I have seen this statue over and over again and I am puzzled by its features. Its not the typical stylized statues.
Is this a Nubian depiction of Osiris from the 25th Dynasty? Does anyone know anything more about it?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ What do you mean by typical stylized features? Are you saying that because his nose is wide that such feature wasn't typical of any dynasty previous to the 25th? If so, then I suggest you try doing research on ancient Egyptian art.
Here are just a couple examples of statues from the Old Kingdom:
And here are a couple from the New Kingdom:
Of course there is countless more. Just go and look for yourself.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Then again even if Egyptians did not have the stereotypical 'black' features you would no doubt attribute such features to 'cacasoids' or specifically 'Jews'! LOL Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion - Are you really so dense that after three years on the forum, you still actually believe that Egyptians looked like this?
Let me try to help you; images like this are of "MODIFIED" Egyptian statues, or are modern fakes of Egyptian statues.
In case you still don't get it, this is a statue of Ramesses II with "MINOR" modifications - I don't know if there is such a thing as an "UNMODIFIED" statue of Ramesses II, Europeans and Turks seem to like re-doing him.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Then again even if Egyptians did not have the stereotypical 'black' features you would no doubt attribute such features to 'cacasoids' or specifically 'Jews'! LOL
Good grief! Can you guys get off the anti-semitic horse you guys are riding.
The Old Kingdom statues were not stylized.
Example - Huni
However, by the Middle Kingdom the art work was stylized and this remained true up until the New Kingdom.
So - was this statue from the Old Kingdom or from the 25th Dynasty? I am not aware of any depictions of anyone during the New Kingdom that is similar.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion - How can I put this; so that you will understand. There were little, if any, stylizing elements in Egyptian Pharaohic art. The elements that you attribute to stylizing, are simply modern modifications made to the statues, so as to make them appear LESS Negroid; I just can't think of a clearer way of saying that; so I ask you to help by trying to think.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Incorrect. There actually was a certain style or convention the Egyptians used when sculpting or painting though it has nothing to do with looking "negroid" or "cacasoid" etc. The style or look of a product depended on not only what period it was made in but also what part of Egypt. Yes there were Egyptians who had features like long narrow noses and narrow lips just like peoples in other parts of Africa which comes to show that racial classes like 'cacazoids' or 'negroids' don't really exist.
For example, there are statues of Hatshepsut that also vary in features somewhat with those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite. All our African features and all are part of a style.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Good grief! Can you guys get off the anti-semitic horse you guys are riding.
Please do not throw that "anti-Semite" or more accurately "anti-Zion" (since Arabs are Semites too) card at me!! Just because I call you out on your claims to attribute other cultures to Jews. You are very much like Clyde or Marc in accusing me of be anti-black just because I call out their false appropriation of other culures for black Africans!
quote:The Old Kingdom statues were not stylized.
Example - Huni
However, by the Middle Kingdom the art work was stylized and this remained true up until the New Kingdom.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how Old Kingdom statues weren't stylized but those from other periods were! Are you saying Old Kingdom artists did not follow any convention when making their artwork? Because if so, you contradict what virtually all mainstream works on ancient Egyptian art say.
Worse yet, are you saying so-called 'cacasoid' features like long narrow noses or narrow lips are "stylized"??! Because that is even more ridiculous for the reasons I first stated above.
quote:So - was this statue from the Old Kingdom or from the 25th Dynasty? I am not aware of any depictions of anyone during the New Kingdom that is similar.
To answer your question, I don't know but to attribute such looks to the 25th dynasty is inaccurate and bad reasoning for again the statements I made above.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Good grief! Can you guys get off the anti-semitic horse you guys are riding.
Please do not throw that "anti-Semite" or more accurately "anti-Zion" (since Arabs are Semites too) card at me!! Just because I call you out on your claims to attribute other cultures to Jews. You are very much like Clyde or Marc in accusing me of be anti-black just because I call out their false appropriation of other culures for black Africans!
LMAO @ Dj getting his own BS thrown right back at his monkey a**! HAHAHA
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Heres a picture of Narmer:
There is also some dispute whether this was old kingdom or new kingdom.
Peace
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Found some more Broad faced sculptures:
Old Kingdom
Memi and Sabu
Senwosret-senebnefny middle kingdom
This is all I could find.
Peace
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - I did not give you baseless opinion to make my claim; I gave you examples, visual proof. If you seriously think that the statue in Torino is really a stylized statue of Ramesses II you have a problem. But in any case, if you have a case to make, please do the same and provide examples!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
BTW Djehuti - the subtle racism of your statement:
"Yes there were Egyptians who had features like long narrow noses and narrow lips just like peoples in other parts of Africa which comes to show that racial classes like 'cacazoids' or 'negroids' don't really exist. For example, there are statues of Hatshepsut that also vary in features somewhat with those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite. All our African features and all are part of a style".
Was not lost on me, I was in a hurry. So in addition to the examples of stylized pharaohic statues: please also include examples of how Egyptians from the south looked more NEGROID that those in the north.
We both know that is not going to happen, but I enjoy exposing you for what you are.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - I know that I am piling on; but what the hell, I enjoy it. So please also explain how this statue of Karomama (A Nubian), got such a ridiculous nose: if not by the hand of "Piece-of-Sh1t" pathetic White people, whether Turk or European.
Posted by Ausarian. (Member # 14778) on :
quote: KING writes:
Heres a picture of Narmer:
There is also some dispute whether this was old kingdom or new kingdom.
Disputes about the bust, about its authenticity or apparent early age, are frivolous.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - The longer you take to respond, the more work you are going to get. So please also explain how these normal looking Black people of Crete; came to look like this, after being touched by the hand of a White man.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - What, still no response? Well try this one. Please explain how Sumerian people with noses like this, come to look like this; after being touched by the hand of a White man.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Mike - nice job about the forgeries, thjugh ... Djehuti's point wasn't 'racist' IMO (look up the def).
Still, nice expose of the somewhat well-known Eurocentric "cleansing" and "maintenance" of Kmtwy, Aegian and other iconography.
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Mike. You have much to disclose, Keep it coming bro. Your website again?
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BTW Djehuti - the subtle racism of your statement:
"Yes there were Egyptians who had features like long narrow noses and narrow lips just like peoples in other parts of Africa which comes to show that racial classes like 'cacazoids' or 'negroids' don't really exist. For example, there are statues of Hatshepsut that also vary in features somewhat with those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite. All our African features and all are part of a style".
Was not lost on me, I was in a hurry. So in addition to the examples of stylized pharaohic statues: please also include examples of how Egyptians from the south looked more NEGROID that those in the north.
We both know that is not going to happen, but I enjoy exposing you for what you are.
Dj caught in more of his own BS. LOL
Posted by argyle104 (Member # 14634) on :
Djehuti aka Ping Pong Pepe is a racial hierarchist.
He's a god damn worthless philopeeeno piece of **** who thinks he's lord over all Africans. He believes its his right to condescend Africans.
He believes that Africans period are lower than anyone else outside save for a few other ethnic groups whom you probably already know.
Sounds like Coon doesn't it?
He also believes in a racial hierarchy withing Africa itself based on "features" (whatever the hell that is).
Again sounds like Coon doesn't it?
He believes its his right to place Africans in these fantasy racial groups that he's dreamed up.
Dirty, nasty ass philopeeeno sitting around on his dead ass obsessing Africa.
Sorry son of a bitch has over 11,000 in just over 2 and a half years of posting.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Here is something for the Negroes gullible enough to have believed the B.S. that the reason why there were White women in Egyptian paintings was because that was how Egyptians differentiated between Men and Women in their paintings. As you can see; they are all women, yet they are all Black.
Tomb of Queen Nefertari
Here is an example of how Egyptians REALLY painted themselves. What you see today is paintings that have been "REHABILITATED" by White people: In other words, MADE TO LOOK LESS NEGROID. Please be sure to say thank you, to the nice White people.
Tomb Prince Amenkhepeshef
Of course, these paintings no longer look like this, these prints were made just after the opening of the Tombs.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: LMAO @ Dj getting his own BS thrown right back at his monkey a**! HAHAHA
And exactly what BS are you talking about?? I specifically said "anti-Zion" as being a more accurate phrase when describing Jewish hatred as in YOU are anti-Zionist, and not anti-Semitic which means against all Semitic peoples including Arabs and Semitic speaking Ethiopians.
So it looks like the only B.S. around here is what you stuff your mouth with.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: BTW Djehuti - the subtle racism of your statement:
"Yes there were Egyptians who had features like long narrow noses and narrow lips just like peoples in other parts of Africa which comes to show that racial classes like 'cacazoids' or 'negroids' don't really exist. For example, there are statues of Hatshepsut that also vary in features somewhat with those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite. All our African features and all are part of a style".
Was not lost on me, I was in a hurry. So in addition to the examples of stylized pharaohic statues: please also include examples of how Egyptians from the south looked more NEGROID that those in the north.
We both know that is not going to happen, but I enjoy exposing you for what you are.
Exactly where is the racism in my claim?? Notice I said there really is no such thing as 'caucasoid' and 'negroid' for the very reasons I stated.
As for the example I gave of Hatshepsut that is something the old moderator Ausar showed (Ausar by the way is a black Egyptian from Upper Egypt).
Here is a scuplture of Hatshepsut
And here is one of the statues from her tomb showing her with narrow features.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by argyle104: Djehuti aka Ping Pong Pepe is a racial hierarchist.
He's a god damn worthless philopeeeno piece of **** who thinks he's lord over all Africans. He believes its his right to condescend Africans.
He believes that Africans period are lower than anyone else outside save for a few other ethnic groups whom you probably already know.
Sounds like Coon doesn't it?
He also believes in a racial hierarchy withing Africa itself based on "features" (whatever the hell that is).
Again sounds like Coon doesn't it?
He believes its his right to place Africans in these fantasy racial groups that he's dreamed up.
Dirty, nasty ass philopeeeno sitting around on his dead ass obsessing Africa.
Sorry son of a bitch has over 11,000 in just over 2 and a half years of posting.
Man what the f*ck are you talking about?! Exactly how am I a "racial hierarchist"??!! cite an exact quote or post where I said anything racist or rank people on a heirarchy based on their features??!!
You can't can you! You are just an schizo paranoid loser. The only one racist around here is YOU for your continued use of idiotic slurs based on my Asian heritage. What's the matter? White Nord hasn't been giving it to you in the anus lately? I suggest you and akobago and white nerd leave this website and go have an orgy or something. Maybe that will make you guys feel better. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
In case anyone was wondering if White people also introduced White women to the paintings of other people: the answer is, yes they did. The point seems to be that when there is no opportunity to claim the civilization as a White one, then claim that Whites were at least a part of it.
Minoan - Toreador fresco
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: And exactly what BS are you talking about?? I specifically said "anti-Zion" as being a more accurate phrase when describing Jewish hatred as in YOU are anti-Zionist, and not anti-Semitic which means against all Semitic peoples including Arabs and Semitic speaking Ethiopians.
