Foreign prisoners of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BC) Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu.
The Tassili Ladies, 3,000 BC Algeria.
1) How long have light skinned Libyans been in Libya?
2) Did they come to have light skin while in Libyan or is it a foreign migration?
3) If it was a foreign migration form the Levant to Libya did they pass through Egypt to get there?
4) also look at the Shasu Bedouin at the top. Shasu is an Egyptian word for pastoral nomads who appeared in the Levant from the fifteenth century BCE all the way to the Third Intermediate Period.
Does this mean some of the Arabs of the time, far before Prophet Muhammad may have looked like the above?
astenb Member # 14524
posted
Change your picture
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by astenb: Change your picture
I don't know if you know this but the pictures you can pick on this site are limited to a selection that they have, not any picture off the internet. You'll notice different people will have the same pictures (avitars)
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
@ AstenB -- thanx!
@ Lioness -- So why pick the avatar only I've used exclusively since 2005?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Since intentional fraud was revealed on the part of some members of Lhote's team I've become leary of meticulously executed "Saharan rock art" that has not been verified by photo. This piece and a few others like it are among the questionable. Not saying they're fakes just asking (after Mike111) where're the photos supporting their authenticity?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
The Tassili Ladies, 3,000 BC Algeria.
dana marniche Member # 13149
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: ____Libyan____Kushite____Syrian____Shasu Bedouin__Hittite.
Foreign prisoners of Ramesses III (1186–1155 BC) Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu.
The Tassili Ladies, 3,000 BC Algeria.
1) How long have light skinned Libyans been in Libya?
2) Did they come to have light skin while in Libyan or is it a foreign migration?
3) If it was a foreign migration form the Levant to Libya did they pass through Egypt to get there?
4) also look at the Shasu Bedouin at the top. Shasu is an Egyptian word for pastoral nomads who appeared in the Levant from the fifteenth century BCE all the way to the Third Intermediate Period.
Does this mean some of the Arabs of the time, far before Prophet Muhammad may have looked like the above?
Your trollin'ess - There is also question about the true era and timing era of the Ramessids as per Rohl and others. So, until that problem of the chronology of Intermediate and New Kingdom period of Egypt has been resolved we may never know.
It may in fact have been much later than YOU think, or i should say hope.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
non-black Libyans have been present at least by late Middle Kingdom times. Before that, all Libyans were depicted as no different from the Egyptians i.e. BLACK.
As for the Tasili ladies, I don't know what gives you the impression that they are light skinned just because their color wasn't painted at all. Has it not occurred to you that it was merely abstract art? Lord knows in Egyptian art whenever unequivocally so-called "negroid" features are shown you dismiss it as such! By the way, the Tasili ladies display uncanny hairstyles worn by Fulani women today in West Africa. I doubt they were anything else but black.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: non-black Libyans have been present at least by late Middle Kingdom times. Before that, all Libyans were depicted as no different from the Egyptians i.e. BLACK.
As for the Tasili ladies, I don't know what gives you the impression that they are light skinned just because their color wasn't painted at all. Has it not occurred to you that it was merely abstract art? Lord knows in Egyptian art whenever unequivocally so-called "negroid" features are shown you dismiss it as such! By the way, the Tasili ladies display uncanny hairstyles worn by Fulani women today in West Africa. I doubt they were anything else but black.
Here they are portrayed as reddish brown. They could be indigenous African or they could be reddish brown types who migrated from the Levant/Mediterranean in pre historic times. I don't know. Why are you and dana so sure that this, in your opinions would be a remote possibility a prehistoric migration?
____________________________________________
I will change my avi shortly this hat doesn't fit me
mochito Member # 18060
posted
They could be indigenous Africans, or even Europeans of old... Asians maybe? Hmmmm... I find this concept interesting really... Definitely foreign migration though
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
also look at the Ramesses III figure above, the figure Shasu Bedouin. This is over 500 years before Prophet Muhammad. Is that how people in Arabia or Yemen at the time also looked?
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
Here they are portrayed as reddish brown. They could be indigenous African or they could be reddish brown types who migrated from the Levant/Mediterranean in pre historic times. I don't know. Why are you and dana so sure that this, in your opinions would be a remote possibility a prehistoric migration?
