posted 09 July 2004 11:26 AM            

"Eurasian features" as in "Caucasoid", the same features found in East Africa for hundreds of thousands of years...here we go again.

Originally posted by Neo*geo
Suggested by whom? I don't agree that she was Nubian. I have heard theories that she was Hebrew and her father, Yuya, was the biblical Joseph. She was born in Egypt and raised Egyptian. Whether she was hebrew, black, or mixed doesn't really matter. Her bust is a realistic portrait of her face. People can argue what they wish but portraits don't lie.

Neo*geo, there was a New York Times and Washington Post article a several years back after the mummies were discovered that began receiving lots of criticism that clearly Tiye was not Black, or brown, or dark tan. (But we know now that the "blonding" comes from the mummification process-but that part was LEFT OUT of the critics circles )

I found this one, and you'll see what I mean-
10 year old article-but the thinking has not changed http://www.natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/destroy.html

The "hypothesis"(I wouldnt go so far to call them "theories") that Yuya was probably Joseph is also a distortion- we all know "they" would NEVER claim Joseph to be Black. Plus they claim to have found his mummy at Schechem in Palestine. Now was he buried in Egypt or Palestine, they need to make up their minds. Plus he was supposed to be in Egypt during the Hyskos dynasties, now he was there during the 18th dynasty as well? Scientists, Historians, etc. MUST BE QUESTIONED, this is when it pays to be a critical thinker-questioning old theories and coming up with new ones. Science is NOT the final truth, its forever evolving in itself.

Neo, I'm not criticizing the way you think, but as Rasol suggested you have to always keep and open mind, and more importantly learn to become more of a "critical thinker" and not allow people to pass "theories" on you as being "facts".

Which brings me to my final analysis, the mummy of the "Elder woman" does NOT match the evidence known as Queen Tiye. That mummy's identification is still "inconclusive". Thuya and Yuya mummies had blood type A2, and this mummy had blood type O- now 2 parents having blood type A2A2, cannot have a child with blood type O. So either: A. They're not really Queen Tiye's parents or B. The mummy is not really Queen Tiye or C. None of the mummies are who they claim to be.

posted 09 July 2004 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Which brings me to my final analysis, the mummy of the "Elder woman" does NOT match the evidence known as Queen Tiye. That mummy's identification is still "inconclusive". Thuya and Yuya mummies had blood type A2, and this mummy had blood type O- now 2 parents having blood type A2A2, cannot have a child with blood type O. So either: A. They're not really Queen Tiye's parents or B. The mummy is not really Queen Tiye or C. None of the mummies are who they claim to be.

---

Wow. You should be a lawyer! If the Mummy don't fit........

posted 09 July 2004 12:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Supercar I never suggested in "outside" flow "influenced" the race of Africans, if you re-read my comments you seem to be repeating exactly what I said- (read my response to S. Mohammad, July 8, 11:14 a.m.

---

That is what I thought! If you read my last comment, I mentioned that we were probably talking about the same thing, since you mentioned "nucleotides" which is basically the study of haplotype.

posted 09 July 2004 12:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

"Eurasian features" as in "Caucasoid", the same features found in East Africa for hundreds of thousands of years...here we go again.

---

I agree that people from a very broad geographical area could be considered "caucasoid." I was making a point however that Yuya did not have typical Egyptian features. His physical features are consistent with his Persian origins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

I found this one, and you'll see what I mean-
10 year old article-but the thinking has not changed http://www.natall.com/national-vanguard/assorted/destroy.html

---

Why am I not surprised that this link is to a white supremacist publication. These people believe the ancient Egyptians originally looked Anglo-Saxon. Lol. Why do you care what these idiots think? I don't bother arguing with people like them. Their opinions should be discarded like old newspapers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

The "hypothesis"(I wouldnt go so far to call them "theories") that Yuya was probably Joseph is also a distortion- we all know "they" would NEVER claim Joseph to be Black. Plus they claim to have found his mummy at Schechem in Palestine. Now was he buried in Egypt or Palestine, they need to make up their minds. Plus he was supposed to be in Egypt during the Hyskos dynasties, now he was there during the 18th dynasty as well? Scientists, Historians, etc. MUST BE QUESTIONED, this is when it pays to be a critical thinker-questioning old theories and coming up with new ones. Science is NOT the final truth, its forever evolving in itself.