So it looks like the only B.S. around here is what you stuff your mouth with.
No, all the above ^ are your diversions. The BS is your pulling out the bigotry card (he says anti-Semitic, you say anti-Jew) whenever Jews are mentioned in a not so positive ight. Never mind what is said is true or not, the first reaction is anti-Semitic, anti-Jew, hateful, bigotry etc etc etc.
It's all your BS Dj, Osirion just threw it back at you ...so now as a result of this BS reply to cover for your own BS, you've made your BS meter go even higher. LOL
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ He said anti-Semitic as a term for anti-Jew when again Semitic does NOT equal Jew, you dumbnut. The only one keeps talking BS is YOU and your "Jews" are the ones who raped your life. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - Take a close look at the nose of the statue, does that REALLY look natural? Or do you think Egyptians were poor artisans.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ He said anti-Semitic as a term for anti-Jew when again Semitic does NOT equal Jew, you dumbnut. The only one keeps talking BS is YOU and your "Jews" are the ones who raped your life.
More BS. His ignorance, and raolsowitz's too, is not the issue here. It is his, and yours, and rasolowitz's, pulling out the bigotry card whenever white Jews are mention in a certain way. So stop deflecting, you're going pop your BS meter!
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Fail to address anything I said. Again, the only BS you smell comes from your own upperlip. Stop eating it and you'll stop smelling it.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - Take a close look at the nose of the statue, does that REALLY look natural? Or do you think Egyptians were poor artisans.
And what is so unnatural about it? Are you saying that Egyptians can only have broad features and that any narrow feature was an alteration?
But I forgot I am talking to the same person who believes the ancient Greeks were black and all the depictions we have of them are alterations. Sure thing Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote: ^ Fail to address anything I said.
Quite the contrary, I did address your pathetic attempts at deflecting from the real issue here: your BS reactionary defence of white Jews and how Osirion merely threw your own BS back at you. Right up your ass! HAHAHAHHA
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
Geez, summer heat makes for short fuses. Look, Djehuti wasn't being racist --no if, ands or buts about that. As often as he's gone to bat against true racists like White Nord, Evil Euro etc it's way out of line to ever accuse the guy of that.
I too disagreed the instant I saw the words, "those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite," but does this rise to the level of "racist?" That's nuts if you think it does. I could see it differently if DJ was some fly-by-nighter (gee, whatever happened to "Glider" anyway? He accidently stab himself to death with a fork or something?) who showed up just long enough to spout some old talking points about red hair and yellow women before returning to StormFront, but DJ's contributions to this forum and his defending of the truth of Egypt being black is undeniable. Shouldn't that be worth something before we throw him under the bus?
And denigrating his Filipino ancestry IS racist and it's beneath this forum for that kind of thing to happen. Name calling and insult-throwing isn't debate. We can disagree, even on issues of principle, without it instantly turning into a deathmatch. Let the self-deluding @$$holes on those "other" wannabe Egypt forums wallow in that gutter.
Did the Egyptians, like all Africans, have varying features? Yes. Was this reflected in their artwork, particularly works depicting real people? Yes. Was there some sort of "narrow features" in the north, "broad features" in the south artistic standard? No.
And just out of curiosity, does anyone know what era that statue of Osirus is from? I for one would like to know.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Hey Sport - I'm not real sure if Djehuti is racist, dense or just ignorant. But since you are defending him, you give him this test. Ask him if he understands that the Black people above (the ones holding the cup and jumping the Bull), eventually moved from Crete to the Greek mainland, and built a city named Mycenae; thus beginning Greek civilization. So please ask the fool; what does that make the original Greeks if not Black.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
If you're referring to some previous debate then that's not one I'll jump into. I haven't done a lick of research on ancient Greece so I'm in no position to question anyone's understanding of Greece. Though I do get a kick out of comparing your Greek cup-bearer to the version the white artist rendered. An excellent example that Eurocentrics remaking history.
I've read on this forum that Greece was purported to have been first colonized by Africans. Given that it's just over the Med, and that the AE were a maritime people with their own tradition of exploration and invasion, it would be odd if they hadn't branched out. I would like to review your information regarding this. What sources would you suggest I start with on this subject?
Of course that also begs the question, since the original Libyans (whichever definition one chooses to use) were black Africans, then who were the later light skinned Libyans who appeared west of Egypt proper and how did they get there?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Creamy colored "Libyans" appear before 1000 BCE in 18th Dynasty tomb paintings. These paintings are roughly contemporaneous to Sea Peoples migrations thus whatever lightened this particular sub-population of ancient "Libyans" seemingly happened before the Sea Peoples advent.
Minoan art leads me to presuppose regular back and forth contact between Libya and the Aegean. But it was further west where the ancient "Libyan" Meshwesh (whose ethnonym ends in "esh" as did the ethnonyms of select Sea Peoples) lived.
Archaeology of Tunis yields evidence of trade with Tyrrhenian populations. Were women one of the items? Then there's this so-called "Beaker" culture/tradition that was supposedly south European to start with. Iirc, with the Beaker industry a more selfish and militant outlook presents itself in coastal North Africa. Maybe some lightening came onboard with the Beakers?
Population geneticist's reports oalone would have one conclude the lightening is a result of demic movements in wake of Islam. If the slave trade is what lightened coastal North Africa, that leaves us to surmise some genetic mutation as responsible for dynastic Egypt era "whites" in North Africa.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: Heres a picture of Narmer:
There is also some dispute whether this was old kingdom or new kingdom.
Peace
"Disputed" by whom? Arthur Kemp?
There is no basis whatsoever for identifying this as a New Kingdom statue. The person who found it (Petrie) found it among other Old Kingdom artifacts so our only and biggest clue alludes to its origin in the Old Kingdom [probably the first dynasty].
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sport - If you are serious about researching ancient Europe, you are in for a wonderful and rewarding experience. Though the reading is rather tedious because the writers are in a tough position. They are writing about Black people, but they dare not say that they are writing about Black people, so they use euphemisms.
The best book to start with (because it also includes some material about Blacks in western Europe north to and including Britain), is "Myths of Crete and pre Hellenic Europe". But it is also one of the most difficult to read for the reasons given above.
In the book, rather than talk about racial types, the author (and most others) use euphemisms like long heads and broad heads to indicate racial types (for the reasons I have given). So I have included a link to a page that will explain what the head thing is all about. (That nonsense has since been discredited).
Just remember that up to the point were he starts talking about the "Doric" invasian, he is talking ONLY about Blacks of various kinds (Grimaldi, Cro-Magnon etc.).
Sport; after you have done your reading and seen how really straight forward and uncomplicated the ancient history of Europe really was - race wise. Could you please tell alTakruri to ease up on that Mumbo Jumbo stuff, the people on this board are already confused enough, they don't need more nonsense.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
The guy (Mike) has the nerve to be is calling ME racist yet attributes every statue with a small or narrow nose as being forged or modified?! So he says that only those with broad noses are authentic because Egyptians like all blacks can only have broad noses?!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - I know that I am piling on; but what the hell, I enjoy it. So please also explain how this statue of Karomama (A Nubian), got such a ridiculous nose: if not by the hand of "Piece-of-Sh1t" pathetic White people, whether Turk or European.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is nothing forged about that statue and even Egytpian paintings show Sudanese people with longer pointier noses than themslves!
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^ Please learn to read, I did NOT say that the statue was fake, I indicated that the nose was modified. If you think that proud Black people depict themselves with features even more narrow than White people, you truly are a racist, and an idiot to boot.
Posted by sportbilly (Member # 14122) on :
All right then mike. But before I go speaking out of school, give me your take on the ancient Libyans. If Al's position is "mumbo-jumbo," what do you consider the truth?
Posted by xyyman (Member # 13597) on :
Agreed - DJ has contributed a lot to this forum. But any adult can see he trys to play it both ways. Mike, myself and others have called him out on this before. But he (and many others) do have valuable knowledge on AE.
quote:Originally posted by sportbilly: Geez, summer heat makes for short fuses. Look, Djehuti wasn't being racist --no if, ands or buts about that. As often as he's gone to bat against true racists like White Nord, Evil Euro etc it's way out of line to ever accuse the guy of that.
I too disagreed the instant I saw the words, "those made in the north having longer noses and thiner lips while those made in the south having the opposite," but does this rise to the level of "racist?" That's nuts if you think it does. I could see it differently if DJ was some fly-by-nighter (gee, whatever happened to "Glider" anyway? He accidently stab himself to death with a fork or something?) who showed up just long enough to spout some old talking points about red hair and yellow women before returning to StormFront, but DJ's contributions to this forum and his defending of the truth of Egypt being black is undeniable. Shouldn't that be worth something before we throw him under the bus?
And denigrating his Filipino ancestry IS racist and it's beneath this forum for that kind of thing to happen. Name calling and insult-throwing isn't debate. We can disagree, even on issues of principle, without it instantly turning into a deathmatch. Let the self-deluding @$$holes on those "other" wannabe Egypt forums wallow in that gutter.
Did the Egyptians, like all Africans, have varying features? Yes. Was this reflected in their artwork, particularly works depicting real people? Yes. Was there some sort of "narrow features" in the north, "broad features" in the south artistic standard? No.
And just out of curiosity, does anyone know what era that statue of Osirus is from? I for one would like to know.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
See? Despite your cheap-shots at al, you don't realize that arggh is the real paranoid agent on this forum, other than ako.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Man what the f*ck are you talking about?! Exactly how am I a "racial hierarchist"??!! cite an exact quote or post where I said anything racist or rank people on a heirarchy based on their features??!!
You can't can you! You are just an schizo paranoid loser. The only one racist around here is YOU for your continued use of idiotic slurs based on my Asian heritage. What's the matter? White Nord hasn't been giving it to you
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sport - I will do as you ask; but you will recall that I asked you to do so after you had done your own research: which no doubt means that you will not be doing any research.
Anyway, here it is: The first intrusion into Africa by Whites was when the Doric Greeks attacked the Libyan city of Cyrene at about 570 B.C. [In my own mind, there has always been the question; if these Greeks attacking Cyrene were the original Black Greeks, or the Whites who had invaded and conquered Greece starting at about 1,200 B.C.] But all sources which I have seen (these sources are of course White), are adamant that these were Doric Greeks attacking Cyrene: which makes them White, (Dorian’s and Hellenes are the White people).
But I am still not satisfied; here is why. The Libyans called for king Wahibre to help them fight-off these Greeks. [The Egyptians were badly beaten, and upon the survivor's return to Egypt, civil war broke out. King Wahibre was blamed for the disaster; this resulted in a confrontation between the regular Egyptian army, and the Greek mercenaries in the Egyptian army, Egyptian soldiers feeling that the Greek mercenaries we treated better than they]. That all sounds fishy to me, but who knows.
