round cheeks and did not have large eyes would not be of negro character? I'm asking your opinion not Count Constatine de Volney's opinion.
2) Djehuti, you must be blind as a bat. The chin of the Sphinx does not recede. Nor are the lips full.
Djehuti, in case you didn't know the below is a receding chin. Receding means Go or move back or further away. (what you need to do with your picture spam) Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: kenndo
Great Article.
NatGeo is a foolish company whos books I refuse to buy. There Idea that Queen Tyies Bust as been created by darken wood is one of the biggest Jokes out. Hahahahah. They seem to not notice her eyes are white, why did her eyes not darken like the rest of her Bust.
Simple things like these show how sad is Eurocentric ideas. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Peace
Thanks,the another trick in the stormfront type websites and other is to strip west african advancements like timbuktu and others and making kushites,meroe etc into mixed types or dark white folks.
Another point is that when i spoke to some scholars a few years ago they all admit that kushites and the noba were the same ethnic group.
They were just sub-groups of the same ethnic group. some extreme afro-centrics like mr. winters want to make nubians and kushites two complete different ethnic groups. they were not,they were different sub-groups or tribes of the same group. we call the sub ethnic,some folks take to mean just ethnic and it's not,i well post later what sub ethnic means. another point even if kushites and the noba were complete different groups(and they were not) in the end kushites and noba intermarried,so modern nubians could say they were the noba juts like they could say they were the meriotes or kushites.
running away from this fact in the end will not help anyone. kushites did not not just go away.they either intermarrieD with the noba or just became noba themselves,but in the end kushites and noba are the same anyway.egyptians call this same ethnic group Nehesy,THAT WAS THIER NAME FOR THEM, of course it had a general meaning too,like ethiopia.
of course they never call themselves Nehesy either.
I AGREE WITH AUSAR ON THIS
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I'm with Frank J. Yurco on this who states that Nehsi had nothing to do with color but reffered to a certain group of riverine Nubians.
MEANING THE NOBA ND KUSHITES WERE FROM THE SAME ETHNIC GROUP AND BOTH HAD THE SAME FLAT NOSES LIKE MOST AFRICANS.THERE IS NO NEED TO RUN AWAY FROM THIS FACCCCCCCCCT.
I DO NOT MEAN TO SOUND FANATICAL ABOUT THIS ,BUT FOLKS LIKE ME IN THE PAN -AFRICAN WORLD GET SICK AND TRIED OF THIS.YES I AM A AFRICAN BUT I WILL NOT SAY WHAT ETHNIC GROUP I AM FROM BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO BE pigeon HOLE,HERE AND IAM GTRYING TO MAKE A POINT,I COULDD BE A AFRICAN AMERICAN,A NIGERIAN,A NUBIANS,A SOUTH AFRICA ETC,IAM NOT TELLING,WHILE AT LEAST NOT YET,BUT I AM A PROUD PAN-AFRICANIST, and tried of the bull FROM ALL SIDES.I SEE BOTH PONTIS OF VIEW FROM MAINSTREAM AFRICAN HISTORIANS AND AFRO-CENTRIC ONES AND I DO NOT apologize for it.
now the ethnic group they belong too,they never wrote it down themselves,and we may never know.of course the modern name for the noba is nubian,and since we do not know the real ethnic group of the kushite we tend to call them nubian too,but egyptian had another name for both groups.
the kushites and noba were not ethnic groups,they were tribes or maybe sub-ethnic groups of the same ethnic group. how could the noba and kushites be different?the look the same,they had the same origin,the worship the same gods,they dress the same,almost every was the same except language. you could compare this too the bambara and mandinka,they are both the same ethnic group,but just different tribes or sub-groups. every thing is the same for both except the language is only slighty a little different.
THEir language is NOT A BIG difference however like the noba nubians,or kushite nubians,but they are basaically the same,and wr. writers again wants to make them different.
even mainstream scholars and many afro- centric scholars would agree and say the both belong to the same group call manding look up,meaning they are the same,and they would agree too that the noba and kushites are basically the same too,except language.