---

I agree. History can and does change. I don't believe Yuya was Joseph or even hebrew. I was just pointing out that biblical historians sometimes try to link him to Joseph. Most Egyptologsts maintain that Yuya was a Hurrian from the Mitanni kingdom. That seems like the most likely conclusion on Yuya's origins.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Neo, I'm not criticizing the way you think, but as Rasol suggested you have to always keep and open mind, and more importantly learn to become more of a "critical thinker" and not allow people to pass "theories" on you as being "facts".

---

When have I not had an open mind? I just posted several different theories on Yuya's origins despite personally concluding that he was Persian. I'm open to new information as long as it is backed by authoritative sources. I don't pay much attention to the opinions of bigots and agenda driven archaeologists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:

Which brings me to my final analysis, the mummy of the "Elder woman" does NOT match the evidence known as Queen Tiye. That mummy's identification is still "inconclusive". Thuya and Yuya mummies had blood type A2, and this mummy had blood type O- now 2 parents having blood type A2A2, cannot have a child with blood type O. So either: A. They're not really Queen Tiye's parents or B. The mummy is not really Queen Tiye or C. None of the mummies are who they claim to be.

---

I have doubts about the elder lady being Queen Tiye as well. This issue is still open to debate...

posted 09 July 2004 01:19 PM            

From your Washington Post criticism link:
"Negro blood was introduced into more than one Egyptian royal family via harem slaves."

Notice...Pierce claims the original Post article confused the distinction between African and Negro.

Well no, actually it is very apparent that he must-needs insert the "Negro" (or Negress) myth gratuitously in order to sustain a racist argument.

Also the need to claim that Negro equal "slave" contains ironies that few Aryanists advocates of caucasianism have ever been able to think thru.

Slave itself is an ethnic slur.

It derives from the Greek sklabos meaning Slav, because the slavic peoples were oppressed as slaves in Europe and by Europeans.......for centuries, until their name itself became associated with the horrid institution.

The irony of course is that some of Europe's slavic peoples actually do hail from "Caucasia" (Georgia/Russia/YugoSLAVia) and so are more definitively "caucasian" than virtually any other peoples one could apply the useless tag to.

Thus, the negro = slave is rooted in prior "caucasian" slavs=slave, but now in support of caucasian supremacism!

Pierce rhetoric plays like a sad history of hateful thinking on exhibition, and thoughtlessly regurgitated. Or maybe just plain bad karma.

posted 09 July 2004 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Homeylu:

From your Washington Post criticism link:
"Negro blood was introduced into more than one Egyptian royal family via harem slaves."

Notice...Pierce claims the original Post article confused the distinction between African and Negro.

Well no, actually it is very apparent that he must-needs insert the "Negro" (or Negress) myth gratuitously in order to sustain a racist argument.

Also the need to claim that Negro equal "slave" contains ironies that few Aryanists advocates of caucasianism have ever been able to think thru.

Slave itself is an ethnic slur.

It derives from the Greek sklabos meaning Slav, because the slavic peoples were oppressed as slaves in Europe and by Europeans.......for centuries, until their name itself became associated with the horrid institution.

The irony of course is that some of Europe's slavic peoples actually do hail from "Caucasia" (Georgia/Russia/YugoSLAVia) and so are more definitively "caucasian" than virtually any other peoples one could apply the useless tag to.

Thus, the negro = slave is based prior "caucasian" slavs=slave, but now in support of caucasian supremicism!

Pierce rhetoric plays like a sad history of hateful thinking on exhibition, and thoughtlessly regurgitated. Or maybe just plain bad karma.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 July 2004).]