Because simply put there is no evidence to support such a theory! Why are you so bent in proposing a prehistoric migration when there is no evidence of such?? The Tasili paintings in particular portray a people who in appearance, styles, cattle, and accoutrement are no different from that of modern Fulani like the Wodaabe people. As such many scholars think that these people were non other than the ancestors of the Fulani themselves, yet the Fulani carry African lineages at 100% with no trace at all of Eurasian ancestry. So you're multiracial claims of the Sahara like everything else is false.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Though there's evidence for European (north Mediterranean) immigrants to littoral N Africa in prehistoric times none exists for such a presense in the Sahara.
As for skin colours in the frescoes, that's debateable. I'm not one who thinks only the dark skin tones reflect natural skin colour while all the light skin tones are symbolic or faded or whatever.
By the time light skinned people with attributes similar to the Tjemehu show up in the frescoes I think their skin tone relects reality.
The light skin tones I mean are those like cardboard or manilla or lighter shades of cafe au lait. The rose and snow complexion is totally out of the question for the Sahara, would die out in a few generations.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
These images are all of the type Malika Hachid uses in her books to try to establish an all white origin for her Berberes. Besides in her works one rarely sees these anymore. Why? I think because their authenticity is questionable.
All three images in this post were published in Time-Life's African Civilizations back in the 1970's.
But isn't their something just a little too good about this art? I mean, look, that woman's wearing a strapped evening dress. No? And the men, aren't their headgear of a kind (kufis) that's unattested before the middle to current Islamic era?
Where are the in situ photos of the modern painted repros?
The sad fact is some of Henri Lhote's crew pulled one over on him. Highly suspect are the styles labeled
'Round-Headed Men' (Egyptian Influence)
Hunters with Painted Bodies (Ancient Bovidian Phase)
'Judges' (Post-Bovidian Epoch)
Lhote was incensed when he discovered he had been had. He edited admitted fraudulent employees compromising work identified as fake from later editions of The Search for the Tassili Frescoes.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Since intentional fraud was revealed on the part of some members of Lhote's team I've become leary of meticulously executed "Saharan rock art" that has not been verified by photo. This piece and a few others like it are among the questionable. Not saying they're fakes just asking (after Mike111) where're the photos supporting their authenticity?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
The Tassili Ladies, 3,000 BC Algeria.
Kalonji Member # 17303
posted
^Agree with everything, except for the fact that kufi type caps need not be associated with muslims, as ancient Nubians wore kufi-like caps too
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Do you have examples from BCE times of Saharans wearing the two types of kufis in the above pieces? These are the only examples I've ever seen of NAs wearing anything remotely like a kufi and no verbal descriptions exist of early historic "Libyans" with kufi or any head covering. Just feathers in 19th dynasty depictions. So what happened? Fashion in fashion out? I doubt it.
Kalonji Member # 17303
posted
Nope Don't have examples.
Nehesy and Saharans are not mutually exclusive. If Bauval is anyone to go by, Yam was located in the Sahara. The Nubians I referred to with Kufi-like caps were from Yam.
Let's not presume Saharan art was some sort of catalogus used to document their possessions and accessoires. Lack of evidence is not evidence for absence.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: [QB] Though there's evidence for European (north Mediterranean) immigrants to littoral N Africa in prehistoric times none exists for such a presense in the Sahara.
what evidence is there for European (north Mediterranean) immigration to coastal North Africa in pre-historic times?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Absense is absense. No archaeological case is built on absense.
Have you visual examples of "Yam kufi-like caps" that are the same as either of the two very modern looking kufis in the Tassili "repros?"
I tend to think Yam was more or less the Dongola Reach.
Some place Yam from the 5th cataract to between the White and Blue Niles. How favorably is Bauval's Saharan Yam accepted by the rest of the academic community?
Does Bauval's Saharan Yam stretch all the way to SE Algeria? Does it stop there or extend to every known Saharan location clear to Mauritania too?
If Nehesi and Saharans aren't mutually exclusive I take it that Romitu and Saharans aren't either. Tjemehu were Saharans too. So following this line of thought to its conclusion we wind up with all three Nehesi, Romitu, and Tjemehu not being mutually exclusive since all are Saharans?
King_Scorpion Member # 4818
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Absense is absense. No archaeological case is built on absense.
Have you visual examples of "Yam kufi-like caps" that are the same as either of the two very modern looking kufis in the Tassili "repros?"