They both in language have one thing in common,it's nilo -saharan,not afro-asian like mr.winters is trying to say for the kushites(meriotes)
In that racist link i posted they tried to say meriotes are mixed and noba are not,and they both never had anything to do with each other? non-sense.
When they fought each other in the in early times at times,all it was, was tribal warfare within the same ethnic group. no different when greeks or romans or the mande fought each othe or the manding group like mandinka and bambara.
look brothers fight sometimes,it does not mean they were different ethnic groups. Even brothers have differences .
We do not need racist slitting up african ethnic groups into there own groups just like we do not need some extreme afro- centric scholars doing the same. The latter knows who they are.
African needs UNITY HAS MUCH HAS Can, not more separation.
Getting back to my point, i have read some post over the past few days,and folks who know better should know that kushites king and queens of the napatan and meroe period did have the flat noses and broad faces.
any image of a kushite king with other then that was not their true image,that is more of a highly idealized art image of them,more like egyptian art,but kushite art proper always show a more true images of what the kushites looked like, and some of you guys know better.that's why i stop posting because i get fed up with this at times.
I have no problem showing and saying that the kushite queens had kings had the stereotypical negriod look,that some her are trying to run away from and posting highly idealized images of a few kushite art images that were not true images of them.
no need to show other images of a few kushite art images that show pointy noses of kushite kings,and we all know just like certain egyptian art images that images was a more idealized image of that king.
if you read the book the the kingdom of kush,it makes it clear why some images are different then others,and both books the kingdom of kush makes it clear that kushite kings and kushites period had no pointy noses or straight noses.get the point?i hope so.
I WANTED TO SAY THIS FOR ALONG TIME SINCE I STOP POSTING HERE AWHILE AGO.DO NOT IGNORE WHAT THE AFRICAN SCHOLARS HAVE SAID ABOUT THIS ALREADY,mainstream or afrocentric,and when i mean afrocentric not the extreme types. diop another scholar had made this clear,kushites and flats noses period,do not go by a few art images of kushites with pointy noses,because it's not their true image,and besides the same king will have a more true art image of himself with flat noes if you look for the image in books etc,let's not forget the bodies have been examine already.
it's good to show that africans do have straight noses etc without any admixtute,but do not use kushite art to make your point that african vary in nose types,because it been clear,kushites have flat noses of varied sizes and shapes like any other common african group.
If you want to SHOW more varied african types, show other african art of other african groups,not the kushites TO MAKE A POINT ABOUT DIFFERNT NOSE TYPES,because you fed into the racist. NOW IT'S TRUE THAT SOME EARLY NUBIANS OF THEA-GROUP NUBIANS DID HAVE STRAIGHT NOSES,WITHOUT ADMIXTURE FROM WHAT I HAVE LEARNED,BUT NOT KUSHITES.
ANOTHER POINT ABOUT THE NOBA AND KUSHITES AND MY LAST POINT . I POSTED THIS ON ANOTHER FORUM TO MAKE IT CLEAR.
QUOTE- THE POINT IS THE NUBIANS NEVER CALLED THEMSELVES NUBIANS,THEY CALLED THEMSELVES BY THEIR TRIBAL NAMES BUT THEY ALL BELONG TO ONE ETHNIC GROUP.
THE NUBIANS YOU SEE TODAY ARE THE NOBA ,THEY ARE A MIX FOR KUSHITES AND NOBA AND THE NOBA COME FROM THE SOUTHWEST AND SO DO THE KUSHITES.WHERE IS THE SOUTHWEST,THE DARFUR/NOBA HILL REGIONS.THE NOBA INTERMARRIED WITH THE KUSHITES,AND SOME OTHER KUSHITES MAY HAVE JUST BECAME A PART OF THE NOBA.