---

posted 09 July 2004 02:00 PM            

quote:

---

I have heard theories that she was Hebrew and her father, Yuya, was the biblical Joseph.

---

and....

quote:

---

I don't believe Yuya was Joseph or even hebrew. I was just pointing out that biblical historians sometimes try to link him to Joseph.

---

posted 09 July 2004 02:35 PM            

quote:

---

I agree on the part where you say that there is more variations within a particular race than outside it. Which means that "some members of the African populations, may actually be genetically closer to members in the European populations, than members within the African population". The same is true vice versa. But I still have a hard time dealing with the 50% variation. Human variation in general is so minimal, that biologically speaking, social definitions of race based on "phenotypic classification" becomes redundant. No doubt that there is some biological basis for phenotype, but this variation is so insignificant, in creating clear cut races within the human species. In other words, the genetic variation across the human races is really low, limiting to phenotypic variations and other minor cellular (e.g. sickle cells in Africans) adaptations to the environment. Keita uses the sickle cell phenomenon among African populations to prove the racial relation of Ancient Egyptians to the rest of Africa. He did this through the examination of several AE mummies and skeletal remains from different time frames of pre-dynastic, dynastic, and proto-dynastic Egypt. This only makes sense, because the degree of homogeneity of the population would change over time!

[This message has been edited by supercar (edited 08 July 2004).][/B]

---

I think she is referring to the difference that separate us all one group from another, people to people (not necessarily race though as we view the today) 0.1% or something like that. Of that 0.1% there can be a 50% difference. So I think what homely is saying is that 50% of 0.1% which is 0.05% difference...LOL!

posted 09 July 2004 02:42 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Neo: NA and Stormfront argument are often logically derived from illogical and twisted root premises. NA and Stormfront are irrelevant. The rotten root permises are what must be dispelled. They are a symptom, not the cause.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 July 2004).]

---

These bigots at stormfront and the national alliance are quoting from the likes of 19th century Egyptologists whose conclusions have been thoroughly debunked.

posted 09 July 2004 02:46 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Originally posted by Neo*geo
[b]Queen Tiye was likely of mixed race if her father was Yuya. Yuya was ethnically Persian

Call me a "critical thinker" but "mixed" as in having parents from 2 different races? From their names Thuya, and Yuya they are of the same origin. And it has been suggested several times that Tiye is not Black and not Nubian. But I don't agree with this at all. I doubt most of those mummies are really authentic. They claim her parents had blonde hair, and we know from genetics, 2 blondes will produce a blonde, now does this statue look like on of a Blonde child. And if she's not black, then neither is Michael Jackson. [/B]

---

posted 09 July 2004 02:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

I honestly try to understand your comments but as with the earlier Queen Tiye, portraits don't lie remark they seem contrived and intentionally misleading. As if you are dangling bait, and then disgarding it when no one bites.

---

I do occasionally throw some theories out to see if anyone is interested in discussing them. My intention is to provide you with ideas worth debating. I could simply just post what I think but that would be boring wouldn't it?

posted 09 July 2004 02:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Let's get this straight. I never said the portrait of Tiye looks mixed. I said she is most likely mixed because of her parentage. Personally, I think the bust looks like that of a black women however, her complexion may not have been as dark. Or maybe she was? We do know that her brother was the Vizier and Pharoah Ay who was often depicted with dark brown skin.

---

posted 09 July 2004 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
complexion not as dark? dark brown????????? what are you talking about? You are talking about Africans. That color game is void and null! Julius Caesar may not have been white because his complexion might have been that of J-LO or Mariah or even that of light tan persian person.???? I am confuse with your ppint! Is there any? honestly!

---

In no way was I implying that her possibly having lighter skin means she doesn't look black. My point about her skin 'probably' not being as dark as is depicted reflects the fact that the skin coloring in Egyptian portraiture is usually symbolic. I still believe the facial features on the bust are realistic...

posted 09 July 2004 03:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
These bigots at stormfront and the national alliance are quoting from the likes of 19th century Egyptologists whose conclusions have been thoroughly debunked.

