posted
This condensed repainting of Lepsius' Denkmaeler Supplement plate 48 is an accurate reproduction of what's in Ramses III tomb (KV 11). Many inaccurate claims have been made about it. Below, in its entirety, is the original Denkmaeler Supplement plate.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Those figures in the Lepsius Erganzungsband, pl. 48 are actually not Lepsius' work, but a re-edition done in 1913, as I showed in my article in Egypt in Africa (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997). To make matters worse, the hieroglyph texts between these figures were garbled. The original scenes both in Sety I's tomb and in Ramesses III's tomb showed the Egyptians and the Kushites as distinctly different. Also, the hieroglyphs on the real walls are distributed between each of the four figures depicting each type. You can now view the real photographs of both the Sety I and Ramesses III walls in Hornung's volumes on the Valley of the Kings. I have been inside both tombs myself and have seen these scenes and their texts, and on the basis of this, the depiction in the Erganzungsband is not a real depiction of what is on the walls but rather a pastische, arranged from Lepsius' notes and garbled in the process. It is unfortunate that so many people have depended on this depiction as reality, when a look at the walls in both tombs shows that patently it is not reality.
posted
I'm not sure what the late Mr. Yurco was trying to pull off here. Erganzungsband only means supplement and it contains artwork from the very artists Lepsius commissioned in his lifetime. The pieces are ones Lepsius himself didn't get to publish before his death.
There's no hieroglyphic "garbling" nor are the "Egyptians and Kushites" on Ramesses III's tomb wall distinct in any way less than a trained detailist would notice.
To that effect, I submit that the Book of Gates 4:5 scene 30 as depicted in Rameses III tomb (KV11f), besides displaying not one phenotypical distinguishing feature, has RT RMT and NHHSW dressed precisely the same down to the minutest detail.
They only differ in that the RT RMT sport earrings and their fabric kilt is form fitting. The NHHSW have nothing attached to their ears and their fabric kilt is loose, hanging to the same level as the skin kilt.
Yurco makes pretend he doesn't know Lepsius' artist was rendering a condensation. He goes on about real walls real photos as if fake walls and fake photos are all that were available before Hornung.
Yurco's poor recall of the KV11f scene, if indeed he ever entered KV11f instead of KV11j, is no excuse for a professional to claim Lepsius' artist's deliberate condensation amounts to no more than "a pastische, arranged from Lepsius' notes and garbled in the process."
His statement "It is unfortunate that so many people have depended on this depiction as reality, when a look at the walls in both tombs shows that patently it is not reality." is only applicable to himself and what he's just written in his letter to Paul.
Forthcoming are further images to support every word of my assessment.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lepsius' condensation (Denkmaeler Supplement plate 48) is indeed accurate and authentic. I'm posting that whole plate where all can see it and also another condensation of the same scene but from a different tomb in the upper right half of the plate. That condensation is from KV8 (Merenptah's tomb).
Now for paintings from the Book of Gates the Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 from three tombs of a few 19th and 20th dynasties pharaohs:
1) KV8 Merenptah (one of the ignored renditions 2) KV11 Rameses III (the controversial one 3) KV17f Seti I (the most famously reproduced one
Here are the two Denkmaeler supplement plate 48 condensations.
BG 4:5 scene 30 as in KV8 tomb of Merneptah (below, right half BG 4:5 s30 as in KV11f tomb of Rameses III (above, whole register
Now here's the Denkmaeler plate 136ab as in KV17 tomb of Seti I chamber F Book of Gates Gate of Teka Hra vignette 30 full repro
BTW - No one ever questioned the integrity of Lepsius' Denkmaeler art team until blacks started referencing them. The Lepsius detractors are motivated by racial bias.
posted
In the supplied graphic the two guys on the left are not Sudani they are Egyptian. This can be ascertained by the identifying mdw ntr symbol of the sitting ntr which is rendered between them.
The sitting ntr (Gardiner's A40) is the determinative for superior people. If the full scene were visible the symbols for R (a mouth) T (a tethering rope) and RMT (a stylized kneeling man) would also be visible. See next post.
posted
Here are all 4 of the men not just the rightmost 2 in the previous post.
In the above photo of the Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III (the controversial one), note the mdw ntjr between the leftmost figures are the alphabetic glyphs for * R (a mouth) and * T (a tow rope).