Here is some background on that: The Blacks in the Mediterranean and southern Europe first started running from the invading Whites at around the time of king Merneptah. They needed a new place to live, and for obvious reasons their only choices were Anatolia the Levant and Africa. They were collectively know as the Sea People, but the first attack on Egypt was only by the Blacks of the Mediterranean islands. They were defeated by Merneptah, but some settled in Libya and became mercenaries in the Egyptian army.
About 60 years later, Blacks from all the Mediterranean islands and southern Europe started to run, they formed a coalition that attacked Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt all at the same time. Ramesses III fought them off in Egypt, but allowed the Tjeker (Minoans) of Crete, to settle in Canaan, there they would later be known as the “Philistines”. The rest took parts of Anatolia and wherever else they could get in.
The massive influx of Whites into the middle-east and north Africa didn’t begin until October 332 B.C. That is when Egypt handed itself over to 'Alexander the Great' in order to spite the Persians who had conquered Egypt twice before (529 B.C. and 373 B.C.). After stationing troops in Egypt, Alexander then went on to conquer Persia. With this victory, all that Persia controlled, and all that Egypt controlled, became open to White settlement. Whites poured in by the millions.
After Greek power waned, the Romans took over, millions more poured in. The Romans took the Phoenician city of Carthage in North Africa. Now millions of Whites poured into North Africa.
Blacks in North Africa, Egypt, and the Middle East might still have survived in numbers: But the final blow was the misnamed “Arab invasion” (even today, there are not enough actual Arabs in Saudi Arabia to threaten anyone). Muhammad’s army was made up of disenfranchised Greeks (owning to the Roman takeover) and the latest White migrants from the Eurasian plains: THE TURKS.
The Turks later took over and formed the Ottoman Empire; which controlled from Hungary south to Arabia, and from the Caspian Sea west to Algiers: Millions more Whites poured in, this time Turks. I will not go into the relationship between the Turks and the Berbers of North Africa; that was complicated. But it seems that the Berbers were free to do as they pleased, as long as they shared what they took with the Turks. Turks were of course free to settle in any lands that the Berbers had or took, thus in addition to large numbers of Turks in North Africa, there was also a large community of Turks (called Jews) in Spain. The Ottoman Empire was defeated in WW I, and Britain and France took over its territories. Now Whites from Britain and France poured in.
Thought the history is long, I don’t see anything complicated or mysterious about it. The mystery comes about because people are too lazy to read, so they make things up, and when telling a made-up story, the more mysterious it is, the more entertaining it is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ LOL One guy in this forum blames everything on 'Jews' while the guy above blames everything 'Turks'! How the hell did Egyptsearch get to be the home of neurotic bigots anyway??
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Good grief gentlemen. I asked for simple information. What dynasty is this from?
I don't need to hear about Jews and Arabs or about Libyans, I just want to know if this is Old Kingdom or the 25th Dynasty.
As for stylized - Duh! It has nothing to do with broad noses and thick lips which are part of most dynasties because we are talking about Africans, but rather its about attractiveness. The Egtyptians made their statues look young and attractive regardless of the person they were depicting. Really, do you think those people were all good looking? No! They were fat and ugly - many of them! The Old Kingdom didn't bother trying to make people who were fat look thin! You know - chubby cheeks of Huni. This Osiris statue has chubby cheeks and doesn't fit the style of the Middle Kingdom. So what style is this would help pinpoint which dynasty.
Perhaps this is 13th dynasty. It reminds me a bit of Hor:
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - You ignorant twit: what you have above, is conventional history as written by White people, and easily verifiable by reading an encyclopedia. What is your ignorant point I ask.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ My, it seems I hit a nerve with some truth.
The only ignorant twit is YOU when you deny authentic depictions of white Greeks as being forged and then claim every Egyptian statue with a narrow nose must mean the nose is forged! LOL
I am more than aware of the racist history that whites wrote, but this by no means makes it that everything artifact and depiction is a fake or forged.
You are just a person who suffers from a paraoid neurosis. You even blame Turks for all of this even though Turks were never a significant populace in Egypt compared to Arabs and Greeks.
You need help, dude.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
You both need to get off my thread with your personal issues or help me discover some information.
Anyone know anything about this statue or what?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Djehuti - The nerve that you hit, is the same one everyone has; when confronted by a whining child talking nonsense. If you see an error above, please speak to that error specifically, instead of whining about whatever comes into that little empty head of yours.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You both need to get off my thread with your personal issues or help me discover some information.
I agree - and worse yet, the ad homina (cuz that's all they are) are coming after an arguement on whether something is truly authentic or not - a pointless arguement that is similar to arguing whether something is real or not.
All information is putative, so a better strategy would be in pointing out an inconsistancy in what a opposing party considers 'authentic' or 'fake' (especially if the incosistancy seems to function at the subject's conveniance) or other aspect of a opponant's position that shows them hypocritical.
Instead of:
A: "You are gullible enough as to believe those are real. You eristic imbecile."
B: "You're skeptical of way too many things! You loon!" Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Basically - be more objective and less emotionally subjective.
I just want to know more about this statue. It clearly doesn't appear to be Nubian. Doesn't match the Nubian/Egyptian mix at all.
The headdress is very unique and I have never seen it before. Love to know which museum is carrying this relic.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Djehuti - The nerve that you hit, is the same one everyone has; when confronted by a whining child talking nonsense. If you see an error above, please speak to that error specifically, instead of whining about whatever comes into that little empty head of yours.
Don't count on him doing that. Whining about alleged "bigotry" (only re Jews and Turks though, not black Arabs whom he dismisses as "psychopaths") on ES is much easier.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Calm down Adolf Garvey, a.k.a. Marcus Hitler. I'd actually vouch for Djehuti in a split second, as far as his non-racialist approach [unlike you]. It is apparent that you're just a paranoid schizophrenic though. Your mind is abused, which is why your thought process is so azz backwards.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Sundiata - do you have anything on the statue?
There's so much delightful history here that we are missing in terms of mainstream America.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): I agree - and worse yet, the ad homina (cuz that's all they are) are coming after an arguement on whether something is truly authentic or not - a pointless arguement that is similar to arguing whether something is real or not.
All information is putative, so a better strategy would be in pointing out an inconsistancy in what a opposing party considers 'authentic' or 'fake' (especially if the incosistancy seems to function at the subject's conveniance) or other aspect of a opponant's position that shows them hypocritical.
Instead of:
A: "You are gullible enough as to believe those are real. You eristic imbecile."
B: "You're skeptical of way too many things! You loon!"
Actually the guy not only says that all the images of Greeks from the Classical period are fake but he even dismissed the giant statues of Hatshepsut outside of her memorial tomb.
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^^Calm down Adolf Garvey, a.k.a. Marcus Hitler. I'd actually vouch for Djehuti in a split second, as far as his non-racialist approach [unlike you]. It is apparent that you're just a paranoid schizophrenic though. Your mind is abused, which is why your thought process is so azz backwards.
Look, just face up nuh? You are projecting: one half of you decry race and fascism while the other loves fascism just fine. Hahhaaah
Please confused negro you are in no position to talk about schizophrenia.... Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Why does EVERY THREAD turn into a race bating senseless match of worthless nonesense!
I suppose even skeletal remains of Ancient Egyptians were faked.
Now I believe there were many fabrications but enlarge what you see is what you get.
I guess don't be so hard on him Djehuti - remember many Europeans believed these were Alienas from Mars!
Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Actually the guy not only says that all the images of Greeks from the Classical period are fake
Wow, I would love to see this. Show where he says this... Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
Mike I've noticed something funny about this thing too.
I'll just go with they (females) were painted lighter.
**
On another note, what I notice that is suspicious is depictions which have been 'touched up' you can still see the darker paint on the edges, which indicates they didn't want to go to far. I'm aware that incases of the entire scene being lightened it may be erosion. When there are two main skin tones present and limbs cross eachother you can tell that the lighter ones have been faded because they partially got the darker and some places didn't. I'm not to sure but I think I've seen this with women.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Actually the guy not only says that all the images of Greeks from the Classical period are fake but he even dismissed the giant statues of Hatshepsut outside of her memorial tomb.
Yes this is definitely not how it's done; are ya sure ur not gettin this guy confused with Kemson Fullofit Unloading though?
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
I will make this point!
As a source of information this forum is woefully empty of useful commentary!
Posted by Agluzinha (Member # 14023) on :
^^ The statue is part of the Louvre Museum's collection.
I have it from Th.Obenga's journal ANKH, that it is from the 2nd or 3rd millenium BC. No more precise information so far, sorry.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Do you which dynasty the figure comes from?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I will make this point!
As a source of information this forum is woefully empty of useful commentary!
That's because it has been taken over by trolls and no moderators to dispose of them.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^A natural, unmodified Black nose. The discoverer must have had a Black assistant looking over his shoulder.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
^ Well there you have it, it's from the late/Greco-Roman period Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^A natural, unmodified Black nose. The discoverer must have had a Black assistant looking over his shoulder.
Not all archaeologists are racist Mike Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^True, but far too many are.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Fascinating, yes, with the close up picture you can see the Greco/Roman stylizing. The use of metal is also quite more Greco Roman.
Thanks, that has to be the most useful reply I have gotten in quite some time.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Fascinating, yes, with the close up picture you can see the Greco/Roman stylizing. The use of metal is also quite more Greco Roman.
Thanks, that has to be the most useful reply I have gotten in quite some time.
greco roman stylizing?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
He He
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
THE VANISHING EVIDENCE OF CLASSICAL AFRICAN CIVILIZATIONS:
“A 2001 Update”
Prof. Manu Ampim
The “Vanishing Evidence” series is a general summary of years of detailed observation and research. The full documentation supporting the conclusions expressed in this series of articles, including dozens of photographs, will be published in my forthcoming book, Modern Fraud: The Forged Ancient Egyptian Statues of Ra-Hotep and Nofret. I make no attempt here to “prove” such a complicated case as forgeries and the deliberate destruction of African artifacts in just a few short articles. Rather, this series is simply a preliminary report on my findings, which will be given extensive treatment in my book Modern Fraud. - MA
SCOPE OF “THE VANISHING EVIDENCE” SERIES
I originally wrote "The Vanishing Evidence of Classical African Civilizations" series in The Gaither Reporter in 1995-1996. The 3-part series documents the unintentional human-aided deterioration, as well as the deliberate and massive alteration, mutilation, and destruction of ancient Egyptian artifacts. The series covers three broad categories of this vanishing evidence: the Temple Evidence (part I), the Tomb Evidence (part II), and the Museum Evidence (part III). Before writing the series, I had meticulously studied artifacts and images at temples, tombs, pyramids, museums, and ancient residential sites throughout Egypt and Nubia (1990, 1994-1995). I also carefully examined ancient Egyptian and Nubian artifacts at nearly all of the major museums, institutes, and libraries in eleven European countries (1989-1990), and in dozens of cities throughout the U.S. and Canada (1991-1992). Overall, I painstakingly studied well over a million images and artifacts before writing the “The Vanishing Evidence” series.
