So it seems that the Ancient Egyptians used a Black African when representing Face inside the hieroglyphs
Whats your take on this Archeopteryx and antalas
Seems Antalas you lost the debate of Ancient Egypt.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
FINALLY!!! Puts to rest the obsession of white people and there claim to Ancient Egypt.
I wonder if the Arabs are still attacking Black Cleopatra after this
Kevin Hart you are correct Black People were Kings(and queens) inside Ancient Egypt
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Good Job Shebitku, Shows that all the Ancient Egyptian arguments can be laid to rest.
Egypt was a Black African Country that was completly linked to Africa
African Ancient Egypt
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Just wanted to point out that the picture of the hieroglyph is Black African, and their is No white or caucasian statue, Only Black African
theres even several versions of the hieroglpyh.
it seems antalas and archeopetryx cannot argue this face, they lost the debate.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Skin color aside, I know that your main point King pertains to facial features; however I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to generalize all Africans with those particular set of features.
We know there are plenty of Africans with narrow facial features as well but it's interesting that even late Egyptologist Dr. Ramadan Hussein in a documentary here says the priests excavated in Saqqara were Libyan not only due to their names but because their face portraits of their sarcophagi "don't look Egyptian" because of the narrow nose and thin lips.
Also, the Egyptian word for 'face' is hr.
The goddess Hut-hr is sometimes represented by a female face which is the feminine face called hrt.
Which is why she is sometimes called Hut-hrt meaning 'house/temple of the face' which suggests that Hut-her assimilated the cult of another goddess symbolized by a face.
Here are more Egyptian facial forms from sarcophagi.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Skin color aside, I know that your main point King pertains to facial features; however I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to generalize all Africans with those particular set of features.
We know there are plenty of Africans with narrow facial features as well but it's interesting that even late Egyptologist Dr. Ramadan Hussein in documentary here says the priests excavated in Saqqara were Libyan not only due to their names but because their face portraits of their sarcophagi "don't look Egyptian" because of the narrow nose and thin lips.
Also, the Egyptian word for 'face' is hr.
The goddess Hut-hr is sometimes represented by a female face which is the feminine face called hrt.
Which is why she is sometimes called Hut-hrt meaning 'house/temple of the face' which suggests that Hut-her assimilated the cult of another goddess symbolized by a face.
Here are more Egyptian facial forms from sarcophagi.
I Only say that is what the face hieroglyph is, a Broad face African
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Actually, in regards to bone structure North Africans have narrower faces.
Of course that's just the bony part. On top of the bone is muscle and on top of that fat, especially in the cheeks.
It's debatable whether the round face or "cherub" look is realistic or stylistic but apparently it was common among many portraits of elites.
Old Kingdom
Middle Kingdom
New Kingdom
The sarcophagus examples I gave in my initial post comes from the Late Period.
Posted by BrandonP (Member # 3735) on :
I have to agree with Djehuti. Facial features aren't enough to indicate "race" or population affinity anymore than skin color is. Otherwise, this North Sudanese woman below would be "Caucasoid"...
And this Olmec sculpture from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica would be "Negroid" (even though that is how Native Americans from that region actually look)... Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I have to agree with Djehuti. Facial features aren't enough to indicate "race" or population affinity anymore than skin color is. Otherwise, this North Sudanese woman below would be "Caucasoid"...
And this Olmec sculpture from pre-Columbian Mesoamerica would be "Negroid" (even though that is how Native Americans from that region actually look)...
I am only saying what the face hieroglyph is.
Since its the only hieroglyph of Face, that means that the broad face African, is what the Ancient Egyptians seemed to think that is normal.
Theres no Caucasoid or narrow faced hieroglyph
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
There is no narrow faced hieroglyphs.
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: I have to agree with Djehuti. Facial features aren't enough to indicate "race" or population affinity anymore than skin color is. Otherwise, this North Sudanese woman below would be "Caucasoid"...
She is and you know she is
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
Better examples of "caucasoid" facial form:
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Heres another hieroglyph for face.
it seems antalas and archeopteryx have avoided this thread because they have nothing to say, antalas keeps on claiming that Ancient Egypt is somehow related to the middle east and not Africa.
Well he would have to explain the hieroglyph of Face that shows a Broad faced African, is the normal picture for face inside Ancient Egypt.