Between the two center figures is the triliteral stylized glyph for * RMT (man on one knee)
Between the two rightmost figures is the glyph determinitive for * humans/a people/etc.
Unseen but to the right of the righmost figure are three upright strokes signifying * many/plural/etc.
Putting them together gives us * rt RMT yw literally "man men" and best translated as "the best of humanity" but more commonly as "man of men" or "men of men."
In the below photo (same provenance) of Nhhsw we can only clearly see the first glyph of a bird representing the letter N of the word Nhhsw. Slightly legible are the * hh twisted cord glyph and the * s glyph that looks to us like a cane
Missing from the photo are the chick and three upright strokes for plurality.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In conclusion I offer the following series of images for scrutinization as to who has offered, to paraphrase Yurco, what patently is not the reality of the tomb walls.
BOOK OF GATES 4:5 GATE OF TEKA HRA VIGNETTE 30 as in Valley of the Kings KV11 tomb of Rameses III Fig 1. Condensations of KV8 & KV11 - repro Lepsius' team made somewhere between 1842 - 1859
Fig 2. Reworked KV11 condensation - after Lepsius/Sethe 1913
Fig 3. "Tjmhhw," Rt, "A3mw" - rearranged photo Hornung 1990 (Rt misidentified by Hornung as Nhhsw
Fig 4. Rt, "Tjmhhw," "A3mw" - photo Yurco 1996 after Hornung (Rt misidentified by Yurco as Nhhsw
Fig 5. Rt Rmtw - photo 1994 Ampim
Fig 6. Rt - photo Dzikowski (misidentified by Theban Mapping Project as a Nhhsy
Fig 7. Rt & Nhhsy - photos Ampim 1994
Fig 8. Nhhsw - photo Ampim 1994
Labeling of peoples follows that inscribed on the tomb wall. Misidentifications are by those credited for their photos.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why familiarity with the actual hieroglyphic text of BG 4:5 vg30 is so vital. Because the text is a sacred document it never varies but is written the same on every tomb wall or every sarcophagus it appears.
The unitiated can easily be intimidated by "professionals'" deliberate obfuscations empowered by their preset ethnic notions re Egyptian vs Black African.
However in examining figure 6, for instance, we note the wind catcher glyph above and to the far right of the man's head.
Being familiar with the text we know its part of the sentence where the dead are reanimated. We can now use any tomb wall painting, look for that glyph, and see it always has Rt Rmt yw under it.
It always appears between the shoulders of the first two Rt Rmt yw. And how do we know they indeed are Rt Rmt yw? Because
the glyphs for R and T are in between the first two men;
the stylized glyph for RMT is in between the second and third man;
the determinative glyph for a ntjr or exalted human is in between the third and fourth man;
three upright strokes denoting plurality follows the fourth man.
If a simple layman like me can ascertain this then surely highly trained professionals can too. So why do they say otherwise? Look at the images below from KV17 and KV11 where I invite anyone from anywhere, professional or layman, to verify or disprove my assessment as to why photo 6 is Rt Rmt yw and not Nhhsw as the Theban Mapping Project interprets quite contrary to what the AE's themselves wrote and drew.
Those "professionals" that are operating out of their bias and prejudice are essentially saying "The ancient Egyptians erred in depicting themselves in Ramesses III's tomb as Black Africans indistinct from the Sudanis to their south." Nonetheless that's exactly what the ancient Egyptians did in this instance.
The Theban Mapping Project, in presenting that last image out of its context and labelling it a Nubian or a Kushite, is intentionally hiding the fact that in truth the ancient Egyptians labelled him one of their own.
Why, oh why, did the Theban Mapping Project do that? Really? Don't we all know? And don't some of us even agree?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also learn something about the differnce between the transgressive mindset of modern Eurocentric scholarship, and the submissive mindedness of too many Blacks.
The submissive Black man agonizes in confusion over whether Blacks as and ethnonym even exists in ancient times, or were rather essentially 'recently invented' by their white mind-masters.
The transgressive minded Eurocentrist brazenly implies that the Ancient Egyptians erred in self definition! So the Eurocentrists takes it upon himself to cut and paste and chop the photos so as to correct their mistake!
You got a problem with that? Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: We also learn something about the differnce between the transgressive mindset of modern Eurocentric scholarship, and the submissive mindedness of too many Blacks.
The submissive Black man agonizes in confusion over whether Blacks as and ethnonym even exists in ancient times, or were rather essentially 'recently invented' by their white mind-masters.