this makes it clear from a nubian historian
Although the Noba and the Kushites were separate language and culture groups, they had probably co-existed in the region for centuries, and physically they were indistinguishable. When the power of Meroe declined, the two groups surely intermingled, if they had not done so earlier; the Noba may have assumed dominance, but they retained close ties to their Meroitic roots. One way of being certain of this is from the fact that many Nubians, even now, still wear the same facial scars that can be seen on the images of the Kushite rulers on their monuments at Meroe and other sites. These marks are handed down through families from one generation to the next and identify one's tribal affiliation. Obviously they have passed down to the present from remote antiquity, transcending dynastic, tribal, cultural, religious, and linguistic change.
my reply the kushite nubian culture has change a bit over time,but the culture and civilization is still basically kushite nubian or overall nubian. the noba shared the same basic culture and became basically kushized ,even if they did not,the cultur as still the same,but has i said they became culture was more the same has thier brother nubians .they dress the same,look the same and have a common origin so nubian civilization has not disappeared in the nile valley and even outside the nile valley.overall noba nubian culture and kushite nubain culture were still basiaclly the same before meroe fell,but a large differences.the noba just basically adopted the kushite nubian culture but keep thier own language,but both cultures were basically the same anyway but with some differences.
and read books from derek a welsby, robert b. jackson, torok lazlso
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I POST AND STARTED THIS THREAD
Will Smith wants to be The Last Pharaoh/ and will smith's lesson for jerusalem
features of kushite kings that are not has idealized and showing flat noses and all.
shabaqa
shebitku
taharqa
BARK STAND OF KING NATAKAMANI
Closeup
Tantamani Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
nothing straight nose about the kushite kings. these images are what thier features look like of course they vary.this imags are less egyptian influence,meaning kushite art showed more less idealized images then egyptian art and were not afraid to show thier common african look.let's face it,kushites were proud africans.
taharqa
shabaka
Kushite Statue Old Kingdom, Sixth Dynasty, 2300 B.C.
Old Kingdom, Sixth Dynasty, 2300 B.C.
This statue was excavated at Elkab, south of Luxor and belongs to a certain "royal acquaintance and high priest Nefershemem." Both the inscriptions and the archaeological context date it to the late old kingdom. The proportions of the limbs and highly schematic modeling of arm and leg musculature, along with the inclined face and small forehead, resemble features from the Kushite Period.
Photo and text from Sudan Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, Dietrich Wildung, p. 47
one of the greatest kushite leaders Natakamani in front of the National Museum in Khartoum
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
those images still look still look clearly african,thanks for posting.the first one looks more idealized,but still negriod,and if any is confuse by that,is simply on drugs,but i am showing images that are more closer to what they look like in real life,the ones i posted already,so i am trying to make a point.
you helped me make. the pic you posted is more idealized but still looks clearly african,and it does not look like the some of smaller art images of the king you created the sphinx.
so you see i some could get confused by some of the art of early napata.anywa if folks were to see more images of early napata they will clealy see they had common african features,meaning flat noses,broad head etc.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Buhen temple Northern Sudan inside the Khartoum national Museum.
Unfinished Granite Stela of Osiris in the shrine, this was found in the pyramid complex of Nuri Northern Sudan and now housed in the Khartoum National Museum.
Head of a Nubian Nubian, Classic Kerma, about 1700–1550 B.C.
Mask of Queen Malakaye Nubian, Napatan Period, reign of Tanwetamani, 664–653 B.C. Nuri, Nubia, Sudan
Nubian period coffin cedarwood Dynasty 25 Egypt
taharqa
Boat stand of King Atlanersa Napatan Period Kushite
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
The statuary is now house in the Boston Museum of fine arts and it was found in Northern Sudan.
Head of Queen Tiye
Egyptian, New Kingdom, Dynasty 18, reign of Amenhotep III, 1390–1352 B.C.