My initial goal was simply to follow the path of research outlined by the eminent scholar, Dr. Chancellor Williams in The Destruction of Black Civilization (1974), and conduct primary research on ancient Black civilizations. As Williams pointed out, the accurate knowledge of African science, social organization, and advanced spiritual systems can only be known from an unbiased first-hand study of the history and artifacts. Though I began my extensive multi-country research tour with a mission of documenting the specific details of the advanced African civilizations of ancient Egypt and Nubia, a quite different and unexpected theme emerged in every region that I studied. I was struck by the specific patterns of deliberate alterations and defacement of the artifacts. These patterns became clear after I had visited the initial group of European museums. What I noticed most was that these acts were more than simply knocking off the noses of statues, they involve a much broader assault on ancient Black images.
The pair statue from the Tomb of Ikhetneb has lost most of its original paint on the faces and upper body of the two images, while much of the original paint on the legs and feet still survive. It seems evident that the darker paint has been deliberately erased on the face and upper body, thus giving the images the illusion of a white-skin appearance.
METHODS OF DESTRUCTION AND ALTERATION
My observations of the evidence are careful and are supported by photographic and video documentation. The extensive study of over a million artifacts and images gave me the keen power of observation to make analyses of the same materials that are also available to Egyptologists, although most of them have not studied the volume of the materials that I have examined. When the artifacts in question were examined meticulously, I found that the methods used to change or damage the images are varied, and they include: subtly altering the shape of the nose on statues by using some type of sanding device; adding on false noses; reshaping or completely destroying the face on temple and tomb walls; lightening the color of the face and body paint on statues and paintings; completely eliminating the paint on statues and paintings and thus making the images appear “white”; destroying the lower facial structure, particularly the chin and jaw area; putting in false bluish-gray inlaid eyes; plastering over temple images with White Portland Cement during ongoing “conservation” work; and creating outright forgeries! These acts of fraud and deliberate destruction is what I call the handiwork of modern conspirators. I was stunned by such an angry, vicious, and widespread attack against Black images by the enemies of Classical African Civilizations.
MODERN FORGERIES
One of the most absurd invention of the conspirators is the forged statues of Ra-Hotep and Nofret in the Cairo Museum. I present detailed and concrete evidence in my forthcoming book, Modern Fraud: The Forged Ancient Egyptian Statues of Ra-Hotep and Nofret (also see part 3 of this series on the Museum Evidence) that there is a list of specific artistic rules which are consistently applied to statue after statue throughout the pyramid age.[1] Although some writers would attempt to argue to the contrary, the fact that there was a body of specific artistic rules is demonstrated by the tens of thousands of statues and paintings that are presented in exactly the same way across various sites and cites throughout all of the major periods: the old, middle, and new kingdoms. Thus, these shocking forgeries make no artistic sense as they violate a long list of clearly defined rules, according to the ancient Egyptian rule system. Further, these fabricated European-looking statues do not make any cultural or historical sense, and it is consistent that they were found (or rather created by modern hands) during the 19th century, which has been called by some historians as “The Great Age of Fakes.” There is no doubt that the Ra-Hotep and Nofret forgeries stand completely outside of the ancient Egyptian artistic, cultural, and historical reality.
One of the great forgeries of the 19th century which has already been proven is that of the famous Queen Tetisheri. The statue of “Queen Tetisheri” was purchased by the British Museum in 1890, and this fake piece (with its facial features resembling most Europeans) was paraded around the world until it was first suspected as a fraud in 1984. This fake Tetisheri statue was showcased in the British Museum special exhibit on forgeries in 1990, but not before this forgery fooled experts and deceived the world for 100 years!
Forged statue of Queen Teti.Sheri
This limestone statuette inscribed with the name of Queen Tetisheri was long regarded as an important piece for the study of ancient Egyptian sculpture of the late 17th and early 18th dynasties. Now, however, this world renown statuette is regarded as a modern forgery.
WHO ARE THE CONSPIRATORS?
Who are the conspirators responsible for these acts of destruction, alteration and invention is a basic question that must be answered. Brian Fagan in his book on The Rape of Egypt (1975) documents a list of culprits: the Christian Copts who destroyed statues and monuments; the conquering Arabs who dismantled ancient buildings; and the 18th and 19th century European travelers, adventurers, and archeologists who were treasure hunters, plunderers, and looters. It was during the 19th century that a vast number of ancient Egyptian artifacts were excavated, but most of these discoveries were not adequately documented, with original on-site photographs and detailed field reports, which are now standard procedures within the archeological field. The systematic documentation of archaeological excavations did not develop until many years after volumes of artifacts were already taken from their original African sites and eventually placed in museums. Indeed, it is a sketchy record of how most of these artifacts were discovered and eventually made it onto museum floors.
This brings us to the identification of a large group of conspirators, who are the handlers of the excavated artifacts. This group includes excavators, antiquities dealers, museum curators and directors, and restorers and conservationists. Somewhere between the original excavation of the artifacts, to their transport, sale and acquisition, storage, cleaning, conservation, and finally their display on the museum floor there has been a diligent effort at altering, reworking, and “touching up” the facial features of countless statues. The conspirators who perpetrate these acts are behind the scenes actors who use a hit and run strategy of defacement and alteration of the art. They hide their hands from public view, but the results of their fraudulent and destructive activity is plain to see by anyone who carefully examines the evidence, as their pattern of fraud is highly distinctive. The lack of original documentation of many excavated artifacts has made it easy for these conspirators to commit their fraud. It is well known that many great artifacts of ancient Egypt were destroyed by the hands of plunderers during the widespread looting and trading in antiquities that went on for centuries, but what is not well known is the full story of the artifacts that did survive the wave of plunderers and make it into modern museum collections. I show in Modern Fraud that a large number of these surviving artifacts have undergone a racial makeover at the hands of modern conspirators. The results of their fraudulent work are the countless altered artifacts, reworked pieces, fake genealogies, and a host of forged statues.
The most recent revelation of the racist fabrications by this group of handlers, or more specifically Western museum directors, is reported in the current issue of Archaeology Magazine 54 (September-October 2001, p. 27). This report is associated with an article by Peter Lacovara et al. Archaeology reported that in the absence of scholarship the directors of the Niagara Falls Museum in Ontario, Canada “fabricated pedigrees” for many of their Egyptian mummies in the mid-nineteenth century. The most imaginative of these fake pedigrees, or false identities, was created for a bearded male mummy of the Roman period. The museum officials invented the following elaborate story for him which is a complete myth: “General Ossipumphnoferu the General in Chief of Thotmes III. ... He was a man of military skill, also a famous magician. He was 60 years old when he died. The scar on his forehead was caused by an enraged elephant while defending the king from his onslaughts. A palace was erected for the general near that of the king.” The museum officials took their scandalous activity even further, as for many years the “general” was displayed in the coffin of Iawttayesheret, a high-ranking woman from the 25th dynasty, which was 700 years before his time! It is incredible that the directors of a public museum would take an unidentified Roman period mummy, with a European facial appearance, put him in a woman’s coffin from 700 years earlier, and then create a bogus identity for him as a famous general during a period which was another 700 years earlier than the coffin he was buried in! Eventhough this mummy and other artifacts at the museum were not studied comprehensively by an Egyptologist, this is yet another case which documents that Western museum directors would go to any lengths in the 19th and early 20th century to falsify evidence.
Currently, there is no doubt that this list of conspirators includes local Egyptian government workers, who are carrying out many acts of destruction on a regular basis. These men either work for the Egyptian government on “conservation” projects, or for various European or North American archeological teams. On several occasions in the 1980s and 1990s, these unsupervised minimally-skilled government workers have been caught on video tape plastering over temple images and inscriptions! In fact, it is impossible to visit the Karnak Temple in Luxor and not see the recent defacement, and it is suspicious that with rare exception Egyptologists are silent about this matter.
WHAT ARE THEIR MOTIVES
After examining a vast body of artifacts, it seems evident that the ultimate motives of these groups of conspirators from the 19th century to the present is to eliminate the Black images from the ancient Egyptian historical record. This motivation is consistent with the racist views of many of the 19th and early 20th century Egyptologists who made many ridiculous assertions about Black people having little to no role in ancient Egypt, and that this was a civilization founded by white or Semitic people from the North. These baseless claims were widespread within the ranks of Egyptologists, and they helped inspire both H. M. Herget’s 1941 National Geographic Magazine paintings of pale-skinned Egyptians and the imaginary white images created by Hollywood, which together have deceived the public for the past half century.[3] This nonsense was exposed in the 1950s by the late Senegalese scholar, Dr. Cheikh Anta Diop. Diop assembled an awesome body of evidence to document the Black foundation of ancient Egypt and to expose the dishonest discourse of Western Egyptologists who were, as he put it, “performing intellectual acrobatics” to avoid dealing with concrete evidence to support their contentions about the Northern origins of ancient Egyptian civilization.[4] The mainstream Egyptologist Bruce Trigger in The American Discovery of Ancient Egypt (1995) discusses Diop’s impact and that it is because of his work that ancient Egypt is now seen by mainstream scholars as an African nation. Trigger also comments that “the white racist rhetoric that permeated most early twentieth-century writings about the development of Egyptian civilization has long been abandoned, [but] ideas formulated at the time have continued to influence thinking about the origins and nature of Egyptian civilization.”[5]
The “white racist rhetoric” that Trigger describes as permeating early twentieth century writings is simply a continuation of the same racist views held in the 19th century, and it is within this climate that the behind the scenes handlers had both the motives and the opportunity to deface images, alter facial features, and create racist forgeries.
RESPONSE TO THE SERIES
Since I first wrote "The Vanishing Evidence" series in 1995-1996, there has been much discussion, and many individuals across the country have indicated to me that they have also observed both the human-aided deterioration and the deliberate acts of destruction against Black images and artifacts. I have examined photographs of several of these individuals who have traveled to Egypt at various times, and for the most part only a very small percentage of their photographs are useful, because the individual photographers are not trained on how to systematically document the damage. However, some of the images are invaluable as they document the ongoing assault on Black images at major temple sites. It is now known by many that the physical evidence of classical African civilizations is vanishing before our eyes in essentially every geographical area. Many people are now aware that the human-aided decay, distortion of the artifacts, and deliberate defacement is widespread and this damage is most obviously visible at popular temple sites throughout Egypt.
Predictably, there have been a few white writers who have made ignorant comments about the “The Vanishing Evidence” series without even looking at the artifacts in question! They have not examined the first-hand evidence that I outline in the series, but they attack without anything other than empty emotion. They are in blind support of the fraudulent activity and racist scholarship of the 19th and 20th century. These people subscribe to Western colonial scholarship, eventhough this scholarship was born and bred in the brutal period of European expansion and colonialism. Egyptology as a discipline originated in this shameful 19th century era, and still maintains -- with little improvement -- its arrogant colonial discourse about African culture and civilizations. Any research that challenges this Western paradigm is automatically attacked by the apologists of this paradigm as “wrong” “misinformed,” or “pseudo-scientific.” These individuals are willing to do whatever it takes to ignore evidence, and in some cases lie and mislead the public.