The transgressive minded Eurocentrist brazenly implies that the Ancient Egyptians erred in self definition! So the Eurocentrists takes it upon himself to cut and paste and chop the photos so as to correct their mistake!
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:BTW - No one ever questioned the integrity of Lepsius' Denkmaeler art team until blacks started referencing them. The Lepsius detractors are motivated by racial bias.
That's what the root cause of all of this is...racial bias.
Posts: 1219 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
^^^Wally can you tell me which people these 7 and a half people are I know you can read glyphs but I can't Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ AlTakruri just explained, or tried to explain they are two different scenes:
Condensations of KV8 & KV11
The simplist point to understand is that the figure(s) on the far left is labled as Ancient Egyptian, that Yurco [and his associates] knew this, and photographed it so as to hide the label.
All the other figures are also labeled as Aamu, Tamahou, and Nehesu.
And that you should know this is so, because the whole point of this religious text is to tell of the Ancient Egyptians and the 3 other peoples they knew who could acheive resurrection in the 'afterlife'.
Simpler still: Even if there was *no* label [and there is], the Egyptians in KV11 can only be the Black skinned man on the left.... and if you know the meaning of the text, there *must be* Egyptians in it, otherwise the scene makes no sense at all.
One of the subtler points made by AlTakruri is that there are some people the KM.t rm.t did not include in these scenes, apparently because they were 'souless' and so not even qualified for resurrection.... namely the Europeans [Greeks,etc.]
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The submissive Black man agonizes in confusion over whether Blacks as and ethnonym even exists in ancient times, or were rather essentially 'recently invented' by their white mind-masters.
The transgressive minded Eurocentrist brazenly implies that the Ancient Egyptians erred in self definition! So the Eurocentrists takes it upon himself to cut and paste and chop the photos so as to correct their mistake!...
Case in point of a mind totally twisted by this falsehood-- Mustafo.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasol: ^ AlTakruri just explained, or tried to explain they are two different scenes:
Condensations of KV8 & KV11
The simplist point to understand is that the figure(s) on the far left is labled as Ancient Egyptian, that Yurco [and his associates] knew this, and photographed it so as to hide the label.
All the other figures are also labeled as Aamu, Tamahou, and Nehesu.
And that you should know this is so, because the whole point of this religious text is to tell of the Ancient Egyptians and the 3 other peoples they knew who could acheive resurrection in the 'afterlife'.
Simpler still: Even if there was *no* label [and there is], the Egyptians in KV11 can only be the Black skinned man on the left.... and if you know the meaning of the text, there *must be* Egyptians in it, otherwise the scene makes no sense at all.
One of the subtler points made by AlTakruri is that there are some people the KM.t rm.t did not include in these scenes, apparently because they were 'souless' and so not even qualified for resurrection.... namely the Europeans [Greeks,etc.]
Yes Alktruri has explained very well that the one of the left on the bottom is indeed an Egyptian and I agree.
I just wanted wally or someone to go from top left to right to bottom left to bottom right to tell me what the glyphs mean and what each image represents for each people even though you and he are saying they are two condensed pictures.
I am just curious to what each is that his all.
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa on the top Egyptian I blew it up and someone scribbled out the top glyph and the bottom glyph on the nubian on the top!!!
I want to know why the second from the left on the top is the same as second from left on the bottom when both images look so different?
Posts: 271 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing because Aamu simply means an "Asiatic." It doesn't refer to a particualr ethnic group, but any foreigner from the east, basically.
-------------------- "Oh the sons of Ethiopia; observe with care; the country called Ethiopia is, first, your mother; second, your throne; third, your wife; fourth, your child; fifth, your grave." - Ras Alula Aba Nega. Posts: 1024 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Ironically the Egyptians began using the term aamu to mean servant or slaves, since most of the said types of people came from Asia. Yet, for decades Eurocentrics have painted the portrait that blacks ("Nubians") were the slaves.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: Whoa on the top Egyptian I blew it up and someone scribbled out the top glyph and the bottom glyph on the nubian on the top!!!
I want to know why the second from the left on the top is the same as second from left on the bottom when...
Because they say it is.