[url= http://javascript<b></b%3E:openZoomArt(escape(%27Egyptian%3Cbr%20/%3ENew%20Kingdom,%20Dynasty%2018,%20reign%20of%20Amenhotep%20III%3Cbr%20/%3E1390%E2%80%931352%20B.C.%3Cbr ]http://javascript<b></b%3E:openZoomArt(escape(%27Egyptian%3Cbr%20/%3ENew%20Kingdom,%20Dynasty%2018,%20reign%20of%20Amenhotep%20III%3Cbr%20/%3E1390%E2%80%931352%20B.C.%3Cb r [/url] %20/%3EPeridotite%3Cbr%20/%3EHeight%20x%20width%20x%20depth:%2020.3%20x%2011.5%20x%2012%20cm%20(8%20x%204%201/2%20x%204%203/4%20in.)%3Cbr%20/%3EMuseum%20of%20Fine%20Arts,%20Boston% 3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EGift%20of%20George%20A.%20Reisner%3Cbr%20/%3E21.2802%3Cbr%20/%3E%27),%27/zoom.asp?file=E6171CR-d1.jpg&width=600&height=420&captiontitle=%27+escape(%27Head%20 of%20Queen%20Tiye%27)+%27&title=%27+escape(%27Head%20of%20Queen%20Tiye%27))
Triad of Meroitic queen and two goddesses
Shawabty of King Taharqa
Nubian, Napatan Period, reign of Taharqa, 690–664 B.C.
Meroitic Queen or Candace Shanakdakhete
christian nubia in the middle ages. i think this is from the upper nubia,not southern nubia. i find this interesting,it's not the kushite period,but it show diffetent art and clothing.
Nubian Hathor-headed crystal pendant Napatan Period reign of Piye, 747-716 B.C.
(1991-1962 B.C.) Amenemhat I, 1st King, 12th Dynasty The 12th Dynasty was the most important period of the Middle Kingdom. Its founder, Amenemhat I, vizier to the last Mentuhotep (11th Dynasty), usurped the throne. Amenemhet I was the son of a priest name Sesostris, and his mother was Nofret from Ta-Seti, Nubia.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Pedestal for the sacred bark of Amun installed by King Atlanersa in Temple B 703 at Gebel Barkal, Napatan Period.
Find from the the ancient Royal Bathhouse in Northern Sudan.
Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Number 23.728
King Atlanersa:
From Gebel Barkal, Northern Sudan temple of Atlanersa and Senkamanisken
Jebal Barkal this is where the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, and Meroite were crown by the Priest of Amun.
got this from another website
quote- This is one of my favorite, the glassware look so Modern, which mean from my perspective it is timeless, This is dated around the 1st century AD, during this time there were great deal of trade between the Romans and the Ancient Meroites during this period.
Again the statue of the ancient prietess Amenirdus
This is from the wall outside the lion temple.
while i make a point i hope you guys enjoy the art images from the nubian region.some you may not have seen before.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
this is kushite art,not roman or greek,just wanted you guys to know that.there was differences with more kushite and later nubian art,that was different then egypt.just making a point. while they share alot of culture there were major diffences has well. keep that mind.
Statue of a reclining man discovered 1912 in the water basin (Copenhagen, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek ÆIN 1485
Statuary inside Statuary inside the Royal Bath.
Ba Statue from ancient Meroe.
Berber-Abidiya Archaeological Project.
The head of Aspelta.
king Aspelta
Statue of Aspelta, Black Pharaohs, Nubians, Sudan, Kerma, Statues, 25th Dynasty, Beheaded by conquerors, found by Charles Bonnet, 2004?
king Aspelta
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Amulet of the god Amun Late Napatan-Early Meroitic, ca. 600-250 BC Gilded silver This amulet is made of silver and overlain with gold. According to Egyptian mythology, the bones of the gods were silver and the flesh was gold. Its distinctive features, the long kilt and broad hips, and the image of the sun on the horizon, mark it as a Nubian, rather than Egyptian piece.
On the back of the neck of this figure is a loop so that it could be worn on a chain. Depictions of Nubian kings and queens show them wearing such large amuletic pendants around their necks along with other items of jewelry. Similar pendants have been recovered from some of the royal tombs at Kurru and Nuri in the Sudan.