---

posted 09 July 2004 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
[B] complexion not as dark? dark brown????????? what are you talking about? You are talking about Africans. That color game is void and null!

---

posted 09 July 2004 03:35 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
You mean like idigenious African caucasians? ? ? (aka hamites)

---

posted 09 July 2004 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
complexion not as dark? dark brown????????? what are you talking about? You are talking about Africans. That color game is void and null! Julius Caesar may not have been white because his complexion might have been that of J-LO or Mariah or even that of light tan persian person.???? I am confuse with your ppint! Is there any? honestly!

---

quote:

---

In no way was I implying that her possibly having lighter skin means she doesn't look black. My point about her skin 'probably' not being as dark as is depicted reflects the fact that the skin coloring in Egyptian portraiture is usually symbolic.

---

Not consistent with "portraits don't lie".

You are generating confusion because your position is inconsistent.

Your position is inconsistant because it is untenable/unsustainable.

Blaming the "new people" is a form of scapegoating.

posted 09 July 2004 03:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
In no way was I implying that her possibly having lighter skin means she doesn't look black. My point about her skin 'probably' not being as dark as is depicted reflects the fact that the skin coloring in Egyptian portraiture is usually symbolic. I still believe the facial features on the bust are realistic...

This is the problem I have with you and some of the new people here. You attack even when I generally agree with you. I'm not saying anything different from anyone else here, I just state what I think in a different way.

---

posted 09 July 2004 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Not consistent with "portraits don't lie".

---

Portraits don't lie, they capture the soul of a person whether their skin is painted black, green, or red. However, interpretation varies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

You are generating confusion because your position is inconsistent.

---

You are confusing yourself by trying to nitpick at everything in my posts. There is nothing inconsistent in what I said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Blaming the "new people" is a form of scapegoating.

---

I articulated my thoughts well enough. It's not me who is saying that blacks come in a wide range of skin tones then backtracking and saying that someone is implying a person wasn't black by saying her skin might have been lighter. If I dumb my comments down you will then accuse me of implying that the people I'm responding to are simple-minded.

If people want to nitpick at every comment I make I will continue to be selective about who's questions I reply to.

posted 09 July 2004 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I articulated my thoughts well enough. It's not me who is saying that blacks come in a wide range of skin tones then backtracking and saying that someone is implying a person wasn't black by saying her skin might have been lighter. If I dumb my comments down you will then accuse me of implying that the people I'm responding to are simple-minded.

If people want to nitpick at every comment I make I will continue to be selective about who's questions I reply to.

---

posted 09 July 2004 04:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keino:
Come on now Neo*geo, this entire board is able to read and interpret what you are saying as long are you are clear and give a "take home point" so to speak. Lets not start name calling and belittling.

---

posted 09 July 2004 04:43 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Not consistent with "portraits don't lie".

---

quote:

---

Portraits don't lie, they capture the soul of a person whether their skin is painted black, green, or red. However, interpretation varies.

---

Interpretation occurs at both ends. The artist at one end, the observer at another.
Color is as much a part of artistic interpretation as any other aspect of the portrait.

quote:

---

You are confusing yourself by trying to nitpick at everything in my posts. There is nothing inconsistent in what I said.

---

see above.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Blaming the "new people" is a form of scapegoating.

---

quote:

---

It's not me who is saying that blacks come in a wide range of skin tones

---

quote:

---

then backtracking and saying that someone is implying a person wasn't black by saying her skin might have been lighter.

---

Now, you are implying that statement 2 was IN NO WAY meant to support statement 1?

I'm sorry, that is the VERY DEFINITION OF BACKTRACKING.

posted 09 July 2004 04:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
then backtracking and saying that someone is implying a person wasn't black by saying her skin might have been lighter.