Theres no Caucasoid or narrow hieroglyph for face.
That means that Ancient egypt has automatically has Black Africans of the broad type as regular people inside egypt.
Thick lips, big Ears, wide nose, broad face are the normal features of Ancient Egypt.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Another Face hieroglyph that is Black African
It seems that Ancient Egyptians are yelling they are Black and African, meanwhile we have white people and antalas and archeopteryx claming them as white or eurasian.
It seams the only way to prove that Ancient Egypt was Black is to think the pseudo dna evidence will prove something the pictures and the Ancient historians seem to see as wrong.
dna is not God breathed, hence why it is pseudo. It goes as high as mans intelligence so its biased and its controlled by white people.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
Another Face hieroglyph
What can be said other then Ancient egypt can only be explained as 100% Black African and not middle east.
the normal state of egypt is to be a Black African person
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
We have nine hieroglyph for Face.
And all of them show a round faced wide nosed and thick lipped African.
Not only is this a slam dunk for an African egypt, it shows that for there life of hieroglyphs, the round faced thick lipped wide nose ancient egyptian was the norm for there civilization.
there is no counter to this and this arguement stands unrefuted.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You don't have to focus on just the face hieroglyph. Take a look at Dr. Freeman's gallery of Ancient Egyptian faces.
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
@King
What about this face?
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti:
Better examples of "caucasoid" facial form:
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shebitku: @King
What about this face? [/IMG]
I am only going by the face hieroglyph because its the only hieroglyph that is unanimous and spread out throughout the years of Ancient Egypt.
there is no narrow faced hieroglyph to counter what that Face hieroglyph represents.
The face hieroglyph is Black African, and there is no different hieroglyph to counter it.
this face hieroglyph speaks to and wonders why you need DNA to see what the Ancient Egyptians were, when they showed themselves what they are.
white people and arabs are desperately trying to take away an Black African civilzation from Africa and claim it as there own, not even caring that the face hieroglyph is proof that the Ancient Egyptians were Black
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
left side, a face hieroglyph On a sistrum and flower The sistrum was a sacred percussion instrument in ancient Egypt
Nobleman, New Kingdom, Dynasty 19 or 20, c. 1295-1070 BCE. The figure is probably a scene from an offering in the Underworld. On the
The goddess Hathor with lateral ringlets. Column from the temple of Khnum in Elephantine Island. Photo: Mª Rosa Valdesogo.
Posted by Shebitku (Member # 23742) on :
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Actually, in regards to bone structure North Africans have narrower faces.
Seems both broader features and more narrow features are represented in Egyptian art
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Actually, in regards to bone structure North Africans have narrower faces.
Seems both broader features and more narrow features are represented in Egyptian art
Its not whats represented inside the artwork that makes sense.
Its the fact that Broad face is what the hieroglyphs represent. You can argue for narrow face all you want, the fact is that broad face hieroglyph for Face is all there is.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx:
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Actually, in regards to bone structure North Africans have narrower faces.
Seems both broader features and more narrow features are represented in Egyptian art
Don't confuse fleshy appearance to bone structure.
Amenhotep III
Amenhotep III's skull Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
One must also not forget that ancient portraits are not photos. They can be idealized and embellished, some features may be slightly exaggerated, while others may be toned down. Defects or features that were considered ugly or not appropriate were probably toned down. After all, these images would represent a person, and become more of a timeless ideal image.
A sign that all pictures were not realistic is the difference in skin tone between men and women in some images. There are color differences between the sexes in some peoples which studies in for example India has shown, but not so pronounced as in some portraits. So which version one believes is most realistic it still means that the other are less realistic, or that both are a bit exaggerated.
However, it is always interesting to be able to compare a skull with portraits and sometimes with a facial reconstruction.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One must also not forget that ancient portraits are not photos. They can be idealized and embellished, some features may be slightly exaggerated, while others may be toned down. Defects or features that were considered ugly or not appropriate were probably toned down. After all, these images would represent a person, and become more of a timeless ideal image.
A sign that all pictures were not realistic is the difference in skin tone between men and women in some images. There are color differences between the sexes in some peoples which studies in for example India has shown, but not so pronounced as in some portraits. So which version one believes is most realistic it still means that the other are less realistic, or that both are a bit exaggerated.