The statuary is now house in the Boston Museum of fine arts and it was found in Northern Sudan.
some early nubians with others
kushite king meroe period
King Tanyidamani Nubian Meroitic Period (110-90 BC)
Description: A small votive tablet is carved in sunk relief on both sides. On the obverse is King Tanyidamani, wearing a ceremonial robe, a sash, and a long tasseled band slung over his right shoulder. On his head is a hemhem-crown with two streamers. Around his neck are a broad collar, a cord with three pendant ram's heads (mostly destroyed), and a ball-bead necklace. His earrings are in the form of ram's heads with sun disks. On his arms are wide armlets and bracelets. He holds a scepter in his outstretched hands. In front of and behind him are panels with inscriptions in Meroitic cursive.
This unique votive tablet, dedicated by King Tanyidamani in the Apedemak Temple of Meroe, is of exceptional quality and meticulously detailed. Particularly remarkable is the king's face; the prominent cheekbones, characteristic Kushite fold, fleshy nose, and thick lips are paralleled in the likenesses of Kushite rulers of Dynasty XXV and of the early Napatan Period. It is astonishing that artistic traditions were maintained so clearly into the first century B.C. although connecting links are almost entirely missing. However, that objects could be produced at the same time which give evidence of marked stylistic and qualitative variations is shown by a comparison with the stela of King Tanyidamani from the Great Temple of Amun at Gebel Barkal (Boston 23.736).
Statues of the XXVth and XXVIth dynasties By Jack A. Josephson, Mamdouh Mohamed Eldamaty
Sphynx of King Taharqa (690-664 B.C.) from Temple T at at Kawa (London: British Museum).
This illustrates the rich mix of 25th-dynasty culture. The basic form is the traditional representation of monarchy as a lion with a human face, but the mane recalls the distant 12th Dynasty style. The face reflects the vigorous naturalism associated with the Kushitic kings, and the furrow on either side of the mouth is a typical Kushitic stylization, the "Kushite fold."
quote- Chapter 2 • The Kingdom of Kush: ... The faces have high cheekbones and pronounced folds, the so-called Kushite fold, on the cheeks at the sides of the nose; the lips are frequently thick and swollen (Cats. 75,77,82; Fig. 24). ...
others books to read
The kingdom of Kush: the Napatan and Meroitic empires By Derek A. Welsby
more meanings,too make it clear. The kingdom of Kush, Part 1, Volume 31 By Laszlo Torok
Kushite King Senkamanisken (643-623 BC) (right) Ptah
Senkamanisken Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
Kendo Your contributions are appreciated, but can you reduce the size of the pictures that cause the content of this page to widen?
Thnx
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
I will try. IF i can't i will just post the links.oh, and i will post some egyptian art,that shows the common african features many had too,meaning flat noses,thick lips etc,of course there are alot africans with thin lips with no admiture,but there is no mistake they are african.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
^Exactly Links are no problem Kenndo.
Before a certain individual starts yappin about me co-signing Kenndo's use of art, despite the title of this thread, I would like to say that Kenndo, Djehuty etc don't rely on art. Meaning that they are well aware of Anthropological studies that were done on the AE.
I'll post some more interesting stuff here in the following days
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Senkamanisken
Senkamanisken
Nastasen
I FORGOT WHO THIS IS, I THINK IT'S A PRINCE,MAYBE AKING,BUT IT'S FROM THE MEROE PERIOD,LATER KUSH
Kushite King Anlamani (623 B.C.)
"The king is crowned with the pschent, adorned with a pair of ram's horns. The ball at the top is missing. The two uraei represents the white and red crown, respectively. This is the only known example of a royal statue with the horns of Amun". -- Charles Bonnet (2007)
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^Exactly Links are no problem Kenndo.
Before a certain individual starts yappin about me co-signing Kenndo's use of art, despite the title of this thread, I would like to say that Kenndo, Djehuty etc don't rely on art. Meaning that they are well aware of Anthropological studies that were done on the AE.
I'll post some more interesting stuff here in the following days
RIGHT,and early nubia,kush and later nubia.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
Now speaking of egypt. egyptian art,and yes i am picking and choosing the art image like in nubia that were more realistic and showing how they really looked in features.
egyptian art less idealized-
thutmose the 3rd
SesostrisI
AmenemhatII Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
egyptian art less idealized then other egyptian art.i wonder why the racist and euro-centrics and arab-centrics do not show these images?but i think we all know why.