Really, each group looks different from top to bottom.
posted
^Very light brown Africans. But still 'black' to the rest of the world except Musthavnobraino. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The textual order of the "Herd of RA" in BG4:5 s30 is:
RT RMT yw
AAMW
NHHSW
TMHHW
This order can never change because the AE viewed themselves as first among all humanity and because Ra
first shines on the AAMW in the morning,
then on the NHHSW as the day wears on,
and finally sets on the TMHHW.
The Ramses III painting is controversial in that
the RT RMT yw and NHHSW do not differ
by visuals, the AAMW and TMHHW have exchanged places.
Of the four tombs which I've seen the vignette, only Ramses III's has these anomallies. This is why many would discount its accuracy depicting AEs and ASs without any significant distinction because the men labeled AAMW look like the TMHHW and the men labeled TMHHW resemble the AAMW in Merneptah's, Seti I's, and Seti II's tombs.
I have seen no convincing explaining away of the AAMW TMHHW switcheroo. But I do not think the one mistake (intentional or not, and not corrected by the AE painter's AE supervisor) has much if any bearing on the nearly identical RT RMT yw and NHHSW.
By way of note this vignette was painted in twice in Seti I's tomb. The version in KV17j has a hybrid AAMW/TMHHW representative and the text mistakenly jumps from the middle to the end of the passage in the register where the four AAMW normally appear.
All in all, this may be a way of saying a black is a black (whether from up Nile or down Nile) and a red is a red (whether from the Levant or the Amenti).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are occasions when the southerners ["Nubians" to Eurocentric appellation] are depicted in the same tones as the Egyptians themselves, save for clothing styles of the loincloths; this was particularly frequent from the Old kingdom through to the Middle Kingdom, thence by the New Kingdom, they begin to appear in varying skin hue and more clothing styles. The interesting thing about the relief in question, in KV 11 of the Ramses III tomb, is the almost identical clothing styles along with identical physical appearance, but there can be no mistake about the appellations applied to each group, with each one having their own distinct ethnic terms. The rm.t km.t follow Heru as usual, which isn't the case with the Nehesu.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
I notice you don't have private messaging. Is there some way I can contact you because there is something hilarious I want to share with you.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: This condensed repainting of Lepsius' Denkmaeler Supplement plate 48 is an accurate reproduction of what's in Ramses III tomb (KV 11). Many inaccurate claims have been made about it. Below, in its entirety, is the original Denkmaeler Supplement plate.
alTakruri, you are saying the above is accurate. I want to understand what you are saying about it. Speaking of the bottom picture there are seven large standing full head to toe figures. Let's discuss it like this.
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
Figures 3 , 4 and 6 all have a wide sash which goes across the chest diagonally. You seem to be saying that 4 and 6 are Egyptians not foreigner Nahasu.
The Denkmaeler plate above illustratirates the conventional arrangement for the Herd of Ra, this version in the tomb of Seti I .
The sequence in proper orginal arragement clarifies issues in the photo excerpts of the similar scene depicted in Rameses III
KV17 tomb of Seti I, Book of Gates
Presenting all 4 "divisions" of the Herd of Ra as follows >> beginning with the bottom panel, 0) Horus leading the procession,
four of each 1) Egyptians 2) Syrians (Asiatcs) -continuing to the top panel, two more Syrians to complete the four 3) Nehesey (Kushites, or if you prefer foreign blacks) 4) Libyans (feather on the head)
^^^^^ This establishes the proper sequence
Now we go to the Rameses photo below which uses only two figures of each type. Yet still it is in the same sequence as the Seti. Egyptians are not shown but the rest of the seuence in both Seti I and Ramesses III are the same:
Look at the illustration, note how each type is depicted. Then look at the photo from Rameses III. Which type is missing? Clearly it's the Egyptians. The four Egyptians in Seti 1 are dark brown. The four "Nubians" (Kusihites if you prefer) are jet black and they have the typical leather belt/sash that ties around the waist and goes across the chest.
The two scenes correspond right? It's the traditional arragement right? Yes right.
The only problem is that thick headed literalists with an agenda have a problem with common sense. They have noiticed that the glyph in the photo next to the Nehesey (Kushite) is RMT a glyph usually reserved for Egyptians. Well where are the Egyptians in the photo so we can compare? They aren't in the photo. We only have a photo of three sets of two of the herd.