I tend to think Yam was more or less the Dongola Reach.
Some place Yam from the 5th cataract to between the White and Blue Niles. How favorably is Bauval's Saharan Yam accepted by the rest of the academic community?
Does Bauval's Saharan Yam stretch all the way to SE Algeria? Does it stop there or extend to every known Saharan location clear to Mauritania too?
If Nehesi and Saharans aren't mutually exclusive I take it that Romitu and Saharans aren't either. Tjemehu were Saharans too. So following this line of thought to its conclusion we wind up with all three Nehesi, Romitu, and Tjemehu not being mutually exclusive since all are Saharans?
It
It seems you support a more Eastern origin of Yam. It should be stated though that much more research needs to be done. The Egyptian inscriptions attesting to where they met the Yamites seems to suggest a more interior origin though (if and when it's verified). According to interview's Bauval has given, it seems these inscriptions weren't discovered until around 2008. We also have to wait until Black Genesis is released and more details are given. It should be noted that none of the theories "alternative" authors like Bauval say is openly accepted by the academic community. Seeing as how said community has vehemently rejected a Black origin of Egypt for so long...I fully expect them to continue to ignore Bauval's work.
Something else...Bauval didn't discover Yam. He believes Yam is somewhere in Chad in the Tibesti Mountains. He discovered an Egyptian inscription in the extreme South-West of Egypt where the two groups supposedly met. Now like I said if this inscription is authentic and verified, the likelihood Yam was located along the Nile would not be very likely at all. Because if they wanted to meet the Pharaohs they'd simply travel down river...not meet up hundreds of kilometers inland.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
I support Yam being on the Nile. An aggressor army on the march is not at home. The "Libyans" they were out to attack were in the desert or some desert oasis not the Yam.
Acceptance by academia is not worth but so much. New paradigms are rarely accepted by the staus quo.
Harkhu was trying to open an overland road. That's why he didn't use the river besides it being risky navigation between certain cataracts.
anguishofbeing Member # 16736
posted
They're not black they're "reddish brown types". LOL! Priceless!
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by anguishofbeing: They're not black they're "reddish brown types". LOL! Priceless!
anguishofbeing Member # 16736
posted
Is this where I spam black Africans with "reddish brown" complexions in response? lol Poor little troll, always looking for someone to play with. And in my view that man does not look like the red stylized Minoan, which was a colony of a black African civilization (Egypt) anyway.
Djehuti Member # 6698
posted
^ Ignoring any troll red-herrings. About the so-called 'kufi' cap, such caps were worn by ancient Egyptian gods like Ptah.
But they were also worn by elite men of Punt like Chief Perhau.
Indeed such a hat may well be prehistoric in origin as the predynastic statue shows.
dana marniche Member # 13149
posted
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: non-black Libyans have been present at least by late Middle Kingdom times. Before that, all Libyans were depicted as no different from the Egyptians i.e. BLACK.
As for the Tasili ladies, I don't know what gives you the impression that they are light skinned just because their color wasn't painted at all. Has it not occurred to you that it was merely abstract art? Lord knows in Egyptian art whenever unequivocally so-called "negroid" features are shown you dismiss it as such! By the way, the Tasili ladies display uncanny hairstyles worn by Fulani women today in West Africa. I doubt they were anything else but black.
Here they are portrayed as reddish brown. They could be indigenous African or they could be reddish brown types who migrated from the Levant/Mediterranean in pre historic times. I don't know. Why are you and dana so sure that this, in your opinions would be a remote possibility a prehistoric migration?
____________________________________________
I will change my avi shortly this hat doesn't fit me
Brainiac - My "opinion" that this is an African woman wearing cornrows and portrayed by her people is based on writings of anthropologists, archeologists and rock art specialists such as Hiernaux, Gsell, Mori and others who've noted the Fulani-like culture and appearance of such people. Furthermore skeletons of European do not appear in the Sahara unless your including HAMITIC CAUCASOID ONES.
She could migrated from the north pole for all I care - the point is she's related to other modern sub-Saharans portrayed similarly and not Europeans with reddish white complexions.
First I thought you were just belong Snaky like trolls are accustomed to being but now I'm wondering if you really don't have any reasoning ability.
Kalonji Member # 17303
posted
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Have you visual examples of "Yam kufi-like caps" that are the same as either of the two very modern looking kufis in the Tassili "repros?"