However, it is always interesting to be able to compare a skull with portraits and sometimes with a facial reconstruction.
No matter how you word it, the face hieroglyph is all there is, inside all its Broad faced glory.
Whats portrayed is an absolute 3000 year story of the face hieroglpyhs and its broad features makes me wonder where the narrow face hieroglpyhs is?
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
All depictions of people are not hieroglyphs, there are thousands of other pictures. Some with broader features, some with narrower and some inbetween. A whole culture can not be illustrated by one hieroglyph.
If one thinks that a whole peoples demographic history is captured in one hieroglyph, then one has not really understood the diversity of ancient Egypt.
Maybe you ought to actually go there and look at all ancient art and compare with people who live there today.
Soon the new Grand Museum opens, maybe you could go there at that time. I am sure it will be instructive.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: All depictions of people are not hieroglyphs, there are thousands of other pictures. Some with broader features, some with narrower and some inbetween. A whole culture can not be illustrated by one hieroglyph.
If one thinks that a whole peoples demographic history is captured in one hieroglyph, then one has not really understood the diversity of ancient Egypt.
Maybe you ought to actually go there and look at all ancient art and compare with people who live there today.
Soon the new Grand Museum opens, maybe you could go there at that time. I am sure it will be instructive.
Maybe you should think that the hieroglyph for face is broad, and there is no narrow faced hieroglyph. This is global and is for all the hieroglyphs . and stood for 3000 years.
This makes me wonder about the narrow faced statues when the hieroglph is broad faced and not narrow
The hieroglyph for face defines the Ancient Egyptians because its the only Face hieroglyph there is and its broad faced. No matter the statue or painting, they are all covered by the face hieroglyph and that means many statues of Ancient Egypt are fake because the face hieroglph defined ancient egypt and they never stopped showing that ancient egypt is broad faced
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
One single hieroglyph does not define a whole culture and all it´s peoples. It just does not work that way. A hieroglyph can be invented in a special context, then it continues to be used during millennia. People can come and go, but the hieroglyph remains.
Same as the letter A, it is still used even if few of us have cows today. And it is used even in places where they never had any cows.
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One single hieroglyph does not define a whole culture and all it´s peoples. It just does not work that way. A hieroglyph can be invented in a special context, then it continues to be used during millennia. People can come and go, but the hieroglyph remains.
Same as the letter A, it is still used even if few of us have cows today. And it is used even in places where they never had any cows.
It shows who invented the language, but not only that the religion that goes with that languge
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
It does still not mean that ALL people looked like that just because the inventor and his family may have looked that way. Ancient art clearly shows that not everyone looked like that.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
Posted by Archeopteryx (Member # 23193) on :
Seems it is depicted besides the head hieroglyph
From the tomb of Seti I
Here is the head hieroglyph from the tomb of Khaemhat, Dyn 18 Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
-Diodorus Siculus Greek Historian who flourished between 60 and 30 BC
quote:Diodorus Siculus also discussed the similar cultural practices between the Ethiopians and Egyptians such as the writing systems as he states “We must now speak about the Ethiopian writing which is called hieroglyphic among the Egyptians, in order that we may omit nothing in our discussion of their antiquities” .
quote:Ethiopians as the earliest people]
2 Now the Ethiopians, as historians relate, were the first of all people and the proofs of this statement, they say, are clear. They say that practically everyone agrees that they did not come into their land as immigrants from abroad but were natives of it and so are rightly described as “sprung from the land” (autochthones; or: indigenous). Furthermore, it is clear to everyone that those who dwell beneath the noon-day sun were, in all likelihood, the first to be generated by the earth. This is because, insofar as the warmth of the sun dried up the earth when it was still wet and impregnated it with life at the time when the universe was generated, it is reasonable to suppose that the region which was nearest the sun was the first to bring forth living creatures.
quote:[Legends about Ethiopian colonization of Egypt, according to Ethiopians]
3 (1) . . . They say also that the Egyptians are colonists sent out by the Ethiopians, Osiris having been the leader of the colony . (2) For they maintain that, generally speaking, what is now Egypt was not land but sea when in the beginning the universe was being formed. Afterwards, however, as the Nile during the times of its inundation carried the mud down from Ethiopia, land was gradually built up from the deposit. Also the statement that all the land of the Egyptians is alluvial silt deposited by the river receives the clearest proof, in their opinion, from what takes place at the outlets of the Nile. (3) For as each year new mud is continually gathered together at the mouths of the river, the sea is observed being thrust back by the deposited silt and the land receiving the increase.