So how could this be? We had a full illustration of the Herd of Ra that showed what the traditional order is supposed to be and the way Egyptian differentiated themselves from the Kushites -yet the glyph in the photo seems to contradict this. Well Hornung was no idiot. The figures in question are Kushites as llustated by their clothing, earrings and skin relatively darker in these types of scenes to Egyptians. So why is this Ramesses III scene not conforming? What happened? The craftsmen made a mistake that's what happened. There are two different craftsman one who paints the figures, the other a scribe for the gylphs. The scribe made a mistake. Impossible! In a royal tomb ??? Yes it is possible and various errors in tomb paintings have been recorded, mistakes between the glyph and it's associated picture. Before you say no, go and research what I'm saying - "mistakes in tomb paintings" "ancient Egypt" Sometimes the scribe corrected a mistake by the painter and sometimes a painter corrected a mistake by the scribe. And sometimes the error never got corrected as is the case here. Keep in mind that tombs were sealed and there was no public around to notice any error. This is the strongest theory in my opinion as to why labeling of these figures in this painting don't correspond to standard depictions of Egyptians yet do correspond to standard depictions of Kushites. Perhaps if Hornung didn't mention the descrepancy with the glyph he should have. Did he? I don't know. But by the same token people who know Egyptian art and proceedure should be honest enough to consider that the glyph may have been a mistake. Why is this most likely possibility not mentioned? Because not to do so fits a racial agenda. If I were writing a book about it I would explain the complete situation and say that the matter is uncertain. That is the only honest thing to do.
More confirmation? This is also from Rameses III
Official caption:
Foreign prisoners of Ramesses III: Libyan, Nubian, Syrian, Shasu Bedouin, and Hittite.
Notice the second figure "Nubian" (Kushite) if you prefer. There is no controversy about this item. Everyone agrees that this second figure is not an Egyptian. Yet this figure matches the type from photo ALSO from Rameses III mentioned earlier. This is a foriegn prisoner. Yet the garb matches very closely in detail to the figure marked with a glyph thought to be attributed to Egyptians. Clearly on both sitautions we are dealing with Kushite clothing not Egyptian. The picture in this case speaking louder than word
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The textual order of the "Herd of RA" in BG4:5 s30 is:
RT RMT yw
AAMW
NHHSW
TMHHW
This order can never change because the AE viewed themselves as first among all humanity and because Ra
first shines on the AAMW in the morning,
then on the NHHSW as the day wears on,
and finally sets on the TMHHW.
The Ramses III painting is controversial in that
the RT RMT yw and NHHSW do not differ
by visuals, the AAMW and TMHHW have exchanged places.
Of the four tombs which I've seen the vignette, only Ramses III's has these anomallies. This is why many would discount its accuracy depicting AEs and ASs without any significant distinction because the men labeled AAMW look like the TMHHW and the men labeled TMHHW resemble the AAMW in Merneptah's, Seti I's, and Seti II's tombs.
I have seen no convincing explaining away of the AAMW TMHHW switcheroo. But I do not think the one mistake (intentional or not, and not corrected by the AE painter's AE supervisor) has much if any bearing on the nearly identical RT RMT yw and NHHSW.
By way of note this vignette was painted in twice in Seti I's tomb. The version in KV17j has a hybrid AAMW/TMHHW representative and the text mistakenly jumps from the middle to the end of the passage in the register where the four AAMW normally appear.
All in all, this may be a way of saying a black is a black (whether from up Nile or down Nile) and a red is a red (whether from the Levant or the Amenti).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
remains a distortion for the reasons cited 1 - presenting only 3 of the 4 "divisions" of the Herd of Ra 2 - completely jumbling the order such that none are in their original position 3 - calling the middle two "Nubians" whereas the hieroglyphs read "Egyptian" 4 - not presenting any two men in the original art identified in hieroglyphic as "Nubian"
He should've presented all four divisions and left them arranged as the AEs intended them to be shown with all their discrepencies noted in my previous post.
As can be seen he could've picked men actually labeled as NHHSW instead of using men labeled as RT RMT as Kushites.
As amateurish as it is, fortunately, Ampim published honestly labeled photos of both the RT RMT and the NHHSW.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Seti I's tomb painting and even the text of the Herd of Ra scene present us with anomalies that leave us wondering why they went uncorrected.
I know of no professional work explaining why the RT RMT appear nearly identical to the NHHSW or why the A3MW and TMHHW are apparently swapped out in Ramses III or why the text and the hybrid A3MW-TMMHW
were never corrected in this Seti I rendition.