^Not exactly from Yam, but can I get a amen please..?
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Absense is absense. No archaeological case is built on absense.
Exactly, that's why it was no archeological case. It is no secret that many things that people associate with Islam are in reality ''borrowed'' (to put it nicely) from other cultures that predate islam, and are not indigenous to Arabia.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Does Bauval's Saharan Yam stretch all the way to SE Algeria? Does it stop there or extend to every known Saharan location clear to Mauritania too?
Is that necessary for potential cultural diffusion?
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Some place Yam from the 5th cataract to between the White and Blue Niles. How favorably is Bauval's Saharan Yam accepted by the rest of the academic community?
^How favorably accepted is ANY asserted location of Yam?
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: If Nehesi and Saharans aren't mutually exclusive I take it that Romitu and Saharans aren't either. Tjemehu were Saharans too. So following this line of thought to its conclusion we wind up with all three Nehesi, Romitu, and Tjemehu not being mutually exclusive since all are Saharans?
^Strawman alarm Are Nehesy and Saharans mutually exclusive or not? If they aren't, my original statement was correct If they are, I'll answer that question
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Though there's evidence for European (north Mediterranean) immigrants to littoral N Africa in prehistoric times none exists for such a presense in the Sahara.
As for skin colours in the frescoes, that's debateable. I'm not one who thinks only the dark skin tones reflect natural skin colour while all the light skin tones are symbolic or faded or whatever.
Tassili, South East Algeria
fisherman 16th century BCE. Akrotire, Cyprus
Tassili, South East Algeria
It's difficult to tell who the figures in the Tassili rock paintings are. Both the Tassili rock paintings and the Cyrpus painting use a similar reddish brown pigment. As alTakruri says: "As for skin colors in the frescoes, that's debatable." In addition there may be no connection between the Tassili figures and the one from Cyprus. The only connection may be that they had access to a similar pigment. The Tassilis are from a much earlier period.
The two different Tassilis look differnt. The top single figure is dark skinned and appears to have African looking hair. Some of the lower Tassilis have a dark headdress and clothing of the same color as the top figure's skin. Yet the faces are not colored. The features are small. There is little consistency between the two Tassili segments shown. I don't know the reason. It might even be possible there were two different types in the area. The figure from Cyprus has a clearly defined profile. It looks similar to a classic Greek profile.
My conclusion? I don't have one I just don't think race can be determined by this color alone
These other figures from Ramesses III don't have that reddish brown pigment.
King_Scorpion Member # 4818
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I support Yam being on the Nile. An aggressor army on the march is not at home. The "Libyans" they were out to attack were in the desert or some desert oasis not the Yam.
Acceptance by academia is not worth but so much. New paradigms are rarely accepted by the staus quo.
Harkhu was trying to open an overland road. That's why he didn't use the river besides it being risky navigation between certain cataracts.
I still don't know what to make of the Kufi cap headdress other posters are talking about. But let's not forget that the Yamites may not have strictly occupied only the Sahara. The Tibesti Mountains are on the edge of the modern day Sahara desert. A desert that has expanded a lot since prehistoric times when the Yamites lived. The Tibesti Mountains may have been an ancient barrier of the long gone Green Sahara (Saharan grasslands). Making the Yamites potentially a purely Sub-Saharan group. Bauval seems to have evidence that strongly challenges the idea that Yam was situated along the Nile. He even mentions that theory that I guess you could call Nile Yamites on Red Ice Radio. If the Egyptian writing turns out to be true, I don't see how the idea that Yam was along the Nile can maintain any sort of integrity.
If they did live somewhere in the Sahara (which is possible), who knows how much land they actually controlled. The American Civil War gad aggressor armies fighting on their home soil. Just because two groups of people live in the same area doesn't mean they can't war with each other.
Kalonji Member # 17303
posted
^
Note that there is hardly a consensus on the location of Yam. Vercoutter agrees with a location west of the nile valley. Note that ''Upper nubia'' extends itself beyond the nile valley, and so Chad is hardly a stretch. I'd like to know what specifically he is basing it on though.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
what are some websites that have this picture?
King_Scorpion Member # 4818
posted
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji: ^
Note that there is hardly a consensus on the location of Yam. Vercoutter agrees with a location west of the nile valley. Note that ''Upper nubia'' extends itself beyond the nile valley, and so Chad is hardly a stretch. I'd like to know what specifically he is basing it on though.