I HOPE EVERYONE GETS THE POINT,IF NOT TOO BAD.FACTS ARE THE FACTS.
peace.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Man Kenndo, The hard work you are doing in this thread is being noticed. Keep it up You and Kalonji are just puting a great effort forward in this thread.
Remember this saying "Haters gonna Hate" keep up.
Peace
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
peace.
Posted by kenndo (Member # 4846) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
This is why Count Constatine de Volney claimed a "negro" character for the sphinx. There is no getting around the receding chin, and full lips, especially upper lips, round cheeks, and large eyes.
Djehuti
1) are you saying that an individual who didn't have a chin that recedes, did not have full lips, did not have round cheeks and did not have large eyes would not be of negro character? I'm asking your opinion not Count Constatine de Volney's opinion.
2) Djehuti, you must be blind as a bat. The chin of the Sphinx does not recede. Nor are the lips full.
Djehuti, in case you didn't know the below is a receding chin. Receding means Go or move back or further away. (what you need to do with your picture spam) [/QB]
wrong.I THINK YOU ARE BLIND,AND Djehuti IS CORRECT.THE LIPS ARE FULL, you could see it. see this is problem,certain folks want too see what they want to see.
here is a better view .
Posted by the lioness (Member # 17353) on :
kenndo why are you spamming this powerful thread with pictures?
there's already a thread in Ancient Egypt section called:
Authentic images of NHHSW (Nehesu/Nehesi/"Nubians")
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Better question yet, why are YOU trying to distort my posts by adding an Arab man in with the portraits of Ancient Egyptian (Black) royals??
Oh and in regards to Tut's features here is what's stated:
Artists and scientists drawing on a detailed examination of King Tut's mummy have reconstructed the face of the young ruler as he might have looked in life: an unusually elongated skull, a narrow face, pronounced lips and possibly a receding chin.
Even your post of a Tut reconstruction shows this!
Or do you even know the meaning of receding chin??! LOL What an dumb twit you are! Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
'... nose, moth and ears are open to speculation.'
Why didn't you go by the nose, mouth and ears on an actual contmporary portrait then, politically correct boneheads? [/qb]
Obviously you didn't bother to read what came before that:
"The skull is the matrix upon which the head and face we built. If the shape of the soft tissue can be rebuilt on a skull, the result will be a reconstruction which the proportion and position of the main, features will be accurate. By utilising measurements of soft issue thickness, as established by Kollman end Buchly in 1898, the features of these two mummies were built up in clay on casts of the skull."
And btw, you completely distorted your citation as to be expected. Here is what they say:
"Nevertheless the **details** of certain areas - nose. mouth and ears - are open to speculation."
compare the actual quote to your distorted attempt at making it seem as if the facial reconstructions were unreliable:
quote:Originally posted by Rahotep101: '... nose, moth and ears are open to speculation.'
You clearly distorted what they actually said. So it seems as if it is you who has the agenda. BTW, do you not understand what facial reconstruction is?
So no, the nose mouth and ears themselves aren't the problem. But the DETAILS of these features are open to speculation. e.g., warts and other details that may have been observed on their faces during life. If the nose mouth and ears were speculative, then what the hell would be the point of a reconstruction, eh? But only the DETAILS were.
They also say this:
"Both Nekht-Ankh and Khnum-Nakht showed a marked similarity to the two small wooden statuettes, which were found in the tomb."
In other words, the reconstructions showed similarity to the other depictions from the tomb, but not necessarily the coffins,
His reply:
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: The details of the noses, mouths and ears could have been filled in from the existing portraiture, which could not be more relevant. I distorted nothing. It is admitted that said features are down to educated guess work, and in this case the so-called experts cocked it up by not taking existing portraiture into account. No facial-reconstrction specialist would say that the shape of the ears, nostrils or lips can in any way be determined from a skull. There are no lip bones, nose bone or external ear bones. All the nasal aperture can give is the height, general width and prominence of the nasal bridge. The speculative areas are a bit beyond warts, you silly sausage. As for the wooden statues, we have not been shown those so I can't comment.