quote:[Egyptian customs derive from Ethiopian customs, according to Ethiopians]
Most customs of the Egyptians are, they hold, Ethiopian, the colonists still preserving their ancient manners. (4) For instance, the belief that their kings are gods, the very special attention which they pay to their burials, and many other matters of a similar nature are Ethiopian practices, while the shapes of their statues and the forms of their letters are Ethiopian. (5) For of the two kinds of writing which the Egyptians have, that which is known as “popular” (demotic) is learned by everyone, while that which is called “sacred” is understood only by the priests of the Egyptians. The priests learn it from their fathers as something that is to be kept secret, but among the Ethiopians everyone uses these forms of letters. (6) Furthermore, they maintain that the orders of the priests have much the same position among both peoples. For all who engage in service of the gods are clean, keeping themselves shaven like the Egyptian priests. They also have the same dress and form of staff, which is shaped like a plough and is carried by their kings, who wear high felt hats which end in a knob at the top and are circled by the serpents which they call asps. This symbol appears to indicate that anyone who dares to attack the king will encounter death-carrying stings./QUOTE]
[QUOTE][Ethiopian peoples and their customs]
[Physical features]
8 But there are also a great number of descent groups (genē) among the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia , and still others residing in the interior of Libya. (2) The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are dark-skinned and have flat noses and wooly hair.
quote:Originally posted by Archeopteryx: One single hieroglyph does not define a whole culture and all it´s peoples. It just does not work that way. A hieroglyph can be invented in a special context, then it continues to be used during millennia. People can come and go, but the hieroglyph remains.
Same as the letter A, it is still used even if few of us have cows today. And it is used even in places where they never had any cows.
One single hieroglyph can make a statement about Ancient egypt culture and how its supposed to be represented.
The fact is that there is no other hieroglyph except the broad faced hieroglyph, so what that means is that Ancient Egypt message was to get the word out there that they are broadfaced people and they did not show narrow faced people as part of face hieroglyphs showing that narrow face is not what the ancient egyptians were. The ancient egyptians were round faced people with wide features
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
The fact is that there is no other hieroglyph except the broad faced hieroglyph, so what that means is that Ancient Egypt message was to get the word out there that they are broadfaced people and they did not show narrow faced people as part of face hieroglyphs showing that narrow face is not what the ancient egyptians were. The ancient egyptians were round faced people with wide features
quote:Originally posted by KING:
But this face is very narrow
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
The fact is that there is no other hieroglyph except the broad faced hieroglyph, so what that means is that Ancient Egypt message was to get the word out there that they are broadfaced people and they did not show narrow faced people as part of face hieroglyphs showing that narrow face is not what the ancient egyptians were. The ancient egyptians were round faced people with wide features
quote:Originally posted by KING:
But this face is very narrow
Its not a narrow face, his nose is wide and he has thick lips.
when I mean narrow I mean like an european face.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by KING:
The fact is that there is no other hieroglyph except the broad faced hieroglyph, so what that means is that Ancient Egypt message was to get the word out there that they are broadfaced people and they did not show narrow faced people as part of face hieroglyphs showing that narrow face is not what the ancient egyptians were. The ancient egyptians were round faced people with wide features
quote:Originally posted by KING:
But this face is very narrow
Its not a narrow face, his nose is wide and he has thick lips.
when I mean narrow I mean like an european face.
The terms "broad face" and "narrow face" apply to the width of the head. The head on the right is very wide so called "broad faced"
But you mean features
At left we see Akhenaten has the biggest fullest lips of the the three although his nose is narrow. Also notice how the artist of the face hieroglyph seems to have trouble depicting the ears from a front view, they are flat as if it's a side view of each ear attached to a front view. It look like a similar issue with the nostrils of the nose. It's looks like a wide nose but also distorted, not realistic looking
The ears look crazy on the left, like a side view attached to a front view The two on the left are "broad faced". (center one is 4-5th dynasty) "Broad faced" does not pertain to facial features, it means wide-headed. The photo of the man on the right is Narrow faced, his head is much taller than it is wide although his features are broad
An interesting thing about this is the color difference between each head
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
the images are too big
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
the color difference is just an formality for each head you can see the face hieroglyph has the bumps on the hairline that shows this person is Black and Proud.