PREVIOUS DOCUMENTATION
After I had begun organizing my information on the vanishing evidence theme that had emerged from my museum and field work, I later found out that a portion of my work of documenting the ongoing deterioration and destruction in Egypt had already been anticipated by the accomplished Egyptologist John Romer nearly 20 years earlier.[6] On his website, Romer republished a 1997 essay which summarizes his many years of work in the King’s Valley and is entitled “The Valley of Death,” wherein the author wrote: “The warning has been sounded. Loud and clear. Egypt’s famed Valley of the Kings...is in danger itself of the death it silently encloses. In less than 25 years—unless something is done urgently—the valley of priceless ancient tombs could become the valley of ochre mud. And responsible is the planet’s prime agent of destruction—man himself.” Lastly, there is also video footage shot by Ashra Kwesi in his video series on “The African Origin of Civilization” that I recall viewing in the 1980s. Kwesi’s short footage showed local Arab workers chopping and plastering over wall material at one of the Luxor area temples. Kwesi's footage was probably my first exposure to the documentation which shows the vanishing evidence of classical African civilizations.
An updated version of “The Vanishing Evidence” series, complete with numerous photographs, form an important section in my upcoming book on Modern Fraud, which concerns the Ra-Hotep and Nofret forgeries.
Prof. Manu Ampim October 2001
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Again no one denies the existence of forgeries, but that is a far cry from claiming every Egyptian statue with a long nose is 'forged'.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: ^ Well there you have it, it's from the late/Greco-Roman period
Which means native Egyptians still produced their own art. I am still confused about what the author of this thread meant by not 'stylized'. If you mean it looks a little more sloppy, perhaps it was because they made them while the Greek overlords looking at them over their shoulders. Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Please show examples of what you consider authentic Egyptian statues with wedge noses.
Posted by Obelisk_18 (Member # 11966) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Again no one denies the existence of forgeries, but that is a far cry from claiming every Egyptian statue with a long nose is 'forged'.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: ^ Well there you have it, it's from the late/Greco-Roman period
Which means native Egyptians still produced their own art. I am still confused about what the author of this thread meant by not 'stylized'. If you mean it looks a little more sloppy, perhaps it was because they made them while the Greek overlords looking at them over their shoulders.
Greek overlords! lol but cha gotta remember the Greeks conquerors pretty much acculturated Posted by akoben08 (Member # 15244) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^Please show examples of what you consider authentic Egyptian statues with wedge noses.
Again, just as your post here "Djehuti - The nerve that you hit, is the same one everyone has; when confronted by a whining child talking nonsense. If you see an error above, please speak to that error specifically, instead of whining about whatever comes into that little empty head of yours.", you will not get a reply to your last post. Catherine likes to make general statements, keeps him from getting too entangled in specifics.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^You are probably right, so I shall continue without my annoying but sometimes useful foil.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
As Obelisk_18 correctly pointed out, not all of those having to do with the discovering and restoring of artifacts are racist. However the evidence clearly indicates that the great majority, most certainly are.
Queen Nefertiti has been dead for over 3,000 years, but her likeness has been raped by whites many times over.
What do you suppose the idiot that did this one had in mind. He couldn't do anything with those beautiful lips, so he went crazy with the nose. (I wonder if this is one of those "Authentic" examples Djehuti had in mind).
Here is how the Germans thought she should look.
Here is something closer to what she really looked like.
Akhenaten's other wife Kiya, wasn't spared either.
Then there is Senusret III, rather than mess around, they just broke his nose off.
But they really did themselves proud with Thutmosis III: Damn if that's not a White man.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Fascinating, yes, with the close up picture you can see the Greco/Roman stylizing. The use of metal is also quite more Greco Roman.
Thanks, that has to be the most useful reply I have gotten in quite some time.
greco roman stylizing?
Yes, the eyes are stylized in a way that is similar to other Greco-Roman Egypt styles of that period. Then the multiple types of metal is also interesting. Probably it was covered in Gold at one time.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: As Obelisk_18 correctly pointed out, not all of those having to do with the discovering and restoring of artifacts are racist. However the evidence clearly indicates that the great majority, most certainly are.
Queen Nefertiti has been dead for over 3,000 years, but her likeness has been raped by whites many times over.
What do you suppose the idiot that did this one had in mind. He couldn't do anything with those beautiful lips, so he went crazy with the nose. (I wonder if this is one of those "Authentic" examples Djehuti had in mind).
Here is how the Germans thought she should look.
Here is something closer to what she really looked like.
Akhenaten's other wife Kiya, wasn't spared either.
Then there is Senusret III, rather than mess around, they just broke his nose off.
But they really did themselves proud with Thutmosis III: Damn if that's not a White man.
Strange, they all look authenticately African.
I am not sure I see your point. Besides, you have mummies to deal with. How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion - Please don't take this the wrong way: You are an Idiot.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Then again, explain why the camera's point of view is different in your illustrations.
Why don't you just relax and listen to some Amhara music:
I actually agree; all this, and they still don't look non-African.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion a.k.a bi-polar: How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
No such mummies exist.
And please don't post any pictures of Ramses II; he's been discussed millions of times on here.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion a.k.a bi-polar: How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
No such mummies exist.
And please don't post any pictures of Ramses II; he's been discussed millions of times on here.
The mummies all fit in the North African type with North African features that existed prior to European influence.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Welll besides, if those Egyptian relics are fabrications because of their appearance, then what do you say to Ife art? What the bad ol European man used a blow torch and made the features more Caucasoid?
Come on now!
Obvious and beautiful African features.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
Hmm, they do look a bit Jewish though.
;-)
Just kidding!
Posted by Keins (Member # 6476) on :
I do think that ancient Egyptian art needs to be studied and authenticated to identify and make public fabrications and modifications. I do not believe in the crazy Caucasoid vs. Negroid vs. Mongoloid. Africans vary and authentically have the majority of human features. There are African who are elongated and broad faced and many with combination of these types and other facial types. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that some artifacts and statues have been modified. Look at the rampant racism that blemishes Egyptology from its inception. It seems like this branch of “science” actually was created on dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs. If they have the guts and brazenness to say that AE were black Caucasians but portray them as white Caucasians then I would not doubt that they would and could alter states. We know the bold intention is there to make AE a white civilization and we know the blatant lies (many by omission) and dishonest scholarship that is done and passed of as truth. Some of the noses honestly do look altered like someone might of tried to restore it and decided to make the nose just a "little" smaller. And why aren't they painting these stature with evidently dark brown specks of paint dark brown? I know they want to evidence of who the AE really were to disappear and replace it with their version. Why all of the “white looking” statues and mummies are always displayed and promoted as if they more authentic? But we have no concrete and documented evidence of this so this is why the artifacts and statues should be authenticated and studied for modern alterations and fraud. I know it has been done for select artifacts and statues but I think it needs to be done on a universal level. Honestly, Egyptology is so sloppy and stagnant I don't think it deserves the right to call itself a science. The way they (racist Egyptologist) deal with information selectively to uphold the revised version of AE history is not only shameful it’s pitiful!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion a.k.a bi-polar: How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
No such mummies exist.
And please don't post any pictures of Ramses II; he's been discussed millions of times on here.
The mummies all fit in the North African type with North African features that existed prior to European influence.
North Africa isn't a part of the "Northern Hemisphere", and what exactly differentiates North African features from other African features, namely from the horn?? In addition, I'm still confused as to which mummies you're talking about. "Types" don't exist in Africa. You suffer from the same "typological thinking" that Keita warns us against.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion a.k.a bi-polar: How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
No such mummies exist.
And please don't post any pictures of Ramses II; he's been discussed millions of times on here.
The mummies all fit in the North African type with North African features that existed prior to European influence.
North Africa isn't a part of the "Northern Hemisphere", and what exactly differentiates North African features from other African features, namely from the horn?? In addition, I'm still confused as to which mummies you're talking about. "Types" don't exist in Africa. You suffer from the same "typological thinking" that Keita warns us against.
Huh? Look up Northern Hemisphere! Besides, there is a climatic difference between equatorial africa and northern africa. Indigenous people of either area would adapt differently over time.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Keins: I do think that ancient Egyptian art needs to be studied and authenticated to identify and make public fabrications and modifications. I do not believe in the crazy Caucasoid vs. Negroid vs. Mongoloid. Africans vary and authentically have the majority of human features. There are African who are elongated and broad faced and many with combination of these types and other facial types. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that some artifacts and statues have been modified. Look at the rampant racism that blemishes Egyptology from its inception. It seems like this branch of “science” actually was created on dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs. If they have the guts and brazenness to say that AE were black Caucasians but portray them as white Caucasians then I would not doubt that they would and could alter states. We know the bold intention is there to make AE a white civilization and we know the blatant lies (many by omission) and dishonest scholarship that is done and passed of as truth. Some of the noses honestly do look altered like someone might of tried to restore it and decided to make the nose just a "little" smaller. And why aren't they painting these stature with evidently dark brown specks of paint dark brown? I know they want to evidence of who the AE really were to disappear and replace it with their version. Why all of the “white looking” statues and mummies are always displayed and promoted as if they more authentic? But we have no concrete and documented evidence of this so this is why the artifacts and statues should be authenticated and studied for modern alterations and fraud. I know it has been done for select artifacts and statues but I think it needs to be done on a universal level. Honestly, Egyptology is so sloppy and stagnant I don't think it deserves the right to call itself a science. The way they (racist Egyptologist) deal with information selectively to uphold the revised version of AE history is not only shameful it’s pitiful!
All those so called European features are just your imagination. Take the average Ethiopian and ask how is it that you can tell that they are Ethiopian. For me it is the rounded forehead. This is what I notice in most mummies is that their forehead does not appear to be European. The same is true of Ife art, the shape of the forehead is common amongst sub-saharan Africans so the narrowness of the nose and lack of prognathism means little to me.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion a.k.a bi-polar: How did your so called European fabricators make mummies that had Northern Hemisphere features?
No such mummies exist.
And please don't post any pictures of Ramses II; he's been discussed millions of times on here.
The mummies all fit in the North African type withere [above the equator], have the same featurh North African features that existed prior to European influence.
North Africa isn't a part of the "Northern Hemisphere", and what exactly differentiates North African features from other African features, namely from the horn?? In addition, I'm still confused as to which mummies you're talking about. "Types" don't exist in Africa. You suffer from the same "typological thinking" that Keita warns us against.
Huh? Look up Northern Hemisphere! Besides, there is a climatic difference between equatorial africa and northern africa. Indigenous people of either area would adapt differently over time.