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Obviously Rahotep, you are having a bit of trouble taking in what you are reading. You say:
quote:The details of the noses, mouths and ears could have been filled in from the existing portraiture, which could not be more relevant. I distorted nothing.
The above is false. The details of the brother's features could not have all possible been captured by the coffin. Nor could they have been captured by the reconstruction because we don't actually know what they really looked like. The entire point of a reconstruction in the first place.
quote:It is admitted that said features are down to educated guess work, and in this case the so-called experts cocked it up by not taking existing portraiture into account.
This is not what they said. They said that the details of said features are what is speculative. Hence your distortion.
quote:No facial-reconstrction specialist would say that the shape of the ears, nostrils or lips can in any way be determined from a skull. There are no lip bones, nose bone or external ear bones. All the nasal aperture can give is the height, general width and prominence of the nasal bridge.
LOL! How stupid do you have to be? Of course you can't tell this simply from a skull. Which is why they rebuilt the soft tissue this giving them an accurate reconstruction.
quote:The speculative areas are a bit beyond warts, you silly sausage. As for the wooden statues, we have not been shown those so I can't comment.
A wart on the face would be an example of a detail of their features that we can not possibly be aware of because we don't have a photograph and the coffin didn't portray every detail on their face. That was just an example, which is why I said FOR EXAMPLE. Obviously there are other details on peoples features. But that doesn't really matter seeing as how the features themselves were accurate
Posted by rahotep101 (Member # 18764) on :
Calabozo rebuilding soft tissue is fine for other featueres, and there are common flesh-thicknesses on cheeks and foreheads etc. But it is still guesswork reconstructing shapes and thicknesses of lips, shapes and sixes of ears, size and curvature of nostrils and shape of nasal tip. They can't magically know these things! FFS!
Posted by Calabooz' (Member # 18238) on :
Of course you can't have a perfect reconstruction because we can't possibly know what they really looked like. But as I said, the reconstruction is accurate that's the whole point of reconstructions in the first place. And as they said, the proportion of the features were also accurate
You say that the features are guess work, but the article says the details of these features are what is speculative.
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by rahotep101: Calabozo rebuilding soft tissue is fine for other featueres, and there are common flesh-thicknesses on cheeks and foreheads etc. But it is still guesswork reconstructing shapes and thicknesses of lips, shapes and sixes of ears, size and curvature of nostrils and shape of nasal tip. They can't magically know these things! FFS!
Do you realize that reconstructions use the same bedrock (the skull, and its dimensions, duhh), as cranial analysis, to approximate what an individual/population would have looked like?
Do you realise that you went on record passing the use of three cranial measurements as acceptable for reconstructing what Naqada II people looked like (ie your non existent Armenoids), yet you expect to be taken serious with your petty complaints when reconstructions based on global cranial morphology independently confirm what all population studies say (Egyptians resembled Northeast Africans)?
The likelihood of classifying in African groups is based on Cranial measurements, and it does NOT depend on the presence of fleshy tissue. Therefore, the accuracy of fleshy tissue is a minor concern in the overall picture, and more relevant to those interested in seeing lifelike resemblances than it is to us, who are more interested in what his origin was, biologically speaking. Alternatives applications of fleshy tissue would have little bearing on that end result; a broad nasal aperture will result in a broad nose, larger inter obital space will result in exactly that and the same goes for protruding teeth and all the other cranial regions under examination.
Posted by Bishop (Member # 16652) on :
@Kalonji will you PLEASE COME BACK to the "Hebrews and black women" thread so i can finishing giving you a real History lesson on black people!
Don't run over here now. What? Hmmm... your scared of this a$$ wippin LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Kalonji (Member # 17303) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bishop: @Kalonji will you PLEASE COME BACK to the "Hebrews and black women" thread so i can finishing giving you a real History lesson on black people!