---

Now, you are implying that statement 2 was IN NO WAY meant to support statement 1?
[/QUOTE]

*sigh*
You're confusing yourself by not keeping my comments in the context they were made.
Did you miss my prior comment about Tiye's father being Persian? Mixed parentage means she might have been light complexioned. Regardless of any mixture, I would describe her face as that of a black woman. Clear enough?

posted 09 July 2004 05:18 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] *sigh*
You're confusing yourself by not keeping my comments in the context they were made.

---

Well, I don't want to press this any further, so I will just answer your next bit and move on....

quote:

---

Did you miss my prior comment about Tiye's father being Persian? Mixed parentage means she might have been light complexioned.

---

Now you just got finished implying that I wrongly suggested that you were associating
light skin and non Black African ancestry.
But you just did it again.

quote:

---

Regardless of any mixture, I would describe her face as that of a black woman.

---

I understand your opinion, based on ignoring the previous, and so here is mine:

If her appearance in life is anything like that of the Portrait....she would be regarded as Black without second thought, or any debate.

And if the exact same portrait was presented as that of "a Nubian Slave" instead of an "Egyptian Queen" she would be labeled as Black, and listed as Black African, and there would again be no debate.

Her racial identity is principally a matter of debate.....because she is Kemetic royalty.

posted 09 July 2004 05:31 PM            

Let me pick a particular quote from the website:

"It is also interesting to observe how skin color is treated on the small twin images of King Tutankhamun on one side of the cartouche-shaped box, found in his tomb, now in the Cairo Museum. Here the king is shown twice, squatting like a child sun god with a sun disk on his head. The figures face each other, and they have skin color created by inlays of yellowish stone or glass. The figure on the left is entirely yellow; that on the right has an inlaid black face, while his exposed arm and leg remain yellow. Almost certainly this symbolized the king's imagined day and night aspects as he traveled daily with the sun god in his divine boat in the sky over the earth and through the river of the underworld. Neither of these skin tones represented his real skin color. This was probably accurately indicated by the artists who created his magnificent portrait bust, which shows him as a typical Upper Egyptian boy with reddish-brown skin."

But more often than not, the "busts" of Pharaohs depict their true skin color. There are also other artifacts that depict the skin color carefully and accurately, as you see in the following pictures of the Egyptian Army of the 11th dynasty.

Notice that each soldier has a unique face, and expression. They exhibit different heights. The same is true for their shields, which show various sizes. But all show a lively gaze.

What was said about the top photo, can be said about this photo. Notice their somewhat darker skin. These are the Nubian Archers, and part of the Egyptian army from the same period. Notice the different weapons, and clothing! Facial features of these soldiers isn't much different from their Egyptian counterparts. They are each "wearing a yellow or red loincloth in the form of a broad band wrapped around the waist and theighs, with a flap of cloth in the centre decorated with blue-green geometric motifs ona red ground." Notice the anklets on their legs.

So skin colors should not always be dismissed!

posted 09 July 2004 06:16 PM            

The hair color on Thuya's and Elder Lady's mummy was caused by embalming material,but some mummies like Rameses II has been found to have natural red hair. This by no means implies that either red haired people or blonde haired people predominated the AE populace.

Some suspected the Elder Lady to be that of Maatakare aka Hatshepsut;while others contend the mummy of is of Tiye. Susan James believes that Elder Lady was Neferiti.

Tiye's mother Thuya was originally from Waset[Luxor] and she was from an area in Middle Egypt called Akhmin. She was not a Nubian but a black Upper Egyptian. However,some people have suggested that the 18th dyansty was of partial Nubian origin being that many of the X-ray scans done by Kent R. Weeks and James E. Harris seemed to fit in with modern Nubian people.

Let me also say even though many mummies are well preserved,you cannot tell a mummies ethnicity by simply looking at it. The only way this may be done is through X-ray analsyis or reconstruction. Much of the facial tissue of the mummy is dehydrated so it's hard to say if the modern mummy bears any likeness of the original person.