Yea. Nubia likely wasn't limited by terrain like ancient Egyptians who were basically landlocked (Red Sea to the East, Mediterranean to the North, Desert to the East...and an equally strong and sometimes overpowering Kush that layed to your South). Not saying Upper Nubia would have extended as deep into the heart of Africa as the Tibesti Mountains but like you say it's not hard to formulate a theory (that you'd have to prove) that the two groups could have shared a history of have had some sort of relationship. Read this...
"In fact, Yam was not always considered to be on such friendly terms as Harkhuf's account might imply. It was included among other Nubian lands in the "Execration Texts", inscribed on figures of bound enemies deposited in cemeteries and elsewhere to abort or prevent, through magic, any attack upon or resistance to Egypt. And even though it was remote enough that its ruler did not have to formally submit to the Egyptian King as did other Nubian rulers, at times Yam sent men for Egyptian ordered labor and military levies."
So the above shows that...
1. The Ancient Egyptians may have considered or lumped-in Yamites with Nubians through the Exercration Texts.
2. Egypt at times seemed to have had some sort of Vassal power over Yam (potentially because of their closeness to Nubia?)
3. Yam was a very distant land. Distant enough that trips wouldn't have happened very often and Yam was far enough away that the local King or Chief didn't always have to follow what the Pharaoh said.
This is important. It suggests that's maybe why some have suggested that Yam was located along the Nile because of it's relationship with Nubia. No one ever thought that maybe Nubia extended further into Sudan (again during a time when the Sahara wasn't as large as it is now and the weather was much different) and may have come close to the Tibesti Mountains (if that's in fact where Yam was located). These are important questions to know the answer to if we're to better understand the relationship between Egypt, "Nubia," and the rest of Africa.
Here's a recent article on the "Discovery of Yam."
""It turns out that the script we found states the name of the region where it was carved," Mr Borda adds, "which is none other than the fabled land of Yam, one of the most famous and mysterious nations that the Egyptians had traded with in Old Kingdom times; a source of precious tropical woods and ivory. Its location has been debated by Egyptologists for over 150 years but it was never imagined it could be 700 kilometres west of the Nile in the middle of the Sahara desert."
If true - and it's far from certain right now (read on...) - Mr Borda's could be one of Egypt's biggest recent discoveries. Not only would it push ancient Egyptian culture around 400 miles west of what many believed to be their western limit, but it would also confirm the legendary land of Yam; alluded to in several texts but never found in modern times."
If you read the article it says Egyptian Antiquities has to "verify" it first and that the discoverer is being really cautious with it because of the nature of the discovery. I can understand why he'd be cautious. A discovery like this redefines the Old Kingdom and Pre-Dynastic Egypt. But they claim to have found large rock inscribed with a king's cartouche, royal images and hieroglyphs. Robert Bauval has already been out there, we know this. Somehow I don't think he'd write and entire book if he wasn't sure what he saw was the real deal.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
So if not from Yam and Yam is not the entire swath of the Sahara then no support for the modern kufis in the questioned repro.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Have you visual examples of "Yam kufi-like caps" that are the same as either of the two very modern looking kufis in the Tassili "repros?"
^Not exactly from Yam, but can I get a amen please..?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
I made no association with Islam other than the fact the kufis in question only appear in NA in that era though the Saharan populations don't seem to be kufi wearers at all in any era.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Absense is absense. No archaeological case is built on absense.
Exactly, that's why it was no archeological case. It is no secret that many things that people associate with Islam are in reality ''borrowed'' (to put it nicely) from other cultures that predate islam, and are not indigenous to Arabia.
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
OK, you negate your own original propositions.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Does Bauval's Saharan Yam stretch all the way to SE Algeria? Does it stop there or extend to every known Saharan location clear to Mauritania too?
Is that necessary for potential cultural diffusion?
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
Depends on who you ask and if you recognize validity in their answer.
quote:Originally posted by Kalonji:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Some place Yam from the 5th cataract to between the White and Blue Niles. How favorably is Bauval's Saharan Yam accepted by the rest of the academic community?
^How favorably accepted is ANY asserted location of Yam?
[/QB]
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
After perusing translated primary documentation from 3rd, 5th, and 6th dynasty Egypt I can only conclude from thinking with my own mind and using my own analytical skill that Yam is a Nile polity not a Saharan one.
Said documents to be posted soon on ESR.
This is the last I have to say on the off topic Yam.
As for the thread's subject "How long have light skinned Libyans been in Libya?" I hold that some of the primary art for light skinned Saharans is not authentic due to tell tale clues giving away their invention by repro artisit who didn't maintain professional ethics as admitted by Lhote their employer.
That's my opinion. Each is welcome to reject it in favor of their own opinions as well as they please.
the lioness Member # 17353
posted
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: After perusing translated primary documentation from 3rd, 5th, and 6th dynasty Egypt I can only conclude from thinking with my own mind and using my own analytical skill that Yam is a Nile polity not a Saharan one.
Said documents to be posted soon on ESR.
This is the last I have to say on the off topic Yam.
As for the thread's subject "How long have light skinned Libyans been in Libya?" I hold that some of the primary art for light skinned Saharans is not authentic due to tell tale clues giving away their invention by repro artisit who didn't maintain professional ethics as admitted by Lhote their employer.
That's my opinion. Each is welcome to reject it in favor of their own opinions as well as they please.
what about the tile, the first figure on the left
The garb is of the Libyan type we see with the two large feathers. The tile is limited in height so it's not tall enough to show the feathers but he has the pointy beard and the hair which has the horizontal straight cut at the bottom of it. He has the side lock hanging down. This matches the "Libyan" type of other paintings. Do you have any evidence that the above is not a legitimate artifact from Ramesses III Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu ?
Kalonji Member # 17303
posted
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri So if not from Yam and Yam is not the entire swath of the Sahara then no support for the modern kufis in the questioned repro.
^More referring to sentiments that were not expressed anywhere in this thread What I have tried to communicate instead, is that seemingly Islam era culture/objects often pre-date islam, and thus, a representation of such an object in ancient art is not enough to question its authenticity. Me referring to Nubian Kufis were nothing more than reminders that said objects were already present in ancient Africa, and ancient Levantine areas, and that occurrences of said objects:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: ‘’need not be associated with muslims, as ancient Nubians wore kufi-like caps too’’
So if you hold the following to be true:
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: And the men, aren't their headgear of a kind (kufis) that's unattested before the middle to current Islamic era?
It means that you’re subscribing to logic that is based on flawed assumptions. Whether the location of Yam is in the Sahara is beside that point, a point that was offered by me as a potential explanation for its appearance in Saharan art:
quote: Originally posted by Kalonji: ‘’as ancient Nubians wore kufi-like caps too ‘’ ‘’If Bauval is anyone to go by, Yam was located in the Sahara.’’
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, you negate your own original propositions.
What original proposition? You mean the one you assumed I was holding? Where exactly have I tried to do anything other than remind everyone of the fact that Kufi-like objects were present in Africa, and that these objects could have reached the Sahara by way of cultural diffusion, either by Yamites (potentially) in Chad or by Nile valley Nehesy..? You keep talking about an archeological case LOL, please go back and read my posts.
quote: Originally posted by alTakruri: Depends on who you ask and if you recognize validity in their answer.
How exactly? I mean, it was a good queston when you asked me, right? ‘’How favorably is Bauval's Saharan Yam accepted by the rest of the academic community?’’
And when I feed it back to you it gets all foggy all of a sudden.. Someone in the academic world either adheres to a concept or he/she doesn’t. Nothing wishy washy about it, and nor does it depends on who you ask. Your question was not applicable, since there IS no consensus, nor is there tangible evidence for Yam along the Nile river. So of course Bauvals position is going to be competing with all these scenarios that are currently in rotation. This says nothing about the validity of his position
alTakruri Member # 10195
posted
What? What are you talking about? I posted that faince tile here long ago and never once chided it as a fraud.
You have me confused with someone else.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: what about the tile, the first figure on the left
Do you have any evidence that the above is not a legitimate artifact from Ramesses III Faience tiles from the royal palace at Medinet Habu ?
Some look more like do's, but in the cases where this appears to be the case, the space in between the do's/caps and their faces/heads indicate there is more going on than just hair. I suspect these might be fake hair, but actually tangible and hard, worn as a headgarment instead of a wig.
posted 
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Furthermore skeletons of European do not appear in the Sahara unless your including HAMITIC CAUCASOID ONES.