Don't run over here now. What? Hmmm... your scared of this a$$ wippin LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you know how to read time without someone holding your hand and helping you to read it? You can't tell from the time indication on the top of that post that that post was made way before you engaged me?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Classic beat-down and humiliation of lyinass. Posted by mena7 (Member # 20555) on :
bump
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
mena that's not nice
Posted by HidayaAkade (Member # 20642) on :
Bump
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
Bump
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
...
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Djehuti why have you bumped this 2010 thread? Is there something I said recently about Egyptian art that you disagree with?
Posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova (Member # 15718) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Back to the topic...
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: Art is not REAL, but subjective. And so are the opinions and paradigms of the artist when they made their art And so are our opinions about the paradigms the artist himself held in high regard when he made his art And so are OUR opinions of what the artist depicted (African, Indian, nordic etc) And so are OUR opinions on what the artist meant when he depicted what he depicted (simple illustration of whats out there in the world, actual ancient Egyptian, Nubian)
Unless something is stated by the artis himself or there is actual reasoning that justifies any claim, you're just exposing your own bias
Stop drooling over king Tuts small mouth and his large brows and get a life!
Indeed. Not only is art subjective but to make things more complicated, Egyptian art tends to be very symbolic especially with things like color. I can't help but notice every time a portrait, usually a small figurine or coffin is painted in a light color or most commonly left unpainted showing the light color of the wood, they (the Euronuts) assume it to be the actual skin color of the person yet when it is painted in black, they automatically say it is "symbolic". What's interesting is that in another thread we find that some Egyptian coffins were painted in a yellowish or golden color symbolic of the radiant sun and heavenly deities.
quote:To make matters even worst for Eurocentric art droolers, the first coffin that contained Khnum-Nakht, that is the one with lighter painted coffin, held the body that was considered negroid, while the second coffin, the one with the pitch black painted face, held the remains of what was taught of as ''caucasian'' when early researchers found them:
The report into the anatomical finding begins with the observation that there was a "remarkable racial difference in the features presented by each. These differences are so pronounced that it is almost impossible to convince oneself that they belong to the same race, far less to the same family.
Of course, now that we have the reconstructions, we can see that both crania had broad facial features, while displaying the cranial features that are typical of Eastern Africans.
The reported findings are stupid. Anyone with eyes can see from the reconstructions that the ONLY difference between the brothers is that one is prognathous while the other orthognathous. Other than that, they both have the same shape nose and full lips. As if prognathy or orgnathy among one sibling but not the other is doesn't happen within black families of African descent, let alone black populations in Africa! What's interesting is that the so-called "negroid" brother has the longer length face more commonly associated with "caucasians" whereas the "caucasian" brother has a short length face commonly associated with "negroids". Again, BOTH have wide noses and thick lips as well as heavy brow ridges.
quote:The slight build of Nekht-Ankh, the so-called less negroid of the two, further substatiates that he belonged to gracile Africans of whom the EA were a variant:
"On first inspection of the bones at this skeleton the writer was much struck with their slimness, delicate moulding, and the faintness of the muscular impressions; indeed, their female character proved to be so pronounced that at first it was difficult to be sure that the skeleton was really that of a male. The pelvis was reunited and proved to have all the characteristics of a male"."
Okay. So the skeletal build of the so-called "caucasian" brother was very slender and gracile. The question is was it tropically adapted? Did it have elongated limb proportions associated with black peoples? I'm willing to bet yes.
lioness may have disagreed with your instruction and schooling on this..
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
I don't know why this thread from 2010 has been bumped by Djehuti which hasn't been active in 7 years
Of course it has nothing to do with some random thing in the thread like you just posted. IF it was about the two brothers he would have commented on that now in 2021, insteade of just posting three dots "..."
I see you're trying to throw in some distractions. Let's hear from Djehuti why he bumped this thread
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Don't get your panties in a bunch because of the thread's title. I actually didn't mean to bump it up but just copy something and link to it regarding your Amenhotep I thread. You can ignore this thread if you want.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
To Kalonji, excellent insightful writing! Too bad it is useless to the trolls here who are not of sound or logical mind. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Elderly woman of Sudan 
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