As I wrote before here all workers/craftsmen occasionally make mistakes and sometimes their supervisors, or quality control, overlook or don't uncover them. The AEs, being human, can be no different. Reading ensuing posts in the linked thread shows there are those who believe the AE artists and scribes were incapable of error.
But before devolving my thread I please ask that parties who just want to be provocative to start their own thread to further discuss their views as to why, thank you.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Artists Illustration (Rosellini) of a scene in which Ramesses II strikes a Nubian chief
THE TEMPLE OF BEIT EL-WALI IN NUBIA
Beit (Beyt) el-Wali, today, is located just south of the Aswan High Dam, very close to the Kalabsha Temple, making it easily a part of any tour that explores Nubia's monuments. Beit el-Wali represents another of Ramesses II's Nubian monuments dedicated principally to Amun, together with other gods, that was carved from the sandstone hillside and is probably unique as the smallest of its gender. Though the temple was altered during the Christian era, the brightly painted reliefs in the inner part of the temple are well preserved. Originally, a pathway along both inside walls of the deep hall was roofed over with a vault, while the central portion of the this hall was left open to the sky. Here, the low reliefs are of considerable historic value because they provide depictions of the Syrian, Libyan (right wall), and Ramesses II's triumph over the Nubians (left wall). The scenes of the Nubian campaigns also depict several sons of Ramesses II engaged in battle, including Amunhershepeshef, the original crown prince, and Khaemwese, later famous as a High Priest of Ptah in Memphis near modern Cairo. However, at this time the older could not have been much older than eight, while Khaemwese was probably only about five, so in reality, while they may have accompanied their father on the Nubian campaigns, they could not have actually been evolved as warriors in the battles. .
Ramesses II grasps the hair of a kneeling Syrian captive
posted
You have nothing to add to this thread's subject which is Ampim, Yurco, Hornung, and Lepsius and their accuracy or inaccuracy in reproducing and objectively writing details about BG 4:5 s30 in KV11f.
It was noted four years ago that the KV workers made errors with KV11f being one of them and I am stating quite bluntly Diop's claim about s30 in KV11f is weak.
You have presented material about AE and AS and their phenotypes and clothes before. I guess you do it here instead of making your own thread is because nobody gives a **** what you have to say.
Had you any confidence in yourself you'd make a thread of your own and see who'd bother to follow you. What's a matter you? Ain't got balls enough to fend for yourself? Yeah, that's it. It's hard out here for a pussy puss.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness tries another diversion but fails to distract great jew. No way around this one Lioness.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
when you apply this to the appearance of the figures with knowledge of Egyptian and Kushite clothing styles etc. they are both constant with one another, The Rameses III matches the Seti I order. The anomaly is one of the glyphs. You brought this up again to dana as a "distortion" I believe it is a correction rather of an obvious mistake by the Egyptians. Yes it may be sloppy that the book didn't record the situtation thoroughly.
An alternative explanation is that Egyptians who had recently subjugated the Nubians under Ramess II regarded them as RMT "Men above men" in some special class equal to themselves and above others of the herd. The implication by accusing Hornung and co. of distortion gives the impression that this is the side you are taking even though you may claim that you point to what you see as sloppy scholarship rather than necessarily endorsing a Manu Ampim point of view.
Manu Ampim: With the evidence of photographs #2-3, which undeniably show the Egyptians as black skinned and dressed identical to the other black Africans, now Yurco and company will have to think of more creative ways to mislead the public. Maybe they will now make other unsubstantiated claims and state that the well-trained ancient Egyptian royal artists had a lapse in memory, forgot their "real" racial identity, and thus made a major mistake in the Ramses III tomb!
^^^^ why would Egyptians be dressed identically to other Africans, in the context of so many other non-controversial depictions of this garb in detail clearly indicated as belonging to people indicated as Kushites ("Nubians")
Is there no clearer case of common sense over literalism ?
What I've contributed is that the Denkmaeler plate 136ab of Seti I, rather than showing an error by Yurco/Hornug shows the error of the Egyptian craftsman in Rameses III. As does the faince tile a connection I hadn't noticed before, the garb so closely matching. I didn't think it was possible until I read that they did sometimes make errors. The painting and caligraphy itself are not the finest examples, They are somewhat crude and more diagramtic than artistc. The Pharoahs were probably more concerned with how much bling and portaits of themsleves were in the tombs. For example look at how the orangeish background that the hieroglyphics are on, how they are inconsitent and awkward as to how they meet the tops of the figure's heads, this was not the best crew
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Further evidence why no one takes your twisted lies and half truths seriously. I leave it for the more astute to unravel your loosely assembled assorted distorted pastiche for themselves.