My mistake, but it seems that the "Northern Hemisphere" as technically defined, includes ALL of west Africa, and parts of central and east Africa, so your so-called "Northern Hemisphere features" comprise that which is seen in those places which would include more than half of the world's diversity, so you still make no sense. And there are climate differences all over Africa. The climate in Northwest Africa is quite different from that in the NorthEast so you can't pigeon hold Africa or attribute features exclusively to one climate, ignoring complex migration patterns and demographic effects in the Nile valley, as well as actual climate/geological changes and recent population divergences. The way you used the term "Northern Hemisphere" [in relation to 'features'] was confusing. The connotation I honestly got was that of Europe and Asia, etc, as opposed to just "north of the equator". Surely you aren't saying the Nigerians, who are firmly and technically within the Northern Hemisphere though, have the same "features" as East Asians, who also reside in the Northern Hemisphere.
Besides, you've still yet to show which mummies you're talking about since Sonia Zakrzewski, Robins, Kemp, Keita and others already confirm a body plan in the ancient Egyptians [spanning all locales and time periods] reflective of a tropical [Equatorial] adaptation, and "super-Negroid" limb proportions.
quote:"Another source of skeletal data is limb proportions, which generally vary with different climatic belts. In general, the early Nile Valley remains have the proportions of more tropical populations, which is noteworthy since Egypt is not in the tropics. This suggests that the Egyptian Nile Valley was not primarily settled by cold-adapted peoples, such as Europeans. "
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). The values for the brachial and crural indices show that the distal segments of each limb are longer relative to the proximal segments than in many “African” populations (data from Aiello and Dean, 1990). This pattern is supported by Figure 7 a plot of population mean femoral and tibial lengths; (data from Ruff, 1994), which indicates that the Egyptians generally have tropical body plans. Of the Egyptian samples, only the Badarian and Early Dynastic period populations have shorter tibiae than predicted from femoral length. Despite these differences, all samples lie relatively clustered together as compared to the other populations. - Sonia Zakrzewski (2003)
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Keins: I do think that ancient Egyptian art needs to be studied and authenticated to identify and make public fabrications and modifications. I do not believe in the crazy Caucasoid vs. Negroid vs. Mongoloid. Africans vary and authentically have the majority of human features. There are African who are elongated and broad faced and many with combination of these types and other facial types. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that some artifacts and statues have been modified. Look at the rampant racism that blemishes Egyptology from its inception. It seems like this branch of “science” actually was created on dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs. If they have the guts and brazenness to say that AE were black Caucasians but portray them as white Caucasians then I would not doubt that they would and could alter states. We know the bold intention is there to make AE a white civilization and we know the blatant lies (many by omission) and dishonest scholarship that is done and passed of as truth. Some of the noses honestly do look altered like someone might of tried to restore it and decided to make the nose just a "little" smaller. And why aren't they painting these stature with evidently dark brown specks of paint dark brown? I know they want to evidence of who the AE really were to disappear and replace it with their version. Why all of the “white looking” statues and mummies are always displayed and promoted as if they more authentic? But we have no concrete and documented evidence of this so this is why the artifacts and statues should be authenticated and studied for modern alterations and fraud. I know it has been done for select artifacts and statues but I think it needs to be done on a universal level. Honestly, Egyptology is so sloppy and stagnant I don't think it deserves the right to call itself a science. The way they (racist Egyptologist) deal with information selectively to uphold the revised version of AE history is not only shameful it’s pitiful!
All those so called European features are just your imagination. Take the average Ethiopian and ask how is it that you can tell that they are Ethiopian. For me it is the rounded forehead. This is what I notice in most mummies is that their forehead does not appear to be European. The same is true of Ife art, the shape of the forehead is common amongst sub-saharan Africans so the narrowness of the nose and lack of prognathism means little to me.
See, you are so confusing as you immediately contradict yourself. No wonder I can hardly understand half of what you're saying or mean...
Posted by KemsonReloaded (Member # 14127) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: The guy (Mike) has the nerve to be is calling ME racist yet attributes every statue with a small or narrow nose as being forged or modified?! So he says that only those with broad noses are authentic because Egyptians like all blacks can only have broad noses?!
....Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is nothing forged about that statue and even Egytpian paintings show Sudanese people with longer pointier noses than themslves!
Obviously this is a new low in thinking.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Keins: I do think that ancient Egyptian art needs to be studied and authenticated to identify and make public fabrications and modifications. I do not believe in the crazy Caucasoid vs. Negroid vs. Mongoloid. Africans vary and authentically have the majority of human features. There are African who are elongated and broad faced and many with combination of these types and other facial types. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that some artifacts and statues have been modified. Look at the rampant racism that blemishes Egyptology from its inception. It seems like this branch of “science” actually was created on dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs. If they have the guts and brazenness to say that AE were black Caucasians but portray them as white Caucasians then I would not doubt that they would and could alter states. We know the bold intention is there to make AE a white civilization and we know the blatant lies (many by omission) and dishonest scholarship that is done and passed of as truth. Some of the noses honestly do look altered like someone might of tried to restore it and decided to make the nose just a "little" smaller. And why aren't they painting these stature with evidently dark brown specks of paint dark brown? I know they want to evidence of who the AE really were to disappear and replace it with their version. Why all of the “white looking” statues and mummies are always displayed and promoted as if they more authentic? But we have no concrete and documented evidence of this so this is why the artifacts and statues should be authenticated and studied for modern alterations and fraud. I know it has been done for select artifacts and statues but I think it needs to be done on a universal level. Honestly, Egyptology is so sloppy and stagnant I don't think it deserves the right to call itself a science. The way they (racist Egyptologist) deal with information selectively to uphold the revised version of AE history is not only shameful it’s pitiful!
All those so called European features are just your imagination. Take the average Ethiopian and ask how is it that you can tell that they are Ethiopian. For me it is the rounded forehead. This is what I notice in most mummies is that their forehead does not appear to be European. The same is true of Ife art, the shape of the forehead is common amongst sub-saharan Africans so the narrowness of the nose and lack of prognathism means little to me.
See, you are so confusing as you immediately contradict yourself. No wonder I can hardly understand half of what you're saying or mean...
My understanding from anthropologists is that narrow nasal index is attributable to more northern climates and or higher altitudes or arid conditions.
Posted by Marc Washington (Member # 10979) on :
. .
[Djehuti (Clarence?) writes above to Akoban] You are very much like Clyde or Marc in accusing me of be anti-black just because I call out their false appropriation of other culures for black Africans!
[Marc writes] Djehuti. YOU WISH I condemned you for being anti-black.
IF I CALLED YOU "ANTI-BLACK" that would have been flattering to my reason for condemning you.
My condemnation of you is more ominous. I condemn you for something you have control over but make a choice to submit to. A compulsion to lie on others:
quote:Originally posted by Keins: I do think that ancient Egyptian art needs to be studied and authenticated to identify and make public fabrications and modifications. I do not believe in the crazy Caucasoid vs. Negroid vs. Mongoloid. Africans vary and authentically have the majority of human features. There are African who are elongated and broad faced and many with combination of these types and other facial types. I do believe that there is a strong possibility that some artifacts and statues have been modified. Look at the rampant racism that blemishes Egyptology from its inception. It seems like this branch of “science” actually was created on dogmatic sociopolitical beliefs. If they have the guts and brazenness to say that AE were black Caucasians but portray them as white Caucasians then I would not doubt that they would and could alter states. We know the bold intention is there to make AE a white civilization and we know the blatant lies (many by omission) and dishonest scholarship that is done and passed of as truth. Some of the noses honestly do look altered like someone might of tried to restore it and decided to make the nose just a "little" smaller. And why aren't they painting these stature with evidently dark brown specks of paint dark brown? I know they want to evidence of who the AE really were to disappear and replace it with their version. Why all of the “white looking” statues and mummies are always displayed and promoted as if they more authentic? But we have no concrete and documented evidence of this so this is why the artifacts and statues should be authenticated and studied for modern alterations and fraud. I know it has been done for select artifacts and statues but I think it needs to be done on a universal level. Honestly, Egyptology is so sloppy and stagnant I don't think it deserves the right to call itself a science. The way they (racist Egyptologist) deal with information selectively to uphold the revised version of AE history is not only shameful it’s pitiful!
All those so called European features are just your imagination. Take the average Ethiopian and ask how is it that you can tell that they are Ethiopian. For me it is the rounded forehead. This is what I notice in most mummies is that their forehead does not appear to be European. The same is true of Ife art, the shape of the forehead is common amongst sub-saharan Africans so the narrowness of the nose and lack of prognathism means little to me.
See, you are so confusing as you immediately contradict yourself. No wonder I can hardly understand half of what you're saying or mean...
My understanding from anthropologists is that narrow nasal index is attributable to more northern climates and or higher altitudes or arid conditions.
This is false, and as stated, West Africa is in the "Northern Hemisphere" per technical definition...
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^Plus, arid conditions and high altitudes don't require being in a northern hemispheric geography..
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: ^Plus, arid conditions and high altitudes don't require being in a northern hemispheric geography..
No of course not but I am attributing the nasal index of Egyptians to their more Northern latitudes and thus describing their features based on that. Not a good description but it isn't easy trying to account for facial feature differences of Northern Africa compared to Equatorial Africa. U6 mtDNA that is clearly of northern Caucus origins and has been present in North Africa for 30,000 years could be a part of the diversity of facial features but insitu evolution is a more logical explaination. Climatic adaptation is enough of an explaination.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] ^Plus, arid conditions and high altitudes don't require being in a northern hemispheric geography..
No of course not but I am attributing the nasal index of Egyptians to their more Northern latitudes and thus describing their features based on that.
The Egyptians didn't reside in a "northern latitude", they resided in the northern hemisphere, as do west Africans so your argument makes no sense. This is why you confused me with how you use such terms.
quote:U6 mtDNA that is clearly of northern Caucus origins and has been present in North Africa for 30,000 years
There's no evidence for either of these claims..
Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
The notion that U6 is of Eurasian origin is a flat out wrong statement; it is an autochthonous North African marker. Insight: U6: A standalone clade?
Not so? — prove otherwise!
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
^ You know I am sick of these genetic arguments that are endless. One report says one thing and another says something else. Plan sick of them.
I will simply say this - a significant amount of mtDNA in North Africa is literally Caucasian. Not Caucasoid as in like Caucasians or virtual Caucasians or whatever that stupid nonesense concept means but rather simply Caucasian as in from the Caucasus area.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] ^Plus, arid conditions and high altitudes don't require being in a northern hemispheric geography..
No of course not but I am attributing the nasal index of Egyptians to their more Northern latitudes and thus describing their features based on that.
The Egyptians didn't reside in a "northern latitude", they resided in the northern hemisphere, as do west Africans so your argument makes no sense. This is why you confused me with how you use such terms.
quote:U6 mtDNA that is clearly of northern Caucus origins and has been present in North Africa for 30,000 years
There's no evidence for either of these claims..
