posted
Tanutamen was the successor of tahraqa who's nickname was "the lord of the two horns"
or could it be Taharqa Taharqa was famous among the Hebrews
according to tradition Dhul-Qarnayn worshipped one god (Taharqa only worshiped Amen as the supreme being)
or could it be Alexander the great who is also depicted with horns be mindful that Alexander worshiped many gods
R.Havoc Member # 18722
posted
Both of them are Fake Ancient Egyptians and should not even be associated with Real Pharaohs.
Case Closed!
the questioner Member # 22195
posted
quote:Originally posted by R.Havoc: Both of them are Fake Ancient Egyptians and should not even be associated with Real Pharaohs.
Case Closed!
what does your opinion have to do with my question?
Tukuler Member # 19944
posted
Didn't Iskandar receive his Qarnayim from the Libyan Amon cult center? He wanted to mix all cultures together, right? That's how Hellenism developed and influenced even India's arts. That's why Rome accepted foreigners as citizens and two way acceptance of deities and cultus between Rome and 'client' nations except those pesky Judaeans with their crazy one and only jealous god idea.
Nehesy Member # 17252
posted
According to Muslim Traditions reported by Ali Ibn Abu Talib (ra) & Abdallah Ibn Abbas (ra), Dhul Qarnain was a black king.
posted
^^^ could Dhul Qarnain be taharqa or Tanutamen? the latter was called the "lord of the two horns", the former was depicted with two horns
taharqa praised only one deity (Amen)
in Abrahamic tradition Taharqa was highly praised
Taharqa lead armies through Arabia
Ish Gebor Member # 18264
posted
quote:Originally posted by R.Havoc: Both of them are Fake Ancient Egyptians and should not even be associated with Real Pharaohs.
Case Closed!
How was Taharqa a "fake ancient" Egyptian? Is it because you are from "Green Land" and say so?
quote: "The Mahalanobis D2 analysis uncovered close affinities between Nubians and Egyptians. Table 3 lists the Mahalanobis D2 distance matrix. As there is no significance testing that is available to be applied to this form of Mahalanobis distances, the biodistance scores must be interpreted in relation to one another, rather than on a general scale. In some cases, the statistics reveal that the Egyptian samples were more similar to Nubian samples than to other Egyptian samples (e.g. Gizeh and Hesa/Biga) and vice versa (e.g. Badari and Kerma, Naqada and Christian).
These relationships are further depicted in the PCO plot (Fig. 2). Aside from these interpopulation relationships, some Nubian groups are still more similar to other Nubians and some Egyptians are more similar to other Egyptian samples. Moreover, although the Nubian and Egyptian samples formed one well-distributed group, the Egyptian samples clustered in the upper left region, while the Nubians concentrated in the lower right of the plot. One line can be drawn that would separate the closely dispersed Egyptians and Nubians. The predynastic Egyptian samples clustered together (Badari and Naqada), while Gizeh most closely groups with the Lisht sample. The first two principal coordinates from PCO account for 60% of the variation in the samples. The graph from PCO is basically a pictorial representation of the distance matrix and interpretations from the plot mirror the Mahalanobis D2 matrix."
--Godde K.
An Examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development?
posted 