It seems the color has faded a bit also yet the picture shares quality as the face hieroglyph .
The head hieroglyph does not share the features of the face yet shows how round the head must be to be Ancient Egyptian
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by KING: the color difference is just an formality for each head
A formality is something that follows traditional rules.
Why would there be a tradition of making a face yellowish when in most of the art males are depicted that reddish brown color of the head hieroglyph on the left? That is strange to me
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
yellowish reminds of the khoisan and there color, it seems more and more that the face hieroglyph is trying to show the different African features inside the face
and show that the Bantu face and the khoisan face are one inside the family of Ancient Egypt
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
the man with the blue background looks like a South African
Posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey (Member # 22253) on :
The Home Team History theory is the face hieroglyph is a Nubian and that hieroglyphs might have originated in Nubia
One of a few arguments they have is in Genela History of Africa II, the G Mokhtar Edited book with several authors writing different chapters including himself, Cheikh Anta Diop and others, but don't always agree (as below) The bolded G Mokhtar, in the introduction he co-authored, the quote is at 10:35 in the video (they call him Muhammad Mokhtar in the video although his name is Gamal Mokhtar). He mentions "Nilotic fauna and flora" depicted in Egyptian hieroglyphs but he concludes the sentence... "thus proving that the writing is of purely African origin", Home Team History thinks that might mean a Nubian origin but Mokhtar does not seem to be specifically referencing the Nilotic speakers' region of today (mainly in South Sudan, Uganda and Kenya). I think if Mokhtar meant Nubians he would have said Nubians
The term "Nilotic fauna" seems to vary on exactly what it refers to. Sometimes it's used referring to Roman art where they depict African animals generally in their otherwise Italy centered environment
Nilotic Latin Nīlōticus, from Ancient Greek Νειλώτης (Neilṓtēs, “on the Nile”). Analyzable as Nile + -otic
UNESCO International Scientific Committee for the Drafting of a General History of Africa GENERAL HISTORY OF AFRICA-II Ancient Civilizations of Africa EDITOR G.MOKHTAR 1981
Introduction G. MOKHTAR with the collaboration of), VERCOUTT
p18
It has often been implied that Egyptian hieroglyphic writing had been either brought to the valley by invaders from the East or borrowed from Mesopotamia by the Egyptians. The least we can say is that no material trace of such borrowing is visible in the writing of Pharaonic Egypt as we find it at the dawn of history around —3000. On the contrary, we are able to follow its slow formation stage by stage: from pure pictography, to the stage of complex phonograms, to that of phonetic complements, and finally to that of determinatives. Some signs employed phonetically represent objects that were no longer in use when the first texts appear, which proves that the writing was formed in the /»re-historic era, when those objects were still in current use. Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, the ancient hieroglyphic symbols were all taken from Nilotic fauna and flora, thus proving that the writing is of purely African origin. If we accept external influence on the advent of Egyptian writing, it can only be at most the influence of the idea of writing, which is none the less unlikely, taking into account how very early writing took form in Egypt, in the fourth millennium before our era.
Chapter 4 Egypt's relations with the rest of Africa A. HAMID ZAYED with the collaboration of], DÉVIS
p150 As we have seen, the evidence is neither certain nor consistent as far as scientific curiosity or a taste for the exotic is concerned. The observation often made, that African fauna is present in Egyptian iconography, is by no means conclusive evidence, in the present state of knowledge, of the existence of Egyptian relations with the heart of Africa. The ape, the sacred animal of Toth and the panther skins required for the priestly vestments for the rites of the cult of Osiris performed by Horus and also for the garb of the Pharaohs, may have come from bordering countries or from occasional chance exchanges between merchants. Before we can form a clear idea of the extent of the Egyptians' knowledge of Africa a great deal of research must be done to investigate the chronology as well as the quan-tative and qualitative significance of the many references to animals found in Egyptian texts and images. Whether relations with Africa were impelled by need or by curiosity, the evidence assembled is very flimsy and its interpretation too difficult and too controversial for any conclusion to be reached in the present state of our knowledge.