Are you like Sundiata light or something? Sister or Brother or someone totally different? Sindiata doesn't normally play silly games like this.
Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
quote:osirion writes:
^ You know I am sick of these genetic arguments that are endless. One report says one thing and another says something else. Plan sick of them.
I will simply say this - a significant amount of mtDNA in North Africa is literally Caucasian. Not Caucasoid as in like Caucasians or virtual Caucasians or whatever that stupid nonesense concept means but rather simply Caucasian as in from the Caucasus area.
No report says U6 originated in Europe or Caucasus, where btw, U6 is even more rarer than it is in continental Africa.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
I suggest you read Ausàrian's link and stop talking over people, Osirion..
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Ausàrian - The problem is that osirion is trying to cling to the White lie (pardon the pun) that Whites are indigenous to Europe. But forgetting that: then his argument of "a significant amount of mtDNA in North Africa is literally Caucasian" is correct; to that the middle-east may be added.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ausàrian:
quote:osirion writes:
^ You know I am sick of these genetic arguments that are endless. One report says one thing and another says something else. Plan sick of them.
I will simply say this - a significant amount of mtDNA in North Africa is literally Caucasian. Not Caucasoid as in like Caucasians or virtual Caucasians or whatever that stupid nonesense concept means but rather simply Caucasian as in from the Caucasus area.
No report says U6 originated in Europe or Caucasus, where btw, U6 is even more rarer than it is in continental Africa.
Actually I have read reports that U6 is Caucasian as in from the Caucasus region. But its not the point that I am trying to make and I don't want to spend time trying to argue this way or that.
Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography
Nicole Maca-Meyer1 , Ana M González1 , José Pestano2 , Carlos Flores1 , José M Larruga1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
Published: 16 October 2003
Abstract World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands.
Results Divergence times, geographic origin and expansions of the U6 mitochondrial DNA clade, have been deduced from the analysis of 14 complete U6 sequences, and 56 different haplotypes, characterized by hypervariable segment sequences and RFLPs.
Conclusions The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Ausàrian - The problem is that osirion is trying to cling to the White lie (pardon the pun) that Whites are indigenous to Europe. But forgetting that: then his argument of "a significant amount of mtDNA in North Africa is literally Caucasian" is correct; to that the middle-east may be added.
Actually, just like Blacks, there are White people all over the planet. As far as being indigenous, I simply have a rule - if you have been their for 5000 years then you are an Indigeni.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^ Actually, just like Blacks, there are White people all over the planet. As far as being indigenous, I simply have a rule - if you have been their for 5000 years then you are an Indigeni.
DEAL!!! - Now except for the Eurasian plains; where have Whites been for 5,000 years.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
What did you hope or think you accomplished by bringing up Maca-Meyer et al? Caucasus isn't in it.
We've gone over Maca-Meyer here ever since she was first published. What you posted from her fails to make the slightest reference to the Caucasus.
Can you cite even just one report claiming (ahem) Caucasus provenance of U6? Just even one report. And a citation consists of a quote -- preferably within context -- the name of the quoted person, the title of the work the quote appears in, and the publication/publisher of the work with date.
Otherwiae please stop wasting our time with wishful thinking.
Thank you.
P.S. Also be sure to hi-lite the sentence with the words Caucasus and U6, no spurious self-deluding interpretation.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
@ osirion
^^I don't want to touch most of this genetics stuff with a 10 foot poll, but it still begs to question, where does it suggest that it originated in the Caucasus?? You still have yet to provide a citation with this exact claim. I also would desperately like to know how they come to these conclusions.
How are genes dated and how can a geneticist know whether or not a particular gene is indigenous to a certain geography [notwithstanding highest diversity] or that this group migrated here and there 30,000 years ago? They also subscribe to false racial terminology [like "caucasian"], which is sad given that this study is only from 2003. osirion, do you simply except this stuff without understanding it, or can you explain how they come to these conclusions and are the conclusions viable?
Edit: Though altakuri says this has been discussed before so I'll see if I can get some insight from the thread/s in question, when I find it/them.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
You have to read the reference footnotes as well as the report to understand where the writer is coming from. You also have to note the credentials of each team member associated with the report.
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: They also subscribe to false racial terminology [like "caucasian"], which is sad given that this study is only from 2003. ... can you explain how they come to these conclusions and are the conclusions viable?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
Sundjata - do you simply except this stuff without understanding it, or can you explain how they come to these conclusions and are the conclusions viable?
Sundjata - As I have shown many times; that is in fact what continually happens. People on this board, with reckless abandon, cite DNA data that they have no way of understanding, or even knowing if the conclusions make sense. I have warned many times against it, but it seems to be the latest way to avoid actual study and thought, so of course they love it. I guess the logic is that since nobody understands it, no one will know when you are bull sh1ting.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Just because you have no way of understanding DNA data it doesn't hold true for some of the rest of us.
We analyze and critique the reports and draw our own conclusions from what raw data that's made available by the geneticists.
This process takes a lot of actual study and thought which is why we of intelligence do in fact love it.
The logic is: keeping up to date with the latest scientific finds straps us with hi-tech weaponry.
It prevents us entering a gun fight armed with but a sharpened stick.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^DNA when used for the purposes of this board is a very blunt instrument indeed. I will tell you why: In its most famous use "Genetic MATCHING" the parameters are known, it is a simple matter to simply compare samples, and say whether or not they match.
However; when TRYING to map human movement around the world, and then trying to relate that data back to race; there is a VERY large problem. I will explain; we know from observation that there are three races, Black, White, and Mongol. Though we have a general idea of how, when and where Black people evolved.
There is no corresponding understanding of how and when White and Mongol people evolved; though we do know that they were once a single group, and they evolved in the steppes of Asia. So without knowledge of how, and just as importantly WHEN, Whites became White, and Mongols became Mongols. What is there to compare that would shed light on their movements, when we have no way of knowing what they were at any given ancient time.
Posted by osirion (Member # 7644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^ Actually, just like Blacks, there are White people all over the planet. As far as being indigenous, I simply have a rule - if you have been their for 5000 years then you are an Indigeni.
DEAL!!! - Now except for the Eurasian plains; where have Whites been for 5,000 years.
The term Eurasia is ambigous to me. What do you mean? Whites apparently made it to Americas well after Blacks but they were still there apparently with the Clover cultural expansion. Eurasian genes are found amongst Native Americans apparently 15K old. Then we have R1b in West Africa - ancient White travelers? And then there's those intriguing Saharan rock drawings that seem to depict contact with White people (rather controversial and we should not go off on another tangent about that one).
Still interesting. Then there's mummies in China that are certainly White people from long ago. We already know Blacks made it to the Polynesian Islands well before Europeans made contact with the Chinese via vis the Silk road.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Eurasian genes are found amongst Native Americans apparently 15K old
Notwithstanding that there are genes that old and that native Americans are direct migrants from "Eurasia" [though by this I assume you mean "Europe" or the "Middle East], but HOW DO YOU KNOW that these supposed genes were present in Native Americans for 15 thousand years??
Can you cite a study of a 15 thousand year old skeleton from America with such genes?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
osirion – You can’t have it both ways; on the one hand you say that you are confused by the term Eurasia, then on the other hand, you cite data about Eurasians. In any case, for the sake of those NOT bull sh1ting: Eurasia means the land that stretches from east of the Caspian Sea to the Pacific Ocean. The Eurasian Plains (or steppes) is the grasslands that stretch from east of the Caspian Sea to Manchuria in China. Eurasian people are Whites and Mongols.
In the Americas: if you are referring to Kennewick man: forget it, he was found to be Polynesian (of the original pure Black kind). You wrote, “Then we have R1b in West Africa - ancient White travelers?” Don’t knuckle heads like you EVER actually READ the threads? See above for the value of R1b. Your ignorance notwithstanding; it is nevertheless puzzling that pure White ancient remains have so far NOT been found in the Americas, Owing to their proximity to the Bering Straits.
You wrote – “Still interesting. Then there's mummies in China that are certainly White people from long ago. We already know Blacks made it to the Polynesian Islands well before Europeans made contact with the Chinese via vis the Silk road”.
Are you completely brain dead: read above for the definition of a Eurasian. The surprise would be if Whites were NOT found among the Mongols.
Posted by Ausàrian (Member # 14778) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
Actually I have read reports that U6 is Caucasian as in from the Caucasus region.
Where; it is certainly not by the Maca Meyer piece you cited.
quote:osirion writes:
But its not the point that I am trying to make and I don't want to spend time trying to argue this way or that.
Don't want to spend time answering questions, then don't make questionable claims to begin with.
quote:osirion writes:
Mitochondrial DNA transit between West Asia and North Africa inferred from U6 phylogeography
Nicole Maca-Meyer1 , Ana M González1 , José Pestano2 , Carlos Flores1 , José M Larruga1 and Vicente M Cabrera1
Published: 16 October 2003
Abstract World-wide phylogeographic distribution of human complete mitochondrial DNA sequences suggested a West Asian origin for the autochthonous North African lineage U6. We report here a more detailed analysis of this lineage, unraveling successive expansions that affected not only Africa but neighboring regions such as the Near East, the Iberian Peninsula and the Canary Islands.
Results Divergence times, geographic origin and expansions of the U6 mitochondrial DNA clade, have been deduced from the analysis of 14 complete U6 sequences, and 56 different haplotypes, characterized by hypervariable segment sequences and RFLPs.
Conclusions The most probable origin of the proto-U6 lineage was the Near East. Around 30,000 years ago it spread to North Africa where it represents a signature of regional continuity. Subgroup U6a reflects the first African expansion from the Maghrib returning to the east in Paleolithic times. Derivative clade U6a1 signals a posterior movement from East Africa back to the Maghrib and the Near East. This migration coincides with the probable Afroasiatic linguistic expansion. U6b and U6c clades, restricted to West Africa, had more localized expansions. U6b probably reached the Iberian Peninsula during the Capsian diffusion in North Africa. Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent.
Nowhere therein, is it stated that U6 originates in anywhere but North Africa. Granted that it talks of a "proto-U6", but that's the whole point in my aforementioned link: "proto-U6" hasn't been located to date! Plus, your claim that U6 originates in the Caucasus region, is made preposterous by your own citation here; it notes that North African examples are older than the "Near Eastern" derivatives, which were obtained via East Africa. The European examples, as noted, were obtained from North Africa. How do you intend to redeem yourself?
Posted by naturalborn7 (Member # 15598) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Here is something for the Negroes gullible enough to have believed the B.S. that the reason why there were White women in Egyptian paintings was because that was how Egyptians differentiated between Men and Women in their paintings. As you can see; they are all women, yet they are all Black.
Tomb of Queen Nefertari
Here is an example of how Egyptians REALLY painted themselves. What you see today is paintings that have been "REHABILITATED" by White people: In other words, MADE TO LOOK LESS NEGROID. Please be sure to say thank you, to the nice White people.
Tomb Prince Amenkhepeshef
Of course, these paintings no longer look like this, these prints were made just after the opening of the Tombs.
This is interesting. Recently i was in a forum debate on another site and i stated there may be possible forgeries with certain egyptian art. Certain images presented to me by eurocentrics did not make any sense to me.
I'm new to this forum. I been trying to read all the posts i can before posting as i know the rules of forum etiquette. I haven't finished reading everything due to time constraints but in the last month i've gotten to know the who's who around here.
Where can i find more proof of this? Also, in the picture of Prince Amenkhepeshef tomb which depict obviously they were black, you state the paintings no longer look this way. Do you have any pictures of how it looks now?
Lastly, what does this picture signify with the much darker Egyptian embracing hands with the brown egyptian?
Once again I'm learning quite a bit from this board.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
In pristine Black cultures, White is the color of death, therefore that depiction is likely Ptah in association with Sokaris, who was the funerary god of Memphis. Sokaris and Ptah were usually depicted with their body squeezed into a tight fitting vest. (Over time the two alternately merged and diverged).
To learn about the paintings, you will have to research the making of the book "'Book of the Dead and Elysian Fields'".
I never seen these photos before. These photos along with the gliphs at the Mentuhotep II complex are pretty clear cut.
I understand a little on AE's color usages but are you saying Ptah is represented as "white" in this picture?
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Can't say with certainty, what the original color was, but white does age to yellow or a darker color, depending on the pigment. Putting two and two together, I think that is a reasonable explanation. Of course, I'm taking the authors word that they did accurate work, without racial agenda. If you would care to look, there are many theories about Egyptian color use, I personally find them mostly B.S.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^ Actually, just like Blacks, there are White people all over the planet. As far as being indigenous, I simply have a rule - if you have been their for 5000 years then you are an Indigeni.
DEAL!!! - Now except for the Eurasian plains; where have Whites been for 5,000 years.
The term Eurasia is ambigous to me. What do you mean? Whites apparently made it to Americas well after Blacks but they were still there apparently with the Clover cultural expansion. Eurasian genes are found amongst Native Americans apparently 15K old. Then we have R1b in West Africa - ancient White travelers? And then there's those intriguing Saharan rock drawings that seem to depict contact with White people (rather controversial and we should not go off on another tangent about that one).
Still interesting. Then there's mummies in China that are certainly White people from long ago. We already know Blacks made it to the Polynesian Islands well before Europeans made contact with the Chinese via vis the Silk road.
Saw a show in Nat Geo last month - all the mummies were mixed after doing DNA testing. Mainly from East Asia, and S.E. Asia, India etc.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7: but are you saying Ptah is represented as "white" in this picture? [/QB]
Of course this isn't the case and you seem smart enough to not be fooled by such a weird observation, or far out theory about his color turning brownish overtime. You'll learn in due time, who and who not to take too seriously on this forum, assuming that you stick around.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
^^^Sundjata - You are becoming an annoyance, an extremely ignorant one at that. A thoughtful person understands that these artifacts are on the order of 4,000 years old. Consequently great change has occurred to the pigments that make up the colors. Since these great time-frames are beyond your comprehension, I will give you an example that you can understand. Go around your neighborhood and find a white house, note it's color, then ask the owner what the color was like when the house was originally painted. Then ask you father why he paints your bedroom every two or three years. From these exercises you might start to get the drift. In the mean-time, why not just be quiet.
Posted by naturalborn7 (Member # 15598) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7: but are you saying Ptah is represented as "white" in this picture?
Of course this isn't the case and you seem smart enough to not be fooled by such a weird observation, or far out theory about his color turning brownish overtime. You'll learn in due time, who and who not to take too seriously on this forum, assuming that you stick around. [/QB]
Sundjata...I'll be around for a long while so you guys will get to know me. I like a lot of your posts along with Mike plus a few others. I'm aware of who are on here just here to be argumentive and who really knows their shvt.
The Berlin bust seems to be the eurocentric's main "Ace in the hole" when they want to argue AE's were not black. I've had that thrown in my face quite a few times. For some reason i've always believed this bust to be a fake. I just have never been able to prove it debating in other forums online. Mike's posts on counterfeits helped me out on some of the other artifacts i've seen so far.
Eurocentrics also like to argue artifacts being depicted as nubian only come from the 25th dynasty. Artifacts such as the Osirus statue. Which is the reason i was attracted to this thread.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
naturalborn7 - Here is an interesting one - color wise - and otherwise. From the Tomb of Rameses I. I am certainly not an expert on Egyptian religion; But the seated figure on the right is undoubtedly Osiris - "The god of the dead, and the god of the resurrection into eternal life; ruler, protector, and judge of the deceased". You will note that he is depicted as a lighter color.
seated on the left - That is probably Montu the War-god - especially venerated in the region of Thebes. The conquering Pharaohs of the New Kingdom liked to compare themselves to him. It was said that, in the thick of battle, they incarnated his irresistible warlike force. He was pictured as a falcon-headed or bull-headed man who wore the sun-disc, with two plumes on his head.
So the scene seems to be: On the left, the Pharaoh is making offerings to his supposed father Montu. While on the right, Horus is leading the Pharaoh to meet his father Osiris. Just a guess!
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7: but are you saying Ptah is represented as "white" in this picture?
Of course this isn't the case and you seem smart enough to not be fooled by such a weird observation, or far out theory about his color turning brownish overtime. You'll learn in due time, who and who not to take too seriously on this forum, assuming that you stick around.
Sundjata...I'll be around for a long while so you guys will get to know me. I like a lot of your posts along with Mike plus a few others. I'm aware of who are on here just here to be argumentive and who really knows their shvt.
The Berlin bust seems to be the eurocentric's main "Ace in the hole" when they want to argue AE's were not black. I've had that thrown in my face quite a few times. For some reason i've always believed this bust to be a fake. I just have never been able to prove it debating in other forums online. Mike's posts on counterfeits helped me out on some of the other artifacts i've seen so far.
Eurocentrics also like to argue artifacts being depicted as nubian only come from the 25th dynasty. Artifacts such as the Osirus statue. Which is the reason i was attracted to this thread. [/QB]
Righteous.. As far as the Berlin bust, this has been discussed many times, most recently here [Click].. Excuse some of the bickering as there's some very useful information and informed opinions presented, once you sift through it.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
naturalborn7 - I don't know if you noticed this one; but it is very interesting in that it is one of the few instances in which Egyptian men are depicted without wigs or headgear, just with natural hair. Also interesting is that the hair color is depicted as something other than black; but for all the men only. The females are wearing wigs, but the men are all with natural hair; I have no clue what this means.
Posted by naturalborn7 (Member # 15598) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: naturalborn7 - I don't know if you noticed this one; but it is very interesting in that it is one of the few instances in which Egyptian men are depicted without wigs or headgear, just with natural hair. Also interesting is that the hair color is depicted as something other than black; but for all the men only. The females are wearing wigs, but the men are all with natural hair; I have no clue what this means.
Yeah i've seen this. It's supposed to represent a feast. The mortuary chapel of Nakht.
I believe, and someone can correct me if i'm wrong...as I know you guys will, the yellow hair represents part of the progression into the afterlife and not actual hair color. As "some" will argue it means they had blonde hair which is false.
But i also cannot explain why the women don't share the same hair color.
Posted by naturalborn7 (Member # 15598) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7:
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata:
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7: but are you saying Ptah is represented as "white" in this picture?
Of course this isn't the case and you seem smart enough to not be fooled by such a weird observation, or far out theory about his color turning brownish overtime. You'll learn in due time, who and who not to take too seriously on this forum, assuming that you stick around.
Sundjata...I'll be around for a long while so you guys will get to know me. I like a lot of your posts along with Mike plus a few others. I'm aware of who are on here just here to be argumentive and who really knows their shvt.
The Berlin bust seems to be the eurocentric's main "Ace in the hole" when they want to argue AE's were not black. I've had that thrown in my face quite a few times. For some reason i've always believed this bust to be a fake. I just have never been able to prove it debating in other forums online. Mike's posts on counterfeits helped me out on some of the other artifacts i've seen so far.
Eurocentrics also like to argue artifacts being depicted as nubian only come from the 25th dynasty. Artifacts such as the Osirus statue. Which is the reason i was attracted to this thread.
Righteous.. As far as the Berlin bust, this has been discussed many times, most recently here [Click].. Excuse some of the bickering as there's some very useful information and informed opinions presented, once you sift through it. [/QB]
Yeah been through that one last week. I always read the bickering too..lol. That's how I know who likes to be argumentive.
I can't express how much this site has been a godsend to me. I should have came here first before i went out into cyberspace trying to argue Eurocentrics half cocked.
Hopefully one day one of you will run across those debates while browsing and crush them for me...lol
Perhaps after i been on here long enough I'll do it myself. But for now I'm here to learn all points from all of you.
A Professor pointed me here.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: naturalborn7 - I don't know if you noticed this one; but it is very interesting in that it is one of the few instances in which Egyptian men are depicted without wigs or headgear, just with natural hair. Also interesting is that the hair color is depicted as something other than black; but for all the men only. The females are wearing wigs, but the men are all with natural hair; I have no clue what this means.
Yeah i've seen this. It's supposed to represent a feast. The mortuary chapel of Nakht.
I believe, and someone can correct me if i'm wrong...as I know you guys will, the yellow hair represents part of the progression into the afterlife and not actual hair color. As "some" will argue it means they had blonde hair which is false.
But i also cannot explain why the women don't share the same hair color.
^^I'm not exactly sure what leads to Mike's assertion that the hair of these men is natural when it's been confirmed ad nauseum that Egyptians wore blond wigs for various reasons. As in the case of Hetepheres II, who Euro quacks used so persistently as evidence of blond haired Egyptians.
In the early 20th century much was made over the ancestry of Hetepheres II. A relief from the tomb of her daughter, Meresankh III, depicts the queen with blonde hair. However, closer inspection reveals that she was not a natural blonde, but rather the owner of a unique and, we can speculate, much coveted blonde wig. - TourEgypt
Her hair/wig looks almost identical to the men portrayed in that image. The reason for the use of such wigs in the above scene, evades me though.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by naturalborn7: Yeah been through that one last week. I always read the bickering too..lol. That's how I know who likes to be argumentive.
I can't express how much this site has been a godsend to me. I should have came here first before i went out into cyberspace trying to argue Eurocentrics half cocked.
Hopefully one day one of you will run across those debates while browsing and crush them for me...lol
Perhaps after i been on here long enough I'll do it myself. But for now I'm here to learn all points from all of you.
A Professor pointed me here.
Well, study is the main priority, as opposed to hunting down the ignorant in order to force feed them knowledge that they ultimately regurgitate. Though there have been quite of few trolls on this forum, and I admit to having been involved in such debates off-forum, generally the most effective means of rebuttal is to produce facts and set up a platform to educate those willing to be receptive to new information.
It's also nice to here about the various recommendations being sent this way.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