But perhaps you'd serve yourself best by building up your referenced thread where no one is following up on your "hypothesis."
Lord knows you've addled but not added to anything researched and referenced here and one has to wonder if even you have the foggiest what you mean where you're not plagiarizing me.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
alTakruri, despite what you think of me I think the following question is very relevant to this issue and it would benefit the readers for you to attempt to answer it. I don't know if you know the answer or not. Perhaps it has already been answered somewhere but I'm not sure about this.
Excerpt photo set from KV11, tomb of Ramesses III, Hornung
("A" "B" and C" not necessarily reflecting tomb sequence just random labeling of 3 divisions)
In the first of four problems you mentioned you said:
"Hornung's figure remains a distortion for the reasons cited 1 - presenting only 3 of the 4 "divisions" of the Herd of Ra"
__________________________________________
QUESTION on the appearance of the missing set:
On the actual wall of KV11, Herd of Ra, is the missing set a set different looking in clothing from any of the 3 in the above photo, a clothing type not shown in the above photo at all?... or is the missing set an additional set of 4 figures, all looking exactly the same of the type marked as "B" above ? yet labeled differently ? I assume the later
posted
It's a non-question undeserving of answer since images of all four in opening post 4 years ago at top, a minute analysis of their very exact similarities and few distinctions also posted 4ya in the 3rd post of this thread, and just yesterday the juxtaposition of RT RMT and NHHSW from Ampim's photos.
I cannot be responsible for anyones failure to read and comprehend what has gone on before or reply to inane rhetorical questioning from attention seekers.
Please quit pestering me and go build up your supposed "argument" in your neglected thread where anyone who is interested can entertain your "thoughts".
Not to be distracted by dissembling here is again my recap prompted by Dana's question
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: ... why is [the below] photo labeled "hornungdistortiongz4"?
Hornung's figure
remains a distortion for the reasons cited 1 - presenting only 3 of the 4 "divisions" of the Herd of Ra 2 - completely jumbling the order such that none are in their original position 3 - calling the middle two "Nubians" whereas the hieroglyphs read "Egyptian" 4 - not presenting any two men in the original art identified in hieroglyphic as "Nubian"
He should've presented all four divisions and left them arranged as the AEs intended them to be shown with all their discrepencies noted in my previous post.
As can be seen he could've picked men actually labeled as NHHSW instead of using men labeled as RT RMT as Kushites.
As amateurish as it is, fortunately, Ampim published honestly labeled photos of both the RT RMT and the NHHSW.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has this depiction of the lybians by lepsius been verified? I ask about the verification because 1.the black-skinned egyptians were questioned by many scholars but have been verified 2. most images of tomb paintings i've seen depict lybians as dark brown with black hair and i've seen some with what looks like very light brown (maybe yellowish?) skin. 3.I'm presuming it's this lepsius repro that led to scholars (maybe recent ones don't) saying the lybians were "indo-europeans" and white-skinned with fair hair.
quote:Originally posted by africurious: Has this depiction of the lybians by lepsius been verified? I ask about the verification because 1.the black-skinned egyptians were questioned by many scholars but have been verified 2. most images of tomb paintings i've seen depict lybians as dark brown with black hair and i've seen some with what looks like very light brown (maybe yellowish?) skin. 3.I'm presuming it's this lepsius repro that led to scholars (maybe recent ones don't) saying the lybians were "indo-europeans" and white-skinned with fair hair.
Excerpt photo set from KV11, tomb of Ramesses III, Hornung _____________________________________________________________________________^^^LIBYAN
EGYPTIAN MUSEUM [01/001] CAIRO EM Inventory number JE 36457 A,B,D + 36597 Dating 20TH DYNASTY Archaeological Site EL-`AMARNA/AKHETATEN Category TILE Material FAIENCE Technique INLAY
Posts: 42920 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^How is that answering my question? None of what you posted is the same scene from the Lepsius repro. You like to post just for the sake of posting or just to troll.
Posts: 214 | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Case in point of a mind totally twisted by this falsehood-- Mustafo.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Because they say it is.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic